There seems to be some confusion here. We are advised that, at this event, men will have "time to reflect on allyship and on the women and trans folks they have learned from". Wait on - trans men are men, right? Should not trans men, sharing as they must the innate masculine gender-evil, be doing the rose-laying and obeisance with the rest of us? I must insist that trans men are indeed men, and so they too must be admitted to the "unique role in working to end gender-based violence".
Or could it be that this mispositioning of "trans folk" is another tell, another Freudian slip - giving away that (whisper it) in the minds of the Correct, trans men are not really men at all. That, in fact, the whole towering edifice of bullshit that is the trans fashion is just a means of moving up the oppression rankings, that preposterous confection of moronic deceit that fools no one of sense and everyone in positions of power.
Just outside the town hall where I worked there is a memorial to the over 30 men and boys killed in a local mining disaster just before WW1. It is not unusual to find such in tte many mining towns in Lancashire. There are of course the many memorials to the men killed in the two world wars and even outside the opulent and massive Trafford Centre there is a small memorial to a man killed during its construction. Nearby is a memorial to men killed during the construction of our massive orbital motorway. Certainly the levels of Male disposability have dramatically reduced in the UK, and been transferred to eastern Europe and the far east as industries have moved abroad. So perhaps its that many fewer men do die. But all these many deaths occurred when "patriarchy" was in full flood, apparently, clearly it was useless at keeping men safe. And had actually reduced risks to women by Victorian legislation to exclude women and girls from mining, steel in fact a list of occupations too hazardous for them but just fine for 14 year old boys up to men.
I wonder what would happen if males were accorded the same protected status as women continue to demand? After all although the number of deaths are mercifully few the number of serious injuries remain stubbornly high. As winter draws in here one can see all the workers essential to our modern life busy in "high viz" workwear building, repairing , maintaining, rescuing in all manner of wet and cold conditions. One difference is that now all this is all but invisible, yet even late last century it was still noticed.
It seems feminism never gets to grips with the reality, for if it is indeed a man made world, perhaps a wiser course might be to say "thank you" and encourage men to do all those many occupations that; despite 50 years of "positive action" are still reliant on men's willingness to get wet, hot, cold, bored, lonely, hurt, injured, exhausted and sometimes killed. As to the shaming, well feminists isn't that just the same as the women's societies of the Victorian age, resolutely convinced women existed on a higher moral plane (as they bossed the "tweeny" about) able to avoid the sordid realities of where the "income" that gave them such privilege came from, and at what cost.
I'm not sure how it will resolve itself but I suspect the younger generation of men will increasingly imbibe the idea of equality and be less prepared to accept the inequality that my generation, imbued with ideas of chivalry, stoicism and puting women first (the fairer sex). Certainly if men insisted on the regulation minimum comfortable temperature for their workplace everything will grind to a halt!
Of course, when feminist Trudeau says the 'the safety of women must be the foundation of any society', he is merely stating what has always been implicit in the so-called patriarchy that feminists rail against. Nothing novel or radical about the notion at all, at least the case for millennia. Feminists know perfectly well and perfectly hypocritically that any actual concern for the safety of men would expose women to greater danger. By focusing exclusively on their own safety, they entrench and perpetuate a second-class status for women as dependents in need of male protectors. Shaming men as a class for not protecting women enough results in more violence, more deaths, not less. While they hold fast to the belief that they are the sex with greater compassion and desire for peace, they make themselves part of a vicious cycle that inevitably fails at stopping one of the factors leading to war. Only when society begins to view responsibility for the safety of all members as equal in reality will something closer to peace be achieved.
Penetratingly insightful, as ever, thank you, Dr. Fiamengo.
But sadly, even with well-publicized factors such as the vastly disproportionate number of males dying from overdoses, suicide and violence, and ignoring the blatant gender-based injustice of only males being conscripted to fight in wars (and in the US only males having to register for possible conscription), society as a whole still just doesn't seem to give a damn. Sure, men can do all of the dirty and dangerous jobs and sure boys can increasingly fall behind in academia. But where is the true, higher momentum to change this? The women's movement really does seem to have succeeded in its relentless, furious efforts to hurt men, ostensibly in the name of equality (which never will be attained - equality never will be enough and is not, I fear, the genuine agenda), and to viciously and maliciously quell any dissent Sometimes I lament that nothing short of a major catastrophe, in which men suddenly are needed and respected, will change this.
But those few bold and intelligent voices such as yours give cause for hope.
At these rituals of public shaming, men should wear T-shirts with the message "I feel zero guilt for the crimes committed by Marc Lepine or other murderers."
I am tired of the guilt-tripping, the manipulation. The Catastrophizing.
The reality is as long as these advocates blindly blame innocent men for the behaviour of a few, nothing will change. Focusing only on male behaviour creates a blind spot and perhaps deliberately by shifting or preventing any genuine inquiry into what are the real factors that lead up to these acts of violence.
So I've inherited my father's sins? I wholly resent the insinuation that I have anything in common with Marc Lepine because we both have testicles. His killing spree was terrible, but now it's being turned into a debased anti-male ritual. I would suggest that it is being "milked" and turning people away from addressing mental health issues that might prevent future murders.
Most people who agree with these ideas are middle-class women who need better education, despite their credentials, and can't come up with original or logical arguments. The most annoying thing about their positions is their repetitive and facile nature. They present emotionally pregnant phrases (e.g., mansplaining, patriarchy) and expect the world to change because they might have tantrums.
Violence is the defining characteristic of the human race. We blot out 75-80% of our offspring in the practice of contraception, alone: abortion takes care of another 10% of the population. Both sexes participate in and bear responsibility for this carnage. To what extent one sex or the other is to blame is irrelevant in the face of the sheer magnitude of the loss--all in the name of comfort, pleasure, and ease. It is true, however, that if "violence against women" is ever to be sincerely addressed, it must begin with women. To stop cutting up our daughters in the womb (and sons), and selling their body parts on the black market is a decision that can be made by both men and women; but, to stop flushing them down the toilet before they are even known to exist, is something only women can do.
Will this be done? Probably, it will not. We can (perhaps must) bring the issue to light, however, and reiterate as frequently as our counterparts seek to secure an ever expanding culture of death, that feminism is not merely false, but also explosively violent; and that feminists (both men and women) are not the morally superior enlightened souls they claim to be; but rather they are cruel and selfish and dangerous people who will destroy our civilizations if left unchecked.
Could anyone else in Canada, other than Janice, have written this brilliant and humane article? No one else probably could have, and no one else would have had the courage to do so. I wish that this article would be published on the front page of every newspaper in Canada.
I don't think that it is possible for many women to understand the issues and problems that confront men. We are all addicted to our own problems and our imaginations about the world in which we live. Too many men think that women must protect us from women and it is women that must lead reform. This is unrealistic. Nor do I think that a campaign attempting to build understanding for men and their issues will ever succeed.
A better strategy would be to lay out a model for a better society in which men and women each play their part. Multiple variations of this are already apparent as feminism loses its bloom. One that has an ideal that is sympathetic to women's needs as well as mens. Such a structure would not win over the large minority of women who want a lifestyle and not a husband, but the majority is winnable.
Multiple variations of this are already apparent as feminism loses its bloom.
Jan 4, 2023·edited Jan 4, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Nobody is fearless, but you sure got balls, lady! And you're a great writer/journalist, too. I fundamentally disagree with some of your explanatory comments on feminism in your "About" section, but thank you for challenging absolutes and forcing people to think more objectively.
Thought it would be appropriate to join your Substack (paid) today December 6, the anniversary date of Canada'a National Day of Male Shaming. Looking forward to joining the conversation.
Janice how nice to find you on Substack and read your well organized thoughts. I remember when you stood up so well to protesters. There must be something in the Canadian water.
After seeing YouTube videos of an English woman ( Kellie-jay Keen) facing protests for saying “a woman is an adult female human,” I searched you out.
It sickens me that the legacy of feminism has aimed to instill self-hatred in men while silencing all public discourse on the violence and hatred to which men are regularly subjected as a part of "patriarchal" thought. Thank you for providing coherent and cogent counterdiscourse to the misandrist feminist agenda.
There seems to be some confusion here. We are advised that, at this event, men will have "time to reflect on allyship and on the women and trans folks they have learned from". Wait on - trans men are men, right? Should not trans men, sharing as they must the innate masculine gender-evil, be doing the rose-laying and obeisance with the rest of us? I must insist that trans men are indeed men, and so they too must be admitted to the "unique role in working to end gender-based violence".
Or could it be that this mispositioning of "trans folk" is another tell, another Freudian slip - giving away that (whisper it) in the minds of the Correct, trans men are not really men at all. That, in fact, the whole towering edifice of bullshit that is the trans fashion is just a means of moving up the oppression rankings, that preposterous confection of moronic deceit that fools no one of sense and everyone in positions of power.
Thank you, Janice.
This really means a lot to me.
Some days are really tough and it's people like you that make me feel better.
Your empathy is a soothing salve to me.
I feel like my body has been on the defense, chronically, for a long time.
People like you make me feel like I don't have to keep my defenses up - because I don't feel like I'm being attacked.
You're a good person, Janice.
May the Wind Be at Your Back.
- Edmond Dantes
Just outside the town hall where I worked there is a memorial to the over 30 men and boys killed in a local mining disaster just before WW1. It is not unusual to find such in tte many mining towns in Lancashire. There are of course the many memorials to the men killed in the two world wars and even outside the opulent and massive Trafford Centre there is a small memorial to a man killed during its construction. Nearby is a memorial to men killed during the construction of our massive orbital motorway. Certainly the levels of Male disposability have dramatically reduced in the UK, and been transferred to eastern Europe and the far east as industries have moved abroad. So perhaps its that many fewer men do die. But all these many deaths occurred when "patriarchy" was in full flood, apparently, clearly it was useless at keeping men safe. And had actually reduced risks to women by Victorian legislation to exclude women and girls from mining, steel in fact a list of occupations too hazardous for them but just fine for 14 year old boys up to men.
I wonder what would happen if males were accorded the same protected status as women continue to demand? After all although the number of deaths are mercifully few the number of serious injuries remain stubbornly high. As winter draws in here one can see all the workers essential to our modern life busy in "high viz" workwear building, repairing , maintaining, rescuing in all manner of wet and cold conditions. One difference is that now all this is all but invisible, yet even late last century it was still noticed.
It seems feminism never gets to grips with the reality, for if it is indeed a man made world, perhaps a wiser course might be to say "thank you" and encourage men to do all those many occupations that; despite 50 years of "positive action" are still reliant on men's willingness to get wet, hot, cold, bored, lonely, hurt, injured, exhausted and sometimes killed. As to the shaming, well feminists isn't that just the same as the women's societies of the Victorian age, resolutely convinced women existed on a higher moral plane (as they bossed the "tweeny" about) able to avoid the sordid realities of where the "income" that gave them such privilege came from, and at what cost.
I'm not sure how it will resolve itself but I suspect the younger generation of men will increasingly imbibe the idea of equality and be less prepared to accept the inequality that my generation, imbued with ideas of chivalry, stoicism and puting women first (the fairer sex). Certainly if men insisted on the regulation minimum comfortable temperature for their workplace everything will grind to a halt!
You're spoiling us with two articles within a week. Thanks, Janice.
Of course, when feminist Trudeau says the 'the safety of women must be the foundation of any society', he is merely stating what has always been implicit in the so-called patriarchy that feminists rail against. Nothing novel or radical about the notion at all, at least the case for millennia. Feminists know perfectly well and perfectly hypocritically that any actual concern for the safety of men would expose women to greater danger. By focusing exclusively on their own safety, they entrench and perpetuate a second-class status for women as dependents in need of male protectors. Shaming men as a class for not protecting women enough results in more violence, more deaths, not less. While they hold fast to the belief that they are the sex with greater compassion and desire for peace, they make themselves part of a vicious cycle that inevitably fails at stopping one of the factors leading to war. Only when society begins to view responsibility for the safety of all members as equal in reality will something closer to peace be achieved.
Penetratingly insightful, as ever, thank you, Dr. Fiamengo.
But sadly, even with well-publicized factors such as the vastly disproportionate number of males dying from overdoses, suicide and violence, and ignoring the blatant gender-based injustice of only males being conscripted to fight in wars (and in the US only males having to register for possible conscription), society as a whole still just doesn't seem to give a damn. Sure, men can do all of the dirty and dangerous jobs and sure boys can increasingly fall behind in academia. But where is the true, higher momentum to change this? The women's movement really does seem to have succeeded in its relentless, furious efforts to hurt men, ostensibly in the name of equality (which never will be attained - equality never will be enough and is not, I fear, the genuine agenda), and to viciously and maliciously quell any dissent Sometimes I lament that nothing short of a major catastrophe, in which men suddenly are needed and respected, will change this.
But those few bold and intelligent voices such as yours give cause for hope.
At these rituals of public shaming, men should wear T-shirts with the message "I feel zero guilt for the crimes committed by Marc Lepine or other murderers."
I am tired of the guilt-tripping, the manipulation. The Catastrophizing.
The reality is as long as these advocates blindly blame innocent men for the behaviour of a few, nothing will change. Focusing only on male behaviour creates a blind spot and perhaps deliberately by shifting or preventing any genuine inquiry into what are the real factors that lead up to these acts of violence.
So I've inherited my father's sins? I wholly resent the insinuation that I have anything in common with Marc Lepine because we both have testicles. His killing spree was terrible, but now it's being turned into a debased anti-male ritual. I would suggest that it is being "milked" and turning people away from addressing mental health issues that might prevent future murders.
Most people who agree with these ideas are middle-class women who need better education, despite their credentials, and can't come up with original or logical arguments. The most annoying thing about their positions is their repetitive and facile nature. They present emotionally pregnant phrases (e.g., mansplaining, patriarchy) and expect the world to change because they might have tantrums.
Violence is the defining characteristic of the human race. We blot out 75-80% of our offspring in the practice of contraception, alone: abortion takes care of another 10% of the population. Both sexes participate in and bear responsibility for this carnage. To what extent one sex or the other is to blame is irrelevant in the face of the sheer magnitude of the loss--all in the name of comfort, pleasure, and ease. It is true, however, that if "violence against women" is ever to be sincerely addressed, it must begin with women. To stop cutting up our daughters in the womb (and sons), and selling their body parts on the black market is a decision that can be made by both men and women; but, to stop flushing them down the toilet before they are even known to exist, is something only women can do.
Will this be done? Probably, it will not. We can (perhaps must) bring the issue to light, however, and reiterate as frequently as our counterparts seek to secure an ever expanding culture of death, that feminism is not merely false, but also explosively violent; and that feminists (both men and women) are not the morally superior enlightened souls they claim to be; but rather they are cruel and selfish and dangerous people who will destroy our civilizations if left unchecked.
Could anyone else in Canada, other than Janice, have written this brilliant and humane article? No one else probably could have, and no one else would have had the courage to do so. I wish that this article would be published on the front page of every newspaper in Canada.
I don't think that it is possible for many women to understand the issues and problems that confront men. We are all addicted to our own problems and our imaginations about the world in which we live. Too many men think that women must protect us from women and it is women that must lead reform. This is unrealistic. Nor do I think that a campaign attempting to build understanding for men and their issues will ever succeed.
A better strategy would be to lay out a model for a better society in which men and women each play their part. Multiple variations of this are already apparent as feminism loses its bloom. One that has an ideal that is sympathetic to women's needs as well as mens. Such a structure would not win over the large minority of women who want a lifestyle and not a husband, but the majority is winnable.
Multiple variations of this are already apparent as feminism loses its bloom.
Nobody is fearless, but you sure got balls, lady! And you're a great writer/journalist, too. I fundamentally disagree with some of your explanatory comments on feminism in your "About" section, but thank you for challenging absolutes and forcing people to think more objectively.
Thought it would be appropriate to join your Substack (paid) today December 6, the anniversary date of Canada'a National Day of Male Shaming. Looking forward to joining the conversation.
Janice how nice to find you on Substack and read your well organized thoughts. I remember when you stood up so well to protesters. There must be something in the Canadian water.
After seeing YouTube videos of an English woman ( Kellie-jay Keen) facing protests for saying “a woman is an adult female human,” I searched you out.
It sickens me that the legacy of feminism has aimed to instill self-hatred in men while silencing all public discourse on the violence and hatred to which men are regularly subjected as a part of "patriarchal" thought. Thank you for providing coherent and cogent counterdiscourse to the misandrist feminist agenda.