Janice, thanks for another amazing article. Just a couple of related issues:
- it's long been known from studies of incarcerated (male) rapists in the US and UK that the majority of the men were sexually assaulted when they were children by one or more women, sometimes their own mothers. Perhaps we should teach women not to sexually assault children. Women's sexual abuse of men, women and children is more common than publicly perceived. I've been informed that women in rape shelters are a target for predatory lesbian feminists. We cover the issue of sexual abuse on pp.51-7 of our election manifesto https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/221128-J4MB-manifesto-3.pdf.
- lesbian feminists (e.g. Julie Bindel in recent decades) have long been among the most active and influential campaigners against prostitution, pornography and others sex-related work. It's difficult to imagine heterosexual men telling lesbians who they can have sex with, and how.
"there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993)."
I've heard this confirmed by psychologists with prison and psych hospital experience in Australia who were suggesting at least three quarters.
A significant portion of sexual abuse has a cyclical nature in which some victims perpetrate abuse later. All the approaches taken to support victims have tended to exclude the male victims so the cycles are never interrupted. The interference by idealogues has only served to perpetuate the problem. I guess they need to retain their relevance somehow.
Thanks Greg. The last thing these ideologues want is to end rape, they'd be unemployed. They also discourage rape victims from going to the police by spreading the lie they won't be believed. This has the added benefit (for ideologues) of making women angry and supporting the rape industry.
Brilliant! Also, rape accussers would rather go on television to smear a celebrity in front of millions of people so as to live vicariously through the association. Because they're ashamed...LOL
Mike, I heard from Police SO many times..."We're not going to charge her with making a false rape report because that would discourage the real victims (3%) LOL. So it is also a myth that wo-MEN are afraid to go to police. wo-MEN call the police ALL THE TIME. And MANY FALSE accusers do make police reports...
Greg, I call BULLSHIT on the flawed boy report. According to John Davis international defense lawyer wo-MEN perpetrate >83% of ALL child abuse. Also, John Davis graph shows that wo-MEN perpetrate TWICE as many child murders as MEN, even Dr Laura Schlessinger has cited these stats. btw John Davis graph has been updated to show that wo-MEN perpetrate FOUR TIMES as many child murders as MEN not counting abortion. Important to consider these mainstream studies are controlled & biased as well as law enforcement & media are all on board with wo-MEN'S narratives
According to international defense lawyer John Davis graph: wo-MEN perpetrate TWICE as many child murders as MEN... NOT counting abortion! Even Dr. Laura Slesinger has cited those statistics. Recently international defense lawyer John Davis (Gender studies for MEN) has updated his graph to show that wo-MEN perpetrate FOUR TIMES as many child murders as MEN! Not counting abortion. AGREE that late term abortion is infanticide! WHY wait 8 months before deciding to kill the baby.
Interesting point, Mike. I was just thinking as I read Janice's piece how many times I've watched feminists in the media maneuver a non-feminist into admitting that men commit nearly all rapes, that rape is perhaps the worst crime save murder, and so men are very bad and in need of correction (read: feminist indoctrination). Your first point would be a good response.
Thanks Kevin. Feminist politicians and their spineless colleagues ensured that in the UK only men can rape (legally, at least) by stipulating that rape required the employment of a penis, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The British feminist Jean Hatchet wrote in a recent article in The Critic https://thecritic.co.uk/the-meaning-of-rape/ that "In the UK not all men rape, but all rapists are men". We pointed out that saying "In the UK not all women are sexual abusers" would be equally true.
A survey among victim groups in the UK about fifteen years ago asked about the responses of mandated reporters to those reporting as victims of females(including female victims). Apparently only 5% were taken seriously.
When feminists go off about how most rape convictions are of men, that's because the laws were almost universally written to EXCLUDE men as rape victims, when the offense is actually called 'rape'. There are sexual offenses women can be charged with but they're usually called something other than rape.
In England, for instance, a woman forcing a man to have sex with her could be charged with "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" but not rape.
Of course feminists tend to call all sorts of things 'rape' that aren't, so whatever statistics that derive from feminist 'academic research' are probably just bullshit, anyway.
BINGO! EXACTLY RIGHT! fEMINISTS use (Saul Alinsky rule 101 for communists) "Use the truth in reverse" fEMINISTS say only 2% of rape claims are lies, when in fact only 2% of rapes actually happened. Since wo-MEN get to abitrarily define rape according to their own discretion this makes sense
BINGO! According to international defense lawyer and MEN'S advocate John Davis (Gender studies for MEN) 83% of ALL child abuse is perpetrated by wo-MEN. Also John Davis has a graph that shows wo-MEN perpetrate TWICE as many child murders as MEN. Even Dr. Laura Shlesinger cited this fact. Recently John Davis updated his graph to show that wo-MEN perpetrate FOUR TIMES as many child murders as MEN, not counting abortion!
That is not true. For a period in college I somehow became the lesbian cis-curious go-to, and it was really nice. A shockingly large percentage of those women went on to marry men and have children. I have ben friends and lovers with many lesbians, and I never saw any ill will or problematic behaviors.
A Harvard study that was censored found that 70% of DV is perpetrated by wo-MEN. According to Dr Laura Schlesinger, wo-MEN perpetrate "TWICE as many child murders as MEN"
"And it shows. Even the "creative" fields don't create much. All Hollyweird can do anymore is bad remakes... All politicians can do is kick the same bloody can down the road."
The first indicator of any civilisation's impending fall is a loss of creativity. It's been visible in western nations for at least two decades.
AGREE that the media/ legal system & educational systems/ have merged together in an unholy alliance. Would you agree with me that allowing girls to wear half naked shorts to school is a form of Marxism, and or at the very least unfair to BOYS learning experience? THANKS for your insights
Outstanding essay! So many fascinating and novel ideas. I loved this sentence:
"Notable in many of these discussions was the implication that something had been done to women that required redress from others, particularly men, who needed to be summoned from their mindless rutting to protect women from yet another patriarchal last-laugh."
So well said Janice!
It makes me wonder what might be driving this, what might be anchoring the envy, hatred, and resentment? One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility that today's women who have attached themselves to the idea of "being like men" is that a necessary loss from that decision is the loss of the role of comforter. What impact might this have on women? When I was young, women prided themselves as being very capable in comforting their children and those they loved. They would not dream of sub-contracting that capacity. Now kids are sent to day care so that their moms can be middle managers. This is a loss for our culture but I wonder if it is not an even bigger loss for those women?
You picked out my favorite sentence, Tom! Thank you. I agree about women, under feminist influence, contracting out many of the roles that provided comfort and identity. Great observation.
Our feminist society divides women against themselves. They naturally want and have children, but then are told that actually caring for them is against their interests. The demand is that they be 'liberated' from who they are. Women come to resent the very existence of their own children, it's a familiar refrain these days. The family as an institution still exists, but just barely, it's a shell of what it could be. To say nothing of the precipitous rise of single-parent families without fathers in the home. It's exactly what the most radical feminists want. And somehow they don't seem to understand how happy it makes our neo-liberal overlords who want nothing more than to have a more atomized, deracinated population that is easier to control.
Excellent point. When trying to put the pieces together though I find myself stumbling over the fact that wealthy women always used surrogates to look after children, and even took lovers. As the tale of Potiphar's wife makes clear, there were always predatory women. What's odd is the erasure of feminine sexual power and archetypal feminine qualities. The modern woman truly seems to be an invention ex nihilo. The fact that feminism arose in the mid-nineteenth century though may give us a clue of where it all comes from: essentially Darwinism and by extension Marxism. I think a lot of cultural shifts took shape due to this new paradigm of the universe, the world and life itself as an accident directed by survival strategies and competition. Let's not forget Darwin's idea of sexual selection (which entails a scientific separation of genders into having separate and distinct roles in the natural order). Mix that anti-religious, gender oriented paradigm in with the idea of the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor and one can see how all these ideas arise. Once the legitimacy of the longstanding political order lost its footing, it's been confusing, and the not-too-bright have been carried away with theorising without checking to see how much of it is actual, and how much simply emoting, venting and gossiping. We're still at the start of the democratic, science directed era and it's not going very well.
In a recent discussion with a family member about a Jordan Peterson comment they asserted "I think there's far too much emphasis on nurture at the expense of 'nature' these days". I thought back to their psyche nursing days and how they had introduced me to the book 'Sybil' with such enthusiasm.
Now, married into a wealthy matriarchal family with 1 girl and 1 boy, who identified as being gay from a young age, views had changed.
'Sybil' would never be published today. With the stories of child suffering at the hands of drunken violent mothers it seems 'nurture' is losing its appeal. Nature now appears to be the answer to ALL women's woes: men are programmed for violence from birth. Guilt sealed.
Simon, are you aware that the participants disavowed Sybil and admitted it was all fiction designed to make them rich and famous?
The idea of nurture has to be destroyed by the left because their goal is to reconfigure humans to perfectly fit the utopia they think they have the ability to construct. If they recognized the reality of human nature, they would not be such big supporters of transgender ideology.
When I was a progressive (I am since disillusioned), I noticed that many of the feminists around me had experienced either abusive relationships with men or daddy issues. My mom, for instance, lost her dad at 14, and whenever she is inconvenienced in any way, she copes like a teenager. She identifies strongly with other women who have endured trauma and often feels uncomfortable around dominant, assertive men. She didn’t want me playing sports and dressed like an Amish person for most of my life as a rebellion against the “trophy wife” stereotype. Drove my poor dad up the wall.
Slut walks. I ask you. These women want to celebrate the right to have sex with as many men as they want and not be judged for it. But they don't celebrate that the world has millions of men in it to have sex with. And should a man join in this celebration from the sidelines with a wolf-whistle, letting these women know he's in the market for their rights, well that's the end of him.
I would disagree. Many of these young women are a lot of fun. They do not want demeaning behavior, but they are fine. I think you need to be careful not to generalize from a small sample set.
Very good piece and I can agree with your conclusion that once glimpsed, feminist disgust with and envy of male sexuality reveals itself with unnerving persistence across the history of feminist writings.
I'm reminded of an article written by psychoanalyst Gerald Schoenewolf titled 'Gender Narcissism And Its Manifestations' in which he analyzes feminist individuals and finds most of the things you mention in the above article. He mentions for example that the gender narcissist has;
- Inferiority/superiority feelings about one’s gender;
- Excessive concern about one’s genitals;
- Envy of or disgust toward the genitals of opposite sex;
- Resentment of one’s gender role and envy of the role of the opposite sex;
- Bitterness about feeling castrated or cheated
- Idealization (grandiosity) about one’s own gender and devaluation of opposite gender
The process is exactly the same as for non-sexual feminist 'grievance'.
The process is as follows;
1. Some women feel dissatisfied with some aspect of their life.
2. They externalize the dissatisfaction as someone is doing something to them to cause the dissatisfaction rather than resulting from their own choices.
3. The cause of the problem is identified as men particularly low status men.
4. Evidence is found for 'injustice' by comparing the apparent satisfaction of the very highest status men to their own dissatisfaction. The difference is represented as evidence of unfair treatment.
It's never ending. Very few people have a perfect life so step 1 is common place. Step 2. is a natural step because no one wants to blame themselves or accept responsibility for their own situation. Step 3 is a natural step for women given human cognitive biases. Step 4 is easy because their will always be a very successful few who at least appear to be far better of.
If we actually were to talk about sexual advantage and disadvantage then do men, particularly average men really have it better than women? A moments consideration would reveal how absurd this is. Women control access to sex. The average women has far more access to sex if she chooses than the average man. Women also control all of the consequences of sex. The imbalance of power for all but a tiny elite is massively tilted in women's favour. Why else do incels exist? Is a strong generally unfulfilled desire for sex an advantage?
Very good and valid points which are ignored by feminists. Very few men get to spread their genes, apparently 17 percent. Male sexual urges may be vilified or envied by feminists but many of us would consider them inconvenient and troublesome at times. I can understand the desperation of men who will never consummate the sex act.
Penis envy is one of Freud’s best marketing terms, which probably occurred to him in one of his cocaine-induced reveries. Perhaps the extensive list of feminist excess you list is more easily understood as mere hatred of actual men by the dyke type of lesbian who feel more entitled to women’s bodies and sought a way to get better access and control. Of course not all feminist leaders were exclusively homosexual, and for them obsession with power born of their rage against nature for birthing them as the weaker sex knows no bounds.
At a party once a woman mentioned thar she and her women friends spent the previous evening dancing around a dildo in an attempt to rid themselves of the desire for the real thing. Maybe I should’nta said that was her comment as she saw the befuddled smirks on our faces.
Unbridled egotism and self- hatred is the issue with these people, not sex.
This points out the absurdity of this phrase, since boys and men certainly have penis envy in this sense as well. Envy is envy. The only people with actual penis envy are women who believe they are men, but even that supposition is suspect as the gender crowd insist that genitals are irrelevant.
NOPE. PENIS ENVY is REAL and it';s BIBLICAL! Genesis clearly states that wo-MEN are JEALOUS of a MAN'S authority but also have an URGE to be under it! Freud was RIGHT! PENIS ENVY is REAL & BIBLICAL...it's a metaphor for wo-MEN'S jealousy of MEN'S authority which the b ible says is a CURSE against wo-MEN, also her desire to be UNDER MEN'S authority is also a CURSE from God! I'm on board with Mark Griffith, he makes the most sense after Janice
At your request? And what qualifies you to diagnose my mental state? The psycho babble industry is dominated by fEMINISTS & FOOLS. Which one are you? Both?
Penis envy is >REAL. Genesis tells us that wo-MEN have a sexual jealousy of MEN'S authority and want to infiltrate it while simultaneously desiring to be under it.
God created man and woman. He made them DIFFERENT! I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing, it matches your worldview), you understand male and female differences better than 95% of Christians.
If you read the first few chapters of Genesis, you will see that women are inferior to men. That is a strong statement indeed. But the woman was created FOR man. She was not created EQUAL.
Women are emotional. They need a calming influence. Just look at how single women vote, for goodness sake. They want government to take care of them! Married women, for the most part, don't have this problem, they have a man.
And since I MUST say this to quash those who read this and begin clutching their pearls, YES, a man needs a woman, but not in the way a woman needs a man.
Glaring example. In single parent households headed by a woman, the children's life outcomes are dreadful compared to an intact family with both biological parents present in the home. Boys drop out of school, commit crime, go to prison (check out the % of men in prison who had no father in the home, you will be shocked) at MUCH higher rates and are generally uncivilized simply because they had no civilizing influence growing up. Few women can perform this civilizing role although there are some rare examples. Girls without fathers in the home tend toward promiscuity at an early age, become single moms and so forth.
OTOH, in households headed by a single man, the children's outcomes, while slightly diminished, are quite close to the outcomes seen in an intact family.
Another example. Except for the last 200 years or so, and pretty much only in the "civilized" West, a woman without a man to care and protect her was so much chattel and subject to the whims and desires of men. And please understand, "civilization" as we know it, is NOT the default way life has been lived for thousands of years. I fear we will see a return to life as nasty, brutish and short in our lifetimes.
Another. In survey after survey, both men and women overwhelmingly prefer to work under the management of men rather than women. Wonder why that is? Hm.
Now, this is exceedingly jarring to the modern mind. But prior to the late 19th century, this was received wisdom for all of human history. And societies and cultures were better off for it.
Feminism has destroyed the family, the church, the culture and now, it is destroying women as we see with the trans movement. It is literally erasing women from our world. THAT is a BAD thing! For women are a blessing to men and children. Who else can change the temperature of room or cocktail party than a happy, beautiful woman?
Tell you how 'it' doesn't work like that, meaning deciding to believe in something one has decided one cannot believe in? I say the argument you're looking for is pointless because neither of us is going to convert the other, and I'll leave it there. The thread is ended as far as I am concerned.
I'm a believer Mark, and everything you said is 100% spot on, except I feel trans genders are Gods judgment on wo-MEN for invading MALE roles/sports/ etc. I feel girls are getting what they deserve because they violated EVERY space for BOYS & MEN...now their own PENIS ENVY is comming back at them! btw.Genesis talks about PENIS ENVY! wo-MEN have a jealousy of MEN'S authority BUT...they CRAVE to be under it! FACT!
Luckily some of us found a true faith and understand it. I have found that with Buddhism. I hope some day you can learn true Christianity. I would encourage you to find a monastery near you where you can find monks with the time to help you better understand Christianity (I am assuming that you are Catholic).
Christianity offers so much, but you need to understand it properly to be set free. I wish you the best.
NO thanks. I don't need a monastery to have & understand true faith. A monk couldn't teach me anything. Interesting you reference Catholicism, since Jesus said NEVER call anyone 'fATHER' 'rABBI' or 'mASTER' I would even say you're probably closer to Catholicism than I am.
100% AGREED! Apart from the power wo-MEN have with their bodies they are inferior to MEN morally. I believe in the lord too. However I also believe trans genders are agents of God and girls are getting what they deserve. Sports aren't even lady like and most fe-MALE athletes have wives and even those who aren't gay have NO periods.
You said that "you will see that women are inferior to men". But that would mean that the female sex is a sub-human species of living thing. The faculty and quality of Intellect/Reason is the sole central, unifying factor which makes humanity essentially and fundamentally distinct from the brute creatures; therefore it would follow just by virtue of woman's real or supposed essential and ontological inferiority that, either Woman is one of the brute creatures, or else she is merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes, and less intrinsically and ontologically distinct from the brute creation than is the male sex.
One of the brute creation?? Impossible! For it is written, Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast (Deuteronomy 27:21).
An intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes? Well then, if that is so, well then the same must be, by parity of reason and sameness of sex, true for the selfsame Virgin Mary out of whom was born Jesus Christ (K1). It is a divinely revealed article of the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is both God and Man: meaning that he possess two natures, the divine nature _qua_ Creator of the World, and also by virtue of His eternal preexistence prior to the entire Cosmos, and some particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial form (K2), which, as we remarked in (K0), must be precisely identical to that of the very woman from whom He was born _qua_ corporeal living breathing human or sentient being. No creatures can have progeny of a kind which is ontologically superior in substantial form to that of its direct and immediate ancestors. But Jesus Christ had absolutely NO human father and absolutely NO direct immediate male human ancestor - oh but on the contrary He was born of a Virgin. This means that the whole of his substantial form _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature could only have come from His mother, the Virgin Mary. Therefore the species of living thing of which was Jesus Christ _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature had to be exactly identical to that of His mother (K3). But it was remarked in (K1) that the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Virgin Mary herself would have to be ontologically inferior to that of man though ontologically superior to that of each and every one of the beasts (K4).
But then it follows from K3 and K4 that in the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Person Whose name ALONE is Jesus Christ, this selfsame particular human, zoological, or biological nature of His would have been ontologically inferior to that of Man however much ontologically superior it may be to that of each and every one of the beasts, which is not only impossible and absurd, but formally and blasphemously heretical against the fundamental articles of the divinely revealed Christian faith.
The hypothesis that Jesus Christ, in His physical, biological, zoological, organical, living breathing substantial form, as opposed to the Divine nature He has always had even before the world began to exist at all, was only an intermediate zoological substantial form and species intermediate between humanity and the brute animal creatures, necessarily implies that, apart from His divine nature, He wasn't human at all, but merely a subhuman species of animal zoological living creatures; and therefore necessarily implies that in that respect of His fleshly incarnate nature and species (as opposed to His divine nature) He wasn't made like unto HIS male brethren, nor like unto the distinct species which we call the HUMAN species, but only a subhuman species of animal, contrary to the express and plain teaching of Hebrews 2:17: "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be *made like unto his brethren*, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, but only a subhuman species of zoological animal, is a "christ" that cannot save ANY human being, and therefore cannot be the true and genuine Christ. A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, and yet whose mother was herself most likely begotten of the seed of Man through the womb of Woman is a "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man. But the doctrine that Christ was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man is a pernicious heresy known as DOCETISM! A "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man cannot truly save any man. This very inferiority of substantial corporeal sentient creaturely nature would be sufficient and actually effectual to render the Sacrifice of the Crucifixion blemished, and utterly INCAPABLE of taking away sins. The New Testament plainly teaches (Hebrews 10:4) that neither the blood of goats, nor of sheep, nor of oxen, nor of calves, nor of any intermediate transitional form of life between humanity and the brutes, nor of any other sub-human species, can ever be effectual unto the forgiveness of sins.
In addition, Christ is our only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). But a mediator is a party who has authority to reconcile and arbitrate between two parties which are at variance with each other. It is highly incongruous that a person essentially inferior to both of the two parties should be mediator between them. It is absolutely essential that a Messiah or Saviour seeking to confer salvation should be of the same nature and species both of that Deity he wishes to appease, and of that creature on which he wishes to confer this salvation. Therefore, if Jesus Christ had been NOT truly Man, He would not have been able to save mankind at all; in fact, He would NOT have been the second Adam - for the first Adam was of the human species and not merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes. But the Scriptures acquiesces to absolutely NO such transitional substantial form between humanity and the brute creatures, nor has such ever been found. Everyone born of a woman through the ordinary operations of Mother Nature is either a MALE or a FEMALE. Among those who are neither MEN, nor WOMEN, nor CHILDREN, the hypothesis that there exists even a single transitional intermediate substantial form between humanity and the brutes is neither part of the Natural Law, nor of the Laws of Science, Biology, Zoology, Natural History, Taxonomy, or Ecology, nor any part of the doctrines of the Christian religion.
Jesus Christ for some time was a child, but He grew up into adulthood. Also, He was never born as a FEMALE but as a MALE. No MAN being an adult male can be an intermediate transitional substantial form between man and brutes.
Therefore, it is impossible - not just philosophically or politically impossible - but theonomically, Christologically, soteriologically, evangelically, theologically, and bio-cosmologically IMPOSSIBLE that the sort of creature which alone is known by the name of Woman should be an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes.
And as to the observed sociological fact that children from homes in which the father is absent long enough come out far worse than children from whom in which both mother and father are present and involved long enough in the household with their children, the HYPOTHESIS which you made to account for WHY this sort of father absence SHOULD be expected to produce all these ills is biologically essentialistic and deterministic. It asserts that the contribution which fathers made is not only _sine qua non_ for raising good children, but also biologiclaly deterministic and biologically and genetically unique and intrinsic to the very nature of being a biological male of the human species as opposed to being a woman or girl. But since *IDENTICAL causes produce IDENTICAL effects*; therefore the corresponding null hypothesis H0 for testing your proposed theory for explaining WHY "father absence" SHOULD be expected to expose children to the risks it does is that *Homes in which the mother is a widow and never remarries (i.e. the father of the children of that home was none other than the husband of the mother of those children, and the father absence is due only to the death of the father of the children of that house without the consent or fault of the mother of those children) should have child-rearing outcomes which are either statistically *IDENTICAL* to those in which the father absence is due to divorce, desertion, or birth out of wedlock, or else statistically significantly WORSE OFF than those in which the father absence is NOT due to the death of the father". But what do the statistics show for the case of widowed mothers?
wo-MEN >are inferior to MEN... just as a child is inferior to the Parents. This biblical teaching does not diminish a wo-MAN'S humanity, it denotes RANK in God's hierarchy.
As an official old guy, i must tell you how satisfying it is to see these jerks slowly twisting in the wind. As comments elsewhere on here explain its always been about male hatred, the envy of the confident, self sufficient male who needs no-one other than himself, his focus and his learned skills to make his way through the obstacle course of life.. Feminism and Feminists who still hold the burning sword of victimhood aloft bring every woman under its dark penumbra.
After almost 80 years of this bullshit consider that men with successful careers or business’s no longer hire or mentor young woman of promise out of fear of a sexual lawsuit.
Men would rather go their own way than set themselves up to be raped by the Courts.
Most of the women, one see’s recently in appointed positions of power (hello current Liberal caucus/ US cabinet) are such morons, it’s a guilty pleasure to watch them be-clown themselves on social media.
Feminists congratulate themselves on allowing mediocre men to beat, pummel and triumph over naturally talented elite women in the name of Progressive Feminism.
The list, I dare say, goes on…and on. And this they have the nerve to tell us is progress for women
Call it Penis Envy (just how did that surgery go, anyway? Oh, just give it time, I’m sure they’ll workout the, uhm, kinks), male hatred, progressive feminism, whatever, the rats in the maze are running out of places to run and the pendulum is about to swing in the other direction. When it does make sure you put on your pussy hats, place your head firmly between your knees and get ready to kiss your collective ass goodbye.
What did the Abrahamic religions learn and know about Male/ Female relationships that we in the secular west have yet get our heads around. Ya know I always wondered. Hmmm?
DON'T agree with you about elite wo-MEN athletes being being beaten by mediocre MEN, I myself enjoy seeing fe-MALE athletes being humiliated by Trans genders, it is long overdue.
fe-MALE athletes are virtual trans genders anyway, most don't even have periods and many have wives. SPORTS are BAD for girls, they are un lady like, and a form of androgyny in it's own right. wo-MEN'S sports is a form of GAY PORNOGRAPHY, remember, Girls DID THIS TO BOYS 1rst, and now they are getting KARMA! You reap what you sew.
More brilliance. Janice, you are so eloquent and intelligent. I have personally studied a lot of psychology over the years, and have done a lot of psychotherapy myself (with an analytical frame) and while Sigmund Freud may have have over-imagined a lot of things (his ideas now seem somehow magical in some ways, especially his definitions of various parts of the psyche which feel poetic) he very clearly had a really good take on human nature. As I read your litany of feminist insanity and irrationally over all the paragraphs you have laid out, it really feels like feminism in all its forms is a mental illness (or several illnesses). The madness and irrationality of it all. Whether or not one wants to call some it penis envy (in the broadest sense), the resentment at the root of it all is noteworthy. Its a shame to see SO many modern women so deeply unhappy.
And who says you don't have a sense of humour, Janice?
A very good chuckle. The only problem is that is a serious issue, that only a woman could articulate. A man would be hung out to dry and shamed mercilessly for the rest of his life.
Congratulations on your very thorough fisking of these so-called "feminist" theorists, whose ideas are intellectually shoddy and rife with what can only be viewed as utter disregard for reality and stupidity of the first water. Although it is not necessary, due to your thoroughness, I would like add my perspective on the situation, it now appearing that yet another anomaly in the world of "feminist theory" has arisen, courtesy of the "transgender/transexual" fad lately sweeping the woke nation. That is, "feminist" support for men who think they are women. Although there are some among that crowd who decry this phenomenon, most have rallied to the cause. I submit it is because "feminism" has NOTHING to do whatsoever with the advancement of women qua women; it is based exclusively on hatred and envy of men. Having a penis is merely a symbol of the larger essence of maleness, which is the focus of their hatred. Bitterness is their brew of choice, taken with a large dose of choleric and wormwood. They support the trannies because they view them as allies in their war against men, much as wartime enemies view traitors as allies. ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend.") After all, what more effective repudiation of all things male could there possibly be than a biological man who voluntarily chooses to become a... not-man? (I almost said "woman," but obviously these ersatz females are not "women", merely delusional.) It is to laugh, however at the outcome of the charade, whereby the best "women" are actually "men" who supplant them in every field of endeavor, from athletics to academia.
Tops off to Janice for finding the craziest picture possible to go with her analysis of the feminist claim that men get more out of sex than women. How do these women know that, actually? To show solidarity with the envious victims, I'll take my afternoon walk without my neck scarf. Too cold to go topless, and anyway I'd get arrested.
I've never quite understood the point of feminists whipping their tits out at every opportunity and then complaining about being 'objectified'.
Do you remember Naked Athena? She claimed she got enraged at police during a George Floyd riot and her response was to get naked, sit in the street, and spread her legs as wide as they go to give them all a bird's eye view of her beaver. Try as I might, I can not understand why that seemed rational to her.
I remember that. I am always struck by these women (mostly feminist SJWs) who will take nearly any opportunity to expose their bodies while at the same time chastizing anyone who looks and flaunting their claimed victimhood. Surely a cry for help, but one that will not accept any help, demanding abject obedience instead. Impossible to deal with.
Well Janice, this will certainly have some gender studies profs stomping, screeching and hurling balls of fire. Feminist’s arguments are not in fact with men, or even with culture(s). Their beef is with nature herself. Penis envy is just the tip, so to speak, of the iceberg.
In other words, deep down, many women - especially feminists - HATE being women. It's a life sentence of being stuck in a body they didn't choose, don't really want, and having to deal with all things female. So, who do they take it out on? Men, of course. They're envious, resentful, spiteful, and hateful toward men and now that it's sociably acceptable because of the massive feminist movement, they're able to express their rage and try to get revenge. I think it all comes down to self-loathing, although they'll never admit it.
THANK YOU Janice, and my apologies for being a chauvinist, but I can tell you if more young wo-MEN were as together as you, guys like me wouldn't be so jaded. Janice you are a blessing!
Hi Janice, If you’re interested in a short, clear — but still sophisticated (non-political) — description of the topic from a contemporary psychoanalytic perspective you probably couldn’t do better than that presented in “Phallus, Penis and Mental Space” in Dana Birksted-Breen’s The Work of Psychoanalysis: Sexuality, Time and the Psychoanalytic Mind (London: Routledge, 2016), 126-138. Also, I enjoy and thank you for your work.
Janice, thanks for another amazing article. Just a couple of related issues:
- it's long been known from studies of incarcerated (male) rapists in the US and UK that the majority of the men were sexually assaulted when they were children by one or more women, sometimes their own mothers. Perhaps we should teach women not to sexually assault children. Women's sexual abuse of men, women and children is more common than publicly perceived. I've been informed that women in rape shelters are a target for predatory lesbian feminists. We cover the issue of sexual abuse on pp.51-7 of our election manifesto https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/221128-J4MB-manifesto-3.pdf.
- lesbian feminists (e.g. Julie Bindel in recent decades) have long been among the most active and influential campaigners against prostitution, pornography and others sex-related work. It's difficult to imagine heterosexual men telling lesbians who they can have sex with, and how.
Mike Buchanan
Party leader
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
"there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993)."
- https://canadiancrc.com/the_invisible_boy_report.aspx#Chapter2
I've heard this confirmed by psychologists with prison and psych hospital experience in Australia who were suggesting at least three quarters.
A significant portion of sexual abuse has a cyclical nature in which some victims perpetrate abuse later. All the approaches taken to support victims have tended to exclude the male victims so the cycles are never interrupted. The interference by idealogues has only served to perpetuate the problem. I guess they need to retain their relevance somehow.
Thanks Greg. The last thing these ideologues want is to end rape, they'd be unemployed. They also discourage rape victims from going to the police by spreading the lie they won't be believed. This has the added benefit (for ideologues) of making women angry and supporting the rape industry.
Brilliant! Also, rape accussers would rather go on television to smear a celebrity in front of millions of people so as to live vicariously through the association. Because they're ashamed...LOL
Mike, I heard from Police SO many times..."We're not going to charge her with making a false rape report because that would discourage the real victims (3%) LOL. So it is also a myth that wo-MEN are afraid to go to police. wo-MEN call the police ALL THE TIME. And MANY FALSE accusers do make police reports...
Thanks Joe. Just another excuse to hold women unaccountable.
Greg, I call BULLSHIT on the flawed boy report. According to John Davis international defense lawyer wo-MEN perpetrate >83% of ALL child abuse. Also, John Davis graph shows that wo-MEN perpetrate TWICE as many child murders as MEN, even Dr Laura Schlessinger has cited these stats. btw John Davis graph has been updated to show that wo-MEN perpetrate FOUR TIMES as many child murders as MEN not counting abortion. Important to consider these mainstream studies are controlled & biased as well as law enforcement & media are all on board with wo-MEN'S narratives
Joe, I think we SHOULD include abortion, which would make women responsible for 99.99999%+ of child murders.
According to international defense lawyer John Davis graph: wo-MEN perpetrate TWICE as many child murders as MEN... NOT counting abortion! Even Dr. Laura Slesinger has cited those statistics. Recently international defense lawyer John Davis (Gender studies for MEN) has updated his graph to show that wo-MEN perpetrate FOUR TIMES as many child murders as MEN! Not counting abortion. AGREE that late term abortion is infanticide! WHY wait 8 months before deciding to kill the baby.
Interesting point, Mike. I was just thinking as I read Janice's piece how many times I've watched feminists in the media maneuver a non-feminist into admitting that men commit nearly all rapes, that rape is perhaps the worst crime save murder, and so men are very bad and in need of correction (read: feminist indoctrination). Your first point would be a good response.
Thanks Kevin. Feminist politicians and their spineless colleagues ensured that in the UK only men can rape (legally, at least) by stipulating that rape required the employment of a penis, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The British feminist Jean Hatchet wrote in a recent article in The Critic https://thecritic.co.uk/the-meaning-of-rape/ that "In the UK not all men rape, but all rapists are men". We pointed out that saying "In the UK not all women are sexual abusers" would be equally true.
Interesting because only 5% of rape claims involve force. 95% of rape 'claims' involve alcohol & regretting a hookup
A survey among victim groups in the UK about fifteen years ago asked about the responses of mandated reporters to those reporting as victims of females(including female victims). Apparently only 5% were taken seriously.
When feminists go off about how most rape convictions are of men, that's because the laws were almost universally written to EXCLUDE men as rape victims, when the offense is actually called 'rape'. There are sexual offenses women can be charged with but they're usually called something other than rape.
In England, for instance, a woman forcing a man to have sex with her could be charged with "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" but not rape.
Of course feminists tend to call all sorts of things 'rape' that aren't, so whatever statistics that derive from feminist 'academic research' are probably just bullshit, anyway.
I'm in Australia. I was molested by an aunt whilst seven and eight. It was legal BECAUSE a woman did it.
BINGO! EXACTLY RIGHT! fEMINISTS use (Saul Alinsky rule 101 for communists) "Use the truth in reverse" fEMINISTS say only 2% of rape claims are lies, when in fact only 2% of rapes actually happened. Since wo-MEN get to abitrarily define rape according to their own discretion this makes sense
BINGO! According to international defense lawyer and MEN'S advocate John Davis (Gender studies for MEN) 83% of ALL child abuse is perpetrated by wo-MEN. Also John Davis has a graph that shows wo-MEN perpetrate TWICE as many child murders as MEN. Even Dr. Laura Shlesinger cited this fact. Recently John Davis updated his graph to show that wo-MEN perpetrate FOUR TIMES as many child murders as MEN, not counting abortion!
That is not true. For a period in college I somehow became the lesbian cis-curious go-to, and it was really nice. A shockingly large percentage of those women went on to marry men and have children. I have ben friends and lovers with many lesbians, and I never saw any ill will or problematic behaviors.
A Harvard study that was censored found that 70% of DV is perpetrated by wo-MEN. According to Dr Laura Schlesinger, wo-MEN perpetrate "TWICE as many child murders as MEN"
Thanks Jamie.
"And it shows. Even the "creative" fields don't create much. All Hollyweird can do anymore is bad remakes... All politicians can do is kick the same bloody can down the road."
The first indicator of any civilisation's impending fall is a loss of creativity. It's been visible in western nations for at least two decades.
AGREE that the media/ legal system & educational systems/ have merged together in an unholy alliance. Would you agree with me that allowing girls to wear half naked shorts to school is a form of Marxism, and or at the very least unfair to BOYS learning experience? THANKS for your insights
Outstanding essay! So many fascinating and novel ideas. I loved this sentence:
"Notable in many of these discussions was the implication that something had been done to women that required redress from others, particularly men, who needed to be summoned from their mindless rutting to protect women from yet another patriarchal last-laugh."
So well said Janice!
It makes me wonder what might be driving this, what might be anchoring the envy, hatred, and resentment? One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility that today's women who have attached themselves to the idea of "being like men" is that a necessary loss from that decision is the loss of the role of comforter. What impact might this have on women? When I was young, women prided themselves as being very capable in comforting their children and those they loved. They would not dream of sub-contracting that capacity. Now kids are sent to day care so that their moms can be middle managers. This is a loss for our culture but I wonder if it is not an even bigger loss for those women?
You picked out my favorite sentence, Tom! Thank you. I agree about women, under feminist influence, contracting out many of the roles that provided comfort and identity. Great observation.
Our feminist society divides women against themselves. They naturally want and have children, but then are told that actually caring for them is against their interests. The demand is that they be 'liberated' from who they are. Women come to resent the very existence of their own children, it's a familiar refrain these days. The family as an institution still exists, but just barely, it's a shell of what it could be. To say nothing of the precipitous rise of single-parent families without fathers in the home. It's exactly what the most radical feminists want. And somehow they don't seem to understand how happy it makes our neo-liberal overlords who want nothing more than to have a more atomized, deracinated population that is easier to control.
Bingo.
Excellent point. When trying to put the pieces together though I find myself stumbling over the fact that wealthy women always used surrogates to look after children, and even took lovers. As the tale of Potiphar's wife makes clear, there were always predatory women. What's odd is the erasure of feminine sexual power and archetypal feminine qualities. The modern woman truly seems to be an invention ex nihilo. The fact that feminism arose in the mid-nineteenth century though may give us a clue of where it all comes from: essentially Darwinism and by extension Marxism. I think a lot of cultural shifts took shape due to this new paradigm of the universe, the world and life itself as an accident directed by survival strategies and competition. Let's not forget Darwin's idea of sexual selection (which entails a scientific separation of genders into having separate and distinct roles in the natural order). Mix that anti-religious, gender oriented paradigm in with the idea of the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor and one can see how all these ideas arise. Once the legitimacy of the longstanding political order lost its footing, it's been confusing, and the not-too-bright have been carried away with theorising without checking to see how much of it is actual, and how much simply emoting, venting and gossiping. We're still at the start of the democratic, science directed era and it's not going very well.
In a recent discussion with a family member about a Jordan Peterson comment they asserted "I think there's far too much emphasis on nurture at the expense of 'nature' these days". I thought back to their psyche nursing days and how they had introduced me to the book 'Sybil' with such enthusiasm.
Now, married into a wealthy matriarchal family with 1 girl and 1 boy, who identified as being gay from a young age, views had changed.
'Sybil' would never be published today. With the stories of child suffering at the hands of drunken violent mothers it seems 'nurture' is losing its appeal. Nature now appears to be the answer to ALL women's woes: men are programmed for violence from birth. Guilt sealed.
Simon, are you aware that the participants disavowed Sybil and admitted it was all fiction designed to make them rich and famous?
The idea of nurture has to be destroyed by the left because their goal is to reconfigure humans to perfectly fit the utopia they think they have the ability to construct. If they recognized the reality of human nature, they would not be such big supporters of transgender ideology.
When I was a progressive (I am since disillusioned), I noticed that many of the feminists around me had experienced either abusive relationships with men or daddy issues. My mom, for instance, lost her dad at 14, and whenever she is inconvenienced in any way, she copes like a teenager. She identifies strongly with other women who have endured trauma and often feels uncomfortable around dominant, assertive men. She didn’t want me playing sports and dressed like an Amish person for most of my life as a rebellion against the “trophy wife” stereotype. Drove my poor dad up the wall.
Not even middle managers!!
“Cubicle Drones” is a more apt term for the vast majority of college credentialed young women!
Let’s not over-glorify the poor lot chosen by young career women !
Slut walks. I ask you. These women want to celebrate the right to have sex with as many men as they want and not be judged for it. But they don't celebrate that the world has millions of men in it to have sex with. And should a man join in this celebration from the sidelines with a wolf-whistle, letting these women know he's in the market for their rights, well that's the end of him.
"should a man join in this celebration from the sidelines with a wolf-whistle"
Not this man. I'd be loudly calling them perverts.
I would disagree. Many of these young women are a lot of fun. They do not want demeaning behavior, but they are fine. I think you need to be careful not to generalize from a small sample set.
Very good piece and I can agree with your conclusion that once glimpsed, feminist disgust with and envy of male sexuality reveals itself with unnerving persistence across the history of feminist writings.
I'm reminded of an article written by psychoanalyst Gerald Schoenewolf titled 'Gender Narcissism And Its Manifestations' in which he analyzes feminist individuals and finds most of the things you mention in the above article. He mentions for example that the gender narcissist has;
- Inferiority/superiority feelings about one’s gender;
- Excessive concern about one’s genitals;
- Envy of or disgust toward the genitals of opposite sex;
- Resentment of one’s gender role and envy of the role of the opposite sex;
- Bitterness about feeling castrated or cheated
- Idealization (grandiosity) about one’s own gender and devaluation of opposite gender
FWIW, a long excerpt from his paper can be found at AVfM under the heading 'Feminism and Gender Narcissism' : https://avoiceformen.com/featured/feminism-and-gender-narcissism/
The process is exactly the same as for non-sexual feminist 'grievance'.
The process is as follows;
1. Some women feel dissatisfied with some aspect of their life.
2. They externalize the dissatisfaction as someone is doing something to them to cause the dissatisfaction rather than resulting from their own choices.
3. The cause of the problem is identified as men particularly low status men.
4. Evidence is found for 'injustice' by comparing the apparent satisfaction of the very highest status men to their own dissatisfaction. The difference is represented as evidence of unfair treatment.
It's never ending. Very few people have a perfect life so step 1 is common place. Step 2. is a natural step because no one wants to blame themselves or accept responsibility for their own situation. Step 3 is a natural step for women given human cognitive biases. Step 4 is easy because their will always be a very successful few who at least appear to be far better of.
If we actually were to talk about sexual advantage and disadvantage then do men, particularly average men really have it better than women? A moments consideration would reveal how absurd this is. Women control access to sex. The average women has far more access to sex if she chooses than the average man. Women also control all of the consequences of sex. The imbalance of power for all but a tiny elite is massively tilted in women's favour. Why else do incels exist? Is a strong generally unfulfilled desire for sex an advantage?
Very good and valid points which are ignored by feminists. Very few men get to spread their genes, apparently 17 percent. Male sexual urges may be vilified or envied by feminists but many of us would consider them inconvenient and troublesome at times. I can understand the desperation of men who will never consummate the sex act.
Penis envy is one of Freud’s best marketing terms, which probably occurred to him in one of his cocaine-induced reveries. Perhaps the extensive list of feminist excess you list is more easily understood as mere hatred of actual men by the dyke type of lesbian who feel more entitled to women’s bodies and sought a way to get better access and control. Of course not all feminist leaders were exclusively homosexual, and for them obsession with power born of their rage against nature for birthing them as the weaker sex knows no bounds.
At a party once a woman mentioned thar she and her women friends spent the previous evening dancing around a dildo in an attempt to rid themselves of the desire for the real thing. Maybe I should’nta said that was her comment as she saw the befuddled smirks on our faces.
Unbridled egotism and self- hatred is the issue with these people, not sex.
Penis envy is actually achievement envy.
This points out the absurdity of this phrase, since boys and men certainly have penis envy in this sense as well. Envy is envy. The only people with actual penis envy are women who believe they are men, but even that supposition is suspect as the gender crowd insist that genitals are irrelevant.
Yes, PENIS ENVY is REAL. As you say it is a jealousy of MEN'S authority/achievements.
NOPE. PENIS ENVY is REAL and it';s BIBLICAL! Genesis clearly states that wo-MEN are JEALOUS of a MAN'S authority but also have an URGE to be under it! Freud was RIGHT! PENIS ENVY is REAL & BIBLICAL...it's a metaphor for wo-MEN'S jealousy of MEN'S authority which the b ible says is a CURSE against wo-MEN, also her desire to be UNDER MEN'S authority is also a CURSE from God! I'm on board with Mark Griffith, he makes the most sense after Janice
Please get help.
At your request? And what qualifies you to diagnose my mental state? The psycho babble industry is dominated by fEMINISTS & FOOLS. Which one are you? Both?
Penis envy is >REAL. Genesis tells us that wo-MEN have a sexual jealousy of MEN'S authority and want to infiltrate it while simultaneously desiring to be under it.
God created man and woman. He made them DIFFERENT! I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing, it matches your worldview), you understand male and female differences better than 95% of Christians.
If you read the first few chapters of Genesis, you will see that women are inferior to men. That is a strong statement indeed. But the woman was created FOR man. She was not created EQUAL.
Women are emotional. They need a calming influence. Just look at how single women vote, for goodness sake. They want government to take care of them! Married women, for the most part, don't have this problem, they have a man.
And since I MUST say this to quash those who read this and begin clutching their pearls, YES, a man needs a woman, but not in the way a woman needs a man.
Glaring example. In single parent households headed by a woman, the children's life outcomes are dreadful compared to an intact family with both biological parents present in the home. Boys drop out of school, commit crime, go to prison (check out the % of men in prison who had no father in the home, you will be shocked) at MUCH higher rates and are generally uncivilized simply because they had no civilizing influence growing up. Few women can perform this civilizing role although there are some rare examples. Girls without fathers in the home tend toward promiscuity at an early age, become single moms and so forth.
OTOH, in households headed by a single man, the children's outcomes, while slightly diminished, are quite close to the outcomes seen in an intact family.
Another example. Except for the last 200 years or so, and pretty much only in the "civilized" West, a woman without a man to care and protect her was so much chattel and subject to the whims and desires of men. And please understand, "civilization" as we know it, is NOT the default way life has been lived for thousands of years. I fear we will see a return to life as nasty, brutish and short in our lifetimes.
Another. In survey after survey, both men and women overwhelmingly prefer to work under the management of men rather than women. Wonder why that is? Hm.
Now, this is exceedingly jarring to the modern mind. But prior to the late 19th century, this was received wisdom for all of human history. And societies and cultures were better off for it.
Feminism has destroyed the family, the church, the culture and now, it is destroying women as we see with the trans movement. It is literally erasing women from our world. THAT is a BAD thing! For women are a blessing to men and children. Who else can change the temperature of room or cocktail party than a happy, beautiful woman?
Love your writing. You speak the truth.
'I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing ... )'
It doesn't work like that.
Pray tell, how then? Bible clearly teaches that we come to Christ and the grace he offers by faith alone. I.e. Believing in Him. What say you?
Tell you how 'it' doesn't work like that, meaning deciding to believe in something one has decided one cannot believe in? I say the argument you're looking for is pointless because neither of us is going to convert the other, and I'll leave it there. The thread is ended as far as I am concerned.
I'm a believer Mark, and everything you said is 100% spot on, except I feel trans genders are Gods judgment on wo-MEN for invading MALE roles/sports/ etc. I feel girls are getting what they deserve because they violated EVERY space for BOYS & MEN...now their own PENIS ENVY is comming back at them! btw.Genesis talks about PENIS ENVY! wo-MEN have a jealousy of MEN'S authority BUT...they CRAVE to be under it! FACT!
Luckily some of us found a true faith and understand it. I have found that with Buddhism. I hope some day you can learn true Christianity. I would encourage you to find a monastery near you where you can find monks with the time to help you better understand Christianity (I am assuming that you are Catholic).
Christianity offers so much, but you need to understand it properly to be set free. I wish you the best.
NO thanks. I don't need a monastery to have & understand true faith. A monk couldn't teach me anything. Interesting you reference Catholicism, since Jesus said NEVER call anyone 'fATHER' 'rABBI' or 'mASTER' I would even say you're probably closer to Catholicism than I am.
100% AGREED! Apart from the power wo-MEN have with their bodies they are inferior to MEN morally. I believe in the lord too. However I also believe trans genders are agents of God and girls are getting what they deserve. Sports aren't even lady like and most fe-MALE athletes have wives and even those who aren't gay have NO periods.
@Mark S Griffith,
You said that "you will see that women are inferior to men". But that would mean that the female sex is a sub-human species of living thing. The faculty and quality of Intellect/Reason is the sole central, unifying factor which makes humanity essentially and fundamentally distinct from the brute creatures; therefore it would follow just by virtue of woman's real or supposed essential and ontological inferiority that, either Woman is one of the brute creatures, or else she is merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes, and less intrinsically and ontologically distinct from the brute creation than is the male sex.
One of the brute creation?? Impossible! For it is written, Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast (Deuteronomy 27:21).
An intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes? Well then, if that is so, well then the same must be, by parity of reason and sameness of sex, true for the selfsame Virgin Mary out of whom was born Jesus Christ (K1). It is a divinely revealed article of the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is both God and Man: meaning that he possess two natures, the divine nature _qua_ Creator of the World, and also by virtue of His eternal preexistence prior to the entire Cosmos, and some particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial form (K2), which, as we remarked in (K0), must be precisely identical to that of the very woman from whom He was born _qua_ corporeal living breathing human or sentient being. No creatures can have progeny of a kind which is ontologically superior in substantial form to that of its direct and immediate ancestors. But Jesus Christ had absolutely NO human father and absolutely NO direct immediate male human ancestor - oh but on the contrary He was born of a Virgin. This means that the whole of his substantial form _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature could only have come from His mother, the Virgin Mary. Therefore the species of living thing of which was Jesus Christ _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature had to be exactly identical to that of His mother (K3). But it was remarked in (K1) that the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Virgin Mary herself would have to be ontologically inferior to that of man though ontologically superior to that of each and every one of the beasts (K4).
But then it follows from K3 and K4 that in the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Person Whose name ALONE is Jesus Christ, this selfsame particular human, zoological, or biological nature of His would have been ontologically inferior to that of Man however much ontologically superior it may be to that of each and every one of the beasts, which is not only impossible and absurd, but formally and blasphemously heretical against the fundamental articles of the divinely revealed Christian faith.
The hypothesis that Jesus Christ, in His physical, biological, zoological, organical, living breathing substantial form, as opposed to the Divine nature He has always had even before the world began to exist at all, was only an intermediate zoological substantial form and species intermediate between humanity and the brute animal creatures, necessarily implies that, apart from His divine nature, He wasn't human at all, but merely a subhuman species of animal zoological living creatures; and therefore necessarily implies that in that respect of His fleshly incarnate nature and species (as opposed to His divine nature) He wasn't made like unto HIS male brethren, nor like unto the distinct species which we call the HUMAN species, but only a subhuman species of animal, contrary to the express and plain teaching of Hebrews 2:17: "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be *made like unto his brethren*, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, but only a subhuman species of zoological animal, is a "christ" that cannot save ANY human being, and therefore cannot be the true and genuine Christ. A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, and yet whose mother was herself most likely begotten of the seed of Man through the womb of Woman is a "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man. But the doctrine that Christ was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man is a pernicious heresy known as DOCETISM! A "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man cannot truly save any man. This very inferiority of substantial corporeal sentient creaturely nature would be sufficient and actually effectual to render the Sacrifice of the Crucifixion blemished, and utterly INCAPABLE of taking away sins. The New Testament plainly teaches (Hebrews 10:4) that neither the blood of goats, nor of sheep, nor of oxen, nor of calves, nor of any intermediate transitional form of life between humanity and the brutes, nor of any other sub-human species, can ever be effectual unto the forgiveness of sins.
In addition, Christ is our only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). But a mediator is a party who has authority to reconcile and arbitrate between two parties which are at variance with each other. It is highly incongruous that a person essentially inferior to both of the two parties should be mediator between them. It is absolutely essential that a Messiah or Saviour seeking to confer salvation should be of the same nature and species both of that Deity he wishes to appease, and of that creature on which he wishes to confer this salvation. Therefore, if Jesus Christ had been NOT truly Man, He would not have been able to save mankind at all; in fact, He would NOT have been the second Adam - for the first Adam was of the human species and not merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes. But the Scriptures acquiesces to absolutely NO such transitional substantial form between humanity and the brute creatures, nor has such ever been found. Everyone born of a woman through the ordinary operations of Mother Nature is either a MALE or a FEMALE. Among those who are neither MEN, nor WOMEN, nor CHILDREN, the hypothesis that there exists even a single transitional intermediate substantial form between humanity and the brutes is neither part of the Natural Law, nor of the Laws of Science, Biology, Zoology, Natural History, Taxonomy, or Ecology, nor any part of the doctrines of the Christian religion.
Jesus Christ for some time was a child, but He grew up into adulthood. Also, He was never born as a FEMALE but as a MALE. No MAN being an adult male can be an intermediate transitional substantial form between man and brutes.
Therefore, it is impossible - not just philosophically or politically impossible - but theonomically, Christologically, soteriologically, evangelically, theologically, and bio-cosmologically IMPOSSIBLE that the sort of creature which alone is known by the name of Woman should be an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes.
And as to the observed sociological fact that children from homes in which the father is absent long enough come out far worse than children from whom in which both mother and father are present and involved long enough in the household with their children, the HYPOTHESIS which you made to account for WHY this sort of father absence SHOULD be expected to produce all these ills is biologically essentialistic and deterministic. It asserts that the contribution which fathers made is not only _sine qua non_ for raising good children, but also biologiclaly deterministic and biologically and genetically unique and intrinsic to the very nature of being a biological male of the human species as opposed to being a woman or girl. But since *IDENTICAL causes produce IDENTICAL effects*; therefore the corresponding null hypothesis H0 for testing your proposed theory for explaining WHY "father absence" SHOULD be expected to expose children to the risks it does is that *Homes in which the mother is a widow and never remarries (i.e. the father of the children of that home was none other than the husband of the mother of those children, and the father absence is due only to the death of the father of the children of that house without the consent or fault of the mother of those children) should have child-rearing outcomes which are either statistically *IDENTICAL* to those in which the father absence is due to divorce, desertion, or birth out of wedlock, or else statistically significantly WORSE OFF than those in which the father absence is NOT due to the death of the father". But what do the statistics show for the case of widowed mothers?
wo-MEN >are inferior to MEN... just as a child is inferior to the Parents. This biblical teaching does not diminish a wo-MAN'S humanity, it denotes RANK in God's hierarchy.
As an official old guy, i must tell you how satisfying it is to see these jerks slowly twisting in the wind. As comments elsewhere on here explain its always been about male hatred, the envy of the confident, self sufficient male who needs no-one other than himself, his focus and his learned skills to make his way through the obstacle course of life.. Feminism and Feminists who still hold the burning sword of victimhood aloft bring every woman under its dark penumbra.
After almost 80 years of this bullshit consider that men with successful careers or business’s no longer hire or mentor young woman of promise out of fear of a sexual lawsuit.
Men would rather go their own way than set themselves up to be raped by the Courts.
Most of the women, one see’s recently in appointed positions of power (hello current Liberal caucus/ US cabinet) are such morons, it’s a guilty pleasure to watch them be-clown themselves on social media.
Feminists congratulate themselves on allowing mediocre men to beat, pummel and triumph over naturally talented elite women in the name of Progressive Feminism.
The list, I dare say, goes on…and on. And this they have the nerve to tell us is progress for women
Call it Penis Envy (just how did that surgery go, anyway? Oh, just give it time, I’m sure they’ll workout the, uhm, kinks), male hatred, progressive feminism, whatever, the rats in the maze are running out of places to run and the pendulum is about to swing in the other direction. When it does make sure you put on your pussy hats, place your head firmly between your knees and get ready to kiss your collective ass goodbye.
What did the Abrahamic religions learn and know about Male/ Female relationships that we in the secular west have yet get our heads around. Ya know I always wondered. Hmmm?
DON'T agree with you about elite wo-MEN athletes being being beaten by mediocre MEN, I myself enjoy seeing fe-MALE athletes being humiliated by Trans genders, it is long overdue.
fe-MALE athletes are virtual trans genders anyway, most don't even have periods and many have wives. SPORTS are BAD for girls, they are un lady like, and a form of androgyny in it's own right. wo-MEN'S sports is a form of GAY PORNOGRAPHY, remember, Girls DID THIS TO BOYS 1rst, and now they are getting KARMA! You reap what you sew.
Hey Joe,
Maybe its time to have someone make you a warm cup of milk or just switch to decaf…what do you say!
Naw Bro, I'm gonna have another shot of Rum and another toke of weeed, and then a chicken cutlet. But first a coffee...God bless!
More brilliance. Janice, you are so eloquent and intelligent. I have personally studied a lot of psychology over the years, and have done a lot of psychotherapy myself (with an analytical frame) and while Sigmund Freud may have have over-imagined a lot of things (his ideas now seem somehow magical in some ways, especially his definitions of various parts of the psyche which feel poetic) he very clearly had a really good take on human nature. As I read your litany of feminist insanity and irrationally over all the paragraphs you have laid out, it really feels like feminism in all its forms is a mental illness (or several illnesses). The madness and irrationality of it all. Whether or not one wants to call some it penis envy (in the broadest sense), the resentment at the root of it all is noteworthy. Its a shame to see SO many modern women so deeply unhappy.
And who says you don't have a sense of humour, Janice?
A very good chuckle. The only problem is that is a serious issue, that only a woman could articulate. A man would be hung out to dry and shamed mercilessly for the rest of his life.
Thank you, Phillip.
Congratulations on your very thorough fisking of these so-called "feminist" theorists, whose ideas are intellectually shoddy and rife with what can only be viewed as utter disregard for reality and stupidity of the first water. Although it is not necessary, due to your thoroughness, I would like add my perspective on the situation, it now appearing that yet another anomaly in the world of "feminist theory" has arisen, courtesy of the "transgender/transexual" fad lately sweeping the woke nation. That is, "feminist" support for men who think they are women. Although there are some among that crowd who decry this phenomenon, most have rallied to the cause. I submit it is because "feminism" has NOTHING to do whatsoever with the advancement of women qua women; it is based exclusively on hatred and envy of men. Having a penis is merely a symbol of the larger essence of maleness, which is the focus of their hatred. Bitterness is their brew of choice, taken with a large dose of choleric and wormwood. They support the trannies because they view them as allies in their war against men, much as wartime enemies view traitors as allies. ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend.") After all, what more effective repudiation of all things male could there possibly be than a biological man who voluntarily chooses to become a... not-man? (I almost said "woman," but obviously these ersatz females are not "women", merely delusional.) It is to laugh, however at the outcome of the charade, whereby the best "women" are actually "men" who supplant them in every field of endeavor, from athletics to academia.
Tops off to Janice for finding the craziest picture possible to go with her analysis of the feminist claim that men get more out of sex than women. How do these women know that, actually? To show solidarity with the envious victims, I'll take my afternoon walk without my neck scarf. Too cold to go topless, and anyway I'd get arrested.
I've never quite understood the point of feminists whipping their tits out at every opportunity and then complaining about being 'objectified'.
Do you remember Naked Athena? She claimed she got enraged at police during a George Floyd riot and her response was to get naked, sit in the street, and spread her legs as wide as they go to give them all a bird's eye view of her beaver. Try as I might, I can not understand why that seemed rational to her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs85PjtSrME
I remember that. I am always struck by these women (mostly feminist SJWs) who will take nearly any opportunity to expose their bodies while at the same time chastizing anyone who looks and flaunting their claimed victimhood. Surely a cry for help, but one that will not accept any help, demanding abject obedience instead. Impossible to deal with.
Janice, it only takes 2 brain cells to understand this.
1st brain cell says, 'I have every right to been seen.'
2nd brain cell says, 'But no one has the right to see.'
3 brain cells or more might think something doesn't add up. That's your problem. Several bottles of supermarket own-brand vodka will sort that out.
BRILLAINT & BRAVE Janice! THANK YOU
Well Janice, this will certainly have some gender studies profs stomping, screeching and hurling balls of fire. Feminist’s arguments are not in fact with men, or even with culture(s). Their beef is with nature herself. Penis envy is just the tip, so to speak, of the iceberg.
Yup. btw Nature is a >HE not a she
In other words, deep down, many women - especially feminists - HATE being women. It's a life sentence of being stuck in a body they didn't choose, don't really want, and having to deal with all things female. So, who do they take it out on? Men, of course. They're envious, resentful, spiteful, and hateful toward men and now that it's sociably acceptable because of the massive feminist movement, they're able to express their rage and try to get revenge. I think it all comes down to self-loathing, although they'll never admit it.
BRILLIANT AND TRUE as always Janice. It is also in the bible that wo-MEN are jealous of a MAN'S authority but secretly crave to be under it!
They certainly tend to respect a man who shows he will not knuckle under; and feel contempt for one who will.
THANK YOU Janice, and my apologies for being a chauvinist, but I can tell you if more young wo-MEN were as together as you, guys like me wouldn't be so jaded. Janice you are a blessing!
Hi Janice, If you’re interested in a short, clear — but still sophisticated (non-political) — description of the topic from a contemporary psychoanalytic perspective you probably couldn’t do better than that presented in “Phallus, Penis and Mental Space” in Dana Birksted-Breen’s The Work of Psychoanalysis: Sexuality, Time and the Psychoanalytic Mind (London: Routledge, 2016), 126-138. Also, I enjoy and thank you for your work.
Thanks, William. I will look it up immediately.