You know it because you have had the same experience. The derision, condescension, innuendo, claims of moral superiority, fake expressions of pity, and outright dishonesty are fairly constant.
I work very hard at not just dismissing every female I talk to automatically, and to try to be charitable, but it mostly just boils down to trying to avoid them as much as possible.
And people wonder why I gravitate toward men. I've been called a pick-me and a traitor to women for not bowing down to the agenda and parroting the narrative.
There are technical words for everything from dissimulation to female perversion (Welldon) to dupers delight to that face the pixie cut abortionist coven members pull when you speak the truth to them in public.
I'll use A.I. to chant vade retro satana by a choir of young mothers, babies, and small children to the women like Harriot Harmon to force them to walk backwards to undo their short hair cuts and leaning in to work place to DEI displace men and undo their divorce raped and undo their false witnesses and unabort all of their children.
Sometimes I think this world is a simulation of what happens if we let feminism out of the bag in the 1960s.
Fascinating, isn't it? Feminists and feminist-influenced women always refer to impregnation as something men do TO women: Men are the subject, impregnate is the verb, and women are the object. It's not an act that a man and woman decide to do together that results in the woman's body beginning gestation. It's something men to do women, like a farmer sowing seeds on a patch of farmland.
Feminism approves of "passive and helpless women" tropes when it's convenient for them.
It takes two to tango and I will gladly hold both gamete providers accountable when both sexes can get back to being responsible adults. I am no fan of the 'sexual insurrection,' especially since it is not organic, but subsidized. But if consenting adults are going to boogie there are a myriad of contraceptives available. Many paid for by our taxes. Abortion was supposed to be an extreme measure (r@pe, ince$t, medical emergency). Now it is mainly (99% 'elective') an etch-a-sketch attempt to erase bad decision making. It is not healthy for women, for men, or for society.
You have heard the oft spoken phrase "he got her pregnant"?
Just part of the relentless lack of accountability which protects women and children from any responsibility. As you say women are the object. In effect inanimate in the same way as say imbibing a shot of inanimate whiskey or snorting a line of inanimate coke.
Where there are sexual shenanigans of any type men are held to be responsible. Often the "love rats".
Except it just doesnt fly in this case...it's classic feminism, though too bad that's such a weak response coming from the all-powerful, all-mighty higher form of human.
As far as feminist ideas go, "Just tell men not to sleep with women" is just about as logical as I've heard.
Which is to say it's not the most retarded thing I've ever heard from the "Xena, Warrior Princess is a documentary" crowd, but it's still teetering off the left hand side of the bell curve.
Abortion is a poor and dicey form of birth control. Adult women should consider taking responsibility to avoid pregnancy if they truly would rather not suffer the consequences of having unprotected sex. Or refuse to have sex with any male who is unwilling to shoulder the responsibility to wear protection.
Oh no, behave like rational adults? The burden is, well, a burden....life is just so unfair.
Or....women can learn to control their own impulses? Just a thought....but I know accountability is difficult enough to pronounce for many of you let alone practise.
As a woman, pregnancy happens in your body. You are the most affected by it, so you are responsible for preventing it should you choose to have sex.
Yes, men have options for contraception, but women have the final responsibility. Before you scream vasectomy, it does you no good in the event of rape, his death, or divorce.
Why would one outsource something so important to anyone else?
If women didn't want to have an abortion they could stop having sex with men?
But it seems that women want to prove their Freedom by continuing to get pregnant and then have their bodies invaded to get rid of the so called bad thing.. It is madness.
To reword an old feminist phrase aimed at men who complained of false rape accusations: "If women don't want children, they should keep their legs together."
I think you could add four more positions. In addition to your four, they are:
5. There are no innate differences between males and females. Thus their roles can be interchanged at will. Women can be CEOs, firemen and soldiers, and men can and should
become more passive, emotional, domestic and nurturing.
6. General male and female roles as previously recognized throughout the world came about not because of natural development and myriads of personal choices over the centuries, but because of the sinister machinations of the patriarchy.
7. Woman's true fulfilment and validation is found in escaping from the bondage and slavery of home and children, and excelling in areas previously reserved to men.
8. What is needed is the extension and consolidation of power so the feminist ideology can be imposed by force on people who must be forced to be free because they do not recognized their own interests.
Thank you for that male pussy hat picture. It's hilarious.
Much of this is a result of having an external locus of control, I think. Feminists need to blame someone or something for their incompetence, emotional dysregulation, and decades of failure as a movement (if they were not so toxic and delusional, I don't think RvW would have been over-turned because Trump probably would not have been elected).
What's most eye-opening to me has been seeing how these same sorts of people behave after covid. The people who, for years, came up with insane conspiracy theories against men - white men in particular - for the fact there are fewer females in STEM (systemic sexism), or that women are in almost all cases physically weaker than men (the patriarchy doesn't feed them enough protein or whatever) will deny or minimize every transgression, some of them deeply unethical, made against other people.
They're complete psychos - everything bad that ever happens, or any deviation from a hypothetical utopia is due to some group of bad people secretly colluding against them (edit: that they are therefore justified in attacking regardless of a complete lack of evidence), but when they actively hurt other innocent people, they take *zero* responsibility for it.
As a former Pinkerite liberal, the response to the Damore memo made me leave the left. Covid is what really radicalized me though, and convinced me that all this is zero-sum. It's impossible to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution with a group of people this mentally ill.
Interesting, because the response to Damore was batshit and nasty, but not to me cause for 'leaving the left.' SJWs are not what the left used to be, nor what liberalism was *ever* supposed to be. Feminist/SJW nastiness is not endemic to liberalism but a cancerous growth on it that has metastasized and needs exorcism.
I think people should see both the left and the right as extremist and radicalized in this age. My greatest sorrow is having watched it happen in slow motion over the last 40 years.
Extremists of both persuasions haven taken the greatest period of peace and prosperity in history, where even the poor have incredible luxuries, and by fear mongering and constant finger-pointing have created a daily media storm of shit sandwiches everyone must eat. Most of the negativity we all must swim in comes from paranoid delusional people creating movements that gained great power. Discredit and disempower both extremes I say.
I refer to the far left and the far right. Both are awful; both dumb down and toxify what could have been decent, rational discourse. Which used to be, in living memory, decent, rational, public discourse.
Denied and covered up by "regular" women too! Reminds me of something I witnessed decades ago, long before I fully understood the dark side of feminism. I was at a party with a male friend who was with his then-girlfriend. The girlfriend was loudly complaining about how men abused women WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY LITERALLY HITTING MY FRIEND, YELLING "YOU BASTARDS BEAT WOMEN!".
My friend -- a typical chivalrous man -- simply covered his face, and tried to laugh it off... what else could he do? I, on the other hand, stepped up to stop his girlfriend, but before I could get between them, several other women stopped me, shushing my protest, one even COVERING MY MOUTH! This was my first experience with what I later referred to as "feminism's willing enablers" .... by far the majority of other women on Earth.
The one issue, though, that I think most so-called feminists miss, is that by being obnoxious and aggressive, men simply don't find these soreheads attractive and are focusing their energies on other things, such as self-improvement, wealth-building, and their life's mission.
Many of those men who still want families are taking advantage of another man's (Frank Whittle's) invention - the gas turbine engine - and are dusting off their passports and flying to other venues, such as the Ukraine or Philippines, where the majority of women are NOT obnoxious. Combine this with the Trad-wives here who are outbreeding the feminists 3-to-1, and the problem is set to solve itself.
You are doing God's work. I fervently hope it has the desired effect.
And when these women wind up alone and deeply unhappy as a result of being replaced by mild-mannered and decent Filipino women, they should be reminded, at every opportunity, that the incentive to lie to them about things like equality of outcome exists entirely because they were permitted to vote in the first place.
Whoa there, not all women are clucking hens. Some of us, many in fact, are not liberalist drones. We can think, read and harbor no hatred for men in general. I am married to a man's man. He is masculinity incarnate, but can be gentle and sweet. Certainly not toxic. If anything can be considered toxic its shrieking feminists.
I'm not saying that a plurality or even a majority of women are not decent. I'm saying that the incentive to feed absurd political lies (starting race riots reduces racism, women are identical to men, all cultures are equal, etc) to credulous women exists because women can vote.
If they couldn't there would still be lies, just not nearly as detached from reality. Unscrupulous men would still be lying to naive women, only it would be get into their pants rather than my wallet or to toss my material wellbeing under the bus.
'Mild-mannered and decent Filipino women...' Ha! Ha! My wife didn't get the memo about being mild-mannered! Seriously, in reality, she is a curious mix of mild-mannered and very assertive, but very comfortable in a trad role.
Ha ha, I had to ask my daughter what "tradwives" are/means bc I am not up on all the latest jargon. Then I found i am one. I guess that makes her dad a "tradhusband". I started out working but ultimately we decided that as he made enough to cover our needs and that daughter had special needs, I became a stay at home mom. Had I been able to command a salary that paid the bills we might have done things differently. It wasnt a gender role based decision.
I recently discovered I too am a tradwife because I left my job as a software engineer in 2001 after my second son was born. I did it because I missed my first son so much when continuing to work. Simply a desire on my part to raise them. Since my husband made enough money, I went for it. Been a homemaker ever since.
I have had a long life and long experience, and I believe it has taught me some things:
My mother and dad growled at each other my entire childhood, but they never so much as intimated that they would ever divorce. As a child I would lie in bed at night and think about things - my mom said I was born seventy years old - and one of them was what it would be like if one of them died. It was an unbearable thought. Divorce for a child must be like that.
I later was married and divorced when my two sons were about 8 and 10. I was one of the 20% of cases where the husband filed, and ever the engineer, I first consulted a child psychologist about how it might affect my kids. She said divorce happened all the time and it was no big deal. She was terribly wrong; it wrecked their lives. Were I doing it again I would stay no matter what; maybe take a mistress to supply the sex that was by then completely gone - and tell my wife I was going to do it. I think she might have been relieved. I don't know.
I have done every hard, dangerous, and dirty job I could find. I have also worked indoors in the air conditioning. Now I'm retired and playing homemaker after a second divorce. As I learn to cook and maintain a nice home, it occurs to me that anyone who would rather work for an impersonal corporation, underneath a boss - man or woman - who couldn't care less if you died - instead of working for your family, who will love you until your last breath --- well, that person is a fool. Good on you.
Plenty of other women made a similar choice. Suzanne Venker discusses this preference for many women at her Substack: https://suzannevenker.substack.com/
Funny you should say that. My PhD cousin, never married, no children,is now in her mid 70s, living alone, and not doing very well. Her younger brother who is just approaching 70 is now tied up taking care of himself, his wife, and the sister. Unfortunately, his resources are limited, like everybody else's, and there is only so much he can do. Where she will end up, I have no idea.
If she's decent and made a positive impact, I wish her the best. If her PhD is in Sociology or Lit Crit or something and spent her days hen-pecking men over otherwise harmless jokes or her own personal failings, that's a predictable consequence, regardless of my personal feelings about it. That's rough though.
I have always liked her personally, however I have known her essentially for her entire life and it has been one of but what think is called "learned helplessness." Her PhD was in journalism and her thesis was on Superman comics and the relationship of Lois Lane and her feminist underpinnings. How do they say it? You can't make that up…
It is actually not as crazy as it sounds. There are trips of bachelors being arranged to fly to Ukraine. Remember, almost every man of military age is serving or has been killed, and if he is serving is in danger being killed momentarily. There is a tremendous excess of women there, many or most of them speak good English, and I hate to admit it I suppose, but they look like me.
Addendum: and, having lived under that kind of stress, they don't find a quiet life with a reliable, and maybe not that pretty, Man to be boring.
Ooo yeah! Ukrainian women (as well as large swathes of northern and eastern European women) are drop dead gorgeous, exude sensuality and are simply, to die for. If I could only get over there...
Stage 4: Are we not men? We are DEVO, D...E..V...O. Sorry, 70s joke! Seriously, you skew the movement brilliantly by simply showing the absurd logical extension.
Superb!! That 1978 track 'Jocko Homo' was used by DEVO to suggest that humanity was no longer evolving, but now 'de-evolving' into a less thoughtful, tolerant and much more primitive state. Back to the grass huts that Camille Paglia reckoned would be the apogee of human progress were feminists in charge, perhaps.
Although Vincent was obviously perceptive, using her experience to gain insight into how men are treated by life: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love, and they need EACH OTHER more than anything else. They need to be together."
Interestingly, Sally Miller Gearhart saw the destruction of male kinship as the first, necessary step towards reducing men to 10% of the population: "The real danger is in the phenomenon of male bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other, whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport. If men were reduced in number, the threat would be not so great, and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured."
Wow. Just wow. Refreshing as it is encouraging. I rather love men, especially my husband and son. Love is the only real power in the universe. Our grievance driven world has needed to rewrite human history in very narrow terms to further support its inability to just move the F on and live in the now. I have always seen the differences between men and women as being necessarily fluid pieces in an ever shifting puzzle. Life is like a river, one can either ride the current or fight a fruitless battle against it. Male and female make a whole and are therefore incomplete divided. It is a good design. It can and does work when there is partnership and respect. All human relations are strengthened by mutual support. I have never understood the feminist mindset, in any of its inglorious and selfish ways. It seems to me that feminism is only ever a destructive force that betrays life itself. That's not to say that I condone abusive, mean spirited men. Any man that cannot act with love is a lesser human. Wounded animals are always dangerous and at times everyone is wounded in some way. We lash out at or shut out others when we need them the most. It takes patience and unconditional love to love another through their battles. I dont mind being a water carrier when needed but I won't be a door mat. I couldn't ask anyone else to be one for me. Its not in my nature and hope it never is.
Excellent point on the spiritual dimension - it's ying and yang. Males and females are physically built for union, and, with it, spiritual union. I do have sympathy with many of the grievances of the MGTOW movement, but the problem is that it strays into isolationist misogyny and, for our survival and happiness, men and women need to work it out. As Jamice points out, this isn't going to happen without an uprooting of feminism.
Across several nations, the rise of radical or extreme feminism has triggered distinct social, legal, and economic pushbacks. The sources outline how different countries have unique, localized approaches to challenging feminist movements:
### **Russia: State-Level Legal Classification**
In Russia, the reaction to extreme feminism is heavily institutionalized and driven by the state.
* **The Terrorism Classification Bill:** In 2024, the Russian State Duma actively promoted a bill to **classify extreme feminism as a form of terrorism**, exposing anyone who publicly defends or promotes the ideology to severe legal penalties.
* **Catalysts for State Action:** This legal pushback was fueled by highly publicized acts of civil disruption (such as the 2012 altar invasion at a Moscow cathedral) and modern wartime conflicts where some ex-wives opportunistically used public spaces to fight over military compensation for fallen soldiers.
### **South Korea: "Magic Against Magic" and Political Mobilization**
South Korea features one of the most direct and highly confrontational gender wars, with men actively using political correctness and economic structures to dismantle feminist influence.
* **Fighting "Magic with Magic":** Rather than retreating, South Korean men’s rights groups fight political correctness using its own rules. If feminists claim a lack of women in media or promotions constitutes gender discrimination, men’s groups respond by demanding identical parity, analyzing TV shows frame-by-frame to report any imbalance against men. This has successfully constrained content production and neutralised feminist talking points.
* **The "Three Attempts" Loophole:** When a public safety regulation made showing romantic interest more than three times a punishable crime of harassment, Korean men used the law as a convenient excuse to **stop courting women entirely**. This rapid withdrawal depreciated the dating market and eliminated traditional courtship expectations.
* **Mass Political Shifting:** In a massive political backlash, young men (aged 20 to 30) **shifted en masse toward conservative political parties**. They successfully backed openly anti-feminist candidates who promised to eliminate the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
* **The "Three Surrenders" Lifestyle:** Young men have embraced "surrendering" love, marriage, and childbirth, choosing instead to redirect their income exclusively toward self-upgrades, luxury goods, and gym memberships.
### **Japan: Silent Decoupling and the "Samurai Duel"**
In Japan, the collapse of "romance capitalism" following the 1990s economic bubble led to a highly individualized society where men opted for quiet, structural withdrawal.
* **The "Samurai Duel" Strategy:** In response to subway extortion rackets and false groping claims (which carry a 99% conviction rate and up to 3 years in prison), some Japanese men developed the radical "samurai duel" tactic. Instead of submissively accepting an accusation, men **settle the dispute with physical fights**, knowing a mutual physical fight results in only minor penalties (such as 15 days of detention) rather than a life-destroying sexual harassment conviction.
* **The "Three Nos" Principle:** In professional spaces, male managers protect themselves from workplace harassment claims by observing the "Three Nos": **no touching, no mentoring, and no getting close** to female colleagues.
* **The Herbivore and 2D Escape:** Japanese men collectively chose to become "herbivore men" or "single nobility," actively withdrawing from dating and marriage. Instead of spending money to win over women, they **decouple from the relationship market** and spend their resources on hobbies, digital wives, and virtual 2D characters who do not create conflict.
* **Corporate Filtering:** Traumatized by past activist disruptions, Japanese business owners and capitalists actively push back by preferring to **hire foreigners over Japanese women** or placing activist employees in non-functional, isolated departments to minimize company disruption.
### **China: Wallet Closing, the "Tai Chi" Strategy, and State Recalibration**
In China, the pushback is characterized by a rapid decline in marriage rates, state-level media control, and a strategic retreat by men.
* **The Collapse of the "Simp Economy":** Chinese men have collectively abandoned the traditional "spending to conquer" dating script. Men are refusing to pay exorbitant bride prices, buy houses, or fund high-end lifestyles. Instead, they choose to "lie flat" and spend their money on personal care, gaming, and outdoor gear.
* **The Three Survival Alternatives:** When navigating relationships, Chinese men are encouraged to adopt three strategies: avoid real emotional attachment (using substitute companions), **seek partners abroad** (such as marrying Southeast Asian or Eastern European women who make fewer material demands), or act in bad faith within the system.
* **The "Tai Chi" Strategy:** Some Chinese men adopt progressive feminist logic—like bodily autonomy and freedom—and use it against the system. They date women under the pretense of marriage but **refuse to pay the gender wealth transfer cost** (house, car, bride price), utilizing the marriage proposal itself as a low-risk mechanism to break off relationships.
* **State-Level Media Ban:** Recognizing that extreme hypergamous expectations are contributing to a demographic freefall, the Chinese government stepped in to **ban and regulate "domineering CEO" romantic dramas**. The state identified that these mass-produced fantasies created unrealistic standards, and regulating them is part of a broader strategy to recalibrate marital expectations.
***
The provided materials **do not outline a deliberate, state-sponsored playbook for the United States to actively dismantle feminism.** However, the texts analyze how extreme or radical variants of the movement naturally lose influence, experience friction, or collapse structurally.
Based on the societal, legal, and economic dynamics observed in both East Asia and the West, the sources suggest several key structural mechanisms through which radical narratives lose power:
### **1. Allowing Extreme Ideologies to Self-Destruct ("Stopping Convincing")**
The sources argue that direct, heavy-handed government suppression of social movements is often counterproductive because it risks creating martyrs or harming legitimate fights for equality. Instead, the most effective "erosion" of extreme narratives occurs naturally when the ideology itself disconnects from reality:
* **The Loss of Relevance:** Social movements do not die because they are attacked; **they die when they stop convincing the public**. When a movement shifts from seeking equal rights to demanding unilateral privileges, its internal contradictions accumulate.
* **A rise in public skepticism:** In the West (including the U.S.), a slow, silent erosion is already occurring because **ordinary people, including women, have begun to question and ironize radical narratives** that create gender antagonism instead of resolving real-world problems.
### **2. The Shift to Strategic Male Withdrawal ("It's Not Worth It")**
In South Korea and Japan, feminism's traditional leverage collapsed not because men fought back with protests, but because they quietly withdrew from the relationship market. The sources note that this "silent retreat" is increasingly mirroring itself in the United States and the West:
* **Opting Out of the "Performance" Game:** Faced with extreme expectations, high living costs, and legal risks, men are collectively adopting a defensive posture of **"it's not worth it"**.
* **Redirecting Economic Power:** When men stop acting as "simps" or financial stabilizers for one-sided relationships, they redirect their capital into personal hobbies, gym memberships, and self-upgrades. This **closes the "simp economy" register**, causing businesses, media platforms, and dating markets that profit from gender conflict to contract.
### **3. Upholding Strict Legal Protections and Standards**
The legal framework plays a massive role in fueling or containing gender tension.
* **Preserving the Chain of Evidence:** The sources highlight that unlike certain Scandinavian countries—where a subjective, subjective feeling of fear is legally sufficient to convict a man of a sexual crime—**the United States still legally prioritizes a concrete chain of evidence over sole testimony**. Maintaining rigorous, objective evidentiary standards prevents the judicial system from being used as a weapon for false accusations or extortion.
### **4. Political and Cultural Realignment**
* **Declining Institutional Influence:** The sources note that in the United States, extreme feminism has already begun to lose institutional and political ground. Because it functioned primarily as a branch of the liberal left, **shifts in political power have naturally caused the ideology to lose its structural backing and influence**.
***
📊 Would you like me to compile a comparative analysis showing how the legal risks of dating and relationship audits differ between the US, Japan, and South Korea?
Well done. No surprises really because crying wolf eventually falls on deaf ears.
I personally believe it should be a criminal offense to falsely accuse a person of sexual assault. It ruins lives. That said, it should be a high bar in order not to discourage women who are real victims from coming forward. It takes guts to speak up and theres always some pushback so it shouldn't be hindered but its just too easy for disgruntled women to make false accusations as payback for other perceived harms.
Janice, this post resonates in so many ways. Another of my favorite follows on Substack is Hannah Spier, MD, and one of the most eye-opening Rogan interviews was Rachel Wilson, author of “Occult Feminism.”
Rachel Wilson denied the father of her son custody. The son, in her custody, died as a result of being in a car accident (driven by an underage neighbor juvenile delinquent). Now she touts herself as a supporter of the “Patriarchy”. Anti-feminist grift. Learn.
This is a bizarre and needlessly unkind comment. The death of her son does not prove that her arguments lack validity. Do not pursue this line of commentary.
Unfortunately, it really seems like it's here to stay.
How many final nails in the coffin has it had, and yet that batshit damaged cohort just keeps on trying to take away everybody else's free speech?
How many more young women's lives need to be ruined by its toxic drivel, before the powers that be stop taking orders from a bunch of deranged narcissists?
It's not a movement anymore (was it ever?), it's a cult. With seemingly every claim they make disproven, the fact that it ruins women's lives known (it makes them sadder and angrier), not to mention its standing in the way of anything that might actually improve women's lives (eg. the stranglehold they have on seemingly all discourse around DV and SA)... how are we still hearing about it?
Yes, it really does seem here to stay, but we do not know the future, and I have not entirely given up hope that men and women will unite to defeat it. I don't know what else to do but keep on exposing its lies and hatred, hoping to hearten others to resist it.
I don't think I could ever fall in line and pretend to believe its widely debunked lies, but how much longer will we even be allowed to criticise it? They won't define what "manosphere" is because they want to use it as an excuse to ban anything that disagrees with them. They want it to mean whatever they say it means at the time so they can get whatever opinions they don't like silenced.
The funny thing is that this will probably even silence some feminists in favour of it because the more radical members of the cult will use it against them too. It reminds me of back in the '00s when there was a feminist political party in Sweden I think, and it fell apart due to in-fighting because of some of the more radical feminists in the group tried to introduce crazy new policies the less radical didn't agree with.
If they ever wake up to it this time, I think it will be too late, and the damage to freedom of speech will be done.
I remember when the term "politically correct" became common vernacular. That was the beginning of the end to truly free speech. It started out as a movement tied to a society trying to correct the openly bigoted stance it had taken for, well I was going to say decades, but in truth I dont think there was ever a time in human history where the social elites were very self regulating much of anything, let alone something perceived as innocuous as speech. It went from a sincere attempt to be considerate of others to demands to self-censor. That became an increasingly louder drumbeat that culminated in the hate speech laws. Hate speech can be quite crude(unacceptable) but in the 2010's started to encompass anything "marginalized" ppl (or the ppl who appointed themselves as vanguards of them) took offense to. Taking offense does not mean an offense was given or committed. Differences of opinion became grounds to sever even long term relationships. Somewhere in the past 20 or so years, we have become a society whose members cannot differentiate between words or ideas they dont like and actual violence. At this point I dont know if we can feasibly claw back a world that has common sense. I think decency is valuable and even necessary to have open dialog. Without that though, all progress simply vanishes.
But how? I appreciate you banging the drum, Janice. The more I think about it, the more it seems this is one of our deepest issues. There is something in human nature that leads to a lot of killing (over 1 billion abortions in the 20th century or 1 for every 6 live births nearly all funded by government...for what?). Meanwhile, government v government 100 million, government against own people 170 million. Men were also involved in all 3 buckets of killing since males ran government for nearly the entire period.
Back to a near-polite company level, the rearguard action in the 1970s failed but that doesn't mean it was wrong. For example, Steven Goldberg's "The Inevitability of Patriarchy" is a calm, evidence-based argument that is a pretty good explanation for our current malaise. By the time demographics has solved the problem, a lot of lives will have been stunted.
Jordan Peterson rallied men with a positive vision of pulling their socks up in order to, amongst other things, win the admiration of women, so what is a positive vision to rally women? For example, marrying at 18, raising 2-4 kids until the youngest child can go to 1st grade, then starting college at 30 when they will appreciate and learn the lessons? Contrast this with getting over-credentialed, then trying to find a decent hubby while starting a professional career, then using fertility treatments to try and have 1-2 kids so you can pay another woman to provide day care, and end up burned-out at 50. But the vacations will be Insta-worthy. No wonder 25% of childlessness is unplanned under the feminist plan. It's all so sad...
I agree that it's far easier to say what's wrong with feminism than to say how it could be defeated and what it could be replaced with! Your option looks pretty good and is certainly viable with a change of heart and attitude among women. I am not totally hopeless about its coming about.
Thanks for the positive feedback! I was thinking about the "Hows" and came up with: 1) Research, ask young women what they want and how they plan to get there as a little forethought will go a long way, 2) Defund them, since many depend on tax dollars directly or indirectly; 3) Get involved, on city councils, school boards, etc., to push back on the long march through the institutions, 4) Educate women on the pluses and minuses of various paths while promoting success stories, 5) Fund the warriors, whatever your alternate position, 6) Paint positive visions that do not involve killing.
While i do not share your optimism that men and women will unite to end feminism, I do see its end in sight. Unfortunately, its termination will not come from the joint efforts of male and female citizens but will instead come from demographic change. As Islam becomes more dominant in western civilizations, feminism will come under attack. Ultimately, Sharia Law will be the force that eliminates it root and branch. Oh, the irony. From its early beginnings, feminism was effectively an anti-Christian movement, the Christian Church (The Patriarchy) its main object of derision and protest. However, it will not be the white men of The Church which bring its demise. It will be the non-white, Muslim men who the feminists, in ally-ship with the immigration lobby, enthusiastically welcomed into the our lands from afar.
Yes, I can easily picture that dystopian vision too. If that is the case, then all the disputes about affirmative consent and toxic masculinity will seem relatively minor.
"Islam is right about women," as the saying goes. The saying is enraging to our lefty friends because 1. it implies there is some shadow-side feminine essence for Islam to be right about (how dare you!); and 2. it implies that Islam is not as pro-woman as the west is (how dare you!). They're never sure whether to be most outraged by the misogyny or the Islamophobia.
"Yes, I can easily picture that dystopian vision too."
It's only dystopian to Christians! For Muslims it's the glorious fulfilment of Muhammed's prophesy of global Islam. By 2050 Islam will overtake Christianity as the world's largest religion (Pew Research Centre). We all know the reason - feminism drives down birth rates. But why are Christians susceptible to feminism, while Muslims are immune? Could it be that Christ's message of love and compassion for our fellow man leaves us vulnerable to victim narratives, and prone to "suicidal empathy", while Muhammad's message of complete submission to the will of God precludes such deceptions? The answer seems clear - Feminism has GAMED Christianity. What could be more wicked?
On the other hand, Islam will overtake Christianity only if current birth rates continue, and they tend not to continue when Muslims move to the west. Also, there are more conversions out of Islam into Christianity than from Christianity into Islam. I am not entirely without hope on that front. Christianity is a beautiful religion; Islam is an ugly one. As for feminism, it is already present in Islam, and it will be more so over the next few decades, as Muslim women increasingly attend college and become professionalized. The sad fact is that nothing human is impervious to feminism, which is why only true Christianity can escape it.
Thanks for the response but I'm afraid you're simply wrong on all counts here. Yes, birth rates drop amongst ALL immigrants to the West, not just Muslims, but Muslim birth rates remain far higher than Christians. The data is clear, eg. Pew Research report 2015: "The Total Fertility Rate of Muslims in North America is 2.7 children per woman in the 2010 to 2015 period, well above the regional average (2.0) and the replacement level (2.1). The fertility rate for Christians (2.1) is on par with replacement level." On that basis the Muslim population would almost double every two generations, while the Christian population remained stagnant. On the other hand, new research from Japan suggests that "Human populations need at least 2.7 children per woman - a much higher fertility rate than previously believed - to reliably avoid long term extinction." On that basis Christians are on a certain path to extinction. You mention religious conversion, which in the Pew report is referred to as religious switching: "If no religious switching were projected, the Christian share of the population in 2050 (75%) would be close to the 2010 share (77%). Because of religious switching, however, the Christian share of North America's population is projected to be significantly smaller (66%)." So, contrary to your suggestion, more people are switching away from Christianity than to Christianity. You mention Muslim women adopting feminism, as if it's the same thing as Western feminism. It is not: "Islamic feminism is anchored within the discourse of Islam with the Quran as its central text"...and..."derives its understanding and mandate from the Qur'an." (Margot Badran). No one ever suggested that Western feminism is "anchored within the discourse of Christianity" and "derives its understanding and mandate from the Bible"!!! Quite the contrary - Western feminism typically rejects religion as deeply patriarchal. That's the big difference - Muslim feminists retain their religious and family values, and it's reflected in their birth rates. In that respect they're more similar to the Western trad con or trad wife ideal than to the typical Western feminist. Muslims also have much lower divorce rates (6%) than the general population (13%). These are just a few of the markers which tell us that Muslims are resistant to feminism in the West. I'm sure we'd find more if we looked, and we might even learn something about how to fight feminism ourselves.
Prediction is a mug's game. There have been many points in history when things looked like sure doom, and they weren't. No one could have predicted on the day after Jesus's crucifixion that his disconsolate followers would go on to found the most significant religion in history. I do not think, ultimately, that Christianity will be defeated by Islam. But I sincerely grant that you have given this subject much more serious consideration than I, and I apologize if I have seemed blithely dismissive of your perspective.
Yes, as the saying goes - It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Like you I'm confident that Christianity will survive in the West, but in greatly diminished numbers. That's not a prediction, it's already happening. In the US for example, Christians have dropped from 95% of the population in 1950 to 78% in 2007, then 71% in 2014, then 62% in 2024. Meanwhile "Muslims are the fastest growing major religion...The number of Muslims around the world grew 21% between 2010 and 2020...Muslims grew twice as fast as the rest of the world's population...The rate of Muslim growth was the highest in North America...up 52%." So in the US, in the space of a decade, Christians FELL almost 10%, while Muslims GREW more than 50%. If that were to continue the country would be unrecognizable within a few decades.
"As Islam becomes more dominant in western civilizations, feminism will come under attack."
I don't think it will "come under attack" necessarily, it will simply become irrelevant. Muslims will do their own thing as they always have, within their own families and communities, and leave Christians alone to do their feminist thing. They don't need to challenge or confront feminism, just ignore it until it dies out, as the host population dies out. Feminism is like a pesticide which eradicates a particular species by targeting its reproductive system. Once the reproduction rate drops below replacement level, extinction is just a matter of time. Muslims are patient, they've been waiting for centuries already, they can wait a few generations more.
Who were the majority participants in WW 1 and WW 11 who fought to protect home, family and country? Of course it was men. Have women always demanded equality ? Of course not. Consider
this. The shortage of men in Paris during WW 11 was so severe, because of the loss of male
soldiers that died during the course of battle, having a mistress whilst being married was often seen as acceptable.
Women play the victim. But the real victims are men.
AMEN! Sadly...I fear you will NOT be thanked by many women or cuccolded men for speaking the truth to clearly!
You know it because you have had the same experience. The derision, condescension, innuendo, claims of moral superiority, fake expressions of pity, and outright dishonesty are fairly constant.
It is what white men deal with all their life even when not speaking up.
Thanks for speaking up and endure this even if you have a way out.
I look forward to reading your new book when I return from travel later in the month!
Ah yes… the feminine sisterhood response.
I work very hard at not just dismissing every female I talk to automatically, and to try to be charitable, but it mostly just boils down to trying to avoid them as much as possible.
And people wonder why I gravitate toward men. I've been called a pick-me and a traitor to women for not bowing down to the agenda and parroting the narrative.
There are technical words for everything from dissimulation to female perversion (Welldon) to dupers delight to that face the pixie cut abortionist coven members pull when you speak the truth to them in public.
I'll use A.I. to chant vade retro satana by a choir of young mothers, babies, and small children to the women like Harriot Harmon to force them to walk backwards to undo their short hair cuts and leaning in to work place to DEI displace men and undo their divorce raped and undo their false witnesses and unabort all of their children.
Sometimes I think this world is a simulation of what happens if we let feminism out of the bag in the 1960s.
Feminism's vital positions:
Men are horrible.
Women are superior to men.
Abortion is a sacred right to be exercised in every circumstance.
Homosexuality and lesbianism are normative.
I think that about covers it. Everything else is merely a corollary to these three.
Oops--four.
If men want to stop abortion, they can stop impregnating women. A logical approach, eh?
Very nice deflection!
I am always impressed with the female capacity for unaccountability, irresponsibility, and blame-shifting.
Bravo!
Fascinating, isn't it? Feminists and feminist-influenced women always refer to impregnation as something men do TO women: Men are the subject, impregnate is the verb, and women are the object. It's not an act that a man and woman decide to do together that results in the woman's body beginning gestation. It's something men to do women, like a farmer sowing seeds on a patch of farmland.
Feminism approves of "passive and helpless women" tropes when it's convenient for them.
😄 indeed
Schrödinger's Feminist
It takes two to tango and I will gladly hold both gamete providers accountable when both sexes can get back to being responsible adults. I am no fan of the 'sexual insurrection,' especially since it is not organic, but subsidized. But if consenting adults are going to boogie there are a myriad of contraceptives available. Many paid for by our taxes. Abortion was supposed to be an extreme measure (r@pe, ince$t, medical emergency). Now it is mainly (99% 'elective') an etch-a-sketch attempt to erase bad decision making. It is not healthy for women, for men, or for society.
Not to mention women with no male partner who employ the services of sperm banks.
You have heard the oft spoken phrase "he got her pregnant"?
Just part of the relentless lack of accountability which protects women and children from any responsibility. As you say women are the object. In effect inanimate in the same way as say imbibing a shot of inanimate whiskey or snorting a line of inanimate coke.
Where there are sexual shenanigans of any type men are held to be responsible. Often the "love rats".
It's not as though she has any tricks up her sleeve, to skew his judgement.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704916643328
That is a fascinating study.
Thanks.
Except it just doesnt fly in this case...it's classic feminism, though too bad that's such a weak response coming from the all-powerful, all-mighty higher form of human.
Abortion IS taking accountability, Frank.
abortion (feticide) is lazy, legalized murdr
girls and boys need to keep it in their pants or use the copious methods to prevent conception
like I said, grow up into adulthood and cease thinking and acting like spoiled, entitled, incontinent juveniles
Murder can’t be legal by definition, Frank..
An abortion can absolutely be the most responsible decision for some people.
murder can be legal if it is simply defined away. Whoever controls the definitions, controls what's legal and what isn't.
And removing the consequences of an act of creation by terminating that creation is the exact opposite of responsibility.
Killing babies improves NOTHING, EVER.
It is never a responsible decision.
As far as feminist ideas go, "Just tell men not to sleep with women" is just about as logical as I've heard.
Which is to say it's not the most retarded thing I've ever heard from the "Xena, Warrior Princess is a documentary" crowd, but it's still teetering off the left hand side of the bell curve.
Thanks. You made me laugh.
Abortion is a poor and dicey form of birth control. Adult women should consider taking responsibility to avoid pregnancy if they truly would rather not suffer the consequences of having unprotected sex. Or refuse to have sex with any male who is unwilling to shoulder the responsibility to wear protection.
Oh no, behave like rational adults? The burden is, well, a burden....life is just so unfair.
Or....women can learn to control their own impulses? Just a thought....but I know accountability is difficult enough to pronounce for many of you let alone practise.
"If men want to stop abortion, they can stop impregnating women. A logical approach, eh?"
1. denial of women's agency - the objectification of women as passive (sex) objects.
2. Schrödinger's Feminism - women are either empowered or powerless based on which identity serves in the moment
3. Female Intrasexual competition (manipulative reproductive suppression) - men stop impregnating other women!
In a single line you've articulated the three main pillars of feminism.
Logical in the way feminist logic goes i.e. illogical.
Feminist logic is an oxymoron. Same as feminist humour.
As a woman, pregnancy happens in your body. You are the most affected by it, so you are responsible for preventing it should you choose to have sex.
Yes, men have options for contraception, but women have the final responsibility. Before you scream vasectomy, it does you no good in the event of rape, his death, or divorce.
Why would one outsource something so important to anyone else?
If women didn't want to have an abortion they could stop having sex with men?
But it seems that women want to prove their Freedom by continuing to get pregnant and then have their bodies invaded to get rid of the so called bad thing.. It is madness.
You are in the wrong blog love....
To reword an old feminist phrase aimed at men who complained of false rape accusations: "If women don't want children, they should keep their legs together."
And here we go
I think you could add four more positions. In addition to your four, they are:
5. There are no innate differences between males and females. Thus their roles can be interchanged at will. Women can be CEOs, firemen and soldiers, and men can and should
become more passive, emotional, domestic and nurturing.
6. General male and female roles as previously recognized throughout the world came about not because of natural development and myriads of personal choices over the centuries, but because of the sinister machinations of the patriarchy.
7. Woman's true fulfilment and validation is found in escaping from the bondage and slavery of home and children, and excelling in areas previously reserved to men.
8. What is needed is the extension and consolidation of power so the feminist ideology can be imposed by force on people who must be forced to be free because they do not recognized their own interests.
2 out of four ain’t bad 😆
Thank you for that male pussy hat picture. It's hilarious.
Much of this is a result of having an external locus of control, I think. Feminists need to blame someone or something for their incompetence, emotional dysregulation, and decades of failure as a movement (if they were not so toxic and delusional, I don't think RvW would have been over-turned because Trump probably would not have been elected).
What's most eye-opening to me has been seeing how these same sorts of people behave after covid. The people who, for years, came up with insane conspiracy theories against men - white men in particular - for the fact there are fewer females in STEM (systemic sexism), or that women are in almost all cases physically weaker than men (the patriarchy doesn't feed them enough protein or whatever) will deny or minimize every transgression, some of them deeply unethical, made against other people.
They're complete psychos - everything bad that ever happens, or any deviation from a hypothetical utopia is due to some group of bad people secretly colluding against them (edit: that they are therefore justified in attacking regardless of a complete lack of evidence), but when they actively hurt other innocent people, they take *zero* responsibility for it.
The last straw for me was seeing women's capacity for cruelty and unethical behavior denied and covered up by feminists.
As a former Pinkerite liberal, the response to the Damore memo made me leave the left. Covid is what really radicalized me though, and convinced me that all this is zero-sum. It's impossible to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution with a group of people this mentally ill.
Interesting, because the response to Damore was batshit and nasty, but not to me cause for 'leaving the left.' SJWs are not what the left used to be, nor what liberalism was *ever* supposed to be. Feminist/SJW nastiness is not endemic to liberalism but a cancerous growth on it that has metastasized and needs exorcism.
I think people should see both the left and the right as extremist and radicalized in this age. My greatest sorrow is having watched it happen in slow motion over the last 40 years.
Extremists of both persuasions haven taken the greatest period of peace and prosperity in history, where even the poor have incredible luxuries, and by fear mongering and constant finger-pointing have created a daily media storm of shit sandwiches everyone must eat. Most of the negativity we all must swim in comes from paranoid delusional people creating movements that gained great power. Discredit and disempower both extremes I say.
"Extremists of both persuasions"
Really? What kind of extremist was I when I wanted to be left alone?
This is a 1990s take. You can win, or you can lose. Not fighting isn't an option.
I refer to the far left and the far right. Both are awful; both dumb down and toxify what could have been decent, rational discourse. Which used to be, in living memory, decent, rational, public discourse.
OK. I hear the SPLC is looking for donations.
Denied and covered up by "regular" women too! Reminds me of something I witnessed decades ago, long before I fully understood the dark side of feminism. I was at a party with a male friend who was with his then-girlfriend. The girlfriend was loudly complaining about how men abused women WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY LITERALLY HITTING MY FRIEND, YELLING "YOU BASTARDS BEAT WOMEN!".
My friend -- a typical chivalrous man -- simply covered his face, and tried to laugh it off... what else could he do? I, on the other hand, stepped up to stop his girlfriend, but before I could get between them, several other women stopped me, shushing my protest, one even COVERING MY MOUTH! This was my first experience with what I later referred to as "feminism's willing enablers" .... by far the majority of other women on Earth.
The one issue, though, that I think most so-called feminists miss, is that by being obnoxious and aggressive, men simply don't find these soreheads attractive and are focusing their energies on other things, such as self-improvement, wealth-building, and their life's mission.
Many of those men who still want families are taking advantage of another man's (Frank Whittle's) invention - the gas turbine engine - and are dusting off their passports and flying to other venues, such as the Ukraine or Philippines, where the majority of women are NOT obnoxious. Combine this with the Trad-wives here who are outbreeding the feminists 3-to-1, and the problem is set to solve itself.
You are doing God's work. I fervently hope it has the desired effect.
And when these women wind up alone and deeply unhappy as a result of being replaced by mild-mannered and decent Filipino women, they should be reminded, at every opportunity, that the incentive to lie to them about things like equality of outcome exists entirely because they were permitted to vote in the first place.
Whoa there, not all women are clucking hens. Some of us, many in fact, are not liberalist drones. We can think, read and harbor no hatred for men in general. I am married to a man's man. He is masculinity incarnate, but can be gentle and sweet. Certainly not toxic. If anything can be considered toxic its shrieking feminists.
I'm not saying that a plurality or even a majority of women are not decent. I'm saying that the incentive to feed absurd political lies (starting race riots reduces racism, women are identical to men, all cultures are equal, etc) to credulous women exists because women can vote.
If they couldn't there would still be lies, just not nearly as detached from reality. Unscrupulous men would still be lying to naive women, only it would be get into their pants rather than my wallet or to toss my material wellbeing under the bus.
That's it, Elizabeth. You don't get to be rude here just because you're all riled up. Go elsewhere with your silly feminist insults.
It's not "insults". It's straight out bullying. Let's start calling it for what it is.
'Mild-mannered and decent Filipino women...' Ha! Ha! My wife didn't get the memo about being mild-mannered! Seriously, in reality, she is a curious mix of mild-mannered and very assertive, but very comfortable in a trad role.
Ha ha, I had to ask my daughter what "tradwives" are/means bc I am not up on all the latest jargon. Then I found i am one. I guess that makes her dad a "tradhusband". I started out working but ultimately we decided that as he made enough to cover our needs and that daughter had special needs, I became a stay at home mom. Had I been able to command a salary that paid the bills we might have done things differently. It wasnt a gender role based decision.
I recently discovered I too am a tradwife because I left my job as a software engineer in 2001 after my second son was born. I did it because I missed my first son so much when continuing to work. Simply a desire on my part to raise them. Since my husband made enough money, I went for it. Been a homemaker ever since.
I have had a long life and long experience, and I believe it has taught me some things:
My mother and dad growled at each other my entire childhood, but they never so much as intimated that they would ever divorce. As a child I would lie in bed at night and think about things - my mom said I was born seventy years old - and one of them was what it would be like if one of them died. It was an unbearable thought. Divorce for a child must be like that.
I later was married and divorced when my two sons were about 8 and 10. I was one of the 20% of cases where the husband filed, and ever the engineer, I first consulted a child psychologist about how it might affect my kids. She said divorce happened all the time and it was no big deal. She was terribly wrong; it wrecked their lives. Were I doing it again I would stay no matter what; maybe take a mistress to supply the sex that was by then completely gone - and tell my wife I was going to do it. I think she might have been relieved. I don't know.
I have done every hard, dangerous, and dirty job I could find. I have also worked indoors in the air conditioning. Now I'm retired and playing homemaker after a second divorce. As I learn to cook and maintain a nice home, it occurs to me that anyone who would rather work for an impersonal corporation, underneath a boss - man or woman - who couldn't care less if you died - instead of working for your family, who will love you until your last breath --- well, that person is a fool. Good on you.
Plenty of other women made a similar choice. Suzanne Venker discusses this preference for many women at her Substack: https://suzannevenker.substack.com/
That's the point. This is not a revolutionary decision.
Funny you should say that. My PhD cousin, never married, no children,is now in her mid 70s, living alone, and not doing very well. Her younger brother who is just approaching 70 is now tied up taking care of himself, his wife, and the sister. Unfortunately, his resources are limited, like everybody else's, and there is only so much he can do. Where she will end up, I have no idea.
If she's decent and made a positive impact, I wish her the best. If her PhD is in Sociology or Lit Crit or something and spent her days hen-pecking men over otherwise harmless jokes or her own personal failings, that's a predictable consequence, regardless of my personal feelings about it. That's rough though.
I have always liked her personally, however I have known her essentially for her entire life and it has been one of but what think is called "learned helplessness." Her PhD was in journalism and her thesis was on Superman comics and the relationship of Lois Lane and her feminist underpinnings. How do they say it? You can't make that up…
That is tragic, and entirely preventable.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. If you don't have something, I have no reason to lie to you to get it.
Ukraine? Yall are going to the Ukraine? That's crazy!
It is actually not as crazy as it sounds. There are trips of bachelors being arranged to fly to Ukraine. Remember, almost every man of military age is serving or has been killed, and if he is serving is in danger being killed momentarily. There is a tremendous excess of women there, many or most of them speak good English, and I hate to admit it I suppose, but they look like me.
Addendum: and, having lived under that kind of stress, they don't find a quiet life with a reliable, and maybe not that pretty, Man to be boring.
Ooo yeah! Ukrainian women (as well as large swathes of northern and eastern European women) are drop dead gorgeous, exude sensuality and are simply, to die for. If I could only get over there...
Feminism
Stage 1: We're as good as men.
Stage 2: We don't need men.
Stage 3: We are men.
Stage 4: Are we not men? We are DEVO, D...E..V...O. Sorry, 70s joke! Seriously, you skew the movement brilliantly by simply showing the absurd logical extension.
Superb!! That 1978 track 'Jocko Homo' was used by DEVO to suggest that humanity was no longer evolving, but now 'de-evolving' into a less thoughtful, tolerant and much more primitive state. Back to the grass huts that Camille Paglia reckoned would be the apogee of human progress were feminists in charge, perhaps.
Forget grass huts. We'd still be living in burrows.
At least they wouldn't be able to asset-strip us!!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights
Stage 3 often ends badly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_Vincent
Although Vincent was obviously perceptive, using her experience to gain insight into how men are treated by life: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love, and they need EACH OTHER more than anything else. They need to be together."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book)
Interestingly, Sally Miller Gearhart saw the destruction of male kinship as the first, necessary step towards reducing men to 10% of the population: "The real danger is in the phenomenon of male bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other, whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport. If men were reduced in number, the threat would be not so great, and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart
Wow. Just wow. Refreshing as it is encouraging. I rather love men, especially my husband and son. Love is the only real power in the universe. Our grievance driven world has needed to rewrite human history in very narrow terms to further support its inability to just move the F on and live in the now. I have always seen the differences between men and women as being necessarily fluid pieces in an ever shifting puzzle. Life is like a river, one can either ride the current or fight a fruitless battle against it. Male and female make a whole and are therefore incomplete divided. It is a good design. It can and does work when there is partnership and respect. All human relations are strengthened by mutual support. I have never understood the feminist mindset, in any of its inglorious and selfish ways. It seems to me that feminism is only ever a destructive force that betrays life itself. That's not to say that I condone abusive, mean spirited men. Any man that cannot act with love is a lesser human. Wounded animals are always dangerous and at times everyone is wounded in some way. We lash out at or shut out others when we need them the most. It takes patience and unconditional love to love another through their battles. I dont mind being a water carrier when needed but I won't be a door mat. I couldn't ask anyone else to be one for me. Its not in my nature and hope it never is.
Great essay.
Excellent point on the spiritual dimension - it's ying and yang. Males and females are physically built for union, and, with it, spiritual union. I do have sympathy with many of the grievances of the MGTOW movement, but the problem is that it strays into isolationist misogyny and, for our survival and happiness, men and women need to work it out. As Jamice points out, this isn't going to happen without an uprooting of feminism.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" - Joshua
Beautifully said
Perhaps we can learn from other countries their approaches to dismantling feminism. See https://www.youtube.com/@AllAsianDilemmas You can use a Chrome plugin to vacuum that entire channel into a NotebookLM for analysis. I have done so here, and am making the notebook public here https://notebook.google.com/notebook/e82079d7-7687-4a7c-9618-fcebebb43c93 Below some initial analysis from Gemini AI in NotebookLM:
Across several nations, the rise of radical or extreme feminism has triggered distinct social, legal, and economic pushbacks. The sources outline how different countries have unique, localized approaches to challenging feminist movements:
### **Russia: State-Level Legal Classification**
In Russia, the reaction to extreme feminism is heavily institutionalized and driven by the state.
* **The Terrorism Classification Bill:** In 2024, the Russian State Duma actively promoted a bill to **classify extreme feminism as a form of terrorism**, exposing anyone who publicly defends or promotes the ideology to severe legal penalties.
* **Catalysts for State Action:** This legal pushback was fueled by highly publicized acts of civil disruption (such as the 2012 altar invasion at a Moscow cathedral) and modern wartime conflicts where some ex-wives opportunistically used public spaces to fight over military compensation for fallen soldiers.
### **South Korea: "Magic Against Magic" and Political Mobilization**
South Korea features one of the most direct and highly confrontational gender wars, with men actively using political correctness and economic structures to dismantle feminist influence.
* **Fighting "Magic with Magic":** Rather than retreating, South Korean men’s rights groups fight political correctness using its own rules. If feminists claim a lack of women in media or promotions constitutes gender discrimination, men’s groups respond by demanding identical parity, analyzing TV shows frame-by-frame to report any imbalance against men. This has successfully constrained content production and neutralised feminist talking points.
* **The "Three Attempts" Loophole:** When a public safety regulation made showing romantic interest more than three times a punishable crime of harassment, Korean men used the law as a convenient excuse to **stop courting women entirely**. This rapid withdrawal depreciated the dating market and eliminated traditional courtship expectations.
* **Mass Political Shifting:** In a massive political backlash, young men (aged 20 to 30) **shifted en masse toward conservative political parties**. They successfully backed openly anti-feminist candidates who promised to eliminate the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
* **The "Three Surrenders" Lifestyle:** Young men have embraced "surrendering" love, marriage, and childbirth, choosing instead to redirect their income exclusively toward self-upgrades, luxury goods, and gym memberships.
### **Japan: Silent Decoupling and the "Samurai Duel"**
In Japan, the collapse of "romance capitalism" following the 1990s economic bubble led to a highly individualized society where men opted for quiet, structural withdrawal.
* **The "Samurai Duel" Strategy:** In response to subway extortion rackets and false groping claims (which carry a 99% conviction rate and up to 3 years in prison), some Japanese men developed the radical "samurai duel" tactic. Instead of submissively accepting an accusation, men **settle the dispute with physical fights**, knowing a mutual physical fight results in only minor penalties (such as 15 days of detention) rather than a life-destroying sexual harassment conviction.
* **The "Three Nos" Principle:** In professional spaces, male managers protect themselves from workplace harassment claims by observing the "Three Nos": **no touching, no mentoring, and no getting close** to female colleagues.
* **The Herbivore and 2D Escape:** Japanese men collectively chose to become "herbivore men" or "single nobility," actively withdrawing from dating and marriage. Instead of spending money to win over women, they **decouple from the relationship market** and spend their resources on hobbies, digital wives, and virtual 2D characters who do not create conflict.
* **Corporate Filtering:** Traumatized by past activist disruptions, Japanese business owners and capitalists actively push back by preferring to **hire foreigners over Japanese women** or placing activist employees in non-functional, isolated departments to minimize company disruption.
### **China: Wallet Closing, the "Tai Chi" Strategy, and State Recalibration**
In China, the pushback is characterized by a rapid decline in marriage rates, state-level media control, and a strategic retreat by men.
* **The Collapse of the "Simp Economy":** Chinese men have collectively abandoned the traditional "spending to conquer" dating script. Men are refusing to pay exorbitant bride prices, buy houses, or fund high-end lifestyles. Instead, they choose to "lie flat" and spend their money on personal care, gaming, and outdoor gear.
* **The Three Survival Alternatives:** When navigating relationships, Chinese men are encouraged to adopt three strategies: avoid real emotional attachment (using substitute companions), **seek partners abroad** (such as marrying Southeast Asian or Eastern European women who make fewer material demands), or act in bad faith within the system.
* **The "Tai Chi" Strategy:** Some Chinese men adopt progressive feminist logic—like bodily autonomy and freedom—and use it against the system. They date women under the pretense of marriage but **refuse to pay the gender wealth transfer cost** (house, car, bride price), utilizing the marriage proposal itself as a low-risk mechanism to break off relationships.
* **State-Level Media Ban:** Recognizing that extreme hypergamous expectations are contributing to a demographic freefall, the Chinese government stepped in to **ban and regulate "domineering CEO" romantic dramas**. The state identified that these mass-produced fantasies created unrealistic standards, and regulating them is part of a broader strategy to recalibrate marital expectations.
***
The provided materials **do not outline a deliberate, state-sponsored playbook for the United States to actively dismantle feminism.** However, the texts analyze how extreme or radical variants of the movement naturally lose influence, experience friction, or collapse structurally.
Based on the societal, legal, and economic dynamics observed in both East Asia and the West, the sources suggest several key structural mechanisms through which radical narratives lose power:
### **1. Allowing Extreme Ideologies to Self-Destruct ("Stopping Convincing")**
The sources argue that direct, heavy-handed government suppression of social movements is often counterproductive because it risks creating martyrs or harming legitimate fights for equality. Instead, the most effective "erosion" of extreme narratives occurs naturally when the ideology itself disconnects from reality:
* **The Loss of Relevance:** Social movements do not die because they are attacked; **they die when they stop convincing the public**. When a movement shifts from seeking equal rights to demanding unilateral privileges, its internal contradictions accumulate.
* **A rise in public skepticism:** In the West (including the U.S.), a slow, silent erosion is already occurring because **ordinary people, including women, have begun to question and ironize radical narratives** that create gender antagonism instead of resolving real-world problems.
### **2. The Shift to Strategic Male Withdrawal ("It's Not Worth It")**
In South Korea and Japan, feminism's traditional leverage collapsed not because men fought back with protests, but because they quietly withdrew from the relationship market. The sources note that this "silent retreat" is increasingly mirroring itself in the United States and the West:
* **Opting Out of the "Performance" Game:** Faced with extreme expectations, high living costs, and legal risks, men are collectively adopting a defensive posture of **"it's not worth it"**.
* **Redirecting Economic Power:** When men stop acting as "simps" or financial stabilizers for one-sided relationships, they redirect their capital into personal hobbies, gym memberships, and self-upgrades. This **closes the "simp economy" register**, causing businesses, media platforms, and dating markets that profit from gender conflict to contract.
### **3. Upholding Strict Legal Protections and Standards**
The legal framework plays a massive role in fueling or containing gender tension.
* **Preserving the Chain of Evidence:** The sources highlight that unlike certain Scandinavian countries—where a subjective, subjective feeling of fear is legally sufficient to convict a man of a sexual crime—**the United States still legally prioritizes a concrete chain of evidence over sole testimony**. Maintaining rigorous, objective evidentiary standards prevents the judicial system from being used as a weapon for false accusations or extortion.
### **4. Political and Cultural Realignment**
* **Declining Institutional Influence:** The sources note that in the United States, extreme feminism has already begun to lose institutional and political ground. Because it functioned primarily as a branch of the liberal left, **shifts in political power have naturally caused the ideology to lose its structural backing and influence**.
***
📊 Would you like me to compile a comparative analysis showing how the legal risks of dating and relationship audits differ between the US, Japan, and South Korea?
Superlatively interesting, Steve!
Well done. No surprises really because crying wolf eventually falls on deaf ears.
I personally believe it should be a criminal offense to falsely accuse a person of sexual assault. It ruins lives. That said, it should be a high bar in order not to discourage women who are real victims from coming forward. It takes guts to speak up and theres always some pushback so it shouldn't be hindered but its just too easy for disgruntled women to make false accusations as payback for other perceived harms.
Janice, this post resonates in so many ways. Another of my favorite follows on Substack is Hannah Spier, MD, and one of the most eye-opening Rogan interviews was Rachel Wilson, author of “Occult Feminism.”
Thank you! Hannah Spier is a good friend of mine. I don't know Rachel Wilson, but I have heard good things about her.
Carrie Gress is better than Rachel Wilson, IMHO. Better sourcing for her arguments.
Carrie Gress is excellent, a careful researcher.
I have Wilson's book, but will check into Gress.
Thanks for the reference.
Rachel Wilson denied the father of her son custody. The son, in her custody, died as a result of being in a car accident (driven by an underage neighbor juvenile delinquent). Now she touts herself as a supporter of the “Patriarchy”. Anti-feminist grift. Learn.
This is a bizarre and needlessly unkind comment. The death of her son does not prove that her arguments lack validity. Do not pursue this line of commentary.
Yes, his reply is a perfect non-sequitur. And I noticed he/she has no followers or subscribers.
Truth. Thanks for speaking it so clearly Janice.
Unfortunately, it really seems like it's here to stay.
How many final nails in the coffin has it had, and yet that batshit damaged cohort just keeps on trying to take away everybody else's free speech?
How many more young women's lives need to be ruined by its toxic drivel, before the powers that be stop taking orders from a bunch of deranged narcissists?
It's not a movement anymore (was it ever?), it's a cult. With seemingly every claim they make disproven, the fact that it ruins women's lives known (it makes them sadder and angrier), not to mention its standing in the way of anything that might actually improve women's lives (eg. the stranglehold they have on seemingly all discourse around DV and SA)... how are we still hearing about it?
How is it still a thing?
Yes, it really does seem here to stay, but we do not know the future, and I have not entirely given up hope that men and women will unite to defeat it. I don't know what else to do but keep on exposing its lies and hatred, hoping to hearten others to resist it.
I don't think I could ever fall in line and pretend to believe its widely debunked lies, but how much longer will we even be allowed to criticise it? They won't define what "manosphere" is because they want to use it as an excuse to ban anything that disagrees with them. They want it to mean whatever they say it means at the time so they can get whatever opinions they don't like silenced.
The funny thing is that this will probably even silence some feminists in favour of it because the more radical members of the cult will use it against them too. It reminds me of back in the '00s when there was a feminist political party in Sweden I think, and it fell apart due to in-fighting because of some of the more radical feminists in the group tried to introduce crazy new policies the less radical didn't agree with.
If they ever wake up to it this time, I think it will be too late, and the damage to freedom of speech will be done.
That is a legitimate fear, for sure. I am often tempted to get the hell out of Canada.
Ditto for me here, in Australia
I remember when the term "politically correct" became common vernacular. That was the beginning of the end to truly free speech. It started out as a movement tied to a society trying to correct the openly bigoted stance it had taken for, well I was going to say decades, but in truth I dont think there was ever a time in human history where the social elites were very self regulating much of anything, let alone something perceived as innocuous as speech. It went from a sincere attempt to be considerate of others to demands to self-censor. That became an increasingly louder drumbeat that culminated in the hate speech laws. Hate speech can be quite crude(unacceptable) but in the 2010's started to encompass anything "marginalized" ppl (or the ppl who appointed themselves as vanguards of them) took offense to. Taking offense does not mean an offense was given or committed. Differences of opinion became grounds to sever even long term relationships. Somewhere in the past 20 or so years, we have become a society whose members cannot differentiate between words or ideas they dont like and actual violence. At this point I dont know if we can feasibly claw back a world that has common sense. I think decency is valuable and even necessary to have open dialog. Without that though, all progress simply vanishes.
you're singing my song...
Thank you for all you do!
back at-cha girlfriend!
Wow, Janice! You’re a treasure! I deeply appreciate your courage to take this on with such clarity.
Excellent and all correct. Feminism is really, at its core, << ceaseless complaints >>. It is a sea of chronic whining.
Should << feminists >> ever embrace << gratitude >> the resentment would all go away.
Sadly, I don't think this will ever happen, until or unless, our civilization falls.
Congratulations on your new book! It sounds fascinating and I will order a copy.
But how? I appreciate you banging the drum, Janice. The more I think about it, the more it seems this is one of our deepest issues. There is something in human nature that leads to a lot of killing (over 1 billion abortions in the 20th century or 1 for every 6 live births nearly all funded by government...for what?). Meanwhile, government v government 100 million, government against own people 170 million. Men were also involved in all 3 buckets of killing since males ran government for nearly the entire period.
Back to a near-polite company level, the rearguard action in the 1970s failed but that doesn't mean it was wrong. For example, Steven Goldberg's "The Inevitability of Patriarchy" is a calm, evidence-based argument that is a pretty good explanation for our current malaise. By the time demographics has solved the problem, a lot of lives will have been stunted.
Jordan Peterson rallied men with a positive vision of pulling their socks up in order to, amongst other things, win the admiration of women, so what is a positive vision to rally women? For example, marrying at 18, raising 2-4 kids until the youngest child can go to 1st grade, then starting college at 30 when they will appreciate and learn the lessons? Contrast this with getting over-credentialed, then trying to find a decent hubby while starting a professional career, then using fertility treatments to try and have 1-2 kids so you can pay another woman to provide day care, and end up burned-out at 50. But the vacations will be Insta-worthy. No wonder 25% of childlessness is unplanned under the feminist plan. It's all so sad...
I agree that it's far easier to say what's wrong with feminism than to say how it could be defeated and what it could be replaced with! Your option looks pretty good and is certainly viable with a change of heart and attitude among women. I am not totally hopeless about its coming about.
Thanks for the positive feedback! I was thinking about the "Hows" and came up with: 1) Research, ask young women what they want and how they plan to get there as a little forethought will go a long way, 2) Defund them, since many depend on tax dollars directly or indirectly; 3) Get involved, on city councils, school boards, etc., to push back on the long march through the institutions, 4) Educate women on the pluses and minuses of various paths while promoting success stories, 5) Fund the warriors, whatever your alternate position, 6) Paint positive visions that do not involve killing.
While i do not share your optimism that men and women will unite to end feminism, I do see its end in sight. Unfortunately, its termination will not come from the joint efforts of male and female citizens but will instead come from demographic change. As Islam becomes more dominant in western civilizations, feminism will come under attack. Ultimately, Sharia Law will be the force that eliminates it root and branch. Oh, the irony. From its early beginnings, feminism was effectively an anti-Christian movement, the Christian Church (The Patriarchy) its main object of derision and protest. However, it will not be the white men of The Church which bring its demise. It will be the non-white, Muslim men who the feminists, in ally-ship with the immigration lobby, enthusiastically welcomed into the our lands from afar.
Yes, I can easily picture that dystopian vision too. If that is the case, then all the disputes about affirmative consent and toxic masculinity will seem relatively minor.
"Islam is right about women," as the saying goes. The saying is enraging to our lefty friends because 1. it implies there is some shadow-side feminine essence for Islam to be right about (how dare you!); and 2. it implies that Islam is not as pro-woman as the west is (how dare you!). They're never sure whether to be most outraged by the misogyny or the Islamophobia.
"Yes, I can easily picture that dystopian vision too."
It's only dystopian to Christians! For Muslims it's the glorious fulfilment of Muhammed's prophesy of global Islam. By 2050 Islam will overtake Christianity as the world's largest religion (Pew Research Centre). We all know the reason - feminism drives down birth rates. But why are Christians susceptible to feminism, while Muslims are immune? Could it be that Christ's message of love and compassion for our fellow man leaves us vulnerable to victim narratives, and prone to "suicidal empathy", while Muhammad's message of complete submission to the will of God precludes such deceptions? The answer seems clear - Feminism has GAMED Christianity. What could be more wicked?
On the other hand, Islam will overtake Christianity only if current birth rates continue, and they tend not to continue when Muslims move to the west. Also, there are more conversions out of Islam into Christianity than from Christianity into Islam. I am not entirely without hope on that front. Christianity is a beautiful religion; Islam is an ugly one. As for feminism, it is already present in Islam, and it will be more so over the next few decades, as Muslim women increasingly attend college and become professionalized. The sad fact is that nothing human is impervious to feminism, which is why only true Christianity can escape it.
Thanks for the response but I'm afraid you're simply wrong on all counts here. Yes, birth rates drop amongst ALL immigrants to the West, not just Muslims, but Muslim birth rates remain far higher than Christians. The data is clear, eg. Pew Research report 2015: "The Total Fertility Rate of Muslims in North America is 2.7 children per woman in the 2010 to 2015 period, well above the regional average (2.0) and the replacement level (2.1). The fertility rate for Christians (2.1) is on par with replacement level." On that basis the Muslim population would almost double every two generations, while the Christian population remained stagnant. On the other hand, new research from Japan suggests that "Human populations need at least 2.7 children per woman - a much higher fertility rate than previously believed - to reliably avoid long term extinction." On that basis Christians are on a certain path to extinction. You mention religious conversion, which in the Pew report is referred to as religious switching: "If no religious switching were projected, the Christian share of the population in 2050 (75%) would be close to the 2010 share (77%). Because of religious switching, however, the Christian share of North America's population is projected to be significantly smaller (66%)." So, contrary to your suggestion, more people are switching away from Christianity than to Christianity. You mention Muslim women adopting feminism, as if it's the same thing as Western feminism. It is not: "Islamic feminism is anchored within the discourse of Islam with the Quran as its central text"...and..."derives its understanding and mandate from the Qur'an." (Margot Badran). No one ever suggested that Western feminism is "anchored within the discourse of Christianity" and "derives its understanding and mandate from the Bible"!!! Quite the contrary - Western feminism typically rejects religion as deeply patriarchal. That's the big difference - Muslim feminists retain their religious and family values, and it's reflected in their birth rates. In that respect they're more similar to the Western trad con or trad wife ideal than to the typical Western feminist. Muslims also have much lower divorce rates (6%) than the general population (13%). These are just a few of the markers which tell us that Muslims are resistant to feminism in the West. I'm sure we'd find more if we looked, and we might even learn something about how to fight feminism ourselves.
Prediction is a mug's game. There have been many points in history when things looked like sure doom, and they weren't. No one could have predicted on the day after Jesus's crucifixion that his disconsolate followers would go on to found the most significant religion in history. I do not think, ultimately, that Christianity will be defeated by Islam. But I sincerely grant that you have given this subject much more serious consideration than I, and I apologize if I have seemed blithely dismissive of your perspective.
Yes, as the saying goes - It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Like you I'm confident that Christianity will survive in the West, but in greatly diminished numbers. That's not a prediction, it's already happening. In the US for example, Christians have dropped from 95% of the population in 1950 to 78% in 2007, then 71% in 2014, then 62% in 2024. Meanwhile "Muslims are the fastest growing major religion...The number of Muslims around the world grew 21% between 2010 and 2020...Muslims grew twice as fast as the rest of the world's population...The rate of Muslim growth was the highest in North America...up 52%." So in the US, in the space of a decade, Christians FELL almost 10%, while Muslims GREW more than 50%. If that were to continue the country would be unrecognizable within a few decades.
"As Islam becomes more dominant in western civilizations, feminism will come under attack."
I don't think it will "come under attack" necessarily, it will simply become irrelevant. Muslims will do their own thing as they always have, within their own families and communities, and leave Christians alone to do their feminist thing. They don't need to challenge or confront feminism, just ignore it until it dies out, as the host population dies out. Feminism is like a pesticide which eradicates a particular species by targeting its reproductive system. Once the reproduction rate drops below replacement level, extinction is just a matter of time. Muslims are patient, they've been waiting for centuries already, they can wait a few generations more.
Who were the majority participants in WW 1 and WW 11 who fought to protect home, family and country? Of course it was men. Have women always demanded equality ? Of course not. Consider
this. The shortage of men in Paris during WW 11 was so severe, because of the loss of male
soldiers that died during the course of battle, having a mistress whilst being married was often seen as acceptable.
Women play the victim. But the real victims are men.