Thanks for sharing your story. I went through something similar. Feminism is at best obsolete and at worst vicious and dishonest. Women who think they don’t need men are like children who think they don’t need adults. Men are indispensable civilization-builders, creators, thinkers, laborers, fighters, lovers, fathers, and friends. Their capacity for love, romance, and self-sacrifice is heart-breaking. I feel ashamed of my whiny feminist period and disgusted with women who want to disempower men even more. Maybe a little love and gratitude are in order.
Your comment reminded me of "Sex Change Society " by Melanie Phillips. Published in the late 1990s it sets out the theoretical underpinning and "march through the institutions" of the feminist movement. Her thesis is that in its academic and political manifestations it is an ideology of "perpetual adolescence" which is rooted in what teenage girls are frightened of ( not least the responsibility and dramatic changes with having children) and essentially offers a way to perpetuate the apparent freedom and continued support that characterizes the lives of middle class (British "middle class" rather than American usage) teenage and young women. Wherein someone, usually daddy or "authorities" , always hovers in the background. Of course Phillips only hints at the rise of actual changing sex, but the fact that thee is such an "epidemic" of teenage girls being referred to clinics seeking effectively to evade growing up seems to fit perfectly with her hypothesis (of course anything that affects females is an "epidemic" even if the numbers are actually very small). It is interesting that many of the "trans men" who have come out regretting their "transition" in effect say that actually what they wanted was to not be a woman, rather than be a man.
Yes, I have long suspected that feminist hatred towards men to some (or perhaps great) extent involves redirection of anger about the demands that biology and nature place on women. Men don't have to endure the suffering of pregnancy, childbirth or the 'bovine' boredom and constant self-denial of early child nurturing. However, feminists don't seem ever to have considered the sacrifice and suffering of men in their roles. They misinterpret men's enthusiasm for undertaking life-threatening, body-wrecking work, hunting or going to war as men's privilege to be able to do what they want, whereas men really are just as driven biologically (and expected socially) to seek their roles as women are for reproduction and nurturing. Life is hard for both men and women but feminists avoided recognition of that by ideological invention that men's suffering is as much due to 'patriarchy' as women believe their suffering is.
I think women believe they have a raw deal biologically as well as socially: menstruation, childbearing, breastfeeding, the toll of the latter on the body, rapid decline in fertility and sexual attractiveness, etc. But why do they believe it? Why not celebrate the ability to give birth and to nurture a human being at one's breasts? Resentment and accompanying hostility seem built in to the nature of the female.
I think a lot of its built. Not necessarily socialized, but definitely exacerbated
I mean women dote on babies naturally.
I definitely get caught up in the idea that female vindictiveness is innate, but some grace is definitely warranted.
Being raised in a culture that is for all intents and purposes a fertility cult with a Christian asthetic is definitely not good for proper moral development.
But yeah I think women have a proclivity to be that for sure.
Beautiful women are resented, when a very attractive woman walks into a room and all men's eyes follow, the women feel that despite their bond, this stranger has usurped them at a very basic level.
These are generalizations that I have not found to be true. The only women I have met that felt trapped by the early stages of motherhood were very young and had single friends where it seemed their grass was greener. Immaturity really.
Just came across this via Substack reads. I do believe that a push back against the toxic side of feminism is finally gathering strength. I wrote about this recently (even though I'm a natural pessimist!) quoting several feminist/former feminist dissidents: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance. Should have quoted you too shouldn't I.
People let emotionalism get in the way. If you judged women the way you judged men, and you held them to the same standard, you'd quickly find that women were never held back, they just can't hack it.
"Feminist dissidents"
Ah yes, more christina hoff sommers bitchy women who do nothing but go "Feminism wasn't always like this!"
Most women I know who had children in their 30's and 40's reveled in the experience. They were ready to settle down at that point. But context matters, so financial struggles or relationship struggles will impact hugely the experience. Nesting is an instinct when the baby is born, and women want a secure space to raise their young. Totally natural and necessary.
Women's thinking is more driven by emotion. This can be a strength or challenge depending on the situation. It can lead to serious problems, especially in our society thinks asking women to have restraint and manners is bad.
A friend of mine who has known MH institutions from within and without for decades put it this way: ‘all men are autistic, all women are borderliners’.
IMO you’re not exactly wrong in identifying the overall presence of certain negative emotions in women as a whole, which can lead to maladaptive behaviors. But it’s necessary to balance this take with other truths. First and foremost, societal trends are exacerbating this tendency right now. In fact, this mindset has become more common in young men too. Yuck. We need everyone to be balanced and stable within their masculine and feminine identities, with generous allowance for individuality.
Secondly, it’s also true that women are enormously strong, overall, especially when it comes to caring for their children and their families. We will work ourselves to the bone to save our children, to care for our elderly parents. It’s therefore distressing to see younger women being encouraged to see themselves as victims and to focus on developing and indulging negative emotions.
Finally, of course not all women are prone to these particular negative emotions. Moi, for example. I have my share of faults and have made my share of mistakes—but they don’t follow from excess neuroticism. It’s made it more difficult for me to fit in with the girls; I really enjoy the company of men or of mixed groups.
Young men are despondent and unsure of themselves from a lifetime of feminist emotional abuse.
I don't think women are particularly strong. If women were so strong why can't they resist the urge to give in to their negative emotions? I'm ot claiming that women provide no utility to families, but strength of character isn't something I see in women.
Maybe there is some matriarchal ancient strength in women somewhere, but modernity has killed it, and turned them all into little rage beasts.
An ideology that exploits "what teenage girls are frightened of" is from the same playbook that repressive regimes have used throughout history - keeping them living in fear makes them easier to control. I don't know if it was a deliberate strategy by the communists or Frankfurt School disciples as some suggest, but it certainly fits their agenda.
Women are not primarily afraid of being raped, which like all violent crime, is rare.
They are primarily afraid of being judged and ostracized.
If you can make women believe a certain idea is orthodoxy, and if they don't subscribe to it they'll be outcasts, you can make women do pretty much fucking anything.
I saw a video of a young man, a detransitioner, who had had a sexual relationship with a self-identified lesbian. He described how riven he was by thoughts that him having sex with this girl was abusive.
At worst it's genocidal. I mean, men kill themselves at 8x the rate of women, and instead of dubbing it to the unbelievably culturally entrenched shaming that women do of men and the family courts, we dub it to "toxic masculinity".
I appreciate that you're not a feminist, but comments like yours don't satisfy me.
I have to be frank that any comment that is anything but absolutely fucking ruthless in its attacking of feminism simply doesn't satisfy me.
Not attacking your character, but the "Feminism is at best obsolete" just makes me roll my eyes to the back of my head.
If MRAs are to win, I don't see a place for such dismissive attitudes about feminism, which is a an absolute hate movement, and also has always been a hate movement since 1848 when it originated in Seneca falls.
I mean, this comment just doesn't seem to address the genocidal fervor that is feminism.
"Women who think they don’t need men are like children who think they don’t need adults."
I don't think of it like this. If a woman wants to puff out her chest at how much she doesn't need men, I really am completely indifferent to it. The issue comes from the fact that feminism isn't some mean nasty women unnecessarily pumping themselves up. The issue comes from the fact that feminism is fervently genocidal, an en masse manifestation of women's BPD tendencies and really has pushed me to the point were I now flip flop daily on whether or not women should be doing things like voting and serving on juries. The rationale for patriarchy in the past is evidently clear to me.
Even in your comment you talk about all the ways in which men benefit women, obviously not from a place of malice, but I would like to see people talk about men's rights from a perspective of what men are entitled too, without once talking about what they do for women, or children, or old people, or anybody. When people talk about women, they never talk about how much women do for people as mothers, or nurses, or teachers, or anything else. They talk about what women deserve.
I'm not trying to have a gotcha moment, but people act as if feminism is harmless like a little girls tempter trantrum. Even when they rightly describe it as unethical and unfair, they always seem to give it this level of naive little girl innocence it just doesn't really have.
I really don't think of it like that. I think of it as a movement of genocide.
Yes it's not a physical genocide, but when you quite literally dominate everyone's way of thinking through every cultural outlet in the entirety of the western world, it really doesn't have to be.
Suffragettes did commit terrorism in the early 1900s. The lack of physicality in feminism comes from a lack of need for it, rather than moral restraint.
One of the reasons I like Janice Fiamengo so much in particular amongst so many others, is precisely because she very rarely mentions what men provide for anyone, rather focusing on what men are entitled to. Equality under the law, and not being aggressively slandered and abused in society.
I'd say significantly more than love and gratitude are in order. A massive cultural widespread apology from women is in order if I'm being perfectly honest.
Those grovelling sycophantic pussy dog men seem to be left wing men. They're kind of like that of Warren Farrell. There's an interesting study that confirms weak men tends to be more egalitarian.
Yes, I agree. I would never call Warren Farrell a pussy sycophantic dog, because I think he has a lot of integrity and is a good person. But yes, he is far to limp wristed, lenient, and egalitarian. He definitely is not what the MRAs should emulate.
I'm going to disagree. He's part of the reason we're in this mess. The writing was on the wall during 2nd wave feminism, the fact he didn't notice this says a lot about his academic ability and his calibre as a human. To exacerbate, he's an atheist, which doesn't surprise me at all, a correlation of being left wing, having a non-traditional view of the world, and low birth rate. He's without any biological children of his own. I'm just happy to know that people who associate or believe in the concept of equality are breeding themselves out.
Exactly! It was never about empowering women. It was about broadening the work force, dismantling men's unions, keeping wages low. In our quest for liberation and equality we managed to add even more to an already overfilled plate. Now motherhood and housekeeping had to be combined with a career and the neuroses of maintaining youth and attractiveness in a consumerist world that sees ageing as the 8th mortal sin. The vast majority of homeless people is women over 50 these days. Men are pushed into a corner, either castrated or pumped up with frustration and anger. It's us that bear the ugly consequences yet again, but "empowered" this time. We were played, girls, that's the sad truth...
It seems you don't understand why feminism is actually bad.
Feminism was about empowering women the same way nazism was about empowering aryans.
Women didn't have anything to be liberated from. They could work, own property, vote since 1920, go to university, etc etc. Women were already equal under the law by 1920, and the vote wasn't considered a legal right prior to 1920. Women had all of their human rights throughout all of American history. Equality is a non-word that people use but it actually has no definition.
Women don't have an overfilled plate. Women today don't do anything. Women don't have a plate. They've hoisted all of their plates onto men. Women today are all perpetual children.
Women do more housework cause they work less hours. Women who work the same hours do pretty much equal housework to their husband. It's a myth.
Motherhood is one of those things that women bitch about but other than labor, there is nothing about being a mother that requires women be more responsible than being a father. Again, women who work the same hours do the same hours of childcare contraty to the myths you're spreading.
Women have neuroses about everything because women are neurotic. Women don't have to maintain their youth, no one tells them to do that. It's just a way for women to compete with other women. You can blame feminism for making makeup something not just for prostitutes in the 1920s.
No one sees ageing as the 8th mortal sin. No one cares. Women just say that to get sympathy from people.
The vast majority of homeless people are men.
Yes, men are pushed into a corner.
No, men are not either castrated or pumped up with frustration and anger. They are either castrated, or they rightly realize that feminism is evil, and justifiedly want it to end. You seem to think that feminism causes "toxic masculinity" or some horseshit. No, mens' anger towards feminism is justified. There is nothing unjustified about the frustration of anti feminist men.
No, women don't bear any of the consequences of feminism. Women think they bear the consequences of literally anything that happens in the world literally ever.
What stupidity.
Women were not played, they led a female supremacist movement for no reason because women are hopelessly neurotic and always want to come out on top, even in situations were no one is trying to defeat them.
The hoisting of accountability of feminism onto men, I think, is hogwash.
Yes there is a top down element to it all, but nothing is ever completely top down. Women pushed feminism forward to a great extent.
I mean, was white supremacy in the southern slave states top down? Probably to an extent, but it's not like southern whites were brainwashed mk ultra style.
Power hungry women who lusted for power are responsible for feminism as much as anyone.
Yay! Finally someone who agrees with me, I've been saying this (to anyone who would listent) for years that feminism is a male invention for the benefit of some men. I learned this from a historian by the name of Jerome Corsi. Whenever are we going to grapple with that fact? Also, women have been killing off men by poisioning them since the days of the Roman Empire at least (see all the episodes of the BBC Series I, Claudius). Women never needed feminism to terrorize men. They've been doing it for centuries. As to the Repeal the 19th Amendment cool your tools. Women have been voting in this country for 150 years - Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1871. No; if the world is going to hell in a handbasket it is because of the dehumanization of the human species by AI and technology. I direct your attention to Steve Bannon's recent interview on the Russel Brand Show and he mansplains the whole thing.
Feminism has never been good or needed. I believe the key to destroying feminism is to somehow teach people its true history. Men and women had different roles throughout history. Life was very different before modern times. There was unfairness at times, but it went in both directions. You can acknowledge times where women are oppressed like honor killing in the middle east, but feminism has never been needed to correct it. Feminism will not end until people learn its always been about pushing hatred of men through lies. The opposite of feminism is not women being slaves of men.
SV, would you like to submit your story about coming to realize the legitimacy of men's issues and the dishonesty of feminism for the second edition of my book "Daughters of Feminism"? You can see the first edition (Janice's story is in it) on Amazon.
Wow, thanks, I am honored that you asked! Sure, pemrobably, depending on the details, like length, deadline, and whatever else. Please share that info with me and I will respond accordingly. 🌸🦋👍🏻
Length is 1000 to 5000 words. No deadline to speak of, I'm collecting stories at this point, for publication in a year or two. Send me an email at david@integraldesign.org and we can discuss.
I was a feminist for 30 years. I was happy to give strong support for women’s equality—one in a long line of male voices dating back to, well, even before John Stuart Mill. Appealing to my innate sense of fair play regarding perceived injustices suffered by women, as I was told there were, I was seduced by feminist ideology. I’m now highly critical of the movement. There came a time when I felt conned by feminism which presented injustices which were simply and factually false. It also highlighted desirable rights for women but singularly failed to talk about responsibility and how women had contributed to social inequality and what, if any, obligations they had to society and to men. I view feminism harshly but remain pro-woman. The theme often is, “if you’re against feminism you must be against women and their struggles for equality.” I am for women. And I am for men—for both sexes realizing their full potential as human beings.
I spent those 30 years believing that feminism what “just about equality” and believing that a fairer, kinder world was possible once the inequalities between the sexes had been addressed. I’ve been on women’s marches and automatically favored any and all social and legislative efforts which sought to redress any perceived imbalance. I cared about women’s issues. And I still do today. But my understanding is now far more nuanced. My own internal bias favored women’s voices above men’s because of the ongoing injustices I believed they experienced as a group. Had I heard any rebuke of feminism coming from a man, I would have instantly judged him to be defending his privileged position and trying to muddy the water. So it wasn’t until I heard such a rebuke coming from the mouth of a woman, Karen Straughan, that I started to question my belief paradigm. I can now hear men’s pain where before I was deaf.
Feminism masterfully passes itself off as a social good in a way that makes invisible and insidious the harms it does. It can do so because, as a society, there is an assumption that femininity (and, by extension, women) is inherently full of goodness and beauty—indicating a presumed moral superiority. By contrast, men are considered inherently problematic (if not toxic) and must be tamed and subdued so as to reverse past transgressions, and to then step off the plate.
Its what William Collins calls "Gynocentrism", which I find a powerful idea in tterms of the explanation of the way in which many patently anti male ideas get a free pass and frequently get a helping hand from "conservatives" as much as from leftists. Way back in the late 1970s, though not my area of study I took an interest in researching "femininism" particularly the repeal of a variety of statutes in the UK in the 1960s that meant women needed male guarantors for loans, couldn't work in certain industries etc. (my father died suddenly in '67 and my mother had difficulty sorting the mortgage, though by then it wasn't Law but just bank policy). Of course what I found was these laws were often less that 100 years old when repealed and had all been lobbied for by high minded men (Charles Dickens and other luminaries) and Women's groups and Churches to protect women from hard labour, risks of injury and in the case of loans, to protect women from being imprisoned for debt if they defaulted, that fate reserved for the male "guarantor" of the loan. In the same era the judicial system began to have guidance giving much less harsh treatments to women, due to their frailty, "influence by men", mothers special role etc. All in all the actual motivations for the flowering of such a raft "patriarchal" legislation were to save females from the risks and hardships it seemed were to be left to men. Interestingly in the industrial towns there were protests by working class women because in so many the only industry in the village or small town was mining or heavy industries and the legislation cut these off as sources of income from women who had long relied on this source of income. Because of course here in he industrial north (and indeed other industrial regions) everybody had to work to eat. At least in the Mill Towns (Cotton, Wool, Silk) the industry carried on employing women in vast numbers.
This is such a common pattern with social causes. I lived in NYC in the 1980s, and back then, the African American Activist community was heavily focused on crack as *the* source of all the problems (crime) in their neighborhoods. They successfully lobbied for federal sentencing laws requiring severely harsh prison sentences for possession and sale of crack, much harsher than for power cocaine. After about a decade, when plenty of black men had been sentenced under those laws, the African American Activist community began making equally loud noise - decrying the harsher sentences "targeting" blacks because blacks preferred crack, and whites being coddled with light sentences for powder cocaine (as if blacks couldn't buy powder, and whites couldn't buy crack).
Until the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a woman was unable to apply for a credit card under her own name. She had to have a joint credit card with her husband. Viewed through today’s lens of hostility towards men, surely this was a clear example of Patriarchal oppression! Yet, as always, there is nuance. Here the law was catching up to a changing world. Husbands had previously been expected to bankroll their wives—men were the breadwinners and women were the home-makers. Women had for decades been able to access in-store credit in the days when credit cards didn’t even exist. Companies like Woolworth’s were all too pleased for the wife to run up a hefty line of credit—the husband was expected to make good the money owed. Indeed, the courts ruled that it was the right of the wife to run up debt without prior approval from her husband.
I assume, though, that the law wouldn't have applied to a single woman? She would have been able to obtain a credit card if she had the means to pay her own debt?
Was that in the USA? In the UK in '78 my then girlfriend got a "Barclaycard" before me and this was all very new and exciting here in the UK I got mine a year later (forgot the pin number and had it "eaten by the machine" on my first attempt to use an ATM).
Precisely. One of the "scandals" that was cited in the campaigns for this law was when the Duke of Devonshire had refused to pay off the then Duchess of Devonshire's creditors. Raising the real possibility a lady of quality might have been incarcerated. The actual law assumed that a male family member would want to be guarantor due to "natural sentiment". Which to be honest probably was the case in a society that assumed the family was the core institution of a Christian Society. Whereas these days being "bankrupt" is a technical thing, back then it was a moral as well as financial disaster.
Idk, it just seems that there is such an attempt to say "It's the anti feminists who really respect women!"
And it isn't a feminism specific thing, everyone does it with leftism.
"We conservatives really respect black people".
It comes off as kinda tryhard. What's the point of talking like this anyway? It certainly isn't going to win over feminists who are objective cult members.
And male feminists, to try and paint them as guys who secretly think women are losers, is just overdone. Male feminists are by and large highly agreeable men who are extremely pathetic, but well meaning, and passive to the point were they line up to be taken advantage of.
I mean, I regard male feminists as victims honestly.
The illusion that feminist males supporting when by stepping back because of the "privilege" they have is very insulting.
If you got employment based on your merit and hard work
Would you believe a person who got a job with your renumeration through a short list just because of an attribute they have but you don't (different colour, height, sex, religion, weight, political affiliation)?
If you're a male feminist, you look down on women.
If you're like me, I expect women to be just as capable on order to do a job.
There is no invisible force helping men and oppressing women.
I've often tried to think of the fields in which women are more competent than men, and I can't think of many, honestly. I think women are better at caring for young children: they are more capable of hearing when the child is upset or in need; they are more alert to dangers.
Perhaps this translates into an aptitude for work with very young children.
Women have an aptitude for displays of beauty and grace. Their soft voices sometimes makes them skilled in dealing with animals, especially traumatized animals.
I'm not sure of anything else, though.
Medicine, law, teaching, manufacturing, resource extraction, designing, communicating, governing, leadership, business, sales ... I come up blank. Interested to hear what you think (and not being snide, honestly).
I just don't agree. It's insulting for the male feminists doing so far more than it is for the women. Its a sign of total submission by the men.
No, there isn't said invisible force obviously. But I honestly think that anyone who thinks so is a misandrist, not misogynist. They think men are evil
For some, it definitely is a beta mating strategy.
For others however, I think a lot of them are dealt bad hands and conditioned from female family, school teachers, and media to hate themselves and their manhood.
I think a lot of those guys are just manipulated, more than trying to be sexually calculating in some beta strategy.
Empowered by the believe of being morally higher brought to you by being a member of the ideology you have proven not to be morally higher and caused wreckage of what was build and made innocent people victims of your "morally higher ideology".
0nce you realize this you to learn to accept this reality of life and come to peace to be grounded.
Learn to look at the stupidity of the world and realize you are both part of the world and the stupidity. Learn not longer judge people on their believes or words but on their actions.
I'm sorry all that happened to you. I felt the same when I began to realize how extensive the gaslighting and false claims behind feminism really were. I guess I just needed people to tell the truth about stuff like that. I no longer do. It feels like you've been played, and your protective instincts for another person exploited.
I know how this is going to sound, but it's true...the women where I live just don't act like that (and I have looked for it), and they definitely don't appreciate other women telling lies that can damage the social fabric. What's the difference? I think it is that they have real agency, in the sense that they can usually solve their own problems, and hence feel that they don't need as much protection.
In a deeply hierarchical social order (which I believe characterizes most states accurately, irrespective of who holds the reigns of power) in which most people don't have direct access to what they need, it makes all the sense in the world to do whatever you need to do to obtain a position in that order, whether it's sacrifice your body, as industrial laborers did and do, or play on men's protective instinct toward you., even when you do not need it.
Stuff like this makes me nervous. I have a daughter, Riley, headed off to college in the fall. She's smart, sweet and eager to please. I don't want to see her buried neck deep in this crap and turn into a virulent man hater.
I may be a bit more sensitive to this possibility because I 'm her father. I mean, if she starts hating dudes, how is that going to effect our relationship? I love my kid I don't need her turned against me by some preachy radfem. I'm doing my best to teach her to avoid this crap and she's going into the sciences so hopefully that will help, but I'm nervous. I really am.
Hi Jim. I feel for you. I am on the other side of the situation you describe. By that I mean beautiful intelligent twin daughters who finished university 2-3 years ago in Melbourne Australia. I had always tried to instill in my daughters a force independence of thought. Always encouraged them to challenge their own thinking by making a strong counter argument in their own head to any philosophical position they might adopt. I’m very happily married (25 years) and we love our girls, talk every week and have family catch ups every few weeks despite being 300km apart. Unfortunately I was unable to save them from the beast of feminism. If ever I tried to discuss ideology directly I would receive a lecture on male privilege, rape culture, the hunting ground and endless statistics. We all still love each other but we just don’t have deep conversations about so many important aspects of life to avoid conflict. It devastates me that they don’t seem to understand feminism has blinded them to the strongest male advocate they will ever have. They are now 26 and I’m proud of them and don’t blame them. There are small signs starting to show that they might have a similar awakening that Janice, myself and many others have had about feminism. Best of luck and if it doesn’t go well, stay as close as you can and let time do its work.
I am sorry that happened to you and your family. But to not assign any blame at all to your kids for the attitudes they themselves have adopted is to play the feminist game of treating women as helpless pawns in some game of life.
Hi PAT. For me I attribute it all to the ignorance of youth. Blame implies resentment and is a negative emotion between myself and my girls which serves no purpose. I am disappointed. Not in them but for them. I certainly blame the education system and all of the institutions that support the indoctrination of children. It makes you understand how so many German youth were indoctrinated into the most evil of all ideologies in WWII.
Definitely! You can do amazing things to statistics if you only focus on part of the picture. "What if we define 'rape' as something that only a male-bodied person can do? Well, what do you know, now 100% of rapists are men!" etc.
I feel for you, JM. Having a daughter entering college must be hugely worrying these days. As Janice outlined in her story, the appeal of victim power is powerfully seductive. But I have observed that those women who had loving fathers usually come back to their senses, if they do get sucked in for a time.
Thanks David. And of course young women without loving fathers do NOT 'return to their senses'. I don't think there's even been a prominent feminist with a good relationshiop with her father. Many years ago I debated with Julie Bindel at Durham University. A number of feminists came up to me to chat in the bar afterwards, all of them told me (unprompted) that they didn;t have a father in their lives. By destroying the nuclear family, feminists have ensured a constant stream of new recruits. And I can't help wonder how many women (and men, for that matter) were alienated towards their fathers by their mothers, leading to a sadly permanent loss of relationship, to the lifelong detriment of the women and their fathers.
My daughter has chosen not to go to uni. It's significant as her mother and I have 2 certs and 5 degrees between us. We are both pleased and supportive. And she's making money. I'm very proud, and relieved to be honest.
Don't ever place any value in these "certificates" or "diploma's", and make sure your children are capable of defending themselves against the so called "intellectuals" who will put them down, in order to elevate themselves. I have many different types of friends that I know since primary school (grew up in the middle of nowhere so most stuck together) and some of them are more "practically" educated, and some are more "theoretically" educated. But we are all friends and education and those certificates don't mean anything if you don't have anything of value to offer for employers/customers. Some of those practically educated guys made more money then the Uni folks at some point. The solar panel business was booming big time as well as installing A/C units and you could make big bank just slapping them on the roof. Usually, but not always, the Uni folks make more money later in life but that strongly depends on what sort of work/opportunities/etc. you have.
You have so many websites that you can use to educate yourself nowadays outside of Uni. I myself am a big fan of Udemy or Pluralsite, given I don't care much about books (I read tons of documentation for a living, so I need a break after work from reading). You can learn almost anything outside of Uni and it is often cheaper, you can do it at your own pace, at home, outside of work, and sometimes there is great community you can engage with. All of that without the brainwashing and other nonsense I had when I went to Uni (and dropped out, multiple times).
Don't worry one bit about going or not going to Uni. There are some things in life you will never get a second chance for; a birth, a wedding, a funeral, a first impression, and of course raising your children. If you do the last one right (you only have ONE chance!), your kids will make it, regardless of education. I know it to be true, some of my friends have either passed away at 20 years old, or gotten addicted to drugs and alcohol, and both were complete opposites in terms of education (Uni vs working on a farm) but had one thing in common: a troubled relationship with their parents.
I hope your daughter resists feminism. I suspect having a loving father's presence in her life gives her an advantage in resisting feminism's false claims and warped emotionalism.
You have every reason to be nervous. We had a great relationship with our daughter, she wasn't raised to believe any of the feminist leftist garbage. Her politics as a young adult were a little different than mine, her mother largely doesn't discuss it but she's by no means a leftist. I chalked up our differences to her being young and we still got along. At some point in her life after college she began to espouse feminist ideology. It morphed over time to the point she cut contact with us and moved to the other side of the country. Her husband is a feminist and encouraged all of it. Before they left town we were hauled into court for the crime of love bombing, telling her we loved her. Seriously, that was her basis for trying to get a restraining order and make our banishing legal. We worry about the effects of all this on our two young grandsons. I don't have any answers on how to prevent it, we did everything we could to show her we loved her, the importance of family, even paying for her college. Just be wary, I sincerely hope it doesn't happen to you.
That is a heartbreaking story. I'm so sorry about it.
I knew a man who had a similar experience; his daughter came home from college at Christmas a changed person, and she got worse over time, becoming thoroughly indoctrinated. They had been very close before.
I think that the phenomenon of young women becoming alienated from their parents is becoming more and more common; and college isn't even necessary. It is now in the air. What a terrible statement about our culture.
It can happen regardless of upbringing - my own two (previously quite 'normal') daughters, although not becoming virulent man haters or anything approaching that, certainly developed sympathies for some of the more bizarre notions they encountered in the tertiary system. This is the age when the ideologues can too easily piggyback on adolescents' natural inclination towards independence from their parents.
You should be nervous, but not for the selfish reasons you state. The best policy nowadays is for men to assume all women are unworthy of trust until proven otherwise. Don't elect women to office. Don't marry one without a prenup. Don't hire or use companies run by women.
Thanks Janice, fascinating! I'd just like to add for your supporters that Steve Brule recently started uploading onto his current YouTube channel the first series of The Fiamengo File, which was taken offline when YouTube took down his original channel (for reasons unconnected with critiques of feminists and anti-feminists). Nobody has ever come close to creating a video series of that quality. I invite your many admirers to enjoy the series (link below). 20 videos uploaded so far, many more to come, each and every one of them an absolute gem.
Britain produced the legendary videomaker Rowland Adelagun, "ManWomanMyth", who sadly suffered a crippling brain injury in 2015 after a fall from height, almost certainly a suicide attempt. We host a playlist of all 130 of his videos:
Men are easy to understand. We have dignity, honor, and compassion; however, if you tell us enough times that we are useless trash. That we are rapists. That we are pigs. And that we, having testosterone, are evil monsters. Eventually, we will walk off and let you fend for yourselves.
Men are tired of trying to speak out against the stupidity of trans stupidity, the assault of women by foreign men of a dubious religion, and that we don't do enough to stop it.
There will come a time when men leave the cities, return to the rural areas, and watch from a distance as women reap what they sow.
There won't be much reaping going on... I recall that the insane feminist (I repeat myself) Kate Millett and some of her lesbian friends ran a farm somewhere, and the neighbouring (male) farmer was constantly having to sort out problems of their own making.
Feminism laid the groundwork for our other current ideologies: critical race theory, critical gender theory, social justice, and Palestinianism, all of which draw naïve students and shape their commitments. What is remarkable is that the supposed guardians of our institutions--including schools, universities, industry, government, military--surrender to these ideological fads and institutionalize them, undermining the functioning of these institutions and corrupting our entire society.
For American readers Engels was influenced on ideas of matriarchy and the development of patriarchy derived from the Iroquois. Though he merely used this to confirm his ideas of a prehistoric matriarchy from J.J. Bachofen, that in prehistory there had been a universal sisterhood matriarchal society. And this had been defeated by "patriarchy and private property" resulting in a universal oppression of women. This "diverged" from Marx himself who was all about socio economic classes which of course all had women in them. However as Marx's editor and successor to a large extent, Engels ideas became part of Communist and Socialist programmes. If you read Origin of the Family....... you will find it pretty much all the text book needed for modern feminism 101. With the possible exception that Engels never supposed people would change sex. These days this work has a sort of hidden status partly because its written by a man I expect and also because the ideas of Bachofen and Morgan are thoroughly discredited. However the ideas and even the policies to end "patriarchy" and put right "the historic defeat" of peaceful cooperative sharing female led society is all there in some detail. Certainly Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer and their followers are Engels Marxists
Feminism has complex roots, and the Marxist approach to the “woman question” has little in common with intersectional feminism, and even less with radical feminism.
Marxism’s focus on class really hasn’t had much impact on feminism.
Well in a sense it doesn't matter. But Engels is pretty central to feminism in Universities in Europe https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4DsM19TM5mGyKsgLNNp4pCS/what-is-the-patriarchy gives a potted history. The "soviets" that proliferated in Europe after WW1 all had ending the tyranny of "patriarchy" and destroying the family as integral to their programme of unchaining the proletariat. The USSR and after WW2 countries in the "eastern bloc" either abolished marriage or make it merely symbolic to free people (in the event people turned out to be rather tenacious about being "unfree" on this). Abortion on demand, universal institutional childcare, advancement of women in professions and sciences in fact all the demands of modern western feminists were all in the legal and political codes of these states. Now of course in reality things might have been different but in their own theory the eastern block and indeed China were smashing the patriarchy and private property because Engels said they were intertwined. Now I can see modern feminists would not want to draw attention to this given that few now would think Mao's cultural revolution or Lenin's bolshevik soviet state were anything other than nightmares. But the current flowering of skepticism about the liberal feminist project in the EU, comes mainly from the former Communist countries who have already been there.
Which is not to say there aren't still purist Marxists who point out Marx would have observed that there were women in all the various classes he identified.
Engels:
"It will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.""“The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.” Could be in any feminist tract for the last 100 years. And of course such stuff finds itself in the manifestos of european Green Parties as well as Socialist Parties.
The legitimacy of much of academic feminism in europe (including the British isles) relies on this close link with "Marxist" materialist theory simply because that is one of the "legitimate" theories of political and social analysis in academic circles.
Intersectionality and fluid gender stuff definitely comes from North America and so I can imagine a different history there. Here the "push back" comes from Feminist Academics as much as any others, putting front and centre the orthodoxy that the oppression is socio economic and is of all women as a class (no matter how apparently privileged they are) which goes a bit awry if people can change sex, or adopt a gender, or there are multiple genders! Hence here the TERFs are very much in the De Beauvoir/ Greer lane.
Yes indeed in terms of being a sort of "trades union" for women (usually posh women). But feminism in its Gender Studies/ Academic discipline is right from Engels. Certainly in the UK. Much of the 18th and 19th Century "feminism" was based on Christian values with the claim women were inherently more virtuous or should be. Engels pretty much originated the idea that the Patriarchy was about men collectively and deliberately oppressing all women as if the latter was a "class" . In a way this is symbolized by the split between Emmeline Pankhurst who was a Conservative candidate for MP at the time of her death and the revolutionary socialist Sylvia Pankhurst. In the the UK much the feminist campaigning, on prostitution, male homosexuality, temperance, birth control, breach of promise, saving women from hard labour and dangerous work, maternity, birth control, divorce even was largely about getting men to shoulder more responsibility and securing wives rights to material support. Whereas the radical idea of Engels was that marriage and its stabilities were in fact the very locus of oppression and had to be smashed if women were going to end their oppression.
Melanie Phillips describes quite how this happened here in the UK. Of course the truth is that this is as much about the men in those institutions, who were in the main the guardians who surrendered, as it is about feminists. One way or another the psychology of men, or at least the men leading all those institutions, is vital to what has happened. Indeed one of the proofs that there was not such thing as "the Patriarchy" is the sheer rapidity of the triumph of feminism in becoming the orthodox position of almost all the "political elite" in the UK. A trivial but revealing recent story concerns "The Garrick Club" in London. To me a fusty upper class dining club for posh blokes in the theatre, media "luvvie" world. But with many famous members. Cue a fuss about women becoming members. Then a lot of huffing and puffing and claims "three Judges" had reviewed the rules and eventually there is a vote of members to admit women as members. Now of course the reality is, in this country, its perfectly legal to have single sex clubs or non government organizations (Girl Guides comes immediately to mind as does the Boys Brigade and Girls Brigade) so the truth is it was up to the Garrick members to decide (in fact they had a similar vote a decade ago and remained men only members) Clearly the great and good of the Garrick couldn't summon up the courage to simply carry on as they could easily do, but instead indulged in virtue signaling, wriggling and frankly preposterous posturing to avoid saying no directly! And what were they afraid of ? Not the law because they really didn't need three Judges to tell them the law or to "interpret" the founders document ( because a decade ago they established the rules could change by members vote) not "protest" nor losing funding ..... no basically embarrassment that they were being mean to the "fairer sex".
The duplicity of feminists who on the one hand express outrage about male only clubs then on the other proliferate female-only groups and complain when men who pretend to be women want access to female-only spaces. Sure, toilets, changing rooms and sports are special instances incomparable to gentlemen's clubs, but many women's groups and services are comparable. Men's need for male-only spaces and activities is denied and resented.
Thank you for sharing your story so succinctly. Mine is some ways is the male mirror image of that story but with a real misogynist (Sharia promoting Iranian Muslim) to give the proof to some of the feminist idea that men abuse women and society often aids and abets it. That said, as a male, I learned over time, but most especially in graduate school at the University of New Hampshire where the Feminazi's have truly earned that title, where I finally realized that feminism is not about equal opportunity or fairness for all but is actually about female supremacy. Indeed, EVERY criticism of the patriarchy is actually a far better description of the conduct and beliefs of FEMINISTS than of men. Being on the "evil" side of this structure I learned many of the same lessons that Janice has shared here often as the target of feminist attack for simply daring to stand up for such little things as due process for the accused or pointing out when female "victims" are actually not victims but demonstrably lying to get back at the man who dared to say "NO" to a woman who wanted to continue a sexual relationship SHE began. How will this all play out? Students of history know that patterns of history repeat if society fails to learn from them. One of the most reliable patterns in history is that what goes around, comes around. Feminists seem not to realize that they are making the case FOR patriarchal societal governance by their feminist sexism and abuse of men. I recently watched the first season dramatizing the Canadian book A Handmaid's Tale. Beyond the massive absurdity behind the premise of much of the base storyline, the series was eye opening. It showed what feminists truly fear...but also how the sexually repressive society of Gilead actually had more in common with the behavior and thinking of FEMINIST governance...than of any society run by actual men. The most oppressive and cruel parties in the show are the WOMEN abusing their peers for their own personal advancement. Let that sink in the next time you hear the drivel about how wonderful a world run by women would be. Thanks for this piece and your bravery in standing up against the darkness Janice!
Want to add up all the misery caused by broken families? The drug abuse, alcoholism, promiscuity and ensuing abortions, depression, male suicide, gang violence, etc.?
This really resonates with me. I began my journey into 'the manosphere' at about the same time as the Farrel protest and have been following you, among others, ever since.
Unlike you, I really had no idea what academic feminism entailed or who any of it's most rabid gurus were. I just took for granted that feminism was what it claimed, publicly, to be about--equal rights. I supported it, too.
Then I hooked up with a 50 year woman (she's somewhere between 5 and 10 years younger than I am--she never could settle on her exact age) who was a PhD candidate in Women's & Gender Studies at Texas Woman's University. Holy crap was that an eye opener! When I started to take an interest, I started reading some of the stuff she was studying and teaching and was immediately struck with how simultaneously vapid and yet alarmist it was. I watched things like 'The Hunting Ground' and that silly video in which a girl walking down the street was portrayed as being harassed because men talked to.and sometimes complimented her. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry about Jackson Katz.
Then I dicovered you, the Honeybadgers, Christina Hoff Sommers, and all the usual 'meninist' suspects and never looked back.
Your voice and scholarship have meant more to me than I can easily express and I thank you for speaking out and hanging in there from the bottom of my heart. People desperately need to hear these things before we flush our culture down the toilet over the paranoid fever dreams of 'oppressed women and marginalized identities'.
That was a nice read. Sadly the misandry continues apace ... the Boyscouts are now Scouting America to be inclusive, except the Girlscouts are still exclusive to girls. Gov. Janet Mills in Maine signed legislation to hand over lots of construction jobs to women, regardless of whether women even want those jobs. Officials brag that the recent renovation of JFK airport involved as few white men as possible (Harmeet Dillon posted on X that there's some legal low hanging fruit here if anyone wants it). And that's just this week.
Janice, this is a wonderful description of intellectual, and moral, evolution. In particular, it is clear that you worked out that feminism is opposed to the principle of moral equality being extended beyond their fellow women; that is to say feminism defines men as subhuman. Any male claim to humanity must be suppressed, and every positive of masculinity denied.
Seeing you working it out, after years of commitment to the feminist cause, on the basis of a fundamental moral principle, belief in the common humanity of men and women, is heartwarming. Thank you for standing up for human dignity and decency.
I wish I had written this. It perfectly encapsulates what I feel about the hate culture towards men currently in ascendancy. I am often ashamed of the attitude many of my sex have towards men. How do they stand it.
It's really difficult -- though I think it's going to get much worse -- but sometimes just seeing there are good women present is encouragement enough.
Janice, your life experiences and personal growth give hope that other women may arrive at a clearer balanced perspective of the male experience. It is uplifting because you can so clearly see the travails of men when you haven’t experienced those travails directly yourself. Your expositions on the history of feminism may be the most informative I have seen as they are delivered with cool dispatch and accuracy. In my estimation you are one the key figures in men’s civil rights movement in the Western democracies today. Carry on.
It's gradually become clear that feminism is a mass cult. You've seen it from the inside and we're very fortunate you've been explaining to people just how destructive it is. It's great to see your FF videos coming back on YouTube.
I take great pleasure in finally finding cause to respectfully disagree with you, Janice, specifically regarding this: “… or perhaps because I was not nearly as smart as I thought I was.”
It was not a matter of you not having been smart, but rather a matter of you later becoming wise. Intelligence is an attribute; wisdom is a virtue.
Thank you for the wisdom you repeatedly bestow upon us and the courage with which you do so. We are enriched and inspired as a result.
Thanks for sharing your story. I went through something similar. Feminism is at best obsolete and at worst vicious and dishonest. Women who think they don’t need men are like children who think they don’t need adults. Men are indispensable civilization-builders, creators, thinkers, laborers, fighters, lovers, fathers, and friends. Their capacity for love, romance, and self-sacrifice is heart-breaking. I feel ashamed of my whiny feminist period and disgusted with women who want to disempower men even more. Maybe a little love and gratitude are in order.
Hear, hear!
Your comment reminded me of "Sex Change Society " by Melanie Phillips. Published in the late 1990s it sets out the theoretical underpinning and "march through the institutions" of the feminist movement. Her thesis is that in its academic and political manifestations it is an ideology of "perpetual adolescence" which is rooted in what teenage girls are frightened of ( not least the responsibility and dramatic changes with having children) and essentially offers a way to perpetuate the apparent freedom and continued support that characterizes the lives of middle class (British "middle class" rather than American usage) teenage and young women. Wherein someone, usually daddy or "authorities" , always hovers in the background. Of course Phillips only hints at the rise of actual changing sex, but the fact that thee is such an "epidemic" of teenage girls being referred to clinics seeking effectively to evade growing up seems to fit perfectly with her hypothesis (of course anything that affects females is an "epidemic" even if the numbers are actually very small). It is interesting that many of the "trans men" who have come out regretting their "transition" in effect say that actually what they wanted was to not be a woman, rather than be a man.
Yes, I have long suspected that feminist hatred towards men to some (or perhaps great) extent involves redirection of anger about the demands that biology and nature place on women. Men don't have to endure the suffering of pregnancy, childbirth or the 'bovine' boredom and constant self-denial of early child nurturing. However, feminists don't seem ever to have considered the sacrifice and suffering of men in their roles. They misinterpret men's enthusiasm for undertaking life-threatening, body-wrecking work, hunting or going to war as men's privilege to be able to do what they want, whereas men really are just as driven biologically (and expected socially) to seek their roles as women are for reproduction and nurturing. Life is hard for both men and women but feminists avoided recognition of that by ideological invention that men's suffering is as much due to 'patriarchy' as women believe their suffering is.
I don't really agree.
I think women are just ostracizing people. Feminism is this instinct to the nth degree.
I mean women bully the fuck out of each other all the time in ways which a man would never do.
I don't think it comes from a secret hatred of the demands of womanhood.
I think it's bpd tendencies.
I think women believe they have a raw deal biologically as well as socially: menstruation, childbearing, breastfeeding, the toll of the latter on the body, rapid decline in fertility and sexual attractiveness, etc. But why do they believe it? Why not celebrate the ability to give birth and to nurture a human being at one's breasts? Resentment and accompanying hostility seem built in to the nature of the female.
I think a lot of its built. Not necessarily socialized, but definitely exacerbated
I mean women dote on babies naturally.
I definitely get caught up in the idea that female vindictiveness is innate, but some grace is definitely warranted.
Being raised in a culture that is for all intents and purposes a fertility cult with a Christian asthetic is definitely not good for proper moral development.
But yeah I think women have a proclivity to be that for sure.
Their jungian shadow I suppose.
Beautiful women are resented, when a very attractive woman walks into a room and all men's eyes follow, the women feel that despite their bond, this stranger has usurped them at a very basic level.
I don't. Most women love being pregnant, as long as they are financially secure.
These are generalizations that I have not found to be true. The only women I have met that felt trapped by the early stages of motherhood were very young and had single friends where it seemed their grass was greener. Immaturity really.
Disagree.
This is generally the case, and our culture shows it.
Gotta love the female inability to refrain from saying
"But my experience is different!"
Literally take a glance at the world around you instead of your own little bubble.
This is classic dorothy syndrome.
Just came across this via Substack reads. I do believe that a push back against the toxic side of feminism is finally gathering strength. I wrote about this recently (even though I'm a natural pessimist!) quoting several feminist/former feminist dissidents: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance. Should have quoted you too shouldn't I.
There is only the toxic side of feminism.
There is no feminism that was ever anything else.
People let emotionalism get in the way. If you judged women the way you judged men, and you held them to the same standard, you'd quickly find that women were never held back, they just can't hack it.
"Feminist dissidents"
Ah yes, more christina hoff sommers bitchy women who do nothing but go "Feminism wasn't always like this!"
Is there toxic femininity and toxic masculinity, I think so.
Succinct and powerful. Couldn’t agree more.
Some women love pregnancy and motherhood, some men love their jobs. It isn't all a vale of tears.
Most women I know who had children in their 30's and 40's reveled in the experience. They were ready to settle down at that point. But context matters, so financial struggles or relationship struggles will impact hugely the experience. Nesting is an instinct when the baby is born, and women want a secure space to raise their young. Totally natural and necessary.
I think women are all just a little fucking crazy.
I think women have a lot boundless neuroticism and negative emotions that hit them when they go through puberty, and it manifests in strange ways.
"what they wanted was to not be a woman"
What they want is to not be anything at all and be everything at the same time.
To have total license, free from the constraints of reality itself.
That's why so many transition, become wiccans, get into crystals and "manifesting" or other weird shit.
Women's thinking is more driven by emotion. This can be a strength or challenge depending on the situation. It can lead to serious problems, especially in our society thinks asking women to have restraint and manners is bad.
A friend of mine who has known MH institutions from within and without for decades put it this way: ‘all men are autistic, all women are borderliners’.
'All' could not possibly be true.
IMO you’re not exactly wrong in identifying the overall presence of certain negative emotions in women as a whole, which can lead to maladaptive behaviors. But it’s necessary to balance this take with other truths. First and foremost, societal trends are exacerbating this tendency right now. In fact, this mindset has become more common in young men too. Yuck. We need everyone to be balanced and stable within their masculine and feminine identities, with generous allowance for individuality.
Secondly, it’s also true that women are enormously strong, overall, especially when it comes to caring for their children and their families. We will work ourselves to the bone to save our children, to care for our elderly parents. It’s therefore distressing to see younger women being encouraged to see themselves as victims and to focus on developing and indulging negative emotions.
Finally, of course not all women are prone to these particular negative emotions. Moi, for example. I have my share of faults and have made my share of mistakes—but they don’t follow from excess neuroticism. It’s made it more difficult for me to fit in with the girls; I really enjoy the company of men or of mixed groups.
I don't agree it's more common in young men.
Young men are despondent and unsure of themselves from a lifetime of feminist emotional abuse.
I don't think women are particularly strong. If women were so strong why can't they resist the urge to give in to their negative emotions? I'm ot claiming that women provide no utility to families, but strength of character isn't something I see in women.
Maybe there is some matriarchal ancient strength in women somewhere, but modernity has killed it, and turned them all into little rage beasts.
An ideology that exploits "what teenage girls are frightened of" is from the same playbook that repressive regimes have used throughout history - keeping them living in fear makes them easier to control. I don't know if it was a deliberate strategy by the communists or Frankfurt School disciples as some suggest, but it certainly fits their agenda.
Teen girls are frightened of the shadows of mice.
Women are easy to control without fear honestly.
Women are not primarily afraid of being raped, which like all violent crime, is rare.
They are primarily afraid of being judged and ostracized.
If you can make women believe a certain idea is orthodoxy, and if they don't subscribe to it they'll be outcasts, you can make women do pretty much fucking anything.
Fear helps obviously.
Melanie Phillips is brilliant and quite possibly prescient.
I saw a video of a young man, a detransitioner, who had had a sexual relationship with a self-identified lesbian. He described how riven he was by thoughts that him having sex with this girl was abusive.
But it's the feminist narrative that's abusive.
Thanks SV. "Women who think they don’t need men are like children who think they don’t need adults." Brilliant!!!
Feminism is at best, vicious and dishonest.
At worst it's genocidal. I mean, men kill themselves at 8x the rate of women, and instead of dubbing it to the unbelievably culturally entrenched shaming that women do of men and the family courts, we dub it to "toxic masculinity".
I appreciate that you're not a feminist, but comments like yours don't satisfy me.
I have to be frank that any comment that is anything but absolutely fucking ruthless in its attacking of feminism simply doesn't satisfy me.
Not attacking your character, but the "Feminism is at best obsolete" just makes me roll my eyes to the back of my head.
If MRAs are to win, I don't see a place for such dismissive attitudes about feminism, which is a an absolute hate movement, and also has always been a hate movement since 1848 when it originated in Seneca falls.
I mean, this comment just doesn't seem to address the genocidal fervor that is feminism.
"Women who think they don’t need men are like children who think they don’t need adults."
I don't think of it like this. If a woman wants to puff out her chest at how much she doesn't need men, I really am completely indifferent to it. The issue comes from the fact that feminism isn't some mean nasty women unnecessarily pumping themselves up. The issue comes from the fact that feminism is fervently genocidal, an en masse manifestation of women's BPD tendencies and really has pushed me to the point were I now flip flop daily on whether or not women should be doing things like voting and serving on juries. The rationale for patriarchy in the past is evidently clear to me.
Even in your comment you talk about all the ways in which men benefit women, obviously not from a place of malice, but I would like to see people talk about men's rights from a perspective of what men are entitled too, without once talking about what they do for women, or children, or old people, or anybody. When people talk about women, they never talk about how much women do for people as mothers, or nurses, or teachers, or anything else. They talk about what women deserve.
I'm not trying to have a gotcha moment, but people act as if feminism is harmless like a little girls tempter trantrum. Even when they rightly describe it as unethical and unfair, they always seem to give it this level of naive little girl innocence it just doesn't really have.
I really don't think of it like that. I think of it as a movement of genocide.
Yes it's not a physical genocide, but when you quite literally dominate everyone's way of thinking through every cultural outlet in the entirety of the western world, it really doesn't have to be.
Suffragettes did commit terrorism in the early 1900s. The lack of physicality in feminism comes from a lack of need for it, rather than moral restraint.
One of the reasons I like Janice Fiamengo so much in particular amongst so many others, is precisely because she very rarely mentions what men provide for anyone, rather focusing on what men are entitled to. Equality under the law, and not being aggressively slandered and abused in society.
I'd say significantly more than love and gratitude are in order. A massive cultural widespread apology from women is in order if I'm being perfectly honest.
Which male or male entity propped up those Suffragettes and other early feminists?
I agree that feminism is genocidal, but what man/men devised/encouraged/funded/implemented feminism in the first place?
Feminism would be nothing without male consent or sponsorship.
Seems like more not holding women accountable.
It is true that men for the past 200 yrs have been, essentially, groveling sycophantic pussy dogs.
However, women should be culpable for the sex supremacism they've taken part in.
When someone bullies a shy kid in school, you tell the shy kid to stand up for themselves, but you still punish the bully.
Those grovelling sycophantic pussy dog men seem to be left wing men. They're kind of like that of Warren Farrell. There's an interesting study that confirms weak men tends to be more egalitarian.
Yes, I agree. I would never call Warren Farrell a pussy sycophantic dog, because I think he has a lot of integrity and is a good person. But yes, he is far to limp wristed, lenient, and egalitarian. He definitely is not what the MRAs should emulate.
Also, I'd like to point out that a lot of elite men were involved in feminism. I suggest having look at this article: https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/06/12/china-commits-genocide-on-uyghurs-by-emancipating-their-women-and-promoting-gender-equality-and-reproductive-rights/
I'm going to disagree. He's part of the reason we're in this mess. The writing was on the wall during 2nd wave feminism, the fact he didn't notice this says a lot about his academic ability and his calibre as a human. To exacerbate, he's an atheist, which doesn't surprise me at all, a correlation of being left wing, having a non-traditional view of the world, and low birth rate. He's without any biological children of his own. I'm just happy to know that people who associate or believe in the concept of equality are breeding themselves out.
Not at all.
Many women took the inch they were given and ran with. Hence our situation today.
Going to have to disagree again.
Women continue to ascribe a childlike lack of agency to women that isn't warranted.
Yes, men contributed to feminism.
But it's womens movement.
LOL, I’m not ascribing childlike anything to anybody.
Outside of that, any ‘movement’ is top-down, so you can call it “women’s,” but it ain’t.
Exactly! It was never about empowering women. It was about broadening the work force, dismantling men's unions, keeping wages low. In our quest for liberation and equality we managed to add even more to an already overfilled plate. Now motherhood and housekeeping had to be combined with a career and the neuroses of maintaining youth and attractiveness in a consumerist world that sees ageing as the 8th mortal sin. The vast majority of homeless people is women over 50 these days. Men are pushed into a corner, either castrated or pumped up with frustration and anger. It's us that bear the ugly consequences yet again, but "empowered" this time. We were played, girls, that's the sad truth...
The reason feminism is evil has nothing to do with fucking motherhood or the workforce.
The reason feminism is evil is because it calls men rapists pedos and wife beaters on the regular from the time they are lik 12.
Women can work today and could work 200 yrs ago.
Women could always start their own businesses, they just never did.
In many male workspaces, they allowed women as well.
It's just that women made their choices, and became housewives.
It is what it is.
This has nothing to do with feminism however. Feminism discrimiates against men in the workforce and all other areas of society under the law.
Attitudes like yours is what made us feminists in the first place.
Yes. He has some excellent points, well thought out, and true. But it comes wrapped up in hatred and distain for women.
I'm a nurse, formerly SAHM, and 100% a men lover. I love and appreciate the heck out of men.
I have never participated in man-bashing. I don't like women-bashing either.
It's the attitude of the person who decides to become a feminist that makes the feminist.
Try some CBT or Stoic philosophy.
Attitudes like what?
That the end all be all of feminism isn't about "motherhood" or something corny and clichéd?
Feminism discriminates against men under the law and hurls conti ups emotional abuse at them. It is what it is.
It's not about motherhood or anything like that.
It seems you don't understand why feminism is actually bad.
Feminism was about empowering women the same way nazism was about empowering aryans.
Women didn't have anything to be liberated from. They could work, own property, vote since 1920, go to university, etc etc. Women were already equal under the law by 1920, and the vote wasn't considered a legal right prior to 1920. Women had all of their human rights throughout all of American history. Equality is a non-word that people use but it actually has no definition.
Women don't have an overfilled plate. Women today don't do anything. Women don't have a plate. They've hoisted all of their plates onto men. Women today are all perpetual children.
Women do more housework cause they work less hours. Women who work the same hours do pretty much equal housework to their husband. It's a myth.
Motherhood is one of those things that women bitch about but other than labor, there is nothing about being a mother that requires women be more responsible than being a father. Again, women who work the same hours do the same hours of childcare contraty to the myths you're spreading.
Women have neuroses about everything because women are neurotic. Women don't have to maintain their youth, no one tells them to do that. It's just a way for women to compete with other women. You can blame feminism for making makeup something not just for prostitutes in the 1920s.
No one sees ageing as the 8th mortal sin. No one cares. Women just say that to get sympathy from people.
The vast majority of homeless people are men.
Yes, men are pushed into a corner.
No, men are not either castrated or pumped up with frustration and anger. They are either castrated, or they rightly realize that feminism is evil, and justifiedly want it to end. You seem to think that feminism causes "toxic masculinity" or some horseshit. No, mens' anger towards feminism is justified. There is nothing unjustified about the frustration of anti feminist men.
No, women don't bear any of the consequences of feminism. Women think they bear the consequences of literally anything that happens in the world literally ever.
What stupidity.
Women were not played, they led a female supremacist movement for no reason because women are hopelessly neurotic and always want to come out on top, even in situations were no one is trying to defeat them.
"Which male or male entity propped up those Suffragettes and other early feminists?"
The same men who would send their younger potential competitors off to their deaths at the drop of a thimble.
The hoisting of accountability of feminism onto men, I think, is hogwash.
Yes there is a top down element to it all, but nothing is ever completely top down. Women pushed feminism forward to a great extent.
I mean, was white supremacy in the southern slave states top down? Probably to an extent, but it's not like southern whites were brainwashed mk ultra style.
Power hungry women who lusted for power are responsible for feminism as much as anyone.
Was the white feather campaign instigated by those older men?
And if those feminists really were propped up by men, that could just mean men were being badgered and browbeaten into agreeing to help.
Indeed. All about power, in the end.
Envious?
Of what???
Yay! Finally someone who agrees with me, I've been saying this (to anyone who would listent) for years that feminism is a male invention for the benefit of some men. I learned this from a historian by the name of Jerome Corsi. Whenever are we going to grapple with that fact? Also, women have been killing off men by poisioning them since the days of the Roman Empire at least (see all the episodes of the BBC Series I, Claudius). Women never needed feminism to terrorize men. They've been doing it for centuries. As to the Repeal the 19th Amendment cool your tools. Women have been voting in this country for 150 years - Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1871. No; if the world is going to hell in a handbasket it is because of the dehumanization of the human species by AI and technology. I direct your attention to Steve Bannon's recent interview on the Russel Brand Show and he mansplains the whole thing.
Women who understand this are rare. Thank you.
Feminism has never been good or needed. I believe the key to destroying feminism is to somehow teach people its true history. Men and women had different roles throughout history. Life was very different before modern times. There was unfairness at times, but it went in both directions. You can acknowledge times where women are oppressed like honor killing in the middle east, but feminism has never been needed to correct it. Feminism will not end until people learn its always been about pushing hatred of men through lies. The opposite of feminism is not women being slaves of men.
Well said! Loved this one:
"Women who think they don’t need men are like children who think they don’t need adults."
So true.
SV, would you like to submit your story about coming to realize the legitimacy of men's issues and the dishonesty of feminism for the second edition of my book "Daughters of Feminism"? You can see the first edition (Janice's story is in it) on Amazon.
Wow, thanks, I am honored that you asked! Sure, pemrobably, depending on the details, like length, deadline, and whatever else. Please share that info with me and I will respond accordingly. 🌸🦋👍🏻
Length is 1000 to 5000 words. No deadline to speak of, I'm collecting stories at this point, for publication in a year or two. Send me an email at david@integraldesign.org and we can discuss.
Beautiful sentiments. Thank you Violet. Thank you very much.
I was a feminist for 30 years. I was happy to give strong support for women’s equality—one in a long line of male voices dating back to, well, even before John Stuart Mill. Appealing to my innate sense of fair play regarding perceived injustices suffered by women, as I was told there were, I was seduced by feminist ideology. I’m now highly critical of the movement. There came a time when I felt conned by feminism which presented injustices which were simply and factually false. It also highlighted desirable rights for women but singularly failed to talk about responsibility and how women had contributed to social inequality and what, if any, obligations they had to society and to men. I view feminism harshly but remain pro-woman. The theme often is, “if you’re against feminism you must be against women and their struggles for equality.” I am for women. And I am for men—for both sexes realizing their full potential as human beings.
I spent those 30 years believing that feminism what “just about equality” and believing that a fairer, kinder world was possible once the inequalities between the sexes had been addressed. I’ve been on women’s marches and automatically favored any and all social and legislative efforts which sought to redress any perceived imbalance. I cared about women’s issues. And I still do today. But my understanding is now far more nuanced. My own internal bias favored women’s voices above men’s because of the ongoing injustices I believed they experienced as a group. Had I heard any rebuke of feminism coming from a man, I would have instantly judged him to be defending his privileged position and trying to muddy the water. So it wasn’t until I heard such a rebuke coming from the mouth of a woman, Karen Straughan, that I started to question my belief paradigm. I can now hear men’s pain where before I was deaf.
Feminism masterfully passes itself off as a social good in a way that makes invisible and insidious the harms it does. It can do so because, as a society, there is an assumption that femininity (and, by extension, women) is inherently full of goodness and beauty—indicating a presumed moral superiority. By contrast, men are considered inherently problematic (if not toxic) and must be tamed and subdued so as to reverse past transgressions, and to then step off the plate.
Its what William Collins calls "Gynocentrism", which I find a powerful idea in tterms of the explanation of the way in which many patently anti male ideas get a free pass and frequently get a helping hand from "conservatives" as much as from leftists. Way back in the late 1970s, though not my area of study I took an interest in researching "femininism" particularly the repeal of a variety of statutes in the UK in the 1960s that meant women needed male guarantors for loans, couldn't work in certain industries etc. (my father died suddenly in '67 and my mother had difficulty sorting the mortgage, though by then it wasn't Law but just bank policy). Of course what I found was these laws were often less that 100 years old when repealed and had all been lobbied for by high minded men (Charles Dickens and other luminaries) and Women's groups and Churches to protect women from hard labour, risks of injury and in the case of loans, to protect women from being imprisoned for debt if they defaulted, that fate reserved for the male "guarantor" of the loan. In the same era the judicial system began to have guidance giving much less harsh treatments to women, due to their frailty, "influence by men", mothers special role etc. All in all the actual motivations for the flowering of such a raft "patriarchal" legislation were to save females from the risks and hardships it seemed were to be left to men. Interestingly in the industrial towns there were protests by working class women because in so many the only industry in the village or small town was mining or heavy industries and the legislation cut these off as sources of income from women who had long relied on this source of income. Because of course here in he industrial north (and indeed other industrial regions) everybody had to work to eat. At least in the Mill Towns (Cotton, Wool, Silk) the industry carried on employing women in vast numbers.
This is such a common pattern with social causes. I lived in NYC in the 1980s, and back then, the African American Activist community was heavily focused on crack as *the* source of all the problems (crime) in their neighborhoods. They successfully lobbied for federal sentencing laws requiring severely harsh prison sentences for possession and sale of crack, much harsher than for power cocaine. After about a decade, when plenty of black men had been sentenced under those laws, the African American Activist community began making equally loud noise - decrying the harsher sentences "targeting" blacks because blacks preferred crack, and whites being coddled with light sentences for powder cocaine (as if blacks couldn't buy powder, and whites couldn't buy crack).
Round and round it goes.
Unfortunately the lunatics have been in charge of the asylum for some time now.
Feminist..."Just think women couldn't get a credit card in the 1970s"
Me..."you couldn't be brought to court for unpaid debts"
Until the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a woman was unable to apply for a credit card under her own name. She had to have a joint credit card with her husband. Viewed through today’s lens of hostility towards men, surely this was a clear example of Patriarchal oppression! Yet, as always, there is nuance. Here the law was catching up to a changing world. Husbands had previously been expected to bankroll their wives—men were the breadwinners and women were the home-makers. Women had for decades been able to access in-store credit in the days when credit cards didn’t even exist. Companies like Woolworth’s were all too pleased for the wife to run up a hefty line of credit—the husband was expected to make good the money owed. Indeed, the courts ruled that it was the right of the wife to run up debt without prior approval from her husband.
I assume, though, that the law wouldn't have applied to a single woman? She would have been able to obtain a credit card if she had the means to pay her own debt?
Was that in the USA? In the UK in '78 my then girlfriend got a "Barclaycard" before me and this was all very new and exciting here in the UK I got mine a year later (forgot the pin number and had it "eaten by the machine" on my first attempt to use an ATM).
Apparently it happened to every woman.
The patriarchy oppresses women ya know.
If you just talk about the effects without the reasons why then you create a false narrative.
"My hand is sore, my husband hurt my hand"
Reality, she slapped her husband for no reason and she hurt her hand on his face.
Effect....he's arrested for domestic abuse.
Women could get credit cars in the USA ever since they were invented.
A bunch of hog wash.
It's like the "women couldn't get mortgages" thing.
Would you loan thousands to someone who you couldn't bring to court if they decided not to repay it?
Precisely. One of the "scandals" that was cited in the campaigns for this law was when the Duke of Devonshire had refused to pay off the then Duchess of Devonshire's creditors. Raising the real possibility a lady of quality might have been incarcerated. The actual law assumed that a male family member would want to be guarantor due to "natural sentiment". Which to be honest probably was the case in a society that assumed the family was the core institution of a Christian Society. Whereas these days being "bankrupt" is a technical thing, back then it was a moral as well as financial disaster.
Yes I thought it must be. I know here the general use of Credit Cards was more than a decade after the repeal of the British statute.
I think what to you was you started respecting women.
I've never come across a male feminist who respected women.
Talk to any of them and they'll talk about how oppressed women are and how unfair life is for them.
I saw a video of a male feminist talking to a female MRA.
He was talking to her like she was an idiot and didn't know her real life.
It's like white liberals talking to Candace Owens about what it's like to be an oppressed black person in America.
Glorious
I mean this comes off as kinda corny.
Idk, it just seems that there is such an attempt to say "It's the anti feminists who really respect women!"
And it isn't a feminism specific thing, everyone does it with leftism.
"We conservatives really respect black people".
It comes off as kinda tryhard. What's the point of talking like this anyway? It certainly isn't going to win over feminists who are objective cult members.
And male feminists, to try and paint them as guys who secretly think women are losers, is just overdone. Male feminists are by and large highly agreeable men who are extremely pathetic, but well meaning, and passive to the point were they line up to be taken advantage of.
I mean, I regard male feminists as victims honestly.
But it's true.
The illusion that feminist males supporting when by stepping back because of the "privilege" they have is very insulting.
If you got employment based on your merit and hard work
Would you believe a person who got a job with your renumeration through a short list just because of an attribute they have but you don't (different colour, height, sex, religion, weight, political affiliation)?
If you're a male feminist, you look down on women.
If you're like me, I expect women to be just as capable on order to do a job.
There is no invisible force helping men and oppressing women.
Anyone who thinks so is a misogynist.
Anti-feminist women have self respect.
Not to mention that women aren't as capable as men in a great many fields, some of which have nothing to do with physicality.
It is of course mostly down to choices.
Just to add, women are more competent than men in many other fields of work and life than men are.
But it works both ways.
I've often tried to think of the fields in which women are more competent than men, and I can't think of many, honestly. I think women are better at caring for young children: they are more capable of hearing when the child is upset or in need; they are more alert to dangers.
Perhaps this translates into an aptitude for work with very young children.
Women have an aptitude for displays of beauty and grace. Their soft voices sometimes makes them skilled in dealing with animals, especially traumatized animals.
I'm not sure of anything else, though.
Medicine, law, teaching, manufacturing, resource extraction, designing, communicating, governing, leadership, business, sales ... I come up blank. Interested to hear what you think (and not being snide, honestly).
I just don't agree. It's insulting for the male feminists doing so far more than it is for the women. Its a sign of total submission by the men.
No, there isn't said invisible force obviously. But I honestly think that anyone who thinks so is a misandrist, not misogynist. They think men are evil
4 male feminists vs anti-feminist females.
https://youtu.be/Fk_kQNABcO8?si=youHhpzc55NdUZ0J
For some, it definitely is a beta mating strategy.
For others however, I think a lot of them are dealt bad hands and conditioned from female family, school teachers, and media to hate themselves and their manhood.
I think a lot of those guys are just manipulated, more than trying to be sexually calculating in some beta strategy.
You have been a victim of an ideology.
Empowered by the believe of being morally higher brought to you by being a member of the ideology you have proven not to be morally higher and caused wreckage of what was build and made innocent people victims of your "morally higher ideology".
0nce you realize this you to learn to accept this reality of life and come to peace to be grounded.
Learn to look at the stupidity of the world and realize you are both part of the world and the stupidity. Learn not longer judge people on their believes or words but on their actions.
You have now become a wise old man.
Don't ask me how I know
I'm sorry all that happened to you. I felt the same when I began to realize how extensive the gaslighting and false claims behind feminism really were. I guess I just needed people to tell the truth about stuff like that. I no longer do. It feels like you've been played, and your protective instincts for another person exploited.
I know how this is going to sound, but it's true...the women where I live just don't act like that (and I have looked for it), and they definitely don't appreciate other women telling lies that can damage the social fabric. What's the difference? I think it is that they have real agency, in the sense that they can usually solve their own problems, and hence feel that they don't need as much protection.
In a deeply hierarchical social order (which I believe characterizes most states accurately, irrespective of who holds the reigns of power) in which most people don't have direct access to what they need, it makes all the sense in the world to do whatever you need to do to obtain a position in that order, whether it's sacrifice your body, as industrial laborers did and do, or play on men's protective instinct toward you., even when you do not need it.
I agree with you, unfortunately though many who comment are not pro woman and paint all women with the same brush.
Stuff like this makes me nervous. I have a daughter, Riley, headed off to college in the fall. She's smart, sweet and eager to please. I don't want to see her buried neck deep in this crap and turn into a virulent man hater.
I may be a bit more sensitive to this possibility because I 'm her father. I mean, if she starts hating dudes, how is that going to effect our relationship? I love my kid I don't need her turned against me by some preachy radfem. I'm doing my best to teach her to avoid this crap and she's going into the sciences so hopefully that will help, but I'm nervous. I really am.
Hi Jim. I feel for you. I am on the other side of the situation you describe. By that I mean beautiful intelligent twin daughters who finished university 2-3 years ago in Melbourne Australia. I had always tried to instill in my daughters a force independence of thought. Always encouraged them to challenge their own thinking by making a strong counter argument in their own head to any philosophical position they might adopt. I’m very happily married (25 years) and we love our girls, talk every week and have family catch ups every few weeks despite being 300km apart. Unfortunately I was unable to save them from the beast of feminism. If ever I tried to discuss ideology directly I would receive a lecture on male privilege, rape culture, the hunting ground and endless statistics. We all still love each other but we just don’t have deep conversations about so many important aspects of life to avoid conflict. It devastates me that they don’t seem to understand feminism has blinded them to the strongest male advocate they will ever have. They are now 26 and I’m proud of them and don’t blame them. There are small signs starting to show that they might have a similar awakening that Janice, myself and many others have had about feminism. Best of luck and if it doesn’t go well, stay as close as you can and let time do its work.
Great advice.
I am sorry that happened to you and your family. But to not assign any blame at all to your kids for the attitudes they themselves have adopted is to play the feminist game of treating women as helpless pawns in some game of life.
Hi PAT. For me I attribute it all to the ignorance of youth. Blame implies resentment and is a negative emotion between myself and my girls which serves no purpose. I am disappointed. Not in them but for them. I certainly blame the education system and all of the institutions that support the indoctrination of children. It makes you understand how so many German youth were indoctrinated into the most evil of all ideologies in WWII.
Feminist statistics are from loaded questions.
Just asking "were men asked" usually skewers the absolute belief in the brainwashing.
However, cognitive dissonance glosses over small blemishes in possible problems of inaccuracies.
Definitely! You can do amazing things to statistics if you only focus on part of the picture. "What if we define 'rape' as something that only a male-bodied person can do? Well, what do you know, now 100% of rapists are men!" etc.
I feel for you, JM. Having a daughter entering college must be hugely worrying these days. As Janice outlined in her story, the appeal of victim power is powerfully seductive. But I have observed that those women who had loving fathers usually come back to their senses, if they do get sucked in for a time.
Thanks David. And of course young women without loving fathers do NOT 'return to their senses'. I don't think there's even been a prominent feminist with a good relationshiop with her father. Many years ago I debated with Julie Bindel at Durham University. A number of feminists came up to me to chat in the bar afterwards, all of them told me (unprompted) that they didn;t have a father in their lives. By destroying the nuclear family, feminists have ensured a constant stream of new recruits. And I can't help wonder how many women (and men, for that matter) were alienated towards their fathers by their mothers, leading to a sadly permanent loss of relationship, to the lifelong detriment of the women and their fathers.
My daughter has chosen not to go to uni. It's significant as her mother and I have 2 certs and 5 degrees between us. We are both pleased and supportive. And she's making money. I'm very proud, and relieved to be honest.
She’s making the right choice. You deserve to feel proud.
Don't ever place any value in these "certificates" or "diploma's", and make sure your children are capable of defending themselves against the so called "intellectuals" who will put them down, in order to elevate themselves. I have many different types of friends that I know since primary school (grew up in the middle of nowhere so most stuck together) and some of them are more "practically" educated, and some are more "theoretically" educated. But we are all friends and education and those certificates don't mean anything if you don't have anything of value to offer for employers/customers. Some of those practically educated guys made more money then the Uni folks at some point. The solar panel business was booming big time as well as installing A/C units and you could make big bank just slapping them on the roof. Usually, but not always, the Uni folks make more money later in life but that strongly depends on what sort of work/opportunities/etc. you have.
You have so many websites that you can use to educate yourself nowadays outside of Uni. I myself am a big fan of Udemy or Pluralsite, given I don't care much about books (I read tons of documentation for a living, so I need a break after work from reading). You can learn almost anything outside of Uni and it is often cheaper, you can do it at your own pace, at home, outside of work, and sometimes there is great community you can engage with. All of that without the brainwashing and other nonsense I had when I went to Uni (and dropped out, multiple times).
Don't worry one bit about going or not going to Uni. There are some things in life you will never get a second chance for; a birth, a wedding, a funeral, a first impression, and of course raising your children. If you do the last one right (you only have ONE chance!), your kids will make it, regardless of education. I know it to be true, some of my friends have either passed away at 20 years old, or gotten addicted to drugs and alcohol, and both were complete opposites in terms of education (Uni vs working on a farm) but had one thing in common: a troubled relationship with their parents.
I hope your daughter resists feminism. I suspect having a loving father's presence in her life gives her an advantage in resisting feminism's false claims and warped emotionalism.
You have every reason to be nervous. We had a great relationship with our daughter, she wasn't raised to believe any of the feminist leftist garbage. Her politics as a young adult were a little different than mine, her mother largely doesn't discuss it but she's by no means a leftist. I chalked up our differences to her being young and we still got along. At some point in her life after college she began to espouse feminist ideology. It morphed over time to the point she cut contact with us and moved to the other side of the country. Her husband is a feminist and encouraged all of it. Before they left town we were hauled into court for the crime of love bombing, telling her we loved her. Seriously, that was her basis for trying to get a restraining order and make our banishing legal. We worry about the effects of all this on our two young grandsons. I don't have any answers on how to prevent it, we did everything we could to show her we loved her, the importance of family, even paying for her college. Just be wary, I sincerely hope it doesn't happen to you.
That is a heartbreaking story. I'm so sorry about it.
I knew a man who had a similar experience; his daughter came home from college at Christmas a changed person, and she got worse over time, becoming thoroughly indoctrinated. They had been very close before.
I think that the phenomenon of young women becoming alienated from their parents is becoming more and more common; and college isn't even necessary. It is now in the air. What a terrible statement about our culture.
Ugh, the sciences.
Ever wonder why kids are encouraged to go “off” to school, “away” from home?
A person really doesn’t need to be hundreds of miles from home to become a free-thinking adult.
But said person does need to be gone far away for a long time to get indoctrinated real good.
It can happen regardless of upbringing - my own two (previously quite 'normal') daughters, although not becoming virulent man haters or anything approaching that, certainly developed sympathies for some of the more bizarre notions they encountered in the tertiary system. This is the age when the ideologues can too easily piggyback on adolescents' natural inclination towards independence from their parents.
You should be nervous, but not for the selfish reasons you state. The best policy nowadays is for men to assume all women are unworthy of trust until proven otherwise. Don't elect women to office. Don't marry one without a prenup. Don't hire or use companies run by women.
And, I hope she is does not experience the flip side.
Thanks Janice, fascinating! I'd just like to add for your supporters that Steve Brule recently started uploading onto his current YouTube channel the first series of The Fiamengo File, which was taken offline when YouTube took down his original channel (for reasons unconnected with critiques of feminists and anti-feminists). Nobody has ever come close to creating a video series of that quality. I invite your many admirers to enjoy the series (link below). 20 videos uploaded so far, many more to come, each and every one of them an absolute gem.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGFFi6pRCnCcL5RUhTkIClr-g43wCDf1P
Britain produced the legendary videomaker Rowland Adelagun, "ManWomanMyth", who sadly suffered a crippling brain injury in 2015 after a fall from height, almost certainly a suicide attempt. We host a playlist of all 130 of his videos:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMscr0TpRqhGadn27XAzBcwXchJ2EvYp
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
Great integrity Janice. Well spoken as always. The world needs you.
Men are easy to understand. We have dignity, honor, and compassion; however, if you tell us enough times that we are useless trash. That we are rapists. That we are pigs. And that we, having testosterone, are evil monsters. Eventually, we will walk off and let you fend for yourselves.
Men are tired of trying to speak out against the stupidity of trans stupidity, the assault of women by foreign men of a dubious religion, and that we don't do enough to stop it.
There will come a time when men leave the cities, return to the rural areas, and watch from a distance as women reap what they sow.
There won't be much reaping going on... I recall that the insane feminist (I repeat myself) Kate Millett and some of her lesbian friends ran a farm somewhere, and the neighbouring (male) farmer was constantly having to sort out problems of their own making.
Well that’s on the idiot males isn’t it
Feminism laid the groundwork for our other current ideologies: critical race theory, critical gender theory, social justice, and Palestinianism, all of which draw naïve students and shape their commitments. What is remarkable is that the supposed guardians of our institutions--including schools, universities, industry, government, military--surrender to these ideological fads and institutionalize them, undermining the functioning of these institutions and corrupting our entire society.
And feminism is basically derived from Marxism. Freidrich Engels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State
For American readers Engels was influenced on ideas of matriarchy and the development of patriarchy derived from the Iroquois. Though he merely used this to confirm his ideas of a prehistoric matriarchy from J.J. Bachofen, that in prehistory there had been a universal sisterhood matriarchal society. And this had been defeated by "patriarchy and private property" resulting in a universal oppression of women. This "diverged" from Marx himself who was all about socio economic classes which of course all had women in them. However as Marx's editor and successor to a large extent, Engels ideas became part of Communist and Socialist programmes. If you read Origin of the Family....... you will find it pretty much all the text book needed for modern feminism 101. With the possible exception that Engels never supposed people would change sex. These days this work has a sort of hidden status partly because its written by a man I expect and also because the ideas of Bachofen and Morgan are thoroughly discredited. However the ideas and even the policies to end "patriarchy" and put right "the historic defeat" of peaceful cooperative sharing female led society is all there in some detail. Certainly Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer and their followers are Engels Marxists
Feminism has complex roots, and the Marxist approach to the “woman question” has little in common with intersectional feminism, and even less with radical feminism.
Marxism’s focus on class really hasn’t had much impact on feminism.
Well in a sense it doesn't matter. But Engels is pretty central to feminism in Universities in Europe https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4DsM19TM5mGyKsgLNNp4pCS/what-is-the-patriarchy gives a potted history. The "soviets" that proliferated in Europe after WW1 all had ending the tyranny of "patriarchy" and destroying the family as integral to their programme of unchaining the proletariat. The USSR and after WW2 countries in the "eastern bloc" either abolished marriage or make it merely symbolic to free people (in the event people turned out to be rather tenacious about being "unfree" on this). Abortion on demand, universal institutional childcare, advancement of women in professions and sciences in fact all the demands of modern western feminists were all in the legal and political codes of these states. Now of course in reality things might have been different but in their own theory the eastern block and indeed China were smashing the patriarchy and private property because Engels said they were intertwined. Now I can see modern feminists would not want to draw attention to this given that few now would think Mao's cultural revolution or Lenin's bolshevik soviet state were anything other than nightmares. But the current flowering of skepticism about the liberal feminist project in the EU, comes mainly from the former Communist countries who have already been there.
Which is not to say there aren't still purist Marxists who point out Marx would have observed that there were women in all the various classes he identified.
Engels:
"It will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.""“The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.” Could be in any feminist tract for the last 100 years. And of course such stuff finds itself in the manifestos of european Green Parties as well as Socialist Parties.
The legitimacy of much of academic feminism in europe (including the British isles) relies on this close link with "Marxist" materialist theory simply because that is one of the "legitimate" theories of political and social analysis in academic circles.
Intersectionality and fluid gender stuff definitely comes from North America and so I can imagine a different history there. Here the "push back" comes from Feminist Academics as much as any others, putting front and centre the orthodoxy that the oppression is socio economic and is of all women as a class (no matter how apparently privileged they are) which goes a bit awry if people can change sex, or adopt a gender, or there are multiple genders! Hence here the TERFs are very much in the De Beauvoir/ Greer lane.
"feminism is basically derived from Marxism"
Not this again. Feminism clearly predates Marxism.
Yes indeed in terms of being a sort of "trades union" for women (usually posh women). But feminism in its Gender Studies/ Academic discipline is right from Engels. Certainly in the UK. Much of the 18th and 19th Century "feminism" was based on Christian values with the claim women were inherently more virtuous or should be. Engels pretty much originated the idea that the Patriarchy was about men collectively and deliberately oppressing all women as if the latter was a "class" . In a way this is symbolized by the split between Emmeline Pankhurst who was a Conservative candidate for MP at the time of her death and the revolutionary socialist Sylvia Pankhurst. In the the UK much the feminist campaigning, on prostitution, male homosexuality, temperance, birth control, breach of promise, saving women from hard labour and dangerous work, maternity, birth control, divorce even was largely about getting men to shoulder more responsibility and securing wives rights to material support. Whereas the radical idea of Engels was that marriage and its stabilities were in fact the very locus of oppression and had to be smashed if women were going to end their oppression.
Melanie Phillips describes quite how this happened here in the UK. Of course the truth is that this is as much about the men in those institutions, who were in the main the guardians who surrendered, as it is about feminists. One way or another the psychology of men, or at least the men leading all those institutions, is vital to what has happened. Indeed one of the proofs that there was not such thing as "the Patriarchy" is the sheer rapidity of the triumph of feminism in becoming the orthodox position of almost all the "political elite" in the UK. A trivial but revealing recent story concerns "The Garrick Club" in London. To me a fusty upper class dining club for posh blokes in the theatre, media "luvvie" world. But with many famous members. Cue a fuss about women becoming members. Then a lot of huffing and puffing and claims "three Judges" had reviewed the rules and eventually there is a vote of members to admit women as members. Now of course the reality is, in this country, its perfectly legal to have single sex clubs or non government organizations (Girl Guides comes immediately to mind as does the Boys Brigade and Girls Brigade) so the truth is it was up to the Garrick members to decide (in fact they had a similar vote a decade ago and remained men only members) Clearly the great and good of the Garrick couldn't summon up the courage to simply carry on as they could easily do, but instead indulged in virtue signaling, wriggling and frankly preposterous posturing to avoid saying no directly! And what were they afraid of ? Not the law because they really didn't need three Judges to tell them the law or to "interpret" the founders document ( because a decade ago they established the rules could change by members vote) not "protest" nor losing funding ..... no basically embarrassment that they were being mean to the "fairer sex".
The duplicity of feminists who on the one hand express outrage about male only clubs then on the other proliferate female-only groups and complain when men who pretend to be women want access to female-only spaces. Sure, toilets, changing rooms and sports are special instances incomparable to gentlemen's clubs, but many women's groups and services are comparable. Men's need for male-only spaces and activities is denied and resented.
... and Karl Marx's bankrollers laid the groundwork for feminism and other victim ideologies.
Oh, please. There were feminists decades before Marx began developing his ideas.
The practical implementations of feminism on society has Marxist elements in it.
Thank you for sharing your story so succinctly. Mine is some ways is the male mirror image of that story but with a real misogynist (Sharia promoting Iranian Muslim) to give the proof to some of the feminist idea that men abuse women and society often aids and abets it. That said, as a male, I learned over time, but most especially in graduate school at the University of New Hampshire where the Feminazi's have truly earned that title, where I finally realized that feminism is not about equal opportunity or fairness for all but is actually about female supremacy. Indeed, EVERY criticism of the patriarchy is actually a far better description of the conduct and beliefs of FEMINISTS than of men. Being on the "evil" side of this structure I learned many of the same lessons that Janice has shared here often as the target of feminist attack for simply daring to stand up for such little things as due process for the accused or pointing out when female "victims" are actually not victims but demonstrably lying to get back at the man who dared to say "NO" to a woman who wanted to continue a sexual relationship SHE began. How will this all play out? Students of history know that patterns of history repeat if society fails to learn from them. One of the most reliable patterns in history is that what goes around, comes around. Feminists seem not to realize that they are making the case FOR patriarchal societal governance by their feminist sexism and abuse of men. I recently watched the first season dramatizing the Canadian book A Handmaid's Tale. Beyond the massive absurdity behind the premise of much of the base storyline, the series was eye opening. It showed what feminists truly fear...but also how the sexually repressive society of Gilead actually had more in common with the behavior and thinking of FEMINIST governance...than of any society run by actual men. The most oppressive and cruel parties in the show are the WOMEN abusing their peers for their own personal advancement. Let that sink in the next time you hear the drivel about how wonderful a world run by women would be. Thanks for this piece and your bravery in standing up against the darkness Janice!
I think it's called 'projection'.
"where the Feminazi's have truly earned that title"
Oh? They built concentration camps and murdered millions?
Want to add up all the misery caused by broken families? The drug abuse, alcoholism, promiscuity and ensuing abortions, depression, male suicide, gang violence, etc.?
No German national socialist ever called me a toxic white male.
This really resonates with me. I began my journey into 'the manosphere' at about the same time as the Farrel protest and have been following you, among others, ever since.
Unlike you, I really had no idea what academic feminism entailed or who any of it's most rabid gurus were. I just took for granted that feminism was what it claimed, publicly, to be about--equal rights. I supported it, too.
Then I hooked up with a 50 year woman (she's somewhere between 5 and 10 years younger than I am--she never could settle on her exact age) who was a PhD candidate in Women's & Gender Studies at Texas Woman's University. Holy crap was that an eye opener! When I started to take an interest, I started reading some of the stuff she was studying and teaching and was immediately struck with how simultaneously vapid and yet alarmist it was. I watched things like 'The Hunting Ground' and that silly video in which a girl walking down the street was portrayed as being harassed because men talked to.and sometimes complimented her. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry about Jackson Katz.
Then I dicovered you, the Honeybadgers, Christina Hoff Sommers, and all the usual 'meninist' suspects and never looked back.
Your voice and scholarship have meant more to me than I can easily express and I thank you for speaking out and hanging in there from the bottom of my heart. People desperately need to hear these things before we flush our culture down the toilet over the paranoid fever dreams of 'oppressed women and marginalized identities'.
Thank you very much, my friend! I'm glad I could be of assistance.
That was a nice read. Sadly the misandry continues apace ... the Boyscouts are now Scouting America to be inclusive, except the Girlscouts are still exclusive to girls. Gov. Janet Mills in Maine signed legislation to hand over lots of construction jobs to women, regardless of whether women even want those jobs. Officials brag that the recent renovation of JFK airport involved as few white men as possible (Harmeet Dillon posted on X that there's some legal low hanging fruit here if anyone wants it). And that's just this week.
Janice, this is a wonderful description of intellectual, and moral, evolution. In particular, it is clear that you worked out that feminism is opposed to the principle of moral equality being extended beyond their fellow women; that is to say feminism defines men as subhuman. Any male claim to humanity must be suppressed, and every positive of masculinity denied.
Seeing you working it out, after years of commitment to the feminist cause, on the basis of a fundamental moral principle, belief in the common humanity of men and women, is heartwarming. Thank you for standing up for human dignity and decency.
today is my birthday. Thank you for your gift.
I wish I had written this. It perfectly encapsulates what I feel about the hate culture towards men currently in ascendancy. I am often ashamed of the attitude many of my sex have towards men. How do they stand it.
I salute you.
It's really difficult -- though I think it's going to get much worse -- but sometimes just seeing there are good women present is encouragement enough.
Janice, your life experiences and personal growth give hope that other women may arrive at a clearer balanced perspective of the male experience. It is uplifting because you can so clearly see the travails of men when you haven’t experienced those travails directly yourself. Your expositions on the history of feminism may be the most informative I have seen as they are delivered with cool dispatch and accuracy. In my estimation you are one the key figures in men’s civil rights movement in the Western democracies today. Carry on.
It's gradually become clear that feminism is a mass cult. You've seen it from the inside and we're very fortunate you've been explaining to people just how destructive it is. It's great to see your FF videos coming back on YouTube.
I take great pleasure in finally finding cause to respectfully disagree with you, Janice, specifically regarding this: “… or perhaps because I was not nearly as smart as I thought I was.”
It was not a matter of you not having been smart, but rather a matter of you later becoming wise. Intelligence is an attribute; wisdom is a virtue.
Thank you for the wisdom you repeatedly bestow upon us and the courage with which you do so. We are enriched and inspired as a result.