That is sad and unfortunate that feminism ruined your life. Feminism has ruined the lives of many women. There are lots of young women posting on Youtube, in tears over the fact that no man will go near them.
It is sad and unfortunate...but with all due respect, I am NOT sympathetic to the young women complaining that no man will go near them. The phrase, be careful what you wish for, you may get it, applies here. This problem was created by women and it is WOMEN who will have to change to resolve it.
I know I’m coming late to the party here, but i get you. I’ve seen it in my practice and up close and my heart goes out to y’all who took the bite out of the poison apple only to have it turn to ash on your tongue. If you are lucky enough to have Grand Daughters, it’s not too late to influence them.
We the many at the hands, hearts, words and actions of this scourge on culture and humanity, have no time, place or space to be dragged further down. Many of us into and under the ground for a long time. Few survive, many don't.
Thank you for this article and your entire Substack.
As a male born in the early 1970s to one of these radical feminists, the emotional damage has been profound. i've had enough therapy to be generally functional in society but some things will never heal.
And for all those decades I always thought the problem was me thanks to constant gaslighting. Only now with the rise of alternative sites like Substack, safe from censorship, have I learned that I'm not alone and that this philosophy really is as toxic and insane as my instincts were telling me all this time.
Keep speaking so maybe future men will not have to suffer and we can have a truly equal society.
We have a radical feminist here in Australia bringing up.a little boy ..I feel for him. She makes quotes to her followers like "kill all men " and "covid isn't killing men quick enough " when we complain she might lose one grant only to get given something g better .
There are millions here in Australia right now just like him . Any change has to be based on what is happening ' now ' and ' why ', ' what ' is happening, in the absence of just feeling and thinking, as feeling and thinking is the absence of objectivity and action .
We can never disregard our feelings and thoughts, that would not be human. To make any change, first we must look at our own - thoughts, beliefs which are feelings and emotions (e-energy in m-motion is emotion) , and gain access to balanced non opinionated real world researched evidence to prove the fact that relates to your and who you supports life experience.
Janice describes this so well by writing they just ' laugh ' when questioned . It's blatant travesty and contempt for people, period.
Take a look at Katy Gallagher's National Press Club address on IWD. if you're anything like me, you'll last less than a minute to write to her with some no finger pointing unbiased facts from some of the brilliant credible real world child health local publications. Truly blinding to the 2 feminists at the Top and their 2 boys. Think you know the 4 I'm talking about 😉
She is one sick psychopath. Yes studies are coming out showing women just as likely to be psychopath as men. Who would have guessed with feminist false narrative..MEN BAD WOMEN GOOD pushed by legacy media and those in power weakening society through demonising our men. We need to unite against this by calling them out ..
Some less academically-minded folk might refer to the generalized (but not exclusive) negative behavioral differences between genders as "acting like a d#$k" or " acting like a c$%t", but regardless of the linguistics, the idea that one's sex (or any other genetic trait) is somehow a stalwart against acting like a tyrant is downright delusional.
Good for you, Chesterton's Fence. You took a bad situation and went through therapy. You're a better person for it. Mine was a crazy mother, but therapy and self-inquiry has been so good for me. The 'never healing' part is our best friend as a reminder to be good to others. Love to you and all of today's men.
I'm the 53 y.o. son of a closet feminist (she's also a covert narcissist, which shouldn't surprise anyone). I see feminism as female supremacism; gynocentrism on steroids. My mother is proud that one of her ancestors was a Suffragette, whereas I am an ardent anti-feminist. We are poles apart and I make no effort to hide that fact. I make no distinction between the so-called waves of feminism like apologists try to do. They're just different life stages of the same noxious weed, and I can't abide weeds.
I'm 61 years old. My mother was a type of feminist that was very prevalent among boomer mothers. These mothers mostly didn't embrace the freedom of dumping the husband. Instead, they'd encourage their daughters to believe "you want to be a career girl with your own apartment," push their girls into higher education, and denigrate any of the daughter's impulses to want to do the natural thing and marry young and produce children. Many girls I knew in school were getting the same push from their mothers to put school first, and worry about boys later. Or worse, they'd tell us you won't find a boyfriend/husband if you're looking for one.
Compare that to my mom's childhood, where the school and the community would do all they could to encourage the teens to mingle and become accustomed to paring up with the opposite sex - dances, proms, mixers, where one had to bring a date of the opposite sex. Subsequently, it's gotten even worse, with the norm now being proms full of kids going stag or in a group. No wonder there are young people today who think that polyamory is a viable family structure.
My moms' fav show, of course. I'd look at her friend Rhoda (who moved to Minneapolis because she believed the cold weather would act as a preservative and slow her acquisition of the signs of aging) and think, "Nah, I want a nice husband and family."
My mother was indoctrinated into feminism at Carlton University in the late 1970s and has inflicted rampant misandry on me my entire life.
She didn't believe that women were superior to men. She believed that mothers had a duty to psychiatrically cripple ( inflict environmentally induced mental illness ) on their male offspring and sabotage their early education and cognitive development in order that adults females would be able compete with them and dominate them.
For example she thought that mothers should prevent young boys from socializing during the early childhood critical period in which a child needs to find their peer group or they become asocial for life in order that as men they would be completely dependent on females for all social interaction. She refused to allow me to participate in any extracurricular activities until my younger sister, who was 2 years younger and three years behind me in school, got registered in an activity. I wanted to take piano lesions and she flat out told me "no, your sister gets an activity first". She put my sister in gymnastics and then ballet, my mother even took ballet and piano lessons her self but refused to allow be to take classes in either.
But my sister was not interested in either and cried her way out of them. My mother also demanded the school skip my sister ahead and hold me back so that we were both in the same grade. My mother refused to allow me to play D&D unless my sister played also, she had no interest in the game, and if the 9 year dungeon master didn't propose marriage to my 5 year old sister after the game my mother screamed at him and he was never allowed back. She would also encourage grown men to beat me for no reason then the joy of being cruel.
That is a horrible childhood. I too had my self-esteem pummeled, told to stop being so selfish and put my sister first, stop asking for this or that, and so on. It was seen as a sign of "male aggressiveness" to be assertive.
Then later, middle school and high school, being chastized for being passive and indecisive. No awareness of what she had done had consequences.
The only saving grace was that my parents were (and are) still together, so he could do some small measure of counterprogramming though often he was emotionally abused for doing so.
One result has been pretty lonely life, though I do have a good group of close friends. But I always feel more comfortable alone, an old habit of emotional protection.
I think perhaps the key to all this is women's greater anxiety. Cultures all over the world report significantly greater anxiety (neuroticism) on the part of women than on the part of men. That alone guarantees a certain level of unhappiness, but of course, from the beginning, feminism has played on that anxiety (a rapist lurks around every corner, schools and places of employment discriminate against women, so does the political system, the legal system, etc.) in order to gain power for itself. In the process, female unhappiness has increased and will continue to do so. And, parenthetically, the increase in female anxiety calls for ever-greater governmental power to intervene that in turn creates ever-more-intrusive laws and regulations otherwise known as the "nanny state" and that looks more and more like fascism.
On the one hand, feminism pushes women as victims of discrimination which makes women resent imagined discrimination while making their privilege invisible.
Then there are deep parallels with the way feminism manufactures misinformation to cower women into fearing violence when, objectively, it’s less of a problem than it was and less of a problem than it is for men.
In both cases it seems to be damaging women’s mental health.
One way that feminism makes girls & women cower is all the "awareness of domestic violence" (to the point where the word "domestic" which once was associated with warmth and home, is now the word for a particular form of violent crime). Marriage looks frightening in such a light, Meanwhile, hopping into be with randos from dating apps and widespread acceptance of BDSM (as if it's totally normal to restrain or strike someone as an act of love or pleasure), going badly surprises young women.
Wow! Beyond having a great story to tell, you write really well. Even though it illustrates a lot of sad things about our current milieu, it was a very entertaining read.
I argue feminism shares more commonality with communism than it does with fascism. Fascism literally ended feminism in their countries; communist did not.
Fascism originally means the merger of corporate entities and the government bodies. And that's what's happening with how much we are willing to have them take control of our lives.
Nope. What's happening is Jewish Marxist influences. Fascist were nationalistic, religious authoritarian in sense that they understood you need power to destroy another authoritarian (communist) who were internationalist and atheistic. We're currently seeing a mass movement of people unprecedented in the west. Liberal democratic government were downright inept and incompetent at dealing with the communists in their countries. The same liberal democratic government that is inept and incompetent at dealing with wokeism, that has origins in Marxism, thanks to Jewish intellectual at the Frankfurt School And Karl Marx (another Jew), and globalism.
Let's not forget the communist were on the winning side of the war not the fascists.
Zionist jews, yes. Fascism actually evolved into including other aspects tho, the original view of fascism was a totalitarian state combined with corporatism - that's what I meant. And women wanting a nanny state perfectly represents that idea.
The feminist answer to this would be that the fact the world is not a better place only proves that women still don't have ENOUGH power. And round and round we go.
I hate to interrupt the crickets (sorry little guys) but I would say that men waking up to the true nature of women is a positive development. Now back to the crickets ...
It's worth noting that his narcissistic wife walked out on him. Maybe his own narcissism prevented him from satisfying hers. Sometimes the people journalists take seriously disgusts me.
The way that modern feminism engineers so many contradictions, along the lines of men benefitting more form feminism that women do, is by constantly moving the goalposts, often by changing the description of the same phenomenon. Women who are engaging in lots of sex with different men can be described as enjoying sexual liberty - and they can be described as suffering internalized misogyny causing them to sleep with many men to please men as many men as possible, at their own expense. Same thing with skimpy clothing - it liberates women - and it makes them more available for exploitation via the dreaded male gaze.
Asking questions about whether women should reconsider their choices in sex partners or attire is framed as another form of oppression.
And so it goes.
It's not a formula for women's happiness, but it is a very successful formula for anyone/any group that gains advantage from conflict within society.
The problem isn’t just that women move the goalposts, it is that they mistake control over men for a good rather than a disruption of a structure of living that has sustained our species for a quarter of a million years.
I actually think it's more complicated than that. Just as not all women are feminists, not all feminists are women. Many men support feminism, some because of sympathy for women (thinking feminisms goals align with women's goals or desires) others because they see advantage in promoting feminism as a tool to increase divisions within a society. The communists have promoted feminism for a long time, not because women want it or they think it's god for women, but because it causes the kind of social disruption that makes it easier to get a revolution going.
Indeed. I think the way that the dating-apps-soaked youth culture encourages instant hook ups puts the 10% men at an advantage they never had before (earlier generations of girls/women would look at such guys with some suspicion, even if they were getting some tingles). Meanwhile, slower acclimation that would cause a pair of friends to suddenly realize that they've grown towards each other, that would allow the normal guys to be appreciated and pair up, has been memory-holed by the entire current culture.
Feminists denigrate "Disney" romances or fairy tales with the claim they give girls unrealistic expectations about romance being easy and instant. But really, it's the feminists who sell nonsense like there's one right soul mate for each person, or you'll only find love when you're not looking. Cinderella, after an uncomplaining life of household chores, met the prince during a party, but he found her in her workaday life and loved her anyway (the stepsisters conviction that fancy dresses would catch the prince are closer to the form of romance feminists sell). Snow White met the prince by the well, in her work clothes. She did the household chores for the dwarves, and awakened/came back to life thanks to a kiss, later.
The worst lie feminists sell is that you shouldn't rush to settle down. It doesn't take lifelong indoctrination to ruin a woman's chance at happiness. Just get her to ignore biological reality for a key 10 year period (coincidentally, when females are most impressionable to social influence) and her chances of happy family life can be demolished. Then there's a good chance she will be a force for destruction for years to come.
I don't disagree that female selection, influenced by biology, is part of the picture. But another thing that humans have long selected for, if not on the genetic level but on the societal level, is our culture. Sure, women are programmed to try to get the best man, in terms of strength, health and resources, that she can hope to pair up with. But culture used to influence what women and girls would view as possible or likely matches as reasonable to pursue. Also, there were relatives, friends and others who'd act as matchmakers, and encourage taking another look at Tommy over there, he's a good guy and he likes you (I can attest that this kind of suggestion had a lot of power in my view of a boy when I was a teen).
Western cultures fostered mechanisms that encouraged paring up with someone of similar status, intellect and background. We were a culture of married couples, not harems. We didn't have the problem of dating in your 40s, because courtship was something that was part of life briefly, and in youth.
Because of hook-up culture (enabled by dating apps) women have access to brief relationships with the type of men women of earlier eras understood to be out-of-their-league. The captain of the football team and head cheerleader were a trope for a reason. All the girls at school may have fantasized about him, but they didn't have easy access to pursue and contact these guys, the way the 10% get pursued today. Also, because they actually do hook up, girls who are far from top-10% have access to the experience of a fling or 2 or 20 with out-of-their-league guys. This leads the girls to overestimate the kind of guy with whom they'd be a good match. This is what the manosphere calls "alpha widows." (This term had to be coined today because it's such a new phenomenon) After the fling with the quarterback, the 90% of regular guys are even less attractive to her than before.
I also think that this situation is abnormal for the 10% men, who, in earlier eras, would marry a 10% kind of woman, not live a life of endless new hook ups. Back then, "confirmed bachelor" was code for gay man.
Unlike women men do not have an in-group preference. If anything men veer towards a slight out-group preference towards women. Where measured womens' in-group preference runs at about 85%. On any gender related matter it's safe to assume about 70% of the population will favour women.
Absolutely! And, besides the dorito-pedo, the power hungry who focus on politics get more access to power and damage to any mechanisms that might restrict their acquisition of more power.
One form of labeling, these days, is the young supposed activists and rebels who are in complete alignment with the people at the top of the world in power and status, Greta Tunberg is the prototype. An actual protestor would be outside with a cardboard sign, not speaking to assembled big wigs. She's a mouthpiece for the exact things the powerful want, and they all pretend she's a critic.
I think current US gov attempts at censorship are unprecedented, way beyond the CIA's 1960s-style deployment of the concept of "conspiracy theory." With the internet that so many pieces are available for putting together by anyone who has the curiosity and impulse to do so, and it's a lot easier to see which ideas are actually the most popular. In the 60s-90s, the pieces that were available to be found were often planted by operatives with the intention of making people who question look foolish and borderline deranged.
US lefties with power vastly overestimated the popularity of their ideas, believing in a split 50-50. Since 2016, it's been obvious to a wide swath of the public that the split is a lot closer to 90-10 against progressives, revolutionaries, alphabet social engineers. This is causing them to panic and make mistakes, like the short-lived mal-information bureau.
Have you heard the latest critical race justice idea? It's the "white gaze".
The Lotus Eaters interviewed Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum about a play in London where the theatre is trying to organise a whitey free audience.
I love the Lotus Eaters, and I can't believe I missed that one - will definitely check it out. I'm waiting for "even when they're asleep, white people are oppressing us."
International Women’s Day is just the public announcement, display and celebration of what goes on in contemporary Western culture the other 364 days of the year.
The resilience of women is readily apparent when you consider that, despite abjectly lacking the requisite equipment, they’ve been conducting a perpetual, unabated circle jerk for over a century.
Then again, it’s not hard to imagine one engaging in that behavior eventually growing anxious and unhappy, either.
A friend of mine wrote to his Alma Mater to complain about the obvious discrimination of their "women in leadership" program (after they hit him up for a donation to support it!). They replied back to say, "There's no discrimination here, all genders (!!) are welcome to participate in the program". The obtuseness and entitlement is breathtaking.
While I disagree with men(trans or not) participating in women's athletics, I actually think it may end up being a healthy thing in the long run. When one listens to the whining of Riley Gaines about how female athletes opportunities are being taken away when "biological men" compete as women by claiming to be trans, she is failing to recognize that women's athletics only exists because of the feminist desire to create a separate and unequal athletic arena for women to compete in. Women's athletics were not created by adding new resources to create opportunities for women. They were created by depriving many male athletes of opportunities to create sheltered programs open only to women because women could not compete on a level playing field. The same is happening with all these programs to create opportunities for women in science etc. while no such programs exist to create opportunities for men in women dominated fields. So...for women athletes to actually have to compete on a level playing field without gender based protections sends an important lesson. If you want equality, you have to actually be able to perform on the merits and not expect a sheltered workplace based on sex.
I agree female athletics were never something most women would have requested.
All your points about the creation of women's sports are totally valid. Society could certainly live without women's sports. The WNBA doesn't even sell enough tickets to pay for lighting the stadium during the game.
I agree even more about the push for women in STEM, since the fruits of STEM work have serious implications for the health and safety of society.
But I have to say that I don't think Riley can be characterized as a whiner. She and her female team mates entered competitive swimming under one set of rules, then had this change inflicted on them - not just allowing men to compete, but to use the locker rooms (where Will/Lia's physical pleasure was visibly apparent). The school and the swimming organizations pushed the girl swimmers into indoctrination and even psychological counseling to enforce conformity, and threatened them with expulsion from the team. Riley had some very interesting things to say about how Will/Lia demonstrates male instinctual behavior, vs. the girls' female instinctual behavior as the changed was forced into the girls' team. (This video includes the key clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4p05zj314)
And I'd point out that the men who are infiltrating women's sports are not doing it out of any ethical concerns about the negative effects of feminism. These are men who get sexual pleasure from wearing their fetish gear in public(wearing women's clothes - but not just any women's clothes - porn actress style - is a key part of the fetish autogynephilia). The men entering women's competitions enjoy beating women, not just in competition, but also in terms of doing physical harm to their female opponents. Look into Fallon Fox fracturing a woman's skull, or Riley Dennis playing soccer in Australia. Sometimes the woman competitor is not even informed the opponent isn't female.
To get insight into the motives and attitudes of MtFs, I suggest you check out the website peak trans, which has a page that collects writings MTF trans people post about women:
Another thing to check out is the Mr. Menno You Tube video that's a collection of videos posted by MtF individuals, '"In the Ladies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwUe7-4-_TY
i'll leave you with this thought. Trans infiltration of women's spaces is, as far as I'm concerned, disproof of every claim feminism has ever made about straight men supposedly hating and oppressing women. First, because all the amenities MtFs enter were created BY men for women's comfort and enjoyment, and wouldn't have been created by men who hate and want to hurt women. Second, because MtFs do, by their own internet postings and videos, as well as behavior in sports, and attacking women's speaking events, show what hatred of and desire to harm women actually looks like.
I actually agree with you on nearly all these points but stand by my opinion that Gaines is whining without considering the whole situation in historical context. Gaines is upset that men under the guise of being trans invaded a female space against their will and then unfairly took opportunities and awards from them. These are 2 separate claims which need to be assessed as such. First...did trans men invade female spaces against the will of women? Absolutely. On this point Gaines and her supporters have a fairly strong argument but hardly an air tight one. The reality is that WOMEN frequently invade male spaces under the guise of "equal opportunity" without the consent or consideration of men. Examples include women demanding the right to play on men's sports teams if a women's teams is not available. This is just as bad as a man doing the same to a woman's team. Women have demanded the "right" to join teams even such as wrestling despite the clear discomfort this creates for the male wrestlers. Indeed, not only are the concerns of the men ignored to convenience the women, women wrestlers have actually had the audacity to cry sexual harassment and assault from such wrestling competitions when the man performs perfectly valid moves relevant to the sport. In terms of the locker rooms...go to any college bar and you will see women invading the men's rest room constantly because they are unwilling to wait in the line for the women's room. When the men object to this invasion, usually with derogatory language and leers, the women have the audacity to complain to bar staff that the men harassed them! The worst thing that happens to them is the bar may ask them to leave. Bars literally have to have bouncers stationed to try to keep women out of the men's restroom! If a man entered the women's restroom he would be violently assaulted by the women and bar staff before being arrested by police. So...if women are going to demand women's only spaces, they must then show the same respect for men's only spaces. That means if a woman wants to play football or wrestle but there is no women's team, she needs to be told no and have Title IX support that decision. You will note that Riley Gaines is quick to seek legislation to ban trans men and men from participating on women's sports teams...but has not called for a similar ban on trans women and women from participating on men's teams. Rules for thee but not for me is typical of feminists.
The second point Gaines makes is that it is unfair when a trans man or man competes against a woman and wins. Why? As a swimmer, both male and female athletes compete against the same medium for the same distance against the clock. If the "Lia" Thomas is faster than she is, then that is how the cookie crumbles. That is FAIR competition. It is no different than a short man having to compete against a tall man in basketball. The nature of the game favors the person of greater physical stature over the shorter one. In wrestling they try to keep the competition reasonable by having narrow weight classes but height body type still matter. Gaines is unhappy because her great talent as a female swimmer still lands here between 450 and 500 nationally against male competitors. Similarly...most WNBA teams with their "professional" athletes would struggle to compete with a decent high school men's team. Women only excel when in a protected league that removes all the male competitors. Unlike the men's teams who had their sports cancelled to create "opportunities" for women by creating women's teams, the men did not get to compete and lose in a fair fight. They had their sports cancelled because of their sex to make room for female athletes who could not make a coed team against them. Gaines needs to be honest about this.
As for the desire of some of these trans men to compete and harm women...I am sure that is indeed the case in some cases. The same could be said for most statements and actions taken by feminist women whenever men are involved when they seek "equal" opportunity. Should we not call this out as well?
Hi Sadredin, I agree with your points about the invasive nature of feminism, and the one-sided way the feminists & their sympathizers always force "inclusion" in one direction only. I think it's even worse than that, in that feminists are very selective in the places they wish to install women - boardrooms, yes, maintenance work? No.
I think the most serious damage feminists have done to our society has been changes like no-fault divorce, and family court rules that push fathers away from their kids, while forcing the fathers to fund not only the children's but the ex wives' lifestyles. I think the changes to divorce and family law are far far more serious than girls entering boys' sports. First because the girls who wish to do so are very few in number. More serious is that Title IX defunded a lot of high school and college boys's sports, to free up funds to make available sports opportunities for girls, even though, not infrequently, there aren't enough girls at a school interested in sports that enough join to form a team.
I've actually had 2 experiences when a male (each probably around age 20) entered a women's restroom. Both happened in the same public restroom in Portland, Oregon, in the early 2000s. The women did not violently attack either of these guys, didn't even insult them or say anything. In each instance, the women noticed the guy, said and did nothing to him, and rapidly left the facility. In one instance, I was in a stall when the guy entered, and came out to discover a man at the sink changing into women's clothes. The second time, the guy was leaving just as I arrived. Police or security staff, at least where I live, would be unlikely to assault such men, even in the course of forcing the men to leave the establishment, or arresting them.
There are several differences between the situation when girls or women try to get into boys or men's sports, and autogynephiles who go into women's sports. Generally, in the case of school sports, the girls wash out quickly. There were two girls accepted onto US college football teams in the past few years. Each played exactly one play in one game. Neither demanded access to the men's locker rooms, but used the women's, alone. My assessment was that these girls were in it for the publicity.
MtFs who've entered women's sports demand access to the women's locker rooms. MtFs have all the physical advantages males have, vs. women, and in just a few short years, caused some serious injuries, and as I recall, caused 2 skull fractures. The MtFs also make a big point of talking nasty about their female competitors, not in-game smack talk, but in interviews expressing glee about beating women and girls. MtFs as a group, have a high ratio of overt hostility towards women and girls and the capacity to inflict injury in the course of the competition in a way the females can't do to them.
I don't discount the damage done to high school and college sports by adults who changed laws to the disadvantage of the half the population who enjoy and seek to play sports, the boys. I think it's a grave injustice to the boys as well as loss of opportunities to learn team cooperation and maximize their physical fitness.
The demolition inflicted on boys' sports by previous generations of feminists (often males - as not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists) is a grave injustice on many levels.
However, is not the fault of current girls who choose to participate where a girls' swim team is available. If we should not punish men and boys for the alleged sins of men and boys of the past (most of which I believe to have been manufactured for political reasons) then neither should we punish girls who enter existing female teams or competitions, and are not invading boys' spaces.
I have to disagree with your assessment of Riley Gaines, and the situation she finds herself in. She wasn't trying to push into a men's swimming team, a man pretending he believes himself to be a woman pushed himself into the women's team - and the school, and swimming association treated the girl swimmers' complaints as indications that the girls needed mental health treatment as well as indoctrination in inclusiveness. As far as I know, neither of these procedures have been inflicted on on any sports team before, male or female.
I hope you will take the time to watch the video with the clip from her interview on Joe Rogan. Her insights about the differences between how the supposedly transitioned Will/Lia and the girl swimmers behave actually align with the reality that men and women approach problems and goals in very stereotypical ways.
The combination of "self identification" and giving female soldiers extra pay and pension rights as well as nicer quarters has resulted in men identifying as women to boost their pay and conditions! You may recall the men who "gatecrashed" a Florida "women's tech industry recruitment fair" by all claiming to be women or non binary.
Thank you. Yes, I remember the men gate-crashing the (obviously illegal) women's tech industry recruitment fair. There is a MGTOW known as Turd Flinging Monkey, who advises men to identify as masculine-presenting lesbians when they apply for jobs.
Great reading, Janice, and thank you for it. Unhappiness is politically useful and happiness is not. What is woke existence without grievance? We must all be awake to their conditions, and what sods we are not to have noticed them on our own! Sad to say, I know some gay men who take the same view. Grievance builds community and establishes need. Grievance is a demand for concession, consideration, special terms. I am reminded of babies whose cries bring social events to a halt. The baby must be comforted. Only then can other things continue. Likewise the aggrieved. They are very unlikely to abandon their most effective means of social control.
I would add that thanks to feminism we now live in a society that has no core, no central sense of belonging. Women were once the center of life – of the family, of the church, of the town or city. They were the ones who through their sense of tribalism held it all together. But it was a tribalism that created a sense of belonging, of something worth living for. They were also the ones who were the force behind such good works as emancipation in the 19th century, the workers movement of the early 20th century (and abolition as well, it needs to be said). But they did all this on behalf of all of us, because they believed it was the direction society need to go, under the understanding that it was right for all of us.
But since the advent of modern feminism, it has become all about them, and the rest of the world be damned, men and boys in particular. And the world is poorer for it, and much more divided and partisan as a result.
Marxists and their various subgroups identified that women were the core of traditional society, which was an impediment to the revolution. And the nuclear and extended family needed to be destroyed in order to re-create human society into its socialist and thence communist form. Germaine Greer amongst many other british and european feminists of the sexual liberation apostles were explicit about this. They grew from writing pamphlets and books and radical magazines to establish "womens' studies" and thence "gender studies" and infecting Universities. And so we have seen women move from the "right" to the "left" in my adult lifetime. Now they are apparently all for choosing your sex. For the marxists, job done.
Nigel, the promotion of feminist liberty freedom is useful to those who want to sow divisiveness in two ways. It can be portrayed as freedom for women, but flipped into an oppressive form of exploitation (e.g, "male gaze"). By lacking a coherent ideology, feminism can morph to take advantage of current or changing social views about behavior, income, labor and what used to be known as intimate relationships.
Thanks, Gregory! I also turned the video into one of my first Substack articles. It's an incredible novel. (One of my friends, to whom I recommended it, quit after the first 100 pages. James is not to everyone's taste, perhaps needless to say):
Strindberg, the Swedish playwright, also wrote some anti-feminist stories. 20th century: The World according to Garp is at least critical. Garp even gets murdered by a crazy feminist.
I'm pretty sure that many men were behind emancipation and workers' rights. Women were central to the temperance movement, convinced of their own moral superiority.
Women didn't play a larger role than men in the abolitionist movement.
It's just not true that drunk husbands beat their wives systemically. This is feminist propaganda and it's the same today as people who drone on about female domestic violence.
In the 1920, women could work wherever the hell they wanted to. There were tons of universities open to them as well. It's not true that work wasn't open to them.
No, women are not more important to a sense of belonging than men. Why do children with no fathers feel insecure in themselves?
This is simping. Women were never the center of life, nor should they be. Women should be normal people. Maybe with different behaviors, but definitely not the center of life itself. Geez.
No, women don't get to take credit for emancipation. Thats something that Christian groups take credit for, men and women.
Men used to have a sense of belonging from their male friends as much as their wives, but make friendships have been destroyed.
There is just so much reverence of women amongst even antifeminist. It's corny and explains pretty well why feminism took over the world.
I'm sure the general populace embraced feminism because they thought womennwere the center of life too.
Perhaps we as society (and I along with it) DO revere women too much. And perhaps that is the main reason feminism is so hard to fight. But it seems to me that is just the way we are as humans. Which, among other things, explains why so many of us are unable to see through the ridiculous nature of the premise presented in works like The Handmaids Tale. But like I said, that is just the way we are, and fighting that seems just as pointless as feminists fighting against the natural differences between the sexes.
I have to pushback on the ides that reverence of women is inevitable.
It's something that only cropped up in the 19th century and it has strong connection to the rise of romanticism and emotionalism in culture.
I don't mean to say that people should cease being protective of women, that is definitely biologically ingrained.
But statements like "women are the center of life" serve to place women on an unearned pedestal of importance. It downplays the importance of men and overstates the importance of women. Women definitely contribute to society, but men make their contribution as well, and, if we must say that ones sex contribution is greater (which I don't really like saying) I'd have to say that it's probably men's. There's no reason we have to revere women the way we currently do.
In an ideal society, the contributions would be equal, I'd say. Women who bear and raise children make a tremendous contribution impossible to quantify. Men, on the other hand, build the material world, keep it running, and defend it. Today, too few women bother to have children or devote themselves to raising them well (and I say this as a woman who never had children, so I did not do my part and I admit that).
I agree that most womens primary contribution will probably be their children.
However, there have always been women who didn't have children and who opted towards other paths. I'm thinking of nuns and such. Hildegard von Bingen comes to mind. I also think that fathering should be emphasized as one of men's contribution, seeing as how fatherlessness is deleterious to society.
I did not mean to “downplay the importance of men.” Rather I was trying to demonstrate the difference between the roles men and women have traditionally played in society, by stating that women were at the center of the family and the church, rather than at the head, which is where men have traditionally been.
But feminism is now trying to place women at the head of everything, which is a role they are not particularly well suited at playing, as evidenced by the fact that studies show that even women do not want to work for female bosses. But it also means there is no one to occupy the center, or if you prefer the heart of our world and its institutions. And that may help explain why we, as a society, are a lot less centered and united, and generally a lot more hateful and partisan than we have been in the past.
The reason why we are so much more hateful and partisan than in the past is because women are at the center of life right now.
No, women shouldn't be at the center. Women aren't the center of anything.
The world shouldn't be set up to prioritize women. Women need to be seriously sidelined in the world that we live in.
The distinction you make between the head and the center sound like new agey mumbo jumbo.
In the past, women were prioritized less, and men were prioritized more relative to their current positions. They were both pretty much equally prioritized in their respective domains. Women were less of the center than they are now, and it was for the better.
Great article Janice! You really need to turn these posts into a book. And then market that book far and wide! What you are saying really needs to be heard by all. Thanks for what you are doing!
I made this point to Janice a few months ago. And I'd be happy to keep paying my subs if Janice decides to take a substack sabbatical in order to write such a book.Or perhaps the book could be serialised, like in the old days, and subscribers would get to read chapters as they are finished.
The interesting thing for me is that historically the nature of male and female virtues have been very different. Male virtues have tended to be focused on both maintaining an orderly, decent, and honorable society, and on sustaining a family (with some variation depending on where you are; polygyny is frequently a way of demonstrating a man’s ability to sustain a substantial family, for example).
Female virtues have been centered on maintaining the household, organizing the life of the family, and raising children to be disciplined, compassionate, respectful, honorable, and decent. This division of social labor is replicated in society after society (with local variations on the economic activities of both men and women).
Feminism is, among other things, a claim that women should cultivate male virtues, and men adopt female ones. In essence, it’s a claim that all humans are alike. But it is also the contradictory claim that men lack virtues, and all females are virtuous. What it is not is a belief that men and women have different qualities, and natures, and that the cultivation of these is the foundation of a good society, a stable polity, and a decent moral order.
Obviously, there are some women suited to participation in the world of men, and vice versa, and some men and women have sexual orientations different from the norm; all of these combined add up to maybe a twentieth of the total population. Feminists seize upon the exceptions, and claim that they are, in fact, the rules.
A society in which women dominate is going to increase the unhappiness of both men and women because it violates the inherent natures created by the process of natural selection. Virtues constitute the general good, and that is best maintained when men and women are primarily engaged in their natural functions.
Notice how, as feminism has been on the ascent, home life has crumbled - and so have the forms of community organization that women used to tend - parent/teacher groups, scouting even casual trips to the park (e.g., one mom taking all the kids from her block).
There have always been some women more suited than most to the world of men. Feminist propaganda has portrayed the past as a place where women were always under oppressive control of men. Remember "herstory?" Feminists used to teach about historical women of achievement. Now those women are being disappeared in the service of reconfiguring the past in service of goals far beyond feminism, and all the way tototalitarianism.
Feminism functions to create hostility between men and women in order to give feminist women and their simps to present themselves as the only true defenders of women, and thus to acquire social and political influence, and power.
Being a History "buff" I get regular History journals. Have done so for 30 years. As you say lots of female and feminist historians delve into "women's history". And of course find that in the many centuries of Aristocracy there were many powerful, influential and ruling women. Because of course power was a matter of birth, and the vast majority of people of either sex counted for nothing at all. Right up until the industrial revolution the "battle of the sexes" was entirely internal to the aristocracy. Everyone else was busy trying to live.
So it is easy to disprove women rulers are more peaceful, precisely because there is a parade of Queens, Empresses, Duchesses, Princesses, Dowagers to measure against the Kings, Emperors, Dukes, etc. I have just finished reading about the many female rulers in Indonesian and Filipino islands prior to and during the early colonial period. Where ap things were much the same in terms of dynastic and resource disputes as in European history. After all feminist icon Cleopatra 7th was busy with a dynastic civil war with her brother Ptolemy 13th when Ceasar tipped up. The war followed one previously when Berenice 7th had deposed her father Ptolemy 12th! In other words a long line of dynastic carryings on amongst the toffs of Egypt. Which no doubt were inconvenient to the long suffering ordinary Egyptian folk. But disprove any notion of aristocratic women being "silenced" or being "peaceful" nor "oppressed" and certainly not "passive". The more "women's history" finds ;the more the past looks very unlike the feminists depict it.
You make excellent points. I would add that, prior to "no fault" divorce, when marriage was for life, a husband and wife had a lot of incentive to act as a unit in their own individual interests, and the interests of their family. Also, prior to the industrial revolution, married couples were also co-operating economic units such as businesses, farms, or estates. Both spouses had to be familiar with the other's usual tasks to be able to carry on in the face of death, illness or other disruptions. I'd also note that, in American history, I think the average guy had less power than the average gal, because of sentimentality about women being the weaker, more feeling sex. As evidence, I offer this interesting tidbit. When department stores first appeared, so did a form of theft commonly known as shoplifting. Police quickly found that it was women and girls, often pampered, engaging in this theft. Psychiatry came to the rescue, inventing the mental illness of "kleptomania" to explain how these innocent females were tormented by impulses they were took weak to resist.
The queens and aristocratic women of Europe certainly disprove the claim that a world run by women would be a more peaceful place (as do many American inner cities of today, which are functionally matriarchies). Even before I was aware of this history, I always believed that a world run by women would be one in which armistice or cease fire would not be a thing, because of women's capacity for grudge holding.
Feminist icon Cleopatra, like so many other feminist icons (Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meghan Markle) seems to have been completely happy to use her male partner's status to get advantages for herself. I suspect Cleopatra was probably the smartest of the above listed ladies.
And probably more ruthless. I was particularly amused by a "herstory" type trying to find excuses for Cleopatra 7th having her half sister Arsinoe 4th executed. Though of course not bothered that she had her young brother Ptolemy assassinated. The medieval French court had similarly entangled periods with prominent royal and aristocratic women. Catherine de Medici, Ann of Austria coming immediately to mind. And the Byzantines seemed to continue the tangled traditions of Ptolemaic Egypt. While in England the prolonged war between the Empress Matilda and her cousin Stephen for the throne was so devastating neither name was used again as a royal name. "Sugar and spice and all things nice"??
Cleopatra was ruthless, no doubt. (quick aside - have you see Pat Brown's work demolishing the suicide myth? If not, I highly recommend either the book or the videos on You Tube - fabulous!)
I notice feminists often ignore a couple of things about other feminists (or pre-feminist women they hold up as icons). One is when women feminists ride the coattails of husbands, especially when they don't have to. I'm thinking of Hillary and Michelle. Both earned law degrees and could easily have acted as examples of female independence by working outside the White House. But no, they embraced the title of First Lady (Michelle even tried to get herself a separate salary - on top of all the perks of being part of the President's family and his salary). Meghan Markle is another example (when she talks about "giving up my career" playing the "hot" girl roles - age late 30s, I have to laugh). I predict that, even after divorce, she will cling to that courtesy title like grim death.
The second thing feminists ignore in feminist icons is treating other women badly - MM is again famous for staff (if not all, then almost all female) fleeing in droves.
Of course, targeting women who don't align with feminism is not a problem. Perhaps Cleopatra's feminist fans could find excuses to paint Arsinoe 4th as some kind of traitorous trad wife. That would prevent any pesky cognitive dissonance.
I don't think it's accurate to say that feminists don't talk about female historical achievement.
They just engage in cognitive dissonance where, even with the existence of women who did fine in male things, there was still some dominating patriarchy.
When I was in my 20s, "herstory" and high achieving women in history were big topics of feminist conversation. These days, I rarely see it mentioned. I also see a lot of feminist claims about women's historical situation that are completely at odds with the reality of the history.
It occurs to me that both 'polygyny' and 'polyandry' should be updated now that gay marriage is an accepted institution. I shudder to think of the poor lesbian with two or more wives being denied the dignity of inclusive jargon reflecting her bigamist lifestyle choices.
I expect that will come in the UK. Thus far our marriage laws have been changed to tackle child marriage. There is a push to assume marriage exists in cohabitation, partly because so many "muslim" marriages are never legally registered. After that the "gender" brigade will join in and push for multi partner marriage to be legally recognized. There is a remarkable "alliance" between supporters of Sharia and Feminism which seems inexplicable except that both are together to breakdown "western" norms. After such a breakdown.......
Legal recognition of cohabitation coming back is kind of a mind-blower for me. Common-law marriage, defined by law, was disappearing when I was a child.
I hope polygamy is never brought into UK or US law. Divorces are enough of an engine of chaos when there are only 2 adults. Imagine the property distribution proceedings - they'd be measured in decades.
The Latin word for woman is “mulier.” However, traditional usage has not been to use that as the word to describe a feminine equivalent to “virtue.” Instead, what I’ve seen over the years are references to “female/feminine virtues,” or “the domestic virtues.”
That sentence near the end, "The real problem with feminism for women is that it destroyed the positive content of womanhood and replaced it with useless anger", is very succinct and very on point. All the "empowering women" i.e. losing inhibitions, and "fighting patriarchy" i.e. being angry at sex differences, has made life worse for both sexes.
Brilliant, as usual, but perhaps a touch more brilliant than usual. It is the perfect antidote for International Women's Week.
Feminism teaches women that they are innately virtuous and perpetual victims. Anything is permissible provided it conforms to that cardinal rule. A consequence of being innately virtuous is that the only remaining task is to serve yourself. Similarly, being a perpetual victim means that you only need to show concern for your own kind (to be fair, it is not only women who have been seduced by the cult of victimhood, but they led the way). It is a recipe for unbridled narcissism, which is now manifest for all to see.
If women are unhappy, despite their manifold unearned privileges, then they only have their venal selves to blame. Their misery is my happiness, the more the merrier, but I will always make an exception for women of genuine virtue. The rest can drown in their own excrement without any assistance from me because I don't care enough about them to even give a sh*t.
Actually I'm a Tasmanian who was adopted by English immigrants. I'm entitled to British citizenship and am a bit of an anglophile, but I draw the line at pests and weeds imported from Britain. Tasmania is my home.
Begining with the well established fact that the majority of abuse of infants and children is committed by their mothers. And the least abusive is the natural father. This is one of the many "difficult truths" of social work.
We see the same mistreatment of step children by mothers and even rejection of children from a first marriage by the mother in favor of children by her new husband.
It's true that it doesn't put women in estrus, but it probably would put the relationship with the man at risk of dissolution if she starts sticking up for her kid.
Yes. and I think its important to remember that the general context of child abuse is that the risk is much higher in broken or chaotic "families". So despite what feminists claim the "normal" family is very safe with risks rising the more broken and chaotic the family form. Like DV the risks rise also with mental ill health, addiction, alcoholism and intergenerational experience. In this country we had a TV show "Jeremy Kyle", which introduced the wider society to the chaotic maelstrom of all these factors, by exploiting their mess for the viewer. But it did do a service of revealing the reality of the circumstances where domestic and child abuse actually mainly occurs, and what Police and Social services actually deal with, rather than the very exceptional and therefor newsworthy cases that involve "ordinary" apparently stable families.
I've seen clips of Jeremy Kyle, very similar to the US show Maury Povich (famous for the line, "you are *not" the father").
The US shows that I found most illustrative about the disaster of "serial monogamy" were the numerous shows televising small claims cases. (Judge Judy, People's Court, Divorce Court, Paternity Court, Judge Joe Brown, etc., etc.) The parties to the suit would agree to have the case settled on TV instead of court.
They'd air any category of small claims case, (dog bites, withheld apartment security deposit, should there be a refund if the defective dress has visible pit stains?). But their bread-and-butter was adults and exes and new partners keying cars, filing unfounded claims of child neglect, and hair-pulling assaults. The frequency of such cases, and the participants' willingness to air it all before a nationwide audience was impressive in the worst possible way.
I never thought of the adult participants of being exploited, since so many seemed to relish being a TV star (if only for 12 minutes) and revealing to the world the abysmal behavior of the nemesis. Overall, participants seemed staunch in their belief in their own righteousness and the villainy of their opponent.
Weirdly, the other huge category was disgruntled brides whose "special day" was *ruined* by flowers one shade off from the requested color, too few smiling photos in the bridal album, or the DJ feeling entitled to be fed.
All the mayhem revolving around exes convinced me that however much people will claim to be done with the ex, go to the effort of uprooting their own lives and those of their kids, get new partners, the attachment remains unbreakable. Society has made a huge mistake in creating mechanisms that give the illusion that splitting up is a clean break, and has done untold damage to kids by allowing their parents so much latitude to indulge themselves.
True, but the other guy is trying to explain from an evopsych position why step-dad might hurt kids.
Yes, the mother may not stop it for this reason, but why would the stepfather do it in the first place? Evopsych, imo, doesn't provide an adequate explanation.
Well of course the vast majority of step dads don't. It is important to remember that though they are next, after natural mothers. Child abuse is not nearly as common as feminists claim.
Good points. I think more explanatory power is in boring things like step parents are a bit more likely feel they aren't responsible for their step children (or indeed defer to the natural parents) and perhaps resent the competition for attention/affection. And of course the vast majority of step fathers are not abusive at all.
Right now, there's a trial going on in the UK. A woman called Constance Marten, is accused of manslaughter over the death of her fifth child, a baby girl.
The feminist commentary painting her as the victim is already in over- drive.
I have read it all now, brilliant. One of your very best. Great conclusion, too. I know a lot of men today who actively pursue virtue and self-mastery (lets call it stoicism, a la Epictetus), but I know zero feminist/activist types, who even know what stoicism or virtue even is (my immediate family and professional circles are replete with women who practice self-mastery and de facto stoicism). The feminist/activist type appears exclusively interested in studying and stoking grievance.
You have done some fantastic work over the years Janice but this could be your best. Deep in my own psyche there is a heavy cost for the transgressions in my life which are only somewhat compensated by the good deeds I have done for others. Nothing I do for myself matters. For most people this becomes self evident when you become a parent. Giving is the elixir of life and feminism does nothing but take.
Thank you Janice, please understand the light you bring to dark corners.
I for one will NOT be attending our local IWD event. Feminism wrecked my life; at 71, I suffer the benefit of hindsight to know this for a fact.
That is sad and unfortunate that feminism ruined your life. Feminism has ruined the lives of many women. There are lots of young women posting on Youtube, in tears over the fact that no man will go near them.
It is sad and unfortunate...but with all due respect, I am NOT sympathetic to the young women complaining that no man will go near them. The phrase, be careful what you wish for, you may get it, applies here. This problem was created by women and it is WOMEN who will have to change to resolve it.
100% correct.
Hahahaha!
I know I’m coming late to the party here, but i get you. I’ve seen it in my practice and up close and my heart goes out to y’all who took the bite out of the poison apple only to have it turn to ash on your tongue. If you are lucky enough to have Grand Daughters, it’s not too late to influence them.
Thanks, Chuck.
It's not a story that can be summed up in a comment, nor even an essay. One day I might actually attempt a memoir.
We the many at the hands, hearts, words and actions of this scourge on culture and humanity, have no time, place or space to be dragged further down. Many of us into and under the ground for a long time. Few survive, many don't.
Actions speak louder than words ❤️🙏🏼🕊️
So would I.
Thank you for this article and your entire Substack.
As a male born in the early 1970s to one of these radical feminists, the emotional damage has been profound. i've had enough therapy to be generally functional in society but some things will never heal.
And for all those decades I always thought the problem was me thanks to constant gaslighting. Only now with the rise of alternative sites like Substack, safe from censorship, have I learned that I'm not alone and that this philosophy really is as toxic and insane as my instincts were telling me all this time.
Keep speaking so maybe future men will not have to suffer and we can have a truly equal society.
We have a radical feminist here in Australia bringing up.a little boy ..I feel for him. She makes quotes to her followers like "kill all men " and "covid isn't killing men quick enough " when we complain she might lose one grant only to get given something g better .
That poor child. It's horrible to grow up with a parent who hates what you are and cannot change.
Worse, it is conceivable that she might try to change the child's sex. Is the poor soul on the At Risk Register?
That’s definitely the case.
There are millions here in Australia right now just like him . Any change has to be based on what is happening ' now ' and ' why ', ' what ' is happening, in the absence of just feeling and thinking, as feeling and thinking is the absence of objectivity and action .
We can never disregard our feelings and thoughts, that would not be human. To make any change, first we must look at our own - thoughts, beliefs which are feelings and emotions (e-energy in m-motion is emotion) , and gain access to balanced non opinionated real world researched evidence to prove the fact that relates to your and who you supports life experience.
Janice describes this so well by writing they just ' laugh ' when questioned . It's blatant travesty and contempt for people, period.
Take a look at Katy Gallagher's National Press Club address on IWD. if you're anything like me, you'll last less than a minute to write to her with some no finger pointing unbiased facts from some of the brilliant credible real world child health local publications. Truly blinding to the 2 feminists at the Top and their 2 boys. Think you know the 4 I'm talking about 😉
Let me guess... Clementine Ford?
She's also written a book deriding "mateship" among males. How's that for an attempt to isolate men?
She is one sick psychopath. Yes studies are coming out showing women just as likely to be psychopath as men. Who would have guessed with feminist false narrative..MEN BAD WOMEN GOOD pushed by legacy media and those in power weakening society through demonising our men. We need to unite against this by calling them out ..
Some less academically-minded folk might refer to the generalized (but not exclusive) negative behavioral differences between genders as "acting like a d#$k" or " acting like a c$%t", but regardless of the linguistics, the idea that one's sex (or any other genetic trait) is somehow a stalwart against acting like a tyrant is downright delusional.
"Why are men lonely!?"
I suspect that her son will grow up to be a highly disturbed individual.
That is horrific. I wish we couls save him. Hopefully there is someone around who can set a good male example he will remember, someday.
Good for you, Chesterton's Fence. You took a bad situation and went through therapy. You're a better person for it. Mine was a crazy mother, but therapy and self-inquiry has been so good for me. The 'never healing' part is our best friend as a reminder to be good to others. Love to you and all of today's men.
🙏
Have you read Janices book, the Sons of Feminism?
I have not, but it's going on my to-buy list now 😀
It would in my opinion be very interesting to interview the adult children of last centuries feminists.
I'm the 53 y.o. son of a closet feminist (she's also a covert narcissist, which shouldn't surprise anyone). I see feminism as female supremacism; gynocentrism on steroids. My mother is proud that one of her ancestors was a Suffragette, whereas I am an ardent anti-feminist. We are poles apart and I make no effort to hide that fact. I make no distinction between the so-called waves of feminism like apologists try to do. They're just different life stages of the same noxious weed, and I can't abide weeds.
The thread that holds them together is the use of relational aggression tactics and their antipathy towards men.
You are right, of course.
I'm 61 years old. My mother was a type of feminist that was very prevalent among boomer mothers. These mothers mostly didn't embrace the freedom of dumping the husband. Instead, they'd encourage their daughters to believe "you want to be a career girl with your own apartment," push their girls into higher education, and denigrate any of the daughter's impulses to want to do the natural thing and marry young and produce children. Many girls I knew in school were getting the same push from their mothers to put school first, and worry about boys later. Or worse, they'd tell us you won't find a boyfriend/husband if you're looking for one.
Compare that to my mom's childhood, where the school and the community would do all they could to encourage the teens to mingle and become accustomed to paring up with the opposite sex - dances, proms, mixers, where one had to bring a date of the opposite sex. Subsequently, it's gotten even worse, with the norm now being proms full of kids going stag or in a group. No wonder there are young people today who think that polyamory is a viable family structure.
My moms' fav show, of course. I'd look at her friend Rhoda (who moved to Minneapolis because she believed the cold weather would act as a preservative and slow her acquisition of the signs of aging) and think, "Nah, I want a nice husband and family."
No but will try to get it
Yes, it is a common story.
My mother was indoctrinated into feminism at Carlton University in the late 1970s and has inflicted rampant misandry on me my entire life.
She didn't believe that women were superior to men. She believed that mothers had a duty to psychiatrically cripple ( inflict environmentally induced mental illness ) on their male offspring and sabotage their early education and cognitive development in order that adults females would be able compete with them and dominate them.
For example she thought that mothers should prevent young boys from socializing during the early childhood critical period in which a child needs to find their peer group or they become asocial for life in order that as men they would be completely dependent on females for all social interaction. She refused to allow me to participate in any extracurricular activities until my younger sister, who was 2 years younger and three years behind me in school, got registered in an activity. I wanted to take piano lesions and she flat out told me "no, your sister gets an activity first". She put my sister in gymnastics and then ballet, my mother even took ballet and piano lessons her self but refused to allow be to take classes in either.
But my sister was not interested in either and cried her way out of them. My mother also demanded the school skip my sister ahead and hold me back so that we were both in the same grade. My mother refused to allow me to play D&D unless my sister played also, she had no interest in the game, and if the 9 year dungeon master didn't propose marriage to my 5 year old sister after the game my mother screamed at him and he was never allowed back. She would also encourage grown men to beat me for no reason then the joy of being cruel.
Hats off to a fellow D&D player!
That is a horrible childhood. I too had my self-esteem pummeled, told to stop being so selfish and put my sister first, stop asking for this or that, and so on. It was seen as a sign of "male aggressiveness" to be assertive.
Then later, middle school and high school, being chastized for being passive and indecisive. No awareness of what she had done had consequences.
The only saving grace was that my parents were (and are) still together, so he could do some small measure of counterprogramming though often he was emotionally abused for doing so.
One result has been pretty lonely life, though I do have a good group of close friends. But I always feel more comfortable alone, an old habit of emotional protection.
Great strength and insight you have. Thank you for sharing. ☺️❤️👍🏼
I think perhaps the key to all this is women's greater anxiety. Cultures all over the world report significantly greater anxiety (neuroticism) on the part of women than on the part of men. That alone guarantees a certain level of unhappiness, but of course, from the beginning, feminism has played on that anxiety (a rapist lurks around every corner, schools and places of employment discriminate against women, so does the political system, the legal system, etc.) in order to gain power for itself. In the process, female unhappiness has increased and will continue to do so. And, parenthetically, the increase in female anxiety calls for ever-greater governmental power to intervene that in turn creates ever-more-intrusive laws and regulations otherwise known as the "nanny state" and that looks more and more like fascism.
Great point.
On the one hand, feminism pushes women as victims of discrimination which makes women resent imagined discrimination while making their privilege invisible.
Then there are deep parallels with the way feminism manufactures misinformation to cower women into fearing violence when, objectively, it’s less of a problem than it was and less of a problem than it is for men.
In both cases it seems to be damaging women’s mental health.
One way that feminism makes girls & women cower is all the "awareness of domestic violence" (to the point where the word "domestic" which once was associated with warmth and home, is now the word for a particular form of violent crime). Marriage looks frightening in such a light, Meanwhile, hopping into be with randos from dating apps and widespread acceptance of BDSM (as if it's totally normal to restrain or strike someone as an act of love or pleasure), going badly surprises young women.
Wow! Beyond having a great story to tell, you write really well. Even though it illustrates a lot of sad things about our current milieu, it was a very entertaining read.
I argue feminism shares more commonality with communism than it does with fascism. Fascism literally ended feminism in their countries; communist did not.
Fascism originally means the merger of corporate entities and the government bodies. And that's what's happening with how much we are willing to have them take control of our lives.
Nope. What's happening is Jewish Marxist influences. Fascist were nationalistic, religious authoritarian in sense that they understood you need power to destroy another authoritarian (communist) who were internationalist and atheistic. We're currently seeing a mass movement of people unprecedented in the west. Liberal democratic government were downright inept and incompetent at dealing with the communists in their countries. The same liberal democratic government that is inept and incompetent at dealing with wokeism, that has origins in Marxism, thanks to Jewish intellectual at the Frankfurt School And Karl Marx (another Jew), and globalism.
Let's not forget the communist were on the winning side of the war not the fascists.
Zionist jews, yes. Fascism actually evolved into including other aspects tho, the original view of fascism was a totalitarian state combined with corporatism - that's what I meant. And women wanting a nanny state perfectly represents that idea.
Thank you for saying this.
Yep. And I would ask, now that women have so much power, show me please, how is the world a better place? Even a little. One example...anyone?
The feminist answer to this would be that the fact the world is not a better place only proves that women still don't have ENOUGH power. And round and round we go.
Exactly, just like soviet communism failed because there wan't enough communism.
Real feminism has never been tried!
That is like defending Hitler by saying real Nazism was never tried.
You got me laughing there, thanks Da.
I hate to interrupt the crickets (sorry little guys) but I would say that men waking up to the true nature of women is a positive development. Now back to the crickets ...
Just check the homeless encampments across Canada. Mainly white and Indigenous men who are excluded from Turdeau Catro's feminist utopia.
It's worth noting that his narcissistic wife walked out on him. Maybe his own narcissism prevented him from satisfying hers. Sometimes the people journalists take seriously disgusts me.
The way that modern feminism engineers so many contradictions, along the lines of men benefitting more form feminism that women do, is by constantly moving the goalposts, often by changing the description of the same phenomenon. Women who are engaging in lots of sex with different men can be described as enjoying sexual liberty - and they can be described as suffering internalized misogyny causing them to sleep with many men to please men as many men as possible, at their own expense. Same thing with skimpy clothing - it liberates women - and it makes them more available for exploitation via the dreaded male gaze.
Asking questions about whether women should reconsider their choices in sex partners or attire is framed as another form of oppression.
And so it goes.
It's not a formula for women's happiness, but it is a very successful formula for anyone/any group that gains advantage from conflict within society.
The problem isn’t just that women move the goalposts, it is that they mistake control over men for a good rather than a disruption of a structure of living that has sustained our species for a quarter of a million years.
I actually think it's more complicated than that. Just as not all women are feminists, not all feminists are women. Many men support feminism, some because of sympathy for women (thinking feminisms goals align with women's goals or desires) others because they see advantage in promoting feminism as a tool to increase divisions within a society. The communists have promoted feminism for a long time, not because women want it or they think it's god for women, but because it causes the kind of social disruption that makes it easier to get a revolution going.
The manosphere calls these men "White Knights"... Laboring under the delusion that supporting feminism will get them laid...
Indeed. I think the way that the dating-apps-soaked youth culture encourages instant hook ups puts the 10% men at an advantage they never had before (earlier generations of girls/women would look at such guys with some suspicion, even if they were getting some tingles). Meanwhile, slower acclimation that would cause a pair of friends to suddenly realize that they've grown towards each other, that would allow the normal guys to be appreciated and pair up, has been memory-holed by the entire current culture.
Feminists denigrate "Disney" romances or fairy tales with the claim they give girls unrealistic expectations about romance being easy and instant. But really, it's the feminists who sell nonsense like there's one right soul mate for each person, or you'll only find love when you're not looking. Cinderella, after an uncomplaining life of household chores, met the prince during a party, but he found her in her workaday life and loved her anyway (the stepsisters conviction that fancy dresses would catch the prince are closer to the form of romance feminists sell). Snow White met the prince by the well, in her work clothes. She did the household chores for the dwarves, and awakened/came back to life thanks to a kiss, later.
The worst lie feminists sell is that you shouldn't rush to settle down. It doesn't take lifelong indoctrination to ruin a woman's chance at happiness. Just get her to ignore biological reality for a key 10 year period (coincidentally, when females are most impressionable to social influence) and her chances of happy family life can be demolished. Then there's a good chance she will be a force for destruction for years to come.
Keep in mind that the oppressors of Cinderella and Snow White were not the male characters...but other WOMEN pursuing their own self serving agendas.
I don't disagree that female selection, influenced by biology, is part of the picture. But another thing that humans have long selected for, if not on the genetic level but on the societal level, is our culture. Sure, women are programmed to try to get the best man, in terms of strength, health and resources, that she can hope to pair up with. But culture used to influence what women and girls would view as possible or likely matches as reasonable to pursue. Also, there were relatives, friends and others who'd act as matchmakers, and encourage taking another look at Tommy over there, he's a good guy and he likes you (I can attest that this kind of suggestion had a lot of power in my view of a boy when I was a teen).
Western cultures fostered mechanisms that encouraged paring up with someone of similar status, intellect and background. We were a culture of married couples, not harems. We didn't have the problem of dating in your 40s, because courtship was something that was part of life briefly, and in youth.
Because of hook-up culture (enabled by dating apps) women have access to brief relationships with the type of men women of earlier eras understood to be out-of-their-league. The captain of the football team and head cheerleader were a trope for a reason. All the girls at school may have fantasized about him, but they didn't have easy access to pursue and contact these guys, the way the 10% get pursued today. Also, because they actually do hook up, girls who are far from top-10% have access to the experience of a fling or 2 or 20 with out-of-their-league guys. This leads the girls to overestimate the kind of guy with whom they'd be a good match. This is what the manosphere calls "alpha widows." (This term had to be coined today because it's such a new phenomenon) After the fling with the quarterback, the 90% of regular guys are even less attractive to her than before.
I also think that this situation is abnormal for the 10% men, who, in earlier eras, would marry a 10% kind of woman, not live a life of endless new hook ups. Back then, "confirmed bachelor" was code for gay man.
Unlike women men do not have an in-group preference. If anything men veer towards a slight out-group preference towards women. Where measured womens' in-group preference runs at about 85%. On any gender related matter it's safe to assume about 70% of the population will favour women.
That’s a great point.
Absolutely! And, besides the dorito-pedo, the power hungry who focus on politics get more access to power and damage to any mechanisms that might restrict their acquisition of more power.
Thanks, your's too.
One form of labeling, these days, is the young supposed activists and rebels who are in complete alignment with the people at the top of the world in power and status, Greta Tunberg is the prototype. An actual protestor would be outside with a cardboard sign, not speaking to assembled big wigs. She's a mouthpiece for the exact things the powerful want, and they all pretend she's a critic.
I think current US gov attempts at censorship are unprecedented, way beyond the CIA's 1960s-style deployment of the concept of "conspiracy theory." With the internet that so many pieces are available for putting together by anyone who has the curiosity and impulse to do so, and it's a lot easier to see which ideas are actually the most popular. In the 60s-90s, the pieces that were available to be found were often planted by operatives with the intention of making people who question look foolish and borderline deranged.
US lefties with power vastly overestimated the popularity of their ideas, believing in a split 50-50. Since 2016, it's been obvious to a wide swath of the public that the split is a lot closer to 90-10 against progressives, revolutionaries, alphabet social engineers. This is causing them to panic and make mistakes, like the short-lived mal-information bureau.
Have you heard the latest critical race justice idea? It's the "white gaze".
The Lotus Eaters interviewed Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum about a play in London where the theatre is trying to organise a whitey free audience.
I love the Lotus Eaters, and I can't believe I missed that one - will definitely check it out. I'm waiting for "even when they're asleep, white people are oppressing us."
International Women’s Day is just the public announcement, display and celebration of what goes on in contemporary Western culture the other 364 days of the year.
The resilience of women is readily apparent when you consider that, despite abjectly lacking the requisite equipment, they’ve been conducting a perpetual, unabated circle jerk for over a century.
Then again, it’s not hard to imagine one engaging in that behavior eventually growing anxious and unhappy, either.
That’s “circle jill”
“International Women’s Day is just a pubic…”?
A friend of mine wrote to his Alma Mater to complain about the obvious discrimination of their "women in leadership" program (after they hit him up for a donation to support it!). They replied back to say, "There's no discrimination here, all genders (!!) are welcome to participate in the program". The obtuseness and entitlement is breathtaking.
I hope the men who pretend to be women make a mockery of the program.
While I disagree with men(trans or not) participating in women's athletics, I actually think it may end up being a healthy thing in the long run. When one listens to the whining of Riley Gaines about how female athletes opportunities are being taken away when "biological men" compete as women by claiming to be trans, she is failing to recognize that women's athletics only exists because of the feminist desire to create a separate and unequal athletic arena for women to compete in. Women's athletics were not created by adding new resources to create opportunities for women. They were created by depriving many male athletes of opportunities to create sheltered programs open only to women because women could not compete on a level playing field. The same is happening with all these programs to create opportunities for women in science etc. while no such programs exist to create opportunities for men in women dominated fields. So...for women athletes to actually have to compete on a level playing field without gender based protections sends an important lesson. If you want equality, you have to actually be able to perform on the merits and not expect a sheltered workplace based on sex.
I agree female athletics were never something most women would have requested.
All your points about the creation of women's sports are totally valid. Society could certainly live without women's sports. The WNBA doesn't even sell enough tickets to pay for lighting the stadium during the game.
I agree even more about the push for women in STEM, since the fruits of STEM work have serious implications for the health and safety of society.
But I have to say that I don't think Riley can be characterized as a whiner. She and her female team mates entered competitive swimming under one set of rules, then had this change inflicted on them - not just allowing men to compete, but to use the locker rooms (where Will/Lia's physical pleasure was visibly apparent). The school and the swimming organizations pushed the girl swimmers into indoctrination and even psychological counseling to enforce conformity, and threatened them with expulsion from the team. Riley had some very interesting things to say about how Will/Lia demonstrates male instinctual behavior, vs. the girls' female instinctual behavior as the changed was forced into the girls' team. (This video includes the key clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4p05zj314)
And I'd point out that the men who are infiltrating women's sports are not doing it out of any ethical concerns about the negative effects of feminism. These are men who get sexual pleasure from wearing their fetish gear in public(wearing women's clothes - but not just any women's clothes - porn actress style - is a key part of the fetish autogynephilia). The men entering women's competitions enjoy beating women, not just in competition, but also in terms of doing physical harm to their female opponents. Look into Fallon Fox fracturing a woman's skull, or Riley Dennis playing soccer in Australia. Sometimes the woman competitor is not even informed the opponent isn't female.
To get insight into the motives and attitudes of MtFs, I suggest you check out the website peak trans, which has a page that collects writings MTF trans people post about women:
https://www.peaktrans.org/terf-is-a-slur/
Another thing to check out is the Mr. Menno You Tube video that's a collection of videos posted by MtF individuals, '"In the Ladies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwUe7-4-_TY
i'll leave you with this thought. Trans infiltration of women's spaces is, as far as I'm concerned, disproof of every claim feminism has ever made about straight men supposedly hating and oppressing women. First, because all the amenities MtFs enter were created BY men for women's comfort and enjoyment, and wouldn't have been created by men who hate and want to hurt women. Second, because MtFs do, by their own internet postings and videos, as well as behavior in sports, and attacking women's speaking events, show what hatred of and desire to harm women actually looks like.
Hi Trish,
I actually agree with you on nearly all these points but stand by my opinion that Gaines is whining without considering the whole situation in historical context. Gaines is upset that men under the guise of being trans invaded a female space against their will and then unfairly took opportunities and awards from them. These are 2 separate claims which need to be assessed as such. First...did trans men invade female spaces against the will of women? Absolutely. On this point Gaines and her supporters have a fairly strong argument but hardly an air tight one. The reality is that WOMEN frequently invade male spaces under the guise of "equal opportunity" without the consent or consideration of men. Examples include women demanding the right to play on men's sports teams if a women's teams is not available. This is just as bad as a man doing the same to a woman's team. Women have demanded the "right" to join teams even such as wrestling despite the clear discomfort this creates for the male wrestlers. Indeed, not only are the concerns of the men ignored to convenience the women, women wrestlers have actually had the audacity to cry sexual harassment and assault from such wrestling competitions when the man performs perfectly valid moves relevant to the sport. In terms of the locker rooms...go to any college bar and you will see women invading the men's rest room constantly because they are unwilling to wait in the line for the women's room. When the men object to this invasion, usually with derogatory language and leers, the women have the audacity to complain to bar staff that the men harassed them! The worst thing that happens to them is the bar may ask them to leave. Bars literally have to have bouncers stationed to try to keep women out of the men's restroom! If a man entered the women's restroom he would be violently assaulted by the women and bar staff before being arrested by police. So...if women are going to demand women's only spaces, they must then show the same respect for men's only spaces. That means if a woman wants to play football or wrestle but there is no women's team, she needs to be told no and have Title IX support that decision. You will note that Riley Gaines is quick to seek legislation to ban trans men and men from participating on women's sports teams...but has not called for a similar ban on trans women and women from participating on men's teams. Rules for thee but not for me is typical of feminists.
The second point Gaines makes is that it is unfair when a trans man or man competes against a woman and wins. Why? As a swimmer, both male and female athletes compete against the same medium for the same distance against the clock. If the "Lia" Thomas is faster than she is, then that is how the cookie crumbles. That is FAIR competition. It is no different than a short man having to compete against a tall man in basketball. The nature of the game favors the person of greater physical stature over the shorter one. In wrestling they try to keep the competition reasonable by having narrow weight classes but height body type still matter. Gaines is unhappy because her great talent as a female swimmer still lands here between 450 and 500 nationally against male competitors. Similarly...most WNBA teams with their "professional" athletes would struggle to compete with a decent high school men's team. Women only excel when in a protected league that removes all the male competitors. Unlike the men's teams who had their sports cancelled to create "opportunities" for women by creating women's teams, the men did not get to compete and lose in a fair fight. They had their sports cancelled because of their sex to make room for female athletes who could not make a coed team against them. Gaines needs to be honest about this.
As for the desire of some of these trans men to compete and harm women...I am sure that is indeed the case in some cases. The same could be said for most statements and actions taken by feminist women whenever men are involved when they seek "equal" opportunity. Should we not call this out as well?
Hope this makes sense.
Hi Sadredin, I agree with your points about the invasive nature of feminism, and the one-sided way the feminists & their sympathizers always force "inclusion" in one direction only. I think it's even worse than that, in that feminists are very selective in the places they wish to install women - boardrooms, yes, maintenance work? No.
I think the most serious damage feminists have done to our society has been changes like no-fault divorce, and family court rules that push fathers away from their kids, while forcing the fathers to fund not only the children's but the ex wives' lifestyles. I think the changes to divorce and family law are far far more serious than girls entering boys' sports. First because the girls who wish to do so are very few in number. More serious is that Title IX defunded a lot of high school and college boys's sports, to free up funds to make available sports opportunities for girls, even though, not infrequently, there aren't enough girls at a school interested in sports that enough join to form a team.
I've actually had 2 experiences when a male (each probably around age 20) entered a women's restroom. Both happened in the same public restroom in Portland, Oregon, in the early 2000s. The women did not violently attack either of these guys, didn't even insult them or say anything. In each instance, the women noticed the guy, said and did nothing to him, and rapidly left the facility. In one instance, I was in a stall when the guy entered, and came out to discover a man at the sink changing into women's clothes. The second time, the guy was leaving just as I arrived. Police or security staff, at least where I live, would be unlikely to assault such men, even in the course of forcing the men to leave the establishment, or arresting them.
There are several differences between the situation when girls or women try to get into boys or men's sports, and autogynephiles who go into women's sports. Generally, in the case of school sports, the girls wash out quickly. There were two girls accepted onto US college football teams in the past few years. Each played exactly one play in one game. Neither demanded access to the men's locker rooms, but used the women's, alone. My assessment was that these girls were in it for the publicity.
MtFs who've entered women's sports demand access to the women's locker rooms. MtFs have all the physical advantages males have, vs. women, and in just a few short years, caused some serious injuries, and as I recall, caused 2 skull fractures. The MtFs also make a big point of talking nasty about their female competitors, not in-game smack talk, but in interviews expressing glee about beating women and girls. MtFs as a group, have a high ratio of overt hostility towards women and girls and the capacity to inflict injury in the course of the competition in a way the females can't do to them.
I don't discount the damage done to high school and college sports by adults who changed laws to the disadvantage of the half the population who enjoy and seek to play sports, the boys. I think it's a grave injustice to the boys as well as loss of opportunities to learn team cooperation and maximize their physical fitness.
The demolition inflicted on boys' sports by previous generations of feminists (often males - as not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists) is a grave injustice on many levels.
However, is not the fault of current girls who choose to participate where a girls' swim team is available. If we should not punish men and boys for the alleged sins of men and boys of the past (most of which I believe to have been manufactured for political reasons) then neither should we punish girls who enter existing female teams or competitions, and are not invading boys' spaces.
I have to disagree with your assessment of Riley Gaines, and the situation she finds herself in. She wasn't trying to push into a men's swimming team, a man pretending he believes himself to be a woman pushed himself into the women's team - and the school, and swimming association treated the girl swimmers' complaints as indications that the girls needed mental health treatment as well as indoctrination in inclusiveness. As far as I know, neither of these procedures have been inflicted on on any sports team before, male or female.
I hope you will take the time to watch the video with the clip from her interview on Joe Rogan. Her insights about the differences between how the supposedly transitioned Will/Lia and the girl swimmers behave actually align with the reality that men and women approach problems and goals in very stereotypical ways.
The expectations will continue until the door is slammed in the face of them.
Thank you. That would truly be awesome!
Yes I'm rather inspired by this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13161825/Male-Spanish-soldiers-self-identifying-women-better-army-digs.html#comments
The combination of "self identification" and giving female soldiers extra pay and pension rights as well as nicer quarters has resulted in men identifying as women to boost their pay and conditions! You may recall the men who "gatecrashed" a Florida "women's tech industry recruitment fair" by all claiming to be women or non binary.
More of this to expose the double standards.
Thank you. Yes, I remember the men gate-crashing the (obviously illegal) women's tech industry recruitment fair. There is a MGTOW known as Turd Flinging Monkey, who advises men to identify as masculine-presenting lesbians when they apply for jobs.
Great reading, Janice, and thank you for it. Unhappiness is politically useful and happiness is not. What is woke existence without grievance? We must all be awake to their conditions, and what sods we are not to have noticed them on our own! Sad to say, I know some gay men who take the same view. Grievance builds community and establishes need. Grievance is a demand for concession, consideration, special terms. I am reminded of babies whose cries bring social events to a halt. The baby must be comforted. Only then can other things continue. Likewise the aggrieved. They are very unlikely to abandon their most effective means of social control.
Well put!
Have you read The Moon and Sixpence?
I would add that thanks to feminism we now live in a society that has no core, no central sense of belonging. Women were once the center of life – of the family, of the church, of the town or city. They were the ones who through their sense of tribalism held it all together. But it was a tribalism that created a sense of belonging, of something worth living for. They were also the ones who were the force behind such good works as emancipation in the 19th century, the workers movement of the early 20th century (and abolition as well, it needs to be said). But they did all this on behalf of all of us, because they believed it was the direction society need to go, under the understanding that it was right for all of us.
But since the advent of modern feminism, it has become all about them, and the rest of the world be damned, men and boys in particular. And the world is poorer for it, and much more divided and partisan as a result.
Marxists and their various subgroups identified that women were the core of traditional society, which was an impediment to the revolution. And the nuclear and extended family needed to be destroyed in order to re-create human society into its socialist and thence communist form. Germaine Greer amongst many other british and european feminists of the sexual liberation apostles were explicit about this. They grew from writing pamphlets and books and radical magazines to establish "womens' studies" and thence "gender studies" and infecting Universities. And so we have seen women move from the "right" to the "left" in my adult lifetime. Now they are apparently all for choosing your sex. For the marxists, job done.
Nigel, the promotion of feminist liberty freedom is useful to those who want to sow divisiveness in two ways. It can be portrayed as freedom for women, but flipped into an oppressive form of exploitation (e.g, "male gaze"). By lacking a coherent ideology, feminism can morph to take advantage of current or changing social views about behavior, income, labor and what used to be known as intimate relationships.
Henry James's The Bostonians, about which Janice has made a video, makes this argument with incredible style.
Thanks, Gregory! I also turned the video into one of my first Substack articles. It's an incredible novel. (One of my friends, to whom I recommended it, quit after the first 100 pages. James is not to everyone's taste, perhaps needless to say):
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/henry-james-the-menace-of-feminism
Strindberg, the Swedish playwright, also wrote some anti-feminist stories. 20th century: The World according to Garp is at least critical. Garp even gets murdered by a crazy feminist.
I have a book of his plays on loan from my local library. Haven't started on them yet.
Not sure if the plays are about it. But I think his Marriage Stories are.
I'm listening to it on audiobook. Just a few chapters left. But it seems the shrew, Olive Chancellor, isn't going to get tamed, just declawed.
I'm pretty sure that many men were behind emancipation and workers' rights. Women were central to the temperance movement, convinced of their own moral superiority.
Women didn't play a larger role than men in the abolitionist movement.
It's just not true that drunk husbands beat their wives systemically. This is feminist propaganda and it's the same today as people who drone on about female domestic violence.
In the 1920, women could work wherever the hell they wanted to. There were tons of universities open to them as well. It's not true that work wasn't open to them.
Some husbands do that today. Some wives do that today and back then too.
Look up the henpecked social club. It's very illuminating.
Feminists have always been fear mongering about domestic violence.
And, yes, women did play a large role in abolitionism. I just don't think it's bigger than men's. I think it's equal.
Do you remember Punch and Judy?
Extremely well said.
Disagree. You revere women too much.
No, women are not more important to a sense of belonging than men. Why do children with no fathers feel insecure in themselves?
This is simping. Women were never the center of life, nor should they be. Women should be normal people. Maybe with different behaviors, but definitely not the center of life itself. Geez.
No, women don't get to take credit for emancipation. Thats something that Christian groups take credit for, men and women.
Men used to have a sense of belonging from their male friends as much as their wives, but make friendships have been destroyed.
There is just so much reverence of women amongst even antifeminist. It's corny and explains pretty well why feminism took over the world.
I'm sure the general populace embraced feminism because they thought womennwere the center of life too.
Perhaps we as society (and I along with it) DO revere women too much. And perhaps that is the main reason feminism is so hard to fight. But it seems to me that is just the way we are as humans. Which, among other things, explains why so many of us are unable to see through the ridiculous nature of the premise presented in works like The Handmaids Tale. But like I said, that is just the way we are, and fighting that seems just as pointless as feminists fighting against the natural differences between the sexes.
I have to pushback on the ides that reverence of women is inevitable.
It's something that only cropped up in the 19th century and it has strong connection to the rise of romanticism and emotionalism in culture.
I don't mean to say that people should cease being protective of women, that is definitely biologically ingrained.
But statements like "women are the center of life" serve to place women on an unearned pedestal of importance. It downplays the importance of men and overstates the importance of women. Women definitely contribute to society, but men make their contribution as well, and, if we must say that ones sex contribution is greater (which I don't really like saying) I'd have to say that it's probably men's. There's no reason we have to revere women the way we currently do.
In an ideal society, the contributions would be equal, I'd say. Women who bear and raise children make a tremendous contribution impossible to quantify. Men, on the other hand, build the material world, keep it running, and defend it. Today, too few women bother to have children or devote themselves to raising them well (and I say this as a woman who never had children, so I did not do my part and I admit that).
I agree that most womens primary contribution will probably be their children.
However, there have always been women who didn't have children and who opted towards other paths. I'm thinking of nuns and such. Hildegard von Bingen comes to mind. I also think that fathering should be emphasized as one of men's contribution, seeing as how fatherlessness is deleterious to society.
But yes, I pretty much agree.
I did not mean to “downplay the importance of men.” Rather I was trying to demonstrate the difference between the roles men and women have traditionally played in society, by stating that women were at the center of the family and the church, rather than at the head, which is where men have traditionally been.
But feminism is now trying to place women at the head of everything, which is a role they are not particularly well suited at playing, as evidenced by the fact that studies show that even women do not want to work for female bosses. But it also means there is no one to occupy the center, or if you prefer the heart of our world and its institutions. And that may help explain why we, as a society, are a lot less centered and united, and generally a lot more hateful and partisan than we have been in the past.
Again, disagree.
The reason why we are so much more hateful and partisan than in the past is because women are at the center of life right now.
No, women shouldn't be at the center. Women aren't the center of anything.
The world shouldn't be set up to prioritize women. Women need to be seriously sidelined in the world that we live in.
The distinction you make between the head and the center sound like new agey mumbo jumbo.
In the past, women were prioritized less, and men were prioritized more relative to their current positions. They were both pretty much equally prioritized in their respective domains. Women were less of the center than they are now, and it was for the better.
Great article Janice! You really need to turn these posts into a book. And then market that book far and wide! What you are saying really needs to be heard by all. Thanks for what you are doing!
I made this point to Janice a few months ago. And I'd be happy to keep paying my subs if Janice decides to take a substack sabbatical in order to write such a book.Or perhaps the book could be serialised, like in the old days, and subscribers would get to read chapters as they are finished.
Couldn’t agree more. Perfectly put.
The interesting thing for me is that historically the nature of male and female virtues have been very different. Male virtues have tended to be focused on both maintaining an orderly, decent, and honorable society, and on sustaining a family (with some variation depending on where you are; polygyny is frequently a way of demonstrating a man’s ability to sustain a substantial family, for example).
Female virtues have been centered on maintaining the household, organizing the life of the family, and raising children to be disciplined, compassionate, respectful, honorable, and decent. This division of social labor is replicated in society after society (with local variations on the economic activities of both men and women).
Feminism is, among other things, a claim that women should cultivate male virtues, and men adopt female ones. In essence, it’s a claim that all humans are alike. But it is also the contradictory claim that men lack virtues, and all females are virtuous. What it is not is a belief that men and women have different qualities, and natures, and that the cultivation of these is the foundation of a good society, a stable polity, and a decent moral order.
Obviously, there are some women suited to participation in the world of men, and vice versa, and some men and women have sexual orientations different from the norm; all of these combined add up to maybe a twentieth of the total population. Feminists seize upon the exceptions, and claim that they are, in fact, the rules.
A society in which women dominate is going to increase the unhappiness of both men and women because it violates the inherent natures created by the process of natural selection. Virtues constitute the general good, and that is best maintained when men and women are primarily engaged in their natural functions.
Notice how, as feminism has been on the ascent, home life has crumbled - and so have the forms of community organization that women used to tend - parent/teacher groups, scouting even casual trips to the park (e.g., one mom taking all the kids from her block).
There have always been some women more suited than most to the world of men. Feminist propaganda has portrayed the past as a place where women were always under oppressive control of men. Remember "herstory?" Feminists used to teach about historical women of achievement. Now those women are being disappeared in the service of reconfiguring the past in service of goals far beyond feminism, and all the way tototalitarianism.
I like your approach. It’s analytically sound.
Feminism functions to create hostility between men and women in order to give feminist women and their simps to present themselves as the only true defenders of women, and thus to acquire social and political influence, and power.
Thank you, George. I think you've nailed it about how useful feminism is to those who seek power for unsavory purposes.
Being a History "buff" I get regular History journals. Have done so for 30 years. As you say lots of female and feminist historians delve into "women's history". And of course find that in the many centuries of Aristocracy there were many powerful, influential and ruling women. Because of course power was a matter of birth, and the vast majority of people of either sex counted for nothing at all. Right up until the industrial revolution the "battle of the sexes" was entirely internal to the aristocracy. Everyone else was busy trying to live.
So it is easy to disprove women rulers are more peaceful, precisely because there is a parade of Queens, Empresses, Duchesses, Princesses, Dowagers to measure against the Kings, Emperors, Dukes, etc. I have just finished reading about the many female rulers in Indonesian and Filipino islands prior to and during the early colonial period. Where ap things were much the same in terms of dynastic and resource disputes as in European history. After all feminist icon Cleopatra 7th was busy with a dynastic civil war with her brother Ptolemy 13th when Ceasar tipped up. The war followed one previously when Berenice 7th had deposed her father Ptolemy 12th! In other words a long line of dynastic carryings on amongst the toffs of Egypt. Which no doubt were inconvenient to the long suffering ordinary Egyptian folk. But disprove any notion of aristocratic women being "silenced" or being "peaceful" nor "oppressed" and certainly not "passive". The more "women's history" finds ;the more the past looks very unlike the feminists depict it.
You make excellent points. I would add that, prior to "no fault" divorce, when marriage was for life, a husband and wife had a lot of incentive to act as a unit in their own individual interests, and the interests of their family. Also, prior to the industrial revolution, married couples were also co-operating economic units such as businesses, farms, or estates. Both spouses had to be familiar with the other's usual tasks to be able to carry on in the face of death, illness or other disruptions. I'd also note that, in American history, I think the average guy had less power than the average gal, because of sentimentality about women being the weaker, more feeling sex. As evidence, I offer this interesting tidbit. When department stores first appeared, so did a form of theft commonly known as shoplifting. Police quickly found that it was women and girls, often pampered, engaging in this theft. Psychiatry came to the rescue, inventing the mental illness of "kleptomania" to explain how these innocent females were tormented by impulses they were took weak to resist.
The queens and aristocratic women of Europe certainly disprove the claim that a world run by women would be a more peaceful place (as do many American inner cities of today, which are functionally matriarchies). Even before I was aware of this history, I always believed that a world run by women would be one in which armistice or cease fire would not be a thing, because of women's capacity for grudge holding.
Feminist icon Cleopatra, like so many other feminist icons (Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meghan Markle) seems to have been completely happy to use her male partner's status to get advantages for herself. I suspect Cleopatra was probably the smartest of the above listed ladies.
And probably more ruthless. I was particularly amused by a "herstory" type trying to find excuses for Cleopatra 7th having her half sister Arsinoe 4th executed. Though of course not bothered that she had her young brother Ptolemy assassinated. The medieval French court had similarly entangled periods with prominent royal and aristocratic women. Catherine de Medici, Ann of Austria coming immediately to mind. And the Byzantines seemed to continue the tangled traditions of Ptolemaic Egypt. While in England the prolonged war between the Empress Matilda and her cousin Stephen for the throne was so devastating neither name was used again as a royal name. "Sugar and spice and all things nice"??
Cleopatra was ruthless, no doubt. (quick aside - have you see Pat Brown's work demolishing the suicide myth? If not, I highly recommend either the book or the videos on You Tube - fabulous!)
I notice feminists often ignore a couple of things about other feminists (or pre-feminist women they hold up as icons). One is when women feminists ride the coattails of husbands, especially when they don't have to. I'm thinking of Hillary and Michelle. Both earned law degrees and could easily have acted as examples of female independence by working outside the White House. But no, they embraced the title of First Lady (Michelle even tried to get herself a separate salary - on top of all the perks of being part of the President's family and his salary). Meghan Markle is another example (when she talks about "giving up my career" playing the "hot" girl roles - age late 30s, I have to laugh). I predict that, even after divorce, she will cling to that courtesy title like grim death.
The second thing feminists ignore in feminist icons is treating other women badly - MM is again famous for staff (if not all, then almost all female) fleeing in droves.
Of course, targeting women who don't align with feminism is not a problem. Perhaps Cleopatra's feminist fans could find excuses to paint Arsinoe 4th as some kind of traitorous trad wife. That would prevent any pesky cognitive dissonance.
Those women of achievement were obviously trans men.
I don't think it's accurate to say that feminists don't talk about female historical achievement.
They just engage in cognitive dissonance where, even with the existence of women who did fine in male things, there was still some dominating patriarchy.
When I was in my 20s, "herstory" and high achieving women in history were big topics of feminist conversation. These days, I rarely see it mentioned. I also see a lot of feminist claims about women's historical situation that are completely at odds with the reality of the history.
It occurs to me that both 'polygyny' and 'polyandry' should be updated now that gay marriage is an accepted institution. I shudder to think of the poor lesbian with two or more wives being denied the dignity of inclusive jargon reflecting her bigamist lifestyle choices.
I expect that will come in the UK. Thus far our marriage laws have been changed to tackle child marriage. There is a push to assume marriage exists in cohabitation, partly because so many "muslim" marriages are never legally registered. After that the "gender" brigade will join in and push for multi partner marriage to be legally recognized. There is a remarkable "alliance" between supporters of Sharia and Feminism which seems inexplicable except that both are together to breakdown "western" norms. After such a breakdown.......
I can't see the burka clad virtue police turning an indulgent eye to pansexual fivesomes.
The muslims will wait until they're about 20% of the population before they launch that.
Legal recognition of cohabitation coming back is kind of a mind-blower for me. Common-law marriage, defined by law, was disappearing when I was a child.
I hope polygamy is never brought into UK or US law. Divorces are enough of an engine of chaos when there are only 2 adults. Imagine the property distribution proceedings - they'd be measured in decades.
Virtue, the word, comes from the Latin for manliness. "Vir" is Latin for man, and is from where we get the "were" in "werewolf".
I don't know what the Latin is for womanliness, if there is one. But I shall saddle my steed and set off in quest of it. Wish me fair fortune.
The Latin word for woman is “mulier.” However, traditional usage has not been to use that as the word to describe a feminine equivalent to “virtue.” Instead, what I’ve seen over the years are references to “female/feminine virtues,” or “the domestic virtues.”
That sentence near the end, "The real problem with feminism for women is that it destroyed the positive content of womanhood and replaced it with useless anger", is very succinct and very on point. All the "empowering women" i.e. losing inhibitions, and "fighting patriarchy" i.e. being angry at sex differences, has made life worse for both sexes.
They're tilting at windmills. And like Don Quixote's code of chivalry, the feminist code of male bashing will die hard.
Btw, if you haven't read Don Quixote, please do. It's brilliantly hilarious. You can read it one episode at a time.
Brilliant, as usual, but perhaps a touch more brilliant than usual. It is the perfect antidote for International Women's Week.
Feminism teaches women that they are innately virtuous and perpetual victims. Anything is permissible provided it conforms to that cardinal rule. A consequence of being innately virtuous is that the only remaining task is to serve yourself. Similarly, being a perpetual victim means that you only need to show concern for your own kind (to be fair, it is not only women who have been seduced by the cult of victimhood, but they led the way). It is a recipe for unbridled narcissism, which is now manifest for all to see.
If women are unhappy, despite their manifold unearned privileges, then they only have their venal selves to blame. Their misery is my happiness, the more the merrier, but I will always make an exception for women of genuine virtue. The rest can drown in their own excrement without any assistance from me because I don't care enough about them to even give a sh*t.
Week? It’s int women WEEK, now? When the f**k did it become a “week”? Wasnt it supposed to be a DAY?
Oh Christ in heaven….
I only just heard of IWD being celebrated in the west, and I'm actually a little surprised it isn't a whole month, like Black History & Pride.
Relax, that's just what I call it because in practice the nauseating festival of female narcissism always seems to go on for a week.
Actually I'm a Tasmanian who was adopted by English immigrants. I'm entitled to British citizenship and am a bit of an anglophile, but I draw the line at pests and weeds imported from Britain. Tasmania is my home.
Following an accidental interview on Pearly Things, I discovered Rachel Wilson. In his she covers some similar ground. https://rwilson.substack.com/p/are-patriarchs-perpetrators-or-protectors
Begining with the well established fact that the majority of abuse of infants and children is committed by their mothers. And the least abusive is the natural father. This is one of the many "difficult truths" of social work.
Also, mothers tend to ignore abuse caused to their children by fathers biologically unrelated to the child.
We see the same mistreatment of step children by mothers and even rejection of children from a first marriage by the mother in favor of children by her new husband.
Yeah, but hurting kids doesn't put women in estrus. Seems like a faulty explanation.
It's true that it doesn't put women in estrus, but it probably would put the relationship with the man at risk of dissolution if she starts sticking up for her kid.
Yes. and I think its important to remember that the general context of child abuse is that the risk is much higher in broken or chaotic "families". So despite what feminists claim the "normal" family is very safe with risks rising the more broken and chaotic the family form. Like DV the risks rise also with mental ill health, addiction, alcoholism and intergenerational experience. In this country we had a TV show "Jeremy Kyle", which introduced the wider society to the chaotic maelstrom of all these factors, by exploiting their mess for the viewer. But it did do a service of revealing the reality of the circumstances where domestic and child abuse actually mainly occurs, and what Police and Social services actually deal with, rather than the very exceptional and therefor newsworthy cases that involve "ordinary" apparently stable families.
I've seen clips of Jeremy Kyle, very similar to the US show Maury Povich (famous for the line, "you are *not" the father").
The US shows that I found most illustrative about the disaster of "serial monogamy" were the numerous shows televising small claims cases. (Judge Judy, People's Court, Divorce Court, Paternity Court, Judge Joe Brown, etc., etc.) The parties to the suit would agree to have the case settled on TV instead of court.
They'd air any category of small claims case, (dog bites, withheld apartment security deposit, should there be a refund if the defective dress has visible pit stains?). But their bread-and-butter was adults and exes and new partners keying cars, filing unfounded claims of child neglect, and hair-pulling assaults. The frequency of such cases, and the participants' willingness to air it all before a nationwide audience was impressive in the worst possible way.
I never thought of the adult participants of being exploited, since so many seemed to relish being a TV star (if only for 12 minutes) and revealing to the world the abysmal behavior of the nemesis. Overall, participants seemed staunch in their belief in their own righteousness and the villainy of their opponent.
Weirdly, the other huge category was disgruntled brides whose "special day" was *ruined* by flowers one shade off from the requested color, too few smiling photos in the bridal album, or the DJ feeling entitled to be fed.
All the mayhem revolving around exes convinced me that however much people will claim to be done with the ex, go to the effort of uprooting their own lives and those of their kids, get new partners, the attachment remains unbreakable. Society has made a huge mistake in creating mechanisms that give the illusion that splitting up is a clean break, and has done untold damage to kids by allowing their parents so much latitude to indulge themselves.
True, but the other guy is trying to explain from an evopsych position why step-dad might hurt kids.
Yes, the mother may not stop it for this reason, but why would the stepfather do it in the first place? Evopsych, imo, doesn't provide an adequate explanation.
Well of course the vast majority of step dads don't. It is important to remember that though they are next, after natural mothers. Child abuse is not nearly as common as feminists claim.
A problem that I see with this is that stepfathers don't necessarily kill the kids, just abuse them. Resources are still expended on them in the end.
Also, infanticide is committed by women. How can this be explained with evopysch?
Good points. I think more explanatory power is in boring things like step parents are a bit more likely feel they aren't responsible for their step children (or indeed defer to the natural parents) and perhaps resent the competition for attention/affection. And of course the vast majority of step fathers are not abusive at all.
I'm afraid you drank Richard Dawkins' Kool-Aid.
Right now, there's a trial going on in the UK. A woman called Constance Marten, is accused of manslaughter over the death of her fifth child, a baby girl.
The feminist commentary painting her as the victim is already in over- drive.
There's also emotional neglect, a passive form of abuse, and likely the most devastating.
Look up the still face experiment.
I have read it all now, brilliant. One of your very best. Great conclusion, too. I know a lot of men today who actively pursue virtue and self-mastery (lets call it stoicism, a la Epictetus), but I know zero feminist/activist types, who even know what stoicism or virtue even is (my immediate family and professional circles are replete with women who practice self-mastery and de facto stoicism). The feminist/activist type appears exclusively interested in studying and stoking grievance.
You have done some fantastic work over the years Janice but this could be your best. Deep in my own psyche there is a heavy cost for the transgressions in my life which are only somewhat compensated by the good deeds I have done for others. Nothing I do for myself matters. For most people this becomes self evident when you become a parent. Giving is the elixir of life and feminism does nothing but take.
Thank you Janice, please understand the light you bring to dark corners.
After reading Being and Nothingness by some French jerk, I came up with the aphorism:
Being is nothingness
Giving is all