The curious case of feminist journalist Mary Harper offers more proof, if it were needed, that feminism is about ideological purity rather than the wellbeing of any actual woman or man.
Such an interesting story, Janice. Women like Mary Harper so rarely are subject to proper scrutiny and it is very important their delusional thinking is exposed.
First, thank you for your work; as a twice-divorced man I have marveled at the inner workings of the female brain for some time now. Second, I get a chuckle upon seeing some of the illogic of Toxic Feminism; as you have pointed out, that ideology has served neither men nor women well - and those two sexes unfortunately comprise the entirety of humanity.
Like it or not, men built the world - both the good and the evil - and women built those men; the women who understand that basic fact do very well and are happy. Those that do not - well, are not.
I'm not religious, but bless you. I hope we meet some day.
The world is ruled by the ill-uminati satanic death cult and feminism is their weapon to destroy families and children from the very beginning. Now, as a thank you, their transgenders are invading women's sports to kill them off as a biological sex. Naivety is deadly.
At my university, I am often repelled by the sight of young valley girl types constantly hanging out around a young, obviously homosexual (appropriating the worst female qualities: vacuity, frivolity, cattiness) male. They seem to prefer them more to straight men because of their effeminancy and tendency to idolize females as goddesses and mock straight men for their "toxic masculinity"; never mind the fact that these queers are attracted to these same exact same males. You will often hear a lot of women denigrate straight males whilst propping up queers as the ideal male. It saddens one to witness traditional masculinity being replaced with these fruitcake "males" who are nothing but an ill disguised substitution for females. After all, feminists operate off the lesbian rhetoric that the sexes should be two: female and female. Since that isn't so, the closest alternative is homosexuals so castrated that they can virtually serve as females.
This is indeed an interesting story that I find very familiar. Let me offer 3 points here.
1. I am not surprised that Mary Harper embraces violent foreign men like those you indicate are affiliated with Al Shabaab. Harper's interest in these men is about virtue signaling, sexual prowess and power. First, modern gender feminists are far more concerned with their progressive credentials than with the health, safety and rights of actual women. It is more important be seen as an ally to oppressed black men from Somalia than with any Western societal values. So...she virtue signals. Second, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, gender feminists have an intense erotic attraction to the very men they say are horrible and hostile. These are the women who will complain about men generally and the rape culture specifically but will continue to date a hostile and violent man against all common sense and the advice of their friends and family because...he is so good in bed. Thirdly, feminists highest priority is their own personal power. By associating with violent dangerous men like these Al Shabaab terrorists who show concern for her, Harper is sending the message that her "boys" have her back and might just be asked to excercise her will on other should you cross her. Would Harper be offended if an Al Shabaab terrorist beat up or killed a white man for using the wrong pronoun or offending Harper or her values? Not at all. They are her personal brut squad, in her mind at least.
2. As a child of a Muslim immigrant father and Lutheran native born American, I have long been baffled by the manner in which feminist women who denounce the slightest microaggression, real or imagined, by a white European or American male, will bend over backwards to enable and defend far more egregious conduct by a man of color. My sister and I witnesses this when I was about 14 (sister 12). Our mother had finally left her abusive Muslim husband, returned home to her family and remarried a new man, this one of color, about 5 years later. Her racist Muslim ex husband was not about to allow HIS children to be raised in a household with a black man and petitioned the family court in New York state to have custody transferred to him. It should be mentioned that the ex husband had stolen all the family's assets including the home, was not paying child support (he even tried to get alimony FROM his wife), had a long history of physical abuse of his wife and others who crossed him (both men and women), adultery and had threatened to take his children back to his home country where women have no rights. The kidnapping threat was taken so seriously that the New York State Superior Court issued an order barring the removal of we children from New York State to protect us. One would think in such an instance that the Muslim Ex-husband's request for custody would be dead on arrival. No...unfortunately for our family, a staunch feminist/progressive activist social worker was assigned our case. After a 1 hour phone conversation with the Muslim ex-husband, the social worker was convinced that we children were being raised against the father because of his culture and that HIS rights were being violated. The social worker demanded private meetings with my mother and each of us children (14 and 12 in age) as she sought to find evidence to support her predetermined opinion. After these meetings, the social worker found that her opinion was supported. She stated that I was arrogant and hostile because I refused her narrative and insisted that the causes of the divorce were entirely relevant in determining our relationship with our father. She insisted that both parties to a divorce share responsibility and that the causes are irrelevant to the children or their relationship with either parent. (It should be noted that at age 9 I had to call the police because of the beating my mother was taking because the old rotary style phones are difficult to use when one is being beaten.) The social worker actually denounced our mother (the abused spouse who had lost everything after having had to flee with her children to her parents) in front of us and recommended to the court that the father, whom she had never met, be granted custody! Fortunately for us, when the matter actually got to court, a crusty traditional old Italian judge got to hear the case and he allowed our father to hang himself with a series of racist statements against our black step father than would have made a Klansman blush! The court rejected the social worker's recommendation and maintained the status quo. As this experience shows, there is no more vicious enemy to an abused women than a feminist woman defending her ideology.
3. About a decade after the court case described in 2, my father came to visit me while in graduate school. I was forced to leave him unsupervised for a few hours for a meeting with my advisor. Imagine a 60 year old man wearing a black trenchcoat and French beret walking around a New England college campus in the 1990's walking up to random women, chatting them up and then proposing marriage to them?! This man spent 3 hours doing this which I know from following the trail of secretaries and work study students along his path discussing their experience as I tried to track him down after the meeting. On a campus where a male student would be viciously denounced for daring to hold the door open for the woman behind them, this man proposing marriage to the 18-25 year-olds he encountered did not cause any denunciation, reports for harassment or calls to law enforcement. He was simply ignored because one would not want to be seen as bigoted toward a Muslim man.
Your thoughts mirror mine, as I observed selective feminist outrage in academia. I had to conclude from my observations that many feminists are far more interested in shoring up their credentials as fine, highly moral people than in intervening where real abuse is occurring or speaking out about real injustice. They lack moral courage, common sense, or any capacity for self criticism. Of course, most of us do lack these things (the number of things I know nothing about is vast, and I know my own judgements are often faulty), but the feminist version is particularly dangerous because it is so powerful and because it has colonized, as your story shows, the domains of family law and social work. And law generally.
Alas...our experiences demonstrate that there is a wider phenomenon at work here. It does raise the question of why one sees a dysfunctional feminist movement but not a male counterpart. Is that an accident of history, a result of culture or something deeper about the differences between men and women?
Do you perceive actual hostility on the part of some feminists towards abused women? Like they are jealous of their potential to usurp attention and sympathy from the feminist and rank higher as a victim. They are fine as long as they are willing to be used as a prop with the feminist as public advocate; otherwise they are competition.
"[Mary Harper] embodies the lonely, destructive incoherence of the intersectional feminist vision." She also embodies the nauseating selective outrage-type journalism that the BBC specialises in. As I wrote about in this piece recently, in the myopic world of this kind of feminism the regretted past sexual encounters of celebrities - on their way up the greasy ladder of fame - matters more than the brutalisation of millions of women beyond the (partial) protection of Western liberal sexual mores: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/life-in-the-shadows-of-metoo "Early March 2020 saw the publication of a remarkable book on a shamefully neglected subject: the brutality visited on literally millions of civilian women in war zones. Released for publication just as the Covid-19 pandemic cleared almost all other stories from the front page of the world’s media was unlucky timing for its author Christina Lamb. For to read her harrowing account of sexual atrocities - in Burma, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Ruanda, Bosnia, Bangladesh and elsewhere - is to be brought hard up against a recognition of the huge disconnect that can exist between the gravity of events unfolding around the world and the amount of attention they receive."
Thank you for this. Wartime rape is a chilling phenomenon. I'm not sure, though, that we should apply an exclusive paradigm of female victims and male predators, as Lamb seems to have done. There are plenty of male victims of horrifying sexual brutality, and their attempt to find justice is also very difficult, at least in part because most people never even think of boys and men who have been sexually brutalized. In one of the first books on the subject, Susan Brownmiller's *Against Our Will,* the author admitted that men are raped (in prison, especially) but persisted in seeing all rape as an expression of male contempt for women. This is not to take away from the particular problems of women in some of the cultures under discussion.
I entirely agree with you....and you would find in Slouching Towards Bethlehem that I have often taken up the cause of defending men against the crude "female victims and male predators" version of feminism (like here https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired and here: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance) as well as in my published work elsewhere. I really wanted to review Lamb's book because it is such an important and neglected subject but I do also criticise her failure to call out #MeToo-type feminism for its gross parochialism and myopia. I also remember to say: "Our Bodies is a book focussed on the atrocities perpetrated on women. It should however not be overlooked that, alongside the stories - of villages where women and children are loaded en masse onto trucks and destined for horrific brutalisation - there is typically also a brief mention of the parallel fate of the village men; ending up as a pile of corpses riddled with bullets."
Biodad is contesting rule of Hell with Lucifer. Step Dad was an improvement on the first but had major issues as well. My twice divorced mother and her 2 daughters have 4 divorces between them. None of them seem to be able to assess potential partners accurately and then become bitter toward all men because of their own poor decisions in who to marry and how to manage those relationships.
Probably relevant was the case of Canadian Leftist Amanda Lindhout many years ago who along with her boyfriend was kidnapped by Muslims in Somalia and held hostage for 15 months during which she (and presumably he) was beaten, tortured, and raped repeatedly. After they ransomed her for half a million dollars, she returned to Canada, where she told an interviewer that she started an organization to help Somalians because of a Leftist epiphany she had while she was being sodomized:
"I had one specific moment... it was a moment where I had absolute clarity of understanding, that the boy who was abusing me was the product of his environment. And in that moment, what I felt for him, surprisingly -- surprisingly most to me -- was compassion for this boy who I understood in this moment was a product of his environment, who was shaped by the violence and the war around him and whose suffering was maybe bigger than mine..."
The dynamics of rape (and female interest in/sympathy for male rapists) is not something I can comfortably discuss because I don't know enough, but I suspect it is far more complicated than we are able to address at this time.
The point & problem is that there seems to be a further inflection here -- it's not sympathy for male rapists in general -- it's sympathy for Brown Rapists (i.e., Muslims as Leftists see them).
It may be that a lot of women have a natural craving to be raped by strong men. The power dynamics of that are even more thrilling if the men are foreigners, and hence outside the social control of the victim's own society.
I was just talking about this with a friend. It happens in the animal world all the time, with the female fighting off the male, running from him, having to be held down and penetrated. It seems that this is a natural mechanism to ensure that only a very strong, fit male can impregnate the female. We are more than just animals, but we are certainly animals.
On the off chance you haven't read it (there was a feminist fatois on this back in the day), 'A Natural History Of Rape' is good way to bone up on the subject.
DON'T believe in Stockholm Syndrome. That takes accountability away from the wo-MAN. People tried to use that Stockholm Syndrome nonsense to justify FRAMING Harvey Weinstein who was obviously set up and FRAMED for something that was done consensually.
Apart from the Pattey Hearst case, were these others actually kidnapped? There's even some questions about Patty Hearst being an actual victim apart from the kidnapping. Lawyer & author Jeffrey Toobin says: "If you look at her actions over the following year, you see the actions of a revolutionary not a victim" Toobin says: "There was some glamour to what she was doing. the swagger of wearing berets, of carrying machine guns _ the romance of revolution was an undeniable part of the appeal of the SLA" "The fact that she got these two Presidental gestures of forgiveness is the purest example of privilege on display that frankly I have ever seen in the criminal justice system" Toobin says.
It must be confusing to keep track of all the things you don't believe because they're inconvenient to your worldview. Just because Stockholm Syndrome was disingenuously invoked against Weinstein is no reason to disavow the whole concept.
She and her boyfriend, I assume he died, likely went to Somalia to help them reach Progressivism. She would have had to accept some personal responsibility for her outcomes. Easier to sympathize with her rapist, since it was going to happen anyways.
Fascinating article. I find the topic of white Western women being not so secretly attracted to violent migrants to be hardly surprising. It has become very trendy as of late, for young white girls to date strapping black or mixed race athletes (that is if they are lucky, otherwise they will just end up with some skinny wannabe rapper who stimulates his creativity by constantly smoking marijuana). It has gotten to a point where the more trashier of these "snow bunnies" as they are called, will even talk about how they prefer the aggressive masculinity and well endowed physique of blacks to the comparatively effete and wimpish nature of younger white men of their same age range. They will excuse all kinds of misogynistic grievances, as long as they are sexually attracted to the man in question. In some Tiktok videos, they actually joke about how "the feminist goes out of them" when they are faced with an attractive man, and that they will have no qualms about cooking and cleaning to keep him around. Of course, if the man is unattractive, their reaction will revert to the feminist attitude of offense and indignation. I don't even think that they are aware of these double standards oddly enough; it is probably so instinctual and deeply engrained in them, and when you are constantly told you are a goddess who can do mo wrong, well then you won't be likely to assess the probity of your stances.
I don't know about that. I'm no expert, but it would seem that more research would need to be done for such a claim to be put forth as fact. It would most likely be a combination of nature and nurture, as the majority of human phenomena tends to be.
You concede too much. It's closer to 95% or more. Tolerance for cognitive dissonance is one of the defining features of your average woman, which is why debating them typically feels like nailing jelly. Their last refuge is their emotions because most people care about their feelings and will rally around to protect them. Women like Janice who are unafraid of where reason may take them are exceptional. Their perspectives are untainted by the near universal urge of women to present themselves and their kind as virtuous, regardless of the evidence. This urge surely stems from a fear of rejection, just as a narcissist's grandiosity stems from nagging feelings of inadequacy. The expression "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a reflection on the relative thinness of their skins to criticism.
"Women like Janice who are unafraid of where reason may take them are exceptional" Marking Janice as a true Intellectual as opposed to the common quacademic so common today.
Yes, Gyno centrism plays a role in modern 304's and their attraction to MEN who can punish them. Unfortunately, the God ordained dynamic of MALE authority over the wife which no longer exists, results in wo-MEN'S attraction to brutes which is a perversion of their need for the MAN to lead
I was writing from the perspective of the feminist women in question. "Aggressive masculinity" and "misogynistic grievances" are terms that feminists would use to describe such men. I was never implying that I personally felt such a way about such men; I have no interest in black men regardless of their behavior. I am by no means a feminist.
Except wo-MEN'S suffrage was always wrong. Our founding FATHER John Adams said: "wo-MEN shouldn't vote because they don't have to get drafted or support their families"
Her convoluted rationalisation for protecting offenders is beyond my comprehension. On the logical side, It hurts my brain just trying to understand how she can justify her support for these people.
Because... penis! (This phrase is usually used to deride feminist logic that blames men for everything, but I think we can use it here). Sometimes it's possible to not just blame women, but to find some deeper biological or evolutionary imperative subconsciously informing their behavior. I'm not sure what it is here exactly, but men and women alike dance to Mother Nature's tune. Offhand, it could simply be, that her genes are more likely to survive when protected by a male who can wield violence.
NO, it's a distortion. It's a perversion. wo-MEN develop these fetishes in generations where the MEN are weak. Those who believe in scripture know that God cursed wo-MEN with a desire to be ruled over by their husbands.
I am a very so so looking guy. Very average. But…I am reasonably successful. I am a real estate developer in a culture that has demonized RE developers for decades. My wife has an ultra commie friend. A Birkenstock wearing euro married academic socialist who hates business and business men. She stands 6” from me when we are in the same room and somehow manages to bump her boobies up against me about 3x a night if we are at the same social event. The love hate thing from feminists towards alphas is real. And comical.
Your anecdote calls to mind the words of a member of the famous Yugoslav rock band Bijelo Dugme when they were invited to perform for Marshal Tito at a New Year's Concert. Regarding the reactions of the female background singers and dancers, who were apparently "fainting" and "moaning" at the sight of the eighty year old president; it was then that he realized just how much "power is a turn on" for women.
A famous newspaper reporter, female, was being interviewed following the release of her tell all political news book. In it she said while doing a long interview with LBJ and staying at his ranch with him and his wife LBJ came into her guest bedroom wearing a cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and two pistols in a holster - and nothing else. Apparently he said ‘well little Lady, your country needs you, better take those clothes off’. The young guy interviewing her was appalled by the fact she said she slept with him. He asked ‘how could you? He was old and wrinkled and ugly.’ She said no woman turns down the most powerful man in the world. She said ‘your beautiful young wife, deeply in love with you, on your wedding day would be flat on her back with her dress hiked up for the President of the United States. Don’t kid yourself.’
Sordid but true. I've never understand how power could tempt much younger women into bedding geriatrics but I suppose I'm an exception. What was the name of this reporter by the way?
It's a simple matter of immorality and being a prostitute. btw, this is also my opinion of fe-MALE reporters in general. Monica Lewinsky comes to mind, and btw, she bedded other politicians even before Clinton. She's also written a book about her exploits.
One other thing. The very wealthy guy lost most of his money a few years back. His wife had been the Alpha Mare of the group. She was the queen and the other wives played up to her. When the big dog lost his rank so too did he wife. The other wives turned on her. (My wife was not involved, to her credit.) It was high school all over. Very weird.
Guess what I think of newspaper reporter, fe-MALES? When I was 13 in junior high, a 13-year-old Betsy East sat on my lap every day for the whole year. I was in love with her and didn't even know what to do. Meanwhile she was BANGING THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD at 13! Whelp, 30 years later I ran into Betsy East, and she told me she wanted to be a journalist. Guess what I think of journalists?
It is the unfortunate truth, that as a direct result of the feminist approved sexual revolution, that many women have allowed themselves to lose any and all sense of dignity in corrupting their soul in the use of profiting off their body. This debauchery has seeped into the younger generation of teenagers and preteens, who are increasingly favoring overly sexualized attire for the purpose of attracting boys (what else would it be). Then they have the gall to complain about sexualization and male objectification of the female. Yet they sexualize THEMSELVES and objectify THEMSELVES by reducing themselves to sex dolls who have no character, virtues, talent, or intelligence aside from being a tart.
You are very welcome Joeseph. I don't mince words in describing the feminist influenced state of 21st century womanhood because being a child of the 21st century, I have witnessed the alarming and odious ways in which traditional morals and values regarding gender, race, education, and by and large all of Western society and culture, have been upended and replaced by all kinds of perverse and destructive Marxist ideals of postmodernist intersectional propaganda. Believe me when I say with authority that the state of youth has been corrupted beyond recognition. Girls as young as 12 are now showing up to school decked out in navel exposing crop tops and wearing shorts so short; skipping class to seek refuge with their friends in the washroom where they vape or smoke weed whilst taking lascivious selfies in the bathroom mirrors with their tongues hanging out. Most boys have eschewed Western notions of manhood for eternal adolescence in the form of drug induced, porn addled, ghetto style thuggery and gangsterism. Students have become dumber and dumber, swearing and causing all sorts of chaos and distraction in class while teachers stand by helplessly. Female rappers are praised for ranting about how sticky their vagina is, all the while professing their ideal man to be a "hood ni***, drug dealer, gangster with tattoos". The average teenager spend all their time on social media applications such as TikTok that shorten their attention spans. I could go on forever, but you get my point.
Yep. However, I've always felt that attraction based off monetary value instead of beauty (both outer and inner) is both insipid and ACTUALLY objectifying, unlike what feminists gripe about regarding the male appreciation of female beauty. Objectification is in my view most accurately expressed through the Kantian concept of the categorical imperative. Women who are drawn to men on the grounds of their bank account view him as a means to a financial end, which is obviously immoral per Kant. On the other hand, men who are drawn to women on the grounds of their beauty and charm view them as ends in themselves, because they are not means to an end, and are valued in and of themselves for the inherent merit and happiness they contain. Therefore, the male view is moral and non objectifying unlike the female view, which is objectifying and immoral. Women do often perceive men as nothing but dollar signs, and marry them for their money whilst mostly hating them. It is difficult to understand how men appreciating a lovely lady for her pulchritude and personality could result in them viewing her as an "object" as both are qualities and not possessions. The awful claim that men view women as "pieces of meat" is wrong because beauty and character are not objects like material wealth.
I agree with you. Charlie Watts from the Rolling Stones was worried that a girl might like him for his fame and not for him. Part of this distortion in wo-MEN is MEN not having principles and being willing to be settled for. I don't agree with those who think wo-MEN'S attraction to power is evolutionary. I think it's a distortion resulting from equality, weak MEN and immorality.
You might very well be right on a subconscious level, but I don't think that such a deeply rooted evolutionary instinct would occur to most men consciously. That is to say, I don't think the first thought that pops to mind when they see a stunning woman is that her beauty would be advantegeous from a reproductive angle. It might come up casually, but I doubt it would become some sort of Nazi esque conscious impetus (I must mate with her so my progeny can have a headstart). With gold diggers however, their desire for money is quite pragmatic and consciously thought out (there are many female pages that advocate for the merits of sugar mommies and dark femininity aka being a man eater). The most humorous comes in a scene from the 50s musical Gentlemen Prefer Blondes where Marilyn Monroe's gold digger character (who has a entire philosophy based off of marrying rich men so as to have a comfortable life -- chastizing her friend for falling in love with a handsome yet modest athlete) is introduced to a wealthy old businessman. After trying on his wife's lavish diamond tiara, the next time she looks at him, his face and head appear as a large diamond.
Katie, I think you are right. I don't buy this nonsense that hypergamy and gyno centrism are evolutionary. I believe these are the result of immorality.
Another woman was talking to me at a dinner party saying how much she detests another big shot developer, who had not yet arrived. Detests him. He got there a half hour later and I watched this woman flirt with him shamelessly throughout the evening. I called her on it the next time I saw her. She was a bit embarrassed and said ‘oh we just yack at each other, that’s what we do’. But he was the big dog in the group. And the women couldn’t stop themselves. Despite their politics. Despite he was old and ugly. Pretty weird.
It's hardly an unrecognized phenomenon. Men compete against other men for status which is attractive to females. High status males convey high status to females, who cooperate with them for it rather than compete against them.
And in general men detest other men who sleep with friends wives. But this happens reasonably regularly among women friends. It isn’t accepted. But if Alpha man starts outdistancing himself from the group he becomes a catch. And females know other females, friends, have to be wary.
I think, in this example, you have a valid point for explaining the behavior. She is priming her feelings in anticipation of his rejecting her, which she knows in advance and from experience that she hates.
Similarly, I have often gotten by female partners whether I will miss them. Women anticipate their negative feelings much more than any man might ever. Men try to anticipate their abilities and stamina and simply experience emotions for what they are, side effects. Since women use feelings to validate themselves, hearing that a man will 'miss her' at some future time is akin to discovering a fact confirming his commitment to her
I'm not surprised, really. Feminist disregard for rape survivors - male and female - has been one of its most constant moral failings. Alison Tieman (whose statements I was unable to verify) said that second wave feminists stopped psychologically intervention programs for men who were at risk of committing rape. Moreover, Mary P. Koss, the woman who popularized the 1-in-4 statistic, excluded men from the category of rape victim: "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." (206-207)
Alison Tieman's statements sound like an attempt for a men's rights activist to use gynocentric rhetoric.
No, second wave feminists did not stop psychological intervention programs for men who were at risk of committing rape.
The concept of these pyschological intervention programs sound orwellian, and they sound like something that a second wave feminist would have come up with as a pretense to engage in man-hatred.
This is the conclusion I've come to also, that feminists aren't for women. They are against white men (and, as Greg below says, 'white adjacent men') and against the societies that have been created in the west. Why exactly is harder to say.
What really throws me is that feminists, the leaders and the AWFLS, middle class educated women, are almost all, a few TERFS, but mostly all pro transgenderism. Feminism of every iteration declared that inside men and women are the same and it is society that structures differences. If we could raise children neutrally we would see as many female engineers as male, as many male kindergarten teachers as female, etc. Trans-ism says the exact opposite. “I was assigned male at birth but I always was female. All the football teams I had been enrolled in, the trucks and toy soldiers I was given as toys, the maleness I had imposed upon me did nothing. I was and am a woman and no social conditioning could change it.” 180 degrees opposite. And then, they perform the worst caricatures of being female one can imagine. “Look at me! I am fabulous! I am a princess!” These two movements are contradictory. There is no reconciliation possible. Yet…your typical AWFL, will picket for drag queen story hour to be allowed at her child’s elementary school.
It's a movement founded on cognitive dissonance and Marxist ideology. Hypocrites and people who believe that all of human nature and history is solely founded off oppression have a stance to drive home; facts are hardly needed since their state prima facie is nothing but a lie. Instead of assessing manifold perspectives so as to get to the underlying, aligned (non contradictory) truth, they focus on preconceived assumptions that are often at odds with each. Social justice academia is fundamentally anti reality and logic, not to mention anti humanity.
They're >SPOILED! SPOILER ALERT: fEMINISM is the result of weak MEN spoiling wo-MEN.
Notice wo-MEN in general are not much different than fEMINISTS? That is because MEN in general have become weaker and more COWARDLY then in the past. wo-MEN resent that most MEN have no autonomy of thought. wo-MEN are a reflection of MEN.
"White adjacent men" are people of non-European background who resemble White men to them. This seems to include (from my experience) Christian Arabs, Jews and Chinese or Japanese people, as well as paler Hispanics. They add them to their personal list of boys who cannot get away with challenging their authority in any way.
First they split the world into 'white' and 'poc' and now they're telling us that some people of color aren't really very colored at all. I see the term 'non black poc' more and more.
It seems to me that 'white adjacency' is just about rolling back the black privilege they temporarily extended to other ethnic groups. Now we have a sort of Schrodinger paradox in which someone can be either white or colored and you can't know until you open the box and see if they've drunk the Kool Aid.
These people use terminolgy like Hogwarts' students use spells. It matters little what the words mean, it's all in the vocal emphasis and wagging the finger just right.
Agreed. I think the point also is to continue to divide people, to increase envy and resentment, to increase the desire for privilege (i.e. oppression points) and to keep people preoccupied with irrational minutiae so that they don't have the time or energy to make common cause against our increasingly arrogant and dangerous governments.
'White adjacency' was necessary, ultimately, because the ideologues saw that some poc didn't hate white men and didn't feel that the system was against them. This was dangerous in itself; if too many poc dissent, then the whole intersectional schema loses its authority. But if there is a way to shame and demean the poc, to put them on the defensive, then they (the poc) will hesitate before calling out the falsity of the system, knowing that they will receive a full-frontal assault just as white men have for decades.
So, just as white women learned that if they didn't condemn white men and western societies, they would be condemned in turn, poc must be made to learn the same lesson.
Exactly. It's very much in the same vein as the slur 'Oreo' which means black on the outside but white on the inside.
Jargon like 'internalized racism' and 'white adjacency' has a certain pseudo intellectual panache, but it doesn't bring any more meaning to the discussion than 'Oreo'.
'Uncle Ruckus' is my go to for internalized whiteness.
In the so-called manosphere, FWIW, and it's PUA subcommunity, there is the concept of the "shit test". That basically when dating, women will deliberately push a man's buttons, to test how he reacts. It could be as simple as making him wait 20 minutes before coming down from fixing their hair to go on a date. The idea is that, by consciously or even subconsciously creating adversity, they're able to probe and test a masculine quality of, is this the kind of guy that can bring home the bacon, out in the competitive dog-eat-dog world.
My only explanation for intersectional feminists' fascination with importing as many Muslims as possible into England and other countries, is as a kind of society-wide shit test for the men of England. One that by and large they are failing.
I wonder about that too. It gets into areas of social psychology that are beyond my ken. But it certainly seems that, at both the personal and the social levels, women want to tame the dangerous bad boys that they are attracted to (and there is biological warrant for this); but then, once they've tamed them, they want the bad boys too. I suspect that much of it is unconscious, so very difficult to talk about, let alone address.
Genesis: "You shall desire to rule over your husband, but your husband shall rule over thee" "Moreover your URGE shall be for your husband who shall rule over thee"
I believe wo_MEN'S attraction to bad boys is a perversion of the natural order
It is my experience, and I am 72, that this push/pull thing goes on in relationships all the time. Women push because they want to feel they control you, that you respond to them. If you capitulate too easily they disrespect you. If you never capitulate they are really upset. It is an ongoing issue of finding the right balance. Made complicated because the ‘right balance’ is shifting moment to moment.
Genesis: "You shall desire to rule over your husband, but your husband shall rule over thee" "And your URGE shall be for your husband who shall rule over thee"
If wo-MEN would over run their own country with foreigners just to shit test MEN... I would say 'BRING IT ALL DOWN MAN' I would even say "Muslims are right about wo-MEN" which even Paul Elam, Michael Savage and Steven Crowder have ALL said. I'm sure it was in half jest, but the point is sound!
One can't help but conclude that there's something to the PUA claim that feminism was a sh*t test that Western men collectively failed.
In other words, feminists didn't actually want equal rights for women, they wanted men strong enough to say "no" to them. When Western men failed, they turned their attention elsewhere.
Excellent essay. This topic fascinates me. The active parallel can be found in promoting uncontrolled migration into the U.S., supported by a young white woman I spotted in a T-shirt that read something like "I'll trade white racists for immigrants any day.'
While Harper has two children (no mention of what happened to the father, and whether he is white or not), the trend of unintentionally childless women seems to foment favoring violent men of color over civil white men because the bad boys of color are their proxy CHILDREN. The children they never had.
I would argue that much of what's gone wrong in this matriarchal hell is caused, in part, by unintentionally childless white women's "nurturing" their poor, downtrodden, men of color babies. What mother doesn't unconditionally love her wayward sons? What mother doesn't harbor the belief that if only she loved them in just the right way, their bad boys will turn out fine?
And there's certainly something very sexy about the very masculinity that they find so "toxic" in white men. At the same time, just about every ad features a white woman with a black man. The status this confers is real.
On a similar note, most of the white people I know from grad school did not have their own biological children. They adopted brown children. This elevates their status in the matriarchy. What "good" people they are, so capable of loving those not their own! No dirty biology for them!
This has even spread to my working class sister-in-law. As it's looking like my nephew will marry a Nigerian woman, my sister-in-law is salivating at the prospect of having mixed-race grandchildren. How GOOD this will make her look! How OPEN-MINDED! How NOT RACIST! No plain white grandbabies for her!
A person very close to me married a bad bad guy. Heroin dealer etc. she was young. She treated him like a child and cared for him in a bizarro motherly way. Eventually he left her for a 16 year old, when she was about 30 and he was 35. She went to the 16 year old and tried to talk her out of it but the 16 year old accused her of being jealous. I asked her how she felt and she said she was so relieved it was over. She wanted children but couldn’t have them with him. She then a few years later met a nice guy and has a couple of beautiful daughters. One evening when her daughters were teens they asked me ‘did Mom ever get into any trouble at all? She is such a goody two shoes.’ I said ‘yeah, a bit. Nothing too sketchy. She’s always been a good girl.’
For several years, as a side-gig I edited romance novels for a well-known publisher (now defunct). Although the more descriptive term is "mommy porn," men simply call this stuff "trash" and never read it, but the romance genre is immensely popular with women and provides a wide-open window to the Western female mind.
Ninety-five-plus percent of romance novels are written by women. The themes are nearly always the same - the beautiful-but-haughty young woman who meets a rugged, 6-foot-plus, muscular man who tames her - whether it's a no-nonsense cowboy who unceremoniously throws her across the saddle and applies the reins to her bare backside or the lusty pirate who has his way with her over and over until she realizes that she's in love with him and he's exactly what she craves in a man - and needs.
No, the Alan-Aldazation of the Western man - although the Very Thing Western women believed they wanted - defies every fundamental of evolution, where in times past a strong man's protection often ensured the survival of the weaker female and her offspring. The feminists' inner demons are no surprise, unless perhaps to them. Maybe at some point the pendulum will swing back toward the centre. It had better hurry; men have had more than enough.
Spot on, as usual. Feminists are indeed concerned only with their personal standing within their ideological community. They have no genuine concern for the victims they ostensibly champion. In as far as they have motivations beyond the selfish, it is the purely negative motivation of prejudice. Feminism is, as we know, profoundly anti-social via their explicit policy rejection of the two-parent, heterosexual family. But cases such as that discussed in the article illustrate how seriously contrary to the interests of society is the wider feminist psychological perspective. Personal ideological standing is everything to them, and so their impact on society at large plays no part in their thinking. The dominance of this type of thinking within the elites is the cause of the rising authoritarianism we now see across the whole Western and Anglophone world. The narrow obsession with their personal standing within their own elite circles blinds those in power to the catastrophic effects of ideological policies upon society at large, including national economies. Feminism has played a major role in creating the conditions for this trans-national authoritarianism, both directly and by being an exemplar and prototype. So claims such as “climate change is a feminist issue” are indeed true, but not in the sense these fools intended. And anyone voicing opposition is an ignorant deplorable – by definition because they announce themselves to be anti-elite. And so this is how the world ends: not with a bang or a whimper, but with the triumph of the snobs.
Indeed. And the many of them, and their useful idiots, have no notion of the huge effort and sacrifices that have gone into and continue to be required in creating the comfort ease and bounty of the very society they so carelessly undermine. I was interested in the speech by the current President of Argentina, his core point being that his country had experience being amongst the richest and economically collapsed a number of times over the past 150 years. It struck me about how much so called "debate" in this country seems to assume ever increasing wealth is somehow a divine right of ours, no matter what we do. Yet of course it isn't and our "poor growth" isn't separate from the dismantling of the social and physical "capital" that created a society able to support the vast numbers of people tapping on their laptops in jobs that simply don't exist.... in Somalia for instance.
Gotta love the conflation of feminism with some transnational anti traditional world gov theory.
They just hate men's guts. It's that simple. It's not a ploy by the elites. Feminism existed before the elites and, even if it's defeated by men in the future, it'll always exist in some form or another. It's a part of female nature.
I'm sure the elites USE it. But it exists apart from any elites.
I agree with you that most feminists deeply dislike men, but I think when we get into the overt preference for men from the Third World over the men that these (mostly) privileged feminists grew up with, we are dealing with a more complicated, anti-western ideology. I could be wrong about the transnationalism/globalist element, but it's the only thing that seems to fully explain it. No?
There was a once time that if a wealthy family had an 'unfortunate' child who wasn't the sharpest they would send them into the church for a career. All they had to do was recite cant from a book, act holy and the church would look after them and they'd come to no harm. These days they're sent into the media.
Someone save us, please, from the upper middle class simpleton do-gooders.
Reading this story I come away with the distinct impression Mary Harper has 'daddy issues'. Not to mention the screamingly obvious Freudian undercurrents. Nice work Janice.
Agreed. I kept thinking as I perused the article, "Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you." This woman's brokenness is tragic, but even more tragic is her adverse impact on everyone in civilized society who comes within her ambit. She should be exiled to Somalia where she can more fully experience the benevolence of Somali culture.
Everyone has it tough. That I agree. Their culture is not conducive to good living. Men and women. And yes their men are oppressed as are their women. Their culture including their religion oppresses women. I never said or thought men had it good and women didn’t.
I'll also add that although you correctly said Somali men are as oppressed as Somali women, you did say later that "their culture including their religion oppresses women".
The greater emphasis on and attention placed on women in your comment, seems to suggest an attitude that women are more oppressed culturally than men.
It might be that women have more restrictions than men but it's just the extra attention given to women's supposed oppression that rubs me the wrong way, as if to say that Somali men don't deal with unique trials from the same religion and culture.
This comment, I agree with. Here we can find some common ground.
My issue is the idea that somali men oppress their own women, which isn't the case. The myth of female oppression by 3rd world men has been long sustained, but it's not true. Even Janice Fiamengo, who is otherwise a genuine inspiration, is incorrect that islamic men oppress islamic women.
But yes, both somali men and women have harder lives.
Somalia doesn't oppress women. Do you think Somali men just beat the shit out of women all day and rape them senseless? Get some perspective. Somalians are dirt poor. Everyone there has it tough.
Janice, thanks for another outstanding piece. I'd just like to pick up on this line:
"In fact, it is not unusual for women from a heavily feminized society like Britain to find themselves attracted to men who are hyper-masculine, even violently hyper-masculine."
As with so many public sector lines of work, the Prison Service is enthusiastically recruiting prison officers who are anything but white and male (their recruitment posters never include white men). This leads to stories like this one we posted a few months ago, "Britain’s raunchiest prison: Scandalous jail where an incredible 18 female staff were fired or quit after having affairs with inmates is suffering a ‘destabilising’ staffing crisis because of the sheer number of illicit hook-ups":
Furthermore, there has been an explosion of drug taking in prisons in recent years. Often female prison officers are found to have smuggled drugs (and more) into prisons, secreted... erm... in their nether regions.
Yes, I mean the particular forms of violence that male criminality tends to take. There is hyper-masculinity (not a bad thing) and violent hyper-masculinity (also not necessarily a bad thing; think of Jack Reacher from the books and films by Lee Child). Some violent hyper-masculinity, however, is obviously socially deleterious.
Such an interesting story, Janice. Women like Mary Harper so rarely are subject to proper scrutiny and it is very important their delusional thinking is exposed.
First, thank you for your work; as a twice-divorced man I have marveled at the inner workings of the female brain for some time now. Second, I get a chuckle upon seeing some of the illogic of Toxic Feminism; as you have pointed out, that ideology has served neither men nor women well - and those two sexes unfortunately comprise the entirety of humanity.
Like it or not, men built the world - both the good and the evil - and women built those men; the women who understand that basic fact do very well and are happy. Those that do not - well, are not.
I'm not religious, but bless you. I hope we meet some day.
The world is ruled by the ill-uminati satanic death cult and feminism is their weapon to destroy families and children from the very beginning. Now, as a thank you, their transgenders are invading women's sports to kill them off as a biological sex. Naivety is deadly.
lol.
Get a grip, haha.
2/3rds of your post is good. "and wo-MEN built those MEN" The last part is idiotic. NO need for the disclaimer.
Appreciate all points of view, but I've no idea what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?
WAKE UP! FEMINISM IS A SATANIC IDEOLOGY TO DESTROY WOMEN!
BBC=223=322=Skull and Bones satanists
satanists control the media and the entertainment industry
Video: X Factor Winner Reveals World's Secret Religion - Altiyan Childs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Eeo-82Eac8
Women can eat it.
If anyone still cares about em they're just knee deep in groupthink.
"WoMeN aNd GiRls"
Yes wo-MEN are like sheep, they follow trends & gossip and whatever the homosexuals tell them to wear.
At my university, I am often repelled by the sight of young valley girl types constantly hanging out around a young, obviously homosexual (appropriating the worst female qualities: vacuity, frivolity, cattiness) male. They seem to prefer them more to straight men because of their effeminancy and tendency to idolize females as goddesses and mock straight men for their "toxic masculinity"; never mind the fact that these queers are attracted to these same exact same males. You will often hear a lot of women denigrate straight males whilst propping up queers as the ideal male. It saddens one to witness traditional masculinity being replaced with these fruitcake "males" who are nothing but an ill disguised substitution for females. After all, feminists operate off the lesbian rhetoric that the sexes should be two: female and female. Since that isn't so, the closest alternative is homosexuals so castrated that they can virtually serve as females.
BBC = 666 if you give B the value 2 and C the value 662. [Americans: this is supposed to be satirical]
Yes, because they are all in the hands of Satanists 666. Shockingly, the CIAo cementery agency is 13 and Nazi agency NASA is directly number 666.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a looney?
I'm not a vampire, you are.
short clip of Bob Dylan Admits He Sold His Soul to the Devil for short lived fortune fame and glory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNn72qnp6kI
Privatise Blood Banks!
Are you still delusional ?
This is indeed an interesting story that I find very familiar. Let me offer 3 points here.
1. I am not surprised that Mary Harper embraces violent foreign men like those you indicate are affiliated with Al Shabaab. Harper's interest in these men is about virtue signaling, sexual prowess and power. First, modern gender feminists are far more concerned with their progressive credentials than with the health, safety and rights of actual women. It is more important be seen as an ally to oppressed black men from Somalia than with any Western societal values. So...she virtue signals. Second, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, gender feminists have an intense erotic attraction to the very men they say are horrible and hostile. These are the women who will complain about men generally and the rape culture specifically but will continue to date a hostile and violent man against all common sense and the advice of their friends and family because...he is so good in bed. Thirdly, feminists highest priority is their own personal power. By associating with violent dangerous men like these Al Shabaab terrorists who show concern for her, Harper is sending the message that her "boys" have her back and might just be asked to excercise her will on other should you cross her. Would Harper be offended if an Al Shabaab terrorist beat up or killed a white man for using the wrong pronoun or offending Harper or her values? Not at all. They are her personal brut squad, in her mind at least.
2. As a child of a Muslim immigrant father and Lutheran native born American, I have long been baffled by the manner in which feminist women who denounce the slightest microaggression, real or imagined, by a white European or American male, will bend over backwards to enable and defend far more egregious conduct by a man of color. My sister and I witnesses this when I was about 14 (sister 12). Our mother had finally left her abusive Muslim husband, returned home to her family and remarried a new man, this one of color, about 5 years later. Her racist Muslim ex husband was not about to allow HIS children to be raised in a household with a black man and petitioned the family court in New York state to have custody transferred to him. It should be mentioned that the ex husband had stolen all the family's assets including the home, was not paying child support (he even tried to get alimony FROM his wife), had a long history of physical abuse of his wife and others who crossed him (both men and women), adultery and had threatened to take his children back to his home country where women have no rights. The kidnapping threat was taken so seriously that the New York State Superior Court issued an order barring the removal of we children from New York State to protect us. One would think in such an instance that the Muslim Ex-husband's request for custody would be dead on arrival. No...unfortunately for our family, a staunch feminist/progressive activist social worker was assigned our case. After a 1 hour phone conversation with the Muslim ex-husband, the social worker was convinced that we children were being raised against the father because of his culture and that HIS rights were being violated. The social worker demanded private meetings with my mother and each of us children (14 and 12 in age) as she sought to find evidence to support her predetermined opinion. After these meetings, the social worker found that her opinion was supported. She stated that I was arrogant and hostile because I refused her narrative and insisted that the causes of the divorce were entirely relevant in determining our relationship with our father. She insisted that both parties to a divorce share responsibility and that the causes are irrelevant to the children or their relationship with either parent. (It should be noted that at age 9 I had to call the police because of the beating my mother was taking because the old rotary style phones are difficult to use when one is being beaten.) The social worker actually denounced our mother (the abused spouse who had lost everything after having had to flee with her children to her parents) in front of us and recommended to the court that the father, whom she had never met, be granted custody! Fortunately for us, when the matter actually got to court, a crusty traditional old Italian judge got to hear the case and he allowed our father to hang himself with a series of racist statements against our black step father than would have made a Klansman blush! The court rejected the social worker's recommendation and maintained the status quo. As this experience shows, there is no more vicious enemy to an abused women than a feminist woman defending her ideology.
3. About a decade after the court case described in 2, my father came to visit me while in graduate school. I was forced to leave him unsupervised for a few hours for a meeting with my advisor. Imagine a 60 year old man wearing a black trenchcoat and French beret walking around a New England college campus in the 1990's walking up to random women, chatting them up and then proposing marriage to them?! This man spent 3 hours doing this which I know from following the trail of secretaries and work study students along his path discussing their experience as I tried to track him down after the meeting. On a campus where a male student would be viciously denounced for daring to hold the door open for the woman behind them, this man proposing marriage to the 18-25 year-olds he encountered did not cause any denunciation, reports for harassment or calls to law enforcement. He was simply ignored because one would not want to be seen as bigoted toward a Muslim man.
Thoughts?
Your thoughts mirror mine, as I observed selective feminist outrage in academia. I had to conclude from my observations that many feminists are far more interested in shoring up their credentials as fine, highly moral people than in intervening where real abuse is occurring or speaking out about real injustice. They lack moral courage, common sense, or any capacity for self criticism. Of course, most of us do lack these things (the number of things I know nothing about is vast, and I know my own judgements are often faulty), but the feminist version is particularly dangerous because it is so powerful and because it has colonized, as your story shows, the domains of family law and social work. And law generally.
Alas...our experiences demonstrate that there is a wider phenomenon at work here. It does raise the question of why one sees a dysfunctional feminist movement but not a male counterpart. Is that an accident of history, a result of culture or something deeper about the differences between men and women?
> Is that an accident of history, a result of culture or something deeper about the differences between men and women?
I'm just imagining how the PUA's would answer that question.
Do you perceive actual hostility on the part of some feminists towards abused women? Like they are jealous of their potential to usurp attention and sympathy from the feminist and rank higher as a victim. They are fine as long as they are willing to be used as a prop with the feminist as public advocate; otherwise they are competition.
"[Mary Harper] embodies the lonely, destructive incoherence of the intersectional feminist vision." She also embodies the nauseating selective outrage-type journalism that the BBC specialises in. As I wrote about in this piece recently, in the myopic world of this kind of feminism the regretted past sexual encounters of celebrities - on their way up the greasy ladder of fame - matters more than the brutalisation of millions of women beyond the (partial) protection of Western liberal sexual mores: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/life-in-the-shadows-of-metoo "Early March 2020 saw the publication of a remarkable book on a shamefully neglected subject: the brutality visited on literally millions of civilian women in war zones. Released for publication just as the Covid-19 pandemic cleared almost all other stories from the front page of the world’s media was unlucky timing for its author Christina Lamb. For to read her harrowing account of sexual atrocities - in Burma, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Ruanda, Bosnia, Bangladesh and elsewhere - is to be brought hard up against a recognition of the huge disconnect that can exist between the gravity of events unfolding around the world and the amount of attention they receive."
Thank you for this. Wartime rape is a chilling phenomenon. I'm not sure, though, that we should apply an exclusive paradigm of female victims and male predators, as Lamb seems to have done. There are plenty of male victims of horrifying sexual brutality, and their attempt to find justice is also very difficult, at least in part because most people never even think of boys and men who have been sexually brutalized. In one of the first books on the subject, Susan Brownmiller's *Against Our Will,* the author admitted that men are raped (in prison, especially) but persisted in seeing all rape as an expression of male contempt for women. This is not to take away from the particular problems of women in some of the cultures under discussion.
I entirely agree with you....and you would find in Slouching Towards Bethlehem that I have often taken up the cause of defending men against the crude "female victims and male predators" version of feminism (like here https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired and here: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance) as well as in my published work elsewhere. I really wanted to review Lamb's book because it is such an important and neglected subject but I do also criticise her failure to call out #MeToo-type feminism for its gross parochialism and myopia. I also remember to say: "Our Bodies is a book focussed on the atrocities perpetrated on women. It should however not be overlooked that, alongside the stories - of villages where women and children are loaded en masse onto trucks and destined for horrific brutalisation - there is typically also a brief mention of the parallel fate of the village men; ending up as a pile of corpses riddled with bullets."
Where is Biodad now? How did he turn out? And how was step dad?
Biodad is contesting rule of Hell with Lucifer. Step Dad was an improvement on the first but had major issues as well. My twice divorced mother and her 2 daughters have 4 divorces between them. None of them seem to be able to assess potential partners accurately and then become bitter toward all men because of their own poor decisions in who to marry and how to manage those relationships.
Marriage is tough at the best of times. Mixing value systems makes it harder.
I hope you work your way through all of this.
Probably relevant was the case of Canadian Leftist Amanda Lindhout many years ago who along with her boyfriend was kidnapped by Muslims in Somalia and held hostage for 15 months during which she (and presumably he) was beaten, tortured, and raped repeatedly. After they ransomed her for half a million dollars, she returned to Canada, where she told an interviewer that she started an organization to help Somalians because of a Leftist epiphany she had while she was being sodomized:
"I had one specific moment... it was a moment where I had absolute clarity of understanding, that the boy who was abusing me was the product of his environment. And in that moment, what I felt for him, surprisingly -- surprisingly most to me -- was compassion for this boy who I understood in this moment was a product of his environment, who was shaped by the violence and the war around him and whose suffering was maybe bigger than mine..."
https://hesperado.blogspot.com/2014/01/wolves-among-sheep.html
The dynamics of rape (and female interest in/sympathy for male rapists) is not something I can comfortably discuss because I don't know enough, but I suspect it is far more complicated than we are able to address at this time.
The point & problem is that there seems to be a further inflection here -- it's not sympathy for male rapists in general -- it's sympathy for Brown Rapists (i.e., Muslims as Leftists see them).
It may be that a lot of women have a natural craving to be raped by strong men. The power dynamics of that are even more thrilling if the men are foreigners, and hence outside the social control of the victim's own society.
I was just talking about this with a friend. It happens in the animal world all the time, with the female fighting off the male, running from him, having to be held down and penetrated. It seems that this is a natural mechanism to ensure that only a very strong, fit male can impregnate the female. We are more than just animals, but we are certainly animals.
On the off chance you haven't read it (there was a feminist fatois on this back in the day), 'A Natural History Of Rape' is good way to bone up on the subject.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/220535.A_Natural_History_of_Rape
Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
Mogadishu Syndrome. A whole new category of dissonance.
DON'T believe in Stockholm Syndrome. That takes accountability away from the wo-MAN. People tried to use that Stockholm Syndrome nonsense to justify FRAMING Harvey Weinstein who was obviously set up and FRAMED for something that was done consensually.
Apart from the Pattey Hearst case, were these others actually kidnapped? There's even some questions about Patty Hearst being an actual victim apart from the kidnapping. Lawyer & author Jeffrey Toobin says: "If you look at her actions over the following year, you see the actions of a revolutionary not a victim" Toobin says: "There was some glamour to what she was doing. the swagger of wearing berets, of carrying machine guns _ the romance of revolution was an undeniable part of the appeal of the SLA" "The fact that she got these two Presidental gestures of forgiveness is the purest example of privilege on display that frankly I have ever seen in the criminal justice system" Toobin says.
It must be confusing to keep track of all the things you don't believe because they're inconvenient to your worldview. Just because Stockholm Syndrome was disingenuously invoked against Weinstein is no reason to disavow the whole concept.
OK, fair enough.
She and her boyfriend, I assume he died, likely went to Somalia to help them reach Progressivism. She would have had to accept some personal responsibility for her outcomes. Easier to sympathize with her rapist, since it was going to happen anyways.
He didn’t. He got out too. But a lot later than Amanda. They don’t speak anymore. He disagrees with her version of events.
Fascinating article. I find the topic of white Western women being not so secretly attracted to violent migrants to be hardly surprising. It has become very trendy as of late, for young white girls to date strapping black or mixed race athletes (that is if they are lucky, otherwise they will just end up with some skinny wannabe rapper who stimulates his creativity by constantly smoking marijuana). It has gotten to a point where the more trashier of these "snow bunnies" as they are called, will even talk about how they prefer the aggressive masculinity and well endowed physique of blacks to the comparatively effete and wimpish nature of younger white men of their same age range. They will excuse all kinds of misogynistic grievances, as long as they are sexually attracted to the man in question. In some Tiktok videos, they actually joke about how "the feminist goes out of them" when they are faced with an attractive man, and that they will have no qualms about cooking and cleaning to keep him around. Of course, if the man is unattractive, their reaction will revert to the feminist attitude of offense and indignation. I don't even think that they are aware of these double standards oddly enough; it is probably so instinctual and deeply engrained in them, and when you are constantly told you are a goddess who can do mo wrong, well then you won't be likely to assess the probity of your stances.
They are aware and they just don't care.
It's an innate quality in women. Women are perfectly willing to be cognitively dissonant in order to fulfill their hypergamy.
It's not socialized. It's how women innately are.
I don't know about that. I'm no expert, but it would seem that more research would need to be done for such a claim to be put forth as fact. It would most likely be a combination of nature and nurture, as the majority of human phenomena tends to be.
I'd argue upwards of 80% of women are what I describe.
You concede too much. It's closer to 95% or more. Tolerance for cognitive dissonance is one of the defining features of your average woman, which is why debating them typically feels like nailing jelly. Their last refuge is their emotions because most people care about their feelings and will rally around to protect them. Women like Janice who are unafraid of where reason may take them are exceptional. Their perspectives are untainted by the near universal urge of women to present themselves and their kind as virtuous, regardless of the evidence. This urge surely stems from a fear of rejection, just as a narcissist's grandiosity stems from nagging feelings of inadequacy. The expression "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a reflection on the relative thinness of their skins to criticism.
"Women like Janice who are unafraid of where reason may take them are exceptional" Marking Janice as a true Intellectual as opposed to the common quacademic so common today.
BRILLIANT! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Exactly. SPOILER ALERT: Modern wo-MEN are >SPOILED. Xplains everything!
wo-MEN leaders are 27% more likely to wage war than MEN. You can google this.
Yes, Gyno centrism plays a role in modern 304's and their attraction to MEN who can punish them. Unfortunately, the God ordained dynamic of MALE authority over the wife which no longer exists, results in wo-MEN'S attraction to brutes which is a perversion of their need for the MAN to lead
This reads gynocentrically.
Droning on about "aggressive masculinity".
"misogynistic grievance".
Like what? being called a b!tch and a hoe?
Seems these women have earned it.
So many buzzwords placed in front masculinity.
"Hyper violent" "aggressive".
It reads with feminist energy.
Yes, I suppose they are more conventionally masculine.
But there's no reason to use such adjectival modifiers to the "masculinity".
I was writing from the perspective of the feminist women in question. "Aggressive masculinity" and "misogynistic grievances" are terms that feminists would use to describe such men. I was never implying that I personally felt such a way about such men; I have no interest in black men regardless of their behavior. I am by no means a feminist.
Except wo-MEN'S suffrage was always wrong. Our founding FATHER John Adams said: "wo-MEN shouldn't vote because they don't have to get drafted or support their families"
Women in Saudi Arabia are not oppressed.
Women even from ancient times weren't oppressed either. Not in a fashion uniquely cruely to them anyway.
55% of Saudi college grads are women and they are oppressed?
Why? Because they were a hijab?
Give me a break.
No, we're not feminists relative to the social standing of Saudi women.
Saudi women are fine.
BRILLIANT! I've said this for decades
It always blew me away straight women chose as their heroes and spokespeople lesbians!! Can you imagine straight men
Choosing gay men to lead them?
Her convoluted rationalisation for protecting offenders is beyond my comprehension. On the logical side, It hurts my brain just trying to understand how she can justify her support for these people.
Because... penis! (This phrase is usually used to deride feminist logic that blames men for everything, but I think we can use it here). Sometimes it's possible to not just blame women, but to find some deeper biological or evolutionary imperative subconsciously informing their behavior. I'm not sure what it is here exactly, but men and women alike dance to Mother Nature's tune. Offhand, it could simply be, that her genes are more likely to survive when protected by a male who can wield violence.
NO, it's a distortion. It's a perversion. wo-MEN develop these fetishes in generations where the MEN are weak. Those who believe in scripture know that God cursed wo-MEN with a desire to be ruled over by their husbands.
I am a very so so looking guy. Very average. But…I am reasonably successful. I am a real estate developer in a culture that has demonized RE developers for decades. My wife has an ultra commie friend. A Birkenstock wearing euro married academic socialist who hates business and business men. She stands 6” from me when we are in the same room and somehow manages to bump her boobies up against me about 3x a night if we are at the same social event. The love hate thing from feminists towards alphas is real. And comical.
Your anecdote calls to mind the words of a member of the famous Yugoslav rock band Bijelo Dugme when they were invited to perform for Marshal Tito at a New Year's Concert. Regarding the reactions of the female background singers and dancers, who were apparently "fainting" and "moaning" at the sight of the eighty year old president; it was then that he realized just how much "power is a turn on" for women.
A famous newspaper reporter, female, was being interviewed following the release of her tell all political news book. In it she said while doing a long interview with LBJ and staying at his ranch with him and his wife LBJ came into her guest bedroom wearing a cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and two pistols in a holster - and nothing else. Apparently he said ‘well little Lady, your country needs you, better take those clothes off’. The young guy interviewing her was appalled by the fact she said she slept with him. He asked ‘how could you? He was old and wrinkled and ugly.’ She said no woman turns down the most powerful man in the world. She said ‘your beautiful young wife, deeply in love with you, on your wedding day would be flat on her back with her dress hiked up for the President of the United States. Don’t kid yourself.’
Sordid but true. I've never understand how power could tempt much younger women into bedding geriatrics but I suppose I'm an exception. What was the name of this reporter by the way?
I can’t recall. She was famous. That is all I remember.
BTW…now that I am an old geriatric, I am not totally opposed to this.
Now all I need is some power!
Is she the one the movie was about, where the critics were complaining because it was referenced that she was bedding people to get information?
I think not. I think that came later. (And earlier. And at the same time. Since this behaviour goes right back in time.)
It's a simple matter of immorality and being a prostitute. btw, this is also my opinion of fe-MALE reporters in general. Monica Lewinsky comes to mind, and btw, she bedded other politicians even before Clinton. She's also written a book about her exploits.
One other thing. The very wealthy guy lost most of his money a few years back. His wife had been the Alpha Mare of the group. She was the queen and the other wives played up to her. When the big dog lost his rank so too did he wife. The other wives turned on her. (My wife was not involved, to her credit.) It was high school all over. Very weird.
Guess what I think of newspaper reporter, fe-MALES? When I was 13 in junior high, a 13-year-old Betsy East sat on my lap every day for the whole year. I was in love with her and didn't even know what to do. Meanwhile she was BANGING THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD at 13! Whelp, 30 years later I ran into Betsy East, and she told me she wanted to be a journalist. Guess what I think of journalists?
It is the unfortunate truth, that as a direct result of the feminist approved sexual revolution, that many women have allowed themselves to lose any and all sense of dignity in corrupting their soul in the use of profiting off their body. This debauchery has seeped into the younger generation of teenagers and preteens, who are increasingly favoring overly sexualized attire for the purpose of attracting boys (what else would it be). Then they have the gall to complain about sexualization and male objectification of the female. Yet they sexualize THEMSELVES and objectify THEMSELVES by reducing themselves to sex dolls who have no character, virtues, talent, or intelligence aside from being a tart.
THANK YOU so much Katie
You are very welcome Joeseph. I don't mince words in describing the feminist influenced state of 21st century womanhood because being a child of the 21st century, I have witnessed the alarming and odious ways in which traditional morals and values regarding gender, race, education, and by and large all of Western society and culture, have been upended and replaced by all kinds of perverse and destructive Marxist ideals of postmodernist intersectional propaganda. Believe me when I say with authority that the state of youth has been corrupted beyond recognition. Girls as young as 12 are now showing up to school decked out in navel exposing crop tops and wearing shorts so short; skipping class to seek refuge with their friends in the washroom where they vape or smoke weed whilst taking lascivious selfies in the bathroom mirrors with their tongues hanging out. Most boys have eschewed Western notions of manhood for eternal adolescence in the form of drug induced, porn addled, ghetto style thuggery and gangsterism. Students have become dumber and dumber, swearing and causing all sorts of chaos and distraction in class while teachers stand by helplessly. Female rappers are praised for ranting about how sticky their vagina is, all the while professing their ideal man to be a "hood ni***, drug dealer, gangster with tattoos". The average teenager spend all their time on social media applications such as TikTok that shorten their attention spans. I could go on forever, but you get my point.
Yep. However, I've always felt that attraction based off monetary value instead of beauty (both outer and inner) is both insipid and ACTUALLY objectifying, unlike what feminists gripe about regarding the male appreciation of female beauty. Objectification is in my view most accurately expressed through the Kantian concept of the categorical imperative. Women who are drawn to men on the grounds of their bank account view him as a means to a financial end, which is obviously immoral per Kant. On the other hand, men who are drawn to women on the grounds of their beauty and charm view them as ends in themselves, because they are not means to an end, and are valued in and of themselves for the inherent merit and happiness they contain. Therefore, the male view is moral and non objectifying unlike the female view, which is objectifying and immoral. Women do often perceive men as nothing but dollar signs, and marry them for their money whilst mostly hating them. It is difficult to understand how men appreciating a lovely lady for her pulchritude and personality could result in them viewing her as an "object" as both are qualities and not possessions. The awful claim that men view women as "pieces of meat" is wrong because beauty and character are not objects like material wealth.
I agree with you. Charlie Watts from the Rolling Stones was worried that a girl might like him for his fame and not for him. Part of this distortion in wo-MEN is MEN not having principles and being willing to be settled for. I don't agree with those who think wo-MEN'S attraction to power is evolutionary. I think it's a distortion resulting from equality, weak MEN and immorality.
You might very well be right on a subconscious level, but I don't think that such a deeply rooted evolutionary instinct would occur to most men consciously. That is to say, I don't think the first thought that pops to mind when they see a stunning woman is that her beauty would be advantegeous from a reproductive angle. It might come up casually, but I doubt it would become some sort of Nazi esque conscious impetus (I must mate with her so my progeny can have a headstart). With gold diggers however, their desire for money is quite pragmatic and consciously thought out (there are many female pages that advocate for the merits of sugar mommies and dark femininity aka being a man eater). The most humorous comes in a scene from the 50s musical Gentlemen Prefer Blondes where Marilyn Monroe's gold digger character (who has a entire philosophy based off of marrying rich men so as to have a comfortable life -- chastizing her friend for falling in love with a handsome yet modest athlete) is introduced to a wealthy old businessman. After trying on his wife's lavish diamond tiara, the next time she looks at him, his face and head appear as a large diamond.
Katie, I think you are right. I don't buy this nonsense that hypergamy and gyno centrism are evolutionary. I believe these are the result of immorality.
Men marry someone who turns them on. That is not often the most beautiful. She is likely good looking, but it is more than that.
You marry someone for money, you’re a prostitute and immoral. You marry someone because she is beautiful, you’re stupid. But not immoral.
DON'T agree. I think it's a perversion in wo-MEN who are immoral.
Another woman was talking to me at a dinner party saying how much she detests another big shot developer, who had not yet arrived. Detests him. He got there a half hour later and I watched this woman flirt with him shamelessly throughout the evening. I called her on it the next time I saw her. She was a bit embarrassed and said ‘oh we just yack at each other, that’s what we do’. But he was the big dog in the group. And the women couldn’t stop themselves. Despite their politics. Despite he was old and ugly. Pretty weird.
Women like to be desired by men who can have nearly any woman they want.
This is something hugely overlooked by social scientists and by feminists. Females competing with females for social status.
It's hardly an unrecognized phenomenon. Men compete against other men for status which is attractive to females. High status males convey high status to females, who cooperate with them for it rather than compete against them.
That much is well known. I was referring more to social competitiveness within tight social curcles.
And in general men detest other men who sleep with friends wives. But this happens reasonably regularly among women friends. It isn’t accepted. But if Alpha man starts outdistancing himself from the group he becomes a catch. And females know other females, friends, have to be wary.
I will. Thanks. However, it isn’t talked about generally as almost all other aspects of male/female behaviours are.
She probably detests him merely because he isn't interested in her no matter how hard she comes on to him.
I think, in this example, you have a valid point for explaining the behavior. She is priming her feelings in anticipation of his rejecting her, which she knows in advance and from experience that she hates.
Similarly, I have often gotten by female partners whether I will miss them. Women anticipate their negative feelings much more than any man might ever. Men try to anticipate their abilities and stamina and simply experience emotions for what they are, side effects. Since women use feelings to validate themselves, hearing that a man will 'miss her' at some future time is akin to discovering a fact confirming his commitment to her
I'm not surprised, really. Feminist disregard for rape survivors - male and female - has been one of its most constant moral failings. Alison Tieman (whose statements I was unable to verify) said that second wave feminists stopped psychologically intervention programs for men who were at risk of committing rape. Moreover, Mary P. Koss, the woman who popularized the 1-in-4 statistic, excluded men from the category of rape victim: "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." (206-207)
Source: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%201993%20-%20Detecting%20the%20Scope%20of%20Rape%20-%20a%20review%20of%20prevalence%20research%20methods.pdf?token_hash=AAEFRT8VplwV5Xgc0Fxab0-YwewdVbDKZYSPAiCDkjjNcw&dl=1%0A
Alison Tieman's statements sound like an attempt for a men's rights activist to use gynocentric rhetoric.
No, second wave feminists did not stop psychological intervention programs for men who were at risk of committing rape.
The concept of these pyschological intervention programs sound orwellian, and they sound like something that a second wave feminist would have come up with as a pretense to engage in man-hatred.
*"It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman."
Inappropriate, or just physically impossible?
Feminists, for the most part, are haters period. They aren’t for women. They are against white men. And against capitalism.
This is the conclusion I've come to also, that feminists aren't for women. They are against white men (and, as Greg below says, 'white adjacent men') and against the societies that have been created in the west. Why exactly is harder to say.
What really throws me is that feminists, the leaders and the AWFLS, middle class educated women, are almost all, a few TERFS, but mostly all pro transgenderism. Feminism of every iteration declared that inside men and women are the same and it is society that structures differences. If we could raise children neutrally we would see as many female engineers as male, as many male kindergarten teachers as female, etc. Trans-ism says the exact opposite. “I was assigned male at birth but I always was female. All the football teams I had been enrolled in, the trucks and toy soldiers I was given as toys, the maleness I had imposed upon me did nothing. I was and am a woman and no social conditioning could change it.” 180 degrees opposite. And then, they perform the worst caricatures of being female one can imagine. “Look at me! I am fabulous! I am a princess!” These two movements are contradictory. There is no reconciliation possible. Yet…your typical AWFL, will picket for drag queen story hour to be allowed at her child’s elementary school.
It's a movement founded on cognitive dissonance and Marxist ideology. Hypocrites and people who believe that all of human nature and history is solely founded off oppression have a stance to drive home; facts are hardly needed since their state prima facie is nothing but a lie. Instead of assessing manifold perspectives so as to get to the underlying, aligned (non contradictory) truth, they focus on preconceived assumptions that are often at odds with each. Social justice academia is fundamentally anti reality and logic, not to mention anti humanity.
They're >SPOILED! SPOILER ALERT: fEMINISM is the result of weak MEN spoiling wo-MEN.
Notice wo-MEN in general are not much different than fEMINISTS? That is because MEN in general have become weaker and more COWARDLY then in the past. wo-MEN resent that most MEN have no autonomy of thought. wo-MEN are a reflection of MEN.
They're also against white adjacent men, and probably even more furiously, because it interferes with their sordid thoughts.
"White adjacent men?" What fresh Hell is that?
"White adjacent men" are people of non-European background who resemble White men to them. This seems to include (from my experience) Christian Arabs, Jews and Chinese or Japanese people, as well as paler Hispanics. They add them to their personal list of boys who cannot get away with challenging their authority in any way.
It's a real term, my friend.
Is any intersectional jargon "real," though?
First they split the world into 'white' and 'poc' and now they're telling us that some people of color aren't really very colored at all. I see the term 'non black poc' more and more.
It seems to me that 'white adjacency' is just about rolling back the black privilege they temporarily extended to other ethnic groups. Now we have a sort of Schrodinger paradox in which someone can be either white or colored and you can't know until you open the box and see if they've drunk the Kool Aid.
These people use terminolgy like Hogwarts' students use spells. It matters little what the words mean, it's all in the vocal emphasis and wagging the finger just right.
Agreed. I think the point also is to continue to divide people, to increase envy and resentment, to increase the desire for privilege (i.e. oppression points) and to keep people preoccupied with irrational minutiae so that they don't have the time or energy to make common cause against our increasingly arrogant and dangerous governments.
'White adjacency' was necessary, ultimately, because the ideologues saw that some poc didn't hate white men and didn't feel that the system was against them. This was dangerous in itself; if too many poc dissent, then the whole intersectional schema loses its authority. But if there is a way to shame and demean the poc, to put them on the defensive, then they (the poc) will hesitate before calling out the falsity of the system, knowing that they will receive a full-frontal assault just as white men have for decades.
So, just as white women learned that if they didn't condemn white men and western societies, they would be condemned in turn, poc must be made to learn the same lesson.
Exactly. It's very much in the same vein as the slur 'Oreo' which means black on the outside but white on the inside.
Jargon like 'internalized racism' and 'white adjacency' has a certain pseudo intellectual panache, but it doesn't bring any more meaning to the discussion than 'Oreo'.
'Uncle Ruckus' is my go to for internalized whiteness.
https://youtube.com/shorts/pkgCWva1G1E?si=vDWIOYq0c2UvHabC
"White adjacent" means "capable of maintaining a civilization".
Just so.
In the so-called manosphere, FWIW, and it's PUA subcommunity, there is the concept of the "shit test". That basically when dating, women will deliberately push a man's buttons, to test how he reacts. It could be as simple as making him wait 20 minutes before coming down from fixing their hair to go on a date. The idea is that, by consciously or even subconsciously creating adversity, they're able to probe and test a masculine quality of, is this the kind of guy that can bring home the bacon, out in the competitive dog-eat-dog world.
My only explanation for intersectional feminists' fascination with importing as many Muslims as possible into England and other countries, is as a kind of society-wide shit test for the men of England. One that by and large they are failing.
I wonder about that too. It gets into areas of social psychology that are beyond my ken. But it certainly seems that, at both the personal and the social levels, women want to tame the dangerous bad boys that they are attracted to (and there is biological warrant for this); but then, once they've tamed them, they want the bad boys too. I suspect that much of it is unconscious, so very difficult to talk about, let alone address.
Here's a hilarious and insightful take on "the bad boy".
https://youtu.be/BaSwGElT_kQ?si=67aaolt1wXhZoBh4
" There's never a place where women get to 'well, I went through my bad boy phase, and now I want Mr. Rogers..."
"shut the front door!"
Genesis: "You shall desire to rule over your husband, but your husband shall rule over thee" "Moreover your URGE shall be for your husband who shall rule over thee"
I believe wo_MEN'S attraction to bad boys is a perversion of the natural order
It is my experience, and I am 72, that this push/pull thing goes on in relationships all the time. Women push because they want to feel they control you, that you respond to them. If you capitulate too easily they disrespect you. If you never capitulate they are really upset. It is an ongoing issue of finding the right balance. Made complicated because the ‘right balance’ is shifting moment to moment.
Genesis: "You shall desire to rule over your husband, but your husband shall rule over thee" "And your URGE shall be for your husband who shall rule over thee"
If wo-MEN would over run their own country with foreigners just to shit test MEN... I would say 'BRING IT ALL DOWN MAN' I would even say "Muslims are right about wo-MEN" which even Paul Elam, Michael Savage and Steven Crowder have ALL said. I'm sure it was in half jest, but the point is sound!
One can't help but conclude that there's something to the PUA claim that feminism was a sh*t test that Western men collectively failed.
In other words, feminists didn't actually want equal rights for women, they wanted men strong enough to say "no" to them. When Western men failed, they turned their attention elsewhere.
Excellent essay. This topic fascinates me. The active parallel can be found in promoting uncontrolled migration into the U.S., supported by a young white woman I spotted in a T-shirt that read something like "I'll trade white racists for immigrants any day.'
While Harper has two children (no mention of what happened to the father, and whether he is white or not), the trend of unintentionally childless women seems to foment favoring violent men of color over civil white men because the bad boys of color are their proxy CHILDREN. The children they never had.
I would argue that much of what's gone wrong in this matriarchal hell is caused, in part, by unintentionally childless white women's "nurturing" their poor, downtrodden, men of color babies. What mother doesn't unconditionally love her wayward sons? What mother doesn't harbor the belief that if only she loved them in just the right way, their bad boys will turn out fine?
And there's certainly something very sexy about the very masculinity that they find so "toxic" in white men. At the same time, just about every ad features a white woman with a black man. The status this confers is real.
On a similar note, most of the white people I know from grad school did not have their own biological children. They adopted brown children. This elevates their status in the matriarchy. What "good" people they are, so capable of loving those not their own! No dirty biology for them!
This has even spread to my working class sister-in-law. As it's looking like my nephew will marry a Nigerian woman, my sister-in-law is salivating at the prospect of having mixed-race grandchildren. How GOOD this will make her look! How OPEN-MINDED! How NOT RACIST! No plain white grandbabies for her!
I didn't think of it in terms of maternal nurturing of the bad boy, but that is a fascinating angle.
A person very close to me married a bad bad guy. Heroin dealer etc. she was young. She treated him like a child and cared for him in a bizarro motherly way. Eventually he left her for a 16 year old, when she was about 30 and he was 35. She went to the 16 year old and tried to talk her out of it but the 16 year old accused her of being jealous. I asked her how she felt and she said she was so relieved it was over. She wanted children but couldn’t have them with him. She then a few years later met a nice guy and has a couple of beautiful daughters. One evening when her daughters were teens they asked me ‘did Mom ever get into any trouble at all? She is such a goody two shoes.’ I said ‘yeah, a bit. Nothing too sketchy. She’s always been a good girl.’
For several years, as a side-gig I edited romance novels for a well-known publisher (now defunct). Although the more descriptive term is "mommy porn," men simply call this stuff "trash" and never read it, but the romance genre is immensely popular with women and provides a wide-open window to the Western female mind.
Ninety-five-plus percent of romance novels are written by women. The themes are nearly always the same - the beautiful-but-haughty young woman who meets a rugged, 6-foot-plus, muscular man who tames her - whether it's a no-nonsense cowboy who unceremoniously throws her across the saddle and applies the reins to her bare backside or the lusty pirate who has his way with her over and over until she realizes that she's in love with him and he's exactly what she craves in a man - and needs.
No, the Alan-Aldazation of the Western man - although the Very Thing Western women believed they wanted - defies every fundamental of evolution, where in times past a strong man's protection often ensured the survival of the weaker female and her offspring. The feminists' inner demons are no surprise, unless perhaps to them. Maybe at some point the pendulum will swing back toward the centre. It had better hurry; men have had more than enough.
Spot on, as usual. Feminists are indeed concerned only with their personal standing within their ideological community. They have no genuine concern for the victims they ostensibly champion. In as far as they have motivations beyond the selfish, it is the purely negative motivation of prejudice. Feminism is, as we know, profoundly anti-social via their explicit policy rejection of the two-parent, heterosexual family. But cases such as that discussed in the article illustrate how seriously contrary to the interests of society is the wider feminist psychological perspective. Personal ideological standing is everything to them, and so their impact on society at large plays no part in their thinking. The dominance of this type of thinking within the elites is the cause of the rising authoritarianism we now see across the whole Western and Anglophone world. The narrow obsession with their personal standing within their own elite circles blinds those in power to the catastrophic effects of ideological policies upon society at large, including national economies. Feminism has played a major role in creating the conditions for this trans-national authoritarianism, both directly and by being an exemplar and prototype. So claims such as “climate change is a feminist issue” are indeed true, but not in the sense these fools intended. And anyone voicing opposition is an ignorant deplorable – by definition because they announce themselves to be anti-elite. And so this is how the world ends: not with a bang or a whimper, but with the triumph of the snobs.
Indeed. And the many of them, and their useful idiots, have no notion of the huge effort and sacrifices that have gone into and continue to be required in creating the comfort ease and bounty of the very society they so carelessly undermine. I was interested in the speech by the current President of Argentina, his core point being that his country had experience being amongst the richest and economically collapsed a number of times over the past 150 years. It struck me about how much so called "debate" in this country seems to assume ever increasing wealth is somehow a divine right of ours, no matter what we do. Yet of course it isn't and our "poor growth" isn't separate from the dismantling of the social and physical "capital" that created a society able to support the vast numbers of people tapping on their laptops in jobs that simply don't exist.... in Somalia for instance.
Gotta love the conflation of feminism with some transnational anti traditional world gov theory.
They just hate men's guts. It's that simple. It's not a ploy by the elites. Feminism existed before the elites and, even if it's defeated by men in the future, it'll always exist in some form or another. It's a part of female nature.
I'm sure the elites USE it. But it exists apart from any elites.
I agree with you that most feminists deeply dislike men, but I think when we get into the overt preference for men from the Third World over the men that these (mostly) privileged feminists grew up with, we are dealing with a more complicated, anti-western ideology. I could be wrong about the transnationalism/globalist element, but it's the only thing that seems to fully explain it. No?
There was a once time that if a wealthy family had an 'unfortunate' child who wasn't the sharpest they would send them into the church for a career. All they had to do was recite cant from a book, act holy and the church would look after them and they'd come to no harm. These days they're sent into the media.
Someone save us, please, from the upper middle class simpleton do-gooders.
https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/1615-634X-2024-1-3/prekarierinnen-geschlechterspezifische-unterschiede-prekaerer-arbeit-im-journalismus-volume-72-2024-issue-1?page=1
This explains the Taylor Lorenz phenomenon
I thought they became teachers.
Reading this story I come away with the distinct impression Mary Harper has 'daddy issues'. Not to mention the screamingly obvious Freudian undercurrents. Nice work Janice.
Agreed. I kept thinking as I perused the article, "Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you." This woman's brokenness is tragic, but even more tragic is her adverse impact on everyone in civilized society who comes within her ambit. She should be exiled to Somalia where she can more fully experience the benevolence of Somali culture.
Somali culture doesn't oppress women.
Very true. Magadishu is a wonderful nearly idyllic place for a young woman to ‘come of age’. And by that I mean 11.
Men in somalia struggle just as much if not more than the women. Most of the cheap, essentially slave corporate labor is all men
Everyone has it tough. That I agree. Their culture is not conducive to good living. Men and women. And yes their men are oppressed as are their women. Their culture including their religion oppresses women. I never said or thought men had it good and women didn’t.
I'll also add that although you correctly said Somali men are as oppressed as Somali women, you did say later that "their culture including their religion oppresses women".
The greater emphasis on and attention placed on women in your comment, seems to suggest an attitude that women are more oppressed culturally than men.
It might be that women have more restrictions than men but it's just the extra attention given to women's supposed oppression that rubs me the wrong way, as if to say that Somali men don't deal with unique trials from the same religion and culture.
This comment, I agree with. Here we can find some common ground.
My issue is the idea that somali men oppress their own women, which isn't the case. The myth of female oppression by 3rd world men has been long sustained, but it's not true. Even Janice Fiamengo, who is otherwise a genuine inspiration, is incorrect that islamic men oppress islamic women.
But yes, both somali men and women have harder lives.
And men come of age at around the same time.
Somalia doesn't oppress women. Do you think Somali men just beat the shit out of women all day and rape them senseless? Get some perspective. Somalians are dirt poor. Everyone there has it tough.
My sense is that Islam is a cruel system to live under for most men and women except perhaps for those at the top.
Janice, thanks for another outstanding piece. I'd just like to pick up on this line:
"In fact, it is not unusual for women from a heavily feminized society like Britain to find themselves attracted to men who are hyper-masculine, even violently hyper-masculine."
As with so many public sector lines of work, the Prison Service is enthusiastically recruiting prison officers who are anything but white and male (their recruitment posters never include white men). This leads to stories like this one we posted a few months ago, "Britain’s raunchiest prison: Scandalous jail where an incredible 18 female staff were fired or quit after having affairs with inmates is suffering a ‘destabilising’ staffing crisis because of the sheer number of illicit hook-ups":
https://j4mb.org.uk/2023/09/03/britains-raunchiest-prison-scandalous-jail-where-an-incredible-18-female-staff-were-fired-or-quit-after-having-affairs-with-inmates-is-suffering-a-destabilising-staffing-crisis-because-of-the-s/
Furthermore, there has been an explosion of drug taking in prisons in recent years. Often female prison officers are found to have smuggled drugs (and more) into prisons, secreted... erm... in their nether regions.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
This reads gynocentrically.
"violently hyper-masculine"
you mean male criminals?
Why must they be "violently hyper-masculine"?
What is the purpose of such misandric buzzword language?
Women like masculine men. Big whoop. Bank robbers and firemen are both masculine.
But what is this "hyper violent masculinity" that everyone keeps talking about?
Yes, I mean the particular forms of violence that male criminality tends to take. There is hyper-masculinity (not a bad thing) and violent hyper-masculinity (also not necessarily a bad thing; think of Jack Reacher from the books and films by Lee Child). Some violent hyper-masculinity, however, is obviously socially deleterious.