Many feminists seem to have a really unhealthy obsession with being "subdued", evident in how they've escalated this joke into some kind of fantastical reality that they salivate over. I remember watching the Handmaid's Tale on Netflix and talking with some very devout feminists after, and its really like a wet dream for them. Its like a large-scale fetish. They relish in imagining a world where this could actually happen, even though reality is nowhere near that.
You're spot-on.Maybe it has something to do with the feminization of men--the more they control men and feminize them, the more their unconscious longs to submit. But never in a happy marriage, only under rape and forced pregnancy, obviously.
I think this has also something to do with the female pornography (literary) that has become more and more extreme. As much as they always complain about the visual pornography that men watch and how this allegedly degrades women and is oppressing them (whilst they voluntarily start an OF or PH account), the female pornography is way, way more extreme, insane and illogical.
It is a fantasy after all, but I fear it is the same with all of these hysterical (social) media appearances of women. House wives of Orange county, The Kardashians, Love Island or whatever iteration of the Big Brother show we have nowadays, TikTok, Instagram, etc.
Above two examples are (as difficult as I find it to say) fine to consume as long as you are able to de-couple that from reality and constantly remind yourself that you're watching a dramatization or fantasy. But we can see more and more women who actually believe this BS and start to live life like those train wrecks on TV or social media or think that those guys in the novels are real and that this is the way to have a relationship or think that men are "secretly" (AKA a fucking lie) like this.
I've written about it before on Janice's articles and I will say it again: there is an abundance of (social) infrastructure in place to derail women from the path they need to walk in order to be an attractive "playmate" later in life (check out Jordan Petersons talk about parenting to know what playmate means).
There are no popular female role models that show women how to have a happy, functional relationship with themselves, other women and men.
And I am sure that whenever someone attempts to do this; "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down".
I remember when I first got into the fantasy community. The books the “modern women” liked made my head spin. ASOIAF was the baseline and it got worse from there.
The recent Handmaid’s Handwringing is an excellent example too
I tried rewatching it (THMT) the other day and was like no way; this is too stupid.....was the world different when I watched it the first time around? I think I am all topped off of this stupid nonsense; I am becoming allergic.
I didn’t even bother- after researching Christian Reconstructionism, it would look like Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities but with crosses, guns, and a chain-gang of petty criminals repairing the roads.
“Methinks the ladies doth project too much” if I may paraphrase Shakespeare
I really think some are living in a fantasy land, and they think they are in "The Handmais Tale". Too much university communist education them. Relativism has overtaken them.
I think you can also link the huge consumption of "true crime" to this phenomenon too. The number of middle aged women who truly believe they're being sized up in grocery stores to be snatched and sex trafficked is.... alarming. Again, they consume story after story of violence and they want to believe its way more common than it is, because on some level, they delight in and are fascinated by the idea that it could happen to them. At least, that's the impression I get.
While slightly off-topic, I’d like to suggest we make feminist outrage into formal Feminist Olympics events. e.g., 4 x 100m outrage relay, marathon of matriarchal malevolence, the umbrage pentathlon, thaumaturgy judo 🥋, ovarian fire suppression, roller derby against the Patriarchy, social media Seppuku, etc.
This suggestion was inspired by the Monty Python “Twit Olympics” skit, which is of similar intellectual merit as is feminist thought, as a general rule.
Don’t forget persecution gymnastics, where competitors have to contort themselves into ever more radically twisted positions to maintain their assertions of victimhood in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.
They can't control their own behavior so they deeply desire a world in which they're forced to behave decently. They innately don't want responsibility, but they can't admit that, so they have to pretend they want autonomy while dreaming (and reading books about) being subjugated. But men don't want them enough (and take their equality rhetoric too seriously) to take up the task, so they endlessly lobby the government to control them and everyone else.
It really is this. Zero responsibility combined with low attractiveness. A lethal combination. Not many smokin' hot babes agonizing over the patriarchy.
I'm not sure about the attractiveness angle. I can think of some very nice-looking feminists (from my perspective, anyway). I think the simple fact is that the guarantee of innocent victimhood and the license to hate (blamelessly) that come with feminist ideology--and the ability to excuse all one's own poor behavior and irresponsibility--are just too pleasurable to resist.
While there ARE some very nice looking feminists (e.g. Gloria Steinem), there are also many, many feminists whose physical unattractiveness must surely have been the source of much of their clearly stated hatred of men (e.g. Andrea Dworkin, Kate Millet, Chanty Binx, also known as Big Red, and Valerie Solanas). Although I've long been reluctant to mention this fact, I now do so because my empathy doesn’t extend to women who hate and disparage half the population.
Perhaps. Although attractiveness to men is more than looks. Some hot babes are impossible to get along with. Women tend to rank much higher in agreeableness than men, and men like that in women. Disagreeable women are much less attractive.
I do agree feminism provides a license to behave badly and receive social applause while doing it. Plus power is seductive in its own right. All the power men have given away to the sisterhood, at least for now.
Good, Spaceman, although I'll add one comment on "agreeableness." I don't doubt that men like that in women. Who wouldn't like it in anyone? But I do doubt that women actually are, on the whole, nicer than men are. That requires an explanation, so please bear with me.
Psychologists like to use "agreeableness" to identify a statistically characteristic behavior pattern of women. It goes with niceness, sympathy, empathy, passivity, cooperation, trust, compliance and so on. (It's counterpart for men, of course, would be the opposite: "disagreeableness." This goes with meanness, selfishness, aggression, combativeness, bluntness, defiance and so on.)
Some psychologists are careful enough to add that these words, and the behaviors that they describe, are due not simply to the givens of nature but also to the artifacts of culture--that is, the extent to which actual women (or men), as individuals, internalize variable idealizations of femininity (or masculinity). And the extent varies considerably. This is why no one who is both observant and honest would ever assume that women are innately "agreeable" (or men innately "disagreeable").
Some psychologists explain this contradiction, usually after being questioned, by noting that these positive words for women can have negative connotations, just as these negative words for men can have positive connotations. Masculine "Bluntness," for example, can be a necessary antidote to the artificial and often manipulative niceties of public piety or etiquette. No society could endure, moreover, without harnessing "aggression" for communal purposes. I don't know why "altruism" landed on the feminine side, because it's self-evidently characteristic of both women and men (though sometimes in different ways).
My point here is that words can take on lives of their own, especially contentious ones that find their way from academic theories into political ideologies. Words on the feminine side have by now been culturally coded as "good." (It's true that "niceness" and "compliance" have been finessed into the rhetoric of victimhood, but they still serve the political interests of women.) Words on the masculine side, however, have by now been culturally coded as "evil" or "toxic."
But don't take my word for it. This profoundly dualistic tendency now reigns supreme at the American Psychological Association, and anyone can see evidence of it by reading its current guidebook for therapists who treat boys or men.
Thanks for this clear and helpful comment. I sometimes wonder how much connection there is between psychologists and their arguments and the plainly anti-intellectual and recycled parlance, often spiked with outrage, etc., that passes for feminist discourse. Many feminists believe that what they say is right because they say it; their beliefs are self-evident, like certain other truths, beyond debate or discussion. They know that somewhere somebody can explain things more clearly, but they don't need the proverbial "deep dive," thanks all the same. They just need the right words (toxic, blunt, distant) and some man to speak these words at.
I have seen attractive, intelligent women turn ugly with the onset and prolonged exposure to marxist ideological possession twisting them up inside, and they seem to be crying for help by looking miserable, unhappy and unattractive. Lies twist the soul.
I know at least one feminist, one of the most important in her country, who, as I like to put it, advanced her interest horizontally. Spreading her legs for powerful men was, apparently, a feminist strategy for empowerment.
All the pop stars now are feminists. Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo are beautiful, and dress in a feminine way, and they regularly make feminist statements. See Taylor Swifts, "The Man" video and Olivia's abortion activism.
At one time, the husband was responsible for managing the finances in a marriage. The keyword is "responsible" because if he couldn't pay his debt or taxes, he could go to jail. Feminists changed the law so a wife could have money separate from her husband. Yet if she couldn't pay her debt or taxes, the husband still bared the responsibility, and could go to jail. Feminists don't understand responsibility.
Female conscience is completely, 100% de-coupled from their sub-conscience. The thing that is actually good for women is not what they desire (at this moment in time). E.g. they say they want a man that is nice and caring but that is their conscience talking, they gravitate towards the bad boys that give them dysfunctional relationships. It is all explainable, but not excusable as we've known this for a long time and women just reject this.
They reject this, not because it is not true, but because it is not socially acceptable to say this. It is the same with women that vote. Studies have shown that women don't actually care about the candidate or what they stand for or what they want. They vote on the person for which it is socially acceptable to vote on and to virtue signal.
And I think that plays into what you say. They don't want to say they are completely derailed and need guidance in life, as they want to virtue signal and it is socially acceptable nowadays to be a "strong, independent women who need no man". But these chicks fail to recognize that you actually need to work in order to become self reliant and self sufficient. You need to put in work in order to become like this and that is what women don't want to do.
As someone used to say: "women love the sizzle, and don't care about the steak". They like the fame, the social status, the attention and validation they get from other women when they say whatever is deemed "good" or "empowering" but they run away from the consequences whenever it catches up to them.
And that is where the government comes in. The ultimate captain save a hoe. The supreme white knight that forces men to hand over their taxes to "help" these "poor" single mothers, DEI folks (Didnt Earn It) and to erect and keep this dysfunctional society going in a more dysfunctional direction.
Men will have to take over and take complete control and ignore what women think about it to correct course. They will always complain. They are complaining in order to get things done, and they will complain once things are no longer going their way. There is no way to get women onboard with the course correction that is desperately needed, but will only happen once Rome has collapsed.
George Orwell: "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
With all due respect, has there ever been a time in recent memory that was NOT “tense and fragile” with regard/according to women?
I’ll be more inclined to not blatantly laugh at rape hysteria if we weren’t living in a world where the “50 Shades of Grey” book series (best summarized by the statement “Tie me up and fuck me, you billionaire!”) hadn’t sold 165+ million copies worldwide.
I’m old enough to remember “Lifetime: Television for Women,” where every piece of programming prominently featured a woman being stalked, abused, molested, raped, oppressed, and/or otherwise victimized by a man, and sometimes even by a(nother) psychotic woman.
Judging by their obsession with it, the concept of rape in the female mind is in a constant state of flux between “fear” and “fetish.”
The women bragging about their abortions, complaining about the subjugation of their reproductive rights, and hyperventilating over Nick Fuentes’ internet shitposting (along with other watchers of “The View”) are much more representative of the average woman in 2024 than Nick Fuentes is of the average man in 2024.
Nick fuentes should be more representative of the average man. The fact that he isn't shows that men lack integrity, and have allowed themselves to be abused by animalistic, hysterical women, who's female animalistic mammalian instincts have overridden the rational spiritual parts of their brain.
Fuentes is a Christian nationalist of the Catholic vein, and of course a closet homosexual. He is also very entertaining mainly because he says exactly what he thinks without reserve on major political issues most pundits avoid like the plague.
I agree radrave just making a point of how he's left to do anything he wants while regular joe burns. The catholic used car salesman schtick is rather unappealing also.
Nick Fuentes would hardly make a good role model and I hardly think the fact that he isn't representative of the average man is a bad thing. He's a grifter. He isn't just standing up to abusive, hysterical women, he's stirring them up for the attention it gets him. It isn't helpful for anyone else.
His frustration and justifiable dislike of women shows that he has more integrity than the average man, who is just not remotely formidabble or self-respecting in any regard.
I am not a Nick fan, because I find him cooky in other regards, but in a sense he is standing up to women at the very least verbally. I mean what do you mean he’s not standing up to women?
Interesting point. I think the lack of real rape is actually fueling the rape fantasies. Supply and demand issue here. They want to have their story, but damn the men gentlemen.
You know who does not have rape fatasies. Men. You know why, because 100 men are raped every day for every women raped. That place is called prison.
Shouldn’t the slogan be “Male body, No Choice“? Wouldn’t that be the slogan that accurately and unironically conveys the subjection of male bodies to genital mutilation as well as feminist-dominated culture’s refusal to allow men any reproductive rights whatsoever? As Dr. Fiamengo aptly points out, even men’s right to be abstinent—as in the case with MGTOW followers—is denounced by feminists as misogynistic. If feminists are so offended by irony, perhaps they should adopt the following slogan: “My body, my bloated persecution fantasy.”
A baby is conceived by a male's sperm and a female egg. Yet the father's consideration is stripped away like it does not matter. This dehumanizing humiliation ritual must be seen for what it is. Two make a baby, and two have equal input into their intertwined fate. Many men would gladdly consent to an abortion with a meaningless sex date doll. Are they even asked?
The crazy thing is, few feminists seem to be objecting to mass illegal immigration of a great number of very rape-y "your body, my choice" individuals.
And they don't seem to want the rapists to have to pay bail or be jailed, either.
The increase in rape is proportional to illegal migration from low-IQ low moral countries, but the woke government is hiding these facts. Laken was a famous one, but there are thousands more being hidden. It is not real rape unless a white guy does it, don't you hear? Define white will you?
It is sas that you have to differentiate between appearance and ideology because they are so shallow and robotic they cannot debate on the merits, so they jump to ad hominem attacks against their detractors. The feminist space is devoid of deep thought let alone debate. So frustrating. Keep up the good work my friend.
Actually it was Abbott who accused Gillard of misogyny for supporting the Speaker who had made lewd comments in a private text message. Gillard's misogyny speech was in response to Abbott's accusation.
Too true Bettina. There is some justice in knowing anyone that angry has an eternity of unhappiness in front of them. There is something about her target of hatred that she just can’t stand about herself!!
Amen Janice. I had no idea this was going on. Not surprising though. Today's feminists seem addicted to victimhood to such a degree that when they are upset by something (like the Trump win) they become anxious and when the get anxious they turn towards victimhood, that dependable balm that allows them to vent and attack. It's not about their own internal angst, it is someone or something else outside of them. Go figure. When will people simply start laughing at them?
Veture Into the wilds of substack and start commenting on the not locked woke accounts, it is hard to tell who is a woke ideologically possessed lady, or a woke bot, or a government activist.
The best irony is often self-inflicted. There was a photo recently of a woman at a pro-abortion rally standing with her primary school-age daughter. Her placard read something like 'I defend my daughter's right to have an abortion'. I wondered if the (non-aborted) daughter would ever spot the irony there as she grew up.
So over this question of how many angels can dance on a pin. Feminism, what a FAIL. Hate Men, despise children, loves aborting foetuses, has catfights at board meetings, believes crying is a valid debate response, refuses to defend Female Space from fat, hideous, funky Trannies. You wonder why we're all turning into fags?
Also Janice, one of the things you’ve really highlighted for me is how little feminism considers the rights and needs of children. That revelation is chilling. Many thanks for your thought provoking work.
I have posted "your body, my choice" multiple times, in a sardonic tone and anonymously, before Fuentes tweeted it, but in reference to the Covid vaccine mandates (which, unlike the Polio vax - I am so sick of that insanely stupid equivocation - actually works).
I had even planned on printing it on a fake political yard sign, complete with an elephant wearing a pussy hat and a syringe poking out of it's rear end. But this election cycle I thought better of it as we were so close to massive political violence.
Yes, abortion kills a fetus. Late term abortion kills a baby... And just like the taxpayers who funded the creation of covid, the creation of the vax, and whose labor funds the girlboss political class who actually believe my body is their choice, babies didn't get into a drunken tryst to wind up in that situation.
Feminists and the political left never, ever accept responsibility for what they do, what they have done, or what they are. They must be compelled to accept responsibility. In light of that, is Fuentes really that wrong? We're already playing these games, regardless of if we like it or not. I personally don't feel the need to lose.
I find his style unnecessarily rebarbative, and I don't know all his precise positions, but he is definitely not wrong about the disaster that is feminist power and its hideous results for children and families. Feminists were pro-vax to a T, and most wanted people locked up or starved to death a la Noam Chomsky for refusing an untested medical product that didn't stop Covid.
Noam took off the mask for that one. Yikes. I do not want to pile on Nick too much, He is simply being used as a tool to discredit solid positions and ideas. If he seized the moment, we would all be better off, but he has a history of being out of time and missing it.
Thanks for mentioning Chumpsky and his horrifying take on Covid Janice, you're a real academic. Numb Chumpsky is a false idle and "good cop" for you know who... I dare anyone to look into Peter Dale Scott's and Michael Parrenti's work on JFK and ask where does Numb nuts Chumpsky fit into all this.
Expect illegal immigrants to start burning down cities when the deportations begin, and the media will say see, just leave them be, we should pay billions and avoid the violence from the mostly peaceful migrants....
There's been a war against men for quite some time now, and we have bred confused boys who have grown into angry or feminised males. There is generally no respect for masculinity, and in return not a whole lot of love for women. Feminism has been one of the biggest scams of the century.
When the adrenaline and dopamine of indignation provide a rush it’s doubtful that any kind of rationality will invade “women’s spaces.” Actual thought might, after all, lead to the conclusion that mere disagreement is hardly a reason to call for exterminating men.
Interesting vid from Dore showing some DNC op talking about their "raising the threat level" so there DNC base was scared shitless of Trumps "coming dictatorship". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VacC1oW2pc
I think the good news is that the effect of these histrionic tactics are wearing off rapidly, except to the hard-core believers. Just like the tantrums of toddlers, it starts to lose it effectiveness after 30 times or so.
Because of the 2024 election, the opponents now know that they are in the majority, and the Drama Queens are not. As the rational people figure out what is going on and leave, their bubble is going to collapse within itself.
Many feminists seem to have a really unhealthy obsession with being "subdued", evident in how they've escalated this joke into some kind of fantastical reality that they salivate over. I remember watching the Handmaid's Tale on Netflix and talking with some very devout feminists after, and its really like a wet dream for them. Its like a large-scale fetish. They relish in imagining a world where this could actually happen, even though reality is nowhere near that.
You're spot-on.Maybe it has something to do with the feminization of men--the more they control men and feminize them, the more their unconscious longs to submit. But never in a happy marriage, only under rape and forced pregnancy, obviously.
Yes they literally jack off to their rape fantasies....
I thought the term was “Jill off.”
There was a fa tasy series of books called " Land Of Gor" which was made popular by women reading that 50 shades of grey type garbage.
I think this has also something to do with the female pornography (literary) that has become more and more extreme. As much as they always complain about the visual pornography that men watch and how this allegedly degrades women and is oppressing them (whilst they voluntarily start an OF or PH account), the female pornography is way, way more extreme, insane and illogical.
It is a fantasy after all, but I fear it is the same with all of these hysterical (social) media appearances of women. House wives of Orange county, The Kardashians, Love Island or whatever iteration of the Big Brother show we have nowadays, TikTok, Instagram, etc.
Above two examples are (as difficult as I find it to say) fine to consume as long as you are able to de-couple that from reality and constantly remind yourself that you're watching a dramatization or fantasy. But we can see more and more women who actually believe this BS and start to live life like those train wrecks on TV or social media or think that those guys in the novels are real and that this is the way to have a relationship or think that men are "secretly" (AKA a fucking lie) like this.
I've written about it before on Janice's articles and I will say it again: there is an abundance of (social) infrastructure in place to derail women from the path they need to walk in order to be an attractive "playmate" later in life (check out Jordan Petersons talk about parenting to know what playmate means).
There are no popular female role models that show women how to have a happy, functional relationship with themselves, other women and men.
And I am sure that whenever someone attempts to do this; "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down".
Positive female role models are forbidden in the communist power play.
I remember when I first got into the fantasy community. The books the “modern women” liked made my head spin. ASOIAF was the baseline and it got worse from there.
The recent Handmaid’s Handwringing is an excellent example too
I tried rewatching it (THMT) the other day and was like no way; this is too stupid.....was the world different when I watched it the first time around? I think I am all topped off of this stupid nonsense; I am becoming allergic.
I tried too, got 10 minutes in and thought the same thing. My stepdaughter raved about it and insisted that it was based on fact. 🤦
I didn’t even bother- after researching Christian Reconstructionism, it would look like Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities but with crosses, guns, and a chain-gang of petty criminals repairing the roads.
“Methinks the ladies doth project too much” if I may paraphrase Shakespeare
I really think some are living in a fantasy land, and they think they are in "The Handmais Tale". Too much university communist education them. Relativism has overtaken them.
Must be why they don't support Iranian women.
I think you can also link the huge consumption of "true crime" to this phenomenon too. The number of middle aged women who truly believe they're being sized up in grocery stores to be snatched and sex trafficked is.... alarming. Again, they consume story after story of violence and they want to believe its way more common than it is, because on some level, they delight in and are fascinated by the idea that it could happen to them. At least, that's the impression I get.
While slightly off-topic, I’d like to suggest we make feminist outrage into formal Feminist Olympics events. e.g., 4 x 100m outrage relay, marathon of matriarchal malevolence, the umbrage pentathlon, thaumaturgy judo 🥋, ovarian fire suppression, roller derby against the Patriarchy, social media Seppuku, etc.
This suggestion was inspired by the Monty Python “Twit Olympics” skit, which is of similar intellectual merit as is feminist thought, as a general rule.
Don’t forget persecution gymnastics, where competitors have to contort themselves into ever more radically twisted positions to maintain their assertions of victimhood in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.
👏 brilliant
But then let the trannies win, cause that makes a lot of sense in feminist world.
And the main event: Synchronised Stupidity.
LOL
Of course jumping to wrong conclusions wgere they have a set target but have to jump to the wrong one.
Running with their mouths where they are given a topic but have to convince others of ironic or double speak situations
🤣
They can't control their own behavior so they deeply desire a world in which they're forced to behave decently. They innately don't want responsibility, but they can't admit that, so they have to pretend they want autonomy while dreaming (and reading books about) being subjugated. But men don't want them enough (and take their equality rhetoric too seriously) to take up the task, so they endlessly lobby the government to control them and everyone else.
Breath of fresh air seeing women (maybe) write the truth about the mastabatorial fantasies of feminists for bdsm style world tyrrany.
It really is this. Zero responsibility combined with low attractiveness. A lethal combination. Not many smokin' hot babes agonizing over the patriarchy.
I'm not sure about the attractiveness angle. I can think of some very nice-looking feminists (from my perspective, anyway). I think the simple fact is that the guarantee of innocent victimhood and the license to hate (blamelessly) that come with feminist ideology--and the ability to excuse all one's own poor behavior and irresponsibility--are just too pleasurable to resist.
While there ARE some very nice looking feminists (e.g. Gloria Steinem), there are also many, many feminists whose physical unattractiveness must surely have been the source of much of their clearly stated hatred of men (e.g. Andrea Dworkin, Kate Millet, Chanty Binx, also known as Big Red, and Valerie Solanas). Although I've long been reluctant to mention this fact, I now do so because my empathy doesn’t extend to women who hate and disparage half the population.
Perhaps. Although attractiveness to men is more than looks. Some hot babes are impossible to get along with. Women tend to rank much higher in agreeableness than men, and men like that in women. Disagreeable women are much less attractive.
I do agree feminism provides a license to behave badly and receive social applause while doing it. Plus power is seductive in its own right. All the power men have given away to the sisterhood, at least for now.
Good, Spaceman, although I'll add one comment on "agreeableness." I don't doubt that men like that in women. Who wouldn't like it in anyone? But I do doubt that women actually are, on the whole, nicer than men are. That requires an explanation, so please bear with me.
Psychologists like to use "agreeableness" to identify a statistically characteristic behavior pattern of women. It goes with niceness, sympathy, empathy, passivity, cooperation, trust, compliance and so on. (It's counterpart for men, of course, would be the opposite: "disagreeableness." This goes with meanness, selfishness, aggression, combativeness, bluntness, defiance and so on.)
Some psychologists are careful enough to add that these words, and the behaviors that they describe, are due not simply to the givens of nature but also to the artifacts of culture--that is, the extent to which actual women (or men), as individuals, internalize variable idealizations of femininity (or masculinity). And the extent varies considerably. This is why no one who is both observant and honest would ever assume that women are innately "agreeable" (or men innately "disagreeable").
Some psychologists explain this contradiction, usually after being questioned, by noting that these positive words for women can have negative connotations, just as these negative words for men can have positive connotations. Masculine "Bluntness," for example, can be a necessary antidote to the artificial and often manipulative niceties of public piety or etiquette. No society could endure, moreover, without harnessing "aggression" for communal purposes. I don't know why "altruism" landed on the feminine side, because it's self-evidently characteristic of both women and men (though sometimes in different ways).
My point here is that words can take on lives of their own, especially contentious ones that find their way from academic theories into political ideologies. Words on the feminine side have by now been culturally coded as "good." (It's true that "niceness" and "compliance" have been finessed into the rhetoric of victimhood, but they still serve the political interests of women.) Words on the masculine side, however, have by now been culturally coded as "evil" or "toxic."
But don't take my word for it. This profoundly dualistic tendency now reigns supreme at the American Psychological Association, and anyone can see evidence of it by reading its current guidebook for therapists who treat boys or men.
Thanks for this clear and helpful comment. I sometimes wonder how much connection there is between psychologists and their arguments and the plainly anti-intellectual and recycled parlance, often spiked with outrage, etc., that passes for feminist discourse. Many feminists believe that what they say is right because they say it; their beliefs are self-evident, like certain other truths, beyond debate or discussion. They know that somewhere somebody can explain things more clearly, but they don't need the proverbial "deep dive," thanks all the same. They just need the right words (toxic, blunt, distant) and some man to speak these words at.
I have seen attractive, intelligent women turn ugly with the onset and prolonged exposure to marxist ideological possession twisting them up inside, and they seem to be crying for help by looking miserable, unhappy and unattractive. Lies twist the soul.
Damsel syndrome.
I know at least one feminist, one of the most important in her country, who, as I like to put it, advanced her interest horizontally. Spreading her legs for powerful men was, apparently, a feminist strategy for empowerment.
Kamala?
Especially when accompanied with a sense of impunity that has not a shred of justification.
All the pop stars now are feminists. Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo are beautiful, and dress in a feminine way, and they regularly make feminist statements. See Taylor Swifts, "The Man" video and Olivia's abortion activism.
At one time, the husband was responsible for managing the finances in a marriage. The keyword is "responsible" because if he couldn't pay his debt or taxes, he could go to jail. Feminists changed the law so a wife could have money separate from her husband. Yet if she couldn't pay her debt or taxes, the husband still bared the responsibility, and could go to jail. Feminists don't understand responsibility.
Female conscience is completely, 100% de-coupled from their sub-conscience. The thing that is actually good for women is not what they desire (at this moment in time). E.g. they say they want a man that is nice and caring but that is their conscience talking, they gravitate towards the bad boys that give them dysfunctional relationships. It is all explainable, but not excusable as we've known this for a long time and women just reject this.
They reject this, not because it is not true, but because it is not socially acceptable to say this. It is the same with women that vote. Studies have shown that women don't actually care about the candidate or what they stand for or what they want. They vote on the person for which it is socially acceptable to vote on and to virtue signal.
And I think that plays into what you say. They don't want to say they are completely derailed and need guidance in life, as they want to virtue signal and it is socially acceptable nowadays to be a "strong, independent women who need no man". But these chicks fail to recognize that you actually need to work in order to become self reliant and self sufficient. You need to put in work in order to become like this and that is what women don't want to do.
As someone used to say: "women love the sizzle, and don't care about the steak". They like the fame, the social status, the attention and validation they get from other women when they say whatever is deemed "good" or "empowering" but they run away from the consequences whenever it catches up to them.
And that is where the government comes in. The ultimate captain save a hoe. The supreme white knight that forces men to hand over their taxes to "help" these "poor" single mothers, DEI folks (Didnt Earn It) and to erect and keep this dysfunctional society going in a more dysfunctional direction.
Men will have to take over and take complete control and ignore what women think about it to correct course. They will always complain. They are complaining in order to get things done, and they will complain once things are no longer going their way. There is no way to get women onboard with the course correction that is desperately needed, but will only happen once Rome has collapsed.
Couldn't agree more
Was Orwell right then?
George Orwell: "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
Makes me think of Shamima Begum.
“In this tense and fragile time for women…”
With all due respect, has there ever been a time in recent memory that was NOT “tense and fragile” with regard/according to women?
I’ll be more inclined to not blatantly laugh at rape hysteria if we weren’t living in a world where the “50 Shades of Grey” book series (best summarized by the statement “Tie me up and fuck me, you billionaire!”) hadn’t sold 165+ million copies worldwide.
I’m old enough to remember “Lifetime: Television for Women,” where every piece of programming prominently featured a woman being stalked, abused, molested, raped, oppressed, and/or otherwise victimized by a man, and sometimes even by a(nother) psychotic woman.
Judging by their obsession with it, the concept of rape in the female mind is in a constant state of flux between “fear” and “fetish.”
The women bragging about their abortions, complaining about the subjugation of their reproductive rights, and hyperventilating over Nick Fuentes’ internet shitposting (along with other watchers of “The View”) are much more representative of the average woman in 2024 than Nick Fuentes is of the average man in 2024.
Nick fuentes should be more representative of the average man. The fact that he isn't shows that men lack integrity, and have allowed themselves to be abused by animalistic, hysterical women, who's female animalistic mammalian instincts have overridden the rational spiritual parts of their brain.
The fact Fuentes didn't get arrested after J6 makes that guy smell REALLY fishy...
Fuentes is a Christian nationalist of the Catholic vein, and of course a closet homosexual. He is also very entertaining mainly because he says exactly what he thinks without reserve on major political issues most pundits avoid like the plague.
He is like a turd in the punch bowl. He feeds headlines to the media and makes regular guys look like idiots by association.
I agree radrave just making a point of how he's left to do anything he wants while regular joe burns. The catholic used car salesman schtick is rather unappealing also.
Nick Fuentes would hardly make a good role model and I hardly think the fact that he isn't representative of the average man is a bad thing. He's a grifter. He isn't just standing up to abusive, hysterical women, he's stirring them up for the attention it gets him. It isn't helpful for anyone else.
His frustration and justifiable dislike of women shows that he has more integrity than the average man, who is just not remotely formidabble or self-respecting in any regard.
I am not a Nick fan, because I find him cooky in other regards, but in a sense he is standing up to women at the very least verbally. I mean what do you mean he’s not standing up to women?
Interesting point. I think the lack of real rape is actually fueling the rape fantasies. Supply and demand issue here. They want to have their story, but damn the men gentlemen.
You know who does not have rape fatasies. Men. You know why, because 100 men are raped every day for every women raped. That place is called prison.
Well said.
Shouldn’t the slogan be “Male body, No Choice“? Wouldn’t that be the slogan that accurately and unironically conveys the subjection of male bodies to genital mutilation as well as feminist-dominated culture’s refusal to allow men any reproductive rights whatsoever? As Dr. Fiamengo aptly points out, even men’s right to be abstinent—as in the case with MGTOW followers—is denounced by feminists as misogynistic. If feminists are so offended by irony, perhaps they should adopt the following slogan: “My body, my bloated persecution fantasy.”
Well said.
How about my wallet, your choice.
I had a good friend, once, whose live-in girlfriend loved to tell he was "just a dick and a wallet to me."
I heard that!
A baby is conceived by a male's sperm and a female egg. Yet the father's consideration is stripped away like it does not matter. This dehumanizing humiliation ritual must be seen for what it is. Two make a baby, and two have equal input into their intertwined fate. Many men would gladdly consent to an abortion with a meaningless sex date doll. Are they even asked?
The crazy thing is, few feminists seem to be objecting to mass illegal immigration of a great number of very rape-y "your body, my choice" individuals.
And they don't seem to want the rapists to have to pay bail or be jailed, either.
The increase in rape is proportional to illegal migration from low-IQ low moral countries, but the woke government is hiding these facts. Laken was a famous one, but there are thousands more being hidden. It is not real rape unless a white guy does it, don't you hear? Define white will you?
It is amazing that Van Badham still has an audience for her demented ravings. But Australian feminists have always been amongst the most delusional.
That isn't her real name, is it? The writing is shockingly bad, though no worse than the Americans'.
Actual name is Vanessa Badham.
Oh, thank you!
She is usually known as Banshee Badham.
Say something she doesn't agree with and you'll find out how she got that name.
There seems to be little point in following TV interviews with her as she won't let anyone else talk most of the time.
She and her other dopey mate, Clementine Ford. Another horror story, enough to scare Stephen King off.
Delusional. When a female, barren, atheist, arch feminist Prime Minister called Tony Abbott,
a man happily married with three beautiful, loving, daughters - a misogynist - in Parliament,
It is as delusional as it gets.
Feminist delusions were spread in a Sydney pub where feminists formed what they called
"The Push". Push has since turned into shove. e.g. When one of them called Tony Abbott
a "misogynist" in parliament their delusions were made crystal clear.
The truly hideous Julia Gillard (and I don't mean physically). I wrote about her here:
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/women-in-politics-are-a-crying-bore
It is sas that you have to differentiate between appearance and ideology because they are so shallow and robotic they cannot debate on the merits, so they jump to ad hominem attacks against their detractors. The feminist space is devoid of deep thought let alone debate. So frustrating. Keep up the good work my friend.
Actually it was Abbott who accused Gillard of misogyny for supporting the Speaker who had made lewd comments in a private text message. Gillard's misogyny speech was in response to Abbott's accusation.
Yes. Both took the misogyny option, always a winner in political debates.
Too true Bettina. There is some justice in knowing anyone that angry has an eternity of unhappiness in front of them. There is something about her target of hatred that she just can’t stand about herself!!
Too much blood rushing to their heads from being upside down?
The internet is mostly fake. Fake accounts supporting idiots. Limited hang outs everywhere.
Amen Janice. I had no idea this was going on. Not surprising though. Today's feminists seem addicted to victimhood to such a degree that when they are upset by something (like the Trump win) they become anxious and when the get anxious they turn towards victimhood, that dependable balm that allows them to vent and attack. It's not about their own internal angst, it is someone or something else outside of them. Go figure. When will people simply start laughing at them?
Veture Into the wilds of substack and start commenting on the not locked woke accounts, it is hard to tell who is a woke ideologically possessed lady, or a woke bot, or a government activist.
The best irony is often self-inflicted. There was a photo recently of a woman at a pro-abortion rally standing with her primary school-age daughter. Her placard read something like 'I defend my daughter's right to have an abortion'. I wondered if the (non-aborted) daughter would ever spot the irony there as she grew up.
Yes indeed.
If the activist's mom were an abortion activist, they would not be there. This is astounding to me.
So over this question of how many angels can dance on a pin. Feminism, what a FAIL. Hate Men, despise children, loves aborting foetuses, has catfights at board meetings, believes crying is a valid debate response, refuses to defend Female Space from fat, hideous, funky Trannies. You wonder why we're all turning into fags?
Their nonsense is fizzling out right now. The woke tide is receeding.
Also Janice, one of the things you’ve really highlighted for me is how little feminism considers the rights and needs of children. That revelation is chilling. Many thanks for your thought provoking work.
For feminists, children are an excuse to make loud, meaningless, declarations.
Means to an end.
They are selfish, self-obsessed narcissists who are part of a cult.
Children are used as either shields or prods.
“That’s why MGTOW and voluntary celibacy (Fuentes’ position) (and the Passport Bros phenomenon) bother them so.”
“The inability of feminists to participate in reasoned discussion about the morality of abortion”…(or nearly anything else!)
The Writing on the Wall
I have posted "your body, my choice" multiple times, in a sardonic tone and anonymously, before Fuentes tweeted it, but in reference to the Covid vaccine mandates (which, unlike the Polio vax - I am so sick of that insanely stupid equivocation - actually works).
I had even planned on printing it on a fake political yard sign, complete with an elephant wearing a pussy hat and a syringe poking out of it's rear end. But this election cycle I thought better of it as we were so close to massive political violence.
Yes, abortion kills a fetus. Late term abortion kills a baby... And just like the taxpayers who funded the creation of covid, the creation of the vax, and whose labor funds the girlboss political class who actually believe my body is their choice, babies didn't get into a drunken tryst to wind up in that situation.
Feminists and the political left never, ever accept responsibility for what they do, what they have done, or what they are. They must be compelled to accept responsibility. In light of that, is Fuentes really that wrong? We're already playing these games, regardless of if we like it or not. I personally don't feel the need to lose.
I find his style unnecessarily rebarbative, and I don't know all his precise positions, but he is definitely not wrong about the disaster that is feminist power and its hideous results for children and families. Feminists were pro-vax to a T, and most wanted people locked up or starved to death a la Noam Chomsky for refusing an untested medical product that didn't stop Covid.
Noam took off the mask for that one. Yikes. I do not want to pile on Nick too much, He is simply being used as a tool to discredit solid positions and ideas. If he seized the moment, we would all be better off, but he has a history of being out of time and missing it.
I was raised dissedent catholic, the guys catholic used car salesman schtick doesn't work for me.
Thanks for mentioning Chumpsky and his horrifying take on Covid Janice, you're a real academic. Numb Chumpsky is a false idle and "good cop" for you know who... I dare anyone to look into Peter Dale Scott's and Michael Parrenti's work on JFK and ask where does Numb nuts Chumpsky fit into all this.
The Covid Con revealed the Swamp monsters for who they were. Thanks covid.
And yet antifa, BLM, and the pussy hats were all told to stand down. It’s time for a new show, apparently.
I think there is a pussy hat march being planned for Jan. 20, 2025!
Expect illegal immigrants to start burning down cities when the deportations begin, and the media will say see, just leave them be, we should pay billions and avoid the violence from the mostly peaceful migrants....
There's been a war against men for quite some time now, and we have bred confused boys who have grown into angry or feminised males. There is generally no respect for masculinity, and in return not a whole lot of love for women. Feminism has been one of the biggest scams of the century.
On point Willy. Hate to use the feminist's own hysterical talking points but it really does seem to be the inverse from everything they say.
The hysteria is ridiculous. When did we forget get the art of ignoring people being deliberately provocative, laugh and move on?
When the adrenaline and dopamine of indignation provide a rush it’s doubtful that any kind of rationality will invade “women’s spaces.” Actual thought might, after all, lead to the conclusion that mere disagreement is hardly a reason to call for exterminating men.
Interesting vid from Dore showing some DNC op talking about their "raising the threat level" so there DNC base was scared shitless of Trumps "coming dictatorship". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VacC1oW2pc
I think the good news is that the effect of these histrionic tactics are wearing off rapidly, except to the hard-core believers. Just like the tantrums of toddlers, it starts to lose it effectiveness after 30 times or so.
Because of the 2024 election, the opponents now know that they are in the majority, and the Drama Queens are not. As the rational people figure out what is going on and leave, their bubble is going to collapse within itself.
Good riddance.