From this lady's bio: "I work in mental healthcare with children. Credentialed in childhood trauma and family advocacy"
Wew lads, I think we found one of the feminists the article is about. Quick, project Andrew Tate's face into the sky - it signals to him that there's evil to fight!
It's absolutely perfect that she is "credentialed in childhood trauma" given the subject of the article. Ahahaha. I cannot stop laughing at how ridiculous this is. Someone read an essay about how females with authority over children are propagandizing them with crazy misandrist hate speech and thinks, I know what this article needs! It needs a woman with authority over children spewing crazy misandrist hate speech in the comments! That will show those awful boys how wrong they are about us!
Fat ugly hate machines drunk on her own kool aid... LOL EVERYONE NAZI!! LOL Leftoids get so twisted up in fantasy they don't seem to understand who won WW2, It wasn't the natsocs piglet. Holy shit look at her dillusional writings on TRUTH. My god...
And Cat says Ms. Tuininga can’t make an argument. Hmmm?
By the way Cat, I’m only counting 12 insults devoid of argument:
1: Nazi
2: “crawled” onto Substack
3: propagandist
4: woman shaming
patriarchal sexiest
5: archaic
6: Mara Lago visiting Trump supporter (I guess that’s an insult)
7: purveyor of bullshit
8: Card carrying sympathizer of the South African Musk Clan (she left out Apartheid loving but it’s kinda implied)
9: women hater
10: patriarchal appeaser
11: Daddy pleasing devoid of humanity grasper
and,
12: purveyor of toxic grievance
But the good Professor need not fear. It’s not her fault. She has been “damaged by patriarchal violence” to the extent that she has now joined her abusers.
See Cat, there’s a claim. Some might even describe it as a path to salvation.
Oh, and Ms Tuininga, let me save you some trouble by anticipating your reply:
Oh brother. Hypocrites much. Women did not have rights until the 70's. They could not leave abusive husbands,get a credit card, bank account or buy property without their man's permission. They also did not have a right to choose. We are not going back. It's funny girls have been held beneath boys for centuries and here you wonder why feminism began? We taught our boys women were not their play things, their housekeepers, cooks and if they ever laid a hand in one we would make sure they paid for it. We also told our daughter to respect good men. Do I agree with teaching kids all boys are bad and shaming them? No. However the hypocrisy is huge especially since the right wing politicians are wanting to take us back into a time no women had voices.
This is typical feminist nonsense, and you should be ashamed of such a display.
Women had rights before the 1970s. They could leave abusive husbands, etc. The change that came in 1969 was the introduction of no-fault divorce and lavish alimony arrangements, but divorce had existed long before then in English law, and abuse by the husband was a primary ground, as legal commentators such as E. Belfort Bax in the late 19th century attested. The right of women to own property was guaranteed as far back as the Magna Carta.
Changes to Anglophone law from the 1840s until the 1870s guaranteed women's property rights in marriage (you're off by about 100 years). In some particular cases, married women did need their husband's signatures for credit because if they defaulted on a payment, the husband would have to take on the debt. It made sense that in a case where the husband was the sole earner, he would have to agree for his wife to make purchases on a credit card for which he was responsible. But many women worked and had their own bank accounts as far back as the 1800s.
Sara Jeannette Duncan, a Canadian journalist, would have roared with laughter at all your false notions. Girls "held beneath boys for centuries"? She said of her era (she was born in 1861 and began writing columns for the Washington Post in 1885), that it was "a golden age for girls, full of new interests and new opportunities." As a journalist, she interviewed many professional women, including academics and doctors. She travelled around the world with a friend, Lily Lewis, and wrote a bestselling book about her experiences. She knew her rights and she reveled in her freedoms.
You state that you don't agree with teaching that all boys are bad, and shaming them. So what exactly is the source of your outrage? Where is the alleged "hypocrisy"? Even if your wild claims were true, which they are not, why would a long-ago injustice offset present cruelty towards boys?
This is what I find so striking about many women today and why I do not believe that women like you make good leaders in general: the reflex hostility, to discussion of harms to boys and men. Always we have to hear, "But WE had it worse for centuries! No one suffers as WE did!' All based on a phantasmagorical collection of grievances.
Revenge-taking is not a philosophy for a just society, which is precisely why feminism should be kept out of the school system. Thank you for illustrating it so crudely.
This nonsense really annoys me. During the seventies nobody lived on credit. It's very much a modern phenomenon. There were still many folk around who'd lived through the depression and they didn't trust banks at all. When one of my uncles passed away they found over 80k in cash in his bedroom. Apparently it wasn't unusual. In Australia banks were not allowed to issue credit cards until the mid seventies and at that point they issued them automatically to all account holders 21 and older.
No they could not, my aunt was stuck with hers until 73 when the laws changed. I'm not even a feminist but you are a liar. Teachers are not berating little boys in public schools. I work in one I have never seen it. I have two sons and a daughter. My sons are not being told anything you put in this post. However, what I said about how girls were treated is true. It still is. Have a nice day.
Ah, now you shift away from what you said previously to a different topic.
You may not consider yourself a feminist but, alas, you have been infected by the feminist mind-virus of self-pity and anger, combined with the womanly inability to argue rationally. "Teachers are not berating little boys in public schools. I work in one and I have never seen it." This is not strong evidence, and it certainly does not invalidate my research. My article quotes from material being used in public schools. No one disputes it. It quotes from an article about boys being made to apologize to girls for the bad deeds of the male sex. No one denies that happened. It quotes from a feminist who couldn't care less about evidence that boys are not doing as well in school as girls. It quotes abundantly from feminist teachers who resent that boys have opinions they don't agree with. All you have in response is your assertion about your experience, which may or may not be true, may or may not be representative. This comment section is full of men who have had their own experiences very different from yours.
But you didn't answer the fundamental question. Why does it matter what you claim your aunt suffered, or how you think women were victimized throughout history? Why do you feel such a need to bring these forward when the subject is the shaming of boys?
Feminists/suffragettes murdered people, fire bombed buildings and trains.
Feminists/suffragettes (white feather movement) shamed 14-15 year old boys into join up and die in the trenches in WWW1.
Feminists/suffragettes (white feather movement) shamed wounded veterans returning from the front in WWW1, telling them they where cowards as that should have died defending the women and children.
Feminists/suffragettes, did not want poor white women/men and non whites to vote.
Feminists/suffragettes supported and pushed eugenics re: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923). In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and that organisation has been responsible for aborting hundreds of thousands of black and minority babies. So the feminist eugenics worked, they have managed to keep a certain USA population demographic at near 0 population growth for decades.
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down. - Letter to the editor, signed: "Liberated Women", Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996
"MALE: represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.
MAN: an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...
From 'A Feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae & Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985"
"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers." - Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love
Wrong, my mother was highly skilled teacher in 50s through to the 90s. She always had her own bank account the checking account overdraft. So you are full of it. And my father was the cook in the house and maintain the house and work full time.
The level of hostility and anger oozes out of the pores of your comments. The intolerance you aptly demonstrate towards other ideas and concepts that do not match your prejudices and biases.
[*] The dominance of this intersectional ideology is the reason why those who dare to consider how the impact of our institutions upon particular students deemed “privileged“, such as male students (disproportionately possessed of both “privilege”, but also somehow much “deficiency” and failure), have such a precarious time doing so. For anyone who understands the dangers of blaspheming against this dogma of identity, and wishes to avoid the most devastating consequences of doing so, there are two caveats commonly offered to justify their concern without explicitly violating the intersectional order: first, the inclusion of a non-privileged or “oppressed” identity qualifier behind which to hide the “privileged“ part of the identity (e.g. instead of referring to disadvantages faced by “boys” in school, one might instead ascribe such disadvantages to “black boys” in particular); and second, almost invariably, a platitude about the categorical imperative toward progress being something that “is not a zero-sum game“ to try to avoid being cast down as a “reactionary” against “progress”. The latter platitude is true, intersectionality is not a zero-sum game, and thus it seems as though any effort intended to improve outcomes in anyway should be allowed. In practice, however, this is shown over and over again not to be the case, and this is because of the kind of game Intersectionality actually is: not a zero-sum game, but rather worse than that, a negative-sum game. I would encourage those who have legitimate concerns and integrity on matters pertaining to education, individuals like Richard Reeves, to stop beating around the bush, and certainly, to stop bending the knee to this ideology which stands opposed to the interests of providing true education at every conceivable level. Come on Richard, it’s time to have some courage, it’s time to declare yourself fully liberated from the myriad feminist precepts that keep your efforts on behalf of boys in school dull, lame, and ultimately ineffectual.
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
[*] This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of psychopathological complex would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational, “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
[*] Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear can finally get a share of that oft parroted “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, encountered passively by most children within an educational and cultural milieu that categorize individuals as more-or-less “oppressor” and “oppressed”.
None taken! Sorry on my part, this is a snippet from a... rather long-winded essay I'm writing on education, much of which does pertain to the indoctrination and blatant misandry of contemporary primary education. I'll be publishing it here on Substack when it's finally finished... suffice it to say, there is much to be said on the subject; especially now given the prominence of people like Richard Reeves (who, from my perspective, DO NOT dare to care about it in any holistic way). Thank you for your work! Always an inspiration.
"The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:"
I'm in central Victoria in Australia. My soon to be 18 year old nephew has finished his P-12 schooling hearing little but spite and venom towards his sex. Never a single positive sentiment towards men - his obvious future. There's no respite. Even at home he daren't turn on the television. It saturates governments, institutions, education, media, corporates, community sector and on. It's everywhere. It's almost as though we're living under fascism, but only for boys and men.
Yeah... it's devastating frankly, and it does feel as though few to no one gives a damn. Like boys aren't even human in the eyes of most... They don't know, or they don't care, what it feels like to be demonized in the ways boys and men are today.
It's funny, the comment I read before yours was Rudolph Rigger quoting John Stuart Mill. So thank you for giving us "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
I don't know what kind of higher education you had, if any, but it seems you didn't take much from it.
But, don't despair! We live in a enlightened age where everyone is just a click away from as much knowledge and culture they need or want!
I am a sucker for the classics, and because of that, I could not let the opportunity pass to point you to the father of logic as a science, Aristotle: *
I sincerely hope you enjoy your reading and learn something from it, so you stop embarrassing as someone utterly incapable of arguing logically as you just did in your pathetically poor commentary.
“Toxic masculinity”, until a woman does it, then it’s “empowerment” or “confidence”.
My teenager is starting to see first hand in high school how conniving and downright mean some of the female classmates can be. I wish I could tell him they’ll grow out of it, but I know from experience that’s not always the case. Funny how the worst of the mean girls went on to be teachers, I feel like that’s relevant to point out after reading this.
I fear that feminism is creating the monster that it wants to destroy.
Sadly, I beleive that in a few more years, we will start to see the monster emerging. If boys today believe that they have nothing to live for, no hope, no dreams, and to be seen as only criminals, then they will become the very monster that feminists have created.
We should start a pool to see who will be the first feminist to advocate for the death penalty for sexual assault while their campaign of eviscerating the concept of due process for men accused of sex crimes grinds on and on.
I think the rate is closer to 17-1. In the United States, men typically receive sentences 60 percent longer than female offenders with similar priors. And that's without taking into consideration that the system is significantly less likely to charge and prosecute women.
Yes, exactly what Sonja Starr's research found. Women are far more likely than men to be found not guilty, to work out a plea deal, or to be given a non-custodial sentence.
Then you need to factor in women being more likely to be released early.
In Britain there is a serious problem with (lack of) prison capacity. This is despite overall crime having fallen through my lifetime. It would disappear at a stroke if the treatment of men and women was equalised somewhere in the middle.
Prosecuting and caging men is big business. Very big. It is a racket in itself.
The most powerful legislative-affecting organization in California -- and this surprises most people -- is the prison guard's union. Extrapolate from there and we see why the problem can't be budged. Too many people counting on it not being budged.
I think the county jails especially have many male inmates there for little more than displeasing some female. That seems to be 'against the law' now. The police and the courts likewise are feminist and 'process' men through the system, which is profitable for the system, and which justifies their own jobs and paydays.
America is a bad place for men and boys. A dangerous place, too.
The good news is that the youngest voter group in Eastern Germany is favoring the AfD, and I strongly suspect, will also be critical of feminism. Despite currently being one of the craziest countries on the planet, perhaps the ever more manifest insanity of their leftist elites will become its own cure by finally breeding a generation that stands up against it. Then Germany will have truly become a force of good in the world.
Feminism doesn't want to destory any monster to start off. The monster is imagined. It's female slander/character assassination. It was a female supremacist movement. Did the Klu Klux Klan seek to destroy a monster that was real?
Secondly, we will not start to see a "male monster". I am going to be frank and say that this reeks of really creepy misandry.
There is no evidence that there will be a horde of young men who believe they should be able to mercilessly beat and rape women.
A men's rights movement is significantly more likely than this strange fear mongering you're engaging in.
Look at what South Korean men are doing. That's what is most likely to happen. Not this fucking weird
"feminism is going to make men into fucking rape demons" which is what you're comment seems to imply."
You might have meant well, but I think this just comes off super wrong.
It seems to be justifying feminism in a way it shouldn't.
"That it wants to destroy".
No man, it never wanted destroy an actual monster. It's a hate movement. It's female nazism. I mean that non-hyperbolically, and it non-metaphorically.
I think that those of us in dissident movements sometimes talk in this manner partly out of perverse wish-fulfillment. Part of me wants violence, or at least is momentarily satisfied at the thought of wronged boys and young men rising up against their oppressors, slaying them and restoring society. In reality, it isn't likely to happen, and if it did, it would be terrifying and awful.
Today's men are not rising up in violence against feminism. They are doing something far worse by walking away from dating, marriage, intimate relationships and society itself. Taking their financial resources with them out of reach of the women who desire to fleece them then discard them for another simp ad nauseum. What especially ires feminists and today's women is the men who ignore and walk away from them are far more happy without them.
When you stop and think about the pain, the loss, the destruction to life that feminism has intentionally imposed on men and boys (and women) - I too would like to see some serious payback - but that ( in terms of mob violence) is not at the core of male nature - that said - all "censorship" fans the flame of the targeted subject and that payback will likely take form in some way (?) on the daughters and granddaughters of these disgusting female creatures propagating all this hate and control. Many or most of those young women will likely live lives barren and lonely (Morgan Stanley report) - then , as their emotional state deteriorates - well likely see incarceration and suicide stats skyrocket - then all the betas will rally to fix it and begin castrating themselves to create a world of eunuch slave males and demonic overlord females
Thanks for your feedback and the monster you created from your imagination.
Who knows what form the monster, if it happens, will become? I don't have a crystal ball.
The monster could be as simple as our society collapsing because young men opt out, and if current trends continue, Western Civilization as we know it will cease to exist, perhaps by the end of the century.
There can be no doubt that "Western Civilization as we know it will cease to exist, perhaps by the end of the century." For a start, whites will be in minority in the US and UK by mid-century. After that, whites will be rapidly outbred by all other races. So forget about Western Civilization, it's the survival of the white race we should be thinking about.
Personally I have no real stake in the white race, I spend most of the year in South East Asia, and when I'm back in Australia I feel completely alienated from the feminized white society here. It bears no resemblance to the white Australian society I was born into in the 1950's. Even so it's extraordinary to think the white race could be on the brink of extinction globally within this century. The loss of any race is not a good thing.
"There is no evidence that there will be a horde of young men who believe they should be able to mercilessly beat and rape women."
Actually there's data from the UK suggesting VAWG is on the rise and police are worried. Maybe it's just more feminist propaganda, but it wouldn't be surprising if young men are finally starting to lash out at women, after all the anti-male shit they've copped all their lives as schoolboys. It's easy to see how they'd be emboldened by Andrew Tate and others online to no longer take shit from women, and start pushing back against the women in their lives, who are accustomed to bullying them with impunity. I certainly hope so. I'd be happy to see hospitals overflowing with bashed women, and jails overflowing with otherwise law abiding young men. It might lead to a rethink of how we treat boys in school. Then again, it's probably just wishful thinking.
It's already happening. It's not a coincidence that increasingly young men, particularly white men, respond to surveys that they fel hopeless, uncared for and angry. It blows my mind that middle aged surburban women don't have the faintest idea why - except for the stupid reasons of sexism and misogyny - their husbands don't feel hard pressed to join their progressive call to arms. I for one know that all of the monsters reside in their closets, not mine.
I share that fear as well. In all likelihood, there will be a wave of angry young men breaking upon western civilization like a tsunami in the near future.
The number of men who’ve given up on relationships with women, who’ve given up on their marriages and have allowed themselves to become the human battery which powers his wife’s family, who’ve been rendered undateable because women got all the promotions and they’re stuck in a dead end job and, of course my own personal cohort, those of us who were off-ramped into college-boy uselessness and were eventually just discarded entirely from society in any meaningful way is much, much greater than most Americans realize.
When I separated from the military in the mid-Seventies, I immediately enrolled in the local community college. Even then, the female teachers were hard at work feminizing the Language departments, primarily by hiring only women for open positions, and teaching from 'feminist perspectives'. Fem-empowerment already was all the rage, and it never entered their minds that THEY were being bigots. Goddess forbid! They were on the Right Side of Moral History, you see.
Later as a professional, I saw the same thing in our organization: when women became department heads, almost invariably they'd hire other women -- often personal friends -- for any openings. This was not bigotry, oh no, it was 'righteous empowerment'.
Bad as those experiences were, they pale in comparison to the beatdowns and brainwashings that boys must endure before the Feminist Horde in schools. I shudder when thinking of the millions of households where little boys are left at the (often sadistic) hands of mothers and other female authority figures, because daddy has been forced-out of the picture. Castrating little boys is now becoming more common; they call it 'gender re-identification', etc. Boys NEED men present to guard them from the depredations of feminist relatives and 'teachers'. Often male infants and small boys are terribly abused by mothers and other female relatives. Society's interest in this? Zero.
Who do boys have these days to safeguard them from pathological females, and from pathological feminist societies and cultures? Well, that'd be us. Yep. We are IT, and there are very few of us, and we can only do so much. The schools, colleges, courts, corporations, media, LE, government, even the churches . . . all feminized or feminist.
These past decades I have written at length about the spiritual aspects of our feminist institutions and cultures, and there is no doubt in my mind that, at root, feminism is a demonic, satanic ideology which has infested and infected every aspect of our lives. What comes immediately to mind is the recent Scamdemic, in which newly empowered, authoritarian nurses literally DANCED in the aisles of their hospital wards and ERs, high on the attention and gifted-totalitarianism dropped into their laps. Meanwhile, en masse, hospitals and doctors falsified records to show that 'covid' was the cause of death in thousands, perhaps millions, of cases in which, to be brief, it was not.
Thanks to Janice for this brave and much-needed report. We few must stand for truth in the face of our societies of lies, and we must stand as guardians of little boys and male students, who have no other voice in the face of the massive feminist tide. It is not easy and I will not pretend that it is; however, it is work desperately needed and will be rewarded in due time.
My apologies for hogging the comments section. I could go on at much greater length, is the sad truth of it.
I was a foreign language and literature professor for a dozen years before acknowledging that university humanities programs are far too corrupted for me to even make a dent. I published dozens of articles countering the abuses of feminist "idea laundering," intended to present sexist bigotry as valid scholarship. They relied on coalitions of feminists citing and publishing one another's work to create the illusion that it was well-established scholarly fact rather than vile, abject hate-mongering. Their power over the academy was far too entrenched for me to fight it. It is no wonder that scholarship in the humanities today has no credibility. Decades of feminist dominance has turned it on its head. It is no longer a matter of using valid research methodologies to found conclusions; it is quite the contrary: feminists begin with their bigoted conclusions and then backfill them with shoddy fact-finding and radical, inaccurate readings.
I'm selfishly sorry that you stopped your campaign to expose the abuses of feminist "idea laundering" (such a good term: it is *exactly* as you say--somebody makes up a concept with no supporting evidence, and it gets cited and re-cited and expanded and affirmed until there is a huge body of "research" on it, all built on nothing more substantial than fanaticism)--but I'm glad you stopped banging your head against the wall.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure such faux scholarship "has no credibility." I think it still does with powerful government bodies. The research above about Andrew Tate and how female teachers are suffering will be taken seriously by the Australian government and will have an impact on how school funding is allocated, with the result that there will be more feminist material incorporated into the curriculum and even less opportunity for boys to learn in an environment free of condemnation.
Psychology has long been a subject in Australian schools. I took Psychology in 1995 as a mature age student for my Year 12 VCE (Victorian Certificate of Education). It's presented as a proper science, not the pop-psychology most people associate with the subject. I remember the teacher, a female PHD who also lectured at university level, telling us that girls were particularly attracted to the subject, but were invariably disappointed to find it was nothing like they expected, and demanded actual scientific rigour! She was right, and half the girls dropped out within a few weeks.
Here in the states women have been flooding into the field of Psychology bringing the feminism with them and displacing men. I will no longer see a female therapist when I have a choice and will run circles around them wheni can't avoid them. Interesting enough the word therapist is composed of two words the and rapist: the-rapist. And I personally will allow myself to be mind raped by a feminist therapist with an ax to grind.
I reckon Sociology has well and truly surpassed Psychology as the most corrupted field of science. The Australian "misogyny in classrooms" study referenced in Janice's piece, prepared by three sociologists, is a perfect example. As Janice says: "Short on evidence and long on anti-male theorizing"
A very typical tale, sadly. Collective female power is, truly, the Monstrous Regiment of the Damned. Their typical tactic is to isolate any male who dares to counter them, and then make his life as miserable as possible until he is driven out. This gives them tremendous satisfaction, and the 'men' who are left know better than to stand against them.
When I entered a four-year college in the early Eighties, the fembots already were busy 'deconstructing' the (largely male) Western Canon of literature. Deconstruction is their code-word for Destruction . . . it sounds better, you see. Prettier. It took them about a decade to wipe out the great literature of the past, replacing it with their fem-supremacist politicized tripe.
I am a Christian, and real Christianity is patriarchal, and male led. After witnessing the past sixty years, I now know why. Feminism and feminists are -- without doubt -- evil on the hoof.
You are spot on. Feminism is a spawn from hell. The Satanic march to destroy humanity and everything in Genesis that God declared good continues unabated. Occam's razor and the thirty thousand foot view......all lead to Satan. Cling to Jesus - it is going to get worse.
It is. A realistic summation, thank you. Buckle up and stay near to Papa and to Christ the King. But make war against the enemy in the meantime. No time to slack off now. m
Good that you weren't able to hold yourself back from a little jump into ad hominem. I agree on keeping Satan out of the conversation, but your 'cartoon character' removes any doubt as to your bias. Never start a discussion with "it's a good thing everybody hates you because you're stupid", it only wins over people who lack wisdom and kindness.
Jesus would disagree. But hey, FAFO when death comes for you. Romans 1:18-21; "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
I could care not one whit less what you think, for YOU are of your father, Satan. You know the Truth, but in arrogance, reject it. Not my problem. You will bow to King Jesus, and will have no defense. Good luck.
Sorry, need to know: how does one worship a non-existent devil? Where is that mentioned? And if he is a "cartoon character", who is it that tempted Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11? What about the other numerous references to Satan in the Bible? Or is the Bible nonsense too? And if the Bible is nonsense, what defines your doctrine? And tell me, "Erek" - what exactly is "sin"?
Such a good piece Janice. Great job of giving a sense of the nonsense of that report.
My own take is that this is a sure sign that we are winning. Feminists have, for decades, found ways to NEVER have to defend their ideas and theories. Anyone who disagreed was immediately a misogynist. They never learned how to engage in a two way interchange that honored not only your own way of seeing the world, but someone else's. Now we see their defenselessness. They can't deal with even a young boy disagreeing with their world view. If that happens he must be misogynist! It is for this reason that I think this is actually a very positive sign. They are truly desperate. Their desperation will expose their idiocy. People will take a look at this and know that they are not mentally healthy and its time for a change.
If you’re threatened by an eleven-year-old boy disagreeing with you you’re really not cut out to teach. Why isn’t this obvious to the whining feminist whores?
I think feminism will ultimately be seen for what it is, but we're a long way from that now, and I fear that the short-term future will see even worse injustices.
"I think feminism will ultimately be seen for what it is, but we're a long way from that now"
I beg to differ. Plenty of people already see feminism for what it is, but that hasn't slowed its progress one iota. Feminism is self-perpetuating, because any opposition to feminism is declared misogyny, demanding even more feminism to counter misogyny. It's a positive feedback loop, in which even the most puny opposition to feminism, like pushback from a few cheeky schoolboys, generates a whole new government funded two-year campaign against misogyny in classrooms. These boys represent the final pocket of resistance, since all the adults have long ago been cowed into silence. Not a murmur of opposition to feminism is heard from within governments, corporations, media, and probably most households. On the contrary, we hear nothing but promotion and glorification of girls and women, to the point of nausea, and nothing but vilification and demonization of men and boys. So forgive me if I scoff at Tom's suggestion that we are winning the war against feminism.
I don't believe feminism will ever be "defeated" in the West, but like any other virulent disease it will eventually recede, having killed off the host population, ie. Westerners. It's already happening apace, as seen in plummeting birth rates across the Western world, and will only accelerate as MGTOW movements grow, and mass immigration escalates in response to resultant labour shortage. These migrant cultures prioritize men and boys, and control their women and girls, and certainly don't tolerate feminists. By mid-century they will be in majority in the US and UK, and along with miscegenation will start to dictate gender politics more broadly. How ironic that feminists, by attacking "privileged" white men and boys so determinedly for decades, will have ushered in the very hegemonic masculinity they so desperately despise!
"Feminism is self-perpetuating, because any opposition to feminism is declared misogyny,"
The power of feminism stems from innate human cognitive, perceptual and behavioural biases. We perceive threats against women more readily and as being of more importance than those against men, we perceive women more positively even when they act in negative ways and we support, encourage and protect women rather than men. Feminism's strength and it is very great strength is that it is aligned with these cognitive biases. That is why the absurd concept of the patriarchy or the idea of ubiquitous misogyny are widespread despite them being directly contradicted by everyday experience and mountains of evidence. Its why feminists could assert, without being universally mocked, that the only reason men are stronger than women is because of societal pressure right up until the point that this absurd fantasy started to hurt women. As soon as it impacted women, but not before, it was discredited.
Its very hard to see this changing. Himans innately favour women that is part of our nature and within bounds its a good thing. In the past the pressures of a daily struggle to survive prevented viewpoints becoming very misaligned with reality but the success of civilisation in removing that daily pressure to survive allows these cognitive biases to dominate.
"Feminism's strength and it is very great strength is that it is aligned with these cognitive biases."
Yes, feminism exploits the male protective instinct as well as certain cognitive biases, such as gender empathy bias, which operate to prioritize females ahead of males. However, while that helps to explain the widespread acceptance of feminist propaganda, it does not explain the complete absence of any challenging voice from within government, business, or media. Clearly that is self-censorship, for fear of being labelled misogynist, the standard tactic employed by feminists against critics. Another standard feminist tactic is to conduct surveys showing increased opposition to feminism, thereby justifying even more government funding to combat the scourge of misogyny. That's why I say feminism is self-perpetuating. We need to understand the success of feminism as a political movement, rather than look for arcane explanations like cognitive bias.
I don't think it is an arcane explanation and more importantly I think its an accurate explanation of a major part of feminism's political success. Why it is that there is almost no overt opposition to femisnism across all political parties in any western country.
If you think feminisms is a destructive and damaging influence then understanding its strengths and the reason for its success is surely important when thinking how to reduce its influence or mitigate the damage.
One thing that we can't change is those aspects of human nature which gave rise to it namely the cognitive and behavioural biases in favour of women.
It may for example be far more effective to challenge feminism for the damage it does to women rather than the impact on men. When challenging the impact on men it may be more effective to emphasise the indirect impact on women following from that on men.
I think you hit a huge, exposed nerve. Some of the responses are bordering on the disdainful of women generally, which is what I expect will be the eventual outcome of so much of feminist demands. You can only vilify and use logical fallacy for so long before the potential violent backlash hits your own people.
I was viewing a German documentary on the ‘incarceration’ of teenage boys and girls after the Nazi war and in East Germany / East Berlin. These teenagers were put into prison for simply asking questions , questioning the rules - in some cases not even knowing the so called rules , or even trying to escape to the West.
I thought, we see a repeat of this going on now in our time.
I know people are physically put into jails still but in our time now we see how people are being incarcerated on the Mental / Psychological levels; but it is promoted as ‘ for the good of Society etc etc la la ‘..,,
From what I can recall, the jailing or ostracism of dissenting voices has occurred throughout history. The Scots, the Irish, and the Welsh under British rule also happened to be persecuted.
Then, we have the early conflict between Catholicism and the Protestant versions of Christianity.
Fortunately, in Western Cultures, we have not yet progressed to the stage of jailing those who are critical of feminism, Yet!
There is something sui generis about the war being waged by feminists on men. It is an existential crisis for all of humanity. Whereas all of the other persecutions you mention were waged by one political or religious group against another, the feminist war on men pits one half of humanity against the other. Feminists brook no compromise but every time men capitulate, the feminists are merely encouraged to demand more concessions. The end result is, as predicted by C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man. There can be, I submit, no other explanation for this lunacy than the influence of satan, in whose existence it is becoming harder and harder to disbelieve. After all, his plan has always been to destroy the object of God's affection, viz., the Crown of His Creation, His human children. Satan knows he cannot destroy God, but destroying His children has been seen by satan as a suitable substitute since the beginning.
you are right with all this history.. but WWII is still seen as the 'most' evil thing and it seems to be that anything other evil is not really evil because the WWII is the worst.. mmmm
I had a reality check about WW11, in which an English Doctor I worked with said the reason the British won the war was because they were more brutal than the Germans.
Thinking about it, even though the movies, books, and comic books portray the British as heroes rescuing and all that noble stuff. The Germans were portrayed as being brutal, yet to defeat a brutal foe means being more brutal than your foe. Take, for example, the bombing of Dresden and the use of incendiary bombs on a city built out of wood. To win, the Liberators had to be more brutal than the Oppressors.
It is not debatable (unless you want to deny the Holocaust) that the Germans were more brutal to their own citizens and to citizens of lands that were allies or conquered.
Thanks for sharing the views of the English Doctor.... very true...
I think I'd read once that the British had starved the French.. into submission... one has to then wonder why there is such bad feelings between countries... it lingers like a foul stench in the air..
I did at one stage have a paper that suggested the Irish starved because they believed the British when they said it is cheaper to import your food.. so they starved instead of growing their own... maybe you know of that ?
"Winning" does not include reliance on schoolboys to counter the nonsense they are being taught. "Winning" is about developing teacher training science and methods such that future teachers rise above dumb ideology, misogyny and misandry, while educating children of both sexes, and making that a prerequisite to employment as a teacher. In that we, and our children, are losing. We must do more. Much much more. There will be time to celebrate then.
Deeply disturbing, because it all rings so true and pervasive. Anti-male thinking and policies are so all-encompassing that it takes a brilliant discerning analyst, Dr. Fiamengo, to identify it.
One of the more interesting things about the sudden discovery that boys prefer to be told how to be manly rather than to be ashamed of being male is how shocked these teachers feel when they realize their propaganda is being challenged. They double down on the definition of masculinity as inherently predatory.
There is a gigantic problem with this. That is that feminist orthodoxy contends that gender is a product of socialization not an inherent set of conditions resulting from the pressures of evolution on living organisms over the past (counting on fingers) half a billion years.
However, in the face of simple questioning the respondents in this study resort to arguing that maleness is •inherently• problematic and threatening. So is gender a matter of nurture or nature? All of a sudden it’s the latter not the former.
Or to put it another way, the response to boys questioning what they are taught, or expressing admiration for a man of mixed race who presents them with an image of resilient masculinity, is to condemn the boys for the original sin of being born male.
In essence, these teachers, having told boys that they should apologize for existing, are responding to being questioned, or to the astonishing discovery that boys possess minds of their own, by loudly declaring that little boys are made of frogs, and snails, and puppy dogs’ tails, and have shat on the world supply of sugar, spice, etc.
Now either there is inherent masculinity, or it’s a product of culture. If the teachers are attempting to force boys into the mold of girls (junior grade), and the boys are resisting then it might behoove them to rethink what they’re doing. Instead they jump to defining boys as possessing an inherent predatory masculinity.
When you’ve defined a part of reality as either/or you really can’t say “one sometimes, the other at other times.” You have to deal with it as its own phenomenon. If that’s causing you to adopt a paradigm that you insist you are rejecting, then you have a problem.
The problem is that you are being forced to acknowledge your misandry, and the failure of your efforts to cow boys into submission. If boys are responding to a vision of manhood as strong, resilient, and self-determined rather than bowing their heads to an understanding of masculinity as the most evil thing that has ever existed you might want to rethink what you’re doing and help the boys to head towards the blend of responsibility, self-esteem, and resilience that are the foundational characteristics of solid masculine adulthood.
None of these teachers seem to understand that you don’t help boys to become men by telling them that possessing a penis and testicles is shameful, and that any sign of independence of mind is as evil as setting fire to the Mona Lisa.
Boys are naturally drawn to strength and determination, since those are qualities inherent to adult masculinity. Female teachers who do not understand this should stop teaching boys, and let men do the job of guiding them to responsible adulthood.
Meanwhile, parents must withdraw their children-both boys and girls-from the gaping maw of feminist indoctrination known as "public education." Home school if you can, enroll in Christian schools as the next best alternative, but by no means allow any of your precious children to become corrupted by the satanic influences prevalent in the American public school system. And to all you soi disant "good teachers," I say, you are no different than "good Germans" who participated in the scourge of nazism without joing the party.
One problem is that there are not nearly enough Christian or other private schools to meet the demand and as a result the tuition prices are often exorbitantly high. I live in a small rural community and there are two private Christian schools in a county of 10,000 people. One school is K-6, the other is K-8. Tuition runs $3500 per month, $31,500 a year. Combined both schools have a capacity of less than 300 students and both have wait lists. The small town where I was raised has zero Christian schools, the nearest one is more than 40 miles away. This situation is more common than not in much of America. In my state it’s relatively easy from a regulatory perspective to start a private school, the biggest hurdle is a lack of resources. In other states though starting a new private school is nearly impossible.
Around two years ago, a female friend asked me to help compose a letter declaring her intention to withdraw her son from his State school and educate him at home. She has a demanding job as a mental health nurse on a pattern of long and irregular shifts, but despite this she was still certain her teenage boy would be better off outside the system.
The material she showed me - full of unchallenged assumptions and pedagogical waterboarding - actually made explaining her rationale quite easy and my main task was restraining my relish in dismantling and exposing the indoctrination. Although the latter involved matters of health, climate alarmism, gender ideology, racial and cultural demoralisation, etc., it was clear from her description of her son's affect and expressions of discontent that surrounding all of this was a relentless and sometimes crude assault on his very being as a male, as you illustrate with the examples above. All but one of his subject teachers were female: the exception was physical education.
Eighteen months later and he is reportedly extremely happy, has lost nothing socially (indeed his friends are envious of him) and developing far better educationally. Perhaps the answer to the lunacy you describe - in the short term at least - is to simply deny the beast its prey.
I'm not sure why I did it, maybe because I felt I haven't suffered enough today, but I decided to try to read the Australian paper mentioned. From the section on 'Methods' the authors attempt to draw attention to criticism of the concept of hegemonic masculinity they use (this is so they appear to be 'objective')
"The fixedness seemingly suggested by the concept of hegemonic masculinity has been particularly critiqued by poststructuralist research, where concerns about how masculinity typologies invisibilise the role of agency in reproducing or resisting harmful masculine norms, and fails to contest the gender binary . . ."
Erm, OK.
The authors then say that despite criticism the concept of hegemonic masculinity remains valid :
"While cognisant of these critiques, voluminous research finds the concept remains salient, particularly for exploring the legitimation of unequal gender relations (ref), including in analyses of contestation/rejections of masculine dominance hierarchies"
Is it possible for me to "invisibilise" this whole sorry excuse for scholarship?
I'm a (retired) theoretical physicist, and when we say something like "research has found" - not that we'd ever quite use that phrase anyway - we mean something that can be verified and reliably replicated either by calculation or experiment.
This crap? It's like "we asked 30 people, not chosen at random, to express their thoughts and feelings - and based on this we're going to make some absurd generalizations"
This isn't 'research' - it's a Twitter thread/discussion conducted via academic journals.
What's fascinating here is how we can see the suppression of free speech in action - ostensibly by criticising what is seen to be 'hate speech' by the male pupils. They are not allowed to have an opinion, or one that is viewed as 'legitimate', because it has already been deemed to be 'misogynistic'.
This browbeating will not have the desired effect. As John Stuart Mill wrote :
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race . . . If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
This ability to 'course correct', perhaps summed up by the saying "we learn from our mistakes", is very important - but it can't be achieved by diktat. It is arrived at through discussion, through thought, and through evidence.
It works this way too even in physics where it is often more useful to get something wrong than to get something right - particularly if in the effort to fix that wrong a deeper understanding is gained in the process.
Personally I think Andrew Tate is a bit of a twat, but I can well understand his appeal to a whole generation of young men who have been repeatedly told they are worthless pieces of toxic s**t.
Yes, that part about the critique of hegemonic masculinity is astounding, isn't it? Feminist theories are never allowed to be countered by non-feminist theories, only by other, even zanier, feminist theories.
Thanks for the quotes. I can't say I've ever seen language more pretentious or, dare I say, wanky.
Many years ago students at Monash University created what they called the "postmodern generator" or more simply "POMO". It can generate an infinite array of postmodernist screeds at the push of a button.
As always a magnificent piece of writing Janice. The school incident you refer to where male students had to stand and apologise to the girls is my home town - Brauer College in Warrnambool. I often hear people say thank goodness Australia isn’t as bad as other countries in wokeness and feminism and it amazes me. We are world leaders and have only accelerated down a slippery slope since Julia Gillards prime ministership in 2014. The same party is now back in power, dominated by angry feminists, changed family law to hugely disadvantage men and is now introducing misinformation/disinformation legislation that will make criticism of feminist and woke ideology illegal. I am somewhat encouraged by young males identifying toxicity of feminism and rejecting it but a pity Tate is a leader of that cause. The gender divide is the biggest of all societal divides in western society and I can’t see it ending well. Someone else here suggested feminism has created the monster it opposes and I couldn’t agree more. Scary times ahead.
The old saying applies here, garbage in, garbage out. The teachers are dehumanizing the boys so naturally most boys will rebel. There is great danger here.
Great danger, there is nobody more dangerous than a person who believes that they have nothing left to lose. Manshaming and the Patriarchy virus, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QELHy4ezmcA
Seems to be more weird fear mongering of men and boys.
It's good that the boys are rebelling, thank fuck for that.
I'm sorry but this strikes me as such a weird comment to make, even if my perspective is in the minority.
"black people are rebelling, there is great danger here".
Would this have been a valid take during Jim Crowe?
I fail to see the danger. The idea that young men are going to rebel in the fashion implied "violent rape hungry thuggish criminal murderers" seems to be couched in a feminist perspective on what men are like.
Satanic inhuman demons essentially.
I mean do you honestly believe that this will happen before men just....
politically organize?
Maybe my frustration is making me read in things that aren't there, but the implication of a mass of criminal young men to me seems like misandry.
It's significantly more likely that they'll do what many South Korean men are doing right now.
It would be hard to overestimate the depth of confusion that underlies the words that feminists and wokers associate with masculinity or femininity (let alone with maleness or femaleness). I want to discuss several words that, as Janice points out with relentless logic, have come to describe masculinity as odious: (a) “hegemonic” and “dominant” along with (b) “traditional.” (The word “toxic” requires no comment here.)
First, consider “hegemonic.” In postcolonial and “anti-racist” ideologies, this word refers to the political, economic and cultural domination of colonies by imperial regimes. In feminist ideology, it refers to the political, economic, cultural, physical and psychological domination of women by men. Dominance per se, therefore, can connote the use of power to control or marginalize others. This makes it inherently evil. But dominance is not necessarily about the use, or misuse, of power and is therefore not necessarily either a political weapon or evil.
At issue here is the ideologically contrived link between dominance and power. Some ideas or worldview are dominant, for example, because they’re more effective or popular than others—not because evil oppressors impose them on innocent victims. The result can be a consensus, a general agreement, not necessarily unanimity. No society could exist if this were not the case. We could have no moral or legal code, after all, without a general consensus on what is good and what is evil. And that’s equally true of gender codes.
Every gender code evolves as a general consensus on what behaviors are either masculine (appropriate for boys and men) or feminine (appropriate for girls and women). This consensus, by definition, does “dominate,” does “prevail” and is therefore “hegemonic”—but without the ideological connotations of those words. As a boy who grew up outside the consensus of opinion on masculinity and faced punishment accordingly, I don’t like to make this argument. But I do, because I see no alternative for any society that intends to endure. Compassion for minorities is surely a moral virtue, but it does not necessarily entail the abolition of all cultural norms—because that would entail the abolition of culture itself and therefore of society.
Second, consider the word “traditional.” For many people, this word means anything that they want to abolish and replace. They make no attempt to differentiate between the many traditions that coexist in complex societies. “Traditional masculinity” sometimes refers to secular distillations, especially those that popular culture promotes, of what were once religious traditions. But these distillations exist primarily as stereotypes, far removed from the original archetypes, of manhood. Isolated from their original contexts, they are ends in themselves, no longer the means to a larger and deeper end. Christian traditions, for instance, have produced an ideal of masculinity (actually more than one). In its most familiar form, this ideal relies on the notion of a man as the “head” of his family, the proof-text being some passage from St. Paul. It might seem that this ideal is a man who dominates or controls his wife and children, which presumably makes him a latent rapist or child molester. But that’s not what St. Paul had in mind. Nor is it what any Christian theologian teaches. Ignored is the ultimate paradigm for every Christian man: imitating Christ’s self-sacrificial love.
Less familiar to most people, even to many Jews, is a traditional Jewish ideal of manhood. In Life Is with People: The Culture of the Shtetl, anthropologists Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Hertzog interviewed people who had grown up in the intensely religious Jewish villages of Eastern Europe before World War II. Of greatest interest here is what they learned about traditional masculinity from the women. What made a man attractive or sexy? The answer might surprise many people today. He had to be pale and thin, as if he spent much of his time in the synagogue studying Torah, the ideal Jewish man being a rabbinical scholar. That’s a very long way from John Wayne, let alone Harvey Weinstein. Even in the shtetl, not every Jewish man could internalized that ideal, of course, but it was an ideal all the same, and it still is an ideal for traditional Jews.
My point here is that a “traditional man” is not necessarily a violent or dangerous one.
Excellent analysis! Another aspect of the "ideologically contrived link between dominance and power" comes from the manipulation of the semiotics of victimhood. By casting "power" onto adversaries and positioning oneself as their victim, one asserts dominance over them. Victimhood becomes a unique weapon to bludgeon them. Feminism was founded on this paradox and had used it aggressively to consolidate its authority in the academy, in the media, and elsewhere.
And there's an additional factor to consider: the specifically moral (as distinct from psychological) status of victims. Consider current debates over "blaming the victim." Most people realize that we must never blame anyone for the behavior of someone else but also that we must take responsibility for our own behaviors--including foolish ones that can have dire consequences. Being victims per se gains sympathy or pity, to be sure, but it confers no moral status and therefore deserves neither admiration nor condemnation.
For ideologues, however, the reverse seems true. For them, victims are somehow innately or ontologically innocent as members of a class or group--not as individual moral agents. And the same way of thinking applies to perpetrators. They are somehow innately or ontologically guilty as members of a class or group--not as individual moral agents.
With all of this in mind, consider debates over inmates of the Nazi death camps. For some people, classifying them as victims is not satisfying enough. As I say, victimhood confers no moral status and is therefore meaningless (except as evidence, in this case, of remarkably bad luck). To find meaning in their fate, it's necessary to claim that the victims must really have been not mere victims but martyrs. And a very few inmates were indeed martyrs. They could have avoided the fate of other inmates somehow but chose not to do so--usually in the context of self-sacrifice for other people but sometimes for religious or philosophical ideas. Most of the inmates by far, however, were not martyrs. They could not possibly have avoided fate and therefore had no moral choices to make. (The Nazis, by contrast, did have moral choices to make. But they chose mass murder, not martyrdom. This choice was precisely what made them morally accountable.)
I agree that facile references to the Nazis are counterproductive, especially hyperbolic and even hysterical accusations that political opponents are reincarnations of Hitler. But the Nazis were historical figures. Can we learn nothing at all from what they said and did? Would it be better to ignore them?
There is only ONE historical event in history that is illegal to question in 18 countries in europe, until this is confronted we are doomed. Does the loser or victor write history? Who got their thousands of year old dream piece of real estate 2 years after it ended..... You need to look in the mirror at your weaponized victim complex FIRST!
It is a sad fact of human nature that hatred, as in the feminist kind, will all too often be responded to by hatred.
"Misogynist" is not an accusation that by logic can or must silence anything at all .
What is said in hatred is not necessarily false. It may be a truth with the hatred being an ungodly response to an evil correctly discerned.
This is why hate speech laws are worse than useless
The misogyny that feminists scream about may in fact be created by their own misandry
This is NOT an endorsement of said hatred, just an observation. Of course feminists are too far gone to realize this and will continue spewing forth their own hatred of males yet will act shocked if and when hatred in kind is returned to them
As for the feminist hatred being peddled in schools, I was too overly sensitive for my own good and feminism wrecked me in my High School years of the early 1970's.
I shudder to think how sensitive young boys like I was are faring under today's institutionalized viciousness
and that is my key point here.
this is collective punishment , which is a crime against humanity. If collective punishment is never justified then collective responsibility ( "all males are toxic and all males are guilty of it") is the theory behind collective punishment and if it is indistinguishable from this may be a crime against humanity also .
Feminism as a species of cultural (ie gendered) genocide? feminism as a crime against humanity for being collectivist in its doling out of punishment?.
My thinking so even to consider let alone agree to this is a far cry from the self castrated cuck I was for 40 years in believing this poison which is feminism
More I learn about sex differences in biology the less supportive I become of gender equality and I was already not very supportive of gender equality in my naïve high school years because equality didn't build Western civilisation, patriarchy did that.
Furthermore, a bit of an impertinent topic, part of me don't really care about the gender disparity at universities, probably because I think universities in this day and age is an absolute joke: free speech is virtually non-existent, replete with political correctness/wokeism, everything is politicized because of the extreme left wing bias, degrees have become increasingly meaningless because too many people are going to universities, more jobs are increasingly dropping the requirement for degrees (about time), most people don't get the job the study for, degrees are overpriced, etc...
Universities are honestly overrated. In past, especially prior to the 1960s, far less people were going to universities, yet they were wealthier and happier and more innovative.
I wouldn't be surprise if at some point in the future, feminist will be complaining about women being deeply in debt .
Critical Race Theory is similar to feminist theory in that none of its theories is falsifiable and a lot of them are tautological too. There's no way to test out any of this stuff, so they get away with calling it non-refuted forever. But CRT and feminism are so much worse than false theory. THEY ARE NOT EVEN WRONG!
Darn it! Anybody have a screen shot of that hateful feminist screed? It was a classic.
Alas no.
The Wayback Machine saved the comments on the 29th (the day she posted), but I can't see hers:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240929124053/https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminist-teaching-encourages-boys/comments
Ungrateful woman, deleting it like that, after you'd kindly pinned it for her...
Thanks for trying. I guess she hadn't commented yet. Too bad. That was one for the ages.
I thought about it, I considered. she would be around for a while.
From this lady's bio: "I work in mental healthcare with children. Credentialed in childhood trauma and family advocacy"
Wew lads, I think we found one of the feminists the article is about. Quick, project Andrew Tate's face into the sky - it signals to him that there's evil to fight!
It's absolutely perfect that she is "credentialed in childhood trauma" given the subject of the article. Ahahaha. I cannot stop laughing at how ridiculous this is. Someone read an essay about how females with authority over children are propagandizing them with crazy misandrist hate speech and thinks, I know what this article needs! It needs a woman with authority over children spewing crazy misandrist hate speech in the comments! That will show those awful boys how wrong they are about us!
You're starting to understand what we're up against. Feminists are the shit stain of the world.
We are against dumb and resentful people.
Sadly, they aren’t the only shitstains in existence.
What was the account name?
15 lines of insults and not one argument. But, hey, you must be worth listening to because you used lots of big words in long sentences.
A new reader teaching us all to embrace our greater humanity!
Well done, Janice, for pinning that one. The power of anti-censorship! By their own words are they condemned.
Read this and tell me if you actually believe anything coming out of her mouth.
https://floridainsurancetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/New-Horizons-Miracle.pdf
Ah, she’s another one of those who gets the missionary spirit rather than quiet gratitude.
Fat ugly hate machines drunk on her own kool aid... LOL EVERYONE NAZI!! LOL Leftoids get so twisted up in fantasy they don't seem to understand who won WW2, It wasn't the natsocs piglet. Holy shit look at her dillusional writings on TRUTH. My god...
And Cat says Ms. Tuininga can’t make an argument. Hmmm?
By the way Cat, I’m only counting 12 insults devoid of argument:
1: Nazi
2: “crawled” onto Substack
3: propagandist
4: woman shaming
patriarchal sexiest
5: archaic
6: Mara Lago visiting Trump supporter (I guess that’s an insult)
7: purveyor of bullshit
8: Card carrying sympathizer of the South African Musk Clan (she left out Apartheid loving but it’s kinda implied)
9: women hater
10: patriarchal appeaser
11: Daddy pleasing devoid of humanity grasper
and,
12: purveyor of toxic grievance
But the good Professor need not fear. It’s not her fault. She has been “damaged by patriarchal violence” to the extent that she has now joined her abusers.
See Cat, there’s a claim. Some might even describe it as a path to salvation.
Oh, and Ms Tuininga, let me save you some trouble by anticipating your reply:
“Fuck you three”!
Good talking
Feminist mania? Argument proven.
Logical, thoughtful, and well-argued. Those are words that don’t apply to your rant above. Also you don’t appear to know what fascism is.
Oh brother. Hypocrites much. Women did not have rights until the 70's. They could not leave abusive husbands,get a credit card, bank account or buy property without their man's permission. They also did not have a right to choose. We are not going back. It's funny girls have been held beneath boys for centuries and here you wonder why feminism began? We taught our boys women were not their play things, their housekeepers, cooks and if they ever laid a hand in one we would make sure they paid for it. We also told our daughter to respect good men. Do I agree with teaching kids all boys are bad and shaming them? No. However the hypocrisy is huge especially since the right wing politicians are wanting to take us back into a time no women had voices.
This is typical feminist nonsense, and you should be ashamed of such a display.
Women had rights before the 1970s. They could leave abusive husbands, etc. The change that came in 1969 was the introduction of no-fault divorce and lavish alimony arrangements, but divorce had existed long before then in English law, and abuse by the husband was a primary ground, as legal commentators such as E. Belfort Bax in the late 19th century attested. The right of women to own property was guaranteed as far back as the Magna Carta.
Changes to Anglophone law from the 1840s until the 1870s guaranteed women's property rights in marriage (you're off by about 100 years). In some particular cases, married women did need their husband's signatures for credit because if they defaulted on a payment, the husband would have to take on the debt. It made sense that in a case where the husband was the sole earner, he would have to agree for his wife to make purchases on a credit card for which he was responsible. But many women worked and had their own bank accounts as far back as the 1800s.
Sara Jeannette Duncan, a Canadian journalist, would have roared with laughter at all your false notions. Girls "held beneath boys for centuries"? She said of her era (she was born in 1861 and began writing columns for the Washington Post in 1885), that it was "a golden age for girls, full of new interests and new opportunities." As a journalist, she interviewed many professional women, including academics and doctors. She travelled around the world with a friend, Lily Lewis, and wrote a bestselling book about her experiences. She knew her rights and she reveled in her freedoms.
You state that you don't agree with teaching that all boys are bad, and shaming them. So what exactly is the source of your outrage? Where is the alleged "hypocrisy"? Even if your wild claims were true, which they are not, why would a long-ago injustice offset present cruelty towards boys?
This is what I find so striking about many women today and why I do not believe that women like you make good leaders in general: the reflex hostility, to discussion of harms to boys and men. Always we have to hear, "But WE had it worse for centuries! No one suffers as WE did!' All based on a phantasmagorical collection of grievances.
Revenge-taking is not a philosophy for a just society, which is precisely why feminism should be kept out of the school system. Thank you for illustrating it so crudely.
"get a credit card, bank account"
This nonsense really annoys me. During the seventies nobody lived on credit. It's very much a modern phenomenon. There were still many folk around who'd lived through the depression and they didn't trust banks at all. When one of my uncles passed away they found over 80k in cash in his bedroom. Apparently it wasn't unusual. In Australia banks were not allowed to issue credit cards until the mid seventies and at that point they issued them automatically to all account holders 21 and older.
No they could not, my aunt was stuck with hers until 73 when the laws changed. I'm not even a feminist but you are a liar. Teachers are not berating little boys in public schools. I work in one I have never seen it. I have two sons and a daughter. My sons are not being told anything you put in this post. However, what I said about how girls were treated is true. It still is. Have a nice day.
Ah, now you shift away from what you said previously to a different topic.
You may not consider yourself a feminist but, alas, you have been infected by the feminist mind-virus of self-pity and anger, combined with the womanly inability to argue rationally. "Teachers are not berating little boys in public schools. I work in one and I have never seen it." This is not strong evidence, and it certainly does not invalidate my research. My article quotes from material being used in public schools. No one disputes it. It quotes from an article about boys being made to apologize to girls for the bad deeds of the male sex. No one denies that happened. It quotes from a feminist who couldn't care less about evidence that boys are not doing as well in school as girls. It quotes abundantly from feminist teachers who resent that boys have opinions they don't agree with. All you have in response is your assertion about your experience, which may or may not be true, may or may not be representative. This comment section is full of men who have had their own experiences very different from yours.
But you didn't answer the fundamental question. Why does it matter what you claim your aunt suffered, or how you think women were victimized throughout history? Why do you feel such a need to bring these forward when the subject is the shaming of boys?
"Teachers are not berating little boys in public schools."
One of my nephews was suicidal within the past year. He is frightened of becoming a man because of exactly what you are trying to hide here.
Thanks for your help.
No U R wrong feminism, was never about equality:
Feminists/suffragettes murdered people, fire bombed buildings and trains.
Feminists/suffragettes (white feather movement) shamed 14-15 year old boys into join up and die in the trenches in WWW1.
Feminists/suffragettes (white feather movement) shamed wounded veterans returning from the front in WWW1, telling them they where cowards as that should have died defending the women and children.
Feminists/suffragettes, did not want poor white women/men and non whites to vote.
Feminists/suffragettes supported and pushed eugenics re: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923). In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and that organisation has been responsible for aborting hundreds of thousands of black and minority babies. So the feminist eugenics worked, they have managed to keep a certain USA population demographic at near 0 population growth for decades.
Encore!
<Women did not have rights until the 70's>
What a furphy! That is one of the most significant misrepresentations of history.
During the Industrial Revolution, laws now regarded as OH&S were introduced to protect your gender. Not the male gender.
Your gender if convicted of a crime, received much more lenient sentences than men who were convicted of a similar crime.
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers, leave them kids alone
HEY! CHILD MOLESTER! LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Wall... Pink Floyd...too true...
A rebuke of feminist bullying that comes with a David Gilmour solo…more of THAT please!
I've had that line in my head swapped out like this for along time, finally chance to use it.
Men are assumed to be the only monsters, women on the other had are nearly always given some mitigating narrative.
Women are just as abusive as men and in some case are more so, and that is nothing new.
https://www.propublica.org/article/boys-in-custody-and-the-women-who-abuse-them
https://archive.fo/Irmvd
83% of child abuse is perpetrated by wo-MEN.
wo-MEN commit TWICE as many child murders NOT counting abortion.
It is mostly >wo-MEN putting little boys in dresses....
@Denise McKenna<FEMINAZI ALERT: wo-MEN don't have to sign for the draft
...................................................................................Why should they be allowed to vote?
wo-MEN aren't forced by law to support FAMILIES they are disfranchised from.
wo-MEN file for divorce in 85% of the cases
wo-MEN are the aggressors in 70% of domestic violence....like (Amber Heard)
wo-MEN perpetrate 83% of child abuse including molestation....
wo-MEN are allowed to ABANDON babies on doorsteps never mind abortion....
wo-MEN fabricate 97% of rapes....less than 3% are true....
wo-MEN get preference in hiring and preference in college loans....
wo-MEN don't have to sign for the draft to qualify for a college loan....
A MAN has to sign for the draft to qualify for a college loan....
To spite graduating college in greater numbers and having higher paying jobs....
wo-MEN still expect MEN to pay for dates/divorce/children....
As for wo-MEN not being allowed credit cards....
That was because MEN had to pay their wife's debts.... like they still do....
PRESIDENT TRUMP 2024!
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down. - Letter to the editor, signed: "Liberated Women", Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996
"MALE: represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.
MAN: an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...
From 'A Feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae & Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985"
"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers." - Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love
I have a problem with Judith Levine's take:
I don't see any judges acquitting REAL rapists...
Since 97% of rape 'claims' turn out to be LIES....
The few MEN acquitted of rape were actually innocent....
Cosby and Weinstein's FALSE convictions were rightfully overturned.
Trading sex for favors is quid pro quo....it is not rape....
Wrong, my mother was highly skilled teacher in 50s through to the 90s. She always had her own bank account the checking account overdraft. So you are full of it. And my father was the cook in the house and maintain the house and work full time.
Janice you went to Mar-a-Lago and didn't invite me and the rugby team?
You have a rugby team? Union, League, or 7s?
This is just a super unhinged rant. I love that it’s pinned here. It’s the perfect example of feminism’s madness.
WOW!
The level of hostility and anger oozes out of the pores of your comments. The intolerance you aptly demonstrate towards other ideas and concepts that do not match your prejudices and biases.
Thank you for your wonderful compliment.
Your ramble was not only an excellent example of "anchoring heuristics" but also a strong demonstration of the use of indirect aggression.
See the tinmen on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/C_AbuqOtZRt/?img_index=1
[*] The dominance of this intersectional ideology is the reason why those who dare to consider how the impact of our institutions upon particular students deemed “privileged“, such as male students (disproportionately possessed of both “privilege”, but also somehow much “deficiency” and failure), have such a precarious time doing so. For anyone who understands the dangers of blaspheming against this dogma of identity, and wishes to avoid the most devastating consequences of doing so, there are two caveats commonly offered to justify their concern without explicitly violating the intersectional order: first, the inclusion of a non-privileged or “oppressed” identity qualifier behind which to hide the “privileged“ part of the identity (e.g. instead of referring to disadvantages faced by “boys” in school, one might instead ascribe such disadvantages to “black boys” in particular); and second, almost invariably, a platitude about the categorical imperative toward progress being something that “is not a zero-sum game“ to try to avoid being cast down as a “reactionary” against “progress”. The latter platitude is true, intersectionality is not a zero-sum game, and thus it seems as though any effort intended to improve outcomes in anyway should be allowed. In practice, however, this is shown over and over again not to be the case, and this is because of the kind of game Intersectionality actually is: not a zero-sum game, but rather worse than that, a negative-sum game. I would encourage those who have legitimate concerns and integrity on matters pertaining to education, individuals like Richard Reeves, to stop beating around the bush, and certainly, to stop bending the knee to this ideology which stands opposed to the interests of providing true education at every conceivable level. Come on Richard, it’s time to have some courage, it’s time to declare yourself fully liberated from the myriad feminist precepts that keep your efforts on behalf of boys in school dull, lame, and ultimately ineffectual.
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
[*] This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of psychopathological complex would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational, “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
[*] Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear can finally get a share of that oft parroted “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, encountered passively by most children within an educational and cultural milieu that categorize individuals as more-or-less “oppressor” and “oppressed”.
Excellent comment. It seems to have been replicated below, so I'm removing the repetitions, no offence intended.
None taken! Sorry on my part, this is a snippet from a... rather long-winded essay I'm writing on education, much of which does pertain to the indoctrination and blatant misandry of contemporary primary education. I'll be publishing it here on Substack when it's finally finished... suffice it to say, there is much to be said on the subject; especially now given the prominence of people like Richard Reeves (who, from my perspective, DO NOT dare to care about it in any holistic way). Thank you for your work! Always an inspiration.
"The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:"
I'm in central Victoria in Australia. My soon to be 18 year old nephew has finished his P-12 schooling hearing little but spite and venom towards his sex. Never a single positive sentiment towards men - his obvious future. There's no respite. Even at home he daren't turn on the television. It saturates governments, institutions, education, media, corporates, community sector and on. It's everywhere. It's almost as though we're living under fascism, but only for boys and men.
Currently fighting back tears.
Yeah... it's devastating frankly, and it does feel as though few to no one gives a damn. Like boys aren't even human in the eyes of most... They don't know, or they don't care, what it feels like to be demonized in the ways boys and men are today.
It's funny, the comment I read before yours was Rudolph Rigger quoting John Stuart Mill. So thank you for giving us "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
This bitch got rich working for the corporate patriarchy she's sure she rages againt, she was an HR exec!?!?!? YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!
Well said.. it is awful how some HR people are worse than Stalin when it comes to doing their job and it gives the good ones a bad name.
I don't know what kind of higher education you had, if any, but it seems you didn't take much from it.
But, don't despair! We live in a enlightened age where everyone is just a click away from as much knowledge and culture they need or want!
I am a sucker for the classics, and because of that, I could not let the opportunity pass to point you to the father of logic as a science, Aristotle: *
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html
I sincerely hope you enjoy your reading and learn something from it, so you stop embarrassing as someone utterly incapable of arguing logically as you just did in your pathetically poor commentary.
You're welcome!
woman to woman - get help, you’re clearly suffering from some trauma.
Lol.
The hysterical groveling at the mouth by some bpd-riddled post menopausal old bitch is so cliched and predictable.
Sad to say that so many women are like you.
Like headless chickens doing nothing but orgasmically vomiting pathalogical hysteria.
It just makes you roll your eyes after a while.
"Patriarchal violence".
Like carbon cobies.
It's the same dumb shit from the same dumb wine-mom bitches over and over and over again.
Take some meds.
I think you're on to something about "post-menopausal bitches'
It has been my assertion for a number of years that $MeToo is and was about MENOPAUSE.
Notice MOST rape accusers are making impromptu claims in their middle years?
lol
There’s more to being right than being self-righteous.
Krijg de mazelen.
Kus mijn kont, hoer.
Het is grappig om te zien dat je de lange Nederlandse traditie van domheid vortzet.
“Toxic masculinity”, until a woman does it, then it’s “empowerment” or “confidence”.
My teenager is starting to see first hand in high school how conniving and downright mean some of the female classmates can be. I wish I could tell him they’ll grow out of it, but I know from experience that’s not always the case. Funny how the worst of the mean girls went on to be teachers, I feel like that’s relevant to point out after reading this.
I fear that feminism is creating the monster that it wants to destroy.
Sadly, I beleive that in a few more years, we will start to see the monster emerging. If boys today believe that they have nothing to live for, no hope, no dreams, and to be seen as only criminals, then they will become the very monster that feminists have created.
That'd be the plan, I expect. Already men are incarcerated at a rate about 10-1 vs. womem. More evidence of the 'patriarchy', hmm?
There is an increase in what is known as Carceral Feminism.
Doubtless. The morbid, sadistic desire to see the suffering of The Other. . . in this case, males.
We should start a pool to see who will be the first feminist to advocate for the death penalty for sexual assault while their campaign of eviscerating the concept of due process for men accused of sex crimes grinds on and on.
My money is on Mona El Tawahy.
I think the rate is closer to 17-1. In the United States, men typically receive sentences 60 percent longer than female offenders with similar priors. And that's without taking into consideration that the system is significantly less likely to charge and prosecute women.
Yes, exactly what Sonja Starr's research found. Women are far more likely than men to be found not guilty, to work out a plea deal, or to be given a non-custodial sentence.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=law_econ_current
Then you need to factor in women being more likely to be released early.
In Britain there is a serious problem with (lack of) prison capacity. This is despite overall crime having fallen through my lifetime. It would disappear at a stroke if the treatment of men and women was equalised somewhere in the middle.
Prosecuting and caging men is big business. Very big. It is a racket in itself.
The most powerful legislative-affecting organization in California -- and this surprises most people -- is the prison guard's union. Extrapolate from there and we see why the problem can't be budged. Too many people counting on it not being budged.
I was only estimating, off the cuff. I think your information likely is closer to the truth. Thank you for updating and correcting my guess.
Break it down by race. Blacks commit disproportionately more crimes.
And suffer disproportionately more crimes. That is why "justice reform" and "defunding the cops" to protect blacks is ill considered.
MALE celebrities are being FRAMED for FAKE rapes they never committed...
They are being scapegoated to justify the narrative....
Notice even President Trump was convicted of a FAKE sexual assault?
Apparently the Judge/jury/media/ doesn't care that Jean E Carrol has LIED about rape on SEVEN DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. This was exposed by Steven Crowder.
Many MEN are in prison unjustly....
I think the county jails especially have many male inmates there for little more than displeasing some female. That seems to be 'against the law' now. The police and the courts likewise are feminist and 'process' men through the system, which is profitable for the system, and which justifies their own jobs and paydays.
America is a bad place for men and boys. A dangerous place, too.
Agreed Michael!
The good news is that the youngest voter group in Eastern Germany is favoring the AfD, and I strongly suspect, will also be critical of feminism. Despite currently being one of the craziest countries on the planet, perhaps the ever more manifest insanity of their leftist elites will become its own cure by finally breeding a generation that stands up against it. Then Germany will have truly become a force of good in the world.
"One of the....." perhaps, but surely the US (shadowed by Canada) is by far the craziest country in the world today.
Amen to that
That could be a fun contest
I think this is a bad comment.
Feminism doesn't want to destory any monster to start off. The monster is imagined. It's female slander/character assassination. It was a female supremacist movement. Did the Klu Klux Klan seek to destroy a monster that was real?
Secondly, we will not start to see a "male monster". I am going to be frank and say that this reeks of really creepy misandry.
There is no evidence that there will be a horde of young men who believe they should be able to mercilessly beat and rape women.
A men's rights movement is significantly more likely than this strange fear mongering you're engaging in.
Look at what South Korean men are doing. That's what is most likely to happen. Not this fucking weird
"feminism is going to make men into fucking rape demons" which is what you're comment seems to imply."
You might have meant well, but I think this just comes off super wrong.
It seems to be justifying feminism in a way it shouldn't.
"That it wants to destroy".
No man, it never wanted destroy an actual monster. It's a hate movement. It's female nazism. I mean that non-hyperbolically, and it non-metaphorically.
I think that those of us in dissident movements sometimes talk in this manner partly out of perverse wish-fulfillment. Part of me wants violence, or at least is momentarily satisfied at the thought of wronged boys and young men rising up against their oppressors, slaying them and restoring society. In reality, it isn't likely to happen, and if it did, it would be terrifying and awful.
Today's men are not rising up in violence against feminism. They are doing something far worse by walking away from dating, marriage, intimate relationships and society itself. Taking their financial resources with them out of reach of the women who desire to fleece them then discard them for another simp ad nauseum. What especially ires feminists and today's women is the men who ignore and walk away from them are far more happy without them.
"wronged boys and young men rising up against their oppressors"
Won't happen. Currently they're self deleting at ever increasing rates. That is the more likely outcome.
When you stop and think about the pain, the loss, the destruction to life that feminism has intentionally imposed on men and boys (and women) - I too would like to see some serious payback - but that ( in terms of mob violence) is not at the core of male nature - that said - all "censorship" fans the flame of the targeted subject and that payback will likely take form in some way (?) on the daughters and granddaughters of these disgusting female creatures propagating all this hate and control. Many or most of those young women will likely live lives barren and lonely (Morgan Stanley report) - then , as their emotional state deteriorates - well likely see incarceration and suicide stats skyrocket - then all the betas will rally to fix it and begin castrating themselves to create a world of eunuch slave males and demonic overlord females
But I could be wrong
Thanks for your feedback and the monster you created from your imagination.
Who knows what form the monster, if it happens, will become? I don't have a crystal ball.
The monster could be as simple as our society collapsing because young men opt out, and if current trends continue, Western Civilization as we know it will cease to exist, perhaps by the end of the century.
There can be no doubt that "Western Civilization as we know it will cease to exist, perhaps by the end of the century." For a start, whites will be in minority in the US and UK by mid-century. After that, whites will be rapidly outbred by all other races. So forget about Western Civilization, it's the survival of the white race we should be thinking about.
I had to think about your comment about the survival of the white race.
Pale skin is a recessive gene and that is all I going to say on this rabbit hole.
Personally I have no real stake in the white race, I spend most of the year in South East Asia, and when I'm back in Australia I feel completely alienated from the feminized white society here. It bears no resemblance to the white Australian society I was born into in the 1950's. Even so it's extraordinary to think the white race could be on the brink of extinction globally within this century. The loss of any race is not a good thing.
"There is no evidence that there will be a horde of young men who believe they should be able to mercilessly beat and rape women."
Actually there's data from the UK suggesting VAWG is on the rise and police are worried. Maybe it's just more feminist propaganda, but it wouldn't be surprising if young men are finally starting to lash out at women, after all the anti-male shit they've copped all their lives as schoolboys. It's easy to see how they'd be emboldened by Andrew Tate and others online to no longer take shit from women, and start pushing back against the women in their lives, who are accustomed to bullying them with impunity. I certainly hope so. I'd be happy to see hospitals overflowing with bashed women, and jails overflowing with otherwise law abiding young men. It might lead to a rethink of how we treat boys in school. Then again, it's probably just wishful thinking.
"Actually there's data from the UK suggesting VAWG is on the rise and police are worried. "
In the UK male victims of sexual and domestic abuse are classified as "victims of violence against women and girls" even when the abuser is female.
Well the UK is a feminist country, enctrenched in female supremacism, so any data from them is suspect.
Andrew Tate is such a fucking meme bro he's not a thought leader for anyone. He's 90% a meme.
And the invisible, non-existent, patriarchy will be to blame.
It's already happening. It's not a coincidence that increasingly young men, particularly white men, respond to surveys that they fel hopeless, uncared for and angry. It blows my mind that middle aged surburban women don't have the faintest idea why - except for the stupid reasons of sexism and misogyny - their husbands don't feel hard pressed to join their progressive call to arms. I for one know that all of the monsters reside in their closets, not mine.
I share that fear as well. In all likelihood, there will be a wave of angry young men breaking upon western civilization like a tsunami in the near future.
The number of men who’ve given up on relationships with women, who’ve given up on their marriages and have allowed themselves to become the human battery which powers his wife’s family, who’ve been rendered undateable because women got all the promotions and they’re stuck in a dead end job and, of course my own personal cohort, those of us who were off-ramped into college-boy uselessness and were eventually just discarded entirely from society in any meaningful way is much, much greater than most Americans realize.
I fear that as well. Feminists are breeding resentment towards women among young men.
When I separated from the military in the mid-Seventies, I immediately enrolled in the local community college. Even then, the female teachers were hard at work feminizing the Language departments, primarily by hiring only women for open positions, and teaching from 'feminist perspectives'. Fem-empowerment already was all the rage, and it never entered their minds that THEY were being bigots. Goddess forbid! They were on the Right Side of Moral History, you see.
Later as a professional, I saw the same thing in our organization: when women became department heads, almost invariably they'd hire other women -- often personal friends -- for any openings. This was not bigotry, oh no, it was 'righteous empowerment'.
Bad as those experiences were, they pale in comparison to the beatdowns and brainwashings that boys must endure before the Feminist Horde in schools. I shudder when thinking of the millions of households where little boys are left at the (often sadistic) hands of mothers and other female authority figures, because daddy has been forced-out of the picture. Castrating little boys is now becoming more common; they call it 'gender re-identification', etc. Boys NEED men present to guard them from the depredations of feminist relatives and 'teachers'. Often male infants and small boys are terribly abused by mothers and other female relatives. Society's interest in this? Zero.
Who do boys have these days to safeguard them from pathological females, and from pathological feminist societies and cultures? Well, that'd be us. Yep. We are IT, and there are very few of us, and we can only do so much. The schools, colleges, courts, corporations, media, LE, government, even the churches . . . all feminized or feminist.
These past decades I have written at length about the spiritual aspects of our feminist institutions and cultures, and there is no doubt in my mind that, at root, feminism is a demonic, satanic ideology which has infested and infected every aspect of our lives. What comes immediately to mind is the recent Scamdemic, in which newly empowered, authoritarian nurses literally DANCED in the aisles of their hospital wards and ERs, high on the attention and gifted-totalitarianism dropped into their laps. Meanwhile, en masse, hospitals and doctors falsified records to show that 'covid' was the cause of death in thousands, perhaps millions, of cases in which, to be brief, it was not.
Thanks to Janice for this brave and much-needed report. We few must stand for truth in the face of our societies of lies, and we must stand as guardians of little boys and male students, who have no other voice in the face of the massive feminist tide. It is not easy and I will not pretend that it is; however, it is work desperately needed and will be rewarded in due time.
My apologies for hogging the comments section. I could go on at much greater length, is the sad truth of it.
I was a foreign language and literature professor for a dozen years before acknowledging that university humanities programs are far too corrupted for me to even make a dent. I published dozens of articles countering the abuses of feminist "idea laundering," intended to present sexist bigotry as valid scholarship. They relied on coalitions of feminists citing and publishing one another's work to create the illusion that it was well-established scholarly fact rather than vile, abject hate-mongering. Their power over the academy was far too entrenched for me to fight it. It is no wonder that scholarship in the humanities today has no credibility. Decades of feminist dominance has turned it on its head. It is no longer a matter of using valid research methodologies to found conclusions; it is quite the contrary: feminists begin with their bigoted conclusions and then backfill them with shoddy fact-finding and radical, inaccurate readings.
I'm selfishly sorry that you stopped your campaign to expose the abuses of feminist "idea laundering" (such a good term: it is *exactly* as you say--somebody makes up a concept with no supporting evidence, and it gets cited and re-cited and expanded and affirmed until there is a huge body of "research" on it, all built on nothing more substantial than fanaticism)--but I'm glad you stopped banging your head against the wall.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure such faux scholarship "has no credibility." I think it still does with powerful government bodies. The research above about Andrew Tate and how female teachers are suffering will be taken seriously by the Australian government and will have an impact on how school funding is allocated, with the result that there will be more feminist material incorporated into the curriculum and even less opportunity for boys to learn in an environment free of condemnation.
I've just found out that at secondary school in Australia psychology is now on the curriculum.
The perfect subject for indoctrination.
Psychology has long been a subject in Australian schools. I took Psychology in 1995 as a mature age student for my Year 12 VCE (Victorian Certificate of Education). It's presented as a proper science, not the pop-psychology most people associate with the subject. I remember the teacher, a female PHD who also lectured at university level, telling us that girls were particularly attracted to the subject, but were invariably disappointed to find it was nothing like they expected, and demanded actual scientific rigour! She was right, and half the girls dropped out within a few weeks.
Here in the states women have been flooding into the field of Psychology bringing the feminism with them and displacing men. I will no longer see a female therapist when I have a choice and will run circles around them wheni can't avoid them. Interesting enough the word therapist is composed of two words the and rapist: the-rapist. And I personally will allow myself to be mind raped by a feminist therapist with an ax to grind.
My sister refused to see female therapists too, especially young ones. She insisted on finding an older male therapist.
Of all the sciences the Field of Psychology is:
The least scientific
The most dishonest
The easiest to manipulate
The most fraudulent
The most to suffer from the biases of those who practice in the field
I reckon Sociology has well and truly surpassed Psychology as the most corrupted field of science. The Australian "misogyny in classrooms" study referenced in Janice's piece, prepared by three sociologists, is a perfect example. As Janice says: "Short on evidence and long on anti-male theorizing"
I consider Sociology as a subset of Psychology as opposed to its being a seperate and independent field.
A very typical tale, sadly. Collective female power is, truly, the Monstrous Regiment of the Damned. Their typical tactic is to isolate any male who dares to counter them, and then make his life as miserable as possible until he is driven out. This gives them tremendous satisfaction, and the 'men' who are left know better than to stand against them.
When I entered a four-year college in the early Eighties, the fembots already were busy 'deconstructing' the (largely male) Western Canon of literature. Deconstruction is their code-word for Destruction . . . it sounds better, you see. Prettier. It took them about a decade to wipe out the great literature of the past, replacing it with their fem-supremacist politicized tripe.
I am a Christian, and real Christianity is patriarchal, and male led. After witnessing the past sixty years, I now know why. Feminism and feminists are -- without doubt -- evil on the hoof.
I saw what you saw in the later 1980s, the destruction of the tradition of great literature, replaced by ideological bunk and naval-gazing self-pity.
You should listen to Kate Millett's sister talking about the esoteric side of feminism, if you haven't already.
Yes i recall this expose well from many years back. Bravely done by Millett's sister.
There's lots of govt funding for any half-arsed studies into female victimhood. It's the same with climate change wombdoom (hysteria).
You are spot on. Feminism is a spawn from hell. The Satanic march to destroy humanity and everything in Genesis that God declared good continues unabated. Occam's razor and the thirty thousand foot view......all lead to Satan. Cling to Jesus - it is going to get worse.
It is. A realistic summation, thank you. Buckle up and stay near to Papa and to Christ the King. But make war against the enemy in the meantime. No time to slack off now. m
I mean if it keeps people with superstitious ideas like you from power, that's a good thing.
No one who calls things "Satanic" should be in a position of authority. People who think cartoon characters are real need to be kept away from power.
If only this conversation could be had in an adult way instead of the dueling bigotry of morons on both sides.
Good that you weren't able to hold yourself back from a little jump into ad hominem. I agree on keeping Satan out of the conversation, but your 'cartoon character' removes any doubt as to your bias. Never start a discussion with "it's a good thing everybody hates you because you're stupid", it only wins over people who lack wisdom and kindness.
Jesus would disagree. But hey, FAFO when death comes for you. Romans 1:18-21; "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
I could care not one whit less what you think, for YOU are of your father, Satan. You know the Truth, but in arrogance, reject it. Not my problem. You will bow to King Jesus, and will have no defense. Good luck.
No, Jesus did not encourage Satan worship.
Sorry.
Repent, stop worshipping the devil. The devil isn't real. It's a cartoon character made up to scare children away from sin.
Your sin is inside you, it's your own sin, you need to repent it to find salvation with Jesus Christ.
Sorry, need to know: how does one worship a non-existent devil? Where is that mentioned? And if he is a "cartoon character", who is it that tempted Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11? What about the other numerous references to Satan in the Bible? Or is the Bible nonsense too? And if the Bible is nonsense, what defines your doctrine? And tell me, "Erek" - what exactly is "sin"?
Are you mentally ill?
There is no evil God trying to hurt you.
No, but clearly you are. Have a good one.
I hope you get over your Satan worship affliction.
Take care.
Some good points and enlightening experiences there.
You lost me at references to Satan and Scamdemic but I don’t have to buy in to your religious worldview to see value in your contribution.
fair enough.
Such a good piece Janice. Great job of giving a sense of the nonsense of that report.
My own take is that this is a sure sign that we are winning. Feminists have, for decades, found ways to NEVER have to defend their ideas and theories. Anyone who disagreed was immediately a misogynist. They never learned how to engage in a two way interchange that honored not only your own way of seeing the world, but someone else's. Now we see their defenselessness. They can't deal with even a young boy disagreeing with their world view. If that happens he must be misogynist! It is for this reason that I think this is actually a very positive sign. They are truly desperate. Their desperation will expose their idiocy. People will take a look at this and know that they are not mentally healthy and its time for a change.
If you’re threatened by an eleven-year-old boy disagreeing with you you’re really not cut out to teach. Why isn’t this obvious to the whining feminist whores?
Being a whore is more honest.
That’s a good point.
"Their desperation will expose their idiocy."
Sadly, I think their desperation in the future will result in more totalitarian methods in an attempt to quell dissent.
I think feminism will ultimately be seen for what it is, but we're a long way from that now, and I fear that the short-term future will see even worse injustices.
"I think feminism will ultimately be seen for what it is, but we're a long way from that now"
I beg to differ. Plenty of people already see feminism for what it is, but that hasn't slowed its progress one iota. Feminism is self-perpetuating, because any opposition to feminism is declared misogyny, demanding even more feminism to counter misogyny. It's a positive feedback loop, in which even the most puny opposition to feminism, like pushback from a few cheeky schoolboys, generates a whole new government funded two-year campaign against misogyny in classrooms. These boys represent the final pocket of resistance, since all the adults have long ago been cowed into silence. Not a murmur of opposition to feminism is heard from within governments, corporations, media, and probably most households. On the contrary, we hear nothing but promotion and glorification of girls and women, to the point of nausea, and nothing but vilification and demonization of men and boys. So forgive me if I scoff at Tom's suggestion that we are winning the war against feminism.
I don't believe feminism will ever be "defeated" in the West, but like any other virulent disease it will eventually recede, having killed off the host population, ie. Westerners. It's already happening apace, as seen in plummeting birth rates across the Western world, and will only accelerate as MGTOW movements grow, and mass immigration escalates in response to resultant labour shortage. These migrant cultures prioritize men and boys, and control their women and girls, and certainly don't tolerate feminists. By mid-century they will be in majority in the US and UK, and along with miscegenation will start to dictate gender politics more broadly. How ironic that feminists, by attacking "privileged" white men and boys so determinedly for decades, will have ushered in the very hegemonic masculinity they so desperately despise!
"Feminism is self-perpetuating, because any opposition to feminism is declared misogyny,"
The power of feminism stems from innate human cognitive, perceptual and behavioural biases. We perceive threats against women more readily and as being of more importance than those against men, we perceive women more positively even when they act in negative ways and we support, encourage and protect women rather than men. Feminism's strength and it is very great strength is that it is aligned with these cognitive biases. That is why the absurd concept of the patriarchy or the idea of ubiquitous misogyny are widespread despite them being directly contradicted by everyday experience and mountains of evidence. Its why feminists could assert, without being universally mocked, that the only reason men are stronger than women is because of societal pressure right up until the point that this absurd fantasy started to hurt women. As soon as it impacted women, but not before, it was discredited.
Its very hard to see this changing. Himans innately favour women that is part of our nature and within bounds its a good thing. In the past the pressures of a daily struggle to survive prevented viewpoints becoming very misaligned with reality but the success of civilisation in removing that daily pressure to survive allows these cognitive biases to dominate.
"Feminism's strength and it is very great strength is that it is aligned with these cognitive biases."
Yes, feminism exploits the male protective instinct as well as certain cognitive biases, such as gender empathy bias, which operate to prioritize females ahead of males. However, while that helps to explain the widespread acceptance of feminist propaganda, it does not explain the complete absence of any challenging voice from within government, business, or media. Clearly that is self-censorship, for fear of being labelled misogynist, the standard tactic employed by feminists against critics. Another standard feminist tactic is to conduct surveys showing increased opposition to feminism, thereby justifying even more government funding to combat the scourge of misogyny. That's why I say feminism is self-perpetuating. We need to understand the success of feminism as a political movement, rather than look for arcane explanations like cognitive bias.
I don't think it is an arcane explanation and more importantly I think its an accurate explanation of a major part of feminism's political success. Why it is that there is almost no overt opposition to femisnism across all political parties in any western country.
If you think feminisms is a destructive and damaging influence then understanding its strengths and the reason for its success is surely important when thinking how to reduce its influence or mitigate the damage.
One thing that we can't change is those aspects of human nature which gave rise to it namely the cognitive and behavioural biases in favour of women.
It may for example be far more effective to challenge feminism for the damage it does to women rather than the impact on men. When challenging the impact on men it may be more effective to emphasise the indirect impact on women following from that on men.
They jack off to "hegomonic masculinity" every night...
I think you hit a huge, exposed nerve. Some of the responses are bordering on the disdainful of women generally, which is what I expect will be the eventual outcome of so much of feminist demands. You can only vilify and use logical fallacy for so long before the potential violent backlash hits your own people.
I was viewing a German documentary on the ‘incarceration’ of teenage boys and girls after the Nazi war and in East Germany / East Berlin. These teenagers were put into prison for simply asking questions , questioning the rules - in some cases not even knowing the so called rules , or even trying to escape to the West.
I thought, we see a repeat of this going on now in our time.
I know people are physically put into jails still but in our time now we see how people are being incarcerated on the Mental / Psychological levels; but it is promoted as ‘ for the good of Society etc etc la la ‘..,,
From what I can recall, the jailing or ostracism of dissenting voices has occurred throughout history. The Scots, the Irish, and the Welsh under British rule also happened to be persecuted.
Then, we have the early conflict between Catholicism and the Protestant versions of Christianity.
Fortunately, in Western Cultures, we have not yet progressed to the stage of jailing those who are critical of feminism, Yet!
There is something sui generis about the war being waged by feminists on men. It is an existential crisis for all of humanity. Whereas all of the other persecutions you mention were waged by one political or religious group against another, the feminist war on men pits one half of humanity against the other. Feminists brook no compromise but every time men capitulate, the feminists are merely encouraged to demand more concessions. The end result is, as predicted by C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man. There can be, I submit, no other explanation for this lunacy than the influence of satan, in whose existence it is becoming harder and harder to disbelieve. After all, his plan has always been to destroy the object of God's affection, viz., the Crown of His Creation, His human children. Satan knows he cannot destroy God, but destroying His children has been seen by satan as a suitable substitute since the beginning.
"It is an existential crisis for all of humanity."
No, only for Western society. Feminism is a purely Western phenomenon.
you are right with all this history.. but WWII is still seen as the 'most' evil thing and it seems to be that anything other evil is not really evil because the WWII is the worst.. mmmm
I had a reality check about WW11, in which an English Doctor I worked with said the reason the British won the war was because they were more brutal than the Germans.
Thinking about it, even though the movies, books, and comic books portray the British as heroes rescuing and all that noble stuff. The Germans were portrayed as being brutal, yet to defeat a brutal foe means being more brutal than your foe. Take, for example, the bombing of Dresden and the use of incendiary bombs on a city built out of wood. To win, the Liberators had to be more brutal than the Oppressors.
It is not debatable (unless you want to deny the Holocaust) that the Germans were more brutal to their own citizens and to citizens of lands that were allies or conquered.
Thanks for sharing the views of the English Doctor.... very true...
I think I'd read once that the British had starved the French.. into submission... one has to then wonder why there is such bad feelings between countries... it lingers like a foul stench in the air..
I did at one stage have a paper that suggested the Irish starved because they believed the British when they said it is cheaper to import your food.. so they starved instead of growing their own... maybe you know of that ?
It's coming in Canada.
"Winning" does not include reliance on schoolboys to counter the nonsense they are being taught. "Winning" is about developing teacher training science and methods such that future teachers rise above dumb ideology, misogyny and misandry, while educating children of both sexes, and making that a prerequisite to employment as a teacher. In that we, and our children, are losing. We must do more. Much much more. There will be time to celebrate then.
Yes, exactly.
I wish I could believe you. I have no evidence this idiocy is ending.
Deeply disturbing, because it all rings so true and pervasive. Anti-male thinking and policies are so all-encompassing that it takes a brilliant discerning analyst, Dr. Fiamengo, to identify it.
One of the more interesting things about the sudden discovery that boys prefer to be told how to be manly rather than to be ashamed of being male is how shocked these teachers feel when they realize their propaganda is being challenged. They double down on the definition of masculinity as inherently predatory.
There is a gigantic problem with this. That is that feminist orthodoxy contends that gender is a product of socialization not an inherent set of conditions resulting from the pressures of evolution on living organisms over the past (counting on fingers) half a billion years.
However, in the face of simple questioning the respondents in this study resort to arguing that maleness is •inherently• problematic and threatening. So is gender a matter of nurture or nature? All of a sudden it’s the latter not the former.
Or to put it another way, the response to boys questioning what they are taught, or expressing admiration for a man of mixed race who presents them with an image of resilient masculinity, is to condemn the boys for the original sin of being born male.
In essence, these teachers, having told boys that they should apologize for existing, are responding to being questioned, or to the astonishing discovery that boys possess minds of their own, by loudly declaring that little boys are made of frogs, and snails, and puppy dogs’ tails, and have shat on the world supply of sugar, spice, etc.
Now either there is inherent masculinity, or it’s a product of culture. If the teachers are attempting to force boys into the mold of girls (junior grade), and the boys are resisting then it might behoove them to rethink what they’re doing. Instead they jump to defining boys as possessing an inherent predatory masculinity.
When you’ve defined a part of reality as either/or you really can’t say “one sometimes, the other at other times.” You have to deal with it as its own phenomenon. If that’s causing you to adopt a paradigm that you insist you are rejecting, then you have a problem.
The problem is that you are being forced to acknowledge your misandry, and the failure of your efforts to cow boys into submission. If boys are responding to a vision of manhood as strong, resilient, and self-determined rather than bowing their heads to an understanding of masculinity as the most evil thing that has ever existed you might want to rethink what you’re doing and help the boys to head towards the blend of responsibility, self-esteem, and resilience that are the foundational characteristics of solid masculine adulthood.
None of these teachers seem to understand that you don’t help boys to become men by telling them that possessing a penis and testicles is shameful, and that any sign of independence of mind is as evil as setting fire to the Mona Lisa.
Boys are naturally drawn to strength and determination, since those are qualities inherent to adult masculinity. Female teachers who do not understand this should stop teaching boys, and let men do the job of guiding them to responsible adulthood.
Meanwhile, parents must withdraw their children-both boys and girls-from the gaping maw of feminist indoctrination known as "public education." Home school if you can, enroll in Christian schools as the next best alternative, but by no means allow any of your precious children to become corrupted by the satanic influences prevalent in the American public school system. And to all you soi disant "good teachers," I say, you are no different than "good Germans" who participated in the scourge of nazism without joing the party.
One problem is that there are not nearly enough Christian or other private schools to meet the demand and as a result the tuition prices are often exorbitantly high. I live in a small rural community and there are two private Christian schools in a county of 10,000 people. One school is K-6, the other is K-8. Tuition runs $3500 per month, $31,500 a year. Combined both schools have a capacity of less than 300 students and both have wait lists. The small town where I was raised has zero Christian schools, the nearest one is more than 40 miles away. This situation is more common than not in much of America. In my state it’s relatively easy from a regulatory perspective to start a private school, the biggest hurdle is a lack of resources. In other states though starting a new private school is nearly impossible.
Around two years ago, a female friend asked me to help compose a letter declaring her intention to withdraw her son from his State school and educate him at home. She has a demanding job as a mental health nurse on a pattern of long and irregular shifts, but despite this she was still certain her teenage boy would be better off outside the system.
The material she showed me - full of unchallenged assumptions and pedagogical waterboarding - actually made explaining her rationale quite easy and my main task was restraining my relish in dismantling and exposing the indoctrination. Although the latter involved matters of health, climate alarmism, gender ideology, racial and cultural demoralisation, etc., it was clear from her description of her son's affect and expressions of discontent that surrounding all of this was a relentless and sometimes crude assault on his very being as a male, as you illustrate with the examples above. All but one of his subject teachers were female: the exception was physical education.
Eighteen months later and he is reportedly extremely happy, has lost nothing socially (indeed his friends are envious of him) and developing far better educationally. Perhaps the answer to the lunacy you describe - in the short term at least - is to simply deny the beast its prey.
Wow, fascinating. Happy to hear a good story.
Bravo! Non-participation in the destructive public education system is currently the only intelligent choice.
I'm not sure why I did it, maybe because I felt I haven't suffered enough today, but I decided to try to read the Australian paper mentioned. From the section on 'Methods' the authors attempt to draw attention to criticism of the concept of hegemonic masculinity they use (this is so they appear to be 'objective')
"The fixedness seemingly suggested by the concept of hegemonic masculinity has been particularly critiqued by poststructuralist research, where concerns about how masculinity typologies invisibilise the role of agency in reproducing or resisting harmful masculine norms, and fails to contest the gender binary . . ."
Erm, OK.
The authors then say that despite criticism the concept of hegemonic masculinity remains valid :
"While cognisant of these critiques, voluminous research finds the concept remains salient, particularly for exploring the legitimation of unequal gender relations (ref), including in analyses of contestation/rejections of masculine dominance hierarchies"
Is it possible for me to "invisibilise" this whole sorry excuse for scholarship?
I'm a (retired) theoretical physicist, and when we say something like "research has found" - not that we'd ever quite use that phrase anyway - we mean something that can be verified and reliably replicated either by calculation or experiment.
This crap? It's like "we asked 30 people, not chosen at random, to express their thoughts and feelings - and based on this we're going to make some absurd generalizations"
This isn't 'research' - it's a Twitter thread/discussion conducted via academic journals.
What's fascinating here is how we can see the suppression of free speech in action - ostensibly by criticising what is seen to be 'hate speech' by the male pupils. They are not allowed to have an opinion, or one that is viewed as 'legitimate', because it has already been deemed to be 'misogynistic'.
This browbeating will not have the desired effect. As John Stuart Mill wrote :
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race . . . If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
This ability to 'course correct', perhaps summed up by the saying "we learn from our mistakes", is very important - but it can't be achieved by diktat. It is arrived at through discussion, through thought, and through evidence.
It works this way too even in physics where it is often more useful to get something wrong than to get something right - particularly if in the effort to fix that wrong a deeper understanding is gained in the process.
Personally I think Andrew Tate is a bit of a twat, but I can well understand his appeal to a whole generation of young men who have been repeatedly told they are worthless pieces of toxic s**t.
Yes, that part about the critique of hegemonic masculinity is astounding, isn't it? Feminist theories are never allowed to be countered by non-feminist theories, only by other, even zanier, feminist theories.
I’m glad to see that there are still people who read •On Liberty•.
Thanks for the quotes. I can't say I've ever seen language more pretentious or, dare I say, wanky.
Many years ago students at Monash University created what they called the "postmodern generator" or more simply "POMO". It can generate an infinite array of postmodernist screeds at the push of a button.
https://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
As always a magnificent piece of writing Janice. The school incident you refer to where male students had to stand and apologise to the girls is my home town - Brauer College in Warrnambool. I often hear people say thank goodness Australia isn’t as bad as other countries in wokeness and feminism and it amazes me. We are world leaders and have only accelerated down a slippery slope since Julia Gillards prime ministership in 2014. The same party is now back in power, dominated by angry feminists, changed family law to hugely disadvantage men and is now introducing misinformation/disinformation legislation that will make criticism of feminist and woke ideology illegal. I am somewhat encouraged by young males identifying toxicity of feminism and rejecting it but a pity Tate is a leader of that cause. The gender divide is the biggest of all societal divides in western society and I can’t see it ending well. Someone else here suggested feminism has created the monster it opposes and I couldn’t agree more. Scary times ahead.
I never realised that!
(Obviously didn’t read the article fully), but
Downtown Warrambool. Now that is the last place I would have expected in my homeland.
Yeah great thing to be famous for Jamie!!! That and the movie Oddball!!
I'm so ashamed.. as an aussie I didn't know about that movie from Australia :) I used enjoy the drive to Warrambool..
but despite all this.. horror that these boys had to apologise for this sh*t..
Something similar also occurred at another Victorian school.
https://7news.com.au/news/melbourne/students-shamed-in-melbourne-high-school-for-being-white-christian-privileged-males-c-2681609
The old saying applies here, garbage in, garbage out. The teachers are dehumanizing the boys so naturally most boys will rebel. There is great danger here.
Great danger, there is nobody more dangerous than a person who believes that they have nothing left to lose. Manshaming and the Patriarchy virus, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QELHy4ezmcA
Seems to be more weird fear mongering of men and boys.
It's good that the boys are rebelling, thank fuck for that.
I'm sorry but this strikes me as such a weird comment to make, even if my perspective is in the minority.
"black people are rebelling, there is great danger here".
Would this have been a valid take during Jim Crowe?
I fail to see the danger. The idea that young men are going to rebel in the fashion implied "violent rape hungry thuggish criminal murderers" seems to be couched in a feminist perspective on what men are like.
Satanic inhuman demons essentially.
I mean do you honestly believe that this will happen before men just....
politically organize?
Maybe my frustration is making me read in things that aren't there, but the implication of a mass of criminal young men to me seems like misandry.
It's significantly more likely that they'll do what many South Korean men are doing right now.
The feminist propaganda mill will continue to worsen , targeting ever broader segments of the population, until the public takes steps to stop it.
It would be hard to overestimate the depth of confusion that underlies the words that feminists and wokers associate with masculinity or femininity (let alone with maleness or femaleness). I want to discuss several words that, as Janice points out with relentless logic, have come to describe masculinity as odious: (a) “hegemonic” and “dominant” along with (b) “traditional.” (The word “toxic” requires no comment here.)
First, consider “hegemonic.” In postcolonial and “anti-racist” ideologies, this word refers to the political, economic and cultural domination of colonies by imperial regimes. In feminist ideology, it refers to the political, economic, cultural, physical and psychological domination of women by men. Dominance per se, therefore, can connote the use of power to control or marginalize others. This makes it inherently evil. But dominance is not necessarily about the use, or misuse, of power and is therefore not necessarily either a political weapon or evil.
At issue here is the ideologically contrived link between dominance and power. Some ideas or worldview are dominant, for example, because they’re more effective or popular than others—not because evil oppressors impose them on innocent victims. The result can be a consensus, a general agreement, not necessarily unanimity. No society could exist if this were not the case. We could have no moral or legal code, after all, without a general consensus on what is good and what is evil. And that’s equally true of gender codes.
Every gender code evolves as a general consensus on what behaviors are either masculine (appropriate for boys and men) or feminine (appropriate for girls and women). This consensus, by definition, does “dominate,” does “prevail” and is therefore “hegemonic”—but without the ideological connotations of those words. As a boy who grew up outside the consensus of opinion on masculinity and faced punishment accordingly, I don’t like to make this argument. But I do, because I see no alternative for any society that intends to endure. Compassion for minorities is surely a moral virtue, but it does not necessarily entail the abolition of all cultural norms—because that would entail the abolition of culture itself and therefore of society.
Second, consider the word “traditional.” For many people, this word means anything that they want to abolish and replace. They make no attempt to differentiate between the many traditions that coexist in complex societies. “Traditional masculinity” sometimes refers to secular distillations, especially those that popular culture promotes, of what were once religious traditions. But these distillations exist primarily as stereotypes, far removed from the original archetypes, of manhood. Isolated from their original contexts, they are ends in themselves, no longer the means to a larger and deeper end. Christian traditions, for instance, have produced an ideal of masculinity (actually more than one). In its most familiar form, this ideal relies on the notion of a man as the “head” of his family, the proof-text being some passage from St. Paul. It might seem that this ideal is a man who dominates or controls his wife and children, which presumably makes him a latent rapist or child molester. But that’s not what St. Paul had in mind. Nor is it what any Christian theologian teaches. Ignored is the ultimate paradigm for every Christian man: imitating Christ’s self-sacrificial love.
Less familiar to most people, even to many Jews, is a traditional Jewish ideal of manhood. In Life Is with People: The Culture of the Shtetl, anthropologists Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Hertzog interviewed people who had grown up in the intensely religious Jewish villages of Eastern Europe before World War II. Of greatest interest here is what they learned about traditional masculinity from the women. What made a man attractive or sexy? The answer might surprise many people today. He had to be pale and thin, as if he spent much of his time in the synagogue studying Torah, the ideal Jewish man being a rabbinical scholar. That’s a very long way from John Wayne, let alone Harvey Weinstein. Even in the shtetl, not every Jewish man could internalized that ideal, of course, but it was an ideal all the same, and it still is an ideal for traditional Jews.
My point here is that a “traditional man” is not necessarily a violent or dangerous one.
Excellent analysis! Another aspect of the "ideologically contrived link between dominance and power" comes from the manipulation of the semiotics of victimhood. By casting "power" onto adversaries and positioning oneself as their victim, one asserts dominance over them. Victimhood becomes a unique weapon to bludgeon them. Feminism was founded on this paradox and had used it aggressively to consolidate its authority in the academy, in the media, and elsewhere.
Exactly, PGH. Thank you for that.
And there's an additional factor to consider: the specifically moral (as distinct from psychological) status of victims. Consider current debates over "blaming the victim." Most people realize that we must never blame anyone for the behavior of someone else but also that we must take responsibility for our own behaviors--including foolish ones that can have dire consequences. Being victims per se gains sympathy or pity, to be sure, but it confers no moral status and therefore deserves neither admiration nor condemnation.
For ideologues, however, the reverse seems true. For them, victims are somehow innately or ontologically innocent as members of a class or group--not as individual moral agents. And the same way of thinking applies to perpetrators. They are somehow innately or ontologically guilty as members of a class or group--not as individual moral agents.
With all of this in mind, consider debates over inmates of the Nazi death camps. For some people, classifying them as victims is not satisfying enough. As I say, victimhood confers no moral status and is therefore meaningless (except as evidence, in this case, of remarkably bad luck). To find meaning in their fate, it's necessary to claim that the victims must really have been not mere victims but martyrs. And a very few inmates were indeed martyrs. They could have avoided the fate of other inmates somehow but chose not to do so--usually in the context of self-sacrifice for other people but sometimes for religious or philosophical ideas. Most of the inmates by far, however, were not martyrs. They could not possibly have avoided fate and therefore had no moral choices to make. (The Nazis, by contrast, did have moral choices to make. But they chose mass murder, not martyrdom. This choice was precisely what made them morally accountable.)
my god... PLEASE STOP it's embarrassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I agree that facile references to the Nazis are counterproductive, especially hyperbolic and even hysterical accusations that political opponents are reincarnations of Hitler. But the Nazis were historical figures. Can we learn nothing at all from what they said and did? Would it be better to ignore them?
There is only ONE historical event in history that is illegal to question in 18 countries in europe, until this is confronted we are doomed. Does the loser or victor write history? Who got their thousands of year old dream piece of real estate 2 years after it ended..... You need to look in the mirror at your weaponized victim complex FIRST!
Let's not be coy.
It is a sad fact of human nature that hatred, as in the feminist kind, will all too often be responded to by hatred.
"Misogynist" is not an accusation that by logic can or must silence anything at all .
What is said in hatred is not necessarily false. It may be a truth with the hatred being an ungodly response to an evil correctly discerned.
This is why hate speech laws are worse than useless
The misogyny that feminists scream about may in fact be created by their own misandry
This is NOT an endorsement of said hatred, just an observation. Of course feminists are too far gone to realize this and will continue spewing forth their own hatred of males yet will act shocked if and when hatred in kind is returned to them
As for the feminist hatred being peddled in schools, I was too overly sensitive for my own good and feminism wrecked me in my High School years of the early 1970's.
I shudder to think how sensitive young boys like I was are faring under today's institutionalized viciousness
and that is my key point here.
this is collective punishment , which is a crime against humanity. If collective punishment is never justified then collective responsibility ( "all males are toxic and all males are guilty of it") is the theory behind collective punishment and if it is indistinguishable from this may be a crime against humanity also .
Feminism as a species of cultural (ie gendered) genocide? feminism as a crime against humanity for being collectivist in its doling out of punishment?.
My thinking so even to consider let alone agree to this is a far cry from the self castrated cuck I was for 40 years in believing this poison which is feminism
Absolutely agree, well said.
"What is said in hatred is not necessarily false."
Great under-appreciated observation!
More I learn about sex differences in biology the less supportive I become of gender equality and I was already not very supportive of gender equality in my naïve high school years because equality didn't build Western civilisation, patriarchy did that.
Furthermore, a bit of an impertinent topic, part of me don't really care about the gender disparity at universities, probably because I think universities in this day and age is an absolute joke: free speech is virtually non-existent, replete with political correctness/wokeism, everything is politicized because of the extreme left wing bias, degrees have become increasingly meaningless because too many people are going to universities, more jobs are increasingly dropping the requirement for degrees (about time), most people don't get the job the study for, degrees are overpriced, etc...
Universities are honestly overrated. In past, especially prior to the 1960s, far less people were going to universities, yet they were wealthier and happier and more innovative.
I wouldn't be surprise if at some point in the future, feminist will be complaining about women being deeply in debt .
What you wrote is similar to Critical Race Theory, that everything is white people's fault. There are educational grants for non-whites but none for whites. Whites in the UK are now least likely to go to universities, this include white women: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/11/white-british-pupils-least-likely-to-go-to-university-report
Critical Race Theory is similar to feminist theory in that none of its theories is falsifiable and a lot of them are tautological too. There's no way to test out any of this stuff, so they get away with calling it non-refuted forever. But CRT and feminism are so much worse than false theory. THEY ARE NOT EVEN WRONG!