One of the things that depresses me most about today’s world is the speed at which outrage is weaponized to attack people who have committed no actual crime.
An appropriate response to Butker would have been to challenge the foundation of his argument. Instead we have fanatical females, and their male stooges, yelling lies at the top of their lungs.
Yes, they're about power, not engagement. They simply want to make ordinary people--and even superstars like Butker--hesitate before articulating even their most common-sense and deeply-held beliefs, aware that there may be backlash. They want every beautiful certainty to seem like a taboo best kept quiet about. Eventually, the range of what can be said (and therefore thought, really) is so narrowed that they win by attrition.
That is indeed part of the intent. The feminists actually say their goal is to change the culture into one that is, to be honest, not only gynocentric but totalitarian in nature. I have had 3 women in their 60's and 70's who have actually independently said to me that the 19th amendment was a mistake given what women have done with political power!
Janice, I love your Substack. I discovered it recently and have rather fallen in love with it. I didn't know how much I resented all of this until I heard someone else say it.
I agree, there is such a caste element to all of this. It seems as though feminism has always been the preserve of upper-class women. Given that, I have a question: historically, men have NEVER abdicated the really high-level positions to upper-class women. That's kind of the point of the hierarchy. What happened? Why have they done this? What do you think?
In principle, I suppose I find nothing inherently wrong with them doing this - I generally trust that women in universities and corporations are maxing out the system as best they can, and certainly have the right to play the game as everyone does - but this is certainly historically unprecedented and does not seem to be going very well, at least to me. I don't like it. I suppose that people might say that "history is moving too fast for me", but it's not that, I don't think. I just perceive a lot of the hyper-educated ladies like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren to be, well, untouchable, i.e. beyond accountability or reason, in a way that no man save a dictator in their position ever could or would be.
First I heard of him was when Hillary Clinton was considering running for president. I think she wrote a paper on him in college or something like that.
Anyway, here are his rules. Once you read them, you might be realize hiw they’ve been used on you or your community:
Tough to challenge his comments. Anyone would lose the argument. Very very few people do work of such meaning that it overshadows the meaning gained through having a family.
I was a woman who never wanted children. I was fortunate enough to find the career I wanted, and I loved it and didn't find it stressful.
But I have no problem acknowledging the deep importance of motherhood. I am not diminished by that. I would object to someone saying that a woman's only possible contribution to society would be through motherhood; but no one is arguing that should be the case--just that motherhood is right at the top.
Absolutely right! How many people honestly "live to work"? I don't believe this to be the case. Feminist women (which I think means most) will pretend otherwise to the death, but it's all to prop up their own ego and power. Those who are older are lying, and the younger ones starting out are brainwashed.
I should add (since the above was fat-fingered into existence before I completed what I wanted to say) that liberty of speech has ceased to be a value for much of the left, and almost every feminist believes in silencing dissent.
The internet has really amplified the pile-on way of doing things, it's true. But I've read rags from 1890s New York City. "Outrage culture" is nothing new. Now those guys could throw insults around! We're amateurs by comparison today.
The university today plays the role of the church in the Middle Ages, it seems. It has catechisms - "white privilege, climate change, feminism, secularism", an elaborate hierarchy, and it permeates and mediates everything. I grow frustrated with it because of its undeniable power as an intermediary (and knowledge-producing structure, it must be said) as well as its insulation from the real world. It's hard to get a lot of jobs in America without going through it.
"Women's oppression" seems to be code for "a place for women at the universities". It also seems to be code for "suppression of masculinity as understood prior to the year 2000".
Ask any older person what is most important to them, their careers or their families. I have/had a career to look after my family. I have had a great career(s). I have done interesting things but without a family to do it for it would have been meaningless.
I would finesse this phrasing. You don't need to have biological children, but you at least need spiritual children -- people who are better off for having known you.
I think it’s more that very few careers are meaningful enough to fill that spiritual demand.
Some people can find work in charities, or curing cancer, etc. But for the average white collar worker, their career involves working for a company that sells widgets or widget services. Doing that for 40+ years doesn’t create many moments of reflection where you would say “I’m so happy this is my life’s work.”
A few years before his death, Christopher Hitchens wrote an article for Vanity Fair entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny.”
In the article, Hitchens argued that women’s general need - and thus, to some degree, their ability - to be funny was considerably less than that of men. Men, on the other hand, generally must cultivate humor to ingratiate themselves to women, lest they be removed from the evolutionary contest and excluded from reproducing.
He conceded that, while some women are very funny, they tend to be “dykes, Jews, or butch” (his words, not mine).
Basically, Hitchens (correctly) pointed out that no woman has ever had to charm her way into a man’s pants. Men are more than happy to allow them in without the need to fulfill some prerequisite humor/entertainment quota.
The response to the article was predictable, and predictably banal, disingenuous, and replete with misrepresentations of his actual arguments and assertions. There were the standard accusations of misogyny, claims of “you’ve obviously never met my hilarious female friend,” challenges to a stand-up contest, etc.
In an interview following the article’s release, Hitchens quipped (as only he could) that “the salad of letters chosen by the magazine’s correspondence editors criticizing me made me think I could write a sequel called ‘How Some Women Apparently Can’t Even Read’.”
Women may not really like men, but they LOVE a straw man.
In a world where the abortion debate tends to be framed primarily as a curtailment of a woman’s rights, rather than the termination of a human life, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that a rather anodyne speech given by a middling celebrity at an obscure, openly-religious university that peripherally extolled the virtues of motherhood was portrayed as a national call to put women back in the kitchen (where they obviously belong), barefoot and pregnant.
For as much as you hear about the lack of “economically viable” men available to women for marriage these days, you hear considerably less about the lack of women who are “viable” in just about any other way, not the least of which is an apparent abject lack of basic intelligence and comprehension.
I have watched some videos on the street. ‘What do you expect in a man?’ The general rule of thumb was women saw themselves as an 8.5/10. They then said what they want. ‘$150,000 a year. Under 30. Career track. 6’ tall. Big penis. Handsome.’ The interviewer said ‘how many men fulfill this?’ The general attitude was about 20%. The interviewer had to inform them it was under 1%. These young women were average. Very cute to me. But I am 73. Everyone under 30 looks cute to me. And most people under 50. But overall they were very averagely cute. They didn’t have careers or own anything etc. They were destined to rise to the middle of the pack and stay there. Their husbands are going to disappoint them badly. The husbands will fail. They will not become the rock stars they think they’re marrying. I see a lot of divorces in all those women’s futures.
Absolutely. Let's start a petition to have Travis Kelce fired. (His nauseating courtship of Taylor Swift--an outspoken misandrist feminist--was a serious distraction for the team all year.) As far as I know, only one teammate (the redoubtable Chris Jones) spoke up for Butker. Imagine that, allowing your own kicker, who has been responsible for many Chiefs wins, to be mobbed by a bunch of vicious harridans, and without saying a word!!!!
It’s just like in my pharma company in 2020. I spoke the truth about the fakeness of the pandemic and I was shunned, scorned and ultimately fired the next year. The people who could and should have formed ranks with me slunk into the shadows.
I am trying. But it isn’t copying. Google Andy Reid on Butker’s speech. Or same with Patrick Mahomes. CBS News. Whoopi Goldberg defended him too. They all said ‘we can agree or disagree but people have the right to speak their minds’.
OK, that is good to hear. I Googled Patrick Mahomes Harrison Butker 3 days ago, when I was writing the essay, and couldn't find anything recent, just a non-committal comment he'd made in interview some months ago suggesting that he didn't know Butker well. Probably just my bad Google-research skills.
This insight is telling: “Manufacturing outrage is what feminist journalism does best, and its audience is eager for cosplay rebellion and narcissistic posturing even when, as in the case of the speech, the hyperventilating is far in excess of the fact.”
Once we comprehend that feminism is a gender subset of the general narcissistic cultural decay identified by Christopher Lasch in 1979, we understand this instance of feminist rage as a narcissistic injury caused by Butker’s having failed to mirror them.
“Pardon me, Madam, but your penis envy is showing.” 🤭
Meanwhile, in the US House of Representatives, AOC, Jasmine Crocket, and MTG get into a hair-ripping cat fight while a bunch of middle aged men look on and have no idea what to do about it. Keep pushing that feminism. It's going great.
Yes, I saw that. Embarrassing. But women will lead us to peace and prosperity because they're so loving and wise! And the men afraid to put them in their place, sad.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s. In the poor side of Vancouver. It was rough. You say something stupid like that then? You would get punched out. Even your friends would say ‘don’t pick a fight you can’t win!’
Ahh, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton fought in a duel, and I'm pretty sure that Andrew Jackson handed out several beatings while President. A cat fight seems pretty normal in that environment, all things considered.
I do think we make a bit much of female moral superiority and wisdom, though. Some women are wise, some are not. Power affects them just like it does men, inflating their egos and diminishing empathy. Pretending otherwise does not make sense.
The fact that their anger seems to be focused on the fact that he likes and appreciates his wife says more about the motives at play here than they probably intend to reveal.
"Manufacturing outrage is what feminist journalism does best,"
This is the modus operandi employed when feminist journalists are undergrads. In the book Who Stole Feminism, it is documented how Academic Lecturers use psychological techniques to inflame the passions of their highly impressionable and malleable young minds.
Eeva Sodhi (vale) opened my eyes or perhaps more accurately my mind to how researchers with an agenda use research to manipulate people's perceptions and ideas.
Her article Manufacturing Research (archived wayback Machine) demonstrated the use of underhanded tactics to produce research conclusions to match the feminist agenda.
I consider myself a “recovering Catholic”. The church is not for me but I know many people for whom that church is the bedrock of their lives. If anyone is going to disagree with Butker’s comments, they should at least portray his words accurately, agree or disagree. When has it become acceptable to try to get a person fired for expressing his personal and religious beliefs? Who do these people think they are? We need to remember that one of the foundational principles of the US is that I may disagree 100% with another’s stated views, but I will support 100% another’s right to say it. Again, well done Janice in clarifying fact from fiction on his statements. I plan to find the actual full address so that I have an unbiased view of exactly what he said. This may be worth a note to his employer supporting his right of self expression and that should not jeopardize his livelihood.
Janice, I read the speech in the link. Thanks! Again, his views do not square with mine. So what! He actually seems to practice what he preaches, which is becoming more rare these days. If he and others sharing his views attempt to impose their views on me and those who share my views, we can address that conflict in the marketplace of ideas, the ballot box, and the courts if necessary. Meanwhile, Butker is carrying his own weight, appears to care for his family, and is a productive member of society. JFK said it this way, “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet., we all breathe the same air, we all cherish and children’s future, and we are all mortal” June 10, 1963.
So, the perfect observation that the one thing “feminist” writing does the best is provoke outrage. This comports with the whole errand of feminism being about rage and resentment.
There is no justice, no love, no equality, no equanimity, no ideas — there is just rage. And as for those who do not share the rage, they are the "enemy.” And that translates to those calling for love, equanimity, etc.
There is an equation that needs to be challenged: “I’m right because I'm angry.”
If women weren't so miserable, they wouldn't take everything as a personal attack on them.
Women say they are happy working 10 hours a day and being stressed out, but that's a lie.
Before the '60s, women were happy to be homemakers. It was the training, even in colleges. Women learned to balance checkbooks, cook, and raise a family. They were happiest when they were supporting their husbands.
TikTok is full of women crying in the driver's seat about how they work 40 hours a day simply to pay the rent on their small flat and feed the cat, and how unfair it all is. No doubt many of these were among the pilers-on.
They absolutely are among the pilers-on, while they act out their Major Depressive Disorder diagnosis (a badge of honour, by the way...). And it's probably 5 cats.
Women can be very competitive especially with other women. They tend to show it a different way (hence mean girls). I work full time and can't wait to retire though!
As others have said, women are competitive with women...... I think the issue is more that women are not as suited to hierarchies of competency. Every homemaker is queen of her domain. She rules the roost. Men on the other hand have always gone out to hunt or build canals or suspension bridges where they have to slot themselves into a very strict hierarchy (team) where every man has his role to play. You see it with scaffolders or warehouse workers. Men are STUPENDOUS at getting along and getting shit done as a team. There is no treading on eggshells, backstabbing, whispers or resentment. They just get the job done.
I think this is what feminists find so hard about the transition from homemaker to working in wider society. Some women are great at fitting into a hierarchy (and some men are not).... but feminists are those women who are definitely NOT able to work as a team. That is why they are so offended - because to them every social space (the office, university, bus, train, library) is their kitchen (where they should rule the roost) and everyone is an intruder into their domain who has forgotten to wipe their muddy shoes, and mind their language.
Agreed. In hierarchies, the men at the lower end may obviously prefer to be higher up, but understand that the mission takes precedent over any one man's position in the hierarchy.
Women seem to be perfectly willing to dissolve the hierarchy entirely if they aren't where they think they should be. aka, the top. If they can't dissolve the hierarchy, they'll make it very emotionally toxic for everyone involved.
Thank you Janice. A thorough and reasoned analysis, as per usual.
I find the rage-filled vindictiveness towards this man utterly dispiriting, but I guess, not surprising. What seems absurd to me is that he was addressing a CATHOLIC audience as a traditional Catholic! What would they expect him to say?!
On that point, someone (or some people) in authority at the school, elected to invite Mr. Butker to speak. And either 1) they gave him free reign (but presumably are familiar with his staunchly conservative catholicism), or 2) they vetted his speech ahead of time. Either way, these unhinged feminists can take their outrage to the administrators of the college. But of course we know that doesn't interest them, because they've got to make it a public witchhunt. Their nastiness knows no limit, and tolerance, fairness and graciousness are alien to them.
These women attacking all things marriage and motherhood (the uniquely female "superpower") are betraying just how shallow and angry they really are. They need to give their heads a shake. If they think alienating a man who emphasizes what is beautiful about womanhood and motherhood is somehow enlightened, productive and good for society, well, it's "game over" (pun intended).
In the speech, Butker mentioned that when he was first invited to speak, he turned down the invitation because he had given a commencement address somewhere else the year before and didn't think he had much to say, but the leaders of the school convinced him. It's pretty clear they wanted him because he is an outspoken traditional Catholic, and Benedictine is a traditional Catholic (and sports-related) small college. The entitlement of these thousands of women is beyond words.
"Good. I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!" https://youtu.be/WVn-JEIrVBE?si=UCr6JZOJaICSc_CB
Sad, that so many women choose the barren harvest of bitterness and anger, that the feminist disease has infected humanity with.
And shouldn't it be obvious that if the manifestation of a certain way of approaching life is "bitterness and anger" that maybe something is very wrong?! Astounding, actually, that the populace doesn't want to recognize that "the emperor has no clothes".
“I’m not a f---ing homemaker.” Said the harridan who is not likely to ever be that, or a wife, or a mother, or anything but a sad, lonely cat lady drinking wine out of a box while watching reruns of Amy Shumer comedy "specials." Oh, and in case she was wondering about her prospects for a happy relationship with a member of the opposite sex, I'm gonna say, nah.
She'll probably have lots of cynical meaningless Tinder hook-ups (with both sexes if she wants to increase her progressive bona fides), but she'll end up alone, while attacking the men she hooked up with for not "committing" to her (translation: giving her lots and lots of money and stuff).
One of the things that depresses me most about today’s world is the speed at which outrage is weaponized to attack people who have committed no actual crime.
An appropriate response to Butker would have been to challenge the foundation of his argument. Instead we have fanatical females, and their male stooges, yelling lies at the top of their lungs.
Feminists don't challenge arguments because they almost never hope to win a logical and rational argument.
Yes, they're about power, not engagement. They simply want to make ordinary people--and even superstars like Butker--hesitate before articulating even their most common-sense and deeply-held beliefs, aware that there may be backlash. They want every beautiful certainty to seem like a taboo best kept quiet about. Eventually, the range of what can be said (and therefore thought, really) is so narrowed that they win by attrition.
That is indeed part of the intent. The feminists actually say their goal is to change the culture into one that is, to be honest, not only gynocentric but totalitarian in nature. I have had 3 women in their 60's and 70's who have actually independently said to me that the 19th amendment was a mistake given what women have done with political power!
Rest assured that, as a long-term strategy, it's bound to fail. It's the waiting that's most annoying.
Janice, I love your Substack. I discovered it recently and have rather fallen in love with it. I didn't know how much I resented all of this until I heard someone else say it.
I agree, there is such a caste element to all of this. It seems as though feminism has always been the preserve of upper-class women. Given that, I have a question: historically, men have NEVER abdicated the really high-level positions to upper-class women. That's kind of the point of the hierarchy. What happened? Why have they done this? What do you think?
In principle, I suppose I find nothing inherently wrong with them doing this - I generally trust that women in universities and corporations are maxing out the system as best they can, and certainly have the right to play the game as everyone does - but this is certainly historically unprecedented and does not seem to be going very well, at least to me. I don't like it. I suppose that people might say that "history is moving too fast for me", but it's not that, I don't think. I just perceive a lot of the hyper-educated ladies like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren to be, well, untouchable, i.e. beyond accountability or reason, in a way that no man save a dictator in their position ever could or would be.
“They are in it for distance and irritation”
How Alinsky of them!
First I heard of him was when Hillary Clinton was considering running for president. I think she wrote a paper on him in college or something like that.
Anyway, here are his rules. Once you read them, you might be realize hiw they’ve been used on you or your community:
https://www.citizenshandbook.org/rules.html
Tough to challenge his comments. Anyone would lose the argument. Very very few people do work of such meaning that it overshadows the meaning gained through having a family.
I was a woman who never wanted children. I was fortunate enough to find the career I wanted, and I loved it and didn't find it stressful.
But I have no problem acknowledging the deep importance of motherhood. I am not diminished by that. I would object to someone saying that a woman's only possible contribution to society would be through motherhood; but no one is arguing that should be the case--just that motherhood is right at the top.
Absolutely right! How many people honestly "live to work"? I don't believe this to be the case. Feminist women (which I think means most) will pretend otherwise to the death, but it's all to prop up their own ego and power. Those who are older are lying, and the younger ones starting out are brainwashed.
I should add (since the above was fat-fingered into existence before I completed what I wanted to say) that liberty of speech has ceased to be a value for much of the left, and almost every feminist believes in silencing dissent.
No doubt about that. Cancel culture was obviously invented by feminists!
The internet has really amplified the pile-on way of doing things, it's true. But I've read rags from 1890s New York City. "Outrage culture" is nothing new. Now those guys could throw insults around! We're amateurs by comparison today.
The university today plays the role of the church in the Middle Ages, it seems. It has catechisms - "white privilege, climate change, feminism, secularism", an elaborate hierarchy, and it permeates and mediates everything. I grow frustrated with it because of its undeniable power as an intermediary (and knowledge-producing structure, it must be said) as well as its insulation from the real world. It's hard to get a lot of jobs in America without going through it.
"Women's oppression" seems to be code for "a place for women at the universities". It also seems to be code for "suppression of masculinity as understood prior to the year 2000".
That’s well put.
Thanks!
Ask any older person what is most important to them, their careers or their families. I have/had a career to look after my family. I have had a great career(s). I have done interesting things but without a family to do it for it would have been meaningless.
Life without having had children is meaningless? Really?
I would finesse this phrasing. You don't need to have biological children, but you at least need spiritual children -- people who are better off for having known you.
Pretty much, yes.
For the vast majority of people.
Of course your family can embrace a larger community - even the human race.
For some it is.
For some others, it is not.
YMMV.
I think it’s more that very few careers are meaningful enough to fill that spiritual demand.
Some people can find work in charities, or curing cancer, etc. But for the average white collar worker, their career involves working for a company that sells widgets or widget services. Doing that for 40+ years doesn’t create many moments of reflection where you would say “I’m so happy this is my life’s work.”
Totally.
A few years before his death, Christopher Hitchens wrote an article for Vanity Fair entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny.”
In the article, Hitchens argued that women’s general need - and thus, to some degree, their ability - to be funny was considerably less than that of men. Men, on the other hand, generally must cultivate humor to ingratiate themselves to women, lest they be removed from the evolutionary contest and excluded from reproducing.
He conceded that, while some women are very funny, they tend to be “dykes, Jews, or butch” (his words, not mine).
Basically, Hitchens (correctly) pointed out that no woman has ever had to charm her way into a man’s pants. Men are more than happy to allow them in without the need to fulfill some prerequisite humor/entertainment quota.
The response to the article was predictable, and predictably banal, disingenuous, and replete with misrepresentations of his actual arguments and assertions. There were the standard accusations of misogyny, claims of “you’ve obviously never met my hilarious female friend,” challenges to a stand-up contest, etc.
In an interview following the article’s release, Hitchens quipped (as only he could) that “the salad of letters chosen by the magazine’s correspondence editors criticizing me made me think I could write a sequel called ‘How Some Women Apparently Can’t Even Read’.”
Women may not really like men, but they LOVE a straw man.
In a world where the abortion debate tends to be framed primarily as a curtailment of a woman’s rights, rather than the termination of a human life, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that a rather anodyne speech given by a middling celebrity at an obscure, openly-religious university that peripherally extolled the virtues of motherhood was portrayed as a national call to put women back in the kitchen (where they obviously belong), barefoot and pregnant.
For as much as you hear about the lack of “economically viable” men available to women for marriage these days, you hear considerably less about the lack of women who are “viable” in just about any other way, not the least of which is an apparent abject lack of basic intelligence and comprehension.
BOOM! Great stuff, too many zingers to applaud. "Women may not like men that much, but they LOVE a straw man." Oy.
I have watched some videos on the street. ‘What do you expect in a man?’ The general rule of thumb was women saw themselves as an 8.5/10. They then said what they want. ‘$150,000 a year. Under 30. Career track. 6’ tall. Big penis. Handsome.’ The interviewer said ‘how many men fulfill this?’ The general attitude was about 20%. The interviewer had to inform them it was under 1%. These young women were average. Very cute to me. But I am 73. Everyone under 30 looks cute to me. And most people under 50. But overall they were very averagely cute. They didn’t have careers or own anything etc. They were destined to rise to the middle of the pack and stay there. Their husbands are going to disappoint them badly. The husbands will fail. They will not become the rock stars they think they’re marrying. I see a lot of divorces in all those women’s futures.
To be clear, middle is fine. It is a nice life. Middle in India? Not so nice. Middle in Canada. Pretty good. But you don’t fly first class.
Hey, thanks for the article mention. Really a great read.
Threatening someone’s livelihood because you disagree with him in an unrelated field is an abomination.
His cowardly teammates are a double abomination
Absolutely. Let's start a petition to have Travis Kelce fired. (His nauseating courtship of Taylor Swift--an outspoken misandrist feminist--was a serious distraction for the team all year.) As far as I know, only one teammate (the redoubtable Chris Jones) spoke up for Butker. Imagine that, allowing your own kicker, who has been responsible for many Chiefs wins, to be mobbed by a bunch of vicious harridans, and without saying a word!!!!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/harrison-butker-chris-jones-chiefs-32854124
It’s just like in my pharma company in 2020. I spoke the truth about the fakeness of the pandemic and I was shunned, scorned and ultimately fired the next year. The people who could and should have formed ranks with me slunk into the shadows.
How about the coach. Or telling the league the owner should vacate his ownership. Both for not standing by a player for exercising his rights.
Andy Reid defended him.
So glad to hear. Could you link to it, if not too inconvenient?
I am trying. But it isn’t copying. Google Andy Reid on Butker’s speech. Or same with Patrick Mahomes. CBS News. Whoopi Goldberg defended him too. They all said ‘we can agree or disagree but people have the right to speak their minds’.
I believe that Coach Reid and Patrick Mahomes have stood up for Butker publicly.
I just Googled this. Mahomes weaseled a bit but overall stood up for him well. I haven’t checked the coach out.
OK, that is good to hear. I Googled Patrick Mahomes Harrison Butker 3 days ago, when I was writing the essay, and couldn't find anything recent, just a non-committal comment he'd made in interview some months ago suggesting that he didn't know Butker well. Probably just my bad Google-research skills.
I didn't know that!!! Glad to be wrong on that score. I like Andy Reid very much.
Nothing from Kelce, I suppose?
Won;t be able to support the Chiefs any longer. Or the /cowboys, or that matter.
Janice, just brilliant. I take my hat off to you.
This insight is telling: “Manufacturing outrage is what feminist journalism does best, and its audience is eager for cosplay rebellion and narcissistic posturing even when, as in the case of the speech, the hyperventilating is far in excess of the fact.”
Once we comprehend that feminism is a gender subset of the general narcissistic cultural decay identified by Christopher Lasch in 1979, we understand this instance of feminist rage as a narcissistic injury caused by Butker’s having failed to mirror them.
“Pardon me, Madam, but your penis envy is showing.” 🤭
Meanwhile, in the US House of Representatives, AOC, Jasmine Crocket, and MTG get into a hair-ripping cat fight while a bunch of middle aged men look on and have no idea what to do about it. Keep pushing that feminism. It's going great.
Yes, I saw that. Embarrassing. But women will lead us to peace and prosperity because they're so loving and wise! And the men afraid to put them in their place, sad.
The exchange was hilarious though. It was more real than almost anything I see typically.
They are a literal embarrassment. The "future is female" is looking really great...
Didn’t AOC call Greene “baby girl”? I give it a year before the fights become physical
She said to MTG "Girl baby girl, don't even play!" Lol.
Why, may I ask, is it ok for AOC to talk like a sista when she wants to be aggressive?
You mean like a gangsta gal?
MTG would easily kick her ass. Would pay to see it.
MTG reminds me of the girl who threatened to kick my ass at the Stardust Roller Rink when I was 16. I did not show courage.
You have since
We had a Stardust in Vancouver.
I am from Vancouver. I skated at the Stardust in Richmond from '78-82 or thereabouts. Lots of East Van boys there.
That was Lexi from the ‘hood talking.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s. In the poor side of Vancouver. It was rough. You say something stupid like that then? You would get punched out. Even your friends would say ‘don’t pick a fight you can’t win!’
Ahh, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton fought in a duel, and I'm pretty sure that Andrew Jackson handed out several beatings while President. A cat fight seems pretty normal in that environment, all things considered.
I do think we make a bit much of female moral superiority and wisdom, though. Some women are wise, some are not. Power affects them just like it does men, inflating their egos and diminishing empathy. Pretending otherwise does not make sense.
The fact that their anger seems to be focused on the fact that he likes and appreciates his wife says more about the motives at play here than they probably intend to reveal.
Oh, this is so very true. Not to mention the degree of misplaced rage and hostility. Pretty telling.
"Manufacturing outrage is what feminist journalism does best,"
This is the modus operandi employed when feminist journalists are undergrads. In the book Who Stole Feminism, it is documented how Academic Lecturers use psychological techniques to inflame the passions of their highly impressionable and malleable young minds.
Practising and perfecting the art of Demagogue.
Eeva Sodhi (vale) opened my eyes or perhaps more accurately my mind to how researchers with an agenda use research to manipulate people's perceptions and ideas.
Her article Manufacturing Research (archived wayback Machine) demonstrated the use of underhanded tactics to produce research conclusions to match the feminist agenda.
I consider myself a “recovering Catholic”. The church is not for me but I know many people for whom that church is the bedrock of their lives. If anyone is going to disagree with Butker’s comments, they should at least portray his words accurately, agree or disagree. When has it become acceptable to try to get a person fired for expressing his personal and religious beliefs? Who do these people think they are? We need to remember that one of the foundational principles of the US is that I may disagree 100% with another’s stated views, but I will support 100% another’s right to say it. Again, well done Janice in clarifying fact from fiction on his statements. I plan to find the actual full address so that I have an unbiased view of exactly what he said. This may be worth a note to his employer supporting his right of self expression and that should not jeopardize his livelihood.
Good for you. The speech is linked above, in my second full paragraph (after the quotations from the petitioners).
Janice, I read the speech in the link. Thanks! Again, his views do not square with mine. So what! He actually seems to practice what he preaches, which is becoming more rare these days. If he and others sharing his views attempt to impose their views on me and those who share my views, we can address that conflict in the marketplace of ideas, the ballot box, and the courts if necessary. Meanwhile, Butker is carrying his own weight, appears to care for his family, and is a productive member of society. JFK said it this way, “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet., we all breathe the same air, we all cherish and children’s future, and we are all mortal” June 10, 1963.
Thank you. That saves me time!
So, the perfect observation that the one thing “feminist” writing does the best is provoke outrage. This comports with the whole errand of feminism being about rage and resentment.
There is no justice, no love, no equality, no equanimity, no ideas — there is just rage. And as for those who do not share the rage, they are the "enemy.” And that translates to those calling for love, equanimity, etc.
There is an equation that needs to be challenged: “I’m right because I'm angry.”
If women weren't so miserable, they wouldn't take everything as a personal attack on them.
Women say they are happy working 10 hours a day and being stressed out, but that's a lie.
Before the '60s, women were happy to be homemakers. It was the training, even in colleges. Women learned to balance checkbooks, cook, and raise a family. They were happiest when they were supporting their husbands.
TikTok is full of women crying in the driver's seat about how they work 40 hours a day simply to pay the rent on their small flat and feed the cat, and how unfair it all is. No doubt many of these were among the pilers-on.
They absolutely are among the pilers-on, while they act out their Major Depressive Disorder diagnosis (a badge of honour, by the way...). And it's probably 5 cats.
Haha, indeed. Nerves were very much struck.
Women are non competitive.
The workplace is competitive.
Obviously the two don't mix.
Women are best suited towards jobs that simply aren't as stress inducing or competitive, which would include homemaker
Women can be very competitive especially with other women. They tend to show it a different way (hence mean girls). I work full time and can't wait to retire though!
Woman to woman competitiveness is an open sore in our society which is never talked about.
Not talked about in the 'public square' but like many conversations that are not discussed openly, it happens.
As others have said, women are competitive with women...... I think the issue is more that women are not as suited to hierarchies of competency. Every homemaker is queen of her domain. She rules the roost. Men on the other hand have always gone out to hunt or build canals or suspension bridges where they have to slot themselves into a very strict hierarchy (team) where every man has his role to play. You see it with scaffolders or warehouse workers. Men are STUPENDOUS at getting along and getting shit done as a team. There is no treading on eggshells, backstabbing, whispers or resentment. They just get the job done.
I think this is what feminists find so hard about the transition from homemaker to working in wider society. Some women are great at fitting into a hierarchy (and some men are not).... but feminists are those women who are definitely NOT able to work as a team. That is why they are so offended - because to them every social space (the office, university, bus, train, library) is their kitchen (where they should rule the roost) and everyone is an intruder into their domain who has forgotten to wipe their muddy shoes, and mind their language.
Agreed. In hierarchies, the men at the lower end may obviously prefer to be higher up, but understand that the mission takes precedent over any one man's position in the hierarchy.
Women seem to be perfectly willing to dissolve the hierarchy entirely if they aren't where they think they should be. aka, the top. If they can't dissolve the hierarchy, they'll make it very emotionally toxic for everyone involved.
Thank you Janice. A thorough and reasoned analysis, as per usual.
I find the rage-filled vindictiveness towards this man utterly dispiriting, but I guess, not surprising. What seems absurd to me is that he was addressing a CATHOLIC audience as a traditional Catholic! What would they expect him to say?!
On that point, someone (or some people) in authority at the school, elected to invite Mr. Butker to speak. And either 1) they gave him free reign (but presumably are familiar with his staunchly conservative catholicism), or 2) they vetted his speech ahead of time. Either way, these unhinged feminists can take their outrage to the administrators of the college. But of course we know that doesn't interest them, because they've got to make it a public witchhunt. Their nastiness knows no limit, and tolerance, fairness and graciousness are alien to them.
These women attacking all things marriage and motherhood (the uniquely female "superpower") are betraying just how shallow and angry they really are. They need to give their heads a shake. If they think alienating a man who emphasizes what is beautiful about womanhood and motherhood is somehow enlightened, productive and good for society, well, it's "game over" (pun intended).
Well said.
In the speech, Butker mentioned that when he was first invited to speak, he turned down the invitation because he had given a commencement address somewhere else the year before and didn't think he had much to say, but the leaders of the school convinced him. It's pretty clear they wanted him because he is an outspoken traditional Catholic, and Benedictine is a traditional Catholic (and sports-related) small college. The entitlement of these thousands of women is beyond words.
"Good. I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!" https://youtu.be/WVn-JEIrVBE?si=UCr6JZOJaICSc_CB
Sad, that so many women choose the barren harvest of bitterness and anger, that the feminist disease has infected humanity with.
And shouldn't it be obvious that if the manifestation of a certain way of approaching life is "bitterness and anger" that maybe something is very wrong?! Astounding, actually, that the populace doesn't want to recognize that "the emperor has no clothes".
“I’m not a f---ing homemaker.” Said the harridan who is not likely to ever be that, or a wife, or a mother, or anything but a sad, lonely cat lady drinking wine out of a box while watching reruns of Amy Shumer comedy "specials." Oh, and in case she was wondering about her prospects for a happy relationship with a member of the opposite sex, I'm gonna say, nah.
Yes, I thought that was quite something!
She'll probably have lots of cynical meaningless Tinder hook-ups (with both sexes if she wants to increase her progressive bona fides), but she'll end up alone, while attacking the men she hooked up with for not "committing" to her (translation: giving her lots and lots of money and stuff).
The world of Harrison Butker meets the world of Harrison Bergeron, Vonnegut's dystopian novel which begins:
"The year was 2081 and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal
before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter
than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the
211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing
vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."
The role of the feminist is to be such an agent, and has been from the outset. They are simply doing their job. Resistance, however, is fertile.
‘Resistance is Fertile’. Perfect. Well done.