Rule #1: Whatever pro-feminists advise, do the opposite
The utter hypocrisy of the feminists is gobsmacking. Note that women's preference for high-earning men is as strong as ever, as shown in online dating surveys. Years ago I worked as an online dating coach and had to deal with all the older professional divorced women who were nicely set up having received the family home as part of the divorce settlement. Yet most were unwilling to even consider taking on a man who had less assets than their own. Many of these women had spent years depending on a man's earnings, when they had young children, but they refused to contemplate the fact that now it could be their turn.
I love your writing Janice. Precise, balanced, and inspiring. It is never mean spirited and honors both genders.
"Whatever pro-feminists advise, do the opposite"
And always assume projection on the part of feminists. It's a creation of those women least capable of empathy for the male condition. Their only possible resort is projection. What their theories about Patriarchy™ actually tell us are how THEY would run things given the chance.
What a hall of mirrors feminist ideology is, in which the terms of its own tropes are projected onto the victims of its analysis: "some bogus hegemonic definition of masculinity" indeed. As with any threat-narrative ideology, the process of abstraction and dehumanisation must be completely opaque to the indoctrinee. Beyond the socio-economic level, men are suffering because they do not belong in a world in which their constructive impulse, creative energy and expansive emotional potential have no moral currency. Physical self-destruction is simply the final acknowledgement of a category of humans already reduced to ghosts.
I've been sneaking this dose of reality into class discussions, most recently during a discussion of The Odyssey in which a student claimed that the way women were presented in the story made her "angry." In what way were they presented that made her angry, I asked. "Seductresses, sexual objects and staying home and being chaste," she said (along these lines.) So, I asked, Penelope should have gone to fight the Trojans? Should she have taken Telemachus with her? Could she have stabbed the Cyclops in the eye -- could you? What happened to the entire crew? Were they presented favorably, unfairly?
Not only that, but what gave Odysseus the PURPOSE, the DESIRE, to make it HOME? It was Penelope. Is that a negative stereotype, what HOME means -- or shall I say -- used to mean to men who had to go out on whaling ships to harpoon whales, drag them back and gut them -- never certain whether they would make it HOME with the fuel that kept the lights going?
And what gets me most about this is that I feel so subversive for saying this. Regardless, telling the female students to imagine the inverse -- the men stay home with the babies and the women go out whaling -- seems to make the point. Or even better, the women could have worked in coal mines while the men stayed home with the children. They could have gone several feet underground to work in the dark all day, get lung disease, and die young! O, how unfairly women were treated...
"Beccia is confident that men are the authors of their own misfortune."
What a backhander of a comment that is.
Her writing strongly demonstrates the use of tactics involved in "Relational Aggression" and the empathy gap. She misses the point that currently she and her ilk, have continued over the decades to denigrate the male gender.
Lately, I have been hearing a lot about the "dopamine hit" and her article reads like she is seeking approval from her colleagues and when men object, she gets her "dopamine hit."
I am reminded of the speech by Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men, which captures the sacrifice of the dirty and dangerous jobs that men do, that feminists pretend do not exist, and yet which makes possible the freedom and prosperity they take for granted: "we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? ... I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom ... my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall ... I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man [or woman] who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way ..."
Right on point, as always. Thanks for the reference material too, just bookmarked Janet Bloomfield's article on what would happen if men stopped working.
Beccia's perspective is that of a parasite lacking self-awareness. Her comfort is thanks to the sacrifices of men whom she laughably brands toxic. Who pays most of the taxes? Who built all of the physical infrastructure, including the house she lives in? Who invented the technologies that give her choices in life? I'm glad that she is expressing her opinion because she is demonstrating how stupid, short-sighted, hypocritical and hateful feminists are. The overwhelming majority of women want men to protect and provide for them and their children so she is arguing directly against their self-interest.
The fact that many men who suicide feel worthless isn't news and it isn't entirely due to feminism and its toxic effects on society. Early childhood trauma can instill a lifelong sense of worthlessness in a person. In my case, being separated from my mother at birth and adopted at six weeks of age to serve the psychological and emotional needs of my substitute mother produced that outcome (you become a commodity and assume you must be broken and defective). My adoptive mother's pathological need to be needed came from being abused and neglected as a child by her mother.
The trouble with childhood trauma is that it can lead to the child internalising self-beliefs and adopting coping strategies that can greatly increase the adult's risk of suicide. Feminism creates the conditions (loss of relationship, child, financial security, etc) that are more likely to lead to situational distress among men. Situational distress, coupled with vulnerabilities formed during childhood, becomes a recipe for suicide.
Adoptees are 2-4 times more likely to die by suicide than non-adoptees, but usually aren't recognised as an at-risk group, probably because adoption primarily exists to serve the interests of women. No matter how adoption is dressed up, the interests of the child are always secondary, in the same way that pet ownership is primarily driven by the needs of the pet owner.
Why is it always "women and children"? A male has to grow up and exit the entitled class of "women and children", but a female remains in the same class as "children" for her entire life and consequently never has to grow up.
I was threatened with arrest and prosecution for filing a regulatory complaint against a female health professional and telling her I would sue her in court for damages. The Toronto Police detective emailed me to withdraw my complaint.
I sued the police in court, and the Judge told me that the damages are minimal. I had to settle for a few pennies because I didn't want my name publicly dragged through the mud while I was the one being threatened with prosecution for sending evidence to the health professional's regulatory body.
Upon disclosure, I obtained a copy of the police complaint, and the health professional lied on tape. There is absolutely no justice for men in Canada, and AVOID problems with feminists and feminist-minded women.
You will not get the compensation you deserve for the actions of the police here in Canada.
As always, brilliant and incisive. The whole 'feminism helps men, too' line that this writer is peddling makes me ill. Thanks for the analysis, and your honesty.
After experiencing this first hand for the last 5 years ongoing...I've come to realise we all have one thing in common, we all breath.
There is, we are told, a correlation between the socially constructed limitations of masculinity and men's mental ill health. We are told that if men could break free of these limitations and, for example, talk about their feelings more, they would be in a better place. The main marker for mental ill health is the rate of suicide. For men this has been going up steadily in most western countries since the late 1990s - about 25years. (But that was a low point. The rate is still lower today than the 1960s and 70s.) And the correlation between this and 'toxic' masculinity is trotted out time and again, repeated thoughtlessly as though it were self-evident. But I can't see it.
If suicide rates are going up then, by the rules of a correlation, we would see social limitations on men's identity also going up. But that is manifestly what we do not see. Men today have much more variety and freedoms to express themselves than our fathers and grandfathers had. Everything we see, from men in public as fathers with babies, bromances, to sports stars weeping openly. Even the variety of clothes is greater - have you seen 1960s photos of men in bars; they all wear the same suit. This is not a correlation. It's freakin' obviously not. When did the world become so willingly stupid? Isn't this how evangelical religions operate? If anything it is an inverse correlation, even if there is one. If there is you could say that it is the 'lack' of masculine expectations that is causing men's ill health. Which is one of the points that Janice was making, I think.
And what makes the author of this article think women's well-being is something men should aspire to? If men's mental health is in the toilet then, by comparison, women's is round the u-bend and in the sewer. Women are more likely to attempt suicide than men. Teenage girls report much higher rates of anxiety and their use of anti-depressants is higher than ever. Women's self-reported happiness has been on a downard path for the last 60 years. Indeed Janice did an excellent Fiamengo File on the 'Paradox of female Unhappiness' - which has since been wiped by You-Tube. So the last thing men should do is aspire to be like women. So why does all this get so little coverage? Perhaps because talking about men's mental health is just an excuse for male-bashing. Talking about women's mental ill-health might cause more people to question feminism. As much as I don't regard Louise Perry or Mary Harrington they are dipping their toe into this area. Any time women's mental health does get coverage the blame is always pointed at society. And for girls it's alway social media. Followed by calls for more restrictions and censorship. Apparently socially constructed limitations on masculine behaviour are fine if it's called censorship.
The root of modern "feminism" is found in the third chapter of the Book of Genesis. Whether one accepts the account as real or merely allegorical, the truth it contains is irrefutable. Eve's dissatisfaction with her lot in life gave rise to her desire to be "as god(s)" and her initial disobedience to the simple law that had been promulgated by God was then compounded by her desire to likewise ensnare her mate, Adam in the same deviation from God's intended plan. Contemporary feminists who are similarly discontent declare their "independence" from God's intended plan by rejecting the role intended for them as man's helpmeet. (The archaic word "helpmeet" carries with it a meaning that includes being a source of strength from one who is superior in some ways such as in Psalm 115, where God Himself is called a "helpmeet," so there is nothing connoting inferiority in that descriptor.) After rejecting the God-ordained role for her, Eve causes Adam to participate in her disobedience and the result is their mutual fall and expulsion from Eden, with all the resulting misery and travail that has been the lot of humankind down through the ages. Ironically, we now see the ultimate outworking of
"feminism" with the emergence of transsexuals who usurp the female's role and demand to be regarded as the essence of womanhood. If it were not so tragic in its implications, I would laugh uproariously at this development and regard it as just deserts for all the "feminists" left sputtering and fuming at their being once again pushed to the back of the line by a man.
I do like the idealism behind women doing more to feel useful in a typically male professions such as fixing cars, electrical stuff etc. I find it very attractive. I also find most of the women who stand up for male rights very attractive as well, but that just me. I have known women like that. But they are in the tiniest minority. The reality is a lie as is evidenced by this article and some of the fine comments below it. It does seem that these women do not wish to be treated equally, they want preferential or special treatment which is the opposite of equality Indeed!.I have heard this said before and thought it often myself. Look at one of the feminist strongholds of the MISS truths in the world today Australia where I currently reside. Here the truth is not welcome in Australia. It’s deported! Ask Katie Hopkins. In the mystical land of OZ (Australia) the illusion is more power than the truth. It’s a magic trick that the powers in charge use quite successfully. Is it possible to be strong in their feminity without being myopic? Yes. But not too popular or financially rewarding it seems. But that is not the mainstream narrative and the narrative that men are bad misogynists that are only useful for baby batter, building, and cash registers comes from the place of hate that they seem unwillingly to accept. Yes hate speech is free speech, but male hate speech is plastered across mainstream as wrong. Yet feminist hate speech more often then not is seen as the light and the way. These women and the cabal that bankroll them need to find a new religion, and a much fairer and just Messiah. Hypocrisy truely has no bounds in this world, and real truth is being murdered as I type. Ism’s are merely prisons. Perhaps the only ism that should be sold is humanism. But that won’t sell the papers they say, nor will it give the bullies in charge their mantra to “divide and conquer”. What can be done to change this I’m not sure as yet. All I know is that I’m not going to give these bitches the satisfaction of blowing my brains out in despair, nor shall I judge another men who can’t face another day. Is it so unfair to ask these women to love men as much as we truely love them? In a sane world their rage and violence must be tempered swiftly and suddenly, but this is not the world that imprisons us. Perhaps one day as United humans we will have the wisdom to look back at the history of these ages and rightfully brand them as they are “the feminist wars “. And further more, critically appraise these wars for the insanity they were . But I think we have a long road of deception to navigate through before this finally occurs.
Oh Hera give me strength!