Janice, you have an amazing skill to unearth the visible to all, but rarely acknowledged truth. Here's a great example: "Yet while the vast majority of men don’t have a problem with women in positions of leadership, men are noticing that at least some of those women (and a goodly number of feminist men) have a problem with them."
Amongst the various drawbacks of feminized workplaces is the fact that most women personalize work-related matters. It causes a lot of deep unpleasantness.
The sniping and office politics in female dominated workplaces is just yuck. I remember reading an article on Substack, comparing DEI training to the Chinese communists approach of destroying communities with daily town meetings called "speaking bitterness ". Women have a tendency to do this naturally. They naturally snipe and wheedle and create all sorts of yuckiness in these workplaces. My wife comes home from her female only workplaces and after she unloads her clusterfuck of a day on me, I extricate myself from the spore-like shell of patient husband-hood I have cultivated for such daily rituals and then go pour detergent on my brain.
'I extricate myself from the spore-like shell of patient husband-hood I have cultivated for such daily rituals and then go pour detergent on my brain.'
No need to go to those lengths, just tell her to shut up. I let my wife have a ten minute moan and then I say 'OK, that's enough now' and she shuts up. If she says 'I just need to tell you ... ' I remind her that women can do anything men can do and men don't spend two hours every evening dotting every I and crossing every T of every 'so she said ... , and then I said ... ' conversation she's had at work and every completely unnecessary crisis she's had to deal with. I sometimes add 'we leave work at work when we come home, partly because we know our wives are just not interested in hearing about it, and I'm not either.' Always works. Of course, I have to repeat the cycle every fifteen minutes or so, and she's adept at slipping the odd 'can I just tell you this' when I'm concentrating on something else so I have to be alert but I only get ten minutes of 'and then the bitch said ... '.
Try it; keeping your brain clear of trivial women's woes - and they are trivial - is far easier than scrubbing it clean.
Unfortunately as a gay man I know your wifes behaviour all to well..but not all gay men are like this either. I feel that it could be those of us that are either Highly Sensitive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQLBnUBKggY) or an over dose of feminine 'something'... not that I am a screaming queen either.
The only way I can settle it sometimes is to balance my Check Account!! Do something that requires me to think rather than emote.
But I blame some bad therapists. The ones that allowed the nonsense to continue rather than deal with it effectively. To train me to think about the situation and see what was really going on. A simple example was my getting annoyed at a friend doing something but I couldn't accept my 'annoyance' until the the therapist, female at the time, said, "Jamie, Helen is just using you to dump her shit on you.".
This was like gold. After that I changed with that friend and it never happened again.
To many therapists refuse to tell their clients how it really is. I have a whole theory about this but that is a longer story.
I've even wondered, "how many females out there didn't get the therapy they needed and then went to groups looking for what your wife does to you and before they knew it, they are deep in a feminist movement throwing rocks at men instead of dealing with their inner world!"
<To many therapists refuse to tell their clients how it really is. I have a whole theory about this but that is a longer story.>
A book I highly recommend is "The Losers" by David Eddings.
Steve Brule' said, "It takes three or four years before a psychologist/therapist realises that it is not about them." That is if they ever move from that stage.
It took me a while to understand that some therapists/psychologists perform a brainwashing technique.
For example, I'll use a sexual interaction.
A woman goes to a psychologist, and she has ambivalent feelings about the time she had sexual intercourse with a partner.
The psychologist, depending on their training, will then introduce, "Well, most women in your situation will feel that they have been violated."
They start to focus on anger and creating anger about the past event under the guise that this is healing. This then traps the client into therapy and builds resentment towards the male gender.
The next step is then legal to make a complaint to the police or leak it to the media under the guise of healing. So it escalates.
She then joins or forms a victim group, and this becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.
I wouldn't normally highlight a "showbusiness" spat. However here in the UK there has been a "scandal" (aka storm in tea cup) in the very popular "Strictly Come Dancing Show". Basically a very very well known Actress dropped out of the last series early, and some time later claimed it wasn't for "health reasons" as cited at the time but that her professional dance partner and trainer was abusive, adding in the magic "sexual". Cue long drawn out BBC "investigation" under its "Policies" which eventually concludes the serious accusations were false but the dancer had given "negative feedback" and used some expletives. My point is the basics of this was very familiar to me from my working life, in retail, social care and health all "female dominated". Where small things get blown out of all proportion by appealing to a Policy or Procedure. So it starts with something not working out, but rather than takle it directly its all niceness on the surface but back biting with others, these others are sympathetic and reinforce. All the while the "two faced" gives another impression to to focus of their disquiet. Then the sympathizers go as far as saying "somebody" needs to sort it out, and that somebody is always "daddy" aka Management or "HR". Who of course invoke a "Policy and Procedure" vaguely built on legal process. And a machine then rolls on, first of all a set of "feelings" have to be crystalized into actual things that have to be investigated, and because at first they sound trivial the complainer makes them sound much more serious and numerous (so the BBC ends up with 17 things to investigate). And then we end up with statements, witnesses, other claims and people who just want to seem important. The mess runs on, its not a legal process or anything like and HR doesn't want to rock the boat so you likely end with a compromise "verdict", where nothing very serious happened but perhaps the person complained about should have been nicer. Precisely the result in the Strictly Come Dancing (I think it was called Dancing with the Stars in the USA) ends up with.
I pick on this because I was often the manager faced with just such scenarios and had to resist HRs belief in placating the complainant even if really there was no fault in the one complained about. Remember this was in often 90% female workforces so the complainant and complained about were almost always women. At the root of almost all of them was an inability to a. Address the issue directly b.Realise making things up for dramatic effect escalates the procedure. c. Other testimonies will be sought. d. Women don't forget and so creating this sort of stink will cause ongoing hostility.
One result appeared to be that Male managers were respected because they tended to be "principled" rather than part of all these games. Frankly even Gay male managers seemed to manage to appear "above" such stuff. Certainly mos,t even some female, managers despaired of this waste of time as women tried to use "procedure" for trivial vendettas and not deal with things through good communication. Everything about the dancing scandal exemplifies this. The latest episode gives the flavour of this https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1966134/Amanda-Abbington-Strictly-allegation-Giovanni-Pernice
I recently rented space in an artists studio that has 11 artists, only 3 of which are men. I've worked for myself for 20 odd years so have had little experience with intra-female dynamics for a very long time. Christ, it's fucking insane.
Your point about using procedure as a weapon is spot on. I just witnessed that ABCD progression only last week with regards to a meeting that the founder and co-ordinater had called by e-mail. One particular lady took the hump over the wording of the e-mail subject line. Apparently calling an extraordinary general meeting wasn't correct procedure for a what was just a meeting about a joint exhibition we were planning on.
E-mails about protocol were sent over and back (and sent to all in the group,making it public), the sniping and recruiting of allies on both sides proceeded apace. Ultimately the meeting was called off and there's now a shitty atmosphere permeating the whole place.
It is too small a sample to necessarily prove anything, and at best it can lead only to a generalisation, but in the more than 4 decades of my working life, the two nastiest bosses I have ever worked for were both women. It didn't seem to make a difference that one of whom considered herself a feminist of liberal-leftish views and the other had more traditional, conservative views.
I never worked under any female management but I have heard of the various issues. I did a humorous (hopefully) take on managers, including the female variety.
Beautifully said Tom. You are a quite the wordsmith yourself. I remember when I was young (1970’s). If a girl could kick the footy or bowl the cricket ball properly she was welcome in any game going on in the neighbourhood. If any boy couldn’t he was likely excluded.
"If a girl could kick the footy or bowl the cricket ball properly she was welcome in any game going on in the neighbourhood."
As a young athlete I spent much of the late seventies training with some of the strongest women in the world including the first to ever bench press 300lb. We were all throwers in track and field so the weight lifting was an essential part of the training. At the time sports were still considered "unladylike" by many and going into the weight room trying to develop large musculature was anathema.
According to the athletes almost all the common criticisms and put downs came from other women. Apparently men were largely supportive and they surmised it was because "men understand the goal oriented nature of the training". This has been my experience in numerous environments including the IT field. Many men are impressed by and will encourage women who are willing to break the feminine stereotypes a bit particularly when those women DON'T make an issue or drama out of their gender.
There's a multi trillion dollar global industry devoted to frightening the bejesus out of women and constantly reminding them of how "weak" they are. Maybe it's time the women folk got together and dismantled the crab bucket.
Sports ARE un lady like. Only SIMPS would approve/encourage wo-MEN to play sports. It is a known fact: fe-MALE athletes lose their periods! It is a Known
Fact: wo-MEN athletes lose their feminine body fat and become angular looking. Also, a known fact: wo-MEN athletes develop higher testosterone levels than normal feminine wo-MEN. And last but not least & first & foremost: MOST fe-MALE athletes are LESBIANS. SHAME on men who encourage wo-MEN to play sports....they are bisexual IMOP....Hang your head in shame pal. Your types are part of the problem.
SIMP. Bet some boys could kick a ball too and would qualify to play on a wo-MAN'S team.
SIMPS like you are the reason girls/wo-MEN have invaded every MALE space including sports which necessitates the equal protection of MALES in wo-MEN'S sports. wo-MEN invading MALE sports and the SIMPS who enable them are the CAUSE of the current conundrum.
The ad was absurd but demonstrates what feminist women think of men. Frankly...men have woken up and are done with feminism...and frankly with women as well. When the day comes that men strike and women have to keep society running without our help...the big question will be whether total collapse happens before...or after lunch.
We should scrap the 19th amendment anyway. Or at least make wo-MEN'S vote not count by voting in masse against the left. Of course, the right is almost as bad.
I think automatic, unqualified, universal adult suffrage should be abolished for everyone. No one should be allowed to vote unless he, or she, can demonstrate an understanding of the process and the potential conflicts and the ability to accept that actions have consequences.
No one in receipt of any money from the tax payer should be allowed to vote either.
I am sympathetic to the idea of some sort of test to guarantee that the person voting knows something about their country, the political process, and other crucial matters.
I am worried, though, that the groups that would likely show themselves most knowledgeable--politicians, political journalists, political staffers, and academic experts--are often those with the most dangerous and unworkable views of all.
If even half the fe-male population had your sensibility Janice, I wouldn't even feel as I do about repealing the 19th. Unfortunately, what I see for the most part from wo-MEN politicians/voters is an obsession with the right to commit infanticide and wo-MEN'S sports. Republican wo-MEN are saying things like: "The Republican party needs to learn how to talk to wo-MEN" Oh? Meanwhile BOYS right to sovereign spaces and fathers right to joint custody are not even part of the political discourse.
Yes, we should. The idea of women being in any way equally as deserving of authority so obviously flies in the face of observable reality.
Women are crazy, and they make everyone crazy. It is an honest belief of mine that pretty much every social ill we face is due to them having privileges that should be reserved for men. Voting being one of them.
Although, lots of men shouldn't vote either. Men need to earn their vote, most likely through being a net taxpayer. A test would be too easy to manipulate for the purposes of a tyrannical government.
AGREED! I believe our founding father john Adams said: "wo-MEN shouldn't vote because they don't have to get drafted or support their families" (This is even MORE true today) to spite wo-MEN being in the military & working! Have you noticed wo-MEN politicians/voters main concern is the right to abortion and wo-MEN'S sports? So, the right to commit infanticide and be a tom boy is the number one concern of wo-MEN. Notice BOYS right to not have their spaces violated and fathers' reproductive rights to have joint custody are never even part of the political discourse?
Hi Janice…off topic. I hadn’t seen anything from you for quite awhile. I assumed you were on a break. I missed your posts so today I searched you out. And there you were. You might be getting blocked somehow. I get tons of lefty stuff on my feed as ‘related’. Good to know you are posting still.
Funny, I get notifications for Janice's sub stack every time she writes an article. Even funnier still, I stopped getting notifications from Paul Elam's sub stack in my primary email and they started showing up in the Forums column of my email. And now I'm getting notifications for Paul's sub stack in the promotions column of my email!
Google MCM FIU pedestrian bridge in Florida collapse. You will find the censored fact check that the ALL wo-MAN'S construction company and the five wo-MAN engineering team who designed the bridge which collapsed after a WEEK, did 'not' cause the bridge to collapse. LOL. Guess what happened?
I've always regretted not knowing more about the Sweetwater project. A woman bragged about being a designer of the bridge, and a short time later, it collapsed, killing half a dozen people and injuring many more. But we were not to conclude that her claim had anything to do with the unfortunate conclusion. Right.
Right, you are Janice. You are keenly perceptive and also have a good memory. Her name is Leonor Flores- FUI alumna & MCM'S project executive. Her exact words:
"It is very important for me as a wo-MAN and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think wo-MEN have a different perspective. "We're able to put an ARTISTIC TOUCH and we're able to build too"
I caught this is web captured it many times because it has indeed been censored.
I will post it on my FB page for anyone so inclined to find it.
Exactly. My mother is so dense. I keep showing her every time Kamala toe Harris obsesses about a wo-MAN'S right to kill a baby and my mother's response is "she was answering a question" I said NO, IT'S HER WHOLE PLATFORM wo-MEN and their right to kill babies. Every other word from her and the democrat machine is woe-MEN and their reproductive rights. I said to my mother, "What about BOYS & MEN'S reproductive rights? What about MEN'S right to parent their child without having to pay servitude to a woe-MAN for 18 years? She doesn't get the double standard; it goes over her head.
Don't tell me - the force of toxic masculinity from the male drivers passing below it overcame the strength of the structure, or perhaps the odour of testosterone rotted the steel reinforcing rods in the concrete?
Anti-male sentiment is so pervasive in our culture that I have assumed it was a given for most of my life. It’s like the air we breathe. Maybe I’m slow on the uptake, but it’s only clear to me now because the tenor has become so hysterical in the last decade or so.
I think it has been slowly but steadily ramped up over the past 4 decades, with men in the position of the proverbial frog being heated in the feminist pot.
"I think it has been slowly but steadily ramped up over the past 4 decades"
The radicals won control of the movement's direction during the early eighties. In Australia the word "feminist" was rarely heard until that time frame even though we'd had a hugely popular womens' liberation movement. I believe the strong support base became complacent - all the big ticket items seemed dealt with - allowing room for the radicals to take over.
Feminism was always a radial movement. It's just that it seized power in the 70s.
The women's liberation movement was just feminism dude.
There were no big ticket items to deal with.
Women were never systemically discriminated, they could always own bank accounts, and feminism was always female supremacism.
If you insist on always being on the defensive like this, and never making the effort to combat feminist historical revisionism, then you'll always lose.
Same here. I'm 65, and I suffered the worst of female domination through my divorce. Only after my divorce did I realise that I had suffered female domination through my marriage, and then earlier.
However, I only saw the "pervasive" anti-male sentiment in our culture ten years ago - which coincides with your timeline.
I can date it so precisely because in Australia the feminists went onto the attack with the exploitation of "domestic violence" taken to the next level, ie. of portraying it as an "epidemic" in which large numbers of women in consensual relationships were being routinely "beaten", and which was rooted in male power and privilege.
The heavily funded government dv campaign of 2015 had me wondering what-the-hell was going on. My own life experience, and my conversations with other men, was the exact opposite. I, and other men, had seen women in power in our own lives, the workplace, and society at large, and the results were questionable, at best, as so eloquently described by Janice here.
The Australian dv campaign of 2015 was eventually called out for its blatant lying about both the prevalence of dv and its root causes, yet MSM, government, "rights" NGOs and even Christian charities, have continued with it to this day.
NGO = Non Government Organisation = getting tax relief for doing jobs that are not voted for by Citizens = Lobbyists = jobs for mates or outsourced jobs by governments to make them look good.
I have a good friend who works for an NGO and he is quite high up and what I realised was that: the NGO is basically the Catholic Church; the NGO goes into countries (and probably does some really good work) without citizens voting for them (that I'm aware of) and whilst they might not push Christian values; I wonder what all this has to do with the push for the so called 'Democracy', that without Democracy the world is going to end! There is a lot going on around us that has nothing to do with Citizens directly voting for things in their lives but rely on Others doing it: when companies do this it is called 'outsourcing' but this is People in Authority deciding what is best base on THEIR ideas which make their CV look rather cool. Also, what was it in the past? Missionaries..
The one good thing that came out of my friend working there was digitalising a lot of the office work, practices - but even then there was push back from employees that had been there for years.. basically it boiled down to: I'm not leaving and if you don't step up, then step out..
Being more efficient with their money was one goal... at least...
The shame of all this is that there are some good people and others that like to grift.. without Citizens voting for these NGO's...
Good for you. I've been rebuking women for it for some time past, more than twenty years - any woman who says something misandrous or otherwise offensive - and the reaction is still the same: not anger, not embarrassment just shock; they are dumbfounded.
Thankyou, so much! This is heartfelt from me, because I have a deep resentment of the professional women in my own circles who see it ("casual misandry"), and have even seen their sons and brothers almost destroyed by it, but say nothing.
They are utterly brainwashed. I think it feels good to basically have a group you can crap on & scapegoat. It’s also an assertion of female power & dominance - not sure if that’s a conscious thing or the intention though.
It’s not being a woman that’s the problem. It’s being irrational. Irrational people who lack self awareness & are very strident & arrogant about being right are the problem. Self righteous people are the problem. This is not unique to women. They’re being encouraged to be like this via education, media, the group dynamics.
I simply don’t agree. It’s not unique to women, but it is a trait more often found in women. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.
Yes, they are being encouraged to be like this, by other women in the media.
The feminist movement started in the 1800s by women.
I think you’re discounting a very real connection with women’s nature that feminism has. That doesn’t mean that’s ALL that women are. But it necessitates masculine authority in society.
One of the most amusing aspects of the advertisement is its stereotypical image of masculinity. I don’t drink Bourbon, or lift weights. I do believe in complementarity. That this is a perfectly sensible position didn’t occur to the makers of the ad.
More importantly, the assumption that “real men” are feminist is absolutely ridiculous.
After having seen my share of female "leadership" in corporate America, I can assure you I am not "afraid" of female leadership.
I don't go to work to hear blathering about whiteness or to be forced to sassy clap for the gays every June. It's not fear. It's not hate. It is contempt. Deep contempt.
Here’s a great rule of thumb, especially for young men. Recognize any input that utilizes the “man enough” or “real man” concepts as cheap manipulation by someone who is not in his or her right mind. Shut down their videos and online articles. Heave their printed books in the shitcan. Physically turn your back on them if they trot it out in person.
You’re not responsible for wading into every skirmish in this culture’s grudge match against reality. You are responsible for not letting maladjusted weirdos pour any of their poison into your brain housing group.
The proverbial hills that some are willing to die on (and the people whom they’re willing to stand behind) are genuinely shocking, albeit completely unsurprising.
In much the same way that race grifters, social justice warriors and rabid leftists try to use the cases of individuals like Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and George Floyd to allege that America and/or the institution of law enforcement is systemically racist, they’re now trying push the message that the resistance to voting for Kamala Harris is some sort of evidence of latent/blatant misogyny and/or racism.
They truly have a gift for picking the most…questionable (if not outright loathsome) specimens as evidence for their ridiculous claims, which are built upon a foundation of exaggerations, lies, and utter bullshit.
Of course, this would assume that their defense of these individuals was genuine, which is certainly not the case for all of them, and which is indicative of a separate and (arguably) larger underlying issue in modern society.
I’m not a very political person. I’ve never voted for anyone or anything and I’ve never been affiliated with any particular party or candidate, but when I see efforts like this being made to push a particular candidate (in this case, Kamala Harris), all I’m seeing and hearing is a coalition of morons collectively declaring:
“I hate Donald Trump more than I love anything else.”
You are absolutely right - but for the scale of it... This model of using previously legit grievances like racism to basically grift in the modern egalitarian era is universal. Pretty much every movement that achieved their equality objectives in the 20thC has turned into this.
To keep receiving the funding and sinecures they need to keep the grievances flowing. So they generate them using the postmodern/"critical" word-salad formula.
That's funny because when I see people wanting to vote for Trump that's what I have always seen. They hate the rest of us more than they love themselves.
I have seen a comment from a Democrat supporter that she would vote for the left overs in her fridge before voting for Donald Trump. Of course Democrats being considered left wing they would have to be 'left' overs...
Anyway, I suppose she got a vegetable in Joe Biden. As for Kamala Devi Harris she does word salads. Which may be why 'radish' is an anagram out of her name!
Great article, Janice. This reminds me a lot of that crazy, misandrist Gillette ad that came out in 2019, where they decided it was a good idea to attack their customer base and wound up taking an $8.5 billion hair cut (beard trim?) as a result. These people are so disconnected from reality that they truly think its possible to bring someone to their side by disrespecting and otherwise insulting them. Madness.
I think some men come to accept that masculinity is damaging. Growing up, perhaps without a father, in a culture that rewards them for identifying with women and against men, they learn to believe that all men want to join that group of 'good' men.
Your comment reminded me of when I was recently at CVS with my son who's in college. We were picking up some supplies and he said he needed shaving cream. That was the perfect time to tell him why I abide by "Never Gillette."
Yeah, when I first watched that video I figured it was some kind of parody, a montage of ignorant and subtly derogatory stereotypes of men. Then...I caught on that the creator(s) actually held such a fundamentally contemptuous view of ordinary masculinity.
Whelp, if y'all will excuse me...guess I'll go rebuild a carburetor while I sip some Jim Beam. If my daughter's hair doesn't need braiding, of course. Sheesh!
Just saw an interview with the guy who produced the video and he claimed it was a parody. Problem is Harris supporters think it’s real and approve of it. The other problem of course is it isn’t funny and doesn’t work as parody.
I've raised this with Janice in the past: men are happy to recognize that women have a USP on top of all their other talents. That is, the ability to manufacture and fuel replacement human beings. However, women are no longer prepared to grant men any USP, asserting that women can do anything a man can do, certainly equally well, and often better. They might make an exception for opening jars and taking out the rubbish and a few other drone-like menial tasks, but beyond that, men are merely ancillary (strictly, 'ancillary' means 'as, or like, a hand-maiden'. What a reversal). They close their eyes to the thousands of jobs and skills that men perform and exhibit, but women simply choose to ignore.
This form of female behavior , rabid anti-male propaganda, is uniquely associated with the Democrat party. It is also associated with the pro-abortion (I.e. non-reproductive rights) movement. It is not nearly as radical in other developed countries. As for the other majority part of the global community, it is totally absent. If women acknowledged their bodily reproductive function, it would not be necessary to import migrants to replace the aborted fetuses. How long before Democrat women start calling as a group for protection from imported migrant criminals and racists?
In Australia we do not have a Democrat or a Democratic Party but rabid anti-male propaganda is pervasive. What I'm saying is that rabid anti-male propaganda is pervasive and dominant in at least the whole Anglosphere and as far as I can see, all of Western culture. It is far bigger and far more pernicious than one party in one country.
Here in the UK the Labour Party, Scottish Nationalists, Sinn Fein, Green Party and Liberal Democrats are all of the rabid sort. The Conservatives confused and generally quickly cave in or exhibit unctuous chivalry and fall in line with the feminists.
Just FYI, for people who are unfamiliar with American politics: we don't have a "Democrat party". Our two major parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Maybe other countries are different, I don't know! But I do know about this country.
Google “Robert Michels” and “iron law of oligarchy” to understand why even the most internally democratic political parties are not as democratic as they claim to be.
Yes, there are enough weak men and communists that will vote for Harris. But political commercials aren't for the base. They are for the undecided. Sadly, this commercial will not gain Harris any undecided votes.
Insulting 49.5% of your population doesn't get you votes. I noticed they used a chicken farmer instead of a rancher. What a weak and ineffective man that he boasts of raising chickens.
What has feminism got us? Men who are afraid to talk to women for fear of being labeled sexist. Boys who want nothing to do with women, and the degradation of the military in the form of queers and transexuals.
Every ill in society can be traced to women in power and academia.
Women are chasing men out of society and then inviting in men who don't respect them and who rape them.
Your general point about feminism, Joseph, is well taken. But your point about weak men needs a tweak. Heinrich Himmler actually was a chicken farmer, a failed one at that, before becoming the powerful architect of Hitler's Final Solution. He has gone down in history for evil but not for weakness.
Also, I think that there's a typo in your first paragraph. You say, "Sadly, this commercial will not gain Harris any undecided votes." Surely, you mean "fortunately."
"My father told me that a limp handshake was for weak men and communists," said Lucy. -- They call it a Swanson: Parks and Recreation. It's on YouTube.
You get the sense that if these people were asked to say what they offer men in one sentence, it would be "the opportunity to support women" - and in their minds, that would be enough.
Are the people producing these things that blind? Or are they actually revelling in rubbing people's noses in it as a kind of demonstration of dominance?
For the record, I DO 'have a problem with women in positions of leadership'. I base that 'problem' on the past fifty years of witnessing and experience. Of course that doesn't mean that every female in a leadership position is a tyrant; it means ENOUGH of them are. A preponderance.
The Official Left and Right are both down with total feminism and the Civil Rights agenda of the past 60 years. Turned out, however, that everybody had, and has, Civil Rights except heterosexual white men. So it's not really Civil Rights, is it? In reality, it's a pogrom. With a pretty name to make it not seem like a pogrom.
America is not alone in the ongoing separation of Left = Women (feminism) and Right = Men. It's happening in many other nations also, for obvious reasons. In addition, Gen Z boys are moving strongly to the Right, if the Right means anti-feminism. Why? Because they've witnessed what the Monstrous Regiment has done to their dads, uncles, brothers, etc. And also, I expect, because of the insistent and insane attempts at feminist indoctrination extant in their schools, media, courts, corporations, churches et al. Unlike prior generations, they seem unwilling to close their eyes.
The harder the fembots push, the more intransigent these boys become. Older Righties, otoh, are too afraid of women and their collective power to push back against the gynarchy. They feel they have too much to lose and are not up for the fight.
BINGO! 100%. I too oppose wo-MEN in leadership roles, I even oppose allowing wo-MEN to be schoolteachers for BOYS. I believe God's word: "wo-MEN are 'not' to teach MEN" 'For Adam was 'not' in sin but the wo-MAN 'was' in sin" FALSE Christians will say that's only in the church which is absurd. Considering the 'church' is supposed to be the light to the world, I would say the teachings should manifest the world.
Yup. The man was not made for the woman, the woman was made for the man.
After what I've seen, I also would not allow any female to 'teach' my boy. . . or any boy if I could help it. Ditto for women being the bosses of men. It is a prescription for disaster, and only disaster can come of it.
Once boys reach the age of five or six, they should be in the care, and under the training, of adult men. Not of women, as is now the case from K through college.
Having read recently about what is being taught to schoolboys under the guise of "gender equality" and how women understand their role in the school system, I agree that, perhaps outside of a few specialized classes, women should not be teaching boys or young men.
Hardly surprised by the incredibly low quality of the ad, as it's emblematic of the entire Harris campaign. And excellent points made throughout your essay, Janice. One thing that needs to be said, however, is that "the technological advances of modern society [which] had made it possible for women to outperform men just about everywhere" are being taken for granted, both by the likes of Williamson and Benenson and other (post) modern feminists, as well as many who oppose them. They are not here to stay. Advanced technology is like a critter which has climbed out on a branch which is splitting from the tree's trunk right at its base, in a big way because the energy sources are being exhausted. The world will be finding this out over the next 5-10 years. I for one think the vast majority of people are totally unprepared for this development, let alone its consequences.
Janice, you have an amazing skill to unearth the visible to all, but rarely acknowledged truth. Here's a great example: "Yet while the vast majority of men don’t have a problem with women in positions of leadership, men are noticing that at least some of those women (and a goodly number of feminist men) have a problem with them."
So totally true. Amen and thank you.
wait until women start to wake up to their female managers and start having a problem with them. Seen that in a previous work place!
I've worked with two female colleagues who kind of wished our female manager would disappear into hell...
Amongst the various drawbacks of feminized workplaces is the fact that most women personalize work-related matters. It causes a lot of deep unpleasantness.
Women not only take things more personally, they also hold onto bad feelings longer than men.
The sniping and office politics in female dominated workplaces is just yuck. I remember reading an article on Substack, comparing DEI training to the Chinese communists approach of destroying communities with daily town meetings called "speaking bitterness ". Women have a tendency to do this naturally. They naturally snipe and wheedle and create all sorts of yuckiness in these workplaces. My wife comes home from her female only workplaces and after she unloads her clusterfuck of a day on me, I extricate myself from the spore-like shell of patient husband-hood I have cultivated for such daily rituals and then go pour detergent on my brain.
'I extricate myself from the spore-like shell of patient husband-hood I have cultivated for such daily rituals and then go pour detergent on my brain.'
No need to go to those lengths, just tell her to shut up. I let my wife have a ten minute moan and then I say 'OK, that's enough now' and she shuts up. If she says 'I just need to tell you ... ' I remind her that women can do anything men can do and men don't spend two hours every evening dotting every I and crossing every T of every 'so she said ... , and then I said ... ' conversation she's had at work and every completely unnecessary crisis she's had to deal with. I sometimes add 'we leave work at work when we come home, partly because we know our wives are just not interested in hearing about it, and I'm not either.' Always works. Of course, I have to repeat the cycle every fifteen minutes or so, and she's adept at slipping the odd 'can I just tell you this' when I'm concentrating on something else so I have to be alert but I only get ten minutes of 'and then the bitch said ... '.
Try it; keeping your brain clear of trivial women's woes - and they are trivial - is far easier than scrubbing it clean.
Unfortunately as a gay man I know your wifes behaviour all to well..but not all gay men are like this either. I feel that it could be those of us that are either Highly Sensitive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQLBnUBKggY) or an over dose of feminine 'something'... not that I am a screaming queen either.
The only way I can settle it sometimes is to balance my Check Account!! Do something that requires me to think rather than emote.
But I blame some bad therapists. The ones that allowed the nonsense to continue rather than deal with it effectively. To train me to think about the situation and see what was really going on. A simple example was my getting annoyed at a friend doing something but I couldn't accept my 'annoyance' until the the therapist, female at the time, said, "Jamie, Helen is just using you to dump her shit on you.".
This was like gold. After that I changed with that friend and it never happened again.
To many therapists refuse to tell their clients how it really is. I have a whole theory about this but that is a longer story.
I've even wondered, "how many females out there didn't get the therapy they needed and then went to groups looking for what your wife does to you and before they knew it, they are deep in a feminist movement throwing rocks at men instead of dealing with their inner world!"
<To many therapists refuse to tell their clients how it really is. I have a whole theory about this but that is a longer story.>
A book I highly recommend is "The Losers" by David Eddings.
Steve Brule' said, "It takes three or four years before a psychologist/therapist realises that it is not about them." That is if they ever move from that stage.
It took me a while to understand that some therapists/psychologists perform a brainwashing technique.
For example, I'll use a sexual interaction.
A woman goes to a psychologist, and she has ambivalent feelings about the time she had sexual intercourse with a partner.
The psychologist, depending on their training, will then introduce, "Well, most women in your situation will feel that they have been violated."
They start to focus on anger and creating anger about the past event under the guise that this is healing. This then traps the client into therapy and builds resentment towards the male gender.
The next step is then legal to make a complaint to the police or leak it to the media under the guise of healing. So it escalates.
She then joins or forms a victim group, and this becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.
Yeah I know l, I just like to take the flowery language to DefCon 1 sometimes....
My mother couldn’t stand working in female-primary workplaces.
I wouldn't normally highlight a "showbusiness" spat. However here in the UK there has been a "scandal" (aka storm in tea cup) in the very popular "Strictly Come Dancing Show". Basically a very very well known Actress dropped out of the last series early, and some time later claimed it wasn't for "health reasons" as cited at the time but that her professional dance partner and trainer was abusive, adding in the magic "sexual". Cue long drawn out BBC "investigation" under its "Policies" which eventually concludes the serious accusations were false but the dancer had given "negative feedback" and used some expletives. My point is the basics of this was very familiar to me from my working life, in retail, social care and health all "female dominated". Where small things get blown out of all proportion by appealing to a Policy or Procedure. So it starts with something not working out, but rather than takle it directly its all niceness on the surface but back biting with others, these others are sympathetic and reinforce. All the while the "two faced" gives another impression to to focus of their disquiet. Then the sympathizers go as far as saying "somebody" needs to sort it out, and that somebody is always "daddy" aka Management or "HR". Who of course invoke a "Policy and Procedure" vaguely built on legal process. And a machine then rolls on, first of all a set of "feelings" have to be crystalized into actual things that have to be investigated, and because at first they sound trivial the complainer makes them sound much more serious and numerous (so the BBC ends up with 17 things to investigate). And then we end up with statements, witnesses, other claims and people who just want to seem important. The mess runs on, its not a legal process or anything like and HR doesn't want to rock the boat so you likely end with a compromise "verdict", where nothing very serious happened but perhaps the person complained about should have been nicer. Precisely the result in the Strictly Come Dancing (I think it was called Dancing with the Stars in the USA) ends up with.
I pick on this because I was often the manager faced with just such scenarios and had to resist HRs belief in placating the complainant even if really there was no fault in the one complained about. Remember this was in often 90% female workforces so the complainant and complained about were almost always women. At the root of almost all of them was an inability to a. Address the issue directly b.Realise making things up for dramatic effect escalates the procedure. c. Other testimonies will be sought. d. Women don't forget and so creating this sort of stink will cause ongoing hostility.
One result appeared to be that Male managers were respected because they tended to be "principled" rather than part of all these games. Frankly even Gay male managers seemed to manage to appear "above" such stuff. Certainly mos,t even some female, managers despaired of this waste of time as women tried to use "procedure" for trivial vendettas and not deal with things through good communication. Everything about the dancing scandal exemplifies this. The latest episode gives the flavour of this https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1966134/Amanda-Abbington-Strictly-allegation-Giovanni-Pernice
I recently rented space in an artists studio that has 11 artists, only 3 of which are men. I've worked for myself for 20 odd years so have had little experience with intra-female dynamics for a very long time. Christ, it's fucking insane.
Your point about using procedure as a weapon is spot on. I just witnessed that ABCD progression only last week with regards to a meeting that the founder and co-ordinater had called by e-mail. One particular lady took the hump over the wording of the e-mail subject line. Apparently calling an extraordinary general meeting wasn't correct procedure for a what was just a meeting about a joint exhibition we were planning on.
E-mails about protocol were sent over and back (and sent to all in the group,making it public), the sniping and recruiting of allies on both sides proceeded apace. Ultimately the meeting was called off and there's now a shitty atmosphere permeating the whole place.
Bitches be crazy.
It is too small a sample to necessarily prove anything, and at best it can lead only to a generalisation, but in the more than 4 decades of my working life, the two nastiest bosses I have ever worked for were both women. It didn't seem to make a difference that one of whom considered herself a feminist of liberal-leftish views and the other had more traditional, conservative views.
I never worked under any female management but I have heard of the various issues. I did a humorous (hopefully) take on managers, including the female variety.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/how-many-managers-does-it-take-to-change-a-light-bulb/
Beautifully said Tom. You are a quite the wordsmith yourself. I remember when I was young (1970’s). If a girl could kick the footy or bowl the cricket ball properly she was welcome in any game going on in the neighbourhood. If any boy couldn’t he was likely excluded.
"If a girl could kick the footy or bowl the cricket ball properly she was welcome in any game going on in the neighbourhood."
As a young athlete I spent much of the late seventies training with some of the strongest women in the world including the first to ever bench press 300lb. We were all throwers in track and field so the weight lifting was an essential part of the training. At the time sports were still considered "unladylike" by many and going into the weight room trying to develop large musculature was anathema.
According to the athletes almost all the common criticisms and put downs came from other women. Apparently men were largely supportive and they surmised it was because "men understand the goal oriented nature of the training". This has been my experience in numerous environments including the IT field. Many men are impressed by and will encourage women who are willing to break the feminine stereotypes a bit particularly when those women DON'T make an issue or drama out of their gender.
There's a multi trillion dollar global industry devoted to frightening the bejesus out of women and constantly reminding them of how "weak" they are. Maybe it's time the women folk got together and dismantled the crab bucket.
Sports ARE un lady like. Only SIMPS would approve/encourage wo-MEN to play sports. It is a known fact: fe-MALE athletes lose their periods! It is a Known
Fact: wo-MEN athletes lose their feminine body fat and become angular looking. Also, a known fact: wo-MEN athletes develop higher testosterone levels than normal feminine wo-MEN. And last but not least & first & foremost: MOST fe-MALE athletes are LESBIANS. SHAME on men who encourage wo-MEN to play sports....they are bisexual IMOP....Hang your head in shame pal. Your types are part of the problem.
SIMP. Bet some boys could kick a ball too and would qualify to play on a wo-MAN'S team.
SIMPS like you are the reason girls/wo-MEN have invaded every MALE space including sports which necessitates the equal protection of MALES in wo-MEN'S sports. wo-MEN invading MALE sports and the SIMPS who enable them are the CAUSE of the current conundrum.
The ad was absurd but demonstrates what feminist women think of men. Frankly...men have woken up and are done with feminism...and frankly with women as well. When the day comes that men strike and women have to keep society running without our help...the big question will be whether total collapse happens before...or after lunch.
One week of men going on strike and women would agree to scrapping the 19th Amendment.
One month and they would embrace Sharia law!
Who is John Galled?
We should scrap the 19th amendment anyway. Or at least make wo-MEN'S vote not count by voting in masse against the left. Of course, the right is almost as bad.
I think automatic, unqualified, universal adult suffrage should be abolished for everyone. No one should be allowed to vote unless he, or she, can demonstrate an understanding of the process and the potential conflicts and the ability to accept that actions have consequences.
No one in receipt of any money from the tax payer should be allowed to vote either.
I am sympathetic to the idea of some sort of test to guarantee that the person voting knows something about their country, the political process, and other crucial matters.
I am worried, though, that the groups that would likely show themselves most knowledgeable--politicians, political journalists, political staffers, and academic experts--are often those with the most dangerous and unworkable views of all.
That is the fly in the ointment, however, see my last line: most of those people are in receipt of money from the tax payer, so barred from voting.
If even half the fe-male population had your sensibility Janice, I wouldn't even feel as I do about repealing the 19th. Unfortunately, what I see for the most part from wo-MEN politicians/voters is an obsession with the right to commit infanticide and wo-MEN'S sports. Republican wo-MEN are saying things like: "The Republican party needs to learn how to talk to wo-MEN" Oh? Meanwhile BOYS right to sovereign spaces and fathers right to joint custody are not even part of the political discourse.
Yes, we should. The idea of women being in any way equally as deserving of authority so obviously flies in the face of observable reality.
Women are crazy, and they make everyone crazy. It is an honest belief of mine that pretty much every social ill we face is due to them having privileges that should be reserved for men. Voting being one of them.
Although, lots of men shouldn't vote either. Men need to earn their vote, most likely through being a net taxpayer. A test would be too easy to manipulate for the purposes of a tyrannical government.
AGREED! I believe our founding father john Adams said: "wo-MEN shouldn't vote because they don't have to get drafted or support their families" (This is even MORE true today) to spite wo-MEN being in the military & working! Have you noticed wo-MEN politicians/voters main concern is the right to abortion and wo-MEN'S sports? So, the right to commit infanticide and be a tom boy is the number one concern of wo-MEN. Notice BOYS right to not have their spaces violated and fathers' reproductive rights to have joint custody are never even part of the political discourse?
Hi Janice…off topic. I hadn’t seen anything from you for quite awhile. I assumed you were on a break. I missed your posts so today I searched you out. And there you were. You might be getting blocked somehow. I get tons of lefty stuff on my feed as ‘related’. Good to know you are posting still.
Funny, I get notifications for Janice's sub stack every time she writes an article. Even funnier still, I stopped getting notifications from Paul Elam's sub stack in my primary email and they started showing up in the Forums column of my email. And now I'm getting notifications for Paul's sub stack in the promotions column of my email!
and what the producers think of men too!!!
Yea male producers. They’re probably on board with men dominated women’s sports though.
Google MCM FIU pedestrian bridge in Florida collapse. You will find the censored fact check that the ALL wo-MAN'S construction company and the five wo-MAN engineering team who designed the bridge which collapsed after a WEEK, did 'not' cause the bridge to collapse. LOL. Guess what happened?
I've always regretted not knowing more about the Sweetwater project. A woman bragged about being a designer of the bridge, and a short time later, it collapsed, killing half a dozen people and injuring many more. But we were not to conclude that her claim had anything to do with the unfortunate conclusion. Right.
Right, you are Janice. You are keenly perceptive and also have a good memory. Her name is Leonor Flores- FUI alumna & MCM'S project executive. Her exact words:
"It is very important for me as a wo-MAN and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think wo-MEN have a different perspective. "We're able to put an ARTISTIC TOUCH and we're able to build too"
I caught this is web captured it many times because it has indeed been censored.
I will post it on my FB page for anyone so inclined to find it.
They are Woe-men indeed. They certainly brought much woe to me.
Exactly. My mother is so dense. I keep showing her every time Kamala toe Harris obsesses about a wo-MAN'S right to kill a baby and my mother's response is "she was answering a question" I said NO, IT'S HER WHOLE PLATFORM wo-MEN and their right to kill babies. Every other word from her and the democrat machine is woe-MEN and their reproductive rights. I said to my mother, "What about BOYS & MEN'S reproductive rights? What about MEN'S right to parent their child without having to pay servitude to a woe-MAN for 18 years? She doesn't get the double standard; it goes over her head.
I will post whatever I have on my FB page if you want to know more
Don't tell me - the force of toxic masculinity from the male drivers passing below it overcame the strength of the structure, or perhaps the odour of testosterone rotted the steel reinforcing rods in the concrete?
LOL not too much of a stretch
It would only need the men working in infrastructure roles to strike and we'd be living in war zones in a couple of days. I am not joking.
Thanks for writing this.
Anti-male sentiment is so pervasive in our culture that I have assumed it was a given for most of my life. It’s like the air we breathe. Maybe I’m slow on the uptake, but it’s only clear to me now because the tenor has become so hysterical in the last decade or so.
I think it has been slowly but steadily ramped up over the past 4 decades, with men in the position of the proverbial frog being heated in the feminist pot.
"I think it has been slowly but steadily ramped up over the past 4 decades"
The radicals won control of the movement's direction during the early eighties. In Australia the word "feminist" was rarely heard until that time frame even though we'd had a hugely popular womens' liberation movement. I believe the strong support base became complacent - all the big ticket items seemed dealt with - allowing room for the radicals to take over.
Feminism was always a radial movement. It's just that it seized power in the 70s.
The women's liberation movement was just feminism dude.
There were no big ticket items to deal with.
Women were never systemically discriminated, they could always own bank accounts, and feminism was always female supremacism.
If you insist on always being on the defensive like this, and never making the effort to combat feminist historical revisionism, then you'll always lose.
Same here. I'm 65, and I suffered the worst of female domination through my divorce. Only after my divorce did I realise that I had suffered female domination through my marriage, and then earlier.
However, I only saw the "pervasive" anti-male sentiment in our culture ten years ago - which coincides with your timeline.
I can date it so precisely because in Australia the feminists went onto the attack with the exploitation of "domestic violence" taken to the next level, ie. of portraying it as an "epidemic" in which large numbers of women in consensual relationships were being routinely "beaten", and which was rooted in male power and privilege.
The heavily funded government dv campaign of 2015 had me wondering what-the-hell was going on. My own life experience, and my conversations with other men, was the exact opposite. I, and other men, had seen women in power in our own lives, the workplace, and society at large, and the results were questionable, at best, as so eloquently described by Janice here.
The Australian dv campaign of 2015 was eventually called out for its blatant lying about both the prevalence of dv and its root causes, yet MSM, government, "rights" NGOs and even Christian charities, have continued with it to this day.
NGO = Non Government Organisation = getting tax relief for doing jobs that are not voted for by Citizens = Lobbyists = jobs for mates or outsourced jobs by governments to make them look good.
I have a good friend who works for an NGO and he is quite high up and what I realised was that: the NGO is basically the Catholic Church; the NGO goes into countries (and probably does some really good work) without citizens voting for them (that I'm aware of) and whilst they might not push Christian values; I wonder what all this has to do with the push for the so called 'Democracy', that without Democracy the world is going to end! There is a lot going on around us that has nothing to do with Citizens directly voting for things in their lives but rely on Others doing it: when companies do this it is called 'outsourcing' but this is People in Authority deciding what is best base on THEIR ideas which make their CV look rather cool. Also, what was it in the past? Missionaries..
The one good thing that came out of my friend working there was digitalising a lot of the office work, practices - but even then there was push back from employees that had been there for years.. basically it boiled down to: I'm not leaving and if you don't step up, then step out..
Being more efficient with their money was one goal... at least...
The shame of all this is that there are some good people and others that like to grift.. without Citizens voting for these NGO's...
Women need to stand up to casual misandry. I am doing this online & will do it in the real word too.
Good for you. I've been rebuking women for it for some time past, more than twenty years - any woman who says something misandrous or otherwise offensive - and the reaction is still the same: not anger, not embarrassment just shock; they are dumbfounded.
Yes, I get this too. Online I’ve been accused of being a man countless times and called anti-woman.
Thankyou, so much! This is heartfelt from me, because I have a deep resentment of the professional women in my own circles who see it ("casual misandry"), and have even seen their sons and brothers almost destroyed by it, but say nothing.
Sincerely - thankyou!
They are utterly brainwashed. I think it feels good to basically have a group you can crap on & scapegoat. It’s also an assertion of female power & dominance - not sure if that’s a conscious thing or the intention though.
They aren't really brainwashed. They are active participants.
Something that people need to come to terms with is that considering women equally authoritative causes this sort of society.
It's why the Bible says being ruled over by women is a curse.
It’s not being a woman that’s the problem. It’s being irrational. Irrational people who lack self awareness & are very strident & arrogant about being right are the problem. Self righteous people are the problem. This is not unique to women. They’re being encouraged to be like this via education, media, the group dynamics.
I simply don’t agree. It’s not unique to women, but it is a trait more often found in women. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.
Yes, they are being encouraged to be like this, by other women in the media.
The feminist movement started in the 1800s by women.
I think you’re discounting a very real connection with women’s nature that feminism has. That doesn’t mean that’s ALL that women are. But it necessitates masculine authority in society.
Men are JUST AS capable of being as irrational and destructive as women are.
One of the most amusing aspects of the advertisement is its stereotypical image of masculinity. I don’t drink Bourbon, or lift weights. I do believe in complementarity. That this is a perfectly sensible position didn’t occur to the makers of the ad.
More importantly, the assumption that “real men” are feminist is absolutely ridiculous.
quite hilarious actually.. these Feminists don't like being stereotyped but are happy to want men to fit into 'their stereotyping of men'..
Just a tad hypocritical I think..
Anyone else feel like we’re living in a parody of the movie “Idiocracy”?
No one needs to tell a real man how to be one. Men already know by the time they reach the ages of the dopes in this add, or they will never learn.
So this add probably appeals most to women who fantasize about mythical hybrid men like this.
No; the film was art parodying life.
😹😹😹
People in entertainment likely don’t encounter normal people at all
<I do believe in complementarity.> So do I. That is the whole point of male and female.
It was impossible not to see the diversity, a la the fatso.
In the USA a 'broad' used to be a term for a woman. So a 'broad', i.e. wide man might be a good advert ploy. :)
After having seen my share of female "leadership" in corporate America, I can assure you I am not "afraid" of female leadership.
I don't go to work to hear blathering about whiteness or to be forced to sassy clap for the gays every June. It's not fear. It's not hate. It is contempt. Deep contempt.
Here’s a great rule of thumb, especially for young men. Recognize any input that utilizes the “man enough” or “real man” concepts as cheap manipulation by someone who is not in his or her right mind. Shut down their videos and online articles. Heave their printed books in the shitcan. Physically turn your back on them if they trot it out in person.
You’re not responsible for wading into every skirmish in this culture’s grudge match against reality. You are responsible for not letting maladjusted weirdos pour any of their poison into your brain housing group.
Nicely said.
The proverbial hills that some are willing to die on (and the people whom they’re willing to stand behind) are genuinely shocking, albeit completely unsurprising.
In much the same way that race grifters, social justice warriors and rabid leftists try to use the cases of individuals like Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and George Floyd to allege that America and/or the institution of law enforcement is systemically racist, they’re now trying push the message that the resistance to voting for Kamala Harris is some sort of evidence of latent/blatant misogyny and/or racism.
They truly have a gift for picking the most…questionable (if not outright loathsome) specimens as evidence for their ridiculous claims, which are built upon a foundation of exaggerations, lies, and utter bullshit.
Of course, this would assume that their defense of these individuals was genuine, which is certainly not the case for all of them, and which is indicative of a separate and (arguably) larger underlying issue in modern society.
I’m not a very political person. I’ve never voted for anyone or anything and I’ve never been affiliated with any particular party or candidate, but when I see efforts like this being made to push a particular candidate (in this case, Kamala Harris), all I’m seeing and hearing is a coalition of morons collectively declaring:
“I hate Donald Trump more than I love anything else.”
You are absolutely right - but for the scale of it... This model of using previously legit grievances like racism to basically grift in the modern egalitarian era is universal. Pretty much every movement that achieved their equality objectives in the 20thC has turned into this.
To keep receiving the funding and sinecures they need to keep the grievances flowing. So they generate them using the postmodern/"critical" word-salad formula.
That's funny because when I see people wanting to vote for Trump that's what I have always seen. They hate the rest of us more than they love themselves.
I have seen a comment from a Democrat supporter that she would vote for the left overs in her fridge before voting for Donald Trump. Of course Democrats being considered left wing they would have to be 'left' overs...
Anyway, I suppose she got a vegetable in Joe Biden. As for Kamala Devi Harris she does word salads. Which may be why 'radish' is an anagram out of her name!
Great article, Janice. This reminds me a lot of that crazy, misandrist Gillette ad that came out in 2019, where they decided it was a good idea to attack their customer base and wound up taking an $8.5 billion hair cut (beard trim?) as a result. These people are so disconnected from reality that they truly think its possible to bring someone to their side by disrespecting and otherwise insulting them. Madness.
Yes, exactly.
I think some men come to accept that masculinity is damaging. Growing up, perhaps without a father, in a culture that rewards them for identifying with women and against men, they learn to believe that all men want to join that group of 'good' men.
Your comment reminded me of when I was recently at CVS with my son who's in college. We were picking up some supplies and he said he needed shaving cream. That was the perfect time to tell him why I abide by "Never Gillette."
Excellent critique, as always!
Yeah, when I first watched that video I figured it was some kind of parody, a montage of ignorant and subtly derogatory stereotypes of men. Then...I caught on that the creator(s) actually held such a fundamentally contemptuous view of ordinary masculinity.
Whelp, if y'all will excuse me...guess I'll go rebuild a carburetor while I sip some Jim Beam. If my daughter's hair doesn't need braiding, of course. Sheesh!
I wonder if all this will affect the sales of Jim Beam!!
Just saw an interview with the guy who produced the video and he claimed it was a parody. Problem is Harris supporters think it’s real and approve of it. The other problem of course is it isn’t funny and doesn’t work as parody.
I wonder if the claim it was intended as parody is just butt-covering, now that the vid has drawn so much mockery...
The producer claims to be a conic.
It obviously is a parody…of men. That’s the problem.
Yes, it is clearly parodying what the writer imagines some men make of masculinity. It is certainly not a parody of feminism.
I've raised this with Janice in the past: men are happy to recognize that women have a USP on top of all their other talents. That is, the ability to manufacture and fuel replacement human beings. However, women are no longer prepared to grant men any USP, asserting that women can do anything a man can do, certainly equally well, and often better. They might make an exception for opening jars and taking out the rubbish and a few other drone-like menial tasks, but beyond that, men are merely ancillary (strictly, 'ancillary' means 'as, or like, a hand-maiden'. What a reversal). They close their eyes to the thousands of jobs and skills that men perform and exhibit, but women simply choose to ignore.
This form of female behavior , rabid anti-male propaganda, is uniquely associated with the Democrat party. It is also associated with the pro-abortion (I.e. non-reproductive rights) movement. It is not nearly as radical in other developed countries. As for the other majority part of the global community, it is totally absent. If women acknowledged their bodily reproductive function, it would not be necessary to import migrants to replace the aborted fetuses. How long before Democrat women start calling as a group for protection from imported migrant criminals and racists?
In Australia we do not have a Democrat or a Democratic Party but rabid anti-male propaganda is pervasive. What I'm saying is that rabid anti-male propaganda is pervasive and dominant in at least the whole Anglosphere and as far as I can see, all of Western culture. It is far bigger and far more pernicious than one party in one country.
Here in the UK the Labour Party, Scottish Nationalists, Sinn Fein, Green Party and Liberal Democrats are all of the rabid sort. The Conservatives confused and generally quickly cave in or exhibit unctuous chivalry and fall in line with the feminists.
Just FYI, for people who are unfamiliar with American politics: we don't have a "Democrat party". Our two major parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Maybe other countries are different, I don't know! But I do know about this country.
I will call it that when its members behave in a democratic way. Until then the capital D is just a name.
Google “Robert Michels” and “iron law of oligarchy” to understand why even the most internally democratic political parties are not as democratic as they claim to be.
Yea 2 peas in a pod
The pod is Zionist.
Yes, there are enough weak men and communists that will vote for Harris. But political commercials aren't for the base. They are for the undecided. Sadly, this commercial will not gain Harris any undecided votes.
Insulting 49.5% of your population doesn't get you votes. I noticed they used a chicken farmer instead of a rancher. What a weak and ineffective man that he boasts of raising chickens.
What has feminism got us? Men who are afraid to talk to women for fear of being labeled sexist. Boys who want nothing to do with women, and the degradation of the military in the form of queers and transexuals.
Every ill in society can be traced to women in power and academia.
Women are chasing men out of society and then inviting in men who don't respect them and who rape them.
Your general point about feminism, Joseph, is well taken. But your point about weak men needs a tweak. Heinrich Himmler actually was a chicken farmer, a failed one at that, before becoming the powerful architect of Hitler's Final Solution. He has gone down in history for evil but not for weakness.
Also, I think that there's a typo in your first paragraph. You say, "Sadly, this commercial will not gain Harris any undecided votes." Surely, you mean "fortunately."
Mostly true. Except "It takes a tough MAN to create a tender chicken" Frank Purdue wants you to know.
That takes me back a bit. 😉
LOL. I would like to know how to make an emoji ?
If you’re using a phone there’s a built-in app.
👍🏽
Add think of all the things you can do with eggs!
"My father told me that a limp handshake was for weak men and communists," said Lucy. -- They call it a Swanson: Parks and Recreation. It's on YouTube.
They poked the bear quite literally and metaphorically.
You get the sense that if these people were asked to say what they offer men in one sentence, it would be "the opportunity to support women" - and in their minds, that would be enough.
Yes, honestly, many of them seem to believe that.
Janice, I don't know if you saw this outrageous lie from an election ad. Might be an article in it.
"In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose, you can vote any way you want, and no one will ever know."
video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk
The Bud-Light moment for the Democrats...
Are the people producing these things that blind? Or are they actually revelling in rubbing people's noses in it as a kind of demonstration of dominance?
For the record, I DO 'have a problem with women in positions of leadership'. I base that 'problem' on the past fifty years of witnessing and experience. Of course that doesn't mean that every female in a leadership position is a tyrant; it means ENOUGH of them are. A preponderance.
The Official Left and Right are both down with total feminism and the Civil Rights agenda of the past 60 years. Turned out, however, that everybody had, and has, Civil Rights except heterosexual white men. So it's not really Civil Rights, is it? In reality, it's a pogrom. With a pretty name to make it not seem like a pogrom.
America is not alone in the ongoing separation of Left = Women (feminism) and Right = Men. It's happening in many other nations also, for obvious reasons. In addition, Gen Z boys are moving strongly to the Right, if the Right means anti-feminism. Why? Because they've witnessed what the Monstrous Regiment has done to their dads, uncles, brothers, etc. And also, I expect, because of the insistent and insane attempts at feminist indoctrination extant in their schools, media, courts, corporations, churches et al. Unlike prior generations, they seem unwilling to close their eyes.
The harder the fembots push, the more intransigent these boys become. Older Righties, otoh, are too afraid of women and their collective power to push back against the gynarchy. They feel they have too much to lose and are not up for the fight.
BINGO! 100%. I too oppose wo-MEN in leadership roles, I even oppose allowing wo-MEN to be schoolteachers for BOYS. I believe God's word: "wo-MEN are 'not' to teach MEN" 'For Adam was 'not' in sin but the wo-MAN 'was' in sin" FALSE Christians will say that's only in the church which is absurd. Considering the 'church' is supposed to be the light to the world, I would say the teachings should manifest the world.
Yup. The man was not made for the woman, the woman was made for the man.
After what I've seen, I also would not allow any female to 'teach' my boy. . . or any boy if I could help it. Ditto for women being the bosses of men. It is a prescription for disaster, and only disaster can come of it.
Once boys reach the age of five or six, they should be in the care, and under the training, of adult men. Not of women, as is now the case from K through college.
Having read recently about what is being taught to schoolboys under the guise of "gender equality" and how women understand their role in the school system, I agree that, perhaps outside of a few specialized classes, women should not be teaching boys or young men.
Indeed.
Janice you are one of the most fair-minded people I know of either gender.
God bless you sir! Ditto!
Hardly surprised by the incredibly low quality of the ad, as it's emblematic of the entire Harris campaign. And excellent points made throughout your essay, Janice. One thing that needs to be said, however, is that "the technological advances of modern society [which] had made it possible for women to outperform men just about everywhere" are being taken for granted, both by the likes of Williamson and Benenson and other (post) modern feminists, as well as many who oppose them. They are not here to stay. Advanced technology is like a critter which has climbed out on a branch which is splitting from the tree's trunk right at its base, in a big way because the energy sources are being exhausted. The world will be finding this out over the next 5-10 years. I for one think the vast majority of people are totally unprepared for this development, let alone its consequences.