Good dialogue. I await the remainder of the conversation. I hope that it will include active steps men can take to remedy the legal injustices men face in all the areas we all know too well. I am writing to Biden regarding his executive order this month to increase women’s health research when it is clear to anyone who will see it that medical care is failing men in the US far more than women. As a prostate cancer survivor so far, I am acutely aware that the US government spends 2.4 times more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research when the annual mortality rates are similar. Etc. Etc. Etc…
Mar 25·edited Mar 25Liked by Janice Fiamengo, David Shackleton
Although I agree that men shouldn't wallow in self-pity, an important consideration in this debate is that so much of men's human rights have been eroded because victimised men and their support groups do not resort to litigation. As victimised women and their support groups do, they accumulate on already overinflated funds, visibility and political power to further erode men's human rights. Furthermore, in a conflict between a man and a woman, public and private authorities have all incentive to take measures against the man because there are no repercussions if you victimise a man, even if he really is the victim, but hell to pay if a woman has to face repercussions, even if she is the perpetrator.
Formidable, crystal clear, packed with wisdom and good advice. I am going to print it out and absorb it and reduce it to half a dozen things I need to remember as I write and think about masculinity. Very grateful that I can read this rather than watch and listen to it, and thank you both for a marvelous exchange.
Thank you, Allen, for the applause. I appreciate your obvious commitment to careful consideration and deliberation around these difficult issues. That is also my own approach.
All I needed to hear after 25 years in the men’s rights field came from the GOAT himself, Paul Elam, AVFM who said “there are no victims, only volunteers” and so, I left females totally behind. Let them have their insanity ALONE!!
This is a very excellent conversation. Like David Shackleton, I went through a similar situation with a scientific professional society and got fired and professionally cancelled for daring to stand up for the integrity of our profession of the organization and our profession against misconduct by a woman who was being deified by Team Femi-Nazi. The response to my cancellation was a refusal by even colleagues who agree with my position and organizations that claim to speak up for free speech, academic freedom and due process rights (it was a poster presentation in a session on ethics that called out the misconduct) were unwilling to stand up in THIS case. Like David, I had to learn to grieve in private and accept that the leading guiding principle that seems to motivate women is hate.
So how should you respond? First, resist the temptation to become a victim as suggested here...but ALSO resist the temptation to give up on yourself and be cowed into silence. Yes, you will need to be strategic and pick your battles, but do NOT be cowed into silence. Feminism has made a significant fraction of women into classic schoolyard bullies. They have plenty of hangers-on, both women and men, who will glad aid and abet the bully because of their own hateful inclinations and the allure of power of the bullies. But...bullies remain bullies and cannot win their "argument" on the merits. Sadly, like the battle against anti-semitism, this will be a long and likely never fully ending fight.
There is another strategy here, however, which I must advocate others consider. As with toxic individuals, you need to defend yourself against them by keeping them out of our your life where possible. Men not getting married or even refusing to date women is a part of this strategy. It must, however, be applied more broadly. I am talking about a full disengagement, not just from toxic women and their supporters, but from women in general. That means NOT seeking women coworkers/employees, colleagues and friends. No, you should not discriminate against anyone...but no person is under any obligation to advocate for or interact with members of a group who are hostile to them. Women constantly use this argument against men to discriminate. It is time the favor was returned. This includes refusing to assist women in situations where they are being "abused" when the underlying situation including the root causes and circumstances of the situation etc. are unknown. Will innocent women get hurt in the process? Of course...but so long as the vast majority of women actively participate in or passively go along with feminism, there is no alternative.
Sadly, in embracing feminism as women have, they have demonstrated many of the very "failings" that Victorian society stereotypically ascribed to women. If gender roles had been reversed, women would never have supported the 19th amendment to extend the right to vote to men. Indeed, the actions of feminists seem designed to demonstrate that women neither desire nor are capable of living as equals in society. I personally don't believe that women are inherently incapable of being equal to men...but as a scientist I have to evaluate the evidence for what it is. Thus far...women as a group have not acquitted themselves well....certainly not with the nobility that men generally have.
I appreciate you describing your experience with the professional group, and I am sorry that that happened, though not surprised. However, I think you go too far in reaction when you say, "I am talking about a full disengagement, not just from toxic women and their supporters, but from women in general." While this is an understandable reaction, I wouldn't encourage it other than for a limited time while one heals and grows resilience. Our responsibility as adults is to treat people as individuals, based on their demonstrated character and behavior. Disengaging from women in general, whether or not they deserve it as individuals, is sexist prejudice, it amounts to judging people by their identity rather than by their character, and I believe we should strive to do better than this. For instance, if I had done as you advise, then I would never have become a friend of Janice Fiamengo, and this dialogue with her would never have happened.
David, I agree with you about individual women, but given the circumstances, "their" rights are not the only consideration. Self defense and defense of innocent men is a worthy goal that should not be sacrificed to be "fair" to women. Women imposed feminist policies on society, so it is now perfectly appropriate to apply feminist policies to women as a means of self defense. I have always tried to treat people as individuals as you suggest and it has invariably been a failure because there are too few innocent women actually prepared to stand up and do the right thing. Even those who are not outright misogynists are unwilling to stand up to the feminists. At some point, you come to the realization that protecting innocent women from the consequences of feminism is a self defeating strategy. Doing the "right" thing as you suggest has to be a two way street and it clearly is not because women refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or that of their fellow women. Strategy requires a different response.
To give you a comparison, not all Germans were responsible for the crimes of the Nazis, but fear of harming innocent Germans as a basis for not responding to the crimes of Nazi Germany was NOT an appropriate basis to allow the Nazis to continue to run rampant. Innocent Germans were harmed in eradicating the Nazis but ultimately all Germans and Europeans were freed by fighting and WINNING the war. Women started this war by allowing feminism to run amok and it is predominantly women who are sustaining the problem. There is no way to resolve it without women being impacted. Until women start to feel the pain more directly, the vast majority will be quite willing to enable and support the status quote.
Sadredin, you appear to be conflating two issues. Treating women as individuals is not the same thing as protecting them from the consequences of feminism. You are right that there are always innocent casualties in a general action - but that has nothing to do with recognizing individuals in individual actions.
Consider your own story of being cancelled for standing up for integrity in a professional organization. Clearly, you are disappointed that you WEREN'T treated as an individual and honored for your personal stance, and rightly so. But according to your argument, the people concerned had no obligation to treat you as an individual and recognize your individual merits, since so few people do stand up in this way that they would be entitled to treat all people as if they are of low integrity.
David, you clearly do not understand what I am saying. I am saying we have an obligation to treat all people equally as individuals, even if doing so means a favored demographic group's image is "damaged" by the truth revealed. I am not concerned with being honored...but with people doing the right and just thing..not aiding and abetting bullying by feminists seeking to cover up for misconduct by women in science. Rather than stand up for the principles raised in my poster or even having the discussion on how such issues should be addressed, the decision was made to cancel me and widely supported by professional women who knew full well that the poster was speaking the truth in an appropriate professional manner. That attack was indeed directed at me as an individual with the goal of silencing others who might raise similar concerns. That cancellation continues ACTIVELY to this day 5 years after the poster presentation and is supported by large numbers of prominent women in science, including women who are known false accusers and enablers of false accusers. They knowingly are committing professional harassment consistent with sexual harassment under Title IX.
So...you will forgive me if I adopt the position that protecting the innocent from such harassment should be the priority. As an employer or mentor I have a moral and ethical obligation to protect my students/coworkers from harassment. If that means refusing to interact with and work with a population whose members have a pattern of engaging in systemic discrimination in a situation where due process rights have been cancelled on behalf of making a "comfortable" climate for women, that is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Women made this bed...and now they will have to lie in it just as they are discovering with the men who will not date them.
Feminists argue that men have a responsibility to police the behavior of their peers. That same logic applies to women acting in the name of women. There are certainly sexist men that discriminate against women. There is NOT, however, an organized systemic assault on the rights of women as feminist women are engaging in against men. The rights of all well intended people, men and women, are not served by continuing to be an apologist for systemic bad conduct by feminist women. The underlying problem here is not sexism by men...it is the lack of integrity that feminism has imparted to, what appears to be, a very large number, if not the majority of women. Time to face that hard truth.
I'd be interested to hear how you account for feminism's success, given that people who pick arguments with reality always lose. (I agree with you, and have my own explanation for this, but I'm interested in yours.)
Only a fool believes feminism is winning. Nobody wins when one half of society turns on another like women did when they supported feminism.
Your societies are dying in front of your eyes and you can't or aren't mustering up the efforts needed to save it. Remember, civilizations collapse all the time; there are no exceptions.
Thank you. That has been my repeated experience, as well. The women in Human Resources are almost always feminists, that openly discriminate against men, safe in the knowledge that the consequences they face will be minimal.
I've sat here for 5 minutes trying to think of a less cliched phrase than "Thanks for sharing ...". If I were a man who had had an experience like yours, I suspect I would adopt similar defensive strategies.
There are no easy answers to problems like this of course. Once trust...and lets be honest...respect... are lost, they cannot easily be regained. That process can't even begin while the abuses continue. The fact that so many men are opting out that women can't find partners to date/marry should be a warning sign that something has gone awry. Blaming men for the current circumstance isn't going to cut it this time.
Part of the problem with this is feminist wasn't just brought about by women. For example, the declaration of sentiments was signed by both women and men.
Yes indeed. I was shocked to see that. Some patriarchy, when a large number of men signed a document written by women that condemned all men throughout the history of humankind.
And of course there was a Mr. Pankhurst who was a socialist and advocate of womens voting rights while she was a schoolgirl. And of course it was Engels who adopted the theory of an ancient peaceful matriarchy that found it's way into Marxism and really developed that whole notion that men had usurped this power millenia ago.
Very true. But let's not lose sight of who is driving and benefiting from the phenomenon. By comparison, there were Jews who collaborated with the NAZI's in the Holocaust...that does not make the Holocaust the fault of the Jews. Feminism is toxic civil rights problem because of the actions of women on behalf of women. Solving the problem will require women to make the bulk of the changes in their behavior. That starts by women acknowledging that they are the problem.
Feminists have poisoned a large amount of women who arent feminists in name but in spirit. The shadow side of women is allowed to run amok while there's a denial women even have a shadow side.
I am saddened to hear young women who would not consider themselves feminists (some of whom are married or have boyfriends) expressing general contempt for men. I don't remember that attitude being prevalent when I was growing up in the 70s/80s.
This is very true. There is one fundamental difference between patriarchy poisoning men and feminism poisoning women. While patriarchy certainly influenced male attitudes toward women in sometimes harmful ways, it never endorsed actually abuse of the legal system or criminal conduct designed to harm women. The patriarchy supported due process in determining if a person was guilty of harassment and rape, but never claimed rape should be legal or supported actual rapists against the women who made claims against them. The patriarchy never attacked due process rights for women while demanding due process rights remain in place for me. The patriarchy never engaged in cancel culture against those who merely raised concerns for the rights of women. Sadly, women acting under feminism have made the aforementioned assaults on innocent men the core of their agenda with few women daring to suggest otherwise. That feminists do this under the guise of "equality", like DEI advocates do with diversity and equity, is the ultimate offense to reason and really raises serious questions. Specifically, do women actually seek equality before the law? The actions of feminists which few women have spoken against are designed to give women superior rights under law....all in the name of "equality". This is why this problem is primarily a women's problem. Hope this makes sense.
You raise a fair point. Unfortunately, large numbers of women, though certainly not all, gravitate to the misandry and gender narcissism that is feminism.
That seems accurate. I hope and imagine that if women were educated differently and treated differently--held to a high standard of behavior, expected to be accountable for their actions--some of their/our characteristics and traits could be modified in a positive way.
I do think there is a big divide between "working class" women and those educated at Universities. I know that British notions of class don't easily translate to north American concepts. But very broadly I have found there is a massive divide between "professional women" by which I mean University educated , and those not so educated. The latter, in my experience are far more likely to relate to their men as people and to think that equality means equal responsibility. Having always worked in female dominated industries, retail, social and health care I've had decades to observe this. Very oddly it is the most educated that are the most keen to avoid responsibility and to use patriarchy etc. as an excuse.
Exactly. While there are women of good intent, the vast majority are quite content to sit by and let the status quo continue. We can't be concerned about their opinions or interests so long as that remains true. Women wanted a gender war....they may well get one that they will lose.
Very true. They also never counted no what will happen if men start treating them with the same sexism they show men. Western women might see the world differently if they spend a millenium living under Sharia law....
What men are living under today in North America (and the West generally, though I don't know those conditions well) seems pretty much like what most of us think of as Sharia law: a different standard for men than women, both legally and culturally.
Sadly, there is a lot to support this conclusion. What is ironic, in my experience, is how the same feminists who are so quick to find misogyny in the slightest turn of phrase or glance in Western men seem completely oblivious to the blatant and actual discriminatory conduct endorsed by Sharia law. It's almost as if their focus on petty or contrived issues has caused them to lose sight of what actual discrimination and misogyny look like. When you see a woman whose face was burned by acid from an attack by a stranger for daring to question Sharia law, it gets hard to take most of the complaints of Western women seriously. On some level these feminists, like DEI proponents confronted by ACTUAL racism, realize that their whole house of cards is jeopardized if people are confronted with actual discrimination. If men as a group stand up and say, sorry, we're not going to play any more, the whole feminist enterprise will collapse. Given my experiences over the last 35 years of college/professional life, I believe that may be end state that we are heading toward...whether I like it or not. Hope that makes sense!
I have to disagree with you there. My mother was married to a Muslim man who tried to practice the misogynist aspects of Sharia law. He bragged that he chose to be a Muslim because of the status it affords women!
Let's be more careful with the language here. Yes, some human traits are gendered. But that doesn't justify painting all human females with the same brush. Likewise, there is diversity of traits within the male gender.
In AnUnfortunate's post, I understood he meant 99% of women. There is a reason why every society has viewed women as more emotional and less rational. It is not a bad thing that women are this way. It's just a characteristic that gives them certain strengths and certain weaknesses. It allows them to care for young children, and understand their emotions in an intuitive way that men cannot.
I believe it is important to distinguish between feminist leaders versus feminists in general. I recently attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women conference in NYC. We went to two of the side events, stood at the entrance, and passed out flyers about the 12 areas of male disadvantage.
Virtually every feminist accepted our flyer, and several commented, “we support you.” Yes, really!
But then the event organizers came outside and tried to convince us to leave, harassed us, and even summoned the police. (We were standing on the sidewalk, on public property).
We informed the police officers that we had obtained permission from the local police precinct, so the police allowed us to continue to distribute our flyers.
Bottom line: the real problem lies with the feminist leadership, not with rank and file feminists.
When I posted my first video in 2015, "Why I am an Anti-Feminist," someone (also named Jay, if I remember correctly, and I think I do remember because his comment made a big impact on me), asked in the comments section whether I was describing feminism or women more generally. It was the first time I'd considered that question. I fudged a bit but had to admit that feminism was ... well, women's nature writ large in a society that will not admit there is anything wrong in women's nature. I've never met a man who didn't acknowledge that men's shadow side is productively channeled in a functioning society. We barely even admit that women have one.
I think that's behind such strange paradoxes as Ken being by far the most interesting character in the Barbie movie, and consequently the actor being the most feted. Because of course the many facets of mens characters and their actions simple makes them more interesting and human. In a way all feminism has done is enforce a a one dimensional version of female.
Yes, Philip, I agree. It is not easy to be one of the few who sees what is happening, while the majority remain deluded. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is lonely.
I experienced cognitive dissonance, the conflict between what I was being told to be facts, and the real facts. At times I thought I was going mad, trying to be the best person I could be and being told I was wrong.
Some can, but for those who are caught up in the victim ideology that has been our culture since the 60s, the moral polarization prevents love, since it removes respect. Neither oppressors nor victims are respectable, so the foundation on which love grows is undermined.
That's a masculine idea of love. Women love opportunistically.
Women love men when they believe they can get something out of men.
Everyone knows how the girlfriend won't play the video game with her boyfriend, but wants him to pay attention to her. Everyone knows how the wife nags her husband when she sees him just relaxing on the couch.
Unfortunately, women do not share the manly ideal of love as wholesome and reciprocal in nature. Women's love is more opportunistic.
Jay, there is truth in what you say, but we should take the judgment out of it. In general, women love their children sacrificially, not opportunistically, but their love for men is often opportunistic. That is why I talked about respect. Women "fall in respect" with a man based on his competence, rather than fall in love, because they have been shaped by a long history of trying to keep their children alive. Throughout history, women have often been faced with the loss of a husband/protector, due to death, disability, or abandonment. Accordingly, evolution selected for women who could transfer their affections quickly to a new man, perhaps even a soldier of the invading army that dispatched her previous husband! What matters to evolution is whether the children survive.
Women are capable of loving men in the "masculine" way that men love women, but probably not, in general, until their children are grown. It is important that we get over the idea that women "should" be more like men. They have good reasons for being the way they are.
This is not an argument for excusing them for modern unethical behavior such as false accusations to get rid of an undesired mate. Women should be held fully accountable for their behavior, just as men should.
I'll have to push back on women loving their children wholly sacrificially.
I think when the father is in the home, this is generally the case. But single motherhood is worse than single fatherhood for a reason. When a woman doesn't have a man to be opportunistic with, she will often lose the sacrificiality towards her children. If she doesn't feel secure herself, she often won't have the stoicism to make her children feel secure.
Especially regarding the son's of single mothers, female opportunism latches onto the son when the baby daddy is not around.
Not to mention all the infanticide that women commit. Humans are the only mammal in which the female commits this instead of the male.
I'm.also not interested in not being judgemental. I think women could use some judgement if I'm perfectly honest with you.
Appreciate the push back, Jay. Things are certainly distorted in single mother families, which don't do well at all when measured by the success of the children, either as children or later as adults. As far as judgment, I use the word accountability to distinguish between moral judgment, which I don't think does anyone any good, and critical feedback. Agreed that women could use some accountability in our culture.
Very wise. It is a norm to amongst my contemporaries to note that when children come along "hubby" comes after them in the affections of his wife. Amongst my generation this is an accepted norm. A part of "growing up" that both sexes recognise as part of life, as much as the companionship that is the glue that is in later life. It is remarkable the devotion of "modern" people to fanciful notions of "romance" and "lurve" when over the life course it's clear things change.
A psychoanalyst would probably refer to "projection." I can't argue with that, but I'd prefer to explain this phenomenon in terms of the cultural mechanisms that encourage it. Ideologies rely heavily on the doctrine that ends can justify means. If fostering hatred--mobilizing resentment by teaching contempt--leads to revolution, then so be it. Besides, as any advocate of anti-Westernism (a.k.a. wokism ) would explain, the moral principles of Western civilization are themselves evidence of its inherent but carefully disguised evil.
Maybe that's too cryptic. I should have added that consistency (now downgraded for being too rational and therefore "patriarchal") is among the moral principles of Western civilization.
This is a wonderful conversation about a critical issue. Feminism, as a movement, is aimed at emasculating men, and preventing us from responding in any other way than complete submission to women, and the abandonment of every strength men have developed.
It really is hard to accept the feminist claim that their movement is for equality when consistently every male virtue is condemned as “toxic” in order to force men into submission, and suppress our energy, and creativity, deny their value, and require us to roll over and play dead as misandrist cows force us to bow down or be condemned as agents of a patriarchy that doesn’t exist.
Brilliant dialogue. Mature and sobering. Thank you!
Good dialogue. I await the remainder of the conversation. I hope that it will include active steps men can take to remedy the legal injustices men face in all the areas we all know too well. I am writing to Biden regarding his executive order this month to increase women’s health research when it is clear to anyone who will see it that medical care is failing men in the US far more than women. As a prostate cancer survivor so far, I am acutely aware that the US government spends 2.4 times more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research when the annual mortality rates are similar. Etc. Etc. Etc…
Although I agree that men shouldn't wallow in self-pity, an important consideration in this debate is that so much of men's human rights have been eroded because victimised men and their support groups do not resort to litigation. As victimised women and their support groups do, they accumulate on already overinflated funds, visibility and political power to further erode men's human rights. Furthermore, in a conflict between a man and a woman, public and private authorities have all incentive to take measures against the man because there are no repercussions if you victimise a man, even if he really is the victim, but hell to pay if a woman has to face repercussions, even if she is the perpetrator.
Formidable, crystal clear, packed with wisdom and good advice. I am going to print it out and absorb it and reduce it to half a dozen things I need to remember as I write and think about masculinity. Very grateful that I can read this rather than watch and listen to it, and thank you both for a marvelous exchange.
Thank you, Allen, for the applause. I appreciate your obvious commitment to careful consideration and deliberation around these difficult issues. That is also my own approach.
All I needed to hear after 25 years in the men’s rights field came from the GOAT himself, Paul Elam, AVFM who said “there are no victims, only volunteers” and so, I left females totally behind. Let them have their insanity ALONE!!
All it takes is one leader.
This is a very excellent conversation. Like David Shackleton, I went through a similar situation with a scientific professional society and got fired and professionally cancelled for daring to stand up for the integrity of our profession of the organization and our profession against misconduct by a woman who was being deified by Team Femi-Nazi. The response to my cancellation was a refusal by even colleagues who agree with my position and organizations that claim to speak up for free speech, academic freedom and due process rights (it was a poster presentation in a session on ethics that called out the misconduct) were unwilling to stand up in THIS case. Like David, I had to learn to grieve in private and accept that the leading guiding principle that seems to motivate women is hate.
So how should you respond? First, resist the temptation to become a victim as suggested here...but ALSO resist the temptation to give up on yourself and be cowed into silence. Yes, you will need to be strategic and pick your battles, but do NOT be cowed into silence. Feminism has made a significant fraction of women into classic schoolyard bullies. They have plenty of hangers-on, both women and men, who will glad aid and abet the bully because of their own hateful inclinations and the allure of power of the bullies. But...bullies remain bullies and cannot win their "argument" on the merits. Sadly, like the battle against anti-semitism, this will be a long and likely never fully ending fight.
There is another strategy here, however, which I must advocate others consider. As with toxic individuals, you need to defend yourself against them by keeping them out of our your life where possible. Men not getting married or even refusing to date women is a part of this strategy. It must, however, be applied more broadly. I am talking about a full disengagement, not just from toxic women and their supporters, but from women in general. That means NOT seeking women coworkers/employees, colleagues and friends. No, you should not discriminate against anyone...but no person is under any obligation to advocate for or interact with members of a group who are hostile to them. Women constantly use this argument against men to discriminate. It is time the favor was returned. This includes refusing to assist women in situations where they are being "abused" when the underlying situation including the root causes and circumstances of the situation etc. are unknown. Will innocent women get hurt in the process? Of course...but so long as the vast majority of women actively participate in or passively go along with feminism, there is no alternative.
Sadly, in embracing feminism as women have, they have demonstrated many of the very "failings" that Victorian society stereotypically ascribed to women. If gender roles had been reversed, women would never have supported the 19th amendment to extend the right to vote to men. Indeed, the actions of feminists seem designed to demonstrate that women neither desire nor are capable of living as equals in society. I personally don't believe that women are inherently incapable of being equal to men...but as a scientist I have to evaluate the evidence for what it is. Thus far...women as a group have not acquitted themselves well....certainly not with the nobility that men generally have.
I appreciate you describing your experience with the professional group, and I am sorry that that happened, though not surprised. However, I think you go too far in reaction when you say, "I am talking about a full disengagement, not just from toxic women and their supporters, but from women in general." While this is an understandable reaction, I wouldn't encourage it other than for a limited time while one heals and grows resilience. Our responsibility as adults is to treat people as individuals, based on their demonstrated character and behavior. Disengaging from women in general, whether or not they deserve it as individuals, is sexist prejudice, it amounts to judging people by their identity rather than by their character, and I believe we should strive to do better than this. For instance, if I had done as you advise, then I would never have become a friend of Janice Fiamengo, and this dialogue with her would never have happened.
David, I agree with you about individual women, but given the circumstances, "their" rights are not the only consideration. Self defense and defense of innocent men is a worthy goal that should not be sacrificed to be "fair" to women. Women imposed feminist policies on society, so it is now perfectly appropriate to apply feminist policies to women as a means of self defense. I have always tried to treat people as individuals as you suggest and it has invariably been a failure because there are too few innocent women actually prepared to stand up and do the right thing. Even those who are not outright misogynists are unwilling to stand up to the feminists. At some point, you come to the realization that protecting innocent women from the consequences of feminism is a self defeating strategy. Doing the "right" thing as you suggest has to be a two way street and it clearly is not because women refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or that of their fellow women. Strategy requires a different response.
To give you a comparison, not all Germans were responsible for the crimes of the Nazis, but fear of harming innocent Germans as a basis for not responding to the crimes of Nazi Germany was NOT an appropriate basis to allow the Nazis to continue to run rampant. Innocent Germans were harmed in eradicating the Nazis but ultimately all Germans and Europeans were freed by fighting and WINNING the war. Women started this war by allowing feminism to run amok and it is predominantly women who are sustaining the problem. There is no way to resolve it without women being impacted. Until women start to feel the pain more directly, the vast majority will be quite willing to enable and support the status quote.
Sadredin, you appear to be conflating two issues. Treating women as individuals is not the same thing as protecting them from the consequences of feminism. You are right that there are always innocent casualties in a general action - but that has nothing to do with recognizing individuals in individual actions.
Consider your own story of being cancelled for standing up for integrity in a professional organization. Clearly, you are disappointed that you WEREN'T treated as an individual and honored for your personal stance, and rightly so. But according to your argument, the people concerned had no obligation to treat you as an individual and recognize your individual merits, since so few people do stand up in this way that they would be entitled to treat all people as if they are of low integrity.
David, you clearly do not understand what I am saying. I am saying we have an obligation to treat all people equally as individuals, even if doing so means a favored demographic group's image is "damaged" by the truth revealed. I am not concerned with being honored...but with people doing the right and just thing..not aiding and abetting bullying by feminists seeking to cover up for misconduct by women in science. Rather than stand up for the principles raised in my poster or even having the discussion on how such issues should be addressed, the decision was made to cancel me and widely supported by professional women who knew full well that the poster was speaking the truth in an appropriate professional manner. That attack was indeed directed at me as an individual with the goal of silencing others who might raise similar concerns. That cancellation continues ACTIVELY to this day 5 years after the poster presentation and is supported by large numbers of prominent women in science, including women who are known false accusers and enablers of false accusers. They knowingly are committing professional harassment consistent with sexual harassment under Title IX.
So...you will forgive me if I adopt the position that protecting the innocent from such harassment should be the priority. As an employer or mentor I have a moral and ethical obligation to protect my students/coworkers from harassment. If that means refusing to interact with and work with a population whose members have a pattern of engaging in systemic discrimination in a situation where due process rights have been cancelled on behalf of making a "comfortable" climate for women, that is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Women made this bed...and now they will have to lie in it just as they are discovering with the men who will not date them.
Feminists argue that men have a responsibility to police the behavior of their peers. That same logic applies to women acting in the name of women. There are certainly sexist men that discriminate against women. There is NOT, however, an organized systemic assault on the rights of women as feminist women are engaging in against men. The rights of all well intended people, men and women, are not served by continuing to be an apologist for systemic bad conduct by feminist women. The underlying problem here is not sexism by men...it is the lack of integrity that feminism has imparted to, what appears to be, a very large number, if not the majority of women. Time to face that hard truth.
I'd be interested to hear how you account for feminism's success, given that people who pick arguments with reality always lose. (I agree with you, and have my own explanation for this, but I'm interested in yours.)
Only a fool believes feminism is winning. Nobody wins when one half of society turns on another like women did when they supported feminism.
Your societies are dying in front of your eyes and you can't or aren't mustering up the efforts needed to save it. Remember, civilizations collapse all the time; there are no exceptions.
Thank you. That has been my repeated experience, as well. The women in Human Resources are almost always feminists, that openly discriminate against men, safe in the knowledge that the consequences they face will be minimal.
I've sat here for 5 minutes trying to think of a less cliched phrase than "Thanks for sharing ...". If I were a man who had had an experience like yours, I suspect I would adopt similar defensive strategies.
There are no easy answers to problems like this of course. Once trust...and lets be honest...respect... are lost, they cannot easily be regained. That process can't even begin while the abuses continue. The fact that so many men are opting out that women can't find partners to date/marry should be a warning sign that something has gone awry. Blaming men for the current circumstance isn't going to cut it this time.
Part of the problem with this is feminist wasn't just brought about by women. For example, the declaration of sentiments was signed by both women and men.
Yes indeed. I was shocked to see that. Some patriarchy, when a large number of men signed a document written by women that condemned all men throughout the history of humankind.
And of course there was a Mr. Pankhurst who was a socialist and advocate of womens voting rights while she was a schoolgirl. And of course it was Engels who adopted the theory of an ancient peaceful matriarchy that found it's way into Marxism and really developed that whole notion that men had usurped this power millenia ago.
Very true. But let's not lose sight of who is driving and benefiting from the phenomenon. By comparison, there were Jews who collaborated with the NAZI's in the Holocaust...that does not make the Holocaust the fault of the Jews. Feminism is toxic civil rights problem because of the actions of women on behalf of women. Solving the problem will require women to make the bulk of the changes in their behavior. That starts by women acknowledging that they are the problem.
Feminists have poisoned a large amount of women who arent feminists in name but in spirit. The shadow side of women is allowed to run amok while there's a denial women even have a shadow side.
I am saddened to hear young women who would not consider themselves feminists (some of whom are married or have boyfriends) expressing general contempt for men. I don't remember that attitude being prevalent when I was growing up in the 70s/80s.
This is very true. There is one fundamental difference between patriarchy poisoning men and feminism poisoning women. While patriarchy certainly influenced male attitudes toward women in sometimes harmful ways, it never endorsed actually abuse of the legal system or criminal conduct designed to harm women. The patriarchy supported due process in determining if a person was guilty of harassment and rape, but never claimed rape should be legal or supported actual rapists against the women who made claims against them. The patriarchy never attacked due process rights for women while demanding due process rights remain in place for me. The patriarchy never engaged in cancel culture against those who merely raised concerns for the rights of women. Sadly, women acting under feminism have made the aforementioned assaults on innocent men the core of their agenda with few women daring to suggest otherwise. That feminists do this under the guise of "equality", like DEI advocates do with diversity and equity, is the ultimate offense to reason and really raises serious questions. Specifically, do women actually seek equality before the law? The actions of feminists which few women have spoken against are designed to give women superior rights under law....all in the name of "equality". This is why this problem is primarily a women's problem. Hope this makes sense.
Any chance you can use “certain women?”
You raise a fair point. Unfortunately, large numbers of women, though certainly not all, gravitate to the misandry and gender narcissism that is feminism.
How about -MOST- since that is most accurate?
Yes ... or "most, at this point in time"?
That seems accurate. I hope and imagine that if women were educated differently and treated differently--held to a high standard of behavior, expected to be accountable for their actions--some of their/our characteristics and traits could be modified in a positive way.
I do think there is a big divide between "working class" women and those educated at Universities. I know that British notions of class don't easily translate to north American concepts. But very broadly I have found there is a massive divide between "professional women" by which I mean University educated , and those not so educated. The latter, in my experience are far more likely to relate to their men as people and to think that equality means equal responsibility. Having always worked in female dominated industries, retail, social and health care I've had decades to observe this. Very oddly it is the most educated that are the most keen to avoid responsibility and to use patriarchy etc. as an excuse.
Agreed staunchly.
Exactly. While there are women of good intent, the vast majority are quite content to sit by and let the status quo continue. We can't be concerned about their opinions or interests so long as that remains true. Women wanted a gender war....they may well get one that they will lose.
I have read estimates that half of American women will be single and childless by 2030. Feminists never counted on that aspect of the gender war.
Very true. They also never counted no what will happen if men start treating them with the same sexism they show men. Western women might see the world differently if they spend a millenium living under Sharia law....
What men are living under today in North America (and the West generally, though I don't know those conditions well) seems pretty much like what most of us think of as Sharia law: a different standard for men than women, both legally and culturally.
Sadly, there is a lot to support this conclusion. What is ironic, in my experience, is how the same feminists who are so quick to find misogyny in the slightest turn of phrase or glance in Western men seem completely oblivious to the blatant and actual discriminatory conduct endorsed by Sharia law. It's almost as if their focus on petty or contrived issues has caused them to lose sight of what actual discrimination and misogyny look like. When you see a woman whose face was burned by acid from an attack by a stranger for daring to question Sharia law, it gets hard to take most of the complaints of Western women seriously. On some level these feminists, like DEI proponents confronted by ACTUAL racism, realize that their whole house of cards is jeopardized if people are confronted with actual discrimination. If men as a group stand up and say, sorry, we're not going to play any more, the whole feminist enterprise will collapse. Given my experiences over the last 35 years of college/professional life, I believe that may be end state that we are heading toward...whether I like it or not. Hope that makes sense!
There is nothing wrong with sharia law.
Western anti feminists have got to get their head out of their butts regarding Islamic women. Women are not oppressed by Islam.
I have to disagree with you there. My mother was married to a Muslim man who tried to practice the misogynist aspects of Sharia law. He bragged that he chose to be a Muslim because of the status it affords women!
Let's be more careful with the language here. Yes, some human traits are gendered. But that doesn't justify painting all human females with the same brush. Likewise, there is diversity of traits within the male gender.
In AnUnfortunate's post, I understood he meant 99% of women. There is a reason why every society has viewed women as more emotional and less rational. It is not a bad thing that women are this way. It's just a characteristic that gives them certain strengths and certain weaknesses. It allows them to care for young children, and understand their emotions in an intuitive way that men cannot.
I believe it is important to distinguish between feminist leaders versus feminists in general. I recently attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women conference in NYC. We went to two of the side events, stood at the entrance, and passed out flyers about the 12 areas of male disadvantage.
Virtually every feminist accepted our flyer, and several commented, “we support you.” Yes, really!
But then the event organizers came outside and tried to convince us to leave, harassed us, and even summoned the police. (We were standing on the sidewalk, on public property).
We informed the police officers that we had obtained permission from the local police precinct, so the police allowed us to continue to distribute our flyers.
Bottom line: the real problem lies with the feminist leadership, not with rank and file feminists.
Fascinating, Ed!
Damn Janice,
Profound. Very succinctly puts into words the dynamic at play in out gynocentric world.
I have to say, it's unbelievable admirable how you will state the obvious.
Men need less duty, and far more rights. Women need less rights, and far more duty.
In this way, I find you far superior to Jordan Peterson in you're approach to the issues of men.
Jordan Peterson would never even dare utter the word "gynocnetrism" unfortunately.
When I posted my first video in 2015, "Why I am an Anti-Feminist," someone (also named Jay, if I remember correctly, and I think I do remember because his comment made a big impact on me), asked in the comments section whether I was describing feminism or women more generally. It was the first time I'd considered that question. I fudged a bit but had to admit that feminism was ... well, women's nature writ large in a society that will not admit there is anything wrong in women's nature. I've never met a man who didn't acknowledge that men's shadow side is productively channeled in a functioning society. We barely even admit that women have one.
I think that's behind such strange paradoxes as Ken being by far the most interesting character in the Barbie movie, and consequently the actor being the most feted. Because of course the many facets of mens characters and their actions simple makes them more interesting and human. In a way all feminism has done is enforce a a one dimensional version of female.
It kind of makes you think that one dimensional female is how women really are considering how much they seem to identify with it.
A great conversation, thank you very much David and Janice, much to reflect upon.
Great interview! A very lively back and forth, point and counterpoint.
My own journey began in the 1980's, searching reading, trying to understand and comprehend. It was very isolating.
Yes, Philip, I agree. It is not easy to be one of the few who sees what is happening, while the majority remain deluded. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is lonely.
I experienced cognitive dissonance, the conflict between what I was being told to be facts, and the real facts. At times I thought I was going mad, trying to be the best person I could be and being told I was wrong.
But it resulted in wisdom!
I'm so lost. Why can't men and women simply love each other?
Some can, but for those who are caught up in the victim ideology that has been our culture since the 60s, the moral polarization prevents love, since it removes respect. Neither oppressors nor victims are respectable, so the foundation on which love grows is undermined.
That's a masculine idea of love. Women love opportunistically.
Women love men when they believe they can get something out of men.
Everyone knows how the girlfriend won't play the video game with her boyfriend, but wants him to pay attention to her. Everyone knows how the wife nags her husband when she sees him just relaxing on the couch.
Unfortunately, women do not share the manly ideal of love as wholesome and reciprocal in nature. Women's love is more opportunistic.
Jay, there is truth in what you say, but we should take the judgment out of it. In general, women love their children sacrificially, not opportunistically, but their love for men is often opportunistic. That is why I talked about respect. Women "fall in respect" with a man based on his competence, rather than fall in love, because they have been shaped by a long history of trying to keep their children alive. Throughout history, women have often been faced with the loss of a husband/protector, due to death, disability, or abandonment. Accordingly, evolution selected for women who could transfer their affections quickly to a new man, perhaps even a soldier of the invading army that dispatched her previous husband! What matters to evolution is whether the children survive.
Women are capable of loving men in the "masculine" way that men love women, but probably not, in general, until their children are grown. It is important that we get over the idea that women "should" be more like men. They have good reasons for being the way they are.
This is not an argument for excusing them for modern unethical behavior such as false accusations to get rid of an undesired mate. Women should be held fully accountable for their behavior, just as men should.
I'll have to push back on women loving their children wholly sacrificially.
I think when the father is in the home, this is generally the case. But single motherhood is worse than single fatherhood for a reason. When a woman doesn't have a man to be opportunistic with, she will often lose the sacrificiality towards her children. If she doesn't feel secure herself, she often won't have the stoicism to make her children feel secure.
Especially regarding the son's of single mothers, female opportunism latches onto the son when the baby daddy is not around.
Not to mention all the infanticide that women commit. Humans are the only mammal in which the female commits this instead of the male.
I'm.also not interested in not being judgemental. I think women could use some judgement if I'm perfectly honest with you.
Appreciate the push back, Jay. Things are certainly distorted in single mother families, which don't do well at all when measured by the success of the children, either as children or later as adults. As far as judgment, I use the word accountability to distinguish between moral judgment, which I don't think does anyone any good, and critical feedback. Agreed that women could use some accountability in our culture.
Very wise. It is a norm to amongst my contemporaries to note that when children come along "hubby" comes after them in the affections of his wife. Amongst my generation this is an accepted norm. A part of "growing up" that both sexes recognise as part of life, as much as the companionship that is the glue that is in later life. It is remarkable the devotion of "modern" people to fanciful notions of "romance" and "lurve" when over the life course it's clear things change.
Hypergamy isn't completely off base, though. There exists a middle ground. At least there used to be.
A psychoanalyst would probably refer to "projection." I can't argue with that, but I'd prefer to explain this phenomenon in terms of the cultural mechanisms that encourage it. Ideologies rely heavily on the doctrine that ends can justify means. If fostering hatred--mobilizing resentment by teaching contempt--leads to revolution, then so be it. Besides, as any advocate of anti-Westernism (a.k.a. wokism ) would explain, the moral principles of Western civilization are themselves evidence of its inherent but carefully disguised evil.
Maybe that's too cryptic. I should have added that consistency (now downgraded for being too rational and therefore "patriarchal") is among the moral principles of Western civilization.
Terrific piece. Loved the discussion about grief, as acceptance of reality. I would like to get to know David Shackleton.
This is wonderful. Thank you.
This is a wonderful conversation about a critical issue. Feminism, as a movement, is aimed at emasculating men, and preventing us from responding in any other way than complete submission to women, and the abandonment of every strength men have developed.
It really is hard to accept the feminist claim that their movement is for equality when consistently every male virtue is condemned as “toxic” in order to force men into submission, and suppress our energy, and creativity, deny their value, and require us to roll over and play dead as misandrist cows force us to bow down or be condemned as agents of a patriarchy that doesn’t exist.