It is rather delicious to see women squirm about the problems they have created in the dating market for college girls by the relentless promotion of girl's education. It serves them right, I say. But it is totally predictable that they respond by sneering at the remaining males rather than acknowledging this was a scenario that was an inevitable consequence of their own feminist policies.
The 3:2 sex ratio, whilst correct, understates the situation that these poor oppressed, partner-starved women face as regards meeting men within their own disciplines. In the UK, the ratio is actually 2:1 in law and medicine; 3:1 in English and other languages; 4:1 in psychology and veterinary science; 6:1 in teaching/education studies, and 10:1 in nursing. And I concur that women dominate in STEMM in the UK too. This first came about 6 years ago and the gap is now 17% in favour of women. Women also dominate in the pure sciences.
I can't speak for young men, but if I were one at university today - knowing what I know - they'd be no using my golden penis. I think I'd be hard-line MGTOW in sheer horror at the thought of intimacy with a young woman whose perspectives would likely prove to be - frankly - bigoted, at my expense.
Correct. Having spent the last decade plus in grad school and post-docing, I've been avoiding academic females (don't want to assume their gender) like a plague for years now. #MeToo made them hazardous, and their awful politics and relentless solipsism make that hazard not worth the dubious reward. The last thing I want to do is start a family with a female committed to the idea that whites and males are intrinsically horrible. I would not want someone like that raising my sons.
Given all that, the fact that I'm nominally in an advantageous dating market, sex ratio wise, is perfectly irrelevant. I wonder how many other guys make a similar choice? Which no doubt further restricts female dating pools, and makes them yet more miserable. Frankly I hope it does.
I just returned from "college planning night" at my son's high school. There was no mention of the underrepresentation of young men on college campuses, although the college recruiters did point out how racially diverse their colleges are. Also, I noted that only one of the eight college recruiters was male. If this were any other class of students we'd be talking about "systemic" discrimination instead of telling the underrepresented group to step up.
Your observations, analysis, and conclusions are so logical one wonders why such insights have not been apparent. Perhaps the problem is not just feminism, but also the universities themselves. Are universities even turning out useful citizens? In light of the breakdown of Western civilization in recent years, clearly, our universities are not fulfilling the need for thoughtful and productive graduates--particularly the excessive numbers of women who in many cases are in "_____ studies"--a sure path to uselessness.
As I am researching now, feminism subjected most North American universities to ideological capture in the 1970s, and they now operate entirely within a feminist framework, according to which not a word is said about the many disciplines in which men are a profound minority (take a look at stats for Education, for example, or Health Sciences--it's terrifying); while extensive lobbying and soul-searching must still be carried out to increase women in the very few disciplines in which men's numbers are still healthy. Truly insane.
"He appears in front of a domestic court judge the next day. If he agrees to plead guilty, he can go home by promising to behave and to take a series of anger-management courses. If he refuses to plead, he faces lengthy delays in the criminal system, large legal bills, and he can't go home because a restraining order is part of the program" - Canada's Bill 117.
Janice is one of few voices over decades speaking out on behave of justice and fair play for men and boys. Few men dare to speak up, lest they alienate female partners or potential partners. Given the ratio of largely undefended males to the miniscule number of defenders, I think we should all offer to make pancakes for Janice.
Excellent again Janice. I couldn't stop thinking about a recent rewatching of "An officer and a gentleman" Why aren't women being a good officer and a gentlewoman if they want the leadership role?
Anyways...What BS will they think of next to degrade & demonize men?
Excellent piece as usual, Janice. Yes, feminists have never grasped the basics of economics. Given a particular demand for A, increasing the supply of A decreases the price of A. So when the Pill came along, sex became much more plentiful for men and the price they were willing to pay dropped. All of a sudden, the woman who wanted to delay sex even until marriage found herself competing unsuccessfully with those who happily wanted their gratification now. Much the same holds true today on college campuses. The number of women has increased and they're distressed about the fact that their value in men's eyes has decreased. I hate to tell them, but there's really nothing anyone can do about that. All the whining in the world won't alter economic basics. Plus of course, those same basics applied in the 1960s and 70s when men made up the great majority of college enrollees. But of course the women weren't complaining then. And neither were the men. We just considered it a given that we had to do a lot to get the attention of a worthwhile woman. That we didn't complain and they are now, speaks volumes about female entitlement and the value of being seen as a victim.
When the supply of something increases, the price indeed drops. One way to compete is to add value. In this case, it would mean women competing for scarce men by working to make themselves attractive, and pleasing to be around - gracious and nice. By and large we don't see that. Instead there's a lot of obesity, green hair, and amongst those who don't uglify themselves, raging narcissistic entitlement. Perversely, they've reacted to the oversupply problem by making themselves less valuable. Go figure.
Janice your article blew me away. Very succinct. Psychologist Toby Green in her Body and Soul column wrote, "How some women see themselves as the source of male desire and therefore the controller of such desire" (not an exact quote).
Sarah Lawrence, a liberal arts college that offers no serious degrees, did not even admit men until 1968, and has a total student population of 1,274, 25% male, with some not insignificant portion of those gay. Any woman choosing this school could NOT realistically expect to meet future husbands at a traditionally women's college in the boondocks of NY state. But that didn't stop the cock-hounds as SL from claiming it's not the ratio of men to women, but just the attitude of young men who naturally take advantage of all the women suddenly spreading their legs for them. "Any port in a storm" is what guys used to say if they fucked an ugly girl when they were drunk. There was also something called a "mercy fuck." The comments on this Daily Mail article and on many, many others articles just like it, are actually very encouraging and indicate the propaganda nature of this enormous joke of an article. Just for a laugh, watch this plain looking girl give her take on the "syndrome" and get ratioed in the comments: https://youtu.be/wFZuAO_7PJI
I agree that it's a recognizably silly article (and many more like it), but alas, the discrimination against men at universities and in the job market is all too real. I found it literally nauseating when I sat on hiring committees in the early 2000s. It had been going on for a long time then, and it is still going on now.
Yes, it remains a serious issue for many men & boys in many domains, and you've likely seen the worst of it in the university system. But these faux and pompous feminists, like a lot of other identity-first groups, are increasingly seen by the pubic at large as laughably unserious and ridiculous people, as the comments to the articles show. My sense is that this madness has nearly peaked.
Meanwhile, there are lawsuits to file, businesses to not support, and politicians to vote out or in. There's a lot one can do.
It isn't just still going on. It's worse. The only people I see getting hired in my field are women. The overwhelming majority of those I see getting pushed out are men.
What really frustrates me is that professors still bother to supervise and mentor white guys at all. It just feels like exploitation, frankly, considering that at the same time they use us to get papers published, they participate in and reinforce a system that makes it impossible for us to get hired:
What has a dating experience got to do with studying at an institution of Higher Learning
Clearly these girls are completely spoiled for wanting not only junk degrees with no real work but also demanding masses of men willing to date them, hence their whining at a situation they created
More and more, I begin to wonder if the reforms were not actually meant to help women but rather to help feminism. Feminism needs a lot of unhappy women who are aggrieved, single, and feeling put-upon. That's how feminism keeps on.
I think many of them are reforms made with short term goals in mind, with no thought of side effects and long term consequences. As Thomas Sowell said, this often happens with economic policies. But yes, feminism is a parasitic ideology that feeds on unhappiness, so it relies on persuading women that they're forever getting the short end of the stick.
It is rather delicious to see women squirm about the problems they have created in the dating market for college girls by the relentless promotion of girl's education. It serves them right, I say. But it is totally predictable that they respond by sneering at the remaining males rather than acknowledging this was a scenario that was an inevitable consequence of their own feminist policies.
The 3:2 sex ratio, whilst correct, understates the situation that these poor oppressed, partner-starved women face as regards meeting men within their own disciplines. In the UK, the ratio is actually 2:1 in law and medicine; 3:1 in English and other languages; 4:1 in psychology and veterinary science; 6:1 in teaching/education studies, and 10:1 in nursing. And I concur that women dominate in STEMM in the UK too. This first came about 6 years ago and the gap is now 17% in favour of women. Women also dominate in the pure sciences.
I can't speak for young men, but if I were one at university today - knowing what I know - they'd be no using my golden penis. I think I'd be hard-line MGTOW in sheer horror at the thought of intimacy with a young woman whose perspectives would likely prove to be - frankly - bigoted, at my expense.
Correct. Having spent the last decade plus in grad school and post-docing, I've been avoiding academic females (don't want to assume their gender) like a plague for years now. #MeToo made them hazardous, and their awful politics and relentless solipsism make that hazard not worth the dubious reward. The last thing I want to do is start a family with a female committed to the idea that whites and males are intrinsically horrible. I would not want someone like that raising my sons.
Given all that, the fact that I'm nominally in an advantageous dating market, sex ratio wise, is perfectly irrelevant. I wonder how many other guys make a similar choice? Which no doubt further restricts female dating pools, and makes them yet more miserable. Frankly I hope it does.
I just returned from "college planning night" at my son's high school. There was no mention of the underrepresentation of young men on college campuses, although the college recruiters did point out how racially diverse their colleges are. Also, I noted that only one of the eight college recruiters was male. If this were any other class of students we'd be talking about "systemic" discrimination instead of telling the underrepresented group to step up.
Your observations, analysis, and conclusions are so logical one wonders why such insights have not been apparent. Perhaps the problem is not just feminism, but also the universities themselves. Are universities even turning out useful citizens? In light of the breakdown of Western civilization in recent years, clearly, our universities are not fulfilling the need for thoughtful and productive graduates--particularly the excessive numbers of women who in many cases are in "_____ studies"--a sure path to uselessness.
As I am researching now, feminism subjected most North American universities to ideological capture in the 1970s, and they now operate entirely within a feminist framework, according to which not a word is said about the many disciplines in which men are a profound minority (take a look at stats for Education, for example, or Health Sciences--it's terrifying); while extensive lobbying and soul-searching must still be carried out to increase women in the very few disciplines in which men's numbers are still healthy. Truly insane.
A bittersweet harvest
"He appears in front of a domestic court judge the next day. If he agrees to plead guilty, he can go home by promising to behave and to take a series of anger-management courses. If he refuses to plead, he faces lengthy delays in the criminal system, large legal bills, and he can't go home because a restraining order is part of the program" - Canada's Bill 117.
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010&page=1
Janice is one of few voices over decades speaking out on behave of justice and fair play for men and boys. Few men dare to speak up, lest they alienate female partners or potential partners. Given the ratio of largely undefended males to the miniscule number of defenders, I think we should all offer to make pancakes for Janice.
All the praise is even better than pancakes. Thanks, Philip!
Excellent again Janice. I couldn't stop thinking about a recent rewatching of "An officer and a gentleman" Why aren't women being a good officer and a gentlewoman if they want the leadership role?
Anyways...What BS will they think of next to degrade & demonize men?
Fantastic writing, as usual! I admire the hell out of you. Keep it up!
Excellent piece as usual, Janice. Yes, feminists have never grasped the basics of economics. Given a particular demand for A, increasing the supply of A decreases the price of A. So when the Pill came along, sex became much more plentiful for men and the price they were willing to pay dropped. All of a sudden, the woman who wanted to delay sex even until marriage found herself competing unsuccessfully with those who happily wanted their gratification now. Much the same holds true today on college campuses. The number of women has increased and they're distressed about the fact that their value in men's eyes has decreased. I hate to tell them, but there's really nothing anyone can do about that. All the whining in the world won't alter economic basics. Plus of course, those same basics applied in the 1960s and 70s when men made up the great majority of college enrollees. But of course the women weren't complaining then. And neither were the men. We just considered it a given that we had to do a lot to get the attention of a worthwhile woman. That we didn't complain and they are now, speaks volumes about female entitlement and the value of being seen as a victim.
When the supply of something increases, the price indeed drops. One way to compete is to add value. In this case, it would mean women competing for scarce men by working to make themselves attractive, and pleasing to be around - gracious and nice. By and large we don't see that. Instead there's a lot of obesity, green hair, and amongst those who don't uglify themselves, raging narcissistic entitlement. Perversely, they've reacted to the oversupply problem by making themselves less valuable. Go figure.
Good points. Thanks.
Janice your article blew me away. Very succinct. Psychologist Toby Green in her Body and Soul column wrote, "How some women see themselves as the source of male desire and therefore the controller of such desire" (not an exact quote).
great article - nice to get some balance on this topic for a change...
Sarah Lawrence, a liberal arts college that offers no serious degrees, did not even admit men until 1968, and has a total student population of 1,274, 25% male, with some not insignificant portion of those gay. Any woman choosing this school could NOT realistically expect to meet future husbands at a traditionally women's college in the boondocks of NY state. But that didn't stop the cock-hounds as SL from claiming it's not the ratio of men to women, but just the attitude of young men who naturally take advantage of all the women suddenly spreading their legs for them. "Any port in a storm" is what guys used to say if they fucked an ugly girl when they were drunk. There was also something called a "mercy fuck." The comments on this Daily Mail article and on many, many others articles just like it, are actually very encouraging and indicate the propaganda nature of this enormous joke of an article. Just for a laugh, watch this plain looking girl give her take on the "syndrome" and get ratioed in the comments: https://youtu.be/wFZuAO_7PJI
I agree that it's a recognizably silly article (and many more like it), but alas, the discrimination against men at universities and in the job market is all too real. I found it literally nauseating when I sat on hiring committees in the early 2000s. It had been going on for a long time then, and it is still going on now.
Yes, it remains a serious issue for many men & boys in many domains, and you've likely seen the worst of it in the university system. But these faux and pompous feminists, like a lot of other identity-first groups, are increasingly seen by the pubic at large as laughably unserious and ridiculous people, as the comments to the articles show. My sense is that this madness has nearly peaked.
Meanwhile, there are lawsuits to file, businesses to not support, and politicians to vote out or in. There's a lot one can do.
I hope so. I often feel despair.
I also feel despair
It isn't just still going on. It's worse. The only people I see getting hired in my field are women. The overwhelming majority of those I see getting pushed out are men.
What really frustrates me is that professors still bother to supervise and mentor white guys at all. It just feels like exploitation, frankly, considering that at the same time they use us to get papers published, they participate in and reinforce a system that makes it impossible for us to get hired:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/they-say-they-want-their-sons-to
What has a dating experience got to do with studying at an institution of Higher Learning
Clearly these girls are completely spoiled for wanting not only junk degrees with no real work but also demanding masses of men willing to date them, hence their whining at a situation they created
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23LetWomenSpeak&src=trend_click&vertical=trends
Are you aware of this trend in the UK? What is wrong with women? There's no end to it, they always find something to complain about.
Once again, feminist reforms meant to help women have had unintended side effects that harm them, and once again, they seem completely unaware of it.
More and more, I begin to wonder if the reforms were not actually meant to help women but rather to help feminism. Feminism needs a lot of unhappy women who are aggrieved, single, and feeling put-upon. That's how feminism keeps on.
I think many of them are reforms made with short term goals in mind, with no thought of side effects and long term consequences. As Thomas Sowell said, this often happens with economic policies. But yes, feminism is a parasitic ideology that feeds on unhappiness, so it relies on persuading women that they're forever getting the short end of the stick.
So a certain stripe of woman bemoans not having a supply of male flesh to fornicate with?
The Bible has names for such: adulteress is the kindest of them.
a person is at a university to learn. not to have their lusts indulged.
lusts indulged can drive people to despair dissatisfaction and even madness