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?
Even in adult women, I've noticed that a shocking number of them will literally scream in instant response to shocking and/or fearful situations. I've never seen a man do that. I've seen men whimper uncontrollably in response to such things but they're always ashamed of and embarrassed by it, later. It was not a response designed to draw attention from others.
Evolutionarily, it seems that loud screaming by women is a better survival strategy than conserving lung capacity for vigorous fight or flight. Scream and men will come running and do the fighting.
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.
I will pitch emotional fits, occasionally, but nearly always when I'm alone and cursing the broken tool, burnt steak, or whatever. I try not to inflict this release on others, even the cats.
Not in contradiction, but in support, but those men that resist are also being picked off one by one. Roughly 50% of the prison population of Australia has not been convicted of a crime, and some have been in there for years.
I think in NSW avg time on remand is 3.25 years. 70%+ convictions are due roll overs as a result of lack of funding etc. if you are in lock up for 3 + years you roll over to end it. Women’s suicide rate from release from custody is 0/100k down from standard rate of 5.8/100k of population or 2/day. Prison appears good for women, more should go. Men’s suicide rate is approx 503/100k up from standard 18/100k or 7/day. If the received psych support the rate is almost 3 times higher. My numbers might be a little off as they are from memory, but I think pretty good as the numbers were so grievously horrific to burn into memory.
I'm currently reading the Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; it seems strangely relevant.
Are you saying that of those prisoners who received psychological "support" (psych treatment) the suicide rate was 3 times higher?
And this is the 21st Century, in a "modern" "Western" nation, with colour TVs, mobile phones, and "education". Not a grainy, black-and-white place where people could only read newspapers or listen to the radio - before it was confiscated - what are they doing to social media again? This time the Bolsheviks are nameless and they have infested all the political parties.
Yes those who receive support psychologically had a higher rate, I think 2.8 times.
They may have had complex issues pre-existing and prison exacerbated it, or could have developed an issue as a result of being in there.
It is counter intuitive that they don’t seem better off. The psychs seem to be working for the state rather than the patient. Our prisons seem to be death camps for men. During or after lockup.
The extent of the dysfunction is so colossal and so pervasive it challenges the possibility that such statistics could arise by pure chance. People revolt against the incompetence, the "mistakes", and the "multi-cultural experiment" but the burgeoning conclusion is that it's deliberate.
As I think I posted earlier in one of these threads, I believe it is partly deliberate, sometimes by unique actors following communist atheist world views and sometimes following UN global instructions, and sometimes by conspiracy, where whole departments bend together on their anti-male and anti-human pogroms. Imagine how you'd perform as the lone rational mind in one of these government departments...
But it's also being spread by a toxic, caustic culture that is being taught in schools, in media, on the streets, and in corporate employment where CEOs trot out the mandated platitudes and scientifically impossible ingratiation. The extent of the cohesion of the forces at play really seems to rule out just a natural decline in morals, ethics and intelligence. It seems impossible that at some level it's not all planned and steered.
The labor parties in the UK and Australia, and the Democrats in the USA, all have a private organisations within them of progressive feminists. They get together every two years and chat about what they do.
"It is counter intuitive that they don’t seem better off."
How is it counter intuitive that people receiving medical treatment have a higher death rate than the general population? They're not randomly selected you know!
It’s psychological/psychiatric treatment, not medical from disease or injury. The treatment being to heal and comfort. Intuitively the should be improving and the suicide rate not increase. The fact their suicide rate is accelerating with healing support is counter intuitive. If their condition is that bad, they should be in a mental health facility, not a prison…
This reality reveals another lie of feminism - that was always clear to anyone who was paying attention: "if we go too far, the patriarchy will stop us"
Feminists asserted in effect that there would be a match to itself among men, but then attacked anyone who raised issues, even women, ruthlessly, and of course since there was not an actual organized patriarchy as described by feminists, it was not there to react.
What we risk today is really far more dangerous. Our best-case outcome is a critical mass of young men forming loud and visible associations, and the growing group of women who have realized that feminism has been a problem can find ways to be seen to actively support them. Ideally, this would include the older women who believed in the lies around dv and consent, acknowledging their errors and distancing themselves from those who led them astray. Unfortunately, too many of those older women who believed go silent, or acknowledge change in whispers, where previously they screamed, hence their quiet change in view is not registering in politics or policy.
A growing group of young women is starting to find voice, but in isolated ways, lacking the organization of those who built careers on the lies, as a result they continue to lack influence on policy. Most have yet to appreciate what is required to address the key enduring issue, in a broad social way: othering.
The issue is that we have clearly told 2 generations or more of men that they are "them", not "us" that they are not owed anything, even equal opportunity, that their education is not material, only the education of girls matters.
A lot of young women are scrambling around, but few appreciate or want to acknowledge the reality of the real harm. They understand that feminism was hate, but have not fully appreciated the degree to which it dominated the discussion, in the most critical years of their male peers upbringing
Young men, having long told men they are not owed, increasingly conclude that also means they do not owe. They are accepting their perceptions of market price and value around marriage, dating and all other things, and acting as price takers. Their perception of price and value is such that there is no reason to engage. The problem for broader society is, that we have cut off real information flow from and just as importantly to these men.
Young women, in order to deal with this reality will have to find ways to communicate, and rewrite the understanding of group, inclusion and duty. It will require finding ways to understand the nature of the alienation, and speak directly to it. I personally do not believe that can be done without directly acknowledging the othering and becoming furious about it, not quietly seeking change. The DV narrative should not be accepted as innocent error, not just because the logic around the math does not support it but because you can't reverse the impressions made by "it doesn't matter what she did" with allowing for ooops.
The broader issue is, that men were told organizing would be misogyny. It is dangerous because men are becoming price takers, and concluding the attacks on anyone who tries to speak up for men, including women.
They do understand that harm was done, just not the depth and breadth of it. They do not understand the context that things like "a shortage of economically attractive men" fell into as a discussion. They do not fully appreciate the impression made by casting women as the victims of harm done directly to boys and men. Few are adding up the impressions, but instead are seeing them one at a time, not as an integrated whole. They do not understand the impressions already made by the choices that should have been transparent around education, and the impressions made by the clear discrimination of affirmative action, where there has been an active choice to ignore that "work is her choice" and the women who can afford to - often choose not to. They do not understand that those who tried to talk about shelters for men were actively attacked and demonized, and this is the reason there are 1000 times as many shelters for women as men. They do not understand that the assertions of no woman would, were a choice to protect and encourage female abusers and predators.
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.
Helpful commentary. You’re more right than you know. And a repaired institution may be as vulnerable to falling again to the social justice backlash, which will come. Peter Bogosian is among those that insist institutions must be replaced, rather than pouring resources into attempts to resuscitate them and dealing with the endless friction that comes with it
Thanks bro. I think we do need a hero though. The fix for law and policy are increasingly within sight.
Just loop over all court cases and run all legislation, policy documents, logic, and earlier cases over them. Shake out a score for the validity of the judgement.
I'll be damned. I was going to correct you but looked it up, first, and you are correct. I don't believe I've ever seen it spelled correctly, then, because I kind of obsess about spelling and grammar and think I would have noticed.
I believe the reason people put up with Trump was he could have been that hero. But he is more of an ego in a cape, and as he lets the vaccine biz get exposed they've released the Epstein dirt on him.
There's Epstein dirt on Trump? We all know he knew the guy socially, like half the jet set on the East Coast, but I haven't seen anything I'd call dirt.
Even the literal Messiah was perfect, causing everyone else to be shit in comparison.
I'd suggest we need to let ideas percolation through the manosphere. Like direct democracy instead of one Congress man per million men in population. Just setup a policy GitHub for legislation and let everyone vote dynamically on phone. Scale votes by net lifetime contribution.
There's nothing fake about Donald Trump. He is what he is and he makes no secret of it. If you've flipped it just means you're fickle. A fair weather fan. A lightweight.
Where? Australia? New Zealand? There are not a lot of places to start a country these days. At best some could reform a good one. The big question is how do you stop a country like China from rolling up and taking everything?
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).
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.
The worst part is that there are plenty of qualified women and minorities, but because they often look wrong (Asians) or there are not enough (black women), those who are less qualified are taken in, and this act denigrates all the others being brought in. It would be in everyone's best interest if merit were the only consideration, but this has been tossed aside with dreadful consequences.
The problem is not women and minorities. The problem is that creepy white leaders are promoting those who do not belong, creating problems where they did not previously exist. There is something deeply disturbing about Silicon Valley companies whose engineering departments are only 30% to 40% white being called "Bastions of White Supremacy." The people being passed by are often Asian-Americans with the best grades and test scores.
We should be creating the best teams for the advancement of science and progress, without regard to race or sex. Instead we have evil creeps randomly throwing around positions without regard to the consequences.
I entered STEM and never in my life experienced imposter syndrome.
But I can understand how women would subconsciously feel they're wasting their fertility and failing to participate in the female collective by allocating huge amounts of time on things not people or babies.
They are. I like many of the women I have known and learned from in STEM. Many are heading to their autumn years only one RIF notice away from having nothing to live for.
Those are the ones I *like* and care about - who I wish better for and are not the self-righteous, ignorant girlboss types (a cohort that grew massively in the past 10-15 years).
The latter group I would not piss on if they were on fire. The former I feel a great deal of sorrow for.
You have to give feminists credit for one thing: They've conquered the Peter Principle. Women and minorities now get promoted WAY beyond their levels of incompetence.
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!
And men are the only group of net lifetime tax payers.
In England, the S.S. are fully captured by feminism. They work with the family court, police, national health system, female entitlement welfare system, and public education system. Rolling out mandatory DuLuth indoctrination.
Their job is cultural revolution to abolish the family. By persuading women to use their legal supremacy to destroy husbands and fathers. And using mens taxes to bribe angry, resentful women to marry the state.
England and Wales went to "no-fault" divorce in 2022, despite 54 years of experience in California to examine. (Though only 12 in New York. Ronald Reagan said it was the worst law he'd signed in eight years as governor.) Scotland makes her own rules on these matters, and hasn't joined them yet.
Whether "no-fault" hurts men or women more is a matter of debate, but it clearly harms the more responsible partner to the benefit of the less. Which is probably the whole point.
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. 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.
"The powers that be are killing men financially which of course limits families for generations from here."
No, they're able to maintain population levels by promoting single motherhood, sperm banks, and mass immigration. We really are disposable, and they're proving it to us.
Theodore Dalrymple addresses the generation to generation persistence of an underclass in the UK lucidly in his book "Life at the bottom". One of his key insights is that long-term poverty is largely a product of dysfunctional values that are continually reinforced by an elite culture searching for victims...think Hillary Clinton's "deplorables".
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.
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.
"many men from this “Generation Jones” cohort feel both excluded and unfairly blamed."
Thanks very much for this comment. I had never heard of Generation Jones. I just googled it now and found I can relate completely! I wish my sister was still alive so I could tell her about it. She was born in 1946 and I was born in 1956, with no other siblings. It's only 10 years apart but it made a world of difference in our lives, because the post-war economic boom in Australia ended in the early 1970s with inflation, recession, and high unemployment. By that time my sister was well established, having enjoyed a decade of full employment, high wages, cheap housing, and low interest low deposit housing loans. She was a humble typist/stenographer but she had married, bought a nice house in the inner suburbs, a new car, and travelled to England and Europe, as many young people did in the sixties. Conversely in the seventies I struggled through the decade as a labourer, living in rented flats, driving old cars, and could only dream of buying a house, let alone travelling overseas. Nor could I attract a girlfriend to move in and start building a life together, they were all having too much fun in the discos and night clubs of the seventies, enjoying their new found sexual freedom with the Chads of the day. They were nothing like my sister, and thanks to feminism, girls like her were gone forever. In every way our experience of life and our standard of living were so vastly different that we saw ourselves as being from different generations. Naturally she and her husband saw me as a loser, and compared to them I felt like one, so we never became close until much later in life. So when I find myself lumped in with my sister and her husband in this new cult of boomer blaming, I simply can't buy it.
Thank you for sharing that—it’s a striking example of exactly what I was trying to get at. Same family, same country, but a completely different economic and cultural moment makes all the difference. Labels like “Boomer” erase timing, and timing shaped opportunity far more than attitudes or effort ever did. Your story really illustrates why lumping everyone together just doesn’t hold up.
People, nowadays, just blame everything on us, and think anyone over 50 is a Boomer. Our generation spanned 18 years. There are Boomer parents that have Boomer children. We are not remotely all the same.
I've had the pleasure of hearing about this equality lately.
People that I know support equality and yet in the final sentence is, almost, it's impossible to administer!!
So people support it, speak it, want it, give money for it, and in some cases (perhaps) go against their own morals to bring it about (higher less skilled people - men - so that Gender Numbers are equal) and yet in the finality the same people admit, speak, murmur that it is 'not really possible'...
I find this tragic.. we are all caught up in some sort of Pandemic/Epidemic and then I hear this... who is getting the money that is donated, the power that is given, and the disappointments, often spoke by Janice and others, are handled by whom?
I'm sorry to say I had to look that up to understand it again.. so this time it is ::
people want Justice??
So are you saying that people are confused... as part of the LGB++++ group I'm kind of over the equality cry...
I found this some time ago, somewhere:
calystarose:
Because treating people fairly often means treating them differently.
aloneindarknes7:
This is something that I teach my students during the first week of school and they understand it. Eight year olds can understand this and all it costs is a box of band-aids.
I have each students pretend they got hurt and need a band-aid. Children love band-aids. I ask the first one where they are hurt. If he says his finger, I put the band-aid on his finger. Then I ask the second one where they are hurt. No matter what that child says, I put the band-aid on their finger exactly like the first child. I keep doing that through the whole class. No matter where they say their pretend injury is, I do the same thing I did with the first one.
After they all have band-aids in the same spot, I ask if that actually helped any of them other than the first child. I say, “Well, I helped all of you the same! You all have one band-aid!” And they’ll try to get me to understand that they were hurt somewhere else. I act like I’m just now understanding it. Then I explain, “There might be moments this year where some of you get different things because you need them differently, just like you needed a band-aid in a different spot.”
If at any time any of my students ask why one student has a different assignment, or gets taken out of the class for a subject, or gets another teacher to come in and help them throughout the year, I remind my students of the band-aids they got at the start of the school year and they stop complaining. That’s why eight year olds can understand equity.
momo-de-avis:
I remember reading somewhere once “we should be speaking of equity instead of equality” and that is a principle that applies here me thinks.”
=========================
I searched just now and found it on this Facebook site for Women..
In 1985 I had a convo with a mid level exec. Making good money for the time. About $50 a year. He said ‘have you heard about the 50/50 rule?’ I hadn’t. I worked for myself. He said ‘if you’re a 50 year old male making $50,000 a year you have a 50% chance of keeping your job.’ And he said if you lost that job you’d never get another one. Guys would lose their jobs for picayune reasons, a woman with no experience would be hired at $60,000 a year, and you’d never get another good job again. This was 40 years ago.
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 still think weak men who pander to women and do their bidding are the real problem, not women themselves. They are the enablers and enforcers of gynarchical totalitarianism. Without them, women would have zero power in the world.
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!"
I still had to think about that for a little while before it hit me: "yeah, that's right!"
Yes, it's something that needs to be pointed out, preferably at an early age. Like a primary school exercise, where the whole class goes outdoors and the teacher says "Now children, lets find things that were put there by men, and things that were put there by women." This house? This fence? This telegraph pole? This road? This footpath we're standing on? This tree planted here? Oh dear, can't anyone find something put there by women?
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?
We've had generations of reluctant and absent mothers, emotionally and physically.
Yet, the manosphere tries to tear down the ideological barrier of feminism.
Perhaps, men's invention of A.I. and robotics will bring such plenty that women won't be able to injunct familial relations and longer.
Universal basic alimony.
I love this point ,thank you for making it.
LOL ;-D
Even in adult women, I've noticed that a shocking number of them will literally scream in instant response to shocking and/or fearful situations. I've never seen a man do that. I've seen men whimper uncontrollably in response to such things but they're always ashamed of and embarrassed by it, later. It was not a response designed to draw attention from others.
Evolutionarily, it seems that loud screaming by women is a better survival strategy than conserving lung capacity for vigorous fight or flight. Scream and men will come running and do the fighting.
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.
I will pitch emotional fits, occasionally, but nearly always when I'm alone and cursing the broken tool, burnt steak, or whatever. I try not to inflict this release on others, even the cats.
Not in contradiction, but in support, but those men that resist are also being picked off one by one. Roughly 50% of the prison population of Australia has not been convicted of a crime, and some have been in there for years.
I think in NSW avg time on remand is 3.25 years. 70%+ convictions are due roll overs as a result of lack of funding etc. if you are in lock up for 3 + years you roll over to end it. Women’s suicide rate from release from custody is 0/100k down from standard rate of 5.8/100k of population or 2/day. Prison appears good for women, more should go. Men’s suicide rate is approx 503/100k up from standard 18/100k or 7/day. If the received psych support the rate is almost 3 times higher. My numbers might be a little off as they are from memory, but I think pretty good as the numbers were so grievously horrific to burn into memory.
I'm currently reading the Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; it seems strangely relevant.
Are you saying that of those prisoners who received psychological "support" (psych treatment) the suicide rate was 3 times higher?
And this is the 21st Century, in a "modern" "Western" nation, with colour TVs, mobile phones, and "education". Not a grainy, black-and-white place where people could only read newspapers or listen to the radio - before it was confiscated - what are they doing to social media again? This time the Bolsheviks are nameless and they have infested all the political parties.
Yes those who receive support psychologically had a higher rate, I think 2.8 times.
They may have had complex issues pre-existing and prison exacerbated it, or could have developed an issue as a result of being in there.
It is counter intuitive that they don’t seem better off. The psychs seem to be working for the state rather than the patient. Our prisons seem to be death camps for men. During or after lockup.
The extent of the dysfunction is so colossal and so pervasive it challenges the possibility that such statistics could arise by pure chance. People revolt against the incompetence, the "mistakes", and the "multi-cultural experiment" but the burgeoning conclusion is that it's deliberate.
As I think I posted earlier in one of these threads, I believe it is partly deliberate, sometimes by unique actors following communist atheist world views and sometimes following UN global instructions, and sometimes by conspiracy, where whole departments bend together on their anti-male and anti-human pogroms. Imagine how you'd perform as the lone rational mind in one of these government departments...
But it's also being spread by a toxic, caustic culture that is being taught in schools, in media, on the streets, and in corporate employment where CEOs trot out the mandated platitudes and scientifically impossible ingratiation. The extent of the cohesion of the forces at play really seems to rule out just a natural decline in morals, ethics and intelligence. It seems impossible that at some level it's not all planned and steered.
The labor parties in the UK and Australia, and the Democrats in the USA, all have a private organisations within them of progressive feminists. They get together every two years and chat about what they do.
Emilyslist.org.uk
Emilyslist.org.au
Emilyslist.org
"It is counter intuitive that they don’t seem better off."
How is it counter intuitive that people receiving medical treatment have a higher death rate than the general population? They're not randomly selected you know!
It’s psychological/psychiatric treatment, not medical from disease or injury. The treatment being to heal and comfort. Intuitively the should be improving and the suicide rate not increase. The fact their suicide rate is accelerating with healing support is counter intuitive. If their condition is that bad, they should be in a mental health facility, not a prison…
This reality reveals another lie of feminism - that was always clear to anyone who was paying attention: "if we go too far, the patriarchy will stop us"
Feminists asserted in effect that there would be a match to itself among men, but then attacked anyone who raised issues, even women, ruthlessly, and of course since there was not an actual organized patriarchy as described by feminists, it was not there to react.
What we risk today is really far more dangerous. Our best-case outcome is a critical mass of young men forming loud and visible associations, and the growing group of women who have realized that feminism has been a problem can find ways to be seen to actively support them. Ideally, this would include the older women who believed in the lies around dv and consent, acknowledging their errors and distancing themselves from those who led them astray. Unfortunately, too many of those older women who believed go silent, or acknowledge change in whispers, where previously they screamed, hence their quiet change in view is not registering in politics or policy.
A growing group of young women is starting to find voice, but in isolated ways, lacking the organization of those who built careers on the lies, as a result they continue to lack influence on policy. Most have yet to appreciate what is required to address the key enduring issue, in a broad social way: othering.
The issue is that we have clearly told 2 generations or more of men that they are "them", not "us" that they are not owed anything, even equal opportunity, that their education is not material, only the education of girls matters.
A lot of young women are scrambling around, but few appreciate or want to acknowledge the reality of the real harm. They understand that feminism was hate, but have not fully appreciated the degree to which it dominated the discussion, in the most critical years of their male peers upbringing
Young men, having long told men they are not owed, increasingly conclude that also means they do not owe. They are accepting their perceptions of market price and value around marriage, dating and all other things, and acting as price takers. Their perception of price and value is such that there is no reason to engage. The problem for broader society is, that we have cut off real information flow from and just as importantly to these men.
Young women, in order to deal with this reality will have to find ways to communicate, and rewrite the understanding of group, inclusion and duty. It will require finding ways to understand the nature of the alienation, and speak directly to it. I personally do not believe that can be done without directly acknowledging the othering and becoming furious about it, not quietly seeking change. The DV narrative should not be accepted as innocent error, not just because the logic around the math does not support it but because you can't reverse the impressions made by "it doesn't matter what she did" with allowing for ooops.
The young women may understand that feminism was hate, but they are yet to understand that hate harmed.
Video discussing the double standards, and reflects something men have widely understood for quite some time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj5yDuRwO-U
The broader issue is, that men were told organizing would be misogyny. It is dangerous because men are becoming price takers, and concluding the attacks on anyone who tries to speak up for men, including women.
They do understand that harm was done, just not the depth and breadth of it. They do not understand the context that things like "a shortage of economically attractive men" fell into as a discussion. They do not fully appreciate the impression made by casting women as the victims of harm done directly to boys and men. Few are adding up the impressions, but instead are seeing them one at a time, not as an integrated whole. They do not understand the impressions already made by the choices that should have been transparent around education, and the impressions made by the clear discrimination of affirmative action, where there has been an active choice to ignore that "work is her choice" and the women who can afford to - often choose not to. They do not understand that those who tried to talk about shelters for men were actively attacked and demonized, and this is the reason there are 1000 times as many shelters for women as men. They do not understand that the assertions of no woman would, were a choice to protect and encourage female abusers and predators.
Janice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a Merry Christmas and a wonderful new year.
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.
Helpful commentary. You’re more right than you know. And a repaired institution may be as vulnerable to falling again to the social justice backlash, which will come. Peter Bogosian is among those that insist institutions must be replaced, rather than pouring resources into attempts to resuscitate them and dealing with the endless friction that comes with it
"Augean" stables.
Thanks bro. I think we do need a hero though. The fix for law and policy are increasingly within sight.
Just loop over all court cases and run all legislation, policy documents, logic, and earlier cases over them. Shake out a score for the validity of the judgement.
Rank all judges by their scores.
Prosecute the ones ranking highest in corruption.
I'll be damned. I was going to correct you but looked it up, first, and you are correct. I don't believe I've ever seen it spelled correctly, then, because I kind of obsess about spelling and grammar and think I would have noticed.
I believe the reason people put up with Trump was he could have been that hero. But he is more of an ego in a cape, and as he lets the vaccine biz get exposed they've released the Epstein dirt on him.
We need a better hero.
There's Epstein dirt on Trump? We all know he knew the guy socially, like half the jet set on the East Coast, but I haven't seen anything I'd call dirt.
I've seen him do a total 180 on everything that got him elected in the first place, and there has to be a reason for that.
He's a lying scumbag who fooled his base, now going against everything he stood for
He's lost his marbles as bad as Joe Biden
He's being blackmailed.
Pick one?
Everyone has weaknesses.
Even the literal Messiah was perfect, causing everyone else to be shit in comparison.
I'd suggest we need to let ideas percolation through the manosphere. Like direct democracy instead of one Congress man per million men in population. Just setup a policy GitHub for legislation and let everyone vote dynamically on phone. Scale votes by net lifetime contribution.
People don't "put up" with Trump. They either love him or hate him. You're obviously in the latter category.
I am now, yes.
When the bullet grazed his ear I thought the world was lucky, that we nearly lost a great man.
At this point?
My views have flipped 180, like Trump himself.
You are a liar. You have always hated Trump.
Sadly no, I've supported him for some time.
I'm not American and so didn't vote for the guy, but was rooting for him ever since he first said "fake news".
Shame he turned out so fake too.
There's nothing fake about Donald Trump. He is what he is and he makes no secret of it. If you've flipped it just means you're fickle. A fair weather fan. A lightweight.
Where? Australia? New Zealand? There are not a lot of places to start a country these days. At best some could reform a good one. The big question is how do you stop a country like China from rolling up and taking everything?
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
What kills me is that we have thousands of brilliant guys who want to do the type of engineering we used to do, but we both:
1. don't acknowledge that, insisting only foreigners can do these jobs for us
2. have given away ALL our manufacturing advantage in favor of information economy and finance and cultural production
Amen !
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.
The worst part is that there are plenty of qualified women and minorities, but because they often look wrong (Asians) or there are not enough (black women), those who are less qualified are taken in, and this act denigrates all the others being brought in. It would be in everyone's best interest if merit were the only consideration, but this has been tossed aside with dreadful consequences.
The problem is not women and minorities. The problem is that creepy white leaders are promoting those who do not belong, creating problems where they did not previously exist. There is something deeply disturbing about Silicon Valley companies whose engineering departments are only 30% to 40% white being called "Bastions of White Supremacy." The people being passed by are often Asian-Americans with the best grades and test scores.
We should be creating the best teams for the advancement of science and progress, without regard to race or sex. Instead we have evil creeps randomly throwing around positions without regard to the consequences.
I entered STEM and never in my life experienced imposter syndrome.
But I can understand how women would subconsciously feel they're wasting their fertility and failing to participate in the female collective by allocating huge amounts of time on things not people or babies.
They are. I like many of the women I have known and learned from in STEM. Many are heading to their autumn years only one RIF notice away from having nothing to live for.
Those are the ones I *like* and care about - who I wish better for and are not the self-righteous, ignorant girlboss types (a cohort that grew massively in the past 10-15 years).
The latter group I would not piss on if they were on fire. The former I feel a great deal of sorrow for.
I read STEM students are majority female if you count biology and psychology which are sciences.
You have to give feminists credit for one thing: They've conquered the Peter Principle. Women and minorities now get promoted WAY beyond their levels of incompetence.
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!
And men are the only group of net lifetime tax payers.
In England, the S.S. are fully captured by feminism. They work with the family court, police, national health system, female entitlement welfare system, and public education system. Rolling out mandatory DuLuth indoctrination.
Their job is cultural revolution to abolish the family. By persuading women to use their legal supremacy to destroy husbands and fathers. And using mens taxes to bribe angry, resentful women to marry the state.
England and Wales went to "no-fault" divorce in 2022, despite 54 years of experience in California to examine. (Though only 12 in New York. Ronald Reagan said it was the worst law he'd signed in eight years as governor.) Scotland makes her own rules on these matters, and hasn't joined them yet.
Whether "no-fault" hurts men or women more is a matter of debate, but it clearly harms the more responsible partner to the benefit of the less. Which is probably the whole point.
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. 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.
We're all disposable at the phenotype (body) but not the genotype (species).
So get used to it.
No thanks.
"The powers that be are killing men financially which of course limits families for generations from here."
No, they're able to maintain population levels by promoting single motherhood, sperm banks, and mass immigration. We really are disposable, and they're proving it to us.
Theodore Dalrymple addresses the generation to generation persistence of an underclass in the UK lucidly in his book "Life at the bottom". One of his key insights is that long-term poverty is largely a product of dysfunctional values that are continually reinforced by an elite culture searching for victims...think Hillary Clinton's "deplorables".
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.
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.
"many men from this “Generation Jones” cohort feel both excluded and unfairly blamed."
Thanks very much for this comment. I had never heard of Generation Jones. I just googled it now and found I can relate completely! I wish my sister was still alive so I could tell her about it. She was born in 1946 and I was born in 1956, with no other siblings. It's only 10 years apart but it made a world of difference in our lives, because the post-war economic boom in Australia ended in the early 1970s with inflation, recession, and high unemployment. By that time my sister was well established, having enjoyed a decade of full employment, high wages, cheap housing, and low interest low deposit housing loans. She was a humble typist/stenographer but she had married, bought a nice house in the inner suburbs, a new car, and travelled to England and Europe, as many young people did in the sixties. Conversely in the seventies I struggled through the decade as a labourer, living in rented flats, driving old cars, and could only dream of buying a house, let alone travelling overseas. Nor could I attract a girlfriend to move in and start building a life together, they were all having too much fun in the discos and night clubs of the seventies, enjoying their new found sexual freedom with the Chads of the day. They were nothing like my sister, and thanks to feminism, girls like her were gone forever. In every way our experience of life and our standard of living were so vastly different that we saw ourselves as being from different generations. Naturally she and her husband saw me as a loser, and compared to them I felt like one, so we never became close until much later in life. So when I find myself lumped in with my sister and her husband in this new cult of boomer blaming, I simply can't buy it.
Thank you for sharing that—it’s a striking example of exactly what I was trying to get at. Same family, same country, but a completely different economic and cultural moment makes all the difference. Labels like “Boomer” erase timing, and timing shaped opportunity far more than attitudes or effort ever did. Your story really illustrates why lumping everyone together just doesn’t hold up.
People, nowadays, just blame everything on us, and think anyone over 50 is a Boomer. Our generation spanned 18 years. There are Boomer parents that have Boomer children. We are not remotely all the same.
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.
I've had the pleasure of hearing about this equality lately.
People that I know support equality and yet in the final sentence is, almost, it's impossible to administer!!
So people support it, speak it, want it, give money for it, and in some cases (perhaps) go against their own morals to bring it about (higher less skilled people - men - so that Gender Numbers are equal) and yet in the finality the same people admit, speak, murmur that it is 'not really possible'...
I find this tragic.. we are all caught up in some sort of Pandemic/Epidemic and then I hear this... who is getting the money that is donated, the power that is given, and the disappointments, often spoke by Janice and others, are handled by whom?
They want equity, not equality.
I'm sorry to say I had to look that up to understand it again.. so this time it is ::
people want Justice??
So are you saying that people are confused... as part of the LGB++++ group I'm kind of over the equality cry...
I found this some time ago, somewhere:
calystarose:
Because treating people fairly often means treating them differently.
aloneindarknes7:
This is something that I teach my students during the first week of school and they understand it. Eight year olds can understand this and all it costs is a box of band-aids.
I have each students pretend they got hurt and need a band-aid. Children love band-aids. I ask the first one where they are hurt. If he says his finger, I put the band-aid on his finger. Then I ask the second one where they are hurt. No matter what that child says, I put the band-aid on their finger exactly like the first child. I keep doing that through the whole class. No matter where they say their pretend injury is, I do the same thing I did with the first one.
After they all have band-aids in the same spot, I ask if that actually helped any of them other than the first child. I say, “Well, I helped all of you the same! You all have one band-aid!” And they’ll try to get me to understand that they were hurt somewhere else. I act like I’m just now understanding it. Then I explain, “There might be moments this year where some of you get different things because you need them differently, just like you needed a band-aid in a different spot.”
If at any time any of my students ask why one student has a different assignment, or gets taken out of the class for a subject, or gets another teacher to come in and help them throughout the year, I remind my students of the band-aids they got at the start of the school year and they stop complaining. That’s why eight year olds can understand equity.
momo-de-avis:
I remember reading somewhere once “we should be speaking of equity instead of equality” and that is a principle that applies here me thinks.”
=========================
I searched just now and found it on this Facebook site for Women..
https://www.facebook.com/WorldWideWomenAll/posts/text-readsavatar-calystarosebecause-treating-people-fairly-often-means-treating-/3560905310593763/
That's an excellent lesson and I'll sure they'll remember for a long time.
In 1985 I had a convo with a mid level exec. Making good money for the time. About $50 a year. He said ‘have you heard about the 50/50 rule?’ I hadn’t. I worked for myself. He said ‘if you’re a 50 year old male making $50,000 a year you have a 50% chance of keeping your job.’ And he said if you lost that job you’d never get another one. Guys would lose their jobs for picayune reasons, a woman with no experience would be hired at $60,000 a year, and you’d never get another good job again. This was 40 years ago.
Still happens now…
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.
White women were, and are, the foot soldiers of Western totalitarianism, gynarchy, globo-homo, and immigrant invasion.
Absolutely...they are gullible and will do whatever propaganda tells them. That and the handouts and privileges help, as well.
I still think weak men who pander to women and do their bidding are the real problem, not women themselves. They are the enablers and enforcers of gynarchical totalitarianism. Without them, women would have zero power in the world.
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.
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!"
I still had to think about that for a little while before it hit me: "yeah, that's right!"
Yes, it's something that needs to be pointed out, preferably at an early age. Like a primary school exercise, where the whole class goes outdoors and the teacher says "Now children, lets find things that were put there by men, and things that were put there by women." This house? This fence? This telegraph pole? This road? This footpath we're standing on? This tree planted here? Oh dear, can't anyone find something put there by women?
Janice, thank you for all you do and I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas all the best in the new year.