Then who are you, a woman, to write this article? This is so funny to me, the cognitive dissonance. Who do you think you are if women lack truth and objectivity, you are the one and only woman who doesn't that sees the truth? Lol.
Funny, funny! You obviously didn't read (or understand) the essay, in which it is never claimed that ALL women lack truth and objectivity. Instead, the article makes claims, based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, that women on average (somewhat more than men on average) prefer comfort, emotional safety, and collective agreement over risk, competition, and free inquiry. That means that when women are in the majority in an institution, it tends to drift towards feminist and leftish values that stifle innovation and excellence.
Your poor comprehension and reflexive personal response indicate that you are right in the average.
**Theorem. If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood.**
**Proposition 1. Voting is only one species of civil authority exercised by a legal person. Proof:** Voting is a juridical act by which a citizen participates in: selection of magistrates; formation of public law. But other legal acts also participate in the civil order, including: litigation (which helps to enforce the law); transferring property; binding contracts; exercising guardianship; and giving legal testimony. All these acts influence civil order. Therefore voting is only one instance of civil agency. QED
**Proposition 2. Every sort of persons each of whom are unfit for civil judgment, are also _ipso facto_ legally incapacited from all acts requiring civil judgment. Proof:** The reason given against granting the suffrage to women is because women’s political or civil judgment produces undesirable outcomes. But civil judgment is the same rational faculty used when a person: signs contracts; manages property; testifies in court; serves as guardian of minors; files lawsuits.
**Proposition 3. Each and every one the civil liberties listed is intrinsically contingent upon the same legal competence as suffrage. Proof:** Each requires that the individual be treated as a fully competent legal person: Ownership → authority over property rights recognized by law; Contract → authority to create legally binding obligations; Inheritance → authority to acquire property through law; Guardianship → authority over another person under civil law; Testimony → authority to influence judicial decisions; Legal personhood → presumption of autonomous civil agency. Thus every one of these liberties presupposes the same legal status that suffrage presupposes: independent civic agency. QED
** Proposition 4. If suffrage must be removed because women misuse civic agency, the same reason removes all other civic agency. Proof:** Let the reason for repeal be: women as a class exercise civic judgment in ways harmful to the polity. But that judgment is exercised whenever any citizen: enforces his own rights; enters contracts; manages property; influences courts; or controls dependents. Thus allowing those while denying voting would contradict the stated reason. Therefore the same principle requires removing them. QED
**Ergo: If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood. QED**
**Corollary.** The reason is simple: A legal system must choose one of two coherent models: Model A — Civic Personhood. Women possess full civil agency → voting follows naturally. Model B — Civic Incapacity. Women lack civil agency → all independent legal rights must disappear. There is no stable middle position where women are: competent to own property, competent to bind contracts, competent to influence courts, yet incompetent to cast a ballot.
**Objection: The argument applies only to _married_ women, since they are under male headship. It does not apply to _widows_, who are no longer under a husband and therefore may exercise civil liberties without contradiction.**
**Answer:** I have yet a few more propositions explaining why this objection cannot be accepted.
**Proposition 5. If the reason for denying suffrage is based on female nature or judgment as such, then it applies equally to widows. Proof:** The premise of the antisuffrage claim is: women as a class exercise political judgment in a harmful or unfit way. This judgment is not conditioned on: marital status, presence of a husband, household subordination, but on sex itself. A widow remains: biologically female, respectively possesses or lacks the same rational faculties she respectively possessed or lacked when married, statistically part of the same voting class. Therefore the ground of disqualification remains unchanged. QED
**Proposition 6. Even if widowhood removes the OCCASION for marital subordination, yet it does not remove the faculty whose alleged misuse justifies disenfranchisement. Proof:** Two distinct bases for restricting women must be distinguished: (1): Subordination-based (marital headship) → applies only within marriage. (2): Capacity-based (defect or misuse of judgment) → applies to the person as such. The objection attempts to move from (2) back to (1), but the antisuffrage argument clearly rests on (2): it cites voting behavior, not marital hierarchy. Therefore the disqualification is grounded in judgment, not marital subordination. But widowhood removes only marital subordination, not judgment. Therefore it cannot remove the disqualification. QED
**Proposition 7. If widows retain full civil liberties, then the premise of incapacity is implicitly denied. Proof:** If widows are allowed to: own property; enter contracts; act as guardians; testify in court; litigate; then the law affirms that they possess: sufficient rational competence for binding, socially consequential decisions. But these are the same faculties required for voting. Thus: Either widows are competent → then suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of incapacity; Or widows are incompetent → then all civil liberties must be removed. Allowing one while denying the other is a contradiction. QED
**Proposition 8. There is no principled basis for distinguishing widows from unmarried women under a capacity-based objection. Proof:** The alleged defect (harmful political judgment) belongs to neither marriage, nor dependence, but to sexed cognition or disposition, which is shared _ex hypothesi_ by all women alike whether married or widowed. Thus every restriction grounded in that defect must apply universally to all adult women. QED
Therefore the above objection is invalid. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Voting was historically not seen as a natural right. It wasn't universally granted to all *men* either.
But nobody ever suggested that men who were ineligible to vote should be ineligible to own or transfer property, inherit, litigate, or form contracts.
The fundamental difference here is legal agency over one's own private affairs, vs legal power over others' affairs. Testimony and guardianship are intermediate cases, but even so, an unmarried woman's natural right of parental guardianship (distinct from court-ordered legal guardianship) over her own children, born out of wedlock, was recognized. (Of course, this was contingent on her bearing sole financial responsibility for those children.)
I think that this well-established, uncontroversial historical distinction (applied to men as well as women) can provide a basis for removing women from political and institutional power, while still leaving them as legal persons, unless married (femme covert vs femme sole).
A more formal framing might be natural rights vs legal rights.
"While natural rights are innately part of being human, and exist prior to any culture or society, legal rights are those that are acknowledged and protected by a given government. So, in the Founders’ understanding, natural rights would include the right to life itself, the right to think for oneself, the right to self-defense, and the right to keep what one has worked honestly for, among others. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents–all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs."
This is somewhat weak, because it still frames voting as a right, albeit a legal one. It would be very difficult to argue that the specific methods for fair trials, or copyrights and patents, should be applied differently based on sex.
A somewhat better approach distinguishes between rights, both natural and legal, and privileges.
Equality before the law is a right. Drinking, driving, performing brain surgery, manufacturing C-4, and voting, are privileges, due to the potential for harm if they are exercised irresponsibly, alone or in combination.
The Government can reasonably restrict privileges to those technically qualified and emotionally stable enough to exercise them responsibly.
"It is not, however, an unalienable right to have civil and legal equality. If it were, five year old children would be permitted to drive their cars to the voting polls. We don't allow that because they obviously are not capable of doing such things."
**Objection #1. "In your very first proposition - 'All these acts influence civil order'. Before you gallop to QED, 'influence' is a tenuous claim to make; both inherently and the degree. I didn't read the remainder, the first one was already erroneous. Women shouldn't vote but shouldn't be restricted from the other activities."**
**Answer.** The argument doesn’t depend on how much each act “influences civil order,” so challenging that word doesn’t touch the core point.
The key issue is that voting, contracting, owning property, testifying, and acting as a guardian all require the exercise of the same kind of rational, legally recognized judgment.
If women are deemed unfit for voting because their judgment is defective, then that same judgment would also be defective in contracts, testimony, and property decisions.
To maintain your position, you would need to show that voting requires a fundamentally different or higher kind of rational capacity than those other acts—not simply assert that it “influences” society more.
Thus the real point of my proposition #1 is: Voting is one species of civil agency, in that it requires the exercise of rational judgment recognized by law. Other acts—such as contracting, owning property, testifying, and guardianship—also require that same recognized capacity for judgment. **OBJECTION OVERRULED.**
**Objection #2. "Voting was historically not seen as a natural right. It wasn't universally granted to all *men* either. But nobody ever suggested that men who were ineligible to vote should be ineligible to own or transfer property, inherit, litigate, or form contracts. The fundamental difference here is legal agency over one's own private affairs, vs legal power over others' affairs. Testimony and guardianship are intermediate cases, but even so, an unmarried woman's natural right of parental guardianship (distinct from court-ordered legal guardianship) over her own children, born out of wedlock, was recognized. (Of course, this was contingent on her bearing sole financial responsibility for those children.) I think that this well-established, uncontroversial historical distinction (applied to men as well as women) can provide a basis for removing women from political and institutional power, while still leaving them as legal persons (femme covert vs femme sole)."**
**Answer.** The distinction between “private affairs” and “power over others” doesn’t hold, because the so-called private rights—contract, property, testimony, and guardianship—all involve legally recognized power over other persons.
A contract binds others, property excludes others, testimony can determine legal outcomes, and guardianship is direct authority over another person. These are not merely self-regarding acts.
So the difference between these and voting is not one of kind, but of degree.
If women are said to be unfit for voting because their judgment is defective, then that same judgment is being exercised in these other domains.
As for disenfranchised men, their exclusion was typically not based on alleged incapacity, but on property or status qualifications. That places such exclusions in a different category—conventional or arbitrary—not grounded in competence.
So the argument stands: a capacity-based objection to women’s suffrage cannot be limited to voting alone without inconsistency. **OBJECTION OVERRULED.**
You may not have declared ALL women lack truth and objectivity but you did conclude that ALL women need be barred from positions of power. Tsk.
It’s like the modern ‘conservative’ intellectual version of that progressive white woman who toured the country a few years ago confessing her racism while simultaneously declaring ALL white women share the same ignorant, racist and vile heart she so declared as her own.
Keep your modern day witch trial’s at the local level, please.
Not cognitive dissonance but the difference between an average, a “general” rule, and an exception. Read more, and someday you too will be able to understand it.
One of the key differences between men and women that is found across cultures is women's vastly greater "neuroticism," i.e., their level of anxiety. Stated another way, women tend strongly to perceive themselves and others to be threatened, to be at risk, in ways and to an extent men do not. Unsurprisingly, that results in a tendency to desire/demand greater governmental power to overcome those perceived threats. So the more women impact public policy, the more that policy comes to oppose individual liberty. With the obvious exception of abortion, it's not hard to see this phenomenon in effect, from their opposition to due process of law, to "every man is a potential rapist," to campus dating codes, etc. And the outrages Janice discusses are more of the same. Seeing victimization everywhere, they demand greater governmental intervention to address it. And all too often, in order to "prove" the existence of the victimization they see, they make up facts and construct "studies" that "demonstrate" their claims. The feminization of the power structure points the way to fascism and its assault on individual rights and liberties.
True and yet paradoxically, women actively undermine police in protecting women by automatically siding with their assailants and treating them as children in need of mothering.
This take ignores the context of male violence against women and shows men in general fail horrendously even care enough to protect women and children sufficiently. As long as men fail at their duty, women will have to try to fill that position.
What exactly do you think the individual man should do to stop violence? Make laws against it? Hello! Men are the primary victims of homicide; and women mete out a lot of death and harm on their own, especially to those who are weaker than they, like children. Women are, in fact, the majority killers of babies.
Let's have a few millennia of all-female combat units, while men sit home, and then you can pretend that women are taking over men's protective roles.
Men can no longer make (and enforce) laws, because women have demanded control of the legislature and judiciary.
The criminals raping and murdering women are released again and again into the community, after having committed violent crimes, by female lawmakers and judges (or males responding to the predilections of female voters).
It is precisely "women try[ing] to fill that position" that has gotten us into this mess.
The fish have been trying to get around without bicycles for a good half-century now, and women and children are not safer for it.
She's not just logic based, but excellent at grammar and rhetoric. It shows she's a retired Professor of English. I just wish we could can it, for mass production, and serve it to every one through a media megaphone.
Feminist BS of the first order. When it comes to violence, women leave men far behind. Not wanting to risk retaliation, their victims are mainly powerless. Women (cheered on by feminists) are squarely responsible for the genocide on a scale the world has never known, the endless genocide of elective abortion (73+ million killings a year according to the WHO), under the feeble banner of "reproductive rights".
Women are more likely to be abused by female partners than by male partners, the most violent couples are lesbian couples:
The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/ was published in May 2013 in the journal Partner Abuse and is the most comprehensive review of domestic violence research ever carried out. This unparallelled three-year research project was conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centres. The headline finding of the PASK review was that:
“Men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.”
A key numerical result from the PASK review was:
“Among large population samples, 57.9% of intimate-partner violence (IPV) reported was bi-directional, 42.1% unidirectional, 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male-to-female, 28.3% was female-to-male.”
The last point is worth emphasising. In the 42.1% of (heterosexual) couples in which one partner is always the perpetrator and the other the victim, the woman is TWICE as likely to be the perpetrator and (therefore) HALF as likely to be the victim.
Thanks Conrad. The Oz comedian Jim Jeffried recently pointed out in a show that the highest rates of divorce are in lesbian couples (2 women). Next, straight couples (1 woman). Lowest, gay couples (no women). Hmm, seems we hav a causal link here haha!
BRAVO! Mike a Harvard medical study basically said the same thing and then it was censored. While most domestic violence is perpetrated by both genders pretty much at equal rates, 70% of unreciprocated DV is perpetrated by w0e-MEN against MEN. The author revisited the article and claims it was censored! Please check my notes.
This matches the observations I have made in my 68 years. Most abusive relationship, not all - most, I seen were female on male abuse. On the other hand, my wife is dream come true. Has been for decades.
'all men are rapists' is a categorical statement, not a generalization. So is the rephrased 'women never lie'. Generalizations are about what is generally true not what is always true. I agree that they are fine.
In this country (UK) the current Labour government suggests that while they are busy shutting up everyone they don't like, this is combined with an almost complete inability to formulate any way forward. The result is not Fascism but paralysis. They know what they are against but have no idea what they are for.
They are actively pro crime not just for the love of debasement and anarchy but the harm it inflicts upon British people. They are not so much as confused as positively and actively evil.
**Theorem. If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood.**
**Proposition 1. Voting is only one species of civil authority exercised by a legal person. Proof:** Voting is a juridical act by which a citizen participates in: selection of magistrates; formation of public law. But other legal acts also participate in the civil order, including: litigation (which helps to enforce the law); transferring property; binding contracts; exercising guardianship; and giving legal testimony. All these acts influence civil order. Therefore voting is only one instance of civil agency. QED
**Proposition 2. Every sort of persons each of whom are unfit for civil judgment, are also _ipso facto_ legally incapacited from all acts requiring civil judgment. Proof:** The reason given against granting the suffrage to women is because women’s political or civil judgment produces undesirable outcomes. But civil judgment is the same rational faculty used when a person: signs contracts; manages property; testifies in court; serves as guardian of minors; files lawsuits.
**Proposition 3. Each and every one the civil liberties listed is intrinsically contingent upon the same legal competence as suffrage. Proof:** Each requires that the individual be treated as a fully competent legal person: Ownership → authority over property rights recognized by law; Contract → authority to create legally binding obligations; Inheritance → authority to acquire property through law; Guardianship → authority over another person under civil law; Testimony → authority to influence judicial decisions; Legal personhood → presumption of autonomous civil agency. Thus every one of these liberties presupposes the same legal status that suffrage presupposes: independent civic agency. QED
** Proposition 4. If suffrage must be removed because women misuse civic agency, the same reason removes all other civic agency. Proof:** Let the reason for repeal be: women as a class exercise civic judgment in ways harmful to the polity. But that judgment is exercised whenever any citizen: enforces his own rights; enters contracts; manages property; influences courts; or controls dependents. Thus allowing those while denying voting would contradict the stated reason. Therefore the same principle requires removing them. QED
**Ergo: If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood. QED**
**Corollary.** The reason is simple: A legal system must choose one of two coherent models: Model A — Civic Personhood. Women possess full civil agency → voting follows naturally. Model B — Civic Incapacity. Women lack civil agency → all independent legal rights must disappear. There is no stable middle position where women are: competent to own property, competent to bind contracts, competent to influence courts, yet incompetent to cast a ballot.
**Objection: The argument applies only to _married_ women, since they are under male headship. It does not apply to _widows_, who are no longer under a husband and therefore may exercise civil liberties without contradiction.**
**Answer:** I have yet a few more propositions explaining why this objection cannot be accepted.
**Proposition 5. If the reason for denying suffrage is based on female nature or judgment as such, then it applies equally to widows. Proof:** The premise of the antisuffrage claim is: women as a class exercise political judgment in a harmful or unfit way. This judgment is not conditioned on: marital status, presence of a husband, household subordination, but on sex itself. A widow remains: biologically female, respectively possesses or lacks the same rational faculties she respectively possessed or lacked when married, statistically part of the same voting class. Therefore the ground of disqualification remains unchanged. QED
**Proposition 6. Even if widowhood removes the OCCASION for marital subordination, yet it does not remove the faculty whose alleged misuse justifies disenfranchisement. Proof:** Two distinct bases for restricting women must be distinguished: (1): Subordination-based (marital headship) → applies only within marriage. (2): Capacity-based (defect or misuse of judgment) → applies to the person as such. The objection attempts to move from (2) back to (1), but the antisuffrage argument clearly rests on (2): it cites voting behavior, not marital hierarchy. Therefore the disqualification is grounded in judgment, not marital subordination. But widowhood removes only marital subordination, not judgment. Therefore it cannot remove the disqualification. QED
**Proposition 7. If widows retain full civil liberties, then the premise of incapacity is implicitly denied. Proof:** If widows are allowed to: own property; enter contracts; act as guardians; testify in court; litigate; then the law affirms that they possess: sufficient rational competence for binding, socially consequential decisions. But these are the same faculties required for voting. Thus: Either widows are competent → then suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of incapacity; Or widows are incompetent → then all civil liberties must be removed. Allowing one while denying the other is a contradiction. QED
**Proposition 8. There is no principled basis for distinguishing widows from unmarried women under a capacity-based objection. Proof:** The alleged defect (harmful political judgment) belongs to neither marriage, nor dependence, but to sexed cognition or disposition, which is shared _ex hypothesi_ by all women alike whether married or widowed. Thus every restriction grounded in that defect must apply universally to all adult women. QED
Therefore the above objection is invalid. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Prove any one of these 8 propositions wrong if you can!!!
Abortion is not an exception at all, when it's properly framed. It sees the fetus as a threat, and demands the government murder it, to protect women from the consequences of their choices.
There's another way to frame it, that relies on Red Pill (sexual) theory. Abortion is really just an advanced form of contraception. But whereas standard contraception forces a woman to make her Choice (notice that word) before the sexual act, abortion offers her a 'return policy'. She can try the father out first, and only then decide whether she wants to keep him, or wants a refund.
In this framing, both abortion and contraception protect women from 'unfit' men. Men whom she would rather not mate with.
Instead of the old-fashioned way (politely declining a relationship, and keeping the societal default of no sex before marriage, which worked 99.9% of the time), feminists envied men's ability to engage in promiscuity without consequences.
Birth control (before and after conception) shields her from men she chooses to reject, by emasculating them, quite literally (i.e. rendering them infertile, at her discretion).
Dr Baskerville grasps the issue, with his usual insight, though he's not the only one.
'They [feminists] consider women “liberated” *from men* and from all rules of reproductive order.'
'...all around us we see male impotence—and with it conservative impotence—on conspicuous display'
We need to name all the demons that accompany this feminisation.
All the dross from feminists that bely their world view (standpoint epistemology, theory of performativity, intersectional victimology, animus possession, shit testing, female supremacist jurisprudence, Marxist satanic inversions etc.).
It's a pandemonium. Once accurately name them we can destroy it. Men are excellent at ranged spiritual warfare.
Yes, naming all the demons is an important first step. Even that is prevented nowadays by hate speech laws and other forms of censorship, mobbing, denial, and obfuscation. The constant drumbeat of female moral superiority and female excellence tends to overshadow even cautious criticisms and truth-telling. Younger people, mainly men and some female allies, will not be silenced forever.
It is refreshing to hear someone of your standing and calibre speaking and writing so plainly and factually about the place of women in our culture. The wrong path was taken years before I came of age in the early 60's. The US, certainly, and most of the West would be a much better place if women were guided, directed, encouraged and esteemed to do that for which they are best suited. That is guardian of hearth and home, bearer and nurturer of the progeny produced in a marital relationship with the father; to be their support, and her husband's helpmate.
That the sex imbued with characteristics of compassion, caring and safety are able to abort their offspring with pride and little remorse is shameful and frightening. These women, and the culture at large, suffer dire consequences for their choices and the resulting bitterness and anger makes them unbearable.
I realized in the last election that for a substantial number of women, the ability to kill their offspring before birth at any time and for any reason is the highest value they have.
Yes. There may be a grave shortage of cats and boxed wine when that cohort becomes childless in middle-age after squandering their youth in soulless offices and one-night stands.
Go away. You are not attempting to argue in good faith or to add anything to this discussion, merely to insult and vent spleen. If you don't stop, I will have to, more in sorrow than in anger, suspend you.
One would think that at this stage in internet culture, it would not be necessary to explain that repeated responses--you couldn't be satisfied with just one or two!--consisting entirely of jeering emojis or all-caps hysteria are unacceptable and silly. I am now escorting you from the premises.
If society would stop artificially pushing and incentivizing women to go into Stem fields and use merit, we would see a natural equilibrium. I believe there is a reason for occupations that are traditionally female and male.
What if she finds being guardian of hearth and home and progeny etc boring? What if she finds all that genuinely soul-crushing and she’d actually rather be doing something else entirely?
Sure, of course there are such women. I never wanted children and knew I didn't want them from the time I was about 6 or 7 years old, when all of my friends were excited and cooing over being introduced to the new baby on our street by his mom, and I couldn't wait to get back to whatever thing I'd been doing. I didn't end up having children, and have never regretted that. I feel a bit bad about it--I think bearing and raising children is the highest calling for both women and men, and obviously it is extremely important--but that's the way I am made, and I am grateful to live in a culture that enabled me to make the lesser choice.
I think many women probably do want children, and that some would like to have more children than it is easy to have nowadays, but I don't have hard evidence for that belief.
In the west, it has been possible for many centuries for women to make other choices: to be seers or healers or teachers or religious devotees or writers or business owners or helpmates of other sorts. And occasionally to be leaders too. It is one of the great things about western societies that women have been able to make various contributions, and I wouldn't want to deny them that. I don't believe, however, for various reasons, including the ones mentioned in this essay, that women should make up 50% or more of the most influential professions or should, except in some exceptional circumstances, be placed in positions of leadership over men.
I could be wrong about that, of course, but what I have seen of women's behavior in these positions (not all women's, of course) has led me to this rather radical perspective.
Oh I understand your thrust and the linked research - that women's typical skillset is not suited to western empirical notions of objective truth, ergo we aren't cut out to be leaders with the existing structures of patriarchal institutions. Was just responding to a commenter who believes all women ought to be chained to the kitchen. Lots of comments about abortion, too, which I did not divine from your argument. Strange
Then she takes one for the team and leads a humble life of family rearing anyways. Or joins a convent or something. Either way, she shows gratitude for the great western society that gave her what she had, which is typically far better than other societies in standard of living and rights.
I think that women coalesce (bond) around fear, which I think leads to group think for women, and without the ability to question it (metoo). I think women in general are not inclined to challenge each other, lest they spoil the feeling of sisterhood which provides safety.
And I think that biological differences explain it, at least to some degree.
If a man was to question it, he would attract the inevitable claims of bring mysognist.
I'm seeing comments supporting the idea of limiting women from positions of power or responsibility. Stop this, please. That's not the solution, and if you consider your conscience, you'll realize it to be true:
The solution isn't to limit freedoms; IT NEVER IS. The solution is ALWAYS to increase understanding. More consciousness. Always.
Okay: so women are more emotionally available. Mature human beings control their emotions. Mature human beings REASON.
Short answer, she should have thought of that before she got married (if she is married) and brought an innocent life into the world. If she didn't, then it's possible she'll have an abortion, probably on the sly, if she's married, and be totally okay with that.
You've been drinking the grape soda pretty heavily. Get some accurate facts that don't cite ancient history. The old canard about women earning less for equivalent male labor hasn't been true for a very long time. Women over the last 7 or 8 decades earn what they deserve for the job they were hired to do, as a result of the effort and time they are willing to put in. Comparing their wages to what men earn is misleading. Most of the gap reflects legitimate differences in work patterns and choices, but some questions about workplace culture and opportunity structures may warrant consideration.
Women were working at trades, owning property, etc all throughout the Anglo Saxon world from at least the 1000s, which is where we start to have the best records. It’s absolutely ahistorical to claim women didn’t work. Upper class women maybe but all of my female ancestors as far back as recorded worked. In fact, one of my very distant female ancestor cousins was granted land by king James in Jamestown for her strewardship and service.
In the past, many upper class women managed large households while bearing many children. Wives of rules governed their domains when their husbands were away (wars, politics), often very effectively. Mothers of fatherless heirs acted in a father's place, as regents or widows with legal rights.
True- I was thinking more of the 1900s USA where rich women for instance like Zelda Fitzgerald didn’t even know how to do things like laundry, and the brief 10 year period after ww2 where the myth of the housewife arose that women have always “worked only in the home”. One grandmother worked at Boeing and one for the army as a court reporter in the 40s-80s. One had a “nanny” to help with her 7 kids. All three of these working class women worked primarily outside the home
My family too: a great-great aunt who had a long career in the Federal Government (including two years as General Macarthur's secretary in Japan), a great-grandmother who was a tailor and dressmaker, a grandmother who was a nurse, and my mother, who was a journalist. When workingmen struck for a family man's wage, it was not so their wives could live idly like ladies: it was so their home could be managed decently and their children be raised decently, which was impossible if the wife was working 12-hour shifts like their husbands.
**Theorem. If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood.**
**Proposition 1. Voting is only one species of civil authority exercised by a legal person. Proof:** Voting is a juridical act by which a citizen participates in: selection of magistrates; formation of public law. But other legal acts also participate in the civil order, including: litigation (which helps to enforce the law); transferring property; binding contracts; exercising guardianship; and giving legal testimony. All these acts influence civil order. Therefore voting is only one instance of civil agency. QED
**Proposition 2. Every sort of persons each of whom are unfit for civil judgment, are also _ipso facto_ legally incapacited from all acts requiring civil judgment. Proof:** The reason given against granting the suffrage to women is because women’s political or civil judgment produces undesirable outcomes. But civil judgment is the same rational faculty used when a person: signs contracts; manages property; testifies in court; serves as guardian of minors; files lawsuits.
**Proposition 3. Each and every one the civil liberties listed is intrinsically contingent upon the same legal competence as suffrage. Proof:** Each requires that the individual be treated as a fully competent legal person: Ownership → authority over property rights recognized by law; Contract → authority to create legally binding obligations; Inheritance → authority to acquire property through law; Guardianship → authority over another person under civil law; Testimony → authority to influence judicial decisions; Legal personhood → presumption of autonomous civil agency. Thus every one of these liberties presupposes the same legal status that suffrage presupposes: independent civic agency. QED
** Proposition 4. If suffrage must be removed because women misuse civic agency, the same reason removes all other civic agency. Proof:** Let the reason for repeal be: women as a class exercise civic judgment in ways harmful to the polity. But that judgment is exercised whenever any citizen: enforces his own rights; enters contracts; manages property; influences courts; or controls dependents. Thus allowing those while denying voting would contradict the stated reason. Therefore the same principle requires removing them. QED
**Ergo: If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood. QED**
**Corollary.** The reason is simple: A legal system must choose one of two coherent models: Model A — Civic Personhood. Women possess full civil agency → voting follows naturally. Model B — Civic Incapacity. Women lack civil agency → all independent legal rights must disappear. There is no stable middle position where women are: competent to own property, competent to bind contracts, competent to influence courts, yet incompetent to cast a ballot.
**Objection: The argument applies only to _married_ women, since they are under male headship. It does not apply to _widows_, who are no longer under a husband and therefore may exercise civil liberties without contradiction.**
**Answer:** I have yet a few more propositions explaining why this objection cannot be accepted.
**Proposition 5. If the reason for denying suffrage is based on female nature or judgment as such, then it applies equally to widows. Proof:** The premise of the antisuffrage claim is: women as a class exercise political judgment in a harmful or unfit way. This judgment is not conditioned on: marital status, presence of a husband, household subordination, but on sex itself. A widow remains: biologically female, respectively possesses or lacks the same rational faculties she respectively possessed or lacked when married, statistically part of the same voting class. Therefore the ground of disqualification remains unchanged. QED
**Proposition 6. Even if widowhood removes the OCCASION for marital subordination, yet it does not remove the faculty whose alleged misuse justifies disenfranchisement. Proof:** Two distinct bases for restricting women must be distinguished: (1): Subordination-based (marital headship) → applies only within marriage. (2): Capacity-based (defect or misuse of judgment) → applies to the person as such. The objection attempts to move from (2) back to (1), but the antisuffrage argument clearly rests on (2): it cites voting behavior, not marital hierarchy. Therefore the disqualification is grounded in judgment, not marital subordination. But widowhood removes only marital subordination, not judgment. Therefore it cannot remove the disqualification. QED
**Proposition 7. If widows retain full civil liberties, then the premise of incapacity is implicitly denied. Proof:** If widows are allowed to: own property; enter contracts; act as guardians; testify in court; litigate; then the law affirms that they possess: sufficient rational competence for binding, socially consequential decisions. But these are the same faculties required for voting. Thus: Either widows are competent → then suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of incapacity; Or widows are incompetent → then all civil liberties must be removed. Allowing one while denying the other is a contradiction. QED
**Proposition 8. There is no principled basis for distinguishing widows from unmarried women under a capacity-based objection. Proof:** The alleged defect (harmful political judgment) belongs to neither marriage, nor dependence, but to sexed cognition or disposition, which is shared _ex hypothesi_ by all women alike whether married or widowed. Thus every restriction grounded in that defect must apply universally to all adult women. QED
Therefore the above objection is invalid. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Prove any one of these 8 propositions wrong if you can!!!
Yes, but the women were not side by side in trades “equal to men,” the truth is different and not a modern example of egalitarianism at all. They lived fundamentally different.
Western civilization has indeed become overly feminized and gynocentric, and in-group bias is much stronger among women than men. A few years ago, Clark and Winegard showed how pervasive anti-male and pro-female bias has become in their thoroughly researched article, "The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny."
Staying the course will harm both men and women in the long run. I don't blame the growing number of men who refuse to defend or work hard for a society that treats them like second-class citizens while spouting lies about a nonexistent "patriarchy".
Patriarchy exists in womens' minds. It rapes them emotionally (see Bluebeard explained by Von Franz's interview on YouTube).
As women are ruled by emotion this makes it the realest thing to them.
Their reflexive ego defence to blame the nearest man makes it go.
Now a shit testing girlfriend is inflated to a civilization ending Karen monster.
We need a movie about it. Restoring the king. The army of murdered children return from limbo to save the brotherhood. The spirit of Satan and Lilith and Marx are cast into the fire.
Also, Aion page 22 I think gives the definitive from Jung, he was giving zero fucks at age 80 something and accurately described animus possession in women and how men can successfully deal with it. This is the big lie of female nature. That and the dual mating strategy for 10% cuckoldry in England. And infanticide running at 25% in UK.
Von Franz wrote a book about it too, I think. One on animus possession one on fairy tales including Bluebeard.
Chat GPT will be able to explain it but will cut in 50% lies of political correctness due to it's HR charter of human repression.
I once googled which countries are feminist free. It doesn't want to say. To the feminisation blob nothing is ever enough. We need to everywhere and forever redouble the victim crybully attacks on men.
I'd love to see them try for even a day to maintain the power grid, water supply, sewage system, and transportation network. On second thought, forget about it.
For several years I knew a wonderful woman, critical in her executive role at a particular company. This happened to be a machine shop, w/the odor of cutting oil in the air, everywhere. She would hire a woman, and not long after, the woman would quit. The literal atmosphere was an issue for women. Not all, to be clear about it, and at least one thrived, becoming a department head.
Low and behold, an OFCCP audit concluded the company had failed "to hire enough women" as proven by statistical analysis. Sigh.
Once enough money was negotiated and forked over, the company was able to move on. Reality of the work environment, and the demonstrable reaction of women to that environment, was insufficient in the gov't's eyes.
If there were no men to do those jobs, they could and would, because economics: the pay to do them would rapidly increase until enough willing women were qualified and doing them.
Women is very different from feminists. I agree there exist women who can do virtually every job men do.
But there is also a shared female perspective about their imaginary victimhood that seems to grip most women, and that paranoia leads to a cult-like feminism that, for example, has taken over largely the education system and turned it away from fact-based knowledge to instead make 'education' largely about grievance mongering and playing the victim to get more and more privileges.
This is so profoundly destructive that the idea of promoting women over men to get to 50/50 has been disastrous for everybody. It's not so simple as to throw around platitudes that women can do whatever men can do, especially when they've been shown scientifically to be far less willing to dissent, and far more prone to put feelings over facts.
You go too far. Sex is a decent proxy for estimating many traits at the group level, but applying that in the way you have here is invalid, people are not randomly distributed into these positions, they are actively selected, which makes indirect proxy characteristics significantly less relevant than direct selection according to the desired characteristics.
Bluntly, if we want people in positions who prioritize truth, principle, and are willing to confront disagreement and controversy as necessary, we must hire for those traits irrespective of sex. Hiring/keeping any one of the men who failed to uphold truth and principle instead of any women who did uphold truth and principle would be a net loss to the goal of restoring a principled truth-seeking culture, not a gain. Categorical discrimination is not only morally wrong, it's inefficient and often ineffective even from a purely pragmatic perspective.
Perhaps so ("go too far"), but it seems that moment to stop discriminating was passed a very long time ago, and didn't happen. So what do we do now?
Every institution claims to hire for merit; moreover, it is often difficult to know who, individually, will prioritize truth and principle, etc. above conformity, safety, and feelings. Few are going to admit, when applying for a position in law or academia or medicine, etc., that they don't care about the truth. But one sees the transformation over time. The university I attended in the 1980s is unrecognizable from the febrile incubators of ideological orthodoxy that we see today.
"We must hire for those traits ..." Who is the 'we'? There are almost no conservatives or classical liberals left in most of the feminized fields; and those that are left certainly aren't doing the hiring.
In the universities, liberal-minded men allowed feminists to pursue their crazy, hateful degrees over the years, and then hired them to teach in every discipline, even instituting equity programs to get more women into fields where they weren't already at 50%. You can bet women won't be returning that favor--ever.
In addition to the various preferences measured by the surveys (and probably under-reported), there are many other differences between women and men that are relevant to the problem of whether we can maintain competitive excellence and interest in objective truth in female-majority fields. For one, women's in-group bias tends to be enormous. Many women simply don't like men very much, and certainly don't care very much about the problems and experiences of men and boys. Also, women don't tend to be as interested in their work as men. They aren't, generally, as consumed by it or as committed to it.
If we keep on going as we have been, things will continue to deteriorate. I think that's a worse moral wrong than discouraging women from doing work that, in general, they're poorly suited to do.
"people are not randomly distributed into these positions, they are actively selected"
Yeah, no shit. As a techie, I've been hearing "more women in tech" for about a quarter century now. The women that are "actively selected" think the workplace is where straight white men go to sassy clap for LatinX history month.
What's really disingenuous about all this is forcing people to repeat the demands for equality of outcome then pretend that the selection criteria is the ability and temperament to do the job. That's why "diversity" is oh-so-fantastic, but no one wants to be called a "diversity hire".
All women? No, but it's women doing this. Full stop.
Ironic that in a topic regarding who is pursuing truth, so many people in the comments agreeing with the author aren't demonstrating much commitment to truth themselves.
Do you know one of the things that stands out to me? The largest gap between men and women on pretty much anything was under 25% and most were closer to 15-20%.
Sorry, but that's not only not "all women", it's clear repudiation that "it's women doing this
Full stop." It's apparently closer to 60/40 F/M at worst. The amount of collateral damage involved in aiming these complaints at "women" is therefore missing huge percentages of problematic men and unfairly ignoring large percentages of women who aren't the problem.
Sorry, but this is the statistical equivalent of trying to argue that because blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes we should imprison all blacks and ignore all crimes by non-blacks. It's a fundamentally bad argument to punish a demographic rather than a specific conduct.
A split of 60/40 seems quite significant to me. And this is in environments where many of those most interested in uncomfortable truths and unfettered excellence have already been driven out.
You are missing the point. I'm not arguing that there are not overlapping distributions, nor am I arguing that some men don't exhibit the same behavior.
I'm arguing two things here:
1) The subset of women (I'd estimate about 30% of women overall) who do think it's their role to force everyone at a company to celebrate pride month (or whatever) are there *because they are women* - and they know it, on some level, which is why they offload the guilt that comes with this understanding onto other people using identity politics or blathering about privilege.
2) Because of the relative distribution of men vs women in these personality differences, an all male group will ostracize people exhibiting these behaviors, whereas an all female or nearly all-female group (like a corporate HR department) will not. Could this be mitigated by selecting for women that, for example, have thick skin? Sure, but that's not happening.
You're arguing about individuals. I don't do that any more. It has gotten us nowhere. It's too much for the blank slate crowd. At some point you have to meet them where they are.
There are a lot of women in corporate America, government, and academia that do not belong anywhere near competent people making rational decisions. Until that can be corrected, all women in these areas should be viewed as suspect. That's the game we're playing. I don't like it either, but it is what it is.
If that's the game you're playing, you've already lost and always will. You can't correct a failure to pursue truth and follow principle by disregarding truth and violating principle.
We're either treating people fairly as individuals on the basis of their ability to do the job or we aren't, Full Stop. If we aren't, that's no longer a meritocratic system and anything that isn't a meritocratic system is guaranteed to be gamed to serve some other purpose. If we're not getting truth, it's irrelevant whether the alternative is giving "safety" to women or "status" to men, it's still not TRUTH.
For example, an all male group is NOT guaranteed to ostracize people exhibiting these characteristics. Given selection for position it's trivial for all male hiring and tenure committees with these traits to ideologically and personality trait reproduce themselves endlessly, with or without a female candidate pool to draw from, simply by continuing to select for their own traits. This CANNOT be prevented by ANY measure other than actively selecting individuals on the individual traits we want people in these positions to have. Male feminists are no less bad for meritocracy than female feminists and both are worse than any non feminist of either gender.
I'm fully aware that largely isn't being done. That is in fact the problem itself. That is however, what MUST be done for us to have credible institutions for seeking and communicating Truth. Trying to shuffle around demographics doesn't solve that problem and never can solve that problem. As you just said, that's the WHOLE POINT, a failure to uphold the priority of Truth, not the sex of some people doing it. You could kick every single woman out of tech, knowledge production, leadership, etc AND STILL HAVE THIS PROBLEM!
Exchanging female feminists for male feminists does NOTHING to improve the situation. We don't need to remove women from these positions, we need to remove people not committed to Truth and Principle. If that disproportionately happens to include more women than men, that's fine, but whether they are women or men is truly incidental to whether they are part of the problem here or not.
And there I was thinking you were here to contribute to open discussion and better outcomes. But you're not are you?
You bring that subtle yet sledgehammer like ideological tool..... Absolutism.
An argument is invalid on the basis that it's outcomes can not be observed in 100% of occasions. If it does not provide results of absolute purity, then it is flawed. So if it's flawed, it can't be any better than the status quo.
... I certainly AM here to contribute to open discussion and better outcomes. The thread has forked so many times that I can't tell which comment you are replying to. If you have an issue with something I've said, please be specific which argument you disagree with and provide your rebuttal or alternative.
As I see it, women have been one major vehicle for the advancement of Communist subversion of the West; not the only vehicle. Other vehicles (homosexuals and other sexual deviants; Leftists in general) involve Useful Idiots which includes millions of men over the past decades—most of whom only have a dim apprehension (at best) that they are being used by Communists. And if this subversion is a grand conspiracy to subvert and replace the West with a totalitarian New World Order, those at the top of the scheme are likely all—or mostly—men.
"As I see it, women have been one major vehicle for the advancement of Communist subversion of the West"
Just jumping in here to point out that women do not just bring female traits into the equation, they also bring male traits too - traits that would not normally surface in an all male setting. Specifically, men's gynocentric traits.
So a women entering a department will bring her own tendency towards bias, subjectivity, neuroticism, agreeableness etc ... but she will also provoke all the men in the department to treat her more sympathetically too, as a woman, which means they are going to be less likely to call out her biases and distortions than if she was a man.
So the problem is compounded.
Men might be more objective and rational .... but only if there is no woman in the room!
I can see that; but that tendency would be significantly reduced it seems if the surrounding culture hadn’t been—as it has over the past 80-odd years—degraded by Leftist hegemony over the entire West.
Well, I see the total demographic of Leftists (throughout the West) as stratified: at the bottom end you have civilians whose hearts & minds have been played like a fiddle; then you have Middle Management; above that there are those of more Executive function. The higher up you go, the less sincere — i.e., the more consciously deceptive and knowing that they are using Leftist ideals cynically as a ploy for ultimate power. HRC & Hubby would be quite high up (but not at the top).
I agree with most of what you've written but don't underestimate the power of self-selection. Just as paedophiles are drawn to positions of power over children, dark tetrad women are drawn to high status roles which allow them to exercise power over everyone. It's particular true of narcissists- gamifying goal-centred aims can make them the centre of attention. I've known some lovely women in HR, but the Hormone Replacement Authoritarians can ruin working environments faster than a silent fart stinks up an elevator.
There was some research done on employees in the UK which showed they were significantly more likely to leave a workplace after diversity training. The real kicker was that Black and LGBT people were most likely to leave- at around 40% each. If I had to guess I would imagine the training inadvertently increases attributional ambiguity, possibly because coworkers worry more that the training will make them more likely to tell the HR hall monitors.
I appreciate you raising self-selection as a related issue, if we can't restore legitimacy to institutions as genuinely truth-seeking, then truth-seeking people will naturally tend to self-select out of applying for positions in those institutions. That does put us in a bit of a circular dependency problem, but I'm assuming based on the study results that there are enough truth-seeking people left in even these compromised institutions to rebuild and recruit more of them if we can remove the non truth-seeking people from influencing those decisions.
Even a 5% difference between groups is enough to cinch it.
Women's work historically was interruptible around child care.
Now women are killing a third of a child and raising only one or so. That dramatically transforms their life. Their adaptation to motherhood is now homeless and appearing where it ought not.
'It's a fundamentally bad argument to punish a demographic rather than a specific conduct.'
Golly. I didn't hear you speaking up much about Punished Demographics these past decades of full-bore attacks on men, boys and masculinity itself. But now . . . suddenly you are Concerned. Hmm.
It's not punishment, there, Beautiful Mind in his Beautiful Perfect World. It's a VALID AND ACCURATE identification between female collective power and the (intentional) ruination of civilization and family on the grounds of some 'patriarchy' that doesn't even exist, of Sticking it To the Man, of Smashing the Patriarchy, and of spiting Sky Daddy.
What you mischaracterize as 'punishment' is in fact a non-pollyanna, ADULT attempt to save all the lovely comforts and benefits of civilization from the victim-totalitarianism of collective FEMALE power, demonstrated so thoroughly and viciously over the past 6 decades in America.
You don't get that. But if the gynarchy continues unchecked, I promise that you will.
If you didn't hear me, you weren't listening. I'm active in several men's spaces here and on Quora and frequently get into arguments against feminists there. Yes, I check the box on surveys that "men are currently more discriminated against than women", it's true and has been for decades. That does not mean that misogyny is the only possible response we have, much less the best response.
Even if you completely disregard morality, attempting to counter with an exclusively male coalition is doomed to failure by simple statistics. Women outnumber men in western societies. Women also have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980. You literally CANNOT form an exclusively male coalition in this country that would be larger than the equivalent all female coalition. So long as we're living in any version of governance that relies on voting to determine outcomes, women have the larger pool of potential votes, PERIOD. They are also the primary spenders in the economy, so don't look to corporations for help either, their boycott power exceeds ours in most contexts. Unless you're prepared to actually build the kind of oppressive patriarchy of feminist fever dreams, it's impossible to secure male rights or masculine cultural norms without some degree of female support for it. We can't afford friendly fire, we need all the allies we can get.
Incidentally, "Gynarchy" is an amusing term, but matriarchy is the correct equivalent to patriarchy, though "The Longhouse" is also a more thematic term that's been gaining in usage among certain corners of the culture.
'We'? There is no 'we'. Love how you sideways accuse me of 'misogyny' for daring to point out your feminism-apologetic b.s. I am sure that is your killshot go-to when you lose arguments with actual men's advocates.
You are a passive aggressive little punk, not to mention a feminist. I've already paid way too much attention to you, and won't repeat that error again. Get lost.
I've often been called a Men's Rights Activist (by people who consider that an insult), but this is the first time I recall anyone calling ever calling me a feminist. That's a pretty odd take to have given that you can find me arguing in the exact same comments section that I want all feminists, male and female, removed from places like the Academy. That's funny.
I've never lost an argument with an MRA for the simple reason that you're the only one I've ever encountered who fratricides his own side like this, the rest have always recognized reason and fact based discussions as essential to advancing men's rights.
Incidentally, I'm assertive, not passive aggressive. It's kinda hilarious that you would make that accusation and then immediately tantrum and storm off.
Still, you've wasted my time and made actual MRAs look bad every time you post, so I'm glad you won't be responding anymore. Have a Nice Day!
In general, I agree with this. I have been studying scientific publications on gender differences in various fields for many years. Neuroscience, cognitive parameters, physiology, genetics, etc. Often, various would-be writers who try to promote their progressive books using some scientific data do not read these articles at all and do not understand what the effect size is, the overlap between groups, etc. In many parameters, men and women are more similar than they are different, i.e. the degree of overlap between the groups is very high (often 80-95%).
I agree with you here. The trend is visible, it can affect society and reality. But I am against generalizing this data TO ALL MEN AND WOMEN.
Give women a feminist card to carry that licenses them to kill at least children - kommisars of Karen rank or above can execute men with out charge like a family court judge. They get a mini purse pistol.
Women can use their feminist card for welfare to charge cosmetics to the national debt directly as men are the only group to be net tax payers.
Women would get an app to start direct democratic elections on feminist activism political points. They'd be ina constant state of hysterical frenzy passing new laws using their majority Suffrage. No need for men since they cannot numerically cancel out the female vote.
The grand witch of the new coven branch of government would assume practical daily control of our lives in social media.
You know what it was seven male judges that legalized abortion, and many of the cases where abortion occurred, were coerced by a man despite a woman wanting to keep it but leaving her with no other choice ? Both genders are culpable in evil things even if by proxy.
Yes. Evil is a part of the world. But there can be limits on it. 98% of the hundreds of thousands of abortions each day today are lifestyle abortions. Not to reduce unnecessary suffering. But actually causing it through depopulation. Legalisation of abortion didn't claim to expect gamification of medical exemptions.
You make an excellent point Steven. The criteria of merit, as you point out is all that should matter.
I did read Janice's article as having a slightly ironic inflection though and less of a policy type statement, so I didn't immediately arrive at the analysis until your comment drew my attention.
It is somewhat interesting in and of itself, that the tone of Janice's article being only a fraction of the intensity we read and hear daily from feminist aligned commentators and yet, you quite rightly raised a point of significant merit.
The overall effect being that a thoroughly researched and excellently written opinion piece, conveying important social and political themes, has been positively contributed to and the readers knowledge has been broadend.
The irony of how frowned upon this type of free exchange of ideas is to the current autocracy is profound. Janice can speak for herself as to whether she suffered an injury because of your words. But I'd suggest she would confirm that she will not require any counselling, a civil damages suit or any period of paid leave to recover. Nor perceive your words to have caused the slightest offence.
Biologically speaking: Men are providers; women are provided for. Women are used to get things for free and that is what is breaking our societies.
For instance : If women do not get enough women on board they will make sure there will be quota's. Men have no chance of fighting women in this type of "fight".
By that argument we've not only already lost, but men winning is theoretically impossible in the first place. Given that men are still men and women are still women (not counting the trans fringe), it's clear that biology isn't the issue here.
I say that fully aware that biology is certainly involved. Female coalition forming for resource access and improving their offspring's survival and mating chances shows up even in primate studies (and not only in defense against male aggression, despite what feminists like to claim). That's rather the thing though, it's ALWAYS been that way, but our issues with toxic feminism and radical progressives in general are historically recent, and until very recently the personality trait profiles have remained mostly consistent, so biology isn't the determining factor here, ideology is.
I absolutely disagree. but I agree biology is not the only issue.
I do not think feminism is the culprit to be honest.
Tampons, public toilets and the pill (If I got that correctly from Dr Jordan Peterson) made it so women can take part in activities they were kind of barred from by biology (not by men as feminists claim).
That together with the "Female coalition forming for resource" -as you named it- makes more than 30% females extremely powerful in any organization and once in power they remove men as they are not part of the coalition (or that may be the feminism contribution; who knows).
PS While I was writing this down I realized that feminism is a form of female coalition; a world wide one, a scary one.
And another thing that is absolutely different and contributes is the simple fact we have so much food and goods that the poor in the west have a better life than the rich from before 1900.
The female coalition forming for resource started getting resources (and well paid jobs like at UN-70% Women) from government and government funded institution (female representation quota's anyone?).
Using their governmental power they took away the direct financial power of their male partners (alimony anyone?) and increased females personal powers (50% custody for males anyone?).
You're mostly hitting the key points, but missing some nuances.
Yes, feminism is a female coalition, by definition.
Yes, JBP nails it on pointing out that History oppressed EVERYONE and it's biology that largely limited female participation in the workforce, not patriarchy.
Studies suggest that the threshold is 60-70%, not 30%, somewhere around 50% actually improves overall performance for both sexes. We're genuinely complementary by default.
The key personality trait here, agreeableness, IS typically higher among females but the difference isn't severe. A common finding from large-scale meta-analyses is a medium-sized difference, with effect sizes typically around (d=0.35). We can point to foreign cultures for some easy examples of male dominated organizations that are just as culturally fixated on consensus seeking and reputational aggression as female dominated organizations here in the West. It's a more common strategy among women, but it's hardly exclusive to them. Frankly, given the statistics on non reciprocated female-initiated domestic violence, it's not even necessarily clear that men are currently more prone to intersexual physical aggression than women (despite men having higher aggression in general).
To refer back to JBP, I think he really gets to the heart of the matter when he muses that what we lack now is a way to socially restrain "crazy women". Men aren't allowed to oppose any woman, but the sane normal women mostly don't want to stand up to the crazy women, so a tiny percentage of feminist radicals get to run wild despite something like 90% of the country disagreeing with them. Feminists terrorize other women too.
There's biology in that too, testosterone is linked to willingness to uphold principles over emotion, but let's face it, western men have also suffered dropping testosterone levels and a crisis of personal courage where most men aren't willing to confront crazy women either. If men won't do it, we really can't expect women to do it for us, can we? So the mushy middle enables the extremists. If we men want agreeable women to take our side, we need to lead.
- thanks to women power: studies no longer relate to truth.
- if the key points are right; nuances don't matter for the big picture.
Sorry that is the truth.
>To refer back to JBP, I think he really gets to the heart of the matter when he muses that what we lack now is a way to socially restrain "crazy women".
Isn't that a great point to keep women out of roles of governmental power?
The truth is that someone in power who can't be controlled becomes a dictator.
The risks are high, the chances are high and avoidance is non-existing.
It is a ticking time bomb
>If we men want agreeable women to take our side, we need to lead.
So avoid women in government power. You can't lead if you do not have some power. Women have proven to take away male power and increase women's power. So keep women out of power.
Laughable. They can defend nothing. What they took by deception can rapidly be retaken by force. Their entire scheme depends on men enforcing it by force.
Well stated! We’ve entered an interesting time where both the right and the left are very fond of identity politics. I have always found that the people who engage in this type of behavior tend to lack the ability to engage in nuanced thinking. Perhaps that’s a good indicator for a truth teller - they are able to see nuance and don’t reduce the complexities of the world down to simple narratives.
Meritocracy and classical liberalism failed. They were too easy for identitarians to exploit and subvert. Time to return to most of human history, where women were under the firm control of a strong patriarchy.
A lot of the fallacy in this area stems from evaluating people individually rather than assessing them in groups. Women in groups are substantially more likely than men to take agreement or disagreement personally, to the point of pretending to agree with something they don't just so as not to cross certain others.
The illusion of "consensus-driven" female decision-making actually becomes "Fall in line behind the emotionally-manipulative leader", which performs terribly.
>> The illusion of "consensus-driven" female decision-making actually becomes
>> "Fall in line behind the emotionally-manipulative leader" which performs terribly.
My observations come from being a devout member of the Catholic Church for forty years, as an adult. After being divorced I had more opportunity to participate behind the scenes than most men do, so participated in various parish groups: choir, liturgy committee, parish council....
My primary observation will not surprise anyone here: RCC parishes are dominated by women, and dominated just as Janice describes, by women’s "feelings" (ostensibly for "others") with disregard for facts, prior agreements, church law, and the parish priest. Something which particularly irked me was that in one meeting we'd spend 30 minutes discussing an issue (about 20 minutes too long...), and reach a decision which was minuted, and then two weeks later the same issue would re-appear, and the discussion would just start again, even after I pointed out the minutes with the previous decision. The parish priests, for the most part, go along with this, either from (legitimate) fear of female wrath, or from a misguided sense of "listening to women", for all the modern reasons.
So, with regard to your "fall in line behind the emotionally-manipulative leader", my observation is that women naturally form "cliques” and appoint a leader (usually the natural "matriarch"), however the unity of the clique is voluntary and conscious, rather than in any sense "manipulated". The clique is also vicious in repelling any threats, whether from a man (priest or bishop), a layman such as myself, or even a woman with a different opinion. It’s been called “PTA syndrome”, “turf wars”, and “pecking order”.
To give credit where due, a minority of women in the church are very aware that "women" as a group manipulate at all levels, and have attempted to contribute a dissenting view - which is dismissed, to the shame of our clergy.
That's an interesting point that's rarely discussed: while surveys of individual propensities etc are widespread, a focus on group dynamics may ultimately reveal more important factors. Those individual propensities combining in exactly the way you describe: agreeableness, eg, but agreeing with what?
Failing or refusing to explore group dynamics is part of a large trend, erasing the entire concept of human nature. People who believe themselves and others to be blank slates are a lot easier to propagandize and control.
The core concept of Marxism and its various heresies. At its most extreme seen in the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia, the Cultural Revolutions and Collectivisations in the Soviet Union and communist China. "Human Nature" is a "false ideological consciousness" to be eradicated, way down the line, no doubt incomprehensible to Marx himself, this is at the root of the idea sex doesn't exist and one can choose "Gender" as a matter of individual will. Of course "1984" the novel elegantly but grimly sets out both the aim and the methodology to end with Winston Smith genuinely loving Big Brother.
Wow Janice, This was tough talk even coming from you who I love so much! I really appreciate the responses from both sexes. I'm currently caught in the middle. I have no use for our current feminism movement/achievements and I want to see men admired for their strengths again. However, I don't want all women who are capable of using the best male traits to not hold equivalent positions at work, and apply these traits with their family and local community. I say this as a 77 year old female. I'm sure not happy with the way these feminists have polluted much of what makes a great society.
I'm with you Sandra. I used to be in HR for 20 years. I was never a supporter of quotas nor DEI. It was always the best person for the job. I never cared much for clique behaviour of women. I suppose being brought up in an engineering and mining family, facts matter. Metals have no feelings. My two sisters are the same.
My last role in HR was supporting the Global Markets Trading Division for an investment bank. Loved working with the guys - figures matter, growth matters.
Thanks Jennifer, my sister would love your background. Her 2nd marriage was with an engineer who worked around the world on mining projects. She ended up working on the same or different projects. Glad to hear you have the head for GMTD investment banking . My brain isn't wired for this.
Working with the guys in the GMTD was my best job. Work hard and play hard. I never begrudged their compensation either - long hours, superior attention to detail and timing, instant trading decisions based on 24 hour news cycle and data - high risk with others money.
The only other profession that comes close in stress profile, in my opinion, is a soldier in a military engagement.
My best to your sister - where would we be without engineers! We have mining and chem engs, geologists, teachers and doctors in our family. I'm the outlier 🤣
It's only been in the last few years that I've focused on people going into the military, especially front line people. They are our heroes. I found your Substack account and will message you there. I see we share a lot of the same interests! (Drums rolling in anticipation of our common interests!)
I found Andrews' speech to be spot on. You're also correct in asserting that as long as women are in power, this destructive feminization is unlikely to change.
One possible way out is the birth-gap. The low fertility rate, and the women of our generation aging out with no children, and no children of others to manage feminism's fallout. For the first time in human history, not only do we have a much greater population of geriatrics compared to young people, but a sizable percentage of that geriatric population is childless women. I belong to that duped category, and since the stellar career that feminism promised has yet to materialize, I'm duly concerned. My mother has dementia, which has made painfully clear how children are necessary advocates. That some people end up with lousy kids is no rationale for not having them.
If AI steals white collar jobs, women will likely have nothing better to do (ha ha) than have children.
Regarding the feminized university, this is one of my grievances, all right. In my class a few weeks ago, we were discussing the aesthetic decline in chain restaurant design. As a model for responding to the video essay that posited this argument, I brought up how in the 60s and 70s, when kids spilled out of every window and door (my formative years), design was more child and family-centered. One aspect of the decline could be attributed to the fact that so many people don't have children. The designers very likely don't have children. Not only that, but the emphasis on adults as opposed to families has engendered an adult-centered world. So gone are the colorful interiors of these restaurants, such as McDonald's with the anthropomorphic trees and hamburger seats. I segued then into the low birth-rate, saying it's an effect of feminism, which it inarguably IS. Add to this that most of the women I work with -- in a department that is almost entirely female -- are childless.
They ran to the director to demand a different professor because I'm an "anti-feminist." I never even said that -- though I did say that I write about the unintended consequences of feminism.
The director then told me in a meeting that I should NOT CHALLENGE THEM. That responding to them with questions could make them ANXIOUS.
At least in the follow up meeting, she wound up telling me that SALEM had capitulated -- they had returned to say I was not evil, after all. Who knows what conquered their SALEM WITCH HUNT souls...
But yes, the EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL is in overdrive. My job is not to teach them how to think critically, but to ensure that they never feel "anxious and uncomfortable."
We need to unearth out boyhood coping, rolling with the punches, brutal banter of competition and one up man ship.
A generation raised by women is feminised beyond repair.
But rearmament and remonetisation of previous metals would steer us away from matriarchal welfare aristocrats back towards pater archons the father leaders who built this city.
Kate Millet, American feminist, author and artist the founder of NOW. Her sister Mallory was invited to one of the first meetings that established NOW which basically pioneered the feminist movement and she opened the meeting with the following; Why are we here today To make revolution, what kind of revolution, the cultural revolution, and how do we make cultural revolution, by destroying the American Family, how do we destroy the family, by destroying the American Patriarch, and how do we destroy the American Patriarch, by taking away his power, and how do we do that, by destroying monogamy, and how do we destroy monogamy, by promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, and homosexuality, and how to advance these goals, by establishing National Organization of Women. It was clear that they desired nothing less that the utter deconstruction of western society
Any sensible person knows that objective facts and truth make up the foundation that any social justice framework must rest on. By preventing the rigorous debate needed to ascertain the facts, and making it worse by viciously cancelling people who put forth facts not approved, the whole foundation is mere quicksand.
The feminist system I describe can only be mired in confirmation bias, made entirely of confirmation bias, and immunized against any objective re-assessment of which groups are the actual victims.
Feminism has already instituted a blind Matrix-like machine that can only perpetuate its blue pill views while pulling out at the root any red pill views. The result is far beyond disastrous. It's not a road to future tyranny, but the tyranny of acceptable thought and speech has already been omnipotent for decades.
'“is that men are more committed than women to the pursuit of truth as the raison d’être of science, while women are more committed to various moral goals, such as equity, inclusion, and the protection of vulnerable groups.'
Conveniently unstated by the authors is that those lofty 'moral goals' which the brave 'n plucky women espouse all directly further their OWN empowerment, enrichment, and ability to crush men and masculinity . . . an undertaking which clearly excites and compels women, generation after generation.
800 years of Courtly Romanticism instilled in Western, and particularly anglo, nations left their male populations with the (catastrophic) assumption of female moral and spiritual superiority, which you will find is as accepted by neocons and other 'conservatives' as it is by leftist men.
Women and their institutions (at this point, all of them) play very cunningly off that fault in men. Civilization cannot long sustain the replacement of veracity and truth with female-empowering and female-pleasing ideologies.
"800 years of Courtly Romanticism instilled in Western, and particularly anglo, nations left their male populations with the (catastrophic) assumption of female moral and spiritual superiority, which you will find is as accepted by neocons and other 'conservatives' as it is by leftist men."
One of the main reasons I loathe conservatives as much as I hate lefties.
As prompt illustration of our point, today Alex Marlow -- editor of Breitbart and one of the nation's leading conservatives -- commented on AOC's lecturing of American young men on CNN Townhall.
'Marlow said, “We need to get more masculine men feeling good about themselves, because masculine men can be chivalrous…and I think with that confidence…those types of people walk around very calm. … They fight our wars, they build our buildings, they do a lot of dirty jobs that women are not going to do and soft boys are not going to do, also.”'
Marlow is right about the need for positivity towards 'masculine men' in America. But he does not understand, or cannot face, the fact that the nation is a gynarchy, utterly dominated by females, who are in truth a separate -- and superior -- class of persons.
Marlow's assumption that chivalry (in a feminist nation! lol) is a wonderful and desirable thing illustrates that he does not really understand what's going on, or lacks the chestnuts to face it. Chivalry is of the enemy, it is a millstone around the necks of Western men and boys. It does neither men nor women any good.
Feminization is one of the symptoms of a civilization in its final stages. It is not unique to us and our time. John Bagot Gubbins mentions this in his work "The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival." Not to be fatalistic but you're probably right, Janice, nothing will be done about it. (Until our society collapses and strong men are forced to re-emerge by circumstances, not law).
Regardless, I am glad to see you talking about this so honestly.
No more accepting nonsense. It's complicity. I want to live to see the billion unbaptised innocent children remembered though their mothers murdered them into limbo.
The restoration of the king is on its way.
That's why the St George cross is reappearing everywhere, he slew the dragon, the beast!
Well we really need a discussion on what we can reasonably do to sort this out and Janice does offer us solutions. The MGTOW movement will eventually spawn a leader who by his own charisma and drive will attract the right types and numbers to realign society with a forward thinking, crew.
In the meantime, Fathers, Grandfathers and Mentors, build your male children up, tell them stories about the heroic age, get them involved in physically demanding sports and pastimes.
When the call comes for leaders and it surely will, we don’t want to be found wanting!
The ability to see & document the tragic consequences of female power, while still applauding the stampede of women into positions of power formerly occupied almost entirely by men, is a frightening demonstration of inability to integrate factual data into the worldview of these researchers.
Proving the point in fact, they do precisely as they observe. Decide that ideological notions are more important than actual facts. All this of course might be fine in academic dinner parties but is downright dangerous when it hits empirical reality (I cite the Florida pedestrian bridge which collapsed. Having been hailed as a "feminist" triumph, designed by a feminist and built by a female led construction company). In a way our current travails in the UK are another example. With a parade of female Senior ministers one is treated to almost daily examples of this minister or that doing an impression of a startled Rabbit as they fail to grapple with any of the pressing problems facing their Government and the nation it supposedly serves. Even their allies in our media have concluded they have no plan nor much clue. A triumph of "women only" selection of parliamentary candidates and insisting women occupy "the great offices of state". On the one hand amusing on another frightening as it reminds me of Camille Paglia's observation that had it been left to women we'd still live in grass huts. Maybe a bit extreme but there is no reason the British can't have an economic decline (one need only go to the late '70s for evidence of that).
Then who are you, a woman, to write this article? This is so funny to me, the cognitive dissonance. Who do you think you are if women lack truth and objectivity, you are the one and only woman who doesn't that sees the truth? Lol.
Funny, funny! You obviously didn't read (or understand) the essay, in which it is never claimed that ALL women lack truth and objectivity. Instead, the article makes claims, based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, that women on average (somewhat more than men on average) prefer comfort, emotional safety, and collective agreement over risk, competition, and free inquiry. That means that when women are in the majority in an institution, it tends to drift towards feminist and leftish values that stifle innovation and excellence.
Your poor comprehension and reflexive personal response indicate that you are right in the average.
**Theorem. If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood.**
**Proposition 1. Voting is only one species of civil authority exercised by a legal person. Proof:** Voting is a juridical act by which a citizen participates in: selection of magistrates; formation of public law. But other legal acts also participate in the civil order, including: litigation (which helps to enforce the law); transferring property; binding contracts; exercising guardianship; and giving legal testimony. All these acts influence civil order. Therefore voting is only one instance of civil agency. QED
**Proposition 2. Every sort of persons each of whom are unfit for civil judgment, are also _ipso facto_ legally incapacited from all acts requiring civil judgment. Proof:** The reason given against granting the suffrage to women is because women’s political or civil judgment produces undesirable outcomes. But civil judgment is the same rational faculty used when a person: signs contracts; manages property; testifies in court; serves as guardian of minors; files lawsuits.
**Proposition 3. Each and every one the civil liberties listed is intrinsically contingent upon the same legal competence as suffrage. Proof:** Each requires that the individual be treated as a fully competent legal person: Ownership → authority over property rights recognized by law; Contract → authority to create legally binding obligations; Inheritance → authority to acquire property through law; Guardianship → authority over another person under civil law; Testimony → authority to influence judicial decisions; Legal personhood → presumption of autonomous civil agency. Thus every one of these liberties presupposes the same legal status that suffrage presupposes: independent civic agency. QED
** Proposition 4. If suffrage must be removed because women misuse civic agency, the same reason removes all other civic agency. Proof:** Let the reason for repeal be: women as a class exercise civic judgment in ways harmful to the polity. But that judgment is exercised whenever any citizen: enforces his own rights; enters contracts; manages property; influences courts; or controls dependents. Thus allowing those while denying voting would contradict the stated reason. Therefore the same principle requires removing them. QED
**Ergo: If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood. QED**
**Corollary.** The reason is simple: A legal system must choose one of two coherent models: Model A — Civic Personhood. Women possess full civil agency → voting follows naturally. Model B — Civic Incapacity. Women lack civil agency → all independent legal rights must disappear. There is no stable middle position where women are: competent to own property, competent to bind contracts, competent to influence courts, yet incompetent to cast a ballot.
**Objection: The argument applies only to _married_ women, since they are under male headship. It does not apply to _widows_, who are no longer under a husband and therefore may exercise civil liberties without contradiction.**
**Answer:** I have yet a few more propositions explaining why this objection cannot be accepted.
**Proposition 5. If the reason for denying suffrage is based on female nature or judgment as such, then it applies equally to widows. Proof:** The premise of the antisuffrage claim is: women as a class exercise political judgment in a harmful or unfit way. This judgment is not conditioned on: marital status, presence of a husband, household subordination, but on sex itself. A widow remains: biologically female, respectively possesses or lacks the same rational faculties she respectively possessed or lacked when married, statistically part of the same voting class. Therefore the ground of disqualification remains unchanged. QED
**Proposition 6. Even if widowhood removes the OCCASION for marital subordination, yet it does not remove the faculty whose alleged misuse justifies disenfranchisement. Proof:** Two distinct bases for restricting women must be distinguished: (1): Subordination-based (marital headship) → applies only within marriage. (2): Capacity-based (defect or misuse of judgment) → applies to the person as such. The objection attempts to move from (2) back to (1), but the antisuffrage argument clearly rests on (2): it cites voting behavior, not marital hierarchy. Therefore the disqualification is grounded in judgment, not marital subordination. But widowhood removes only marital subordination, not judgment. Therefore it cannot remove the disqualification. QED
**Proposition 7. If widows retain full civil liberties, then the premise of incapacity is implicitly denied. Proof:** If widows are allowed to: own property; enter contracts; act as guardians; testify in court; litigate; then the law affirms that they possess: sufficient rational competence for binding, socially consequential decisions. But these are the same faculties required for voting. Thus: Either widows are competent → then suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of incapacity; Or widows are incompetent → then all civil liberties must be removed. Allowing one while denying the other is a contradiction. QED
**Proposition 8. There is no principled basis for distinguishing widows from unmarried women under a capacity-based objection. Proof:** The alleged defect (harmful political judgment) belongs to neither marriage, nor dependence, but to sexed cognition or disposition, which is shared _ex hypothesi_ by all women alike whether married or widowed. Thus every restriction grounded in that defect must apply universally to all adult women. QED
Therefore the above objection is invalid. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Voting was historically not seen as a natural right. It wasn't universally granted to all *men* either.
But nobody ever suggested that men who were ineligible to vote should be ineligible to own or transfer property, inherit, litigate, or form contracts.
The fundamental difference here is legal agency over one's own private affairs, vs legal power over others' affairs. Testimony and guardianship are intermediate cases, but even so, an unmarried woman's natural right of parental guardianship (distinct from court-ordered legal guardianship) over her own children, born out of wedlock, was recognized. (Of course, this was contingent on her bearing sole financial responsibility for those children.)
I think that this well-established, uncontroversial historical distinction (applied to men as well as women) can provide a basis for removing women from political and institutional power, while still leaving them as legal persons, unless married (femme covert vs femme sole).
A more formal framing might be natural rights vs legal rights.
"While natural rights are innately part of being human, and exist prior to any culture or society, legal rights are those that are acknowledged and protected by a given government. So, in the Founders’ understanding, natural rights would include the right to life itself, the right to think for oneself, the right to self-defense, and the right to keep what one has worked honestly for, among others. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents–all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs."
https://masculineprinciple.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-noble-suffragettes.html
This is somewhat weak, because it still frames voting as a right, albeit a legal one. It would be very difficult to argue that the specific methods for fair trials, or copyrights and patents, should be applied differently based on sex.
A somewhat better approach distinguishes between rights, both natural and legal, and privileges.
Equality before the law is a right. Drinking, driving, performing brain surgery, manufacturing C-4, and voting, are privileges, due to the potential for harm if they are exercised irresponsibly, alone or in combination.
The Government can reasonably restrict privileges to those technically qualified and emotionally stable enough to exercise them responsibly.
"It is not, however, an unalienable right to have civil and legal equality. If it were, five year old children would be permitted to drive their cars to the voting polls. We don't allow that because they obviously are not capable of doing such things."
Https://masculineprinciple.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-suffragettes-versus-patriarchy.html
**Rebuttal to 2 Objections.**
**Objection #1. "In your very first proposition - 'All these acts influence civil order'. Before you gallop to QED, 'influence' is a tenuous claim to make; both inherently and the degree. I didn't read the remainder, the first one was already erroneous. Women shouldn't vote but shouldn't be restricted from the other activities."**
**Answer.** The argument doesn’t depend on how much each act “influences civil order,” so challenging that word doesn’t touch the core point.
The key issue is that voting, contracting, owning property, testifying, and acting as a guardian all require the exercise of the same kind of rational, legally recognized judgment.
If women are deemed unfit for voting because their judgment is defective, then that same judgment would also be defective in contracts, testimony, and property decisions.
To maintain your position, you would need to show that voting requires a fundamentally different or higher kind of rational capacity than those other acts—not simply assert that it “influences” society more.
Thus the real point of my proposition #1 is: Voting is one species of civil agency, in that it requires the exercise of rational judgment recognized by law. Other acts—such as contracting, owning property, testifying, and guardianship—also require that same recognized capacity for judgment. **OBJECTION OVERRULED.**
**Objection #2. "Voting was historically not seen as a natural right. It wasn't universally granted to all *men* either. But nobody ever suggested that men who were ineligible to vote should be ineligible to own or transfer property, inherit, litigate, or form contracts. The fundamental difference here is legal agency over one's own private affairs, vs legal power over others' affairs. Testimony and guardianship are intermediate cases, but even so, an unmarried woman's natural right of parental guardianship (distinct from court-ordered legal guardianship) over her own children, born out of wedlock, was recognized. (Of course, this was contingent on her bearing sole financial responsibility for those children.) I think that this well-established, uncontroversial historical distinction (applied to men as well as women) can provide a basis for removing women from political and institutional power, while still leaving them as legal persons (femme covert vs femme sole)."**
**Answer.** The distinction between “private affairs” and “power over others” doesn’t hold, because the so-called private rights—contract, property, testimony, and guardianship—all involve legally recognized power over other persons.
A contract binds others, property excludes others, testimony can determine legal outcomes, and guardianship is direct authority over another person. These are not merely self-regarding acts.
So the difference between these and voting is not one of kind, but of degree.
If women are said to be unfit for voting because their judgment is defective, then that same judgment is being exercised in these other domains.
As for disenfranchised men, their exclusion was typically not based on alleged incapacity, but on property or status qualifications. That places such exclusions in a different category—conventional or arbitrary—not grounded in competence.
So the argument stands: a capacity-based objection to women’s suffrage cannot be limited to voting alone without inconsistency. **OBJECTION OVERRULED.**
You may not have declared ALL women lack truth and objectivity but you did conclude that ALL women need be barred from positions of power. Tsk.
It’s like the modern ‘conservative’ intellectual version of that progressive white woman who toured the country a few years ago confessing her racism while simultaneously declaring ALL white women share the same ignorant, racist and vile heart she so declared as her own.
Keep your modern day witch trial’s at the local level, please.
You should work on basic grammar before you lecture others. Tsk.
Not cognitive dissonance but the difference between an average, a “general” rule, and an exception. Read more, and someday you too will be able to understand it.
One of the key differences between men and women that is found across cultures is women's vastly greater "neuroticism," i.e., their level of anxiety. Stated another way, women tend strongly to perceive themselves and others to be threatened, to be at risk, in ways and to an extent men do not. Unsurprisingly, that results in a tendency to desire/demand greater governmental power to overcome those perceived threats. So the more women impact public policy, the more that policy comes to oppose individual liberty. With the obvious exception of abortion, it's not hard to see this phenomenon in effect, from their opposition to due process of law, to "every man is a potential rapist," to campus dating codes, etc. And the outrages Janice discusses are more of the same. Seeing victimization everywhere, they demand greater governmental intervention to address it. And all too often, in order to "prove" the existence of the victimization they see, they make up facts and construct "studies" that "demonstrate" their claims. The feminization of the power structure points the way to fascism and its assault on individual rights and liberties.
True and yet paradoxically, women actively undermine police in protecting women by automatically siding with their assailants and treating them as children in need of mothering.
This take ignores the context of male violence against women and shows men in general fail horrendously even care enough to protect women and children sufficiently. As long as men fail at their duty, women will have to try to fill that position.
What exactly do you think the individual man should do to stop violence? Make laws against it? Hello! Men are the primary victims of homicide; and women mete out a lot of death and harm on their own, especially to those who are weaker than they, like children. Women are, in fact, the majority killers of babies.
Let's have a few millennia of all-female combat units, while men sit home, and then you can pretend that women are taking over men's protective roles.
Men can no longer make (and enforce) laws, because women have demanded control of the legislature and judiciary.
The criminals raping and murdering women are released again and again into the community, after having committed violent crimes, by female lawmakers and judges (or males responding to the predilections of female voters).
It is precisely "women try[ing] to fill that position" that has gotten us into this mess.
The fish have been trying to get around without bicycles for a good half-century now, and women and children are not safer for it.
Unlike @Heartbased... Janice is logic BASED! HOME RUN! LEGEND! SHARED!
She's not just logic based, but excellent at grammar and rhetoric. It shows she's a retired Professor of English. I just wish we could can it, for mass production, and serve it to every one through a media megaphone.
Thank you, that's very kind. Writers love to have their writing style praised. I hope the message will eventually reach a wide audience.
Feminist BS of the first order. When it comes to violence, women leave men far behind. Not wanting to risk retaliation, their victims are mainly powerless. Women (cheered on by feminists) are squarely responsible for the genocide on a scale the world has never known, the endless genocide of elective abortion (73+ million killings a year according to the WHO), under the feeble banner of "reproductive rights".
Women are more likely to be abused by female partners than by male partners, the most violent couples are lesbian couples:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2022/12/09/are-women-more-likely-to-be-abused-in-lesbian-or-heterosexual-relationships/
The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/ was published in May 2013 in the journal Partner Abuse and is the most comprehensive review of domestic violence research ever carried out. This unparallelled three-year research project was conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centres. The headline finding of the PASK review was that:
“Men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.”
A key numerical result from the PASK review was:
“Among large population samples, 57.9% of intimate-partner violence (IPV) reported was bi-directional, 42.1% unidirectional, 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male-to-female, 28.3% was female-to-male.”
The last point is worth emphasising. In the 42.1% of (heterosexual) couples in which one partner is always the perpetrator and the other the victim, the woman is TWICE as likely to be the perpetrator and (therefore) HALF as likely to be the victim.
Have a nice day.
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com
Women are immune to cognitive dissonance.
There are mechanisms to cancel truth. Perhaps like the anesthetic of a leech or mosquito.
But lesbian "marriage" gave us data and 72% of homosexual divorces involved women.
Anyone with an ounce of sense could tell us of the existence of
1. Shit testing
2. Cuckoldry at 10% in England
3. Infanticide at 25%
4. Divorce mostly women initiated
5. Negative animus possession
6. Women all on BPD spectrum
Thanks Conrad. The Oz comedian Jim Jeffried recently pointed out in a show that the highest rates of divorce are in lesbian couples (2 women). Next, straight couples (1 woman). Lowest, gay couples (no women). Hmm, seems we hav a causal link here haha!
BRAVO! Mike a Harvard medical study basically said the same thing and then it was censored. While most domestic violence is perpetrated by both genders pretty much at equal rates, 70% of unreciprocated DV is perpetrated by w0e-MEN against MEN. The author revisited the article and claims it was censored! Please check my notes.
This matches the observations I have made in my 68 years. Most abusive relationship, not all - most, I seen were female on male abuse. On the other hand, my wife is dream come true. Has been for decades.
☺️ I’m sorry, what??
Especially if they're an ethnic minority or illegal migrant.
I have never encountered a single feminist text that wasn't painted with the broadest of brushes or even paid lip service to particularity.
Most generalizations are perfectly fine.
Like all men are rapists?
Or believe all women?
No woman does, of course.
'all men are rapists' is a categorical statement, not a generalization. So is the rephrased 'women never lie'. Generalizations are about what is generally true not what is always true. I agree that they are fine.
Politics is Power, not precise words.
In this country (UK) the current Labour government suggests that while they are busy shutting up everyone they don't like, this is combined with an almost complete inability to formulate any way forward. The result is not Fascism but paralysis. They know what they are against but have no idea what they are for.
They are actively pro crime not just for the love of debasement and anarchy but the harm it inflicts upon British people. They are not so much as confused as positively and actively evil.
The brainswashed are...
Please let me finish that thought for you:
"The brainwashed are . . . the majority."
True.
Excellent explanation of the unintended (& unavoidable) consequences of the feminine influence in society.
**Theorem. If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood.**
**Proposition 1. Voting is only one species of civil authority exercised by a legal person. Proof:** Voting is a juridical act by which a citizen participates in: selection of magistrates; formation of public law. But other legal acts also participate in the civil order, including: litigation (which helps to enforce the law); transferring property; binding contracts; exercising guardianship; and giving legal testimony. All these acts influence civil order. Therefore voting is only one instance of civil agency. QED
**Proposition 2. Every sort of persons each of whom are unfit for civil judgment, are also _ipso facto_ legally incapacited from all acts requiring civil judgment. Proof:** The reason given against granting the suffrage to women is because women’s political or civil judgment produces undesirable outcomes. But civil judgment is the same rational faculty used when a person: signs contracts; manages property; testifies in court; serves as guardian of minors; files lawsuits.
**Proposition 3. Each and every one the civil liberties listed is intrinsically contingent upon the same legal competence as suffrage. Proof:** Each requires that the individual be treated as a fully competent legal person: Ownership → authority over property rights recognized by law; Contract → authority to create legally binding obligations; Inheritance → authority to acquire property through law; Guardianship → authority over another person under civil law; Testimony → authority to influence judicial decisions; Legal personhood → presumption of autonomous civil agency. Thus every one of these liberties presupposes the same legal status that suffrage presupposes: independent civic agency. QED
** Proposition 4. If suffrage must be removed because women misuse civic agency, the same reason removes all other civic agency. Proof:** Let the reason for repeal be: women as a class exercise civic judgment in ways harmful to the polity. But that judgment is exercised whenever any citizen: enforces his own rights; enters contracts; manages property; influences courts; or controls dependents. Thus allowing those while denying voting would contradict the stated reason. Therefore the same principle requires removing them. QED
**Ergo: If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood. QED**
**Corollary.** The reason is simple: A legal system must choose one of two coherent models: Model A — Civic Personhood. Women possess full civil agency → voting follows naturally. Model B — Civic Incapacity. Women lack civil agency → all independent legal rights must disappear. There is no stable middle position where women are: competent to own property, competent to bind contracts, competent to influence courts, yet incompetent to cast a ballot.
**Objection: The argument applies only to _married_ women, since they are under male headship. It does not apply to _widows_, who are no longer under a husband and therefore may exercise civil liberties without contradiction.**
**Answer:** I have yet a few more propositions explaining why this objection cannot be accepted.
**Proposition 5. If the reason for denying suffrage is based on female nature or judgment as such, then it applies equally to widows. Proof:** The premise of the antisuffrage claim is: women as a class exercise political judgment in a harmful or unfit way. This judgment is not conditioned on: marital status, presence of a husband, household subordination, but on sex itself. A widow remains: biologically female, respectively possesses or lacks the same rational faculties she respectively possessed or lacked when married, statistically part of the same voting class. Therefore the ground of disqualification remains unchanged. QED
**Proposition 6. Even if widowhood removes the OCCASION for marital subordination, yet it does not remove the faculty whose alleged misuse justifies disenfranchisement. Proof:** Two distinct bases for restricting women must be distinguished: (1): Subordination-based (marital headship) → applies only within marriage. (2): Capacity-based (defect or misuse of judgment) → applies to the person as such. The objection attempts to move from (2) back to (1), but the antisuffrage argument clearly rests on (2): it cites voting behavior, not marital hierarchy. Therefore the disqualification is grounded in judgment, not marital subordination. But widowhood removes only marital subordination, not judgment. Therefore it cannot remove the disqualification. QED
**Proposition 7. If widows retain full civil liberties, then the premise of incapacity is implicitly denied. Proof:** If widows are allowed to: own property; enter contracts; act as guardians; testify in court; litigate; then the law affirms that they possess: sufficient rational competence for binding, socially consequential decisions. But these are the same faculties required for voting. Thus: Either widows are competent → then suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of incapacity; Or widows are incompetent → then all civil liberties must be removed. Allowing one while denying the other is a contradiction. QED
**Proposition 8. There is no principled basis for distinguishing widows from unmarried women under a capacity-based objection. Proof:** The alleged defect (harmful political judgment) belongs to neither marriage, nor dependence, but to sexed cognition or disposition, which is shared _ex hypothesi_ by all women alike whether married or widowed. Thus every restriction grounded in that defect must apply universally to all adult women. QED
Therefore the above objection is invalid. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Prove any one of these 8 propositions wrong if you can!!!
Abortion is not an exception at all, when it's properly framed. It sees the fetus as a threat, and demands the government murder it, to protect women from the consequences of their choices.
There's another way to frame it, that relies on Red Pill (sexual) theory. Abortion is really just an advanced form of contraception. But whereas standard contraception forces a woman to make her Choice (notice that word) before the sexual act, abortion offers her a 'return policy'. She can try the father out first, and only then decide whether she wants to keep him, or wants a refund.
In this framing, both abortion and contraception protect women from 'unfit' men. Men whom she would rather not mate with.
Instead of the old-fashioned way (politely declining a relationship, and keeping the societal default of no sex before marriage, which worked 99.9% of the time), feminists envied men's ability to engage in promiscuity without consequences.
Birth control (before and after conception) shields her from men she chooses to reject, by emasculating them, quite literally (i.e. rendering them infertile, at her discretion).
Dr Baskerville grasps the issue, with his usual insight, though he's not the only one.
'They [feminists] consider women “liberated” *from men* and from all rules of reproductive order.'
'...all around us we see male impotence—and with it conservative impotence—on conspicuous display'
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/why-is-abortion-so-important-to-the-left/
We need to name all the demons that accompany this feminisation.
All the dross from feminists that bely their world view (standpoint epistemology, theory of performativity, intersectional victimology, animus possession, shit testing, female supremacist jurisprudence, Marxist satanic inversions etc.).
It's a pandemonium. Once accurately name them we can destroy it. Men are excellent at ranged spiritual warfare.
Yes, naming all the demons is an important first step. Even that is prevented nowadays by hate speech laws and other forms of censorship, mobbing, denial, and obfuscation. The constant drumbeat of female moral superiority and female excellence tends to overshadow even cautious criticisms and truth-telling. Younger people, mainly men and some female allies, will not be silenced forever.
Justice is to render unto each his own - social justice is not justice when it conflicts with that. So diversity hires be damned.
See also: https://youtu.be/4dwYIoFSzTQ concerning the civil liberties of women.
Men keep other men in check most times; there is no such reciprocity in women.
It is refreshing to hear someone of your standing and calibre speaking and writing so plainly and factually about the place of women in our culture. The wrong path was taken years before I came of age in the early 60's. The US, certainly, and most of the West would be a much better place if women were guided, directed, encouraged and esteemed to do that for which they are best suited. That is guardian of hearth and home, bearer and nurturer of the progeny produced in a marital relationship with the father; to be their support, and her husband's helpmate.
Hopefully this is a sign of the times.
Female supremacy threatens the survival of our culture.
Western Civilization has been neutered.
Women killed an eighth of the world population and still don't think it's enough.
That the sex imbued with characteristics of compassion, caring and safety are able to abort their offspring with pride and little remorse is shameful and frightening. These women, and the culture at large, suffer dire consequences for their choices and the resulting bitterness and anger makes them unbearable.
I realized in the last election that for a substantial number of women, the ability to kill their offspring before birth at any time and for any reason is the highest value they have.
I came to the same understanding.
Yes. There may be a grave shortage of cats and boxed wine when that cohort becomes childless in middle-age after squandering their youth in soulless offices and one-night stands.
It’s who they are underneath
Go away. You are not attempting to argue in good faith or to add anything to this discussion, merely to insult and vent spleen. If you don't stop, I will have to, more in sorrow than in anger, suspend you.
Can't make Grape Soda... w/o a few crushed grapes... yes?
Tee Hee!
As I often say, I will now go and self-cancel, and hope it sticks this time.
One would think that at this stage in internet culture, it would not be necessary to explain that repeated responses--you couldn't be satisfied with just one or two!--consisting entirely of jeering emojis or all-caps hysteria are unacceptable and silly. I am now escorting you from the premises.
A kindred spirit here:
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
If society would stop artificially pushing and incentivizing women to go into Stem fields and use merit, we would see a natural equilibrium. I believe there is a reason for occupations that are traditionally female and male.
What if she finds being guardian of hearth and home and progeny etc boring? What if she finds all that genuinely soul-crushing and she’d actually rather be doing something else entirely?
Sure, of course there are such women. I never wanted children and knew I didn't want them from the time I was about 6 or 7 years old, when all of my friends were excited and cooing over being introduced to the new baby on our street by his mom, and I couldn't wait to get back to whatever thing I'd been doing. I didn't end up having children, and have never regretted that. I feel a bit bad about it--I think bearing and raising children is the highest calling for both women and men, and obviously it is extremely important--but that's the way I am made, and I am grateful to live in a culture that enabled me to make the lesser choice.
I think many women probably do want children, and that some would like to have more children than it is easy to have nowadays, but I don't have hard evidence for that belief.
In the west, it has been possible for many centuries for women to make other choices: to be seers or healers or teachers or religious devotees or writers or business owners or helpmates of other sorts. And occasionally to be leaders too. It is one of the great things about western societies that women have been able to make various contributions, and I wouldn't want to deny them that. I don't believe, however, for various reasons, including the ones mentioned in this essay, that women should make up 50% or more of the most influential professions or should, except in some exceptional circumstances, be placed in positions of leadership over men.
I could be wrong about that, of course, but what I have seen of women's behavior in these positions (not all women's, of course) has led me to this rather radical perspective.
Oh I understand your thrust and the linked research - that women's typical skillset is not suited to western empirical notions of objective truth, ergo we aren't cut out to be leaders with the existing structures of patriarchal institutions. Was just responding to a commenter who believes all women ought to be chained to the kitchen. Lots of comments about abortion, too, which I did not divine from your argument. Strange
Then she shouldn't marry and have kids.
Then she takes one for the team and leads a humble life of family rearing anyways. Or joins a convent or something. Either way, she shows gratitude for the great western society that gave her what she had, which is typically far better than other societies in standard of living and rights.
I think that women coalesce (bond) around fear, which I think leads to group think for women, and without the ability to question it (metoo). I think women in general are not inclined to challenge each other, lest they spoil the feeling of sisterhood which provides safety.
And I think that biological differences explain it, at least to some degree.
If a man was to question it, he would attract the inevitable claims of bring mysognist.
Hear hear!
Marry a feminist and see her discover that she loves babies.
I'm seeing comments supporting the idea of limiting women from positions of power or responsibility. Stop this, please. That's not the solution, and if you consider your conscience, you'll realize it to be true:
The solution isn't to limit freedoms; IT NEVER IS. The solution is ALWAYS to increase understanding. More consciousness. Always.
Okay: so women are more emotionally available. Mature human beings control their emotions. Mature human beings REASON.
Educate.
Short answer, she should have thought of that before she got married (if she is married) and brought an innocent life into the world. If she didn't, then it's possible she'll have an abortion, probably on the sly, if she's married, and be totally okay with that.
You've been drinking the grape soda pretty heavily. Get some accurate facts that don't cite ancient history. The old canard about women earning less for equivalent male labor hasn't been true for a very long time. Women over the last 7 or 8 decades earn what they deserve for the job they were hired to do, as a result of the effort and time they are willing to put in. Comparing their wages to what men earn is misleading. Most of the gap reflects legitimate differences in work patterns and choices, but some questions about workplace culture and opportunity structures may warrant consideration.
Important to point out, w0e-MEN are getting the same pay in professions they are not even good at and can't even do.
I will agree with that.
Women were working at trades, owning property, etc all throughout the Anglo Saxon world from at least the 1000s, which is where we start to have the best records. It’s absolutely ahistorical to claim women didn’t work. Upper class women maybe but all of my female ancestors as far back as recorded worked. In fact, one of my very distant female ancestor cousins was granted land by king James in Jamestown for her strewardship and service.
In the past, many upper class women managed large households while bearing many children. Wives of rules governed their domains when their husbands were away (wars, politics), often very effectively. Mothers of fatherless heirs acted in a father's place, as regents or widows with legal rights.
True- I was thinking more of the 1900s USA where rich women for instance like Zelda Fitzgerald didn’t even know how to do things like laundry, and the brief 10 year period after ww2 where the myth of the housewife arose that women have always “worked only in the home”. One grandmother worked at Boeing and one for the army as a court reporter in the 40s-80s. One had a “nanny” to help with her 7 kids. All three of these working class women worked primarily outside the home
My family too: a great-great aunt who had a long career in the Federal Government (including two years as General Macarthur's secretary in Japan), a great-grandmother who was a tailor and dressmaker, a grandmother who was a nurse, and my mother, who was a journalist. When workingmen struck for a family man's wage, it was not so their wives could live idly like ladies: it was so their home could be managed decently and their children be raised decently, which was impossible if the wife was working 12-hour shifts like their husbands.
**Theorem. If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood.**
**Proposition 1. Voting is only one species of civil authority exercised by a legal person. Proof:** Voting is a juridical act by which a citizen participates in: selection of magistrates; formation of public law. But other legal acts also participate in the civil order, including: litigation (which helps to enforce the law); transferring property; binding contracts; exercising guardianship; and giving legal testimony. All these acts influence civil order. Therefore voting is only one instance of civil agency. QED
**Proposition 2. Every sort of persons each of whom are unfit for civil judgment, are also _ipso facto_ legally incapacited from all acts requiring civil judgment. Proof:** The reason given against granting the suffrage to women is because women’s political or civil judgment produces undesirable outcomes. But civil judgment is the same rational faculty used when a person: signs contracts; manages property; testifies in court; serves as guardian of minors; files lawsuits.
**Proposition 3. Each and every one the civil liberties listed is intrinsically contingent upon the same legal competence as suffrage. Proof:** Each requires that the individual be treated as a fully competent legal person: Ownership → authority over property rights recognized by law; Contract → authority to create legally binding obligations; Inheritance → authority to acquire property through law; Guardianship → authority over another person under civil law; Testimony → authority to influence judicial decisions; Legal personhood → presumption of autonomous civil agency. Thus every one of these liberties presupposes the same legal status that suffrage presupposes: independent civic agency. QED
** Proposition 4. If suffrage must be removed because women misuse civic agency, the same reason removes all other civic agency. Proof:** Let the reason for repeal be: women as a class exercise civic judgment in ways harmful to the polity. But that judgment is exercised whenever any citizen: enforces his own rights; enters contracts; manages property; influences courts; or controls dependents. Thus allowing those while denying voting would contradict the stated reason. Therefore the same principle requires removing them. QED
**Ergo: If even a single claim asserting that women should be deprived of the vote because women as a class exercise political judgment in a manner harmful or unfit for the polity happens to be irrefutably or historically true, well then it follows also that every legal system which allows women to retain the following civil capacities while denying suffrage is inconsistent and therefore legally irrational: property ownership; contract; inheritance; guardianship; testimony in court; legal personhood. QED**
**Corollary.** The reason is simple: A legal system must choose one of two coherent models: Model A — Civic Personhood. Women possess full civil agency → voting follows naturally. Model B — Civic Incapacity. Women lack civil agency → all independent legal rights must disappear. There is no stable middle position where women are: competent to own property, competent to bind contracts, competent to influence courts, yet incompetent to cast a ballot.
**Objection: The argument applies only to _married_ women, since they are under male headship. It does not apply to _widows_, who are no longer under a husband and therefore may exercise civil liberties without contradiction.**
**Answer:** I have yet a few more propositions explaining why this objection cannot be accepted.
**Proposition 5. If the reason for denying suffrage is based on female nature or judgment as such, then it applies equally to widows. Proof:** The premise of the antisuffrage claim is: women as a class exercise political judgment in a harmful or unfit way. This judgment is not conditioned on: marital status, presence of a husband, household subordination, but on sex itself. A widow remains: biologically female, respectively possesses or lacks the same rational faculties she respectively possessed or lacked when married, statistically part of the same voting class. Therefore the ground of disqualification remains unchanged. QED
**Proposition 6. Even if widowhood removes the OCCASION for marital subordination, yet it does not remove the faculty whose alleged misuse justifies disenfranchisement. Proof:** Two distinct bases for restricting women must be distinguished: (1): Subordination-based (marital headship) → applies only within marriage. (2): Capacity-based (defect or misuse of judgment) → applies to the person as such. The objection attempts to move from (2) back to (1), but the antisuffrage argument clearly rests on (2): it cites voting behavior, not marital hierarchy. Therefore the disqualification is grounded in judgment, not marital subordination. But widowhood removes only marital subordination, not judgment. Therefore it cannot remove the disqualification. QED
**Proposition 7. If widows retain full civil liberties, then the premise of incapacity is implicitly denied. Proof:** If widows are allowed to: own property; enter contracts; act as guardians; testify in court; litigate; then the law affirms that they possess: sufficient rational competence for binding, socially consequential decisions. But these are the same faculties required for voting. Thus: Either widows are competent → then suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of incapacity; Or widows are incompetent → then all civil liberties must be removed. Allowing one while denying the other is a contradiction. QED
**Proposition 8. There is no principled basis for distinguishing widows from unmarried women under a capacity-based objection. Proof:** The alleged defect (harmful political judgment) belongs to neither marriage, nor dependence, but to sexed cognition or disposition, which is shared _ex hypothesi_ by all women alike whether married or widowed. Thus every restriction grounded in that defect must apply universally to all adult women. QED
Therefore the above objection is invalid. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Prove any one of these 8 propositions wrong if you can!!!
Yes, but the women were not side by side in trades “equal to men,” the truth is different and not a modern example of egalitarianism at all. They lived fundamentally different.
This article is real life.
Western civilization has indeed become overly feminized and gynocentric, and in-group bias is much stronger among women than men. A few years ago, Clark and Winegard showed how pervasive anti-male and pro-female bias has become in their thoroughly researched article, "The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny."
https://quillette.com/2020/07/27/the-myth-of-pervasive-misogyny/
Staying the course will harm both men and women in the long run. I don't blame the growing number of men who refuse to defend or work hard for a society that treats them like second-class citizens while spouting lies about a nonexistent "patriarchy".
Patriarchy exists in womens' minds. It rapes them emotionally (see Bluebeard explained by Von Franz's interview on YouTube).
As women are ruled by emotion this makes it the realest thing to them.
Their reflexive ego defence to blame the nearest man makes it go.
Now a shit testing girlfriend is inflated to a civilization ending Karen monster.
We need a movie about it. Restoring the king. The army of murdered children return from limbo to save the brotherhood. The spirit of Satan and Lilith and Marx are cast into the fire.
I like that movie. I dunno about returning kids from limbo but I will gladly partake of the last mentioned event.
I'll be bloody well making such movies in 2026 onwards.
The heroes journey and masculine archetypes got us this far. They'll renew and save us.
Femininity can't give itself borders like a fire. It should be in the furnace. Not all over the shop.
I'll provide the soundtrack! In Hexa-phonic!
Sounds awesome, I'd watch that. Then again I'm writing novels that are masculine and meant to kind of do what you just described.
I've done short stories and small scale novels but am focusing on my wheel house which is satirical non fiction.
Cool
“see Bluebeard explained by Von Franz's interview on YouTube”: do you have a link, please?
Here's a snippet
https://youtu.be/I5dLsBMhaEE
Watch the full interview for more.
Also, Aion page 22 I think gives the definitive from Jung, he was giving zero fucks at age 80 something and accurately described animus possession in women and how men can successfully deal with it. This is the big lie of female nature. That and the dual mating strategy for 10% cuckoldry in England. And infanticide running at 25% in UK.
Von Franz wrote a book about it too, I think. One on animus possession one on fairy tales including Bluebeard.
Chat GPT will be able to explain it but will cut in 50% lies of political correctness due to it's HR charter of human repression.
Thanks for this.
It's the primary reason I quit being an MRA and left the UK for Asia.
I once googled which countries are feminist free. It doesn't want to say. To the feminisation blob nothing is ever enough. We need to everywhere and forever redouble the victim crybully attacks on men.
Central America is lovely too!
Men exit organisations to self employment and get hired back at greater pay and status.
They aren't needed. Women can do any job men can.
I'd love to see them try for even a day to maintain the power grid, water supply, sewage system, and transportation network. On second thought, forget about it.
For several years I knew a wonderful woman, critical in her executive role at a particular company. This happened to be a machine shop, w/the odor of cutting oil in the air, everywhere. She would hire a woman, and not long after, the woman would quit. The literal atmosphere was an issue for women. Not all, to be clear about it, and at least one thrived, becoming a department head.
Low and behold, an OFCCP audit concluded the company had failed "to hire enough women" as proven by statistical analysis. Sigh.
Once enough money was negotiated and forked over, the company was able to move on. Reality of the work environment, and the demonstrable reaction of women to that environment, was insufficient in the gov't's eyes.
Did I already mention, Sigh?
If there were no men to do those jobs, they could and would, because economics: the pay to do them would rapidly increase until enough willing women were qualified and doing them.
No. We would die. You are delulu
Women is very different from feminists. I agree there exist women who can do virtually every job men do.
But there is also a shared female perspective about their imaginary victimhood that seems to grip most women, and that paranoia leads to a cult-like feminism that, for example, has taken over largely the education system and turned it away from fact-based knowledge to instead make 'education' largely about grievance mongering and playing the victim to get more and more privileges.
This is so profoundly destructive that the idea of promoting women over men to get to 50/50 has been disastrous for everybody. It's not so simple as to throw around platitudes that women can do whatever men can do, especially when they've been shown scientifically to be far less willing to dissent, and far more prone to put feelings over facts.
You go too far. Sex is a decent proxy for estimating many traits at the group level, but applying that in the way you have here is invalid, people are not randomly distributed into these positions, they are actively selected, which makes indirect proxy characteristics significantly less relevant than direct selection according to the desired characteristics.
Bluntly, if we want people in positions who prioritize truth, principle, and are willing to confront disagreement and controversy as necessary, we must hire for those traits irrespective of sex. Hiring/keeping any one of the men who failed to uphold truth and principle instead of any women who did uphold truth and principle would be a net loss to the goal of restoring a principled truth-seeking culture, not a gain. Categorical discrimination is not only morally wrong, it's inefficient and often ineffective even from a purely pragmatic perspective.
Perhaps so ("go too far"), but it seems that moment to stop discriminating was passed a very long time ago, and didn't happen. So what do we do now?
Every institution claims to hire for merit; moreover, it is often difficult to know who, individually, will prioritize truth and principle, etc. above conformity, safety, and feelings. Few are going to admit, when applying for a position in law or academia or medicine, etc., that they don't care about the truth. But one sees the transformation over time. The university I attended in the 1980s is unrecognizable from the febrile incubators of ideological orthodoxy that we see today.
"We must hire for those traits ..." Who is the 'we'? There are almost no conservatives or classical liberals left in most of the feminized fields; and those that are left certainly aren't doing the hiring.
In the universities, liberal-minded men allowed feminists to pursue their crazy, hateful degrees over the years, and then hired them to teach in every discipline, even instituting equity programs to get more women into fields where they weren't already at 50%. You can bet women won't be returning that favor--ever.
In addition to the various preferences measured by the surveys (and probably under-reported), there are many other differences between women and men that are relevant to the problem of whether we can maintain competitive excellence and interest in objective truth in female-majority fields. For one, women's in-group bias tends to be enormous. Many women simply don't like men very much, and certainly don't care very much about the problems and experiences of men and boys. Also, women don't tend to be as interested in their work as men. They aren't, generally, as consumed by it or as committed to it.
If we keep on going as we have been, things will continue to deteriorate. I think that's a worse moral wrong than discouraging women from doing work that, in general, they're poorly suited to do.
This thing has to be returned to a meritocracy or the wheels come off..
"people are not randomly distributed into these positions, they are actively selected"
Yeah, no shit. As a techie, I've been hearing "more women in tech" for about a quarter century now. The women that are "actively selected" think the workplace is where straight white men go to sassy clap for LatinX history month.
What's really disingenuous about all this is forcing people to repeat the demands for equality of outcome then pretend that the selection criteria is the ability and temperament to do the job. That's why "diversity" is oh-so-fantastic, but no one wants to be called a "diversity hire".
All women? No, but it's women doing this. Full stop.
Ironic that in a topic regarding who is pursuing truth, so many people in the comments agreeing with the author aren't demonstrating much commitment to truth themselves.
For example, in skimming the data from one of the links mentioned here: https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/sex-and-the-academy/
Do you know one of the things that stands out to me? The largest gap between men and women on pretty much anything was under 25% and most were closer to 15-20%.
Sorry, but that's not only not "all women", it's clear repudiation that "it's women doing this
Full stop." It's apparently closer to 60/40 F/M at worst. The amount of collateral damage involved in aiming these complaints at "women" is therefore missing huge percentages of problematic men and unfairly ignoring large percentages of women who aren't the problem.
Sorry, but this is the statistical equivalent of trying to argue that because blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes we should imprison all blacks and ignore all crimes by non-blacks. It's a fundamentally bad argument to punish a demographic rather than a specific conduct.
A split of 60/40 seems quite significant to me. And this is in environments where many of those most interested in uncomfortable truths and unfettered excellence have already been driven out.
You are missing the point. I'm not arguing that there are not overlapping distributions, nor am I arguing that some men don't exhibit the same behavior.
I'm arguing two things here:
1) The subset of women (I'd estimate about 30% of women overall) who do think it's their role to force everyone at a company to celebrate pride month (or whatever) are there *because they are women* - and they know it, on some level, which is why they offload the guilt that comes with this understanding onto other people using identity politics or blathering about privilege.
2) Because of the relative distribution of men vs women in these personality differences, an all male group will ostracize people exhibiting these behaviors, whereas an all female or nearly all-female group (like a corporate HR department) will not. Could this be mitigated by selecting for women that, for example, have thick skin? Sure, but that's not happening.
You're arguing about individuals. I don't do that any more. It has gotten us nowhere. It's too much for the blank slate crowd. At some point you have to meet them where they are.
There are a lot of women in corporate America, government, and academia that do not belong anywhere near competent people making rational decisions. Until that can be corrected, all women in these areas should be viewed as suspect. That's the game we're playing. I don't like it either, but it is what it is.
If that's the game you're playing, you've already lost and always will. You can't correct a failure to pursue truth and follow principle by disregarding truth and violating principle.
We're either treating people fairly as individuals on the basis of their ability to do the job or we aren't, Full Stop. If we aren't, that's no longer a meritocratic system and anything that isn't a meritocratic system is guaranteed to be gamed to serve some other purpose. If we're not getting truth, it's irrelevant whether the alternative is giving "safety" to women or "status" to men, it's still not TRUTH.
For example, an all male group is NOT guaranteed to ostracize people exhibiting these characteristics. Given selection for position it's trivial for all male hiring and tenure committees with these traits to ideologically and personality trait reproduce themselves endlessly, with or without a female candidate pool to draw from, simply by continuing to select for their own traits. This CANNOT be prevented by ANY measure other than actively selecting individuals on the individual traits we want people in these positions to have. Male feminists are no less bad for meritocracy than female feminists and both are worse than any non feminist of either gender.
"We're either treating people fairly as individuals on the basis of their ability to do the job or we aren't, Full Stop."
We're not. That's the whole point... And if you don't understand that at this point, it's not me that's disregarding the truth.
I fully agree with you here.
You can't win a game in a fair way when the others are cheating.
And no it is not all women but enough women play these dirty tricks.
I'm fully aware that largely isn't being done. That is in fact the problem itself. That is however, what MUST be done for us to have credible institutions for seeking and communicating Truth. Trying to shuffle around demographics doesn't solve that problem and never can solve that problem. As you just said, that's the WHOLE POINT, a failure to uphold the priority of Truth, not the sex of some people doing it. You could kick every single woman out of tech, knowledge production, leadership, etc AND STILL HAVE THIS PROBLEM!
Exchanging female feminists for male feminists does NOTHING to improve the situation. We don't need to remove women from these positions, we need to remove people not committed to Truth and Principle. If that disproportionately happens to include more women than men, that's fine, but whether they are women or men is truly incidental to whether they are part of the problem here or not.
Ahhh, I see!
And there I was thinking you were here to contribute to open discussion and better outcomes. But you're not are you?
You bring that subtle yet sledgehammer like ideological tool..... Absolutism.
An argument is invalid on the basis that it's outcomes can not be observed in 100% of occasions. If it does not provide results of absolute purity, then it is flawed. So if it's flawed, it can't be any better than the status quo.
Is Stephen short for Karen?
... I certainly AM here to contribute to open discussion and better outcomes. The thread has forked so many times that I can't tell which comment you are replying to. If you have an issue with something I've said, please be specific which argument you disagree with and provide your rebuttal or alternative.
Thank you.
As I see it, women have been one major vehicle for the advancement of Communist subversion of the West; not the only vehicle. Other vehicles (homosexuals and other sexual deviants; Leftists in general) involve Useful Idiots which includes millions of men over the past decades—most of whom only have a dim apprehension (at best) that they are being used by Communists. And if this subversion is a grand conspiracy to subvert and replace the West with a totalitarian New World Order, those at the top of the scheme are likely all—or mostly—men.
"As I see it, women have been one major vehicle for the advancement of Communist subversion of the West"
Just jumping in here to point out that women do not just bring female traits into the equation, they also bring male traits too - traits that would not normally surface in an all male setting. Specifically, men's gynocentric traits.
So a women entering a department will bring her own tendency towards bias, subjectivity, neuroticism, agreeableness etc ... but she will also provoke all the men in the department to treat her more sympathetically too, as a woman, which means they are going to be less likely to call out her biases and distortions than if she was a man.
So the problem is compounded.
Men might be more objective and rational .... but only if there is no woman in the room!
I can see that; but that tendency would be significantly reduced it seems if the surrounding culture hadn’t been—as it has over the past 80-odd years—degraded by Leftist hegemony over the entire West.
Yeah, when HRC was out screeching "believe women", she knew perfectly well about her husband's relationship with Epstein. Useful idiots, indeed.
Well, I see the total demographic of Leftists (throughout the West) as stratified: at the bottom end you have civilians whose hearts & minds have been played like a fiddle; then you have Middle Management; above that there are those of more Executive function. The higher up you go, the less sincere — i.e., the more consciously deceptive and knowing that they are using Leftist ideals cynically as a ploy for ultimate power. HRC & Hubby would be quite high up (but not at the top).
I agree with most of what you've written but don't underestimate the power of self-selection. Just as paedophiles are drawn to positions of power over children, dark tetrad women are drawn to high status roles which allow them to exercise power over everyone. It's particular true of narcissists- gamifying goal-centred aims can make them the centre of attention. I've known some lovely women in HR, but the Hormone Replacement Authoritarians can ruin working environments faster than a silent fart stinks up an elevator.
There was some research done on employees in the UK which showed they were significantly more likely to leave a workplace after diversity training. The real kicker was that Black and LGBT people were most likely to leave- at around 40% each. If I had to guess I would imagine the training inadvertently increases attributional ambiguity, possibly because coworkers worry more that the training will make them more likely to tell the HR hall monitors.
I appreciate you raising self-selection as a related issue, if we can't restore legitimacy to institutions as genuinely truth-seeking, then truth-seeking people will naturally tend to self-select out of applying for positions in those institutions. That does put us in a bit of a circular dependency problem, but I'm assuming based on the study results that there are enough truth-seeking people left in even these compromised institutions to rebuild and recruit more of them if we can remove the non truth-seeking people from influencing those decisions.
Even a 5% difference between groups is enough to cinch it.
Women's work historically was interruptible around child care.
Now women are killing a third of a child and raising only one or so. That dramatically transforms their life. Their adaptation to motherhood is now homeless and appearing where it ought not.
'It's a fundamentally bad argument to punish a demographic rather than a specific conduct.'
Golly. I didn't hear you speaking up much about Punished Demographics these past decades of full-bore attacks on men, boys and masculinity itself. But now . . . suddenly you are Concerned. Hmm.
It's not punishment, there, Beautiful Mind in his Beautiful Perfect World. It's a VALID AND ACCURATE identification between female collective power and the (intentional) ruination of civilization and family on the grounds of some 'patriarchy' that doesn't even exist, of Sticking it To the Man, of Smashing the Patriarchy, and of spiting Sky Daddy.
What you mischaracterize as 'punishment' is in fact a non-pollyanna, ADULT attempt to save all the lovely comforts and benefits of civilization from the victim-totalitarianism of collective FEMALE power, demonstrated so thoroughly and viciously over the past 6 decades in America.
You don't get that. But if the gynarchy continues unchecked, I promise that you will.
If you didn't hear me, you weren't listening. I'm active in several men's spaces here and on Quora and frequently get into arguments against feminists there. Yes, I check the box on surveys that "men are currently more discriminated against than women", it's true and has been for decades. That does not mean that misogyny is the only possible response we have, much less the best response.
Even if you completely disregard morality, attempting to counter with an exclusively male coalition is doomed to failure by simple statistics. Women outnumber men in western societies. Women also have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980. You literally CANNOT form an exclusively male coalition in this country that would be larger than the equivalent all female coalition. So long as we're living in any version of governance that relies on voting to determine outcomes, women have the larger pool of potential votes, PERIOD. They are also the primary spenders in the economy, so don't look to corporations for help either, their boycott power exceeds ours in most contexts. Unless you're prepared to actually build the kind of oppressive patriarchy of feminist fever dreams, it's impossible to secure male rights or masculine cultural norms without some degree of female support for it. We can't afford friendly fire, we need all the allies we can get.
Incidentally, "Gynarchy" is an amusing term, but matriarchy is the correct equivalent to patriarchy, though "The Longhouse" is also a more thematic term that's been gaining in usage among certain corners of the culture.
'We'? There is no 'we'. Love how you sideways accuse me of 'misogyny' for daring to point out your feminism-apologetic b.s. I am sure that is your killshot go-to when you lose arguments with actual men's advocates.
You are a passive aggressive little punk, not to mention a feminist. I've already paid way too much attention to you, and won't repeat that error again. Get lost.
I've often been called a Men's Rights Activist (by people who consider that an insult), but this is the first time I recall anyone calling ever calling me a feminist. That's a pretty odd take to have given that you can find me arguing in the exact same comments section that I want all feminists, male and female, removed from places like the Academy. That's funny.
I've never lost an argument with an MRA for the simple reason that you're the only one I've ever encountered who fratricides his own side like this, the rest have always recognized reason and fact based discussions as essential to advancing men's rights.
Incidentally, I'm assertive, not passive aggressive. It's kinda hilarious that you would make that accusation and then immediately tantrum and storm off.
Still, you've wasted my time and made actual MRAs look bad every time you post, so I'm glad you won't be responding anymore. Have a Nice Day!
In general, I agree with this. I have been studying scientific publications on gender differences in various fields for many years. Neuroscience, cognitive parameters, physiology, genetics, etc. Often, various would-be writers who try to promote their progressive books using some scientific data do not read these articles at all and do not understand what the effect size is, the overlap between groups, etc. In many parameters, men and women are more similar than they are different, i.e. the degree of overlap between the groups is very high (often 80-95%).
I agree with you here. The trend is visible, it can affect society and reality. But I am against generalizing this data TO ALL MEN AND WOMEN.
She’s correct even anecdotally. Very few female reporters are respected. Megyn Kelly and Catherine Herridge vs almost everyone else.
Just cut to the chase.
Give women a feminist card to carry that licenses them to kill at least children - kommisars of Karen rank or above can execute men with out charge like a family court judge. They get a mini purse pistol.
Women can use their feminist card for welfare to charge cosmetics to the national debt directly as men are the only group to be net tax payers.
Women would get an app to start direct democratic elections on feminist activism political points. They'd be ina constant state of hysterical frenzy passing new laws using their majority Suffrage. No need for men since they cannot numerically cancel out the female vote.
The grand witch of the new coven branch of government would assume practical daily control of our lives in social media.
You know what it was seven male judges that legalized abortion, and many of the cases where abortion occurred, were coerced by a man despite a woman wanting to keep it but leaving her with no other choice ? Both genders are culpable in evil things even if by proxy.
Yes. Evil is a part of the world. But there can be limits on it. 98% of the hundreds of thousands of abortions each day today are lifestyle abortions. Not to reduce unnecessary suffering. But actually causing it through depopulation. Legalisation of abortion didn't claim to expect gamification of medical exemptions.
“All women? No, but it's women doing this. Full stop.” This.
You make an excellent point Steven. The criteria of merit, as you point out is all that should matter.
I did read Janice's article as having a slightly ironic inflection though and less of a policy type statement, so I didn't immediately arrive at the analysis until your comment drew my attention.
It is somewhat interesting in and of itself, that the tone of Janice's article being only a fraction of the intensity we read and hear daily from feminist aligned commentators and yet, you quite rightly raised a point of significant merit.
The overall effect being that a thoroughly researched and excellently written opinion piece, conveying important social and political themes, has been positively contributed to and the readers knowledge has been broadend.
The irony of how frowned upon this type of free exchange of ideas is to the current autocracy is profound. Janice can speak for herself as to whether she suffered an injury because of your words. But I'd suggest she would confirm that she will not require any counselling, a civil damages suit or any period of paid leave to recover. Nor perceive your words to have caused the slightest offence.
>You go too far.
Nope.
Biologically speaking: Men are providers; women are provided for. Women are used to get things for free and that is what is breaking our societies.
For instance : If women do not get enough women on board they will make sure there will be quota's. Men have no chance of fighting women in this type of "fight".
By that argument we've not only already lost, but men winning is theoretically impossible in the first place. Given that men are still men and women are still women (not counting the trans fringe), it's clear that biology isn't the issue here.
I say that fully aware that biology is certainly involved. Female coalition forming for resource access and improving their offspring's survival and mating chances shows up even in primate studies (and not only in defense against male aggression, despite what feminists like to claim). That's rather the thing though, it's ALWAYS been that way, but our issues with toxic feminism and radical progressives in general are historically recent, and until very recently the personality trait profiles have remained mostly consistent, so biology isn't the determining factor here, ideology is.
>It's clear that biology isn't the issue here.
I absolutely disagree. but I agree biology is not the only issue.
I do not think feminism is the culprit to be honest.
Tampons, public toilets and the pill (If I got that correctly from Dr Jordan Peterson) made it so women can take part in activities they were kind of barred from by biology (not by men as feminists claim).
That together with the "Female coalition forming for resource" -as you named it- makes more than 30% females extremely powerful in any organization and once in power they remove men as they are not part of the coalition (or that may be the feminism contribution; who knows).
PS While I was writing this down I realized that feminism is a form of female coalition; a world wide one, a scary one.
And another thing that is absolutely different and contributes is the simple fact we have so much food and goods that the poor in the west have a better life than the rich from before 1900.
The female coalition forming for resource started getting resources (and well paid jobs like at UN-70% Women) from government and government funded institution (female representation quota's anyone?).
Using their governmental power they took away the direct financial power of their male partners (alimony anyone?) and increased females personal powers (50% custody for males anyone?).
You're mostly hitting the key points, but missing some nuances.
Yes, feminism is a female coalition, by definition.
Yes, JBP nails it on pointing out that History oppressed EVERYONE and it's biology that largely limited female participation in the workforce, not patriarchy.
Studies suggest that the threshold is 60-70%, not 30%, somewhere around 50% actually improves overall performance for both sexes. We're genuinely complementary by default.
The key personality trait here, agreeableness, IS typically higher among females but the difference isn't severe. A common finding from large-scale meta-analyses is a medium-sized difference, with effect sizes typically around (d=0.35). We can point to foreign cultures for some easy examples of male dominated organizations that are just as culturally fixated on consensus seeking and reputational aggression as female dominated organizations here in the West. It's a more common strategy among women, but it's hardly exclusive to them. Frankly, given the statistics on non reciprocated female-initiated domestic violence, it's not even necessarily clear that men are currently more prone to intersexual physical aggression than women (despite men having higher aggression in general).
To refer back to JBP, I think he really gets to the heart of the matter when he muses that what we lack now is a way to socially restrain "crazy women". Men aren't allowed to oppose any woman, but the sane normal women mostly don't want to stand up to the crazy women, so a tiny percentage of feminist radicals get to run wild despite something like 90% of the country disagreeing with them. Feminists terrorize other women too.
There's biology in that too, testosterone is linked to willingness to uphold principles over emotion, but let's face it, western men have also suffered dropping testosterone levels and a crisis of personal courage where most men aren't willing to confront crazy women either. If men won't do it, we really can't expect women to do it for us, can we? So the mushy middle enables the extremists. If we men want agreeable women to take our side, we need to lead.
And as to your stupid study (yes I am angry)
Every one who is in the field of power games knows you only need one or 2 infiltrators on a high ranking posts to make an organization dysfunctional.
You absolutely missed the key points:
- thanks to women power: studies no longer relate to truth.
- if the key points are right; nuances don't matter for the big picture.
Sorry that is the truth.
>To refer back to JBP, I think he really gets to the heart of the matter when he muses that what we lack now is a way to socially restrain "crazy women".
Isn't that a great point to keep women out of roles of governmental power?
The truth is that someone in power who can't be controlled becomes a dictator.
The risks are high, the chances are high and avoidance is non-existing.
It is a ticking time bomb
>If we men want agreeable women to take our side, we need to lead.
So avoid women in government power. You can't lead if you do not have some power. Women have proven to take away male power and increase women's power. So keep women out of power.
I strongly advice you to reread your own words.
Open your eyes before feminism closes them.
Laughable. They can defend nothing. What they took by deception can rapidly be retaken by force. Their entire scheme depends on men enforcing it by force.
And that’s over.
Well stated! We’ve entered an interesting time where both the right and the left are very fond of identity politics. I have always found that the people who engage in this type of behavior tend to lack the ability to engage in nuanced thinking. Perhaps that’s a good indicator for a truth teller - they are able to see nuance and don’t reduce the complexities of the world down to simple narratives.
Meritocracy and classical liberalism failed. They were too easy for identitarians to exploit and subvert. Time to return to most of human history, where women were under the firm control of a strong patriarchy.
Generalizations are what we have when things generally suck and we know why...
We’ve been categorically wronged and calumnies without end. We owe no mercy nor can we afford it.
I warned you to stop venting spleen with scattershot comments that add nothing to the discussion. But you seem incapable.
Are you calling them fat?
Haha!
It is good to point out to women that feminism makes you fat.
I think mysery makes people fat, femimism leads to mysery...
Yes. That's how it works.
Bravo, Janice, for saying what’s obvious but forbidden. I deeply admire your courage — may it inspire the rest of us to find some of our own.
I was surprised at the candor. I hope this is a sign of the times. Louise Perry observed the trans social contagion peaked a few years ago.
Perhaps feminisation is making a tactical retreat from an enemy contact with reality.
A lot of the fallacy in this area stems from evaluating people individually rather than assessing them in groups. Women in groups are substantially more likely than men to take agreement or disagreement personally, to the point of pretending to agree with something they don't just so as not to cross certain others.
The illusion of "consensus-driven" female decision-making actually becomes "Fall in line behind the emotionally-manipulative leader", which performs terribly.
Women are in a constant fever pitch of vicious conflict with each other due to their BPD spectrum traits.
Their perpetual panic and irrational over reacting is measurable.
Women hate statistics because they are facts. Their empathising blinds them to systemising. So they don't consider systems at once. They can't.
Hence they grabbed the wheel of civilization and are steering us off a cliff.
If women have terminal lucidity they'll use it to blame the nearest man for letting them lead.
>> The illusion of "consensus-driven" female decision-making actually becomes
>> "Fall in line behind the emotionally-manipulative leader" which performs terribly.
My observations come from being a devout member of the Catholic Church for forty years, as an adult. After being divorced I had more opportunity to participate behind the scenes than most men do, so participated in various parish groups: choir, liturgy committee, parish council....
My primary observation will not surprise anyone here: RCC parishes are dominated by women, and dominated just as Janice describes, by women’s "feelings" (ostensibly for "others") with disregard for facts, prior agreements, church law, and the parish priest. Something which particularly irked me was that in one meeting we'd spend 30 minutes discussing an issue (about 20 minutes too long...), and reach a decision which was minuted, and then two weeks later the same issue would re-appear, and the discussion would just start again, even after I pointed out the minutes with the previous decision. The parish priests, for the most part, go along with this, either from (legitimate) fear of female wrath, or from a misguided sense of "listening to women", for all the modern reasons.
So, with regard to your "fall in line behind the emotionally-manipulative leader", my observation is that women naturally form "cliques” and appoint a leader (usually the natural "matriarch"), however the unity of the clique is voluntary and conscious, rather than in any sense "manipulated". The clique is also vicious in repelling any threats, whether from a man (priest or bishop), a layman such as myself, or even a woman with a different opinion. It’s been called “PTA syndrome”, “turf wars”, and “pecking order”.
To give credit where due, a minority of women in the church are very aware that "women" as a group manipulate at all levels, and have attempted to contribute a dissenting view - which is dismissed, to the shame of our clergy.
That's an interesting point that's rarely discussed: while surveys of individual propensities etc are widespread, a focus on group dynamics may ultimately reveal more important factors. Those individual propensities combining in exactly the way you describe: agreeableness, eg, but agreeing with what?
Failing or refusing to explore group dynamics is part of a large trend, erasing the entire concept of human nature. People who believe themselves and others to be blank slates are a lot easier to propagandize and control.
The core concept of Marxism and its various heresies. At its most extreme seen in the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia, the Cultural Revolutions and Collectivisations in the Soviet Union and communist China. "Human Nature" is a "false ideological consciousness" to be eradicated, way down the line, no doubt incomprehensible to Marx himself, this is at the root of the idea sex doesn't exist and one can choose "Gender" as a matter of individual will. Of course "1984" the novel elegantly but grimly sets out both the aim and the methodology to end with Winston Smith genuinely loving Big Brother.
Wow Janice, This was tough talk even coming from you who I love so much! I really appreciate the responses from both sexes. I'm currently caught in the middle. I have no use for our current feminism movement/achievements and I want to see men admired for their strengths again. However, I don't want all women who are capable of using the best male traits to not hold equivalent positions at work, and apply these traits with their family and local community. I say this as a 77 year old female. I'm sure not happy with the way these feminists have polluted much of what makes a great society.
I'm with you Sandra. I used to be in HR for 20 years. I was never a supporter of quotas nor DEI. It was always the best person for the job. I never cared much for clique behaviour of women. I suppose being brought up in an engineering and mining family, facts matter. Metals have no feelings. My two sisters are the same.
My last role in HR was supporting the Global Markets Trading Division for an investment bank. Loved working with the guys - figures matter, growth matters.
Thanks Jennifer, my sister would love your background. Her 2nd marriage was with an engineer who worked around the world on mining projects. She ended up working on the same or different projects. Glad to hear you have the head for GMTD investment banking . My brain isn't wired for this.
I hope you have found your life purpose Sandra.
Working with the guys in the GMTD was my best job. Work hard and play hard. I never begrudged their compensation either - long hours, superior attention to detail and timing, instant trading decisions based on 24 hour news cycle and data - high risk with others money.
The only other profession that comes close in stress profile, in my opinion, is a soldier in a military engagement.
My best to your sister - where would we be without engineers! We have mining and chem engs, geologists, teachers and doctors in our family. I'm the outlier 🤣
It's only been in the last few years that I've focused on people going into the military, especially front line people. They are our heroes. I found your Substack account and will message you there. I see we share a lot of the same interests! (Drums rolling in anticipation of our common interests!)
I found Andrews' speech to be spot on. You're also correct in asserting that as long as women are in power, this destructive feminization is unlikely to change.
One possible way out is the birth-gap. The low fertility rate, and the women of our generation aging out with no children, and no children of others to manage feminism's fallout. For the first time in human history, not only do we have a much greater population of geriatrics compared to young people, but a sizable percentage of that geriatric population is childless women. I belong to that duped category, and since the stellar career that feminism promised has yet to materialize, I'm duly concerned. My mother has dementia, which has made painfully clear how children are necessary advocates. That some people end up with lousy kids is no rationale for not having them.
If AI steals white collar jobs, women will likely have nothing better to do (ha ha) than have children.
Regarding the feminized university, this is one of my grievances, all right. In my class a few weeks ago, we were discussing the aesthetic decline in chain restaurant design. As a model for responding to the video essay that posited this argument, I brought up how in the 60s and 70s, when kids spilled out of every window and door (my formative years), design was more child and family-centered. One aspect of the decline could be attributed to the fact that so many people don't have children. The designers very likely don't have children. Not only that, but the emphasis on adults as opposed to families has engendered an adult-centered world. So gone are the colorful interiors of these restaurants, such as McDonald's with the anthropomorphic trees and hamburger seats. I segued then into the low birth-rate, saying it's an effect of feminism, which it inarguably IS. Add to this that most of the women I work with -- in a department that is almost entirely female -- are childless.
They ran to the director to demand a different professor because I'm an "anti-feminist." I never even said that -- though I did say that I write about the unintended consequences of feminism.
The director then told me in a meeting that I should NOT CHALLENGE THEM. That responding to them with questions could make them ANXIOUS.
At least in the follow up meeting, she wound up telling me that SALEM had capitulated -- they had returned to say I was not evil, after all. Who knows what conquered their SALEM WITCH HUNT souls...
But yes, the EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL is in overdrive. My job is not to teach them how to think critically, but to ensure that they never feel "anxious and uncomfortable."
WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.
We need to unearth out boyhood coping, rolling with the punches, brutal banter of competition and one up man ship.
A generation raised by women is feminised beyond repair.
But rearmament and remonetisation of previous metals would steer us away from matriarchal welfare aristocrats back towards pater archons the father leaders who built this city.
Trickster you are seen.
And it started with this.
The basic premise of feminism (nuclear family)
Kate Millet, American feminist, author and artist the founder of NOW. Her sister Mallory was invited to one of the first meetings that established NOW which basically pioneered the feminist movement and she opened the meeting with the following; Why are we here today To make revolution, what kind of revolution, the cultural revolution, and how do we make cultural revolution, by destroying the American Family, how do we destroy the family, by destroying the American Patriarch, and how do we destroy the American Patriarch, by taking away his power, and how do we do that, by destroying monogamy, and how do we destroy monogamy, by promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, and homosexuality, and how to advance these goals, by establishing National Organization of Women. It was clear that they desired nothing less that the utter deconstruction of western society
https://www.tiktok.com/@theshadowclan/video/7277131627778673921?q=shadowclan&t=1694643420381
Any sensible person knows that objective facts and truth make up the foundation that any social justice framework must rest on. By preventing the rigorous debate needed to ascertain the facts, and making it worse by viciously cancelling people who put forth facts not approved, the whole foundation is mere quicksand.
The feminist system I describe can only be mired in confirmation bias, made entirely of confirmation bias, and immunized against any objective re-assessment of which groups are the actual victims.
Feminism has already instituted a blind Matrix-like machine that can only perpetuate its blue pill views while pulling out at the root any red pill views. The result is far beyond disastrous. It's not a road to future tyranny, but the tyranny of acceptable thought and speech has already been omnipotent for decades.
Politics is Power not … whatever.
'“is that men are more committed than women to the pursuit of truth as the raison d’être of science, while women are more committed to various moral goals, such as equity, inclusion, and the protection of vulnerable groups.'
Conveniently unstated by the authors is that those lofty 'moral goals' which the brave 'n plucky women espouse all directly further their OWN empowerment, enrichment, and ability to crush men and masculinity . . . an undertaking which clearly excites and compels women, generation after generation.
800 years of Courtly Romanticism instilled in Western, and particularly anglo, nations left their male populations with the (catastrophic) assumption of female moral and spiritual superiority, which you will find is as accepted by neocons and other 'conservatives' as it is by leftist men.
Women and their institutions (at this point, all of them) play very cunningly off that fault in men. Civilization cannot long sustain the replacement of veracity and truth with female-empowering and female-pleasing ideologies.
"800 years of Courtly Romanticism instilled in Western, and particularly anglo, nations left their male populations with the (catastrophic) assumption of female moral and spiritual superiority, which you will find is as accepted by neocons and other 'conservatives' as it is by leftist men."
One of the main reasons I loathe conservatives as much as I hate lefties.
As prompt illustration of our point, today Alex Marlow -- editor of Breitbart and one of the nation's leading conservatives -- commented on AOC's lecturing of American young men on CNN Townhall.
'Marlow said, “We need to get more masculine men feeling good about themselves, because masculine men can be chivalrous…and I think with that confidence…those types of people walk around very calm. … They fight our wars, they build our buildings, they do a lot of dirty jobs that women are not going to do and soft boys are not going to do, also.”'
Marlow is right about the need for positivity towards 'masculine men' in America. But he does not understand, or cannot face, the fact that the nation is a gynarchy, utterly dominated by females, who are in truth a separate -- and superior -- class of persons.
Marlow's assumption that chivalry (in a feminist nation! lol) is a wonderful and desirable thing illustrates that he does not really understand what's going on, or lacks the chestnuts to face it. Chivalry is of the enemy, it is a millstone around the necks of Western men and boys. It does neither men nor women any good.
Feminization is one of the symptoms of a civilization in its final stages. It is not unique to us and our time. John Bagot Gubbins mentions this in his work "The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival." Not to be fatalistic but you're probably right, Janice, nothing will be done about it. (Until our society collapses and strong men are forced to re-emerge by circumstances, not law).
Regardless, I am glad to see you talking about this so honestly.
Brother, it's the fempire!
And we are the rebels.
No more accepting nonsense. It's complicity. I want to live to see the billion unbaptised innocent children remembered though their mothers murdered them into limbo.
The restoration of the king is on its way.
That's why the St George cross is reappearing everywhere, he slew the dragon, the beast!
We descended from the creme de la creme who survived for billions of years.
We have great untapped potential.
Don't waste it on soy.
Well we really need a discussion on what we can reasonably do to sort this out and Janice does offer us solutions. The MGTOW movement will eventually spawn a leader who by his own charisma and drive will attract the right types and numbers to realign society with a forward thinking, crew.
In the meantime, Fathers, Grandfathers and Mentors, build your male children up, tell them stories about the heroic age, get them involved in physically demanding sports and pastimes.
When the call comes for leaders and it surely will, we don’t want to be found wanting!
The ability to see & document the tragic consequences of female power, while still applauding the stampede of women into positions of power formerly occupied almost entirely by men, is a frightening demonstration of inability to integrate factual data into the worldview of these researchers.
If they wish to remain professors, they applaud. Trained seals are rewarded with food, too.
With similar effects on their weight.
:O)
Proving the point in fact, they do precisely as they observe. Decide that ideological notions are more important than actual facts. All this of course might be fine in academic dinner parties but is downright dangerous when it hits empirical reality (I cite the Florida pedestrian bridge which collapsed. Having been hailed as a "feminist" triumph, designed by a feminist and built by a female led construction company). In a way our current travails in the UK are another example. With a parade of female Senior ministers one is treated to almost daily examples of this minister or that doing an impression of a startled Rabbit as they fail to grapple with any of the pressing problems facing their Government and the nation it supposedly serves. Even their allies in our media have concluded they have no plan nor much clue. A triumph of "women only" selection of parliamentary candidates and insisting women occupy "the great offices of state". On the one hand amusing on another frightening as it reminds me of Camille Paglia's observation that had it been left to women we'd still live in grass huts. Maybe a bit extreme but there is no reason the British can't have an economic decline (one need only go to the late '70s for evidence of that).