It has always astonished me how feminists are so unaware of how their ideology ruins things for everybody, or do they simply not care how it negatively affects them? Is their hatred of men so deep that they're willing to sacrifice themselves for their movement? I still think these women actually hate themselves - hate being women - and everything they do is a kind of slow suicide.
I commented long ago (in my YouTube persona) under one of Janice's Fiamengo File videos how fundamentally misogynistic feminist ideology was. That the radfems are unable to see 5th wave 'trans-inclusionary' feminism not as the logical conclusion of this, but as some external attack by those damn rapey men in dresses speaks volumes about both their entitlement and their wilful blindness.
But feminism is female supremacist. There isn't an ounce of it that is misogynistic.
It doesn't have to be misogynistic for it to be bad, and this way of taking shots at the movement implies that.
It also doesn't help the self serving attitude of feminists who might change.
"You're wholly self-centered as a woman? Well feminists are the real woman haters, so if you're self-centered you should stop being a feminist or else you'd hate yourself!"
Feminist women would do better to think outside of themselves rather than just leave feminism because self-related reasons.
There's nothing anti german about nazism, there's nothing anti woman about feminism.
The answer, I believe, is that many, disproportionately many, feminists have Cluster B personality disorders. Borderline, covert narcissistic PD. That's where the victimhood comes from.
So, no, they don't care. Personality disordered people of this type have impaired or absent consciences and empathy. They are narcissists, all of them. They care about power over.
I have three hundred postcards from a feminist brother which would be a solid thesis to submit to the National Organization of Women. But I have more faith in my cooking skills to win over that lottery of Lotties
It's not just feminism. The correlation between having a Cluster B PD (or subclinical traits, like complex PTSD) and being for anything "social justice" is undeniable and strong. So is the correlation between having those views and being female (and often gay men too, and other more feminine men. I know my people.).
The sad thing is, most people with CB disorders truly were neglected and abused as children. They really do have trauma from their past that helped form their warped personalities. None of us from such homes escape sane. It takes a lot of very hard work to get there.
It certainly appears that way. I think they are still secretly hoping that men will save them, but I'm not so sure it's going to happen this time around, not until things really get bad.
"Projection" is the term used to describe this by psychologists. People take the parts of themselves which they dislike or which disgust them and "project" them onto other people.
I read a comment somewhere on the webs: "'The Handmaid's Tale' isn't domination porn for men, it's subjugation porn for women."*
I wonder how many women just want men to stand up for themselves and say 'no' back to them. I also wonder if many women feel abandoned by men; as though men have walked off the stage and left women alone up there. I don't know if these men who always want to put the needs of women first in all situations - regardless of how disfunctional these demands are - are making women happier.
*I've heard that Atwood wrote her book as an allegory for the new 1970s regime in Iran, but later claimed it was to do with the US christian puritans - to avoid allegations of islamaphobia. Would like to hear her early words on this subject for some proof.
I've looked for this very thing, but so far haven't found it (in fact, I'm convinced that I had old books of interviews with Atwood that I gave away when we moved from Ontario that would have contained such material). *The Handmaid's Tale* came out in 1985, and I clearly remember at the time that everyone knew she was writing about Islamic fundamentalism, and linking it to Christian evangelicalism (which didn't really work, because Christian evangelicals had important leadership roles for women--but she couldn't resist the swipe at conservative American Christians). Then as the book became more popular amongst left-wing feminists, the Islamic element had to drop out, just as you say.
The question of what women actually want is a vexed one. I think most women have no idea about the macro-level; at the personal level, every woman wants unlimited power & unconditional love, with zero accountability. It is certainly the case that women are no happier now than they were before feminism (as meta-studies have conclusively shown--in fact, they're less happy). I think griping about things may be biologically hard-wired into women; it's part of how nature made sure that women got what they needed for themselves and their children from their cave-man partners. But as an organized political movement, the griping is poison.
I am daily amazed that people, mostly feminist, do not realize that the mockingbird wasnt the black man, but the white girl who falsely accused after being refused a kiss. What women want must have some anti social quality much like chocolate must have some salt. perhaps feminism is just a seasoning adjustment disorder.
I wrote a review of the Handmaid's Tale for IMDB a few years ago. I closed my IMDB account when they started censoring my reviews (of "Clarkson's Farm" and "The Harder They Come") but I've preserved it on my web page:
I watched only the first season. It appears to be a fantasy to give masochists excitement. The lead character makes almost no effort to escape from her situation as she is put through various torments and increasingly ridiculous rituals. As usual for these interminable TV things, most of the plot points from the first episode were forgotten about within a few episodes.
If you enjoy fantasising about being tormented you might enjoy this. If you'd like to see a character with a certain amount of spirit this is not for you.
---
I seem to remember writing something about hoping the lead character would do something, anything, to escape from her awful situation, such as carving a gun from a bar of soap or something, but that point never came. But that version of the review seems to have got lost when I recovered the reviews from my mail archive.
“When I see or hear collaborators and friends of mine support Marcy in any way [including even by citing his research or discoveries in a conference paper), I feel unsafe.”
If feminists really want to empower women, these sort of comments should be met with derision rather than sympathy.
Yes, I think this is a great point. What is this fragility doing as an attribute of these abusive, aggressive people, anyway? How is it that powerful, strong women are also so vulnerable to injury and threat from what they read?
I found that comment both typical and flabbergasting. If you follow the link, you'll see that it received hundreds of Likes. Note that the woman is not even claiming to have been "abused" (beloved feminist word--covering a multitude of non-criminal actions) by Geoff Marcy, just by someone in the field of Astronomy (whom she was successful in having dismissed from his position). According to her logic, any woman who has ever had a bad experience with any man can claim that hearing the name of ANOTHER alleged abuser is incapacitating. And these are the women we are supposed to seek out and recruit (and keep safe!) because they bring so much talent and ingenuity and dedication to scientific research! It would be amusing if it were not being taken seriously and implemented.
Women like this should be told that such fragile displays are an embarrassment to their entire gender. It's a terrible look for feminism if their movement creates such insipid weakness.
You'll be pleased to know Richard Dawkins has tweeted about her comment and got 3000 likes:
“Anyone whose psychological trauma is so severe that it causes them to be emotionally triggered by the sight of someone’s name on a publication is in need of therapy.” That’s putting it kindly. Some might say, “pathetic, posturing little wimps”.
It’s a tragedy for everyone, both male and female who are vulnerable to this kind of strong arming. And we who are downstream of this are the poorer for it. That last line kind of soft pedals the tragedy…Feminism is a cancer and no-one who has been touched by its corrosive tentacles is ever the same again.
Apologies only feed the beast…People who are caught in its baleful gaze and nullifying touch need to stand up (usually on their own) and say I apologize for nothing!
In addition to this, sexual harassment claims are much more common in academia than you may realise from the cases which emerge publicly. Men who lose their positions based on these claims don't want any publicity about it, or don't want to fight the case.
Yes, we will never know the actual number. Most accused men are offered the opportunity to leave their positions quietly, perhaps even with a small financial settlement in recompense for the loss of years of gainful employment. Most are deeply stunned and ashamed, so they take the offer.
Jun 21, 2023·edited Jun 21, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
As Ben Franklin observed( on a totally different issue (actually maybe not))… Gentlemen we have to hang together on this or we will most assuredly hang individually! … or something like that. Anyway if men don’t start speaking up for other men, we are all F’d.
Generally speaking the man's colleagues would have no idea what happened, or assumed that the man was guilty, rather than being OK with false accusations or spurious accusations. There are some actual sexual harassers, and there are some people offering or accepting grades and promotions in exchange for sex. If you hear that Prof H was fired for sexual harassment you might think it was his own doing. Listening to people defending themselves against false accusations and trying to work out who's telling the truth is a huge amount of tedious work, and taking sides with the accused can be risky if they turn out to actually have been exploiting their position.
Jun 22, 2023·edited Jun 22, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
In some cases that would be true. These days, however, almost any man still in academia has bought into this bullshit hook, line, and sinker and follows the mantra 'believe all women.' Even those who don't will profess to, and are just as glad for their professional rivals to be eliminated as the women who accused them.
Jun 20, 2023·edited Jun 20, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Believe feminists when they fabricate allegations decades ago, even 50 years ago like in Canada. School Boards across Ontario are giving settlement offers to women who alleged that they were abused in high school during the 1970s.
However, Toronto District School Board send the Toronto Police to threaten young men who accuse their female teachers of misconduct.
The TPS throw the young men into the Canadian Mental Health Association justice rehabilitation programme.
The CAMH staff says that it's consenting if a female teacher touches a Grade 12 male student because that's above the age of consent, or that the female teacher's reputation is important and that the affected young men should not post their stories online.
The one benefit of the lunacy of Canada is that a friend who for years went on and on and on about how wonderful Canada is and she was desperate to immigrate there. I never hear anything more about Canada and luckily no more about the virtues of Bernie Sanders. Had Bernie told the young to think for themselves the whole Covid narrative would have fell apart.
Canada rewards you if you're a woman and you're a feminist. If you're a man, you'd be a fool to immigrate to Canada unless you're really in danger in your home country like war or political persecution. Even then, men who arrive as legit refugees make their way to the States.
Remember that Gujarati Indian family who died fleeing Canada via Prairies during a blizzard during the coldest months of winter? Canada ain't no paradise if you're not a feminist.
Jun 21, 2023·edited Jun 21, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Jordan Peterson fled? That's news to me. The last time I heard about him was that he was under investigation by his regulatory body, but he assured everyone that they could ban him from practising his profession for life, but it wouldn't have an impact as he's making money in other avenues.
Sorry, I was using hyperbole. But he does seem to spend a great deal of time outside of Canada. Initially, I thought it just courteous to go along with someone's wish to be called one thing or another and couldn't understand Peterson's stance. It has only been through listening to Peterson, Boghossian, Gad Saad and others the importance of matching reality with words. In a recent interview with Douglas Murray and Julie Bindel where she describes the terrorizing of her and other women who seek to protect women's spaces, by men pretending to be women, I see why it is essential.
Yes, I think Peterson finds the U.S. more congenial these days. They couldn't force him out, but he found--as many highly intelligent and capable people have found over the years--that Canada doesn't celebrate its gifted citizens.
Jun 20, 2023·edited Jun 20, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
It has long been the case, that women who do not support the feminist Lynch mob are accused of being collaborators, in my article "Once We Were Feminists" women are accused of suffering from the Stockholm or Uncle Tom's Cabin syndromes.
This is a very big aspect of "Relational Aggression" the destruction of reputations.
Blessings to you for taking on these controversial subjects. A video I have watched a few times is of Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute hosting a discussion among mathematician David Berlinski, computer scientist, and artist, David Gelernter, and Scientist Stephen Meyers. They discuss Intelligent Design and the refusal of the scientific community to acknowledge it while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the many issues of Darwinism. Gelernter said among his colleagues at Yale, Darwinism has passed beyond a scientific argument, "You take your life in your hands if you challenge it" and this concerns him that such dogmatic thinking is teaching students. He laments there is no free speech on this topic. Somewhere in the video, Gelernter acknowledges how CRT slipped into the English department but he is hoping the science departments will be saved. Such a seemingly kind man is so naive. As his Darwin comments make clear, the polluting materialist totalitarianism had already infiltrated the sciences. There are no women represented in this video. Truthfully there are few women in much of what I watch because the topics I am interested in don't seem to draw many women. And that needs to be okay. When we force women into areas that don't really want to go into, or perhaps not inclined to excel, we strip women of exploring the ways we can uniquely contribute. We also prevent women who truly are interested in the subject to get their due respect. If someone thinks you got there because of virtue signaling, you will not gain the respect you deserve. It is just human nature. And I know that there are many women who did not get the recognition they deserve. But this is not unique to women. There are surely many men who never received the credit they deserved. Tesla might be one of them.
Agree with everything you say. Even more, I think, forcing women (or at least strongly encouraging them) to enter professional fields that they wouldn't otherwise have succeeded in fosters a culture of unease and resentment that likely leads directly to false allegations. If one knows one is not quite competent, one will always be on the lookout for reasons to complain as a form of self-justification.
Your point about researchers not getting the respect they were due is so correct. Some women were passed over, but many junior men were also shafted by ruthless competitors who denied their significance in order to steal the glory. It's terrible, but it's not sexism.
“ Even more, I think, forcing women (or at least strongly encouraging them) to enter professional fields that they wouldn't otherwise have succeeded in fosters a culture of unease and resentment that likely leads directly to false allegations. ”
Well said. I recall the story of the Australian physician who discovered that ulcers could be caused by bacteria; H. Pylori. The battle for exceptance of his ideas was epic. It's now accepted as fact thanks to his courage and persistence.
This is the real "Zombie Apocalypse", an incessant, "four legs good, two legs baaaaad" that seems to grow on a daily basis. I suppose that zombies hunger for brains because their own are non functioning. Yet another dystopian aspect of the here and now. I fear for my children and grandchildren.
It just makes me so angry hearing this stuff. Tbh, too many men are being caught in the headlights trying to act all decent when the walls are closing in. Act like prey and you'll find loads more predators have showed up for the feast. When the time comes, men, it's time to get insidious. Women need to know that any false or blind accusations will result in a massive lowering of their self esteem.
Exactly what my friend Steve Brule has insisted for a long time. Men have to regain the power to say No to women on a mass scale. But a man with a wife and children to support has given hostages to fortune and will find it dangerous to do so.
I think your comment about a man with a wife and children is a crucial one. So much of supposed "debate" these days seems to assume that people are not subject to mundane realities. Yet of course whatever the rhetoric in fact the vast majority of families rely particularly on the man's earnings and will embody the expectation that the males in the family will become independent so that that can then take on dependents when it's their turn. There is so much wittering about "choice" for women but this is actually built upon an assumption that they can simply please themselves without considering the needs of partners or children. As feminists point out women choose to group into a narrow range of occupations, while men appear in a vast variety of occupations. The latter including a huge roll call of essential but not at all pleasant job. I doubt men would do half of these if they felt they had a free choice rather than the constraints of reality and their role supporting their family. And of course this also means they cant indulge themselves if that it at the expense also of those who depend on them.
How, exactly, does seeing a fucking •name• threaten the safety of anyone? This is absolutely ridiculous, and Dr Villaroel’s essay is a reasonable response to what is, in effect, the deliberate suppression of research.
This is completely unacceptable, it is anti-scientific, and, in point of fact, it is atrocious.
The feminist lie "I feel scared so therefore I have grounds to be scared so therefore he is threatening me" (even if they have never meet or communicated). All too frequently this is all that is required for a man or a woman not identifying as feminist to be convicted in the court of public bile, Kangaroo courts on campus and in our courts of law
This has nothing to do with safety or empowerment of women.
Feminism is simply a political power cult that is all about utterly disempowering males and destroying any cultural norms. As long as it all leads to the roads of power.
It is just a repeat of Hitler's Nazi movement, Soviet Russia's Communist movement, Pol Pot, et al.
The objective is absolute political power and women will be destroyed both along the way and afterwards as suits the new mistresses.
As Erin Pizzey said "Girls hunt in packs and they hunt those who dare to challenge them. Then they grow into women and behave pretty much in similar ways,"
Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time.
Thought number one: Women are the equals of men, women can do everything a man can, women are strong and capable, women have equal or even better intelligence and abilities to men, women are emotionally stronger than men.
Thought number two: Women are totally incapable of dealing with extremely minor infractions into their personal space, they cannot cope with either compliments or insults, they get PTSD from having their toothbrush placed in the wrong direction, and they are terrified after seeing Tony The Tiger on a box of Frosties.
This was a point made by E. Belfort Bax in his book *The Fraud of Feminism* over 100 years ago. There were always these two sides of feminism: 1. women are just as good (or better) than men, any disparities in outcome are the result of discrimination, and the laws must recognize women's right to equal outcomes with men; AND 2. women are weaker than men and have special needs for protection, compensation, and accommodation; and the laws must reflect their special needs.
We are seeing this double-think very clearly in relation to the trans invasion of women's sports. Suddenly anti-trans feminists have rediscovered women's biological difference from men. That must be recognized, they insist, or it is the utter end of female sports!!!! But wait, what about women in firefighting and policing and the military, etc? Are THEY weaker than the men, not capable of doing the same job? Feminists are silent on that score.
Belfort Bax's book is a little dated, but he makes some valid points. His terminology is "political feminism" and "sentimental feminism" for what I've described as "thought number one/two".
Well of course they are not silent at all. Insisting on women in those occupations and getting tests "rigged" to somehow let women appear as capable, by reducing the requirements of everyone. They have to do this in the UK because it turns out to have been illegal to have different easier tests for women. The RAF recently came a cropper by trying to get round this by simply preventing white Male recruits completing the tests! Because to let them do so would mean they'd have lots of qualified Male recruits! As you say it is completely contradictory. Yet somehow no one challenges this.
The kids are out of control. No adult supervision is good enough for them.
Interesting in that those launching the baseless harassment claim to study the infinite macro, but do not function well in the very limited micro. And genius is not the criterion in which to measure the malfunction.
How does any work ever get done? Maybe that's the point - the juvenile 'smash the patriarchy' mantra at play.
I fully support this and will be writing about this myself from another angle that I won't go into now. As an aside, women who show any kind of resilience or independent thought are attacked, as a matter of course. Take Germaine Greer and Chrissy Hynde, both of whom had traumatic experiences, but because they refused to be victims, were somehow held to be apologists for rapists. Aren't we meant to inspired by human fortitude. I mean we wouldn't say to a survivor of a ship sinking, 'you are just a shipwreck enabler' i.e., for the audacity of surviving.
Jun 20, 2023·edited Jun 22, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Thanks for posting this. Its all so stupid. Beatriz is totally correct. I love the term she used for victimization, I realize it doesn't mean this, but it is kind of written as 'cranky sabre-handling', which seems somehow appropriate. OK, someone is now going to nail me for 'cultural appropriation', ha.
Its also really disappointing for me personally to see what happened to Beatriz, as I was once a huge supporter of SETI and participated years ago in the distributed computing project to process data from Arecibo. That they too have gone woke and joined the irrational witch-hunts is sad.
Interesting that the excommunication seems moderated via Twitter, the bastion of gossip culture. The talmud says that gossip invites the evil spirit. If one takes that metaphorically and considers the way gossip primes our psyches to react in an automatic negative way towards the targets of gossip, one will notice the dynamic. I truly believe that in this sense Twitter is a force of evil in our society and we ought to shun it. This is not to say that quitting Twitter would stop gossip or that it would solve the world's problems, but I do feel it would make the world a better place just by diminishing gossip. The same goes for all "social" media. It's destructive.
I like the men 'feeding the crocodile' analogy, although I think it is rather more insidious than that. Something like voluntarily taking small doses of a cumulative poison for your whole life. Here's a link to a photo I came across this morning that illustrates it nicely:
That image does not in my opinion represent it nicely! It is highly emotive and totally inflates the number of vaccinations needed by a factor of at least a thousand.
It is misinformation, deliberate.
The main reason for the decrease in childhood mortality has been vaccinations.
I think you may have missed the point of my comment, but since you want to take that tack, please provide just one single scientific study proving the existence of any virus, anywhere in the world, at any time.
It was something called an analogy - in this case, an example of people being slowly poisoned. To claim that 'vaccines' have led to decreased child mortality, it seems to me that the existence of their apparent target - viruses - would first have to be established. Unfortunately no 'virologist' anywhere in the world has so far successfully managed to establish this.
It has always astonished me how feminists are so unaware of how their ideology ruins things for everybody, or do they simply not care how it negatively affects them? Is their hatred of men so deep that they're willing to sacrifice themselves for their movement? I still think these women actually hate themselves - hate being women - and everything they do is a kind of slow suicide.
I commented long ago (in my YouTube persona) under one of Janice's Fiamengo File videos how fundamentally misogynistic feminist ideology was. That the radfems are unable to see 5th wave 'trans-inclusionary' feminism not as the logical conclusion of this, but as some external attack by those damn rapey men in dresses speaks volumes about both their entitlement and their wilful blindness.
Self hatred is the ultimate virtue signal. It says "my moral standards are so high even I can't live up to them."
I will never get on board with this line of critcism.
"how fundamentally misogynistic feminist ideology"
Such a ridiculous thing to say.
Of course, feminism hurts women, that's obvious.
But feminism is female supremacist. There isn't an ounce of it that is misogynistic.
It doesn't have to be misogynistic for it to be bad, and this way of taking shots at the movement implies that.
It also doesn't help the self serving attitude of feminists who might change.
"You're wholly self-centered as a woman? Well feminists are the real woman haters, so if you're self-centered you should stop being a feminist or else you'd hate yourself!"
Feminist women would do better to think outside of themselves rather than just leave feminism because self-related reasons.
There's nothing anti german about nazism, there's nothing anti woman about feminism.
The answer, I believe, is that many, disproportionately many, feminists have Cluster B personality disorders. Borderline, covert narcissistic PD. That's where the victimhood comes from.
So, no, they don't care. Personality disordered people of this type have impaired or absent consciences and empathy. They are narcissists, all of them. They care about power over.
I am trying to prove feminism itself is a mental disorder. I find it unusually easy to do.
I have three hundred postcards from a feminist brother which would be a solid thesis to submit to the National Organization of Women. But I have more faith in my cooking skills to win over that lottery of Lotties
It's not just feminism. The correlation between having a Cluster B PD (or subclinical traits, like complex PTSD) and being for anything "social justice" is undeniable and strong. So is the correlation between having those views and being female (and often gay men too, and other more feminine men. I know my people.).
The sad thing is, most people with CB disorders truly were neglected and abused as children. They really do have trauma from their past that helped form their warped personalities. None of us from such homes escape sane. It takes a lot of very hard work to get there.
It certainly appears that way. I think they are still secretly hoping that men will save them, but I'm not so sure it's going to happen this time around, not until things really get bad.
Yes, feminism IS a suicide cult.
"Projection" is the term used to describe this by psychologists. People take the parts of themselves which they dislike or which disgust them and "project" them onto other people.
I read a comment somewhere on the webs: "'The Handmaid's Tale' isn't domination porn for men, it's subjugation porn for women."*
I wonder how many women just want men to stand up for themselves and say 'no' back to them. I also wonder if many women feel abandoned by men; as though men have walked off the stage and left women alone up there. I don't know if these men who always want to put the needs of women first in all situations - regardless of how disfunctional these demands are - are making women happier.
*I've heard that Atwood wrote her book as an allegory for the new 1970s regime in Iran, but later claimed it was to do with the US christian puritans - to avoid allegations of islamaphobia. Would like to hear her early words on this subject for some proof.
I've looked for this very thing, but so far haven't found it (in fact, I'm convinced that I had old books of interviews with Atwood that I gave away when we moved from Ontario that would have contained such material). *The Handmaid's Tale* came out in 1985, and I clearly remember at the time that everyone knew she was writing about Islamic fundamentalism, and linking it to Christian evangelicalism (which didn't really work, because Christian evangelicals had important leadership roles for women--but she couldn't resist the swipe at conservative American Christians). Then as the book became more popular amongst left-wing feminists, the Islamic element had to drop out, just as you say.
The question of what women actually want is a vexed one. I think most women have no idea about the macro-level; at the personal level, every woman wants unlimited power & unconditional love, with zero accountability. It is certainly the case that women are no happier now than they were before feminism (as meta-studies have conclusively shown--in fact, they're less happy). I think griping about things may be biologically hard-wired into women; it's part of how nature made sure that women got what they needed for themselves and their children from their cave-man partners. But as an organized political movement, the griping is poison.
I am daily amazed that people, mostly feminist, do not realize that the mockingbird wasnt the black man, but the white girl who falsely accused after being refused a kiss. What women want must have some anti social quality much like chocolate must have some salt. perhaps feminism is just a seasoning adjustment disorder.
I wrote a review of the Handmaid's Tale for IMDB a few years ago. I closed my IMDB account when they started censoring my reviews (of "Clarkson's Farm" and "The Harder They Come") but I've preserved it on my web page:
https://www.lemoda.net/films/imdb-reviews/review-164.html
---
Sad masochistic fantasy
I watched only the first season. It appears to be a fantasy to give masochists excitement. The lead character makes almost no effort to escape from her situation as she is put through various torments and increasingly ridiculous rituals. As usual for these interminable TV things, most of the plot points from the first episode were forgotten about within a few episodes.
If you enjoy fantasising about being tormented you might enjoy this. If you'd like to see a character with a certain amount of spirit this is not for you.
---
I seem to remember writing something about hoping the lead character would do something, anything, to escape from her awful situation, such as carving a gun from a bar of soap or something, but that point never came. But that version of the review seems to have got lost when I recovered the reviews from my mail archive.
well said
“When I see or hear collaborators and friends of mine support Marcy in any way [including even by citing his research or discoveries in a conference paper), I feel unsafe.”
If feminists really want to empower women, these sort of comments should be met with derision rather than sympathy.
Yes, I think this is a great point. What is this fragility doing as an attribute of these abusive, aggressive people, anyway? How is it that powerful, strong women are also so vulnerable to injury and threat from what they read?
I found that comment both typical and flabbergasting. If you follow the link, you'll see that it received hundreds of Likes. Note that the woman is not even claiming to have been "abused" (beloved feminist word--covering a multitude of non-criminal actions) by Geoff Marcy, just by someone in the field of Astronomy (whom she was successful in having dismissed from his position). According to her logic, any woman who has ever had a bad experience with any man can claim that hearing the name of ANOTHER alleged abuser is incapacitating. And these are the women we are supposed to seek out and recruit (and keep safe!) because they bring so much talent and ingenuity and dedication to scientific research! It would be amusing if it were not being taken seriously and implemented.
At this point it is clear that men may only be permitted to do and say such things as feminist cunts deem appropriate.
Women like this should be told that such fragile displays are an embarrassment to their entire gender. It's a terrible look for feminism if their movement creates such insipid weakness.
You'll be pleased to know Richard Dawkins has tweeted about her comment and got 3000 likes:
“Anyone whose psychological trauma is so severe that it causes them to be emotionally triggered by the sight of someone’s name on a publication is in need of therapy.” That’s putting it kindly. Some might say, “pathetic, posturing little wimps”.
Women should be humbled, not empowered.
The fact that a woman could say this is a form of social empowerment.
It’s a tragedy for everyone, both male and female who are vulnerable to this kind of strong arming. And we who are downstream of this are the poorer for it. That last line kind of soft pedals the tragedy…Feminism is a cancer and no-one who has been touched by its corrosive tentacles is ever the same again.
Apologies only feed the beast…People who are caught in its baleful gaze and nullifying touch need to stand up (usually on their own) and say I apologize for nothing!
In addition to this, sexual harassment claims are much more common in academia than you may realise from the cases which emerge publicly. Men who lose their positions based on these claims don't want any publicity about it, or don't want to fight the case.
Yes, we will never know the actual number. Most accused men are offered the opportunity to leave their positions quietly, perhaps even with a small financial settlement in recompense for the loss of years of gainful employment. Most are deeply stunned and ashamed, so they take the offer.
Also, many men who fall victim to this were perfectly ok with it happening to other men.
In this self-defense, UBC Creative Writing professor Steven Galloway recounts how he moved against another man at the instigation of the same woman who later accused him of rape and got him fired from his job. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/steven-galloway-in-his-own-words-exclusive
As Ben Franklin observed( on a totally different issue (actually maybe not))… Gentlemen we have to hang together on this or we will most assuredly hang individually! … or something like that. Anyway if men don’t start speaking up for other men, we are all F’d.
Generally speaking the man's colleagues would have no idea what happened, or assumed that the man was guilty, rather than being OK with false accusations or spurious accusations. There are some actual sexual harassers, and there are some people offering or accepting grades and promotions in exchange for sex. If you hear that Prof H was fired for sexual harassment you might think it was his own doing. Listening to people defending themselves against false accusations and trying to work out who's telling the truth is a huge amount of tedious work, and taking sides with the accused can be risky if they turn out to actually have been exploiting their position.
In some cases that would be true. These days, however, almost any man still in academia has bought into this bullshit hook, line, and sinker and follows the mantra 'believe all women.' Even those who don't will profess to, and are just as glad for their professional rivals to be eliminated as the women who accused them.
I know of at least one case where the “harassment” was non-existent, but the accuser got away with it.
Believe feminists when they fabricate allegations decades ago, even 50 years ago like in Canada. School Boards across Ontario are giving settlement offers to women who alleged that they were abused in high school during the 1970s.
However, Toronto District School Board send the Toronto Police to threaten young men who accuse their female teachers of misconduct.
The TPS throw the young men into the Canadian Mental Health Association justice rehabilitation programme.
The CAMH staff says that it's consenting if a female teacher touches a Grade 12 male student because that's above the age of consent, or that the female teacher's reputation is important and that the affected young men should not post their stories online.
The one benefit of the lunacy of Canada is that a friend who for years went on and on and on about how wonderful Canada is and she was desperate to immigrate there. I never hear anything more about Canada and luckily no more about the virtues of Bernie Sanders. Had Bernie told the young to think for themselves the whole Covid narrative would have fell apart.
Canada rewards you if you're a woman and you're a feminist. If you're a man, you'd be a fool to immigrate to Canada unless you're really in danger in your home country like war or political persecution. Even then, men who arrive as legit refugees make their way to the States.
Remember that Gujarati Indian family who died fleeing Canada via Prairies during a blizzard during the coldest months of winter? Canada ain't no paradise if you're not a feminist.
I don't know about the family. But will look it up. My goodness Jordan Peterson had to essentially flee and he is hardly a macho guy-guy.
Jordan Peterson fled? That's news to me. The last time I heard about him was that he was under investigation by his regulatory body, but he assured everyone that they could ban him from practising his profession for life, but it wouldn't have an impact as he's making money in other avenues.
Sorry, I was using hyperbole. But he does seem to spend a great deal of time outside of Canada. Initially, I thought it just courteous to go along with someone's wish to be called one thing or another and couldn't understand Peterson's stance. It has only been through listening to Peterson, Boghossian, Gad Saad and others the importance of matching reality with words. In a recent interview with Douglas Murray and Julie Bindel where she describes the terrorizing of her and other women who seek to protect women's spaces, by men pretending to be women, I see why it is essential.
Yes, I think Peterson finds the U.S. more congenial these days. They couldn't force him out, but he found--as many highly intelligent and capable people have found over the years--that Canada doesn't celebrate its gifted citizens.
It has long been the case, that women who do not support the feminist Lynch mob are accused of being collaborators, in my article "Once We Were Feminists" women are accused of suffering from the Stockholm or Uncle Tom's Cabin syndromes.
This is a very big aspect of "Relational Aggression" the destruction of reputations.
This is a very big aspect of "Relational Aggression" the destruction of reputations.
Yes, it's also called Horizontal Hostility.
Blessings to you for taking on these controversial subjects. A video I have watched a few times is of Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute hosting a discussion among mathematician David Berlinski, computer scientist, and artist, David Gelernter, and Scientist Stephen Meyers. They discuss Intelligent Design and the refusal of the scientific community to acknowledge it while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the many issues of Darwinism. Gelernter said among his colleagues at Yale, Darwinism has passed beyond a scientific argument, "You take your life in your hands if you challenge it" and this concerns him that such dogmatic thinking is teaching students. He laments there is no free speech on this topic. Somewhere in the video, Gelernter acknowledges how CRT slipped into the English department but he is hoping the science departments will be saved. Such a seemingly kind man is so naive. As his Darwin comments make clear, the polluting materialist totalitarianism had already infiltrated the sciences. There are no women represented in this video. Truthfully there are few women in much of what I watch because the topics I am interested in don't seem to draw many women. And that needs to be okay. When we force women into areas that don't really want to go into, or perhaps not inclined to excel, we strip women of exploring the ways we can uniquely contribute. We also prevent women who truly are interested in the subject to get their due respect. If someone thinks you got there because of virtue signaling, you will not gain the respect you deserve. It is just human nature. And I know that there are many women who did not get the recognition they deserve. But this is not unique to women. There are surely many men who never received the credit they deserved. Tesla might be one of them.
Agree with everything you say. Even more, I think, forcing women (or at least strongly encouraging them) to enter professional fields that they wouldn't otherwise have succeeded in fosters a culture of unease and resentment that likely leads directly to false allegations. If one knows one is not quite competent, one will always be on the lookout for reasons to complain as a form of self-justification.
Your point about researchers not getting the respect they were due is so correct. Some women were passed over, but many junior men were also shafted by ruthless competitors who denied their significance in order to steal the glory. It's terrible, but it's not sexism.
“ Even more, I think, forcing women (or at least strongly encouraging them) to enter professional fields that they wouldn't otherwise have succeeded in fosters a culture of unease and resentment that likely leads directly to false allegations. ”
That is very profound and probably true.
Well said. I recall the story of the Australian physician who discovered that ulcers could be caused by bacteria; H. Pylori. The battle for exceptance of his ideas was epic. It's now accepted as fact thanks to his courage and persistence.
I think I saw a documentary on that. And the poor guy that advocated for hand washing ended up in an insane asylum.
This is the real "Zombie Apocalypse", an incessant, "four legs good, two legs baaaaad" that seems to grow on a daily basis. I suppose that zombies hunger for brains because their own are non functioning. Yet another dystopian aspect of the here and now. I fear for my children and grandchildren.
It just makes me so angry hearing this stuff. Tbh, too many men are being caught in the headlights trying to act all decent when the walls are closing in. Act like prey and you'll find loads more predators have showed up for the feast. When the time comes, men, it's time to get insidious. Women need to know that any false or blind accusations will result in a massive lowering of their self esteem.
Yes. Men need to tell women "no" in male-typical, loud, non-sympathetic voices and in consequential ways.
Women in the U.S. have forgotten--quite literally---that they *can* be told "no," and that they are not the superior sex.
Men have helped create this by going along with being neutered. I was one of them until middle age. Now I'm not.
Exactly what my friend Steve Brule has insisted for a long time. Men have to regain the power to say No to women on a mass scale. But a man with a wife and children to support has given hostages to fortune and will find it dangerous to do so.
I think your comment about a man with a wife and children is a crucial one. So much of supposed "debate" these days seems to assume that people are not subject to mundane realities. Yet of course whatever the rhetoric in fact the vast majority of families rely particularly on the man's earnings and will embody the expectation that the males in the family will become independent so that that can then take on dependents when it's their turn. There is so much wittering about "choice" for women but this is actually built upon an assumption that they can simply please themselves without considering the needs of partners or children. As feminists point out women choose to group into a narrow range of occupations, while men appear in a vast variety of occupations. The latter including a huge roll call of essential but not at all pleasant job. I doubt men would do half of these if they felt they had a free choice rather than the constraints of reality and their role supporting their family. And of course this also means they cant indulge themselves if that it at the expense also of those who depend on them.
I've been arguing for years that men should go completely lysistrata. Whilst very unlikely I can't imagine a bigger game changer.
How, exactly, does seeing a fucking •name• threaten the safety of anyone? This is absolutely ridiculous, and Dr Villaroel’s essay is a reasonable response to what is, in effect, the deliberate suppression of research.
This is completely unacceptable, it is anti-scientific, and, in point of fact, it is atrocious.
The feminist lie "I feel scared so therefore I have grounds to be scared so therefore he is threatening me" (even if they have never meet or communicated). All too frequently this is all that is required for a man or a woman not identifying as feminist to be convicted in the court of public bile, Kangaroo courts on campus and in our courts of law
This has nothing to do with safety or empowerment of women.
Feminism is simply a political power cult that is all about utterly disempowering males and destroying any cultural norms. As long as it all leads to the roads of power.
It is just a repeat of Hitler's Nazi movement, Soviet Russia's Communist movement, Pol Pot, et al.
The objective is absolute political power and women will be destroyed both along the way and afterwards as suits the new mistresses.
As Erin Pizzey said "Girls hunt in packs and they hunt those who dare to challenge them. Then they grow into women and behave pretty much in similar ways,"
She was making references to feminists then.
Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time.
Thought number one: Women are the equals of men, women can do everything a man can, women are strong and capable, women have equal or even better intelligence and abilities to men, women are emotionally stronger than men.
Thought number two: Women are totally incapable of dealing with extremely minor infractions into their personal space, they cannot cope with either compliments or insults, they get PTSD from having their toothbrush placed in the wrong direction, and they are terrified after seeing Tony The Tiger on a box of Frosties.
This was a point made by E. Belfort Bax in his book *The Fraud of Feminism* over 100 years ago. There were always these two sides of feminism: 1. women are just as good (or better) than men, any disparities in outcome are the result of discrimination, and the laws must recognize women's right to equal outcomes with men; AND 2. women are weaker than men and have special needs for protection, compensation, and accommodation; and the laws must reflect their special needs.
We are seeing this double-think very clearly in relation to the trans invasion of women's sports. Suddenly anti-trans feminists have rediscovered women's biological difference from men. That must be recognized, they insist, or it is the utter end of female sports!!!! But wait, what about women in firefighting and policing and the military, etc? Are THEY weaker than the men, not capable of doing the same job? Feminists are silent on that score.
Thank you for the reference. I read the first three or four chapters of the book using the online copy at "archive.org".
https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich
Belfort Bax's book is a little dated, but he makes some valid points. His terminology is "political feminism" and "sentimental feminism" for what I've described as "thought number one/two".
Well of course they are not silent at all. Insisting on women in those occupations and getting tests "rigged" to somehow let women appear as capable, by reducing the requirements of everyone. They have to do this in the UK because it turns out to have been illegal to have different easier tests for women. The RAF recently came a cropper by trying to get round this by simply preventing white Male recruits completing the tests! Because to let them do so would mean they'd have lots of qualified Male recruits! As you say it is completely contradictory. Yet somehow no one challenges this.
psychological term is "cognitive dissonance"; being able to hold two mutually exclussive opposing beliefs at the same time.
The kids are out of control. No adult supervision is good enough for them.
Interesting in that those launching the baseless harassment claim to study the infinite macro, but do not function well in the very limited micro. And genius is not the criterion in which to measure the malfunction.
How does any work ever get done? Maybe that's the point - the juvenile 'smash the patriarchy' mantra at play.
I fully support this and will be writing about this myself from another angle that I won't go into now. As an aside, women who show any kind of resilience or independent thought are attacked, as a matter of course. Take Germaine Greer and Chrissy Hynde, both of whom had traumatic experiences, but because they refused to be victims, were somehow held to be apologists for rapists. Aren't we meant to inspired by human fortitude. I mean we wouldn't say to a survivor of a ship sinking, 'you are just a shipwreck enabler' i.e., for the audacity of surviving.
Thanks for posting this. Its all so stupid. Beatriz is totally correct. I love the term she used for victimization, I realize it doesn't mean this, but it is kind of written as 'cranky sabre-handling', which seems somehow appropriate. OK, someone is now going to nail me for 'cultural appropriation', ha.
Its also really disappointing for me personally to see what happened to Beatriz, as I was once a huge supporter of SETI and participated years ago in the distributed computing project to process data from Arecibo. That they too have gone woke and joined the irrational witch-hunts is sad.
Interesting that the excommunication seems moderated via Twitter, the bastion of gossip culture. The talmud says that gossip invites the evil spirit. If one takes that metaphorically and considers the way gossip primes our psyches to react in an automatic negative way towards the targets of gossip, one will notice the dynamic. I truly believe that in this sense Twitter is a force of evil in our society and we ought to shun it. This is not to say that quitting Twitter would stop gossip or that it would solve the world's problems, but I do feel it would make the world a better place just by diminishing gossip. The same goes for all "social" media. It's destructive.
Female wickedness scales perfectly with social media. This is absolutely the only way it could ever have gone.
I like the men 'feeding the crocodile' analogy, although I think it is rather more insidious than that. Something like voluntarily taking small doses of a cumulative poison for your whole life. Here's a link to a photo I came across this morning that illustrates it nicely:
https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/40645
That image does not in my opinion represent it nicely! It is highly emotive and totally inflates the number of vaccinations needed by a factor of at least a thousand.
It is misinformation, deliberate.
The main reason for the decrease in childhood mortality has been vaccinations.
I think you may have missed the point of my comment, but since you want to take that tack, please provide just one single scientific study proving the existence of any virus, anywhere in the world, at any time.
I understand the point you were making, but the image was not in my opinion an appropriate demonstration.
<please provide just one single scientific study proving the existence of any virus, anywhere in the world, at any time.>
What are you really saying here?
It was something called an analogy - in this case, an example of people being slowly poisoned. To claim that 'vaccines' have led to decreased child mortality, it seems to me that the existence of their apparent target - viruses - would first have to be established. Unfortunately no 'virologist' anywhere in the world has so far successfully managed to establish this.
Open your own page I will discuss the issue with you. Not on this site as it detracts from the original article