I think the biggest problem with fighting these things is that so many men go along with feminist notions, as you often see in comments on Twitter or other websites. Somehow or another this seems to make them feel virtuous. Until it affects them personally, they're quite happy to do other men down to gain favour from women.
In the UK education was skewed to favour women. Academic results used to be based on examinations, but this was shifted to include more coursework. Female pupils fared better on coursework, and boys fared better on examinations. The assessment shift from purely examination based to coursework based changed the proportion of male and female results.
Child support, divorce laws, and so many other things are such a minefield, because people always bring up the most extreme cases in the discussions.
Thanks Ben. William Collins wrote a book I recommend to people all the time, "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019). The paperback is 700+ pages long, the ebook just £4.32 on Amazon. In the chapter on education he has a graph on gendered educational attainment before and after O Levels were replaced with GCSEs in 1987/8 (I think that was the year). Contrary to popular opinion, boys and girls had been neck-and-neck on O Level grades for many years before 1987/8, but you're right, a gender education gap appeared in 1987/8 and has been with us ever since.
Collins cites in the book my FOI request to the Dept of Education some years ago, which forced the DoE to admit they had no plans to address the gap favouring girls. White working-class boys have long had the worst educational outcomes and the DoE doesn't even recognise that as a problem.
We covered the issue of education (along with 19 other issues) in our last and final election manifesto https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/221128-J4MB-manifesto-3.pdf (pp.34-8) before we de-registered recently as a political party. The feminisation of the education profession has had an appalling impact on educational standards, every profession which has been feminised has gone down the pan in terms of delivery (medicine and policing being obvious examples).
I remember the "Girls in Science and Technology" (GIST) initiative in the 80s (it was a hot topic in Parliament) (which resulted in what?) which ran alongside the failure of boys in modern languages - but nobody was talking about that. Boys are expendable and their failure in any field is just collateral damage.
Mel, indeed. 90%+ of psychology graduates (to take but one of many examples) in the UK have been female for years, this of course isn't a problem, let alone one needing to be addressed.
William Collins (formerly an engineer and physicist, a Cambridge Uni graduate almost 50 years ago) on his amazing blog "The Ilustrated Empathy Gap" http://empathygap.uk/ points to relentless initiatives to drive up the proportion of women in STEM subjects in higher education, although if we add medicine to give STEMM, a majority of graduates have been women for years. There are few subjects in which men are the majority and those are the most intellectually demanding ones e.g. physics, maths. Courses have been dumbed-down to enable more women to study them (e.g. physics).
Women have been 70%+ of graduating medical students in the UK for 50 years. In the 1970s Dr Vernon Coleman - the first 'TV doctor' in the UK - was warning that the drive for more female doctors would end up in an inevitable crisis for the NHS because of women's lesser work ethic and sense of duty. All that he predicted has come to pass.
In my undergraduate physics cohort at university, there were TWO young women, but I know that's going back a bit. They were feted and prized and looked after. Guys would leap to their assistance if, for example, they couldn't get the oscilloscope to display but I suppose you'd call that mansplaining now. At the physics graduation dinner, one of them, whom I'm still in touch with, leapt out of a wheeled-in cake wearing a basque. I guess you'd call that something nasty now as well. My point is, that there was NO intimidation or discouragement offered to these ladies in fact the opposite but that's what I hear frequently. btw I had glandular fever for 6 weeks in the final year and the lady in the basque photocopied all her lecture notes for me. I got a good degree partly down to her.
I get it. The 'lady' was good for taking notes. Got it. I have a similiar experience. I worked for a butch looking girl who trained as an auto mechanic, and ended up running an auto parts warehouse. When I told her about my invention, she helped me type out the patent application...
Mike, years ago on the Bob Grant radio show, Profesor Martin Gross cited statistics from a YALE MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDY: "43 % of medical students at Yale are wo-MEN" "ALL 43% ... score 14 points LOWER than the MALE doctors on their medical exams, and most end up in pediatrics" This was back in the 90's and I can't find any reference to this study, but have no reason to doubt Professor Martin Gross who was a guest on the Bob Grant radio show back then.
Education wasn't skewed to advantage women in just the UK; this is a global western-world phenomenon that I have witnessed first-hand in the Antipodes (AU & NZ).
Some years ago, I explored the idea of advancing my education and contribution to my profession by doing additional study to be able to undertake a PHD. I was shocked to discover that my “Degree” in Architecture (awarded in the mid-80’s) has now re-classified as a “Masters” and further study towards a “PHD” was primarily by “coursework”. A.K.A. my degree had been “dumbed down”.
In the 80’s, when I got my BArch, to do a “Masters” you needed to be “sponsored” by someone on the academic staff. To do a PHD, you not only had to have your master’s and a Sponsor, but you also needed an original thesis topic that would generate “new knowledge”.
I am so P***ed that my degree (and by extension, all other degrees, masters and doctoral dissertations) has been “dumbed-down” in pursuit of “education” as a business (cha-ching… $$$$) rather than as an intellectual endeavour in pursuit of higher learning and “new knowledge”.
Are we now part of the “2nd Dark Age” of deliberately engineered human ignorance?
The parallels between the “Dark Ages”nd the “Woke Ages” are clear.
Feminism, as it is now practiced, can be deemed to be an “orthodox religion”; the “MeToo” movement pogrom can be paralleled to the Dark Ages “Inquisition” and the Salam “Witch Trials” in the 1690’s.
We need a new non-gendered “Renaissance”, a new non-gendered “Enlightenment” and a new non-gendered “Reformation” (hint; AI’s are not the answer) if we are to survive the toxic divisive feminist /marxists paradigm that currently cripples our communities and society.
In all probability (since the time when the “human” population, in our distant past, collapse to only about 25 individuals +/- (genetics is so fascinating when applied to find the genetic “chock point” in “human evolution”), humanity 𝙄𝙎 entering its most recent “darkest hour”.
Our new “Epoch” is worse than the “𝘿𝙖𝙧𝙠 𝘼𝙜𝙚𝙨” and Churchill’s “𝘿𝙖𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙃𝙤𝙪𝙧” because the ecosystems we rely on are collapsing; the resources we rely on to support our civilisation are being depleted at an exponential rate, the societal resilience that is needed to survive routine calamities has been undermined and 60 years of feminism propaganda has only produced a culture; “be selfish; live only for yourself and only live for today (& F**k future consequences)
Humans pose an “existential threat” to themselves; championed by militant feminists.
The whole 'girls fare better on coursework' is bullsh*t! How about 'teachers mark girls easier'?
It was obvious from the get-go that coursework marking was subjective to the teacher whereas exams are anonymous. If it transpired that 'boys fared better in coursework' this would immediately have been flagged as sexist bias and 'something' would have been done.
Another so called bias is that boys are 'falling behind' in education. In the UK the school leaving exam results (A levels) for boys as girls are near parity. Yet this is not reflected in the university admissions. So there is clearly other reasons for why boys don't go to university. Janice's article mentioned some.
"Another so called bias is that BOYS are 'falling behind' in education" AGREED! This is condescending bullshit. If arsonists are the teachers, firemen would be RIGHT to DROP OUT. This is why I DON'T like Christina Hoff Sommers. She likes to condesend against BOYS by insinuating that BOYS have special needs, and need to be taught in a certain way. She IGNORES the fact that BOYS never had learning problems in the past, and also ignors the fact that BOYS are being deliberately impeded by fEMINIST/Marxist/ curriculum, not to mention outrageous half naked shorts. (There used to be a dress code)
With half of the population consisting of men, it would seem that some percentage would care about men's rights. I also believe that most women care about the lives of boys & men. We have advocates like Janice, W. Collin's and many others who do a great job. Theirs even some men left in positions of power. Why can't we get enough people to fight against this injustice?
We have the playbook used by women's rights groups in the 60's. We have seen men come together in the Promise Keepers movement years ago. What are we missing? How do we overcome the gender empathy gap and misandrist feminist? I know that's the million dollar question but I'm truly baffled. It's it a lack of courage, will or social/political power?
William Collins has answers to some of your questions in "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019). 700+ page paperback, ebook under £5 on Amazon.
The muted empathy both men and women have towards males which Collins describes is possibly the #1 problem. Plus most men are easily shamed and simply won't say 'No' to women often enough, no matter how much they should. As Paul Elam says, a test of a men's character is his willingness to say 'No' to women, and most men fail that test dismally.
The inevitable consequence of ever-increasing female privilege is ever-increasing male disadvantage. How can the individual man, probably with plenty of his plate, fight feminist hegemony? Very difficult, and he may well run risks if he tries e.g. loss of employment, social exclusion.
As far as politics is concerned, every significant British political party tries to attract women's votes, never men's votes specifically. Philip Davies - a British Conservative MP - is (to the best of my knowledge) the only elected politician in the English-speaking world to have spoken out consistently on men's issues, in particular with the International Men's Day debates he hosted in the chamber of the House of Commons for many years (Jess Phillips MP did all in her power to stop the series from starting).
One of those IMD debates was about MGM, illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, being the infliction of ABH or GBH. Philip has only been able to speak out because he said in his maiden spech in 2005 that he had no ministerial ambitions and wanted only to be a good constituency MP. His wife, Esther McVey, was a cabinet minister for some years.
Philip has spoken at several of our International Conferences on Men's Issues including London in 2016 http://icmi2016.icmi.info and Chicago in 2019 http://icmi2019.icmi.info. The series started with the conference run by Paul Elam and A Voice for Men http://avoiceformen.com near Detroit in 2014, I've hosted four of them (2016, 2018, 2020, 2021).
I look forward to hosting my next ICMI in Budapest in August 2023, a few details here https://j4mb.org.uk/2022/07/15/budapest-conference-2024/. We have a great line-up of speakers including Philip Davies MP and Esther McVey MP, Professor Stephen Baskerville, William Collins, Ed Bartlett, and more. The keynote speaker will be the legend that is... Professor Janice Fiamengo!!!
My apologies for the rant. It just gets frustrating. This is not an excuse for inaction. However, we do have to take into account the long term tv & movie campaign that's been demeaning men and elevating women for years. Like a constant drip wearing away solid rock. I took my grandson to a Monster Truck event 10 years ago. The MC lead the stadium in a chant of 'girls rule, boys drool'.
I think that, as a whole, women represent a "collective" and you might hear an appeal for women to vote this way or that collectively. You don't hear "men" being urged, as a demographic, to represent any collective view when voting or campaigning. I think that that would be seen as very threatening.
It's like we have two fishing lakes side-by-side, containing the same types and sizes of fish. Every fisherman throws his line into lake A, none in lake B (where they'd obviously catch more fish, through lack of competition). I have yet to meet a politician who could grasp that appealing to men collectively could reap an electoral dividend.
Part of the answer to your question might be found in the fate of the Promise Keepers organization. Currently considered fascists by the government. No such opprobrium was ever attached to even the most radical feminists (think Pink Hats, for instance).
"Most wo-MEN care about the lives of BOYS & MEN" Half Newfie, I would like to say you're half right, but I DON'T think you are even half right. In fact I think MOST wo-MEN have NO consideration for BOYS or MEN
since there are clearly plenty of anti feminism women, I suggest you do more thinking. I find more almost daily and the men are as well, slowly coming around. This is not a gender war, it's an ideological war. And by war I mean words and ideas being challenged. It is a more difficult position to be in the feminist camp as they will have to adjust to reality. Our job is to make that transition as least unpleasant for them as possible. They are as children imagining they are in the Tour De France, yet still have their training wheels. It is more adorable than wrong.
Almost all non-feminist and anti-feminist women that I have spoken or written to have been, in no uncertain terms, anti-MRAs. The reason why the vast majority of them are non- or anti-feminist is because they see the movement starting to destroy the elevated cultural image of women. It's just like the anti-suffrage women; both pro- and anti-suffrage women wanted maximum female cultural and political power. The anti-suffragettes knew that female voting would cause women to be seen as having responsibilities/liabilities they'd rather continue evading, and would drastically decrease their superior cultural and (indirect) political power.
LOL. You are naive. Trad con wo-M EN are just as gynocentric as fEMINISTS. The difference between fEMINISTS and anti fEMINISTS is the same difference between Germans & Jews... two peas in a pod. To say that fEMINISM is more adorable than wrong, shows what a naive #simp you are, especially considering that 98% of rape claims are LIES, not to mention FALSE rape 'claims' are so pervasive that even you were falsely accussed as you have admitted. NO I suggest YOU do some thinking
I already blocked you on Facebook. I was threatened with false rape accusations more than once, yes. That does not mean your 98% claim is accurate. I blocked you because you are a hater and not an understander. You are too attached to the bible to have any real value in this arena and for some reason can't seem to get yourself to write the word "woman" correctly. You present yourself far too much as a misogynist to be an MRA. I do not disagree with gynocentrism as it is prevalent in all the warm blooded animals as well as the human ones. Evolution is not stupid. Time for you to evolve. Let go of your bible and show god you can be trusted without him.
The feminists across Canadian universities were chasing away men from higher education a decade ago. Many men dropped out or were suspended/ expelled. Men without university degrees tend to be at a huge disadvantage here in Canada. There are not enough trades jobs to go around in Ontario.
The Canadian Minister of Immigration plans to increase immigration to 500,000 immigrants a year while Canadian men are overdosing in tent cities and parks. Canadian men are being replaced.
Sounds like another Richard Reeves. He acknowledges the problem, which is good, but seems utterly incapable of thinking outside of the feminist orthodoxy.
Agree! I was disgusted by an interview he did recently. He started his spiel talking about how tough women have had it in the past. Im not quoting him but this was my interpretation.
He implied that it should be celebrated that women are so far ahead of men in college graduation rates. How the fact that women are filing for divorce at such high rates today should be considered a victory for women. According to him it's because they are finally breaking the chains of marriage (implied as slavery) suffered in the past. No mention of men's challenges in the past.
He is helping the cause by shedding light on issues for boys in education. However, he's just another liberal academic feminist.
Historically women were removed from the coal mines, they were granted a 8 hour working day in the factories act, when men worked 12 or more hours.
Janice has already covered how women were much less likely to be convicted of a crime or if they were they received much more lighter sentences than men.
The simple thing is that they don't realise that the world we live in with all of it's advances that has made life so easy when compared to conditions pre industrial revolution was most male driven with hope of pleasing women.
"We would still living in Grass huts" had it been left the matriarchy.
Exactly. Its very frustrating to see someone walk all the way to the edge of the chasm of the issue, and then at the very last moment refuse to look inside, and worse yet, make a complete U turn in resolving the issue by shifting blame onto the negatively affected party.
Feminists have not been given due credit for providing the foundation for the radical gender movement that is now official school policy and the consequent grooming of children for LGBTQ2S++ membership. Feminist denial of biological differences between males and females and their many fold reflections in biologically-based gender differences lays the groundwork for belief in the possibility of "transition." Remember the feminist claim that gender is "socially constructed"? Feminists have a lot to answer for in the destruction of Western culture and its replacement by nihilist lunacy.
Yes, it's amazing the knots that some tie themselves into in order to point to likely sources of the trans activist agenda, at any ideology other than feminism. For well credentialed pundits and columnists, it's simply impossible to draw any connection between the cult of increasingly strident and irrational transactivists and all the gender studies departments which exist on every liberal arts campus and replaced women's studies departments in order to deny any possible creation of men's studies programs.
Yeah, it's just gotta be the patriarchy that is encouraging men to transition and enter women's sports and safe spaces. #gynocentrism
Full disclosure, I'm more than a little inebriated.
"Unpaid labor?" WTF? As a man who has been single my entire life I have always performed ALL of my domestic chores with no remuneration whatsoever. So, obviously, it peeves me more than just a little that a housewife who BY LAW is entitled to at least half of her husband's assets can claim that she is UNPAID because she performs domestic chores.
Marriage is a partnership, right? If a man makes $100,000 a year as a truck driver working up to sixty hours a week then his wife gets $50,000 of that doing shit that she WOULD BE DOING ANYWAY IF SHE WASN'T MARRIED! Her husband is almost never home so the majority of the messes she's cleaning up are her own. Furthermore, I can just about GUARANTEE you that the husband is still the one mowing the lawn, maintaining the machines, taking out the garbage, etc. Who is paying HIM for that?
I can barely believe that, as much as I've immersed myself in men's rights issues over the past decade or so, I've never seen anyone bring up the 'marriage as a legal partnership' issue when discussing things like the pay gap. If a man makes $200,000 a year and his wife stays home and plays with the kids, shops, watched soap operas, and supervises the domestic servants then they BOTH MAKE $100,000 A YEAR! What could possibly be a clearer refutation of the 'unpaid labor' argument?
I posted it 4 or 5 times, altogether. Everytime I clicked the 'post' button and I checked to see that it had actually posted properly, it hadn't. Finally I closed the browser window, navigated back to Janice's Substack, and found that it had actually posted every time
Crap like that is one reason I drink so much in the first place.
Oh gee, definitely enough to drive one to drink! I had someone angry at me today because he thought I had switched my Substack to paid subscription only. I reassured him that was not the case, and I don't know why he got that impression--but there must have been a reason. Damned technology.
That slogan is, sadly, out of date as it has been female for some time. And it will get more female. If I printed those T-shirts with this slogan the reverse side would say '...and it's a bankrupt, disfunctional shithole.'
Men just aren't opting out of education but also the industries and jobs we all rely on. If you take an average working age between 18 and 65 you get 41.5. Do you know the average age of a truck driver? 55!. This is an old man's job. I heard for welders it is 45. I'd be interested the average ages in other vital industries such as mining, forestry, farming, oil and gas extraction, electrical grid and water maintenance. The 'supply chain crises' caused by the lack of truckers hasn't gone away. The war in Ukraine has just distracted from it. Covid didn't help. It's difficult to un-pick just what modern hardships are caused by what disaster so its unlikely there will be any clear analysis on these problems. When the war in Ukraine ends and Covid is so distant that it can't really be blamed we will still be left with a man shortage. It will be difficult to ignore then.
Around 6 months ago in the UK there were some statistics released about the number of people over 55 who have recently taken early retirement. This is a huge chunk out of the treasury's revenue. So much so that that the government is urging businesses to find way to encourage older people back to work. I didn't see a breakdown on how many of these retirees were men. Again, I'd like to know. All western countries are bankrolled on the backs of men. We pay the majority of taxes and get the least in payouts. Woman are a net negative to the economy. Hard times ahead.
I'll try and find something. This is exercising many European countries and the UK. In some senses the UK had found a wizard wheeze to plug these gaps by importing skilled men from eastern european countries in the EU. In huge numbers. The UK was a particularly popular destination and other european countries worried about these gaps rather more (while others such as Poland and the Baltic states bemoaned their shortages due to so many moving "west"). Here in the UK there has been considerable efforts put into reviving the recruitment into trades and technical skills. My old favourite Sweden has been particularly active too, not least because unlike the UK they still have large extractive, forestry and "heavy" industry sectors. By the by the Swedes were perhaps the first to note the "split" in society between the "feminist" strata of society and the rather un feminist working class. Noting that the former consisting of "graduates" employed either in he public sector (females) or service sectors (male) lived very different lives from those in the private sector with men still in trades or various forms of industry (too many to number here) and women in the private service sector. The latter still aspiring to traditional families and without the privileges of working from home, family friendly hours or long periods off etc. This rather stark divide is discernable in a number of countries in Europe. I would think Canada is likely to mirror that sort of economic/social split, given the Country still is a major producer and contends with a harsh climate requiring a lot of maintenance and repairs).
Here in the UK the the issues about "Brexit" required EU nationals living here to register, 6 million did so. The number of adult males were well over 3 million. Had they all gone "home" I think it safe to say chunks of our economy would have ground to a halt (literally: trucks,,Lifts, Railways, Power Supplies and Ports). In a real sense these hard working skilled men saved us from ourselves.
Another interesting phenomena is the "Gender Pay Gap". Here in the UK this is available regionally. The largest pay gap by far is in the South east region, including London this is the economic engine of the UK (though as a northerner it pains me to admit it). In Northern Ireland (NI)and the North East of England the gap is usually negligible and in NI is actually in reverse some years. These are the poorest "post industrial" regions where their economies depend on public funding. As women are the majority of public employees, and jobs are at nationally agreed "rates" women are comparatively very well paid in these regions. Wales, Scotland and the other regions of England sit somewhere above these two , but still no where near the huge wage gap in the southeast. One lesson might be that prosperity and dynamism is incompatible with feminism. Certainly within the EU the smallest gaps tend to be in the poorer countries with the richest (including my faves the Swedes) having the largest gender pay gaps! Go figure!
I’ve did well in high school, but attended university in the wrong generation.
The Big Red wave of feminism was purely cancel culture and trying to get as many young men suspended or expelled from campus using false accusations.
About 10 years later, I have no Bachelor’s degree, owe about $35000 in student loans and have no intention of paying it back. Good thing we have student repayment assistance in Canada.
I don’t see myself earning more than $40,000 a year because I don’t have a degree. Blame Big Red and the feminism on campus.
Richard Hanania interviewed Amy Wax a few months ago and they were discussing “why women’s tears win in the marketplace” (he wrote an article with this title). Wax said that regardless of the evils of feminism, men were ultimately to blame for giving in.
I remember reading somewhere (where?) that women's tears releases some kind of hormone or chemical reaction in men that weakens them. It's like a magic sauce to manipulate them. Is this true or did I dream it? Regardless, I think it's a bit rich to blame men for wanting to please women.
Janice, that sounds like something Tom Golden might have written. Also that testosterone is responsible for the fact that adult men cry far less than adult women.
Yeah, I know--and I love Amy Wax; she is brilliant. But it's pretty hard to resist when women are screaming at you that you're a horrible misogynist who consents to the rape and torture of women if you don't go along with the new policies and legislation.
It wouldn’t work on me. But I am fully inoculated against woke (with multiple boosters). Many men are spineless but there is also the collection action problem now of organizing against the feminists. Have you considered interviewing Wax for a podcast?
Even if tears do weaken men, it’s not the literal tears of feminists that led to privilege; it’s probably more attributable to namby pamby men and politicians.
Sorry for being a little irate here (not directed at you), but God I can't stand Richard Hanania. He wrote that piece, and somehow still alluded to "the way women were treated throughout history" (according to feminists), with zero self-reflection. And it doesn't seem to have occurred to him at all that maybe the *reason* some men in the past were hesitant about women in higher education was precisely because of these kinds of antics. And, well, that was before he went on to write that piece justifying, and apologising for, female-perpetrated statutory rape. There is almost no end to the list of painfully stupid and cringe-worthy things that that guy has said. I don't understand why people like him so much.
Men are not to blame for 'giving in' because women have engaged in several generations of feminine coercion (undermining), and men and boys are as vulnerable to the feminine coercion expressed by women as women and girls are to the masculine coercion (violence) expressed by men. Saying men are to blame for what feminism has been 'allowed' to do is like blaming girls and women for 'not standing up for themselves' while getting slapped and punched around by a group of men; like they're in the wrong for getting beat to a pulp.
FYI... Undermining is the use of false information/signals to attack the perceptions of people, communities, institutions, and states. It is also called feminine coercion, feminine 'violence,' and female anti-social behavior.
Here's a list of the many different forms of undermining:
* lying: deliberately deviating from the truth.
* denying: baseless contradicting of an argument; refusal to accept reality; magical or wishful thinking; becomes gaslighting if persistent.
* partial accounting: selective admission of evidence to fictionalize the past or present.
Yes, by ruthlessly suppressing the feminine coercion expressed by women at every scale and in every institution of society. That will never happen if men see our current state of affairs as nothing more than the result of men 'giving in to' or 'allowing' the very selfish attitudes and demands of women. That just maintains this cultural milieu of women being innocent bystanders that could do no wrong while all liability falls onto men. Men instead need to understand that women have systematically coerced them by undermining their psyches, their relation with other men and boys, our culture, our court systems, and every institution of cultural and political production over the course of generations.
I wrote this line several weeks ago in response to another of your illuminating articles…
‘The MGTOW movement didn’t develop in a vacuum did it?’
I just got this reply over the weekend!
"The MGTOW movement didn’t arise in a vacuum did it!" MGTOW is a good idea but they need to channel their energy (if they have any) into doing real world practical work for boys. Such as foster parenting, adopting, working with homeless and troubled youth and building intentional communities/communes. Or joining monasteries. As it is now all they do is sit online complaining all day instead of helping their own.
And the respondent is absolutely right!
Men can’t just sit around and whine about this bullshit. If they feel threatened by it get off your ass and do something about it. I get and have seen in operation the effects of ‘cancel culture’ or the weight negative social media can be brought to bear but retired or non-vulnerable men can have an influence and need to exercise that strength both with deeds and with actions. Start by exulting the virtues of manhood to your Grandchildren and reading stories of the old Heroes to them. Make them feel as special about themselves as they are to you!
I can understand all the 'marriage and relationships suck' videos and all the 'why you're better off single' discussions. If you're going to do something considered anti-social and on the fringe it's good to know you aren't going mad and others think like you. So some kind of support system does play a part. So great - you've made it onto square one. So when are you moving to square two? What's next? That hasn't been answered yet, but I think it will be. It can't be ignored forever.
I also agree that the whole MGTOW movement - indeed the men's rights movement has completely abandoned boys and young men. It seems to focus on divorcees and parenting rights.
I'd love to get my life sorted so I didn't have to spend my spare time shoring up my own finances - or even enjoying my own hobbies. But I dream, one day, of starting a Youtube channel as bookclub for boys and young men to get them reading again. The cheapest, most self-sufficient way for a lonely young man to improve his life is to read a book. The benefits can't be overstated. What would you do, if you could?
Thank You for taking the time to read and comment.
When I was a kid and knew everything I used to believe the English approach to single sex ed was a good way to initiate boys into homosexuality and provide the teachers with a never ending source of ‘subjects’…remember I knew everything at that point!
I now feel that same sex education is the only way to fly.
I think that young males (all races) thrive under male tutelage. Teachers who use creative physicality as a reward (lets go hiking as a class this weekend because you did so well on the last test) or punishment (Smith, all I’ve heard since class started was you running your mouth…get out there and run 4 laps…be back here in 15) are sure to win both the hearts and minds of young energetic and curious males. It also fosters good competitiveness and camaraderie! Things males are good at!
Good luck with that! Anything set up like the above (particularly if it was successful) would be overwhelmed by screaming, swearing, construction board carrying harpies, demanding inclusion, even if they are free to open their own version of it for young girls.
As a Grandfather of a bunch of grandkids, I already do that. I even do conditioning for their House League Hockey Teams. If I had the dough I’d expand the concept and take in young fatherless males at risk to mingle with the other boys!
Leading by example is the best way for me. That’s what I would do if I could!
I hate to say it, but Putin, the voice of authoritarianism and autocracy, is correct when he says that in the U.S. (and the West in general) we are devouring each other. Our denigration of men and male values is a big part of that and will ultimately defeat us. And, the Putins of the world won't have to drop a bomb or even lift a finger for that matter.
Great stuff! I see feminism as a tentacle of a much larger octopus of social isolation and psychic confusion. The whole octopus includes us and our buy-in, our complicity and voicelessness. Standing up to it becomes a call to loving arms, Strength in the arm and honey in the heart as my friend says!
Feminism's ultimate goal was never about equality, equality (of rights, never responsibilities) was only a staging post on the journey towards yet more female privilege, for which feminists have an insatiable appetite (and the majority of women who don't identify as feminists - 91% of women in the UK - are nonetheless happy to get ever more privileges).
Feminism has always been the pursuit of female supremacy, regardless of the impacts on men, most women, and children.
I am eternally frustrated that the four years of Janice's 'Fiamengo File' prior to 2.0 seem to have vanished. There was so much wisdom and truth there.
It was frustrating to lose them all, and especially to lose the many many insightful and witty and informative comments. You can find an archive of them at Odysee:
Once again Janice, your analysis is unerring and irrefutable. The discomfort, the lie, is palpable. I was particularly struck by your reference to contraceptives. They are now "free" in any drugstore, courtesy of the taxpayer. That is bizarre, blatant social engineering, a band-aid on a wound that won't heal.
Another brilliant article by Janice - truth telling at its very best.
Indeed! Bravo! Your pretty awesome too Bettina.
Agreed!!!
Thanks for all you do Mike!
Thanks HN!
I think the biggest problem with fighting these things is that so many men go along with feminist notions, as you often see in comments on Twitter or other websites. Somehow or another this seems to make them feel virtuous. Until it affects them personally, they're quite happy to do other men down to gain favour from women.
In the UK education was skewed to favour women. Academic results used to be based on examinations, but this was shifted to include more coursework. Female pupils fared better on coursework, and boys fared better on examinations. The assessment shift from purely examination based to coursework based changed the proportion of male and female results.
Child support, divorce laws, and so many other things are such a minefield, because people always bring up the most extreme cases in the discussions.
Thanks Ben. William Collins wrote a book I recommend to people all the time, "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019). The paperback is 700+ pages long, the ebook just £4.32 on Amazon. In the chapter on education he has a graph on gendered educational attainment before and after O Levels were replaced with GCSEs in 1987/8 (I think that was the year). Contrary to popular opinion, boys and girls had been neck-and-neck on O Level grades for many years before 1987/8, but you're right, a gender education gap appeared in 1987/8 and has been with us ever since.
Collins cites in the book my FOI request to the Dept of Education some years ago, which forced the DoE to admit they had no plans to address the gap favouring girls. White working-class boys have long had the worst educational outcomes and the DoE doesn't even recognise that as a problem.
We covered the issue of education (along with 19 other issues) in our last and final election manifesto https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/221128-J4MB-manifesto-3.pdf (pp.34-8) before we de-registered recently as a political party. The feminisation of the education profession has had an appalling impact on educational standards, every profession which has been feminised has gone down the pan in terms of delivery (medicine and policing being obvious examples).
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
I remember the "Girls in Science and Technology" (GIST) initiative in the 80s (it was a hot topic in Parliament) (which resulted in what?) which ran alongside the failure of boys in modern languages - but nobody was talking about that. Boys are expendable and their failure in any field is just collateral damage.
Mel, indeed. 90%+ of psychology graduates (to take but one of many examples) in the UK have been female for years, this of course isn't a problem, let alone one needing to be addressed.
William Collins (formerly an engineer and physicist, a Cambridge Uni graduate almost 50 years ago) on his amazing blog "The Ilustrated Empathy Gap" http://empathygap.uk/ points to relentless initiatives to drive up the proportion of women in STEM subjects in higher education, although if we add medicine to give STEMM, a majority of graduates have been women for years. There are few subjects in which men are the majority and those are the most intellectually demanding ones e.g. physics, maths. Courses have been dumbed-down to enable more women to study them (e.g. physics).
Women have been 70%+ of graduating medical students in the UK for 50 years. In the 1970s Dr Vernon Coleman - the first 'TV doctor' in the UK - was warning that the drive for more female doctors would end up in an inevitable crisis for the NHS because of women's lesser work ethic and sense of duty. All that he predicted has come to pass.
In my undergraduate physics cohort at university, there were TWO young women, but I know that's going back a bit. They were feted and prized and looked after. Guys would leap to their assistance if, for example, they couldn't get the oscilloscope to display but I suppose you'd call that mansplaining now. At the physics graduation dinner, one of them, whom I'm still in touch with, leapt out of a wheeled-in cake wearing a basque. I guess you'd call that something nasty now as well. My point is, that there was NO intimidation or discouragement offered to these ladies in fact the opposite but that's what I hear frequently. btw I had glandular fever for 6 weeks in the final year and the lady in the basque photocopied all her lecture notes for me. I got a good degree partly down to her.
I get it. The 'lady' was good for taking notes. Got it. I have a similiar experience. I worked for a butch looking girl who trained as an auto mechanic, and ended up running an auto parts warehouse. When I told her about my invention, she helped me type out the patent application...
Thanks Mel, what year would that have been?
Graduation year was 1978.
Mike, years ago on the Bob Grant radio show, Profesor Martin Gross cited statistics from a YALE MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDY: "43 % of medical students at Yale are wo-MEN" "ALL 43% ... score 14 points LOWER than the MALE doctors on their medical exams, and most end up in pediatrics" This was back in the 90's and I can't find any reference to this study, but have no reason to doubt Professor Martin Gross who was a guest on the Bob Grant radio show back then.
Thanks Joseph, interesting.
"Academic results used to be based on examinations, but this was shifted to include more coursework."
Objectivity is a tool of the patriarchy.
And tools are tools of the patriarchy.
Education wasn't skewed to advantage women in just the UK; this is a global western-world phenomenon that I have witnessed first-hand in the Antipodes (AU & NZ).
Some years ago, I explored the idea of advancing my education and contribution to my profession by doing additional study to be able to undertake a PHD. I was shocked to discover that my “Degree” in Architecture (awarded in the mid-80’s) has now re-classified as a “Masters” and further study towards a “PHD” was primarily by “coursework”. A.K.A. my degree had been “dumbed down”.
In the 80’s, when I got my BArch, to do a “Masters” you needed to be “sponsored” by someone on the academic staff. To do a PHD, you not only had to have your master’s and a Sponsor, but you also needed an original thesis topic that would generate “new knowledge”.
I am so P***ed that my degree (and by extension, all other degrees, masters and doctoral dissertations) has been “dumbed-down” in pursuit of “education” as a business (cha-ching… $$$$) rather than as an intellectual endeavour in pursuit of higher learning and “new knowledge”.
Are we now part of the “2nd Dark Age” of deliberately engineered human ignorance?
The parallels between the “Dark Ages”nd the “Woke Ages” are clear.
Feminism, as it is now practiced, can be deemed to be an “orthodox religion”; the “MeToo” movement pogrom can be paralleled to the Dark Ages “Inquisition” and the Salam “Witch Trials” in the 1690’s.
We need a new non-gendered “Renaissance”, a new non-gendered “Enlightenment” and a new non-gendered “Reformation” (hint; AI’s are not the answer) if we are to survive the toxic divisive feminist /marxists paradigm that currently cripples our communities and society.
In all probability (since the time when the “human” population, in our distant past, collapse to only about 25 individuals +/- (genetics is so fascinating when applied to find the genetic “chock point” in “human evolution”), humanity 𝙄𝙎 entering its most recent “darkest hour”.
Our new “Epoch” is worse than the “𝘿𝙖𝙧𝙠 𝘼𝙜𝙚𝙨” and Churchill’s “𝘿𝙖𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙃𝙤𝙪𝙧” because the ecosystems we rely on are collapsing; the resources we rely on to support our civilisation are being depleted at an exponential rate, the societal resilience that is needed to survive routine calamities has been undermined and 60 years of feminism propaganda has only produced a culture; “be selfish; live only for yourself and only live for today (& F**k future consequences)
Humans pose an “existential threat” to themselves; championed by militant feminists.
Think about it.
The whole 'girls fare better on coursework' is bullsh*t! How about 'teachers mark girls easier'?
It was obvious from the get-go that coursework marking was subjective to the teacher whereas exams are anonymous. If it transpired that 'boys fared better in coursework' this would immediately have been flagged as sexist bias and 'something' would have been done.
Another so called bias is that boys are 'falling behind' in education. In the UK the school leaving exam results (A levels) for boys as girls are near parity. Yet this is not reflected in the university admissions. So there is clearly other reasons for why boys don't go to university. Janice's article mentioned some.
"Another so called bias is that BOYS are 'falling behind' in education" AGREED! This is condescending bullshit. If arsonists are the teachers, firemen would be RIGHT to DROP OUT. This is why I DON'T like Christina Hoff Sommers. She likes to condesend against BOYS by insinuating that BOYS have special needs, and need to be taught in a certain way. She IGNORES the fact that BOYS never had learning problems in the past, and also ignors the fact that BOYS are being deliberately impeded by fEMINIST/Marxist/ curriculum, not to mention outrageous half naked shorts. (There used to be a dress code)
With half of the population consisting of men, it would seem that some percentage would care about men's rights. I also believe that most women care about the lives of boys & men. We have advocates like Janice, W. Collin's and many others who do a great job. Theirs even some men left in positions of power. Why can't we get enough people to fight against this injustice?
We have the playbook used by women's rights groups in the 60's. We have seen men come together in the Promise Keepers movement years ago. What are we missing? How do we overcome the gender empathy gap and misandrist feminist? I know that's the million dollar question but I'm truly baffled. It's it a lack of courage, will or social/political power?
William Collins has answers to some of your questions in "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019). 700+ page paperback, ebook under £5 on Amazon.
The muted empathy both men and women have towards males which Collins describes is possibly the #1 problem. Plus most men are easily shamed and simply won't say 'No' to women often enough, no matter how much they should. As Paul Elam says, a test of a men's character is his willingness to say 'No' to women, and most men fail that test dismally.
The inevitable consequence of ever-increasing female privilege is ever-increasing male disadvantage. How can the individual man, probably with plenty of his plate, fight feminist hegemony? Very difficult, and he may well run risks if he tries e.g. loss of employment, social exclusion.
As far as politics is concerned, every significant British political party tries to attract women's votes, never men's votes specifically. Philip Davies - a British Conservative MP - is (to the best of my knowledge) the only elected politician in the English-speaking world to have spoken out consistently on men's issues, in particular with the International Men's Day debates he hosted in the chamber of the House of Commons for many years (Jess Phillips MP did all in her power to stop the series from starting).
One of those IMD debates was about MGM, illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, being the infliction of ABH or GBH. Philip has only been able to speak out because he said in his maiden spech in 2005 that he had no ministerial ambitions and wanted only to be a good constituency MP. His wife, Esther McVey, was a cabinet minister for some years.
Philip has spoken at several of our International Conferences on Men's Issues including London in 2016 http://icmi2016.icmi.info and Chicago in 2019 http://icmi2019.icmi.info. The series started with the conference run by Paul Elam and A Voice for Men http://avoiceformen.com near Detroit in 2014, I've hosted four of them (2016, 2018, 2020, 2021).
I look forward to hosting my next ICMI in Budapest in August 2023, a few details here https://j4mb.org.uk/2022/07/15/budapest-conference-2024/. We have a great line-up of speakers including Philip Davies MP and Esther McVey MP, Professor Stephen Baskerville, William Collins, Ed Bartlett, and more. The keynote speaker will be the legend that is... Professor Janice Fiamengo!!!
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
My apologies for the rant. It just gets frustrating. This is not an excuse for inaction. However, we do have to take into account the long term tv & movie campaign that's been demeaning men and elevating women for years. Like a constant drip wearing away solid rock. I took my grandson to a Monster Truck event 10 years ago. The MC lead the stadium in a chant of 'girls rule, boys drool'.
I think that, as a whole, women represent a "collective" and you might hear an appeal for women to vote this way or that collectively. You don't hear "men" being urged, as a demographic, to represent any collective view when voting or campaigning. I think that that would be seen as very threatening.
It's like we have two fishing lakes side-by-side, containing the same types and sizes of fish. Every fisherman throws his line into lake A, none in lake B (where they'd obviously catch more fish, through lack of competition). I have yet to meet a politician who could grasp that appealing to men collectively could reap an electoral dividend.
People don't always do what is rational, or in their own best interests.
Part of the answer to your question might be found in the fate of the Promise Keepers organization. Currently considered fascists by the government. No such opprobrium was ever attached to even the most radical feminists (think Pink Hats, for instance).
"Most wo-MEN care about the lives of BOYS & MEN" Half Newfie, I would like to say you're half right, but I DON'T think you are even half right. In fact I think MOST wo-MEN have NO consideration for BOYS or MEN
since there are clearly plenty of anti feminism women, I suggest you do more thinking. I find more almost daily and the men are as well, slowly coming around. This is not a gender war, it's an ideological war. And by war I mean words and ideas being challenged. It is a more difficult position to be in the feminist camp as they will have to adjust to reality. Our job is to make that transition as least unpleasant for them as possible. They are as children imagining they are in the Tour De France, yet still have their training wheels. It is more adorable than wrong.
Almost all non-feminist and anti-feminist women that I have spoken or written to have been, in no uncertain terms, anti-MRAs. The reason why the vast majority of them are non- or anti-feminist is because they see the movement starting to destroy the elevated cultural image of women. It's just like the anti-suffrage women; both pro- and anti-suffrage women wanted maximum female cultural and political power. The anti-suffragettes knew that female voting would cause women to be seen as having responsibilities/liabilities they'd rather continue evading, and would drastically decrease their superior cultural and (indirect) political power.
LOL. You are naive. Trad con wo-M EN are just as gynocentric as fEMINISTS. The difference between fEMINISTS and anti fEMINISTS is the same difference between Germans & Jews... two peas in a pod. To say that fEMINISM is more adorable than wrong, shows what a naive #simp you are, especially considering that 98% of rape claims are LIES, not to mention FALSE rape 'claims' are so pervasive that even you were falsely accussed as you have admitted. NO I suggest YOU do some thinking
I already blocked you on Facebook. I was threatened with false rape accusations more than once, yes. That does not mean your 98% claim is accurate. I blocked you because you are a hater and not an understander. You are too attached to the bible to have any real value in this arena and for some reason can't seem to get yourself to write the word "woman" correctly. You present yourself far too much as a misogynist to be an MRA. I do not disagree with gynocentrism as it is prevalent in all the warm blooded animals as well as the human ones. Evolution is not stupid. Time for you to evolve. Let go of your bible and show god you can be trusted without him.
"I was threatened with FALSE rape accusations MORE than once"
"That doesn't mean your 98% FALSE rape claim is accurate" < LOL.
LOL. Since you blocked me on Facebook, why engage me here?
Thanks for proving evolution is bullshit and that bad genes and bad attitudes...
are the result of...... SIN...... not...... evolution.
They're simps for a reason. I never ever really felt that I need to propitiate to women.
The beatings will continue until morale improves. You know, pour encourager des autres.
"Until it affects them personally,"
Sadly, thereafter the behaviour continues. The brainwashing is thorough.
Let's sum this up: Men in decline... women more affected.
The feminists across Canadian universities were chasing away men from higher education a decade ago. Many men dropped out or were suspended/ expelled. Men without university degrees tend to be at a huge disadvantage here in Canada. There are not enough trades jobs to go around in Ontario.
The Canadian Minister of Immigration plans to increase immigration to 500,000 immigrants a year while Canadian men are overdosing in tent cities and parks. Canadian men are being replaced.
Sounds like another Richard Reeves. He acknowledges the problem, which is good, but seems utterly incapable of thinking outside of the feminist orthodoxy.
Agree! I was disgusted by an interview he did recently. He started his spiel talking about how tough women have had it in the past. Im not quoting him but this was my interpretation.
He implied that it should be celebrated that women are so far ahead of men in college graduation rates. How the fact that women are filing for divorce at such high rates today should be considered a victory for women. According to him it's because they are finally breaking the chains of marriage (implied as slavery) suffered in the past. No mention of men's challenges in the past.
He is helping the cause by shedding light on issues for boys in education. However, he's just another liberal academic feminist.
I came a across this article "Tunnels of Blood" is about the horrendous working conditions that men experienced when building the Snowy Mountains Scheme in Australia. http://www.bradcollis.net/snowy/blood.html?fbclid=IwAR1ITFpyCbta9ZilJgkMsqhD2-QHMCfllq9U2-Z3HvZ3kul1q9-XuNPzSzI
Historically women were removed from the coal mines, they were granted a 8 hour working day in the factories act, when men worked 12 or more hours.
Janice has already covered how women were much less likely to be convicted of a crime or if they were they received much more lighter sentences than men.
This looks fascinating, Phillip--thank you.
He also wrote about the women who lived up there as well. As an after thought, it could perhaps be compared the Canadian frontiers.
Indeed. As Paul Elam put it, feminists think that men have spent the last few millenia puffing cigars and watching football.
That would hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.
The simple thing is that they don't realise that the world we live in with all of it's advances that has made life so easy when compared to conditions pre industrial revolution was most male driven with hope of pleasing women.
"We would still living in Grass huts" had it been left the matriarchy.
Exactly. Its very frustrating to see someone walk all the way to the edge of the chasm of the issue, and then at the very last moment refuse to look inside, and worse yet, make a complete U turn in resolving the issue by shifting blame onto the negatively affected party.
Feminists have not been given due credit for providing the foundation for the radical gender movement that is now official school policy and the consequent grooming of children for LGBTQ2S++ membership. Feminist denial of biological differences between males and females and their many fold reflections in biologically-based gender differences lays the groundwork for belief in the possibility of "transition." Remember the feminist claim that gender is "socially constructed"? Feminists have a lot to answer for in the destruction of Western culture and its replacement by nihilist lunacy.
Yes, it's amazing the knots that some tie themselves into in order to point to likely sources of the trans activist agenda, at any ideology other than feminism. For well credentialed pundits and columnists, it's simply impossible to draw any connection between the cult of increasingly strident and irrational transactivists and all the gender studies departments which exist on every liberal arts campus and replaced women's studies departments in order to deny any possible creation of men's studies programs.
Yeah, it's just gotta be the patriarchy that is encouraging men to transition and enter women's sports and safe spaces. #gynocentrism
Outstanding, Janice, as always - thanks!
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Brilliant, as usual.
Full disclosure, I'm more than a little inebriated.
"Unpaid labor?" WTF? As a man who has been single my entire life I have always performed ALL of my domestic chores with no remuneration whatsoever. So, obviously, it peeves me more than just a little that a housewife who BY LAW is entitled to at least half of her husband's assets can claim that she is UNPAID because she performs domestic chores.
Marriage is a partnership, right? If a man makes $100,000 a year as a truck driver working up to sixty hours a week then his wife gets $50,000 of that doing shit that she WOULD BE DOING ANYWAY IF SHE WASN'T MARRIED! Her husband is almost never home so the majority of the messes she's cleaning up are her own. Furthermore, I can just about GUARANTEE you that the husband is still the one mowing the lawn, maintaining the machines, taking out the garbage, etc. Who is paying HIM for that?
I can barely believe that, as much as I've immersed myself in men's rights issues over the past decade or so, I've never seen anyone bring up the 'marriage as a legal partnership' issue when discussing things like the pay gap. If a man makes $200,000 a year and his wife stays home and plays with the kids, shops, watched soap operas, and supervises the domestic servants then they BOTH MAKE $100,000 A YEAR! What could possibly be a clearer refutation of the 'unpaid labor' argument?
"I'm more than a little inebriated."
We could tell when you posted this for a second time!
I posted it 4 or 5 times, altogether. Everytime I clicked the 'post' button and I checked to see that it had actually posted properly, it hadn't. Finally I closed the browser window, navigated back to Janice's Substack, and found that it had actually posted every time
Crap like that is one reason I drink so much in the first place.
Oh gee, definitely enough to drive one to drink! I had someone angry at me today because he thought I had switched my Substack to paid subscription only. I reassured him that was not the case, and I don't know why he got that impression--but there must have been a reason. Damned technology.
'The Future is Female'.
That slogan is, sadly, out of date as it has been female for some time. And it will get more female. If I printed those T-shirts with this slogan the reverse side would say '...and it's a bankrupt, disfunctional shithole.'
Men just aren't opting out of education but also the industries and jobs we all rely on. If you take an average working age between 18 and 65 you get 41.5. Do you know the average age of a truck driver? 55!. This is an old man's job. I heard for welders it is 45. I'd be interested the average ages in other vital industries such as mining, forestry, farming, oil and gas extraction, electrical grid and water maintenance. The 'supply chain crises' caused by the lack of truckers hasn't gone away. The war in Ukraine has just distracted from it. Covid didn't help. It's difficult to un-pick just what modern hardships are caused by what disaster so its unlikely there will be any clear analysis on these problems. When the war in Ukraine ends and Covid is so distant that it can't really be blamed we will still be left with a man shortage. It will be difficult to ignore then.
Around 6 months ago in the UK there were some statistics released about the number of people over 55 who have recently taken early retirement. This is a huge chunk out of the treasury's revenue. So much so that that the government is urging businesses to find way to encourage older people back to work. I didn't see a breakdown on how many of these retirees were men. Again, I'd like to know. All western countries are bankrolled on the backs of men. We pay the majority of taxes and get the least in payouts. Woman are a net negative to the economy. Hard times ahead.
I'm no good at this kind of economic analysis, but I'd certainly enjoy seeing more of it. The numbers will tell the story. Your points are incisive.
I'll try and find something. This is exercising many European countries and the UK. In some senses the UK had found a wizard wheeze to plug these gaps by importing skilled men from eastern european countries in the EU. In huge numbers. The UK was a particularly popular destination and other european countries worried about these gaps rather more (while others such as Poland and the Baltic states bemoaned their shortages due to so many moving "west"). Here in the UK there has been considerable efforts put into reviving the recruitment into trades and technical skills. My old favourite Sweden has been particularly active too, not least because unlike the UK they still have large extractive, forestry and "heavy" industry sectors. By the by the Swedes were perhaps the first to note the "split" in society between the "feminist" strata of society and the rather un feminist working class. Noting that the former consisting of "graduates" employed either in he public sector (females) or service sectors (male) lived very different lives from those in the private sector with men still in trades or various forms of industry (too many to number here) and women in the private service sector. The latter still aspiring to traditional families and without the privileges of working from home, family friendly hours or long periods off etc. This rather stark divide is discernable in a number of countries in Europe. I would think Canada is likely to mirror that sort of economic/social split, given the Country still is a major producer and contends with a harsh climate requiring a lot of maintenance and repairs).
Here in the UK the the issues about "Brexit" required EU nationals living here to register, 6 million did so. The number of adult males were well over 3 million. Had they all gone "home" I think it safe to say chunks of our economy would have ground to a halt (literally: trucks,,Lifts, Railways, Power Supplies and Ports). In a real sense these hard working skilled men saved us from ourselves.
Another interesting phenomena is the "Gender Pay Gap". Here in the UK this is available regionally. The largest pay gap by far is in the South east region, including London this is the economic engine of the UK (though as a northerner it pains me to admit it). In Northern Ireland (NI)and the North East of England the gap is usually negligible and in NI is actually in reverse some years. These are the poorest "post industrial" regions where their economies depend on public funding. As women are the majority of public employees, and jobs are at nationally agreed "rates" women are comparatively very well paid in these regions. Wales, Scotland and the other regions of England sit somewhere above these two , but still no where near the huge wage gap in the southeast. One lesson might be that prosperity and dynamism is incompatible with feminism. Certainly within the EU the smallest gaps tend to be in the poorer countries with the richest (including my faves the Swedes) having the largest gender pay gaps! Go figure!
I’ve did well in high school, but attended university in the wrong generation.
The Big Red wave of feminism was purely cancel culture and trying to get as many young men suspended or expelled from campus using false accusations.
About 10 years later, I have no Bachelor’s degree, owe about $35000 in student loans and have no intention of paying it back. Good thing we have student repayment assistance in Canada.
I don’t see myself earning more than $40,000 a year because I don’t have a degree. Blame Big Red and the feminism on campus.
Richard Hanania interviewed Amy Wax a few months ago and they were discussing “why women’s tears win in the marketplace” (he wrote an article with this title). Wax said that regardless of the evils of feminism, men were ultimately to blame for giving in.
I remember reading somewhere (where?) that women's tears releases some kind of hormone or chemical reaction in men that weakens them. It's like a magic sauce to manipulate them. Is this true or did I dream it? Regardless, I think it's a bit rich to blame men for wanting to please women.
Janice, that sounds like something Tom Golden might have written. Also that testosterone is responsible for the fact that adult men cry far less than adult women.
She simply meant that men should/should have pushed back at the unreasonable stuff.
Yeah, I know--and I love Amy Wax; she is brilliant. But it's pretty hard to resist when women are screaming at you that you're a horrible misogynist who consents to the rape and torture of women if you don't go along with the new policies and legislation.
It wouldn’t work on me. But I am fully inoculated against woke (with multiple boosters). Many men are spineless but there is also the collection action problem now of organizing against the feminists. Have you considered interviewing Wax for a podcast?
What I remember is that the research showed that female tears dampened men's sexual ardor. It attenuated sexual desire.
Even if tears do weaken men, it’s not the literal tears of feminists that led to privilege; it’s probably more attributable to namby pamby men and politicians.
Sorry for being a little irate here (not directed at you), but God I can't stand Richard Hanania. He wrote that piece, and somehow still alluded to "the way women were treated throughout history" (according to feminists), with zero self-reflection. And it doesn't seem to have occurred to him at all that maybe the *reason* some men in the past were hesitant about women in higher education was precisely because of these kinds of antics. And, well, that was before he went on to write that piece justifying, and apologising for, female-perpetrated statutory rape. There is almost no end to the list of painfully stupid and cringe-worthy things that that guy has said. I don't understand why people like him so much.
But statutory rape isn’t really rape, is it? I have seen many men celebrate these encounters.
Men are not to blame for 'giving in' because women have engaged in several generations of feminine coercion (undermining), and men and boys are as vulnerable to the feminine coercion expressed by women as women and girls are to the masculine coercion (violence) expressed by men. Saying men are to blame for what feminism has been 'allowed' to do is like blaming girls and women for 'not standing up for themselves' while getting slapped and punched around by a group of men; like they're in the wrong for getting beat to a pulp.
FYI... Undermining is the use of false information/signals to attack the perceptions of people, communities, institutions, and states. It is also called feminine coercion, feminine 'violence,' and female anti-social behavior.
Here's a list of the many different forms of undermining:
* lying: deliberately deviating from the truth.
* denying: baseless contradicting of an argument; refusal to accept reality; magical or wishful thinking; becomes gaslighting if persistent.
* partial accounting: selective admission of evidence to fictionalize the past or present.
* storytelling (aka false narration): framing, loading, obscuring, suggesting, and sensationalizing.
* overloading: overwhelming the emotional or rational faculties to cognitively disarm against suggestions; a light form of hypnosis.
* moralizing: preachy; didactic; indulging in superficial moral pronouncements.
* psychologizing: uninformed speculation on psychological motives to assign blame.
* special pleading (aka false pleading): defending or supporting by falsely assuming immunity or superiority.
* false promising: false assurance of fairness, loyalty, care, or non-aggression; faith healing.
* baiting into hazard: seduction into non-reciprocal or disproportionate contracts (like cohabitation, pregnancy, and marriage).
* prevaricating: quibbling; shuffling; duplicity; confusing the issue; deliberate ambiguity.
* hysterics: insincere/exaggerated/unregulated expression of neurotic emotions.
* critiquing (aka false criticizing): fault finding; negatively judgemental; becomes nagging if persistent.
* ridiculing: mocking; humiliating; belittling; framing as ridiculous/unimportant.
* shaming: dishonoring; creating contempt; inducing a sense of inadequacy or guilt.
* shrilling: using raucous, jarring, and generally rude speech to be heard more than others.
* gossiping: malicious speech that reveals the personal information (real or fake) of others.
* chanting: transmitting myths for the sake of social construction (an advanced means of fraud).
* rallying: mobilizing by creating a contrived sense of social unity.
* censoring: supervising speech and conduct to suppress what's deemed objectionable.
* ostracizing: exclusion from a community/society due to being disliked or disapproved of.
* reputation destruction: sabotage of social standing through discredit and disrepute.
Ultimately, men will have to readjust the balance of power, no?
Yes, by ruthlessly suppressing the feminine coercion expressed by women at every scale and in every institution of society. That will never happen if men see our current state of affairs as nothing more than the result of men 'giving in to' or 'allowing' the very selfish attitudes and demands of women. That just maintains this cultural milieu of women being innocent bystanders that could do no wrong while all liability falls onto men. Men instead need to understand that women have systematically coerced them by undermining their psyches, their relation with other men and boys, our culture, our court systems, and every institution of cultural and political production over the course of generations.
"Women are most affected by war. They lose their husbands, they lose their brothers, they lose their sons..."
- Hillary Clinton
I remember my mother saying the same thing in 1972. This sentiment far predates Hillary Clinton.
I wrote this line several weeks ago in response to another of your illuminating articles…
‘The MGTOW movement didn’t develop in a vacuum did it?’
I just got this reply over the weekend!
"The MGTOW movement didn’t arise in a vacuum did it!" MGTOW is a good idea but they need to channel their energy (if they have any) into doing real world practical work for boys. Such as foster parenting, adopting, working with homeless and troubled youth and building intentional communities/communes. Or joining monasteries. As it is now all they do is sit online complaining all day instead of helping their own.
And the respondent is absolutely right!
Men can’t just sit around and whine about this bullshit. If they feel threatened by it get off your ass and do something about it. I get and have seen in operation the effects of ‘cancel culture’ or the weight negative social media can be brought to bear but retired or non-vulnerable men can have an influence and need to exercise that strength both with deeds and with actions. Start by exulting the virtues of manhood to your Grandchildren and reading stories of the old Heroes to them. Make them feel as special about themselves as they are to you!
I agree wholeheartedly.
I can understand all the 'marriage and relationships suck' videos and all the 'why you're better off single' discussions. If you're going to do something considered anti-social and on the fringe it's good to know you aren't going mad and others think like you. So some kind of support system does play a part. So great - you've made it onto square one. So when are you moving to square two? What's next? That hasn't been answered yet, but I think it will be. It can't be ignored forever.
I also agree that the whole MGTOW movement - indeed the men's rights movement has completely abandoned boys and young men. It seems to focus on divorcees and parenting rights.
I'd love to get my life sorted so I didn't have to spend my spare time shoring up my own finances - or even enjoying my own hobbies. But I dream, one day, of starting a Youtube channel as bookclub for boys and young men to get them reading again. The cheapest, most self-sufficient way for a lonely young man to improve his life is to read a book. The benefits can't be overstated. What would you do, if you could?
Hi Mr Cat.
Thank You for taking the time to read and comment.
When I was a kid and knew everything I used to believe the English approach to single sex ed was a good way to initiate boys into homosexuality and provide the teachers with a never ending source of ‘subjects’…remember I knew everything at that point!
I now feel that same sex education is the only way to fly.
I think that young males (all races) thrive under male tutelage. Teachers who use creative physicality as a reward (lets go hiking as a class this weekend because you did so well on the last test) or punishment (Smith, all I’ve heard since class started was you running your mouth…get out there and run 4 laps…be back here in 15) are sure to win both the hearts and minds of young energetic and curious males. It also fosters good competitiveness and camaraderie! Things males are good at!
Good luck with that! Anything set up like the above (particularly if it was successful) would be overwhelmed by screaming, swearing, construction board carrying harpies, demanding inclusion, even if they are free to open their own version of it for young girls.
As a Grandfather of a bunch of grandkids, I already do that. I even do conditioning for their House League Hockey Teams. If I had the dough I’d expand the concept and take in young fatherless males at risk to mingle with the other boys!
Leading by example is the best way for me. That’s what I would do if I could!
By the way…
The YouTube Channel thing is a great idea! I hope you can pull it off!
I hate to say it, but Putin, the voice of authoritarianism and autocracy, is correct when he says that in the U.S. (and the West in general) we are devouring each other. Our denigration of men and male values is a big part of that and will ultimately defeat us. And, the Putins of the world won't have to drop a bomb or even lift a finger for that matter.
Great stuff! I see feminism as a tentacle of a much larger octopus of social isolation and psychic confusion. The whole octopus includes us and our buy-in, our complicity and voicelessness. Standing up to it becomes a call to loving arms, Strength in the arm and honey in the heart as my friend says!
Feminism for equality is fine.
The trouble with the extreme version is that it has all the hallmarks of NAZI ideology.
Mostly single minded, generalised extremes, even threats, and revenge, against anyone that dares to engage in a fair manner .
Terrorist territory....
Feminism's ultimate goal was never about equality, equality (of rights, never responsibilities) was only a staging post on the journey towards yet more female privilege, for which feminists have an insatiable appetite (and the majority of women who don't identify as feminists - 91% of women in the UK - are nonetheless happy to get ever more privileges).
Feminism has always been the pursuit of female supremacy, regardless of the impacts on men, most women, and children.
Janice has written and spoken extensively about the history of feminism. Her 38 videos on Studio Brule's "The Fiamengo File 2.0" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGFFi6pRCnCdQTe1iG3Tw4Td9jvhY2w74.
Feminists are, indeed, terrorists.
BRILLIANT!
I am eternally frustrated that the four years of Janice's 'Fiamengo File' prior to 2.0 seem to have vanished. There was so much wisdom and truth there.
It was frustrating to lose them all, and especially to lose the many many insightful and witty and informative comments. You can find an archive of them at Odysee:
https://odysee.com/@StudioBruleArchive:e
fEMINISM was NEVER about equality, nor is it attainable
No they don't want equality, they want revenge
Revenge for what? When, in living memory, have the needs of women not been what the 'patriarchy' places front and center?
Once again Janice, your analysis is unerring and irrefutable. The discomfort, the lie, is palpable. I was particularly struck by your reference to contraceptives. They are now "free" in any drugstore, courtesy of the taxpayer. That is bizarre, blatant social engineering, a band-aid on a wound that won't heal.
Except, of course, for male contraceptives like condoms. Last I checked, men still have to pay for those.