Nobody, and I mean nobody, spits out the unvarnished truth the way Janice Fiamengo does. Another brilliant read from the greatest thought leader in gender politics.
She is not a fast writer. Not a journalist trained to write an article in an hour. Difficult to have any concept how much focused concentrated effort her work takes; and it's pretty much letter perfect when it comes out. I suspect she does not have a copy editor -- she's just good at it. And a very careful typist.
Feminism represents the absolute worst of women. God forgive them for the part they have played in the destruction of the sacredness and beauty of womanhood. It’s is a diabolical ideology.
God will NOT forgive their feral, predatory rebellion unless they repent. Also, neither women nor men are 'sacred'. God is sacred, not human beings (nor, for that matter, angels).
1, when Stephen was being stoned, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, forgive them; they don’t know what they’re doing.” So it’s okay to ask God to forgive.
2, there IS a sacredness and beauty to womanhood (and to manhood), because GOD CREATED IT. “Sacred describes something that is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity; is considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspires awe or reverence among believers.” Our womanhood or manhood is supposed to be used to live out the high calling for which God has created us.
God is sacred; men are not, and females . . . even less so. By dint of their own easily observable behavior. There is nothing -- zero -- in the Bible that says human beings, or angels for that matter, are 'sacred'. Your wanting it to be so does not make it so, and suggests you'd rather decide for yourself what the Bible says, than adhere to it and obey, as you should.
It is ok -- better than ok, it is admirable -- to ask to forgive, as both Christ and Stephen did under great stress. But Father, and Father only, decides whether or not to forgive. The likes of us do not apprehend this function to ourselves, overriding His will. This is so even though Christ carries the authority, and the burden, of judgment (as Scripture attests).
Do not chafe and squirm against my instruction; you know not who I am, but I do have authority. I will say no more to you concerning this matter.
They can only be forgiven if they are irresponsible children; they cannot be if they are the responsible adults they claim. Whether they are forgiven or not, the best punishment for them is to put them all back in the kitchen and order them to make the sandwiches.
There were some bits I was not sure of, but it is a thing. There are many women out there, and many different types of feminism. Some contradict each other, some actions contradict themselves. It is OK to discuss these. It is not an attack on feminism per se.
I am reading The Crucible just now, it's set in Salem during the witch trials. The man who is supposed to be an expert in diabolism, Mr Hale, is brought to the village to diagnose who is on the side of Lucifer. He comes out with the lines: "No, no. Now let me instruct you. We cannot look to superstition in this. The Devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone".
No Mr Hale, there is exactly no Devils work in feminism.
Salem was a single event. The witch hunts occurred in Europe over centuries and were largely about disputes between or among women. About 70% of accusing witnesses were women accusing other women. Reputation destruction aimed at creating lynch mobs.
Given the noise feminists have made about the witch hunts one would hope they had more respect for the presumption of innocence.
The four main mythical pillars of the feminist hate ideology.
1. Gender based violence: anyone with gakf a brain should question whycexa try it is that feminists never have surveys on all humans who might suffer domestic abuse. They already know the results will show almost equal nu.vers of DV victims. They never ask, "who starred it", because they know women are more inclined to start abuse than men.
2. Glass ceiling: let's talk about the glass basement first! Why are 95% of people living on the streets male,
3. Gender pay gap: if a company is willing to uproot and move to another country to save money, why not just only employ women to save loads more?
4. Rape culture: suggests it's accepted. Show me any family who'd want an in-law who has been convicted of rape? Everyone hates rapists.
Let me add another point, which you might call an "anti-pillar." By this, I mean real problems for real women which feminists refuse to even remotely see. It is called the fertility gap. If you ask women at age 20 how many children they would like to have, and then ask again around age 50 how many they actually had, women around the world have fewer children than they said they wanted. There are a lot of broken hearts behind those numbers. And "feminists" who claim to speak for women, simply do not care. Women who don't agree with them do not count as women.
Another instance of a similar phenomenon. For decades, the Chinese Communist Party inflicted a one-child policy on the country. Forced abortion was part of that policy. Where were the "feminists?" Where were the "pro-choice" advocates? Crickets.
Ideologically pure Substack? All 20 million active accounts? The population of Mexico City, where everyone is armed with the publishing equivalent of an AR-15?
No question women are flaunting it more and more compared to when I was a young man. Here is something that just crossed my mind, prompted by something you wrote above. As male ‘toxic’ viewing is punished more and more young women are flaunting it more and more. Maybe young males have learned to NOT look. Don’t appear interested for if you do you might get into serious trouble. So guys are ignoring young women. What do they do in response? Up their game! More cleavage. More short skirts etc. The amount of ‘camel-toe’ I see everyday is astounding. This is something 50 years ago would have been unheard of.
We did. I did. In the summer. New England in the 80s at public school was about denim vests, corduroys, polo shirts, drive in the Camaro freaks and geeks.
I've been thinking this as well. Most women are put off when a guy doesn't say something, after all who likes being ignored? Young women act especially entitled to attention. When a guy's courting a woman, if he doesn't make the right compliment, or make a move in the first few dates, she doesn't just lose interest, if she likes him then she gets frustrated. Eventually she starts to provoke him. She rarely makes the move herself and when she does it's never as satisfying. Beneath all the aggression these young women direct AT men is their frustrated desire to be desired by men. The picture of women screaming with the title "I'm asking for it" really says it all. To me it seems like consequences of infertility, induced by birth control, and they don't even know.
Women often dressed quite provocatively 50 years ago. I say that as someone who was 19 at the time. It was the era of short shorts, skintight jeans, tank tops, and often going topless at parties or rock concerts. Women still wanted men to look at them and desire them sexually. Wolf whistling was most often appreciated--even from guys that the girl or woman wasn't interested in. Complimenting a woman's appearance was considered good manners and mothers taught their sons to do it from a young age.
Makes me sick to see young women run around half naked. It is indecent. Be a woman and dress with class, respect yourself and you will get respected. I am an older woman and God made women to be attractive to men so the species could continue. It is called nature; however, He did not intend for women to intentionally be temptresses . My parents generation are turning over in their graves, if they saw the spectacle women are making as they run around half naked. I say, disgusting. And I’m not THAT “Old Fashion”. The parents have let their daughters down by not teaching them manners about appearances. I always say, Jesus is watching. What would Jesus think. I believe he would be disgusted, also.
Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The opposite is true and making oneself a target. Being unmarried doesn't change it either really, but our biggest problem is rolling with the Externalization of the Hierarchy. This turn away from God was all by design by the occultists running clown world. Unholywood and TV played a huge part.
If there's a group of typical guys and only one or two women around, the probability of danger is quite high in this 'culture'. Not always, but consider what Blackrock paramilitary and others like them do on other continents when no one is around to stop them. Without a moral compass like the Holy Spirit provides, most men are downright evil. I don't care what anyone tries to say. You've led a sheltered life with your nose in a book then, Mortimer. Then there's the real world.
Isaiah 29:15
Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
It’s all about grift with the intent to gain power. In my half century on the planet, the only thing that I have ever seen or heard about was women, the only thing that mattered was them, their interests and their right to dictate to everyone else what they are allowed to do, say or think. The opposite side of the coin is that Princess, in all of her Narcissistic hubris need not take responsibility for anything, because it must be someone else’s fault?
Most men keep this grift up at every turn, because Princess has to be the center of the universe, and if not, you better watch out because what will come after you won’t be pretty!
Daddy’s little girl has turned around and done what any coddled, self-entitled Narcissist would, she’s knifed him in the back and erased him. Anyone with a basic brain could have seen that one coming, but the game still works every time. Daddy bet on the wrong race horse, and as common sense would have it, he’s not only lost the house, but everything of value that went along with it -
PS — Erich Berne called out "Rapo" in the 1960s, published in the 1964 book Games People Play -- a social game where a woman poses as attractive or provocative only to rebuff, dismiss or attack a man merely for being attracted to her. Game Theory was developed by Dr. Berne when he was training young psychiatrists how not to be manipulated and swindled by psychotics on the ward.
No interest for the website (I already have a clear view of the reality); the book, I downloaded it years ago, and read only a bit of it — that bit was enough to make me sure it's a great book.
Thank you for this essay, Janice, a concise exposure, so to speak, of the hypocrisy and self-admiration that informs this approach to sexuality. You do a great job of revealing the way in which these photographs attempt to bait the trap, offering examples of what men supposedly cannot resist while condemning any and all responses to the art. Hate it? You're a pig. Like it? You're a pig. Who needs the art, right? Men are pigs. The male gaze is courted, as you put it, so that it can be denounced and so that it can stoke feminist ego and anger. I see women of all ages packed into tights and tops that suggest unhealthy diets and lack of exercise. I see now that men are supposed to find these styles and looks alluring, rather than embarrassing, and indeed some might find them attractive. The bare-it-all approach is, nonetheless, a demonstration of arrogance, presumption, and self-regard. Have you seen episodes of Larry David's amazingly crude but often funny "Curb Your Enthusiasm"? He could have done an entertaining number on what you call self-objectification.
Regarding the term "male gaze," I think it's important that it be understood in its context not as a man looking at a woman but as a camera framing its subject. At the time of publication (or in the essay, I don't recall) Mulvey said that women directors do this too, but we're still calling it the "male gaze." It was then hijacked by feminists to mean any time a man looks at a woman in a way she does not approve of. This is twisting the concept around. And yes it has gone so far as proposed "eye rape" or anti-staring laws.
I finally found the panel discussion where Mulvey somewhat recently admits she was a little gung-ho with her theory. It seemed like the thing to do at the time, like the midwives in the 1970s who, with the mother, ate the placenta, described in the book Our Bodies, Ourselves.
But let's use the term male gaze in its current understanding, not the camera in TV commercials or movies panning a woman's body, but as a man looking at a woman (and let's be real — many women check out women in ways that most men do not check out men). To court this, to attract it, is a power game. The game was called Rapo by psychiatrist Eric Byrne in his 1964 classic Games People Play. It's about having a sense of power and turning that into aggression. The aggression is not passive; no aggression is.
In terms of the complaint, and objecting to men looking, this is as simple as objecting to men getting something for nothing. So the negative symbiosis transaction becomes, "if you look, you owe me something, and I'm going to attack."
This all said, speaking as an Italian and as an avid man, there is a way to look and a way to pay a compliment. There is a way to have a plus-plus symbiosis. These are social graces that are all but forgotten, and should be remembered. They require confidence and this can take a long time to build — but it is teachable and learnable with practice. Sensitivity is required. Softness or perhaps receptiveness is called for, as is awareness to when a woman might be open.
I find it better to compliment a woman on some small detail of her outfit, like how beautiful the broach is, or how her hair is done.
I realize in our crude environment, doing this well would seem to verge on telepathic, though in truth, it's about social awareness, and a sense of appropriateness. And it must be done for its own social pleasure, a kind of sweetness — not for some other gain. And of course, letting rejection roll off is essential.
Then if a conversation begins, one must know how to go with it.
One last. People get aggressive when they do not know who they are. This is pure McLuhan theory. Aggression is a crude form of self-actualization. Most women have half-formed personalities at best. So practicing aggression as a way of life is a form of self-discovery. Who cares who is hurt. We will see more and more of this as the disembodied digital age pushes people out of their self-knowledge and self-awareness and makes them susceptible to the abundant free-floating rage of our times.
thank you for the Eric Berne reminder.. forgot about him, now 40 years later having read the Games book.
I started to question my need to give compliments to strangers a few years ago.
I realised that I was giving compliments, chatting etc., to be friendly, polite but I pick my fights a little better now a days.
A good friend of mine, gay, loves to give people advice/compliments (that he thinks they need !!!) and then wonders why they get aggressive with him in return..male or female... So on this I would agree that feminists are right about giving unwarranted attention HOWEVER it is over done now and they have enlisted the Governments - who are mainly idiot enough to obey - to enforce their so called theories by putting men in jail for uttering Boo!!! And also refuse to see that they are giving advice to Men that was never asked for.. a continual circle of horror.
They could be strangers; they could be people you already know somewhat. We are missing nearly all social lubricants in our time of power at all costs. Everyone to some extent is feeling invisible and swallowed by the digital environment. Only "feminists" pretend not to take pleasure in a compliment. In the real world of human interaction, feminism has no value. Respect does. Acknowledgement does. Loving kindness does.
I do not have a need to give compliments but I do have a need to receive nourishment from the beauty in my environment, and part of that is a complete exchange. And more than anything, I have a need to be me.
I realize that most people are not as gregarious as I am. In the space of 30 seconds, I could be in a conversation with anyone about anything — though that is my gift, and I use it judiciously. We need to be more social.
"Feminism" has ruined all the beauty of flirtation. It has ruined being a woman for many women. And those women who do not practice feminism are equally taxed by it as are men who hare having their essence emasculated.
Greg, I know what you mean. Around my neighborhood many of them don't even look at me, like they're a billionaire and I'm the hired help. But not always.
It's only a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder.
The feminist argument is aided by the belief that men think of women as sex objects because ONLY male desire is powerful enough to degrade and dehumanize another person and reduce them to a "mere object."
My son had a girlfriend, from a wealthy European family, who reminded me of Katherine Hepburn with her style. I complimented her on an outfit and she responded my notation was sexist. Because I knew she was a bit batty, I wasn't offended. My son broke up with her. I never asked the details, nor wanted to, but apparently she was too bonkers. While stating she was an ardent feminist, he picked up the tabs and when she needed a walk home, after he broke up, she played the damsel in distress card. Being an 80s girl, I find these women frightening. Men were friends and some were lovers but very very very few were deemed predators.
I admire Naomi Wolf's work but lately her concern that Trump is alienating the 'cat ladies' has turned me off. I appreciate the logic but not the morals. Fearing to alienate them is like tolerating a physical abusive man who can't control his emotions and lashes out. We the competent women need to call out these socio-paths just like we expect men to defend us from men whose physicality is out of control.
Exactly. Women are fundamentally selfish creatures. They don't give a rat's about men screwed over by women unless it's their own son. The only female opposition to feminism is a handful of ageing second-wave feminists who feel betrayed by the modern movement. They're easily dismissed by modern feminists as relics of the past who will soon be dead and gone. When that happens, there will be ZERO female voices raised against feminism.
There are no such "competent women" who will call out these socio-paths.
These women simply don't exist. The best you can expect from women these days is passive acceptance of female supremacism.
I also don't think it's right to expect anything from men. Do you have pepper spray? Guns? Knives? Is it also the case that women treat men like dogs broadly in western society?
You really have no claim to be protected by men from pretty much anything. Especially considering you live significantly safer lives than men anyway.
I'll also say there's nothing wrong with hitting a woman who is abusive.
It's more socially acceptable to spank toddlers than it is to hit abusive, grown women. That's fucked. Sometimes, women really are asking for it.
Now that females rule all things, from government to corporations to law, they maintain men and boys in an impossible double-bind, as assurance that nothing can, or will, change. And it won't, either, not for quite some time to come.
Until they have destroyed all things, including their own feminist nations of the West, the beat(down) will go on. And after having ruined and destroyed all things, including their own Secure Homeland nests, they will sit in a big circle, weep, and blame . . . well we know who they will blame. ANYBODY and EVERYBODY except themselves.
Despite all this, speak the truth (as Janice does) and separate yourselves -- and especially your vulnerable sons, from out of the gynarchies. Preserve yourselves, brothers, from before the gaping maw of feral female predation and tyranny. Do not allow them to gobble up your spirit, as that is their fondest hope.
The fundamental relationship of women to men is parasitical. Just like the fundamental relationship of infant to mother is rather parasitical in nature.
It's made worse because an infant is less intelligent than most grown mammals, so morals aren't expected.
Women however. Well, you'd think they'd be capable of some decency. But all that comes about is abusive, vile, parasitism.
Agreed. Sounds harsh, but it is the truth. Feminism is in a parasitical relationship with the male.
There are exceptions amongst females -- as Janice and, for example, Bettina demonstrate. But exceptions are relatively rare in the anglo/fem nations, where women act as a hive in collective solidarity. Men do not.
"women act as a hive in collective solidarity. Men do not."
The frightening thing about female solidarity is the political power they wield by voting as a mindless mob instead of thinking individuals. They've already installed socialist governments in Australia and the UK by voting en masse for "female friendly" candidates, and Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris led to 400,000 voter registrations within 24 hours. That says it all about the collective stupidity of women and their demonstrable unfitness to vote.
Females don't often make behavior decisions independently. They observe what The Herd is doing around them, and do likewise, because their top priority is safety safety and thirdly, SAFETY. :O) There is a reason that scumbags in D.C. named their totalitarian organization the Department of Homeland Security. They know exactly how to tap-in to female cueing and control.
Weak men also do this, but to lesser extent than in the woman. This behavioral difference makes the females uniquely available to mass-manipulation by predatory actors, using base emotional triggers like fear, covetousness, and outrage. The past fifty years of Western history stands as proof of our assertions.
I will be looking for your comments in the future. michael
I’m hoping that MGTOW will respond to these “Come objectify me so that I can assert my victimhood and use it to attack you” campaigns with its own series of men reacting with an emphatic “No, thanks. I’m not interested.” Of course, feminism—always determined to have its cake and eat it too—would be eager to respond that men’s lack of sexual interest in women also degrades them.
They already do. I’ve read complaints that male managers/bosses/directors avoiding mentoring women out of fear of a sexual harassment accusation are misogynistic. It’s ridiculous, but it’s real.
I understand your logic, but allowing dangerous and pernicious feminist propaganda to proliferate without countervailing efforts to control or minimize its effects has not served men (or Western culture more broadly) well.
I think there are two things going on here: One is the natural urge of young women to display fit attractive bodies, partly to attract male attention, partly to assert dominance over less attractive women. The other is the obvious desire to dominate men.
The combination would be interesting to an anthropologist examining cultural change, particularly changing fundamental values. I, being no more than an amateur anthropologist, venture to suggest a couple of things. One is that many women are taking advantage of feminism in order to both eat their cake and keep it whole. That is to be able to define themselves simultaneously as sex kittens and nuns. That’s, to a degree, a new way of displaying immaturity.
But it is also a projection of the ethos of the “mean girl” moving beyond the humiliation of less popular girls into a broader social dominance. This is both another demonstration that adult life in the Western world is just an extension of high school with more at stake, and that feminism is really about the assertion of the bitch as the feminist ideal woman.
A third factor is that this is primarily a set of behaviors limited to younger women. A question occurring to me is the extent to which women north of forty are encouraging girls and young women to engage in a mass iteration of the badger game, which is essentially what you’re describing.
To wrap up, this is going to have some interesting effects on lefty, middle class, feminist women in the developed world. They don’t constitute a majority, and they are doing their best to reduce their own numbers by alienating men, and reducing the possibility they will have children to indoctrinate and bully. The game of life has multiple iterations, and deliberately promoting self-destruction will inevitably result in achievement of the goal.
"partly to assert dominance over less attractive women." I think this is a very important point. Having worked in female dominated industries all my working life I'd observe that women do in fact spend a great deal of their lives in competing against each other. Often in details that men are completely oblivious about. In fact women are, once partnered and settled, remarkably unconcerned about men generally. Even their games about their male partners, usually tales of how useless they are at this or that, are mainly about demonstrating to other women how saintly they are in a sort of competition of who is the most long suffering.
Demography is Destiny. Feminism drives down birth rates in the West, requiring mass immigration from non-Western countries to sustain economies. These immigrant populations bring their own culture and traditions, which are antithetical to feminism. Or to put it another way, these populations have natural immunity to the feminism virus. Which means the feminism pandemic in the West will eventually end.
Sure, the immunity wanes over generations, and a few of their children may get infected, typically at university where the feminism virus is rampant. But if you look around you'll see that feminism is still very much a privileged white woman's disease.
In response to this escalating game of "look at me, don't you dare look" I have slowly started to ignore attractive women completely. They might as well be a post or a tree. It is of course completely contradictory to nature, contrived, downright dishonest in fact. But when you are caught up in a cultural tide, sometimes there is little choice. It is a pity, and dark, removing the natural play between the sexes with an resentment fueled ideological club.
Another fantastic article from you! This very issue annoys me no end: The calculated sexual display combined with feigned outrage over the results. I believe this used to be called teasing or coquetry in times past, and it was condemned as dangerous and low class. The commenter above who attributed this rise in exhibitionism to men’s increased caution is right, IMHO. Girls must go to ever greater lengths to get the levels of male attention they crave…but they instinctively know that an easy woman has low value so they must simultaneously play hard to get. Thus the ultimate absurdity of naked women screaming about objectification. All these girls would be better off dressing modestly and seeking marriage, followed by motherhood. Their deep unhappiness comes from avoiding their natural calling as wives and mothers.
But that is just the patriarchal role that has been forced on women by ignorant men from the dark ages! Not trying to be offensive. It seems that much conflict in the topic has been cultivated by activists , and traditional roles in society have been demonized and given some sinister new motivation.
I think the entire "objectification" nonsense can be debunked by a single question: what is the expense ratio of clothing purchases, cosmetics, and plastic surgery of Western women vis à vis Western men? And are those women being forced into those costs and surgical decisions, or are they making them entirely themselves, and if so, what is their purpose? To attract men's attention, maybe? Nah, couldn't be....
Case closed. I have more important fish to fry than to cater to female craziness. Walking away; the West is lost. See you in Manila.
Why do women wear lingerie? Why are there entire stores dedicated to selling women's underwear? Where are the male equivalents? Women will then claim they mustn't be objectified and all their efforts to look attractive isn't for men but rather themselves... lol. "Ah... so you go to all that trouble because you're vain?"
Paraphrasing my old college roommate, Hamlet Shakespear, "Vanity, thy name is woman."
But of course, since the purpose of skimpy underwear is sexual arousal, whom is it intended to arouse? Is it an object for themselves, one that they see only when they undress for bed? Or is it meant for the eyes of another for whom they undress?
Quite. During the "me too" phase this seemed encapsulated by fashion houses using "me too" to sell their wares. I recall one with a parade of the usual tall, leggy, slim models rapped in variations of a T shirt with "Feminist" on the front. Even now products are sold with feminist slogans, one actually exhorting paracetomol tablets are " achieving pain equality" as if men have pain magically dealt with by the patriarchy! Generally of course the ads proclaim hair colouring and make up can make you find the "real you" while clothes are often described as making you look "sexy" frequently of course all this "gives you confidence". In short clearly women are the consumers par exellence of a vast industries built on feeding vanity . And of course they rely on feeding a sense of inadequacy if you don't buy their transformative products. As an economist I have seen the persistent attempts over decades to get men to become as great consumers of clothes cosmetics etc. The fact is although the consumption for both sexes has increased with increasing affluence the proportions have not changed much, in fact male spending on clothes has decreased proportionately. And of course as feminism has moved into the mainstream the "feminist" is as likely to be wearing all the latest fashions and proclaiming a "right" to designer handbags, beauty products etc. (a case here recently of a women "fighting for the right" to wearing high heeled shoes at work, despite their impracticality in the workplace).
I always wondered what in the world women were thinking, wearing high heels. Looks like an ankle fracture in prospect to me. My wife told me that by pointing the foot downward they shorten and thicken the gastrocnemius muscle, making the calf look "sexier." Good Lord.
I'm not sure what you think you prove by placing an irrelevant question after comments. My Substack is intended to be a space for serious men's issues discussion; if you do not wish to engage in such discussion, go elsewhere. Otherwise, I will have to ban you.
Whenever I read or hear Janice's interviews this soothing feeling descends over my brain, like a balm on a bad burn. Thank you Janice, you're helping to clear my head after a lifetime of Feminist gaslighting.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, spits out the unvarnished truth the way Janice Fiamengo does. Another brilliant read from the greatest thought leader in gender politics.
And she does it with such cogency and eloquence. Although I am only half Canadian, I consider her a national treasure.
An international treasure, for those who don't live in Canada
I hope my mother, who was born and lived the first part of her life in Saskatchewan, was related to JF. Mom became Texan, and I became a writer.
She is not a fast writer. Not a journalist trained to write an article in an hour. Difficult to have any concept how much focused concentrated effort her work takes; and it's pretty much letter perfect when it comes out. I suspect she does not have a copy editor -- she's just good at it. And a very careful typist.
Agreed!
She is an international treasure.
She's pretty good
Paul Elam, my friend. How's you doing?
I've not seen your stuff for ages.
Still at it, amigo. Hope you're well.
I'm still on Fascistbook.com but rarely go there these days.
I'm not sure of you've figured out who I am or not.
You do know me, we've spoken on Skype before, years ago.
I'm writing fictional stories and sniping bullshit these days.
Can't say I remember ATM, lol. My memory isn't what it use to be. It's been ages since I've used Skype.
I'm Irish, if that helps.
I'd just as soon you don't give my name or even hints.
Doh! Now I remember! Great to see you here and I hope you're enjoying life these days!
First time reading her & exposing this evil BS should be enough to wake up the masses, yet……….
Feminism represents the absolute worst of women. God forgive them for the part they have played in the destruction of the sacredness and beauty of womanhood. It’s is a diabolical ideology.
Amen!
God will NOT forgive their feral, predatory rebellion unless they repent. Also, neither women nor men are 'sacred'. God is sacred, not human beings (nor, for that matter, angels).
I am not guessing.
1, when Stephen was being stoned, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, forgive them; they don’t know what they’re doing.” So it’s okay to ask God to forgive.
2, there IS a sacredness and beauty to womanhood (and to manhood), because GOD CREATED IT. “Sacred describes something that is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity; is considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspires awe or reverence among believers.” Our womanhood or manhood is supposed to be used to live out the high calling for which God has created us.
God is sacred; men are not, and females . . . even less so. By dint of their own easily observable behavior. There is nothing -- zero -- in the Bible that says human beings, or angels for that matter, are 'sacred'. Your wanting it to be so does not make it so, and suggests you'd rather decide for yourself what the Bible says, than adhere to it and obey, as you should.
It is ok -- better than ok, it is admirable -- to ask to forgive, as both Christ and Stephen did under great stress. But Father, and Father only, decides whether or not to forgive. The likes of us do not apprehend this function to ourselves, overriding His will. This is so even though Christ carries the authority, and the burden, of judgment (as Scripture attests).
Do not chafe and squirm against my instruction; you know not who I am, but I do have authority. I will say no more to you concerning this matter.
They can only be forgiven if they are irresponsible children; they cannot be if they are the responsible adults they claim. Whether they are forgiven or not, the best punishment for them is to put them all back in the kitchen and order them to make the sandwiches.
Correct, Ian. They repent of doing evil, or no forgiveness from God.
I don't do the god fairy tale.
Obviously. No skin offa my back.
But He exists whether you 'do' Him or not. The fairy tale is your consciousness, Ian or Jay or whatever you call yourself today.
Yup, another nut case.
There were some bits I was not sure of, but it is a thing. There are many women out there, and many different types of feminism. Some contradict each other, some actions contradict themselves. It is OK to discuss these. It is not an attack on feminism per se.
What, exactly, is wrong with attacking something that is evil, like feminism?
I am reading The Crucible just now, it's set in Salem during the witch trials. The man who is supposed to be an expert in diabolism, Mr Hale, is brought to the village to diagnose who is on the side of Lucifer. He comes out with the lines: "No, no. Now let me instruct you. We cannot look to superstition in this. The Devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone".
No Mr Hale, there is exactly no Devils work in feminism.
You win the prize for silliest argument in this comments section.
Hang on a minute. I got here late.
I am not sure if it was so much an argument as an analogy. So, you think feminism is evil?
Salem was a single event. The witch hunts occurred in Europe over centuries and were largely about disputes between or among women. About 70% of accusing witnesses were women accusing other women. Reputation destruction aimed at creating lynch mobs.
Given the noise feminists have made about the witch hunts one would hope they had more respect for the presumption of innocence.
The four main mythical pillars of the feminist hate ideology.
1. Gender based violence: anyone with gakf a brain should question whycexa try it is that feminists never have surveys on all humans who might suffer domestic abuse. They already know the results will show almost equal nu.vers of DV victims. They never ask, "who starred it", because they know women are more inclined to start abuse than men.
2. Glass ceiling: let's talk about the glass basement first! Why are 95% of people living on the streets male,
3. Gender pay gap: if a company is willing to uproot and move to another country to save money, why not just only employ women to save loads more?
4. Rape culture: suggests it's accepted. Show me any family who'd want an in-law who has been convicted of rape? Everyone hates rapists.
Let me add another point, which you might call an "anti-pillar." By this, I mean real problems for real women which feminists refuse to even remotely see. It is called the fertility gap. If you ask women at age 20 how many children they would like to have, and then ask again around age 50 how many they actually had, women around the world have fewer children than they said they wanted. There are a lot of broken hearts behind those numbers. And "feminists" who claim to speak for women, simply do not care. Women who don't agree with them do not count as women.
Another instance of a similar phenomenon. For decades, the Chinese Communist Party inflicted a one-child policy on the country. Forced abortion was part of that policy. Where were the "feminists?" Where were the "pro-choice" advocates? Crickets.
What?
There are probably as many different types of feminism as mental illnesses and personality disorders.
They might play a role in some feminist movements, but there's a lot more going on than that. I have written about this on my Substack.
That's like saying some aspect of communism is ok. It's not an attack communism per se.
“No one is allowed to think differently than me or else I will make my disappointment known.” Grow up.
Go away fembot.
"Incel", an insult used by people who's only unit of value is sex.
So what's your body count?
Two or three figures?
Are you seriously trying to insult me?
Even with a bottle of whiskey inside me I'd destroy your posts.
So what's your body count?
I assume you must think highly of yourself so it must be three digits.
Fembots, like idiot punks, come in both sexes. You are a fembot idiot punk female. Congratulations, you have just won Hag of the Month! :O)
Excuse me, you seem quite happy to cast labels on others whilst hiding behind an alias. Cowardly act.
Ideologically pure Substack? All 20 million active accounts? The population of Mexico City, where everyone is armed with the publishing equivalent of an AR-15?
What are you babbling about?
“disappointed to find in Substack”
What is that supposed to mean???
No question women are flaunting it more and more compared to when I was a young man. Here is something that just crossed my mind, prompted by something you wrote above. As male ‘toxic’ viewing is punished more and more young women are flaunting it more and more. Maybe young males have learned to NOT look. Don’t appear interested for if you do you might get into serious trouble. So guys are ignoring young women. What do they do in response? Up their game! More cleavage. More short skirts etc. The amount of ‘camel-toe’ I see everyday is astounding. This is something 50 years ago would have been unheard of.
I don’t blame young men for running away from that potential trap. No one considering wearing even a tank top to school in the 80s.
Huh? We wore tube tops!
We did. I did. In the summer. New England in the 80s at public school was about denim vests, corduroys, polo shirts, drive in the Camaro freaks and geeks.
Bring back boob tubes!
I've been thinking this as well. Most women are put off when a guy doesn't say something, after all who likes being ignored? Young women act especially entitled to attention. When a guy's courting a woman, if he doesn't make the right compliment, or make a move in the first few dates, she doesn't just lose interest, if she likes him then she gets frustrated. Eventually she starts to provoke him. She rarely makes the move herself and when she does it's never as satisfying. Beneath all the aggression these young women direct AT men is their frustrated desire to be desired by men. The picture of women screaming with the title "I'm asking for it" really says it all. To me it seems like consequences of infertility, induced by birth control, and they don't even know.
You may well be right about that. "it seems like consequences of infertility, induced by birth control, and they don't even know."
Women often dressed quite provocatively 50 years ago. I say that as someone who was 19 at the time. It was the era of short shorts, skintight jeans, tank tops, and often going topless at parties or rock concerts. Women still wanted men to look at them and desire them sexually. Wolf whistling was most often appreciated--even from guys that the girl or woman wasn't interested in. Complimenting a woman's appearance was considered good manners and mothers taught their sons to do it from a young age.
Camel-toe is so cheap and common but today's women seem addicted to it.
There are even fake camel toe fashion accesories for women not naturally blessed with bulging vulva.
Makes me sick to see young women run around half naked. It is indecent. Be a woman and dress with class, respect yourself and you will get respected. I am an older woman and God made women to be attractive to men so the species could continue. It is called nature; however, He did not intend for women to intentionally be temptresses . My parents generation are turning over in their graves, if they saw the spectacle women are making as they run around half naked. I say, disgusting. And I’m not THAT “Old Fashion”. The parents have let their daughters down by not teaching them manners about appearances. I always say, Jesus is watching. What would Jesus think. I believe he would be disgusted, also.
Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The opposite is true and making oneself a target. Being unmarried doesn't change it either really, but our biggest problem is rolling with the Externalization of the Hierarchy. This turn away from God was all by design by the occultists running clown world. Unholywood and TV played a huge part.
If there's a group of typical guys and only one or two women around, the probability of danger is quite high in this 'culture'. Not always, but consider what Blackrock paramilitary and others like them do on other continents when no one is around to stop them. Without a moral compass like the Holy Spirit provides, most men are downright evil. I don't care what anyone tries to say. You've led a sheltered life with your nose in a book then, Mortimer. Then there's the real world.
Isaiah 29:15
Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Did I mention that?
Oh right! People don’t look at each other’s bodies on beaches. Right. Good point.
Everyone wears sun glasses so you can look and not be obvious.
It’s all about grift with the intent to gain power. In my half century on the planet, the only thing that I have ever seen or heard about was women, the only thing that mattered was them, their interests and their right to dictate to everyone else what they are allowed to do, say or think. The opposite side of the coin is that Princess, in all of her Narcissistic hubris need not take responsibility for anything, because it must be someone else’s fault?
Most men keep this grift up at every turn, because Princess has to be the center of the universe, and if not, you better watch out because what will come after you won’t be pretty!
Daddy’s little girl has turned around and done what any coddled, self-entitled Narcissist would, she’s knifed him in the back and erased him. Anyone with a basic brain could have seen that one coming, but the game still works every time. Daddy bet on the wrong race horse, and as common sense would have it, he’s not only lost the house, but everything of value that went along with it -
You described my ex wife to a tee
Both of mine.
This is the essay I've been waiting for.
PS — Erich Berne called out "Rapo" in the 1960s, published in the 1964 book Games People Play -- a social game where a woman poses as attractive or provocative only to rebuff, dismiss or attack a man merely for being attracted to her. Game Theory was developed by Dr. Berne when he was training young psychiatrists how not to be manipulated and swindled by psychotics on the ward.
https://ericberne.com/games-people-play/rapo/
There is another book, "If men have all the power, how come women set the rules?"
Men willingly cede all the power in worship of What is Between Legs.
Otherwise, they have all of it.
In practice, they function as tools of women, most time.
Esther Vilar wrote about that in her book "The Manipulated Man".
Do you know of the website Gynocentrism?
No interest for the website (I already have a clear view of the reality); the book, I downloaded it years ago, and read only a bit of it — that bit was enough to make me sure it's a great book.
Michael Leunig produced a classic cartoon back in the 70s, where a strip club patron was labelled a 'pervert' for responding to such provocation.
hah. yep. thanks for that...
My local library has a copy. I'll be getting it out - the book, I mean.
Elaine: “He took it out.”
Jerry: “He what?”
Elaine: “He took…it out.”
Just bought a copy on Amazon -- thanks for sharing.
Thank you for this essay, Janice, a concise exposure, so to speak, of the hypocrisy and self-admiration that informs this approach to sexuality. You do a great job of revealing the way in which these photographs attempt to bait the trap, offering examples of what men supposedly cannot resist while condemning any and all responses to the art. Hate it? You're a pig. Like it? You're a pig. Who needs the art, right? Men are pigs. The male gaze is courted, as you put it, so that it can be denounced and so that it can stoke feminist ego and anger. I see women of all ages packed into tights and tops that suggest unhealthy diets and lack of exercise. I see now that men are supposed to find these styles and looks alluring, rather than embarrassing, and indeed some might find them attractive. The bare-it-all approach is, nonetheless, a demonstration of arrogance, presumption, and self-regard. Have you seen episodes of Larry David's amazingly crude but often funny "Curb Your Enthusiasm"? He could have done an entertaining number on what you call self-objectification.
Regarding the term "male gaze," I think it's important that it be understood in its context not as a man looking at a woman but as a camera framing its subject. At the time of publication (or in the essay, I don't recall) Mulvey said that women directors do this too, but we're still calling it the "male gaze." It was then hijacked by feminists to mean any time a man looks at a woman in a way she does not approve of. This is twisting the concept around. And yes it has gone so far as proposed "eye rape" or anti-staring laws.
I finally found the panel discussion where Mulvey somewhat recently admits she was a little gung-ho with her theory. It seemed like the thing to do at the time, like the midwives in the 1970s who, with the mother, ate the placenta, described in the book Our Bodies, Ourselves.
But let's use the term male gaze in its current understanding, not the camera in TV commercials or movies panning a woman's body, but as a man looking at a woman (and let's be real — many women check out women in ways that most men do not check out men). To court this, to attract it, is a power game. The game was called Rapo by psychiatrist Eric Byrne in his 1964 classic Games People Play. It's about having a sense of power and turning that into aggression. The aggression is not passive; no aggression is.
https://ericberne.com/games-people-play/rapo/
In terms of the complaint, and objecting to men looking, this is as simple as objecting to men getting something for nothing. So the negative symbiosis transaction becomes, "if you look, you owe me something, and I'm going to attack."
This all said, speaking as an Italian and as an avid man, there is a way to look and a way to pay a compliment. There is a way to have a plus-plus symbiosis. These are social graces that are all but forgotten, and should be remembered. They require confidence and this can take a long time to build — but it is teachable and learnable with practice. Sensitivity is required. Softness or perhaps receptiveness is called for, as is awareness to when a woman might be open.
I find it better to compliment a woman on some small detail of her outfit, like how beautiful the broach is, or how her hair is done.
I realize in our crude environment, doing this well would seem to verge on telepathic, though in truth, it's about social awareness, and a sense of appropriateness. And it must be done for its own social pleasure, a kind of sweetness — not for some other gain. And of course, letting rejection roll off is essential.
Then if a conversation begins, one must know how to go with it.
One last. People get aggressive when they do not know who they are. This is pure McLuhan theory. Aggression is a crude form of self-actualization. Most women have half-formed personalities at best. So practicing aggression as a way of life is a form of self-discovery. Who cares who is hurt. We will see more and more of this as the disembodied digital age pushes people out of their self-knowledge and self-awareness and makes them susceptible to the abundant free-floating rage of our times.
thank you for the Eric Berne reminder.. forgot about him, now 40 years later having read the Games book.
I started to question my need to give compliments to strangers a few years ago.
I realised that I was giving compliments, chatting etc., to be friendly, polite but I pick my fights a little better now a days.
A good friend of mine, gay, loves to give people advice/compliments (that he thinks they need !!!) and then wonders why they get aggressive with him in return..male or female... So on this I would agree that feminists are right about giving unwarranted attention HOWEVER it is over done now and they have enlisted the Governments - who are mainly idiot enough to obey - to enforce their so called theories by putting men in jail for uttering Boo!!! And also refuse to see that they are giving advice to Men that was never asked for.. a continual circle of horror.
They could be strangers; they could be people you already know somewhat. We are missing nearly all social lubricants in our time of power at all costs. Everyone to some extent is feeling invisible and swallowed by the digital environment. Only "feminists" pretend not to take pleasure in a compliment. In the real world of human interaction, feminism has no value. Respect does. Acknowledgement does. Loving kindness does.
I do not have a need to give compliments but I do have a need to receive nourishment from the beauty in my environment, and part of that is a complete exchange. And more than anything, I have a need to be me.
I realize that most people are not as gregarious as I am. In the space of 30 seconds, I could be in a conversation with anyone about anything — though that is my gift, and I use it judiciously. We need to be more social.
"Feminism" has ruined all the beauty of flirtation. It has ruined being a woman for many women. And those women who do not practice feminism are equally taxed by it as are men who hare having their essence emasculated.
thanks for the reflection, update, ideas.
I can pretty much have something in 30 seconds, mostly.. but I start with small talk now and see how it goes...
Advice is never flirtatious, except maybe to say "the parking meters are off now." Which is not advice. Advice is often intrusive.
Nay, laddie. Do not compliment a woman at all. Let her learn what life is like for men.
Greg, I know what you mean. Around my neighborhood many of them don't even look at me, like they're a billionaire and I'm the hired help. But not always.
It's only a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder.
The feminist argument is aided by the belief that men think of women as sex objects because ONLY male desire is powerful enough to degrade and dehumanize another person and reduce them to a "mere object."
My son had a girlfriend, from a wealthy European family, who reminded me of Katherine Hepburn with her style. I complimented her on an outfit and she responded my notation was sexist. Because I knew she was a bit batty, I wasn't offended. My son broke up with her. I never asked the details, nor wanted to, but apparently she was too bonkers. While stating she was an ardent feminist, he picked up the tabs and when she needed a walk home, after he broke up, she played the damsel in distress card. Being an 80s girl, I find these women frightening. Men were friends and some were lovers but very very very few were deemed predators.
I admire Naomi Wolf's work but lately her concern that Trump is alienating the 'cat ladies' has turned me off. I appreciate the logic but not the morals. Fearing to alienate them is like tolerating a physical abusive man who can't control his emotions and lashes out. We the competent women need to call out these socio-paths just like we expect men to defend us from men whose physicality is out of control.
There are hardly any women who give a shit about men enough to call out women on literally anything.
How many Fiamengo's exist in the world?
I can think of about 5 on the internet.
Exactly. Women are fundamentally selfish creatures. They don't give a rat's about men screwed over by women unless it's their own son. The only female opposition to feminism is a handful of ageing second-wave feminists who feel betrayed by the modern movement. They're easily dismissed by modern feminists as relics of the past who will soon be dead and gone. When that happens, there will be ZERO female voices raised against feminism.
I don't know about that. Some aspect of it seem one and same, it's they haven't done anything to put an end to it.
There are no such "competent women" who will call out these socio-paths.
These women simply don't exist. The best you can expect from women these days is passive acceptance of female supremacism.
I also don't think it's right to expect anything from men. Do you have pepper spray? Guns? Knives? Is it also the case that women treat men like dogs broadly in western society?
You really have no claim to be protected by men from pretty much anything. Especially considering you live significantly safer lives than men anyway.
I'll also say there's nothing wrong with hitting a woman who is abusive.
It's more socially acceptable to spank toddlers than it is to hit abusive, grown women. That's fucked. Sometimes, women really are asking for it.
"It's more socially acceptable to spank toddlers than it is to hit abusive, grown women."
Womens' feelings about their safety are prioritised over the actual safety of children.
Now that females rule all things, from government to corporations to law, they maintain men and boys in an impossible double-bind, as assurance that nothing can, or will, change. And it won't, either, not for quite some time to come.
Until they have destroyed all things, including their own feminist nations of the West, the beat(down) will go on. And after having ruined and destroyed all things, including their own Secure Homeland nests, they will sit in a big circle, weep, and blame . . . well we know who they will blame. ANYBODY and EVERYBODY except themselves.
Despite all this, speak the truth (as Janice does) and separate yourselves -- and especially your vulnerable sons, from out of the gynarchies. Preserve yourselves, brothers, from before the gaping maw of feral female predation and tyranny. Do not allow them to gobble up your spirit, as that is their fondest hope.
The fundamental relationship of women to men is parasitical. Just like the fundamental relationship of infant to mother is rather parasitical in nature.
It's made worse because an infant is less intelligent than most grown mammals, so morals aren't expected.
Women however. Well, you'd think they'd be capable of some decency. But all that comes about is abusive, vile, parasitism.
Agreed. Sounds harsh, but it is the truth. Feminism is in a parasitical relationship with the male.
There are exceptions amongst females -- as Janice and, for example, Bettina demonstrate. But exceptions are relatively rare in the anglo/fem nations, where women act as a hive in collective solidarity. Men do not.
"women act as a hive in collective solidarity. Men do not."
The frightening thing about female solidarity is the political power they wield by voting as a mindless mob instead of thinking individuals. They've already installed socialist governments in Australia and the UK by voting en masse for "female friendly" candidates, and Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris led to 400,000 voter registrations within 24 hours. That says it all about the collective stupidity of women and their demonstrable unfitness to vote.
Well said.
Females don't often make behavior decisions independently. They observe what The Herd is doing around them, and do likewise, because their top priority is safety safety and thirdly, SAFETY. :O) There is a reason that scumbags in D.C. named their totalitarian organization the Department of Homeland Security. They know exactly how to tap-in to female cueing and control.
Weak men also do this, but to lesser extent than in the woman. This behavioral difference makes the females uniquely available to mass-manipulation by predatory actors, using base emotional triggers like fear, covetousness, and outrage. The past fifty years of Western history stands as proof of our assertions.
I will be looking for your comments in the future. michael
I’m hoping that MGTOW will respond to these “Come objectify me so that I can assert my victimhood and use it to attack you” campaigns with its own series of men reacting with an emphatic “No, thanks. I’m not interested.” Of course, feminism—always determined to have its cake and eat it too—would be eager to respond that men’s lack of sexual interest in women also degrades them.
They already do. I’ve read complaints that male managers/bosses/directors avoiding mentoring women out of fear of a sexual harassment accusation are misogynistic. It’s ridiculous, but it’s real.
No response is the best response.
I understand your logic, but allowing dangerous and pernicious feminist propaganda to proliferate without countervailing efforts to control or minimize its effects has not served men (or Western culture more broadly) well.
I think there are two things going on here: One is the natural urge of young women to display fit attractive bodies, partly to attract male attention, partly to assert dominance over less attractive women. The other is the obvious desire to dominate men.
The combination would be interesting to an anthropologist examining cultural change, particularly changing fundamental values. I, being no more than an amateur anthropologist, venture to suggest a couple of things. One is that many women are taking advantage of feminism in order to both eat their cake and keep it whole. That is to be able to define themselves simultaneously as sex kittens and nuns. That’s, to a degree, a new way of displaying immaturity.
But it is also a projection of the ethos of the “mean girl” moving beyond the humiliation of less popular girls into a broader social dominance. This is both another demonstration that adult life in the Western world is just an extension of high school with more at stake, and that feminism is really about the assertion of the bitch as the feminist ideal woman.
A third factor is that this is primarily a set of behaviors limited to younger women. A question occurring to me is the extent to which women north of forty are encouraging girls and young women to engage in a mass iteration of the badger game, which is essentially what you’re describing.
To wrap up, this is going to have some interesting effects on lefty, middle class, feminist women in the developed world. They don’t constitute a majority, and they are doing their best to reduce their own numbers by alienating men, and reducing the possibility they will have children to indoctrinate and bully. The game of life has multiple iterations, and deliberately promoting self-destruction will inevitably result in achievement of the goal.
"partly to assert dominance over less attractive women." I think this is a very important point. Having worked in female dominated industries all my working life I'd observe that women do in fact spend a great deal of their lives in competing against each other. Often in details that men are completely oblivious about. In fact women are, once partnered and settled, remarkably unconcerned about men generally. Even their games about their male partners, usually tales of how useless they are at this or that, are mainly about demonstrating to other women how saintly they are in a sort of competition of who is the most long suffering.
Demography is Destiny. Feminism drives down birth rates in the West, requiring mass immigration from non-Western countries to sustain economies. These immigrant populations bring their own culture and traditions, which are antithetical to feminism. Or to put it another way, these populations have natural immunity to the feminism virus. Which means the feminism pandemic in the West will eventually end.
The immigrants get infected when they come. Or at least their children do.
Sure, the immunity wanes over generations, and a few of their children may get infected, typically at university where the feminism virus is rampant. But if you look around you'll see that feminism is still very much a privileged white woman's disease.
*Double binds* are the tools of the practicing psychopath.
In response to this escalating game of "look at me, don't you dare look" I have slowly started to ignore attractive women completely. They might as well be a post or a tree. It is of course completely contradictory to nature, contrived, downright dishonest in fact. But when you are caught up in a cultural tide, sometimes there is little choice. It is a pity, and dark, removing the natural play between the sexes with an resentment fueled ideological club.
Another fantastic article from you! This very issue annoys me no end: The calculated sexual display combined with feigned outrage over the results. I believe this used to be called teasing or coquetry in times past, and it was condemned as dangerous and low class. The commenter above who attributed this rise in exhibitionism to men’s increased caution is right, IMHO. Girls must go to ever greater lengths to get the levels of male attention they crave…but they instinctively know that an easy woman has low value so they must simultaneously play hard to get. Thus the ultimate absurdity of naked women screaming about objectification. All these girls would be better off dressing modestly and seeking marriage, followed by motherhood. Their deep unhappiness comes from avoiding their natural calling as wives and mothers.
But that is just the patriarchal role that has been forced on women by ignorant men from the dark ages! Not trying to be offensive. It seems that much conflict in the topic has been cultivated by activists , and traditional roles in society have been demonized and given some sinister new motivation.
I think the entire "objectification" nonsense can be debunked by a single question: what is the expense ratio of clothing purchases, cosmetics, and plastic surgery of Western women vis à vis Western men? And are those women being forced into those costs and surgical decisions, or are they making them entirely themselves, and if so, what is their purpose? To attract men's attention, maybe? Nah, couldn't be....
Case closed. I have more important fish to fry than to cater to female craziness. Walking away; the West is lost. See you in Manila.
Why do women wear lingerie? Why are there entire stores dedicated to selling women's underwear? Where are the male equivalents? Women will then claim they mustn't be objectified and all their efforts to look attractive isn't for men but rather themselves... lol. "Ah... so you go to all that trouble because you're vain?"
Paraphrasing my old college roommate, Hamlet Shakespear, "Vanity, thy name is woman."
But of course, since the purpose of skimpy underwear is sexual arousal, whom is it intended to arouse? Is it an object for themselves, one that they see only when they undress for bed? Or is it meant for the eyes of another for whom they undress?
Quite. During the "me too" phase this seemed encapsulated by fashion houses using "me too" to sell their wares. I recall one with a parade of the usual tall, leggy, slim models rapped in variations of a T shirt with "Feminist" on the front. Even now products are sold with feminist slogans, one actually exhorting paracetomol tablets are " achieving pain equality" as if men have pain magically dealt with by the patriarchy! Generally of course the ads proclaim hair colouring and make up can make you find the "real you" while clothes are often described as making you look "sexy" frequently of course all this "gives you confidence". In short clearly women are the consumers par exellence of a vast industries built on feeding vanity . And of course they rely on feeding a sense of inadequacy if you don't buy their transformative products. As an economist I have seen the persistent attempts over decades to get men to become as great consumers of clothes cosmetics etc. The fact is although the consumption for both sexes has increased with increasing affluence the proportions have not changed much, in fact male spending on clothes has decreased proportionately. And of course as feminism has moved into the mainstream the "feminist" is as likely to be wearing all the latest fashions and proclaiming a "right" to designer handbags, beauty products etc. (a case here recently of a women "fighting for the right" to wearing high heeled shoes at work, despite their impracticality in the workplace).
I always wondered what in the world women were thinking, wearing high heels. Looks like an ankle fracture in prospect to me. My wife told me that by pointing the foot downward they shorten and thicken the gastrocnemius muscle, making the calf look "sexier." Good Lord.
I understand the middle east has among the highest per capita sales of sexy underwear. Just what are the women folk wearing under their burqas?
I'm not sure what you think you prove by placing an irrelevant question after comments. My Substack is intended to be a space for serious men's issues discussion; if you do not wish to engage in such discussion, go elsewhere. Otherwise, I will have to ban you.
Whenever I read or hear Janice's interviews this soothing feeling descends over my brain, like a balm on a bad burn. Thank you Janice, you're helping to clear my head after a lifetime of Feminist gaslighting.
This is the main reason I write: to hearten others like you. I'm gratified that you find my writing helpful.