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.
You apparently didn’t see the definition of sacred. Sacred is something SET APART or DEDICATED to worship God. It does not mean holy, or perfect, or that we are God. God alone is holy and perfect. But our manhood AND womanhood were created by God to point to Him, since we are image bearers of God. And your comment about females being “even less so”, implying that men are at least closer to holy than women, is abominable. God Himself will correct you on that. And of COURSE God is the only One who decides whom and whether to forgive. I didn’t say otherwise.
“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.”
Seriously? Who on earth do you think you are? You have absolutely NO authority over me or anyone else on these threads. The audacity of your comment is astounding. Pride goeth before the fall, sir. You need to humble yourself before God or He will humble you - and it’ll be you chafing and squirming.
Um, NO. wo-MAN is indeed more sinful than MAN and scripture says so. Genesis, Paul, Timothy. "Adam was 'not' deceived" "it was the wo-MAN who was deceived" "Adam was 'not' in sin" "It was the wo-MAN who was in sin" "Adam did 'not' transgress" "But The wo-MAN became a transgressor and sin was the result" In fact this is why God subjugates the wife to her husband, it is to keep her in check. In fact, God curses wo-MEN with a 'desire' to be RULED over, and Genesis actually makes it clear that the husband is given the authority to RULE over his wife. Michael K is right.
Men and women are equal in God’s eyes in that both men and women are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). Men and women are also equally sinners in need of grace and salvation. Redeemed men and women are equally forgiven, equally indwelt by the Holy Spirit, equally invited before the throne of grace, and equally heirs of God (Galatians 3:28).
In Genesis 2:18 the Lord says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” After God creates the woman from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21–22), Adam proclaims, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23). We then read the first description of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Everything about this passage points to the fact that men and women are equal in God’s eyes. The woman was “suitable” for (not inferior to) the man, she was created from him, and she becomes “one flesh” with him in marriage.
Nowhere does Scripture imply that women are unequal to men in God’s eyes or that they should have less significance than men. Men and women have different roles in the home and in the church, but different roles do not indicate differing worth. A screwdriver has a different role in the carpenter’s shop than a hammer, but that doesn’t mean one tool is more valuable than the other. The roles of men and women are divinely designed to be complementary.
People who believe men and women are not equal in God’s eyes often have a misunderstanding of God’s Word. First Peter 3:7 says, “Husbands . . . be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Some readers latch on to the word weaker and get offended. But what does it mean that the wife is the “weaker partner”? It has nothing to do with her mental or spiritual capabilities. It simply refers to the fact that a woman has a different physical makeup from a man. Men are naturally stronger, and, from the beginning of time, men have been the primary providers and protectors of their families. We find an allusion to this in God’s curse on Adam: “Through painful toil you will eat food from [the ground] all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). God’s curse on Eve explains the age-old battle of the sexes: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (verse 16), or, as the NLT has it, “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” The harmonious relationship between the man and woman was broken by sin, and God predicted a new dynamic would emerge. But, even in Eve’s curse, there is no hint of her inferiority or inequality.
People who take umbrage with Peter’s mention of a woman’s physical weakness completely miss the rest of 1 Peter 3:7, which clearly says that the husband and wife are spiritually equal. They are “heirs” of the “gift of life” together. A wife should be treated with “respect,” and a husband who fails to honor his wife will find that his prayers are “hindered.” The Amplified Bible renders the verse this way: “You husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way [with great gentleness and tact, and with an intelligent regard for the marriage relationship], as with someone physically weaker, since she is a woman. Show her honor and respect as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered or ineffective.”
Another passage that some people can get confused about is 1 Timothy 2:11–15, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). In the church, women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men; that much is clear. The reasons for God’s directive for the church are also clear: the order of creation and the deception of Eve. Men, not women, are to be pastors; this difference in role, however, has no bearing on a woman’s intrinsic worth before God. A quarterback may call the plays on a football field, but that doesn’t make him any more valuable as a person than a tight end.
Those who focus on what women cannot do in 1 Timothy 2 often overlook what men cannot do in the same passage. Men will never experience the blessing of a life forming inside of them. Women are the only ones who can bear children (verse 15). The fact is, men and women have different, God-given roles, and those roles should be celebrated and assumed with thanksgiving.
Just because God has given men the spiritual leadership roles in the church doesn’t mean men are superior or that they have a special standing with God. It does mean that men bear a greater responsibility for the condition of the church and the family. Concerning the marriage relationship, 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Men will answer to God for how they lead their families and the church.
Are women and men equal? In some ways, yes, and, in some ways, no. Spiritually, men and women are absolutely equal. Physically, they are obviously not equal. God has chosen distinct roles for both men and women that they may complement each other in a way that most glorifies Himself. Women may be fragile in some regards, but so are many things that are most precious to us. Men and women should work together, each fulfilling their respective, distinct roles, for the common goal of glorifying God.
Lol no, dummy, Adam was the one given instruction directly from God and he is the one who decided to defy Him and listen to Eve instead. Adam is the one who fell, and because of His error, Jesus had to be born in the flesh to a woman and go to the cross for all of us. Your version of the Fall of Man is ironically emasculating though, almost like Adam wasn’t even there, and gives us all a little insight to your own weak and bitter nature. (Are you even there, Joe, or is every failure in your life some woman’s fault?)
As to husband and wife, the Godly husband is entrusted to protect, lead, and cherish with loving authority his wife, as Christ so does with His bride, the church, seeking ever to the good of her and willing to give even his own earthly life for her, that they both may glorify God according to His perfect design. Hosanna.
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.
I totally agree, the destruction caused by these women is insurmountable.I have a feeling that they will pay a very heavy price for it when the tables turn as they always do, unfortunately so will all other women for generations to come. I see it happening already on some YT platforms. I even heard someone refer to Eve as being the first evil woman and every woman since is evil.
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.
Feminism = evil. There were no 'good waves' of feminism, just like there are no good waves of evil. Period.
Keep trying to make what is patently and overtly evil good, however. You desperately want to rationalize the hatred and evil within yourself. You prove my point better than I ever could.
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 -
Seeing how my mother handle my weak and slowly dying (heart issues, after surgery) grandfather is absolutely revolting.
All her life she was his little perfect thing that could do no wrong, always right, the best at everything etc and now she behaves like he is less than dirt I could even discern satisfaction when he said he felt like he was dying.
Of course the man feels like dying because he is also abused daily by his own wife who barely had to work her whole life and was provided for by this man with a very conformtable middle class life.
But if you say anything likfe that people will pretend they don't know what you are taking about, as if you are crazy to make you doubt reality.
My own mother, having learned from the best and perfectly into the tracks, appear to the world as the perfect woman, always nice and all, even though she is most definitely an extremely abusive person, in ways that I still discover routinely after having matured.
I don't exactly know how we got there but one thing I know for sure is that there was certainly a large amount of wisdom in the ancient ways to treat women very differently from man. I don't see a society lasting long with the premise of equality.
We can already see the cracks after 3 generations so I guess it won't last much longer.
That’s not about women, that’s about narcissistic psychopaths. You’ll hear the same stories about men on the other side. And fact is, like attracts like. Most personality disordered people are only attracted to ‘complimentary’ disordered others (submissive co-dependents, borderlines, etc). It’s called assortative mating. 10% of people on both sides of the ‘sex wars’ are responsible for almost all of the problems and unfortunately a majority of normal people follow their lead, but contributing to conflict and animosity with bitter screeds about princesses and ex wives just makes you look foolish and mean and it further erodes the best thing in life- a fulfilling relationship with a person you love for life, despite their faults, because we are all deeply flawed people.
You have to be pretty obtuse to not notice the severe uptick in female Narcissism and psychopathy in the past 40+ years with the rise of Feminism. I don’t see men trying to erase women from every aspect human life the way that women erase and degrade men? As a Society, one is not allowed to criticize a woman, and if one chooses to do so, there will be heavy consequences. Women are coddled by Society from birth, they are given every benefit of the doubt, they are placed on a pedestal and treated as if they are deity. Men are not. This is what breeds their inability to take responsibility for their poor behavior toward others.
While men can be cruel, dishonest and heavy handed, the numbers pale in comparison to that of women who behave this way, and are always excused from personal responsibility, which allows them to carry that behavior on unabridged. Men, boys and tom-boys form teams, women, girls and sissy’s form cliques, you can see that dynamic on any playground. There are fundamental differences between men and women, and we are seeing that in spades in every aspect of human life right now.
You know nothing about me or my personal relationships, but you’ve made an assumption based on stereotype like any typical Feminist would do. If I were to make the same assessment of you, I’d be accused of misogyny. You haven’t negated any of my points, and you’ve assumed that I have not had a significant relationship because I’ve pointed out things that are clear for anyone to see. I can’t say that I am surprised, that is the typical response these days, and it is too bad, it hurts human beings, and it hurts social relationships.
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.
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."
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.
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 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.
There’s a very serious birth rate problem in Japan. Nobody seems to be interested in marriage. I’m surprised we’re not talking about the problem with digital conditions
Japan is traditionally very insular but is finally embracing large scale immigration to deal with labour shortages arising from low birth rate. Most are from Vietnam and other Asian neighbours who can assimilate well. Unlike the West they won't be taking millions of Arabs and Africans.
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.
If a genuine lesbian strips naked to protest the male gaze, then I think that lesbian is a hypocrite and unserious about her cause. She might not be trying to provoke masculine sexual interest, but she is still full of crap because she knows her nudity will cause a male sexual arouse she finds repellent.
BUT…Women’s sexuality is more fluid than men’s, in that most women have some inclination toward bisexuality, whether or not they act on it. (Undoubtedly this has/had some kind value for survival and/or social cohesion, since it obviously confers no reproductive advantage.) Consequently, quite a few self-described lesbians have been known to mate with men. For example, Susie “Sexpert” Bright wrote many books on lesbianism before marrying a man and having his kids. The acronym LUG (for “lesbian until graduation”) and the variant BUG both suggest that women can change their minds about their sexual orientation and or have competing interests at one time. So some lesbians might engage in the same politicized exhibitionism as straight women and for the exact same reason.
I have question would you apply this same view in the context of a lesbian woman.i mean they're masculine presenting lesbians but some are very overtly feminine.Would you group them in the male crazed bunch when they're not attracted to men at all? I've been reading the article and the only reason I found it outdated is because it seems like the only target audience is well straight women.At the lesbian bar, girls are also in skimpy dresses, wearing lace, red lipstick and all the sorts, are they also amongst the bunch of girls you're referring too? I am just a bit curious. Before, i disagree on any point ,i like to hear out the full soup of the persons thoughts.
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.
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.
The feminist claim about sexuality that has always baffled me the most is the claim that a man's desire for a woman is "dehumanizing." I want to say to any women who buys into this, "Darling, he wants you precisely because you ARE human."
This is something, I suspect, very few women actually understand. So many “He only wants one thing” tropes. It appears to be deeply internalized, and transferred to younger generations of women. But it’s very simply untrue. A teenage boy may only care about sex, but that is a purely hormonal response. Perhaps a small subset of grown men really do only want to get their rocks off and care nothing for emotional connection. But those are few and far between, they are hedonists, and usually suffer from other diseases of the soul. The vast majority of men want love, comfort, appreciation, connection, intimacy both physical and emotional, partnership, support, affection, respect, and view (if unconsciously) sex as the primary means by which to emotionally connect with the woman they love, the mother of their children. Sex without those other things is empty, devoid of meaning, boring, not particularly pleasurable. This idea that men only want your pussy (royal you) is deeply untrue and deeply harmful. Women need to stop telling each other these things.
This is why I don't buy into the hype of an apparent minority of men over sex dolls: I don't think it's remotely possible that sex dolls could replace women.
I hope not but I remember that ‘Stepford Wives’ book. Seems like the those ideas are still of interest today. I’ve seen more than one online say they’ll wait until the tech improves and get one then. However expensive it is, they say, it’ll be cheaper by far than divorce court.
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?
Isn't this a bit of a limited perspective? What about lesbians who purchase lingerie? I mean it seems a bit odd to conclude that every woman is pursuing the male gaze when some aren't even attracted to them.
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.
Both my mother and I have had trouble late in life with night time cramps in the legs. In my case it's due to sports related injuries which my mother never experienced. The only source we could identify for her was high heel use in her early work life and a couple of decades or so of ballroom dancing in heels.
For occasional use I don't see a problem but in the long term they're bad news.
When I do hard physical labor these days, generally I will get leg or hand cramps later in the evening. Remembering my old high-school days, I recalled that the coach made us take salt pills. I figured, "What the heck?" and tried a half-teaspoon of salt in a glass of water. It wasn't as bad as one might think, chased with a glass of water. Maybe it's all placebo-effect, but every time I've tried it, the cramps disappeared within five minutes. Five minutes.
I only found out a few years ago why high heels are sexy. It turns out to be something reassuringly basic: one of those anatomical features (like breasts or narrow waists) that men like because they are an indicator of feminine rather than masculine body type.
For humans to walk on two legs, they need to balance the motion with other parts of their bodies. Men do that by swinging their shoulders, women by swinging their hips. So the motion of how a woman walks is sexy, just by being a feminine walk that is distinct from a masculine walk.
Wearing high heels (impractical as they indeed may be) emphasises that feminine motion of the hips, and so makes it even more sexy (however unconscious we might be of why that happens).
Isn't this a singular view though? Not all heels are uncomfortable(e.g demonia boots) and I don't know about the whole calf looking sexier aspect but my gf(I am a lesbian) wears platforms and it's because she wants to look taller, she has platform sneakers, platform heels for dresses etc.sometimes these things are not for the purpose of sexy or objectification or even male gaze.
I'm the first to say that I don't know the first thing about it. If platform shoes are made with the platform roughly parallel to the sole, then they wouldn't shorten the gastroc, and it would seem to me they do exactly what you say - just make you taller. Neither of my wives wore heels, and at my age I probably won't either. They can't possibly be as dangerous as they look to me, so I defer to your knowledge. (BTW, that is NOT sarcasm.)
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.
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.
Two wins!!
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.
First time reading her & exposing this evil BS should be enough to wake up the masses, yet……….
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!
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.
You apparently didn’t see the definition of sacred. Sacred is something SET APART or DEDICATED to worship God. It does not mean holy, or perfect, or that we are God. God alone is holy and perfect. But our manhood AND womanhood were created by God to point to Him, since we are image bearers of God. And your comment about females being “even less so”, implying that men are at least closer to holy than women, is abominable. God Himself will correct you on that. And of COURSE God is the only One who decides whom and whether to forgive. I didn’t say otherwise.
“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.”
Seriously? Who on earth do you think you are? You have absolutely NO authority over me or anyone else on these threads. The audacity of your comment is astounding. Pride goeth before the fall, sir. You need to humble yourself before God or He will humble you - and it’ll be you chafing and squirming.
Buzz off demonette. No I did not read your drivel. Get lost.
You are correct! Exactly.
Um, NO. wo-MAN is indeed more sinful than MAN and scripture says so. Genesis, Paul, Timothy. "Adam was 'not' deceived" "it was the wo-MAN who was deceived" "Adam was 'not' in sin" "It was the wo-MAN who was in sin" "Adam did 'not' transgress" "But The wo-MAN became a transgressor and sin was the result" In fact this is why God subjugates the wife to her husband, it is to keep her in check. In fact, God curses wo-MEN with a 'desire' to be RULED over, and Genesis actually makes it clear that the husband is given the authority to RULE over his wife. Michael K is right.
Men and women are equal in God’s eyes in that both men and women are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). Men and women are also equally sinners in need of grace and salvation. Redeemed men and women are equally forgiven, equally indwelt by the Holy Spirit, equally invited before the throne of grace, and equally heirs of God (Galatians 3:28).
In Genesis 2:18 the Lord says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” After God creates the woman from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21–22), Adam proclaims, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23). We then read the first description of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Everything about this passage points to the fact that men and women are equal in God’s eyes. The woman was “suitable” for (not inferior to) the man, she was created from him, and she becomes “one flesh” with him in marriage.
Nowhere does Scripture imply that women are unequal to men in God’s eyes or that they should have less significance than men. Men and women have different roles in the home and in the church, but different roles do not indicate differing worth. A screwdriver has a different role in the carpenter’s shop than a hammer, but that doesn’t mean one tool is more valuable than the other. The roles of men and women are divinely designed to be complementary.
People who believe men and women are not equal in God’s eyes often have a misunderstanding of God’s Word. First Peter 3:7 says, “Husbands . . . be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Some readers latch on to the word weaker and get offended. But what does it mean that the wife is the “weaker partner”? It has nothing to do with her mental or spiritual capabilities. It simply refers to the fact that a woman has a different physical makeup from a man. Men are naturally stronger, and, from the beginning of time, men have been the primary providers and protectors of their families. We find an allusion to this in God’s curse on Adam: “Through painful toil you will eat food from [the ground] all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). God’s curse on Eve explains the age-old battle of the sexes: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (verse 16), or, as the NLT has it, “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” The harmonious relationship between the man and woman was broken by sin, and God predicted a new dynamic would emerge. But, even in Eve’s curse, there is no hint of her inferiority or inequality.
People who take umbrage with Peter’s mention of a woman’s physical weakness completely miss the rest of 1 Peter 3:7, which clearly says that the husband and wife are spiritually equal. They are “heirs” of the “gift of life” together. A wife should be treated with “respect,” and a husband who fails to honor his wife will find that his prayers are “hindered.” The Amplified Bible renders the verse this way: “You husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way [with great gentleness and tact, and with an intelligent regard for the marriage relationship], as with someone physically weaker, since she is a woman. Show her honor and respect as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered or ineffective.”
Another passage that some people can get confused about is 1 Timothy 2:11–15, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). In the church, women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men; that much is clear. The reasons for God’s directive for the church are also clear: the order of creation and the deception of Eve. Men, not women, are to be pastors; this difference in role, however, has no bearing on a woman’s intrinsic worth before God. A quarterback may call the plays on a football field, but that doesn’t make him any more valuable as a person than a tight end.
Those who focus on what women cannot do in 1 Timothy 2 often overlook what men cannot do in the same passage. Men will never experience the blessing of a life forming inside of them. Women are the only ones who can bear children (verse 15). The fact is, men and women have different, God-given roles, and those roles should be celebrated and assumed with thanksgiving.
Just because God has given men the spiritual leadership roles in the church doesn’t mean men are superior or that they have a special standing with God. It does mean that men bear a greater responsibility for the condition of the church and the family. Concerning the marriage relationship, 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Men will answer to God for how they lead their families and the church.
Are women and men equal? In some ways, yes, and, in some ways, no. Spiritually, men and women are absolutely equal. Physically, they are obviously not equal. God has chosen distinct roles for both men and women that they may complement each other in a way that most glorifies Himself. Women may be fragile in some regards, but so are many things that are most precious to us. Men and women should work together, each fulfilling their respective, distinct roles, for the common goal of glorifying God.
Lol no, dummy, Adam was the one given instruction directly from God and he is the one who decided to defy Him and listen to Eve instead. Adam is the one who fell, and because of His error, Jesus had to be born in the flesh to a woman and go to the cross for all of us. Your version of the Fall of Man is ironically emasculating though, almost like Adam wasn’t even there, and gives us all a little insight to your own weak and bitter nature. (Are you even there, Joe, or is every failure in your life some woman’s fault?)
As to husband and wife, the Godly husband is entrusted to protect, lead, and cherish with loving authority his wife, as Christ so does with His bride, the church, seeking ever to the good of her and willing to give even his own earthly life for her, that they both may glorify God according to His perfect design. Hosanna.
Exactly! You get it!
"God is sacred; men are not, and females . . . even less so. By dint of their own easily observable behavior."
Interesting...
wo-MEN are indeed more sinful than MEN, and scripture says so.
Good comment, Sandi!
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.
I totally agree, the destruction caused by these women is insurmountable.I have a feeling that they will pay a very heavy price for it when the tables turn as they always do, unfortunately so will all other women for generations to come. I see it happening already on some YT platforms. I even heard someone refer to Eve as being the first evil woman and every woman since is evil.
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?
There are various types of feminism.
Feminism = evil. There were no 'good waves' of feminism, just like there are no good waves of evil. Period.
Keep trying to make what is patently and overtly evil good, however. You desperately want to rationalize the hatred and evil within yourself. You prove my point better than I ever could.
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.
Don't bait them, Janice; it'll never end.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
Seeing how my mother handle my weak and slowly dying (heart issues, after surgery) grandfather is absolutely revolting.
All her life she was his little perfect thing that could do no wrong, always right, the best at everything etc and now she behaves like he is less than dirt I could even discern satisfaction when he said he felt like he was dying.
Of course the man feels like dying because he is also abused daily by his own wife who barely had to work her whole life and was provided for by this man with a very conformtable middle class life.
But if you say anything likfe that people will pretend they don't know what you are taking about, as if you are crazy to make you doubt reality.
My own mother, having learned from the best and perfectly into the tracks, appear to the world as the perfect woman, always nice and all, even though she is most definitely an extremely abusive person, in ways that I still discover routinely after having matured.
I don't exactly know how we got there but one thing I know for sure is that there was certainly a large amount of wisdom in the ancient ways to treat women very differently from man. I don't see a society lasting long with the premise of equality.
We can already see the cracks after 3 generations so I guess it won't last much longer.
That’s not about women, that’s about narcissistic psychopaths. You’ll hear the same stories about men on the other side. And fact is, like attracts like. Most personality disordered people are only attracted to ‘complimentary’ disordered others (submissive co-dependents, borderlines, etc). It’s called assortative mating. 10% of people on both sides of the ‘sex wars’ are responsible for almost all of the problems and unfortunately a majority of normal people follow their lead, but contributing to conflict and animosity with bitter screeds about princesses and ex wives just makes you look foolish and mean and it further erodes the best thing in life- a fulfilling relationship with a person you love for life, despite their faults, because we are all deeply flawed people.
You have to be pretty obtuse to not notice the severe uptick in female Narcissism and psychopathy in the past 40+ years with the rise of Feminism. I don’t see men trying to erase women from every aspect human life the way that women erase and degrade men? As a Society, one is not allowed to criticize a woman, and if one chooses to do so, there will be heavy consequences. Women are coddled by Society from birth, they are given every benefit of the doubt, they are placed on a pedestal and treated as if they are deity. Men are not. This is what breeds their inability to take responsibility for their poor behavior toward others.
While men can be cruel, dishonest and heavy handed, the numbers pale in comparison to that of women who behave this way, and are always excused from personal responsibility, which allows them to carry that behavior on unabridged. Men, boys and tom-boys form teams, women, girls and sissy’s form cliques, you can see that dynamic on any playground. There are fundamental differences between men and women, and we are seeing that in spades in every aspect of human life right now.
You know nothing about me or my personal relationships, but you’ve made an assumption based on stereotype like any typical Feminist would do. If I were to make the same assessment of you, I’d be accused of misogyny. You haven’t negated any of my points, and you’ve assumed that I have not had a significant relationship because I’ve pointed out things that are clear for anyone to see. I can’t say that I am surprised, that is the typical response these days, and it is too bad, it hurts human beings, and it hurts social relationships.
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.
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."
Yes which misses the point about men as dildo
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.
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 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.
There’s a very serious birth rate problem in Japan. Nobody seems to be interested in marriage. I’m surprised we’re not talking about the problem with digital conditions
Japan is traditionally very insular but is finally embracing large scale immigration to deal with labour shortages arising from low birth rate. Most are from Vietnam and other Asian neighbours who can assimilate well. Unlike the West they won't be taking millions of Arabs and Africans.
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.
If a genuine lesbian strips naked to protest the male gaze, then I think that lesbian is a hypocrite and unserious about her cause. She might not be trying to provoke masculine sexual interest, but she is still full of crap because she knows her nudity will cause a male sexual arouse she finds repellent.
BUT…Women’s sexuality is more fluid than men’s, in that most women have some inclination toward bisexuality, whether or not they act on it. (Undoubtedly this has/had some kind value for survival and/or social cohesion, since it obviously confers no reproductive advantage.) Consequently, quite a few self-described lesbians have been known to mate with men. For example, Susie “Sexpert” Bright wrote many books on lesbianism before marrying a man and having his kids. The acronym LUG (for “lesbian until graduation”) and the variant BUG both suggest that women can change their minds about their sexual orientation and or have competing interests at one time. So some lesbians might engage in the same politicized exhibitionism as straight women and for the exact same reason.
I have question would you apply this same view in the context of a lesbian woman.i mean they're masculine presenting lesbians but some are very overtly feminine.Would you group them in the male crazed bunch when they're not attracted to men at all? I've been reading the article and the only reason I found it outdated is because it seems like the only target audience is well straight women.At the lesbian bar, girls are also in skimpy dresses, wearing lace, red lipstick and all the sorts, are they also amongst the bunch of girls you're referring too? I am just a bit curious. Before, i disagree on any point ,i like to hear out the full soup of the persons thoughts.
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.
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.
*Double binds* are the tools of the practicing psychopath.
The feminist claim about sexuality that has always baffled me the most is the claim that a man's desire for a woman is "dehumanizing." I want to say to any women who buys into this, "Darling, he wants you precisely because you ARE human."
Indeed! Not a lot of men are interested even in a sleeping (human) woman: they want a loving, active partner.
This is something, I suspect, very few women actually understand. So many “He only wants one thing” tropes. It appears to be deeply internalized, and transferred to younger generations of women. But it’s very simply untrue. A teenage boy may only care about sex, but that is a purely hormonal response. Perhaps a small subset of grown men really do only want to get their rocks off and care nothing for emotional connection. But those are few and far between, they are hedonists, and usually suffer from other diseases of the soul. The vast majority of men want love, comfort, appreciation, connection, intimacy both physical and emotional, partnership, support, affection, respect, and view (if unconsciously) sex as the primary means by which to emotionally connect with the woman they love, the mother of their children. Sex without those other things is empty, devoid of meaning, boring, not particularly pleasurable. This idea that men only want your pussy (royal you) is deeply untrue and deeply harmful. Women need to stop telling each other these things.
This is why I don't buy into the hype of an apparent minority of men over sex dolls: I don't think it's remotely possible that sex dolls could replace women.
I hope not but I remember that ‘Stepford Wives’ book. Seems like the those ideas are still of interest today. I’ve seen more than one online say they’ll wait until the tech improves and get one then. However expensive it is, they say, it’ll be cheaper by far than divorce court.
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?
Isn't this a bit of a limited perspective? What about lesbians who purchase lingerie? I mean it seems a bit odd to conclude that every woman is pursuing the male gaze when some aren't even attracted to them.
I'm making a generalisation.
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.
Both my mother and I have had trouble late in life with night time cramps in the legs. In my case it's due to sports related injuries which my mother never experienced. The only source we could identify for her was high heel use in her early work life and a couple of decades or so of ballroom dancing in heels.
For occasional use I don't see a problem but in the long term they're bad news.
When I do hard physical labor these days, generally I will get leg or hand cramps later in the evening. Remembering my old high-school days, I recalled that the coach made us take salt pills. I figured, "What the heck?" and tried a half-teaspoon of salt in a glass of water. It wasn't as bad as one might think, chased with a glass of water. Maybe it's all placebo-effect, but every time I've tried it, the cramps disappeared within five minutes. Five minutes.
Might be worth a try....
I only found out a few years ago why high heels are sexy. It turns out to be something reassuringly basic: one of those anatomical features (like breasts or narrow waists) that men like because they are an indicator of feminine rather than masculine body type.
For humans to walk on two legs, they need to balance the motion with other parts of their bodies. Men do that by swinging their shoulders, women by swinging their hips. So the motion of how a woman walks is sexy, just by being a feminine walk that is distinct from a masculine walk.
Wearing high heels (impractical as they indeed may be) emphasises that feminine motion of the hips, and so makes it even more sexy (however unconscious we might be of why that happens).
Isn't this a singular view though? Not all heels are uncomfortable(e.g demonia boots) and I don't know about the whole calf looking sexier aspect but my gf(I am a lesbian) wears platforms and it's because she wants to look taller, she has platform sneakers, platform heels for dresses etc.sometimes these things are not for the purpose of sexy or objectification or even male gaze.
I'm the first to say that I don't know the first thing about it. If platform shoes are made with the platform roughly parallel to the sole, then they wouldn't shorten the gastroc, and it would seem to me they do exactly what you say - just make you taller. Neither of my wives wore heels, and at my age I probably won't either. They can't possibly be as dangerous as they look to me, so I defer to your knowledge. (BTW, that is NOT sarcasm.)
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.