Confession. I had read about her sending the sexual images to RFK and her persistence in continuing that practice. I didn't really think that much of it....until I read your suggestion that we reverse the sexes and consider what we would think of a man who had done something similar. Bingo! I woke up. If a man had done the same thing I would have seen it as badly intrusive, in very poor taste and bordering on abusive. But when I thought of the woman doing this it didn't register as that! I had to laugh at myself and admit that my own gynocentrism was the filter that had caused such a double standard. Gynocentrism runs silent, and it runs deep.
Holding women accountable goes against our gynocentric default. We need to practice, practice, practice holding women accountable!
Think if all the perverted female teachers preying on boys in school and all the comments you'll read saying things like, " I wish I had teachers like her"
I see those on the 'conservative' websites like Breitbart, when they run a story about the next female teacher having sex with a male student. Oh ho ho! where was she when I was in junior high! and etc.
I stand back in awe of Amerika. It is a head-shaker of a nation and cannot be mended, for there are no men to men-dit. Little wonder the place is Feminist Paradise when the 'right wing' men are nothing but goofy, overgrown lads. What must the lefties be like?!
I recently heard a conversation between my younger sister and my nephew's wife relating to a four year old boy. A couple of blokes discussing a four year old girl in such terms could expect people to be queuing up wanting to kill them.
Hi Tom. I was genuinely surprised by your confession, until prompted, to recognise another reported instance of heterosexual misbehaviour as one of gendered double standards. I agree it's just as well we have Janice's eternal vigilance to remind us old patriarchs of the necessity to routinely apply "gender reversal" to just about everything these days.
<femme fatales, Now, however, most people are afraid to criticize them.>
People are afraid for very good reasons: the level of mobbing that occurs should they attempt to discuss female misbehaviour is taken as an attack on all of the female gender. This is the modern version of the Lynch mob.
The other and perhaps most poignant reason is that as long as the focus is maintained only on male misbehaviour. Feminists and their allies can claim the high moral ground and avoid having their own destructive behaviour scrutinised.
This is perhaps the finest example of female bullying tactics used by Feminists: the indirect aggression and reputation destruction only of the male gender, which is maintained by mobbing.
Research into female bullying behaviour demonstrates that the main perpetrator remains hidden as she orchestrates others to do her dirty work for her, and her minions keep her hidden from being identified.
These women are perhaps the "Invisible Psychopaths" that have been hidden from view.
In my opinion, they are aptly display the dark triad of Machiavellianism.
Christopher Rufo, like him of loathe him, wrote a piece on "The Cluster B Society" that was published in City Journal initially, but is also posted to Substack, a link to which appears below. We are all paying a terrible price in mistrust and in the very real harm done by the prevalence of psychopathy.
Oh, I totally agree! That's why I loathe feminism. Fighting for equality and equity means fighting for the men who are also hurt by the patriarchy. Masculinity and femininity are bullshit constructs made up by the ruling class to keep us fighting each other and not them. I mean look how many so called feminist worship the fashion industry which is just a front for sex trafficking. I call out women's abuses of men whenever I can.
'Of all the commentary on this story, the one I found most revealing was feminist Moira Donegan’s “The real victims of Olivia Nuzzi’s affair with RFK Jr are other female journalists” in The Guardian. As the title makes clear, Donegan was determined that there must be a female victim (or victims) in the case, so she chose women like herself, allegedly now “embarrassed by unfair comparisons.”'
In the Guardian guide to mental gymnastics, the only rule is you must always land in the feminist position. The journalistic equivalent of a smug smile guarantees perfect marks. It is exasperating, but reassuring that, as with every other ideological stance in that rag, nobody outside their intimate circle of virtue vultures gives them any credence whatsoever.
Of course this conduct is atrocious and the feminist double standard is in play. There are several possible mechanisms for recourse.
1. Unless and until women who engage in such sexual misconduct are held responsible for their actions, sexual harassment in the workplace should be considered modus operandi and legalized. In effect...by engaging in such conduct women as a group have consented to such conduct in return...or
2. Unless and until women who engage in such sexual misconduct are held responsible for their actions, we must protect men from harassment by refusing to allow women into professional roles that allow for such misconduct. Time to refuse to be interviewed by female reporters. Media outlets whose female reporters cannot get stories will quickly replace them with men. Does this threaten the rights of "innocent" women? Of course...and appropriately so in response to the misconduct that women have enabled.
Personally, I would simply prefer for women to be held accountable. Until that happens...I will engage in Option 2.
Thank you, feminism, for teaching us that holding women in any way responsible for their actions is misogyny. I would have thought the contrary to be a more valid perspective. Isn’t it doing women a disservice to shield them from all forms of accountability? Who would want a surgeon, an architect, an attorney or any other provider of important professional services if they are allowed to engage in any degree of misconduct with impunity?
Whenever I read about stuff like this I take a moment to thank myself for a working life spent mostly in male-exclusive occupations. They’re more dangerous and certainly lower in social credit. These have been small prices to pay, considering what I have been spared.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is an admirable human being. I can see why Cutie Pie shook her tail feathers at him. It’s apparently her main mode of expression. If what you described is accurate, the worst likely explanation is that Bobby wised up to her and blocked her out two beats later than ideal. Do I give a crap about it? Not even a little one.
There’s a certain amount of amusement produced when feminists confront the reality that women are perfectly capable of predatory behavior. Patriarchy becomes the completely meaningless way of shifting any blame from the perfect feminine essence.
We were planning a dinner party, 10 or 12 people. Liz asked who I wanted to invite. I said ‘how about Joanie? She knows everyone.’ Joanie was recently split. Liz said ‘no’. Pretty emphatically. I said ‘are you guys on the outs?’ She explained none of the women would appreciate us inviting a SINGLE woman to the party. She said Joanie is a threat. I said Joanie is your friend. She isn’t going after a local husband. Liz said ‘don’t kid yourself. She wants a husband and one of ours would work.’ It blew me away. Sisterhood! Ha!
As one of my favorite youtube creators likes to say, "It's all women until it's no women." The only safe option for men is to treat all women like they would handle a rattlesnake - by staying away from them and avoiding all contact with women as much as possible.
This is such a classic "tease and accuse" scenario its hard to believe RFKJ would have fallen for it. He's probably faced hundreds of such women in his life.
There fundamental basis to this asymmetric behaviour is human sexual dimorphism. Men and women behave differently and mostly align with the "pursuers and pursued", although not always.
Behavioural differences between men & women are a taboo subject within feminism but in this case since the asymmetry benefits the female it is allowed to stand. Of course anytime the benefit would go the other way such differences are denied and labelled as sexism/patriarchy etc. Home ground advantage whether you play at home or away...
Feminism is a comfortable bed that women have made for themselves. If attacked from one side, just turn to the other. Both sides are equally snuggly. You're safe no matter what happens.
Funny how feminists always said that for men, sex is about power over women. Now we have women like Nuzzi using sex to attain power over men, because they know that men will often risk losing their power for sex. Patriarchy Theory is just feminists trying to work out who they are.
It need hardly be said that if RFK Jr. had sent nude photos of himself to Nuzzi, persisting even when she blocked him, and finding dishonest ways to get around the block, most people would know what to call his behavior and who to blame. He would be perceived as a sexual harasser, perhaps a stalker, and would be considered guilty of serious misconduct and abuse of power.
When the shoe is on the other foot, of course, most commentators are not sure what to say.
They can call her the same thing, a sexual stalker and harasser.
She's got the iconic Smug Mug look . . . that creepy half-smile. Had her way in all things since she was two, nice going Dad! Peel off that cake makeup and she's Jane Average underneath. Nothin' special. Peel away the glitz on her soul, you'll find the bricks lining the floor of the NYC sewer.
A gold-digger who trades in her fading sexuality to lure-in credulous men with money and/or power. Any experienced man would take one look at her and flee. Add that she's a NYC player? Make that rev up the motorcycle and peg the speedometer. Only evil can come of interaction with this demonette.
Her fiancé looks like standard silly simp. They must grow on trees in the U.S. Lord knows the country is full of these goofy, clueless manboys, imagining to themselves they've hit the jackpot. Probably took her all of twenty minutes to zoom LIzza totally. Would eat rat-turds out of her hand if she asked.
America is tiresome, a gaudy exhausted whore. Nuzzi is its imago. But thanks to Janice for taking the deep dive into this cesspool. There is instruction to be gained from this old, so very old, story.
I had to give mine up three or four years ago . . . at age 68, hadn't the strength to keep it upright at stop signs. On the unimproved and heavily pot-holed 'roads' in this country, it fell over on me twice. Others had to pull it off me, couldn't do it myself. Cracked some ribs. Oh well.
> Here is feminism to a T: not about equality or justice, and certainly not about ending sexual harassment in the workplace, but about forbidding criticisms or restraints on female sexual power.
I think that to say "women had no means of self-reliance outside of prostitution" doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny. I'm not saying the sexes were always equal (or even are now) but for most of history, European women could live alone under extraordinary circumstances. Also women worked to supplement their family's finances far more often than people seem to think.
Female ironmongers five centuries ago? Sounds like bullshit to me. Show me a woman who can swing a hammer without injuring herself! Women and tools don't mix!
"Show me a woman who can swing a hammer without injuring herself!"
I spent several years training with some of the strongest women in the world including one who could throw an eight pound hammer nearly seventy metres.
"Women and tools don't mix!"
Maybe true in the modern world. Our ancestors were made of much tougher stuff. Nor were there feminists constantly telling everybody how weak and ineffectual women are.
For your info, the term "swing a hammer" refers to hammering a nail into wood, not the hammer throw event in track and field competition. Women cannot swing a hammer, which is why women don't build houses.
Excellent piece Janice.
Confession. I had read about her sending the sexual images to RFK and her persistence in continuing that practice. I didn't really think that much of it....until I read your suggestion that we reverse the sexes and consider what we would think of a man who had done something similar. Bingo! I woke up. If a man had done the same thing I would have seen it as badly intrusive, in very poor taste and bordering on abusive. But when I thought of the woman doing this it didn't register as that! I had to laugh at myself and admit that my own gynocentrism was the filter that had caused such a double standard. Gynocentrism runs silent, and it runs deep.
Holding women accountable goes against our gynocentric default. We need to practice, practice, practice holding women accountable!
Thanks for the wake up call Janice!
Well done.
Think if all the perverted female teachers preying on boys in school and all the comments you'll read saying things like, " I wish I had teachers like her"
Yes. Also comments saying things like "Lucky boy."
Sore hands from all the high fives
I had one of those. It wasn't comfortable.
I see those on the 'conservative' websites like Breitbart, when they run a story about the next female teacher having sex with a male student. Oh ho ho! where was she when I was in junior high! and etc.
I stand back in awe of Amerika. It is a head-shaker of a nation and cannot be mended, for there are no men to men-dit. Little wonder the place is Feminist Paradise when the 'right wing' men are nothing but goofy, overgrown lads. What must the lefties be like?!
Right-wing men are often just as feminist as left-wing men, determined that women must never be held responsible for anything.
Same here in Ireland and the UK.
It runs so very, very deep. Baked-in by the gynocratic culture.
Kudos for telling on yourself. It's a shame, but in America the guard must always be kept up. Not so in some other parts of the world.
I recently heard a conversation between my younger sister and my nephew's wife relating to a four year old boy. A couple of blokes discussing a four year old girl in such terms could expect people to be queuing up wanting to kill them.
What were they saying?
I'd rather not. However they won't be doing it again.
Hi Tom. I was genuinely surprised by your confession, until prompted, to recognise another reported instance of heterosexual misbehaviour as one of gendered double standards. I agree it's just as well we have Janice's eternal vigilance to remind us old patriarchs of the necessity to routinely apply "gender reversal" to just about everything these days.
“Schrödinger’ s feminist” both empowered and victim simultaneously until something happens and she chooses which state offers the most benefit.
See also: Schrodinger’s patriarchy, benevolent sexism, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_fear_of_crime
<femme fatales, Now, however, most people are afraid to criticize them.>
People are afraid for very good reasons: the level of mobbing that occurs should they attempt to discuss female misbehaviour is taken as an attack on all of the female gender. This is the modern version of the Lynch mob.
The other and perhaps most poignant reason is that as long as the focus is maintained only on male misbehaviour. Feminists and their allies can claim the high moral ground and avoid having their own destructive behaviour scrutinised.
This is perhaps the finest example of female bullying tactics used by Feminists: the indirect aggression and reputation destruction only of the male gender, which is maintained by mobbing.
Research into female bullying behaviour demonstrates that the main perpetrator remains hidden as she orchestrates others to do her dirty work for her, and her minions keep her hidden from being identified.
These women are perhaps the "Invisible Psychopaths" that have been hidden from view.
In my opinion, they are aptly display the dark triad of Machiavellianism.
🎯🎯🎯
Christopher Rufo, like him of loathe him, wrote a piece on "The Cluster B Society" that was published in City Journal initially, but is also posted to Substack, a link to which appears below. We are all paying a terrible price in mistrust and in the very real harm done by the prevalence of psychopathy.
https://christopherrufo.com/p/institutionalized-derangement?r=nb38r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Oh, I totally agree! That's why I loathe feminism. Fighting for equality and equity means fighting for the men who are also hurt by the patriarchy. Masculinity and femininity are bullshit constructs made up by the ruling class to keep us fighting each other and not them. I mean look how many so called feminist worship the fashion industry which is just a front for sex trafficking. I call out women's abuses of men whenever I can.
You loathe feminism, but believe in the patriarchy? Isn't that a feminist concept?
No🤦♀️🤡
Patriarchy isn't a feminist concept?
'Of all the commentary on this story, the one I found most revealing was feminist Moira Donegan’s “The real victims of Olivia Nuzzi’s affair with RFK Jr are other female journalists” in The Guardian. As the title makes clear, Donegan was determined that there must be a female victim (or victims) in the case, so she chose women like herself, allegedly now “embarrassed by unfair comparisons.”'
In the Guardian guide to mental gymnastics, the only rule is you must always land in the feminist position. The journalistic equivalent of a smug smile guarantees perfect marks. It is exasperating, but reassuring that, as with every other ideological stance in that rag, nobody outside their intimate circle of virtue vultures gives them any credence whatsoever.
Well, Da Hughes, as PM Jim Hacker noted, The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to be running the country.
Thank you, I’d forgotten that great quote (for anyone mystified it’s from the iconic British TV series Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Genius).
virtue vultures and vagina victims should be a name of a book...
Moira donegan loves to play victim.
Of course this conduct is atrocious and the feminist double standard is in play. There are several possible mechanisms for recourse.
1. Unless and until women who engage in such sexual misconduct are held responsible for their actions, sexual harassment in the workplace should be considered modus operandi and legalized. In effect...by engaging in such conduct women as a group have consented to such conduct in return...or
2. Unless and until women who engage in such sexual misconduct are held responsible for their actions, we must protect men from harassment by refusing to allow women into professional roles that allow for such misconduct. Time to refuse to be interviewed by female reporters. Media outlets whose female reporters cannot get stories will quickly replace them with men. Does this threaten the rights of "innocent" women? Of course...and appropriately so in response to the misconduct that women have enabled.
Personally, I would simply prefer for women to be held accountable. Until that happens...I will engage in Option 2.
I like your comment(s) for pushing ideas to their logical extremes, thereby clarifying our understanding of the situation and its consequences.
Thank you, feminism, for teaching us that holding women in any way responsible for their actions is misogyny. I would have thought the contrary to be a more valid perspective. Isn’t it doing women a disservice to shield them from all forms of accountability? Who would want a surgeon, an architect, an attorney or any other provider of important professional services if they are allowed to engage in any degree of misconduct with impunity?
That's why anti-feminism is the radical idea that women are adults.
When will the absurdity and double standards come to an end? 🙃
Roughly when the universe dies.
I was thinking, the day the Earth explodes. Close enough.
You’re a treasure, Janice.
Whenever I read about stuff like this I take a moment to thank myself for a working life spent mostly in male-exclusive occupations. They’re more dangerous and certainly lower in social credit. These have been small prices to pay, considering what I have been spared.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is an admirable human being. I can see why Cutie Pie shook her tail feathers at him. It’s apparently her main mode of expression. If what you described is accurate, the worst likely explanation is that Bobby wised up to her and blocked her out two beats later than ideal. Do I give a crap about it? Not even a little one.
There’s a certain amount of amusement produced when feminists confront the reality that women are perfectly capable of predatory behavior. Patriarchy becomes the completely meaningless way of shifting any blame from the perfect feminine essence.
Ha! Women are well aware other women are capable of predatory behaviour. Ask a recently divorced woman how many dinner parties she is now invited to.
Feminists will always blame men for women’s bad behavior.
We were planning a dinner party, 10 or 12 people. Liz asked who I wanted to invite. I said ‘how about Joanie? She knows everyone.’ Joanie was recently split. Liz said ‘no’. Pretty emphatically. I said ‘are you guys on the outs?’ She explained none of the women would appreciate us inviting a SINGLE woman to the party. She said Joanie is a threat. I said Joanie is your friend. She isn’t going after a local husband. Liz said ‘don’t kid yourself. She wants a husband and one of ours would work.’ It blew me away. Sisterhood! Ha!
As one of my favorite youtube creators likes to say, "It's all women until it's no women." The only safe option for men is to treat all women like they would handle a rattlesnake - by staying away from them and avoiding all contact with women as much as possible.
I know lots of men execs. None of us will hire a female assistant. Zero. The risk is too great.
🤡
This is such a classic "tease and accuse" scenario its hard to believe RFKJ would have fallen for it. He's probably faced hundreds of such women in his life.
There fundamental basis to this asymmetric behaviour is human sexual dimorphism. Men and women behave differently and mostly align with the "pursuers and pursued", although not always.
Behavioural differences between men & women are a taboo subject within feminism but in this case since the asymmetry benefits the female it is allowed to stand. Of course anytime the benefit would go the other way such differences are denied and labelled as sexism/patriarchy etc. Home ground advantage whether you play at home or away...
Feminism is a comfortable bed that women have made for themselves. If attacked from one side, just turn to the other. Both sides are equally snuggly. You're safe no matter what happens.
There's the problem, THERE ARE NO BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES between men and women. WE ARE ONE SPECIES 🤦♀️
Uh, no. Just no. Where's your clown tag for that?
We are one species 🤦♀️
Get lost.
Do you really believe this is true? Or are you stating it out of allegiance to your ideological loyalties?
Yes, it's true 🤦♀️🤡
You're claiming that males and females of the same species exhibit identical behaviour. Why would you make such a ridiculous statement?
It's not a ridiculous statement. We're ONE SPECIES🤦♀️ 🤡
Funny how feminists always said that for men, sex is about power over women. Now we have women like Nuzzi using sex to attain power over men, because they know that men will often risk losing their power for sex. Patriarchy Theory is just feminists trying to work out who they are.
🤡
"Funny how feminists always said that for men, sex is about power over women."
ALWAYS assume projection with feminists.
🤡
It need hardly be said that if RFK Jr. had sent nude photos of himself to Nuzzi, persisting even when she blocked him, and finding dishonest ways to get around the block, most people would know what to call his behavior and who to blame. He would be perceived as a sexual harasser, perhaps a stalker, and would be considered guilty of serious misconduct and abuse of power.
When the shoe is on the other foot, of course, most commentators are not sure what to say.
They can call her the same thing, a sexual stalker and harasser.
She's got the iconic Smug Mug look . . . that creepy half-smile. Had her way in all things since she was two, nice going Dad! Peel off that cake makeup and she's Jane Average underneath. Nothin' special. Peel away the glitz on her soul, you'll find the bricks lining the floor of the NYC sewer.
A gold-digger who trades in her fading sexuality to lure-in credulous men with money and/or power. Any experienced man would take one look at her and flee. Add that she's a NYC player? Make that rev up the motorcycle and peg the speedometer. Only evil can come of interaction with this demonette.
Her fiancé looks like standard silly simp. They must grow on trees in the U.S. Lord knows the country is full of these goofy, clueless manboys, imagining to themselves they've hit the jackpot. Probably took her all of twenty minutes to zoom LIzza totally. Would eat rat-turds out of her hand if she asked.
America is tiresome, a gaudy exhausted whore. Nuzzi is its imago. But thanks to Janice for taking the deep dive into this cesspool. There is instruction to be gained from this old, so very old, story.
Pegged my speedo on a number of motorcycles! I rode for 57 years, since I was 15. Just stopped a year ago. Eyesight. Heart breaking!
I had to give mine up three or four years ago . . . at age 68, hadn't the strength to keep it upright at stop signs. On the unimproved and heavily pot-holed 'roads' in this country, it fell over on me twice. Others had to pull it off me, couldn't do it myself. Cracked some ribs. Oh well.
Sure do miss it.
And bikes coming out now are so beautiful.
She's Jane Average even WITH the cake makeup!
> Here is feminism to a T: not about equality or justice, and certainly not about ending sexual harassment in the workplace, but about forbidding criticisms or restraints on female sexual power.
*If heads, I win; if tails, you lose*.
Sex is in a woman gender profile. It may be argued that under patriarchy, women had no means of self-reliance outside of prostitution.
During that last millennium, women weaponized sex, reproduction, children, & the institution known under the normincature of family/divorce courts.
The feminism we live under these days isn't about being equal, but getting even.
I think that to say "women had no means of self-reliance outside of prostitution" doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny. I'm not saying the sexes were always equal (or even are now) but for most of history, European women could live alone under extraordinary circumstances. Also women worked to supplement their family's finances far more often than people seem to think.
"I think that to say "women had no means of self-reliance outside of prostitution" doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny."
It's complete bullshit. There were women in trade guilds such as ironmongery five centuries ago.
Female ironmongers five centuries ago? Sounds like bullshit to me. Show me a woman who can swing a hammer without injuring herself! Women and tools don't mix!
"Show me a woman who can swing a hammer without injuring herself!"
I spent several years training with some of the strongest women in the world including one who could throw an eight pound hammer nearly seventy metres.
"Women and tools don't mix!"
Maybe true in the modern world. Our ancestors were made of much tougher stuff. Nor were there feminists constantly telling everybody how weak and ineffectual women are.
For your info, the term "swing a hammer" refers to hammering a nail into wood, not the hammer throw event in track and field competition. Women cannot swing a hammer, which is why women don't build houses.
🤡
Your drive by bitch blathering adds nothing... Why even try?
🤡