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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.