I found myself getting more and more dejected as I read this. What Janice exposes is so powerful that it literally blinds people to see what is actually happening. This is the force that feminists have unscrupulously wielded for decades. No one sees it. It's an invisible wrecking ball.
Really appreciate your honest telling of your teen experience. So rare to hear a 1st person account and so helpful. Thank you.
Interesting that they haven't banned Steve Brule though. I always thought you were more moderate than him...
Whenever a group is criticized by one of their own, they can either try to learn something and respond in good faith, or sling thought stoppers at them. When I was criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, they called me a "self-hating Jew", which I figured out meant: "we hate you and we don't want to have a good faith conversation with you". I've had a feminist sling that phrase at you ("self-hating woman"), when I shared your article about how feminists brought the trans fiasco on themselves. I guess it doesn't make sense to present her evidence to the contrary, or share my experience of you as one of the most loving people on the internet.Still, I would love to present some objective evidence, perhaps not with this person, but in the future. Do you have any videos or writings that show that some feminists are not hypocritical, hateful monsters all the time?
Thanks! Youtube did actually ban the whole channel, including Steve's videos; he's been banned many times on FB and Twitter also.
I'm pretty NOT moderate (taking the position that being moderate in pursuit of truth, justice, and equality before the law is not a virtue). Here's one video we made not long ago about a reasonable feminist who wrote a book in 1917 called *Towards a Sane Feminism* in which she criticized what she called both the extreme right-wing and the extreme left-wing of the feminist movement on the subject of male sexuality. I thought it was quite fascinating. Unfortunately, Wendy Miekle's reasonable views about sexuality did not prevail. I'm not sure that this video, unfortunately (and it's the best I've got) would win over anybody already inclined to make 'self-hating woman' claims. Thanks for your interest.
I'd like to offer some evidence for hope that the larger public doesn't completely buy into the women-are-only-victims narrative. Two of the most popular, and long-running cable TV shows in the US center on women who kill. "Snapped" has been running since 21004. Each episode would explore a murder by a woman (originally a 30 minute episode, then an hour long). Unfortunately, the last episode I watched featured a man who did the killing (and I stopped watching new episodes, figuring they'd gone "woke").
Another great show, filmed partly in Australia and partly the US, and running since 2008, is "Deadly Women." Each episode tells the stories of 3 murderesses.
In both these shows, no ugliness is spared, and the women's early lived are not mined for excuses for them "turning" violent.
It's hard to imagine you as a high school mean girl Janice, but thankfully you outgrew it. And thanks for the links and references to female violence. Here's some for you and others:
Glad I could help! As for the "belligerent and aggressive streak," that would explain some of the sassier lines in your videos. Guess you found a healthy - and welcome - use for those traits.
Nope, not at all. Jews literally cannot prove its existence. An even bigger question is why are there laws in place for holocaust denialism? Do you expect me to believe we fought the tyrant Hitler only to be placed under more draconian measures?
Check out this courageous German woman standing up to this corruption, she happened to lived through Hitler's Germany.
And I suggest you not bother disguising reality. Your use of that tyrannical term "antisemitism" says much about you-- especially gullibility. if u are not Jewish, then privilegedn- if u are.
Then again why does the term anti-semitism exist? Shouldn't other ethnic/racial coin their own just to stigmatize others? Just sounds like identity politics - a victimhood ideology to dupe people into placing themselves into superior position.
No, it's not 'identity politics' to call out anti-semitism. Identity politics is when a group is identified racially or ethnically or by gender as having a significance or value that supersedes the individual, either by the group itself or by others. It is used by groups to either manipulate others for their own benefit (victimology) OR by others to discriminate against a group (white supremacists). You are quite clearly doing the latter by citing the Jewishness of certain perpetrators of genocide. How is that relevant and not the fact of, say, their Soviet communist politics? No one said Jewish people are not individually human and therefore capable of evil like anyone else. Racism and anti-semitism are themselves manifestations of identity politics, which is very evident in your thinking. Besides that, your insistence that the Holocaust 'did not happen' puts you firmly on the crazy train. I do hope one day you can get off it.
You're implying dat only "anti" Jew comments are disallowed??? Take your antisemitism term and stick it up as far as it'll go. Ever heard of "free speech" ? Your use of that despicable phrase exposed much about your IQ- which seems 2b the same as your shoe size.
The denial of the Hollowcost is VERY much on topic, as it emulates feminism in portraying itself as a victim, so that it can open doors to further entitlement. THAT is EXACTLY how the poison of feminism spread.
Whenever I defend free speech, I am told by anti-free speech authoritarians that it is merely a cover for hate. One of my replies is hate is a price we must be willing to pay for its enjoyment. Thank you for demonstrating that cost so clearly and concretely.
The evidence is clear to see here in germany and the suffering the Nazi Regime created in the world. It was also not only jews but people without work, disabled people and a lot of the political opponents that were killed.
I can personally attest to some of the stuff happening in my family some of the older generation never reconciled that they were on the side that lost(!) and while I do not share the german habit of prostrating myself in front of the world, since the later generation had not part in it, there is absolutely no way to deny something like this. *Especially* since the rise of totalitarian political ideology and movement in the recent years, my opinion is that we can easily see, at this point in time, the same religious fervor of identity politics playing out and equally so a majority of society is silent or supportive of the suffering.
How any one can, especially now, deny that such things happen is beyond me. Instead we should all be steadfast to avoid such simple dogma in which a certain group of people is responsible for the suffering of all other, like men are now.
That is all I will write on the matter, as the topic here is vastly different and I find it really disrespectful to fill the comment section with holocaust denying.
First of all, no one can deny what didn't exist in the first place. What I found most disrespectful is people inventing the holocaust myth and dupe others into believing it is real.
Then again, you haven't addressed my points: why are there holocaust denial laws in place, not only in Germany, but in most of Europe - even Canada. Are we not allow to question it? Is this not a attack on free speech?
What do you think of Ursula Haverbeck, does she not have a right to free speech with consequences?
How come you didn't look into the genocide committed by Jews where mentioned?
All you did was went off the rail and delve into anecdotes. People crying anti-semitism are no different to feminist crying, "Sexist!" or "Misogynist". Really, it's just more identity politics.
U forgot to mention the ousted Albertan university professors that were persecuted for denying the hollowcost . The absurd irony -- Jews always cite their ( perceived) persecution, but delight in persecuting anyone who dares to refute their l.i.e.s.
6 million??? It's been proven dat it was physically impossible to barbeque dat many in dat short a time frame. Also, see just how long c.o.u.n.t.i.n.g. to six million takes !
Sure you can deny what didn't exist in the first place. That's basic decision theory in statistics. The null hypothesis is that the holocaust did occur. You ware trying to convince people to reject the null hypothesis and they are demanding that you supply them with sufficient evidence to avoid type I error with 99% confidence.
WW II is still in living memory for some people and the winners of wars right the history books. I don't think anyone will have a really accurate picture of what went on in NAZI Germany for the next 100 years. It will be left to future generations to sort out the fact from the propaganda.
Israhell and USA were both founded on proven genocide and are the only 2 true terrorist states. CIA much? An unelected and secret entity with terrorism as its m.o. they killed JFK and dropped more bombs on Laos than in WW2, in a secret war. Daily murders if Palestinian children and pregnant women in their own homeland. Grayzone news dares to post the unadulterated truth, as opposed to Satan's mouthpieces (a.l.l. western media) dat are a.l.l. controlled by j.e.w.s.
DATS why ted turner was forced to sell cnn-- because it wasn't. Same reason for persecuting tiktok-- it's the o.n.l.y platform dats not Jewish regulated .
It did happen, but holocaust didn't happen. To believe the holocaust happened is akin to saying "feminism is about equality". How did the Germans manage to wage a war whilst keeping Jews in concentration camps only to have "six million" killed is beyond me. Then again, roughly first two years of the war, Austerlitz was under the Soviet Union occupation. That damn German efficiency.
You still haven't provided evidence. Did you just simply believe the person without evidence? Why is the holocaust illegal to investigate? What is it like to be gullible?
Moreover, why overlook the Jewish inordinate role in the mass murder of milliions of Europeans during their time as Bolsheviks.
Did that missing family died of over indulgence of sexual pleasure due to masturbation machine? Did you know the Schlindler's List is based on a book that is a work of fiction?
I'm might as well take the approach and say my grandfather told me the holocaust didn't happen because you're insistent on using an anecdote from a family member.
Dec 30, 2022·edited Dec 30, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
In 7th grade we had a girl bullied by girls into suicide. The principle read her suicide note to the class, hard to believe I know, and gave us a stern warning. I remember helping her fend off several girls in 6th grade. I believe threats and hard core bullying are harder for girls than boys, so why are they turning away from protecting our girls? Feminism has no positive purpose for anyone, from my perspective.
I'm not disagreeing with the horrible violence against men, it seems more often the female violence is against women/girls. Feminism is silent to both.
Dec 30, 2022·edited Dec 30, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I had some experience with Violent girls when I was younger, i went to school until 2010 to get a time frame. Even when then it was already pretty common for them to first beat their victim and then run to whatever teacher was around and get them to punish the victim as well, as they had "provoked" the violence, this was especially true if the victim was a boy.
I've also seen female teachers actively supporting mobbing in classes, in one case one of the teachers left the room to avoid "seeing" the mobbing and be responsible for it.
In any case, at the same time most Male teachers, seem to be unable to act in any way against such behaviors, my guess is they try to avoid repercussions which would hit them harder but it's not so far off to imagine a lot of them are willing to accept this female behavior as most male feminist would, unable to see any behavior on the part of women and girls as problematic.
On the bright side, I have also seen great female teachers who were able to recognize the behavior of these students and acting accordingly to help victims of such an abuse, which was good to see even though they most likely do not have to fear the same treatment as a male would.
It's flabbergasting actually, my school years were not that long ago and I made friends with a lot of those who were bullied, I never liked such behavior, but for some reasons those, men now, are some of the most adherent feminists out there, some of them I lost as friends on the way because of my MRA activity.
In any case, that women and girls can be and are Violent is something everyone *does* know, I'm sure of it. When talking to older people especially, those who are living with a spouse for a long time, it always seemed to be common knowledge that women can be just as Vile as any men can be and everyone knows examples of exactly that happening.
So it's just puzzling to me how we can all pretend that this is some extremely uncommon occurrence or that women are always also victims when they are perpetrators.
It's just the Emperor's new clothes to the extreme.
I grew up in Montana and I can say that girls fighting or being violent has been a commonality of the cultures in Montana. I don't know why we are shocked or why we try to hide female violence. I guess maybe there could be some totally sheltered individuals out there in the world, but I don't know any. Humanuty is flawed, male and female!
The feminist slogan has always been that feminism is "the radical idea that women are human." But most feminists don't really seem to believe this truism, not if human means prone to cruelty, violence, pride, and narcissism. My slogan is "Anti-feminism is the radical idea that women are accountable."
A good slogan. Some year ago I happened on statistics about imprisonment in England. Actually as the result of idly wondering about where the females came from to populate the early colonies in Australia. And what one finds is that in the early 19th Century a fifth of those imprisoned were women. by the end of that century there had been a dramatic drop, though still much higher than the current tiny proportion. As one tracks through the 19th Century one finds that philanthropic "Victorians" (such as Dickens) largely motivated and supported by church "societies" succeeded in a raft of laws designed to reduce the chances of imprisonment for women. Ranging from making debts the responsibility of Male relatives (so avoiding imprisonment for debt) to "diversion" of those convicted of "petty theft" to institutions for the indigent poor. It is in this era that the idea that women are both innately virtuous and all to easily influenced by men seems to have become the core ideology. One which remains today. Rather than originating in "feminism" it seems more a version of 19th century christianity which is also responsible for the idea women can "civilise" their men. In many ways much of current feminism seems simply to follow exactly the same line. Indeed academic feminists often point out that in the earlier centuries no allowances were made for women and they were generally treated with the same harshness as men. Though this did explain how there could be many more female convicts to be "transported" to Australia it turns out this only played a minor part in colonisation. In general I see little difference in tge arguments of the mid Victorians and current feminists on the innate virtue and fragility of females.
I am so glad I am not alone for being a complete ahole during my teen years in the 80s. I often say if you deny my ability to do evil than you deny my humanity. This sets people off which is weird until you realize that being a victim is much more powerful because it destabilizes your opponent if they are decent.
A very good point about being "decent". In this country, as well charted by feminists, most of the "advances" were and are enacted by men, men are still the majority in our national political institutions. So what is keyed into is a deep cultural expectation that men will respond to fragile and defenceless females. Rather disproving the idea of "patriarchy". One can see this in the current "terf wars" where two sects of feminism are at war about what constitutes "a woman" because it turns out "women" have lots of "sex based rights". In all of this no one has bothered about "man" nor any "mens rights". Even though the majority of youngsters seeking help are girls wanting to grow up as men. Both of the sects constantly try to goad the wider public into interest by claiming that they are the victims of each other. Indeed the "terfs" claim that their opponents in this doctrinal squabble are "patriarchy" and "men" when very clearly men in general have no interest in this battle of fanatics(well apparently 80% dont according to a recent poll). Paradoxically we have feminists busy demanding more women in our armed forces and police forces while simultaneously demanding "men" protect them in their own doctrinal spats. Apparently on the grounds that women are universally weak of mind and body ! And need lots of "safe spaces". As you say all around their are claims to victimhood.
I have a younger male friend and the head games young women play makes me seethe. One minute he is 'toxic' and when they find it useful, he is to protect them. It is so surreal. No woman I know growing up in the 80s had these insane thoughts. Men were friends, colleagues, acquaintances, lovers and with the rare one something to be avoided because they were dangerous.
I am constantly amazed at the very feminists that constantly go on about all males being some form of threat through the existence of a form of original sin they all carry. Then "demand" these very same evil monsters become "allies". The "terf" argument appears to be based on this idea that men are by definition a threat to all women due to such an inherent propensity to be misogynistic perverts, consequently women need lots and lots of safe spaces free from such monsters........ and then apparently wonder why members of this sex they so completely deride aren't so keen to be allies in their civil war.
It’s gynocentrism, the ingrained expectation that men exist to serve the needs of women. A man’s job is both to overcome his ‘sin’ of being a man when it pleases women AND to utilize it when necessary (eg. physical protection) for the same reason.
What a chilling incident, but I can't say I'm surprised by the response offered by the feminist academic community. Feminism has long advanced that there are two simple rules to explain societal violence:
1) men and boys are violent; girls and women are their victims, and
2) in instances where girls or women are violent and their victims are male, see rule #1.
I very much appreciate and admire Dr. Fiamengo's crusade to foster a more sophisticated and more honest discourse on the complex relationship between gender and violence. It's upsetting that feminism has sought to "empower" girls by shielding them from responsibility for their behavior. Any power gained by eluding responsibility for one's actions is fundamentally fraudulent.
You left out one of the most heinous of all. Jasmine Richardson youngest person ever convicted of 1st degree murder in Canada. When she was 12 years old, she slit her little brother's throat.
Janice, this is great. Very happy to follow your substack. Anyone with any life experience at all should know that women/girls have just as much aggression as men/boys, it just manifests differently.
I have never had trouble believing in women's capacities for violence and cruelty, and never bought the feminist theory that if women ran the world, there'd be no wars. Unlike girls and women, who can hold interminable grudges, men and boys can develop friendship or admiration for an opponent after conflict has ended. I've always said that if women were in charge of war, there would be no such a thing as armistice. A woman general would be like, "Nope. All those witches have to die."
Janice urges us all, against our learned inclinations, to believe reality rather than the ideology and the slogans with which we have become comfortable. Feminist propagandists, including many teachers, professors, and journalists, prefer their fanciful stereotypes to reality, because successfully claiming the victim role guarantees privileges and benefits. It is not white males who are privileged, it is females. In our society, the feminists have won by obscuring reality.
Janice, it's stretching the credulity of your many fans, including myself, to say you were ever a "mean girl". Clearly a case of False Memory Syndrome...
The CBC has been toilet flushing in reverse for over a decade. If the Turd loses his job, there is a half-chance his successor will shut it down, or gut it seriously. One can hope.
"the recent murder of a homeless man in downtown Toronto by a group of teenagers, all female, who were looking for an alcohol-fueled good time. "
Prohibition should never have been lifted. And it was women, some would today describe as "feminist", who were the backbone of that movement. Alcohol is the worst drug on the planet that does the most damage.
I found myself getting more and more dejected as I read this. What Janice exposes is so powerful that it literally blinds people to see what is actually happening. This is the force that feminists have unscrupulously wielded for decades. No one sees it. It's an invisible wrecking ball.
Really appreciate your honest telling of your teen experience. So rare to hear a 1st person account and so helpful. Thank you.
Tom, do you know where I can find that old video by Janice, "why we can't hate men"?
Here it is, over at Odysse, where all the old FFs are archived:
https://odysee.com/@StudioBruleArchive:e/why-can-t-we-hate-men-tff-episode-84:9
Did youtube ban that video?
YouTube banned the entire channel about a year and a half ago. It wasn't clear why (they never say explicitly).
Interesting that they haven't banned Steve Brule though. I always thought you were more moderate than him...
Whenever a group is criticized by one of their own, they can either try to learn something and respond in good faith, or sling thought stoppers at them. When I was criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, they called me a "self-hating Jew", which I figured out meant: "we hate you and we don't want to have a good faith conversation with you". I've had a feminist sling that phrase at you ("self-hating woman"), when I shared your article about how feminists brought the trans fiasco on themselves. I guess it doesn't make sense to present her evidence to the contrary, or share my experience of you as one of the most loving people on the internet.Still, I would love to present some objective evidence, perhaps not with this person, but in the future. Do you have any videos or writings that show that some feminists are not hypocritical, hateful monsters all the time?
Thanks! Youtube did actually ban the whole channel, including Steve's videos; he's been banned many times on FB and Twitter also.
I'm pretty NOT moderate (taking the position that being moderate in pursuit of truth, justice, and equality before the law is not a virtue). Here's one video we made not long ago about a reasonable feminist who wrote a book in 1917 called *Towards a Sane Feminism* in which she criticized what she called both the extreme right-wing and the extreme left-wing of the feminist movement on the subject of male sexuality. I thought it was quite fascinating. Unfortunately, Wendy Miekle's reasonable views about sexuality did not prevail. I'm not sure that this video, unfortunately (and it's the best I've got) would win over anybody already inclined to make 'self-hating woman' claims. Thanks for your interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu536CwEkm0
Thank you, Janice!
I'd like to offer some evidence for hope that the larger public doesn't completely buy into the women-are-only-victims narrative. Two of the most popular, and long-running cable TV shows in the US center on women who kill. "Snapped" has been running since 21004. Each episode would explore a murder by a woman (originally a 30 minute episode, then an hour long). Unfortunately, the last episode I watched featured a man who did the killing (and I stopped watching new episodes, figuring they'd gone "woke").
Another great show, filmed partly in Australia and partly the US, and running since 2008, is "Deadly Women." Each episode tells the stories of 3 murderesses.
In both these shows, no ugliness is spared, and the women's early lived are not mined for excuses for them "turning" violent.
It's hard to imagine you as a high school mean girl Janice, but thankfully you outgrew it. And thanks for the links and references to female violence. Here's some for you and others:
Bibi Ayesha is a warlord in Afghanistan:
https://newrepublic.com/article/119772/my-night-afghanistans-only-female-warlord-commander-pigeon
The women of the May 19th Communist Organization bombed the U.S. Capitol: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female-led-domestic-terrorism-group-bombed-us-capitol-180973904/
An overview of German women's murderous antisemitism during the Third Reich: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432620/Hitlers-Furies-The-Nazi-women-bit-evil-men.html
White women as arbiters of slavery in the United States:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/10/25/white-women-slaveholders-q-a/
This barely scratches the surface but hopefully it's enough of a peek into the wickeder side of women.
Love you!
Thanks very much for this, my friend. This is an area I want to work on and read about. Much appreciated!
I still have a belligerent and aggressive streak, but it is tempered now, I hope, by self-control and empathy.
Glad I could help! As for the "belligerent and aggressive streak," that would explain some of the sassier lines in your videos. Guess you found a healthy - and welcome - use for those traits.
My only disagreement is that the holocaust didn't happen - it's just Jewish propaganda.
I hope you are joshing?
I can't detect any irony, can you? And if irony was intended, I'd ask, why?
Nope, not at all. Jews literally cannot prove its existence. An even bigger question is why are there laws in place for holocaust denialism? Do you expect me to believe we fought the tyrant Hitler only to be placed under more draconian measures?
Check out this courageous German woman standing up to this corruption, she happened to lived through Hitler's Germany.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-again-jails-93-years-old-woman-for-holocaust-denial/
What about the Jew Mendel Khatayevich who organized the famine on the Ukrainians?
How the Jew Filipp Goloschchyokin who caused the Kazakhstan famine of 1932?
Ah. I suggest you not bother using this thread to continue making your point. Virulent anti-semitism is off topic.
And I suggest you not bother disguising reality. Your use of that tyrannical term "antisemitism" says much about you-- especially gullibility. if u are not Jewish, then privilegedn- if u are.
Privileged --ness
Then again why does the term anti-semitism exist? Shouldn't other ethnic/racial coin their own just to stigmatize others? Just sounds like identity politics - a victimhood ideology to dupe people into placing themselves into superior position.
No, it's not 'identity politics' to call out anti-semitism. Identity politics is when a group is identified racially or ethnically or by gender as having a significance or value that supersedes the individual, either by the group itself or by others. It is used by groups to either manipulate others for their own benefit (victimology) OR by others to discriminate against a group (white supremacists). You are quite clearly doing the latter by citing the Jewishness of certain perpetrators of genocide. How is that relevant and not the fact of, say, their Soviet communist politics? No one said Jewish people are not individually human and therefore capable of evil like anyone else. Racism and anti-semitism are themselves manifestations of identity politics, which is very evident in your thinking. Besides that, your insistence that the Holocaust 'did not happen' puts you firmly on the crazy train. I do hope one day you can get off it.
You're implying dat only "anti" Jew comments are disallowed??? Take your antisemitism term and stick it up as far as it'll go. Ever heard of "free speech" ? Your use of that despicable phrase exposed much about your IQ- which seems 2b the same as your shoe size.
The denial of the Hollowcost is VERY much on topic, as it emulates feminism in portraying itself as a victim, so that it can open doors to further entitlement. THAT is EXACTLY how the poison of feminism spread.
Whenever I defend free speech, I am told by anti-free speech authoritarians that it is merely a cover for hate. One of my replies is hate is a price we must be willing to pay for its enjoyment. Thank you for demonstrating that cost so clearly and concretely.
I am sorry but I find this quite absurd.
The evidence is clear to see here in germany and the suffering the Nazi Regime created in the world. It was also not only jews but people without work, disabled people and a lot of the political opponents that were killed.
I can personally attest to some of the stuff happening in my family some of the older generation never reconciled that they were on the side that lost(!) and while I do not share the german habit of prostrating myself in front of the world, since the later generation had not part in it, there is absolutely no way to deny something like this. *Especially* since the rise of totalitarian political ideology and movement in the recent years, my opinion is that we can easily see, at this point in time, the same religious fervor of identity politics playing out and equally so a majority of society is silent or supportive of the suffering.
How any one can, especially now, deny that such things happen is beyond me. Instead we should all be steadfast to avoid such simple dogma in which a certain group of people is responsible for the suffering of all other, like men are now.
That is all I will write on the matter, as the topic here is vastly different and I find it really disrespectful to fill the comment section with holocaust denying.
Don't be sorry.
First of all, no one can deny what didn't exist in the first place. What I found most disrespectful is people inventing the holocaust myth and dupe others into believing it is real.
Then again, you haven't addressed my points: why are there holocaust denial laws in place, not only in Germany, but in most of Europe - even Canada. Are we not allow to question it? Is this not a attack on free speech?
What do you think of Ursula Haverbeck, does she not have a right to free speech with consequences?
How come you didn't look into the genocide committed by Jews where mentioned?
All you did was went off the rail and delve into anecdotes. People crying anti-semitism are no different to feminist crying, "Sexist!" or "Misogynist". Really, it's just more identity politics.
This is a straw man argument.
U forgot to mention the ousted Albertan university professors that were persecuted for denying the hollowcost . The absurd irony -- Jews always cite their ( perceived) persecution, but delight in persecuting anyone who dares to refute their l.i.e.s.
6 million??? It's been proven dat it was physically impossible to barbeque dat many in dat short a time frame. Also, see just how long c.o.u.n.t.i.n.g. to six million takes !
Sure you can deny what didn't exist in the first place. That's basic decision theory in statistics. The null hypothesis is that the holocaust did occur. You ware trying to convince people to reject the null hypothesis and they are demanding that you supply them with sufficient evidence to avoid type I error with 99% confidence.
WW II is still in living memory for some people and the winners of wars right the history books. I don't think anyone will have a really accurate picture of what went on in NAZI Germany for the next 100 years. It will be left to future generations to sort out the fact from the propaganda.
Israhell and USA were both founded on proven genocide and are the only 2 true terrorist states. CIA much? An unelected and secret entity with terrorism as its m.o. they killed JFK and dropped more bombs on Laos than in WW2, in a secret war. Daily murders if Palestinian children and pregnant women in their own homeland. Grayzone news dares to post the unadulterated truth, as opposed to Satan's mouthpieces (a.l.l. western media) dat are a.l.l. controlled by j.e.w.s.
DATS why ted turner was forced to sell cnn-- because it wasn't. Same reason for persecuting tiktok-- it's the o.n.l.y platform dats not Jewish regulated .
I suppose you tell me next that WW2 never happened.
It did happen, but holocaust didn't happen. To believe the holocaust happened is akin to saying "feminism is about equality". How did the Germans manage to wage a war whilst keeping Jews in concentration camps only to have "six million" killed is beyond me. Then again, roughly first two years of the war, Austerlitz was under the Soviet Union occupation. That damn German efficiency.
So Brad, you are cherry-picking and making a fallacious argument.
Phillip, u have yet to make a s.i.n.g.l.e contribution here. A.l.l. u've done is take cowardly potshots
So Jo are you Brad with a dress on?
My wife's grandfather lost his entire family to the holocaust. He escaped by moving to Venezuela. What is like to be dumb as an olive pit?
You still haven't provided evidence. Did you just simply believe the person without evidence? Why is the holocaust illegal to investigate? What is it like to be gullible?
Moreover, why overlook the Jewish inordinate role in the mass murder of milliions of Europeans during their time as Bolsheviks.
Did that missing family died of over indulgence of sexual pleasure due to masturbation machine? Did you know the Schlindler's List is based on a book that is a work of fiction?
I'm might as well take the approach and say my grandfather told me the holocaust didn't happen because you're insistent on using an anecdote from a family member.
In 7th grade we had a girl bullied by girls into suicide. The principle read her suicide note to the class, hard to believe I know, and gave us a stern warning. I remember helping her fend off several girls in 6th grade. I believe threats and hard core bullying are harder for girls than boys, so why are they turning away from protecting our girls? Feminism has no positive purpose for anyone, from my perspective.
I'm not disagreeing with the horrible violence against men, it seems more often the female violence is against women/girls. Feminism is silent to both.
See the Mean Girls of ER in Marie Claire Magazine
I had some experience with Violent girls when I was younger, i went to school until 2010 to get a time frame. Even when then it was already pretty common for them to first beat their victim and then run to whatever teacher was around and get them to punish the victim as well, as they had "provoked" the violence, this was especially true if the victim was a boy.
I've also seen female teachers actively supporting mobbing in classes, in one case one of the teachers left the room to avoid "seeing" the mobbing and be responsible for it.
In any case, at the same time most Male teachers, seem to be unable to act in any way against such behaviors, my guess is they try to avoid repercussions which would hit them harder but it's not so far off to imagine a lot of them are willing to accept this female behavior as most male feminist would, unable to see any behavior on the part of women and girls as problematic.
On the bright side, I have also seen great female teachers who were able to recognize the behavior of these students and acting accordingly to help victims of such an abuse, which was good to see even though they most likely do not have to fear the same treatment as a male would.
It's flabbergasting actually, my school years were not that long ago and I made friends with a lot of those who were bullied, I never liked such behavior, but for some reasons those, men now, are some of the most adherent feminists out there, some of them I lost as friends on the way because of my MRA activity.
In any case, that women and girls can be and are Violent is something everyone *does* know, I'm sure of it. When talking to older people especially, those who are living with a spouse for a long time, it always seemed to be common knowledge that women can be just as Vile as any men can be and everyone knows examples of exactly that happening.
So it's just puzzling to me how we can all pretend that this is some extremely uncommon occurrence or that women are always also victims when they are perpetrators.
It's just the Emperor's new clothes to the extreme.
I grew up in Montana and I can say that girls fighting or being violent has been a commonality of the cultures in Montana. I don't know why we are shocked or why we try to hide female violence. I guess maybe there could be some totally sheltered individuals out there in the world, but I don't know any. Humanuty is flawed, male and female!
The feminist slogan has always been that feminism is "the radical idea that women are human." But most feminists don't really seem to believe this truism, not if human means prone to cruelty, violence, pride, and narcissism. My slogan is "Anti-feminism is the radical idea that women are accountable."
A good slogan. Some year ago I happened on statistics about imprisonment in England. Actually as the result of idly wondering about where the females came from to populate the early colonies in Australia. And what one finds is that in the early 19th Century a fifth of those imprisoned were women. by the end of that century there had been a dramatic drop, though still much higher than the current tiny proportion. As one tracks through the 19th Century one finds that philanthropic "Victorians" (such as Dickens) largely motivated and supported by church "societies" succeeded in a raft of laws designed to reduce the chances of imprisonment for women. Ranging from making debts the responsibility of Male relatives (so avoiding imprisonment for debt) to "diversion" of those convicted of "petty theft" to institutions for the indigent poor. It is in this era that the idea that women are both innately virtuous and all to easily influenced by men seems to have become the core ideology. One which remains today. Rather than originating in "feminism" it seems more a version of 19th century christianity which is also responsible for the idea women can "civilise" their men. In many ways much of current feminism seems simply to follow exactly the same line. Indeed academic feminists often point out that in the earlier centuries no allowances were made for women and they were generally treated with the same harshness as men. Though this did explain how there could be many more female convicts to be "transported" to Australia it turns out this only played a minor part in colonisation. In general I see little difference in tge arguments of the mid Victorians and current feminists on the innate virtue and fragility of females.
I am so glad I am not alone for being a complete ahole during my teen years in the 80s. I often say if you deny my ability to do evil than you deny my humanity. This sets people off which is weird until you realize that being a victim is much more powerful because it destabilizes your opponent if they are decent.
A very good point about being "decent". In this country, as well charted by feminists, most of the "advances" were and are enacted by men, men are still the majority in our national political institutions. So what is keyed into is a deep cultural expectation that men will respond to fragile and defenceless females. Rather disproving the idea of "patriarchy". One can see this in the current "terf wars" where two sects of feminism are at war about what constitutes "a woman" because it turns out "women" have lots of "sex based rights". In all of this no one has bothered about "man" nor any "mens rights". Even though the majority of youngsters seeking help are girls wanting to grow up as men. Both of the sects constantly try to goad the wider public into interest by claiming that they are the victims of each other. Indeed the "terfs" claim that their opponents in this doctrinal squabble are "patriarchy" and "men" when very clearly men in general have no interest in this battle of fanatics(well apparently 80% dont according to a recent poll). Paradoxically we have feminists busy demanding more women in our armed forces and police forces while simultaneously demanding "men" protect them in their own doctrinal spats. Apparently on the grounds that women are universally weak of mind and body ! And need lots of "safe spaces". As you say all around their are claims to victimhood.
I have a younger male friend and the head games young women play makes me seethe. One minute he is 'toxic' and when they find it useful, he is to protect them. It is so surreal. No woman I know growing up in the 80s had these insane thoughts. Men were friends, colleagues, acquaintances, lovers and with the rare one something to be avoided because they were dangerous.
I am constantly amazed at the very feminists that constantly go on about all males being some form of threat through the existence of a form of original sin they all carry. Then "demand" these very same evil monsters become "allies". The "terf" argument appears to be based on this idea that men are by definition a threat to all women due to such an inherent propensity to be misogynistic perverts, consequently women need lots and lots of safe spaces free from such monsters........ and then apparently wonder why members of this sex they so completely deride aren't so keen to be allies in their civil war.
It’s gynocentrism, the ingrained expectation that men exist to serve the needs of women. A man’s job is both to overcome his ‘sin’ of being a man when it pleases women AND to utilize it when necessary (eg. physical protection) for the same reason.
What a chilling incident, but I can't say I'm surprised by the response offered by the feminist academic community. Feminism has long advanced that there are two simple rules to explain societal violence:
1) men and boys are violent; girls and women are their victims, and
2) in instances where girls or women are violent and their victims are male, see rule #1.
I very much appreciate and admire Dr. Fiamengo's crusade to foster a more sophisticated and more honest discourse on the complex relationship between gender and violence. It's upsetting that feminism has sought to "empower" girls by shielding them from responsibility for their behavior. Any power gained by eluding responsibility for one's actions is fundamentally fraudulent.
As a retired high school teacher, the concept of mean girls is not news to me.
Now that the victim has been identified, Ken Lee 59, a man of apparent Chinese/Asian origin, I wonder if the police will class this as a 'hate crime'.
I wonder.
You left out one of the most heinous of all. Jasmine Richardson youngest person ever convicted of 1st degree murder in Canada. When she was 12 years old, she slit her little brother's throat.
I've never heard of her! Thanks--will look her up right now.
Janice, this is great. Very happy to follow your substack. Anyone with any life experience at all should know that women/girls have just as much aggression as men/boys, it just manifests differently.
Great work.
I have never had trouble believing in women's capacities for violence and cruelty, and never bought the feminist theory that if women ran the world, there'd be no wars. Unlike girls and women, who can hold interminable grudges, men and boys can develop friendship or admiration for an opponent after conflict has ended. I've always said that if women were in charge of war, there would be no such a thing as armistice. A woman general would be like, "Nope. All those witches have to die."
Janice urges us all, against our learned inclinations, to believe reality rather than the ideology and the slogans with which we have become comfortable. Feminist propagandists, including many teachers, professors, and journalists, prefer their fanciful stereotypes to reality, because successfully claiming the victim role guarantees privileges and benefits. It is not white males who are privileged, it is females. In our society, the feminists have won by obscuring reality.
Janice, it's stretching the credulity of your many fans, including myself, to say you were ever a "mean girl". Clearly a case of False Memory Syndrome...
Mike Buchanan
JUCTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
The CBC has been toilet flushing in reverse for over a decade. If the Turd loses his job, there is a half-chance his successor will shut it down, or gut it seriously. One can hope.
"the recent murder of a homeless man in downtown Toronto by a group of teenagers, all female, who were looking for an alcohol-fueled good time. "
Prohibition should never have been lifted. And it was women, some would today describe as "feminist", who were the backbone of that movement. Alcohol is the worst drug on the planet that does the most damage.