When will this ever stop? There is no protection from this witchhunt. No man is safe, since trivial, or even totally manufactured accusations can destroy a man's career decades after the allleged events happened. Any man in a position of power knows he will have upset women at some point in his career, by failing to acknowledge their self-perceived talents, or chooosing someone else for a position. Any angry woman can now take revenge and bring that man down. Men seem to be deluding themselves that they won't be targeted by keeping their heads down, sucking up to the feminist mob and "behaving" well. They are kidding themselves. Maybe men need to think about starting male-only institutions but with women so firmly now running the show, where will the funding come from? And who would risk challenging this climate? I despair of finding solutions. But thank you again, Janice, for revealing the disaster endlessly unfolding before our eyes.
When men, somehow, collectively put an end to it. When we say "no" en masse in some consequential way. I don't know what it will look like, but it's up to men to stop putting up with this.
Men need to tell women "no". And they need to do it in loud "male anger" voices.
It's not even necessary for them to be angry. Merely ambitious. Want to clear out space above you? Simply accuse him of touching your arm for a second too long. Or, hell, making a slightly less than sensitive joke.
Yes. Remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the IMF? He was taken out by an allegation of sexual assault, later dismissed--replaced by a woman. When it is so easy, why wouldn't some ambitious women take advantage of it?
I could be wrong, but I believe the same thing may have happened to Dr. Marcy: one of his accusers, a former postdoc or something, took his position when he stepped down.
The only thing that would stop a woman using trumped up charges to take a man out of his career and arrange to have herself installed would be a conscience.
Indeed! I think the only way to fight this in the future is to shine a spotlight on the people who cave to these feminist groups. Easy to say but difficult to do when the mainstream media is so biased towards feminist. However, as more alternate news media sources are created, theirs hope.
Reading a book on science from a few years ago. Allegations were arising that physics is sexist and racist. Perhaps the energy waves that make up our beings need to go for DEI training.
There are rumors that a Canadian shop teacher who became famous for suddenly showing up in a wig and gallon sized milk jugs on his chest decided to play that game.
Bettina, in Australia men did start something just for men; "The Men's Shed" in cities and towns across AU as a safe space for men to hang out together and do "blocky" stuff. These sheds are being invaded by (generally) feminists who shrill that they have a right to entre these spaces. Ironically, they are adamant that “women only spaces” such as women’s clubs and gyms are sacrosanct and it would be misogynistic if men demanded that they be open to males. No doubt they’ll have conniptions when men identify as women demand entry.
Isn't it ironic that the feminist are convulsing about their spaces being invaded now.. Its lost on them that this is what they have been doing to men for 40 years.
That's not surprising. I noticed that while feminists were pushing to get girls into boy scouts, boys schools, and women into men's golfing clubs, they weren't pushing to get boys into girl scouts and girls schools or women's golfing clubs/tournaments.
Maybe the blokey activities should include loud engine noises and lots of loud burping. Or, in a mind game way, the blokes could all take up knitting, crochet and making itty bitty bread flours.
LOL ~ my Dad could knit. He used to ride motor bikes and my mother (who he was courting at the time) knitted him a really long scarf with elaborate stitches to “keep him warm”. The first time he worn it got caught in the chain resulting in the scarf being mangled and him buried in a macrocarpa hedge. He unpicked the scarf and “pearl plain” knitted a new one, which I still have 80 years later.
Great article Janice and astute comment Bettina. I don’t imagine Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ about the Salem Witch trials is taught in schools anymore. It was one of my HSC (VCE) required readings and a very appropriate harbinger of the times in which we now live.
Slightly off topic Bettina but i recently was not successful for a fairly senior public sector UK role for i later found out not adequately answering the question of how i would promote diversity and equality. The appointee - a left leaning woman knocked this out the park apparently. I’m a 50s white guy. This is now a standard interview question. Do i have to now make up some nonsense i dont believe in to get appointed?
It is impossible to do research under these circumstances. Not to say pointless. The field fills up with women, who by and large are lifted to their stations by the heavy hand of affirmative action. Meanwhile, one wrong step can ruin a man's career, while women can be as emotionally abusive as they please. What point even starting, when jobs are assigned based on sex? Why put yourself through it?
And increasingly many are refusing to.
Marcy should have gotten a Nobel, by the way. The physics Nobel was awarded a few years ago for discovering exoplanets. One of Marcy's figures was even used in the presentation.
The whole thing is very similar to the shameful persecution of James Watson for the thought crime of speaking openly about human biodiversity. The rot in academia goes much deeper than feminism. At this point I do not think the institution can be salvaged. The ideologues predominate, and there are so many of them that purging them all would empty it entirely. Not that this would be a bad thing.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 10, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I find it hard to imagine just being able to live like a human being with the weight of non-adjudicated feminist accusations that are punished in ways more severe and unending than the sentences handed down to actually convicted sex offenders.
Shameful is not sufficiently serious to characterize what these women do to innocent men.
And I'm talking about $MeToo (the groupie syndrome) not actual offenders where's there's proof & a confession etc. but I get your point. MALE celebrities are being scapegoated so as to justify an agenda (Kangaroo justice) and given MORE time than actual offenders, yes AGREED. It is to scapegoat them as an example.
Yeah, I get your point too, and it's not just celebrities. Teen boys whose girlfriends are maybe a year outside of the "two year exception" can get crushed, too. It's almost like taking actual criminals out of circulation is beside the point.
The academic rot definitely started in Australian and NZ universities when they became businesses surviving on and profiteering from fee-paying students, especially foreign students. Since then, many post-grad courses (masters and PHD) have transitioned from “original research” to “coursework” based, in part to appease foreign students.
My own graduate degree in Architecture has now been rebadged as a “masters” and the “graduate degree” is issued after several years of study; as far as I this is dumbing down graduates and academia.
Yeah, that ultimately was the basis for the changes in AU & NZ.... "I paid my money so I demand I get XYZ" without having to do the required work or achieve the required academic standard.
I recall working in an American university when the Title IX official showed up to give the department faculty a talk on their "legal duty" to report any and all allegations of abuse from "survivors." Implied in the label "survivor" was the guilt of the accused, already established. The misandrist attitude of some of the professors in that department was abhorrent. I was glad to get out of there. Academia is a lost cause at this point. The only solution is to start over with new universities that explicitly reject this madness.
As for cases like Macy's, I knew a man who was given to hugs. He was Portuguese and quite demonstrative, but not in a sexual way. He was just an extrovert who like to hug and sometimes kiss everyone, male or female. We were in the same circle of friends and activists (for a social justice cause). One day he was accused of rape anonymously, online. No accuser ever came forward, but feminists in this case took it on themselves to ban him from all events. He denied it, but to no avail. This caused division among the several hundred people who were part of this cause, some scapegoating him and others (like me) questioning what was being done to him - with zero evidence. Those who did question it were viewed with hatred by the feminist accusers. In the end, he was exiled from the movement and I left voluntarily in disgust after giving 10 years of my life to it. The feminist won.
Macy's case sounds quite similar: innuendo, and allegations, but zero evidence of any actual wrongdoing. He is a convenient scapegoat for feminist ire. These feminist lynch mobs are appalling. Prior to this experience, I naively supported feminism, mistaking it for women's rights. After this experience, I was hungry for answers and stumbled across the Fiamengo Files on youtube and it changed my life for the better.
I was 'red-pilled' watching those videos. I would say I am a conservative now, or at least a classical liberal. Witnessing the incredible damage caused by Leftism, on many fronts, changed me. I had not previously realized how it had altered my life and society in general so negatively, in so many ways.
I'm very sad to hear that feminist witch hunts have taken over the sciences, as well as the humanities. With #MeToo, it seems to have pervaded the whole of society. It's sad to see universities cave into the woke mob and the mass hysteria they drum up. What's needed is a huge backlash against it, at every level of society. Getting rid of or reforming Title IX in the U.S. -- and its equivalent in other Western schools -- would be a good start.
They were never going to let the natural sciences alone. I once did a video about Francisco Ayalla, an elderly, retired Spanish-American biologist at UC-Irvine who was disgraced and barred from campus because he complimented women too lavishly (also did the European thing of kissing on both cheeks upon greeting). The women complained that they felt disrespected (interestingly enough, they complained only after he was very elderly). He had donated 10 million dollars to Irvine out of love for the school (he had successful vineyards in the area). There were two buildings named after him and a variety of scholarships. Not content to force him into retirement in disgrace, the school actually removed his name from the buildings and scholarships he had endowed. I'm 99.9% sure that his money, though, was never returned. It was another heartbreaker out of too many.
For people who demand such focus be put on their tender emotions, feminists are remarkably oblivious to the feelings of others (I'm sure these events pained not only Prof. Ayalla, but his family and friends as well).
I think beyond the power to damsel, what feminists want is the power and prestige that institutions like universities can bestow on them. The problem is that they are destroying these institutions in the process. Given the current trajectory, it seems that even the most elite universities will posses neither power nor prestige, they will just become the butt of many jokes.
Unfortunately, I don't see any decline in power. Surely it must come in time, but at the present, feminist so-called scholars are still able to influence government policy and law through their shoddy research. I have exposed a number of outright lies in the research and have tried to interest the universities themselves in the fact that they are lavishly funding utter nonsense, but nobody cares. These policies and laws have material effects on men's lives, supporting reduced legal rights, harsh punishments, denial of speech rights, family court bias, discrimination in hiring, and widespread misandry, but it's very difficult to counter it.
It's depressing although I'm not quite so black-pilled. At some point the lies will catch up to them. Not sure that we will be alive to see it, but I'm pretty sure that it will happen at some point.
Precisely. They will rule over ashes, controlling convents of wokeness amid the widespread perception that anything to do with academia is women's work. And not even the useful or praiseworthy kind.
"Rule over ashes" ... yes, that's much more poetic. How ironic, eh, that complete victory for the feminists would end as spaces for (second rate) woman's work?
This is the goal. It isn't even a future one, it's here in the present. The crapness of the research doesn't matter. All that matters is the authority and prestige of the job or the qualifications. Whether it's an interview in the media over some pressing concern on women's issues or, worse, 'experts' contributing to government advisory panels, all that's needed is the PhD or the 'body of research' to exert the influence.
Exactly! As long as they have the outward appearance of a qualified, published and authoritative expert, the foundations of those credentials are not supposed to be inspected too closely, otherwise it's delving into sexism or racism.
Title IX needs to be repealed. It is unsalvageable.
I am against punishing people for their personal actions or beliefs beyond established legal remedies. I see no reason to interfere with anyone's ability to make a living and/or contribute to society in a meaningful way based on their personal peccadilloes, factual or fictional. Cancel culture is cancer.
Everyone deserves to work in an environment without being harassed. If the advances are unwelcome it should be clearly expressed. If it continues, it should be reported. Women or men can be the aggressor. However, as human beings with feelings and desires its normal for people to flirt or make advances. Some people are just very awkward doing it.. However, it should not be a capital case unless it continues unabated after an objection is made.
Feminist use this as a weapon against men. The hallmark of communist societies is shaming and erasure of "political enemies" using ideology. Their is no better way to send a warning message to others of your dominance or to eliminate a potential rival. However, to those who support these feminist, you are their "useful idiots". You may be next.. If not, each time you comply, it will become more difficult to resist. The only thing these evil women care about is power. Their pathological resentment and hatred for men is their fuel.
Jun 11, 2023·edited Jun 11, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Everyone deserves to be able to go to work and not get harassed, but on the stipulation that we don't use the feminist definition "I was uncomfortable - too uncomfortable to tell him."
When I was 20 years old, 5' tall & 100 lbs, I was at work, standing at a counter, wrapping items for shipment. A married male coworker sidled up to me and put his hand on my butt. Without breaking the rhythm of my work or looking at him, I said in a very low voice, "Do that again and I will rip your arm out by the roots."
Women used to be taught to say something if a coworker said something they didn't like and most guys would not persist in clearly unwanted attention. We also learned the game of come hither-go away. I still think most guys wouldn't persist in clearly unwanted attention. The problem is that the word no can be part of a negotiation process. Maybe Friday isn't good because her sister is in town, or she gets attracted later. If the guy can't have more than one shot, that's a bit extreme, too. Nuance is dead.
Now that office romance is beyond frowned upon, office friendships, even among same-sex coworkers are being discouraged by management.
Well said... This was how i experienced the working world back in "the day"... Men and women would do a subtle dance... A darting glance, maybe a smile.. Stand a little closer when in a group... Flirting was fun and made work enjoyable.. It you misread intentions or moved too fast, the fear of embarrassment put the brakes on.
Seriously, if you're prohibited from accessing the prospective mate pool of almost everyone you know well and are in daily contact with (your coworkers and professional contacts), where the Hell are you supposed to find someone you're interested in?
Dating apps, somewhere between the catfishes & the OF girls trolling for customers? Order a pizza and hope for a cheap porno moment?
Not only are coworkers readily accessible, they tend to have things in common.
I think this is a move to demoralize the populace. Nothing makes people, especially the young (with a full compliment of hormones) less happy than having nobody to crush on.
Daphne Patai wrote about this happening and if anyone has a link to the article it would be great. She wrote about how our leaders will no longer be judged on their abilities, but on their private sexual history and if the behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable they will be hounded out of office.
This is all part of the "Relational Aggression" tactics, the more I think about it the more I realise that the covert tactics of "Relational Aggression" have been used so regularly and so often that it has become invisible. The destruction of a reputation in the court of public opinion without evidence is so common that almost no one blinks an eye.
The idea that we are dealing with people who have a "Personality Disorder" keeps popping into my head or are we dealing with female psychopaths?
I watched an interesting video on how men and women fight.. Men being more physician and direct. Women using shunning where a bully would purposely exclude someone from the group.. I suspect that this would be more pronounced in adolescence. I wonder if the women that do this now just haven't grown up.. Just a thought.
The more profound thing is how men and women behave after a fight. Men can respect an opponent, often more so after a fair fight, even a quite physical one. Women (and even more so teen girls) usually never make up after a fight, at least not fully. They might give lip service to getting past the conflict, but it's like 'keep your friends close/enemies closer."
I think that if women ever were in charge of a war, it would be the end of humanity. Men can call and respect a cease fire. Immediately after calling cease fire, the women would say, "Those bitches have to die." There would only be peace when none were left.
Women have been in charge of many wars, historically, and historians have concluded that female heads of state are more likely to have started wars than men.
Research shows that this behaviour begins before puberty. Eeva Sodhi wrote that adult female bullies become much more proficient not only in bullying but also in being able to disguise their behaviour.
Beyond a personality disorder! It's as if a personality disorder and/or relational aggression were not being enacted by a single individual, but by an entire Borg cube. I think a lot of these women are actually too cowardly to act alone, so they rustle up a posse of other sourpuss feminists and act as a unit. The archetypal example of this is the NYC "bad man" list. Nobody above the age of 11 should be passing around lists of people not to like. That adults not only join forces, but don't limit their actions to shunning, and instead try to turn the entire world against some poor man is so malevolent, I don't know how they can sleep at night.
I use https://yaytext.com/bold-italic/ (other similar siteds) which converts text (I normally cut and paste into it) into 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐝 (𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟), 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝗱 (𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘀), 𝐼𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐 (𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓), Italic (sans), 𝑩𝒐𝒍𝒅 / 𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒄 (𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇) and 𝘽𝙤𝙡𝙙 / 𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙘 (𝙨𝙖𝙣𝙨).
𝑾𝑨𝑹𝑵𝑰𝑵𝑮 once you have converted text to one of the fonts, you can't change it back (I haven't found a program that does)
Thanks. Probably both. I'm pretty sure I used the Borg as an analogy for feminism in an article of mine American Thinker published. My husband just suggested we go for a walk before dinner. I can hunt the title later if you like.
Start with Barbara Leckie, Girls Bullying behaviours and Peer Relationships. The Double edged sword of Exclusion.
If you have access to CINAHL there is a huge amount of research into what is labeled "Horizontal Violence in Nursing"
"The Mean Girls of ER" Marie Claire Magazine.
In the Company of Women: Indirect Aggression Among Women: Why We Hurt Each Other and How to Stop [Heim, Pat, Murphy, Susan, Golant, Susan K.] on Amazon.com.
There are also some YouTube videos on the subject including this one.
There is a book "Venus the Parkside" I put off reading for many years, mainly because I was scared. When I finally read it, it told me nothing I didn't know.
Cancelling the name of a legitimate author on a paper is unethical, and fraudulent on the part of those whose names remain on the paper as they are benefitting from somebody else's unacknowledged work. It's akin to plagiarism and should provide fertile ground for legal action by those who are cancelled.
Agreed. That would be the ethical response. Authors will need to choose a side. There will be no middle ground. Those that choose the unethical path will be beyond the pale.
When I was working as a physics instructor at Rutgers University, teaching "pre-meds", one of the female students (who's now a qualified medical doctor) offered to have sex with me in exchange for giving her an A grade at the class. I refused this offer. I did my level best to mark everyone in my classes fairly, and, ironically, in the end she actually got a B+, and I think she could probably easily have got an A with a bit more effort, surely less effort, or at least less of her time, and less risk than having sex with someone she barely knew.
We were told in our teaching introduction classes that it was quite common for sexual relationships to form between the teaching assistants and the students, and that this had been an endless source of problems in previous years, and to scrupulously avoid these kinds of relationships. In my limited experience, there seemed to be any number of other women like the above-mentioned student around, using their looks or bodies to get ahead.
Surely we know that there is much more to the Harvey Weinstein case than we've been told about, in terms of transactional sex from actresses in exchange for parts. Perhaps I'm cynical but after my experiences at Rutgers I wonder what the full story is here.
There's always a fuller story. In many cases, I think the story goes somethign like this, with variations. We have a brilliant man absolutely focused on his scientific research with not many other opportunities or reasons to interact with women, who also happens to love women, either sexually or platonically or a combination of both. He's a little older, maybe he wasn't that successful with women when he was young because he was a brilliant nerd of some sort. And then there are the women: young, vibrant, eager, interested (and self-interested), attracted to the man's knowledge, attracted to the professional opportunities associated with him. A few of the women are outright gold-diggers ('Lay for an A"), just as a few men are outright predators. Most are not, I'd wager, on either side: it's more the messy, complicated, grey-area romantic, flirtatious, forbidden, or unconscious attraction of young women and older men. Until relatively recently, there were very strict rules governing how young women could interact with such men. The women of the sexual revolution said we could handle it; we were adults, we could make our own sexual and other choices. It turns out that, for some significant number of such women, that's not true. Uncertainty, embarrassment, resentment, bragging rights, misunderstanding, regret, the desire for victimhood, the desire for self-importance, the desire to support other women, etc all combine into a noxious stew of false allegations that universities are far too ready to promote in order to cover their own backsides. It says something very bad about women in general that so many of them are willing to go along with these witch-hunts. But not all women are, of course, and those ones get persecuted in turn.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 10, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Even before Harvey Weinstein, the casting couch was a thing, as was the moniker "mattress actress." The combination of sexual and transactional in Hollywood was legendary. I think that the pattern that got "Times Up" & "MeToo" going was this. A young hopeful sees a part on a big movie so valuable that a frolic in the producer's office seems a reasonable concession. Twenty years later, when roles for her are rare, and her fame and cash still quite large, this venerated dame of the theater looks back at this event as a stain on her dignity. She's a famous and respected professional - how dare he have taken advantage of her -- forgetting, of course, that she was part of a group that was a dime a dozen back then, not venerable not powerful. She wouldn't have gotten the fame, respect and chance to knock boots with real movie stars but for that producer.
I don't doubt there are parallels in academia. I also don't doubt that fraught as it would have been at the time to have accepted her offer to trade nonacademic effort for an A, these days it's much worse. Today a young woman making such an offer, whether accepted or not, can at any point later can claim that she didn't make but accepted the offer out of fear of the professor's terrifying male toxicity. If he rejects it, she can claim he's punishing her by withholding her deserved A because she refused his brutish offer. And considering the fact that the infractions that Prof. Marcy was accused of seem to have occurred in public, even the Pence rule is no protection. At this point, it appears that a man could spend all time outside of his house in a man-sized gerbil ball, and suddenly women would be talking about how they've spent distraught years unable to recover from having been seen by a man's eyes.
I sometimes think the only thing that can save humanity is for the damages feminists claim to have suffered become so epic:
"I spent 7 years in traction because, in my desperate need to escape his glance, the speed with which I swivelled my neck caused the tendons that hold up my head to be irreparably torn",
in response to events that (even had they happened) would be so trivial
"I could see the eyes of a man in a giant creepy gerbil ball turned in my direction for an entire nanosecond!"
that the entire world simultaneously breaks out in laughter over the ridiculousness of it all.
By a coincidence I was reading Joan Collins' autobiography on archive.org yesterday. Apparently Darryl Zanuck had a golden model of his "parts" which he'd get out and show to people.
As a woman, I have to say that it's sad that he would be so convinced that this is what would make a woman want to be closer to him. The appearance of other physical features might make me weak in my knees, but it's not the appearance of a male member that women find compelling.
By coincidence,I was recently watching the Star Trek episode where Joan Collins played Kirk's love interest. What could happen today if a woman started falling down the stairs and it wasn't her "gentleman caller" who happened to interrupt her falling down the stairs?
Apologies to Janice for getting away from the topic again, but I don't think there are many men who would react very well to a golden model of a woman's vagina either. Joan mentions William Shatner in that book too as something of a lothario. She always claims to have resisted the advances of various men such as Zanuck, Marlon Brando, and others, or complains about being insulted by Tony Curtis and so on.
I join your apologies to Janice, although I don't think we are that far from the topic. And it is a relief that most men wouldn't be excited? impressed? turned on? - by a golden vag.
It appears Shatner knew he had that rep.( knew a childhood friend of his who gave me the impression that Shatner's impression of himself probably predated his Kirk days). I've seen Shatner, in interviews, say how women will be like," OMG, It's Capt. Kirk." He'll kiss them, and say, "You've been kissed by Capt. Kirk."
I swear, if I ever run into him (remote though that possibility would be) I would point & say, "OMG, It's the Big Giant Head!" I doubt I'd get a kiss, but I would hope I'd get a laugh.
He was married but ended up divorced and living in a trailer after Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry was also into "polyamory" before it had a name and several Star Trek cast members were actually his girlfriends (Uhuru, Nurse Chapel).
This student, who was very pretty, would stay in the classroom long after everyone else had left, and she would write out the text with one of those erasable ballpoint pens, then rub it all out again and write something else, over and over, and then turn to me and say with a twinkle "What do I have to do to get an A in this class?" She did this week after week, and she spent so much time doing it that it would have been just as easy for her to actually do the work correctly and hand it in and get an A. If she'd wanted to date me that was OK too apparently, as long as she went to another TA's class instead of mine for the next semester. We weren't supposed to date the students in our own classes, but it was OK to have a relationship with someone you'd met in class if you waited until the end of the semester and then moved them to another one of the many different classes. Since she was perfectly capable of getting an A in the class just by putting in some effort, it seemed to be a sort of game where she wanted to prove she was attractive enough to score TAs and get given As for "nonacademic effort" as Trish puts it, or something.
Yes, but she could have had as much sex as she wanted, and she could have got an A grade with just a bit of academic effort. I don't know why she wanted to mingle those two things together unless it was some kind of proof of her attractiveness or ability to manipulate men.
I could be wrong, but I think one should not under-estimate the thrill of illicit liaisons in themselves: they add spice to life, prove one's attractiveness and power (as you note), provide material for stories one can tell one's friends (complete with victimhood cred if one wants to add that in), and are a lot more fun, depending on one's temperament and level of intellectual substance, than actually doing the academic work.
I'll fill in some more details of this story since some people seem interested. This was in 1989 so a fairly long time ago. I had started the PhD physics programme at Rutgers University and I had just started as a TA. I had 90 students in three classes doing experimental classes in simple physics, what was taught in the UK at the time as "O-Level" physics to fourteen-to-sixteen year old schoolchildren. The students were mostly "pre-meds" along with other things like food scientists.
I'll call this student "Kylie". After one or two classes, at the end of the class, I would find Kylie, a very attractive tanned girl in quite revealing shorts and sleeveless top, was curled up in a ball scribbling away on her answer sheet. Everyone else had left the classroom but Kylie was apparently beavering away, working very hard. I went up to her and asked her what she was doing. She was writing out the answer, which looked perfectly correct, but then erasing it all and rewriting it, again and again, and she sort of twinkled at me and said "What do I have to do to get an A in this class?"
We'd been warned about all kinds of trouble in the class but I at first simply assumed that Kylie was a diligent student who wanted an A grade, so I started telling her that the class was quite straightforward and just do the work and you can easily get an A and so on. After all this explanation, Kylie turned to me again and said "What do I need to do to get an A in this class?", completely ignoring all my heartfelt advice on academic success. I repeated myself, and then Kylie decided to depart at last, but it certainly seemed to be a bit odd.
Next week and the same thing happened, and then the next week, and at this point I started to say to Kylie "I have to get the bus home after the class, so can you try to finish a bit earlier this week?" Some of the young men in the class then overheard me and started to make fun of Kylie's late departures, and Kylie got into a huff at this point and gave up on her appeals.
At the end of the course, I had to enter all the student's grades into the computer system and then it would automatically calculate the final grade using a "grading curve". I had not actually paid any attention to how well Kylie was doing since I was teaching a total of 90 people, including Beavis and Butthead and various other "characters". Kylie had been a pretty minor problem compared to some of them. One student actually tried to physically intimidate me into improving his grade.
The biggest surprise was that Kylie had achieved a B+ grade in the course, just short of an A grade. I'm sure she could have got the A if she had made just slightly more effort, and she'd spent quite an amount of time in the classroom just writing and then erasing her words.
At the end of that semester I left Rutgers, since the teaching workload was absolutely ridiculous, and for some reason or another a large number of the other beginning graduate students had been completely excused teaching duties.
I'm pretty certain I have the answer and I'm saying this seriously, I am not being glib. It's the entire thesis of my weekly talk show. Cluster B personality disorders. Including borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. To understand such people it's very helpful to get familiar with these character syndromes.
I'll have a look at your weekly talk show. I should not discuss that particular person any more, since my story is true, and if I put more details about her, someone might be able to find her with Google, so I'd better not.
If feminists are so horrified at the prospect of a distinguished scholar showing female students encouragement, perhaps universities should implement rules that only male students should be recognized and encouraged by their professors. Oh wait, feminists didn't like that either, did they? Which is why university student populations are overwhelmingly female now. Could it be that what feminists ultimately want is to ensure that the privileges of victimhood are forever reserved for women??
Geoff’s wife,Susan Kegley, here. One thing that few people know is that there was one woman in particular (I’ll call her Joan) who was on a crusade to find “evidence” to convict Geoff. Starting in 2010, she interviewed nearly every woman who had ever been in the Berkeley astronomy department since Geoff started there, broaching the topic in the interview by suggesting that Geoff had been accused of sexual harassment and had they ever had any problems with him. Well, can you imagine how that would change people’s view of him? Joan even warned a 1st year female grad student to stay away from Geoff, calling him a “serial sexual harasser”. Every move, even going out for coffee with someone, could be interpreted as “sexual harassment,” when viewed through this lens.
In fact, Joan herself wrote about an interaction she had with Geoff in the coffee line at a conference. Geoff introduced himself and complimented her on her work for women in astronomy. She said he had launched a “charm offensive”. That made her angry. So that’s the type of person who dedicated her life to getting Geoff canceled, because he was nice to people.
Joan even had the nerve to tell the women she interviewed that she was working with the UCB Title IX officer on “the case.” Buried deep in the public release of the case documents is an email from the Title IX officer back to Joan reprimanding her for misrepresenting herself as associated with the UCB Title IX office.
And then there was John Johnson (Harvard University), a former grad student of Geoff’s. He participated in the witch hunt too. I have no proof, but I feel fairly certain that the "groping" incident was commissioned by Johnson. The PRA documents show that he is the one who relayed that incident to the Title IX office (see p. 95), not the supposed “victim”. But John didn't really have gender equity as his highest concern. It was all about data rights. When Johnson left CalTech for Harvard, he wanted to take the many years of Geoff's team's data with him to Harvard. Geoff said no, to protect his grad students who needed the data for their own work. Since that time, Johnson has been on the warpath. The sexual harassment issue was just a way to strike back.
As a woman scientist myself, I am appalled by these women’s approach to solving the “problem” of harassment: Make yourself a poor, helpless victim. Call on someone else to protect you. Excuse me, but fuck that!
Be strong! Protect yourself by communicating what you want or don’t want. That’s what the early feminists won. As others have said here in the comments here, there WILL be retribution. And it will be richly deserved.
Geoff and I are happy to be out of academia now. What a torture chamber, for all involved. Thank you Janice for your clear writing and thinking.
Thank you for this important information, Susan. What immediately struck me even in my relatively cursory reading of documents was the timing of the allegations--why they began coming in years after the alleged incidents. That strongly suggested they were being engineered by outside forces. The sexual harassment industry is a gift to unstable, narcissistic women and men who see a way to take out their brilliant male rivals.
Jun 11, 2023·edited Jun 11, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Susan, Thanks so much for sharing this with us comment thread denizens. It's appalling to learn that the campaign against your husband was even worse than then impression I already had. Surveying everyone on campus that might have cross his path is clearly a carefully crafted plan to plant seeds in case she couldn't find feminists willing to complain right off the bat.
I can't imagine how awful it would be to see the man that I love subjected to this kind of nefarious treatment, and I'm relieved for both of you that at least you are both out of academia. I hope you both find some small consolation in the fact that while feminists have been able to inflict harm on his career, there are plenty of people who absolutely do not believe the accusations against him.
Jun 12, 2023·edited Jun 12, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Thank you Trish. There is a lot more that is outrageous about Geoff's experience, including a Title IX officer with an agenda who served as judge, jury, and executioner. (Very similar to Laura Kipnis's experience at the University of Chicago.) But the coup de gras was when the Title IX officer received an email from one of the complainants with "corrections" to her story, which invalidated the complaint, and he said that it made no difference in his decision. Hmmmm . . . a complainant actually admits to lying and that doesn't change his mind?? Wow. And there's more . . . much more. All of it surreal, like it couldn't be happening--censorship on social media, defenders unable to speak because they were shouted down (by faculty!), and astronomy faculty rushing to condemn Geoff without knowing what actually happened except what was in a BuzzFeed article. And then there's those people who are trying (still) to re-write history and attribute Geoff's discoveries to others. His wikipedia page was marked up by a few vicious little toads, intent on stripping him of his discoveries. It's still being modified by people with an agenda. This experience would make an interesting book. Maybe one day.
I appreciate your reply and I'm so sorry that there are even more horrific details. I definitely agree this would be an interesting - indeed important - book. The most horrifyingly unbelievable aspect of cases like your husband's is that the side doing all this claims to be defending the world - from dangerous sex predators, from right wing extremists, from climate armageddon, from cultural appropriation - not only without evidence, but doing so without evidence of their claims while going to ridiculous extremes to silence both requests for more information and any evidence that doesn't support their claims.
Women are victims of oppression and harassment, yet women are also men's equals, even though they are incapable of standing up for themselves and rebuffing men's advances, and must be treated as helpless victims at the same time as they assert their equality with men. So we have women on submarines because women can do the job as well as a man, and these women then complain about how awful it is being a submariner, because of all the men on the submarine.
Note that the submarine service, in every navy, has always been like this: it's a closed environment where survival depends on every crew member being competent and trustworthy, hence highly prone to "bullying".
This article is another illustration of the contradictions:
To summarise, a woman wants to become an orthopaedic surgeon. She is told that it is a very difficult job for a woman with children. Then she becomes an orthopaedic surgeon. Then as the article wears on, she starts complaining that being an orthopaedic surgeon is a very difficult job for a woman with children, exactly the thing that she was told at the beginning of her career. And yet the men who told her this were all sexist, even though she ended up agreeing with them.
The You Tube Channel History Debunked posted a video a year ago about how the NHS "The real reason you can't see your doctor: the feminization of British Medicine."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGmhRVpVa2k
He said feminists pushed for women to be doctors. But women doctors wanted hours compatible with raising kids, and not working quite so long. The numbers of hours a woman physician works is half that of a man, so basically it costs double to get one MD's worth of work when women are physicians. Women physicians work shorter hours, shorter careers, and prefer less gory specialties. It's quite sad.
They also retire much earlier than men, with many women doctors quitting when they're still in their forties. This is the same problem which Jordan Peterson was reporting on his experiences with the female lawyers, but in a different profession.
There was a big brouhaha about a medical college in Japan which was secretly refusing women applicants on the basis that women had shorter careers than men, so the huge expense of training a doctor was wasteful if the person would have a much shorter medical career. The school had to apologise, but women doctors on average work fewer hours, take maternity leave, and early retirement. It's not sexism or chauvinism to point that out I don't think.
Yeah, History Debunked mentioned that as well. (He has other videos on related topics, including one from a month ago called "The problem with women in professions such as medicine and law...")
Too bad the Japanese college got caught. I think it's pretty selfish to demand one of a limited number of places in a medical school, then nope out years or decades before a normal retirement age. I'd be equally displeased if a man did it, but it's a predictable outcome of letting bunches of women in just to have so many women in for some idiotic "equality" demand.
Jun 11, 2023·edited Jun 11, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I’m not a fan of former VP Pence but the fact that he will not be seen alone in the presence another woman unless his wife is also present was, although cumbersome, awkward and weak looking is also something that has prevented him from having to deal with this kind of BS and considering the arena he moves in, a smart idea.
I know professional colleagues who will not, under any circumstances have lunch with, be alone with or even consult with female colleagues unless there is a desk in between them and another trusted female within ear shot.
All of this is furthest strengthening the movement (such as it is) of MGTOW.
Have at it girls…this isn’t going to go on forever and if one listens closely enough one can hear the dulcet tones of whining about lost opportunities, no available mentorship’s and no advancement starting to rise in octave.
I have to give you the "Like" to express my disapproval of feminist behavior that got us here and inspired the Pence rule. I'm not a fan of him either, but this was a smart move - one I think feminists are trying to defang by going after Prof. Marcy for alleged touches delivered in populated public spaces in broad daylight. It's a shot off the bow.
There's two more types of sounds I've been hearing lately, making a case for young women to stop it with the professional ambition over family life. Some are women in their 40s & up who are so clearly bitter that it's obvious that their careers have done anything but fulfill them.They whine about where all the good men are, and how awful it is that "they're all taken." The internet is full of their videos.
Another strain is women 40s & up posting warnings to the young girls that youth, beauty & fertility don't last forever, don't do what I did. Some women in this group are a bit younger, even early 30s, who flat out say they hate their work/career and would say yes to any many who will marry them, and berate themselves for being too picky in the past.
There's new batches of both versions - bitter and warning - every time I fire up the interweb. They might still be infected with a lot of feminist nonsense, but it's the first time in my lifetime I have see large numbers of women saying out loud that some aspect of feminism does not and cannot work.
I think things might go weirder than any of us expect.
I really enjoy your posts, so I thank you for giving me something to respond to.
There is a Tik Tok Vid making the rounds from a woman who is pissed because she can’t find a male who acts like a male who isn’t a conservative…”I am Woman Hear Me Whine”
I know things in some departments are changing because I can see it with my older two Grandsons…Thank God! But I also feel like you do, that things might get a lot weirder before the current batch of older, over-educated, single and childless white women leave the stage.
I also think that columnists (and now Author) Peechy Keenan are going to make a difference but who knows, how deep this runs. If Progressive/Leftist Teachers can so easily get young girls to mutilate themselves the way they do now, letting them act out the normal male-female mating game without interference may be too much to ask. I thought (hoped) the Trad Wife Movement was going to develop legs but it seems to have shrivelled. Too bad.
Interesting Times, as cast by the old Chinese Curse, eh!
Thanks, Chuck. I just saw Janice had posted, and thought I'd give it a quick look (as a break from an essay I'm working on). But I've been having such a blast here today! I love your posts, too - not just today's I've seen your name pop up before.
I saw the video!
One other thing that gives me hope. Imagine your older stuck up teen sibling is an SJW. The young ones younger than the SJW gen are showing themselves to be a lot more conservative.
Haven't heard of Peechy Keenan - but I'm interested. Thanks for the reference.
Anyway, my husband just asked me to go for a walk before dinner/dark, and he's got a face I just can't turn down.(;
I really admire Naomi Wolf's work but listening to a recent conversation with Jordan Peterson regarding an incident with an English professor was full of victim mentality. I can't remember the details but I think it was a dinner party with students and the guy and she ended up alone. He came on to her and she was frightened that he would rape her. I know that fear of sitting with a man and you think you are having a conversation and it turns ugly. I had it once in college and luckily I escaped with logic. I am not dismissing the incident, but to blame it for wrecking one's life is strange. It didn't happen. She only assumed it was going to happen. That is frightening but it is not the same. Maybe he would have blocked her from an Ivy League position for a bit, but her otherwise brains would have carried her wherever she wanted to go. And considering she became a Rhodes Scholar, and a feminist rock star, things didn't turn out so bad.
Wow! i thought the same thing.. I was taken back by her intense feelings during the incident. But more than that, the fact that she spread her misandrist thoughts & feelings for the rest of her career.. It was like a brief glimpse into the mind of a radical feminist.
Wolf is a narcissistic poser. The fact that she is now helping to expose covid insanity is welcome, but she hasn't recanted any of her radical feminist nonsense.
Jun 11, 2023·edited Jun 11, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
She has brought her considerable writing talents and research cadre to bear on the covid/plandemic thing and has actually forged for herself a new career in science expose. Good for her and especially for us.
How she got here though is a lesson for the ages. In 2019, during an interview she found out that a new book she had produced, which of course, dealt with the ‘bad’ Patriarchy, this time killing men for essentially homosexual activity, contained not only some inaccuracies but the whole premise was based on a misinterpretation of a phrase she heard. Unfortunately (apparently) the publisher had already printed the books, boxed them and they were set for delivery when the whole operation (expensive much) was canceled. That had to hurt, both the publisher and Wolf’s rep.
I believe her ‘New’ career is a response to this. As I said good for her, but also good for us! But I can’t trust anything she say’s when she is in the Male/Female forum. Back in the day, I tried reading the ‘Beauty Myth’
Yeah, the 'death recorded thing was a real fiasco.
I don't consider her writing talents "considerable" at all. The woman has a PhD in English literature and can barely complete a paragraph without spelling and grammar errors. As to her research skills, her works have been literally savaged for inaccuracies even by other feminists.
I really don't think she's much more than the mouthpiece for the organization she's with, now. When you see her reading reports in her video presentations it's obvious that she struggles with medical terminology. I think that half the time she doesn't truly understand what she's saying.
She recently declared that the covid jabs were a "war on women" because, apparently, their effects on female reproductive issues were only affecting women. I kid you not. Let that one sink in for a moment or two.
I had a great reply that took me 15 mins to type only to find out it didn’t go through.
I love your stuff Derp but we are going to have to disagree on Wolf. Yes she was hysterical ( and may yet be on Male/Female issues) but when I get Steve Kirsch putting her on committee’s and his sub stack and progressive medical mouthpiece Dr Drew practically getting down on his hands and knees to apologize for disrespecting her current work as well as admitting it made him overhaul his whole perspective on Covid, Covaxx and in fact all vaccines it certainly catches my attention.
Also it’s true she seems lately to be focusing on the effects covaxx has had on women, I’m OK with that because in the beginning she focused on clots, ‘suddenly died’ and for a week or two the effects of spike on sperm.
Just don’t expect me to give her work on Feminism and the Patriarchy the time of day
I have a similarly mixed reaction to Naomi Wolf. As an English literature type myself, I know I would never be able to wade through Pfizer trial documents and medical reports as she has done. Her courage, independent-mindedness, persistence, chutzpah, and general intelligence on that score are beyond impressive, and I am in awe. That she is still banging on about Harold Bloom, who insisted he couldn't even remember the alleged almost-incident, is shocking and ridiculous. I can't marry the two Naomis in my mind.
Thank you. I find the dangers men face these days to be profound, as well as monstrously unfair. That they're inflicted by a movement that has ever called itself "social" or "justice" is despicable.
I listened to that interview as well, and thought much the same! Wolf also stated that she was raped as a child, so she may have seen the incident through the eyes of trauma. We never get Professor Bloom's side of the story. Perhaps he was just hoping to get a little snuggle or something, we don't know. But I agree, she seems to be making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.
I remember her saying that as well but it all seemed strange. I would have thought she would have detailed a bit. The age, etc.
As a poli sci major, the thought of having dinner with any of my professors would have been laughable. My roommates in architecture and art schools those were different. Lots of creepy professor’s sleeping with students and of course “liberal.”
To continue on this purity quest will be the death of science. If necessary, women should get tough, speak up or push back, and put boorish men in their social place. However, whether or not some individual behaves badly in a social situation, it should have no effect on the reports of that person’s professional work.
I feel for all men who have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct. My suggestion to all men who are entering a academic field which may require contact with students is the following. Every time a student touches you on the elbow, or anywhere else, tell them not to touch the merchandise. Do this from the first day you give a lecture and stay consistent. Do this to both male and female students. If a student continues to do this, make a scene in from of the class and tell them that you do not wish to harassed, academically or sexually and that if it keeps happening that you will take the appropriate action. You will probably to laughed at, but you will build up a reputation of non-physicality if anyone, male or female, comes after you in your future.
I had to borrow my husbands phone yesterday (swapping out my old phone, but first I had to do back up, first time in. like forever, with a zillion photos...)I had some texts that I couldn't wait to send. The spellcheck changed several correctly spelled words to other words that entirely changed the meaning of my text. At least 2 times, it corrected my correction of ITS correction.
When my new phone is all set up, first thing I do - always - is disable spellcheck.
And ... edit. Maybe that's why the spellcheck did that to me - It KNOWS I'm always taking it off of my phones (creepy music)
Just a few moments ago, in relation to Naomi Wolf, an appellation I wanted to apply to her was absolutely impermissible no matter how many times I tried. Spellcheck absolutely insisted the word had to be 'gifted'.
At this point, I would fear that it would become a sort of feminist win for a guy taking that approach to to take him down by claiming "he got me alone and did a Male Gaze at me! How will I ever survive?" I mean seriously, the feminists sensing that a man has a strategy to outmaneuver them would probably be extra double secret probation level determined to make an example of him. I think that's what happened to Prof. Marcy. He seems to have followed the Pence rule, not being alone with the women he worked with, and still gets de-personed for touches, that if they happened, were in populated spaces in broad daylight.
I really don't know what men can do at this point. Try and make an all-male space? It's discrimination. Treat women like ordinary coworkers? Be subject to left field accusations so far left nobody could see them coming. It's Kobayashi Maru.
Do you think the problem is that men in leadership positions have been brainwashed to believe that to act masculine is toxic. In other words to be convinced that men are bad.
Some maybe, but i think the bigger problem is that, seeing a man taking steps to protect himself from de-personing, feminists get even more determined to take him down. Like the Pence rule. He made it clear that he was taking steps, and the feminists on the internet went mad, acting like he was being a big baby, and that it as an insult to women.
Of course, that happened 5 years ago. If his rule had just become public knowledge this year, I bet the feminists would be scrolling their rolodexes for someone they could convince to claim he'd cornered her in the dorm laundry room, or something equally un-disprovable.
When will this ever stop? There is no protection from this witchhunt. No man is safe, since trivial, or even totally manufactured accusations can destroy a man's career decades after the allleged events happened. Any man in a position of power knows he will have upset women at some point in his career, by failing to acknowledge their self-perceived talents, or chooosing someone else for a position. Any angry woman can now take revenge and bring that man down. Men seem to be deluding themselves that they won't be targeted by keeping their heads down, sucking up to the feminist mob and "behaving" well. They are kidding themselves. Maybe men need to think about starting male-only institutions but with women so firmly now running the show, where will the funding come from? And who would risk challenging this climate? I despair of finding solutions. But thank you again, Janice, for revealing the disaster endlessly unfolding before our eyes.
When men, somehow, collectively put an end to it. When we say "no" en masse in some consequential way. I don't know what it will look like, but it's up to men to stop putting up with this.
Men need to tell women "no". And they need to do it in loud "male anger" voices.
This.
A million times this.
It's not even necessary for them to be angry. Merely ambitious. Want to clear out space above you? Simply accuse him of touching your arm for a second too long. Or, hell, making a slightly less than sensitive joke.
Yes. Remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the IMF? He was taken out by an allegation of sexual assault, later dismissed--replaced by a woman. When it is so easy, why wouldn't some ambitious women take advantage of it?
I could be wrong, but I believe the same thing may have happened to Dr. Marcy: one of his accusers, a former postdoc or something, took his position when he stepped down.
Yes he did!
The only thing that would stop a woman using trumped up charges to take a man out of his career and arrange to have herself installed would be a conscience.
Indeed! I think the only way to fight this in the future is to shine a spotlight on the people who cave to these feminist groups. Easy to say but difficult to do when the mainstream media is so biased towards feminist. However, as more alternate news media sources are created, theirs hope.
Idk, anger seems quite necessary, as a lavish fount of unifying mobilising energy 🤔
To wit, anger is the very proper response to gross injustice and violated boundaries.
or "he looked at me"
Or "I thought he looked at me"
Sad but true!
Reading a book on science from a few years ago. Allegations were arising that physics is sexist and racist. Perhaps the energy waves that make up our beings need to go for DEI training.
Wow I heard Colin MacENROE say on NPR that the game of CHESS is sexist!
I think I came across that as well! It is never ending because as Gerard Celente says, 'they're just making sh%$ up.'
F@<k 'em! 🤬😶
I have the answer.. Men should claim to be women. It will give them incredible power. Even over the feminist. If you can't beat em, join em.
There are rumors that a Canadian shop teacher who became famous for suddenly showing up in a wig and gallon sized milk jugs on his chest decided to play that game.
Bettina, in Australia men did start something just for men; "The Men's Shed" in cities and towns across AU as a safe space for men to hang out together and do "blocky" stuff. These sheds are being invaded by (generally) feminists who shrill that they have a right to entre these spaces. Ironically, they are adamant that “women only spaces” such as women’s clubs and gyms are sacrosanct and it would be misogynistic if men demanded that they be open to males. No doubt they’ll have conniptions when men identify as women demand entry.
Isn't it ironic that the feminist are convulsing about their spaces being invaded now.. Its lost on them that this is what they have been doing to men for 40 years.
Yep, and it gives me a good laugh when I hear them whining. Maybe there is Karma after all.
That's not surprising. I noticed that while feminists were pushing to get girls into boy scouts, boys schools, and women into men's golfing clubs, they weren't pushing to get boys into girl scouts and girls schools or women's golfing clubs/tournaments.
Maybe the blokey activities should include loud engine noises and lots of loud burping. Or, in a mind game way, the blokes could all take up knitting, crochet and making itty bitty bread flours.
LOL ~ my Dad could knit. He used to ride motor bikes and my mother (who he was courting at the time) knitted him a really long scarf with elaborate stitches to “keep him warm”. The first time he worn it got caught in the chain resulting in the scarf being mangled and him buried in a macrocarpa hedge. He unpicked the scarf and “pearl plain” knitted a new one, which I still have 80 years later.
Love it! My husband has a talent for making pies. His crusts are especially good.
Great article Janice and astute comment Bettina. I don’t imagine Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ about the Salem Witch trials is taught in schools anymore. It was one of my HSC (VCE) required readings and a very appropriate harbinger of the times in which we now live.
Wonderful play. He certainly understood the mechanisms of female power games.
Slightly off topic Bettina but i recently was not successful for a fairly senior public sector UK role for i later found out not adequately answering the question of how i would promote diversity and equality. The appointee - a left leaning woman knocked this out the park apparently. I’m a 50s white guy. This is now a standard interview question. Do i have to now make up some nonsense i dont believe in to get appointed?
It is impossible to do research under these circumstances. Not to say pointless. The field fills up with women, who by and large are lifted to their stations by the heavy hand of affirmative action. Meanwhile, one wrong step can ruin a man's career, while women can be as emotionally abusive as they please. What point even starting, when jobs are assigned based on sex? Why put yourself through it?
And increasingly many are refusing to.
Marcy should have gotten a Nobel, by the way. The physics Nobel was awarded a few years ago for discovering exoplanets. One of Marcy's figures was even used in the presentation.
The whole thing is very similar to the shameful persecution of James Watson for the thought crime of speaking openly about human biodiversity. The rot in academia goes much deeper than feminism. At this point I do not think the institution can be salvaged. The ideologues predominate, and there are so many of them that purging them all would empty it entirely. Not that this would be a bad thing.
I find it hard to imagine just being able to live like a human being with the weight of non-adjudicated feminist accusations that are punished in ways more severe and unending than the sentences handed down to actually convicted sex offenders.
Shameful is not sufficiently serious to characterize what these women do to innocent men.
Even convicted sex offenders are innocent quite often
And there are limits on the length of their punishments. Woke shunning is endless.
And I'm talking about $MeToo (the groupie syndrome) not actual offenders where's there's proof & a confession etc. but I get your point. MALE celebrities are being scapegoated so as to justify an agenda (Kangaroo justice) and given MORE time than actual offenders, yes AGREED. It is to scapegoat them as an example.
Yeah, I get your point too, and it's not just celebrities. Teen boys whose girlfriends are maybe a year outside of the "two year exception" can get crushed, too. It's almost like taking actual criminals out of circulation is beside the point.
The academic rot definitely started in Australian and NZ universities when they became businesses surviving on and profiteering from fee-paying students, especially foreign students. Since then, many post-grad courses (masters and PHD) have transitioned from “original research” to “coursework” based, in part to appease foreign students.
My own graduate degree in Architecture has now been rebadged as a “masters” and the “graduate degree” is issued after several years of study; as far as I this is dumbing down graduates and academia.
That's an element of it, yes. Students as customers are much more demanding, and exert direct pressure to dumb down the curriculum.
In Canada there was a case of a student who sued because he didn't get an A. He was, you understand, paying for an A.
Yeah, that ultimately was the basis for the changes in AU & NZ.... "I paid my money so I demand I get XYZ" without having to do the required work or achieve the required academic standard.
I recall working in an American university when the Title IX official showed up to give the department faculty a talk on their "legal duty" to report any and all allegations of abuse from "survivors." Implied in the label "survivor" was the guilt of the accused, already established. The misandrist attitude of some of the professors in that department was abhorrent. I was glad to get out of there. Academia is a lost cause at this point. The only solution is to start over with new universities that explicitly reject this madness.
As for cases like Macy's, I knew a man who was given to hugs. He was Portuguese and quite demonstrative, but not in a sexual way. He was just an extrovert who like to hug and sometimes kiss everyone, male or female. We were in the same circle of friends and activists (for a social justice cause). One day he was accused of rape anonymously, online. No accuser ever came forward, but feminists in this case took it on themselves to ban him from all events. He denied it, but to no avail. This caused division among the several hundred people who were part of this cause, some scapegoating him and others (like me) questioning what was being done to him - with zero evidence. Those who did question it were viewed with hatred by the feminist accusers. In the end, he was exiled from the movement and I left voluntarily in disgust after giving 10 years of my life to it. The feminist won.
Macy's case sounds quite similar: innuendo, and allegations, but zero evidence of any actual wrongdoing. He is a convenient scapegoat for feminist ire. These feminist lynch mobs are appalling. Prior to this experience, I naively supported feminism, mistaking it for women's rights. After this experience, I was hungry for answers and stumbled across the Fiamengo Files on youtube and it changed my life for the better.
I was 'red-pilled' watching those videos. I would say I am a conservative now, or at least a classical liberal. Witnessing the incredible damage caused by Leftism, on many fronts, changed me. I had not previously realized how it had altered my life and society in general so negatively, in so many ways.
I'm very sad to hear that feminist witch hunts have taken over the sciences, as well as the humanities. With #MeToo, it seems to have pervaded the whole of society. It's sad to see universities cave into the woke mob and the mass hysteria they drum up. What's needed is a huge backlash against it, at every level of society. Getting rid of or reforming Title IX in the U.S. -- and its equivalent in other Western schools -- would be a good start.
They were never going to let the natural sciences alone. I once did a video about Francisco Ayalla, an elderly, retired Spanish-American biologist at UC-Irvine who was disgraced and barred from campus because he complimented women too lavishly (also did the European thing of kissing on both cheeks upon greeting). The women complained that they felt disrespected (interestingly enough, they complained only after he was very elderly). He had donated 10 million dollars to Irvine out of love for the school (he had successful vineyards in the area). There were two buildings named after him and a variety of scholarships. Not content to force him into retirement in disgrace, the school actually removed his name from the buildings and scholarships he had endowed. I'm 99.9% sure that his money, though, was never returned. It was another heartbreaker out of too many.
For people who demand such focus be put on their tender emotions, feminists are remarkably oblivious to the feelings of others (I'm sure these events pained not only Prof. Ayalla, but his family and friends as well).
I think beyond the power to damsel, what feminists want is the power and prestige that institutions like universities can bestow on them. The problem is that they are destroying these institutions in the process. Given the current trajectory, it seems that even the most elite universities will posses neither power nor prestige, they will just become the butt of many jokes.
Unfortunately, I don't see any decline in power. Surely it must come in time, but at the present, feminist so-called scholars are still able to influence government policy and law through their shoddy research. I have exposed a number of outright lies in the research and have tried to interest the universities themselves in the fact that they are lavishly funding utter nonsense, but nobody cares. These policies and laws have material effects on men's lives, supporting reduced legal rights, harsh punishments, denial of speech rights, family court bias, discrimination in hiring, and widespread misandry, but it's very difficult to counter it.
It's depressing although I'm not quite so black-pilled. At some point the lies will catch up to them. Not sure that we will be alive to see it, but I'm pretty sure that it will happen at some point.
Precisely. They will rule over ashes, controlling convents of wokeness amid the widespread perception that anything to do with academia is women's work. And not even the useful or praiseworthy kind.
"Rule over ashes" ... yes, that's much more poetic. How ironic, eh, that complete victory for the feminists would end as spaces for (second rate) woman's work?
This is the goal. It isn't even a future one, it's here in the present. The crapness of the research doesn't matter. All that matters is the authority and prestige of the job or the qualifications. Whether it's an interview in the media over some pressing concern on women's issues or, worse, 'experts' contributing to government advisory panels, all that's needed is the PhD or the 'body of research' to exert the influence.
Exactly! As long as they have the outward appearance of a qualified, published and authoritative expert, the foundations of those credentials are not supposed to be inspected too closely, otherwise it's delving into sexism or racism.
Women are going to in for a big, big surprise when this dam finally breaks. They have no idea how men feel about what they've done. They will.
Title IX needs to be repealed. It is unsalvageable.
I am against punishing people for their personal actions or beliefs beyond established legal remedies. I see no reason to interfere with anyone's ability to make a living and/or contribute to society in a meaningful way based on their personal peccadilloes, factual or fictional. Cancel culture is cancer.
Everyone deserves to work in an environment without being harassed. If the advances are unwelcome it should be clearly expressed. If it continues, it should be reported. Women or men can be the aggressor. However, as human beings with feelings and desires its normal for people to flirt or make advances. Some people are just very awkward doing it.. However, it should not be a capital case unless it continues unabated after an objection is made.
Feminist use this as a weapon against men. The hallmark of communist societies is shaming and erasure of "political enemies" using ideology. Their is no better way to send a warning message to others of your dominance or to eliminate a potential rival. However, to those who support these feminist, you are their "useful idiots". You may be next.. If not, each time you comply, it will become more difficult to resist. The only thing these evil women care about is power. Their pathological resentment and hatred for men is their fuel.
Everyone deserves to be able to go to work and not get harassed, but on the stipulation that we don't use the feminist definition "I was uncomfortable - too uncomfortable to tell him."
When I was 20 years old, 5' tall & 100 lbs, I was at work, standing at a counter, wrapping items for shipment. A married male coworker sidled up to me and put his hand on my butt. Without breaking the rhythm of my work or looking at him, I said in a very low voice, "Do that again and I will rip your arm out by the roots."
Women used to be taught to say something if a coworker said something they didn't like and most guys would not persist in clearly unwanted attention. We also learned the game of come hither-go away. I still think most guys wouldn't persist in clearly unwanted attention. The problem is that the word no can be part of a negotiation process. Maybe Friday isn't good because her sister is in town, or she gets attracted later. If the guy can't have more than one shot, that's a bit extreme, too. Nuance is dead.
Now that office romance is beyond frowned upon, office friendships, even among same-sex coworkers are being discouraged by management.
When it's only men who are expected to initiate it's only men who can get it wrong.
Thanks should be directed to a bloke called Glenn Sacks.
Well said... This was how i experienced the working world back in "the day"... Men and women would do a subtle dance... A darting glance, maybe a smile.. Stand a little closer when in a group... Flirting was fun and made work enjoyable.. It you misread intentions or moved too fast, the fear of embarrassment put the brakes on.
That's I ended up with my husband of 29+ years. He was literally my supervisor.
No wonder the young are so unhappy & angry. Imagine work without even the possibility of a little bit of the tingles.
Seriously, if you're prohibited from accessing the prospective mate pool of almost everyone you know well and are in daily contact with (your coworkers and professional contacts), where the Hell are you supposed to find someone you're interested in?
Dating apps, somewhere between the catfishes & the OF girls trolling for customers? Order a pizza and hope for a cheap porno moment?
Not only are coworkers readily accessible, they tend to have things in common.
I think this is a move to demoralize the populace. Nothing makes people, especially the young (with a full compliment of hormones) less happy than having nobody to crush on.
Bravo!
Daphne Patai wrote about this happening and if anyone has a link to the article it would be great. She wrote about how our leaders will no longer be judged on their abilities, but on their private sexual history and if the behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable they will be hounded out of office.
This is all part of the "Relational Aggression" tactics, the more I think about it the more I realise that the covert tactics of "Relational Aggression" have been used so regularly and so often that it has become invisible. The destruction of a reputation in the court of public opinion without evidence is so common that almost no one blinks an eye.
The idea that we are dealing with people who have a "Personality Disorder" keeps popping into my head or are we dealing with female psychopaths?
Is it this one, Phillip? She has quite a few on the subject. She has continued to write about these matters (brilliantly) until relatively recently.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2017/11/30/we-made-this-harassment-law-up-from-the-beginning-and-now-weve-won/
It was I believe on her own personal website around 2010.
I have it somewhere on an old hard drive.
I watched an interesting video on how men and women fight.. Men being more physician and direct. Women using shunning where a bully would purposely exclude someone from the group.. I suspect that this would be more pronounced in adolescence. I wonder if the women that do this now just haven't grown up.. Just a thought.
The more profound thing is how men and women behave after a fight. Men can respect an opponent, often more so after a fair fight, even a quite physical one. Women (and even more so teen girls) usually never make up after a fight, at least not fully. They might give lip service to getting past the conflict, but it's like 'keep your friends close/enemies closer."
I think that if women ever were in charge of a war, it would be the end of humanity. Men can call and respect a cease fire. Immediately after calling cease fire, the women would say, "Those bitches have to die." There would only be peace when none were left.
Women have been in charge of many wars, historically, and historians have concluded that female heads of state are more likely to have started wars than men.
Research shows that this behaviour begins before puberty. Eeva Sodhi wrote that adult female bullies become much more proficient not only in bullying but also in being able to disguise their behaviour.
Beyond a personality disorder! It's as if a personality disorder and/or relational aggression were not being enacted by a single individual, but by an entire Borg cube. I think a lot of these women are actually too cowardly to act alone, so they rustle up a posse of other sourpuss feminists and act as a unit. The archetypal example of this is the NYC "bad man" list. Nobody above the age of 11 should be passing around lists of people not to like. That adults not only join forces, but don't limit their actions to shunning, and instead try to turn the entire world against some poor man is so malevolent, I don't know how they can sleep at night.
Borg? LOL I haven't heard them used to descibe feminists before.
As for "𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦" - is it "strength in numbers" or is it "goading each other on /policing each other's ideological purity"?
Sorry to jump in with a non sequitur, but I’ve never seen italics in a Substack comment before. How do you do that?
I use https://yaytext.com/bold-italic/ (other similar siteds) which converts text (I normally cut and paste into it) into 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐝 (𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟), 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝗱 (𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘀), 𝐼𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐 (𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓), Italic (sans), 𝑩𝒐𝒍𝒅 / 𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒄 (𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒇) and 𝘽𝙤𝙡𝙙 / 𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙘 (𝙨𝙖𝙣𝙨).
𝑾𝑨𝑹𝑵𝑰𝑵𝑮 once you have converted text to one of the fonts, you can't change it back (I haven't found a program that does)
Thanks!
You're welcome. & thank you for asking.
Thanks. Probably both. I'm pretty sure I used the Borg as an analogy for feminism in an article of mine American Thinker published. My husband just suggested we go for a walk before dinner. I can hunt the title later if you like.
Start with Barbara Leckie, Girls Bullying behaviours and Peer Relationships. The Double edged sword of Exclusion.
If you have access to CINAHL there is a huge amount of research into what is labeled "Horizontal Violence in Nursing"
"The Mean Girls of ER" Marie Claire Magazine.
In the Company of Women: Indirect Aggression Among Women: Why We Hurt Each Other and How to Stop [Heim, Pat, Murphy, Susan, Golant, Susan K.] on Amazon.com.
There are also some YouTube videos on the subject including this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5TgVUSEbE
There is a book "Venus the Parkside" I put off reading for many years, mainly because I was scared. When I finally read it, it told me nothing I didn't know.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Venus-Dark-Side-Roy-Sheppard-ebook/dp/B074LBFVCF
Cancelling the name of a legitimate author on a paper is unethical, and fraudulent on the part of those whose names remain on the paper as they are benefitting from somebody else's unacknowledged work. It's akin to plagiarism and should provide fertile ground for legal action by those who are cancelled.
I would hope authors facing this situation would demand to have the paper withdrawn, or having their own names also removed in protest.
Agreed. That would be the ethical response. Authors will need to choose a side. There will be no middle ground. Those that choose the unethical path will be beyond the pale.
When I was working as a physics instructor at Rutgers University, teaching "pre-meds", one of the female students (who's now a qualified medical doctor) offered to have sex with me in exchange for giving her an A grade at the class. I refused this offer. I did my level best to mark everyone in my classes fairly, and, ironically, in the end she actually got a B+, and I think she could probably easily have got an A with a bit more effort, surely less effort, or at least less of her time, and less risk than having sex with someone she barely knew.
We were told in our teaching introduction classes that it was quite common for sexual relationships to form between the teaching assistants and the students, and that this had been an endless source of problems in previous years, and to scrupulously avoid these kinds of relationships. In my limited experience, there seemed to be any number of other women like the above-mentioned student around, using their looks or bodies to get ahead.
Surely we know that there is much more to the Harvey Weinstein case than we've been told about, in terms of transactional sex from actresses in exchange for parts. Perhaps I'm cynical but after my experiences at Rutgers I wonder what the full story is here.
There's always a fuller story. In many cases, I think the story goes somethign like this, with variations. We have a brilliant man absolutely focused on his scientific research with not many other opportunities or reasons to interact with women, who also happens to love women, either sexually or platonically or a combination of both. He's a little older, maybe he wasn't that successful with women when he was young because he was a brilliant nerd of some sort. And then there are the women: young, vibrant, eager, interested (and self-interested), attracted to the man's knowledge, attracted to the professional opportunities associated with him. A few of the women are outright gold-diggers ('Lay for an A"), just as a few men are outright predators. Most are not, I'd wager, on either side: it's more the messy, complicated, grey-area romantic, flirtatious, forbidden, or unconscious attraction of young women and older men. Until relatively recently, there were very strict rules governing how young women could interact with such men. The women of the sexual revolution said we could handle it; we were adults, we could make our own sexual and other choices. It turns out that, for some significant number of such women, that's not true. Uncertainty, embarrassment, resentment, bragging rights, misunderstanding, regret, the desire for victimhood, the desire for self-importance, the desire to support other women, etc all combine into a noxious stew of false allegations that universities are far too ready to promote in order to cover their own backsides. It says something very bad about women in general that so many of them are willing to go along with these witch-hunts. But not all women are, of course, and those ones get persecuted in turn.
Even before Harvey Weinstein, the casting couch was a thing, as was the moniker "mattress actress." The combination of sexual and transactional in Hollywood was legendary. I think that the pattern that got "Times Up" & "MeToo" going was this. A young hopeful sees a part on a big movie so valuable that a frolic in the producer's office seems a reasonable concession. Twenty years later, when roles for her are rare, and her fame and cash still quite large, this venerated dame of the theater looks back at this event as a stain on her dignity. She's a famous and respected professional - how dare he have taken advantage of her -- forgetting, of course, that she was part of a group that was a dime a dozen back then, not venerable not powerful. She wouldn't have gotten the fame, respect and chance to knock boots with real movie stars but for that producer.
I don't doubt there are parallels in academia. I also don't doubt that fraught as it would have been at the time to have accepted her offer to trade nonacademic effort for an A, these days it's much worse. Today a young woman making such an offer, whether accepted or not, can at any point later can claim that she didn't make but accepted the offer out of fear of the professor's terrifying male toxicity. If he rejects it, she can claim he's punishing her by withholding her deserved A because she refused his brutish offer. And considering the fact that the infractions that Prof. Marcy was accused of seem to have occurred in public, even the Pence rule is no protection. At this point, it appears that a man could spend all time outside of his house in a man-sized gerbil ball, and suddenly women would be talking about how they've spent distraught years unable to recover from having been seen by a man's eyes.
I sometimes think the only thing that can save humanity is for the damages feminists claim to have suffered become so epic:
"I spent 7 years in traction because, in my desperate need to escape his glance, the speed with which I swivelled my neck caused the tendons that hold up my head to be irreparably torn",
in response to events that (even had they happened) would be so trivial
"I could see the eyes of a man in a giant creepy gerbil ball turned in my direction for an entire nanosecond!"
that the entire world simultaneously breaks out in laughter over the ridiculousness of it all.
In any case, this nonsense must stop.
By a coincidence I was reading Joan Collins' autobiography on archive.org yesterday. Apparently Darryl Zanuck had a golden model of his "parts" which he'd get out and show to people.
https://archive.org/details/secondact0000coll/page/128/mode/2up?q=darryl+zanuck&view=theater
As a woman, I have to say that it's sad that he would be so convinced that this is what would make a woman want to be closer to him. The appearance of other physical features might make me weak in my knees, but it's not the appearance of a male member that women find compelling.
By coincidence,I was recently watching the Star Trek episode where Joan Collins played Kirk's love interest. What could happen today if a woman started falling down the stairs and it wasn't her "gentleman caller" who happened to interrupt her falling down the stairs?
Apologies to Janice for getting away from the topic again, but I don't think there are many men who would react very well to a golden model of a woman's vagina either. Joan mentions William Shatner in that book too as something of a lothario. She always claims to have resisted the advances of various men such as Zanuck, Marlon Brando, and others, or complains about being insulted by Tony Curtis and so on.
Maybe not a golden one, but you can find silicon models of famous porn stars' vaginas all over the web and they're selling very well.
But are they for visual pleasure, or tactile?
I join your apologies to Janice, although I don't think we are that far from the topic. And it is a relief that most men wouldn't be excited? impressed? turned on? - by a golden vag.
It appears Shatner knew he had that rep.( knew a childhood friend of his who gave me the impression that Shatner's impression of himself probably predated his Kirk days). I've seen Shatner, in interviews, say how women will be like," OMG, It's Capt. Kirk." He'll kiss them, and say, "You've been kissed by Capt. Kirk."
I swear, if I ever run into him (remote though that possibility would be) I would point & say, "OMG, It's the Big Giant Head!" I doubt I'd get a kiss, but I would hope I'd get a laugh.
You could try it I suppose but I wonder if would work.
Shatner even asked the lady who played the cat out for lunch:
https://trekmovie.com/2019/03/12/star-trek-mystery-solved-isis-actress-from-assignment-earth-identified/
He was married but ended up divorced and living in a trailer after Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry was also into "polyamory" before it had a name and several Star Trek cast members were actually his girlfriends (Uhuru, Nurse Chapel).
💯
Good man. As Paul Elam says, men use power to get sex, women use sex to get power.
This student, who was very pretty, would stay in the classroom long after everyone else had left, and she would write out the text with one of those erasable ballpoint pens, then rub it all out again and write something else, over and over, and then turn to me and say with a twinkle "What do I have to do to get an A in this class?" She did this week after week, and she spent so much time doing it that it would have been just as easy for her to actually do the work correctly and hand it in and get an A. If she'd wanted to date me that was OK too apparently, as long as she went to another TA's class instead of mine for the next semester. We weren't supposed to date the students in our own classes, but it was OK to have a relationship with someone you'd met in class if you waited until the end of the semester and then moved them to another one of the many different classes. Since she was perfectly capable of getting an A in the class just by putting in some effort, it seemed to be a sort of game where she wanted to prove she was attractive enough to score TAs and get given As for "nonacademic effort" as Trish puts it, or something.
My eyes are rolling so hard, my depth perception is unlikely to recover.
When I was a university in the early 80's there were several women who had a "reputation" for "sleeping with academic staff to get (better) grades".
We were heavily warned in the training sessions for TAs about this, which was a regular phenomenon at that university, apparently.
She was a slut.
Yes, but she could have had as much sex as she wanted, and she could have got an A grade with just a bit of academic effort. I don't know why she wanted to mingle those two things together unless it was some kind of proof of her attractiveness or ability to manipulate men.
I could be wrong, but I think one should not under-estimate the thrill of illicit liaisons in themselves: they add spice to life, prove one's attractiveness and power (as you note), provide material for stories one can tell one's friends (complete with victimhood cred if one wants to add that in), and are a lot more fun, depending on one's temperament and level of intellectual substance, than actually doing the academic work.
I'll fill in some more details of this story since some people seem interested. This was in 1989 so a fairly long time ago. I had started the PhD physics programme at Rutgers University and I had just started as a TA. I had 90 students in three classes doing experimental classes in simple physics, what was taught in the UK at the time as "O-Level" physics to fourteen-to-sixteen year old schoolchildren. The students were mostly "pre-meds" along with other things like food scientists.
I'll call this student "Kylie". After one or two classes, at the end of the class, I would find Kylie, a very attractive tanned girl in quite revealing shorts and sleeveless top, was curled up in a ball scribbling away on her answer sheet. Everyone else had left the classroom but Kylie was apparently beavering away, working very hard. I went up to her and asked her what she was doing. She was writing out the answer, which looked perfectly correct, but then erasing it all and rewriting it, again and again, and she sort of twinkled at me and said "What do I have to do to get an A in this class?"
We'd been warned about all kinds of trouble in the class but I at first simply assumed that Kylie was a diligent student who wanted an A grade, so I started telling her that the class was quite straightforward and just do the work and you can easily get an A and so on. After all this explanation, Kylie turned to me again and said "What do I need to do to get an A in this class?", completely ignoring all my heartfelt advice on academic success. I repeated myself, and then Kylie decided to depart at last, but it certainly seemed to be a bit odd.
Next week and the same thing happened, and then the next week, and at this point I started to say to Kylie "I have to get the bus home after the class, so can you try to finish a bit earlier this week?" Some of the young men in the class then overheard me and started to make fun of Kylie's late departures, and Kylie got into a huff at this point and gave up on her appeals.
At the end of the course, I had to enter all the student's grades into the computer system and then it would automatically calculate the final grade using a "grading curve". I had not actually paid any attention to how well Kylie was doing since I was teaching a total of 90 people, including Beavis and Butthead and various other "characters". Kylie had been a pretty minor problem compared to some of them. One student actually tried to physically intimidate me into improving his grade.
The biggest surprise was that Kylie had achieved a B+ grade in the course, just short of an A grade. I'm sure she could have got the A if she had made just slightly more effort, and she'd spent quite an amount of time in the classroom just writing and then erasing her words.
At the end of that semester I left Rutgers, since the teaching workload was absolutely ridiculous, and for some reason or another a large number of the other beginning graduate students had been completely excused teaching duties.
My husband & I were just speculating which category of bedpost notch she wanted:
1) got A in exchange for sex
2)got a(another) TA to boink me.
(Couldn't use items A & B for obvious reasons)
I'm pretty certain I have the answer and I'm saying this seriously, I am not being glib. It's the entire thesis of my weekly talk show. Cluster B personality disorders. Including borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. To understand such people it's very helpful to get familiar with these character syndromes.
I'll have a look at your weekly talk show. I should not discuss that particular person any more, since my story is true, and if I put more details about her, someone might be able to find her with Google, so I'd better not.
If feminists are so horrified at the prospect of a distinguished scholar showing female students encouragement, perhaps universities should implement rules that only male students should be recognized and encouraged by their professors. Oh wait, feminists didn't like that either, did they? Which is why university student populations are overwhelmingly female now. Could it be that what feminists ultimately want is to ensure that the privileges of victimhood are forever reserved for women??
Bingo.
Geoff’s wife,Susan Kegley, here. One thing that few people know is that there was one woman in particular (I’ll call her Joan) who was on a crusade to find “evidence” to convict Geoff. Starting in 2010, she interviewed nearly every woman who had ever been in the Berkeley astronomy department since Geoff started there, broaching the topic in the interview by suggesting that Geoff had been accused of sexual harassment and had they ever had any problems with him. Well, can you imagine how that would change people’s view of him? Joan even warned a 1st year female grad student to stay away from Geoff, calling him a “serial sexual harasser”. Every move, even going out for coffee with someone, could be interpreted as “sexual harassment,” when viewed through this lens.
In fact, Joan herself wrote about an interaction she had with Geoff in the coffee line at a conference. Geoff introduced himself and complimented her on her work for women in astronomy. She said he had launched a “charm offensive”. That made her angry. So that’s the type of person who dedicated her life to getting Geoff canceled, because he was nice to people.
Joan even had the nerve to tell the women she interviewed that she was working with the UCB Title IX officer on “the case.” Buried deep in the public release of the case documents is an email from the Title IX officer back to Joan reprimanding her for misrepresenting herself as associated with the UCB Title IX office.
And then there was John Johnson (Harvard University), a former grad student of Geoff’s. He participated in the witch hunt too. I have no proof, but I feel fairly certain that the "groping" incident was commissioned by Johnson. The PRA documents show that he is the one who relayed that incident to the Title IX office (see p. 95), not the supposed “victim”. But John didn't really have gender equity as his highest concern. It was all about data rights. When Johnson left CalTech for Harvard, he wanted to take the many years of Geoff's team's data with him to Harvard. Geoff said no, to protect his grad students who needed the data for their own work. Since that time, Johnson has been on the warpath. The sexual harassment issue was just a way to strike back.
As a woman scientist myself, I am appalled by these women’s approach to solving the “problem” of harassment: Make yourself a poor, helpless victim. Call on someone else to protect you. Excuse me, but fuck that!
Be strong! Protect yourself by communicating what you want or don’t want. That’s what the early feminists won. As others have said here in the comments here, there WILL be retribution. And it will be richly deserved.
Geoff and I are happy to be out of academia now. What a torture chamber, for all involved. Thank you Janice for your clear writing and thinking.
Thank you for this important information, Susan. What immediately struck me even in my relatively cursory reading of documents was the timing of the allegations--why they began coming in years after the alleged incidents. That strongly suggested they were being engineered by outside forces. The sexual harassment industry is a gift to unstable, narcissistic women and men who see a way to take out their brilliant male rivals.
Susan, Thanks so much for sharing this with us comment thread denizens. It's appalling to learn that the campaign against your husband was even worse than then impression I already had. Surveying everyone on campus that might have cross his path is clearly a carefully crafted plan to plant seeds in case she couldn't find feminists willing to complain right off the bat.
I can't imagine how awful it would be to see the man that I love subjected to this kind of nefarious treatment, and I'm relieved for both of you that at least you are both out of academia. I hope you both find some small consolation in the fact that while feminists have been able to inflict harm on his career, there are plenty of people who absolutely do not believe the accusations against him.
Thank you Trish. There is a lot more that is outrageous about Geoff's experience, including a Title IX officer with an agenda who served as judge, jury, and executioner. (Very similar to Laura Kipnis's experience at the University of Chicago.) But the coup de gras was when the Title IX officer received an email from one of the complainants with "corrections" to her story, which invalidated the complaint, and he said that it made no difference in his decision. Hmmmm . . . a complainant actually admits to lying and that doesn't change his mind?? Wow. And there's more . . . much more. All of it surreal, like it couldn't be happening--censorship on social media, defenders unable to speak because they were shouted down (by faculty!), and astronomy faculty rushing to condemn Geoff without knowing what actually happened except what was in a BuzzFeed article. And then there's those people who are trying (still) to re-write history and attribute Geoff's discoveries to others. His wikipedia page was marked up by a few vicious little toads, intent on stripping him of his discoveries. It's still being modified by people with an agenda. This experience would make an interesting book. Maybe one day.
I appreciate your reply and I'm so sorry that there are even more horrific details. I definitely agree this would be an interesting - indeed important - book. The most horrifyingly unbelievable aspect of cases like your husband's is that the side doing all this claims to be defending the world - from dangerous sex predators, from right wing extremists, from climate armageddon, from cultural appropriation - not only without evidence, but doing so without evidence of their claims while going to ridiculous extremes to silence both requests for more information and any evidence that doesn't support their claims.
Women are victims of oppression and harassment, yet women are also men's equals, even though they are incapable of standing up for themselves and rebuffing men's advances, and must be treated as helpless victims at the same time as they assert their equality with men. So we have women on submarines because women can do the job as well as a man, and these women then complain about how awful it is being a submariner, because of all the men on the submarine.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63435129
Note that the submarine service, in every navy, has always been like this: it's a closed environment where survival depends on every crew member being competent and trustworthy, hence highly prone to "bullying".
This article is another illustration of the contradictions:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sexism-assault-female-surgeons-nhs-times-health-commission-lnqbm2kjp
To summarise, a woman wants to become an orthopaedic surgeon. She is told that it is a very difficult job for a woman with children. Then she becomes an orthopaedic surgeon. Then as the article wears on, she starts complaining that being an orthopaedic surgeon is a very difficult job for a woman with children, exactly the thing that she was told at the beginning of her career. And yet the men who told her this were all sexist, even though she ended up agreeing with them.
The You Tube Channel History Debunked posted a video a year ago about how the NHS "The real reason you can't see your doctor: the feminization of British Medicine."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGmhRVpVa2k
He said feminists pushed for women to be doctors. But women doctors wanted hours compatible with raising kids, and not working quite so long. The numbers of hours a woman physician works is half that of a man, so basically it costs double to get one MD's worth of work when women are physicians. Women physicians work shorter hours, shorter careers, and prefer less gory specialties. It's quite sad.
They also retire much earlier than men, with many women doctors quitting when they're still in their forties. This is the same problem which Jordan Peterson was reporting on his experiences with the female lawyers, but in a different profession.
There was a big brouhaha about a medical college in Japan which was secretly refusing women applicants on the basis that women had shorter careers than men, so the huge expense of training a doctor was wasteful if the person would have a much shorter medical career. The school had to apologise, but women doctors on average work fewer hours, take maternity leave, and early retirement. It's not sexism or chauvinism to point that out I don't think.
Yeah, History Debunked mentioned that as well. (He has other videos on related topics, including one from a month ago called "The problem with women in professions such as medicine and law...")
Too bad the Japanese college got caught. I think it's pretty selfish to demand one of a limited number of places in a medical school, then nope out years or decades before a normal retirement age. I'd be equally displeased if a man did it, but it's a predictable outcome of letting bunches of women in just to have so many women in for some idiotic "equality" demand.
I’m not a fan of former VP Pence but the fact that he will not be seen alone in the presence another woman unless his wife is also present was, although cumbersome, awkward and weak looking is also something that has prevented him from having to deal with this kind of BS and considering the arena he moves in, a smart idea.
I know professional colleagues who will not, under any circumstances have lunch with, be alone with or even consult with female colleagues unless there is a desk in between them and another trusted female within ear shot.
All of this is furthest strengthening the movement (such as it is) of MGTOW.
Have at it girls…this isn’t going to go on forever and if one listens closely enough one can hear the dulcet tones of whining about lost opportunities, no available mentorship’s and no advancement starting to rise in octave.
I have to give you the "Like" to express my disapproval of feminist behavior that got us here and inspired the Pence rule. I'm not a fan of him either, but this was a smart move - one I think feminists are trying to defang by going after Prof. Marcy for alleged touches delivered in populated public spaces in broad daylight. It's a shot off the bow.
There's two more types of sounds I've been hearing lately, making a case for young women to stop it with the professional ambition over family life. Some are women in their 40s & up who are so clearly bitter that it's obvious that their careers have done anything but fulfill them.They whine about where all the good men are, and how awful it is that "they're all taken." The internet is full of their videos.
Another strain is women 40s & up posting warnings to the young girls that youth, beauty & fertility don't last forever, don't do what I did. Some women in this group are a bit younger, even early 30s, who flat out say they hate their work/career and would say yes to any many who will marry them, and berate themselves for being too picky in the past.
There's new batches of both versions - bitter and warning - every time I fire up the interweb. They might still be infected with a lot of feminist nonsense, but it's the first time in my lifetime I have see large numbers of women saying out loud that some aspect of feminism does not and cannot work.
I think things might go weirder than any of us expect.
Hi Trish,
I really enjoy your posts, so I thank you for giving me something to respond to.
There is a Tik Tok Vid making the rounds from a woman who is pissed because she can’t find a male who acts like a male who isn’t a conservative…”I am Woman Hear Me Whine”
I know things in some departments are changing because I can see it with my older two Grandsons…Thank God! But I also feel like you do, that things might get a lot weirder before the current batch of older, over-educated, single and childless white women leave the stage.
I also think that columnists (and now Author) Peechy Keenan are going to make a difference but who knows, how deep this runs. If Progressive/Leftist Teachers can so easily get young girls to mutilate themselves the way they do now, letting them act out the normal male-female mating game without interference may be too much to ask. I thought (hoped) the Trad Wife Movement was going to develop legs but it seems to have shrivelled. Too bad.
Interesting Times, as cast by the old Chinese Curse, eh!
Thanks, Chuck. I just saw Janice had posted, and thought I'd give it a quick look (as a break from an essay I'm working on). But I've been having such a blast here today! I love your posts, too - not just today's I've seen your name pop up before.
I saw the video!
One other thing that gives me hope. Imagine your older stuck up teen sibling is an SJW. The young ones younger than the SJW gen are showing themselves to be a lot more conservative.
Haven't heard of Peechy Keenan - but I'm interested. Thanks for the reference.
Anyway, my husband just asked me to go for a walk before dinner/dark, and he's got a face I just can't turn down.(;
See ya around the Substack!
I really admire Naomi Wolf's work but listening to a recent conversation with Jordan Peterson regarding an incident with an English professor was full of victim mentality. I can't remember the details but I think it was a dinner party with students and the guy and she ended up alone. He came on to her and she was frightened that he would rape her. I know that fear of sitting with a man and you think you are having a conversation and it turns ugly. I had it once in college and luckily I escaped with logic. I am not dismissing the incident, but to blame it for wrecking one's life is strange. It didn't happen. She only assumed it was going to happen. That is frightening but it is not the same. Maybe he would have blocked her from an Ivy League position for a bit, but her otherwise brains would have carried her wherever she wanted to go. And considering she became a Rhodes Scholar, and a feminist rock star, things didn't turn out so bad.
Wow! i thought the same thing.. I was taken back by her intense feelings during the incident. But more than that, the fact that she spread her misandrist thoughts & feelings for the rest of her career.. It was like a brief glimpse into the mind of a radical feminist.
A frighting glimpse.
Wolf is a narcissistic poser. The fact that she is now helping to expose covid insanity is welcome, but she hasn't recanted any of her radical feminist nonsense.
She has brought her considerable writing talents and research cadre to bear on the covid/plandemic thing and has actually forged for herself a new career in science expose. Good for her and especially for us.
How she got here though is a lesson for the ages. In 2019, during an interview she found out that a new book she had produced, which of course, dealt with the ‘bad’ Patriarchy, this time killing men for essentially homosexual activity, contained not only some inaccuracies but the whole premise was based on a misinterpretation of a phrase she heard. Unfortunately (apparently) the publisher had already printed the books, boxed them and they were set for delivery when the whole operation (expensive much) was canceled. That had to hurt, both the publisher and Wolf’s rep.
I believe her ‘New’ career is a response to this. As I said good for her, but also good for us! But I can’t trust anything she say’s when she is in the Male/Female forum. Back in the day, I tried reading the ‘Beauty Myth’
Yeah, the 'death recorded thing was a real fiasco.
I don't consider her writing talents "considerable" at all. The woman has a PhD in English literature and can barely complete a paragraph without spelling and grammar errors. As to her research skills, her works have been literally savaged for inaccuracies even by other feminists.
I really don't think she's much more than the mouthpiece for the organization she's with, now. When you see her reading reports in her video presentations it's obvious that she struggles with medical terminology. I think that half the time she doesn't truly understand what she's saying.
She recently declared that the covid jabs were a "war on women" because, apparently, their effects on female reproductive issues were only affecting women. I kid you not. Let that one sink in for a moment or two.
I had a great reply that took me 15 mins to type only to find out it didn’t go through.
I love your stuff Derp but we are going to have to disagree on Wolf. Yes she was hysterical ( and may yet be on Male/Female issues) but when I get Steve Kirsch putting her on committee’s and his sub stack and progressive medical mouthpiece Dr Drew practically getting down on his hands and knees to apologize for disrespecting her current work as well as admitting it made him overhaul his whole perspective on Covid, Covaxx and in fact all vaccines it certainly catches my attention.
Also it’s true she seems lately to be focusing on the effects covaxx has had on women, I’m OK with that because in the beginning she focused on clots, ‘suddenly died’ and for a week or two the effects of spike on sperm.
Just don’t expect me to give her work on Feminism and the Patriarchy the time of day
Disagreement is the spice of life. If everyone agreed on everything, who the Hell could we argue with or critique?
I have a similarly mixed reaction to Naomi Wolf. As an English literature type myself, I know I would never be able to wade through Pfizer trial documents and medical reports as she has done. Her courage, independent-mindedness, persistence, chutzpah, and general intelligence on that score are beyond impressive, and I am in awe. That she is still banging on about Harold Bloom, who insisted he couldn't even remember the alleged almost-incident, is shocking and ridiculous. I can't marry the two Naomis in my mind.
"Justifiable Fear Something Might Have Happened Survivors' should never be allowed to become a thing.
That is very profound.
Thank you. I find the dangers men face these days to be profound, as well as monstrously unfair. That they're inflicted by a movement that has ever called itself "social" or "justice" is despicable.
I listened to that interview as well, and thought much the same! Wolf also stated that she was raped as a child, so she may have seen the incident through the eyes of trauma. We never get Professor Bloom's side of the story. Perhaps he was just hoping to get a little snuggle or something, we don't know. But I agree, she seems to be making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.
I remember her saying that as well but it all seemed strange. I would have thought she would have detailed a bit. The age, etc.
As a poli sci major, the thought of having dinner with any of my professors would have been laughable. My roommates in architecture and art schools those were different. Lots of creepy professor’s sleeping with students and of course “liberal.”
I once happened upon my poly sci prof sitting in the quad eating a banana. He offered me a bite. Maybe it was just like that at my college.
To continue on this purity quest will be the death of science. If necessary, women should get tough, speak up or push back, and put boorish men in their social place. However, whether or not some individual behaves badly in a social situation, it should have no effect on the reports of that person’s professional work.
I feel for all men who have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct. My suggestion to all men who are entering a academic field which may require contact with students is the following. Every time a student touches you on the elbow, or anywhere else, tell them not to touch the merchandise. Do this from the first day you give a lecture and stay consistent. Do this to both male and female students. If a student continues to do this, make a scene in from of the class and tell them that you do not wish to harassed, academically or sexually and that if it keeps happening that you will take the appropriate action. You will probably to laughed at, but you will build up a reputation of non-physicality if anyone, male or female, comes after you in your future.
That will get you even more accusations of sexual impropriety. He'll hath no fury like a woman scorned.
My apologies for the incorrect spelling. I meant to write, 'in front of the class.'
Just so you know, I discovered that if you click the ... you can edit posts.
Thank you. I will do that next time to save myself further embarrassment.
I had some of that embarrassment, too, until one day I had the thought, "I wonder what those ... are for?"
Everyone makes mistakes. It could even be a spellchecker 'correction' that you just missed.
OMG, yes!
I had to borrow my husbands phone yesterday (swapping out my old phone, but first I had to do back up, first time in. like forever, with a zillion photos...)I had some texts that I couldn't wait to send. The spellcheck changed several correctly spelled words to other words that entirely changed the meaning of my text. At least 2 times, it corrected my correction of ITS correction.
When my new phone is all set up, first thing I do - always - is disable spellcheck.
And ... edit. Maybe that's why the spellcheck did that to me - It KNOWS I'm always taking it off of my phones (creepy music)
Just a few moments ago, in relation to Naomi Wolf, an appellation I wanted to apply to her was absolutely impermissible no matter how many times I tried. Spellcheck absolutely insisted the word had to be 'gifted'.
At this point, I would fear that it would become a sort of feminist win for a guy taking that approach to to take him down by claiming "he got me alone and did a Male Gaze at me! How will I ever survive?" I mean seriously, the feminists sensing that a man has a strategy to outmaneuver them would probably be extra double secret probation level determined to make an example of him. I think that's what happened to Prof. Marcy. He seems to have followed the Pence rule, not being alone with the women he worked with, and still gets de-personed for touches, that if they happened, were in populated spaces in broad daylight.
I really don't know what men can do at this point. Try and make an all-male space? It's discrimination. Treat women like ordinary coworkers? Be subject to left field accusations so far left nobody could see them coming. It's Kobayashi Maru.
Do you think the problem is that men in leadership positions have been brainwashed to believe that to act masculine is toxic. In other words to be convinced that men are bad.
Some maybe, but i think the bigger problem is that, seeing a man taking steps to protect himself from de-personing, feminists get even more determined to take him down. Like the Pence rule. He made it clear that he was taking steps, and the feminists on the internet went mad, acting like he was being a big baby, and that it as an insult to women.
Of course, that happened 5 years ago. If his rule had just become public knowledge this year, I bet the feminists would be scrolling their rolodexes for someone they could convince to claim he'd cornered her in the dorm laundry room, or something equally un-disprovable.