Amen Janice, well said, and many thanks for yet another instance of you standing up for men and boys. Much appreciated.
Why won't men fight back? Lots of reasons but one is that men are biologically geared to strive for status which puts them into a hierarchical arrangement that says: "Work to appear as independent as possible." Complaining not only makes men look dependent it also makes them look needy. Men will avoid that when possible. This has enabled the feminists to weaponize gynocentrism and not have any resistance. Damn.
Tom thank you for writing and posting the link to your essay. The subject was covered well. Gives some ground to stand on.
I'm also responding to add a possible other factor.
Men perhaps approach matters mostly devoid of emotion. You may have already covered this with other words, but here it goes - men are not applying emotion, or perhaps enough of it, as motivation to their own individual and combined group cause. Like the, "how dare you", approach that gets attention - yet multiply this approach by as many women engaged in their individual and group responses. Look where emotional outrage has taken perceptions regarding women - to all manner of top public and private positions.
Not that I'm suggesting similarly expressing strong emotion be replicated toward men's concerns - as we've all seen, known and heard about unhinged male behavior. The occasional burst of incentivizing emotion may have its timely moment. A matter of when. We've seen how reason has worked for drawing attention to men's concerns - only so far.
It has been said by many in the professions - including media - that 'emotions sell'. That human interest story involving feelings reaches people perhaps at times more than the calm, reasoned approach.
The reasoned approach is 'the long game'. But it appears that the heated, 'right now' strategy gets loads of attention in the short to mid term.
Good addition Mike. Men's nature seems to be more logical and less emotional and as you say, that is less likely to get the attention. It reminds me of some research that was done years ago where the researcher separated toddlers from their mother with a barrier. The researcher noted that the boys all tried to tear down the barrier to get to mom, while the girls sat down and cried. Some things don't change?
Indeed ... I was going to simply comment that men, generally speaking, don't indulge in emotional outrage, which is why it seems they're just bearing the brunt of the attacks.
Corrupted institutions can be repaired but it is expensive. Like cleaning the Aegean stables. Or fixing a shanty town.
We'd be better off building a whole new neighbourhood in a new county as it'd be cheaper.
So instead of bringing the ossified corpse of western Civilization back to life with smelling salts, let's just let the hero create a whole new kingdom.
The men of renown who've been disenfranchised are continuing to build new institutions. New money, new networks, new services. It's a culture of wide scale competition and cooperation.
The ludicrous feminised debt laden great replaced delapidated cultures that don't let young people form families are committing voluntary extinction through suicidal empathy.
The founders of the new system will be the best of us. Probably not a few of the men who bore the brunt of neo-Marxism and feminisation wokeness. Their empathy being mistaken for weakness when it really isn't.
I gained my appreciation for men in general (and you could probably argue for white men in particular) by watching the show How It's Made while in college. Seeing how much intelligence, persistence, and damn hard work went into creating widgets that worked with other widgets which powered our infrastructure and modern comfort absolutely blew my mind. The fact that such work seemed extremely dull and boring to me, a young woman, was not lost on me. Neither was the benefit of men's tendency to obsess and tinker. I didn't read the quote until years later but it was then I truly realized "If civilization were left up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts" (Camille Paglia).
As someone born in 1962, at the tail end of the Baby Boom, this piece resonates strongly. People often talk about “the Boomers” as if we were a single, unified cohort that all entered adulthood into the same economy, culture, and power structures. That simply wasn’t true. By the time those of us born in the early ’60s came of age, many institutions were already closed, credential inflation was accelerating, competition was fierce, and early forms of ideological and hiring gatekeeping were well underway. We didn’t inherit the postwar boom or effortless upward mobility often attributed to earlier Boomers, yet we’re routinely lumped in as if we did. That flattening of experience erases real differences in timing, opportunity, and power—and it helps explain why so many men from this “Generation Jones” cohort feel both excluded and unfairly blamed.
I have been a social worker for over thirty years. I have witnessed the destructive nature of contemporary feminism; for men an women. What is galling is that they take everyday taxpayers money to pay for their dysfunctional ideology! They are no more than pimps off the public purse!
It's all so disgusting. "What, you don't want whites to be a minority? Why? Are minorities treated poorly?" They said as they openly and gleefully promoted their measurably inferior applicants over white men.
Or... "It's so hard being a girl in STEM, I suffer from imposter syndrome". Seriously? Might that have anything to do with the fact you are an imposter and are, again, measurably inferior to the men who were passed over *because they are men*?
There's a legitimate reason to suspect women and minorities are incompetent at this point. Because so many are in their present positions in spite of their inability to do the job in question.
White men have the right and the responsibility to continue building and maintaining society without the hectoring and hen-pecking of envious and incompetent women and minorities.
That either happens through discourse, or our failed institutions will result in chaos, causing it to happen through force. One way or another, this is going to end. At this point, I suspect the latter is more likely, so it's going to be my job to ensure that the people I care about (women, mostly, for the record) make it through whatever is going to happen. Which I suspect won't be pretty.
Janice's documentation of systemic exclusion would be strengthened by examining the control apparatus that made it possible. She identifies feminists and their allies as architects, but the deeper question is why institutional power so readily aligned with their project. The ruling structures that govern modern life—corporations, universities, media conglomerates—adopted equity ideology not from moral conviction but because it served as a control mechanism. Atomizing potential solidarity among working people, redirecting class grievance into identity warfare, and producing what Jung called the Mass Man—individuals who receive ideological instruction from authority and comply without examining implications. The excluded generations were not merely victims of feminist overreach; they were targets of a system that recognized masculine independence as a threat requiring neutralization.
Some males are privileged in terms of power and money. The vast majority are not. In many parts of the western world, male unemployment in impoverished communities has been systemic for generations. This inter-generational welfare dependency culture has principally affected middle-aged men who used to be able to rely on low-skilled manufacturing jobs which were once plentiful but have since been off-shored. These men have suffered, not just financially, but socially as well, often experiencing family breakdowns, suicides, addictions, and both petty and serious crime. The defeatism and disadvantage they experienced has been passed down from father to son. There are millions of men at the bottom of the rung of society who are suffering, yet are invisible.
This connects to another omission: the question of why men collaborated so readily in their own dispossession. Janice notes that many men were "enthusiastic" supporters, but doesn't explore the conditioning that produced this. Men have been socialized for generations to view their own lives as disposable in service to others—a training once reserved for warfare but now generalized into peacetime self-abnegation. When masculinity itself is designated pathological, men seeking moral standing have only one path: performative self-flagellation. They become, as the control system intends, agents of their own diminishment.
Her call for cultural renaissance is right on the money. Renaissance requires men capable of receiving recognition—which means men who have undertaken the shadow work of integrating decades of accumulated shame and rage. Righteous anger at collective injustice has value; it signals intact humanity and grants other men permission to name their own suffering. For a decade, I have been exploring this in my local men's group. But anger that becomes identity rather than catalyst produces men who are correct about their mistreatment yet incapable of moving beyond it. The conscious man distinguishes between anger as witness and anger as prison.
The path forward is what I'm calling Conscious Patriarchy (a theme I am exploring in my own work). It operates as a double helix: structural reform and personal healing ascending together, each enabling the other. Changed systems create conditions for individual recovery; healed individuals build capacity for systemic change. Neither alone completes the work. The renaissance Janice envisions requires not only recognition of masculine achievement but recovery of conscious masculinity. Of men reclaiming their true nature from beneath the conditioning, reconnecting to the penetrative, generative energy that serves both sexes, rather than merely defending against attack.
The oft quoted truism that men are the disposable gender needs to be addressed. Neither gender is, but the idea that one man lost in battle doesn't carry ramifications for his family or not to be born families for generations is pretty clear by now. The powers that be are killing men financially which of course limits families for generations from here.
"Neither gender is, but the idea that one man lost in battle doesn't carry ramifications for his family or not to be born families for generations is pretty clear by now."
Thank you for saying that, This. It needs to be said now more than ever. People are not reducible to isolated biological or economic units. Rather, we are all interdependent beings. Personal function and personal fate are always, therefore, weighed ultimately on moral grounds. And on moral grounds (egregious exceptions such as slavery notwithstanding), every human life is of infinite value and therefore irreplaceable. (That's a Western formulation the moral ideal, but it has cross-cultural equivalents.) My point is that humans cannot exist at all apart from a cultural, or moral, context.
I for one, have helped arrange to sue the University of California in federal court for their racially discriminatory admissions practices. https://sard.law/news/
I remember us discussing my experience at Dow chemical. It was 1984 when the vice president of Dow Chemical Research International assembled all of us researchers in order to tell us that for the foreseeable future women would be preferentially hired and promoted ahead of men, regardless of qualifications.
And they started immediately. In a field dominated by men, at least 50% of new hires were female. My own brother's reported that their female classmates in computer sciences were getting a dozen job offers, and even top male candidates were getting none in that time of recession.
Personally I did not think that this would last, because management regularly started new programs that they abandoned within a year or two. But it did stick and with a vengeance.
In the subsequent years, I would witness shockingly incompetent females being promoted on a regular basis, while outstanding men stagnated.
At that first meeting in 1984, there was a tense silence among my colleagues when the VP finished her announcement and left. It was incredulity. We were a group of highly capable researchers, and we were just told that it doesn't matter how good you are, you better expect to be bypassed. To say that this was demoralizing, is quite the understatement. And yet it stuck through my entire career, and it continues to this day, more than 40 years later. I will be shocked if anyone succeeds at slowing down this suicidal train wreck.
Merry Christmas, Janice. And to your other half too. Thank you for taking Dworkin's face off your home page in time for the festive season.
I notice all the Santa's little helpers in this photo are doing air-conditioned, laptop jobs. One wonders what they do? My guess is marketing and brand awareness.
It's men who are, as a demographic, a net postive to the treasury of all Western countries. Not women - who are a net negative. This is still true of the 25 - 32 age group where there is a slight 'gender pay gap' in favour of women. They may pay the same taxes, but are given so much they fall into the red.
Who would have thought that alienating the only group that turn a profit would be a sensible thing to do? Sadly, but in some satisfactory way, these chickens are coming home to roost. The lack of men working for the economy is being felt. I feel that's why this article, like Helen Andrews' before it are getting published. People smell trouble up ahead - and feminism is going to get it in the neck. Here's hoping for 2026.
I look forward to a year of more great writing. Thank you for all your work so far.
Merry Christmas, Janice! This has certainly been going on for more than the past 15 years. I'm a GenX'er and I can remember a lot of loud-mouthed feminists around when I was growing up. I can also remember in my own life and as well as on a societal scale that the achievements of white men were either approached with extreme skepticism or just disappeared in something like an illusionist's act. I remember in the Red Pill Movie our friend Paul Elam saying that every building you see, road, bridge, airport etc. was designed, built, and is maintained by men. I still had to think about that for a little while before it hit me: "yeah, that's right!"
The sad fact is that women rarely fight fair. As an older white man with the scars to prove my assertion, I find the best strategy is to avoid such women.
You are, like me, from generations of men who applied codes of conduct which could extend from individual disagreements to quite large scale conflict. Ever wonder if women could create an equivalent to the Geneva Convention?
Janice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a Merry Christmas and a wonderful new year.
Amen Janice, well said, and many thanks for yet another instance of you standing up for men and boys. Much appreciated.
Why won't men fight back? Lots of reasons but one is that men are biologically geared to strive for status which puts them into a hierarchical arrangement that says: "Work to appear as independent as possible." Complaining not only makes men look dependent it also makes them look needy. Men will avoid that when possible. This has enabled the feminists to weaponize gynocentrism and not have any resistance. Damn.
I did a post on why men won't fight back if anyone is interested: https://menaregood.substack.com/p/why-wont-men-fight-back
Tom thank you for writing and posting the link to your essay. The subject was covered well. Gives some ground to stand on.
I'm also responding to add a possible other factor.
Men perhaps approach matters mostly devoid of emotion. You may have already covered this with other words, but here it goes - men are not applying emotion, or perhaps enough of it, as motivation to their own individual and combined group cause. Like the, "how dare you", approach that gets attention - yet multiply this approach by as many women engaged in their individual and group responses. Look where emotional outrage has taken perceptions regarding women - to all manner of top public and private positions.
Not that I'm suggesting similarly expressing strong emotion be replicated toward men's concerns - as we've all seen, known and heard about unhinged male behavior. The occasional burst of incentivizing emotion may have its timely moment. A matter of when. We've seen how reason has worked for drawing attention to men's concerns - only so far.
It has been said by many in the professions - including media - that 'emotions sell'. That human interest story involving feelings reaches people perhaps at times more than the calm, reasoned approach.
The reasoned approach is 'the long game'. But it appears that the heated, 'right now' strategy gets loads of attention in the short to mid term.
Good addition Mike. Men's nature seems to be more logical and less emotional and as you say, that is less likely to get the attention. It reminds me of some research that was done years ago where the researcher separated toddlers from their mother with a barrier. The researcher noted that the boys all tried to tear down the barrier to get to mom, while the girls sat down and cried. Some things don't change?
I love this point ,thank you for making it.
LOL ;-D
Indeed ... I was going to simply comment that men, generally speaking, don't indulge in emotional outrage, which is why it seems they're just bearing the brunt of the attacks.
Renaissance is the word.
Corrupted institutions can be repaired but it is expensive. Like cleaning the Aegean stables. Or fixing a shanty town.
We'd be better off building a whole new neighbourhood in a new county as it'd be cheaper.
So instead of bringing the ossified corpse of western Civilization back to life with smelling salts, let's just let the hero create a whole new kingdom.
The men of renown who've been disenfranchised are continuing to build new institutions. New money, new networks, new services. It's a culture of wide scale competition and cooperation.
The ludicrous feminised debt laden great replaced delapidated cultures that don't let young people form families are committing voluntary extinction through suicidal empathy.
The founders of the new system will be the best of us. Probably not a few of the men who bore the brunt of neo-Marxism and feminisation wokeness. Their empathy being mistaken for weakness when it really isn't.
I gained my appreciation for men in general (and you could probably argue for white men in particular) by watching the show How It's Made while in college. Seeing how much intelligence, persistence, and damn hard work went into creating widgets that worked with other widgets which powered our infrastructure and modern comfort absolutely blew my mind. The fact that such work seemed extremely dull and boring to me, a young woman, was not lost on me. Neither was the benefit of men's tendency to obsess and tinker. I didn't read the quote until years later but it was then I truly realized "If civilization were left up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts" (Camille Paglia).
LOL, Paglia was also a feminist and thus given to hyperbole. If it was left op too women, we would almost certainly still in the trees ;-D
up to ;-D
Amen !
As someone born in 1962, at the tail end of the Baby Boom, this piece resonates strongly. People often talk about “the Boomers” as if we were a single, unified cohort that all entered adulthood into the same economy, culture, and power structures. That simply wasn’t true. By the time those of us born in the early ’60s came of age, many institutions were already closed, credential inflation was accelerating, competition was fierce, and early forms of ideological and hiring gatekeeping were well underway. We didn’t inherit the postwar boom or effortless upward mobility often attributed to earlier Boomers, yet we’re routinely lumped in as if we did. That flattening of experience erases real differences in timing, opportunity, and power—and it helps explain why so many men from this “Generation Jones” cohort feel both excluded and unfairly blamed.
I have been a social worker for over thirty years. I have witnessed the destructive nature of contemporary feminism; for men an women. What is galling is that they take everyday taxpayers money to pay for their dysfunctional ideology! They are no more than pimps off the public purse!
Janice, thank you for all you do and I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas all the best in the new year.
That picture is the PERFECT picture of women's idea of equality. ALL WOMEN and no men making ALL decisions about society!
Democracy is the tyranny of the Majority.
It's all so disgusting. "What, you don't want whites to be a minority? Why? Are minorities treated poorly?" They said as they openly and gleefully promoted their measurably inferior applicants over white men.
Or... "It's so hard being a girl in STEM, I suffer from imposter syndrome". Seriously? Might that have anything to do with the fact you are an imposter and are, again, measurably inferior to the men who were passed over *because they are men*?
There's a legitimate reason to suspect women and minorities are incompetent at this point. Because so many are in their present positions in spite of their inability to do the job in question.
White men have the right and the responsibility to continue building and maintaining society without the hectoring and hen-pecking of envious and incompetent women and minorities.
That either happens through discourse, or our failed institutions will result in chaos, causing it to happen through force. One way or another, this is going to end. At this point, I suspect the latter is more likely, so it's going to be my job to ensure that the people I care about (women, mostly, for the record) make it through whatever is going to happen. Which I suspect won't be pretty.
Janice's documentation of systemic exclusion would be strengthened by examining the control apparatus that made it possible. She identifies feminists and their allies as architects, but the deeper question is why institutional power so readily aligned with their project. The ruling structures that govern modern life—corporations, universities, media conglomerates—adopted equity ideology not from moral conviction but because it served as a control mechanism. Atomizing potential solidarity among working people, redirecting class grievance into identity warfare, and producing what Jung called the Mass Man—individuals who receive ideological instruction from authority and comply without examining implications. The excluded generations were not merely victims of feminist overreach; they were targets of a system that recognized masculine independence as a threat requiring neutralization.
Some males are privileged in terms of power and money. The vast majority are not. In many parts of the western world, male unemployment in impoverished communities has been systemic for generations. This inter-generational welfare dependency culture has principally affected middle-aged men who used to be able to rely on low-skilled manufacturing jobs which were once plentiful but have since been off-shored. These men have suffered, not just financially, but socially as well, often experiencing family breakdowns, suicides, addictions, and both petty and serious crime. The defeatism and disadvantage they experienced has been passed down from father to son. There are millions of men at the bottom of the rung of society who are suffering, yet are invisible.
This connects to another omission: the question of why men collaborated so readily in their own dispossession. Janice notes that many men were "enthusiastic" supporters, but doesn't explore the conditioning that produced this. Men have been socialized for generations to view their own lives as disposable in service to others—a training once reserved for warfare but now generalized into peacetime self-abnegation. When masculinity itself is designated pathological, men seeking moral standing have only one path: performative self-flagellation. They become, as the control system intends, agents of their own diminishment.
Her call for cultural renaissance is right on the money. Renaissance requires men capable of receiving recognition—which means men who have undertaken the shadow work of integrating decades of accumulated shame and rage. Righteous anger at collective injustice has value; it signals intact humanity and grants other men permission to name their own suffering. For a decade, I have been exploring this in my local men's group. But anger that becomes identity rather than catalyst produces men who are correct about their mistreatment yet incapable of moving beyond it. The conscious man distinguishes between anger as witness and anger as prison.
The path forward is what I'm calling Conscious Patriarchy (a theme I am exploring in my own work). It operates as a double helix: structural reform and personal healing ascending together, each enabling the other. Changed systems create conditions for individual recovery; healed individuals build capacity for systemic change. Neither alone completes the work. The renaissance Janice envisions requires not only recognition of masculine achievement but recovery of conscious masculinity. Of men reclaiming their true nature from beneath the conditioning, reconnecting to the penetrative, generative energy that serves both sexes, rather than merely defending against attack.
The oft quoted truism that men are the disposable gender needs to be addressed. Neither gender is, but the idea that one man lost in battle doesn't carry ramifications for his family or not to be born families for generations is pretty clear by now. The powers that be are killing men financially which of course limits families for generations from here.
"Neither gender is, but the idea that one man lost in battle doesn't carry ramifications for his family or not to be born families for generations is pretty clear by now."
Thank you for saying that, This. It needs to be said now more than ever. People are not reducible to isolated biological or economic units. Rather, we are all interdependent beings. Personal function and personal fate are always, therefore, weighed ultimately on moral grounds. And on moral grounds (egregious exceptions such as slavery notwithstanding), every human life is of infinite value and therefore irreplaceable. (That's a Western formulation the moral ideal, but it has cross-cultural equivalents.) My point is that humans cannot exist at all apart from a cultural, or moral, context.
I for one, have helped arrange to sue the University of California in federal court for their racially discriminatory admissions practices. https://sard.law/news/
White women have been the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action and quotas.
Yet another brilliant and necessary article!
I remember us discussing my experience at Dow chemical. It was 1984 when the vice president of Dow Chemical Research International assembled all of us researchers in order to tell us that for the foreseeable future women would be preferentially hired and promoted ahead of men, regardless of qualifications.
And they started immediately. In a field dominated by men, at least 50% of new hires were female. My own brother's reported that their female classmates in computer sciences were getting a dozen job offers, and even top male candidates were getting none in that time of recession.
Personally I did not think that this would last, because management regularly started new programs that they abandoned within a year or two. But it did stick and with a vengeance.
In the subsequent years, I would witness shockingly incompetent females being promoted on a regular basis, while outstanding men stagnated.
At that first meeting in 1984, there was a tense silence among my colleagues when the VP finished her announcement and left. It was incredulity. We were a group of highly capable researchers, and we were just told that it doesn't matter how good you are, you better expect to be bypassed. To say that this was demoralizing, is quite the understatement. And yet it stuck through my entire career, and it continues to this day, more than 40 years later. I will be shocked if anyone succeeds at slowing down this suicidal train wreck.
Merry Christmas, Janice. And to your other half too. Thank you for taking Dworkin's face off your home page in time for the festive season.
I notice all the Santa's little helpers in this photo are doing air-conditioned, laptop jobs. One wonders what they do? My guess is marketing and brand awareness.
It's men who are, as a demographic, a net postive to the treasury of all Western countries. Not women - who are a net negative. This is still true of the 25 - 32 age group where there is a slight 'gender pay gap' in favour of women. They may pay the same taxes, but are given so much they fall into the red.
Who would have thought that alienating the only group that turn a profit would be a sensible thing to do? Sadly, but in some satisfactory way, these chickens are coming home to roost. The lack of men working for the economy is being felt. I feel that's why this article, like Helen Andrews' before it are getting published. People smell trouble up ahead - and feminism is going to get it in the neck. Here's hoping for 2026.
I look forward to a year of more great writing. Thank you for all your work so far.
Merry Christmas, Janice! This has certainly been going on for more than the past 15 years. I'm a GenX'er and I can remember a lot of loud-mouthed feminists around when I was growing up. I can also remember in my own life and as well as on a societal scale that the achievements of white men were either approached with extreme skepticism or just disappeared in something like an illusionist's act. I remember in the Red Pill Movie our friend Paul Elam saying that every building you see, road, bridge, airport etc. was designed, built, and is maintained by men. I still had to think about that for a little while before it hit me: "yeah, that's right!"
Thank you indeed, big time.
I have longed to hear this, but didn't realise it was possible someone would so precisely put it together...
I have to say, it is just as true in the UK,
and I get very tired of hearing Gen X men pouring any kind of blame on us white boomer men.
I will forever try to enlighten and inform those I run into, who cannot see where the issues we need to tackle actually lie,
but everyone needs to read this piece to understand why...
very well done.
The sad fact is that women rarely fight fair. As an older white man with the scars to prove my assertion, I find the best strategy is to avoid such women.
You are, like me, from generations of men who applied codes of conduct which could extend from individual disagreements to quite large scale conflict. Ever wonder if women could create an equivalent to the Geneva Convention?