175 Comments

The scariest part of this story is that the "experts" assigned to deal with these problems - the sociologist and police chief - are not only ineffective, but outright harmful given their prioritization of politics over public safety and educating the masses.

Praise to you Janice, for your willingness and ability to expose these incompetents.

P.S. Who are the MRAs that believed the radical feminist manifesto?

Expand full comment

A few of my friends accepted it, I suppose not seeing that it was debunked. I'd rather not say who--not that there is anything shameful in having been deceived. I saw some feminists laughing about it, but it seemed to me perfectly reasonable to accept such a manifesto. We've certainly seen plenty of them before (Solanas, Gearhart, Daly, Eltahawy, Mary Anne Franks, etc.)

Expand full comment

It just shows their sick twisted way of dealing with such a terrible tragedy to make MRA's or any one who goes against their narrative look silly when actually it just exposes them for the childish,heartless,self serving individuals they are to do this while families have lost loved ones and are greiving

Expand full comment

It is a fair mistake to make given all the women you cited. Besides, feminists blame misogyny for everything at all times, so a few MRAs are entitled to react likewise in a case like this.

Expand full comment

Utterly agreed.

Expand full comment

Both Pearl, and Steven Crowder showed her posts that read a lot like what you read, except they also said she invoked someone called RADFEM/HITLER who then took down her site after the shooting. She said something about MEN are irredeemable" So how do we know that was debunked but not the other parts? Whether she was radicalized or simply affected by feminism does it make a difference? Whether she was transgender or just a tom boy (my take) would her feelings of disorientation be any different?

Expand full comment

You're correct, Joseph, that it's hard to know what is authentic. I relied upon the (still unverified, to my knowledge) 'manifesto' posted by Anna Slatz, who goes by Pagliacci the hated, on X. Slatz said that she got the manifesto from the shooter's friend or boyfriend. The shooter had posted the manifesto to a social media site, but made it password protected by mistake (there have been some jokes about that going around).

That manifesto doesn't have anything in particular about men, and the shooter seems to have, like other shooters, admired young guys like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (the Columbine murderers).

That she did not write a feminist manifesto does not in any way diminish the fact that hatred of male persons and idolization of female persons is one of the dominant facts of our society.

RadfemHitler is an extraordinarily (though quite ordinary) hateful feminist on X who posted continually about how men are scum and how, in the ideal society, women would run everything and men would be kept in camps to do the labor-intensive work.

She is treated with respect by many, even amongst so-called traditionalists. No man who said such things about women would ever be hosted by mainstream podcasters.

Expand full comment

So many good points. Thank you, Janice, for your incredible objectivity. And I wholeheartedly agree that violence perpetrated by girls is just as significantly wrong and dangerous and should be dealt with in the 'same' way as it is for male perpetrators. Interestingly I feel sorry for this girl. I know it's blasphemy... but that she wanted to die at 15 and take some people with her...it hurts me that she was that tormented that she wanted to die. Most other shooters try to survive? So, they can bask in the infamy? This girl didn't even care about enjoying her martyr status, she wanted to die. While I also feel sorry for anyone who has been bullied (including incels) this one struck a chord with me because this one was a planned public suicide. Ps. I DON'T believe in finding an excuse to scapegoat the parents. He had her in therapy. He had her in a 'Christian' school? He and the ex had an amical joint custody agreement? Parents can't control every nuance of their child's psyche.

Expand full comment

When things are run by political activist, what else can happen but move their agenda forward?

Expand full comment

A lot of our children are growing up by man hating hostile entitled women and who are hell bent in making our men downtrodden, and are succeeding it seems. No wonder our children are growing up not knowing who they are in this world and how they fit in. I blame money & greed - society. One wage by the man of the house was not enough so has thrown our woman into roles which took them away from the home and our children, away from their natural super powers of nurturing, support and caregiving. We see woman hating this role and left bitter, loveless and unsatisfied. Such a shame seeing this happen before my eyes during the 60years of being on Earth. Give me the "Old fashion" way any day. Not sure how we fix this.

Expand full comment

"One wage by the man of the house was not enough so has thrown our woman into roles which took them away from the home and our children"

You've got that backwards. It was the VOLUNTARY mass entry of women into the workforce, pursuing financial independence and career over children and family (aka "female emancipation" and "female empowerment") which killed off the male breadwinner model of society, by driving up the cost of housing. It's simple economics - if you double the pool of available labour, you not only drive down real wages, but you also drive up the cost of housing, by creating the two-income household. That model is baked into the economy now. Business loves it, because it doubles household spending power, and governments love it, because it doubles the pool of taxpayers. The only problem is it drives down the birth rate, but that's easily fixed with mass immigration. Plus of course, promoting single motherhood, despite the impact on children of fatherlessness and poverty. Like you I've witnessed this destruction of society in my own lifetime, and there's no way back.

Expand full comment

I think it was probably a combination of both. Many women, of course, were encouraged to enter the workforce and clamored to do so. Simone De Beauvoir in the early 1950s (upon publication of her French tome in English), and Betty Friedan in the early 1960s told them this was necessary to be fulfilled; otherwise they would live lives of quiet desperation, asking "Is this all there Is?" (according to Friedan, or words to that effect). So women did voluntarily flood in, but once that had begun, many other women had little choice but to do so, and even the ones who 'chose' it did not, perhaps, fully understood what it meant.

Expand full comment

Betty Friedan in the early 1960s told them this was necessary to be fulfilled; otherwise they would live lives of quiet desperation, asking "Is this all there Is?"

Friedan was right at the time. She was talking about the lives of housewives in America's sprawling new suburbs, where postwar electrification and labour saving appliances had reduced their domestic chores to perhaps one hour a day. As the song goes: "Her husband, he's off to work, And the kids are off to school, And there are oh so many ways, For her to spend the day, She could clean the house for hours, Or rearrange the flowers..." Loneliness, isolation, boredom and ennui drove millions of suburban housewives to alcoholism and depression/anxiety disorders, propelling new drug Valium to No.1 selling medication in the US from 1969 to 1982. Friedan dubbed this syndrome "The problem that has no name", and the Stones sang about Valium in Mother's Little Helper: "Mother needs something today to calm her down, And though she's not really ill, there's a little yellow pill..." These women needed to work at least part time, because contrary to what women claim today, housework is NOT a full time job!

Expand full comment

Yes, but not all women ended up in therapy groups, let alone on alcohol or valium. Rich women (including mothers who employed servants) have always been able to avoid boredom (in some ways more able than the men who worked in offices all day to make their wives rich). Long before the economic changes that led to post-war suburbia, these women had devoted themselves energetically to study (either privately or at universities) and community work. They founded settlement houses, became patrons of music and art or found meaning and purpose as missionaries. (I'm ignoring here those women, single or married, who had to find paid employment as teachers, nurses or typists.)

The "problem that had no name" did indeed have a name, but it wasn't misogyny. It was materialism or hedonism. By the time that Friedan wrote about women living in "comfortable concentration camps," both women and men had come to understood value only in terms of money--that is, of financial independence and economic power.

Expand full comment
Jan 2Edited

"Long before the economic changes that led to post-war suburbia, these women had devoted themselves energetically to study (either privately or at universities) and community work."

That's because there were far less employment opportunities for women back then. There's been a massive postwar economic shift in industrialized countries from the primary and secondary sectors to the tertiary or "service sector", a process known as tertiarisation, generating millions of new jobs for women, while eliminating millions of traditionally male jobs, ie. physical/manual labour. As a consequence: "Women are increasingly likely to be the primary breadwinner, financial contributor and head of household, making 85% of day-to-day spending decisions for the family." Of course, as you suggest, they're just as likely to squander their newfound wealth on "materialism or hedonism". It seems more than coincidence that the economic empowerment of women in the West has been accompanied by plummeting birth rates, mass consumption, and a general decline in moral standards in every aspect of Western society and culture.

Expand full comment

Yes, but it's also because "these" women--I'm referring specifically to elite women-- had no need to work for money. Being ladies of leisure was precisely what conferred status on them. (In Britain neither elite women nor elite men earned status by working for money; on the contrary, being "in trade" could undermine their status.)

Poor women have always had to work for subsistence or money. They did so for thousands of years in the fields (alongside their husbands and children) or markets, then in the hazardous mines and factories--until (male) government officials put an end to that in the interest of protecting women (along with children)--and eventually as clerical staff in the offices of modern corporations.

I agree with everything else that you say, Orr. My only point was to place Friedan in historical context.

Expand full comment

Apologies but I never managed to rid myself of a huge crush on Peggy Lee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M

Expand full comment

You need to realize that the government also had a deal in this, in combination with corporate America for exactly the reasons you state. More workers = lower wages = happy corps. More wages = more income tax = happy govt.

It is true like you said that women wanted all the benefits of the trad housewife, without actually being dependent on their husband (and him having a say in how things go). But don't forget the corps and the govt, they are to blame as well.

Expand full comment

Why is there no way back, Orr, given that it is such a dysfunctional social arrangement? And surely we are beginning to see that a low fertility rate is not easily or painlessly fixed by mass immigration. Now NDP leader Jackboot Singh is making important policy statements in interviews in Punjabi. This isn't immigration anymore. This is colonization. (This is not meant to disparage our many fine Sikh immigrants and their Canadian offspring, but Singh is a poor representative of his fellow Sikhs.)

Expand full comment

My statement "that's easily fixed with mass immigration" refers to government solution to declining birth rates. It's not an endorsement of mass immigration by me. As you say, there's a point at which mass immigration becomes invasion/colonization. It's part of the "destruction of society" I mentioned. Indeed, it's the destruction of the white race, which will soon be in minority in the US and UK. There's no way back because no one can turn back history. Not even Trump!

Expand full comment

I'm not sure either, except that good, strong men help A LOT. That's the piece I'm addressing with my books and podcast. I have faith that others are helping go after the other factors.

Expand full comment

100% with you. One parent at home and on separation 5050 access with enforced education on benefits to children, therapy and mediation before taken to family court to cause more angst and adversary which can only be harmful for the children and not "in the child's best interest" as courts claim .. unite the genders and teach BOTH parents how to coparent for a better society

Expand full comment

We can fix it by stopping pretending the government, schools, academia, and the Media are legitimate. They are activists in power. They brag about destroying children's innocence through sexualization, destroying the family, and warping children's minds to bring in a communist utopia.

Expand full comment

There will be more of these shootings by females. Feminism and the sick culture we find ourselves living in today has utterly screwed with girls’ minds. I have teenage children, boys and girls. I look at their peer group. I’ve never seen a more unhappy, anxious, opinionated bunch of kids in my life. They’re not all like this, I know, but - sorry - some are.

I’ve homeschooled my own children and kept them off social media as much as I can. I take an interest in what they’re up to and who their friends are. Simple stuff. It’s not brain surgery. My one piece of advice - never, under any circumstances, give a young kid a smartphone. It’s a recipe for disaster.

A few girls seem stuck in a dilemma - either over-sexualise yourself as an Only Fans content creator or reject the overtly sexual role and flock to the trans/lunatic cult. I tutor a number of girls and have seen them struggling with their self-identity and how to find a place in society. Throw the usual teenage non-specific anger, angst, a bad home life and access to guns into the mix, and it’s not a good outcome. I recall the Cleveland Elementary School shootings by 16 year old Brenda Spencer - the subject of the Boomtown Rats’ song ‘I Don’t Like Mondays’, back in 1979. So girls have always been well capable of this stuff. Spencer is still in jail for the shootings.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this. I agree about the smartphone. A friend of mine who has children aged 20 and nearly 15 maintains that they changed irrevocably when their mother got them phones. They used to read a great deal, had a rich interior life, and were capable of sustained concentration; all of that changed for the worse after the introduction of the screens. His daughter in particular has become a different person and very 'woke.'

I wish you all the best as you raise your kids. It sounds like you have your head on right.

Expand full comment

Thank you so much, really appreciate your kind words.

So interesting to read how your friend’s kids fared with smartphones. Unfortunately that’s so often how it goes. The phone becomes their whole world. Typically, parents will find their kids don’t read books as much (if at all) and just don’t engage. Attention spans drop. As a tutor I’ve found many kids’ general knowledge to be pretty poor (compared to what you’d have found in kids growing up in the 80s, as I did).

I honestly think these phones have been a disaster for us. But they’re not going away. Parents have to be prepared to be unpopular with their kids and put some restrictions in place. Just parent basically.

If they don’t, they’ll find the state stepping in to do it for them. I’m in Australia and the government here passed a ban on under-16s using social media platforms, beginning in 2025. During Parliamentary debate, the Labor government admitted that the only way they’ll be able to police the age of social media users is by everyone uploading a Digital ID. They’ll also enforce it with facial recognition technology, which many people have already, unwittingly, signed up for via their smartphones. So the law will actually be all about over-16s. When the Australian government passed the under-16s ban, they said they did so because parents were crying out for help as they couldn’t control their kids’ smartphone use….

Expand full comment

Crocodile-ORWELL-Dundee goes to Canberra. There's nothing new under the Aussie sun.

Expand full comment

Interesting analysis. Similar to what Abigail Shrier has said with respect to social media. It's pretty clear that the trans epidemic among young girls is a social contagion that has spread on social media.

Expand full comment

It absolutely has, especially via TikTok. The trans cult have active recruiters on social media, seeking out the lonely and vulnerable. There’s a high correlation between autism and gender dysphoria amongst these kids. They already feel at odds with society and the expectations they perceive placed upon them. Changing their gender is presented as a solution - when, of course, it’s just a whole other set of problems.

An old student of mine transitioned (female to male) a couple of years’ ago but is now saying it was all a big mistake and is seeking to detransition. The tragedy is that she was ever allowed to do this to herself in the first place. But when they’re under the spell of this madness, there’s little anyone can do to stop them and, of course, they’re fully supported by their new online family, the medical professionals and every institution in society. They’re told to get rid of their birth name (their dead name) and their birth family. It’s grim beyond words.

Expand full comment

That's depressing.

Expand full comment

The lonely and vulnerable, and the insecure ones as well as every other woman that has every existed that craved attention and validation. And the feminazies and the other agents of the devil will give them plenty of that, sometimes even donate money to fund the transition process or other medical bills. The virtue signalling, the idea and the feeling that you are "right" and everyone else is "wrong", that you're fighting a good cause and helping other people by transitioning yourself, etc,etc,etc. It reminds me an awful lot of what Janice wrote about when she was younger and a feminist herself. Feminism and this trans shit offers women an alternative explanation of how the world works (practical psychology) and what to do about it. It of course does not actually inform its victims that there are other explanations out there that are better, there is of course, only "the one" that does it all...

Expand full comment

Feminism has poisoned the well for men, women and children. I honestly think it’s been a disaster for the human race.

Expand full comment

It’s one of the sadder elements of our age.

Expand full comment

Wow, a Boomtown Rats reference. That takes me back. I didn't know that song was inspired by BS. While males have the numbers when it comes to violence, I agree that violence (which comes in different forms) is not only committed by males.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. We know there’s a hidden epidemic of female domestic violence against men in the home - something that’s finally being addressed by the government here in Australia thanks to the tireless work of men’s rights advocate Bettina Arndt and others (Arndt has an excellent Substack).

Yes, the Boomtown Rats’ song was a huge hit in Britain, where I grew up. I only heard about the shootings via the song. Spencer is really a prototype case for school shootings - I’m surprised the case wasn’t studied more. Acquaintances talked of how Spencer had spoken of ‘doing something big to get on television’, expressed constant hostility to police (calling them ‘pigs’) and authority in general, and had a very neglectful home life. She would go on to accuse the parents of sexual abuse. The family home was filthy, strewn with beer bottles and she slept on a dirty mattress. Spencer had asked her father for a gun for Christmas 1978, which he duly gave her. When asked why she thought he did that, she replied “He bought the rifle so I would kill myself”.

Expand full comment

Did you go to the Presumption of innocence conference in Sydney Bettina organised with the science group who's name I have sadly forgotten. It was great . Also every year for last 3 years large group of us have gathered on International Mens day 19th of November to raise awareness of the nearly 2500 men and boys who suicide in Australia each year (80%, men going up each year, women going down). We lay a display to draw attention to this gendered issue and are often ignored while media and politicians have forced gendered Violence on our country were men are excluded from even being accepted they can be victim's of this type of violence due to the sad deaths of 50 women a year.

Expand full comment

Bravo!

Expand full comment

Sadly I didn’t make it to the Sydney event. I’m in Melbourne (the epicentre of the feminist industrial complex in Australia) and I’ve been having treatment for a brain tumour this year, which has made travelling inter-state too difficult. But I’ve a friend from Victoria who travelled up for the event - it was hugely successful by all accounts and will be the catalyst for others. I was very interested to see that Ian Jones was a speaker (father of Dan who was imprisoned for 5 months as a result of entirely false allegations by his former fiancé Sara Jane Parkinson). That case was groundbreaking, in being one of only a few cases in which a woman was punished with a prison sentence for making false allegations. What an amazing father Ian is.

It sounds like you are doing God’s work with your activism. I’m the mother of sons and the anti-men bias in the legal and family court system here has to change for all our sakes. Thank you so much for everything you do 🙏

Expand full comment

You are such a good thinking woman with a pretty "Lady of Shalott" mind. And part of that mind has a tumour!!! That sucks big time. I love the tune and images at your website. Thanks for them. And Happy New Year.

Expand full comment

Thank you kindly sir! Honestly, that means a great deal. Much love to you and yours and here’s hoping for a better 2025. Probably best to fasten your seatbelt 🙏

Expand full comment

I wouldn’t say “hidden.” It’s deliberately ignoring reality.

Expand full comment

Sadly I’ve known two men that have hidden it, for fear of their wives taking the children. There’s a lot hidden in middle-class Australia. It really is still about keeping up appearances in some of the suburbs here. Lot of shame too about admitting to this stuff for men. Although Australia is utterly woke there’s still a pretence of it being a macho culture; crap like the over-importance placed on Australian Rules Football, cricket etc - a bad joke really….

Expand full comment

I was mesmerized by the song when I heard it because it was so unique to me a the time. I can definitely see why it was a huge hit in Britain. Why I never knew what you wrote, that the school shooting was associated with the song, is puzzling to me.

That home life she suffered would certainly drive a child to deep depression, anger or rage. That's really sad what she said as to why her dad bought her a gun. If a child feels that, they will feel they have nothing to lose.

It sounds like she was crying out for help and finally decided to punish others for her suffering, not knowing there might be a better way to get relief. You informed me a lot from this comment. Thank you. :)

Expand full comment

Most welcome, I went and read up on her after the recent shooting and the media pearl clutching surrounding the shooter being a girl. You’re right, it’s a really sad case. When she was first in custody, the authorities did some testing on her and found an injury to one of the frontal lobes of her brain. Arguably, if she’d had better legal representation, she could have gone for ‘diminished responsibility’ due to neurological damage, but it was a different time and place I guess.

An awful detail of the case for her victims and their families, is that a psychiatric evaluation in 1978 had recommended Spencer be admitted to a mental hospital. Her father refused to admit her, she got given the rifle for Christmas and went on to perpetrate the mass shooting on Monday 29th January 1979. Terrible.

Expand full comment

Definitely a different time and place yet what you discovered - an injury to one of the frontal lobes of her brain - is no surprise, when you consider her violent behavior. I presume that was from trauma. Or is that possibly due to genetics? Regardless, it's important. Of course it doesn't excuse anything.

That an evaluation identified her as being in need and her dad saying "no," likely for the wrong reasons, is another case of people blowing it when harm had a high probability of being prevented. Dad was not the stable, loving caregiver his daughter badly needed and worse, he was an awful human being. His daughter's brain breaking is no surprise. Agree with you, it's "terrible." Morally criminal.

Expand full comment

Absolutely terrible - the fact that the shooting was preventable must haunt the families of the victims to this day. At the time, the frontal lobe damage was attributed to a fall from a bicycle. However, you and I know what a good defence attorney would do with that evidence today, given the dreadful home life and the allegations of sexual abuse. She was also found to have undiagnosed epilepsy whilst in prison.

Spencer would walk, after some time in a mental facility and, no doubt, write a book on her dreadful childhood. Followed by a series on Netflix, true crime podcasts, and on and on. I read that she has repeatedly been refused parole due to concerns about her mental health. She was eligible for parole 25 years after her sentencing. Terrible story all round.

Expand full comment

I'm hearing you

Expand full comment

I’m sure it is comforting to the loved ones of victims killed by female mass shooters that the rage and violence that led to their demise was bathed in righteousness rather than “toxic masculinity.” Thanks, feminism!

Expand full comment

Yes, indeed.

Expand full comment

Remember: when a bad thing is mostly done by men, such as violent crime, we may refer to it as "male activity". However, when a good thing is mostly done by men, such as winning a Nobel Prize, do not dare refer to IT as a "male activity".

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing! A school shooting is a hate crime...and let's be honest...no one hates better than teenage girls and feminist women.

For the record, my brother in law's father was injured when he responded to a school shooting in California years ago while serving as an active duty police officer. The shooter killed 2 adults and injured many students. To this day, California officials keep trying to release this "misunderstood" WOMAN who has never shown regret for her actions and has in fact reiterated her desire to finish the job.

Feminists complain that the "contributions" of women are not given enough attention in society. Personally, I think we should do everything in our power to show case and highlight to true ugliness of which women are capable...and this should be done at every event where we attempt to put down men...or laud and "celebrate" women.

Expand full comment

“I wish people would kind of leave their own personal biases out of this”, said Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes, not leaving his own personal bias out of this.

Expand full comment

Yup. Police chief is DEI and there are plenty of police who tow the feminist line anyway.

Expand full comment

The second, third and fourth wave of feminism have all been characterized by disrespect, outright contempt and extreme hatred of all men. So it would be plausible and reasonable that feminism would be the root cause of female school shooters. Indeed more women abuse and kill their own children then men, and yes this includes abortion, leaving female school shooters as the next logical progression of violence towards men.

Expand full comment

Single mothers account for almost all physical abuse of children, including killings. Their boyfriends account for all sexual abuse. Biological fathers account for a miniscule proportion of both, yet that is blown out of all proportion by the media. Worse, feminist social workers and family court judges insist on forcibly removing fathers, not mothers. Is this just good for business? (See www.stephenbaskerville.com.)

Expand full comment

Thank you, Stephen. This kind of research needs to be made much more widely known.

Expand full comment

It is possible that I was wrong about sexual abuse being perpetrated entirely by mothers' paramours. A friend points to research indicating that this too may be attributable to the mothers themselves. I have not seen the latest research on this. If true, that only strenthens the larger point. I owe this reference to Mike Buchanan: https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/c8af6-221128-j4mb-manifesto-3.pdf

Expand full comment

Mothers perpetrate MORE than TWICE as many child murders as MEN.

Source: John Davis International defense lawyer (Gender studies for MEN)

I will show you his graph in my notes. Ps. He also has a graph that shows wo-MEN as being the main child molesters.

Expand full comment

"The second, third and fourth wave of feminism have all been characterized by disrespect, outright contempt and extreme hatred of all men. "

Worse than that, it promotes a narrative that men hate women, and that women have no effective power or agency in society to protect themselves against men's hated of women (misogyny/ patriarchal oppression).

Through the feminist lens a woman's actions against men (from nasty slurs to full on violence) are therefore 1) justified self defence and 2) unlikely to have any effect anyway due to men's supreme power and lack of vulnerability.

I think a lot of feminist activists (or abusive partners) are genuinely surprised when their aggressive and violent behaviour ends up hurting men for real.

Expand full comment

"a lot of feminist activists are genuinely surprised when their aggressive and violent behaviour ends up hurting men for real." Are the activists introspective and surprised? I wonder what feminist activists feel emotionally, and think intellectually, when they destroy a man's professional life, with no due process or court of law. Feminists claims the man has so much "power" that despite not doing anything harmful, he intimidated the woman and he could have harmed her due to his enormous political power. But, once the feminists banish him, the claim of his power falls apart. Also, the punishment is so obviously disproportionate. Are feminists "surprised", and do they realize the tragedy they caused - for all parties?

Expand full comment

Well I think some of the younger, more naive ones (the true believers) really are shocked when they hurt men. But not so much the cold and calculating ones though.

But denying your own agency is addictive and it soon becomes necessary to cover up your crimes (or just trail of destruction). The path of feminism really does lead to the dark side! A lot of academic feminists have that vibe about them.

A Gollum analogy works just as well too. Feminism is like the ring which makes you not accountable whenever you put it on!

Expand full comment

The 'first wave was just as evil

Expand full comment

Indeed. It was all there in the first wave: the desire to dissolve the family unit, the celebration of female sexuality and the demonization of male sexuality, the excusing of female violence, and the excoriation of male sacrifice and society-building.

Expand full comment

A lot of these quotes remind me of a study I saw on the Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Substack recently about Gamma Bias and how the usage of active and passive voice in our culture implicitly reinforces the assumption of Patriarchy: men are more often described with active voice, having agency and taking actions on their own initiative (even, and especially, evil actions are assumed to be motivated by bad character), whereas women are more often described with passive voice, the object of external forces, more helplessly reactive than deliberately active, their evil no more than a reflection of the evils around and upon them, their motivation purely situational. In short, the way the overwhelmingly Left-leaning mainstream media and academia (especially the social sciences) tend to talk about women v men inherently reinforces the idea that men have agency (internal locus of control) and women do not (external locus of control).

Not coincidentally, this lines up well with other studies showing that a perception of external locus of control is commonly associated with worse mental health and women tend to report both higher perceptions of external locus of control and worse mental health than their male peers.

Should we be surprised then that even in the taking of such a supremely selfish and self-destructive act, one radically contrary to almost all the actual external norms and pressures of society, the shooter still nonetheless apparently sees herself as the helpless victim of society rather than as someone actively choosing to victimize helpless members of society? There's a dark irony that even in the midst of making the most extreme use of agency imaginable, killing others and herself in complete rejection of society, she still apparently couldn't see or acknowledge that she had any agency.

Expand full comment

Interesting, elegantly said.

Expand full comment

I agree with everything you said i.e... w0e-MEN not being held to agency and the egregious double standards in reporting and how law enforcement minimizes fe-MALE violence. However, this girl shooter was indeed a victim of bullies... in TWO different schools. She was victimized by MEAN GIRLS... she even describes having panic attacks, lying on the floor, and not being able to breathe and having hallucinations and things getting bigger in the room when I was little" and her mother walking right past her after yelling for help. This was "when I was little" (she was only 15) and She had already been traumatized by bullies' years prior to the point of "wanting to shoot myself for a long time" She even said, "I was afraid of the other students" She also felt that her parents favored their other children from other marriages. I saw the hopeless look of despair in this girl's eyes, and she looked dead even before she was. I FEEL SORRY FOR HER. She was indeed a victim that was failed by society. I googled the FAKE Christian school she shot up and to be truthful, they reminded me of Beverly Hills 90210 MEAN GIRLS. A Christian school is supposed to teach Christ. Instead, I saw cliquish girls in ass high shorts who bullied a girl who didn't fit in. I pray that God forgive her. I do see some KARMA in this.

Expand full comment

Wow. Thanks for this.

Expand full comment

Speaking from in experience attending multiple Christian schools, there are two kinds of kids you tend to find in Christian schools:

1) Actual Christians.

2) Non-Christian trouble-makers whose parents sent them there hoping that the good kids would be a positive influence on them.

Sadly, "Bad company corrupts good morals" tends to be the outcome far more often than good company redeeming troubled youth.

Expand full comment

Thanks Janice, very insightful as always.

In the UK up to two women a week are killed by male partners or ex-partners. Rather fewer men are killed by female partners or ex-partners, which leads to relentless repetition of the "two women a week" statistic and the assertion that males are simply more violent than females.

In newspapers' comments sections I point out that this means male-on-female murder is very rare, sometimes I point out that for every such woman killed, women kill 2,000+ unborn children in the UK. The former are seen as the ultimate violent acts, leading to long prison sentences, the latter aren't seen as violent acts and are enabled and funded by taxpayers (mainly men).

Mike Buchanan

JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk

CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk

LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com

Expand full comment

Thanks, Mike. Since so many people don't like to think about abortion at all, I would also be interested in a campaign to stop 'mother violence against children' that would tell us how many babies and children under 5 are killed by women every week. I tried to do the math for the situation in the US (of course with a much larger population than the UK--and it was VERY DIFFICULT to find the numbers, especially broken down by sex of the perpetrator), and I calculated that a child under one year old is killed by a woman every 1.7 days in America, mostly by the mother. That's a statistic one never hears about.

Expand full comment

Thanks Janice, great idea.

Expand full comment

Great piece Janice. The incredibly strong and silent force of gynocentrism keeps us from holding women accountable. Even teen age girls who are sometimes ruthless and vengeful. If we are going to change this we will have to address the gynocentric default that shapes our world. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon....

Expand full comment

At some point men have to stand up to feminist women and reclaim their natural place as leaders in the social hierarchy, beginning with, and most importantly, the family household. As helpful as women like Janice, or more conservative women like Megyn Kelly are, we men have to fight this battle and win it. So there's an opportunity for the young men of today to become the heroes of tomorrow. Go to law school, get into politics, write, podcast, and work to restore the patriarchal order which is and has been the winning formula for peace and prosperity going back at least as far as the Old Testament..

Expand full comment

Absolutely. Women cannot lead the men's movement, though we can affirm and encourage men's anti-feminism. That's why I think one of the most important institutions we need to rebuild are male-only schools and universities. We need to form and educate boys and men in an atmosphere where they will not be shamed and browbeaten by feminist harridans, and can learn without the multiple distractions and belittling of girl culture.

Expand full comment

Agree back. I think in particular we need to restore all-male military academies and trade schools.

Expand full comment

You should join an all male drag show and learn how to subvert something before attempting to reinvent the wheel.

Expand full comment

Wrong! Absolutely not. Women may lead a man's movement, provided that it is an actual army. Men are perfectly willing to follow an intelligent, or courageous actual feminine-ist, like Joan of Arc or Queen Elizabeth I (or even Liz II). You women need to learn how to throw stones (preferably from a lengthy distance) at both violent feminists and violent transwomen --- or just keep talking against "the nasty girls" if actual "fisticuffs" are not your thing.

Happy New Year Janice. I heard you playing piano to accompany your husband. I liked your chords better than his vocal cords. [Said a "snob" KB]

Expand full comment

Speak for yourself with your sophomoric simping. Lay off the booze as well.

Expand full comment

Who else would I speak for other than myself --- you mental genius you? Tell the truth --- you never reached sophomore in College --- er High School? Don't fib with your genius reply.

Expand full comment

Men do not have to "stand up to feminist women", or women of any variety. Ladies like Ms. Fiamengo, Bettina Arndt, Posie Parker and the onion lady (Shalott; Lady thereof) with a brain tumour, are more than adequate for that role. The job of men is to stand up against men who use such "feminists" as their crutches, sycophants and supporters against "real men" and "leaders" such as yourself.

When are men going to teach other men how to be intelligent followers (because in order to be an actual leader you have to, first, learn how to be a follower) of good men with good characters?

On 2nd thought --- that's already been done. Just not much lately.

Expand full comment

Why do you cuck to feminist terms like Ms.? If you were truly committed to the MRA/ RED PILL/ cause you would know that Ms. is short for Mistress and was coined by Gloria Steinem cohort Shelia Michaels

Expand full comment

Whoa! You don't like feminist nouns. Nor English as a first language. What the hell is MRA ---moron republican ameriken? What've you got against Gloria Steinem? She was great when she was a Playboy Bunny. She simply got "goofy" when she became woke. Get a life. Your name is Jose and you have a burrito for a brain, although your burrito seems to love feminist history. I get it. You are a fake girl pretending to be a macho MRA [mentally retarded American].

Expand full comment

One only has to look back at the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Many of the female prison guards were the absolute worst in their treatment of prisoners.

Expand full comment

Moreover, the Nazi movement was wildly popular among women--and not only German women. Unity Mitford was by no means the only woman who fell in love with him. Many middle-class German women, who had been reduced to poverty and prostitution in the aftermath of World War I, wanted nothing more than the security of "strong" men who would protect them from sinister aliens by failing to protect the national honor (including that of women specifically) by prevailing in wartime. For them, national socialism would restore, no matter how brutally, what they considered the natural order of society.

Expand full comment

Don't go to the NAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!!! slur you dumb ass..... Basic bitch feminsist move. Can't believe how pathetic my own side is or how naive they are.

Expand full comment

But in the 1940s they didn’t blame crimes against humanity by women on “toxic masculinity.” They made them accountable for their actions in open court. Then hanged them.

Expand full comment

There was a study that showed women get less harsh sentences for crimes then men.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Janice. Hidden psychological distress affects many people regardless of gender. Females often employ psychological weapons, such as ostracizing others and exaggerating victimhood, rather than physical violence.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this searching and detailed essay, Janice, and especially for its historical perspective. Just as the media cannot write about men without talking about the women men displease (the real area of interest), the media seem unable to talk about girl violence without pointing out what’s wrong with boys (again, the real area of interest). Boys are violent, we are told, because males are violent. Girls are violent because society is sick, cruel, and competitive.

Media and feminists don’t want to explore problems like this if they fear that the results might upset their foundational tenets. We have the sterling example of Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy (LA Children’s Hospital), who headed (i.e., lived off of, for nine years) a $10 million study of trans health care for children. Last October she refused to published the results because they could, I believe she said, be “weaponized” by opponents of trans health care for children. She destroyed her credibility as a researcher by telling the world that she is afraid of knowledge. She is the very model of a modern major feminist. Others like her do not want to look into girl violence because doing so might complicate the neat paradigm that circumscribes the most sophisticated feminist thought, i.e., female good, male bad. All conclusions must fall into one of those categories. And I thought that men were the ones who wanted everything in black and white!

Expand full comment

It was a strange response for a police chief, in which he admitted that he didn’t know if transgender identity was relevant but rebuked anyone who asked if it was.....

It's also notable that even as he denied that gender identity was a factor in the murders, Chief Barnes was careful to use a variety of pronouns in referring to the dead shooter, as if to show respect for her possible preference. Why so much deference? It’s impossible to imagine, in a different context, Chief Barnes rebuking anyone who asked if a shooter was a men’s rights advocate, or going out of his way to affirm the legitimacy of anti-feminist ideology. Even concerning hypotheticals, then, only permissible thoughts are to be entertained....

Still, it is striking to see it spelled out that boys kill people at least partially because there is something in their masculine nature that makes them prone to it, while girls kill because they are victims of bullying, isolation, and social media."

Dare on say ....media bias?!!!

"We should stop excusing some atrocities based on the sex of the perpetrator, finally admitting that in their capacity to do terrible and cruel things, girls and women are not categorically different, or more innocent, than boys and men."

WORD!!

Expand full comment

I also don't see anyone address that these teenage girls with plenty of rage are also taking a testosterone which makes them feel very brave and very aggressive!

Expand full comment

Doesn't always have to be the evil "testy" that is to blame. Plenty of feminists already to that. It can just be from genetically modified food or the (birth control) pill. That pill has been known to do more then just prevent women from getting pregnant. This could have amplified her already heightened emotions or introduced more extreme emotional swings from one state to the other. Not saying that it is purely that sort of stuff but I haven't read any information or correlation between female school shooters and our good friend the test.

Expand full comment

I do think there's a linkage between fe-MALE violence and testosterone. I believe most violent girls indeed have high testosterone levels i.e tom boys and they suffer like boys in some ways. This is why there's so much domestic violence amongst lesbians.

Expand full comment

Very important to point out that a LOT of violent girls have high testosterone levels anyway which is why they suffer like boys in some ways.

Expand full comment