The re-release this month of director Mary Harron’s movie I Shot Andy Warhol (1996) demonstrates once again the enduring feminist fascination with violent, man-hating women
Good and intelligent women feel nothing but contempt for the wretched ghouls who inhabit the feminist netherworld. Thank the Lord for countervailing women like Janice, lights in the environing darkness of our time.
Do they really? If that’s is indeed true, they are notable for their lack of public condemnation of vitriolic hate speech and advocation for violent acts.
With the exception of Janice and a handful of other women, it is a terribly underrepresented cohort.
However, drawing attention to the disparity in actual publicly expressed views and the claim you make here, while seemingly obvious, does not explain why men such as yourself find it necessary to make such claims on behalf of women? Who exactly are you expressing solidarity with?
If you genuinely tend to the view that radical feminism is a destructive and hateful death cult, then it would be more appropriate to encourage those women you pedestal here to put their money where their mouth is. I fail to see how a man commenting publicly on behalf of a cohort of women, that are content to be duplicitous and remain silent, because it personally benefits them to have a foot in both camps, does anything more than enable the issue to escalate.
Tyranny has always relished anonymity and covert methods of engagement. Speak for yourself and don’t get sucked into being a propagandist for the Machiavellian duplicity of others.
Hahaha….. I don’t retract in any way, although I do have to have a laugh at myself and question whether the knowledge gained from your profile after I commented would have had the consequence of self censoring some of the questions and views I expressed regards the motivation of your sentiments.
I will go as far as accepting such knowledge was substantial in providing insights as to what you were intending to convey.
Back in 1979, having been recently introduced to the Buddhist meditation of loving kindness (metta bhavana), I picked up the latest edition of Spare Rib, a feminist magazine. I was struck by how much hatred was in it. Then in the early 1990s I explored feminist literature to find if there were any decently argued feminist books. I was again struck by the hatred, but it was clear that it was not just hatred of men but also hatred of womanhood - of femininity and motherhood. Also evident was the self-hatred in various feminist authors.
But isn't that 'self-love' really strong egotism (rather than genuine love and care for oneself), which can often be a means of psychological defence against self-hatred?
I will add that I have the impression that such hatred of others, and oneself, with associated egotism or narcissism, is there in various ideologies, especially including Marxism and its offshoots. It seems to be a psychological/cultural dynamic that captures specific issues (e,g, the rights of women or of workers) and uses them for its own destructive ends.
I was reading a Guardian crit. of a film of one of Virginia Woolf's novels. It struck me how the writers glee at the supposed "subversive" undertones of the Novel sounded like the posh adolescents' fascination with subversiveness from a decidedly conventional and privileged life themselves. One of the reasons I started hating the Guardian (long before any "red pill") was the way in which conventionally privileged "journalists" treated desperate things as a sort of game, a backgound to their dinner parties, holidays in Tuscany or the Dordogne , wine tasting, the latest restaurants etc. In short well married, affluent and living far distant from the "subversive" and unpleasant in the world. And this Solanas worship looks the same. A game that has no reality. One just knows that if there really was an outbreak of such "subversiveness" the Professors , "Jounalists", "Commentators" etc, Would be heading as fast as possible to their secluded gated, protected enclaves. Relying on the Police (Men of course) to keep all the subversion out of their lives. There is a song by Brit group "Pulp" called "Common People" that sums it up. Because in fact "if you called your Dad he could stop it all" for Dad read also Husband, Partner.
Yes, there is a lot of play-acting of subversion by the elites, who rarely have to deal personally with the real-world consequences. When they do, of course, they squeal loud and long. There is also, I think, a lust for blood amongst many people, genuine satisfaction in the thought of punishment for those they have learned to righteously despise.
We have here TV Channels awash with murder mysteries. Apparently 80% of the viewers are women. Now the lurid "true crime" (also 80% women) supposed documentaries are mainly from or about the US. The UK ones are endless rehashes of the very few such crime that occur here, often from the 60s or even Edwardian era. Now the actual number of Murders in this country seems fixed for decades at about 600, as the feminists point out about 100 are women murdered by men. In a population of well over 60 millions this means murders are incredibly rare here. So all the convoluted crime dramas are entirely unlikely to occur to any of the viewers. I colleague once observed that the UK has "so many cookery programmes yet so few of you cook!" (Italy it seems doesn't have such a thing as cookery programmes). So maybe its a good thing we have so many murder mysteries and lurid true crime output! The first point is that the estimation of such things is way out of kilter with reality. The second the delight people have in being scared etc. when in reality they are at no risk at all. And of course the more distant you are from the reality the more vociferous you can be, because you know there is no consequence to you. An obvious example being "rape" where women in particular can be dismissive of due process or Juries because (in the UK) no woman can be accused of rape!
Of course feminists can enjoys displays of anger because the "patriarchy" doesn't impose any consequence. Which as another commenter here points out does rather prove the Patriarchy either doesn't exist or its left.
It’s quite damning that, despite the hundreds of generations of Christian morality and values, that we and our ancestors have been infused with, many of those values remain little more than bolted on accessories to our psyches.
That so few people seem capable of making personal choices by assessing input information against even the most basic understanding of the Ten Commandments is not something I understood until recently.
It seems bizarre that people can now quite openly ignore the weight of envy, lust, greed and revenge on the reasonableness of views they express and live by.
That blood lust increasingly on public display in feminist discourse and propaganda is disturbing.
It has always been there, but often dismissed as significant historically as merely a product of the female histrionic and irrational nature. It’s quite interesting how that arrogant and dismissive male view has in itself been weaponised by labelling it misogynistic. Therefore rendering it not worthy of examination as to its merit.
The dismissal of that blood lust fantasy was indeed arrogant. By not examining it as a concern of merit when male authority was dominant and unassailable, has contributed to the covert subversion of our laws themselves.
Men continue to dismiss out of hand the potential of women to pose a danger to anyone. To the extent they will excuse such violence any time they are presented with a demonstration of such.
Yes. Ernest Belfort Bax, a British barrister and journalist, wrote about the female capacity for hatred and violence, and men's inability to believe in it, as long ago as the late 19th century. His two books, The Legal Subjection of Men and The Fraud of Feminism, make for fascinating reading today and are extraordinarily far-seeing.
You will be blown away, I predict! I think *The Legal Subjection of Men* (written as a response to John Stuart Mill's feminist tract) is best, but both contain a lot of interesting material. The only weakness is that the many court cases of women's legal privilege are not documented, so can't be followed up.
I know. It will be perhaps obvious my views have been recently shaped by just such a personal experience.
I was subjected to a two year long, systematic abuse by my government and judicial system. The record of such, is almost non existent in the court record as the only court procedures that occurred were ‘mentions’, bail applications, directions hearings and adjournments.
After two years, when they were finally compelled to substantiate the claims that permitted my persecution, they withdrew two days prior to trial.
The story that remains hidden is the one that remains untold. Which is a rather convenient outcome for a bureaucracy that recognises how powerfully trial outcomes are what matters as basis for discussion and implementation of new laws.
If you can align public fear inducing, rates of offending statistics (derived from arrest figures in some instances) with the case history from trials then the logical fallacy becomes almost beyond reproach.
The evidence for the abuse of state becomes largely what is absent rather than what can be seen.
Of considerable note, was that google search on the aforementioned Mr Bax, produced two pages of hits dedicated to documenting his socialist activities and alignment with the views of Marx.
There is absolutely nothing benign in women’s takeover of the publishing industry. The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
Yes, that’s exactly what Tom Wolfe called "radical chic. His book (Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers) consists of two classic satirical essays on what we now call the "virtue-signaling" of "wokism." That was just after the Black Power movement hijacked the Civil Rights movement--and just before racial political correctness expanded to include sexual political correctness.
….also read as police, bureaucratic power, judicial authority…
Great comment. I think you are entirely spot on as to why our media has become progressively more elitist and detached as it has become increasingly feminised in its structures.
I was 12, or so when my sister, then 10, said “Ethel (our mother) hates men.” She’d had a conversation with Ethel (mom in title only) and said it confirmed our suspicions; she hates men. Ethel was a virulent women’s libber who had little time for us (4 children) but plenty of time to pursue a college education. She had a baby when I was 13. That started my adulthood. I was responsible for caring for him while Ethel continued her education (Jr. College at the time). Throughout the time I lived with my parents Ethel never had a positive attitude about, or respect for men. Regardless of their accomplishments, achievements, or skill she chastised them. It certainly influenced how she treated my father, me and my younger brother. I discovered years after I’d left (I was 17) that Ethel is also a toxic narcissist. To protect my sanity, and maintain my sense self worth I cut all contact with her 10 years ago. It was a mistake not to do it earlier.
One of the problems with "grievance" movements like feminism is that although they may have some genuine grievances initially, they also tend to attract people who just want an excuse to behave badly, like Ethel.
A bigger problem is when such movements attract big money. People start making careers out of the grievance, and so have a fiscal interest in the grievance never ending. A good example of this is the DV industry: DV is well known to be a generational problem, with many perpetrators having experienced violence in the home as a child. By concentrating only on under half of the problem (men against women) the DV industry ensures that children are brought up in violence homes (women against men) and the problem will continue to justify the massive salaries, as well as the ideological lobbying to continue an industry which, in its own words, has failed after fifty years to achieve a reduction in DV.
Oh so true! This has become one of the single most disastrous occurrences for western civilisation. Feminism identified the potential for DV to be its forever cash cow, to fund its political aspirations back in the 70’s when the joined the Erin Pizzy run organisation. There’s no need to rehash what Erin had to endure from that point on as those unfamiliar can Google themselves.
Needless to say…. If our governments have been funding a social issue at ever expanding rates for over 50 years and the problem is simply getting bigger, then we are clearly funding the wrong people to address it. As to why this occurs regardless of who we elect to government, speaks of the broader and more disastrous problem of the insidious take over of our public service administrations. Nefarious actors have long exploited the weak spot in our democratic systems
It’s time to turn the spotlight on to our executive government if we are to save our way of life.
That's the same problem, people who see the grievances as a way to make money, rather than address the problem. Nicola Sturgeon is a good recent example, stoking all the grievances of the Scottish people, then using the money donated to her party to buy luxury goods.
Overwhelming Janice, the amount of feminist hate you have gathered in this post. The most amazing thing is that so many women continue to see themselves as feminists! Gynocentrism runs silent and it runs deep.
Janice, I think you coined the phrase '... malevolence at the core of feminism's black heart.'
If you did, you didn't go far enough.
Despite all you document above, I have to listen to sing-sing claims that people who think feminism is anti-male just don't understand feminism - usually delivered with an exasperated laugh and weary eye-roll. How unenlightened we are.
Yes, I feel you, as they say. I wrote this and others like it after fruitlessly arguing with feminists on Twitter and elsewhere about feminism's advocacy of violence, trying to get them to admit their own hypocrisy in claiming that feminism is a movement for 'equality.' They don't care, and why should they? The anti-feminist resistance is tiny in comparison to the masses of women and men who think feminism is a great thing and that women can do no wrong--and that when women DO do wrong, it's because the man deserved it and the woman was acting in self-defense or because of male-imposed trauma. Our societies do not, in general, believe that women can be violent; or if they do believe it, they cannot be made to fear it or condemn it. In order not to become completely bitter or despairing, I make a record of the cruel, hateful, irrational, vindictive, death-loving, vaunting, and exterminationist statements of our morally superior feminist betters. That's all.
Back in the 70s there was a bit of a debate here about "benign sexism" in the judicial system. Feminists had found courts treated women offenders as "mad" or under somebody's influence. Whereas men are "bad" and get sent down. This "denied women's agency" and continued the Victorian conviction women couldn't be help accountable for their actions because they were ill or easily influenced. And of course the Solanas lovers benefit from this now. In effect its all brushed off as "just women" rather than they actually mean what they say. It is ironic that in fact the various people you cite here are in fact protected by the same "benign sexism", no "hate crime" here because the girls don't really mean it, bless them. I'm surprised they don't demand to be taken seriously and get hauled in for incitement! But in reality they hide behind the very Victorian shield they protest about!
"Our societies do not, in general, believe that women can be violent"
That's actually the worst thing about growing up with a violent abusive mother - you can never tell anyone, because you won't be believed. Indeed, in most social settings, it can only reflect badly on oneself to speak ill of one's own mother. So I never told anyone, not even my wife. But she found out when my father died, because he left a posthumous letter to his children, explaining his failure to protect us from her violent outbursts: "Years ago I learned that any arguing led to further abuse, violence, and destruction...I have always had to be afraid of the results of disagreeing, either in violence against myself or in threats to damage or destroy you three when you were small. After all, I do have to go to work each day, leaving her at home, and almost every day uncertain as to what may happen in my absence". Note the euphemism "damage or destroy" - he couldn't bring himself to write "injure or kill" us. Such threats are one of eight universal tactics described in Biderman's Chart of Coercion which are used to psychologically break an individual and enforce compliance: No.4 Threats - "Cultivating pervasive anxiety and despair by threatening abandonment, violence, or death." No.1 is Isolation - "Depriving the victim of all outside social support to sever their connection to external reality checks." My mother forbade all visitors to the house, as noted by my father in his letter: "The end result, as you know, is that there is no circle of friends, no contact even with her own relatives, and no visitors whatever to our house." That includes school friends - I never brought a single friend home from school in 18 years of living there. There are 6 more tactics in Biderman's Chart, and my mother used them all. Nowadays it's known as coercive control, but once again, society only recognizes male perpetrators. And of course, being a man, I'm automatically suspect myself. That's the most grotesque part of all this for boys, to grow up abused by your own mother, unable to tell anyone, then find yourself blamed for the collective abuse of girls and women. Is it any wonder so many boys succumb to suicide.
Brilliant analysis of Valerie Solanis, Janice. One little-known fact about her famous victim, Andy Warhol, is that he was of Carpatho-Rusyn ethnicity. Born in Pittsburgh, both his parents were from that part of the Carpathian Mountain region to be found in Slovakia, and Carpatho-Rusyn was their mother tongue. When Warhol was asked about his antecedents, he said he was from nowhere. Paul Rober Magosci, the long-time Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto, was so struck by this comment, he titled one of his books “"The People From Nowhere: A History of Carpathian Rus' and Carpatho-Rusyns”. The largest number of Carpatho-Rusyns live, not in Slovakia, but in Ukraine, especially is Zakarpattia oblast, which formerly belonged to Slovakia. Mark Steyn likes to call it Transcarpathia, so he can indulge in trans jokes. Like many of the smaller Slavic ethnic groups there is a debate about whether they really have a separate language or just a dialect of Ukrainian or Russian. It is the same with Macedonian and Bulgarian. I don’t know if Warhol himself spoke any Carpatho-Rusyn.
I see these feminists don't realize that if they achieved their goal of men being 10% of the population, they would die out within a decade. Men are the ones who keep the modern world turning, over 90% of all blue-collar jobs, electricians, plumbers, brick layers, carpenters, oil field workers, etc., are done by men.
The thing which always strikes me about feminist writers like Germaine Greer or Julie Bindel is how irrational they are. There is just no logic to anything they say, and none of their followers ever challenges them about not making sense or being consistent. One minute Bindel is supporting a violent loon, and the next minute she is writing the usual word salad about how terrible violent loons are. See also these crazy feminist women in your picture wearing short skirts and tight dresses to attract men's attention, then droning on about how they want a world without men. There is just no logic or sense to any of their witterings.
This is hatred on a whole new level as it applies to 1/2 of the entire worlds population!
Just replace every reference from men to women in the book SCUM and the movie and ALL HELL would break lose in the Feminist world, the media, educations institutions and all political entities in the west
This is a public community that shares news and discusses cases of female-perpetrated violence, with the stated goal of raising awareness for all victims regardless of gender . As of April 2026, it has over 63,000 members .
Please note that the subreddit has strict rules—it requires credible sources for claims and explicitly prohibits generalizations against any gender, as well as downplaying violence .
Thank you, Steve. I went through this before at your suggestion and found it highly useful. Then I forgot all about it. I'm planning an upcoming analysis of the many sexually abusive female teachers in the news lately. I'm sure I will have cause to consult it again.
If patriarchy existed as the feminist imagines then feminism could not.
Likewise, if feminists are correct that hating women kills them, then they'd better hope that misogyny never, ever arises, even in the mind of a woman, as it's more dangerous than airborne Ebola hypersonic ICBMs.
How do you do it? How do you voluntarily expose yourself to the utterly deranged and deracinated "thinking" of such people and yet, manage to remain sane? I am grateful for your efforts, of course, since exposure of these poisonous, hate and rage filled screeds is the only way to expose the villainous people who promote them. I note that it is primarily among the over- and mal-educated, soi disant "intellectual" class who exhibit a fascination for such vile pseudo-philosophical nonsense, which normal women would be repelled by. I suspect that these women either have overwhelming "daddy issues," and/or have been abused or rejected by some other man or men and have allowed their entire being to be corrupted and corroded as a result. It is trite, but also true that hurting people hurt people, and the glee with which these harridans float desires to inflict pain and suffering betrays a deep and terrible wound somewhere in their past. Or, like Solanas, they are simply nuts. So soldier on, dear Janice, but be careful not to let the crazy rub off on you.
I try to maintain a certain detachment when I read feminist writings. It's not always possible, but I take pleasure in trying to figure out a cool, perhaps mocking or simply razor-sharp-rational way of showing the flaws in feminist arguments. Sometimes I write very angry responses, and then take out the curse words and find a calm way of exposing what is nonsensical or outrageous about feminist claims.
I do find it tiring. I can do only a few hours per day, and on some days, I can't do it at all. At times, I can hardly believe that we live in a culture in which such vile, hateful ravings are considered acceptable or even admirable.
I enjoy offering smart-alec retorts to feminists' comments. Often, when I see a feminist's post expressing her hatred for men, my response is: "Hate whoever you wish; just don't be surprised when they return the favor."
One feminist informed me that "logic" was "patriarchal posturing."
My retort: "That's logical." In that case, she actually appreciated the humor, and we had a pleasant conversation. That has happened more than once; a feminist has appreciated my smart-alec retort, and a pleasant conversation ensued.
Feminist: "Which feminism are you referring to? There are many branches of feminism. They are not all the same"
Me: "Feminism is like cigarettes; there are dozens of brands, but they all cause cancer."
I know there are better ones, but I can't bring them to mind at the moment.
I appreciate your style, mostly dispassionate, well-supported analysis. I occasionally revisit the scum manifesto, just to remind myself what feminism is in all of its dozens of brands.
If you’re referring to the essay I linked, it’s posted on Medium. You can’t give likes (“claps” in Medium lingo) unless you’re registered as a Medium member.
I haven’t posted that essay on Substack. By the time I came to Substack, Me Too had already faded.
No worries, though; your complementary comment is worth more than a like to me.😎
Me Too may still be alive, but it's well past its peak as a topic of discussion on the internet.
While I frequently comment on other people's articles written about feminist issues (such as yours 😎), my own original articles are focused on memorable events in my life, which is why my Substack is titled "Estwald's Life."
Sometimes people aren't sane, and not everybody rolls over when threatened. My wife got her knickers in a twist about fifteen years ago, and - it is still baffling to me - went to the closet and pulled out her (real) Japanese sword she had purchased during a typically short-lived experiment with martial arts, leaning it up against the wall by her side of the bed.
"So what's that for?" I asked.
"In case I have to protect myself."
I walked to the gun closet, retrieved my .44 magnum revolver, holster and belt rig and made a point of loading it in plain view, then hanging it on the bedpost at the head of the bed.
"Don't give it a second thought. I'll protect you."
Never happened again. What she never knew - and I doubt still does - is that I cut her sword into pieces and put them back in the scabbard - with just enough left on the handle to keep it from falling out. That was my second wife.
Geez, I'm glad I didn't go to college and get indoctrinated with this violent anti-man propaganda. I considered myself a feminist in support of equal opportunity, pay, reproductive rights, lifestyle choice, self-determination.... I never subscribed to this hatred of men and was not aware it was so prevalent in the tenets of the movement. Solanas' ravings are superficial and unsubstantiated. There is little substance to her accusations and she doesn't present examples or verification for the blanket generalizations of how horrid men are in every way. It is surprising and disappointing that she has been taken seriously at all. Her conception of and recommendations for a largely man-free world are juvenile, impractical and ridiculous.
That's just plain wrong. It's the suppression of choice within the feminist world view that is one of the biggest drivers for the growth in anti-feminist women's organisations appearing around the world.
Every woman calling herself a feminist has her personal version. Unfortunately, much of the fallout of the worst branches of feminism was the devaluation of women remaining at home with their children and providing support for fathers/breadwinners and the promotion of the myth of 'having it all' which is attainable by only a lucky few. Important obstacles for women to overcome via the feminist movement were lack of access to credit and financial services, proscriptions to property ownership, lack of bodily autonomy, including the ability to control one's own fertility.
I know many people have different views of feminism but feminism can be defined. It is not "whatever anyone wants to say it is."
Feminism is defined by the global organisers of feminist activities, especially those who drive the UN policies.
It is defined by other global and national feminist bodies but they almost all follow the primary directives from UNWomen.
It is also defined by feminist writings, particularly those thirty or so writings (including The SCUM Manifesto) that are used for teaching feminism to young minds in universities, colleges and, increasingly, schools around the world.
Some might say it is defined by cultural Marxism. While modern feminism is a branch of cultural Marxism, the definition is found in the big organisations and influential writings.
What your next door neighbour days feminism is, is irrelevant if it disagrees with those affecting global and national change.
Good and intelligent women feel nothing but contempt for the wretched ghouls who inhabit the feminist netherworld. Thank the Lord for countervailing women like Janice, lights in the environing darkness of our time.
Do they really? If that’s is indeed true, they are notable for their lack of public condemnation of vitriolic hate speech and advocation for violent acts.
With the exception of Janice and a handful of other women, it is a terribly underrepresented cohort.
However, drawing attention to the disparity in actual publicly expressed views and the claim you make here, while seemingly obvious, does not explain why men such as yourself find it necessary to make such claims on behalf of women? Who exactly are you expressing solidarity with?
If you genuinely tend to the view that radical feminism is a destructive and hateful death cult, then it would be more appropriate to encourage those women you pedestal here to put their money where their mouth is. I fail to see how a man commenting publicly on behalf of a cohort of women, that are content to be duplicitous and remain silent, because it personally benefits them to have a foot in both camps, does anything more than enable the issue to escalate.
Tyranny has always relished anonymity and covert methods of engagement. Speak for yourself and don’t get sucked into being a propagandist for the Machiavellian duplicity of others.
Hahaha….. I don’t retract in any way, although I do have to have a laugh at myself and question whether the knowledge gained from your profile after I commented would have had the consequence of self censoring some of the questions and views I expressed regards the motivation of your sentiments.
I will go as far as accepting such knowledge was substantial in providing insights as to what you were intending to convey.
Context, as they say, is everything.
Back in 1979, having been recently introduced to the Buddhist meditation of loving kindness (metta bhavana), I picked up the latest edition of Spare Rib, a feminist magazine. I was struck by how much hatred was in it. Then in the early 1990s I explored feminist literature to find if there were any decently argued feminist books. I was again struck by the hatred, but it was clear that it was not just hatred of men but also hatred of womanhood - of femininity and motherhood. Also evident was the self-hatred in various feminist authors.
I've always been struck by the enormous self-love and conviction of moral superiority in feminist writing.
But isn't that 'self-love' really strong egotism (rather than genuine love and care for oneself), which can often be a means of psychological defence against self-hatred?
I will add that I have the impression that such hatred of others, and oneself, with associated egotism or narcissism, is there in various ideologies, especially including Marxism and its offshoots. It seems to be a psychological/cultural dynamic that captures specific issues (e,g, the rights of women or of workers) and uses them for its own destructive ends.
You are a wise person.
Hannah Spier, on whose podcasts I saw you, calls out the irresistible attraction feminism has for the Cluster B personality disorders.
Self-righteousness, perhaps that's what it's all about? The moral high ground has always been one of women's strongest claims to fame.
Right on, my friend!
It’s strap-on misogyny.intent on brutalizing altruistic trad women within corporatist plantations and misandry of those to which they’re attached.
I figured the movement was really a death cult because of all the abortion, but you’re telling me it’s more than that?
Nietzsche had a word for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment
How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
THAT ISN'T FUNNY.
I know 🙄 Good to be getting back my sense of humour after being one of THEM for far too long 🤣
😅🤣😂
I was reading a Guardian crit. of a film of one of Virginia Woolf's novels. It struck me how the writers glee at the supposed "subversive" undertones of the Novel sounded like the posh adolescents' fascination with subversiveness from a decidedly conventional and privileged life themselves. One of the reasons I started hating the Guardian (long before any "red pill") was the way in which conventionally privileged "journalists" treated desperate things as a sort of game, a backgound to their dinner parties, holidays in Tuscany or the Dordogne , wine tasting, the latest restaurants etc. In short well married, affluent and living far distant from the "subversive" and unpleasant in the world. And this Solanas worship looks the same. A game that has no reality. One just knows that if there really was an outbreak of such "subversiveness" the Professors , "Jounalists", "Commentators" etc, Would be heading as fast as possible to their secluded gated, protected enclaves. Relying on the Police (Men of course) to keep all the subversion out of their lives. There is a song by Brit group "Pulp" called "Common People" that sums it up. Because in fact "if you called your Dad he could stop it all" for Dad read also Husband, Partner.
Yes, there is a lot of play-acting of subversion by the elites, who rarely have to deal personally with the real-world consequences. When they do, of course, they squeal loud and long. There is also, I think, a lust for blood amongst many people, genuine satisfaction in the thought of punishment for those they have learned to righteously despise.
We have here TV Channels awash with murder mysteries. Apparently 80% of the viewers are women. Now the lurid "true crime" (also 80% women) supposed documentaries are mainly from or about the US. The UK ones are endless rehashes of the very few such crime that occur here, often from the 60s or even Edwardian era. Now the actual number of Murders in this country seems fixed for decades at about 600, as the feminists point out about 100 are women murdered by men. In a population of well over 60 millions this means murders are incredibly rare here. So all the convoluted crime dramas are entirely unlikely to occur to any of the viewers. I colleague once observed that the UK has "so many cookery programmes yet so few of you cook!" (Italy it seems doesn't have such a thing as cookery programmes). So maybe its a good thing we have so many murder mysteries and lurid true crime output! The first point is that the estimation of such things is way out of kilter with reality. The second the delight people have in being scared etc. when in reality they are at no risk at all. And of course the more distant you are from the reality the more vociferous you can be, because you know there is no consequence to you. An obvious example being "rape" where women in particular can be dismissive of due process or Juries because (in the UK) no woman can be accused of rape!
Of course feminists can enjoys displays of anger because the "patriarchy" doesn't impose any consequence. Which as another commenter here points out does rather prove the Patriarchy either doesn't exist or its left.
The very fact that feminism is allowed to exist, shows that there is no such thing as The Patriarchy™ the way feminists espouse it.
Of course, without The Patriarchy, one of the three pillars of feminism collapses and the whole nonsense falls apart.
Yes, I am saying that the existence of open feminism proves, all by itself, that feminism is nonsense.
Exactly. Oppressors silence opposition. It's what they do. Feminists not only have *never* been silenced, they've always been given a megaphone.
Men in our society are so timid and obsequious they can't even find their voice to speak in their own defense!
It’s quite damning that, despite the hundreds of generations of Christian morality and values, that we and our ancestors have been infused with, many of those values remain little more than bolted on accessories to our psyches.
That so few people seem capable of making personal choices by assessing input information against even the most basic understanding of the Ten Commandments is not something I understood until recently.
It seems bizarre that people can now quite openly ignore the weight of envy, lust, greed and revenge on the reasonableness of views they express and live by.
That blood lust increasingly on public display in feminist discourse and propaganda is disturbing.
It has always been there, but often dismissed as significant historically as merely a product of the female histrionic and irrational nature. It’s quite interesting how that arrogant and dismissive male view has in itself been weaponised by labelling it misogynistic. Therefore rendering it not worthy of examination as to its merit.
The dismissal of that blood lust fantasy was indeed arrogant. By not examining it as a concern of merit when male authority was dominant and unassailable, has contributed to the covert subversion of our laws themselves.
Men continue to dismiss out of hand the potential of women to pose a danger to anyone. To the extent they will excuse such violence any time they are presented with a demonstration of such.
Yes. Ernest Belfort Bax, a British barrister and journalist, wrote about the female capacity for hatred and violence, and men's inability to believe in it, as long ago as the late 19th century. His two books, The Legal Subjection of Men and The Fraud of Feminism, make for fascinating reading today and are extraordinarily far-seeing.
Thank you for that reference Janice. Currently unfamiliar with his work but about to avail myself right now with such. 👌
You will be blown away, I predict! I think *The Legal Subjection of Men* (written as a response to John Stuart Mill's feminist tract) is best, but both contain a lot of interesting material. The only weakness is that the many court cases of women's legal privilege are not documented, so can't be followed up.
I know. It will be perhaps obvious my views have been recently shaped by just such a personal experience.
I was subjected to a two year long, systematic abuse by my government and judicial system. The record of such, is almost non existent in the court record as the only court procedures that occurred were ‘mentions’, bail applications, directions hearings and adjournments.
After two years, when they were finally compelled to substantiate the claims that permitted my persecution, they withdrew two days prior to trial.
The story that remains hidden is the one that remains untold. Which is a rather convenient outcome for a bureaucracy that recognises how powerfully trial outcomes are what matters as basis for discussion and implementation of new laws.
If you can align public fear inducing, rates of offending statistics (derived from arrest figures in some instances) with the case history from trials then the logical fallacy becomes almost beyond reproach.
The evidence for the abuse of state becomes largely what is absent rather than what can be seen.
Holy shit!
Blown away is perhaps an understatement.
Of considerable note, was that google search on the aforementioned Mr Bax, produced two pages of hits dedicated to documenting his socialist activities and alignment with the views of Marx.
There is absolutely nothing benign in women’s takeover of the publishing industry. The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
Yes, that’s exactly what Tom Wolfe called "radical chic. His book (Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers) consists of two classic satirical essays on what we now call the "virtue-signaling" of "wokism." That was just after the Black Power movement hijacked the Civil Rights movement--and just before racial political correctness expanded to include sexual political correctness.
….also read as police, bureaucratic power, judicial authority…
Great comment. I think you are entirely spot on as to why our media has become progressively more elitist and detached as it has become increasingly feminised in its structures.
I was 12, or so when my sister, then 10, said “Ethel (our mother) hates men.” She’d had a conversation with Ethel (mom in title only) and said it confirmed our suspicions; she hates men. Ethel was a virulent women’s libber who had little time for us (4 children) but plenty of time to pursue a college education. She had a baby when I was 13. That started my adulthood. I was responsible for caring for him while Ethel continued her education (Jr. College at the time). Throughout the time I lived with my parents Ethel never had a positive attitude about, or respect for men. Regardless of their accomplishments, achievements, or skill she chastised them. It certainly influenced how she treated my father, me and my younger brother. I discovered years after I’d left (I was 17) that Ethel is also a toxic narcissist. To protect my sanity, and maintain my sense self worth I cut all contact with her 10 years ago. It was a mistake not to do it earlier.
Thank you for this.
One of the problems with "grievance" movements like feminism is that although they may have some genuine grievances initially, they also tend to attract people who just want an excuse to behave badly, like Ethel.
A bigger problem is when such movements attract big money. People start making careers out of the grievance, and so have a fiscal interest in the grievance never ending. A good example of this is the DV industry: DV is well known to be a generational problem, with many perpetrators having experienced violence in the home as a child. By concentrating only on under half of the problem (men against women) the DV industry ensures that children are brought up in violence homes (women against men) and the problem will continue to justify the massive salaries, as well as the ideological lobbying to continue an industry which, in its own words, has failed after fifty years to achieve a reduction in DV.
Oh so true! This has become one of the single most disastrous occurrences for western civilisation. Feminism identified the potential for DV to be its forever cash cow, to fund its political aspirations back in the 70’s when the joined the Erin Pizzy run organisation. There’s no need to rehash what Erin had to endure from that point on as those unfamiliar can Google themselves.
Needless to say…. If our governments have been funding a social issue at ever expanding rates for over 50 years and the problem is simply getting bigger, then we are clearly funding the wrong people to address it. As to why this occurs regardless of who we elect to government, speaks of the broader and more disastrous problem of the insidious take over of our public service administrations. Nefarious actors have long exploited the weak spot in our democratic systems
It’s time to turn the spotlight on to our executive government if we are to save our way of life.
That's the same problem, people who see the grievances as a way to make money, rather than address the problem. Nicola Sturgeon is a good recent example, stoking all the grievances of the Scottish people, then using the money donated to her party to buy luxury goods.
Wha a shame you had to go through that.
So sad to hear your childhood was robbed.
Overwhelming Janice, the amount of feminist hate you have gathered in this post. The most amazing thing is that so many women continue to see themselves as feminists! Gynocentrism runs silent and it runs deep.
Janice, I think you coined the phrase '... malevolence at the core of feminism's black heart.'
If you did, you didn't go far enough.
Despite all you document above, I have to listen to sing-sing claims that people who think feminism is anti-male just don't understand feminism - usually delivered with an exasperated laugh and weary eye-roll. How unenlightened we are.
Yes, I feel you, as they say. I wrote this and others like it after fruitlessly arguing with feminists on Twitter and elsewhere about feminism's advocacy of violence, trying to get them to admit their own hypocrisy in claiming that feminism is a movement for 'equality.' They don't care, and why should they? The anti-feminist resistance is tiny in comparison to the masses of women and men who think feminism is a great thing and that women can do no wrong--and that when women DO do wrong, it's because the man deserved it and the woman was acting in self-defense or because of male-imposed trauma. Our societies do not, in general, believe that women can be violent; or if they do believe it, they cannot be made to fear it or condemn it. In order not to become completely bitter or despairing, I make a record of the cruel, hateful, irrational, vindictive, death-loving, vaunting, and exterminationist statements of our morally superior feminist betters. That's all.
Back in the 70s there was a bit of a debate here about "benign sexism" in the judicial system. Feminists had found courts treated women offenders as "mad" or under somebody's influence. Whereas men are "bad" and get sent down. This "denied women's agency" and continued the Victorian conviction women couldn't be help accountable for their actions because they were ill or easily influenced. And of course the Solanas lovers benefit from this now. In effect its all brushed off as "just women" rather than they actually mean what they say. It is ironic that in fact the various people you cite here are in fact protected by the same "benign sexism", no "hate crime" here because the girls don't really mean it, bless them. I'm surprised they don't demand to be taken seriously and get hauled in for incitement! But in reality they hide behind the very Victorian shield they protest about!
"Our societies do not, in general, believe that women can be violent"
That's actually the worst thing about growing up with a violent abusive mother - you can never tell anyone, because you won't be believed. Indeed, in most social settings, it can only reflect badly on oneself to speak ill of one's own mother. So I never told anyone, not even my wife. But she found out when my father died, because he left a posthumous letter to his children, explaining his failure to protect us from her violent outbursts: "Years ago I learned that any arguing led to further abuse, violence, and destruction...I have always had to be afraid of the results of disagreeing, either in violence against myself or in threats to damage or destroy you three when you were small. After all, I do have to go to work each day, leaving her at home, and almost every day uncertain as to what may happen in my absence". Note the euphemism "damage or destroy" - he couldn't bring himself to write "injure or kill" us. Such threats are one of eight universal tactics described in Biderman's Chart of Coercion which are used to psychologically break an individual and enforce compliance: No.4 Threats - "Cultivating pervasive anxiety and despair by threatening abandonment, violence, or death." No.1 is Isolation - "Depriving the victim of all outside social support to sever their connection to external reality checks." My mother forbade all visitors to the house, as noted by my father in his letter: "The end result, as you know, is that there is no circle of friends, no contact even with her own relatives, and no visitors whatever to our house." That includes school friends - I never brought a single friend home from school in 18 years of living there. There are 6 more tactics in Biderman's Chart, and my mother used them all. Nowadays it's known as coercive control, but once again, society only recognizes male perpetrators. And of course, being a man, I'm automatically suspect myself. That's the most grotesque part of all this for boys, to grow up abused by your own mother, unable to tell anyone, then find yourself blamed for the collective abuse of girls and women. Is it any wonder so many boys succumb to suicide.
Thank you for this. What a horror. Very well said.
Brilliant analysis of Valerie Solanis, Janice. One little-known fact about her famous victim, Andy Warhol, is that he was of Carpatho-Rusyn ethnicity. Born in Pittsburgh, both his parents were from that part of the Carpathian Mountain region to be found in Slovakia, and Carpatho-Rusyn was their mother tongue. When Warhol was asked about his antecedents, he said he was from nowhere. Paul Rober Magosci, the long-time Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto, was so struck by this comment, he titled one of his books “"The People From Nowhere: A History of Carpathian Rus' and Carpatho-Rusyns”. The largest number of Carpatho-Rusyns live, not in Slovakia, but in Ukraine, especially is Zakarpattia oblast, which formerly belonged to Slovakia. Mark Steyn likes to call it Transcarpathia, so he can indulge in trans jokes. Like many of the smaller Slavic ethnic groups there is a debate about whether they really have a separate language or just a dialect of Ukrainian or Russian. It is the same with Macedonian and Bulgarian. I don’t know if Warhol himself spoke any Carpatho-Rusyn.
An appropriately unusual background for a unique artist!
I see these feminists don't realize that if they achieved their goal of men being 10% of the population, they would die out within a decade. Men are the ones who keep the modern world turning, over 90% of all blue-collar jobs, electricians, plumbers, brick layers, carpenters, oil field workers, etc., are done by men.
And it's amazing how many women forget this.
The thing which always strikes me about feminist writers like Germaine Greer or Julie Bindel is how irrational they are. There is just no logic to anything they say, and none of their followers ever challenges them about not making sense or being consistent. One minute Bindel is supporting a violent loon, and the next minute she is writing the usual word salad about how terrible violent loons are. See also these crazy feminist women in your picture wearing short skirts and tight dresses to attract men's attention, then droning on about how they want a world without men. There is just no logic or sense to any of their witterings.
To sum up the feminist celebration of violence against men.
Prevalence of Female Psychopaths: More Common than Believed. https://neurosciencenews.com/female-psychopathy-psychology-25669/
The Feminist movement worships the art of demagoguery and women who in my opinion are mentally or psychologically unwell.
This is hatred on a whole new level as it applies to 1/2 of the entire worlds population!
Just replace every reference from men to women in the book SCUM and the movie and ALL HELL would break lose in the Feminist world, the media, educations institutions and all political entities in the west
That's Feminist Equality™ for you!
Here is the link to the subreddit r/WomenAreViolentToo:
reddit.com/r/WomenAreViolentToo/
This is a public community that shares news and discusses cases of female-perpetrated violence, with the stated goal of raising awareness for all victims regardless of gender . As of April 2026, it has over 63,000 members .
Please note that the subreddit has strict rules—it requires credible sources for claims and explicitly prohibits generalizations against any gender, as well as downplaying violence .
Thank you, Steve. I went through this before at your suggestion and found it highly useful. Then I forgot all about it. I'm planning an upcoming analysis of the many sexually abusive female teachers in the news lately. I'm sure I will have cause to consult it again.
If patriarchy existed as the feminist imagines then feminism could not.
Likewise, if feminists are correct that hating women kills them, then they'd better hope that misogyny never, ever arises, even in the mind of a woman, as it's more dangerous than airborne Ebola hypersonic ICBMs.
How do you do it? How do you voluntarily expose yourself to the utterly deranged and deracinated "thinking" of such people and yet, manage to remain sane? I am grateful for your efforts, of course, since exposure of these poisonous, hate and rage filled screeds is the only way to expose the villainous people who promote them. I note that it is primarily among the over- and mal-educated, soi disant "intellectual" class who exhibit a fascination for such vile pseudo-philosophical nonsense, which normal women would be repelled by. I suspect that these women either have overwhelming "daddy issues," and/or have been abused or rejected by some other man or men and have allowed their entire being to be corrupted and corroded as a result. It is trite, but also true that hurting people hurt people, and the glee with which these harridans float desires to inflict pain and suffering betrays a deep and terrible wound somewhere in their past. Or, like Solanas, they are simply nuts. So soldier on, dear Janice, but be careful not to let the crazy rub off on you.
Thank you.
I try to maintain a certain detachment when I read feminist writings. It's not always possible, but I take pleasure in trying to figure out a cool, perhaps mocking or simply razor-sharp-rational way of showing the flaws in feminist arguments. Sometimes I write very angry responses, and then take out the curse words and find a calm way of exposing what is nonsensical or outrageous about feminist claims.
I do find it tiring. I can do only a few hours per day, and on some days, I can't do it at all. At times, I can hardly believe that we live in a culture in which such vile, hateful ravings are considered acceptable or even admirable.
I enjoy offering smart-alec retorts to feminists' comments. Often, when I see a feminist's post expressing her hatred for men, my response is: "Hate whoever you wish; just don't be surprised when they return the favor."
One feminist informed me that "logic" was "patriarchal posturing."
My retort: "That's logical." In that case, she actually appreciated the humor, and we had a pleasant conversation. That has happened more than once; a feminist has appreciated my smart-alec retort, and a pleasant conversation ensued.
Feminist: "Which feminism are you referring to? There are many branches of feminism. They are not all the same"
Me: "Feminism is like cigarettes; there are dozens of brands, but they all cause cancer."
I know there are better ones, but I can't bring them to mind at the moment.
This is one of my favorites:
https://estwald.medium.com/you-are-hereby-summoned-to-appear-before-the-me-too-inquisition-to-answer-charges-of-sexual-heresy-c6fff21e0a6c
==================
I appreciate your style, mostly dispassionate, well-supported analysis. I occasionally revisit the scum manifesto, just to remind myself what feminism is in all of its dozens of brands.
I like it! I tried to give the essay a Like but I couldn't do it.
If you’re referring to the essay I linked, it’s posted on Medium. You can’t give likes (“claps” in Medium lingo) unless you’re registered as a Medium member.
I haven’t posted that essay on Substack. By the time I came to Substack, Me Too had already faded.
No worries, though; your complementary comment is worth more than a like to me.😎
I think you should re-post it on Substack. MeToo is, at least in my opinion, still very much with us.
I have taken your suggestion and posted the Medium comment as an article on Substack:
https://estwald397.substack.com/p/to-all-men
Me Too may still be alive, but it's well past its peak as a topic of discussion on the internet.
While I frequently comment on other people's articles written about feminist issues (such as yours 😎), my own original articles are focused on memorable events in my life, which is why my Substack is titled "Estwald's Life."
Here is one example:
https://estwald397.substack.com/p/dog-days#:~:text=an%20abusive%20situation.-,HIT%20AND%20RUN,-I%20was%20half
Sometimes people aren't sane, and not everybody rolls over when threatened. My wife got her knickers in a twist about fifteen years ago, and - it is still baffling to me - went to the closet and pulled out her (real) Japanese sword she had purchased during a typically short-lived experiment with martial arts, leaning it up against the wall by her side of the bed.
"So what's that for?" I asked.
"In case I have to protect myself."
I walked to the gun closet, retrieved my .44 magnum revolver, holster and belt rig and made a point of loading it in plain view, then hanging it on the bedpost at the head of the bed.
"Don't give it a second thought. I'll protect you."
Never happened again. What she never knew - and I doubt still does - is that I cut her sword into pieces and put them back in the scabbard - with just enough left on the handle to keep it from falling out. That was my second wife.
Geez, I'm glad I didn't go to college and get indoctrinated with this violent anti-man propaganda. I considered myself a feminist in support of equal opportunity, pay, reproductive rights, lifestyle choice, self-determination.... I never subscribed to this hatred of men and was not aware it was so prevalent in the tenets of the movement. Solanas' ravings are superficial and unsubstantiated. There is little substance to her accusations and she doesn't present examples or verification for the blanket generalizations of how horrid men are in every way. It is surprising and disappointing that she has been taken seriously at all. Her conception of and recommendations for a largely man-free world are juvenile, impractical and ridiculous.
"a feminist in support of equal opportunity"
That's an oxymoron.
"a feminist in support of ... lifestyle choice"
That's just plain wrong. It's the suppression of choice within the feminist world view that is one of the biggest drivers for the growth in anti-feminist women's organisations appearing around the world.
Every woman calling herself a feminist has her personal version. Unfortunately, much of the fallout of the worst branches of feminism was the devaluation of women remaining at home with their children and providing support for fathers/breadwinners and the promotion of the myth of 'having it all' which is attainable by only a lucky few. Important obstacles for women to overcome via the feminist movement were lack of access to credit and financial services, proscriptions to property ownership, lack of bodily autonomy, including the ability to control one's own fertility.
I know many people have different views of feminism but feminism can be defined. It is not "whatever anyone wants to say it is."
Feminism is defined by the global organisers of feminist activities, especially those who drive the UN policies.
It is defined by other global and national feminist bodies but they almost all follow the primary directives from UNWomen.
It is also defined by feminist writings, particularly those thirty or so writings (including The SCUM Manifesto) that are used for teaching feminism to young minds in universities, colleges and, increasingly, schools around the world.
Some might say it is defined by cultural Marxism. While modern feminism is a branch of cultural Marxism, the definition is found in the big organisations and influential writings.
What your next door neighbour days feminism is, is irrelevant if it disagrees with those affecting global and national change.