I am reading Reeves' book right now. Yes, from what I can glean so far, he will never disobey his feminist superiors. Speaking of the sudden success of girls over boys in school, he roundly dismisses that there is any intentional disadvantaging of the boys, rather it's subtle and structural. He says this around the 19 min mark in a recent interview with Chris Williamson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1N7gA9cA1g&t=1170s). I think you are exactly correct: what he does not see is that the globalist strategy is to make men dependents. There is nothing more soul crushing to most men than to be dependent on Big Mommy. And I think it is intentional: promoting feminist books like "The End of Men" is designed to crush their spirits, get them to give up, to retreat to a virtual world online--which the globalists can control, too.
Achingly familiar as Janice says. Little has changed in the public narrative in the 30 years since Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. But men can't and shouldn't wait for the public narrative to change. It's not going to on the current trajectory.
We'd do better to have men and women of good will resolutely articulate a view of men that didn't define itself in terms of feminism. We have an enormous history of courageous men and loving connection between women and men. We still have in our ancestral hearts and minds the courage of warriors who risked all, time and time again, including when there was seemingly no hope. It's ours if we want it.
There's no need to let the feminist enterprise determine the lay of the battleground. In fact it's incumbent upon us not to. It was a powerful blow we took a few generations ago in our weakest place, - to oversimplify, our susceptibility to shame for not doing enough for women. We didn't know how to fight that.
We need a warriorship for the 21st century. For the liveable future if there is to be one. The WEF and its minions, with feminist ideology woven into the self-serving misdirection, are almost at the gate.
Good article, Janice. I had very similar sentiments reading/listening to Reeves’ work – he’s very reluctant to criticize Feminism. But I think we can all understand the reluctance, because to not have it is almost certain Career Suicide. I have wondered (as you also hint at) whether his approach is partly strategic. On occasions listening to him talk I see the frustration appear through the cracks, maybe. (he’s also probably not aware of the full extent of the crazy, as you point out)
He might be trying to reach a particular audience on the Left who are Default Feminists – those who have been sold the over-simplified narrative that ‘Feminism = Undoing Two Thousand Years of Female Oppression’ without looking any further into it.
Will his approach work? If those Default Feminists have sons, there might be a small chance?
This is so tedious and so utterly predictable. Like so many others, Reeves is incapable of noticing obvious facts or thinking outside of his feminist mindset. Feminism has always, from the Declaration of Sentiments to the present, opposed gender equality. Feminists oppose equality in family courts, domestic violence law and services, treatment by the criminal justice system, Selective Service System registration requirements, deaths in war and on the job, etc., etc. The definition of feminism is now and always has been "more stuff (money, power, privileges, rights) for us + hatred of men and boys + disdain for empirical science." Meanwhile Reeves actually believes the World Economic Forum will pay attention to men? He's got to be kidding. One look at its annual Global Gender Gap Report reveals that it specifically and intentionally codes countries in such a way as to leave anti-male inequalities unmentioned. Amazing.
I was looking forward to reading Reeves' book. I'm disappointed to learn that it falls so short of an honest assessment of the challenges that face men and boys. In the history of human civilization, there is nary a hate group or supremacist organization that has evolved to champion the targets of its hatred; there's absolutely no reason to believe that feminism will be the first. The argument that men can be saved from their "toxicity" and lifted up from their subhuman status if they will only agree to be what feminism thinks they should be is incredibly condescending. That feminism would so hypocritically advance this position after condemning cultures that expect girls to adhere to male conceptions of what they should be reveals the intellectual impoverishment at the core of its doctrines. Moreover, the homophobic entities that justify conversion therapies and other radical methods to dispel the "toxic danger" of homosexuality hold very similar views: compassion and guidance is needed to lift these people out of their debased state and lead them to become what these "morally superior" entities believe they should be. It's unfortunate that the very authorities who have recognized and decried the horrors of this homophobic agenda refuse to denounce feminism's equally horrid and bigoted campaign.
I am reminded by this piece that what leftists look at is not reality seen through open eyes, but on the contrary is merely a mental image.
it is after all easier to signal imagined virite by waving at a mental image than to be seen to be on wrong side or even helpless in the face of any issue this seen by lookng at the real world.
I recall that i did this myself when a leftist for over 40 years, only leaving it a month before my 59th birthday now 5 years ago.
And I think that Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I saw in mega force at a party the other day, is a perfect example of gazing at mental images not seeing realities
So only having recently seen the light I must take this piece here as a timely reminder that not only is feminism wrong but it is evil
A person could write a book in response to this article and the books mentioned. Look at the graphic... misogyny listed, misandry-the hatred or dislike of men is not listed; the antonym of misogyny is philogyny, love or fondness toward women. The two coexist, but when people are wronged they spew a retort. Anything negative towards society's complacency against immoral women is instantly regarded as misogyny.
It is very simple... victims degenerate, predators grow in size. Whether it is a single entity, or a group.
What grew into a male dominated society in ancient times was due to the natural strength of males. As women were put into a role of subordination, a silent response grew. That intelligence or 'religion' used the natural existence of a womb to combat the hierarchy of the time. Men were simply deleted. Women became more powerful. Insert 'Trojan Wars' here. Greece came into being, and the Gods moved on... to be deleted at a later time.
Women elect a 'God King' to defeat all other men, with their assistance. All that is left in the aftermath is powerful women (also known as witches), and whatever amount of slave labor they need to attend to the tasks within the society. As technology grows, the less of a need for strength. Thus, the next round of reduction comes from exploitive misandry of male behavior.
Anyone can compare societies of the past and see the devolution of logic, and the increase of emotional and psychological instabilities in people. The Vikings fought hard to stay on this planet and eventually lost. Fooled into following religion. This is all backed up by my experience with my mother and her 'God King'. My grandmother can trace her lineage all the way back to the time of 'Troia', and her time in 'Peru' more than 2,000 years before Columbus.
Nov 1, 2022·edited Nov 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
“The movement to liberate women has unleashed the power and talent of half of the global population—to the benefit of us all.” Well, where's the evidence for this? Far too many researchers say things without evidence. It's precisely why I have lost so much faith in universities, professors, politicians, etc. and I do think universities is on the decline. Everyone is just far too individualistic these days.
Edit: forgot to mention that even some doctors have shown their intellectual dishonesty during the covid "pandemic".
WOW your writing took my breath away. The passion that is so tangible.
In my position, it has been almost impossible to find other people to act as thought buddies, people who I can bounce ideas and concepts off of so that issues can be explored and unpacked.
I suspect that this a problem that many men experience, take for example Warren Farrell first book "Why Men are the Way they Are",
It did my head in, I found it to be obtuse and convoluted with poorly formed ideas and arguments, but it was a beginning. Sadly though many author who followed have yet to unpack the concepts, arguments effectively enough.
This I suspect is a result of poorly conducted research into the male gender. Especially when the research was conducted by asking women about men's experiences, rather than asking men themselves.
Jordan Kosberg ".Social work has been a woman's profession. The vast majority of social workers have been and are women" (Weick, 2000, p. 395). Indeed, this is true. However, social work clients are not only females. Despite this, social work literature is female-oriented and provides a negative view of heterosexual males."
But not only was the research inhibited, the formation of "Men's awareness groups" within university campuses was also inhibited, in fact they were strongly opposed.
What happened to Neil Lyndon is a cautionary tale of the power of "Relational Aggression" that is so effectively used to shut people down.
For decades Micheal Flood has also been pushing the narrative that also excuse the damaging effect the feminist narrative has had. Romanticising the idea that somehow a millennia of biological evolution can be over ridden in a few short years.
Overall this reflects the general "first world" nature of the "progressive" project. For it completely ignores how and who generates the material abundance that alows significant sections of the population to live extremely comfortable lives. This was highlighted in a very strange way by the various lockdowns here in the UK. Where if one looked at the many jobs that continued to be worked to keep things going the vast majority were of course the Male dominated jobs. And had anyone paid much attention to the infection and death rates they would also have noted that those at highest risk were in precisely those jobs that had to continurs even while schools, universities, shops and administration went home. Sometimes it was like a startling revelation that the bins didn't empty themselves, that deliveries required warehouses and trucks that power lines had to be repaired and so on. Because all of this and more is completely taken for granted. And because most of the manufacturing industy has moved abroad that "stuff" somehow just appears by magic. In a sort of aristocratic fantasy like Downton Abbey. And it's the same for the feminist project, it exists in a world where everyone is a consumer and has a comfy easy job in which "flexibility" has no cost. Perhaps every now and then people like Reeves realise that not only taking for granted all the effort but actively s*****ng on those who make it is cutting of the nose to spite the face. It is interesting in this country where a rapid increase in population and lack of dynamism has led to a colossal increase in housing costs, and on consequence that only two full wages can afford to rent or mortgage, there is as yet little grasp of what it took post ww2 to actually build on a colossal scale both homes and industy. Perhaps its slowly dawning that all that Male energy and restless dynamism devoted to making things better for everyone, needs to be harnessed a bit and men given some crumbs to carry on. I am often reminded of Camille Paglia's observation that if it had been left to women we'd still be in grass huts. After all if one looked at the 12,000 years of supposed patriarchy you would indeed see humanity going from scattered clans living in caves and simple shelters to mobile phones, cars, heated or cooled homes and where one can ean living from ones lounge or coffee shop. Thus far it really is a "man made world", generally men should say "yes it is, and you're welcome ". But of course they may indeed be less and less inclined to make the effort. Just as the early feminists were aristocratic and had no thought for working men or women those of today can only whine so because all material things are taken care of ....... by somebody .
I haven't read this book, and I probably never will. I have seen him being interviewed as part of the publicity tour. I wasn't impressed. He was very good at crunching the numbers but bad at giving any any analysis (or perhaps he was being deliberately ellusive). But his lack of his own theories just left us with the notion that boy's and men's problems are inexplicable and can only be attributed to being male. Despite 6000 years of men being good enough to build everything and set up the systems to run it all, it seems that, in the last tick of the clock, suddenly men have become completely incompetent due to being themselves.
I'd be curious to know if he cites or references the work of Warren Farrell or Christina Hoff Summers in his book. Is there anything even in the footnotes? Their work proceeds his by over 20 years.
Evolution takes more chances with males than females because females have a higher reproductive value. Consequently there will always be many more exceptional males than females. The females will hug the mean. Non-intellectually exceptional males traditionally got high paying, although lower status, jobs in the trades that leveraged their spatial abilities and spatially driven interests.
Women don't want lower status blue color jobs. They don't enjoy work in the trades the same why men do because humans are sexually dimorphic so the reward centers of the male brain is stimulated by different things than the female brain. ( ironically for the feminists its females who are responsible for this difference because over the course of human evolution they have preferred to mate with males who exhibit these propensity thus increased them).
The feminists systematically attack any boys who exhibit superior intellectual abilities and destroy any of the motivations males have to learn. The girl endeavors in school primarily for social reward in contrast the male will endeavor because of curiosity and the innate pleasure the reward center of their brains provide them for exercising spatial abilities. This reward feed back mechanism is not present in developing female brains so the enraged feminists try to destroy the environmental conditions that stimulate it. Women simply can't create things that will provide maximum intellection stimulation to the male brain any more than a color blind person can paint a good rainbow.
The feminist mothers will try to force their young children to play with toys that provide no stimulation to the developing sex specific reward centers of their brains. They all try the same sick and twisted experiments. When I was a child my mother ordered me out of the house and tried for a whole day to get my sister and her friend to play with my Lego. At the end of the day they had built nothing and had ruined my Lego Land Idea book by putting the stickers all over the wall. (stickers I had been preciously saving until I had systematically built the items from the Lego Land Idea book). My sister did the same thing with her daughter. She locked the little girl in an empty room for a whole day with nothing but pink Lego blocks. The little girl refused to play with them so my sister took away all her Disney Princess stuff away.
Why did so many youth in the 90s start have mental health issues and depression? Why are so many people today confused about their 'gender identity'? Because a generation of feminist sadists prevented the sex specific reward centers of children's brains from developing.
Feminism is by far the greats evil humans have ever faced. If we don't eradicate it..........well maybe the dolphins will make a better go of it than we did.
I am reading Reeves' book right now. Yes, from what I can glean so far, he will never disobey his feminist superiors. Speaking of the sudden success of girls over boys in school, he roundly dismisses that there is any intentional disadvantaging of the boys, rather it's subtle and structural. He says this around the 19 min mark in a recent interview with Chris Williamson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1N7gA9cA1g&t=1170s). I think you are exactly correct: what he does not see is that the globalist strategy is to make men dependents. There is nothing more soul crushing to most men than to be dependent on Big Mommy. And I think it is intentional: promoting feminist books like "The End of Men" is designed to crush their spirits, get them to give up, to retreat to a virtual world online--which the globalists can control, too.
Great analysis, I could feel the outrage building. You’re really on fire recently. So good to see.
It sounds like this blue pill man can dimly perceive the problem, but has another 90% of his journey to go before he can really understand it.
Achingly familiar as Janice says. Little has changed in the public narrative in the 30 years since Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. But men can't and shouldn't wait for the public narrative to change. It's not going to on the current trajectory.
We'd do better to have men and women of good will resolutely articulate a view of men that didn't define itself in terms of feminism. We have an enormous history of courageous men and loving connection between women and men. We still have in our ancestral hearts and minds the courage of warriors who risked all, time and time again, including when there was seemingly no hope. It's ours if we want it.
There's no need to let the feminist enterprise determine the lay of the battleground. In fact it's incumbent upon us not to. It was a powerful blow we took a few generations ago in our weakest place, - to oversimplify, our susceptibility to shame for not doing enough for women. We didn't know how to fight that.
We need a warriorship for the 21st century. For the liveable future if there is to be one. The WEF and its minions, with feminist ideology woven into the self-serving misdirection, are almost at the gate.
Good article, Janice. I had very similar sentiments reading/listening to Reeves’ work – he’s very reluctant to criticize Feminism. But I think we can all understand the reluctance, because to not have it is almost certain Career Suicide. I have wondered (as you also hint at) whether his approach is partly strategic. On occasions listening to him talk I see the frustration appear through the cracks, maybe. (he’s also probably not aware of the full extent of the crazy, as you point out)
He might be trying to reach a particular audience on the Left who are Default Feminists – those who have been sold the over-simplified narrative that ‘Feminism = Undoing Two Thousand Years of Female Oppression’ without looking any further into it.
Will his approach work? If those Default Feminists have sons, there might be a small chance?
But, as always, excellent piece!
That was bludy good Janice. I enjoyed that. Spot on.
This is so tedious and so utterly predictable. Like so many others, Reeves is incapable of noticing obvious facts or thinking outside of his feminist mindset. Feminism has always, from the Declaration of Sentiments to the present, opposed gender equality. Feminists oppose equality in family courts, domestic violence law and services, treatment by the criminal justice system, Selective Service System registration requirements, deaths in war and on the job, etc., etc. The definition of feminism is now and always has been "more stuff (money, power, privileges, rights) for us + hatred of men and boys + disdain for empirical science." Meanwhile Reeves actually believes the World Economic Forum will pay attention to men? He's got to be kidding. One look at its annual Global Gender Gap Report reveals that it specifically and intentionally codes countries in such a way as to leave anti-male inequalities unmentioned. Amazing.
I was looking forward to reading Reeves' book. I'm disappointed to learn that it falls so short of an honest assessment of the challenges that face men and boys. In the history of human civilization, there is nary a hate group or supremacist organization that has evolved to champion the targets of its hatred; there's absolutely no reason to believe that feminism will be the first. The argument that men can be saved from their "toxicity" and lifted up from their subhuman status if they will only agree to be what feminism thinks they should be is incredibly condescending. That feminism would so hypocritically advance this position after condemning cultures that expect girls to adhere to male conceptions of what they should be reveals the intellectual impoverishment at the core of its doctrines. Moreover, the homophobic entities that justify conversion therapies and other radical methods to dispel the "toxic danger" of homosexuality hold very similar views: compassion and guidance is needed to lift these people out of their debased state and lead them to become what these "morally superior" entities believe they should be. It's unfortunate that the very authorities who have recognized and decried the horrors of this homophobic agenda refuse to denounce feminism's equally horrid and bigoted campaign.
I am reminded by this piece that what leftists look at is not reality seen through open eyes, but on the contrary is merely a mental image.
it is after all easier to signal imagined virite by waving at a mental image than to be seen to be on wrong side or even helpless in the face of any issue this seen by lookng at the real world.
I recall that i did this myself when a leftist for over 40 years, only leaving it a month before my 59th birthday now 5 years ago.
And I think that Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I saw in mega force at a party the other day, is a perfect example of gazing at mental images not seeing realities
So only having recently seen the light I must take this piece here as a timely reminder that not only is feminism wrong but it is evil
A brief outline of history lost of America due to male/female conflict: Atlantis - Ring of Dragons
c.1200BC: Greek Vikingar from Crete discover America, Mjolnir Erochson returns via Greenland
1186BC: Vikingar move to Carthage shipping portage, the vacancy of Crete incites the Trojan Wars
908BC: King Aegeus unites Troi with Athens, and relocates to England to oversee America
850BC: Voyages to America take place, the ‘Isle of the Blessed’ by Homer, 10000 furlongs
754BC: Roman God Mar begins the Latin colonization of Mesoamerica from Equador
404BC: Plato’s Hermocrates Dialogue orated the founding Sagas of America, Peloponnesian War
250BC: Phoenician colonization of America (Zeus’ Deluge), Mayan and Skraelingar occupation
133BC: Religion of Thor begins with Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and ‘300’ men, Tiber River
1BC: American Vikingr relocate the Tree of Life (Mississippi) from Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica
1AD: Liefr Eirikson, Son of Eirik the Red, Vineland coastal cycle of the Ouroboros (Ring of Dragons)
600AD: Cahokia Indians populate America’s Tree of Life, winter campsite at Teotihuacan
791AD: Vikings lose the Battle of Uppsala Sound, thought to be a land battle, were taken by sea
985AD: Lief Erikson, Son of Erik the Red, attacked along east coast, pulls men from Mississippi
1040AD: Federated States of America, militarized Indian tribes to finish off European Vikings
1068AD: Skraelingr and Stave Uprising brings end to Viking Era, Roanoke Island (NY) abandoned
1255AD: Confederate States of America formed by Orion Armistice in Iceland, Heads & Tails Accord
1307AD: Templar are purged from Europe, African trafficking from Gold Coast to populate America
1459AD: Byzantine Empire invites father of Christopher Columbus to Bimini Island with him at age 10
Podcast ‘Voyage of the Thundergods’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVxTmN322w8&t=1145s
The Kraken - Greek Arianism (æ); Macedonian head, 8 Persian tentacles
Evolution of Time Loops: Enoch, Eroch, Erich… Odin’s Cobblestone Court
Cycles of Ygododdin, in Europe:
Visigoth Theodoeric (7) Gothic tribes, Camelot Spain
Vikingr Erik the Red (7) Nordic tribes, Irish Derry
King Arthur Knights (7) Templar tribes, French
Cycles of the Ouroboros Dragon, in America:
Leafar Eiriksson (7) Gothic tribes (Vikingar Greek)
Liefr Eriksson (7) Swedish tribes (Vikingr American)
Lief Ericsson (7) English tribes (Viking Danish-Norwegian)
A person could write a book in response to this article and the books mentioned. Look at the graphic... misogyny listed, misandry-the hatred or dislike of men is not listed; the antonym of misogyny is philogyny, love or fondness toward women. The two coexist, but when people are wronged they spew a retort. Anything negative towards society's complacency against immoral women is instantly regarded as misogyny.
It is very simple... victims degenerate, predators grow in size. Whether it is a single entity, or a group.
What grew into a male dominated society in ancient times was due to the natural strength of males. As women were put into a role of subordination, a silent response grew. That intelligence or 'religion' used the natural existence of a womb to combat the hierarchy of the time. Men were simply deleted. Women became more powerful. Insert 'Trojan Wars' here. Greece came into being, and the Gods moved on... to be deleted at a later time.
Women elect a 'God King' to defeat all other men, with their assistance. All that is left in the aftermath is powerful women (also known as witches), and whatever amount of slave labor they need to attend to the tasks within the society. As technology grows, the less of a need for strength. Thus, the next round of reduction comes from exploitive misandry of male behavior.
Anyone can compare societies of the past and see the devolution of logic, and the increase of emotional and psychological instabilities in people. The Vikings fought hard to stay on this planet and eventually lost. Fooled into following religion. This is all backed up by my experience with my mother and her 'God King'. My grandmother can trace her lineage all the way back to the time of 'Troia', and her time in 'Peru' more than 2,000 years before Columbus.
“The movement to liberate women has unleashed the power and talent of half of the global population—to the benefit of us all.” Well, where's the evidence for this? Far too many researchers say things without evidence. It's precisely why I have lost so much faith in universities, professors, politicians, etc. and I do think universities is on the decline. Everyone is just far too individualistic these days.
Edit: forgot to mention that even some doctors have shown their intellectual dishonesty during the covid "pandemic".
WOW your writing took my breath away. The passion that is so tangible.
In my position, it has been almost impossible to find other people to act as thought buddies, people who I can bounce ideas and concepts off of so that issues can be explored and unpacked.
I suspect that this a problem that many men experience, take for example Warren Farrell first book "Why Men are the Way they Are",
It did my head in, I found it to be obtuse and convoluted with poorly formed ideas and arguments, but it was a beginning. Sadly though many author who followed have yet to unpack the concepts, arguments effectively enough.
This I suspect is a result of poorly conducted research into the male gender. Especially when the research was conducted by asking women about men's experiences, rather than asking men themselves.
Jordan Kosberg ".Social work has been a woman's profession. The vast majority of social workers have been and are women" (Weick, 2000, p. 395). Indeed, this is true. However, social work clients are not only females. Despite this, social work literature is female-oriented and provides a negative view of heterosexual males."
But not only was the research inhibited, the formation of "Men's awareness groups" within university campuses was also inhibited, in fact they were strongly opposed.
What happened to Neil Lyndon is a cautionary tale of the power of "Relational Aggression" that is so effectively used to shut people down.
For decades Micheal Flood has also been pushing the narrative that also excuse the damaging effect the feminist narrative has had. Romanticising the idea that somehow a millennia of biological evolution can be over ridden in a few short years.
Overall this reflects the general "first world" nature of the "progressive" project. For it completely ignores how and who generates the material abundance that alows significant sections of the population to live extremely comfortable lives. This was highlighted in a very strange way by the various lockdowns here in the UK. Where if one looked at the many jobs that continued to be worked to keep things going the vast majority were of course the Male dominated jobs. And had anyone paid much attention to the infection and death rates they would also have noted that those at highest risk were in precisely those jobs that had to continurs even while schools, universities, shops and administration went home. Sometimes it was like a startling revelation that the bins didn't empty themselves, that deliveries required warehouses and trucks that power lines had to be repaired and so on. Because all of this and more is completely taken for granted. And because most of the manufacturing industy has moved abroad that "stuff" somehow just appears by magic. In a sort of aristocratic fantasy like Downton Abbey. And it's the same for the feminist project, it exists in a world where everyone is a consumer and has a comfy easy job in which "flexibility" has no cost. Perhaps every now and then people like Reeves realise that not only taking for granted all the effort but actively s*****ng on those who make it is cutting of the nose to spite the face. It is interesting in this country where a rapid increase in population and lack of dynamism has led to a colossal increase in housing costs, and on consequence that only two full wages can afford to rent or mortgage, there is as yet little grasp of what it took post ww2 to actually build on a colossal scale both homes and industy. Perhaps its slowly dawning that all that Male energy and restless dynamism devoted to making things better for everyone, needs to be harnessed a bit and men given some crumbs to carry on. I am often reminded of Camille Paglia's observation that if it had been left to women we'd still be in grass huts. After all if one looked at the 12,000 years of supposed patriarchy you would indeed see humanity going from scattered clans living in caves and simple shelters to mobile phones, cars, heated or cooled homes and where one can ean living from ones lounge or coffee shop. Thus far it really is a "man made world", generally men should say "yes it is, and you're welcome ". But of course they may indeed be less and less inclined to make the effort. Just as the early feminists were aristocratic and had no thought for working men or women those of today can only whine so because all material things are taken care of ....... by somebody .
I haven't read this book, and I probably never will. I have seen him being interviewed as part of the publicity tour. I wasn't impressed. He was very good at crunching the numbers but bad at giving any any analysis (or perhaps he was being deliberately ellusive). But his lack of his own theories just left us with the notion that boy's and men's problems are inexplicable and can only be attributed to being male. Despite 6000 years of men being good enough to build everything and set up the systems to run it all, it seems that, in the last tick of the clock, suddenly men have become completely incompetent due to being themselves.
I'd be curious to know if he cites or references the work of Warren Farrell or Christina Hoff Summers in his book. Is there anything even in the footnotes? Their work proceeds his by over 20 years.
Evolution takes more chances with males than females because females have a higher reproductive value. Consequently there will always be many more exceptional males than females. The females will hug the mean. Non-intellectually exceptional males traditionally got high paying, although lower status, jobs in the trades that leveraged their spatial abilities and spatially driven interests.
Women don't want lower status blue color jobs. They don't enjoy work in the trades the same why men do because humans are sexually dimorphic so the reward centers of the male brain is stimulated by different things than the female brain. ( ironically for the feminists its females who are responsible for this difference because over the course of human evolution they have preferred to mate with males who exhibit these propensity thus increased them).
The feminists systematically attack any boys who exhibit superior intellectual abilities and destroy any of the motivations males have to learn. The girl endeavors in school primarily for social reward in contrast the male will endeavor because of curiosity and the innate pleasure the reward center of their brains provide them for exercising spatial abilities. This reward feed back mechanism is not present in developing female brains so the enraged feminists try to destroy the environmental conditions that stimulate it. Women simply can't create things that will provide maximum intellection stimulation to the male brain any more than a color blind person can paint a good rainbow.
The feminist mothers will try to force their young children to play with toys that provide no stimulation to the developing sex specific reward centers of their brains. They all try the same sick and twisted experiments. When I was a child my mother ordered me out of the house and tried for a whole day to get my sister and her friend to play with my Lego. At the end of the day they had built nothing and had ruined my Lego Land Idea book by putting the stickers all over the wall. (stickers I had been preciously saving until I had systematically built the items from the Lego Land Idea book). My sister did the same thing with her daughter. She locked the little girl in an empty room for a whole day with nothing but pink Lego blocks. The little girl refused to play with them so my sister took away all her Disney Princess stuff away.
Why did so many youth in the 90s start have mental health issues and depression? Why are so many people today confused about their 'gender identity'? Because a generation of feminist sadists prevented the sex specific reward centers of children's brains from developing.
Feminism is by far the greats evil humans have ever faced. If we don't eradicate it..........well maybe the dolphins will make a better go of it than we did.