This was an epic takedown! I found myself wishing you were actually talking to Drucker and telling her this...and I longed to see her face in response. Great stuff Janice! Here's my favorite sentence! (out of many) So true and so rarely spoken. Thank you.
"But in general, women have remained indifferent to the millions of men run over by the feminist machine, harried out of jobs, denied opportunities, discriminated against in law, and made to feel toxic and inferior. More precisely, most women haven’t even noticed."
Drucker, as the faceless face of feminism, wouldn't give a damn.
Women are calculating and selfish under the gynocratic regime.
Driven into a frenzied of animus possessed chaos and hate they only seek power and control. It's a resentment driven ideological rabies. There's no cure but one funeral at a time.
250,000 abortions per working day globally. That's like 20,000 per working hour. It's more deaths in a year than the entire kill count from World War 2. That has the holocaust, strategic bombing, mass formations duking it out with air power, battleships, chemical warfare, across most the continents etc.
It runs at the rate of more than ten holocausts per year.
The public health system in England said 4% of house holds are affected by paternity discrepancy.
I also think shit testing is just as big, honestly.
These are the three ring bearers of the three ring circus of marriage, the wrath of engagement ring, the rider of marriage bands, and the reaper of suffering.
It's an accurate word. Try passing legislation that helps men without helping women. It will be destroyed by the women, even when appropriate for the situation it is addressing:
Exceptions to the rule prove the rule. Currently, most women are inundated with various levels of feminism. Even if they do not partake in the most heinous activities of today, they will stop men like myself from calling it out, talking about it, and acting against it.
It is time to accept generalizing, profiling, and averages again. Stop focusing on the exceptions, focus on the majority. They are hive-minded against men and nature.
Women have remained indifferent, and many men also. These men are the only ones left in the dating market to be available to women, or even "pursue" them - with utter trepidation. The men who have remained indifferent to what they should have seen happening to other men are not to be blamed, for they have been brainwashed by the very system you describe.
Perhaps some of those men have been brainwashed. But there has been a vocal opposition to feminism on the net for decades now.
Getting brainwashed isn't one's fault. But staying brainwashed is. Millions of other males, myself included, pulled out of the feminist assumption and mindset. Feminism is extremely profitable and empowering for females, simpy males, dads-of-daughters, cops, courts, government and NGO officials, and so forth. V. effective system for mass transfer of wealth from male to female/State.
What I'm saying is although a small percentage of those adult men might be 'purely brainwiped' as it were, most of them by this point in history must be held responsible for freely choosing evil . . . because let's face it, feminism is big big money. And this ain't 1970. The gynarchy isn't new.
Most of the adult men I knew when living in America chose to cuck to their wives and daughters, and most never gave a second thought to other men or boys . . . that's how completely brotherhood must be broken in a feminist nation. Females have become their gods.
Firstly, there is a generation of youngish men, say under 35, who have been raised by their mothers and a misandric society, who still hope to find a wife and imagine that being a "good boy" will win female favour, as they have been taught by mom. I see these mom's in the social media all the time whenever "teach your sons not to rape and kill women" is in the news, and they chime in with "That's how I'm raising my son!!!". I was one of those sons, btw, in the 1960/70ss, and through a one-sided marriage in the 1980s/90s.
Secondly, there are adult males, married with children, who have appeased their wives for decades just to keep some involvement in their children's lives. Death by a thousand paper cuts - including mouthing their wife's feminism whenever it's in the news.
As for those who are "free" from female tyranny, and should have seen what's happening to other men and boys, and should be thinking "It could have happened to me, and it will happen to my sons" - yep, no excuse.
Those boys raised by Fembot Mommy will come to face the truth about both her and their feminist nations in due time. At that (adult) point, it'll be each man's responsibility to face truth/reality, then make the necessary changes in his belief system and personal relations.
Nobody got a free pass out of the Ma-tricks, certainly including myself. We all had to go through it. Left comfy lies behind. Left people behind.
Adult males ought not to appease wives in order to receive granted favors, including visitation. Instead, set an example of non-compliance with Almighty Mommy and her State . . . an example of truth and honor that the young man can aspire to and follow later in life, when he has thrown off the lies of the gynarchy.
Compliance with the gynarchy makes the gynarchy stronger. One subject at a time.
The context under discussion involved visitation with one's son, with compliance to the mother required for access. There is no more sensitive or important element in the 'manosphere', or the Christian, platform. This relationship is the one that collective female power -- and the State -- seek to sever and destroy.
Failure to kowtow and appease the female in this case carries dire consequences, refusal of visitation access, so I do understand the alternative p.o.v. here. I don't take my position lightly. Yet acquiescence only leads to more ruination amongst the males of the U.S., particularly the dads and sons.
There are no good choices here but I believe that in the long run, refusal of acquiescence is better.
* Men who are stoic and don´t think the negative rhetoric would harm them. We know that they are programmed to endure, work hard, sacrifice and suffer.
* Women who believe that men can sustain the constant attacks, as they are deemed stable and strong.
Yes. Also, I think many women actually do believe that men have an easy ride in life, that they are privileged, given respect, treated with deference--all because they are male. There is a scene in the Barbie movie that makes that point. Supposedly everybody falls all over themselves for a man while making crude, contemptuous comments to women and also, of course, treating women badly. In fact, of course, it's not at all true, but if you believe it is, then a few biased laws and some nasty feminist articles shouldn't much matter.
Is the believe (that men have an easy ride in life) an innate belief (psyche) or is this due to conditioning by the last decades of feminist propaganda?
Thanks for honoring me with your very first substack comment.
So you must be one of the very rare billions of women who never had an issue with men ;-)
Your last paragraph reminds me of the auto immune theory. Human immune system can be bored and starts to 'invent' foes where there aren't any and attacks the own system.
When life was harsher, women might have seen more easily the worth and sacrifice of men. With a lot of burdens lifted, women's energy might have shifted to blaming and accusing men. If this theory is accurate, I am pessimistic that women and men easily can again live in mutual deference as before, as it might require difficult times again to redo the same circumstances.
If, however, it was only a (feminist) propaganda issue, we could get back to mutual deference way more easier.
This is probably one of the first times I’ve disagreed with something Janice has written. Women are indifferent, but they 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 noticed, generally speaking. Saying “women haven’t even noticed” veers into excusing women for their actions - a sentiment that has contributed to our current situation.
Yes, they have noticed. Any being with forward-facing eyes has noticed. Many women may not self-identify as feminists, but they have nonetheless internalised feminist rhetoric as unquestioned truth. As a result, they often appear indistinguishable from feminists. Women are all too willing to support policies that position them as primary victims deserving special privileges or that outright discriminate against men. While these women may not label themselves feminists, their actions are largely the same. They 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚 to support these policies.
The one thing the right wing and the left wing have in common is their refusal to hold women accountable. I firmly reject that notion.
You may be right. I think there is a kind of determined not-noticing, a willed refusal to recognize male suffering or male disadvantage. Women are protected from knowing what men are going through by the whole culture. But that is not quite the same thing, perhaps, as not noticing at all. It is noticed, but it is registered as minor (compared to women's always-greater suffering) or fully deserved.
If a male or female is not overtly anti-feminist, then they're a feminist.
If a male or female is not overtly anti-feminist, then they're a feminist.
Yeah I said it twice.
It's like that Matrix movie by those sketchy transvestite brothers: either you're In the matrix, or you're Out. Sure, you can jive your mind but there is no other choice of condition available.
Silence in the face of evil is acquiescence, minimally. Though in my book it's complicity. It's not like feminism just took over last week.
Agree, but it's not my take in reading any of Janice's work that she doesn't think women must be held accountable. I'm a tad confused by your statement.
However, to list the following issues and claim women haven’t noticed is a cop-out: “Millions of men have been run over by the feminist machine, hounded out of jobs, denied opportunities, discriminated against in law, and made to feel toxic and inferior.” Of course women have noticed; many have supported these outcomes.
Perhaps Janice intended only to highlight this particular author’s ignorance. However, for the reasons stated above, I take issue with the notion that women as a collective haven’t noticed. This is incorrect and eerily close to the feminist sentiment that women are merely affected by societal outcomes rather than active contributors. They have noticed because, as a collective, they have actively supported it.
And none of this is intended as criticism of Janice, who, in my opinion, is one of the foremost authorities in this field and has an enviable ability to articulate what many of us feel but cannot express. I just take issue with this particular notion!
To remain silent when malevolence is being fomented is to be complicit in it and its consequences. If that complicity is from blindness and ignorance, that does not diminish the harm nor reduce the complicity.
I was silent in mostly ignorance, although not completely so. I recognized that men would need to be displaced, although I did not notice that this was evolving into misandry. Now I am taking full responsibility for my part in not seeing the malevolence that was, on hindsight, pretty obvious. And I apologize to my community for my failure to see.
One of the great tales of taking full responsibility for acting in ignorance is Oedipus. In typical freudian gaslighting Freud twisted the heart of that tale into sex, sex, sex. He failed to observe that when Oedipus learned the truth of his actions he cried out in horror at what he had done and plucked out his eyes for his having been so blind. He didn't say 'it wasn't my fault, I didn't know. Do I am innocent.' He simply accepted responsibility for his action and punished himself for it. In my opinion blinding himself wasn't necessarily the optimal action. And yet he accepted fully that even in ignorance he was at fault for his failure to see and for the consequences of that failure. In law it is 'ignorance of the law does not negate the consequences of breaking it.'
And, of course, at Nuremberg 1, the same applied. How can we stand and state that the germans who didn't know the consequences of their failure to see what was a consequence of their ideology are still guilty, and stand back and say 'I didn't see the malevolent consequences of feminist ideology and so it isn't my fault?'
As fiamengo and others have stated so eloquently and powerfully, feminist ideology has always wanted to cherry pick the benefits they wanted from men, while choosing to not take the equivalent responsibilities that they insist men were and are obligated and 'naturally' responsible to keep. Hmmmm.
I see all these articles on the problems women face “dating” and all the things the men they meet fail to offer…
…but never - and I really do mean never - do I read in these articles any consideration at all of what the female author plans to bring to the party…
In any successful negotiation/contract/relationship, no matter how short or long term, there must be something in it for both parties. This shouldn’t be a surprising insight.
She still thinks she's high-value, pretty and desirable. She once was, but threw it away through decades of promiscuity and rejecting men, and now has hit the wall hard. She has nothing to offer. Men want younger women, who are fun to spend time with and still able to bear children, and also feminine - not angry, bitter, jaded, aggressive or masculine.
BINGO! Brilliant! I was just going to say that MENOPAUSE factors in to why so many hit the wall bags like her exhibit this type of misandry she has. She also has a need to see herself viable
What's 'misogynistic' about my comment? I have the utmost respect for women whose life and work uplifts all those around them. My comment is a factual statement, taking note of the adverse effects of poor decision-making by some (not all) women. The sexual selection preferences of human beings are hard-wired by evolution: men prefer younger women, and women choose top providers. The problem our society is facing now is that this unconscious drive in women is still operating, but as the original comment in this thread noted, today a woman's basic needs (physiological, safety) are already met, thanks to the comfortable society men created. So the sexual selection drive is routed to the 1% of men (tall, fit, rich) -- just as the sexual selection drive of men is towards younger women. Women then price themselves out of the dating market, their biological clock expires, they lose their looks, and they are left alone. Men can be too selective as well (that 1% of men have options and are choosy), but because in general, women choose men for mating, the onus lies mostly on them. Our dysfunctional society is the casualty of too much prosperity, ironically. Perhaps if we go back to hard times, natural sexual selection patterns will reassert themselves.
Just an additional note: In China, there are so many "leftover men" that young women can demand a very expensive dowry. This is the result of a demographic imbalance created by the abortion of girls and the one-child policy (now lifted), resulting in more men than women there. Interestingly, some women can afford to be very picky, as a result, and then wait too long to settle down (or divorce) and become "leftover women."
Can you name a single thing I said above that's an example of misogyny (hatred of women)? You make an allegation, do not back it up, then claim to have won the argument.
Describing the sexual selection patterns of homo sapiens and how they are affected by demographic and cultural changes is not an example of misogyny. It is an observation on societal trends and evolutionary patterns and how they interact. There is also a normative moral argument implied by the observation that things are not as they should be, that there is an imbalance leading to decreased population growth and family breakups.
For confirmation of sexual dimorphism evolving from different sexual selection strategies, see "Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans" by David A. Puts, in Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 31, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 157-175.
The definition of misogyny has been stretched so far that it includes anything that might hurt an individual woman's feelings.
It’s weaponised (more than any other -ism), and our friend here seems to use it instinctively. Do not expect any response detailing what exactly you said she deems misogynistic.
Criticising one specific female is not misogynistic. The liberal use of that word is simply to attack the messenger without engaging in anything other than lazy thinking.
I read your article as far as the picture of Mx. Drucker. It was so striking in its revelatory incongruities that I was compelled to stop and comment. Her attempt to be fetching (is that still a word?) is pathetic. However, after reading what she thought were "deep thoughts about men," I did not have pity, but only revulsion. She appears to be EVERYTHING WRONG WITH WOMEN TODAY! Utterly solipsistic and whinging, needy and repulsive at the same time, attempting a soft, feminine pose but with a face that bespeaks the hardest of hard interiors and a woman who has been around the proverbial block more times than an Uber in Manhattan. Or as my local friends might put it, "Rode hard and put up wet."
She should be a grandma by now. Instead there she is, shilling for the Old Grey Lady, with her top saucily baring one shoulder, wondering where all the men are (to hit that).
If this merely were pathetic, not a problem. But these women are legion, these women run D.C. and the American institutions. That is placing power in the hands of a death cult. Mx. Drucker is a (paid) priestess and an oracle of that cult.
Where Are All the Men? Running away from you empowered crones and your State.
I was thinking the same thing earlier today Conrad . . . how closely the U.S. gynocracy with its various male presidents resembles ancient Israel under Ahab and the power behind the throne, his wife Jezebel -- who HATED masculinity as much as she hated God, for his effrontery to be male without her permission. :O)
I recall that Jezzie hunted God's people down and drew Israel back into the sex/fertility Temple Whore system of 'worship'. She also had her male servants castrated. Turns out they were the ones who ended up tossing her sorry ass off the balcony. Payback's a bitch, briefly in flight.
The U.S. octet system is a direct pull from the pre-Bronze Age goddess cults that peopled the East, especially the Near East. Their year-kings served 8-year terms. After which they were sometimes retired, sometimes expired. Between James Frazer and J.J. Bachofen we can find the truth of it.
Jerking each other off in the bushes cos its quick,simple,mostly free and no need to faff around buying flowers,food,pretending to be deeply interested in the inner life of etc etc. What I've just said is coarse and vulgar - this social media has a detrimental effect on my vocabulary - but I'm pretty sure it's true. To some extent or other at least.
Unfortunately for women today's men have discovered that they do not need a woman, just as a fish doesn't need a bicycle.
When I married my wife over four decades ago she had no job nor came with a dowry and was a "Broke" girl. All she had to bring to the table was herself but I married her anyway.
Had i decided to not marry her because she was broke I would have been criticized, just like I was by one of my Uncle's simply because I had the temerity to calculate how much i was spending each time i took her out.
Fast forward to today and men earning what I made just a few years ago when I retired are called broke and ridiculed, rejected by today's women as not good enough.
Long gone are the days when a man could marry a woman who actually wanted, to build a rock solid relationship, have children and grow old together like my grandparents generation.
Several years ago l was waiting in a hair salon to get my haircut, when the ugly morbidly obese middle-aged woman getting highlights put in her hair said the quiet part out loud.
She sat there in the chair talking to the hairdresser loud enough for everyone in the salon to hear. That she told every man who wanted to date her that he absolutely had to have:
- His own home
- Own a Car
- Have a good job
Because she did not want to be a sugar mama.
She was talking so loud that I could not shut the sound of her voice out my ears. So when she finished talking I glanced sideways at her when she stood up and walked over to another chair; ending up shaking my head and rolling my eyes while thinking to myself that I could never be so desperate.
Now here I am nearly a year after my wife's unexpected and untimely death:
- Own my home
- Have a nice car
- Have an income i can live comfortably on
AND ITS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Nor do I want to risk my
- Health
- Life
- Finances
- Mental Health
- Emotional Health
Being in a relationship with someone who will not or can not contribute equally, and doesn't want to build a solid relationship both in and out of bed in all areas of a life together.
Today's women do not have a lock on deciding who is and who is not good enough. Men have that right too as well and increasing numbers of men are walking away from dating, marriage, intimate relationships and even society itself.
WHY?
Simply because far too many of today’s women simply aren't worth the risk and like they judge men as unworthy are themselves: NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
"She was talking so loud that I could not shut the sound of her voice out my ears."
Reminds me of the old joke: "Doctor, my husband is troubled with a buzzing noise in his ears." "Better let him go to the seaside for a month." "But he can't get away." "Then you go."
Why aren’t we labeling Drucker an “incel”? Isn’t her attitude that men owe women sexual attention exactly what feminists condemn among men who unsuccessfully seek female attention? Drucker is so oblivious and such a hypocrite that she doesn’t seem to realize that it is women with attitudes like hers that fuel MGTOW. How magnanimous of her to invite men back to her delusional gynocentric, heteronormative world where relationships operate on her terms.
There is a word,long forgotten and in disuse now. It's SPINSTER. It should be brought back. In another place someone once posted that shouldn't there be a word to be the female version of "incel" which means I've learned 'involuntary celibate". And there is,it's Spinster. Which I am. And it's long been associated with words like "bitter and twisted" which seem to fit the bull here. I think in regard to man+woman partnerships we need to drop all this garbage about romantic love and return to the sensible version that operated through most of history ie money and status.
My experience with women is that I was ready for commitment a few times, and they were not, so I just stopped trying in my 50s, and honestly, I only regret not doing so sooner. They were holding out for Mr. Perfect, and lo and behold, he never came. Or he did come along, and they rejected him. I know them. They are still single or in an unhappy relationship that they'll eventually cut off -- victims of their own hypergamy, jaded and bitter, like the author of that NYT article. And seemingly unaware of why they're alone.
I am tall, middle-class, educated, not ugly, altruistic, self-assured, polite, and well-mannered. But it's not enough these days. I believe that if I had been born in, for example, the 19th century, I would not have had any trouble marrying and having kids with a faithful, good woman, but within the last few decades, it has been a disaster for men. Something has shifted against men.
I am not alone in this unhappy experience. Millions of men have gone through the same thing, though I got out relatively unscathed compared to them. I never got married or divorced, did not lose money, houses, or kids to these women, and had only a broken heart (though not for long, thankfully). Looking back on it, I was one of the lucky ones.
Pretty women like this author who are alone in middle age and no longer pursued have only themselves to blame. She was once married but likely ended it (women almost always initiate divorce). And other men no doubt proposed to her in her youth, but none of them were good enough for her. Now that her looks are fading, men are not after her anymore, and she's unhappy about it.
Has she not heard of the MGTOW movement, the existence of which is entirely the result of feminism? Men are not afraid of intimacy; they are wary of misandry and stung by rejection. MeToo and Leftism scared them off from trying further. The smart men learn not to bother anymore. It's simply not worth it.
It's sad because at one point, I was ready to marry and have kids and would have been happy to be a father -- but feminism ruined women of my generation. They became promiscuous, had abortions, dumped a lot of guys, and played the field. This describes every woman I know in my age group, almost without exception. How many women get married in their 20s, have kids, and stay married? It's almost unheard of. These women could have been married and been mothers, but they chose not to. They wanted a career and the perfect man, who never came along.
Is it entirely the fault of women? Of course not. I made the mistake of pursuing the pretty ones who were more unobtainable. That was an error. And men are not perfect; we are sinners too ("no one is righteous, not one" - Romans 3:10). Some divorces may be warranted, if there is abuse -- but most are not. Promiscuity is a mistake for both men and women. It hardens the heart. The sexual revolution caused a lot of harm, and the ideology of feminism ruined a lot of lives, men, women, and children. It destroyed the family. I think secularism, the loss of Judeo-Christianity in the West, is largely to blame for all this. Leftism replaced Christianity for millions, and of the two faiths, Leftism is far worse: it breeds evil in the human heart. It destroys families.
I look at the lives of men my age, and it's not good: they have lost everything in divorces, even in some cases, access to their kids. What a disaster for the kids, and for society. Go back a century, and this was unheard of. People married young and had kids. Families stayed together. There were traditional roles. Life was tough, but at least there were families. Women like this author, the product of the sexual revolution and women's lib, ruined it by running through a bunch of men, breaking them, and then complaining they are not around anymore.
One last note: I have several dogs and find far more friendship, loyalty, love, and trust with them than with women. They are just better people than humans, to put it bluntly. I thank God for dogs. That part of Creation is a masterpiece. God surely has a sense of humor, judging from the silliness of dogs.
Adam would have done better to not listen to Eve, and just stay with the animals. But he listened to her, which was his downfall. Now she's complaining that he's emotionally unavailable :)
Women choose men. But now that men created advanced civilizational safety and convenience. Women have set their filter to impossible mode. Based on delusional apex fallacy of 0.01% men on social media.
A good man has to compete with DEI and welfare. Women have majority votes. Only men pay net tax over their life times as a group.
So the state pick pockets men and delivers husband and boyfriend level provisions to women. Before, during, and after marriage.
The marriage contract has become unfair and unconscionable. It's negligence for a man to be advised to sign it. The net present value of a marriage contract is massively negative to a man since more than 50% chance of more than 50% losses. To say nothing of the emotional damage from disrespect and loss of legitimacy of the state when it strips his property rights.
Wow, that comment is loaded with truth-bombs! First, it speaks to the evolutionary preference of females of mammalian species for the top protector/provider, hardwired into women. Yes, women choose men, but now, as you note, their standards are now unrealistic, creating a whole generation of people who are more or less single for life (after a string of failed relationships), with no families of their own.
In China, they are called "leftover men." Then these women essentially price themselves out of the market, missing their expiry date, and become leftover women. This is happening in the West, too. All because, as you also note, our society has unprecedented levels of safety and convenience, aided by the state. The evolutionary need for the protector/provider is already satisfied by the state and by the highest standard of living in the world's history, thanks to capitalism -- all created by men, of course -- but this is not acknowledged by feminists. They claim they don't need men, but we all know that the work of men enables everything they have and enjoy.
Thomas Sowell noted that the black family's downfall was the welfare state. They survived slavery and a lower class status, but the welfare state was their real undoing, destroying black families and leading young men into drugs and crime, and women into promiscuity and dysfunction. Critics call it the Democrat plantation. This is also tied into the erosion of Christianity in the West. Among American blacks, there is a spiritual battle for souls being fought between the church and the anti-Christ spirit enabled by Leftists, leading people to crime, drugs, promiscuity, and dysfunction. The enemy of the black man is the white liberal who infantilizes him, as Malcolm X noted. Thank God so many black Americans saw through this and voted for Trump.
You also correctly note that marriage is a losing proposition for men, likely to end in divorce and financial loss for them. Add to that the risk of the child being turned transgender by the insane virtue-signalling mother, which nearly happened to my nephew. Thankfully, his father, my brother, prevailed, and the boy was not lost to that insanity. The mother is a narcissist who wants to boast that she has a trans child. She would have ruined the boy's life to virtue-signal.
Marriage is supposed to be sacred, a sacrament before God and community, a lifetime vow. But feminism and secularism have destroyed it and the family. It started in the 1970s, and half a century later, we see the effects: the decline of Western civilization through broken families, lowered birth rates, abortions, and mass migration of cultures who refuse to assimilate. They were allowed in to augment the workforce because feminists caused family dysfunction, resulting in not enough citizens for the workforce.
Your point about men competing with DEI is also true: I was told that I was on the shortlist to be an assistant professor, and was almost picked, but the committee was obliged by affirmative action to go with a woman. Not only did I lose, but the students lost too: female professors tend to infuse feminism into the lectures. If you look at their CVs in the humanities, many or most infuse their work with gender/women's studies, or LGBTQ studies. Students are taught to accept that ideology and not to question it. There is no such thing as true academic freedom in higher education anymore. It is a rigid orthodoxy. The universities should be defunded until they get rid of this woke nonsense, which on some campuses has led to pro-Hamas rallies.
So I became a leftover man in relationships and career, thanks to feminism. Even my church went woke, and I had to find a new denomination. Some of my friends cut me off because I was anti-feminist. Causes that I believed and supported were also corrupted by feminism over time. Did you know that animal rights and welfare movements are now infected and corrupted by "intersectional feminism," and activists have to go along with the pretense that the human race and gender ideology somehow matter? For instance, they purged men in the movement who they claimed were somehow oppressing women. Leftists twist everything back to their worldview. They did this with all "social justice" causes. You name the cause, and feminists and race ideologues took it over and corrupted it.
Everywhere I turned, feminism and Leftism ruined something I believed in; it closed doors and corrupted institutions that I was part of. It ruined the lives of everyone I know as well, leading to divorce, abortion, broken families, and despair. It is the single most destructive force in the West, a cancer eating away at our civilization from within, making it easy for predatory, hostile political ideologies to take over: Islamism, and Chinese Communism, and authoritarian globalism, as well as an army of criminals and con artists and corrupt officials (in media, government, and every institution) are now preying on the dying body of the West.
What has happened in the last half century is momentous and disastrous. It is cultural suicide on a grand scale across the entire Western world. Ironically, this was the greatest civilization for women in human history, and they ruined it. For example, Sweden is run by feminists, but they let in tens of thousands of rapists and terrorists while at the same time emasculating the native male population.
So I wonder, how does it compare to the black death? The Spanish flu? The great war? The great flood? Mass extinctions?
USA population is growing at minus 20% per generation. A million souls were aborted in 2023 in the USA alone. Five million family court cases are heard annually in just the US.
Marriage went from 90% to 30% in three generations. 80% of women reproduced in human history but I guess it's going south of 60% now. And that with an annual $400bn tax on men for single mother transfer payments.
Afghanistan which won a war of independence against the US (and USSR, and Britain) produces 4.5 children per woman to the USAs 1.66.
Good point. The effect of this cultural suicide via feminism and hypergamy is momentous, so I was curious to see the stats. 63 million abortions in the USA since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Compare that to the much smaller number of 1.4 million Americans who died in wars since 1776. 45 times more Americans died from abortion than in wars.
"By the early 2020s, statistics show a notable increase in the percentage of women remaining childless, particularly in developed countries. For example, in the US, about 1-in-6 women reaching the end of their childbearing years in 2020 had never given birth. This figure is considerably higher than the historical average, indicating a significant rise in childlessness."
"In 1800, most women in the U.S. had 7 children, but that number has steadily decreased over the years, with the exception of the Baby Boom (when the U.S. fertility rate jumped to 3.62). In 2018, U.S. women had 1.7 children on average."
"Childlessness continues to be on the rise among younger women, according to Pew Research Center, a trend attributed to factors like increased educational attainment and women's participation in the workforce."
"Educational attainment," such as gender studies? Because of feminism, women choose jobs over marriage and families. This is not a victory for women. It is a disaster for them as well because by the time they are ready to settle down, it may be too late for them, both biologically and in terms of dating options. They "hit the wall," and it's too late.
Because of this demographic shift, the USA lost literally tens of millions of people, mostly to abortion, but also because they were never conceived to begin with, due to women's choices. Globalists are happy to bring in immigrants from the third world to make up the labor shortfall but in Western Europe, this has caused a huge culture clash because those from the Middle East and North Africa won't assimilate, and are slowly turning countries like England and Germany, and Sweden into third world countries. It's just a matter of time: their women have numerous children while white women have few or none. Islamization via reproduction, the "strange death of Europe." In the USA, immigrant populations have also increased while white populations have decreased as a percentage.
What is the fate of that great nation in 100 years? Will it even still be in existence? Canada, Australia, the UK, and Western Europe will fall sooner. Globalists are pushing their agenda. Perhaps feminism should be considered a danger to national security?
"Globalists are happy to bring in immigrants from the third world to make up the labor shortfall but in Western Europe, this has caused a huge culture clash because those from the Middle East and North Africa won't assimilate, and are slowly turning countries like England and Germany, and Sweden into third world countries."
Of course they won't assimilate in the West, they have nothing but contempt for Western societies, especially our "liberated" Western women. Hence we see Muslim rape gangs and grooming gangs, condoned and enabled by their Muslim communities. That's what it looks like when one race replaces another. In earlier times it happened quickly, when the invading hordes would slaughter all the men and boys and rape all the women and girls. Now it's a more gradual process, but it's the same thing nonetheless. The only question is, what happens when they reach population majority? Will they run out of patience and dispatch the remaining infidels in a bloodbath? One thing is certain - the transition from Western democracy to Sharia state will not be painless, and women will suffer most. That is the great irony of feminism, which has ushered in this calamity for Western women. Even now UK feminists refuse to condemn Muslim grooming gangs, insisting that "the majority of child abusers in the UK are white men." (Julie Bindel, Feb 2024)
"the decline of Western civilization through broken families, lowered birth rates, abortions, and mass migration of cultures who refuse to assimilate."
You list the evils of Western society and then expect migrants to adopt them too? Of course they refuse to assimilate into a morally bankrupt feminist society. They build their own communities based on their traditional moral values, until they eventually replace us completely.
"Thomas Sowell noted that the black family's downfall was the welfare state."
There is a quartet of pictures being memed and tweeted around, of Hirōshima and Detroit in 1945, and the same cities today. They appear to have swapped conditions.
"Critics call it the Democrat plantation."
A cynic-- or a sharp reader of the Moynihan Report-- might guess this was done on purpose. The party destroyed both cities, but Hirōshima was the luckier of the two-- the Dems left.
Men have fulfilled their evolutionary role of providing and protecting to such an extent that women now operate under the illusion of independence, fuelling their hubristic and delusional attitudes.
Civilisation is a gift from men to women, and modern women have had so much smoke blown up their backsides that they have forgotten this.
As you state, women are net tax beneficiaries, and it's still overwhelmingly men doing the dangerous and "icky" jobs that keep the lights of civilisation on.
I eagerly await the day when this pathetic illusion of independence is ruthlessly shattered. I hope I am alive to see it.
Back in the 1970s (which I am Old Enuf To Remember) there was a lot of flim-flam about angry women demanding the withheld right to be Sewer Workers,Refuse Collection operatives (bin men),Truck drivers,Firemen. I don't think anyone demanded the right to be a Coal Miner but that was about the only dirty and dangerous job requiring the use of heavy equipment that was left out. Then in the early 1980s came a slew of news items on our local news,this young woman taken on as a refuse collector. It's heavy work but I can cope she says to camera obviously barely able to lift the full bin into the loading mechanism,similar with local fire service etc. Now years later do we see any females in these roles. Well not in my locality. Theyve quiet quitted.
Marriage should revert to what it was for most of the thousands of years of human history. A business contract with both parties understanding they are signing up to a long term commitment to build a structure of economic advantage. If the woman's side cannot bring money then she must bring youth,fertility,beauty/charm because it's her job to give her husband status (and vice versa) and she must bring organizational ability. It's not "only housework" it's managing the home environment so that HE can efficiently and effectively optimize the money making years the best. A man who has to work 12 hours then come home to a dirty house,cook the meal for him and the kids,and put them to bed because his wife is 'liberated' and 'too smart for housework' ie watches tv all day,that's future poverty.
"It's sad because at one point, I was ready to marry and have kids and would have been happy to be a father"
Me too, but looking around today I reckon we dodged a bullet. But yeah, it's sad that so much human potential has been lost or destroyed by feminism. Immensely sad. One day feminism will be seen as the greatest tragedy ever to befall Western civilization, but of course it will be too late by then.
You are right that men are sinners too. We could not miss that. Whereas in this NYT article, as in many thousands of others, men are relentlessly derided and demonised. You will never see anything in the NYT or the rest of the MSM remotely critical of women.
- “Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.” ― Camille Paglia
- “If you live in rock and roll, as I do, you see the reality of sex, of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn't repel them.” ― Camille Paglia
- "If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts" - Camille-Paglia..
"The surprise is not that some men have pulled back, but that they haven’t done so far more definitively and bitterly."
Well said! The problem for women is that most of the smart and capable men, ie. those who've created something to lose, are in the first category, leaving only the broken, half-formed and incapable still pursuing women - with utter trepidation. (Said without judgement - they've been formed by the anti-male society, including their mothers, which Janice describes).
Groucho Marx said “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.” Similarly, Drucker should admit that she doesn't want a man who is so inept as to not realise how dangerous she is is, and pursue better options or none at all.
How could she not have sexually transmitted diseases?
I think if you have a body count if above 1% percentile, or multiple abortions, you should be on a sex offender list.
And consent theory means it does require public notarisation to prevent me too. Just scan a QR code to increment body count and if MeTood it's evidence you'll rely on in court.
In the UK, half of all new- borns are delivered to single women. Nine out of ten teachers at Primary level, (pre- adolescents) are female as are eight out of ten Secondary teachers. The media, notably the BBC, are vehemently, monotonously and universally feminist. Heads of Government, the Churches and industry make a point of emphasisng the anti- male message at every possible opportunity. The entire UK is lost to hegemonic misandry.
So when they tell us that boys are being raised to hate women, the smell of brown and stinky is overpowering. It's not women we hate, it's feminism.
Well, Last month, the government passed a bill that decriminalises abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. The bill was supported by 89% of female MPs, crossing political lines, and endorsed by every major women’s group and feminist organisation in the UK.
This development coincides with the government's decision to close female youth offender institutions and its stated goal of reducing the number of women sent to prison (not through reducing crime, but through increased sympathy for any hypothetical trauma these female criminals may have previously experienced)
Women in politics, through their voting patterns, often prioritise policies that benefit women as a demographic in a way that men typically do not for other men. Men lack such a mechanism for in-group bias. In fact, many men in the UK are so demoralised and influenced by propaganda that they will support anything with a “women’s rights” label slapped on it, even if it involves the killing of their offspring or blatant endorsement of a two-tier justice system.
Wow, Len. Well said. There are quite a few organizations in the United States dedicated to keeping women out of prison also, despite the fact, as Sonja Starr demonstrated, that there is already a massive gender disparity in criminal sentencing.
Men have traumatic events that contribute to their going to prison too.
The prison experience is traumatic. In Australia the suicide rate for men in first 2 weeks post release is approx 503 per 100,000 of population. For females it is 0. The std rate is 18 per 100,000 for men and 5.8 for women. It would appear prison is good for women.
Feminists seem to have difficulty undestanding that men are part of the in-group too. Men are equally part of community. Those feminists elected to represent the community are supposed to be representing all, not just the women.
I think the present administration in the UK is peak feminism (so far).
The crying Chancellor, closing girls prisons, seeking to close women's prisons. A minister for women since 1997. Even a woman minister for safe guarding who's constituency depends on the Muslim block for votes hence refuses to investigate grooming.
It reminds me of two 1980s cases involving the PMS defence for murder. One women walked free after conviction and went on to murder a policeman later.
Her argument was basically a lack of agency. The Schroedingers feminist theory. That she has the power to kill, but somehow this is not her responsibility. I'm a nutshell that's she feminist claim.
I think the ten million aborted UK subjects were mostly life style abortions, not medically excempted. 98% of the 600 per day are for mother's mental health. We ought to be running rememberance days for them. Not doubling down by adding female no punish exceptions to the 1865 Act criminalising abortions.
Lilly Allen, a singer, recently went on record saying she aborted 5 of her children and doesn't care. Where's the guilt? Where's the shame? Women really don't care. These women are rich and can afford big families but chose to murder them.
The feminist legal agenda has been done and done.
The Children's Act (1989) which defines everything as both neglect and abuse. The matrimonial acts (1973, 1996) which allow transfer of title on patrimonial assets - even pensions. Banning sex in marriage (1990). The Coercive control regulations intended to criminalise any protection against nagging (2015). The domestic abuse regulations designed to push the police into the home. The abortion act (1967). The Equality act which allows DEI against men. Education changes to push girls ahead of boys (e.g. teacher predicted grades). No fault divorce (2020). What's left?
Education is particularly egregious. My teachers predicted me Ds Bs and C's in my A level GCE exams so universities offered me places on that basis. I then got all As. But was barred from high demand universities despite me being an autodidact. This prioritised girls because teachers systematically mark girls up for the same work. And estimate them higher too.
There's no redress for the pro-girl anti-boy policies. And it has seriously affected to mating market as women in their 20s look down financially on men.
Now postmodern take down of borders is increasingly causing women and girls to be subject to systematic rape and assault. Women cannot defend themselves against foreign men who are willing to use their physical power.
What is Schroedingers feminist going to do?
Issue feminists with pistols in their purses and licenses to kill by female rights?
Thank you, Janice. Your piece offers a concise summary of the biases and emotional pain often experienced by men. Being frightened to engage in romance stems from empirical evidence of the treacherous consequences. Most men experience hidden loneliness and a longing for someone to understand their feelings - powerfully illustrated by interviews with sex workers, who report that most of their clients primarily want to talk, share their feelings, and experience a sense of human connection. Any sex is often brief and secondary.
I can't get over how deluded and arrogant women like Ms Drucker are.
Like most women in her very small but very loud and arrogant circle, she seems to truly believe that her personal experience is also the experience of the majority of women, and that therefore she is entitled to represent them.
However in reality, Drucker doesn't represent the majority of women at all. In fact, while being loud and given a soapbox to shout from (the NYT), the deluded views of Drucker & her misandrist friends might be shared by 10% (max) of women in the United States, if that.
That isn't the only problem in her piece. At several times reading it, I laughed out loud at her woeful misunderstanding of men and masculinity. There seems to be a profound double standard at play here. Drucker and T
"feminists" like her clearly think it's OK to make (ignorant and normally denigrating) comments about men and masculinity. At the same time, however, they deny men the right to make comments about women, and shout down any attempt by men to do so. Sorry ladies, you can't have it both ways.
As you point out, the truth here is that Drucker and women who sign up to her views, are simply unattractive to men.
Men can and will avoid them, for obvious reasons.
That may be harsh, but it's the truth.
And no amount of word salads in the NYT will change that.
Drucker, a product of narcissistic feminism, believes that she is entitled to gaslight half the population to avoid facing her own manifest shortcomings. If "Women Don't Owe You [men] $h*t", then what, if anything, do men owe women?
Please forgive me, though, for pointing out two things that Ms. Drucker is spot on about:
1. Other than at lunch time, the near-absence of men in restaurants, but it's not as new as she thinks. While US Census work in 2010 required me to do evening paperwork in restaurants and bars, I was struck even back then by the dominance of tables full of women late 20s to early 50s, most of whom actively flirted with any men who showed up. They're writing about it and TikTokking about it now, but women have had decades to get accustomed to the decrease in men willing to expend resources for the privilege of getting rejected by women.
2. Drucker is also correct about men looking to Playboy and porn almost solely for sexual release; however, she's off the mark in a self-revealing way when she claims that men have consequently lost their motivation for actual communion with real live females due to readily-available porn. One hopes she wasn't indicating that draining men's balls is HER sole value in life.
Men who refuse to continue to be taken advantage of are simply growing in numbers.
We ought to circulate interviewing techniques for men.
Shit testing is instinctual for women.
But men need art to determine a woman's liabilities and assets too. Is she in debt? Is she a communist? Does she act immorally for selfish reasons? Does she look down on him? Etc.
Heh. Thoughtfu rebuttal. Made me think of that Sicilian saying: Revenge is a dish best served cold... My other side of the bed gets a hot bottle, not a hoe after my assets. Cold bed = full bank account 😂 And just speaking to women in general is exhausting. Do you know that you all talk to males like your'e from HR & want to help us fit in? And we ALL despise HR, female's 1st bastion in the workforce. Ahahahaha! 👏
The maternal instinct isn't tied up in infant care because there are so few infants. Women used to have 5-6 to get that 2.1 but now they only have 1.5.
The maternal instinct for controlling and infantalising is now appearing in workplaces and homes without children.
See Hanna Fry re studies on Females in Academia, when they get control. That "maternal instinct" includes total information control, utter lies & that lovely Left-ist concept, the Noble Lie... "for the good of the group".
I think women have demonstrated they misuse power by subjectivity, emotionality, bad faith arguments, subversion, and deceit.
1-3% of children have paternity discrepancy. 250,000 children are aborted each work day globally. Women have majority votes, and pay net negative tax over their life times. 10,000 family court cases are heard daily in the USA alone. Not 30% of Generation Z men got married. Majority of marriages end in divorce. 72% of homosexual divorces are women.
The DEI tokenism is the worse. Lately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cried in parliament in the UK when being criticised for economic mismanagement. It's a childish manipulative tactic. Utterly disgraceful. And risks ruining us all.
That said, we're so rich thanks to technology, maybe we can afford more luxury beliefs, bread and circuses for all.
Marriage is a three ring circus, engagement ring, wedding ring, then comes the suffering in family court.
For decades women have been saying don't approach is, don't talk to us, don't touch us, don't LOOK at us, do not notice we are female (despite the preening and prancing), keep to yourself, leave us alone. Asking a woman out can cost a man his job or even his career. This message has been broadcast on every channel 24x7 since around 1980 when heterosexuality was de facto outlawed and sex redefined as rape. And now men are being called emotional runts?
I am as emotionally close to men as a mostly straight man can be. My female friends are my go-to for discussions of an emotional or intuitive nature. And in most m/f couples it is forbidden for men to have female friends; the women are just too insecure and jealous. And the men know this. Their male friends are unlikely to be as emotionally open as their (balanced) female (actual) friends (not friend zone female friends).
So this is another self-defeating situation.
There is no way on god’s earth I would give up my friendships with women no matter how monogamous I was with a partner. But most men do not have that much spine and are so pussy whipped they feel they have to obey. So the men end up in an emotional desert.
Also of note, the women don’t want to cook, clean, or assist the men; and now intimacy is considered emotional labor uncompensated; so what is left of the partnership? His money and his his ability to fix things?
I think there's been a ratcheting towards this present state of affairs.
We need a scale for dissolutionment of men towards women. From Genesis woman as a helper to man. To she's too much of a MeToo HR risk to talk to.
I genuinely believe we've made measurable progress away from the former marriage centric self reproducing societies pre-sexual revolution, pre-second wave feminism.
I suppose marriage and divorce rates show this.
For a man to become turned off from women requires a tremendous, sustained injustice to overcome his inate pro female bias.
But it's happening increasingly.
How many men would say women are insufferable today? How many would say women are more risk than reward?
My ex and i had a circle of friends which was 90+% male. In fact, quite a few of them were coupled males who hung out with us without their partners. One exception was a friend of hers from SoCal whom we''d seen once a year or so. She got upset whenever she'd see me work with female students (i was a math and stats instructor). I never felt comfortable being around other women, even after she and i separated.
And yes, in 13 years and 7 months, she cooked dinner .... maybe three times.
"Some men have simply come to the conclusion that modern women aren’t, in general, all that likable—neither marriage material nor viable candidates for motherhood."
My experience with all women over my life time, combined with Manosphere observations and general rules, shows women to be almost completely hopeless.
It's the sword of Damocles hanging over any committed man's head. He knows he can be submitted to two tier injustice at any moment. Women share tips on how to weaponise the system setup to answer their feelings of insecurity. But it's boundless.
This was an epic takedown! I found myself wishing you were actually talking to Drucker and telling her this...and I longed to see her face in response. Great stuff Janice! Here's my favorite sentence! (out of many) So true and so rarely spoken. Thank you.
"But in general, women have remained indifferent to the millions of men run over by the feminist machine, harried out of jobs, denied opportunities, discriminated against in law, and made to feel toxic and inferior. More precisely, most women haven’t even noticed."
Drucker, as the faceless face of feminism, wouldn't give a damn.
Women are calculating and selfish under the gynocratic regime.
Driven into a frenzied of animus possessed chaos and hate they only seek power and control. It's a resentment driven ideological rabies. There's no cure but one funeral at a time.
250,000 abortions per working day globally. That's like 20,000 per working hour. It's more deaths in a year than the entire kill count from World War 2. That has the holocaust, strategic bombing, mass formations duking it out with air power, battleships, chemical warfare, across most the continents etc.
Calm down, Conrad, and try it again.
Abortion has a count of more than a billion.
It runs at the rate of more than ten holocausts per year.
The public health system in England said 4% of house holds are affected by paternity discrepancy.
I also think shit testing is just as big, honestly.
These are the three ring bearers of the three ring circus of marriage, the wrath of engagement ring, the rider of marriage bands, and the reaper of suffering.
Hoho.
Well, that didn't work, did it?
‘gynocratic’
this as bad any wokist extremism self-pity bullshit
seek help
It's an accurate word. Try passing legislation that helps men without helping women. It will be destroyed by the women, even when appropriate for the situation it is addressing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201217124916/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/no-country-for-burly-men
But legislation that helps women at the expense of men, even denying men justice, is just fine. Hence we have VAWA.
You are generalizing, don't you think? What company do you keep?
Exceptions to the rule prove the rule. Currently, most women are inundated with various levels of feminism. Even if they do not partake in the most heinous activities of today, they will stop men like myself from calling it out, talking about it, and acting against it.
It is time to accept generalizing, profiling, and averages again. Stop focusing on the exceptions, focus on the majority. They are hive-minded against men and nature.
All adult humans are responsible for what they believe.
It's empathy-systematising.
Women are a bit more empathetic.
Men are a bit more systematising.
That's where we miss each other on facts versus feelings, truth versus pandering.
Good company I expect.
Women have remained indifferent, and many men also. These men are the only ones left in the dating market to be available to women, or even "pursue" them - with utter trepidation. The men who have remained indifferent to what they should have seen happening to other men are not to be blamed, for they have been brainwashed by the very system you describe.
Perhaps some of those men have been brainwashed. But there has been a vocal opposition to feminism on the net for decades now.
Getting brainwashed isn't one's fault. But staying brainwashed is. Millions of other males, myself included, pulled out of the feminist assumption and mindset. Feminism is extremely profitable and empowering for females, simpy males, dads-of-daughters, cops, courts, government and NGO officials, and so forth. V. effective system for mass transfer of wealth from male to female/State.
What I'm saying is although a small percentage of those adult men might be 'purely brainwiped' as it were, most of them by this point in history must be held responsible for freely choosing evil . . . because let's face it, feminism is big big money. And this ain't 1970. The gynarchy isn't new.
Most of the adult men I knew when living in America chose to cuck to their wives and daughters, and most never gave a second thought to other men or boys . . . that's how completely brotherhood must be broken in a feminist nation. Females have become their gods.
I mostly agree, but with a couple of caveats.
Firstly, there is a generation of youngish men, say under 35, who have been raised by their mothers and a misandric society, who still hope to find a wife and imagine that being a "good boy" will win female favour, as they have been taught by mom. I see these mom's in the social media all the time whenever "teach your sons not to rape and kill women" is in the news, and they chime in with "That's how I'm raising my son!!!". I was one of those sons, btw, in the 1960/70ss, and through a one-sided marriage in the 1980s/90s.
Secondly, there are adult males, married with children, who have appeased their wives for decades just to keep some involvement in their children's lives. Death by a thousand paper cuts - including mouthing their wife's feminism whenever it's in the news.
As for those who are "free" from female tyranny, and should have seen what's happening to other men and boys, and should be thinking "It could have happened to me, and it will happen to my sons" - yep, no excuse.
Thanks for that thoughtful response.
Those boys raised by Fembot Mommy will come to face the truth about both her and their feminist nations in due time. At that (adult) point, it'll be each man's responsibility to face truth/reality, then make the necessary changes in his belief system and personal relations.
Nobody got a free pass out of the Ma-tricks, certainly including myself. We all had to go through it. Left comfy lies behind. Left people behind.
Adult males ought not to appease wives in order to receive granted favors, including visitation. Instead, set an example of non-compliance with Almighty Mommy and her State . . . an example of truth and honor that the young man can aspire to and follow later in life, when he has thrown off the lies of the gynarchy.
Compliance with the gynarchy makes the gynarchy stronger. One subject at a time.
I think this is so.
Appeasement just makes it worse.
We ought to call it out directly, even if women go nuclear over it.
Wrong is wrong and right is right.
Stay in your lane gentlemen and become integrous men of character. Admired and looked to for leadership.
That's good counsel, Conrad.
The context under discussion involved visitation with one's son, with compliance to the mother required for access. There is no more sensitive or important element in the 'manosphere', or the Christian, platform. This relationship is the one that collective female power -- and the State -- seek to sever and destroy.
Failure to kowtow and appease the female in this case carries dire consequences, refusal of visitation access, so I do understand the alternative p.o.v. here. I don't take my position lightly. Yet acquiescence only leads to more ruination amongst the males of the U.S., particularly the dads and sons.
There are no good choices here but I believe that in the long run, refusal of acquiescence is better.
BRAVO!
Imho, the indifference comes from 2 sides:
* Men who are stoic and don´t think the negative rhetoric would harm them. We know that they are programmed to endure, work hard, sacrifice and suffer.
* Women who believe that men can sustain the constant attacks, as they are deemed stable and strong.
Yes. Also, I think many women actually do believe that men have an easy ride in life, that they are privileged, given respect, treated with deference--all because they are male. There is a scene in the Barbie movie that makes that point. Supposedly everybody falls all over themselves for a man while making crude, contemptuous comments to women and also, of course, treating women badly. In fact, of course, it's not at all true, but if you believe it is, then a few biased laws and some nasty feminist articles shouldn't much matter.
Is the believe (that men have an easy ride in life) an innate belief (psyche) or is this due to conditioning by the last decades of feminist propaganda?
Thanks for honoring me with your very first substack comment.
So you must be one of the very rare billions of women who never had an issue with men ;-)
Your last paragraph reminds me of the auto immune theory. Human immune system can be bored and starts to 'invent' foes where there aren't any and attacks the own system.
When life was harsher, women might have seen more easily the worth and sacrifice of men. With a lot of burdens lifted, women's energy might have shifted to blaming and accusing men. If this theory is accurate, I am pessimistic that women and men easily can again live in mutual deference as before, as it might require difficult times again to redo the same circumstances.
If, however, it was only a (feminist) propaganda issue, we could get back to mutual deference way more easier.
This is probably one of the first times I’ve disagreed with something Janice has written. Women are indifferent, but they 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 noticed, generally speaking. Saying “women haven’t even noticed” veers into excusing women for their actions - a sentiment that has contributed to our current situation.
Yes, they have noticed. Any being with forward-facing eyes has noticed. Many women may not self-identify as feminists, but they have nonetheless internalised feminist rhetoric as unquestioned truth. As a result, they often appear indistinguishable from feminists. Women are all too willing to support policies that position them as primary victims deserving special privileges or that outright discriminate against men. While these women may not label themselves feminists, their actions are largely the same. They 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚 to support these policies.
The one thing the right wing and the left wing have in common is their refusal to hold women accountable. I firmly reject that notion.
You may be right. I think there is a kind of determined not-noticing, a willed refusal to recognize male suffering or male disadvantage. Women are protected from knowing what men are going through by the whole culture. But that is not quite the same thing, perhaps, as not noticing at all. It is noticed, but it is registered as minor (compared to women's always-greater suffering) or fully deserved.
If a male or female is not overtly anti-feminist, then they're a feminist.
If a male or female is not overtly anti-feminist, then they're a feminist.
Yeah I said it twice.
It's like that Matrix movie by those sketchy transvestite brothers: either you're In the matrix, or you're Out. Sure, you can jive your mind but there is no other choice of condition available.
Silence in the face of evil is acquiescence, minimally. Though in my book it's complicity. It's not like feminism just took over last week.
Dam, well said.
Agree, but it's not my take in reading any of Janice's work that she doesn't think women must be held accountable. I'm a tad confused by your statement.
I generally agree.
However, to list the following issues and claim women haven’t noticed is a cop-out: “Millions of men have been run over by the feminist machine, hounded out of jobs, denied opportunities, discriminated against in law, and made to feel toxic and inferior.” Of course women have noticed; many have supported these outcomes.
Perhaps Janice intended only to highlight this particular author’s ignorance. However, for the reasons stated above, I take issue with the notion that women as a collective haven’t noticed. This is incorrect and eerily close to the feminist sentiment that women are merely affected by societal outcomes rather than active contributors. They have noticed because, as a collective, they have actively supported it.
And none of this is intended as criticism of Janice, who, in my opinion, is one of the foremost authorities in this field and has an enviable ability to articulate what many of us feel but cannot express. I just take issue with this particular notion!
My comments were general, though 'Len' was the proximate addressee. I did not address Janice. (Who obviously advocates for female accountability.)
To remain silent when malevolence is being fomented is to be complicit in it and its consequences. If that complicity is from blindness and ignorance, that does not diminish the harm nor reduce the complicity.
I was silent in mostly ignorance, although not completely so. I recognized that men would need to be displaced, although I did not notice that this was evolving into misandry. Now I am taking full responsibility for my part in not seeing the malevolence that was, on hindsight, pretty obvious. And I apologize to my community for my failure to see.
One of the great tales of taking full responsibility for acting in ignorance is Oedipus. In typical freudian gaslighting Freud twisted the heart of that tale into sex, sex, sex. He failed to observe that when Oedipus learned the truth of his actions he cried out in horror at what he had done and plucked out his eyes for his having been so blind. He didn't say 'it wasn't my fault, I didn't know. Do I am innocent.' He simply accepted responsibility for his action and punished himself for it. In my opinion blinding himself wasn't necessarily the optimal action. And yet he accepted fully that even in ignorance he was at fault for his failure to see and for the consequences of that failure. In law it is 'ignorance of the law does not negate the consequences of breaking it.'
And, of course, at Nuremberg 1, the same applied. How can we stand and state that the germans who didn't know the consequences of their failure to see what was a consequence of their ideology are still guilty, and stand back and say 'I didn't see the malevolent consequences of feminist ideology and so it isn't my fault?'
As fiamengo and others have stated so eloquently and powerfully, feminist ideology has always wanted to cherry pick the benefits they wanted from men, while choosing to not take the equivalent responsibilities that they insist men were and are obligated and 'naturally' responsible to keep. Hmmmm.
This, Janice is the best!
I see all these articles on the problems women face “dating” and all the things the men they meet fail to offer…
…but never - and I really do mean never - do I read in these articles any consideration at all of what the female author plans to bring to the party…
In any successful negotiation/contract/relationship, no matter how short or long term, there must be something in it for both parties. This shouldn’t be a surprising insight.
She still thinks she's high-value, pretty and desirable. She once was, but threw it away through decades of promiscuity and rejecting men, and now has hit the wall hard. She has nothing to offer. Men want younger women, who are fun to spend time with and still able to bear children, and also feminine - not angry, bitter, jaded, aggressive or masculine.
It's such a disgrace that she's postmenopausal and still trying to act promiscuous.
She should be ashamed of herself. And is probably tortured by demons of guilt.
We need a law to allow men to query women's notarised body count and abortion count and a star rating from divorce raped men.
She's abusing her privacy in the worst way to make a vast chain of errors without any virtue or reflection.
BINGO! Brilliant! I was just going to say that MENOPAUSE factors in to why so many hit the wall bags like her exhibit this type of misandry she has. She also has a need to see herself viable
While I think Drucker is an idiot, misogynistic stuff like this is also what makes her view viable.
What's 'misogynistic' about my comment? I have the utmost respect for women whose life and work uplifts all those around them. My comment is a factual statement, taking note of the adverse effects of poor decision-making by some (not all) women. The sexual selection preferences of human beings are hard-wired by evolution: men prefer younger women, and women choose top providers. The problem our society is facing now is that this unconscious drive in women is still operating, but as the original comment in this thread noted, today a woman's basic needs (physiological, safety) are already met, thanks to the comfortable society men created. So the sexual selection drive is routed to the 1% of men (tall, fit, rich) -- just as the sexual selection drive of men is towards younger women. Women then price themselves out of the dating market, their biological clock expires, they lose their looks, and they are left alone. Men can be too selective as well (that 1% of men have options and are choosy), but because in general, women choose men for mating, the onus lies mostly on them. Our dysfunctional society is the casualty of too much prosperity, ironically. Perhaps if we go back to hard times, natural sexual selection patterns will reassert themselves.
Just an additional note: In China, there are so many "leftover men" that young women can demand a very expensive dowry. This is the result of a demographic imbalance created by the abortion of girls and the one-child policy (now lifted), resulting in more men than women there. Interestingly, some women can afford to be very picky, as a result, and then wait too long to settle down (or divorce) and become "leftover women."
Thanks for proving my original point
Can you name a single thing I said above that's an example of misogyny (hatred of women)? You make an allegation, do not back it up, then claim to have won the argument.
Describing the sexual selection patterns of homo sapiens and how they are affected by demographic and cultural changes is not an example of misogyny. It is an observation on societal trends and evolutionary patterns and how they interact. There is also a normative moral argument implied by the observation that things are not as they should be, that there is an imbalance leading to decreased population growth and family breakups.
For confirmation of sexual dimorphism evolving from different sexual selection strategies, see "Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans" by David A. Puts, in Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 31, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 157-175.
The definition of misogyny has been stretched so far that it includes anything that might hurt an individual woman's feelings.
It’s weaponised (more than any other -ism), and our friend here seems to use it instinctively. Do not expect any response detailing what exactly you said she deems misogynistic.
Don't feed the trolls. Even if their names are Jessica.
Again not engaging in dicussion.
How is calling a female person who has lived a sexually promiscuous life a WHORE misogynistic.
Criticising one specific female is not misogynistic. The liberal use of that word is simply to attack the messenger without engaging in anything other than lazy thinking.
She brings herself to the party without realizing that she is a "Depreciating Liability"...
I read your article as far as the picture of Mx. Drucker. It was so striking in its revelatory incongruities that I was compelled to stop and comment. Her attempt to be fetching (is that still a word?) is pathetic. However, after reading what she thought were "deep thoughts about men," I did not have pity, but only revulsion. She appears to be EVERYTHING WRONG WITH WOMEN TODAY! Utterly solipsistic and whinging, needy and repulsive at the same time, attempting a soft, feminine pose but with a face that bespeaks the hardest of hard interiors and a woman who has been around the proverbial block more times than an Uber in Manhattan. Or as my local friends might put it, "Rode hard and put up wet."
Round about these parts, it's "Ridden hard and put away wet." Love that line about an Uber in Manhattan. Good stuff!
We ought to have a Brother's Grimm style project to collect all the local terms describing fallen women.
Hoe Math uses these terms often.
She should be a grandma by now. Instead there she is, shilling for the Old Grey Lady, with her top saucily baring one shoulder, wondering where all the men are (to hit that).
If this merely were pathetic, not a problem. But these women are legion, these women run D.C. and the American institutions. That is placing power in the hands of a death cult. Mx. Drucker is a (paid) priestess and an oracle of that cult.
Where Are All the Men? Running away from you empowered crones and your State.
You named it. A Death Cult. We live in a Death Cult. And every day our news media (in in UK) brings us it's dole of Human Sacrifice.
They are legion.
It's the Jezebel Marx-Engels Legion signature that possesses them.
I was thinking the same thing earlier today Conrad . . . how closely the U.S. gynocracy with its various male presidents resembles ancient Israel under Ahab and the power behind the throne, his wife Jezebel -- who HATED masculinity as much as she hated God, for his effrontery to be male without her permission. :O)
I recall that Jezzie hunted God's people down and drew Israel back into the sex/fertility Temple Whore system of 'worship'. She also had her male servants castrated. Turns out they were the ones who ended up tossing her sorry ass off the balcony. Payback's a bitch, briefly in flight.
The U.S. octet system is a direct pull from the pre-Bronze Age goddess cults that peopled the East, especially the Near East. Their year-kings served 8-year terms. After which they were sometimes retired, sometimes expired. Between James Frazer and J.J. Bachofen we can find the truth of it.
I saw the photo before I read the article. If it were a painting, it would be entitled Bitterness Attending a Masquerade.
And Where Are All the Men at the Masquerade? :O)
Probably too smart to attend.
Dressed as lamps and furniture!
Love it!
Jerking each other off in the bushes cos its quick,simple,mostly free and no need to faff around buying flowers,food,pretending to be deeply interested in the inner life of etc etc. What I've just said is coarse and vulgar - this social media has a detrimental effect on my vocabulary - but I'm pretty sure it's true. To some extent or other at least.
With the look of those hard bitten whingers in Sex in the City.
Unfortunately for women today's men have discovered that they do not need a woman, just as a fish doesn't need a bicycle.
When I married my wife over four decades ago she had no job nor came with a dowry and was a "Broke" girl. All she had to bring to the table was herself but I married her anyway.
Had i decided to not marry her because she was broke I would have been criticized, just like I was by one of my Uncle's simply because I had the temerity to calculate how much i was spending each time i took her out.
Fast forward to today and men earning what I made just a few years ago when I retired are called broke and ridiculed, rejected by today's women as not good enough.
Long gone are the days when a man could marry a woman who actually wanted, to build a rock solid relationship, have children and grow old together like my grandparents generation.
Several years ago l was waiting in a hair salon to get my haircut, when the ugly morbidly obese middle-aged woman getting highlights put in her hair said the quiet part out loud.
She sat there in the chair talking to the hairdresser loud enough for everyone in the salon to hear. That she told every man who wanted to date her that he absolutely had to have:
- His own home
- Own a Car
- Have a good job
Because she did not want to be a sugar mama.
She was talking so loud that I could not shut the sound of her voice out my ears. So when she finished talking I glanced sideways at her when she stood up and walked over to another chair; ending up shaking my head and rolling my eyes while thinking to myself that I could never be so desperate.
Now here I am nearly a year after my wife's unexpected and untimely death:
- Own my home
- Have a nice car
- Have an income i can live comfortably on
AND ITS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Nor do I want to risk my
- Health
- Life
- Finances
- Mental Health
- Emotional Health
Being in a relationship with someone who will not or can not contribute equally, and doesn't want to build a solid relationship both in and out of bed in all areas of a life together.
Today's women do not have a lock on deciding who is and who is not good enough. Men have that right too as well and increasing numbers of men are walking away from dating, marriage, intimate relationships and even society itself.
WHY?
Simply because far too many of today’s women simply aren't worth the risk and like they judge men as unworthy are themselves: NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Sounds like the current job market which pays minimum wage, yet demands a plethora of work experience and education.
Well put
"She was talking so loud that I could not shut the sound of her voice out my ears."
Reminds me of the old joke: "Doctor, my husband is troubled with a buzzing noise in his ears." "Better let him go to the seaside for a month." "But he can't get away." "Then you go."
Boomer jokes are a cultural fascination.
My silent generation neighbor, before he passed, was a gold mine of wisdom.
The transmission of what women are like was interrupted, along with Latin rhetoric logic and Christian ethos.
The critical Marxist theories really did a number on us in the 20th century.
I was actually reading a book on my Kindle while waiting for a haircut. She was talking so loudly that I couldn't block out the sound of her voice.
You have to consider potential outcomes of any connections.
It'd be negligence for a lawyer not to advise you against marriage (or common law marriage with a long term girlfriend).
You wouldn't invest in a fund that had a more than 50% chance of confiscating most of your investments that'd be foolish and an unfair contracts.
The SEC should shut down marriage.
Old joke from a Comedy English genius Les Dawson -
"The wife has ran off with me neighbour. I really miss him"
Better yet: "My wife ran off with my dog and I miss him."
In other words, the vast majority of women are just like that obese gal, Delusional about their own actual value!
Why aren’t we labeling Drucker an “incel”? Isn’t her attitude that men owe women sexual attention exactly what feminists condemn among men who unsuccessfully seek female attention? Drucker is so oblivious and such a hypocrite that she doesn’t seem to realize that it is women with attitudes like hers that fuel MGTOW. How magnanimous of her to invite men back to her delusional gynocentric, heteronormative world where relationships operate on her terms.
She's a cunt.
No she's not a c*nt; they are beautiful and useful
No,that's tarts. The C ones (as I sob,think I am) are NOT beautiful or...well im quite useful,neat,tidy,practical) no your terminology is imprecise!
Ah, the very soul of wit. Brevity.
Beautifully concise and economically dismissive. Nothing more needs to be said.
Brief, but true! :)
Beautifully and delicately put.
There is a word,long forgotten and in disuse now. It's SPINSTER. It should be brought back. In another place someone once posted that shouldn't there be a word to be the female version of "incel" which means I've learned 'involuntary celibate". And there is,it's Spinster. Which I am. And it's long been associated with words like "bitter and twisted" which seem to fit the bull here. I think in regard to man+woman partnerships we need to drop all this garbage about romantic love and return to the sensible version that operated through most of history ie money and status.
My experience with women is that I was ready for commitment a few times, and they were not, so I just stopped trying in my 50s, and honestly, I only regret not doing so sooner. They were holding out for Mr. Perfect, and lo and behold, he never came. Or he did come along, and they rejected him. I know them. They are still single or in an unhappy relationship that they'll eventually cut off -- victims of their own hypergamy, jaded and bitter, like the author of that NYT article. And seemingly unaware of why they're alone.
I am tall, middle-class, educated, not ugly, altruistic, self-assured, polite, and well-mannered. But it's not enough these days. I believe that if I had been born in, for example, the 19th century, I would not have had any trouble marrying and having kids with a faithful, good woman, but within the last few decades, it has been a disaster for men. Something has shifted against men.
I am not alone in this unhappy experience. Millions of men have gone through the same thing, though I got out relatively unscathed compared to them. I never got married or divorced, did not lose money, houses, or kids to these women, and had only a broken heart (though not for long, thankfully). Looking back on it, I was one of the lucky ones.
Pretty women like this author who are alone in middle age and no longer pursued have only themselves to blame. She was once married but likely ended it (women almost always initiate divorce). And other men no doubt proposed to her in her youth, but none of them were good enough for her. Now that her looks are fading, men are not after her anymore, and she's unhappy about it.
Has she not heard of the MGTOW movement, the existence of which is entirely the result of feminism? Men are not afraid of intimacy; they are wary of misandry and stung by rejection. MeToo and Leftism scared them off from trying further. The smart men learn not to bother anymore. It's simply not worth it.
It's sad because at one point, I was ready to marry and have kids and would have been happy to be a father -- but feminism ruined women of my generation. They became promiscuous, had abortions, dumped a lot of guys, and played the field. This describes every woman I know in my age group, almost without exception. How many women get married in their 20s, have kids, and stay married? It's almost unheard of. These women could have been married and been mothers, but they chose not to. They wanted a career and the perfect man, who never came along.
Is it entirely the fault of women? Of course not. I made the mistake of pursuing the pretty ones who were more unobtainable. That was an error. And men are not perfect; we are sinners too ("no one is righteous, not one" - Romans 3:10). Some divorces may be warranted, if there is abuse -- but most are not. Promiscuity is a mistake for both men and women. It hardens the heart. The sexual revolution caused a lot of harm, and the ideology of feminism ruined a lot of lives, men, women, and children. It destroyed the family. I think secularism, the loss of Judeo-Christianity in the West, is largely to blame for all this. Leftism replaced Christianity for millions, and of the two faiths, Leftism is far worse: it breeds evil in the human heart. It destroys families.
I look at the lives of men my age, and it's not good: they have lost everything in divorces, even in some cases, access to their kids. What a disaster for the kids, and for society. Go back a century, and this was unheard of. People married young and had kids. Families stayed together. There were traditional roles. Life was tough, but at least there were families. Women like this author, the product of the sexual revolution and women's lib, ruined it by running through a bunch of men, breaking them, and then complaining they are not around anymore.
One last note: I have several dogs and find far more friendship, loyalty, love, and trust with them than with women. They are just better people than humans, to put it bluntly. I thank God for dogs. That part of Creation is a masterpiece. God surely has a sense of humor, judging from the silliness of dogs.
Adam would have done better to not listen to Eve, and just stay with the animals. But he listened to her, which was his downfall. Now she's complaining that he's emotionally unavailable :)
It's like Darwin on steroids.
Women choose men. But now that men created advanced civilizational safety and convenience. Women have set their filter to impossible mode. Based on delusional apex fallacy of 0.01% men on social media.
A good man has to compete with DEI and welfare. Women have majority votes. Only men pay net tax over their life times as a group.
So the state pick pockets men and delivers husband and boyfriend level provisions to women. Before, during, and after marriage.
The marriage contract has become unfair and unconscionable. It's negligence for a man to be advised to sign it. The net present value of a marriage contract is massively negative to a man since more than 50% chance of more than 50% losses. To say nothing of the emotional damage from disrespect and loss of legitimacy of the state when it strips his property rights.
Wow, that comment is loaded with truth-bombs! First, it speaks to the evolutionary preference of females of mammalian species for the top protector/provider, hardwired into women. Yes, women choose men, but now, as you note, their standards are now unrealistic, creating a whole generation of people who are more or less single for life (after a string of failed relationships), with no families of their own.
In China, they are called "leftover men." Then these women essentially price themselves out of the market, missing their expiry date, and become leftover women. This is happening in the West, too. All because, as you also note, our society has unprecedented levels of safety and convenience, aided by the state. The evolutionary need for the protector/provider is already satisfied by the state and by the highest standard of living in the world's history, thanks to capitalism -- all created by men, of course -- but this is not acknowledged by feminists. They claim they don't need men, but we all know that the work of men enables everything they have and enjoy.
Thomas Sowell noted that the black family's downfall was the welfare state. They survived slavery and a lower class status, but the welfare state was their real undoing, destroying black families and leading young men into drugs and crime, and women into promiscuity and dysfunction. Critics call it the Democrat plantation. This is also tied into the erosion of Christianity in the West. Among American blacks, there is a spiritual battle for souls being fought between the church and the anti-Christ spirit enabled by Leftists, leading people to crime, drugs, promiscuity, and dysfunction. The enemy of the black man is the white liberal who infantilizes him, as Malcolm X noted. Thank God so many black Americans saw through this and voted for Trump.
You also correctly note that marriage is a losing proposition for men, likely to end in divorce and financial loss for them. Add to that the risk of the child being turned transgender by the insane virtue-signalling mother, which nearly happened to my nephew. Thankfully, his father, my brother, prevailed, and the boy was not lost to that insanity. The mother is a narcissist who wants to boast that she has a trans child. She would have ruined the boy's life to virtue-signal.
Marriage is supposed to be sacred, a sacrament before God and community, a lifetime vow. But feminism and secularism have destroyed it and the family. It started in the 1970s, and half a century later, we see the effects: the decline of Western civilization through broken families, lowered birth rates, abortions, and mass migration of cultures who refuse to assimilate. They were allowed in to augment the workforce because feminists caused family dysfunction, resulting in not enough citizens for the workforce.
Your point about men competing with DEI is also true: I was told that I was on the shortlist to be an assistant professor, and was almost picked, but the committee was obliged by affirmative action to go with a woman. Not only did I lose, but the students lost too: female professors tend to infuse feminism into the lectures. If you look at their CVs in the humanities, many or most infuse their work with gender/women's studies, or LGBTQ studies. Students are taught to accept that ideology and not to question it. There is no such thing as true academic freedom in higher education anymore. It is a rigid orthodoxy. The universities should be defunded until they get rid of this woke nonsense, which on some campuses has led to pro-Hamas rallies.
So I became a leftover man in relationships and career, thanks to feminism. Even my church went woke, and I had to find a new denomination. Some of my friends cut me off because I was anti-feminist. Causes that I believed and supported were also corrupted by feminism over time. Did you know that animal rights and welfare movements are now infected and corrupted by "intersectional feminism," and activists have to go along with the pretense that the human race and gender ideology somehow matter? For instance, they purged men in the movement who they claimed were somehow oppressing women. Leftists twist everything back to their worldview. They did this with all "social justice" causes. You name the cause, and feminists and race ideologues took it over and corrupted it.
Everywhere I turned, feminism and Leftism ruined something I believed in; it closed doors and corrupted institutions that I was part of. It ruined the lives of everyone I know as well, leading to divorce, abortion, broken families, and despair. It is the single most destructive force in the West, a cancer eating away at our civilization from within, making it easy for predatory, hostile political ideologies to take over: Islamism, and Chinese Communism, and authoritarian globalism, as well as an army of criminals and con artists and corrupt officials (in media, government, and every institution) are now preying on the dying body of the West.
What has happened in the last half century is momentous and disastrous. It is cultural suicide on a grand scale across the entire Western world. Ironically, this was the greatest civilization for women in human history, and they ruined it. For example, Sweden is run by feminists, but they let in tens of thousands of rapists and terrorists while at the same time emasculating the native male population.
So I wonder, how does it compare to the black death? The Spanish flu? The great war? The great flood? Mass extinctions?
USA population is growing at minus 20% per generation. A million souls were aborted in 2023 in the USA alone. Five million family court cases are heard annually in just the US.
Marriage went from 90% to 30% in three generations. 80% of women reproduced in human history but I guess it's going south of 60% now. And that with an annual $400bn tax on men for single mother transfer payments.
Afghanistan which won a war of independence against the US (and USSR, and Britain) produces 4.5 children per woman to the USAs 1.66.
Incentives are all wrong.
Good point. The effect of this cultural suicide via feminism and hypergamy is momentous, so I was curious to see the stats. 63 million abortions in the USA since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Compare that to the much smaller number of 1.4 million Americans who died in wars since 1776. 45 times more Americans died from abortion than in wars.
"By the early 2020s, statistics show a notable increase in the percentage of women remaining childless, particularly in developed countries. For example, in the US, about 1-in-6 women reaching the end of their childbearing years in 2020 had never given birth. This figure is considerably higher than the historical average, indicating a significant rise in childlessness."
"In 1800, most women in the U.S. had 7 children, but that number has steadily decreased over the years, with the exception of the Baby Boom (when the U.S. fertility rate jumped to 3.62). In 2018, U.S. women had 1.7 children on average."
"Childlessness continues to be on the rise among younger women, according to Pew Research Center, a trend attributed to factors like increased educational attainment and women's participation in the workforce."
"Educational attainment," such as gender studies? Because of feminism, women choose jobs over marriage and families. This is not a victory for women. It is a disaster for them as well because by the time they are ready to settle down, it may be too late for them, both biologically and in terms of dating options. They "hit the wall," and it's too late.
Because of this demographic shift, the USA lost literally tens of millions of people, mostly to abortion, but also because they were never conceived to begin with, due to women's choices. Globalists are happy to bring in immigrants from the third world to make up the labor shortfall but in Western Europe, this has caused a huge culture clash because those from the Middle East and North Africa won't assimilate, and are slowly turning countries like England and Germany, and Sweden into third world countries. It's just a matter of time: their women have numerous children while white women have few or none. Islamization via reproduction, the "strange death of Europe." In the USA, immigrant populations have also increased while white populations have decreased as a percentage.
What is the fate of that great nation in 100 years? Will it even still be in existence? Canada, Australia, the UK, and Western Europe will fall sooner. Globalists are pushing their agenda. Perhaps feminism should be considered a danger to national security?
"Globalists are happy to bring in immigrants from the third world to make up the labor shortfall but in Western Europe, this has caused a huge culture clash because those from the Middle East and North Africa won't assimilate, and are slowly turning countries like England and Germany, and Sweden into third world countries."
Of course they won't assimilate in the West, they have nothing but contempt for Western societies, especially our "liberated" Western women. Hence we see Muslim rape gangs and grooming gangs, condoned and enabled by their Muslim communities. That's what it looks like when one race replaces another. In earlier times it happened quickly, when the invading hordes would slaughter all the men and boys and rape all the women and girls. Now it's a more gradual process, but it's the same thing nonetheless. The only question is, what happens when they reach population majority? Will they run out of patience and dispatch the remaining infidels in a bloodbath? One thing is certain - the transition from Western democracy to Sharia state will not be painless, and women will suffer most. That is the great irony of feminism, which has ushered in this calamity for Western women. Even now UK feminists refuse to condemn Muslim grooming gangs, insisting that "the majority of child abusers in the UK are white men." (Julie Bindel, Feb 2024)
Great research!
The elephant in the room is motherhood.
Why not educate girls to become mothers?
That'd be a great return on investment enriching their existing studies with an extra minor or modules.
Because evil feminists in political alliance with Marxists oppose it.
"the decline of Western civilization through broken families, lowered birth rates, abortions, and mass migration of cultures who refuse to assimilate."
You list the evils of Western society and then expect migrants to adopt them too? Of course they refuse to assimilate into a morally bankrupt feminist society. They build their own communities based on their traditional moral values, until they eventually replace us completely.
"Thomas Sowell noted that the black family's downfall was the welfare state."
There is a quartet of pictures being memed and tweeted around, of Hirōshima and Detroit in 1945, and the same cities today. They appear to have swapped conditions.
"Critics call it the Democrat plantation."
A cynic-- or a sharp reader of the Moynihan Report-- might guess this was done on purpose. The party destroyed both cities, but Hirōshima was the luckier of the two-- the Dems left.
Men have fulfilled their evolutionary role of providing and protecting to such an extent that women now operate under the illusion of independence, fuelling their hubristic and delusional attitudes.
Civilisation is a gift from men to women, and modern women have had so much smoke blown up their backsides that they have forgotten this.
As you state, women are net tax beneficiaries, and it's still overwhelmingly men doing the dangerous and "icky" jobs that keep the lights of civilisation on.
I eagerly await the day when this pathetic illusion of independence is ruthlessly shattered. I hope I am alive to see it.
Back in the 1970s (which I am Old Enuf To Remember) there was a lot of flim-flam about angry women demanding the withheld right to be Sewer Workers,Refuse Collection operatives (bin men),Truck drivers,Firemen. I don't think anyone demanded the right to be a Coal Miner but that was about the only dirty and dangerous job requiring the use of heavy equipment that was left out. Then in the early 1980s came a slew of news items on our local news,this young woman taken on as a refuse collector. It's heavy work but I can cope she says to camera obviously barely able to lift the full bin into the loading mechanism,similar with local fire service etc. Now years later do we see any females in these roles. Well not in my locality. Theyve quiet quitted.
Marriage is a scam, a confidence trick, a fraud scheme. We should view marriage the same way we view Nigerian scams.
English courts won't call cuckoldry fraud.
Technically, it is deceit.
But they refuse to name it and rule on it properly.
There seems to be magic around female misbehaving in the law.
Marriage should revert to what it was for most of the thousands of years of human history. A business contract with both parties understanding they are signing up to a long term commitment to build a structure of economic advantage. If the woman's side cannot bring money then she must bring youth,fertility,beauty/charm because it's her job to give her husband status (and vice versa) and she must bring organizational ability. It's not "only housework" it's managing the home environment so that HE can efficiently and effectively optimize the money making years the best. A man who has to work 12 hours then come home to a dirty house,cook the meal for him and the kids,and put them to bed because his wife is 'liberated' and 'too smart for housework' ie watches tv all day,that's future poverty.
"It's sad because at one point, I was ready to marry and have kids and would have been happy to be a father"
Me too, but looking around today I reckon we dodged a bullet. But yeah, it's sad that so much human potential has been lost or destroyed by feminism. Immensely sad. One day feminism will be seen as the greatest tragedy ever to befall Western civilization, but of course it will be too late by then.
You are right that men are sinners too. We could not miss that. Whereas in this NYT article, as in many thousands of others, men are relentlessly derided and demonised. You will never see anything in the NYT or the rest of the MSM remotely critical of women.
- “Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.” ― Camille Paglia
- “If you live in rock and roll, as I do, you see the reality of sex, of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn't repel them.” ― Camille Paglia
- "If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts" - Camille-Paglia..
QED
I agree. Dogs are the best companions.
"The surprise is not that some men have pulled back, but that they haven’t done so far more definitively and bitterly."
Well said! The problem for women is that most of the smart and capable men, ie. those who've created something to lose, are in the first category, leaving only the broken, half-formed and incapable still pursuing women - with utter trepidation. (Said without judgement - they've been formed by the anti-male society, including their mothers, which Janice describes).
Groucho Marx said “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.” Similarly, Drucker should admit that she doesn't want a man who is so inept as to not realise how dangerous she is is, and pursue better options or none at all.
She should be on a sex offender register.
How could she not have sexually transmitted diseases?
I think if you have a body count if above 1% percentile, or multiple abortions, you should be on a sex offender list.
And consent theory means it does require public notarisation to prevent me too. Just scan a QR code to increment body count and if MeTood it's evidence you'll rely on in court.
In the UK, half of all new- borns are delivered to single women. Nine out of ten teachers at Primary level, (pre- adolescents) are female as are eight out of ten Secondary teachers. The media, notably the BBC, are vehemently, monotonously and universally feminist. Heads of Government, the Churches and industry make a point of emphasisng the anti- male message at every possible opportunity. The entire UK is lost to hegemonic misandry.
So when they tell us that boys are being raised to hate women, the smell of brown and stinky is overpowering. It's not women we hate, it's feminism.
We fight principalities brother, not flesh.
I fear there's no cure for the woke mind virus (Postmodernity, Marxism, Feminism, Critical Theories).
Just as denazification of Germany involved banning anyone from pre 1945 public office from an official role.
There may be no way to deprogramme feminists.
It's just inflated animus possession.
Have a look at Emilyslist.org and Emilyslist.org.au. There may be such an organisation in the UK but have no idea.
Well, Last month, the government passed a bill that decriminalises abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. The bill was supported by 89% of female MPs, crossing political lines, and endorsed by every major women’s group and feminist organisation in the UK.
This development coincides with the government's decision to close female youth offender institutions and its stated goal of reducing the number of women sent to prison (not through reducing crime, but through increased sympathy for any hypothetical trauma these female criminals may have previously experienced)
Women in politics, through their voting patterns, often prioritise policies that benefit women as a demographic in a way that men typically do not for other men. Men lack such a mechanism for in-group bias. In fact, many men in the UK are so demoralised and influenced by propaganda that they will support anything with a “women’s rights” label slapped on it, even if it involves the killing of their offspring or blatant endorsement of a two-tier justice system.
Wow, Len. Well said. There are quite a few organizations in the United States dedicated to keeping women out of prison also, despite the fact, as Sonja Starr demonstrated, that there is already a massive gender disparity in criminal sentencing.
Men have traumatic events that contribute to their going to prison too.
The prison experience is traumatic. In Australia the suicide rate for men in first 2 weeks post release is approx 503 per 100,000 of population. For females it is 0. The std rate is 18 per 100,000 for men and 5.8 for women. It would appear prison is good for women.
Feminists seem to have difficulty undestanding that men are part of the in-group too. Men are equally part of community. Those feminists elected to represent the community are supposed to be representing all, not just the women.
Exactly right.
I think the present administration in the UK is peak feminism (so far).
The crying Chancellor, closing girls prisons, seeking to close women's prisons. A minister for women since 1997. Even a woman minister for safe guarding who's constituency depends on the Muslim block for votes hence refuses to investigate grooming.
It reminds me of two 1980s cases involving the PMS defence for murder. One women walked free after conviction and went on to murder a policeman later.
Her argument was basically a lack of agency. The Schroedingers feminist theory. That she has the power to kill, but somehow this is not her responsibility. I'm a nutshell that's she feminist claim.
I think the ten million aborted UK subjects were mostly life style abortions, not medically excempted. 98% of the 600 per day are for mother's mental health. We ought to be running rememberance days for them. Not doubling down by adding female no punish exceptions to the 1865 Act criminalising abortions.
Lilly Allen, a singer, recently went on record saying she aborted 5 of her children and doesn't care. Where's the guilt? Where's the shame? Women really don't care. These women are rich and can afford big families but chose to murder them.
The feminist legal agenda has been done and done.
The Children's Act (1989) which defines everything as both neglect and abuse. The matrimonial acts (1973, 1996) which allow transfer of title on patrimonial assets - even pensions. Banning sex in marriage (1990). The Coercive control regulations intended to criminalise any protection against nagging (2015). The domestic abuse regulations designed to push the police into the home. The abortion act (1967). The Equality act which allows DEI against men. Education changes to push girls ahead of boys (e.g. teacher predicted grades). No fault divorce (2020). What's left?
Education is particularly egregious. My teachers predicted me Ds Bs and C's in my A level GCE exams so universities offered me places on that basis. I then got all As. But was barred from high demand universities despite me being an autodidact. This prioritised girls because teachers systematically mark girls up for the same work. And estimate them higher too.
There's no redress for the pro-girl anti-boy policies. And it has seriously affected to mating market as women in their 20s look down financially on men.
Now postmodern take down of borders is increasingly causing women and girls to be subject to systematic rape and assault. Women cannot defend themselves against foreign men who are willing to use their physical power.
What is Schroedingers feminist going to do?
Issue feminists with pistols in their purses and licenses to kill by female rights?
Thank you, Janice. Your piece offers a concise summary of the biases and emotional pain often experienced by men. Being frightened to engage in romance stems from empirical evidence of the treacherous consequences. Most men experience hidden loneliness and a longing for someone to understand their feelings - powerfully illustrated by interviews with sex workers, who report that most of their clients primarily want to talk, share their feelings, and experience a sense of human connection. Any sex is often brief and secondary.
We need viral info graphics.
Like the tinder summary of women who've just finished their party years.
It looks like an interview history of 1% job hiring success and 99% playing the field.
Well said, Janice & thank you.
I can't get over how deluded and arrogant women like Ms Drucker are.
Like most women in her very small but very loud and arrogant circle, she seems to truly believe that her personal experience is also the experience of the majority of women, and that therefore she is entitled to represent them.
However in reality, Drucker doesn't represent the majority of women at all. In fact, while being loud and given a soapbox to shout from (the NYT), the deluded views of Drucker & her misandrist friends might be shared by 10% (max) of women in the United States, if that.
That isn't the only problem in her piece. At several times reading it, I laughed out loud at her woeful misunderstanding of men and masculinity. There seems to be a profound double standard at play here. Drucker and T
"feminists" like her clearly think it's OK to make (ignorant and normally denigrating) comments about men and masculinity. At the same time, however, they deny men the right to make comments about women, and shout down any attempt by men to do so. Sorry ladies, you can't have it both ways.
As you point out, the truth here is that Drucker and women who sign up to her views, are simply unattractive to men.
Men can and will avoid them, for obvious reasons.
That may be harsh, but it's the truth.
And no amount of word salads in the NYT will change that.
What happened to slut shaming?
What social technologies regulate Frau Drucker's anti-social promiscuity?
Drucker, a product of narcissistic feminism, believes that she is entitled to gaslight half the population to avoid facing her own manifest shortcomings. If "Women Don't Owe You [men] $h*t", then what, if anything, do men owe women?
It's worse, since men are net lifetime tax payers, and women are recipients.
Women live for free. Spend 80% of consumer spending. Have most student debt. And it's still not enough.
Diamond rings?
Another brilliant article, Janice.
Please forgive me, though, for pointing out two things that Ms. Drucker is spot on about:
1. Other than at lunch time, the near-absence of men in restaurants, but it's not as new as she thinks. While US Census work in 2010 required me to do evening paperwork in restaurants and bars, I was struck even back then by the dominance of tables full of women late 20s to early 50s, most of whom actively flirted with any men who showed up. They're writing about it and TikTokking about it now, but women have had decades to get accustomed to the decrease in men willing to expend resources for the privilege of getting rejected by women.
2. Drucker is also correct about men looking to Playboy and porn almost solely for sexual release; however, she's off the mark in a self-revealing way when she claims that men have consequently lost their motivation for actual communion with real live females due to readily-available porn. One hopes she wasn't indicating that draining men's balls is HER sole value in life.
Men who refuse to continue to be taken advantage of are simply growing in numbers.
Women, millions of them, use pornography.
Oh, without a doubt. I believe the research indicates that women access porn while at work more often than men do.
They're not dates, they're interviews.
We ought to circulate interviewing techniques for men.
Shit testing is instinctual for women.
But men need art to determine a woman's liabilities and assets too. Is she in debt? Is she a communist? Does she act immorally for selfish reasons? Does she look down on him? Etc.
Heh. Thoughtfu rebuttal. Made me think of that Sicilian saying: Revenge is a dish best served cold... My other side of the bed gets a hot bottle, not a hoe after my assets. Cold bed = full bank account 😂 And just speaking to women in general is exhausting. Do you know that you all talk to males like your'e from HR & want to help us fit in? And we ALL despise HR, female's 1st bastion in the workforce. Ahahahaha! 👏
It's the long house brother.
The maternal instinct isn't tied up in infant care because there are so few infants. Women used to have 5-6 to get that 2.1 but now they only have 1.5.
The maternal instinct for controlling and infantalising is now appearing in workplaces and homes without children.
It's a nightmare.
See Hanna Fry re studies on Females in Academia, when they get control. That "maternal instinct" includes total information control, utter lies & that lovely Left-ist concept, the Noble Lie... "for the good of the group".
Men are resilient. No need to "re-establish trust."
A fellow only needs to see swords sheathed to try again.
Vagina is Latin for sword sheath.
I think women have demonstrated they misuse power by subjectivity, emotionality, bad faith arguments, subversion, and deceit.
1-3% of children have paternity discrepancy. 250,000 children are aborted each work day globally. Women have majority votes, and pay net negative tax over their life times. 10,000 family court cases are heard daily in the USA alone. Not 30% of Generation Z men got married. Majority of marriages end in divorce. 72% of homosexual divorces are women.
The DEI tokenism is the worse. Lately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cried in parliament in the UK when being criticised for economic mismanagement. It's a childish manipulative tactic. Utterly disgraceful. And risks ruining us all.
That said, we're so rich thanks to technology, maybe we can afford more luxury beliefs, bread and circuses for all.
Marriage is a three ring circus, engagement ring, wedding ring, then comes the suffering in family court.
Ha-ha-ha, good one!
Nupe. Not this time.
For decades women have been saying don't approach is, don't talk to us, don't touch us, don't LOOK at us, do not notice we are female (despite the preening and prancing), keep to yourself, leave us alone. Asking a woman out can cost a man his job or even his career. This message has been broadcast on every channel 24x7 since around 1980 when heterosexuality was de facto outlawed and sex redefined as rape. And now men are being called emotional runts?
I sent this to Janice earlier today:
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/men-have-no-friends-and-women-bear-the-burden?
I am as emotionally close to men as a mostly straight man can be. My female friends are my go-to for discussions of an emotional or intuitive nature. And in most m/f couples it is forbidden for men to have female friends; the women are just too insecure and jealous. And the men know this. Their male friends are unlikely to be as emotionally open as their (balanced) female (actual) friends (not friend zone female friends).
So this is another self-defeating situation.
There is no way on god’s earth I would give up my friendships with women no matter how monogamous I was with a partner. But most men do not have that much spine and are so pussy whipped they feel they have to obey. So the men end up in an emotional desert.
Also of note, the women don’t want to cook, clean, or assist the men; and now intimacy is considered emotional labor uncompensated; so what is left of the partnership? His money and his his ability to fix things?
Yes.
I think there's been a ratcheting towards this present state of affairs.
We need a scale for dissolutionment of men towards women. From Genesis woman as a helper to man. To she's too much of a MeToo HR risk to talk to.
I genuinely believe we've made measurable progress away from the former marriage centric self reproducing societies pre-sexual revolution, pre-second wave feminism.
I suppose marriage and divorce rates show this.
For a man to become turned off from women requires a tremendous, sustained injustice to overcome his inate pro female bias.
But it's happening increasingly.
How many men would say women are insufferable today? How many would say women are more risk than reward?
In general I much prefer men.
My ex and i had a circle of friends which was 90+% male. In fact, quite a few of them were coupled males who hung out with us without their partners. One exception was a friend of hers from SoCal whom we''d seen once a year or so. She got upset whenever she'd see me work with female students (i was a math and stats instructor). I never felt comfortable being around other women, even after she and i separated.
And yes, in 13 years and 7 months, she cooked dinner .... maybe three times.
Ah… man keeping…
"Some men have simply come to the conclusion that modern women aren’t, in general, all that likable—neither marriage material nor viable candidates for motherhood."
Exactly. But not some men. All real men.
I've recently found women to be self parody.
My experience with all women over my life time, combined with Manosphere observations and general rules, shows women to be almost completely hopeless.
It's the sword of Damocles hanging over any committed man's head. He knows he can be submitted to two tier injustice at any moment. Women share tips on how to weaponise the system setup to answer their feelings of insecurity. But it's boundless.
In the past, I have known a few blokes who have told me that they have given up on Western Women.