Excellent Janice! Another chapter for your new book.... <hint hint>
Gilmore and most feminists have zero idea of what it takes to find support or funding for anything related to helping men. Here's a clue for Gilmore: finding support and funding for women is a downhill journey, but getting funding and support for men is a steep uphill journey. Anyone who has tried both will understand this immediately.
It is indeed. And in my experience is subject to active sabotage from feminist organizations. My "red pill" came with the realization that my small efforts to help a small local group supporting men by helping application for funds, were being deliberately sabotaged, behind closed doors, by self identified feminists. The service was a helpline and "lounge" for men, a tiny initiative in the conurbation of nearly 3millions people, yet apparently a danger to feminism.
Some time ago now I was doing research in a university on factors that influence academic outcomes for students. This study focused on students from non-english speaking backgrounds and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and there was an underlying expectation that these were the students who would prove to be disadvantaged. What became clear from the data was that the students who were actually most disadvantaged were the young male students who had gone straight onto university from elite private boys schools. When I presented the results it seemed impossible for anyone to even hear what I was saying. They all kept talking about the disadvantage experienced by students from non english-speaking backgrounds even though the data showed that these students typically did better and most of them had been through Australian high schools and spoke English very well. The whole thing was bizarre.
Teaching college, I found those who came from foreign countries performed better. It was clear to me that it had everything to do with upbringing and the idea of hard work and a strong learning and work ethic. The "disadvantage" I witnessed was from pampering and a sense of entitlement on the part of many locally "educated" kids.
"The rest of Gilmore’s article sets out to delimit the allowable sphere of men’s activism. Such activism must not say anything that could be perceived as negative about women or about feminism. It must not contest feminists statistics, whether on intimate partner violence or anything else. Proper men’s activism, Gilmore makes clear, should focus only on those problems of men that can be seen as arising from damaging male behaviors and male qualities—in other words, on problems in which men are victims of themselves."
In other words, men are to accept the role assigned to them by feminists, and must never question their authority in any way.
Of course the truth is that the feminist successes have been to persuade men to mandate and fund their desires. Certainly in the UK the vast majority of the "women's " sector is funded by tax payers.
In truth boys and men would be hugely assisted by simply having equal rights with girls and women. Certainly in the UK the actual application of the Equality Act as written would mean huge strides in education, health, social care and family courts. Recent experience in Australia shows the feminist agenda has nothing to do with equality. For in that land after decades of a laudable law stating the principle of equal parenting, their current feminist government ended this legal presumption of equal rights and responsibility to a presumption of children as the chattels of the mother! Yet supposedly feminists are against such presumption that women have the main "burden" of caring.
As I'm sure ICMI will show, with different perspectives from very diverse cultures, there are all sorts of initiatives to help boys and men, and often very damaging effects of an essentially "western" ideology applied to other parts of the world.
Many years ago remember a Psychologist advising men, when a women says she wants you to be "emotional" and "share feelings" it isn't an invitation to actually share your feelings as such, but in fact an invitation to express positive feelings about her or her value to you. "He for she" being much the same thing and reflects the essentially selfish mindset of feminism.
In my dreams a philanthropic millionaire in the UK will one day simply set up a fund to publicise and support males or females taking forward legal cases under the Equality Act to actually get the equality promised in the act.
If nothing else the "TERFs" constant refrain about "protecting women's rights" reminds us men have no special rights!
Yes, it surely does. I have heard so much in the last few days about how the great J.K. Rowling has single-handedly saved Scotland (and perhaps other countries too) from hate speech laws by vowing to stand with anyone who might be charged with a crime for something they write or say.
But is it true? Will she stand with a man who says that women are intellectually inferior to men? that voting rights for women was a terrible idea? etc? I'd love to be proved wrong, but I highly doubt it. If she could be assured that the law would apply only to men, I think she would be perfectly happy with it.
The indifference of most feminist women to men and boys' well-being is bottomless. Equal rights would be an unacceptable step down.
I'm sure you are quite right about Rowling. She has used large parts of her considerable fortune to fund the DV "industry" over the past 20 years. And I'm sure will not take a stand against the Scottish Government's plan to end jury trials for rape and sexual assault.
But when their activism is only discussing men’s rights and masculinity in reference to feminism or violence against women, it’s not acting for men, it’s acting against women.”
There is a saying about "Men commit suicides, women most affected." Women who think this can't ever understand how men think. Women have been programmed to think that men are violent monsters that only want to rape and impregnate them. They don't consider men to have feelings but have been trained not to show them.
Of more consequence has been the decision by the American Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to take an entrenched anti-male position on all men’s rights activism even while admitting that some of men’s problems are real.
The SPLC is not a neutral organization, as they even declare churches, hospitals, and state agencies as hate groups. So, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Yes, the SPLC went rogue years ago in its determination to find hate everywhere.
Given the American federal government's increasing interest in what it calls 'domestic extremism,' which seems to include everyone from patriotic citizens concerned about election irregularities to parents objecting to gender ideology, it is infuriating to see how blithely they throw around their 'male supremacist' condemnation.
It's possible that a man suffering through a terrible divorce, in desperate need of support, would be put off signing up to XY Crew because of the SPLC's designation, which is one of the first things to come up in a Google search of XY Crew. The ludicrous dishonesty is staggering.
It is interesting looking at the developing "moral panic" about Andrew Tate. Who it seems has singlehandedly created a huge increase in skepticism about feminism amongst young generations of men in "western" countries. Older buffers like me, are it seems, far more feminism friendly than younger cohorts. Now though the focus of the moral panic appears to be teenage boys. In fact the swing is shown in young men below 30. Just the age range that have lived through the triumph of feminism and the widespread application of discrimination against them, the obvious result of discriminating in favour of females. And the under 30s also had the "benefit" of feminist ideology at school, college or University and indeed in training in work. So the horrible truth may be that their skepticism is based on their "lived experience" and the obvious misandry of being labelled "toxic" as well as the obvious double standard of claiming to be for equality while demanding special rights and privileges. I have some hope that this process will continue as feminism becomes far more exposed as the establishment ideology it is. On a humorous note apparently teenage boys spout about Andrew Tate to simply wind up their teachers, given he's "triggering" to teachers. In my day it was having a "skin 'ead " crew cut or turning up in eye liner.
As for my generation, our need to be nice to women and mind our language and manners etc. means most are still thinking of feminism is just being nice or the fairer sex (apart from the ones dragged through family court).
The authorities huffing and puffing about Andrew Tate's alleged misogyny never seem to recognize that he is the *symbol* of boys' rejection of a male-hating feminist culture; he is not the cause.
Years ago, before Tate came to prominence, my friends were already telling me that their 12-14 year old sons were dead-set against feminism and all its woke offshoots, all the nonsense they'd had crammed down their throats at school and in the wider culture. You can't keep on telling boys that they have to take a back seat to girls without at least some portion of the boys rebelling, especially when they can see with their own eyes that girls can be just as mean, selfish, stupid, callous, disgusting, manipulative, and evil-minded as any boy (or more).
It may be that the bad effects of feminism on girls -- their increasing arrogance, crudity, and deceit -- will be the death of feminism.
It is a classic; arguing not for equality at all. As usual the reasons fly far beyond anything to do with the thing itself, a private members social club. It ranges from the % of women in the British Parliament (a matter for electorates and political appoinments). Equal Rights at work (as we know in fact almost all European countries give unequal rights in terms of parental leave and "maternity leave" to women! While for instance all EU members have to have legislation guaranteeing equal pay for the same job before they can join) Then we swing into car safety !? Flip into the developing world on child brides and careen back to the very different patterns of jobs and careers in the rich western countries.
"Together, women make up just 32 per cent of members of the Commons and the Lords. Meanwhile, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), only six countries give women equal legal work rights as men. The WEF also found that women are 47 per cent more likely to suffer severe injuries in car crashes because safety features are designed for men and that 33,000 girls become child brides every day. Oh, and it’s going to take roughly 108 years to close the gender pay gap."
Perhaps sensing the irrelevance of all this to argue men should not be allowed to have social clubs, nor be able to join those traditionally for women. The author flips into the notion that men are inherently abusive monsters and this is why they should be excluded.
Way to go to lose the sympathies of men, if your argument for preventing them forming social clubs combines a set of unconnected and irrelevant "facts" topped off with a claim men are inherently violent abusers! One can see for men who earn the same as women in the same job, have never imagined marrying a school girl, puts on and adjusts their safety belt, would be grateful for some paternity leave, sees all the additional help and "positive action" for women not available to help his career and who doesn't beat his girlfriend and sees here safely home. That they will simply see feminism as "being shouted at for things I haven't done". And of course may start to recognize many negative behaviours from their female contemporaries as "abuse" as a result of the indoctrination courses.
"Together, women make up just 32 per cent of members of the Commons and the Lords. Meanwhile, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), only six countries give women equal legal work rights as men. The WEF also found that women are 47 per cent more likely to suffer severe injuries in car crashes because safety features are designed for men and that 33,000 girls become child brides every day. Oh, and it’s going to take roughly 108 years to close the gender pay gap".
Somebody made a lovely joke on Twitter/X about the controversy over women getting into the Garrick Club. He noted that it was dangerous because some men might claim to be trans women, thus invading women's space and posing a threat to them.
Hah! I must admit I'm generally happy with the invention of "self identification" because it generally requires nothing more intrusive than dressing up and hair dye and the opportunities for satire and parody are endless. A British comedian Eddie Izzard insists he can spend periods as "Suzy Izzard" and as Eddie "flipping" between "boy mode" and "girl mode" I thinks he's quite serious about it but is a sort of living embodiment of feminisms idiocies. Personally I like "non binary" as that is completely meaningless yet gains one entry to this alternative world.
That's funny. The British comedy duo, The Two Ronnie's, did a serial skit in the 70s or early 80s about a world where women ruled, called "The Worm that Turned".
My sister was giving me a hard time, once, about me 'denying the lived experience' of my girlfriend at the time. I asked "what about my lived experience?" and she literally shouted "YOU DON'T HAVE ANY!"
That was when I realized that feminist jargon usually means something very different than the common meanings of the words used. To an academic feminist, 'lived experience' is reserved for the 'marginalized' and specifically excludes the 'privileged'.
"A key element to feminist analysis is a commitment to the creation of knowledge grounded in the experiences of people belonging to marginalized groups, including for example, women, people of color, people in the Global South, immigrants, indigenous people, gay, lesbian, queer, and trans people, poor and working-class people, and disabled people."
No men don't have lived experience according to feminism - just patriarchal indoctrination And socialization to dominate and oppress women. The feminist ideology claims masculinity is itself an ideology based on the hatred of women and rejection of all things feminine. Hence male victims of DV in the UK are recorded as male victims of violence against women because feminist ideology dictates men are only victims because they seem to feminine. Deeply dehumazing of men. And this ideology is unchecked and rampant in the UK Parliament. But apparantly misandry isn't systemic or institutional
Are you familiar with William Holman Hunt's painting "The Scapegoat"? I used to live only a few miles from the small provincial gallery in England where it's hung.
Then there's the chapter on the scapegoat in The Golden Bough.
Oh, they don’t need men to disappear, there are constant wars within the movement, Today’s orthodoxies would have been anathema 25 years ago. Today’s debates would have seemed bizarre to leading feminist noisemakers in the nineties. If the radfems try to take over again, they’ll be pushing policies that today’s feminist mainstream is tiptoeing around because the mass of women they’re attempting to control aren’t knee-jerk misandry.
Yes its very true of the TERF Wars. As the Judith Butler Gender feminists (biology means nothing its all socially constructed) battle the Gender Critical feminists (its socially constructed but actually women are saintly by nature). I notice that latter constantly try to label the former as MRAs, in a pretty ludicrous attempt to say its all a plot by the patriarchy. If it wasn't for the danger to children's mental and physical health, I'd suggest egging both on as their wars expose feminism as an ideology.
Absolutely agree. If radical gender ideology were not so dangerous to children and to a sane social order, I'd be happy to see all of sports taken over by trans women, and to watch those two despicable feminist groups fight it out, each claiming the other to represent white supremacist patriarchy.
Gradually the "medical" side is being rolled back here in the UK, at least for under 18s. I recall in 2016 it started to be made public that the majority of the under 18s referred for "treatment" were girls. I thought and said then that this would be a game changer, simply because while no one much cared about boys they'd worry about girls. In relatively short time the NHS came under more and more pressure until the "Tavistock" was closed and the idea went from mainstream to something worrying from "Stonewall". Needless to say no feminist, here, addresses the continued preponderance of females in the young seeking to change sex. Increasingly it has become about either trans. sports or trans in prisons and back to familiar feminist "all men are rapists" ground. ...... And the TERFs in particular shout this and then wonder why men don't "support" them!
Good point! Whenever feminism is attacked and the feminist listening has no defense she will deflect by saying "feminism is a broad church" . Ignoring the fact that sisterhood will always trump any ideological differences as well as misandry. Even if one feminist disagrees with another, all feminists benefit.
Reminds me of the Iron John movement of the early/mid 90s, when I was in my late teenage/early adult years. I can't remember exactly where I had first heard of it, except in the context of being ridiuculed already in the strictly Leftist media allowed in the house at the time. Pre-internet there was no way to go searching for it on my own to make my own assessment, alas.
Ironically I was heavily into Joseph Campbell at the time thanks to an anthropology class so I picked up similar ideas, the importance of stories to figuring out one's masculinity. Though I dare not say that part out loud, nor was even allowing myself to recognize it at the time. Even more ironic Cambell was encouraged because it was a mental vaccine against the big bad evil patriarchial Christianity and organized religion in general, or so it was believed. Leftys aren't very good at putting 2+2+2 together, I've observed over the years.
The conflation of men's rights and antifeminists movements is common. But technically these are not the same thing. Here's a snippet from the introduction from my book on the history of the MRM where I tackle this conflation:
[Quote] The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) consists of groups or individuals fighting for improved human rights for men. Historically these groups have consisted of men and women agitating for corrections to anti-male customs and laws, for the right of men to live traditional or alternative male roles as they wish, and to challenge the forces attacking that freedom of choice via manipulations of the social and legal environment. The accompanying and no less important of its aims has been to challenge mainstream culture narratives that have reinforced misandric attitudes.
In the absence of a reliable overview of its history the MRM has also been vulnerable to annexing by ideologues who claim the first men’s movement was launched in the 1970s by second wave feminists in an effort to deal with ‘destructive masculine norms,’ and that the Men’s Rights Movement only later branched off from it as a kind of misogynist backlash. Among sources furthering this myth, for example, is the current Wikipedia MRM entry which has suffered repetitive censorship of the now century-long tradition of men’s rights activism – a tradition that proves the ‘feminist origins’ theory non-credible. In place of that long tradition the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article reads:
“The men's rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s.”
Few serious researchers accept that the MRM began in the 1970s, there being numerous examples of well-organized MR activism extending back into the 1800s (see Parts 1-3). Moreover, the ‘men’s liberation movement’ cited in the Wikipedia article was in fact a feminist initiative that arose within the National Organization for Women to foster pro-feminist ideology among men. The Wikipedia misinformation derives from American sociologist Michael Messner who restates popular feminist factoids without having surveyed literature by or about the men’s rights movement over the last 150 years.
The longevity of the MRM has often been overlooked due to such efforts to distort or censor its existence. That censorship is not new, being already described a century ago by men’s rights advocate Ernest B. Bax who wrote about efforts to block the circulation of his pamphlet on the legal disadvantages and discrimination suffered by men entitled The Legal Subjection of Men. Bax referred to censorship from “the influential feminist sisterhood” as being well known among publishers:
“[Socialist-feminists say] the pamphlet The Legal Subjection of Men – in which the present state of the law and its administration between the sexes is given – should be suppressed, and also in the representations made to the Editor from a “Women’s Committee” of the body that I should be muzzled and any statement of mine adverse to Feminism be excluded from the party organs.” [Women’s Privileges and “Rights”, Social Democrat, Vol.13 no.9, September (1909), pp.385-391]
and,
“The apostles of feminism, being unable to make a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [The Fraud of Feminism, (1913), pp.1-2]
As in the examples provided by Bax, the effort to censor men’s voices has continued through all three waves of feminism. It was witnessed recently, for example, with the release of the MRM documentary The Red Pill, which saw groups of feminists threaten and intimidate venues worldwide that had agreed to screen the documentary - venues which later backed out of their agreements due to fear of reprisals. Fortunately The Red Pill went on to become a huge global success, a testament to the hunger of both men and women for fair treatment of their brothers, sons, fathers, male friends and colleagues.
In order to secure free speech there has always existed a tendency within the MRM to push back against feminist-driven censorship of men’s issues, and indeed censorship from other sources. Attacking feminism however has never been the main goal of the movement despite claims by some that the MRM is synonymous with antifeminist backlash. To suggest equivalence is to confuse purely antifeminist movements with the much broader portfolio of the men’s rights movement.
A survey of the last 100 years reveals that the MRM is concerned more directly with issues impacting men and boys such as alimony, genital mutilation of male infants, homelessness, mental illness, false accusations, family court bias, suicide, child custody, low funding for male health issues, legal discrimination, educational performance, and misandry in mainstream culture just to name a few.
Janice, that is an excellent blog pointing out the hypocrisy of the dreadful Australian and other feminist commentators who never let the facts get in the way of their ideological rants. Thanks for telling every one about my efforts to expose the feminist attack on Men's Sheds! I hope some of your readers will watch the talks at our exciting Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference, on June 1. Looks like we will be able to offer live streaming for those unable to attend the Sydney event.
Bettina, are you aware of Tickle v Giggle? Sall Grover, CEO of a women's only networking app, is being sued by a tranny after being rejected because he isn't a woman. There are obvious parallels to the men's shed movement but nobody seems to be concerned at all that men aren't allowed on the site unless they claim to be women.
I found the entire article hilarious, as a Man. 🤷 Dear Lord, I swear, the SECOND that I rely on a Gov't programme because I'm a bloke, I automatically, magically, become a sheila! Because the mere THOUGHT of purple haired, HR Wimmin, earnestly and diligently protecting my "maleness"(?) ( my WHAT?) SHRIVELS ME MANHOOD! AHAHAHAHA! Lezzo, seperatist, NSW Tearchers Union reps & local Council Admin Specialists to the rescue!!!
Having recently moved to the Mid North Coast, having forever abandoned (Babylon)Sydney I had the opportunity to visit the Mens Sheds at Taree, Wingham and Old Bar. Let's talk about a Feminist Dream of Mens Corrals, I mean ... sheds... let's...
Fact: Mens Sheds are full of Machines that are tools. Wood tools. Metal tools. Tools for tools, for "tools". The inverted commas "Tools" are the blokes. Men NOT wanted in the retirement houses slash villages, that they thought that they worked towards, all their lives. "Get out! Do something", cry the Harpies. Screech. Screech. Wimmin louder than the cockatoos.
Needing some French bar caddy wheels turned, I visited these Centres of Ancient Wisdom, these Druidic Contemplation Temple Sheds, for some Wisdom 🤔.
"Jeez, lovely work. French. 1920s, look at that, no nails & they hand turned those little, spoked wheels..."
So, ya can fix 'em?
"NAHHH! Maybe me dad, well, me granddad, maybe he knew"
Dead, huh?
"Yeah"...
Each shed, 40 blokes without a C.L.U.E. They can't even turn half the fkn machines ON! 🤣 Gov't programme that allocated old sheds, some old machines, designed by some broken down Mandarin, for this lame arse window dressing. This con.
I walked into the Old Bar Manshed. There were 20 blokes at a table, taking notes... from a WOMAN. I walked out and asked the blokes outside if they found it ironic. I think they were on their wives' valium.
Instead of a multi million dollar mental health programme, to help Men in Retirement, after 40 years in harness, 40 years a wage earner, we got a bandaid solution and some dusty sheds. Where Wimmin tell us how to be Men.
OK. Here is another out of left field. One New Year's Eve, I was in church and we were praying about New Year's resolutions. A prayer came into my mind that was a very unusual prayer. I don't know where it came from but I prayed for it as my New Year's resolution. The prayer was "To believe for men as the spiritual heads of their families."
My relations with men, as a single divorced woman for some years, had been very poor and I would have to say sordid. The result of praying that prayer was stunning. It turned my whole life and my relationships with men right around. Since that day I find that men relate in a way that could only be regarded as excellent with me. While I am not unaware of problems around male behavior, I have to think now that women's attitudes to men and how we approach them have a stunning influence on how men behave.
I have mentioned this prayer to some leading feminists and they react as if I had burned them. I fully understand that it is an extraordinary prayer in today's context however I think it gets right at the heart of the problem. If women started to treat men as people highly worthy of respect and looking up to I think we would see a massive turnaround in the whole male-female situation.
And women's behaviour in relation to men can be stunningly appalling.
To have ladies one needs gentlemen and indeed vice versa. After all the very core of the Christian message is to do as you would be done by. Of course its not infallible but in general the golden rule does work. Mutual respect.
Apart from the fact that intimate-partner violence has been shown to be more-or-less equal between the sexes (notwithstanding men's strength advantage), the unknown elephant in the room is how often women either deliberately or unconsciously goad men into violence to prove their point. This is a tactic well understood by repressive regimes throughout history.
FRA's flourish by denigrating and maligning all men, spruik [white] male privilege for all of their woes, by being dismissive of all men, etc and project (gaslight?) their abhorrent thoughts, behaviours and actions onto MRA's as a means to deflect well founded criticism of their self-serving misandry.
Sadly, I see much of my own experience in this piece. The reality is that feminist women seem absolutely petrified at the thought that ANY attention to the needs or rights of men. It goes beyond fear that men's needs will take from a limited pie, thus "depriving" women of all the spoils. It appears to be directed at the notion that the conduct of women as it impacts men is subject to criticism and punishment. The core belief of feminism seems to be that women have all the rights while men bear all the responsibilities and how dare anyone suggest anything otherwise.
Even when efforts are made to address an important issue in a gender neutral fashion, such as protecting the due process rights of the accused and proper accountability for false accusers, invariably the feminist objection is that such policies will negatively impact women. Ironically, this is actually an admission that, contrary to feminist propaganda, women not only commit unethical, unlawful and abusive acts, but that they also systemically lie about such acts. Claiming that objective due process procedures will prevent women who have experience abuse from coming forward makes no sense unless women on some level realize that many of their complaints simply won't pass muster (or are outright fabrications).
The history of the right to due process and to confront one's accuser in the US Bill of Rights is worth noting here. The Salem witch trials were a massive tragedy and scandal that, let's be honest, was primarily caused by women seeking to exert power over others they disliked, followed by covering up for their own lies and misconduct. The scandal of the witch trials was known throughout New England in the years leading up to the American Revolution and played a big part in the Founding Fathers attempts to protect the rights of the accused. It should be noted that nearly 250 years later, it is STILL women via feminism who are attacking these same rights because they undermine the ability of false accusers to bully others with their crimes of "victimhood". This is certainly conduct engaged in by male and female feminists, but the pure hatred that one sees whenever a man attempts to raise issues regarding the mistreatment of men or misconduct by women such as false accusations is coming from feminist WOMEN. It suggests that all the evils ascribed to male patriarchy are actually a projection of the psyche of women, far more than descriptions of the conduct of men. Indeed...the misandry of feminism appears to be a key characteristic of the female sex generally. I do not like generalizations of that sort, but observations suggest that this is a women's problem that can only be addressed if we call it what it is.
Feminists will say it is not that they don't want rights for the male accused; but they claim the male accused already has all the power and too many rights. He is already believed, allegedly. He has friends in high places; male judges, etc., automatically side with men because of patriarchy. Therefore, slightly lessening the rights of the accused merely evens out the field, giving female victims a chance to have their voice heard and to find justice.
It's a very difficult position to argue against given that most women and many men believe that the culture is biased against women (even though psychologists like Roy Baumeister and Alice Eagly have shown that the opposite is true; women have an in-group bias and men prefer women).
Starting from this widely-believed (false) assumption of the pro-male bias, feminists always have it both ways: when a man is convicted in a court of law, it is proof that men are terrible people, a threat to women, who must not be given undue rights to self-defense; when a man is acquitted in a court of law, it is proof that men have too many rights to self-defense, women are not believed, and the laws must be changed to benefit female victims. It is never taken as proof that the man was falsely accused; or that women are dangerous.
Yes, it's an elegant Catch 22 whereby a man is always in the wrong! That's basically the central tenet of feminism. It's like original sin - the mere fact of being born a man puts us in the wrong!
This is EXACTLY right...which means that what we face here is institutional and cultural bias against men and their rights. So...how do we respond? We must speak honestly and denounce and counter feminist mythology whenever and wherever it manifests itself. This means filing legal action where appropriate not only against false accusers but organizations that act with bias against the rights of men...even if this has a side effect of demoralizing those women who actually have legitimate complaints. It is time we adhere to the rule of law as written...not as feminists wish it was written.
I never said there are not men who support feminist policies. I have yet, however, to encounter any man who imposes feminist policies with the level of misandryist hate that motivates women. (You will note that I do not say feminist women. While feminist hate is not practiced by All women, we need to be honest and say that it is practiced by a significant minority if not the majority of women in the West. The closest analogue to such hate by men is the misogyny of Sharia law under Islam. Both Western Gender Feminism and Sharia Misogyny are violations of human rights.)
Thanks for clarifying, Sadredin. I agree an awful lot of western women have been hit by the feminist parasite. Probably most feminist men just go along with it to keep the peace or get laid.
Feminist men don't just "go along" with feminism, they fully embrace feminism and actively support feminist women, defending them and attacking other men on their behalf. They do so because it makes them feel superior to other men, and gains them approval and acceptance amongst women, particularly educated women. Protecting these women makes them feel manly and righteous, all the more so if they are fathers of daughters. Ironically they're driven by the same patriarchal instincts which feminism decries, but they've been harnessed to the feminist cause. That's why feminism has been so successful and unstoppable. The feminist agenda is enabled, implemented, and enforced by feminized men - politicians, judges, police, family men - who pander to the women in their lives and persecute "rogue males" who run foul of women. I'd like to see more discussion of these male enablers of feminism, rather than scatterbrains like Caro and Gilmour, who really are just noisy stupid women, incapable of rational argument.
Very true...though we can see increasingly feminists have become so toxic that men are declining to associate with women at all. Women complain that men aren't interested in relationships or marriages with them, but fail to take a good hard look in the mirror at their own and their sisters conduct. This is a healthy response in my opinion. The proper response to misandry is a combination of general disengagement from women while the majority remain silent about misandry and outright defensive legal action against the worst perpetrators of misandrist abuse whether directed at one self or in one's community. This means outright opposition to and hostility to misandrist feminist programming (counter speech to feminist hate speech) and calling out of inequitable organizations like women's commissions, special programming for women in fields like STEM and sexual harassment advocacy organizations that refuse to practice due diligence against false accusers or abide by due process rights for the accused. Essentially any organization that practices "believe the women" should be seen as misandrist with refusal to cooperate or support the organization or any woman who seeks their representation/assistance.
Fathers! Before you go to bed tonight commit to turning your boys into men. We can sit here and moan about feminists, mean women, bitches, witches, ho’s or whatever catch word you think works, but nothing and I mean nothing works like one on one, or two or three time, with your male children. If you’re lucky enough to have the time and resources, maybe you can include some fatherless child.
And as you warm up the convo, don’t spare them the truth. 10 year olds can be spoken to like adults. Their teachers, women on the street, female (and even male) doctors, little girls at school or religious leaders never tire of ‘cutting them down to size’, so you do the opposite. This doesn’t preclude time with your female offspring but thats a different conversation.
Not promoting our team under the guise of ‘not wanting to raise a toxic male’ is bullshit and you know it. Regardless of what hemisphere you live in get out there with your kid. He needs the ‘tools and language’ to combat this formless blob of feminist tyranny and you’re the only game in town for this.
Do it right and he may never need the protection and inclusivity of a ‘shed’ or a tent or a ‘yurt’ in the great beyond, and anytime he reads or hears one of these feminist hags, blather on, he’ll know that a hardy laugh is the best and only response to this drivel!
We and only ‘We’ built Western Civilization, and because we have allowed howling, domineering feminists to take over the narrative over the last 60 years, look where we are. Time to take back the controls before the train leaves the track!
Excellent Janice! Another chapter for your new book.... <hint hint>
Gilmore and most feminists have zero idea of what it takes to find support or funding for anything related to helping men. Here's a clue for Gilmore: finding support and funding for women is a downhill journey, but getting funding and support for men is a steep uphill journey. Anyone who has tried both will understand this immediately.
It is indeed. And in my experience is subject to active sabotage from feminist organizations. My "red pill" came with the realization that my small efforts to help a small local group supporting men by helping application for funds, were being deliberately sabotaged, behind closed doors, by self identified feminists. The service was a helpline and "lounge" for men, a tiny initiative in the conurbation of nearly 3millions people, yet apparently a danger to feminism.
Yes, it comes out of nowhere and most times you never know who hit ya. Four letters: EVIL
Up hill journey ~ more like climbing a cliff without any climbing gear
That's called 'free soloing' which some men are good at!
agree!
Can I place my pre-order for the new book? I want a hundred copies so I can give it to everyone I know.
Some time ago now I was doing research in a university on factors that influence academic outcomes for students. This study focused on students from non-english speaking backgrounds and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and there was an underlying expectation that these were the students who would prove to be disadvantaged. What became clear from the data was that the students who were actually most disadvantaged were the young male students who had gone straight onto university from elite private boys schools. When I presented the results it seemed impossible for anyone to even hear what I was saying. They all kept talking about the disadvantage experienced by students from non english-speaking backgrounds even though the data showed that these students typically did better and most of them had been through Australian high schools and spoke English very well. The whole thing was bizarre.
Why were those boys disadvantaged, Anne? Was it the sudden confrontation with a co-ed environment?
Teaching college, I found those who came from foreign countries performed better. It was clear to me that it had everything to do with upbringing and the idea of hard work and a strong learning and work ethic. The "disadvantage" I witnessed was from pampering and a sense of entitlement on the part of many locally "educated" kids.
Were those results ever published? If so, would you please share a link or citation? I'd love to get my hands on those findings.
This paragraph is key:
"The rest of Gilmore’s article sets out to delimit the allowable sphere of men’s activism. Such activism must not say anything that could be perceived as negative about women or about feminism. It must not contest feminists statistics, whether on intimate partner violence or anything else. Proper men’s activism, Gilmore makes clear, should focus only on those problems of men that can be seen as arising from damaging male behaviors and male qualities—in other words, on problems in which men are victims of themselves."
In other words, men are to accept the role assigned to them by feminists, and must never question their authority in any way.
It's called coercive control. See Deborah Powney's work on female coercive control of men.
Exactly this. So much of feminism resembles abuse in relationships made political - the personal is political
Of course the truth is that the feminist successes have been to persuade men to mandate and fund their desires. Certainly in the UK the vast majority of the "women's " sector is funded by tax payers.
In truth boys and men would be hugely assisted by simply having equal rights with girls and women. Certainly in the UK the actual application of the Equality Act as written would mean huge strides in education, health, social care and family courts. Recent experience in Australia shows the feminist agenda has nothing to do with equality. For in that land after decades of a laudable law stating the principle of equal parenting, their current feminist government ended this legal presumption of equal rights and responsibility to a presumption of children as the chattels of the mother! Yet supposedly feminists are against such presumption that women have the main "burden" of caring.
As I'm sure ICMI will show, with different perspectives from very diverse cultures, there are all sorts of initiatives to help boys and men, and often very damaging effects of an essentially "western" ideology applied to other parts of the world.
Many years ago remember a Psychologist advising men, when a women says she wants you to be "emotional" and "share feelings" it isn't an invitation to actually share your feelings as such, but in fact an invitation to express positive feelings about her or her value to you. "He for she" being much the same thing and reflects the essentially selfish mindset of feminism.
In my dreams a philanthropic millionaire in the UK will one day simply set up a fund to publicise and support males or females taking forward legal cases under the Equality Act to actually get the equality promised in the act.
If nothing else the "TERFs" constant refrain about "protecting women's rights" reminds us men have no special rights!
Yes, it surely does. I have heard so much in the last few days about how the great J.K. Rowling has single-handedly saved Scotland (and perhaps other countries too) from hate speech laws by vowing to stand with anyone who might be charged with a crime for something they write or say.
But is it true? Will she stand with a man who says that women are intellectually inferior to men? that voting rights for women was a terrible idea? etc? I'd love to be proved wrong, but I highly doubt it. If she could be assured that the law would apply only to men, I think she would be perfectly happy with it.
The indifference of most feminist women to men and boys' well-being is bottomless. Equal rights would be an unacceptable step down.
Rowling is, of course, a radical feminist through and through. Women's only spaces? Safe and empowering. Men's only spaces? Dangerous and oppressive.
I'm sure you are quite right about Rowling. She has used large parts of her considerable fortune to fund the DV "industry" over the past 20 years. And I'm sure will not take a stand against the Scottish Government's plan to end jury trials for rape and sexual assault.
But when their activism is only discussing men’s rights and masculinity in reference to feminism or violence against women, it’s not acting for men, it’s acting against women.”
There is a saying about "Men commit suicides, women most affected." Women who think this can't ever understand how men think. Women have been programmed to think that men are violent monsters that only want to rape and impregnate them. They don't consider men to have feelings but have been trained not to show them.
Of more consequence has been the decision by the American Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to take an entrenched anti-male position on all men’s rights activism even while admitting that some of men’s problems are real.
The SPLC is not a neutral organization, as they even declare churches, hospitals, and state agencies as hate groups. So, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Women don't know what men don't tell them, and feminists cry "mansplaining" when they try.
Yes, the SPLC went rogue years ago in its determination to find hate everywhere.
Given the American federal government's increasing interest in what it calls 'domestic extremism,' which seems to include everyone from patriotic citizens concerned about election irregularities to parents objecting to gender ideology, it is infuriating to see how blithely they throw around their 'male supremacist' condemnation.
It's possible that a man suffering through a terrible divorce, in desperate need of support, would be put off signing up to XY Crew because of the SPLC's designation, which is one of the first things to come up in a Google search of XY Crew. The ludicrous dishonesty is staggering.
It is interesting looking at the developing "moral panic" about Andrew Tate. Who it seems has singlehandedly created a huge increase in skepticism about feminism amongst young generations of men in "western" countries. Older buffers like me, are it seems, far more feminism friendly than younger cohorts. Now though the focus of the moral panic appears to be teenage boys. In fact the swing is shown in young men below 30. Just the age range that have lived through the triumph of feminism and the widespread application of discrimination against them, the obvious result of discriminating in favour of females. And the under 30s also had the "benefit" of feminist ideology at school, college or University and indeed in training in work. So the horrible truth may be that their skepticism is based on their "lived experience" and the obvious misandry of being labelled "toxic" as well as the obvious double standard of claiming to be for equality while demanding special rights and privileges. I have some hope that this process will continue as feminism becomes far more exposed as the establishment ideology it is. On a humorous note apparently teenage boys spout about Andrew Tate to simply wind up their teachers, given he's "triggering" to teachers. In my day it was having a "skin 'ead " crew cut or turning up in eye liner.
As for my generation, our need to be nice to women and mind our language and manners etc. means most are still thinking of feminism is just being nice or the fairer sex (apart from the ones dragged through family court).
The authorities huffing and puffing about Andrew Tate's alleged misogyny never seem to recognize that he is the *symbol* of boys' rejection of a male-hating feminist culture; he is not the cause.
Years ago, before Tate came to prominence, my friends were already telling me that their 12-14 year old sons were dead-set against feminism and all its woke offshoots, all the nonsense they'd had crammed down their throats at school and in the wider culture. You can't keep on telling boys that they have to take a back seat to girls without at least some portion of the boys rebelling, especially when they can see with their own eyes that girls can be just as mean, selfish, stupid, callous, disgusting, manipulative, and evil-minded as any boy (or more).
It may be that the bad effects of feminism on girls -- their increasing arrogance, crudity, and deceit -- will be the death of feminism.
A somewhat silly story here, is a little media storm about one of the "posh" clubs in London. To be honest most people will be unconcerned or if they think about it at all think the club is old fashioned. Yet of course feminists have to wade in. Like this https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/garrick-men-club-women-sexist-patriarchy-b2524087.html
It is a classic; arguing not for equality at all. As usual the reasons fly far beyond anything to do with the thing itself, a private members social club. It ranges from the % of women in the British Parliament (a matter for electorates and political appoinments). Equal Rights at work (as we know in fact almost all European countries give unequal rights in terms of parental leave and "maternity leave" to women! While for instance all EU members have to have legislation guaranteeing equal pay for the same job before they can join) Then we swing into car safety !? Flip into the developing world on child brides and careen back to the very different patterns of jobs and careers in the rich western countries.
"Together, women make up just 32 per cent of members of the Commons and the Lords. Meanwhile, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), only six countries give women equal legal work rights as men. The WEF also found that women are 47 per cent more likely to suffer severe injuries in car crashes because safety features are designed for men and that 33,000 girls become child brides every day. Oh, and it’s going to take roughly 108 years to close the gender pay gap."
Perhaps sensing the irrelevance of all this to argue men should not be allowed to have social clubs, nor be able to join those traditionally for women. The author flips into the notion that men are inherently abusive monsters and this is why they should be excluded.
Way to go to lose the sympathies of men, if your argument for preventing them forming social clubs combines a set of unconnected and irrelevant "facts" topped off with a claim men are inherently violent abusers! One can see for men who earn the same as women in the same job, have never imagined marrying a school girl, puts on and adjusts their safety belt, would be grateful for some paternity leave, sees all the additional help and "positive action" for women not available to help his career and who doesn't beat his girlfriend and sees here safely home. That they will simply see feminism as "being shouted at for things I haven't done". And of course may start to recognize many negative behaviours from their female contemporaries as "abuse" as a result of the indoctrination courses.
"Together, women make up just 32 per cent of members of the Commons and the Lords. Meanwhile, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), only six countries give women equal legal work rights as men. The WEF also found that women are 47 per cent more likely to suffer severe injuries in car crashes because safety features are designed for men and that 33,000 girls become child brides every day. Oh, and it’s going to take roughly 108 years to close the gender pay gap".
Somebody made a lovely joke on Twitter/X about the controversy over women getting into the Garrick Club. He noted that it was dangerous because some men might claim to be trans women, thus invading women's space and posing a threat to them.
Hah! I must admit I'm generally happy with the invention of "self identification" because it generally requires nothing more intrusive than dressing up and hair dye and the opportunities for satire and parody are endless. A British comedian Eddie Izzard insists he can spend periods as "Suzy Izzard" and as Eddie "flipping" between "boy mode" and "girl mode" I thinks he's quite serious about it but is a sort of living embodiment of feminisms idiocies. Personally I like "non binary" as that is completely meaningless yet gains one entry to this alternative world.
It’s the turning of the worm. Feminism may have generated real solidarity among young men.
That's funny. The British comedy duo, The Two Ronnie's, did a serial skit in the 70s or early 80s about a world where women ruled, called "The Worm that Turned".
I’m not in the least surprised.
15 years of mandatory gasslighting, and the boys still come out ready and waiting to redpill.
Maybe not quite the blank slates they were thought to be.
Notice yet another double standard in feminist thought here.
but then this is to be expected.
Feminists INSIST that NO MAN can ever DARE speak for any woman because we cannot possibly know what we are talking about.
But devoid of principle or consistency they dare to speak for men at any time, and are completely blind to the hypocrisy.
some channels on video platforms i look at are somewhat misogynist, for they put this down to the evil of women's intrinsic nature .
But I prefer to think that this evil, which is real , is more to be described by whole generations of women being, pampered, indulged and spoiled.
The old dictum "abusus non tollit usum" springs to mind. Look it up"
Yes it appears that the "lived experience" of white boys and men can be ignored or howled down.
My sister was giving me a hard time, once, about me 'denying the lived experience' of my girlfriend at the time. I asked "what about my lived experience?" and she literally shouted "YOU DON'T HAVE ANY!"
That was when I realized that feminist jargon usually means something very different than the common meanings of the words used. To an academic feminist, 'lived experience' is reserved for the 'marginalized' and specifically excludes the 'privileged'.
"A key element to feminist analysis is a commitment to the creation of knowledge grounded in the experiences of people belonging to marginalized groups, including for example, women, people of color, people in the Global South, immigrants, indigenous people, gay, lesbian, queer, and trans people, poor and working-class people, and disabled people."
https://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/chapter/chapter-test-under-main-body/
No men don't have lived experience according to feminism - just patriarchal indoctrination And socialization to dominate and oppress women. The feminist ideology claims masculinity is itself an ideology based on the hatred of women and rejection of all things feminine. Hence male victims of DV in the UK are recorded as male victims of violence against women because feminist ideology dictates men are only victims because they seem to feminine. Deeply dehumazing of men. And this ideology is unchecked and rampant in the UK Parliament. But apparantly misandry isn't systemic or institutional
So in theory poor and working class men as well as those who have a color, immigrate, are indigenous, disabled or from the "Global South" do.
exactly!!!
no appeal to principle here by them!!! So it is only a hate movement
White male privilege annuls that.
Are you familiar with William Holman Hunt's painting "The Scapegoat"? I used to live only a few miles from the small provincial gallery in England where it's hung.
Then there's the chapter on the scapegoat in The Golden Bough.
yes indeed
I'm currently teaching myself Latin and love aphorisms, so thanks very much.
And couldn't pampering etc be called abuse?
It's important to remember that feminists unite because they have made an image in their minds of a common enemy.
If the enemy vanished, they'd turn on each other.
Misery loves company
Oh, they don’t need men to disappear, there are constant wars within the movement, Today’s orthodoxies would have been anathema 25 years ago. Today’s debates would have seemed bizarre to leading feminist noisemakers in the nineties. If the radfems try to take over again, they’ll be pushing policies that today’s feminist mainstream is tiptoeing around because the mass of women they’re attempting to control aren’t knee-jerk misandry.
Misandrist, damnit!
George, remember, non-violent communication! 🧐
Yes its very true of the TERF Wars. As the Judith Butler Gender feminists (biology means nothing its all socially constructed) battle the Gender Critical feminists (its socially constructed but actually women are saintly by nature). I notice that latter constantly try to label the former as MRAs, in a pretty ludicrous attempt to say its all a plot by the patriarchy. If it wasn't for the danger to children's mental and physical health, I'd suggest egging both on as their wars expose feminism as an ideology.
Absolutely agree. If radical gender ideology were not so dangerous to children and to a sane social order, I'd be happy to see all of sports taken over by trans women, and to watch those two despicable feminist groups fight it out, each claiming the other to represent white supremacist patriarchy.
Gradually the "medical" side is being rolled back here in the UK, at least for under 18s. I recall in 2016 it started to be made public that the majority of the under 18s referred for "treatment" were girls. I thought and said then that this would be a game changer, simply because while no one much cared about boys they'd worry about girls. In relatively short time the NHS came under more and more pressure until the "Tavistock" was closed and the idea went from mainstream to something worrying from "Stonewall". Needless to say no feminist, here, addresses the continued preponderance of females in the young seeking to change sex. Increasingly it has become about either trans. sports or trans in prisons and back to familiar feminist "all men are rapists" ground. ...... And the TERFs in particular shout this and then wonder why men don't "support" them!
That’s very much the case. Feminists are always ready to accuse each other of being secret agents of the Patriarchy.
I've seen TERFS on twitter label males pretending to be females as MRAs.
Good point! Whenever feminism is attacked and the feminist listening has no defense she will deflect by saying "feminism is a broad church" . Ignoring the fact that sisterhood will always trump any ideological differences as well as misandry. Even if one feminist disagrees with another, all feminists benefit.
Reminds me of the Iron John movement of the early/mid 90s, when I was in my late teenage/early adult years. I can't remember exactly where I had first heard of it, except in the context of being ridiuculed already in the strictly Leftist media allowed in the house at the time. Pre-internet there was no way to go searching for it on my own to make my own assessment, alas.
Ironically I was heavily into Joseph Campbell at the time thanks to an anthropology class so I picked up similar ideas, the importance of stories to figuring out one's masculinity. Though I dare not say that part out loud, nor was even allowing myself to recognize it at the time. Even more ironic Cambell was encouraged because it was a mental vaccine against the big bad evil patriarchial Christianity and organized religion in general, or so it was believed. Leftys aren't very good at putting 2+2+2 together, I've observed over the years.
The conflation of men's rights and antifeminists movements is common. But technically these are not the same thing. Here's a snippet from the introduction from my book on the history of the MRM where I tackle this conflation:
[Quote] The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) consists of groups or individuals fighting for improved human rights for men. Historically these groups have consisted of men and women agitating for corrections to anti-male customs and laws, for the right of men to live traditional or alternative male roles as they wish, and to challenge the forces attacking that freedom of choice via manipulations of the social and legal environment. The accompanying and no less important of its aims has been to challenge mainstream culture narratives that have reinforced misandric attitudes.
In the absence of a reliable overview of its history the MRM has also been vulnerable to annexing by ideologues who claim the first men’s movement was launched in the 1970s by second wave feminists in an effort to deal with ‘destructive masculine norms,’ and that the Men’s Rights Movement only later branched off from it as a kind of misogynist backlash. Among sources furthering this myth, for example, is the current Wikipedia MRM entry which has suffered repetitive censorship of the now century-long tradition of men’s rights activism – a tradition that proves the ‘feminist origins’ theory non-credible. In place of that long tradition the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article reads:
“The men's rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s.”
Few serious researchers accept that the MRM began in the 1970s, there being numerous examples of well-organized MR activism extending back into the 1800s (see Parts 1-3). Moreover, the ‘men’s liberation movement’ cited in the Wikipedia article was in fact a feminist initiative that arose within the National Organization for Women to foster pro-feminist ideology among men. The Wikipedia misinformation derives from American sociologist Michael Messner who restates popular feminist factoids without having surveyed literature by or about the men’s rights movement over the last 150 years.
The longevity of the MRM has often been overlooked due to such efforts to distort or censor its existence. That censorship is not new, being already described a century ago by men’s rights advocate Ernest B. Bax who wrote about efforts to block the circulation of his pamphlet on the legal disadvantages and discrimination suffered by men entitled The Legal Subjection of Men. Bax referred to censorship from “the influential feminist sisterhood” as being well known among publishers:
“[Socialist-feminists say] the pamphlet The Legal Subjection of Men – in which the present state of the law and its administration between the sexes is given – should be suppressed, and also in the representations made to the Editor from a “Women’s Committee” of the body that I should be muzzled and any statement of mine adverse to Feminism be excluded from the party organs.” [Women’s Privileges and “Rights”, Social Democrat, Vol.13 no.9, September (1909), pp.385-391]
and,
“The apostles of feminism, being unable to make a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [The Fraud of Feminism, (1913), pp.1-2]
As in the examples provided by Bax, the effort to censor men’s voices has continued through all three waves of feminism. It was witnessed recently, for example, with the release of the MRM documentary The Red Pill, which saw groups of feminists threaten and intimidate venues worldwide that had agreed to screen the documentary - venues which later backed out of their agreements due to fear of reprisals. Fortunately The Red Pill went on to become a huge global success, a testament to the hunger of both men and women for fair treatment of their brothers, sons, fathers, male friends and colleagues.
In order to secure free speech there has always existed a tendency within the MRM to push back against feminist-driven censorship of men’s issues, and indeed censorship from other sources. Attacking feminism however has never been the main goal of the movement despite claims by some that the MRM is synonymous with antifeminist backlash. To suggest equivalence is to confuse purely antifeminist movements with the much broader portfolio of the men’s rights movement.
A survey of the last 100 years reveals that the MRM is concerned more directly with issues impacting men and boys such as alimony, genital mutilation of male infants, homelessness, mental illness, false accusations, family court bias, suicide, child custody, low funding for male health issues, legal discrimination, educational performance, and misandry in mainstream culture just to name a few.
[End quote]
Janice, that is an excellent blog pointing out the hypocrisy of the dreadful Australian and other feminist commentators who never let the facts get in the way of their ideological rants. Thanks for telling every one about my efforts to expose the feminist attack on Men's Sheds! I hope some of your readers will watch the talks at our exciting Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference, on June 1. Looks like we will be able to offer live streaming for those unable to attend the Sydney event.
https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/restoring-the-presumption-of-innocence
Bettina, are you aware of Tickle v Giggle? Sall Grover, CEO of a women's only networking app, is being sued by a tranny after being rejected because he isn't a woman. There are obvious parallels to the men's shed movement but nobody seems to be concerned at all that men aren't allowed on the site unless they claim to be women.
Thank you, Bettina; I'll be very interested in the talks at the conference. Good for you, as always.
I think I had seen at least part of your men's shed video when it first came out, but watching it again was a true pleasure. You did a great job.
I found the entire article hilarious, as a Man. 🤷 Dear Lord, I swear, the SECOND that I rely on a Gov't programme because I'm a bloke, I automatically, magically, become a sheila! Because the mere THOUGHT of purple haired, HR Wimmin, earnestly and diligently protecting my "maleness"(?) ( my WHAT?) SHRIVELS ME MANHOOD! AHAHAHAHA! Lezzo, seperatist, NSW Tearchers Union reps & local Council Admin Specialists to the rescue!!!
Having recently moved to the Mid North Coast, having forever abandoned (Babylon)Sydney I had the opportunity to visit the Mens Sheds at Taree, Wingham and Old Bar. Let's talk about a Feminist Dream of Mens Corrals, I mean ... sheds... let's...
Fact: Mens Sheds are full of Machines that are tools. Wood tools. Metal tools. Tools for tools, for "tools". The inverted commas "Tools" are the blokes. Men NOT wanted in the retirement houses slash villages, that they thought that they worked towards, all their lives. "Get out! Do something", cry the Harpies. Screech. Screech. Wimmin louder than the cockatoos.
Needing some French bar caddy wheels turned, I visited these Centres of Ancient Wisdom, these Druidic Contemplation Temple Sheds, for some Wisdom 🤔.
"Jeez, lovely work. French. 1920s, look at that, no nails & they hand turned those little, spoked wheels..."
So, ya can fix 'em?
"NAHHH! Maybe me dad, well, me granddad, maybe he knew"
Dead, huh?
"Yeah"...
Each shed, 40 blokes without a C.L.U.E. They can't even turn half the fkn machines ON! 🤣 Gov't programme that allocated old sheds, some old machines, designed by some broken down Mandarin, for this lame arse window dressing. This con.
I walked into the Old Bar Manshed. There were 20 blokes at a table, taking notes... from a WOMAN. I walked out and asked the blokes outside if they found it ironic. I think they were on their wives' valium.
Instead of a multi million dollar mental health programme, to help Men in Retirement, after 40 years in harness, 40 years a wage earner, we got a bandaid solution and some dusty sheds. Where Wimmin tell us how to be Men.
Oh. The Irony. 😑
Ouch. I guess they took to heart the academic article on diverse masculinities.
Yeah, beaudy mate! Onya.
Irony,, love it cobber.
OK. Here is another out of left field. One New Year's Eve, I was in church and we were praying about New Year's resolutions. A prayer came into my mind that was a very unusual prayer. I don't know where it came from but I prayed for it as my New Year's resolution. The prayer was "To believe for men as the spiritual heads of their families."
My relations with men, as a single divorced woman for some years, had been very poor and I would have to say sordid. The result of praying that prayer was stunning. It turned my whole life and my relationships with men right around. Since that day I find that men relate in a way that could only be regarded as excellent with me. While I am not unaware of problems around male behavior, I have to think now that women's attitudes to men and how we approach them have a stunning influence on how men behave.
I have mentioned this prayer to some leading feminists and they react as if I had burned them. I fully understand that it is an extraordinary prayer in today's context however I think it gets right at the heart of the problem. If women started to treat men as people highly worthy of respect and looking up to I think we would see a massive turnaround in the whole male-female situation.
And women's behaviour in relation to men can be stunningly appalling.
To have ladies one needs gentlemen and indeed vice versa. After all the very core of the Christian message is to do as you would be done by. Of course its not infallible but in general the golden rule does work. Mutual respect.
Apart from the fact that intimate-partner violence has been shown to be more-or-less equal between the sexes (notwithstanding men's strength advantage), the unknown elephant in the room is how often women either deliberately or unconsciously goad men into violence to prove their point. This is a tactic well understood by repressive regimes throughout history.
Another great article Janice.
FRA's flourish by denigrating and maligning all men, spruik [white] male privilege for all of their woes, by being dismissive of all men, etc and project (gaslight?) their abhorrent thoughts, behaviours and actions onto MRA's as a means to deflect well founded criticism of their self-serving misandry.
Sadly, I see much of my own experience in this piece. The reality is that feminist women seem absolutely petrified at the thought that ANY attention to the needs or rights of men. It goes beyond fear that men's needs will take from a limited pie, thus "depriving" women of all the spoils. It appears to be directed at the notion that the conduct of women as it impacts men is subject to criticism and punishment. The core belief of feminism seems to be that women have all the rights while men bear all the responsibilities and how dare anyone suggest anything otherwise.
Even when efforts are made to address an important issue in a gender neutral fashion, such as protecting the due process rights of the accused and proper accountability for false accusers, invariably the feminist objection is that such policies will negatively impact women. Ironically, this is actually an admission that, contrary to feminist propaganda, women not only commit unethical, unlawful and abusive acts, but that they also systemically lie about such acts. Claiming that objective due process procedures will prevent women who have experience abuse from coming forward makes no sense unless women on some level realize that many of their complaints simply won't pass muster (or are outright fabrications).
The history of the right to due process and to confront one's accuser in the US Bill of Rights is worth noting here. The Salem witch trials were a massive tragedy and scandal that, let's be honest, was primarily caused by women seeking to exert power over others they disliked, followed by covering up for their own lies and misconduct. The scandal of the witch trials was known throughout New England in the years leading up to the American Revolution and played a big part in the Founding Fathers attempts to protect the rights of the accused. It should be noted that nearly 250 years later, it is STILL women via feminism who are attacking these same rights because they undermine the ability of false accusers to bully others with their crimes of "victimhood". This is certainly conduct engaged in by male and female feminists, but the pure hatred that one sees whenever a man attempts to raise issues regarding the mistreatment of men or misconduct by women such as false accusations is coming from feminist WOMEN. It suggests that all the evils ascribed to male patriarchy are actually a projection of the psyche of women, far more than descriptions of the conduct of men. Indeed...the misandry of feminism appears to be a key characteristic of the female sex generally. I do not like generalizations of that sort, but observations suggest that this is a women's problem that can only be addressed if we call it what it is.
Feminists will say it is not that they don't want rights for the male accused; but they claim the male accused already has all the power and too many rights. He is already believed, allegedly. He has friends in high places; male judges, etc., automatically side with men because of patriarchy. Therefore, slightly lessening the rights of the accused merely evens out the field, giving female victims a chance to have their voice heard and to find justice.
It's a very difficult position to argue against given that most women and many men believe that the culture is biased against women (even though psychologists like Roy Baumeister and Alice Eagly have shown that the opposite is true; women have an in-group bias and men prefer women).
Starting from this widely-believed (false) assumption of the pro-male bias, feminists always have it both ways: when a man is convicted in a court of law, it is proof that men are terrible people, a threat to women, who must not be given undue rights to self-defense; when a man is acquitted in a court of law, it is proof that men have too many rights to self-defense, women are not believed, and the laws must be changed to benefit female victims. It is never taken as proof that the man was falsely accused; or that women are dangerous.
Yes, it's an elegant Catch 22 whereby a man is always in the wrong! That's basically the central tenet of feminism. It's like original sin - the mere fact of being born a man puts us in the wrong!
This is EXACTLY right...which means that what we face here is institutional and cultural bias against men and their rights. So...how do we respond? We must speak honestly and denounce and counter feminist mythology whenever and wherever it manifests itself. This means filing legal action where appropriate not only against false accusers but organizations that act with bias against the rights of men...even if this has a side effect of demoralizing those women who actually have legitimate complaints. It is time we adhere to the rule of law as written...not as feminists wish it was written.
Plenty of men are pushing feminism, Sadredin.
I never said there are not men who support feminist policies. I have yet, however, to encounter any man who imposes feminist policies with the level of misandryist hate that motivates women. (You will note that I do not say feminist women. While feminist hate is not practiced by All women, we need to be honest and say that it is practiced by a significant minority if not the majority of women in the West. The closest analogue to such hate by men is the misogyny of Sharia law under Islam. Both Western Gender Feminism and Sharia Misogyny are violations of human rights.)
Thanks for clarifying, Sadredin. I agree an awful lot of western women have been hit by the feminist parasite. Probably most feminist men just go along with it to keep the peace or get laid.
Feminist men don't just "go along" with feminism, they fully embrace feminism and actively support feminist women, defending them and attacking other men on their behalf. They do so because it makes them feel superior to other men, and gains them approval and acceptance amongst women, particularly educated women. Protecting these women makes them feel manly and righteous, all the more so if they are fathers of daughters. Ironically they're driven by the same patriarchal instincts which feminism decries, but they've been harnessed to the feminist cause. That's why feminism has been so successful and unstoppable. The feminist agenda is enabled, implemented, and enforced by feminized men - politicians, judges, police, family men - who pander to the women in their lives and persecute "rogue males" who run foul of women. I'd like to see more discussion of these male enablers of feminism, rather than scatterbrains like Caro and Gilmour, who really are just noisy stupid women, incapable of rational argument.
Good idea, I like it!
Very true...though we can see increasingly feminists have become so toxic that men are declining to associate with women at all. Women complain that men aren't interested in relationships or marriages with them, but fail to take a good hard look in the mirror at their own and their sisters conduct. This is a healthy response in my opinion. The proper response to misandry is a combination of general disengagement from women while the majority remain silent about misandry and outright defensive legal action against the worst perpetrators of misandrist abuse whether directed at one self or in one's community. This means outright opposition to and hostility to misandrist feminist programming (counter speech to feminist hate speech) and calling out of inequitable organizations like women's commissions, special programming for women in fields like STEM and sexual harassment advocacy organizations that refuse to practice due diligence against false accusers or abide by due process rights for the accused. Essentially any organization that practices "believe the women" should be seen as misandrist with refusal to cooperate or support the organization or any woman who seeks their representation/assistance.
Fathers! Before you go to bed tonight commit to turning your boys into men. We can sit here and moan about feminists, mean women, bitches, witches, ho’s or whatever catch word you think works, but nothing and I mean nothing works like one on one, or two or three time, with your male children. If you’re lucky enough to have the time and resources, maybe you can include some fatherless child.
And as you warm up the convo, don’t spare them the truth. 10 year olds can be spoken to like adults. Their teachers, women on the street, female (and even male) doctors, little girls at school or religious leaders never tire of ‘cutting them down to size’, so you do the opposite. This doesn’t preclude time with your female offspring but thats a different conversation.
Not promoting our team under the guise of ‘not wanting to raise a toxic male’ is bullshit and you know it. Regardless of what hemisphere you live in get out there with your kid. He needs the ‘tools and language’ to combat this formless blob of feminist tyranny and you’re the only game in town for this.
Do it right and he may never need the protection and inclusivity of a ‘shed’ or a tent or a ‘yurt’ in the great beyond, and anytime he reads or hears one of these feminist hags, blather on, he’ll know that a hardy laugh is the best and only response to this drivel!
We and only ‘We’ built Western Civilization, and because we have allowed howling, domineering feminists to take over the narrative over the last 60 years, look where we are. Time to take back the controls before the train leaves the track!