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.
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.