Thank you for documenting all of these, Janice. MeToo and BelieveAllWomen destroyed innocent until proven guilty. Almost none of the false accusers and defamatory “journalists” have been punished for ruining lives and livelihoods, which allows them to keep up the hysterias and does a disservice to real victims.
The 2006 Duke Lacrosse scandal is ground zero of this toxicity. I will be publishing a deep dive on Sunday naming and shaming the district attorney, propagandists, and academics responsible for that fiasco.
Duke is somewhat close to where I live. A couple of years ago, WRAL had an article about one of the stunning and brave "group of 88" (of course a "diverse", incompetent, envious professor of minority studies) who had published some sort of anti-white nonsense.
The libs who infect this area, as usual, sassy clapped for him. His involvement in Duke Lacrosse was of course not mentioned in the article, as that might have distracted from his stunning bravery.
If you're writing something up, you might want to check their archives for a little "where are they now"? update.
Excellent. I won't forgot the faculty taking part in the letter and the protests. All of this without any proof the young men were guilty. Will this be on your substack page?
Good afternoon from New York and thank you Janice for keeping it fresh.
I am an investigative reporter specializing in fraud. Early in the #me2 movement, I wrote a series of articles culminating with a kind of review, "Take a Step Back." There was immediate retaliation from local women claiming to be feminists, who sought to get me fired from all of my freelance jobs. Here is the allegedly offending article:
My "accusers" called me out on my heinous misconduct: alleged consensual sex 22 years earlier, asking to pet a dog, making women uncomfortable with my writing, and allegedly stating that I was polyamorous at a cocktail party. Here is a summary of what happened.
My total revenue loss was about $50,000 a year in freelance revenue — but I kept my business, which is a kind of astrology news service ( and a journalism nonprofit). If you read my stuff here and would like to support my continuing work, you're most invited to subscribe to my substack. Janice Fiamengo advocated for me at the time, and is also my friend and subscriber (we are both perpetual English majors).
If you would like to see how one of these things shakes out when properly investigated, here ya go. By far the best document is a confession by one of the "organizers that this was a sham, scam and shonda:
Pleasing to see you here, having followed your interactions with the germinators. Be careful that some NIH funded virolotrix doesn't come at you with accusations of having glanced askance at her cleavage on a subway in 1979, causing her years of intermittent angst and experimental lesbianism or something.
I was "accused" of laughing at someone's breasts at a street fair. Not saying anything, merely laughing — not standing especially close to her. Anything goes.
Neither your proximity nor your intentions matter to them, only how the alleged 'victim' felt and whatever sympathy dividends, strategic social benefit or ideological leverage could be reaped from that - as I'm sure you're aware (I will read your articles shortly). I'm glad you managed to survive that massive financial hit.
The more serious problem was the loss of new traffic. I have grown other elements of readership by becoming one of the most famous journalists on the "covid" story and also doing the East Palestine story -- though my central business is spiritual and there is not a lot of crossover. So I am working on the exposure thing...it's a big internet and my work is both solid and entertaining.
(I posted this comment today in the thread from 2022 before looking at the dates...) Damn, Eric, I had no idea. Those who fired you are cowards, likely afraid to be painted with the same brush as you were wrongfully marred with–lacking the courage to stand for the rights of a fellow human being. In doing so they joined a mindless stone throwing lynch mob. (Those pink t-shirts from another of your posts apply here). https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10161532191983910&set=a.10150366239168910
Your publisher at the magazine should not have keep the findings secret, which implied guilt, and you bore the consequences in the public eye and in your professional life without even the benefit of revealing exactly what you were accused of (except in the one-sided and specious letter). Adding to the egregiousness, Mahoney did not even detail what “values” of yours he and the magazine disagree with when he wrote in his publisher's letter that you were fired.
You did an excellent job writing your libel suit. Even though you did not file in court, did you share it with your accuser at least? Maybe I need to read again.
You point out this is all an effect of today’s digital conditions–the same reason that the 2020 scamdemic succeeded when previous attempts to scare the world using fear of deadly infectious pathogens failed.
As Flamingo pointed out in her piece, what is lacking today is blind (unbiased) justice, embodied by my sun sign Libra. I hope for all our sakes that 2024 will bring some light of reason, critical thinking and justice to bear on our current panopticon.
he is right: "the world's first egalitarian, progressive, non-sexist critique of feminism in its own terms" —feminism must be critiqued on its own terms.
Flamingo highlights how history is being rewritten with extreme bias to serve an agenda:
Professor Fiamengo gives an example of how basic facts were kept hidden for her when she studied feminism throughout history;
"...feminism and who the women's movement in the 19th century struggle for the vote was a big part of it the strategies that various women writers used to articulate the right of women to have the vote and to be more involved in their society nobody never said to me you know MEN DID NOT ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE at the period you're talking about..... this is a basic fact of history never encountered (during feminist studies she participated in)
1. There was never really a "MeToo" movement - a movement where victims came forward publicly to expose how widespread the problem is. It was always mostly a "J'Accuse!" movement - a movement where anonymous women could make unsubstantiated allegations out of court to get revenge.
2. There was never a time in history when women's accusations were not automatically believed. The woman who got Emmett Till lynched for reckless eye-balling admitted on her death bed that she had lied. Ancient literature is rife with stories of men being destroyed on the basis of a woman's accusation (whether justifiably or not, the point is that the woman was believed).
It was always just a warlock-hunt by radical feminists and their useful idiots.
Reminded me of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Perhaps the earliest example of "believe women". Of course a rather more recent and scary example is the most frequent use in the lynching of black americans last century. A white woman accusing the man of rape, assault or leering. After all in To kill a Mocking Bird" (studied at school in the early 70s) the falsely accused Black man is convicted and dies knowing he is innocent. You'd think a nation with such a history would cling more firmly to "due process".
Sweeney actually mentions the story of Potiphar's wife as an example of patriarchal fear-mongering about false accusers! So: a biblical account of false accusation becomes evidence that men have always abused and blamed women.
That made me laugh. I expect the literally 100s of women making the accusations that fed the lynchings, beatings, and actual court cases in "the deep south" were in some way witless dupes of nasty Patriarchs. Though actually the whole sorry episode seems to be expunged from feminist memory, like the "Asian" (in UK parlance meaning mainly Pakistani ) grooming gangs or, as you so clearly pointed out, Hamas in southern Israel.
I agree with your point in general on the MeToo movement, but it's important to correct something on the Emmet Till point: the entire claim about the woman admitting she lied on her death bed is 100% false, the FBI investigated this and their conclusion was there was no merit to it. This was, as a separate marxist strategy nothing more than an anti white historical revision. It is however true that women's accusations have always been taken seriously.
Very well said Janice. You excel in your ability to speak the unspoken truth that is beyond the awareness of most. This is a perfect example:
"MeToo was helpful only in one narrow sense, that it offered a transparent window onto feminism’s aims and beliefs. In a sane society, it would have signaled the end of any claim feminism could make to stand for equality and human dignity."
Janice, I think that the appalling, total lack of empathy for male suffering displayed by these feminists comes from more than just the generally lesser social empathy for men compared to women. It's also built on the conviction that the guilty have lost their right to empathy and pretty much deserve whatever is done to them. If this is so, then it adds extra difficulty to feminists ever considering the question of false accusations, since such a realization would convict the accusers. The whole system is a racket based on a total and absolute attribution of guilt and innocence, an inviolable moral polarization by identity. As long as they can hang on to that absolute moral polarity, then no behavior is beyond their reach, no matter how despicable.
I think it’s important to note that #MeToo (my fingers wanted me to write “#MePoo) is an extension of feminist legal theory.
That theory is that the principles of innocence until proven guilt, confrontation of the accused by the accuser, due process of law, and right of the accused to mount a defense are severally, and collectively misogynist. Women can only possess rights, in effect, when men have none.
This is a root principle of feminism in its struggle with the imaginary patriarchy. Women cannot be free unless men have no rights nor ability to resist female accusation. This is, of course, not what feminists claim to demand. It is, however, what they demand, and seek to impose.
Feminism is, in its deepest essence, a dishonorable movement founded on lies. Those lies are deliberately intended to harm, and subjugate men.
For most, I don't think the lies are "deliberate". They come from those who are cult indoctrinated.
Having once been a cult member in a past life, I can see how this works through experience.
Once the cult wins your mind, they feed it to only listen to and to accept what they say without question. Any research, discussion or thoughts are aggressively discouraged. If you wish to remain a part of the group or movement, you learn to shut down the part of your mind that questions things.
The leaders employ the BITE model of control, namely your Behaviour, Information, Thoughts and Emotions. It's a very powerful control tool. You learn to associate only with like minded individuals who will only reinforce your thoughts.
Most of us have an innate desire to belong, so we become reluctant to do or say anything to rock the boat, for fear of exclusion.
Those that eventually do are usually in for quite a shock once their mind wakes up and they act on it.
This is where I think feminism falls into cult territory. It's a self perpetuating machine that uses people to achieve it's own ends that only really becomes chaos and misery.
A lower profile but as pernicious version of this public list occurs everyday in the workplace. A woman can say that she’s simply “uncomfortable” with a male coworker without stating the specific action causing the discomfort. This will trigger an investigation by HR in which HR will interview every female coworker to determine if they too are “uncomfortable”. They may interview any male coworkers to determine if they can provide any stories about or any observed conduct by the man that would justify the woman’s complaint. God help the man if a detractor uses this an opportunity to throw him under the bus. HR will then go back to the man and state that they have received multiple complaints. If the man asked who said it, HR will hide behind “confidentiality”, justified by the twisted logic that if the accuser is identified that will inhibit other woman from filing complaints. The damage to the reputation is done, without any other action on the part of the employer.
Someone I know, his wife works in senior roles in HR.
She is tertiary qualified and believes there is no place for men in HR.
Sometimes she has to hire them to satisfy certain people and conditions, but sets them up to fail and she will have had them dismissed within 6 months.
She looks down on anyone who has no been to uni and from the stories I hear from him, she is a rather nasty individual. So I guess the attitude fits.
Feminism has always been about "more for us." More power, more money, more rights, more privileges." MeToo is more of the same. And let's be clear: it's gratuitous. The idea that it seeks to improve men's behavior is exposed as a lie because it makes no effort to distinguish true claims from false ones.
I disagree. The first feminists in the UK were the Suffragettes, fighting for the right to vote. They ended up planting bombs around London to make their case. Seems like they had more balls than most of the men today.
Prior to that women were effectively genocided by the Christians, in the most horrific ways. So yeah, up until relatively recently they were making good points, and had good reason to make them.
Such women made letter bombs of phosphorous and sulphuric acid that burned the hands and lungs of working class men, many of whom did not have the right to vote themselves. They went to war against the working men of their own country. During the First World War, the same women joined the White Feather movement to give feathers to any man they saw not in military uniform, including under-age boys and wounded soldiers home on leave. They used sex-shaming to send men to their deaths on the battlefield. They didn't have balls, they had an enormous sense of entitlement and hatred, not dissimilar to MeToo women.
The reason for the White Feather movement was not about patriotism. They were afraid that if the Germans won, the feminist movement would be set back by some 50 years or so.
they may indeed have been afraid of that - but even if they had no realistic fears of such a thing, they were happy and keen to push men in front of the cannons for entirely selfish purposes - is the summary of motivation.
Exactly so. And of course working class women too. Mrs Pankhurst was very clear that they were about the property qualification, which had been including women of substance in local elections for decades, and not giving the vote to men or women as such. As one Suffragette commented "one wouldn't want to meet ones servants at the polling booth". The real revolution in the UK in 1918 Act was the acceptance that the vote was not conditional on having a stake, ie. sufficient property to make one a taxpayer, in the country. The conditions becoming just age and of sound mind. Many of course wanted the age to be as high as 30 but the argument that servicemen had to fight from 18 carried this as the qualifying age for men.
Now lost to the myths is the immense public and political furor over the introduction of conscription, for the first time in the UK (unlike in Europe) widely called "Prussianism" this entirely "un English" policy forced by the huge losses played a central role in pushing the suffrage issue beyond the established idea of the vote being a stakeholder vote. For clearly those volunteering, then compelled to fight had a "stake" possibly more compelling than ownership of property. And there was of course the examples of the "Dominions" too. Who had established the citizen suffrage (and included women) in some cases decades before. I believe Canada bein one such example.
What is forgotten too is Mrs Pankhurst was going to be a tory candidate when she died.
"They ended up planting bombs around London to make their case. Seems like they had more balls than most of the men today."
Not really, because when men plant bombs they don't get applauded and celebrated for the next century with a steady stream of BBC documentaries gushing over their empowering acts of liberation, with a soundtrack of quaint string quartet music.
When men plant bombs they get called 'terrorists' and society lynches them.
This significant gender inequality means that 'women's terrorism' requires significantly less balls than 'men's terrorism'.
...they don't get applauded and celebrated for the next century...
The women planting the bombs were not applauded or celebrated at the time, quite the opposite, they were seen as 'terrorists'. As were pretty much the whole working class at the time. And, if one of the bombs had killed someone they would have faced the death penalty.
Today it seems, both men and women stand around aimlessly while they, their families and friends are being murdered.
British suffragists paraded with signs saying "Votes for Women" at a time when only about 60% of men could vote. That's not about equality, it's about power.
Pankhurst was only interested in votes for Upper Class women being one herself, but needed the support of the unwashed to make enough noise to be heard.
Yes indeed. She and Christabel broke with Sylvia (who became a socialist and supporter of the revolution in Russia) and Adele (who was effectively sent into exile in Australia). In a classic she met Mr Pankhurst when she was 20 and he 44 the "red Doctor" was a prominent Barrister in Manchester and noted socialist being a founder of what became the Labour Party. She grew up in the same district of Salford my mother was brought up and is one of many local (Manchester area) historical "radicals". As such there is a lot of local information about her, her family and their activities. If one looks beneath the myth (represented by the local Pankhurst Centre) one finds a story not at all like the myths.
In effect represented by Emmaline who became a Conservative and vehemently anti socialist while daughter Sylvia was active in labor unions and supported the Communist revolution in Russia. Curiously Emmaline came to be just what she was, a comfortably off widow of a prominent Barrister; also well connected in "liberal" political circles nationally.
• People respond to incentives and disincentives. As long as the potential rewards (both tangible and intangible) for making false accusations continue to dwarf the (practically nonexistent) negative consequences for making them, you can expect more of the same.
• It never ceases to amaze me how people just casually look past the movie “Mean Girls” as some fantastical film that depicts an imaginary world. The movie is practically a documentary as it pertains to female behavior. Social shaming, reputation demolition, spreading gossip, etc. These aren’t just the behaviors of teenage girls in a confined, high school social environment. This is the modus operandi of women in general.
• The paradox/conflicting nature of women’s sexuality in these matters is rather infuriating. Used “offensively,” women’s sexuality is a cudgel that can be used to metaphorically beat men into submission and/or compel desired outcomes. It holds immense power and influence, and can be shamelessly wielded by women who elect to use it as such. Conversely, if employed “defensively,” women’s sexuality is practically tissue paper, able to be penetrated (no pun intended) by the slightest “infraction” (real or perceived) by men. Women’s sexuality bestows upon them either preposterous power or feeble frailty. How they get to use it is completely up to them, subject to change at any time for any reason, and entirely situationally-dependent.
• Women, as a class of people, would likely be willing to happily step over a veritable mountain of corpses of falsely-accused men if it meant that they could subject a single wolf-whistling, cat-calling, ass-pinching man to public embarrassment and excoriation. If #MeToo proved anything, it was that the perceived victimization of women is only exceeded by the very real vindictiveness of women.
I'm currently reading a book about psychopaths. It suggests that they can be identified by adherence to a list of characteristics which includes items such as "lack of remorse", "callousness", "irresponsibility", and "refusal to take accountability". It's quite interesting!
Just thought I'd share that. Happy new year, everyone.
“MeToo” Was neither “Fad”, nor “Revolution”; it was a Psy-Op, or, Psychological Operation, if you’ve been living under a log for the last 40 years. This is documented. Reference: BOB BLAND. Bland is an Evangelist woman who changed her name to that curious appellation.
An INDUSTRIAL MILITARY CONTRACTOR, she Hijacked the term “MeToo” from a Civil Rights group. She was awarded a lucrative contract for her effort. All SUPPRESSED Public Information,
Thanks for this excellent piece, Janet, not that I needed any convincing, but I hope it will get further afield and keep the wave of truth backlash against this crime against humanity.
feel free to share my film "We Believe you" as well - ( https://youtu.be/Zwafn2NO0mw ) the thumbnail featuring 2 of the worst hypocritical lying leading harpies of the MeToo movement. Asia Argento, herself a child rapist, who drove a good man to suicide but somehow manages to retain her shamelessness to this day...
Why would any sane man not be attracted to the MGTOW movement. Even if you never met, dated or were in the same room as these Harpy’s you are vulnerable to their Bullshit!
Disappointed in Hoff-Summers and Borysenko as well…oh well nothing is perfect!
Hoff Sommers has been a wonderful resource over the years about the dishonesty of feminist arguments and so-called studies, but re. MeToo she was off throughout. I'll never forget an interview she did with Tucker Carlson in which she celebrated the burgeoning movement as a way to bring workplace conduct up to the standards of the 21st century. The implication was, incredibly, that no one had previously discussed sexual harassment in the workplace (despite the fact that it was discussed constantly at that time). Tucker Carlson was nodding away enthusiastically. I still have the link to the interview, but it's no longer available. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whW0L-0w1Aw
Perhaps as they say, she may have stared too long into the abyss.
It only goes to show that we can’t take anything or one for granted and must always think critically about everything. No lazy thinkers or writers accepted here (try Harvard).
You’re the best Jan. My very sincere good wishes to you and David for the New Year.
If this comes up twice forgive me, the first one seems to have vaporized itself. Yes I did and Thank You. I also saw the Babylon Bee shot..’Claudine Gay Gives Tearful Resignation Speech Entitled “The Gettysburg Address”. It took the common people (Plagiarism Alert) ‘Three Shakes of a Lambs Tail’ to find a bunch of her lifted lines and Harvard still hasn’t come to life over it. ‘Duplicative Language’. It almost sounds like part of a stand-up routine!
Donegan is at Stanford? What a surprise. Between her, Elizabeth Holmes, Bankman-Fried and his parents/professors, and the Stanford Internet Observatory I think we can safely dismiss anything out of that university as Woke illiberal nonsense without a second look. After the Substackian journalists and their allies in the conservative press and the donors are done with Harvard a take-down of Stanford should be the next target.
Thank you for documenting all of these, Janice. MeToo and BelieveAllWomen destroyed innocent until proven guilty. Almost none of the false accusers and defamatory “journalists” have been punished for ruining lives and livelihoods, which allows them to keep up the hysterias and does a disservice to real victims.
The 2006 Duke Lacrosse scandal is ground zero of this toxicity. I will be publishing a deep dive on Sunday naming and shaming the district attorney, propagandists, and academics responsible for that fiasco.
Wow--great!
Duke is somewhat close to where I live. A couple of years ago, WRAL had an article about one of the stunning and brave "group of 88" (of course a "diverse", incompetent, envious professor of minority studies) who had published some sort of anti-white nonsense.
The libs who infect this area, as usual, sassy clapped for him. His involvement in Duke Lacrosse was of course not mentioned in the article, as that might have distracted from his stunning bravery.
If you're writing something up, you might want to check their archives for a little "where are they now"? update.
That would be fascinating!
You've probably seen it but a wonderful resource for others is Durham in Wonderland.
https://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
KC Johnson documented the travesty with an electron microscope over several years.
Excellent. I won't forgot the faculty taking part in the letter and the protests. All of this without any proof the young men were guilty. Will this be on your substack page?
Of course. It’s the only place I post.
Thanks! Look forward to it.
Good afternoon from New York and thank you Janice for keeping it fresh.
I am an investigative reporter specializing in fraud. Early in the #me2 movement, I wrote a series of articles culminating with a kind of review, "Take a Step Back." There was immediate retaliation from local women claiming to be feminists, who sought to get me fired from all of my freelance jobs. Here is the allegedly offending article:
https://planetwaves.net/take-a-step-back/
My "accusers" called me out on my heinous misconduct: alleged consensual sex 22 years earlier, asking to pet a dog, making women uncomfortable with my writing, and allegedly stating that I was polyamorous at a cocktail party. Here is a summary of what happened.
https://planetwaves.net/me-too-review-the-johnny-depp-verdict/
My total revenue loss was about $50,000 a year in freelance revenue — but I kept my business, which is a kind of astrology news service ( and a journalism nonprofit). If you read my stuff here and would like to support my continuing work, you're most invited to subscribe to my substack. Janice Fiamengo advocated for me at the time, and is also my friend and subscriber (we are both perpetual English majors).
SUBSTACK FOR ASTROLOGY NEWS SERVICE
https://planetwaves.substack.com/
SUBSTACK FOR MY RADIO PROGRAM AND JOURNALISM NONPROFIT
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/
If you would like to see how one of these things shakes out when properly investigated, here ya go. By far the best document is a confession by one of the "organizers that this was a sham, scam and shonda:
https://planetwaves.net/pdf/191218-wojehowski-final.pdf
JANICE THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU'VE HELPED ME WITH OVER THE YEARS, including tomorrow's forthcoming interview with you and Tom Gold, MEN ARE GOOD.
Yes most of us do our best
with love
Eric Francis Coppolino
Pleasing to see you here, having followed your interactions with the germinators. Be careful that some NIH funded virolotrix doesn't come at you with accusations of having glanced askance at her cleavage on a subway in 1979, causing her years of intermittent angst and experimental lesbianism or something.
I was "accused" of laughing at someone's breasts at a street fair. Not saying anything, merely laughing — not standing especially close to her. Anything goes.
Neither your proximity nor your intentions matter to them, only how the alleged 'victim' felt and whatever sympathy dividends, strategic social benefit or ideological leverage could be reaped from that - as I'm sure you're aware (I will read your articles shortly). I'm glad you managed to survive that massive financial hit.
The more serious problem was the loss of new traffic. I have grown other elements of readership by becoming one of the most famous journalists on the "covid" story and also doing the East Palestine story -- though my central business is spiritual and there is not a lot of crossover. So I am working on the exposure thing...it's a big internet and my work is both solid and entertaining.
Wow, I am sorry you lost so much revenue. And I wish more people had your courage!
thanks Pat. I kept my integrity and my sense of humor — that worked good.
(I posted this comment today in the thread from 2022 before looking at the dates...) Damn, Eric, I had no idea. Those who fired you are cowards, likely afraid to be painted with the same brush as you were wrongfully marred with–lacking the courage to stand for the rights of a fellow human being. In doing so they joined a mindless stone throwing lynch mob. (Those pink t-shirts from another of your posts apply here). https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10161532191983910&set=a.10150366239168910
Your publisher at the magazine should not have keep the findings secret, which implied guilt, and you bore the consequences in the public eye and in your professional life without even the benefit of revealing exactly what you were accused of (except in the one-sided and specious letter). Adding to the egregiousness, Mahoney did not even detail what “values” of yours he and the magazine disagree with when he wrote in his publisher's letter that you were fired.
You did an excellent job writing your libel suit. Even though you did not file in court, did you share it with your accuser at least? Maybe I need to read again.
You point out this is all an effect of today’s digital conditions–the same reason that the 2020 scamdemic succeeded when previous attempts to scare the world using fear of deadly infectious pathogens failed.
As Flamingo pointed out in her piece, what is lacking today is blind (unbiased) justice, embodied by my sun sign Libra. I hope for all our sakes that 2024 will bring some light of reason, critical thinking and justice to bear on our current panopticon.
Neil Lyndon author of No More Sex War also experienced something similar.
he is right: "the world's first egalitarian, progressive, non-sexist critique of feminism in its own terms" —feminism must be critiqued on its own terms.
Anyone who dares to criticise feminism is subjected to personal attacks and mobbing.
"Once we were Feminists" https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21811
Flamingo highlights how history is being rewritten with extreme bias to serve an agenda:
Professor Fiamengo gives an example of how basic facts were kept hidden for her when she studied feminism throughout history;
"...feminism and who the women's movement in the 19th century struggle for the vote was a big part of it the strategies that various women writers used to articulate the right of women to have the vote and to be more involved in their society nobody never said to me you know MEN DID NOT ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE at the period you're talking about..... this is a basic fact of history never encountered (during feminist studies she participated in)
There were basic facts that were hidden from me.
1. There was never really a "MeToo" movement - a movement where victims came forward publicly to expose how widespread the problem is. It was always mostly a "J'Accuse!" movement - a movement where anonymous women could make unsubstantiated allegations out of court to get revenge.
2. There was never a time in history when women's accusations were not automatically believed. The woman who got Emmett Till lynched for reckless eye-balling admitted on her death bed that she had lied. Ancient literature is rife with stories of men being destroyed on the basis of a woman's accusation (whether justifiably or not, the point is that the woman was believed).
It was always just a warlock-hunt by radical feminists and their useful idiots.
Reminded me of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Perhaps the earliest example of "believe women". Of course a rather more recent and scary example is the most frequent use in the lynching of black americans last century. A white woman accusing the man of rape, assault or leering. After all in To kill a Mocking Bird" (studied at school in the early 70s) the falsely accused Black man is convicted and dies knowing he is innocent. You'd think a nation with such a history would cling more firmly to "due process".
Sweeney actually mentions the story of Potiphar's wife as an example of patriarchal fear-mongering about false accusers! So: a biblical account of false accusation becomes evidence that men have always abused and blamed women.
That made me laugh. I expect the literally 100s of women making the accusations that fed the lynchings, beatings, and actual court cases in "the deep south" were in some way witless dupes of nasty Patriarchs. Though actually the whole sorry episode seems to be expunged from feminist memory, like the "Asian" (in UK parlance meaning mainly Pakistani ) grooming gangs or, as you so clearly pointed out, Hamas in southern Israel.
To kill a Mocking Bird has disappeared from almost all school reading lists. I wonder why.
To kill a mockingbird wasn't about innocence, rather that even so, he deserved legal process
Watching as feminists •reflexively• defended Avital Ronell was amusing for two reasons:
(1) It was one more piece of evidence that feminism is as much about equality as cannibalism is vegan.
(2) The moral vacuity of feminism was thoroughly exposed.
"J'accuse" you say, yet in France the movement was rather more confrontationally called "balance ton porc" ("grass up your pig"). Very chic.
Hughes, would you explain this idiomatic phrase?
"Balancer" = to inform upon ('grass up' is British slang; a police informer, for instance, is known as a 'grass'). Clearly, men are pigs.
jeez.
I agree with your point in general on the MeToo movement, but it's important to correct something on the Emmet Till point: the entire claim about the woman admitting she lied on her death bed is 100% false, the FBI investigated this and their conclusion was there was no merit to it. This was, as a separate marxist strategy nothing more than an anti white historical revision. It is however true that women's accusations have always been taken seriously.
Very well said Janice. You excel in your ability to speak the unspoken truth that is beyond the awareness of most. This is a perfect example:
"MeToo was helpful only in one narrow sense, that it offered a transparent window onto feminism’s aims and beliefs. In a sane society, it would have signaled the end of any claim feminism could make to stand for equality and human dignity."
So true and wonderfully said!
Indeed it is
Janice, I think that the appalling, total lack of empathy for male suffering displayed by these feminists comes from more than just the generally lesser social empathy for men compared to women. It's also built on the conviction that the guilty have lost their right to empathy and pretty much deserve whatever is done to them. If this is so, then it adds extra difficulty to feminists ever considering the question of false accusations, since such a realization would convict the accusers. The whole system is a racket based on a total and absolute attribution of guilt and innocence, an inviolable moral polarization by identity. As long as they can hang on to that absolute moral polarity, then no behavior is beyond their reach, no matter how despicable.
So true.
I think it’s important to note that #MeToo (my fingers wanted me to write “#MePoo) is an extension of feminist legal theory.
That theory is that the principles of innocence until proven guilt, confrontation of the accused by the accuser, due process of law, and right of the accused to mount a defense are severally, and collectively misogynist. Women can only possess rights, in effect, when men have none.
This is a root principle of feminism in its struggle with the imaginary patriarchy. Women cannot be free unless men have no rights nor ability to resist female accusation. This is, of course, not what feminists claim to demand. It is, however, what they demand, and seek to impose.
Feminism is, in its deepest essence, a dishonorable movement founded on lies. Those lies are deliberately intended to harm, and subjugate men.
Quoting Australian feminist Jocelynne Scutt..."Women should not be subject to men's laws".
It seems she is getting her way.
For most, I don't think the lies are "deliberate". They come from those who are cult indoctrinated.
Having once been a cult member in a past life, I can see how this works through experience.
Once the cult wins your mind, they feed it to only listen to and to accept what they say without question. Any research, discussion or thoughts are aggressively discouraged. If you wish to remain a part of the group or movement, you learn to shut down the part of your mind that questions things.
The leaders employ the BITE model of control, namely your Behaviour, Information, Thoughts and Emotions. It's a very powerful control tool. You learn to associate only with like minded individuals who will only reinforce your thoughts.
Most of us have an innate desire to belong, so we become reluctant to do or say anything to rock the boat, for fear of exclusion.
Those that eventually do are usually in for quite a shock once their mind wakes up and they act on it.
This is where I think feminism falls into cult territory. It's a self perpetuating machine that uses people to achieve it's own ends that only really becomes chaos and misery.
Feminism is also a support for dark triad types.
A lower profile but as pernicious version of this public list occurs everyday in the workplace. A woman can say that she’s simply “uncomfortable” with a male coworker without stating the specific action causing the discomfort. This will trigger an investigation by HR in which HR will interview every female coworker to determine if they too are “uncomfortable”. They may interview any male coworkers to determine if they can provide any stories about or any observed conduct by the man that would justify the woman’s complaint. God help the man if a detractor uses this an opportunity to throw him under the bus. HR will then go back to the man and state that they have received multiple complaints. If the man asked who said it, HR will hide behind “confidentiality”, justified by the twisted logic that if the accuser is identified that will inhibit other woman from filing complaints. The damage to the reputation is done, without any other action on the part of the employer.
Someone I know, his wife works in senior roles in HR.
She is tertiary qualified and believes there is no place for men in HR.
Sometimes she has to hire them to satisfy certain people and conditions, but sets them up to fail and she will have had them dismissed within 6 months.
She looks down on anyone who has no been to uni and from the stories I hear from him, she is a rather nasty individual. So I guess the attitude fits.
Feminism has always been about "more for us." More power, more money, more rights, more privileges." MeToo is more of the same. And let's be clear: it's gratuitous. The idea that it seeks to improve men's behavior is exposed as a lie because it makes no effort to distinguish true claims from false ones.
I disagree. The first feminists in the UK were the Suffragettes, fighting for the right to vote. They ended up planting bombs around London to make their case. Seems like they had more balls than most of the men today.
Prior to that women were effectively genocided by the Christians, in the most horrific ways. So yeah, up until relatively recently they were making good points, and had good reason to make them.
Such women made letter bombs of phosphorous and sulphuric acid that burned the hands and lungs of working class men, many of whom did not have the right to vote themselves. They went to war against the working men of their own country. During the First World War, the same women joined the White Feather movement to give feathers to any man they saw not in military uniform, including under-age boys and wounded soldiers home on leave. They used sex-shaming to send men to their deaths on the battlefield. They didn't have balls, they had an enormous sense of entitlement and hatred, not dissimilar to MeToo women.
The reason for the White Feather movement was not about patriotism. They were afraid that if the Germans won, the feminist movement would be set back by some 50 years or so.
they may indeed have been afraid of that - but even if they had no realistic fears of such a thing, they were happy and keen to push men in front of the cannons for entirely selfish purposes - is the summary of motivation.
Exactly so. And of course working class women too. Mrs Pankhurst was very clear that they were about the property qualification, which had been including women of substance in local elections for decades, and not giving the vote to men or women as such. As one Suffragette commented "one wouldn't want to meet ones servants at the polling booth". The real revolution in the UK in 1918 Act was the acceptance that the vote was not conditional on having a stake, ie. sufficient property to make one a taxpayer, in the country. The conditions becoming just age and of sound mind. Many of course wanted the age to be as high as 30 but the argument that servicemen had to fight from 18 carried this as the qualifying age for men.
Now lost to the myths is the immense public and political furor over the introduction of conscription, for the first time in the UK (unlike in Europe) widely called "Prussianism" this entirely "un English" policy forced by the huge losses played a central role in pushing the suffrage issue beyond the established idea of the vote being a stakeholder vote. For clearly those volunteering, then compelled to fight had a "stake" possibly more compelling than ownership of property. And there was of course the examples of the "Dominions" too. Who had established the citizen suffrage (and included women) in some cases decades before. I believe Canada bein one such example.
What is forgotten too is Mrs Pankhurst was going to be a tory candidate when she died.
"Seems like they had more balls than most of the men today."
In the era concerned when women committed crimes their nearest male relative would be deemed responsible.
"They ended up planting bombs around London to make their case. Seems like they had more balls than most of the men today."
Not really, because when men plant bombs they don't get applauded and celebrated for the next century with a steady stream of BBC documentaries gushing over their empowering acts of liberation, with a soundtrack of quaint string quartet music.
When men plant bombs they get called 'terrorists' and society lynches them.
This significant gender inequality means that 'women's terrorism' requires significantly less balls than 'men's terrorism'.
...they don't get applauded and celebrated for the next century...
The women planting the bombs were not applauded or celebrated at the time, quite the opposite, they were seen as 'terrorists'. As were pretty much the whole working class at the time. And, if one of the bombs had killed someone they would have faced the death penalty.
Today it seems, both men and women stand around aimlessly while they, their families and friends are being murdered.
"The women planting the bombs were not applauded or celebrated at the time"
Are you suggesting they should have been?
British suffragists paraded with signs saying "Votes for Women" at a time when only about 60% of men could vote. That's not about equality, it's about power.
True, but the same class split would occur between women, would it not?
Pankhurst was only interested in votes for Upper Class women being one herself, but needed the support of the unwashed to make enough noise to be heard.
Yes indeed. She and Christabel broke with Sylvia (who became a socialist and supporter of the revolution in Russia) and Adele (who was effectively sent into exile in Australia). In a classic she met Mr Pankhurst when she was 20 and he 44 the "red Doctor" was a prominent Barrister in Manchester and noted socialist being a founder of what became the Labour Party. She grew up in the same district of Salford my mother was brought up and is one of many local (Manchester area) historical "radicals". As such there is a lot of local information about her, her family and their activities. If one looks beneath the myth (represented by the local Pankhurst Centre) one finds a story not at all like the myths.
In effect represented by Emmaline who became a Conservative and vehemently anti socialist while daughter Sylvia was active in labor unions and supported the Communist revolution in Russia. Curiously Emmaline came to be just what she was, a comfortably off widow of a prominent Barrister; also well connected in "liberal" political circles nationally.
Women were not genocided by the Christians, lol.
Wtf am I reading? haha.
My takeaways from this:
• People respond to incentives and disincentives. As long as the potential rewards (both tangible and intangible) for making false accusations continue to dwarf the (practically nonexistent) negative consequences for making them, you can expect more of the same.
• It never ceases to amaze me how people just casually look past the movie “Mean Girls” as some fantastical film that depicts an imaginary world. The movie is practically a documentary as it pertains to female behavior. Social shaming, reputation demolition, spreading gossip, etc. These aren’t just the behaviors of teenage girls in a confined, high school social environment. This is the modus operandi of women in general.
• The paradox/conflicting nature of women’s sexuality in these matters is rather infuriating. Used “offensively,” women’s sexuality is a cudgel that can be used to metaphorically beat men into submission and/or compel desired outcomes. It holds immense power and influence, and can be shamelessly wielded by women who elect to use it as such. Conversely, if employed “defensively,” women’s sexuality is practically tissue paper, able to be penetrated (no pun intended) by the slightest “infraction” (real or perceived) by men. Women’s sexuality bestows upon them either preposterous power or feeble frailty. How they get to use it is completely up to them, subject to change at any time for any reason, and entirely situationally-dependent.
• Women, as a class of people, would likely be willing to happily step over a veritable mountain of corpses of falsely-accused men if it meant that they could subject a single wolf-whistling, cat-calling, ass-pinching man to public embarrassment and excoriation. If #MeToo proved anything, it was that the perceived victimization of women is only exceeded by the very real vindictiveness of women.
I'm currently reading a book about psychopaths. It suggests that they can be identified by adherence to a list of characteristics which includes items such as "lack of remorse", "callousness", "irresponsibility", and "refusal to take accountability". It's quite interesting!
Just thought I'd share that. Happy new year, everyone.
“MeToo” Was neither “Fad”, nor “Revolution”; it was a Psy-Op, or, Psychological Operation, if you’ve been living under a log for the last 40 years. This is documented. Reference: BOB BLAND. Bland is an Evangelist woman who changed her name to that curious appellation.
An INDUSTRIAL MILITARY CONTRACTOR, she Hijacked the term “MeToo” from a Civil Rights group. She was awarded a lucrative contract for her effort. All SUPPRESSED Public Information,
People and feminists!.
This is an extreme example of how the tactic of "Relational Aggression" is being used to destroy men.
"Demagogue" is "a gifted demagogue with particular skill in manipulating the press".
The article demonstrates just how critically unwell, emotionally and psychologically our society has become.
Thanks for this excellent piece, Janet, not that I needed any convincing, but I hope it will get further afield and keep the wave of truth backlash against this crime against humanity.
Thank you Patrick, I'll never forget your excellent presentation at ICMI '18.
feel free to share my film "We Believe you" as well - ( https://youtu.be/Zwafn2NO0mw ) the thumbnail featuring 2 of the worst hypocritical lying leading harpies of the MeToo movement. Asia Argento, herself a child rapist, who drove a good man to suicide but somehow manages to retain her shamelessness to this day...
It should make everyone's blood boil -
but especially it should make Feminists who EVER say that False allegations are rare, and/or "don't matter" sew their mouths up and get in the sea.
yup. The ability of Feminists to live with total conviction and massive cognitive dissonance is way stronger than the average conspiracy theorist.
Why would any sane man not be attracted to the MGTOW movement. Even if you never met, dated or were in the same room as these Harpy’s you are vulnerable to their Bullshit!
Disappointed in Hoff-Summers and Borysenko as well…oh well nothing is perfect!
Hoff Sommers has been a wonderful resource over the years about the dishonesty of feminist arguments and so-called studies, but re. MeToo she was off throughout. I'll never forget an interview she did with Tucker Carlson in which she celebrated the burgeoning movement as a way to bring workplace conduct up to the standards of the 21st century. The implication was, incredibly, that no one had previously discussed sexual harassment in the workplace (despite the fact that it was discussed constantly at that time). Tucker Carlson was nodding away enthusiastically. I still have the link to the interview, but it's no longer available. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whW0L-0w1Aw
Perhaps as they say, she may have stared too long into the abyss.
It only goes to show that we can’t take anything or one for granted and must always think critically about everything. No lazy thinkers or writers accepted here (try Harvard).
You’re the best Jan. My very sincere good wishes to you and David for the New Year.
If this comes up twice forgive me, the first one seems to have vaporized itself. Yes I did and Thank You. I also saw the Babylon Bee shot..’Claudine Gay Gives Tearful Resignation Speech Entitled “The Gettysburg Address”. It took the common people (Plagiarism Alert) ‘Three Shakes of a Lambs Tail’ to find a bunch of her lifted lines and Harvard still hasn’t come to life over it. ‘Duplicative Language’. It almost sounds like part of a stand-up routine!
Women are the HR department of society for the not so new world order...
Donegan is at Stanford? What a surprise. Between her, Elizabeth Holmes, Bankman-Fried and his parents/professors, and the Stanford Internet Observatory I think we can safely dismiss anything out of that university as Woke illiberal nonsense without a second look. After the Substackian journalists and their allies in the conservative press and the donors are done with Harvard a take-down of Stanford should be the next target.