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.
There was a legitimate civil rights component to feminism. Women should not be barred from the workplace solely because of their sex.
There was also always an intrasexual status component. Now that legal equality has been largely achieved that competition continues. Effects on men are collateral damage.
How can we redirect female intrasexual status competition into positive sum games?
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.
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.
And once there was a larger public awareness over this, so many reporters lied about the contents, or pretended that the information was not well established, and not about the meaning of the information on why so few women go into STEM, or that a man who provides the answer can expect punishment.
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.
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.
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 don’t think it’s really about men.
There was a legitimate civil rights component to feminism. Women should not be barred from the workplace solely because of their sex.
There was also always an intrasexual status component. Now that legal equality has been largely achieved that competition continues. Effects on men are collateral damage.
How can we redirect female intrasexual status competition into positive sum games?
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.
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.
When a man takes them seriously and responds with facts and perspective, he can expect to be fired. As seem in the 'Google Memo'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
And once there was a larger public awareness over this, so many reporters lied about the contents, or pretended that the information was not well established, and not about the meaning of the information on why so few women go into STEM, or that a man who provides the answer can expect punishment.
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?
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.