Excellent blog, as always, Janice. One of the key issues here is that feminists not only seek to change men's spaces but, when they do, to impose their rules about appropriate behaviour in these spaces. When small numbers of women first entered the armed forces, or started work in traditional male industries, or demanded entry to service clubs like Rotary, no longer were soldiers or factory workers allowed pictures of sexy girls pinned up on wall, or bawdy jokes, or locker room talk. This noisy group of activities have demanded to control male behaviour that even in places men were once free to be themselves. In Australia, men started the Men's Shed organisation specifically to allow men to support each other and here too women are now demanding access and then control over how people behave. Feminists are such a menace, and it is shameful we have allowed them to take over so much of our societies.
Women seem biologically programmed to want anything of value that men have, and to have it on their terms. Men seem biologically programmed to give women whatever they want to keep them happy. All humans have the capacity to rise above their biological programming, but many fail to recognise it, or lack the integrity to challenge it. In the past, women had the decency not to demand everything of value, but decency went out the window with the pandemic of collective female narcissism that is feminism.
LOL! Second thoughts about religion? I've been a devote aetheist for my whole life, not changing just because I'm closer to shuffling of this mortal coil all too soon
Atheism is itself a religion. The common attribute of atheists, in my experience, is insufferable hubris (that and the childish need to tell everyone you're an atheist). While I admire your faith in the face of impending mortality, I've never found atheism adequate in terms of providing a set of values to live by. I'm a molecular biologist by training, and I know what it is like to die (although I didn't quite get there, obviously!), but neither of those experiences gave me any reason to embrace atheism.
Atheism is NOT a religion, never was, never will be.
Stop projecting your facile fears and beliefs in sky monkeys on to others.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities... and this offends you because someone can see through the charade of your thread-bare toxic faith and you are too shallow to question your learnt beliefs that give meaning to your inconsequential life.
Evidently I hit a raw nerve! Atheism is a religion that substitutes man for god. It leads only to moral relativism and narcissism (who is to say what is good and bad, right or wrong?). I'm actually agnostic but with a leaning towards theism because of the incapacity of atheists to articulate an adequate alternative. Hurling petulant insults at any and all gods ('sky monkeys') is your choice. It doesn't bother me because I'm not responsible for your actions and don't care for your empty words. However, for somone who claims to be nearing death, and who has only his faith in there being no god to rely on, isn't it a bit foolish to be insulting any and all possible gods? Age has never been a barrier to foolishness, but even a cursory reflection on your existence and contemporary cosmology should have taught you that.
If my life is inconsequential, then by your own logic your life is inconsequential. Why then are you so angry that other people might believe in god(s)? It seems to me that you are a moral busybody who lacks a foundation for his morality.
If atheism is not a religion, why do you sound like the most dogmatic person in the conversation? You seem to be infected with arrogant contempt for those who do not see things as you see them.
If you don't take religion as the Word of God, it is still the Wisdom of the Ages. Your dogma seems to be that this wisdom is inferior to whatever has popped into your head.
BINGO! Unfortunately there's a difference between religion and actual adherence to Gods order. Many people are turned off by religion because it's a buisness. Jesus himself said that most religious people are disingenuous.
If I recall correctly, many of Jesus' harshest criticisms were directed at the scribes and Pharisees on account of their hypocrisy. The same criticism could be levelled at many religious leaders today.
What I do find remarkable is that after 2,000 years of intense scrutiny, Jesus seemingly remains above reproach and as relevant now as he was then. Many people reject the idea that he is divine, but are there any legitimate grounds for criticising Jesus the man? It's not like he avoided controversy or is above criticism (perhaps he loses a mark for the lack of gender diversity in his choice of disciples?!). I'd compare Jesus with Mohammed but I'm fond of my head and don't fancy losing it right now. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam won't need my comparison anyway.
LOL... Jesus said ??? If the myths are to be believed, this individual (who didn't get a mention in the Roman texts of the time) riled against the "money lenders" and hung out with male and female prostitutes...
If, as you said elsewhere in this thread, atheism is not a religion, what the heck is a devoted atheist? What are you devoted to? Yourself? Sounds like the religion of narcissism.
That's fine, but civilisation do go through cycles: they stop being religious and eventually, after the collapse, they go back to being religious or be conquered by a more religious group. Your individualism doesn't matter. Oh, wait! You'll be dead by then.
I recall, some time ago, you made a short video where you visited Men's Sheds in Australia. You weren't too impressed that some of the men wanted to open them up to women. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas. Do you remember how long ago that video was? What's the situation today with these sheds?
Thanks for all your work. You do it with such humour - and forebearance.
A comment here reminded me of thoughts I had during one of the media spats about changing rooms in shops. One very good reason for all male spaces is protection for the men themselves. For in toilets, changing, locker and other rooms where there may be the possibility of being at least partially undressed. If "mixed" , men are at risk of being accused of some sort of sexual harassment. Specially where a woman may see a naked penis but also where underwear is worn. The "cases" for getting males out of changing rooms all essentially were based on a woman seeing something she regarded as bad. Non of it was criminal, no one suggested people should not be looking. So generally the real risk is to men should their state of undress be interpreted as somehow sexual, and as we know the proponents of "Rape culture" cast their net very wide as to what is included.
As a rule women will demand complete control over etiquette, decor AND catering. I've been watching this since the sixties.
"In Australia, men started the Men's Shed organisation specifically to allow men to support each other"
Correct. Part of the motivation was therapeutic and a response to high rates of suicide among retired men. In the broader scheme of things boys and men have been denied the very spaces in which they are best able to deal with stress and trauma. It has been a contributing factor in spiraling suicide rates and for a very long time. To make it worse actual male victims have been or continue to be excluded from the mental health services which are available and our family law systems appear to be designed to drive men to suicide.
I've been chafing at this injustice for more or less my entire life, and have always felt it to be distasteful. To be honest, seeing women's spaces getting invaded by trans-women, and the resulting leftist autophagy between the TERFs and autogynophiles, has been quite delightful.
I suppose the chivalrous thing to do would be to oppose this and rise to the defense of women's spaces, but chivalry was one of the first norms to be put to the sword by feminism.
Perhaps women will reconsider their role in the Longhouse in light of the trans invasion. If a plurality of them start listening to you, and shaming the sisterhood into backing off, then perhaps we can restore some balance and sanity.
Same. Conservatives are saying "save women's sports." You can't save women's sports and have feminism. Feminism ultimately leads to a big, hairy dude in a dress using the ladies room.
It is going to require women to desire societal survival over individual accomplishment, women with vision and sacrificial nerve. Not a well cultivated trait and one I do not expect to see much of except there be a spiritual revival in our land. Deo Volente.
Realy?! Shaming the sisterhood? Isn't that what the sisterhood did to you? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Love this article. I was a second wave feminist, and saw this unfolding. Also knew how in tribal societies men and women were by choice very separate some of the time, and things worked very well. We had a reason to be angry at men. But a lot of women made a religion out of it, instead of something to work through. And the dogmatic aspects did not get better. They increased after Andrea Dworkin and her ilk got ahold of the movement. Gadz. What a mess.
You had no reason at all; you were just furious because you thought we were having more fun than you and had more privileges. You're learning that you were wrong.
No, you didn't, it is just an excuse for being abusive. I can find many reasons to be angry about a lot of things, but that does not excuse bad behaviour or treating another person poorly.
We can all see what you meant and I doubt that many are fooled. Women were complaining about nothing just to complain about men, as women are wont to do. Good try though.
One thing I've learned about women through my lifetime is they will always expose themselves eventually, and I'm not talking about taking their clothes off.
Not at all; nature gave me what it didn't give you, the means to piss without spoiling my shoes, and with it came reason and accountability. You don't know what you're missing, but you do know that you can't piss and miss your shoes without using a device made by men.
I am disinclined to bandy brickbats with mad women so this thread is ended as far as I am concerned. You bat away though if you wish.
Yes, shaming the sisterhood for their shameful, generations-long, assault on men. Note that I'm not suggesting that men do this - it's not in our power to do, frankly. I mean quite specifically that women need to start shaming women for their terrible, dyscivilizational behavior.
I see shaming as manipulative behavior. Same for guilt-tripping. What is needed is for women and men to recognize that we both need separate spaces, and make these spaces possible and available. I can say, as a woman (but no longer a feminist) that I am wholeheartedly for it.
Oh and by the way, are you planning to start shaming men for their centuries (millennia) long assault on women? Putting us down as vessels of iniquity, denying us education and property ownership, and abusing us "because you can" as the generally stronger sex?
>centuries (millennia) long assault on women? Putting us down as vessels of iniquity, denying us education and property ownership, and abusing us "because you can" as the generally stronger sex?
You're still a feminist.
Shame works. That's why cultures use it. Undesirable behaviors are stigmatized as low status, and female social instinct leads to them policing society to discourage those behaviors.
You seem to possess an animus towards men for supposed mistreatment of women through history, while leaving out the countervailing perspective that the patriarchal institutions and customs that prevailed before the sexual revolution were in place to protect women from the worst impulses of men, while also protecting men - and society - from the worst impulses of women.
Now, perhaps I read too much in there, and you are fully aware of the other side of the story. If so, chalk that up to oversensitivity brought on by a lifetime of lectures about how evil men are, in the context of an ongoing justification for a social order in which men live in male purdah. That you react so strongly to the suggestion that women should shame other women for their bad behavior, and immediately tried to shift the topic from the actual, current oppression to the historical oppression of the current oppressors, suggested to me that your views are still informed by the feminist hegemony that we all live in.
Nope! Men are not going to apologise and shame other men because what you claim had never existed in the first place. You're the trying guilt tripping men for, not they didn't do, but didn't exist throughout history.
What you said is instantiate of a feminist mindset.
How ironic of you. Janice has already put out a wealth of information, both in video and article debunking delusions. The best you can do is shame people who points to the contrary, a very typical feminist tactic.
Typical female — manipulative and misandric as ever while proclaiming she's just the opposite. The idea that men were better off at any point in history is a myth constructed by women. Once a full accounting is done of all rights, privileges, and immunities, along with all obligations, duties, and liabilities throughout history, the myth of historical female oppression is exposed for the total lie that it is. Women are mentally incapable of doing this kind of full accounting, so try reading a book about it written by a man: "The Privileged Sex" by Martin Van Creveld or "The Fraud of Feminsim" by Belfort Bax.
Now, are you going apologize for putting men down as vessels of iniquity, denying them due process and property ownership, and abusing us "because it's just" as the physically weaker sex?
Erin' 'centuries of oppression' then why did the mines and collieries act remove women and children from working in the mines? The Factories act gave women a 8 hour working day, not the men? So how can this be oppression?
Maybe because there were pregnant women crawling through the mines all day? I am told Orwell described some of that in the Road to Wigan Pier.
Both sexes should have gotten an 8 hour day, of course. And eventually did. So what's your point? "Centuries of oppression" can't be right because one law at one time prioritized women in the mines?
Firstly the concept of "centuries of oppression" is still a furphy. For a number of reasons. We are judging the past by today's standards. Secondly, all societies have rules and boundaries on what people can or cannot do. What is acceptable behaviour, and people interpose this with oppression? By today's values and standards, much of the past looks to be oppressive for both genders. So it is a red herring to say that only the female gender was oppressed. People who support this concept are basically saying only women can be victims and my victimhood is greater than yours.
If women were oppressed then why were husbands gaoled for the debts of their wives?
Research shows that on the rare occasion when women were convicted of a crime, they received much more lenient sentences than men who were convicted of similar crimes.
No, men persecuting women is an outright feminist lie. Men routinely sacrificed themselves and other men to protect women. That's as it should be, and that's how it is. I'm just tired of feminists lying about it.
"I see shaming as manipulative behavior" and yet you vilify asnd shame those who don't agree with you. Are you a "closet feminist still"? Or just angry at mnen in general?
Erin "Putting us down as vessels of iniquity, denying us education and property ownership, and abusing us "because you can" as the generally stronger sex?"
You have well and truly been indoctrinated. The above is highly emotive and not based on historical facts. Upper-class women were far better educated than illiterate men working at life-threatening menial tasks. The working classes of both genders were denied an education. As to property that is another furphy.
You're STILL a fEMINIST and full of shit as well...When wo-MEN have to get drafted, and be forced to support a non nuclear family,,,until then Take your PENIS ENVY some where else TROLL...
"Realy?! Shaming the sisterhood? Isn't that what the sisterhood did to you? Two wrongs don't make a right."
Feminists were responsible for decades of exclusion from mental health services experienced by male victims of child sexual abuse in Australia. Through recent royal commissions we've learned that thousands of them have committed suicide, many of which could have been avoided had they been able to get the help they needed.
Feminists and feminism will never cleanse that blood from their hands. Putrid ideology.
This is gold, Janice. The gross hypocrisy of our times must come to the fore of public discourse, now that the circle is complete with the current "trans" circus. I will cross-post this to my own (fledgling) substack as well as mention it where I can in comments to other stackers' posts.
The most hypocritical aspect of the trans circus is the fact that there is and has always been a far more serious human rights crisis regarding genital mutilation. Boys are already widely mutilated for the sake of being sexually manipulated and controlled. Most mothers in the US prefer to circumcise their baby boys, primarily for cosmetic reasons. She does it to make him more sexually appealing to herself, and so he'll be more 'acceptable' to other women when he grows up. So the majority of boys are already sexually tortured, permanently mutilated, and made into sexual exhibitions by their own mothers for the sake of satiating women's fetishes. All of this child sexual grooming and sex transitioning is just circumcision 2.0. Circumcision removes 50% of penile skin, sexual transition removes 100%. Anyone that condemns child sex transitioning without equally condemning male child circumcision is a total hypocrite. So far, I've only seen MGTOWs and a few MRAs acknowledge this.
Good point. I do know that many parents rejected the barbaric practice back in the hippy days.
But this did start out as a religious ritual and had nothing to do with mothers' fetishes so I'm not with you on that part of it. What are MRAs by the way?
Nope. It started in the US as a sexually puritanical way to keep boys from masturbating in the early 1900s, which stemmed from women's Victorian Era vilification of male sexuality. After the puritanism died off, it kept going because being intact as a man/boy was framed by women as being sexually abnormal and disgusting. A ridiculous number of mothers are borderline pedophiles because they'll say disgusting and creepy things like "I want my son to look like his father" or "I don't want him to be a freak" or "he'll be hygienically dirty if he's not circumcised." And mothers have had a monopoly on early child healthcare since the late 1800s so they were able to normalize this heinous misandry.
But you reveal a shocking ignorance of history. Circumcision is an ancient rite of Judaism (later adopted as an Islamic practice). And while gentiles were not required to circumcise their sons, it was widely done anyway, all the way to present times.
Your blanket demonization of mothers is unjustified and disturbing. Not to mention it was men who "took over" medicine and childbirth (from midwives) in the 1800s, with more often than not, disastrous consequences.
We both know that we are referring to the phenomena of infant male circumcision gaining the status of a common cultural custom in the US, not some rite of a small religious minority. And I'm holding mothers to account for something that they have always been granted the most power in deciding. With authority comes responsibility; with responsibility comes accountability.
That "common cultural custom" is in no way isolated from thousands of years of history behind it, and of which Jews and Muslims are not a "small religious minority." I'm sure many parents these days are opting out of the horrid custom.
I am reminded of an old saying “do unto others, before they do unto you”, which the feminist took to mean “do unto men, because you imagined they’d do unto you… ”. Yet now when their own tactics are being prosecuted with prejudice against them, they revert to type; whiny shrills we’ve always known them to be.
Another bravura analysis, I must say. Of course, I say so because it agrees with what I have been thinking and saying for years, brought into sharper focus by the transsexual mania of late. In sum, it always struck me as the height of arrogance for women to demand entrance into traditionally all-male spaces and activities, then to demand that men stand up for them when they faced competition from the not-men who suddenly appeared on the scene. I just can't drum up a whole lot of sympathy for their plight . To be sure, Ms. Gaines, the swimmer who was absolutely jobbed out of her rightful place on the top of the podium by the ersatz female, "Lia" Thomas (who, it must be emphasized, is reputed to have retained his male sexual organs, and displayed them in the girl's locker room) does deserve our support, particularly since she has been physically attacked by some prime specimens of the new "transgender" phylum. But she is ultimately the victim of radical feminism, to be sure. When one talks constantly of "equal rights for women," without taking into account the differences between men and women, it is like using a battering ram to open the cupboard door. Women who demand elimination of "separate but equal" accommodations to compete with men in academia, business, and other arenas really have no right to complain when their "separate but equal" sports endeavors are taken over by "transwomen."
So agree. I feel for women pushed off medal podiums or made uncomfortable in changing rooms, but I am deeply angered by women who have never given a single sympathetic thought to men's points of view on related matters.
The women being "pushed off medal podiums" are only on the podiums because they are reserved for them. Female athletes have traditionally been shielded from competion with male athletes, which is a form of privilege.
Abolish sex-seggregated elite sport and you would eliminate the controversy surrounding transgender athletes. Everyone could compete according to their merits.
Those who want or need to be shielded from open competion by virtue of age, sex, gender, height, weight, disability, etc (objective, pertinent and justifiable criteria) should be permitted to do so, but any claims to being an elite sport should also be suitably qualified.
The hypocrisy imbedded in most female-only sport is that it demands equal status to male-only sport when it is in fact a 'sheltered workshop'.
Segregated change rooms is a cultural issue, which could be addressed over the long-term by having male-only, female-only and unisex facilities to cater for every preference, or no segregation at all (it doesn't bother the Swedes in their saunas). However, the latter approach would be incompatible with respect for diversity.
Agreed. However I would go as far to suggest that wo-MEN'S sport is a form of androgyny in it's own right. It is a known fact that fe-MALE athletes lose their periods. MANY have 'wives' Like tattoos, I feel that sports are un lady like
"𝘍𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦". WTF? ~ In the top 19 of 20 Western World countries (data wasn't available for Russia when I searched a couple of months ago), within +/- 2%, men were 20% heavier and taller than women, which in sports, creates a very significant advantage for male competitors.
There are very few sports (and I confine myself to Olympic events that may or may not be run at any Olympics) where women can compete equally with men in events that male physical strengths wouldn’t dominate the female athletes. These are equestrian events (Dressage, 3 Day Eventing & Show Jumping) which if I remember correctly, were the first Olympic events that dispensed with ride based gender of male /female /mixed formats (imagine if it was then subdivided on the gender of the horse ~ stallion, mare and gelding) and adopted single events for riders of any gender (I wouldn’t be surprised if the trans community comes out claiming that this disadvantages a microcosm of the riding community who identify as a letter(s) of the alphabet).
At the next Olympics, Paris 2024, 470’s (2 person dingy’s) will feature “mixed crews” 470’s (though it is ironically that until 1988, Olympic sailing was a “non-gender neutral” sport where males and females competed together, this was changed due to “women can’t compete equally as men) and various “mixed events” such as tennis, badminton, luge, ice skating... Recurved archery and various “shooting” (pistol, rifle, shotgun) events could be non-gendered, but currently these are individual, team and mixed-team events.
Maybe Free-Style Skiing, Figure Skating, Skateboarding, “Artistic Swimming” (ROTFLMAO… synchronised drowning) and other occasional events could be “non-gendered”. Interestingly, at 2024 Olympics “Breaking” will debut.
There arer sports where women can compete equally with men, but this is a limited number of sports.
Opps, I forgot to mention "lawn bowls", but is this really a sport?
Yes, men have a significant advantage over women in many sports because of their relative size and strength. No doubt there are fields in which women excel due to their relative size, flexibility, dexterity, etc (e.g. certain gymnastic events, such as the balance beam). Not all men are big and strong, and those who aren't don't usually get shielded from competition from those that are (there are some notable exceptions, such as the different weight divisions in boxing). Japanese men still compete at the elite level in Rugby Union despite being significantly shorter and lighter than their opponents.
Women expect special privileges when it suits them, but men are afforded no such consideration, even when they are at a disadvantage.
In answer to your question, I think lawn bowls deserves recognition as a sport ahead of synchronised drowning!
And then there are Figians and Samoans (Jonah Lomu being a case in point ~ I loved his side-step) competting in rugby union...
On average men are 20% bigger (weight & height) than women; apprently, this invalidates any concession that they might be "entitled" to (according to feminist).
As for your last sentence LOL ~ totally agree! Those ovoid balls (that owe their origin to stair balustrades) aren't as precise as other forms of "bowled ball" sports ~ speaking from experiance
Since wo-MEN have infiltrated the police, military, fire department, the BOY scouts, and the Captain Marvel comic books, THEY BROUGHT THIS ON! On a good note, Trans genders have exposed the fallacy of wo-MEN'S equality, and for that I am grateful to God.
As much as I feel sorry for Riley Gaines, I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow when, after being escorted to safety by a squad of burly male police officers, she said her experience shows the need for women-only spaces. Maybe from now on she will back up her words and use only female security!
I DO NOT feel sorry for Riley Gaines, for precisely the reason you just illustrated! fe-MALE chauvinism. NOT ONE of these fe-MALE athletes EVER defends/admits/ BOYS don't like having their spaces invaded either. I troll Riley Gains and will continue to troll her and her ilk until I see ONE of these wo-MEN defending BOYS who feel just as violated.
I have been in tech for decades. Over the years, women have made the workplace progressively worse.
I cannot tell you how many times I've heard things along the lines of "we need more women in tech". Really? Who's "we"? How many more women? Are you open to discussing why it might not ever be 50/50, or will you ruin my career for even trying to discuss why this might not be feasible?
I recently arrived at the conclusion that women who do this actually have no objective. They are simply affirming one another - providing each other with validation.
Men like me - the engineering type - think in terms of risks, tradeoffs, if something is feasible, how much it will cost, etc. Women like this invade these pragmatic spaces and turn them into a sort of therapy session with unwilling participants... And they have no clue at all - none - why men might consider this behavior obnoxious.
Apr 8, 2023·edited Apr 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
A similar but very little talked about phenomenon happened in the Anglican church in the West (i.e., UK, Canada, USA, Western Europe) West starting in the late 70s. This is when women were allowed to be ordained as priests, which on the face of it sounds like a good thing for equality -- but the results have been far from encouraging. These denominations are now in sharp decline. The Anglican Church in Canada admits that in a few years it will cease to exist. There is a reason for this: the corrosive effect of feminism.
If you review the graduation photos from the 1960s to the present, the demographic shifts from all young men to almost all middle-aged women. There was a concurrent shift in theology, from traditional Christianity to feminist Christianity -- which has now led to the pulpit being used to advance transgenderism, Marxist liberation theology, Black Lives Matter, and a host of other Leftist causes that misuse the Gospel to advance political agendas anathema to Christian faith. One United Church pastor (a feminist of course) famously declared hat she was an atheist and was permitted to retain her role as pastor for several years, despite that.
Your article made me think of this because the brotherhood of priests was at one time a male 'safe space' (one could say) but now in most liberal denomination seminaries you're hard pressed to find men interested in being ordained. And the theology -- and by extension the society -- has suffered accordingly. At a time when the West is in dire need of traditional Christian faith, it is instead being given Leftist ideology masquerading as the Gospel.
You are not likely to find too many conservative heterosexual men entering the Anglican and Episcopalian priesthood anymore. This is true of some other denominations as well. Tucker Carlson just did a great episode showing a feminist trans Lutheran pastor using the pulpit to compare Audrey Hale to Jesus, instead of being critical of the murder of Christian children.
I met a trans priest (a biological male) who told me that Jesus was trans and in fact we are all trans but don't know it! Another feminist pastor gave a sermon saying that the purpose of the faith was to "fight toxic masculinity and white supremacy"! Apparently faith in Christ is no longer the central focus of the church.
Now the Roman Catholic church is under pressure to allow female priests and they're resisting it, to their credit. The current Pope may be a Marxist but the Church leadership apparently has enough sense to realize how badly things have gone for Anglicans by allowing the priestly role to be ruined by feminism.
Some Western young people have been drawn to Islam but not always because they embrace its core values. What I've observed is that Leftists embrace Islam because it's anti-Western and to virtue-signal their commitment to "diversity."
Linda Sarsour took advantage of this among feminists to push the insane idea that sharia law is consistent with feminism. You would see young feminists at rallies wearing hijabs. This has the same logical consistency as Antifa, self-avowed anarchists, counter-protesting in Oxfordshire in support of more state tyranny (the 15 minute city).
Islamists go along with the charade for the time being, because it serves their purpose of establishing a new caliphate in the West (which they are close to doing in parts of Western Europe), but in secret they'd just as soon throw the LBGTQ crowd off rooves.
That having been said, I would add that most Muslim people are decent folk with conservative values, but I'd have to agree with the Dalai Llama when he said "Europe belongs to Europeans." It should not disappear - but under the reign of Leftist globalists -- who embrace mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa -- it is doing so. See Douglas Murray's book The Strange Death of Europe.
As for traditional Christianity, it is still the best faith tradition, and certainly has not disappeared in the West. It has been in serious decline since the 1970s among the mainstream denominations due to secularization, but I think it will experience a revival. It poses the most serious threat to the Leftist regime's strategy of conversion of young people, which is why they so strongly oppose traditional Christianity -- especially when (as evangelicals have done) it stands up against trans ideology as morally wrong, as sinful. The gay marriage issue was central for years and now trans ideology.
As a result of the shift in Anglicanism that started in the 1970s, traditional Anglicans broke away and formed the Anglican Network in North America -- and are in alignment against gay marriage with most Anglicans in Africa, India and the rest of the world. Leftism in the church is a uniquely Western malady.
Leftism, which is in a sense its own religious movement, has corrupted some churches as I noted in my post above, and but among evangelicals there is uniform opposition to it. And many young people who were pulled into Leftism and greatly harmed by it have consequently left it and found salvation through Christ in evangelical churches.
This started as early as the 1970s with the so-called "Jesus Revolution" and has been continuing ever since. This is why trans terrorists target churches and Christians. It is a war for souls between a violent death-cult (transgenderism) and faith in Christ.
I myself was a Leftist for a couple of decades so I am familiar with that movement. It promises everything -- as religion does -- but leaves one empty inside and beaten down. It is idolatrous. The young SJWs are actually on a spiritual quest for truth, justice, ultimate meaning -- which is why they fall in with Leftist causes -- but they won't find them there.
That is what that movement -- which includes feminism -- could rightly be called demonic. It has an anti-Christ spirit. This is the result of secularization, felt mostly keenly by the young -- but they fall into a snare. I feel for them. They are lost. The allure of the movement, the sense of purpose it gives, is powerful, enticing. The fear of losing that identity is a disincentive for independent thought, keeping them in line. But it's not spiritually sustainable.
So I think we'll see more apostates from that "faith" be saved by Christianity in future years as they mature and are able to step back and see that they were misled. You will also see more sad testimonies from de-transitioners in future years as well, realizing that they mutilated themselves for no reason.
Some Anglican denominations and monasteries have gone to Rome. Not crazy about that choice either... given the current pope. But not as bad, on a number of fronts.
Europeans say that the Left was overtaken (stolen) by the Right... it's one way to look at it. The Right is the new counterculture. Everything topsy turvy.
In AU and NZ, the "anglican" and presbyterian" faiths are losing their pogrom to maintain their faith base.
In AU in 1977, a significant number of “anglican" and presbyterian” churches merged to form the “uniting church of Australia”, but this hasn’t prevented the continued decline in those who pay tithes of these archaic institutions of privilege, superstition, greed and paedophilic child abuse.
The current pope is not supportive of the Latin Mass and many traditional monasteries and communities are being targeted. Their properties return to the Vatican if the order ceases to exist and I've read that this could prove useful to clear some of the huge Vatican debt. Some orders have gone into hiding while others are transferring ownership of their assets to independent trusts to avoid this happening.
NAH! With each successive "census" in western world countries, "no faith /no religion” is becoming the majority “religion”.
Every 5 years in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistic (ABS) conducts a census, including a question on religion. Until very recently, in an AU census you couldn’t identify as an “atheist”, though the ABS still tries to classify “atheism” as a religious belief (I understand that, outside political interference from “god in the lodge”, atheism will be classified as “no /non-belief” in the next census in AU and atheism will probably exceed 50% of census respondents).
The religious question in 2021 AU census was “What is the persons religion?” with a plethora of christrain faiths listed
By lumping all those who identified as “Christian”, irrespective of their differing Christian affiliations, ABS in accordance with purported non-secular government directives, claimed that the largest religious group in Australia were christrains (depending on the ABS “data set” you read,43.9% or 52.1% of the AU population), lumping ALL those who “identify” as “christians” together (catholics 22.6%, anglicans 13.3%, presbyterians and “reformed” (AU “uniting church) 2.3%, mormons (not recorded), lutheran 0.7%, methodists, pentecostals (a.k.a., evangelicals 1.1%, yet enjoy perverse privilege in Canberra ~ just ask “scotty from marketing” and ) , Oriental Orthodox (that was a new one to me) 0.2%. Yet, “No Religion /Secular belief” was 30.1% and “not stated was 9.6%.
Hell, there are more evangelically faiths than there are collective pronouns of those who identify on the alphabet spaghetti letter spectrum, yet these “emerging faith groups” have 1% or less...
The AU ABS lumps all “christians” together so as to produce a politically acceptable percentage that showed “christians” as being the majority /dominant faith in AU (otherwise the federal government could and would be challenged on its unConstitutional funding of private religious school and it’s funding of the disgraceful “National Schools chappy Pogrom” that funds religious organisations to use our AU schools as “mission fields”.
Recently in Brisbane AU (where I live), a Centerpoint Church video that spruiked that secular state schools were ripe “mission fields” to “harvest children’s soles” caused a backlash; yet our state Education minister “Grace Grace” (no laughing matter ~ this is her real name and she’s a disgrace), declared that this didn’t contravene the 1910 QLD Education Act amendments that allowed faith based organisations to entre Qld schools and force their beliefs on children despite the child’s parents stating on the child’s enrolment form that their child was not to be subjected to the predatory practices of faith based organisations.
In the 2021 AU census, “No Religion and Secular Beliefs” = 40.4%. The largest Christian faith, catholics, was just over half this at 22.6%
In the 2021 AU census records that 30.1% of the AU populating “No Religion” is nearly 50% more that the largest Christian demographic in AU” “catholics” at 22.6%.
This 2021 census can be compared to the 2016 census when all combined Christian religions were just over 50% and the atheist “vote” was about 30%... see the trend? Which is being witnessed in all western countries at an increasing rate.
Everybody has a god. If you eliminate the traditional sense of God as transcendent good, people will carve out new idols. Like the Church of Communism, and lately, the Church of Shopping. Eh...
LOL I'm a life long atheist, I have not carved myself new idols nor do I worship communisim, retail theropy, feminism or any other such cr*p. Don't project your narcissistic beliefs onto others.
And yet you are more dogmatic about religion than anyone else here.
You also insist on splintering all Christians while treating all atheists as one big happy family. Never mind that there are Marxist atheists, Maoist atheists, Rothbardian atheists, Randian atheists, etc., each with their own dogma. To be an atheist is to be so ungrounded that you glom onto arbitrary dogma.
"You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything."
— G. K. Chesterton, “The Miracle of Moon Crescent,” 1924
NO such thing as an athiest. "Even Satan believes in God" as the srcipture says. There are NO atheists... only people who are angry at God and who's beliefs are fragmented.
There's a really informative, though slightly leftist book that examines how men inside the church responded to the feminization of religion and society. It's called Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920 by Clifford Putney.
I found an interesting article on the topic, quoting an RC theologian. He argues that priests as male is consistent with the revealed Word and Christ's own example. Further, the role of women is already prominent: "Women are better able than men to perceive the "proximity of God" and enter into a relationship with him [for example[ the privileged role played by women in the New Testament.
The point seems to be that women are an integral part of the Church, which could not exist without them. They have their roles and men have theirs, and for good purpose. Not to keep women down but to ensure they have roles best suited to their strengths -- which of course depends on a recognition of those strengths and the difference between men and women -- which our current society seems intent on obscuring.
Women in many ways have been the backbone of the Church. There are numerous female saints, and in fact the first witness to the Resurrection was a woman, Mary Magdalene. Women like Ruth, Esther, and Mary are important figures in the Bible. The devotion of women is central. You can still find the traditional roles today in the West if you go to Orthodox churches.
But feminism, in the name of equality, opened a Pandora's box that has led to other changes that were not beneficial to the Church or society. Janice has covered the social implications well in her video series (the Fiamengo Files).
Actually that RC theologian is full of shit. "Wives are to OBEY their husbands" "Adam was not in sin, but the wo-MAN was in sin" "wo-MEN are NOT to even SPEAK in church" "It is shameful for a wo-MAN to speak in church" Corinthians/Paul/Timothy/
The theologian's argument in favour of only-male ordination is not inconsistent with the Bible verses you (sort of) quoted -- though those verses should be taken in context. By themselves, they sound very harsh and anti-woman.
They derive from the Jewish faith to a great extent. They were all written by St. Paul, who was of course, like Jesus an observant Jew. The fascinating thing about that faith to keep in mind is that women were also given a prominent role in it, not only as mothers and wives, but also on occasion as keepers and defenders of the faith (e.g., Ruth, Esther). And mothers and wives are integral to a functioning society: we can see that the breakdown of the family has been detrimental to the West.
In Christianity, women played an integral role from the start (e.g., the three Marys) and as martyrs and defenders and maintainers of the faith as well. They were not subordinate; they just had their right and proper role to play, as did men. The role of priest was reserved for men perhaps because the first disciples were men. By taking over mens' roles in the church and office and home, women have gained more power but they've lost something more valuable. They are more unhappy and alone now. Many have given up family for careers that in the final analysis didn't matter.
My original comment was on the fact that this has happened in the church as well as the broader society, to the detriment of the church. This happened from the 1960s onward. I was just watching a great TV show on changes in the Catholic Church around the time of Vatican II (Brides of Christ). These women are certainly not without power or "agency" but as nuns (brides of Christ) they recognize their right role within the church.
The good thing about prayer and faith is that it brings everyone to the same level, humbling them before God, bishops and laypeople alike. So a nun's prayers and actions are as important as a priest's, even though the priest appears to have a more prominent role, outwardly.
There is no evidence that women are better able to perceive the "proximity of God".
Nowhere in the Bible is this implied. It only exists in the twisted minds of vagina worshipping dickless men like yourself.
"The mission of the woman in the church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church, not even sacramental power." Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that men think only power in the church matters. Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that this is the genuine role of women. Again, this is more gynocentric female-worship. Although I'm not surprised given Catholics literally bow before a statue of Mary, a mortal woman.
It is clear from the Bible that men take an authoritative position in regards to the Church. This does not mean that women don't matter in the church, but it says what it says. You're attempt to actually turn it into vaginal-worship is nothing more than a desire to placate women and make yourself a "Good Man".
Women have never been the backbone of the church anymore than men have.
Yes, there are female saints, this does not mean women are literally closer to God. Neither does the first witness of the ressurrection being a woman.
Feminism is a female supremacist movement that seeks to crush men underneath it's womanly thumb. Feminism isn't bad because "men and women forgot muh roles". Feminism is bad because it openly advocates for female supremacy.
The early Church was never this patently vaginal worshipping.
What a hateful comment on your part. I was quoting a theologian. You can agree or disagree but to resort to insulting me for sharing the quotation reveals something wrong with your character. Insults don't add to your argument.
Arguing that men and women have different qualities that can benefit the church is not being a "simp" or "dickless." It's actually a statement in support of traditional Christianity, against feminism. It is not valuing women more than men. The fact that you erroneously read that into my statement reveals some sort of pre-existing bias on your part.
You take issue with my statement that women have been the backbone of the church. By that I meant that they made things run: they cleaned, cooked, organized. I am talking about traditional churches. If you go to an Orthodox service today, the men are the priests and deacons and women do the menial work, but are not the less for it. They value their role in doing so. Orthodox Christianity is said to be close to the early church, having preserved many ancient customs and roles. In traditional Protestant and Catholic churches also you will see women doing these things. This does not diminish men at all; it's simply a way of stating the value of the work of women. You misunderstood my statement.
You have misrepresented what I said and brought insults to what was otherwise a civil discussion. That says something more unflattering about you than me in this case.
I'm not prepared to speculate about what God had in mind, but successful religions generally had male priesthoods. Early Christians had female deacons, who were a step below priests, and a splinter group founded by Montanus had female priests, but was considered heretical and died out.
Your arrogant statement of contempt suggests that you think early Christians had female priests. That is not true, although they occasionally had female deacons.
I judge the christain faith on its well documented track record, not on the tenents the "believers" claim they follow. My christian mother had extreme difficulty my views on her faith and other faiths, claiming “you can’t judge a faith by how people follow it, you have to judge a faith by what its teachings [of that faith] say” ~ ironically in the last years of her life, my mother ceased to be a practicing “Christian” and I believe that she in fact didn’t believe in any faith or deity.
The Australian "Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse", like many such other enquires, found that 10% of the clergy (priest, ministers, reverends...) inappropriately dealt with children.
Interestingly, many judges, federal and state, were named to the commission by victims, yet the commission chose to suppressed these names for 50 years so as not to “undermine the people’s faith in the judiciary” … a.k.a. the legal fraternity protects its own but protecting the Ponzi schemes that lawyers and politicians have created in their own image
Look at the appalling number of child graves that have been discovered in “Residential School’s” in Canada to understand the depravity of those who hide behind a Christian label to perpetrate heinous crimes on children… I understand that in excess of 2,500 such graves have been found (so far)
I have lost too many friends and acquaintances to suicide because they were abused by those who hide behind the collar of “their calling” as a vehicle to abuse children, typically they only abused boys (though femo-marxists shrill “but some girls were also abused so it is only about girls”)
Please don’t bring “faith” into a secular discussion ~ it’s just rude.
Please stop lying, then. The accusation of mass child graves at the Residential Schools for Indians is a lie that has been thoroughly debunked. So is the accusation that 10% of Catholic priests were child molesters. Contrast this with today's secular notion that pedophiles should be be called "minor attracted persons," that this is just another form of sexual expression, and that sexual deviations should be presented to prepubescent children through such venues as sexually explicit books and drag-queen story hours.
Interesting Dan, I have observed that 'Native Americans' like most castrated tribes, are completely immeresed in fEMINIST doctrine and blame Patriarchy for their downfall. Another disproven myth: '"Native wo-MEN are being kidnapped" NO MALES, only fe-MALES who look like Gene Simmons. LOL.
I understand your bias against religion, as I shared it at one time but if you re-read my remark it is not to advance a particular faith as much as to demonstrate how the church (among other institutions) has been corrupted by the secular religion of Leftism, and in particular feminism.
I don't think Douglas Murray is a Christian but in his book The Strange Death of Europe he recognizes the importance of that faith within Western civilization and that its usurpation by secularism (and in Western Europe also by Islam) is a major contributing factor in the fall of this one-great civilization. Feminism and other cultural Marxist ideologies have gained hold of the West since the 1970s in large part because the vacuum left by the decline of Judeo-Christianity permitted them to.
Though its merits are undeniable, the Enlightenment faith in reason, advanced by thinkers like Kant, never really gained mass appeal. In the 20th century it was pushed aside by the new faiths of Communism, fascism, consumerism, and Leftism (of which feminism is one branch). In other words, as Judeo-Christianity declined in the West it was not replaced with enlightenment progress; it was replaced with secular faiths of a more malign variety -- those based on collectivism, lacking all forgiveness, and leading to new and totalizing forms of tyranny.
As for the claims of abuse by priests, I have no doubt many are true, but the fact that some Christians have been sinners does not negate the truth-claims of a faith that continues to save the lives of countless people from sin and evil, both within their hearts and in the world. The word sin is from the Greek hamartia, to miss the mark. If we miss the mark, it doesn't negate the value of continuing to aim for it. The failure of Christians only affirms what St. Paul said: "no one is righteous, not one" (Rom. 3:10). Fallen priests do not negate the tenets of faith; their fallenness affirms the weakness of man and the value of turning to a God for strength. I have met many First Nation people who were at residential schools and told me they turned to God in their lives, despite the past, and it helped them recover from alcoholism.
As for the media and government claims regarding residential school, I would suggest reading the True North reports on it. True North is of the last remaining honest publications in Canada not corrupted by the thoroughly dishonest Trudeau government. They did several revealing stories on this, showing that the graves -- if they are graves -- not having been disinterred and thus don't prove anything as yet. If they are graves of children, as speculated, this is due to not being murdered by priests and nuns (as some incredibly believe) but due to the spread of tuberculosis, which killed many white children in the 19th century as well. You can go to many 19th century gravesites in Canada and see numerous markers for children who died of TB. The grave story, pushed by the Canadian media, is incredibly misleading and done for political purposes.
Residential schools, as a whole, were started with good intention, to bring education to native peoples who lived in remote wilderness areas. They could not find enough educators to go to those places so the children were brought to centralized school. They succeed to some extent in the goal of education -- .e.g, former Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and others say that they gave him a valuable education -- but the abuses that occurred at them are also well documented. The way that the media in Canada and the Trudeau government has inflated this story to cast aspersions on Christianity as a whole -and to claim it is a "genocide" -- is deliberately misleading and is part of the Leftists agenda to usurp Christianity and Western values and replace it with Communism. The residential school narrative we hear today is more political propaganda than fact.
In China, Christians are the target of religious persecution by the state, though despite that tens of millions still worship in secret. Christians are persecuted in about 50 nations worldwide by either Communist or Islamic states. Those societies suffer as a result. The anti-Christian bias we see in Canada today is leading to a worse society, to the deliberate China-fication of Canada. It has led to churches being burned down and Trudeau excusing it. In the U.S. recently it led to the murder of Christian children by a deranged killer who was brainwashed into radical trans ideology. There are far more Christian martyrs today than in the first three centuries in Rome when they were fed to the lions, but the media never reports on that (see the website Voice of the Martyrs for those stories).
If you wish to judge the Christian faith on its track record, you'd be remiss not to also acknowledge the great good it done in the world and continues to do. The best of Western civilization's values are really the combination of Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment values. While Christianity may now be decline in the West, it is growing elsewhere and in the process freeing people from spiritual enslavement to Communism and Islamism, in places like China and Nigeria, as well as giving countless numbers hope and joy and meaning in an otherwise bleak world full of evil and suffering. In the West, many Christians, to their credit, oppose abortion and transgender ideology and other forms of Leftist ideology that has overtaken the minds and hearts of so many young people and misled them. Whether you believe in it or not, its power to challenge these malign ideologies is without parallel.
I judge religions by the actions committed by the faithful of that religion, not just by the good that may have been done in its name, but also the hate, harm and atrocities committed in its name.
IMO, the “good” done in the name of a religion doesn’t begin to compensate for the for the crimes and atrocities done in the name of that religion.
I’ve lost too many friends and acquaintances because they were raped by clergy when children. I’ve witnessed faiths holding together many immigrant communities and I’ve witnessed faiths shattering immigrant communities.
Anti-religious people gave us Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il & son, etc. The "enlightened" century was the most brutal century in history.
Child abuse by clergy is WAY OVERBLOWN, like sexual assault/rape/ 'claims' are as well. Only 5% of rape 'claims' involve force...that means 95% of rape 'claims' are based on alcohol, regret sex, and other esoteric nonsense. Even Dr. Helen smith says only 5% of MEN rape. I believe less than 2% of rapes are true, including by clergy. In fact I beleive MOST so called childhood victims of clergy are homosexuals looking for attention & $money
Great piece Janice. Clear and well said. I know what you mean when you said in the comments that there is more to say. Indeed.
As I was reading this I remembered back to the 70's and 80's when men's spaces were starting to be dismantled. I clearly remember thinking at the time that it was the right thing to do. Not even a stray thought of it being hurtful to men. Man, brainwashing is powerful! lol
At the end of the day, it is about being honest and true to ourselves (an invariably /frequently painful growing experiance), of attempting to be in reality who we believe we are, as well as living up to our own expectations of “who we are” and to how others (those whom we value their good opinion of us) perceive us to be; attributes that are disparaged and denigrated in the current woke femo-marxist zeitgeist.
Well, when you are told only half of the story and when an opposing angle is forbidden that sounds like brainwashing to me. Janice has taught so well hat the early feminists and the later ones too were hateful towards men. Due to gynocentrism we couldn't see it but the implicit biases are coming home to roost. There's been some excellent recent research on this.
Many men saw it at the time. We were mostly guilt tripped out of seeing it in the '70s, when Marxists took over the more individualists and more legitimate Women's Movement. The word "feminism" is a socialist term, and most women opposed female suffrage because they associated it with free-love, anti-family, socialist feminists.
There is a difference between any gathering that includes both sexes or only men. As a man I like a bit of both. I am a member of a male only club created in the 19th century that last year voted overwhelmingly to retain the male only rule. It's a space where men can gather and talk without the inevitable sexual distraction of women.
Both boys and girls need separate rituals helping them into man and womanhood. Boys need to go out into nature and girls need to learn how to appreciate men and masculinity and avoid becoming a feminist.
We also need rituals that bring us (male /female / anyone) together to support each other; strong societies and cultures does this. Woke femo-marxist cultures only know how to destroy because they are envious of the success of others. Instead of trying to raise themselves up to the level of those who surpassed them due to aptitude, application and luck, they instead seek to tear it down based on the narcissistic MO “If I can’t do what they do (because I’m too F**king lazy to learn), then they shouldn’t be allowed to do what I can’t” ~ this is one of the foundational tenants of militant modern feminists and their woke drones. It’s behind the “cancellation” of many very smart women who refuse to “buy-into” the femo-marxist narrative.
Where do we go from here? Pandora's box really has been opened in this regard. Even myself, as a socially conservative Christian, gets nervous at the thought of an undiscerning, knee-jerk pendulum swing.
I see traditional gender roles and spheres as worthy of personal, sacrificial pursuit and societal honour but I also don't desire a world where everone is automatically sorted into rigid boxes either because the people who enjoy doing the enforcing are generally the least wise and discerning of us all.
Even in conservative church circles, where one might still see traditional gender roles functioning in the wild, there is a very great difference between men who are spirit-led servant-leaders of their families and those who are merely operating from an external template. The one I trust, the other not so much.
“Now, after years of forced accommodation to feminine norms and requirements, men are expected to rise up in defense of female spaces—allegedly against a renewed patriarchy.” If anyone has been following the Riley Gaines fiasco at SFU, it appears that real men may, once again, have to do what only real men have been called on to do since time immemorial…protect real women.
…except, this time the ‘renewed patriarchy’ is men pretending to be women attacking real women for saying men can’t be women!!! This would be funny if it wasn’t so serious!
I wish I had thought about this on my own but I didn’t. Anyway thinking about not just how serious it already is but how serious it could get, the sudden, drastic turn to violence is probably the trannies version of kicking the dog till it bites. What does that mean in real life? These mentally ill hordes are looking for their own George Floyd moment and the more they act out and batter real women, the more likely it is that they’re going to get it. If the media can turn a feral animal like George Floyd into Saint George Floyd think of what they could do with a martyred feminized male like dylan mulvaney.
Sad that it has come to this... feminism from its toxic inception has always attempted to "kicking the dog till it bites" and when those who don't support their divisive hate speech, they shrill “patriarchy”, “misogyny” and spruik more misandristic slogans and feminist doggerels.
As someone who has gone into harm’s way in the past to protect women ~ NAH, I'll look the other way and keep on walking. Why? you may ask. Because feminism is culpable for the suicide death of my daughter and the deportation of my 4 sons from Australia by a corrupt family court judge. My sons were all born in, raised in, schooled in, Australian citizens (by birth) and were Habitual Residents (as defined by the Hague Convention) of AU when deport; this faecal matter, this bench bit*h (that was subsequently kicked off the bench with grounds) claimed in his reasons for making orders that effective deported my children from AU, that the 18 months the mother had Internationally Abducted and Wrongfully Retained our children in Germany meant more than their birth-right and the time they spent growing up in Australia or the 32 months they lived in AU after the Hague Convention Return Orders compelled my ex to return our children to AU.
This *(&(*&^$#%#$@^#@$R woman is now seeking to have the AU family court orders annulled, because this would require her to spend AUD $15K+++ on airline tickets, and if the AU orders are annulled, she can then apply to the German courts for child support as calculated in Germany; which (given that she has provided false information to German child support) is calculated to be an order magnitude higher than I am currently paying based on my income in AU…. Meanwhile she is enmeshing, aligning and alienating our children for a loving, caring and devoted father; “all in her narcissistic best interests”. The German judge and ICL have made it clear in their rep[orts that they do not believe a mother would be so mercenary as to weaponize children so as not to comply with AU family court orders; orders that can be demonstrated that she obtained due to not just her, but the judge and ICL lying.
Yeah, AU family courts are “not fit for purpose” as required by our Cth Constitution and Cth laws.
NAH, I chose to walk away when SES (State Emergency Services) kept on spruiking "white ribbon", and various other toxic feminist "for profit organisations” that spruiked that only men were perpetrators (of dv) and shrilling various feminist “initiatives” that bashed men. Any organisation that endorses the abuse of the preponderance of its members based on their gender, doesn’t deserve my support or respect.
I am one of an increasing number of men who will not go into harms way to protect privileged whiny women and their woke drones.
I used to intervene to protect women (even at grave risk to myself), now I walk past without interceding and think “how much abuse has she inflicted upon him for him to inappropriately react ~ obviously she deserved this (this is channelling the abuse I have endured in our corrupt family court, dv court and the AGs office). Quote “If you hadn’t done something wrong, she wouldn’t have done what she did (Internationally Abduct our children twice)
Apr 8, 2023·edited Apr 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
This article will be helpful background history when having soc media discussions about transwomen entering women's spaces. It shows women's thirst for entering and destroying male spaces - which also included sporting clubs, pool halls, male only saloons, wilderness retreats, recreational activities, workplaces, bathrooms etc. And now they are trying to stop men entering their spaces, and asking men to care? I think we can all understand the reason for men's apathy about loss of exclusively female spaces.
I know you've seen this anecdote Janice, but will add it for the benefit of readers who haven't: Feminist professor Judith Lorber wrote, in 1994, that she and her friends had "liberated" many male-only bathrooms by walking in and using them, and she lamented that one woman was arrested for doing so.
… “male only bathrooms” LOL! (Speaking professionally as an Architect)
You do realise that there are various urinals designed specifically for females to use? They are narrower and project further from the wall than those that are designed for males, but just as functional. Few nightclubs or venues install these. Female patrons will que for amazing lengths of time, just to get a WC stall.
My daughter was taught by her mother to stand up and urinate… she splashed her shoes a lot less often than my sons did! It is more about social conditioning /bias than it is about gendered anatomy.
About 15 years ago, in an Architect’s office, I tasked a "recent graduate" to design an amenities area in a building which was for the use (segregated) of males and females. Half a day later she immerged from internet searches knowing more about “urinal etiquette”, “risqué toilet hook-ups” and outright pornographic imagery than any recently fledged Arch Grad should be exposed to… and, because she hadn’t learnt the fine art of designing toilets (including consideration of door swings) I had to stay late and redesign the whole thing (a.k.a. doing damage control) to fix her stuff-up.
For the sake of clarity, the reference to "male only bathrooms" refers to the sex of the people designated for using them, and not to the feminine or masculine contours of urinal shape (lol).
As for the anecdote about your daughter's prowess in the art of standing, low-drip urination.... well, power to her! They might make it an Olympic sport one day.
Narcissism seems to be the driver for women entering into male spaces. We used to continually hear that somebody or another was "the first woman to" enter some place or another, complete with photograph of a woman beaming with pride at entering a previously-male arena and thus drawing a great deal of attention to herself. At my boy's school in the 1980s, the first girl to enter was this extraordinary person who drenched herself in perfume to the extent that it was clear where she had walked even several minutes after her passage.
It's obvious to everyone except feminists that the transgender movement and the bizarre behaviour of people like Dylan Mulvaney is an impersonation of the obsessive entry into male spaces by women, a way of grabbing attention fed mostly by narcissism.
There have been many outstanding women who excelled at their jobs and who didn't ask for accolades for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.
Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson et al are cases in point.
These women were "intruding" into NASA’s male only space (maths), but they sure as hell, "got the job done"!
Without these amazing women, the Apollo missions would not have been possible (I was aware of this decades before “Hidden Figures” movie was released). In their lifetimes, these women didn’t get the accolades they genuinely deserved for their outstanding achievements; this was because of their gender, race and ethnicity.
Imagine if we celebrated the strengths of others (which, if we were truthful to ourselves, we would in all probability (however reluctantly) admit that we were incapable of) instead of applying the "human default" of "tearing them down to our level"… where we, the “human race”, would now be poised to ...
As a parent and (amateur) educator, encouraging our children and students to surpass us, and that they succeed in doing so, is the mark of a parent /teacher who is prepared to accept that our children /our students can and should be better than us, for in this progression of knowledge, we grow our civilisation to more profound understandings that benefits all.
Being a realist, this ain’t going to happen, but as an eternal optimist “why not”
I wish you every success with your amateur education.
The women you mention were actually doing a job, numerical calculation, which was at the time considered to be something akin to a secretarial role, a job which was largely done by women rather than men. They weren't entering a male-dominated space at all.
But the topic under discussion here isn't women entering a "male-dominated" profession. It's about women entering into exclusively male spaces, such as men's changing rooms, or organisations which were exclusively male, like the Boy Scouts, or schools which had been boys' schools. The context here is so-called trans women entering women's changing rooms or women's sports and so on.
The initial impulse of feminism was to think that they were fighting against injustice or unfairness of some kind or another. Obviously there was initially injustice and unfairness, but after most of the actual problems were solved, it morphed into narcissism and attention-seeking on the part of women, endlessly looking for male-only spaces and trying to enter them for no other reason than to "be the first woman to...". Then feminism even insisted on putting complete fantasies such as all these movies where tiny little women defeat men in hand-to-hand fights, or giving the Oscar for best director to a hopeless, boring film like The Hurt Locker, or so many other cases of mediocre women being pushed ahead of men.
The unexpected consequence of this has been that male narcissists like Dylan Mulvaney and Lia Thomas have seized the opportunity presented by feminists' distortions of reality.
There was a discussion on Twitter between JK Rowling and Matt Walsh where Matt Walsh was trying to spell out to JK Rowling that feminism was directly responsible for all of the things that she was complaining about, and JK Rowling simply couldn't process it, which I think is worth looking at if you're interested in thinking about this more.
This clip from a TV series called "Ultimate Force", and the preceding part of the show where the woman enters the service, provides quite a good illustration of what I tried to describe above. A woman has entered a branch of the armed forces called the SAS. At the end of the episode, after having defeated some terrorists, she strips naked and enters the shower with the men, then, despite her small physique, she punches one of the men for making a joke about the situation, resulting in him toppling to the floor of the shower, bleeding.
Feminism lost it in the early 80s. There was a good development on the coattails of second wave with the safehouses and abusive men having to deal with the consequences of their abuse instead of wink wink, nudge nudge. But even then, the
"slut walks," constant emphasis on rape, lesbian separatism, and bias against more traditional women began to lose a lot of women, and it just got insane later on.
I can't date when feminism as a whole lost it, but as a child in the 1970s I already had to deal with a feminist who'd clearly "lost it". As a small child, I had to deal with a mother who would read feminist books like "The Feminine Mystique" then work herself into a frothing, screaming rage against me due to my "sexist attitudes". Sometimes she would scream at me or my sister so hard that her face would turn bright red.
Janice Fiamengo, our esteemed OP, had some interesting videos on feminist claims about rape, on the old "Fiamengo File" video series. Unfortunately the old channel was blanket-deleted by Youtube about two years ago, and the videos still haven't been restored as far as I know. I hope Janice or Steve Brule will find a way to restore the content either in text or video form.
If you want to discuss that you're welcome to email me. I don't have the necessary qualifications to diagnose a personality disorder. Friedan's book is not on my reading list at the moment.
The point I want to make I suppose is that the sort of thinking that all the problems in the world are due to insufficient feminism, and if only we had more feminism then things would improve endlessly, is nonsense, and the end result of the current excess of feminist thinking and its concurrent narcissism has been Dylan Mulvaney and Lia Thomas.
Maybe the fucking 1880s. That's pushing it though. It was bad from the start.
You're not even making an effort to be factual. Sad.
There was no good development on the coattails of second wave.
Safehouses don't have anything to do with feminism, and safehouses never had any public pushback. Erin Pizzey is not a feminist and never was.
Abusive men have always had to deal with the consequences of their abuse.
Before DV shelters, the men of a community would take a wifebeater out of his house and beat him to fuck. Abusive men have never been given winks and nudges. Prohibition was passed in large part because women convinced the general public that it made men beat up their wives.
Feminists had been fear mongering about rape ever since the movement began. Lesbian separatism had been a thing ever since the movement began. There had been bias against traditional women ever since the movement began. Early feminists literally wanted to dissolve the instiution of marriage because it "subjugated" women.
It got insane in 1848. It just got mainstream later on. Neurotic and emotionally suggestible women like you fell for it hook line and sinker.
Excellent. I agree 100%. In these new gender (ideology) wars I am firmly on the side of women, but I am absolutely aware of the hypocrisy of the feminist movement, and that in the end, they are reaping the whirlwind they unleased. And I remain mad as hell that the Boy Scouts have been co-opted, and yet the Girl Guides (in Canada) remains proudly single-sex. Its is ridiculous.
Excellent blog, as always, Janice. One of the key issues here is that feminists not only seek to change men's spaces but, when they do, to impose their rules about appropriate behaviour in these spaces. When small numbers of women first entered the armed forces, or started work in traditional male industries, or demanded entry to service clubs like Rotary, no longer were soldiers or factory workers allowed pictures of sexy girls pinned up on wall, or bawdy jokes, or locker room talk. This noisy group of activities have demanded to control male behaviour that even in places men were once free to be themselves. In Australia, men started the Men's Shed organisation specifically to allow men to support each other and here too women are now demanding access and then control over how people behave. Feminists are such a menace, and it is shameful we have allowed them to take over so much of our societies.
Women seem biologically programmed to want anything of value that men have, and to have it on their terms. Men seem biologically programmed to give women whatever they want to keep them happy. All humans have the capacity to rise above their biological programming, but many fail to recognise it, or lack the integrity to challenge it. In the past, women had the decency not to demand everything of value, but decency went out the window with the pandemic of collective female narcissism that is feminism.
I think this precisely the reason why religion matters. I've never been religious, but I'm having second thoughts about it.
LOL! Second thoughts about religion? I've been a devote aetheist for my whole life, not changing just because I'm closer to shuffling of this mortal coil all too soon
Atheism is itself a religion. The common attribute of atheists, in my experience, is insufferable hubris (that and the childish need to tell everyone you're an atheist). While I admire your faith in the face of impending mortality, I've never found atheism adequate in terms of providing a set of values to live by. I'm a molecular biologist by training, and I know what it is like to die (although I didn't quite get there, obviously!), but neither of those experiences gave me any reason to embrace atheism.
ROTFLMAO ~ spoken like a theist!!!
Atheism is NOT a religion, never was, never will be.
Stop projecting your facile fears and beliefs in sky monkeys on to others.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities... and this offends you because someone can see through the charade of your thread-bare toxic faith and you are too shallow to question your learnt beliefs that give meaning to your inconsequential life.
Evidently I hit a raw nerve! Atheism is a religion that substitutes man for god. It leads only to moral relativism and narcissism (who is to say what is good and bad, right or wrong?). I'm actually agnostic but with a leaning towards theism because of the incapacity of atheists to articulate an adequate alternative. Hurling petulant insults at any and all gods ('sky monkeys') is your choice. It doesn't bother me because I'm not responsible for your actions and don't care for your empty words. However, for somone who claims to be nearing death, and who has only his faith in there being no god to rely on, isn't it a bit foolish to be insulting any and all possible gods? Age has never been a barrier to foolishness, but even a cursory reflection on your existence and contemporary cosmology should have taught you that.
If my life is inconsequential, then by your own logic your life is inconsequential. Why then are you so angry that other people might believe in god(s)? It seems to me that you are a moral busybody who lacks a foundation for his morality.
If atheism is not a religion, why do you sound like the most dogmatic person in the conversation? You seem to be infected with arrogant contempt for those who do not see things as you see them.
If you don't take religion as the Word of God, it is still the Wisdom of the Ages. Your dogma seems to be that this wisdom is inferior to whatever has popped into your head.
BINGO! Unfortunately there's a difference between religion and actual adherence to Gods order. Many people are turned off by religion because it's a buisness. Jesus himself said that most religious people are disingenuous.
If I recall correctly, many of Jesus' harshest criticisms were directed at the scribes and Pharisees on account of their hypocrisy. The same criticism could be levelled at many religious leaders today.
What I do find remarkable is that after 2,000 years of intense scrutiny, Jesus seemingly remains above reproach and as relevant now as he was then. Many people reject the idea that he is divine, but are there any legitimate grounds for criticising Jesus the man? It's not like he avoided controversy or is above criticism (perhaps he loses a mark for the lack of gender diversity in his choice of disciples?!). I'd compare Jesus with Mohammed but I'm fond of my head and don't fancy losing it right now. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam won't need my comparison anyway.
LOL... Jesus said ??? If the myths are to be believed, this individual (who didn't get a mention in the Roman texts of the time) riled against the "money lenders" and hung out with male and female prostitutes...
If, as you said elsewhere in this thread, atheism is not a religion, what the heck is a devoted atheist? What are you devoted to? Yourself? Sounds like the religion of narcissism.
Warped sense of humour. I always get someone to bit if I discribe myself as a "devout" or "devoted" atheist.
Yet it's more than a joke. You are very strident in your anti-religious dogmatism.
That's fine, but civilisation do go through cycles: they stop being religious and eventually, after the collapse, they go back to being religious or be conquered by a more religious group. Your individualism doesn't matter. Oh, wait! You'll be dead by then.
Hi Bettina,
I recall, some time ago, you made a short video where you visited Men's Sheds in Australia. You weren't too impressed that some of the men wanted to open them up to women. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas. Do you remember how long ago that video was? What's the situation today with these sheds?
Thanks for all your work. You do it with such humour - and forebearance.
Virtue signaling "men" are trying to get some. They won't admit it, but that is the case.
A comment here reminded me of thoughts I had during one of the media spats about changing rooms in shops. One very good reason for all male spaces is protection for the men themselves. For in toilets, changing, locker and other rooms where there may be the possibility of being at least partially undressed. If "mixed" , men are at risk of being accused of some sort of sexual harassment. Specially where a woman may see a naked penis but also where underwear is worn. The "cases" for getting males out of changing rooms all essentially were based on a woman seeing something she regarded as bad. Non of it was criminal, no one suggested people should not be looking. So generally the real risk is to men should their state of undress be interpreted as somehow sexual, and as we know the proponents of "Rape culture" cast their net very wide as to what is included.
As a rule women will demand complete control over etiquette, decor AND catering. I've been watching this since the sixties.
"In Australia, men started the Men's Shed organisation specifically to allow men to support each other"
Correct. Part of the motivation was therapeutic and a response to high rates of suicide among retired men. In the broader scheme of things boys and men have been denied the very spaces in which they are best able to deal with stress and trauma. It has been a contributing factor in spiraling suicide rates and for a very long time. To make it worse actual male victims have been or continue to be excluded from the mental health services which are available and our family law systems appear to be designed to drive men to suicide.
I've been chafing at this injustice for more or less my entire life, and have always felt it to be distasteful. To be honest, seeing women's spaces getting invaded by trans-women, and the resulting leftist autophagy between the TERFs and autogynophiles, has been quite delightful.
I suppose the chivalrous thing to do would be to oppose this and rise to the defense of women's spaces, but chivalry was one of the first norms to be put to the sword by feminism.
Perhaps women will reconsider their role in the Longhouse in light of the trans invasion. If a plurality of them start listening to you, and shaming the sisterhood into backing off, then perhaps we can restore some balance and sanity.
Same. Conservatives are saying "save women's sports." You can't save women's sports and have feminism. Feminism ultimately leads to a big, hairy dude in a dress using the ladies room.
Exactly. "Save Eomen's X" is completely incoherent in the context of generations of systematic invasion and disruption of Men's X.
Can we have men's clubs again? How about male only schools? Workplaces? Professions? No?
Enjoy your trannies I guess.
Hilarious!!!~ But absolutely True!~
Women's sports are themselves a cargo cult imitation of men's sports.
It is going to require women to desire societal survival over individual accomplishment, women with vision and sacrificial nerve. Not a well cultivated trait and one I do not expect to see much of except there be a spiritual revival in our land. Deo Volente.
When ever I hear feminists wailing about the envision of "their' space by trans activist, I'm ROTFLMAO; apparently there is Karmic Justice :-)
Realy?! Shaming the sisterhood? Isn't that what the sisterhood did to you? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Love this article. I was a second wave feminist, and saw this unfolding. Also knew how in tribal societies men and women were by choice very separate some of the time, and things worked very well. We had a reason to be angry at men. But a lot of women made a religion out of it, instead of something to work through. And the dogmatic aspects did not get better. They increased after Andrea Dworkin and her ilk got ahold of the movement. Gadz. What a mess.
'We had a reason to be angry at men.'
You had no reason at all; you were just furious because you thought we were having more fun than you and had more privileges. You're learning that you were wrong.
See what I mean? Thank you for the illustration.
"We had a reason to be angry at men."
No, you didn't, it is just an excuse for being abusive. I can find many reasons to be angry about a lot of things, but that does not excuse bad behaviour or treating another person poorly.
Yes, we did. That is not, as you say, an excuse for being abusive.
so using your criteria, why can't men be angry with women, many have good reason to be.
We can all see what you meant and I doubt that many are fooled. Women were complaining about nothing just to complain about men, as women are wont to do. Good try though.
Pissing on your shoes again? That can't be pleasant... LOL
One thing I've learned about women through my lifetime is they will always expose themselves eventually, and I'm not talking about taking their clothes off.
You just exposed yourself as an abject hypocrite.
Why are you here?
Not at all; nature gave me what it didn't give you, the means to piss without spoiling my shoes, and with it came reason and accountability. You don't know what you're missing, but you do know that you can't piss and miss your shoes without using a device made by men.
I am disinclined to bandy brickbats with mad women so this thread is ended as far as I am concerned. You bat away though if you wish.
Yes, shaming the sisterhood for their shameful, generations-long, assault on men. Note that I'm not suggesting that men do this - it's not in our power to do, frankly. I mean quite specifically that women need to start shaming women for their terrible, dyscivilizational behavior.
I see shaming as manipulative behavior. Same for guilt-tripping. What is needed is for women and men to recognize that we both need separate spaces, and make these spaces possible and available. I can say, as a woman (but no longer a feminist) that I am wholeheartedly for it.
Oh and by the way, are you planning to start shaming men for their centuries (millennia) long assault on women? Putting us down as vessels of iniquity, denying us education and property ownership, and abusing us "because you can" as the generally stronger sex?
>no longer a feminist
>centuries (millennia) long assault on women? Putting us down as vessels of iniquity, denying us education and property ownership, and abusing us "because you can" as the generally stronger sex?
You're still a feminist.
Shame works. That's why cultures use it. Undesirable behaviors are stigmatized as low status, and female social instinct leads to them policing society to discourage those behaviors.
erin sounds like she hit the wall
Haha. Main thing is, you know better than I what I am, eh? Righto...
Shame works on the easily manipulable. Not on the real personality disordered.
Yeah, undesirable behaviors need to have consequences for the perpetrator. I agree.
You seem to possess an animus towards men for supposed mistreatment of women through history, while leaving out the countervailing perspective that the patriarchal institutions and customs that prevailed before the sexual revolution were in place to protect women from the worst impulses of men, while also protecting men - and society - from the worst impulses of women.
Now, perhaps I read too much in there, and you are fully aware of the other side of the story. If so, chalk that up to oversensitivity brought on by a lifetime of lectures about how evil men are, in the context of an ongoing justification for a social order in which men live in male purdah. That you react so strongly to the suggestion that women should shame other women for their bad behavior, and immediately tried to shift the topic from the actual, current oppression to the historical oppression of the current oppressors, suggested to me that your views are still informed by the feminist hegemony that we all live in.
Nope! Men are not going to apologise and shame other men because what you claim had never existed in the first place. You're the trying guilt tripping men for, not they didn't do, but didn't exist throughout history.
What you said is instantiate of a feminist mindset.
Stay blind, then. Shrug.
How ironic of you. Janice has already put out a wealth of information, both in video and article debunking delusions. The best you can do is shame people who points to the contrary, a very typical feminist tactic.
Reading your posts about your fears and anxieties demonstrates just how thoroughly you have been indoctrinated.
Janice Fiamengo gave many examples of how she was indoctrinated, for example, certain information was never taught and withheld.
Typical female — manipulative and misandric as ever while proclaiming she's just the opposite. The idea that men were better off at any point in history is a myth constructed by women. Once a full accounting is done of all rights, privileges, and immunities, along with all obligations, duties, and liabilities throughout history, the myth of historical female oppression is exposed for the total lie that it is. Women are mentally incapable of doing this kind of full accounting, so try reading a book about it written by a man: "The Privileged Sex" by Martin Van Creveld or "The Fraud of Feminsim" by Belfort Bax.
Now, are you going apologize for putting men down as vessels of iniquity, denying them due process and property ownership, and abusing us "because it's just" as the physically weaker sex?
erin sounds like she hit the wall
As some wise man said in the past:
"Life is short. Don't be a dick."
As I've said in the past:
"Life is too long to let women act like cunts."
Try not parroting feminist lies. Learn how to check your own facts.
You don't be a cunt? Deal?
Erin' 'centuries of oppression' then why did the mines and collieries act remove women and children from working in the mines? The Factories act gave women a 8 hour working day, not the men? So how can this be oppression?
Maybe because there were pregnant women crawling through the mines all day? I am told Orwell described some of that in the Road to Wigan Pier.
Both sexes should have gotten an 8 hour day, of course. And eventually did. So what's your point? "Centuries of oppression" can't be right because one law at one time prioritized women in the mines?
Firstly the concept of "centuries of oppression" is still a furphy. For a number of reasons. We are judging the past by today's standards. Secondly, all societies have rules and boundaries on what people can or cannot do. What is acceptable behaviour, and people interpose this with oppression? By today's values and standards, much of the past looks to be oppressive for both genders. So it is a red herring to say that only the female gender was oppressed. People who support this concept are basically saying only women can be victims and my victimhood is greater than yours.
Beyond the wall erin?
Have you heard of Belford Bax?
If women were oppressed then why were husbands gaoled for the debts of their wives?
Research shows that on the rare occasion when women were convicted of a crime, they received much more lenient sentences than men who were convicted of similar crimes.
Erin
"men for their centuries (millennia) long assault on women?"
That is a huge furphy.
Have a look at the website gynocentrism.com.
Both are true.
No, men persecuting women is an outright feminist lie. Men routinely sacrificed themselves and other men to protect women. That's as it should be, and that's how it is. I'm just tired of feminists lying about it.
"I see shaming as manipulative behavior" and yet you vilify asnd shame those who don't agree with you. Are you a "closet feminist still"? Or just angry at mnen in general?
Erin "Putting us down as vessels of iniquity, denying us education and property ownership, and abusing us "because you can" as the generally stronger sex?"
You have well and truly been indoctrinated. The above is highly emotive and not based on historical facts. Upper-class women were far better educated than illiterate men working at life-threatening menial tasks. The working classes of both genders were denied an education. As to property that is another furphy.
Says a master manipulatress.
You're STILL a fEMINIST and full of shit as well...When wo-MEN have to get drafted, and be forced to support a non nuclear family,,,until then Take your PENIS ENVY some where else TROLL...
"Realy?! Shaming the sisterhood? Isn't that what the sisterhood did to you? Two wrongs don't make a right."
Feminists were responsible for decades of exclusion from mental health services experienced by male victims of child sexual abuse in Australia. Through recent royal commissions we've learned that thousands of them have committed suicide, many of which could have been avoided had they been able to get the help they needed.
Feminists and feminism will never cleanse that blood from their hands. Putrid ideology.
You're fuckin stupid.
No, you didn't have a reason to be angry at men.
And Andrea Dworkin? Really?
No mention of Simone De Beauvoir?
Susan BrownMiller?
You reallly are an uneducated hag.
This is gold, Janice. The gross hypocrisy of our times must come to the fore of public discourse, now that the circle is complete with the current "trans" circus. I will cross-post this to my own (fledgling) substack as well as mention it where I can in comments to other stackers' posts.
Thank you very much. There is so much more to say, too!
Well, please keep on saying it!
The most hypocritical aspect of the trans circus is the fact that there is and has always been a far more serious human rights crisis regarding genital mutilation. Boys are already widely mutilated for the sake of being sexually manipulated and controlled. Most mothers in the US prefer to circumcise their baby boys, primarily for cosmetic reasons. She does it to make him more sexually appealing to herself, and so he'll be more 'acceptable' to other women when he grows up. So the majority of boys are already sexually tortured, permanently mutilated, and made into sexual exhibitions by their own mothers for the sake of satiating women's fetishes. All of this child sexual grooming and sex transitioning is just circumcision 2.0. Circumcision removes 50% of penile skin, sexual transition removes 100%. Anyone that condemns child sex transitioning without equally condemning male child circumcision is a total hypocrite. So far, I've only seen MGTOWs and a few MRAs acknowledge this.
Good point. I do know that many parents rejected the barbaric practice back in the hippy days.
But this did start out as a religious ritual and had nothing to do with mothers' fetishes so I'm not with you on that part of it. What are MRAs by the way?
Nope. It started in the US as a sexually puritanical way to keep boys from masturbating in the early 1900s, which stemmed from women's Victorian Era vilification of male sexuality. After the puritanism died off, it kept going because being intact as a man/boy was framed by women as being sexually abnormal and disgusting. A ridiculous number of mothers are borderline pedophiles because they'll say disgusting and creepy things like "I want my son to look like his father" or "I don't want him to be a freak" or "he'll be hygienically dirty if he's not circumcised." And mothers have had a monopoly on early child healthcare since the late 1800s so they were able to normalize this heinous misandry.
MRAs are men's rights activists.
Thanks for explaining the acronym.
But you reveal a shocking ignorance of history. Circumcision is an ancient rite of Judaism (later adopted as an Islamic practice). And while gentiles were not required to circumcise their sons, it was widely done anyway, all the way to present times.
Your blanket demonization of mothers is unjustified and disturbing. Not to mention it was men who "took over" medicine and childbirth (from midwives) in the 1800s, with more often than not, disastrous consequences.
"Circumcision is an ancient rite of Judaism"
Prior to this it was the means by which the ancient Egyptians branded their male slaves.
Interesting!
We both know that we are referring to the phenomena of infant male circumcision gaining the status of a common cultural custom in the US, not some rite of a small religious minority. And I'm holding mothers to account for something that they have always been granted the most power in deciding. With authority comes responsibility; with responsibility comes accountability.
That "common cultural custom" is in no way isolated from thousands of years of history behind it, and of which Jews and Muslims are not a "small religious minority." I'm sure many parents these days are opting out of the horrid custom.
I am reminded of an old saying “do unto others, before they do unto you”, which the feminist took to mean “do unto men, because you imagined they’d do unto you… ”. Yet now when their own tactics are being prosecuted with prejudice against them, they revert to type; whiny shrills we’ve always known them to be.
Another bravura analysis, I must say. Of course, I say so because it agrees with what I have been thinking and saying for years, brought into sharper focus by the transsexual mania of late. In sum, it always struck me as the height of arrogance for women to demand entrance into traditionally all-male spaces and activities, then to demand that men stand up for them when they faced competition from the not-men who suddenly appeared on the scene. I just can't drum up a whole lot of sympathy for their plight . To be sure, Ms. Gaines, the swimmer who was absolutely jobbed out of her rightful place on the top of the podium by the ersatz female, "Lia" Thomas (who, it must be emphasized, is reputed to have retained his male sexual organs, and displayed them in the girl's locker room) does deserve our support, particularly since she has been physically attacked by some prime specimens of the new "transgender" phylum. But she is ultimately the victim of radical feminism, to be sure. When one talks constantly of "equal rights for women," without taking into account the differences between men and women, it is like using a battering ram to open the cupboard door. Women who demand elimination of "separate but equal" accommodations to compete with men in academia, business, and other arenas really have no right to complain when their "separate but equal" sports endeavors are taken over by "transwomen."
So agree. I feel for women pushed off medal podiums or made uncomfortable in changing rooms, but I am deeply angered by women who have never given a single sympathetic thought to men's points of view on related matters.
The women being "pushed off medal podiums" are only on the podiums because they are reserved for them. Female athletes have traditionally been shielded from competion with male athletes, which is a form of privilege.
Abolish sex-seggregated elite sport and you would eliminate the controversy surrounding transgender athletes. Everyone could compete according to their merits.
Those who want or need to be shielded from open competion by virtue of age, sex, gender, height, weight, disability, etc (objective, pertinent and justifiable criteria) should be permitted to do so, but any claims to being an elite sport should also be suitably qualified.
The hypocrisy imbedded in most female-only sport is that it demands equal status to male-only sport when it is in fact a 'sheltered workshop'.
Segregated change rooms is a cultural issue, which could be addressed over the long-term by having male-only, female-only and unisex facilities to cater for every preference, or no segregation at all (it doesn't bother the Swedes in their saunas). However, the latter approach would be incompatible with respect for diversity.
Agreed. However I would go as far to suggest that wo-MEN'S sport is a form of androgyny in it's own right. It is a known fact that fe-MALE athletes lose their periods. MANY have 'wives' Like tattoos, I feel that sports are un lady like
"𝘍𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦". WTF? ~ In the top 19 of 20 Western World countries (data wasn't available for Russia when I searched a couple of months ago), within +/- 2%, men were 20% heavier and taller than women, which in sports, creates a very significant advantage for male competitors.
There are very few sports (and I confine myself to Olympic events that may or may not be run at any Olympics) where women can compete equally with men in events that male physical strengths wouldn’t dominate the female athletes. These are equestrian events (Dressage, 3 Day Eventing & Show Jumping) which if I remember correctly, were the first Olympic events that dispensed with ride based gender of male /female /mixed formats (imagine if it was then subdivided on the gender of the horse ~ stallion, mare and gelding) and adopted single events for riders of any gender (I wouldn’t be surprised if the trans community comes out claiming that this disadvantages a microcosm of the riding community who identify as a letter(s) of the alphabet).
At the next Olympics, Paris 2024, 470’s (2 person dingy’s) will feature “mixed crews” 470’s (though it is ironically that until 1988, Olympic sailing was a “non-gender neutral” sport where males and females competed together, this was changed due to “women can’t compete equally as men) and various “mixed events” such as tennis, badminton, luge, ice skating... Recurved archery and various “shooting” (pistol, rifle, shotgun) events could be non-gendered, but currently these are individual, team and mixed-team events.
Maybe Free-Style Skiing, Figure Skating, Skateboarding, “Artistic Swimming” (ROTFLMAO… synchronised drowning) and other occasional events could be “non-gendered”. Interestingly, at 2024 Olympics “Breaking” will debut.
There arer sports where women can compete equally with men, but this is a limited number of sports.
Opps, I forgot to mention "lawn bowls", but is this really a sport?
Yes, men have a significant advantage over women in many sports because of their relative size and strength. No doubt there are fields in which women excel due to their relative size, flexibility, dexterity, etc (e.g. certain gymnastic events, such as the balance beam). Not all men are big and strong, and those who aren't don't usually get shielded from competition from those that are (there are some notable exceptions, such as the different weight divisions in boxing). Japanese men still compete at the elite level in Rugby Union despite being significantly shorter and lighter than their opponents.
Women expect special privileges when it suits them, but men are afforded no such consideration, even when they are at a disadvantage.
In answer to your question, I think lawn bowls deserves recognition as a sport ahead of synchronised drowning!
And then there are Figians and Samoans (Jonah Lomu being a case in point ~ I loved his side-step) competting in rugby union...
On average men are 20% bigger (weight & height) than women; apprently, this invalidates any concession that they might be "entitled" to (according to feminist).
As for your last sentence LOL ~ totally agree! Those ovoid balls (that owe their origin to stair balustrades) aren't as precise as other forms of "bowled ball" sports ~ speaking from experiance
YES! NO ONE seems to care that girls invade BOYS sports when BOYS are pre pubescent, and smaller & less developed than the girls are at that age!
Since wo-MEN have infiltrated the police, military, fire department, the BOY scouts, and the Captain Marvel comic books, THEY BROUGHT THIS ON! On a good note, Trans genders have exposed the fallacy of wo-MEN'S equality, and for that I am grateful to God.
TOUCHÉ Well stated... Well stated INdeed!!!~
As much as I feel sorry for Riley Gaines, I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow when, after being escorted to safety by a squad of burly male police officers, she said her experience shows the need for women-only spaces. Maybe from now on she will back up her words and use only female security!
I DO NOT feel sorry for Riley Gaines, for precisely the reason you just illustrated! fe-MALE chauvinism. NOT ONE of these fe-MALE athletes EVER defends/admits/ BOYS don't like having their spaces invaded either. I troll Riley Gains and will continue to troll her and her ilk until I see ONE of these wo-MEN defending BOYS who feel just as violated.
Gwendoline Christie?
I have been in tech for decades. Over the years, women have made the workplace progressively worse.
I cannot tell you how many times I've heard things along the lines of "we need more women in tech". Really? Who's "we"? How many more women? Are you open to discussing why it might not ever be 50/50, or will you ruin my career for even trying to discuss why this might not be feasible?
I recently arrived at the conclusion that women who do this actually have no objective. They are simply affirming one another - providing each other with validation.
Men like me - the engineering type - think in terms of risks, tradeoffs, if something is feasible, how much it will cost, etc. Women like this invade these pragmatic spaces and turn them into a sort of therapy session with unwilling participants... And they have no clue at all - none - why men might consider this behavior obnoxious.
A similar but very little talked about phenomenon happened in the Anglican church in the West (i.e., UK, Canada, USA, Western Europe) West starting in the late 70s. This is when women were allowed to be ordained as priests, which on the face of it sounds like a good thing for equality -- but the results have been far from encouraging. These denominations are now in sharp decline. The Anglican Church in Canada admits that in a few years it will cease to exist. There is a reason for this: the corrosive effect of feminism.
If you review the graduation photos from the 1960s to the present, the demographic shifts from all young men to almost all middle-aged women. There was a concurrent shift in theology, from traditional Christianity to feminist Christianity -- which has now led to the pulpit being used to advance transgenderism, Marxist liberation theology, Black Lives Matter, and a host of other Leftist causes that misuse the Gospel to advance political agendas anathema to Christian faith. One United Church pastor (a feminist of course) famously declared hat she was an atheist and was permitted to retain her role as pastor for several years, despite that.
Your article made me think of this because the brotherhood of priests was at one time a male 'safe space' (one could say) but now in most liberal denomination seminaries you're hard pressed to find men interested in being ordained. And the theology -- and by extension the society -- has suffered accordingly. At a time when the West is in dire need of traditional Christian faith, it is instead being given Leftist ideology masquerading as the Gospel.
You are not likely to find too many conservative heterosexual men entering the Anglican and Episcopalian priesthood anymore. This is true of some other denominations as well. Tucker Carlson just did a great episode showing a feminist trans Lutheran pastor using the pulpit to compare Audrey Hale to Jesus, instead of being critical of the murder of Christian children.
I met a trans priest (a biological male) who told me that Jesus was trans and in fact we are all trans but don't know it! Another feminist pastor gave a sermon saying that the purpose of the faith was to "fight toxic masculinity and white supremacy"! Apparently faith in Christ is no longer the central focus of the church.
Now the Roman Catholic church is under pressure to allow female priests and they're resisting it, to their credit. The current Pope may be a Marxist but the Church leadership apparently has enough sense to realize how badly things have gone for Anglicans by allowing the priestly role to be ruined by feminism.
Thanks for this, my friend.
I think young men will be drawn to Islam more and more these days.
Some Western young people have been drawn to Islam but not always because they embrace its core values. What I've observed is that Leftists embrace Islam because it's anti-Western and to virtue-signal their commitment to "diversity."
Linda Sarsour took advantage of this among feminists to push the insane idea that sharia law is consistent with feminism. You would see young feminists at rallies wearing hijabs. This has the same logical consistency as Antifa, self-avowed anarchists, counter-protesting in Oxfordshire in support of more state tyranny (the 15 minute city).
Islamists go along with the charade for the time being, because it serves their purpose of establishing a new caliphate in the West (which they are close to doing in parts of Western Europe), but in secret they'd just as soon throw the LBGTQ crowd off rooves.
That having been said, I would add that most Muslim people are decent folk with conservative values, but I'd have to agree with the Dalai Llama when he said "Europe belongs to Europeans." It should not disappear - but under the reign of Leftist globalists -- who embrace mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa -- it is doing so. See Douglas Murray's book The Strange Death of Europe.
As for traditional Christianity, it is still the best faith tradition, and certainly has not disappeared in the West. It has been in serious decline since the 1970s among the mainstream denominations due to secularization, but I think it will experience a revival. It poses the most serious threat to the Leftist regime's strategy of conversion of young people, which is why they so strongly oppose traditional Christianity -- especially when (as evangelicals have done) it stands up against trans ideology as morally wrong, as sinful. The gay marriage issue was central for years and now trans ideology.
As a result of the shift in Anglicanism that started in the 1970s, traditional Anglicans broke away and formed the Anglican Network in North America -- and are in alignment against gay marriage with most Anglicans in Africa, India and the rest of the world. Leftism in the church is a uniquely Western malady.
Leftism, which is in a sense its own religious movement, has corrupted some churches as I noted in my post above, and but among evangelicals there is uniform opposition to it. And many young people who were pulled into Leftism and greatly harmed by it have consequently left it and found salvation through Christ in evangelical churches.
This started as early as the 1970s with the so-called "Jesus Revolution" and has been continuing ever since. This is why trans terrorists target churches and Christians. It is a war for souls between a violent death-cult (transgenderism) and faith in Christ.
I myself was a Leftist for a couple of decades so I am familiar with that movement. It promises everything -- as religion does -- but leaves one empty inside and beaten down. It is idolatrous. The young SJWs are actually on a spiritual quest for truth, justice, ultimate meaning -- which is why they fall in with Leftist causes -- but they won't find them there.
That is what that movement -- which includes feminism -- could rightly be called demonic. It has an anti-Christ spirit. This is the result of secularization, felt mostly keenly by the young -- but they fall into a snare. I feel for them. They are lost. The allure of the movement, the sense of purpose it gives, is powerful, enticing. The fear of losing that identity is a disincentive for independent thought, keeping them in line. But it's not spiritually sustainable.
So I think we'll see more apostates from that "faith" be saved by Christianity in future years as they mature and are able to step back and see that they were misled. You will also see more sad testimonies from de-transitioners in future years as well, realizing that they mutilated themselves for no reason.
Some Anglican denominations and monasteries have gone to Rome. Not crazy about that choice either... given the current pope. But not as bad, on a number of fronts.
Europeans say that the Left was overtaken (stolen) by the Right... it's one way to look at it. The Right is the new counterculture. Everything topsy turvy.
In AU and NZ, the "anglican" and presbyterian" faiths are losing their pogrom to maintain their faith base.
In AU in 1977, a significant number of “anglican" and presbyterian” churches merged to form the “uniting church of Australia”, but this hasn’t prevented the continued decline in those who pay tithes of these archaic institutions of privilege, superstition, greed and paedophilic child abuse.
The current pope is not supportive of the Latin Mass and many traditional monasteries and communities are being targeted. Their properties return to the Vatican if the order ceases to exist and I've read that this could prove useful to clear some of the huge Vatican debt. Some orders have gone into hiding while others are transferring ownership of their assets to independent trusts to avoid this happening.
Femo-marxisim and islam are mutually exclussice; mixing sodium or lithium with water is less volitial /more stable
NAH! With each successive "census" in western world countries, "no faith /no religion” is becoming the majority “religion”.
Every 5 years in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistic (ABS) conducts a census, including a question on religion. Until very recently, in an AU census you couldn’t identify as an “atheist”, though the ABS still tries to classify “atheism” as a religious belief (I understand that, outside political interference from “god in the lodge”, atheism will be classified as “no /non-belief” in the next census in AU and atheism will probably exceed 50% of census respondents).
The religious question in 2021 AU census was “What is the persons religion?” with a plethora of christrain faiths listed
By lumping all those who identified as “Christian”, irrespective of their differing Christian affiliations, ABS in accordance with purported non-secular government directives, claimed that the largest religious group in Australia were christrains (depending on the ABS “data set” you read,43.9% or 52.1% of the AU population), lumping ALL those who “identify” as “christians” together (catholics 22.6%, anglicans 13.3%, presbyterians and “reformed” (AU “uniting church) 2.3%, mormons (not recorded), lutheran 0.7%, methodists, pentecostals (a.k.a., evangelicals 1.1%, yet enjoy perverse privilege in Canberra ~ just ask “scotty from marketing” and ) , Oriental Orthodox (that was a new one to me) 0.2%. Yet, “No Religion /Secular belief” was 30.1% and “not stated was 9.6%.
Hell, there are more evangelically faiths than there are collective pronouns of those who identify on the alphabet spaghetti letter spectrum, yet these “emerging faith groups” have 1% or less...
The AU ABS lumps all “christians” together so as to produce a politically acceptable percentage that showed “christians” as being the majority /dominant faith in AU (otherwise the federal government could and would be challenged on its unConstitutional funding of private religious school and it’s funding of the disgraceful “National Schools chappy Pogrom” that funds religious organisations to use our AU schools as “mission fields”.
Recently in Brisbane AU (where I live), a Centerpoint Church video that spruiked that secular state schools were ripe “mission fields” to “harvest children’s soles” caused a backlash; yet our state Education minister “Grace Grace” (no laughing matter ~ this is her real name and she’s a disgrace), declared that this didn’t contravene the 1910 QLD Education Act amendments that allowed faith based organisations to entre Qld schools and force their beliefs on children despite the child’s parents stating on the child’s enrolment form that their child was not to be subjected to the predatory practices of faith based organisations.
In the 2021 AU census, “No Religion and Secular Beliefs” = 40.4%. The largest Christian faith, catholics, was just over half this at 22.6%
In the 2021 AU census records that 30.1% of the AU populating “No Religion” is nearly 50% more that the largest Christian demographic in AU” “catholics” at 22.6%.
This 2021 census can be compared to the 2016 census when all combined Christian religions were just over 50% and the atheist “vote” was about 30%... see the trend? Which is being witnessed in all western countries at an increasing rate.
Everybody has a god. If you eliminate the traditional sense of God as transcendent good, people will carve out new idols. Like the Church of Communism, and lately, the Church of Shopping. Eh...
LOL I'm a life long atheist, I have not carved myself new idols nor do I worship communisim, retail theropy, feminism or any other such cr*p. Don't project your narcissistic beliefs onto others.
And yet you are more dogmatic about religion than anyone else here.
You also insist on splintering all Christians while treating all atheists as one big happy family. Never mind that there are Marxist atheists, Maoist atheists, Rothbardian atheists, Randian atheists, etc., each with their own dogma. To be an atheist is to be so ungrounded that you glom onto arbitrary dogma.
"You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything."
— G. K. Chesterton, “The Miracle of Moon Crescent,” 1924
NO such thing as an athiest. "Even Satan believes in God" as the srcipture says. There are NO atheists... only people who are angry at God and who's beliefs are fragmented.
There's a really informative, though slightly leftist book that examines how men inside the church responded to the feminization of religion and society. It's called Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920 by Clifford Putney.
1880 - 1920...? missed it by "||" that much! 1920 to 2022 would be more informative in the current zeitgiest.
It's stupid to allow women to become priest, it's not what God had in mind.
I found an interesting article on the topic, quoting an RC theologian. He argues that priests as male is consistent with the revealed Word and Christ's own example. Further, the role of women is already prominent: "Women are better able than men to perceive the "proximity of God" and enter into a relationship with him [for example[ the privileged role played by women in the New Testament.
"The mission of the woman in the church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church, not even sacramental power," he said. "What is most important is the encounter with the living God through faith and charity." https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/why-not-women-priests-papal-theologian-explains
The point seems to be that women are an integral part of the Church, which could not exist without them. They have their roles and men have theirs, and for good purpose. Not to keep women down but to ensure they have roles best suited to their strengths -- which of course depends on a recognition of those strengths and the difference between men and women -- which our current society seems intent on obscuring.
Women in many ways have been the backbone of the Church. There are numerous female saints, and in fact the first witness to the Resurrection was a woman, Mary Magdalene. Women like Ruth, Esther, and Mary are important figures in the Bible. The devotion of women is central. You can still find the traditional roles today in the West if you go to Orthodox churches.
But feminism, in the name of equality, opened a Pandora's box that has led to other changes that were not beneficial to the Church or society. Janice has covered the social implications well in her video series (the Fiamengo Files).
Actually that RC theologian is full of shit. "Wives are to OBEY their husbands" "Adam was not in sin, but the wo-MAN was in sin" "wo-MEN are NOT to even SPEAK in church" "It is shameful for a wo-MAN to speak in church" Corinthians/Paul/Timothy/
The theologian's argument in favour of only-male ordination is not inconsistent with the Bible verses you (sort of) quoted -- though those verses should be taken in context. By themselves, they sound very harsh and anti-woman.
They derive from the Jewish faith to a great extent. They were all written by St. Paul, who was of course, like Jesus an observant Jew. The fascinating thing about that faith to keep in mind is that women were also given a prominent role in it, not only as mothers and wives, but also on occasion as keepers and defenders of the faith (e.g., Ruth, Esther). And mothers and wives are integral to a functioning society: we can see that the breakdown of the family has been detrimental to the West.
In Christianity, women played an integral role from the start (e.g., the three Marys) and as martyrs and defenders and maintainers of the faith as well. They were not subordinate; they just had their right and proper role to play, as did men. The role of priest was reserved for men perhaps because the first disciples were men. By taking over mens' roles in the church and office and home, women have gained more power but they've lost something more valuable. They are more unhappy and alone now. Many have given up family for careers that in the final analysis didn't matter.
My original comment was on the fact that this has happened in the church as well as the broader society, to the detriment of the church. This happened from the 1960s onward. I was just watching a great TV show on changes in the Catholic Church around the time of Vatican II (Brides of Christ). These women are certainly not without power or "agency" but as nuns (brides of Christ) they recognize their right role within the church.
The good thing about prayer and faith is that it brings everyone to the same level, humbling them before God, bishops and laypeople alike. So a nun's prayers and actions are as important as a priest's, even though the priest appears to have a more prominent role, outwardly.
Mothers and Wives, although endowed with the same divine value as men, are not generally as important to functioning societies as men are.
It's not the breakdown of the family that's an issue, it's the absence of Father's specifically.
Men stabilize societies.
Women were subordinate to a degree and that is undeniable.
Women don't deserve the power they've gained. They took it by state force through affirmative action. It's all forfeit.
OK, fair enough
You're a massive simp and like women too much.
There is no evidence that women are better able to perceive the "proximity of God".
Nowhere in the Bible is this implied. It only exists in the twisted minds of vagina worshipping dickless men like yourself.
"The mission of the woman in the church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church, not even sacramental power." Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that men think only power in the church matters. Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that this is the genuine role of women. Again, this is more gynocentric female-worship. Although I'm not surprised given Catholics literally bow before a statue of Mary, a mortal woman.
It is clear from the Bible that men take an authoritative position in regards to the Church. This does not mean that women don't matter in the church, but it says what it says. You're attempt to actually turn it into vaginal-worship is nothing more than a desire to placate women and make yourself a "Good Man".
Women have never been the backbone of the church anymore than men have.
Yes, there are female saints, this does not mean women are literally closer to God. Neither does the first witness of the ressurrection being a woman.
Feminism is a female supremacist movement that seeks to crush men underneath it's womanly thumb. Feminism isn't bad because "men and women forgot muh roles". Feminism is bad because it openly advocates for female supremacy.
The early Church was never this patently vaginal worshipping.
What a hateful comment on your part. I was quoting a theologian. You can agree or disagree but to resort to insulting me for sharing the quotation reveals something wrong with your character. Insults don't add to your argument.
Arguing that men and women have different qualities that can benefit the church is not being a "simp" or "dickless." It's actually a statement in support of traditional Christianity, against feminism. It is not valuing women more than men. The fact that you erroneously read that into my statement reveals some sort of pre-existing bias on your part.
You take issue with my statement that women have been the backbone of the church. By that I meant that they made things run: they cleaned, cooked, organized. I am talking about traditional churches. If you go to an Orthodox service today, the men are the priests and deacons and women do the menial work, but are not the less for it. They value their role in doing so. Orthodox Christianity is said to be close to the early church, having preserved many ancient customs and roles. In traditional Protestant and Catholic churches also you will see women doing these things. This does not diminish men at all; it's simply a way of stating the value of the work of women. You misunderstood my statement.
You have misrepresented what I said and brought insults to what was otherwise a civil discussion. That says something more unflattering about you than me in this case.
I'm not prepared to speculate about what God had in mind, but successful religions generally had male priesthoods. Early Christians had female deacons, who were a step below priests, and a splinter group founded by Montanus had female priests, but was considered heretical and died out.
Bradley ~ ROTFLMAO! FFS, educate yourself on the first 4 or 5 hundred years of your faith. But as they say "ignorance is bliss" and "stupidity divine"
Your arrogant statement of contempt suggests that you think early Christians had female priests. That is not true, although they occasionally had female deacons.
Mate, I didn't say I was religious. You've already failed the argument before it begun.
One UK Anglican making a lot of noise on this front is Calvin Robinson.
Sorry, because you brought it up, I will comment.
I judge the christain faith on its well documented track record, not on the tenents the "believers" claim they follow. My christian mother had extreme difficulty my views on her faith and other faiths, claiming “you can’t judge a faith by how people follow it, you have to judge a faith by what its teachings [of that faith] say” ~ ironically in the last years of her life, my mother ceased to be a practicing “Christian” and I believe that she in fact didn’t believe in any faith or deity.
The Australian "Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse", like many such other enquires, found that 10% of the clergy (priest, ministers, reverends...) inappropriately dealt with children.
Interestingly, many judges, federal and state, were named to the commission by victims, yet the commission chose to suppressed these names for 50 years so as not to “undermine the people’s faith in the judiciary” … a.k.a. the legal fraternity protects its own but protecting the Ponzi schemes that lawyers and politicians have created in their own image
Look at the appalling number of child graves that have been discovered in “Residential School’s” in Canada to understand the depravity of those who hide behind a Christian label to perpetrate heinous crimes on children… I understand that in excess of 2,500 such graves have been found (so far)
I have lost too many friends and acquaintances to suicide because they were abused by those who hide behind the collar of “their calling” as a vehicle to abuse children, typically they only abused boys (though femo-marxists shrill “but some girls were also abused so it is only about girls”)
Please don’t bring “faith” into a secular discussion ~ it’s just rude.
Please stop lying, then. The accusation of mass child graves at the Residential Schools for Indians is a lie that has been thoroughly debunked. So is the accusation that 10% of Catholic priests were child molesters. Contrast this with today's secular notion that pedophiles should be be called "minor attracted persons," that this is just another form of sexual expression, and that sexual deviations should be presented to prepubescent children through such venues as sexually explicit books and drag-queen story hours.
Interesting Dan, I have observed that 'Native Americans' like most castrated tribes, are completely immeresed in fEMINIST doctrine and blame Patriarchy for their downfall. Another disproven myth: '"Native wo-MEN are being kidnapped" NO MALES, only fe-MALES who look like Gene Simmons. LOL.
I understand your bias against religion, as I shared it at one time but if you re-read my remark it is not to advance a particular faith as much as to demonstrate how the church (among other institutions) has been corrupted by the secular religion of Leftism, and in particular feminism.
I don't think Douglas Murray is a Christian but in his book The Strange Death of Europe he recognizes the importance of that faith within Western civilization and that its usurpation by secularism (and in Western Europe also by Islam) is a major contributing factor in the fall of this one-great civilization. Feminism and other cultural Marxist ideologies have gained hold of the West since the 1970s in large part because the vacuum left by the decline of Judeo-Christianity permitted them to.
Though its merits are undeniable, the Enlightenment faith in reason, advanced by thinkers like Kant, never really gained mass appeal. In the 20th century it was pushed aside by the new faiths of Communism, fascism, consumerism, and Leftism (of which feminism is one branch). In other words, as Judeo-Christianity declined in the West it was not replaced with enlightenment progress; it was replaced with secular faiths of a more malign variety -- those based on collectivism, lacking all forgiveness, and leading to new and totalizing forms of tyranny.
As for the claims of abuse by priests, I have no doubt many are true, but the fact that some Christians have been sinners does not negate the truth-claims of a faith that continues to save the lives of countless people from sin and evil, both within their hearts and in the world. The word sin is from the Greek hamartia, to miss the mark. If we miss the mark, it doesn't negate the value of continuing to aim for it. The failure of Christians only affirms what St. Paul said: "no one is righteous, not one" (Rom. 3:10). Fallen priests do not negate the tenets of faith; their fallenness affirms the weakness of man and the value of turning to a God for strength. I have met many First Nation people who were at residential schools and told me they turned to God in their lives, despite the past, and it helped them recover from alcoholism.
As for the media and government claims regarding residential school, I would suggest reading the True North reports on it. True North is of the last remaining honest publications in Canada not corrupted by the thoroughly dishonest Trudeau government. They did several revealing stories on this, showing that the graves -- if they are graves -- not having been disinterred and thus don't prove anything as yet. If they are graves of children, as speculated, this is due to not being murdered by priests and nuns (as some incredibly believe) but due to the spread of tuberculosis, which killed many white children in the 19th century as well. You can go to many 19th century gravesites in Canada and see numerous markers for children who died of TB. The grave story, pushed by the Canadian media, is incredibly misleading and done for political purposes.
Residential schools, as a whole, were started with good intention, to bring education to native peoples who lived in remote wilderness areas. They could not find enough educators to go to those places so the children were brought to centralized school. They succeed to some extent in the goal of education -- .e.g, former Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and others say that they gave him a valuable education -- but the abuses that occurred at them are also well documented. The way that the media in Canada and the Trudeau government has inflated this story to cast aspersions on Christianity as a whole -and to claim it is a "genocide" -- is deliberately misleading and is part of the Leftists agenda to usurp Christianity and Western values and replace it with Communism. The residential school narrative we hear today is more political propaganda than fact.
In China, Christians are the target of religious persecution by the state, though despite that tens of millions still worship in secret. Christians are persecuted in about 50 nations worldwide by either Communist or Islamic states. Those societies suffer as a result. The anti-Christian bias we see in Canada today is leading to a worse society, to the deliberate China-fication of Canada. It has led to churches being burned down and Trudeau excusing it. In the U.S. recently it led to the murder of Christian children by a deranged killer who was brainwashed into radical trans ideology. There are far more Christian martyrs today than in the first three centuries in Rome when they were fed to the lions, but the media never reports on that (see the website Voice of the Martyrs for those stories).
If you wish to judge the Christian faith on its track record, you'd be remiss not to also acknowledge the great good it done in the world and continues to do. The best of Western civilization's values are really the combination of Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment values. While Christianity may now be decline in the West, it is growing elsewhere and in the process freeing people from spiritual enslavement to Communism and Islamism, in places like China and Nigeria, as well as giving countless numbers hope and joy and meaning in an otherwise bleak world full of evil and suffering. In the West, many Christians, to their credit, oppose abortion and transgender ideology and other forms of Leftist ideology that has overtaken the minds and hearts of so many young people and misled them. Whether you believe in it or not, its power to challenge these malign ideologies is without parallel.
I judge religions by the actions committed by the faithful of that religion, not just by the good that may have been done in its name, but also the hate, harm and atrocities committed in its name.
IMO, the “good” done in the name of a religion doesn’t begin to compensate for the for the crimes and atrocities done in the name of that religion.
I’ve lost too many friends and acquaintances because they were raped by clergy when children. I’ve witnessed faiths holding together many immigrant communities and I’ve witnessed faiths shattering immigrant communities.
Anti-religious people gave us Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il & son, etc. The "enlightened" century was the most brutal century in history.
The Australian Royal Comission whatever the fuck is gov propaganda.
"Deal inappropriately with children".
Verbose and professional, yet so ambigous and unspecific.
Classic bureaucratic dogshit speak. Perfect for passing off bullshit.
Child abuse by clergy is WAY OVERBLOWN, like sexual assault/rape/ 'claims' are as well. Only 5% of rape 'claims' involve force...that means 95% of rape 'claims' are based on alcohol, regret sex, and other esoteric nonsense. Even Dr. Helen smith says only 5% of MEN rape. I believe less than 2% of rapes are true, including by clergy. In fact I beleive MOST so called childhood victims of clergy are homosexuals looking for attention & $money
The insane have taken over.
Great piece Janice. Clear and well said. I know what you mean when you said in the comments that there is more to say. Indeed.
As I was reading this I remembered back to the 70's and 80's when men's spaces were starting to be dismantled. I clearly remember thinking at the time that it was the right thing to do. Not even a stray thought of it being hurtful to men. Man, brainwashing is powerful! lol
You didn't stay brainwashed! Your native decency, compassion, and true-north sense of justice carried you through.
Indeed! I had people like Warren Farrell and Janice Fiamengo to wake me up!
Janice
At the end of the day, it is about being honest and true to ourselves (an invariably /frequently painful growing experiance), of attempting to be in reality who we believe we are, as well as living up to our own expectations of “who we are” and to how others (those whom we value their good opinion of us) perceive us to be; attributes that are disparaged and denigrated in the current woke femo-marxist zeitgeist.
You know Tom I’m not sure you were brainwashed so much as brought up properly. Why shouldn’t all men (and women) be equal after all (we thought).
Well, when you are told only half of the story and when an opposing angle is forbidden that sounds like brainwashing to me. Janice has taught so well hat the early feminists and the later ones too were hateful towards men. Due to gynocentrism we couldn't see it but the implicit biases are coming home to roost. There's been some excellent recent research on this.
Many men saw it at the time. We were mostly guilt tripped out of seeing it in the '70s, when Marxists took over the more individualists and more legitimate Women's Movement. The word "feminism" is a socialist term, and most women opposed female suffrage because they associated it with free-love, anti-family, socialist feminists.
There is a difference between any gathering that includes both sexes or only men. As a man I like a bit of both. I am a member of a male only club created in the 19th century that last year voted overwhelmingly to retain the male only rule. It's a space where men can gather and talk without the inevitable sexual distraction of women.
Both boys and girls need separate rituals helping them into man and womanhood. Boys need to go out into nature and girls need to learn how to appreciate men and masculinity and avoid becoming a feminist.
I love Lakes and you are no exception! Well said.
We also need rituals that bring us (male /female / anyone) together to support each other; strong societies and cultures does this. Woke femo-marxist cultures only know how to destroy because they are envious of the success of others. Instead of trying to raise themselves up to the level of those who surpassed them due to aptitude, application and luck, they instead seek to tear it down based on the narcissistic MO “If I can’t do what they do (because I’m too F**king lazy to learn), then they shouldn’t be allowed to do what I can’t” ~ this is one of the foundational tenants of militant modern feminists and their woke drones. It’s behind the “cancellation” of many very smart women who refuse to “buy-into” the femo-marxist narrative.
Where do we go from here? Pandora's box really has been opened in this regard. Even myself, as a socially conservative Christian, gets nervous at the thought of an undiscerning, knee-jerk pendulum swing.
I see traditional gender roles and spheres as worthy of personal, sacrificial pursuit and societal honour but I also don't desire a world where everone is automatically sorted into rigid boxes either because the people who enjoy doing the enforcing are generally the least wise and discerning of us all.
Even in conservative church circles, where one might still see traditional gender roles functioning in the wild, there is a very great difference between men who are spirit-led servant-leaders of their families and those who are merely operating from an external template. The one I trust, the other not so much.
“Now, after years of forced accommodation to feminine norms and requirements, men are expected to rise up in defense of female spaces—allegedly against a renewed patriarchy.” If anyone has been following the Riley Gaines fiasco at SFU, it appears that real men may, once again, have to do what only real men have been called on to do since time immemorial…protect real women.
…except, this time the ‘renewed patriarchy’ is men pretending to be women attacking real women for saying men can’t be women!!! This would be funny if it wasn’t so serious!
Exactly so.
I wish I had thought about this on my own but I didn’t. Anyway thinking about not just how serious it already is but how serious it could get, the sudden, drastic turn to violence is probably the trannies version of kicking the dog till it bites. What does that mean in real life? These mentally ill hordes are looking for their own George Floyd moment and the more they act out and batter real women, the more likely it is that they’re going to get it. If the media can turn a feral animal like George Floyd into Saint George Floyd think of what they could do with a martyred feminized male like dylan mulvaney.
Sad that it has come to this... feminism from its toxic inception has always attempted to "kicking the dog till it bites" and when those who don't support their divisive hate speech, they shrill “patriarchy”, “misogyny” and spruik more misandristic slogans and feminist doggerels.
As someone who has gone into harm’s way in the past to protect women ~ NAH, I'll look the other way and keep on walking. Why? you may ask. Because feminism is culpable for the suicide death of my daughter and the deportation of my 4 sons from Australia by a corrupt family court judge. My sons were all born in, raised in, schooled in, Australian citizens (by birth) and were Habitual Residents (as defined by the Hague Convention) of AU when deport; this faecal matter, this bench bit*h (that was subsequently kicked off the bench with grounds) claimed in his reasons for making orders that effective deported my children from AU, that the 18 months the mother had Internationally Abducted and Wrongfully Retained our children in Germany meant more than their birth-right and the time they spent growing up in Australia or the 32 months they lived in AU after the Hague Convention Return Orders compelled my ex to return our children to AU.
This *(&(*&^$#%#$@^#@$R woman is now seeking to have the AU family court orders annulled, because this would require her to spend AUD $15K+++ on airline tickets, and if the AU orders are annulled, she can then apply to the German courts for child support as calculated in Germany; which (given that she has provided false information to German child support) is calculated to be an order magnitude higher than I am currently paying based on my income in AU…. Meanwhile she is enmeshing, aligning and alienating our children for a loving, caring and devoted father; “all in her narcissistic best interests”. The German judge and ICL have made it clear in their rep[orts that they do not believe a mother would be so mercenary as to weaponize children so as not to comply with AU family court orders; orders that can be demonstrated that she obtained due to not just her, but the judge and ICL lying.
Yeah, AU family courts are “not fit for purpose” as required by our Cth Constitution and Cth laws.
NAH, I chose to walk away when SES (State Emergency Services) kept on spruiking "white ribbon", and various other toxic feminist "for profit organisations” that spruiked that only men were perpetrators (of dv) and shrilling various feminist “initiatives” that bashed men. Any organisation that endorses the abuse of the preponderance of its members based on their gender, doesn’t deserve my support or respect.
I am one of an increasing number of men who will not go into harms way to protect privileged whiny women and their woke drones.
I used to intervene to protect women (even at grave risk to myself), now I walk past without interceding and think “how much abuse has she inflicted upon him for him to inappropriately react ~ obviously she deserved this (this is channelling the abuse I have endured in our corrupt family court, dv court and the AGs office). Quote “If you hadn’t done something wrong, she wouldn’t have done what she did (Internationally Abduct our children twice)
This article will be helpful background history when having soc media discussions about transwomen entering women's spaces. It shows women's thirst for entering and destroying male spaces - which also included sporting clubs, pool halls, male only saloons, wilderness retreats, recreational activities, workplaces, bathrooms etc. And now they are trying to stop men entering their spaces, and asking men to care? I think we can all understand the reason for men's apathy about loss of exclusively female spaces.
I know you've seen this anecdote Janice, but will add it for the benefit of readers who haven't: Feminist professor Judith Lorber wrote, in 1994, that she and her friends had "liberated" many male-only bathrooms by walking in and using them, and she lamented that one woman was arrested for doing so.
My nephew stopped using the toilets at his primary school because the female teachers would walk in any time they liked.
… “male only bathrooms” LOL! (Speaking professionally as an Architect)
You do realise that there are various urinals designed specifically for females to use? They are narrower and project further from the wall than those that are designed for males, but just as functional. Few nightclubs or venues install these. Female patrons will que for amazing lengths of time, just to get a WC stall.
My daughter was taught by her mother to stand up and urinate… she splashed her shoes a lot less often than my sons did! It is more about social conditioning /bias than it is about gendered anatomy.
About 15 years ago, in an Architect’s office, I tasked a "recent graduate" to design an amenities area in a building which was for the use (segregated) of males and females. Half a day later she immerged from internet searches knowing more about “urinal etiquette”, “risqué toilet hook-ups” and outright pornographic imagery than any recently fledged Arch Grad should be exposed to… and, because she hadn’t learnt the fine art of designing toilets (including consideration of door swings) I had to stay late and redesign the whole thing (a.k.a. doing damage control) to fix her stuff-up.
You sound like an eccentric chap, power to you.
For the sake of clarity, the reference to "male only bathrooms" refers to the sex of the people designated for using them, and not to the feminine or masculine contours of urinal shape (lol).
As for the anecdote about your daughter's prowess in the art of standing, low-drip urination.... well, power to her! They might make it an Olympic sport one day.
"As for the anecdote"
My experience working as a cleaner is that women "miss" the bowl far more often than do men.
OUTSTANDING essay!!!~
As a man I am humbled with gratitude for the excellent expose of this nation's and it's feminazi counter-culture's double standards.
THANK YOU!!!~
Narcissism seems to be the driver for women entering into male spaces. We used to continually hear that somebody or another was "the first woman to" enter some place or another, complete with photograph of a woman beaming with pride at entering a previously-male arena and thus drawing a great deal of attention to herself. At my boy's school in the 1980s, the first girl to enter was this extraordinary person who drenched herself in perfume to the extent that it was clear where she had walked even several minutes after her passage.
It's obvious to everyone except feminists that the transgender movement and the bizarre behaviour of people like Dylan Mulvaney is an impersonation of the obsessive entry into male spaces by women, a way of grabbing attention fed mostly by narcissism.
There have been many outstanding women who excelled at their jobs and who didn't ask for accolades for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.
Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson et al are cases in point.
These women were "intruding" into NASA’s male only space (maths), but they sure as hell, "got the job done"!
Without these amazing women, the Apollo missions would not have been possible (I was aware of this decades before “Hidden Figures” movie was released). In their lifetimes, these women didn’t get the accolades they genuinely deserved for their outstanding achievements; this was because of their gender, race and ethnicity.
Imagine if we celebrated the strengths of others (which, if we were truthful to ourselves, we would in all probability (however reluctantly) admit that we were incapable of) instead of applying the "human default" of "tearing them down to our level"… where we, the “human race”, would now be poised to ...
As a parent and (amateur) educator, encouraging our children and students to surpass us, and that they succeed in doing so, is the mark of a parent /teacher who is prepared to accept that our children /our students can and should be better than us, for in this progression of knowledge, we grow our civilisation to more profound understandings that benefits all.
Being a realist, this ain’t going to happen, but as an eternal optimist “why not”
I wish you every success with your amateur education.
The women you mention were actually doing a job, numerical calculation, which was at the time considered to be something akin to a secretarial role, a job which was largely done by women rather than men. They weren't entering a male-dominated space at all.
But the topic under discussion here isn't women entering a "male-dominated" profession. It's about women entering into exclusively male spaces, such as men's changing rooms, or organisations which were exclusively male, like the Boy Scouts, or schools which had been boys' schools. The context here is so-called trans women entering women's changing rooms or women's sports and so on.
Dylan M. makes a good living by mocking women. What a world.
Which brings on a thought: we women never got quite that bad.
The initial impulse of feminism was to think that they were fighting against injustice or unfairness of some kind or another. Obviously there was initially injustice and unfairness, but after most of the actual problems were solved, it morphed into narcissism and attention-seeking on the part of women, endlessly looking for male-only spaces and trying to enter them for no other reason than to "be the first woman to...". Then feminism even insisted on putting complete fantasies such as all these movies where tiny little women defeat men in hand-to-hand fights, or giving the Oscar for best director to a hopeless, boring film like The Hurt Locker, or so many other cases of mediocre women being pushed ahead of men.
The unexpected consequence of this has been that male narcissists like Dylan Mulvaney and Lia Thomas have seized the opportunity presented by feminists' distortions of reality.
There was a discussion on Twitter between JK Rowling and Matt Walsh where Matt Walsh was trying to spell out to JK Rowling that feminism was directly responsible for all of the things that she was complaining about, and JK Rowling simply couldn't process it, which I think is worth looking at if you're interested in thinking about this more.
This clip from a TV series called "Ultimate Force", and the preceding part of the show where the woman enters the service, provides quite a good illustration of what I tried to describe above. A woman has entered a branch of the armed forces called the SAS. At the end of the episode, after having defeated some terrorists, she strips naked and enters the shower with the men, then, despite her small physique, she punches one of the men for making a joke about the situation, resulting in him toppling to the floor of the shower, bleeding.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t3xti
Ben...Also watching Demi Moore in GI Jane yell 'Suck my di*k'...WTF!
Yes there are many examples of this.
Feminism lost it in the early 80s. There was a good development on the coattails of second wave with the safehouses and abusive men having to deal with the consequences of their abuse instead of wink wink, nudge nudge. But even then, the
"slut walks," constant emphasis on rape, lesbian separatism, and bias against more traditional women began to lose a lot of women, and it just got insane later on.
I can't date when feminism as a whole lost it, but as a child in the 1970s I already had to deal with a feminist who'd clearly "lost it". As a small child, I had to deal with a mother who would read feminist books like "The Feminine Mystique" then work herself into a frothing, screaming rage against me due to my "sexist attitudes". Sometimes she would scream at me or my sister so hard that her face would turn bright red.
Janice Fiamengo, our esteemed OP, had some interesting videos on feminist claims about rape, on the old "Fiamengo File" video series. Unfortunately the old channel was blanket-deleted by Youtube about two years ago, and the videos still haven't been restored as far as I know. I hope Janice or Steve Brule will find a way to restore the content either in text or video form.
Yikes. Frothing rage against kids? Sounds personality disordered. My condolences. I grew up with a narcissist father.
Never did like Feminine Mystique. Loved the Descent of Woman by Elaine Morgan. :-)
If you want to discuss that you're welcome to email me. I don't have the necessary qualifications to diagnose a personality disorder. Friedan's book is not on my reading list at the moment.
The point I want to make I suppose is that the sort of thinking that all the problems in the world are due to insufficient feminism, and if only we had more feminism then things would improve endlessly, is nonsense, and the end result of the current excess of feminist thinking and its concurrent narcissism has been Dylan Mulvaney and Lia Thomas.
https://gynocentrism.com/2014/08/14/the-henpecked-club-a-200-year-fellowship-of-husbands/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charivari
Fuckin take a read if you wanna read about abuse. Geez louise.
Maybe the fucking 1880s. That's pushing it though. It was bad from the start.
You're not even making an effort to be factual. Sad.
There was no good development on the coattails of second wave.
Safehouses don't have anything to do with feminism, and safehouses never had any public pushback. Erin Pizzey is not a feminist and never was.
Abusive men have always had to deal with the consequences of their abuse.
Before DV shelters, the men of a community would take a wifebeater out of his house and beat him to fuck. Abusive men have never been given winks and nudges. Prohibition was passed in large part because women convinced the general public that it made men beat up their wives.
Feminists had been fear mongering about rape ever since the movement began. Lesbian separatism had been a thing ever since the movement began. There had been bias against traditional women ever since the movement began. Early feminists literally wanted to dissolve the instiution of marriage because it "subjugated" women.
It got insane in 1848. It just got mainstream later on. Neurotic and emotionally suggestible women like you fell for it hook line and sinker.
"Feminism lost it in the early 80s."|
The radicals won control of the movement's direction in that time frame. It became double the shit show it had previously been almost overnight.
God you really are a pretentious post-menopausal hag.
Susan Brownmiller said that all men secretly loved rape because it gave them mental power over women through fear.
You women have done 100x what fucking Dylan M. has done.
Goodness Gracious.
Very glad to see you call out this double standard.
Excellent. I agree 100%. In these new gender (ideology) wars I am firmly on the side of women, but I am absolutely aware of the hypocrisy of the feminist movement, and that in the end, they are reaping the whirlwind they unleased. And I remain mad as hell that the Boy Scouts have been co-opted, and yet the Girl Guides (in Canada) remains proudly single-sex. Its is ridiculous.