We have seen it in movies for decades. The comical hilarity of a guy getting kneed in his testicles by his angry spouse. Male pain is considered a ‘yeah whatever’ by many women. My brother was in a course where people were getting diplomas in mediation and arbitration. They were role playing. Every single role play had the man as the bad guy. It was my brother and five women taking the course. He objected and all the women said ‘oh come on. It is always the man’. He said ‘studies show 80% of domestic violence is started by the woman.’ The women all told him off. He pushed a bit and said ‘you can’t mediate if you walk in with an anti male bias. The fact is women start a lot of fights. They hit men very easily.’ At that point a very large woman sitting beside him in the circle of chairs said ‘Stop it Dave. This doesn’t happen.’ And then WHACKED him on the shoulder. She was big. Big arms. Probably weighed 250 or more. He said she hit him hard. But, being an ex east end punk he was used to violence against him. He said ‘thanks Debra. Nothing you could have done could have proved my point more than you hitting me because you didn’t like what I said.’ It did lead to an honest discussion. Debra was appalled at what she had done unthinkingly. The general discussion though was 1. Men don’t feel pain like women do. 2. Men deserve it. 3. That was one event that wasn’t common. The only person who really seemed to have changed somewhat was the hitter, Debra. She was shocked at herself and seemed to actually had her biases challenged.
Exactly so. It is generally believed that women can't really hurt anyone--and when they do (on those rare occasions), it's always because they were hurt first, they were scared, they were abused, they had no way out, or a man manipulated them into it. This has been the case for centuries, at least.
I wonder about this. I know its difficult to know the further back one goes. But I do think there was a greater tendency to believe both sexes were capable of moral and immoral behavior. There appeared, in England at least, a striking shift between the 18th and 19th Century. One measure of this might be the dramatic fall in the % of the imprisoned population which were female, from about a quarter in the 18th Century to 5% in the late Victorian era. Most of this was achieved by "reforms" that made females not responsible; for debts., for crimes "influenced" by husbands or lovers, crimes where their mind was unbalanced etc. Prior to this busy period of legislation making in the mid Victorian period the attitude had a more individual responsibility cast. Put simply each person was responsible for their sins whatever the temptation or excuse. That's not to say there wasn't the usual gynocentric background to this but I do think there is a shift. Curiously I was first alerted to this by "Marxist" feminist researchers who made a distinction between the "conditions" of women in the agrarian era and the rise of the Bourgeoisie particularly as the industrial revolution sped up. Typically they decided this was worse for women as they were "denied agency" by the protective cloak of "benign sexism" that raised women on to a pedestal and surrounded them with protections from being held accountable for "sins".
Nigel, I would also note that further back in history, during Medieval days, in addition to a lack of specially less-severe punishments for women criminals (so popular since at least Victorian times), there were punishments specifically for women who abused husbands, and for women who stirred up conflict with nasty gossip and lies. Not only were there physical punishments like the scold's bridle, but such were often implemented in public situations designed to engender shame, such as parading the wearer down the street.
In what I believe became known as Charivari in North America but known here as "Skimmington Rides" both men and women would be paraded through the village to humiliate them. There is a famous depiction in Montacute House https://www.exploringbuildinghistory.co.uk/the-skimmington-ride-montacute-house-south-somerset/ as well as a couple of "prints" by Hogarth. And of course many local villages still have their "Stocks" for a good dose of pain and public humiliation! I'm always interested in the focus on "witches" and the supposed "misogyny" when these of course were at their peaks during the hugely destructive "wars of religion", during which thousands of men were killed for being of the wrong religion, "necromancers" alchemists or magicians. Not to mention the various "inquisitions" in southern Europe (which tended to focussed on men as they were considered responsible for their whole family and so had to be targeted). Rather than hating one of the then two sexes the motivations had to do with stuff that have generally faded from our view, immortal souls, community, religious observance etc.
Feminism is a cult that distorts reality. Only a few profit from this distortion. I made a podcast on the feminist deception, and my favourite lady here, on the topic informed a lot of my views. Link:
Hate groups have always invested heavily in dehumanizing their targets. It is a fundamental first step. Once that is accomplished, they can condemn their targets for getting "uppity" if they don't accept their lower status. From there, it becomes easy to solicit public contempt and advance political agenda that would otherwise be recognized as overtly and overwhelmingly bigoted.
I have had to explain to women we men feel exactly the same as women. Hit us and it hurts. The only difference is we are used to it. And we respond differently. It still hurts us though.
In the UK, following debates the the US in the late 1990s in the US about "Dating Violence" in teen relationships. There were a series of large scale research projects done with late teenage boys and girls in the first decade of this century. In Northern Ireland, England (south west and London borough) Scotland and Wales. These were in fact very unusual in both the size of the samples (1000s in a couple) and the care to be "representative" in sex, race, social class etc. (as readers will know most abuse research doesn't even include males and usually only includes small samples of women in specific settings). All 6 produced "surprising" results. Girls and Boys were far more likely to condone female violence or other "abusive behaviors" against boys by girls than vice versa (it seems the social injunction for boys never to hit a girl and control their temper and "language" with the fairer sex was still in full force) this is only surprising to those who did the research and whose ideology made them ignorant of the powerful socialization to protect females, "benign sexism" as it was called in the '70s. The other "surprising" finding was that girls reported being much more abusive than the boys reported being abused; the gap appearing to be that boys regarded the bad behavior of girlfriends as "just something that happens" to be endured. As one more astute but still female focused researcher observed the problem with not addressing this is eventually the boy may lose patience and hit or snap back.
In fact if one had started out with the hypotheses that a. boys are socialized into being protective of females and b. unlike girls who are constantly trained to identify abusive behavior (even their own) boys are not and simply endure it. The data fits perfectly! The logical results might be more even handed education so Girls learn to be less gung ho about physically hitting boys and boys become less fatalistic and patient if enduring bad behavior from girls, even if its to stop it before they "snap" and hit back either literally or in abusive behaviors.
Needless to say these reports, despite the comparatively huge resources used for sociological research, soon sank without trace.
That's the thing about feminism. They want the benefits that have traditionally been accorded to males, without the traditional responsibilities. Meanwhile, they want to keep the traditional benefits accorded to women (with some symbolic exceptions, such as badgering random men who hold a door open for someone behind him who happens to be female), and jettison the responsibilities that were traditionally female.
One of the little discussed dynamics about "migration" into the EU and UK from North Africa and the Middle East and Western Asia is the fact that it is mainly young men. This tends to be seen (when it is even mentioned) as young men seeking their fortune. However further investigation gives this a different cast; that many of these young men are responsible for their family and work to send money "home" to parents and other "dependents", one significant driver is that if the father dies the sons become responsible, which gives the responsibility to often boys (in our culture). I'm not advocating this just observing the different cultural expectation in societies unlike ours (which gets it head around seeking your own fortune, or even to send money to wife and kids). Certainly here there is still the expectation that males "take care" of "partners" and their children, even while supposedly being reinforcing "patriarchy"; and being misogynist if they express pride or satisfaction in doing so. Yet a popular political trope is punishing "dead beat dads" really because they aren't doing the very things that are supposedly outdated gender norms and next steps to "abuse"! Again though I don't think its good for anyone to ignore their responsibilities but there seems a dramatic double standard at work here.
My state moved to amend it's rape laws in the late nineties. One of the changes was to enable, for the first time, female perpetrators to be charged and convicted. During a Christmas breakup for the local branch of one of our major political parties I overheard a conversation among four women about such matters and made the mistake of mentioning my own childhood experience at the hands of an aunt. One of the four responded by immediately yelling "Women don't do that" and throwing her hand at my face. I wore bruising on my right cheek for weeks whilst passing it off as a basketball injury. The was no peaceful reconciliation. I left and never returned.
I made a point of running into John Wayne Bobbit, at the GTV 9 Television studios, after the Deryen Hinch TV show - about him and male abuse. He had been coerced into doing porn videos. I have a kind of unique and interesting insights into this bullshit trip and how traumatised he still was. I only had a couple of minutes to work with him and I was able to give him a sympathetic ear and I was able to direct him in a way - to get out of the porn industry - because they are only using him - and it's a BAD dead end deal for him as a person and I gave him a future to aim towards.
I helped him to pivot on a dime and to turn his life in a new direction. I gave him the push to get going in the right direction and the right reasons to start looking after himself, instead of letting others exploit him.
Loretta Bobbit ought to be hung for sexual mutilation and attempted murder.
That is really interesting, Shane. I don't know much about John's story; most of what I found on the internet, like Moore's reference to him as an "ape" (unbelievable!), was so obviously biased, unsympathetic, mocking, and full of contempt that I didn't credit it.
Yes Janice... He had been talked into doing porn movies with his reattached cock and I told him that these people are just using him and its a bad deal.... Your selling your soul... Connect with the people that are going to help you help yourself and each other.... Stop dealing with people who are just using you as a spectacle.
Though a bit of free range paid for fucking would have been good for him...
But it's still not a way to connect with the horror of it all.
His wife drove off and threw HIS cock out the window, so he used is Marine Corp medical training, and put a compression bandage over his stump and drove around till he found his cock and went to the emergency ward..
This is a BAD thing, because the erectile tissue in the COCK is fed directly from the BIG artery and VEIN that supplies blood to the bottom half of the body and it's sort of similar in terms of blood loss, to getting your (god I am going to pass out) lower leg cut off... Kind of..
That's why this spiteful bitch - Loretta Bobbitt should be locked up for attempted murder.
And I have always kept it kind of quiet, just between you and me and the entire internet, about you being my number one adoring fan - You MUST always use natural sunlight through the curtains or DECENT lighting - the dim gray lighting spoils your good looks and makes you look like a corpse.... seriously - always use good warm lighting when on your web cam.
Can you get my email address out of the data base - I have been interrogating Chat GPT and have even crashed it... LOL
Yeah I am that good...
AND a few rounds later I interrogated it about FEMINISM - and boy oh boy - I am good at locking picking peoples heads and also locking picking the brains of computers and the software and how they are programmed....
What came out was REALLY interesting...
Chat GPT while in some aspects is an incredibly useful tool, for pure research and finding obscure links etc... it is also programed to give "feminist friendly" responses...
Celebrate you helping Mr. Bobbit to reach towards healing both from whatever it was within him driving him to abusing women creating the dramatic and grotesque outcome.
As someone professionally interacting with many 'Sick, Twisted Symbiotic Relationships' surrounding co-dependency, if not sociopathic, nature mirroring the Bobbits...With all sides of the equation; It's impossible to deny the endless numbers of women and children on the receiving end of 'MALE INSANITY' some believe is inherently masculine.
Equally, there is God and God has mandated human creatures to inhabit a particular order which must be obeyed and as such; MEN TOO ARE EXPECTED TO LOVE THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN and are severely confused about exactly what men are to be. Infidelity, abuse, sadistic pleasure in the pain of woman defines a man the enemy of woman and children as certainly as any other addiction and it is exactly the same for women.
SOME RULES WERE CREATED FOR BOTH SEXES AND THAT TOO MUST BE RECOGNIZED.
For many years after entering into Mental Health; was stunned with the fact of Pedophelia and Incest of parents even with babies receiving less punishment in the Criminal Justice System as 'Shoplifting' a Snicker's Bar. Sincerely believed in the tennants of our Nation and believed the System Justs.
Didn't know at the time about how pervasive incest and pedophilia are among the psychopathic addicted to achieving power in that system which was virtually all male. While loving men and despise the direction this world is currently taking with Gender Insanity, complete Sexual Depravity and do love God and seek to serve Jesus Christ...IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN FAR OUTRANK THE MALE VICTIMS OF FEMALE VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD.
This is far from clear. Most reputable studies of domestic violence/intimate-partner violence (see the far-ranging work of academic Murray Strauss, for example) show that men and women participate equally in hitting, slapping, punching, and kicking. In relationships where only one partner is violent, women predominate. Women abuse children equally with men. If you include infanticide in statistics for murder, women are at least as murderous as men. It's true that men can do more harm generally because they are far stronger than women, but that doesn't mean that men are uniquely responsible or should be singled out in the way you have singled them out.
I don't mean to contradict you Janice, but according to international former prosecutor John Davis, and also Dr. Laura Schlesinger, both of whom cite statistics showing that wo-MEN perpetrate >TWICE< as many child murders as MEN. NOT counting abortion. John Davis shows this in a graph that mothers perpetrate TWICE as many child murders, and it has gotten worse over time. Dr. Laura Schlesinger's exact words: "wo-MEN kill children 2 to 1 over MEN"
It's probably the case, but it's very difficult to find the stats. I am looking for them right now. There are a lot of problems. One is that infanticide often masks as SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). Some say 5% of SIDS deaths are actually murders by the mother; others say it is much higher. I don't think anybody knows. Also, infanticide is often not prosecuted or is not counted as murder at all, so it depends on what is being counted as murder in any particular study. In my preliminary research, I have found so many different figures, and I've found it very difficult to determine the raw data: how many children were killed by their mothers in 2019 in the United States, for example. So I go with the lower figures, but I suspect it is much higher.
It is interesting that here the 3 of the top 4 "serial killers" are in fact women. (Amelia Dyer, Amelia Sach & Annie Walters) All three were supposedly carers of children and are believed to have killed 100s between them the forth a Doctor who murdered old women and men. Most recently a nurse has been convicted of murdering children in her care. In terms of numbers "Jack the Ripper" was a novice and our other notorious serial killers are Rose and Fred West and Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. While Mary Ann Cotton killed at least 21 people (three her husbands) making her a top scorer.
Remind me not to send my coercively controlled and physically abused son who was kicked in the chest, degraded and spat on to you for help. Most DV is reciprocal and both genders need to learn to respect and honour each other NOT blame everyone else and lie by ommission of their own part in the violence. Mutilating any persons genitals for any reason is an act of violence that no TRUE victim would have the courage to committ imo ..
The word "most" could be misleading. I believe it's about 60% reciprocal and 40% non-reciprocal, with the latter being equally divided (20% male perp and 20% female perp).
Another interesting thing I have read. Hetero couples and lesbian couples have same or similar rates of DV. But gay male couples much less. Which would support the idea women are the aggressors.
60% is slightly more than half. The word "most" could mean 80% or 90%. Hence my statement: "The word "most" could be misleading." It's important because many people in this thread, including Janice herself, seem to have assumed that J.W. Bobbitt reciprocated, based apparently on nothing but the belief that most abuse is reciprocal.
True, I think it likely there was reciprocal violence given that neighbors and the police testified at trial that John was violent. But very difficult to know.
The public would certainly have been made aware, via media and trial exhibits, if there had been any evidence, or anything resembling evidence of abuse (One husband killer, Susan Wright, portrayed being bit by a dog when they were dating as an example of her husband abusing her. Not only did he rush her to the hospital, but the dog didn't even belong to him).
You sound like a major SIMP. Or TRAD/fEMINIST. You're a FALSE Christian. You need to listen to Paul Elam's podcast about Simpianity and the modern church. There's NO evidence of your asinine claims. The Mental health/psychology field is exclusively >wo-MEN. The actual facts show that there are MORE Amber Heards than MALE abusers. 70% of domestic violence is perpetrated by wo-MEN. Also, wo-MEN perpetrate 83% of child abuse and TWICE as many child murders as MEN according to many sources including Dr. Laura Shlesinger among others. Most pedophiles are wo-MEN, and just the way wo-MEN dress in front of their sons is incestuous. IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE A FAKE CHRISTIAN.
Shane, I'm so glad you shared this information with us. I never understood John's foray into porn, except that maybe he had trouble getting work, due to the wildly unfair image of him in the public sphere. The media made him not only a willing, but an enthusiastic, participant in porn. I'm glad you were able to help him, and to correct the record here.
I always felt that he had been victimized in multiple ways. After her viciously violent attempt at murder (with how much bleeding was likely), there was her brutal character assassination to justify her assault, aided and abetted by the media, then decades of being a punchline, while his assailant was lionized. That the porn "career" had also been another way he was victimized fits with all the awfulness he has forced to endure.
Circumcision is also considered a funny American joke in crap TV shows and crap movies.
Men don't even own their own cocks in the land of "Freedom and Liberty".
Europe knows better. Japan, too. Most of the world.
Male sexuality and behavior has always been viewed with a high degree of suspicion and regulation via mutilation/circumcision.
Female sexuality is seen as beautiful and pure.
The West disgusts me.
Foregen is a biotech company that is close to reversing circumcision with regenerative medicine.
Americans don't know the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis until about age 10, like how a hymen protects a girl's vagina.
So even if the boy is intact, USA healthcare workers will forcibly retract and injure the boy and cause them harm then blame the foreskin to solicit more circumcision sexual abuse.
If you go on the Washington Initiative for Boys and Men website, you can see there is an article about a lawyer trying to make contact with USA hospitals to recognize that the foreskin is the male hymen, it is self cleaning like the vagina and has a mucosal lining like the vagina.
Intact America has set up a forcible retraction database to report doctors and nurses that have injured boys.
The male penis is not even recognized in American society or hospitals.
It is absolutely disgusting.
Imagine doctors forcibly breaking a baby girl's hymen and scrubbing inside her vagina with soap of a basic pH that irritates and dries out the mucosal lining to bring about infection (and then blaming the vagina for being the cause of the infection, as if the vagina is inherently defective)!
That is what is happing to baby boys in the USA, the few that remain intact, are also damaged. This injury increases the odds of phimosis due to physical trauma and a loss of elasticity.
American cruelty and callousness disgusts me on a visceral level.
I'm reminded of that song by David Bowie, I'm Afraid of Americans, or something to that effect.
My ex wrote what was considered by many at that time the definitive anti-circumcision text and at age 20 engaged in a broadcast debate with a crusty but famous obstetrician/gynecologist about the practice. As one of the few intact men in America, I can confirm that it is not and has never been any sort of a problem, and when in medical school I saw circumcisions performed, I swore that would never happen to a boy of mine. I have two, and it hasn't.
And don't be afraid of Americans; we're actually pretty nice; our gub'ment is a very different thing. Sort of like Canada and the current gub'ment of Fidelito. Besides, if Canada be saved from the Socialist Utopia, there is nobody on the planet who can do it except us.
Yes Australian people, like Canada are mostly very nice as a believe most people of all countries are however once again the Grubberment and those unelected elites in power eg Bill Gates, Klaus swabb, Hilary Clinton are the ones stirring to divide us by race religion gender etc . Australia and Canada are in a similar position and are under attack .
It remains a "cultural" oddity in the UK and Scandinavia and Europe. Indeed in Germany, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden attempts by doctors to have all but medically necessary infant circumcision banned by law have been stymied by cries of "anti semitism" and more recently "islamophobia" making clear it is a cultural practice. I remain mystified that it appears so common in the USA .
That's cause we have so many male porn stars. If they retain the normal penile sensitivity afforded by an intact foreskin, they can't keep going long enough in front of the camera to get in a good - er, scene.
I find that very hard to believe about the hospital but even so, you can bet they PUSHED IT HARD on innocent boys now, huh? They charge for the procedure then sell the severed part for female cosmetics!
It is not the people of the West. It is a small vocal minority who have the reigns of power which control, schools, media, social media, banking and government. They have a collectivist plan for world domination and they are using feminism and all the other divisive "studies" to tear us people apart, divide and conquer, to make it easier to murder us. "Limist of Growth" was written in the 60's. They already had a plan to use fake climate change (they knew it was fake) and divisive techniques to bring in a world government.
I hear you and I agree with you on what you have said about the divide and conquer strategies of the elites and how feminism and other movements are funded by private think tanks, etc...but - at some point - American citizens have to take responsibility for mutilating their sons.
American Christians that can't read and don't know their faith that have acted out of fear.
80.5% of American are currently mutilated and it used to be even higher.
A million plus boys on the USA alone a year.
Some of them get infected and necrosis sets in and their entire penises fall off - each year.
Some of them just bleed out and die - each year - in the USA.
The Catholic Church teaches against circumcision, thank God. It's interesting, too, how the rite of circumcision changed from the Old Testament practice to what it now is today -- and why. See https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
I went your link, Mink, and found the text somewhat polemical.
St. Paul declared that Christians were free to become followers of Jesus without being circumcised, it's true, and he added that the same reasoning would apply to every other Jewish practice. After all, he argued, the Christ had fulfilled and replaced the Torah (which they, unlike other Jews, had come to understand as a burden). Now, consider the historical context. It had nothing to do with compassion for the suffering of any circumcision rite. For one thing, the early Church wanted to make converts, not to scare them away. More important was a theological matter. The early Church was breaking away from the Jewish community. To do that, it declared that God's covenant with Jews had been replaced by a universal covenant (that is, with all followers of Jesus no matter what their ethnic origins). By the way, Vatican II has proclaimed a very different doctrine (Nostra aetate)--one that affirms the continuing covenant between God and the Jews.
As for the evolution of circumcision, the early history is somewhat murky. Consider the story of Dinah (Jacob's daughter) and Shechem in Genesis 34 (which probably entered the canon long after the days of Jacob). In order to marry Dinah, Shechem (a Hivite, not an Israelite) promised Jacob that he and his male household will be circumcised according to the Israelite custom. But to take revenge on Shechem for having had extra-marital sexual relations with Dinah (which might or might not have been classified as rape), Jacob's sons murder Shechem and all the men of his household--all of whom are still incapacitated by pain three days after being circumcised (Gen. 34.25). So circumcision in that period was clearly very painful. That's hardly the case for circumcision among Jewish boys (at eight days old) in modern times. It probably is the case, however, among many Muslim boys (at varying ages from a few days to puberty).
Non-life saving procedures forced upon minors, unconsenting and uninformed is...unethical.
Non life saving procedures should be banned on all minors.
Genital mutilation is barbaric and has no place in the world.
It's preverbal somatic trauma, as documented by trauma informed therapists that understand survival stress physiology based on the polucagal theory and neurobiology.
It weakens the penis and reduces sexual function and pleasure.
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, by, Dr. Ronald Goldman, Foregen, IntactAmerica, Irene Lyon, Dr. Peter Levine...
Just a few resources.
Also, Apostle Paul referred to circumcision as mutilation.
Martin Luther was disgusted by it...
Europeans rejected it, rightfully so.
It's barbaric.
The articles on the Little Images website discuss the Biblical angle of it - although - it doesn't have to even matter - do you need the Bible to tell you it's wrong to needlessly perform painful traumatic amputation of sex organs for no reason on babies?
Even Christ made a comparison to him healing on the Sabbath versus the Jews circumcising a man on the Sabbath - when he was accused of doing work in the Sabbath because of the healing he performed. He compared a healing to an injury (circumcision).
The Little Images articles might interest you.
Regardless, I don't need any scripture from any book to tell me this is wrong. I Know it is.
It's a Catholic website, so reflects Catholic teaching. Nostra Aetate does not affirm the "continuing covenant between God and the Jews" because the Jews broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). God didn't, and He fulfilled the Old Covenant with the New (Galatians 3:7-29). There is a reason Nostra Aetate refers to Jews as our "elder brothers," and the reason can be found in Biblical typology. Jews can be saved like anyone else: by Jesus Christ. They can be "grafted in" like anyone else (Romans 11:16-21).
As holy scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God's moment when it came (see Lk 19:44). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed its spread (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since GOD DOES NOT TAKE BACK THE GIFTS HE BESTOWED OR THE CHOICE HE MADE (my emphasis).2 Together with the prophets and that same apostle, the church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder (Soph 3:9; see Is 66:23; Ps 65:4; Rom 11:11-32).
"The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy CONCLUDED the Ancient Covenant." The Old Covenant is over, fulfilled in the New, and God isn't the one who "took back the gifts." They broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Further, Nostra Aetate, like all the Vatican II documents, are non-dogmatic, pastoral documents (see the Nota Praevia to the Council), and no authentic Catholic doctrine can contradict former doctrine. That's logic 101. If a Jewish person is saved, he is saved by Christ, just like anyone else who is saved.
From a piece regarding male disposability, writer Maria Kouloglou begins with the following quotes:
” In her analysis “Women and Genocide in Rwanda,” the former Rwandan politician Aloysia Inyumba stated that “The genocide in Rwanda is a far-reaching tragedy that has taken a particularly hard toll on women. They now comprise 70 percent of the population, since the genocide chiefly exterminated the male population.”
In a 1998 speech delivered before a domestic violence conference in El Salvador, former US senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
These are the ramblings of insane persons. Yet feminism, among a few other narratives, is so tightly woven through western society that no one seems to notice.
Mention a man recently sentenced to prison, be it Donald Trump, or some fella from the neighborhood, and you will notice the prison rape jokes certain to follow close behind. “Whatever you do, don’t drop the soap.” Yuk, yuk, yuk.
When’s the last time you heard a rape joke where a woman was involved?
During divorce and custody battles, we must fight for our children and fairness. When falsely accused, we must fight for our innocence. Beyond that, it is what it is. We’re men. We are just going to keep on going.
Just so. Donald Trump said honestly that when you're a multi-millionaire alpha male, women will let you do anything to them, including "grab them by the pussy," and women go nuts with rage at the alleged insult/assault. But women can say insanely callous things and nobody bats an eye.
In his personal account of shipwreck along the northwest coast of Africa in 1815, Captain James Riley told of being enslaved along with his crew by one of the marauding bands common to the Sahara desert during that period.
While being starved, beaten, and force marched near beyond endurance, one of his recollections was that the women in the band, though just barely above slaves themselves, treated him most viciously and lacked even the smallest measure of empathy that he occasionally enjoyed from a few of his male captors. His telling called to mind Kipling’s poem The Female of the Species but also caused me to reflect on how these women were treated by their men. I suppose women’s capacity for pitiless cruelty could be as much driven by natural selection as any cruel man’s. When overpowered, other weapons are patiently honed.
It’s not so much the capacity for cruelty that gets to me. It’s our wider western society, both men and women, seemingly blinkered to the falsehood and hypocrisy woven throughout the narrative.
He seemed shocked by it too. He didn’t say he did it, he said they would LET you. A friend who worked on movies sat in a coffee shop with Sylvester Stallone, in Vancouver. He said a steady stream of women would approach SS offering sex. They would lean over and whisper to him. One woman had her wish fulfilled. She got to perform oral sex in a coffee shop bathroom with a famous penis! This was the west side of Vancouver. The oral sex woman was an attractive middle class woman wearing what appeared to be a wedding ring. Well dressed. Nice neighbourhood. Likely about to pick her kids up from school sort.
My ex was in the "mommy-porn" business - basically publishing racy "romance" books for women. At a Vegas industry show, as we were strolling past the exhibits, I remarked on the stunning pulchritude of the girls at the various booths. Her reply? "Oh, you have no idea. The most beautiful young girls in the world will do absolutely anything in front of a camera, for money. I have three teenaged daughters, and I was informed that the bare minimum for keeping a boyfriend was: shave, swallow, and take it up the butt." Jesus, I was born too soon.
One of the interesting things about the Ukraine/Russia war is the relatively small number of civilian casualties in what is a brutal war of almost trench warfare type. Compared to the reported casualties in Gaza. Now of course the truth may turn out to be different. But Ukraine has every incentive to inflate figures to stimulate western "aid" . My point is in the former, which is by far the biggest war in Europe since WW2 (and the various Balkan wars were pretty horrific) the male casualties are now in the 200,000s overall. Undoubtably its the men who are dead, injured or missing.
I think women are the victims here. When all this is over who will fix things around the home with so many men dead and maimed? Women will once again pay the main price.
Men need to remove any woman from his life at the first hint of anger in her. Always be ready to leave. Western culture is not worthy of your sacrifice.
I think the danger point is when she shows awareness that her anger excuses her from consequences. It confers upon her a kind of cultural immunity that justifies whatever she wants to do to any man in her life: sexually assault him, make a false allegation of sexual assault against him so that he will be imprisoned, murder him, verbally abuse him, torture him. A man's anger is evidence of his base brutality; her anger is evidence of her fundamental righteousness. Feminism has worked very hard--and unfortunately, has been quite successful--at implanting these twisted semiotics of anger in Western consciousness.
This will start to change when most men realize that most women are not their friend and should be treated with suspicion. Western men are far too naive about, and generous towards, Western women.
So it's settled, then: there's some kind of virus going around turning women into penis cutting berserkers. The undead are evolving. They're not like the drowsy ghouls from last century.
I had a chilling encounter with one of them yesterday during Father's Day brunch at the in-laws'. When I mentioned to my wife's sister, a rabid feminist, that my seven year-old daughter's friend had recently punched her brother in the face, she pumped her fist and cried, "Yeah!"
That's what they're like. Their rage is ever increasing. They think any level of violence directed at a boy or man is not only acceptable but admirable. They are disgusting ghouls.
That is disgusting but sadly this is the cruel heartless way of the feminists these days and in fact they actually care nought for any one who disagrees with them .if they can allow abuse on little boys they have no empathy or care for TRUE equality.
The Loreena Bobbitt event infuriated a lot of men. What was kind of comical though was the movie ‘Fatal Attraction’. My first wife and I were with a few couples when that movie came up. We had just seen it. One of the women said ‘it is a movie about a woman who had just had enough being jerked around by bad guys’. The men said ‘whoa! Not even close. The movie was about a guy being hit on by a crazy woman who tried to destroy him after’. Big discussion ensued. None of the women saw the Glenn Close character as being the bad guy. They all saw Michael Douglas as the bad guy, with the female as a victim.
That’s very weird, and not my experience at all (as a woman who talks about movies with other women sometimes). The psychosis exhibited by the Glenn Close character was so iconic that to this day, if one of our male friends takes up with a woman who is in the scary quadrant of the hot/crazy matrix, we warn him that he’s “dating a bunny boiler.”
For me too. Glenn Close was an all-too-believable psychopath. I used the phrase "bunny boiler" with a male friend just recently to describe a woman he was briefly friends with.
Now that is so. The bunny boiler comment gets made. At the time not so much. Most women in my circle saw Glenn Close (was her name Alex in the movie? That jumps to mind) as a victim.
I am curious. You talk to women regularly about movies. If it had been couples, not just women, when Fatal Attraction came up do you think the women would have been more on the woman’s side?
There seemed to have been a fairly brief window of time in the late 80s/90s when Hollywood flirted with going against the feminist trend -- Fatal Attraction (1987); Disclosure (1994); Oleanna (1994)
Don't forget "Kramer vs. Kramer," for which Dustin Hoffman had to atone with "Tootsie," in which masquerading as a woman made him a better man, allegedly. But "Kramer vs. Kramer" still stands as an (incomplete, assuredly) indictment of the divorce industry and the assumption that children need mothers more than fathers.
"Tootsie" wasn't a total cock-up, though. The scene where Hoffman *as a man* repeats back to Jessica Lange the exact words she expressed to Hoffman *as a woman* her ideal pick-up line, and gets a drink thrown in his face for his trouble, is priceless.
I'll use the term culture to imply a climate of activity that a confined population tacitly agrees upon as acceptable and conventional social behaviors.
As an ex., 'the culture says it's ok and normal to physically assault men, but not ok and normal to physically assault women'. That said, this behavior, and others similar to them, becomes commonplace and part of the social growth fabric, or culture.
The unseen powerful may very well establish a multi-faceted framework that influences populations, and whatever the case may be, people will dicker over how those frameworks work out as commonplace (culture).
As an example, the closet communists running the prison yard called Canada, control the government, the laws, and the courts, the media, control social media through cooperation and regulation, then have a complex network of NGOs which are global networks pursuing global governance goals influencing culture through various programs. They have the might to enforce, the money bribe and the intelligence networks to blackmail. It takes honourable people to push back against this. Elections are beauty pageants for sociopaths to gain advancement. It is one big interconnected web of control. Until we change, it will not.
Sharon Osbourne’s response would have been MORE than sufficient that, were the genders reversed get her out of show business forever. We can only dream!
This media event alone was clear evidence that Feminism did not lose ground in the 90’s, as one Feminist Author wrote; it was MAINSTREAMED.
That Lorena received a 45 day Psychiatric Care “Sentence” for this is proof positive that the Feminists are in control.
The people who control the media are the ones forcing feminism down everyone's throats. The shallower cutlural/entertainment femenism is almost MORE dangerous than the quackademic side of feminism. I say almost because the air of legitimacy the quackademic side has is also VERY dangerous. Both together makes for a frightening situation.
This is all true and hardly news. In reality, the women who commit these acts are sociopaths...who present all the traits of run of the mill feminists: hatred of men, hatred of rival women, obsession with the male sex organ, selfishness, a narcissitic belief in their own victimhood and a complete lack of accountability for any action they engage in or state of their lives.
What is truly sad is the large number, dare I say majority, of women who sympathize and celebrate them. This raises the question of whether this is a feminist problem or a problem of psychology of women generally. It is amazing how many "activists" seem to have no problem with supporting an "aggrieved" woman even if her target is NOT the man that is the source of her alleged grievance. An activist leading the sexual harassment program (SHARPP) at the University of New Hampshire literally stated to me, "As long as some man is punished and the woman is made to feel whole, what's the issue?" It's a good thing that men are NOT like women or their greater physical strength would allow for a similar kind of justice individually to collectively. (Can anyone say A Handmaid's Tale?)
I believe you're right that this is not specifically a feminist problem but a problem of female psychology, which has been exacerbated over the last 50 years by our cultural failure to hold women morally accountable for their bad actions. But if women hadn't already been aggrieved and resentful, entitled and self-obsessed, feminism could never have taken hold with so many (and so quickly) as it did.
I do think there is a marked divide. I have worked in care and health and before that retail industry. The most "entitled" group were women in a social work faculty who generally had well off husbands and nannies, maids etc. Generally the women who form the vast bulk of those workforces are not the same as those indoctrinated at Universities. Relying on personal experience there tends to be a rather more realistic view about human nature in general and "equality" is viewed as "same treatment". I have to be honest that I fear for younger generations now feminism has become part of the curriculum in secondary schools. Though one result does appear to be that young men are catching on to the misandry and illogicality now they are exposed to the ideology in school. I guess time will tell.
If a man is overlooked for a deserved promotion and a woman gets that promotion despite not having the chops for it that is fine. Look at how many men were promoted in the past!
My repeated experience is that the feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men. Employment lawyers have told me that sex discrimination against men doesn't carry much weight - but Retaliation carries more weight. Men can email the boss to complain about the discrimination. After they fire him, he can show that they retaliated against him.
I saw female teachers openly discriminate against male students and in favor of female students in the name of equity. They fully believed they were entitled to do so--that such was a blow for justice.
There was an English teacher at the high school I worked at that was a staunch feminist. Her literature selections for students reflected this. A friend of mine who had graduated from that school told me that her practice was that B was for Boy...as in no male student would ever get more than a B from her. According to my own students who had her 15 years later....her grading strategy was unchanged.
There have been at least two large scale international research projects (one of OECD countries and one including some poorer countries) both found that there is embedded preferencing of Girls in the assessment and marking of work. They used "bind marking and marking of work with obviously male or female names (but the same work). Interestingly this found the pattern that was confirmed in the the UK following the recent disruption of the normal exam regime . That the process is that girls are given inflated marks compared to the blind marking and overtly male pupil marking. In a sense simply a continuation of the process of extravagant praise we are used to seeing given to females. The interesting things are; The international studies found this was so even in poor 0vertly "patriarchal" societies in the middle east and Asia. Suggesting feminists ride on a tide of a more universal social preferencing. That the inflated marks and grades averaged 6% but varied over subjects. And of course that the researchers were "surprised" by the findings, which they shouldn't have been as for two decades now in this country the gap between "expected grades" (assessed by teachers) and those achieved has been much greater for girls than boys (boys tend to meet their teachers expectations, girls often don't). This is for the exams for our 16 year olds and 18 year olds. But I suspect if similar research was carried out in University the results would not differ. In a way the feminists are right, males are the measure and females are treated differently, to their advantage!
These women are tools and victims in a larger play here. They have been and will be betrayed before they are killed ( by the collectivist who always kills the useful idiots once they take power). They just do not see it coming yet.
Sorry...not buying it. You choose to join a cult. If women aren't responsible for the things that "feminism" leads them to do then they are not responsible actors and deserve NO rights of any kind as there are no rights without responsibilities.
They are responsible for their actions. If you run someone over and kill intentionally that is murder. But if you unintentionally run someone over and kill that is manslaughter. This comes back to the guilty mind. Feminism is intentionally evil, but draws in unwitting innocent victims to promote and spread the ideology.
Wrong. If you're born into a cult you have no choice, and you don't know any different. All you can do is escape when you're older, but first you have to overcome years of brainwashing. Girls born in the West are born into the cult of feminism. Some manage to escape when they're older. Like Janice.
In criminal law, mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty
NOPE. MEN are given ZERO due process rights and are routinely convicted/FRAMED for non-credible rape accusations with NO evidence. 97% of rape 'claims' are LIES, less than 3% are true. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.
The paradox couldn't be more apparent when the female gender is portrayed as the sensitive, gentler and more caring empathic group and the joy that some get from telling perversive stories about male gender mutilation.
MGTOW is a thing. And a history lesson like this will just increase its traction.
If the feminist bull shit stopped today, the vast majority of men in their 50’s will not see M-F relationships return to a more normalized basis within their life times.
What appears to be happening is a two-fold attack on men. One, obviously, is as you describe. The other is an effort to disempower men by destroying both the visible symbol of manhood, and denying the man sexual pleasure.
Feminists have not urged women to restrain themselves from mutilating men. The most I’ve seen was Molly Ivins, in the wake of the Bobbitt affair, saying that feminists had not urged penisectomy, and that the crude violence was exercised by ordinary, non-feminist women. This, if anything, makes it worse. It is silent assent to female violence.
It is also a way of saying that it’s men’s fault. Male violence provoked by female acts is, however, always going to be condemned.
Great stuff Janice. As usual you have a gift in clearly exposing the misandry. Thank you.
This one reminded me of the moral typecasting research that helps us understand the empathy gap and why a woman's pain is a call to action while a man's pain is taboo. In this scenario we can see that in spades. Lorena's pain was a call to action and John's was taboo. I did a short vid on the moral typecasting stuff if anyone is interested. https://menaregood.substack.com/p/understanding-men-10-moral-typecasting
Thank you, Tom. The split between male/agent and female/passive object is so clear. Thank you for exposing the scientific basis for what we are seeing in our world today.
We have seen it in movies for decades. The comical hilarity of a guy getting kneed in his testicles by his angry spouse. Male pain is considered a ‘yeah whatever’ by many women. My brother was in a course where people were getting diplomas in mediation and arbitration. They were role playing. Every single role play had the man as the bad guy. It was my brother and five women taking the course. He objected and all the women said ‘oh come on. It is always the man’. He said ‘studies show 80% of domestic violence is started by the woman.’ The women all told him off. He pushed a bit and said ‘you can’t mediate if you walk in with an anti male bias. The fact is women start a lot of fights. They hit men very easily.’ At that point a very large woman sitting beside him in the circle of chairs said ‘Stop it Dave. This doesn’t happen.’ And then WHACKED him on the shoulder. She was big. Big arms. Probably weighed 250 or more. He said she hit him hard. But, being an ex east end punk he was used to violence against him. He said ‘thanks Debra. Nothing you could have done could have proved my point more than you hitting me because you didn’t like what I said.’ It did lead to an honest discussion. Debra was appalled at what she had done unthinkingly. The general discussion though was 1. Men don’t feel pain like women do. 2. Men deserve it. 3. That was one event that wasn’t common. The only person who really seemed to have changed somewhat was the hitter, Debra. She was shocked at herself and seemed to actually had her biases challenged.
Exactly so. It is generally believed that women can't really hurt anyone--and when they do (on those rare occasions), it's always because they were hurt first, they were scared, they were abused, they had no way out, or a man manipulated them into it. This has been the case for centuries, at least.
I wonder about this. I know its difficult to know the further back one goes. But I do think there was a greater tendency to believe both sexes were capable of moral and immoral behavior. There appeared, in England at least, a striking shift between the 18th and 19th Century. One measure of this might be the dramatic fall in the % of the imprisoned population which were female, from about a quarter in the 18th Century to 5% in the late Victorian era. Most of this was achieved by "reforms" that made females not responsible; for debts., for crimes "influenced" by husbands or lovers, crimes where their mind was unbalanced etc. Prior to this busy period of legislation making in the mid Victorian period the attitude had a more individual responsibility cast. Put simply each person was responsible for their sins whatever the temptation or excuse. That's not to say there wasn't the usual gynocentric background to this but I do think there is a shift. Curiously I was first alerted to this by "Marxist" feminist researchers who made a distinction between the "conditions" of women in the agrarian era and the rise of the Bourgeoisie particularly as the industrial revolution sped up. Typically they decided this was worse for women as they were "denied agency" by the protective cloak of "benign sexism" that raised women on to a pedestal and surrounded them with protections from being held accountable for "sins".
Nigel, I would also note that further back in history, during Medieval days, in addition to a lack of specially less-severe punishments for women criminals (so popular since at least Victorian times), there were punishments specifically for women who abused husbands, and for women who stirred up conflict with nasty gossip and lies. Not only were there physical punishments like the scold's bridle, but such were often implemented in public situations designed to engender shame, such as parading the wearer down the street.
In what I believe became known as Charivari in North America but known here as "Skimmington Rides" both men and women would be paraded through the village to humiliate them. There is a famous depiction in Montacute House https://www.exploringbuildinghistory.co.uk/the-skimmington-ride-montacute-house-south-somerset/ as well as a couple of "prints" by Hogarth. And of course many local villages still have their "Stocks" for a good dose of pain and public humiliation! I'm always interested in the focus on "witches" and the supposed "misogyny" when these of course were at their peaks during the hugely destructive "wars of religion", during which thousands of men were killed for being of the wrong religion, "necromancers" alchemists or magicians. Not to mention the various "inquisitions" in southern Europe (which tended to focussed on men as they were considered responsible for their whole family and so had to be targeted). Rather than hating one of the then two sexes the motivations had to do with stuff that have generally faded from our view, immortal souls, community, religious observance etc.
Feminism is a cult that distorts reality. Only a few profit from this distortion. I made a podcast on the feminist deception, and my favourite lady here, on the topic informed a lot of my views. Link:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/fzFe0BlzvKb
“Men don’t feel pain like women” = “Blacks don’t feel pain like Whites” = “Chinese don’t feel pain like Japanese.” It’s feminist bullshit.
Hate groups have always invested heavily in dehumanizing their targets. It is a fundamental first step. Once that is accomplished, they can condemn their targets for getting "uppity" if they don't accept their lower status. From there, it becomes easy to solicit public contempt and advance political agenda that would otherwise be recognized as overtly and overwhelmingly bigoted.
This is the true.
I have had to explain to women we men feel exactly the same as women. Hit us and it hurts. The only difference is we are used to it. And we respond differently. It still hurts us though.
In the UK, following debates the the US in the late 1990s in the US about "Dating Violence" in teen relationships. There were a series of large scale research projects done with late teenage boys and girls in the first decade of this century. In Northern Ireland, England (south west and London borough) Scotland and Wales. These were in fact very unusual in both the size of the samples (1000s in a couple) and the care to be "representative" in sex, race, social class etc. (as readers will know most abuse research doesn't even include males and usually only includes small samples of women in specific settings). All 6 produced "surprising" results. Girls and Boys were far more likely to condone female violence or other "abusive behaviors" against boys by girls than vice versa (it seems the social injunction for boys never to hit a girl and control their temper and "language" with the fairer sex was still in full force) this is only surprising to those who did the research and whose ideology made them ignorant of the powerful socialization to protect females, "benign sexism" as it was called in the '70s. The other "surprising" finding was that girls reported being much more abusive than the boys reported being abused; the gap appearing to be that boys regarded the bad behavior of girlfriends as "just something that happens" to be endured. As one more astute but still female focused researcher observed the problem with not addressing this is eventually the boy may lose patience and hit or snap back.
In fact if one had started out with the hypotheses that a. boys are socialized into being protective of females and b. unlike girls who are constantly trained to identify abusive behavior (even their own) boys are not and simply endure it. The data fits perfectly! The logical results might be more even handed education so Girls learn to be less gung ho about physically hitting boys and boys become less fatalistic and patient if enduring bad behavior from girls, even if its to stop it before they "snap" and hit back either literally or in abusive behaviors.
Needless to say these reports, despite the comparatively huge resources used for sociological research, soon sank without trace.
That's the thing about feminism. They want the benefits that have traditionally been accorded to males, without the traditional responsibilities. Meanwhile, they want to keep the traditional benefits accorded to women (with some symbolic exceptions, such as badgering random men who hold a door open for someone behind him who happens to be female), and jettison the responsibilities that were traditionally female.
One of the little discussed dynamics about "migration" into the EU and UK from North Africa and the Middle East and Western Asia is the fact that it is mainly young men. This tends to be seen (when it is even mentioned) as young men seeking their fortune. However further investigation gives this a different cast; that many of these young men are responsible for their family and work to send money "home" to parents and other "dependents", one significant driver is that if the father dies the sons become responsible, which gives the responsibility to often boys (in our culture). I'm not advocating this just observing the different cultural expectation in societies unlike ours (which gets it head around seeking your own fortune, or even to send money to wife and kids). Certainly here there is still the expectation that males "take care" of "partners" and their children, even while supposedly being reinforcing "patriarchy"; and being misogynist if they express pride or satisfaction in doing so. Yet a popular political trope is punishing "dead beat dads" really because they aren't doing the very things that are supposedly outdated gender norms and next steps to "abuse"! Again though I don't think its good for anyone to ignore their responsibilities but there seems a dramatic double standard at work here.
My state moved to amend it's rape laws in the late nineties. One of the changes was to enable, for the first time, female perpetrators to be charged and convicted. During a Christmas breakup for the local branch of one of our major political parties I overheard a conversation among four women about such matters and made the mistake of mentioning my own childhood experience at the hands of an aunt. One of the four responded by immediately yelling "Women don't do that" and throwing her hand at my face. I wore bruising on my right cheek for weeks whilst passing it off as a basketball injury. The was no peaceful reconciliation. I left and never returned.
I made a point of running into John Wayne Bobbit, at the GTV 9 Television studios, after the Deryen Hinch TV show - about him and male abuse. He had been coerced into doing porn videos. I have a kind of unique and interesting insights into this bullshit trip and how traumatised he still was. I only had a couple of minutes to work with him and I was able to give him a sympathetic ear and I was able to direct him in a way - to get out of the porn industry - because they are only using him - and it's a BAD dead end deal for him as a person and I gave him a future to aim towards.
I helped him to pivot on a dime and to turn his life in a new direction. I gave him the push to get going in the right direction and the right reasons to start looking after himself, instead of letting others exploit him.
Loretta Bobbit ought to be hung for sexual mutilation and attempted murder.
That is really interesting, Shane. I don't know much about John's story; most of what I found on the internet, like Moore's reference to him as an "ape" (unbelievable!), was so obviously biased, unsympathetic, mocking, and full of contempt that I didn't credit it.
Yes Janice... He had been talked into doing porn movies with his reattached cock and I told him that these people are just using him and its a bad deal.... Your selling your soul... Connect with the people that are going to help you help yourself and each other.... Stop dealing with people who are just using you as a spectacle.
Though a bit of free range paid for fucking would have been good for him...
But it's still not a way to connect with the horror of it all.
His wife drove off and threw HIS cock out the window, so he used is Marine Corp medical training, and put a compression bandage over his stump and drove around till he found his cock and went to the emergency ward..
This is a BAD thing, because the erectile tissue in the COCK is fed directly from the BIG artery and VEIN that supplies blood to the bottom half of the body and it's sort of similar in terms of blood loss, to getting your (god I am going to pass out) lower leg cut off... Kind of..
That's why this spiteful bitch - Loretta Bobbitt should be locked up for attempted murder.
And I have always kept it kind of quiet, just between you and me and the entire internet, about you being my number one adoring fan - You MUST always use natural sunlight through the curtains or DECENT lighting - the dim gray lighting spoils your good looks and makes you look like a corpse.... seriously - always use good warm lighting when on your web cam.
Yes, I noticed that too.
Ahhh the penny has landed… Only took 8 years.
Can you get my email address out of the data base - I have been interrogating Chat GPT and have even crashed it... LOL
Yeah I am that good...
AND a few rounds later I interrogated it about FEMINISM - and boy oh boy - I am good at locking picking peoples heads and also locking picking the brains of computers and the software and how they are programmed....
What came out was REALLY interesting...
Chat GPT while in some aspects is an incredibly useful tool, for pure research and finding obscure links etc... it is also programed to give "feminist friendly" responses...
The circular logic conflicts with it's self...
email me and I will send you the transcript.
Lorena Bobbitt should have been pressed to death (la peine forte et dur). Hanging is way too kind.
Celebrate you helping Mr. Bobbit to reach towards healing both from whatever it was within him driving him to abusing women creating the dramatic and grotesque outcome.
As someone professionally interacting with many 'Sick, Twisted Symbiotic Relationships' surrounding co-dependency, if not sociopathic, nature mirroring the Bobbits...With all sides of the equation; It's impossible to deny the endless numbers of women and children on the receiving end of 'MALE INSANITY' some believe is inherently masculine.
Equally, there is God and God has mandated human creatures to inhabit a particular order which must be obeyed and as such; MEN TOO ARE EXPECTED TO LOVE THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN and are severely confused about exactly what men are to be. Infidelity, abuse, sadistic pleasure in the pain of woman defines a man the enemy of woman and children as certainly as any other addiction and it is exactly the same for women.
SOME RULES WERE CREATED FOR BOTH SEXES AND THAT TOO MUST BE RECOGNIZED.
For many years after entering into Mental Health; was stunned with the fact of Pedophelia and Incest of parents even with babies receiving less punishment in the Criminal Justice System as 'Shoplifting' a Snicker's Bar. Sincerely believed in the tennants of our Nation and believed the System Justs.
Didn't know at the time about how pervasive incest and pedophilia are among the psychopathic addicted to achieving power in that system which was virtually all male. While loving men and despise the direction this world is currently taking with Gender Insanity, complete Sexual Depravity and do love God and seek to serve Jesus Christ...IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN FAR OUTRANK THE MALE VICTIMS OF FEMALE VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD.
This is far from clear. Most reputable studies of domestic violence/intimate-partner violence (see the far-ranging work of academic Murray Strauss, for example) show that men and women participate equally in hitting, slapping, punching, and kicking. In relationships where only one partner is violent, women predominate. Women abuse children equally with men. If you include infanticide in statistics for murder, women are at least as murderous as men. It's true that men can do more harm generally because they are far stronger than women, but that doesn't mean that men are uniquely responsible or should be singled out in the way you have singled them out.
I don't mean to contradict you Janice, but according to international former prosecutor John Davis, and also Dr. Laura Schlesinger, both of whom cite statistics showing that wo-MEN perpetrate >TWICE< as many child murders as MEN. NOT counting abortion. John Davis shows this in a graph that mothers perpetrate TWICE as many child murders, and it has gotten worse over time. Dr. Laura Schlesinger's exact words: "wo-MEN kill children 2 to 1 over MEN"
It's probably the case, but it's very difficult to find the stats. I am looking for them right now. There are a lot of problems. One is that infanticide often masks as SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). Some say 5% of SIDS deaths are actually murders by the mother; others say it is much higher. I don't think anybody knows. Also, infanticide is often not prosecuted or is not counted as murder at all, so it depends on what is being counted as murder in any particular study. In my preliminary research, I have found so many different figures, and I've found it very difficult to determine the raw data: how many children were killed by their mothers in 2019 in the United States, for example. So I go with the lower figures, but I suspect it is much higher.
It is interesting that here the 3 of the top 4 "serial killers" are in fact women. (Amelia Dyer, Amelia Sach & Annie Walters) All three were supposedly carers of children and are believed to have killed 100s between them the forth a Doctor who murdered old women and men. Most recently a nurse has been convicted of murdering children in her care. In terms of numbers "Jack the Ripper" was a novice and our other notorious serial killers are Rose and Fred West and Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. While Mary Ann Cotton killed at least 21 people (three her husbands) making her a top scorer.
Remind me not to send my coercively controlled and physically abused son who was kicked in the chest, degraded and spat on to you for help. Most DV is reciprocal and both genders need to learn to respect and honour each other NOT blame everyone else and lie by ommission of their own part in the violence. Mutilating any persons genitals for any reason is an act of violence that no TRUE victim would have the courage to committ imo ..
"Most DV is reciprocal"
The word "most" could be misleading. I believe it's about 60% reciprocal and 40% non-reciprocal, with the latter being equally divided (20% male perp and 20% female perp).
60% is most.
It's 2/3's ... according to a Harvard study that was censored: The wo-MAN is the aggressor in 70% of domestic violence.
Another interesting thing I have read. Hetero couples and lesbian couples have same or similar rates of DV. But gay male couples much less. Which would support the idea women are the aggressors.
I have read 80% the woman threw the first punch. But in any case it is more than half. 70-80%
60% is slightly more than half. The word "most" could mean 80% or 90%. Hence my statement: "The word "most" could be misleading." It's important because many people in this thread, including Janice herself, seem to have assumed that J.W. Bobbitt reciprocated, based apparently on nothing but the belief that most abuse is reciprocal.
True, I think it likely there was reciprocal violence given that neighbors and the police testified at trial that John was violent. But very difficult to know.
I thought it was made clear there was no evidence of him abusing Loreena.
The public would certainly have been made aware, via media and trial exhibits, if there had been any evidence, or anything resembling evidence of abuse (One husband killer, Susan Wright, portrayed being bit by a dog when they were dating as an example of her husband abusing her. Not only did he rush her to the hospital, but the dog didn't even belong to him).
You sound like a major SIMP. Or TRAD/fEMINIST. You're a FALSE Christian. You need to listen to Paul Elam's podcast about Simpianity and the modern church. There's NO evidence of your asinine claims. The Mental health/psychology field is exclusively >wo-MEN. The actual facts show that there are MORE Amber Heards than MALE abusers. 70% of domestic violence is perpetrated by wo-MEN. Also, wo-MEN perpetrate 83% of child abuse and TWICE as many child murders as MEN according to many sources including Dr. Laura Shlesinger among others. Most pedophiles are wo-MEN, and just the way wo-MEN dress in front of their sons is incestuous. IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE A FAKE CHRISTIAN.
Bobbit didn't abuse her, she lied simp
Good for you. I hope he went straight.
Shane, I'm so glad you shared this information with us. I never understood John's foray into porn, except that maybe he had trouble getting work, due to the wildly unfair image of him in the public sphere. The media made him not only a willing, but an enthusiastic, participant in porn. I'm glad you were able to help him, and to correct the record here.
I always felt that he had been victimized in multiple ways. After her viciously violent attempt at murder (with how much bleeding was likely), there was her brutal character assassination to justify her assault, aided and abetted by the media, then decades of being a punchline, while his assailant was lionized. That the porn "career" had also been another way he was victimized fits with all the awfulness he has forced to endure.
Circumcision is also considered a funny American joke in crap TV shows and crap movies.
Men don't even own their own cocks in the land of "Freedom and Liberty".
Europe knows better. Japan, too. Most of the world.
Male sexuality and behavior has always been viewed with a high degree of suspicion and regulation via mutilation/circumcision.
Female sexuality is seen as beautiful and pure.
The West disgusts me.
Foregen is a biotech company that is close to reversing circumcision with regenerative medicine.
Americans don't know the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis until about age 10, like how a hymen protects a girl's vagina.
So even if the boy is intact, USA healthcare workers will forcibly retract and injure the boy and cause them harm then blame the foreskin to solicit more circumcision sexual abuse.
If you go on the Washington Initiative for Boys and Men website, you can see there is an article about a lawyer trying to make contact with USA hospitals to recognize that the foreskin is the male hymen, it is self cleaning like the vagina and has a mucosal lining like the vagina.
Intact America has set up a forcible retraction database to report doctors and nurses that have injured boys.
The male penis is not even recognized in American society or hospitals.
It is absolutely disgusting.
Imagine doctors forcibly breaking a baby girl's hymen and scrubbing inside her vagina with soap of a basic pH that irritates and dries out the mucosal lining to bring about infection (and then blaming the vagina for being the cause of the infection, as if the vagina is inherently defective)!
That is what is happing to baby boys in the USA, the few that remain intact, are also damaged. This injury increases the odds of phimosis due to physical trauma and a loss of elasticity.
American cruelty and callousness disgusts me on a visceral level.
I'm reminded of that song by David Bowie, I'm Afraid of Americans, or something to that effect.
My ex wrote what was considered by many at that time the definitive anti-circumcision text and at age 20 engaged in a broadcast debate with a crusty but famous obstetrician/gynecologist about the practice. As one of the few intact men in America, I can confirm that it is not and has never been any sort of a problem, and when in medical school I saw circumcisions performed, I swore that would never happen to a boy of mine. I have two, and it hasn't.
And don't be afraid of Americans; we're actually pretty nice; our gub'ment is a very different thing. Sort of like Canada and the current gub'ment of Fidelito. Besides, if Canada be saved from the Socialist Utopia, there is nobody on the planet who can do it except us.
Yes Australian people, like Canada are mostly very nice as a believe most people of all countries are however once again the Grubberment and those unelected elites in power eg Bill Gates, Klaus swabb, Hilary Clinton are the ones stirring to divide us by race religion gender etc . Australia and Canada are in a similar position and are under attack .
My boys born in the 90s in Australia were not circumcised. Tbh the hospitals at the time promoted non circumcision.
It remains a "cultural" oddity in the UK and Scandinavia and Europe. Indeed in Germany, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden attempts by doctors to have all but medically necessary infant circumcision banned by law have been stymied by cries of "anti semitism" and more recently "islamophobia" making clear it is a cultural practice. I remain mystified that it appears so common in the USA .
That's cause we have so many male porn stars. If they retain the normal penile sensitivity afforded by an intact foreskin, they can't keep going long enough in front of the camera to get in a good - er, scene.
I'm only partly kidding.
I find that very hard to believe about the hospital but even so, you can bet they PUSHED IT HARD on innocent boys now, huh? They charge for the procedure then sell the severed part for female cosmetics!
STOP THE INSANITY!!!
It is not the people of the West. It is a small vocal minority who have the reigns of power which control, schools, media, social media, banking and government. They have a collectivist plan for world domination and they are using feminism and all the other divisive "studies" to tear us people apart, divide and conquer, to make it easier to murder us. "Limist of Growth" was written in the 60's. They already had a plan to use fake climate change (they knew it was fake) and divisive techniques to bring in a world government.
I hear you and I agree with you on what you have said about the divide and conquer strategies of the elites and how feminism and other movements are funded by private think tanks, etc...but - at some point - American citizens have to take responsibility for mutilating their sons.
American Christians that can't read and don't know their faith that have acted out of fear.
80.5% of American are currently mutilated and it used to be even higher.
A million plus boys on the USA alone a year.
Some of them get infected and necrosis sets in and their entire penises fall off - each year.
Some of them just bleed out and die - each year - in the USA.
Parents should take responsibility.
The medical system needs to be cleansed.
The church has fallen find out how here:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/I1jMwWVPvKb
The Catholic Church teaches against circumcision, thank God. It's interesting, too, how the rite of circumcision changed from the Old Testament practice to what it now is today -- and why. See https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
The American Catholics engage in male genital mutilation.
Also, God? It doesn't matter who told you to do it.
Circumcision was always wrong. It's the unethical "commandment".
Yes, biblical circumcision was far less severe than modern day. See Brit Milah vs Brit Periah.
All of it is disgusting.
A violation of someone else's body.
Imagine if they tried their mutilation on a grown man? That grown man would have every justification for defending himself with deadly force.
But Americans mutilate baby boys that can't fight back or flee. Cowards.
Unfortunately, American Catholics and Americans in general are complicit.
You seem to be well-meaning so none of this is a personal attack against you.
Tolerance doesn't work.
Tolerance of evil just allows evil to thrive. Evil can occur even if one has good intentions or meant well.
The government, the UN and the WHO all actively are against female genital mutilation while supporting male genital mutilation.
This country is hostile to all males and deserves to be abandoned to let rot.
Reform or rot.
Tolerance is masochism.
Complacency is permission.
If American Catholics circumcize, they do so against clear Church teaching.
I have two sons. Neither was circumcised. I wasn’t.
I went your link, Mink, and found the text somewhat polemical.
St. Paul declared that Christians were free to become followers of Jesus without being circumcised, it's true, and he added that the same reasoning would apply to every other Jewish practice. After all, he argued, the Christ had fulfilled and replaced the Torah (which they, unlike other Jews, had come to understand as a burden). Now, consider the historical context. It had nothing to do with compassion for the suffering of any circumcision rite. For one thing, the early Church wanted to make converts, not to scare them away. More important was a theological matter. The early Church was breaking away from the Jewish community. To do that, it declared that God's covenant with Jews had been replaced by a universal covenant (that is, with all followers of Jesus no matter what their ethnic origins). By the way, Vatican II has proclaimed a very different doctrine (Nostra aetate)--one that affirms the continuing covenant between God and the Jews.
As for the evolution of circumcision, the early history is somewhat murky. Consider the story of Dinah (Jacob's daughter) and Shechem in Genesis 34 (which probably entered the canon long after the days of Jacob). In order to marry Dinah, Shechem (a Hivite, not an Israelite) promised Jacob that he and his male household will be circumcised according to the Israelite custom. But to take revenge on Shechem for having had extra-marital sexual relations with Dinah (which might or might not have been classified as rape), Jacob's sons murder Shechem and all the men of his household--all of whom are still incapacitated by pain three days after being circumcised (Gen. 34.25). So circumcision in that period was clearly very painful. That's hardly the case for circumcision among Jewish boys (at eight days old) in modern times. It probably is the case, however, among many Muslim boys (at varying ages from a few days to puberty).
Non-life saving procedures forced upon minors, unconsenting and uninformed is...unethical.
Non life saving procedures should be banned on all minors.
Genital mutilation is barbaric and has no place in the world.
It's preverbal somatic trauma, as documented by trauma informed therapists that understand survival stress physiology based on the polucagal theory and neurobiology.
It weakens the penis and reduces sexual function and pleasure.
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, by, Dr. Ronald Goldman, Foregen, IntactAmerica, Irene Lyon, Dr. Peter Levine...
Just a few resources.
Also, Apostle Paul referred to circumcision as mutilation.
Martin Luther was disgusted by it...
Europeans rejected it, rightfully so.
It's barbaric.
The articles on the Little Images website discuss the Biblical angle of it - although - it doesn't have to even matter - do you need the Bible to tell you it's wrong to needlessly perform painful traumatic amputation of sex organs for no reason on babies?
Even Christ made a comparison to him healing on the Sabbath versus the Jews circumcising a man on the Sabbath - when he was accused of doing work in the Sabbath because of the healing he performed. He compared a healing to an injury (circumcision).
The Little Images articles might interest you.
Regardless, I don't need any scripture from any book to tell me this is wrong. I Know it is.
It's a Catholic website, so reflects Catholic teaching. Nostra Aetate does not affirm the "continuing covenant between God and the Jews" because the Jews broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). God didn't, and He fulfilled the Old Covenant with the New (Galatians 3:7-29). There is a reason Nostra Aetate refers to Jews as our "elder brothers," and the reason can be found in Biblical typology. Jews can be saved like anyone else: by Jesus Christ. They can be "grafted in" like anyone else (Romans 11:16-21).
Here's a passage, Mink, from Nostra Aetate:
As holy scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God's moment when it came (see Lk 19:44). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed its spread (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since GOD DOES NOT TAKE BACK THE GIFTS HE BESTOWED OR THE CHOICE HE MADE (my emphasis).2 Together with the prophets and that same apostle, the church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder (Soph 3:9; see Is 66:23; Ps 65:4; Rom 11:11-32).
"The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy CONCLUDED the Ancient Covenant." The Old Covenant is over, fulfilled in the New, and God isn't the one who "took back the gifts." They broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Further, Nostra Aetate, like all the Vatican II documents, are non-dogmatic, pastoral documents (see the Nota Praevia to the Council), and no authentic Catholic doctrine can contradict former doctrine. That's logic 101. If a Jewish person is saved, he is saved by Christ, just like anyone else who is saved.
From a piece regarding male disposability, writer Maria Kouloglou begins with the following quotes:
” In her analysis “Women and Genocide in Rwanda,” the former Rwandan politician Aloysia Inyumba stated that “The genocide in Rwanda is a far-reaching tragedy that has taken a particularly hard toll on women. They now comprise 70 percent of the population, since the genocide chiefly exterminated the male population.”
In a 1998 speech delivered before a domestic violence conference in El Salvador, former US senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
These are the ramblings of insane persons. Yet feminism, among a few other narratives, is so tightly woven through western society that no one seems to notice.
Mention a man recently sentenced to prison, be it Donald Trump, or some fella from the neighborhood, and you will notice the prison rape jokes certain to follow close behind. “Whatever you do, don’t drop the soap.” Yuk, yuk, yuk.
When’s the last time you heard a rape joke where a woman was involved?
During divorce and custody battles, we must fight for our children and fairness. When falsely accused, we must fight for our innocence. Beyond that, it is what it is. We’re men. We are just going to keep on going.
Just so. Donald Trump said honestly that when you're a multi-millionaire alpha male, women will let you do anything to them, including "grab them by the pussy," and women go nuts with rage at the alleged insult/assault. But women can say insanely callous things and nobody bats an eye.
True enough.
In his personal account of shipwreck along the northwest coast of Africa in 1815, Captain James Riley told of being enslaved along with his crew by one of the marauding bands common to the Sahara desert during that period.
While being starved, beaten, and force marched near beyond endurance, one of his recollections was that the women in the band, though just barely above slaves themselves, treated him most viciously and lacked even the smallest measure of empathy that he occasionally enjoyed from a few of his male captors. His telling called to mind Kipling’s poem The Female of the Species but also caused me to reflect on how these women were treated by their men. I suppose women’s capacity for pitiless cruelty could be as much driven by natural selection as any cruel man’s. When overpowered, other weapons are patiently honed.
It’s not so much the capacity for cruelty that gets to me. It’s our wider western society, both men and women, seemingly blinkered to the falsehood and hypocrisy woven throughout the narrative.
We don’t even notice it anymore.
He seemed shocked by it too. He didn’t say he did it, he said they would LET you. A friend who worked on movies sat in a coffee shop with Sylvester Stallone, in Vancouver. He said a steady stream of women would approach SS offering sex. They would lean over and whisper to him. One woman had her wish fulfilled. She got to perform oral sex in a coffee shop bathroom with a famous penis! This was the west side of Vancouver. The oral sex woman was an attractive middle class woman wearing what appeared to be a wedding ring. Well dressed. Nice neighbourhood. Likely about to pick her kids up from school sort.
Yeah but when it was all said and done, did he shout out, “Adrian!”
I’m surprised she hasn’t sued him for some sort of assault by now. She ain’t no E. Jean Carroll that’s for sure.
My ex was in the "mommy-porn" business - basically publishing racy "romance" books for women. At a Vegas industry show, as we were strolling past the exhibits, I remarked on the stunning pulchritude of the girls at the various booths. Her reply? "Oh, you have no idea. The most beautiful young girls in the world will do absolutely anything in front of a camera, for money. I have three teenaged daughters, and I was informed that the bare minimum for keeping a boyfriend was: shave, swallow, and take it up the butt." Jesus, I was born too soon.
One of the interesting things about the Ukraine/Russia war is the relatively small number of civilian casualties in what is a brutal war of almost trench warfare type. Compared to the reported casualties in Gaza. Now of course the truth may turn out to be different. But Ukraine has every incentive to inflate figures to stimulate western "aid" . My point is in the former, which is by far the biggest war in Europe since WW2 (and the various Balkan wars were pretty horrific) the male casualties are now in the 200,000s overall. Undoubtably its the men who are dead, injured or missing.
I think women are the victims here. When all this is over who will fix things around the home with so many men dead and maimed? Women will once again pay the main price.
Indeed. It never ends.
You may be on to something?
Men need to remove any woman from his life at the first hint of anger in her. Always be ready to leave. Western culture is not worthy of your sacrifice.
I think the danger point is when she shows awareness that her anger excuses her from consequences. It confers upon her a kind of cultural immunity that justifies whatever she wants to do to any man in her life: sexually assault him, make a false allegation of sexual assault against him so that he will be imprisoned, murder him, verbally abuse him, torture him. A man's anger is evidence of his base brutality; her anger is evidence of her fundamental righteousness. Feminism has worked very hard--and unfortunately, has been quite successful--at implanting these twisted semiotics of anger in Western consciousness.
This will start to change when most men realize that most women are not their friend and should be treated with suspicion. Western men are far too naive about, and generous towards, Western women.
Excellent advice. Anger in a woman is a BIG RED FLAG! Trouble is they're so good at hiding it, until it's too late to escape.
Where you been Steve? Hope all is well in your world.
All's well thanks. Living the life in the DR.
So it's settled, then: there's some kind of virus going around turning women into penis cutting berserkers. The undead are evolving. They're not like the drowsy ghouls from last century.
I had a chilling encounter with one of them yesterday during Father's Day brunch at the in-laws'. When I mentioned to my wife's sister, a rabid feminist, that my seven year-old daughter's friend had recently punched her brother in the face, she pumped her fist and cried, "Yeah!"
That's what they're like. Their rage is ever increasing. They think any level of violence directed at a boy or man is not only acceptable but admirable. They are disgusting ghouls.
"They are disgusting ghouls" yes they are Janice, and it sure is refreshing to know a woman who can grasp this! LOL
No way she loves her husband or her sons, if she has any.
That is disgusting but sadly this is the cruel heartless way of the feminists these days and in fact they actually care nought for any one who disagrees with them .if they can allow abuse on little boys they have no empathy or care for TRUE equality.
The Loreena Bobbitt event infuriated a lot of men. What was kind of comical though was the movie ‘Fatal Attraction’. My first wife and I were with a few couples when that movie came up. We had just seen it. One of the women said ‘it is a movie about a woman who had just had enough being jerked around by bad guys’. The men said ‘whoa! Not even close. The movie was about a guy being hit on by a crazy woman who tried to destroy him after’. Big discussion ensued. None of the women saw the Glenn Close character as being the bad guy. They all saw Michael Douglas as the bad guy, with the female as a victim.
That’s very weird, and not my experience at all (as a woman who talks about movies with other women sometimes). The psychosis exhibited by the Glenn Close character was so iconic that to this day, if one of our male friends takes up with a woman who is in the scary quadrant of the hot/crazy matrix, we warn him that he’s “dating a bunny boiler.”
For me too. Glenn Close was an all-too-believable psychopath. I used the phrase "bunny boiler" with a male friend just recently to describe a woman he was briefly friends with.
Now that is so. The bunny boiler comment gets made. At the time not so much. Most women in my circle saw Glenn Close (was her name Alex in the movie? That jumps to mind) as a victim.
I am curious. You talk to women regularly about movies. If it had been couples, not just women, when Fatal Attraction came up do you think the women would have been more on the woman’s side?
There seemed to have been a fairly brief window of time in the late 80s/90s when Hollywood flirted with going against the feminist trend -- Fatal Attraction (1987); Disclosure (1994); Oleanna (1994)
Don't forget "Kramer vs. Kramer," for which Dustin Hoffman had to atone with "Tootsie," in which masquerading as a woman made him a better man, allegedly. But "Kramer vs. Kramer" still stands as an (incomplete, assuredly) indictment of the divorce industry and the assumption that children need mothers more than fathers.
I thought of that, but I was alluding to movies that went against that grain (even if only partially).
"Tootsie" wasn't a total cock-up, though. The scene where Hoffman *as a man* repeats back to Jessica Lange the exact words she expressed to Hoffman *as a woman* her ideal pick-up line, and gets a drink thrown in his face for his trouble, is priceless.
Brainwashing working its magic.
Or cultural norm ?
Culture is created by the powerful, to benefit them.
I'll use the term culture to imply a climate of activity that a confined population tacitly agrees upon as acceptable and conventional social behaviors.
As an ex., 'the culture says it's ok and normal to physically assault men, but not ok and normal to physically assault women'. That said, this behavior, and others similar to them, becomes commonplace and part of the social growth fabric, or culture.
The unseen powerful may very well establish a multi-faceted framework that influences populations, and whatever the case may be, people will dicker over how those frameworks work out as commonplace (culture).
As an example, the closet communists running the prison yard called Canada, control the government, the laws, and the courts, the media, control social media through cooperation and regulation, then have a complex network of NGOs which are global networks pursuing global governance goals influencing culture through various programs. They have the might to enforce, the money bribe and the intelligence networks to blackmail. It takes honourable people to push back against this. Elections are beauty pageants for sociopaths to gain advancement. It is one big interconnected web of control. Until we change, it will not.
This came to mind as very true https://j4mb.org.uk/2024/06/15/the-nature-of-women-as-good-as-it-gets-1997
Sharon Osbourne’s response would have been MORE than sufficient that, were the genders reversed get her out of show business forever. We can only dream!
This media event alone was clear evidence that Feminism did not lose ground in the 90’s, as one Feminist Author wrote; it was MAINSTREAMED.
That Lorena received a 45 day Psychiatric Care “Sentence” for this is proof positive that the Feminists are in control.
The people who control the media are the ones forcing feminism down everyone's throats. The shallower cutlural/entertainment femenism is almost MORE dangerous than the quackademic side of feminism. I say almost because the air of legitimacy the quackademic side has is also VERY dangerous. Both together makes for a frightening situation.
Brain puzzler for feminists: If a man is alone in a forest and says something and nobody hears him, is he still wrong?
Trick question.
The man is always, and everywhere, wrong.
Woman's inhumanity to man.
And feminists claim that there's a "War on Women".... they're completely blinded by their own lies and hatred.
The "war on women" is SUCH a misdirection....
This is all true and hardly news. In reality, the women who commit these acts are sociopaths...who present all the traits of run of the mill feminists: hatred of men, hatred of rival women, obsession with the male sex organ, selfishness, a narcissitic belief in their own victimhood and a complete lack of accountability for any action they engage in or state of their lives.
What is truly sad is the large number, dare I say majority, of women who sympathize and celebrate them. This raises the question of whether this is a feminist problem or a problem of psychology of women generally. It is amazing how many "activists" seem to have no problem with supporting an "aggrieved" woman even if her target is NOT the man that is the source of her alleged grievance. An activist leading the sexual harassment program (SHARPP) at the University of New Hampshire literally stated to me, "As long as some man is punished and the woman is made to feel whole, what's the issue?" It's a good thing that men are NOT like women or their greater physical strength would allow for a similar kind of justice individually to collectively. (Can anyone say A Handmaid's Tale?)
I believe you're right that this is not specifically a feminist problem but a problem of female psychology, which has been exacerbated over the last 50 years by our cultural failure to hold women morally accountable for their bad actions. But if women hadn't already been aggrieved and resentful, entitled and self-obsessed, feminism could never have taken hold with so many (and so quickly) as it did.
I do think there is a marked divide. I have worked in care and health and before that retail industry. The most "entitled" group were women in a social work faculty who generally had well off husbands and nannies, maids etc. Generally the women who form the vast bulk of those workforces are not the same as those indoctrinated at Universities. Relying on personal experience there tends to be a rather more realistic view about human nature in general and "equality" is viewed as "same treatment". I have to be honest that I fear for younger generations now feminism has become part of the curriculum in secondary schools. Though one result does appear to be that young men are catching on to the misandry and illogicality now they are exposed to the ideology in school. I guess time will tell.
A lot of women feel punishing any man for the actions (supposedly) of many men over time is justified.
If a man is overlooked for a deserved promotion and a woman gets that promotion despite not having the chops for it that is fine. Look at how many men were promoted in the past!
My repeated experience is that the feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men. Employment lawyers have told me that sex discrimination against men doesn't carry much weight - but Retaliation carries more weight. Men can email the boss to complain about the discrimination. After they fire him, he can show that they retaliated against him.
I saw female teachers openly discriminate against male students and in favor of female students in the name of equity. They fully believed they were entitled to do so--that such was a blow for justice.
There was an English teacher at the high school I worked at that was a staunch feminist. Her literature selections for students reflected this. A friend of mine who had graduated from that school told me that her practice was that B was for Boy...as in no male student would ever get more than a B from her. According to my own students who had her 15 years later....her grading strategy was unchanged.
There have been at least two large scale international research projects (one of OECD countries and one including some poorer countries) both found that there is embedded preferencing of Girls in the assessment and marking of work. They used "bind marking and marking of work with obviously male or female names (but the same work). Interestingly this found the pattern that was confirmed in the the UK following the recent disruption of the normal exam regime . That the process is that girls are given inflated marks compared to the blind marking and overtly male pupil marking. In a sense simply a continuation of the process of extravagant praise we are used to seeing given to females. The interesting things are; The international studies found this was so even in poor 0vertly "patriarchal" societies in the middle east and Asia. Suggesting feminists ride on a tide of a more universal social preferencing. That the inflated marks and grades averaged 6% but varied over subjects. And of course that the researchers were "surprised" by the findings, which they shouldn't have been as for two decades now in this country the gap between "expected grades" (assessed by teachers) and those achieved has been much greater for girls than boys (boys tend to meet their teachers expectations, girls often don't). This is for the exams for our 16 year olds and 18 year olds. But I suspect if similar research was carried out in University the results would not differ. In a way the feminists are right, males are the measure and females are treated differently, to their advantage!
Collective punishment is a communist attribute. These women are being groomed into collectivism over time.
These women are tools and victims in a larger play here. They have been and will be betrayed before they are killed ( by the collectivist who always kills the useful idiots once they take power). They just do not see it coming yet.
Are they tools and victims? I suspect most of them are actually willing collaborators!
If one is groomed into a cult, culpability becomes murky.... no one is innocent but "mense rea" is in question.
Sorry...not buying it. You choose to join a cult. If women aren't responsible for the things that "feminism" leads them to do then they are not responsible actors and deserve NO rights of any kind as there are no rights without responsibilities.
They are responsible for their actions. If you run someone over and kill intentionally that is murder. But if you unintentionally run someone over and kill that is manslaughter. This comes back to the guilty mind. Feminism is intentionally evil, but draws in unwitting innocent victims to promote and spread the ideology.
You don't want to assign wo-MEN agency for their own SINS
"You choose to join a cult."
Wrong. If you're born into a cult you have no choice, and you don't know any different. All you can do is escape when you're older, but first you have to overcome years of brainwashing. Girls born in the West are born into the cult of feminism. Some manage to escape when they're older. Like Janice.
True. Becoming adults and gaining discernment, opens up the choice to leave.
DON'T agree. I was also born into the cult of GYNO-CENTRISM,
Worse than fEMINISM, and I rejected it from boyhood.
In criminal law, mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty
NOPE. MEN are given ZERO due process rights and are routinely convicted/FRAMED for non-credible rape accusations with NO evidence. 97% of rape 'claims' are LIES, less than 3% are true. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.
Don't simp to the fe-MALE victimhood narrative
I do not think you are picking up what I am putting down. If you want to, listen to my podcast on feminism and see what I mean:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/5tx5xIolxKb
Yes, this!
But it was always thus.
If you can’t see it by now, perhaps you need culled for you leave the planet worse than you found it…
BINGO! My feelings exactly.
The paradox couldn't be more apparent when the female gender is portrayed as the sensitive, gentler and more caring empathic group and the joy that some get from telling perversive stories about male gender mutilation.
MGTOW is a thing. And a history lesson like this will just increase its traction.
If the feminist bull shit stopped today, the vast majority of men in their 50’s will not see M-F relationships return to a more normalized basis within their life times.
Men we don’t have to live like this!
What appears to be happening is a two-fold attack on men. One, obviously, is as you describe. The other is an effort to disempower men by destroying both the visible symbol of manhood, and denying the man sexual pleasure.
Feminists have not urged women to restrain themselves from mutilating men. The most I’ve seen was Molly Ivins, in the wake of the Bobbitt affair, saying that feminists had not urged penisectomy, and that the crude violence was exercised by ordinary, non-feminist women. This, if anything, makes it worse. It is silent assent to female violence.
It is also a way of saying that it’s men’s fault. Male violence provoked by female acts is, however, always going to be condemned.
Great stuff Janice. As usual you have a gift in clearly exposing the misandry. Thank you.
This one reminded me of the moral typecasting research that helps us understand the empathy gap and why a woman's pain is a call to action while a man's pain is taboo. In this scenario we can see that in spades. Lorena's pain was a call to action and John's was taboo. I did a short vid on the moral typecasting stuff if anyone is interested. https://menaregood.substack.com/p/understanding-men-10-moral-typecasting
Thank you, Tom. The split between male/agent and female/passive object is so clear. Thank you for exposing the scientific basis for what we are seeing in our world today.