102 Comments

Couldn't agree with you more.

It is such a load of crap. I live in a small community that stages this event in the local town hall each year. I just might go stand there with a sign in silent protest of the nonsense.

Expand full comment
author

Take some friends with you! I wouldn't do it alone.

Expand full comment

True. But while I was able to do so to protest the covid mandates, I sense I'll have a harder time convincing other women that this also is something needing public pushback.

Expand full comment

... and some good defences against pitchforks!

Expand full comment

Bravo Janice. It was a joy reading this. I loved this line:

Indications of anti-male animus, now an all-too common currency in our elite and public cultures, should become as unacceptable as statements of anti-Semitism and anti-black racism.

I do dream of that day.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I'm not too sure about the speech limitations. Does unacceptable mean it should be illegal? Huge issues about so called hate speech going on right now.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, I'm willing to say that a woman like Professor of Sociology Suzanna Walters who writes an article called "Why Can't We Hate Men?" should have been fired from her job. I don't see how she can teach and oversee male students (and vote on male colleagues' tenure applications) when she has made it clear that she despise them simply for being male.

Of course, there are many subtler forms of such hatred, and I realize that policing hate speech is a slippery slope.

Expand full comment
founding
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Yes, you are right. Freedom of speech is under threat. The censors deserve a lot of pushback. As far as anti-male speech is concerned, decency and consideration should rule it out. This same problem arises in opposing antisemitic speech.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Let's at least start with a name change.

International Gynocentrism Day, and an official slogan - 'Poor me, Awesome me.'

Expand full comment
author

"Poor me, Awesome me" is exactly it, thank you.

Expand full comment

Gynomania rather than gynocentrism?

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I'm a gynomaniac - but with deep reservations

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Or perhaps: 'Women's Superiority Day'.

Expand full comment

' ... the IWD website announces “sadly” that “Gender parity won’t be attained for well over a century.” '

No danger of the gravy train hitting the buffers any time soon then.

Expand full comment
author

Exactly. The gravy train must go on forever. After every article, whether about women's gains or women's continued difficulties, the mantra is always there: More must be done for them.

Expand full comment

They have a point, though. I don't think there's much chance that 50% of garbage collectors, sewage treatment workers, ditch diggers, or road pavers will be women any time soon.

Expand full comment

I think about this more and more the older I get. I was in China in the 1980's. I remember the road construction workers were women and the supervisor was a man.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Excellent, as usual Janice. I really like your suggestion at the end, a mutual celebration of the genders towards each other would be better. What is missing in your idea is the word 'Family'. This should be the theme of any such day on the calendar. Men, women, and children celebrating as dads, moms, and children. I mention family because it is the Family the Marxists are targeting for destruction with concepts like Feminism and IWD. Destroy the men, especially the father, and you destroy the family. Then it becomes dependent on the state. Marxist mission accomplished.

Expand full comment
author

I agree that family should be celebrated, and I have no problem saying that men and women primarily exist to create, nurture, and protect families. Not that my proposal has a squirrel's chance of coming to pass, but I would say that celebration of family would be a part of International Men and Women's Day though not to the exclusion of those without children who still wanted to celebrate amity between men and women.

Expand full comment

Yes, that makes sense. So, yes, it probably has a squirrel's chance of coming to pass.

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

The UNs “International Women's Day” (IWD) was celebrated on 8 March 2023,

The UNs “International Day of Families" will be celebrated on 15 May 2023.

The UNs “World Children's Day” will be celebrated on 20 November 2023

The UNs “World Girls’ Day” will be celebrated on 11 October 2023

The “International Boys' Day” is not a “special day” declared by the UN. The UN will not recognize boys as the woke puppeteers controlling the UN claim it would be misogynistic and patriarchal to celebrate Boys. On 16 May 2023 the “International Day of the Boy Child” will be observed

The “International Men's Day (IMD)” is not a “special day” declared by the UN. The UN will not recognize Men as the woke puppeteers controlling the UN claim it would be misogynistic and patriarchal to celebrate Boys. On 19 November 2023 the “IMD” will be observed.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you for this.

Expand full comment

Exactly. Beneath every item in the leftist agenda is a subtext message:

'Destroy the system so that leftists can replace it with totalitarianism.'

We would be foolish to believe that what has happened in so many other nations could not happen here.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

The Marxist origins of the "day" are a reminder of the Marxist (or Engelsist) roots of 20th Century incarnations of feminism. In a real sense it is a set of heresies of Marxism wherein "women" become a socio economic "class". Now of course the obvious problem with this is that women could be monarchs, aristocrats, bourgeois, laborers, factory workers, servants, peasants and even slaves. Even at late as the 70s many feminists still argued that upending sexual norms would push along the revolution. The real value of this has become that the dominant strain of modern feminism has become a cover for very privileged women to argue for more for themselves, by invoking the experiences of their "sisters" often in the third world or at least the poorer parts of their wealthy countries. It is interesting how this is often both recognised by feminists and also skirted round. A good example is the recent exellent interview Mary Harrington gave to "Triggernometry". In it she argues feminist has become simply what upper middle class women want to make their selfishness seem virtuous. She even says she is a "class traitor". Yet in her interview one can see though she can see the areas where "working class" men are left behind and yet still provide the essential work of modern society (and the wealth) yet its difficult for her to imagine a world where those men might be celebrated. One will no doubt see this played out in IWD. Celebrations of the successes of women in media, popular entertainment, fashion, politics the Law and as CEOs combined with tales of sexual exploitation in Tea Plantations in India, Domestic Abuse in the Barios of South America, schoolgirls in Iran or Afghanistan or victims of "county lines" drugs gangs in the "sink estates" of post industrial England. Its a neat trick to live such comfortable and privileged lives and claim to be the same as some of the poorest folk on the planet.

Expand full comment
author

Excellent analysis, thank you, Nigel. I have been meaning to watch the Mary Harrington interview. I don't believe any woman who still calls herself a feminist can possibly be truly male-positive, even the best of them. They may have excellent critiques of feminism, but they still see men primarily as protectors of women, and they're not willing to forfeit a single female privilege.

Expand full comment

I saw Mary Harrington being interviewed on Triggernometry. She even admitted that she can understand the rage of incels - though disapproving of postion. At least that's a start. I don't understand how someone who goes against such feminist doctine can be considered a feminist. I think the word is losing all meaning. There's also a recent book by Louise Perry, subtitled 'The Feminist Case for Marriage'. I think arch-feminist Julie Bindel would have some issues with that: to quote her 'Marriage is a Bad Deal for women.'

It won't be long before we'll see a book titled 'Male Superiority: the feminist case for inequality.' Where the author goes on a publicity tour for her controversial rethink of feminism, and how recent history has failed women. As long as the 'f' word is in the title and if she can put together an argument that she is 'saving women' then she can call herself a feminist.

What does Louise Perry think of 20th century feminists who railled against marriage? Did they fail women? Harm them? Does that make them not feminists, or just misguided ones with good intentions but bad ideas? All you need is the right attitude: you don't have to make sense or do good, is that it? It is becoming a belief system of no beliefs but just the right intentions.

Expand full comment
author

Well said. I have watched the first 15 minutes of the Harrington Triggernometry interview. She defined feminism, I think, as 'Whatever a woman does.' I wasn't sure about her claim that the history of 19th century feminist debates centered on the contrast between women who prioritized care-giving and women who prioritized freedom and being able to choose male professions. In my understanding, the women who prioritized care-giving were not feminists at all. Once again, we get into the problems of terminology you've just outlined.

It is probably accurate to define 'feminist' simply as 'somebody's idea of the best deal for women.' Whether it really is the best deal is a matter of debate, but so long as women, rather than men and women together, are at the center, then it's of interest as feminist.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

If you do manage to watch it, we would to see a review by you of her ideas. I thought of what she said was pretty good, and one thing I noted, which I am starting to notice in real life (a bit) is the pushback from some women against the pill. I am personally starting to think the pill is actually bad for everybody, in the long run.

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I remember being strangely unattracted to a girlfriend after she went on the pill. Mary Harrington explained the reason very well.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

That Mary Harrington interview is amazing. I hope Janice sees it.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I watch that interview yesterday. I was also impressed.

Expand full comment

There are hundreds of these International Leftist Days.

1 March - United Nations Zero Discrimination Day

30 August - International Day for People from African Descent

2 February - World Wetlands Day

17 May - International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Lesbophobia and Transphobia

17 October - International Pronoun Day

The list goes on and on. IMHO we should combine them, like we now do President's birthdays, and celebrate all lefitst days on April 1.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Yes, its now out of control. All the insane special interest groups have lobbied for their own 'special' day, its Monty Python level absurd at this point.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Great idea! Let's get rid of them all. An opportunity for the international (UN and their like) and national grifters (promoters of equity) to tell us plebs ( who fund them) how wonderful THEY are.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

It's like the saints days. I'm waiting for a woke book of hours.

Expand full comment
author

Love it.

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023

LOL ~ IMO, April 1 would be very germane & should be labelled something like “International Feminism Day”. Or should that be “International Snowflake Day”?

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Thanks Andrew. What prompted me to recommend it is that Mary Harrington talks about the importance of men only spaces being important for mens' development, and that women play only a minor role in forming men.

I'll read your article right now

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023·edited Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

In a published interview Victoria's Gender Equality Commissioner Niki Vincent said that she had met a lot of dumb males.

She also regurgitated ,

"We all grew up in a Patriarchal world, a world that was designed by men with men's interest in the forefront"

It is clear the indoctrination during her years of tertiary study is complete.

She said, she undertook the Harvard Psychological measure that exposed her own gender bias.

With the heavy emphasis in Academia to train undergrads to view the world through the lens of "how did this woman struggle" and "how did male privilege advantage this man?"

Perhaps more accurately the Harvard Psychological measure is more about recording how effective the indoctrination of undergrads has been.

It is a test for "hidden bias"

https://www.learningforjustice.org/professional-development/test-yourself-for-hidden-bias

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023·edited Mar 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I just undertook one of their tests, and there are two issues.

The first part is that you are trained to respond in a certain manner, so the response you learn is automatic. Then they switch.

Cognitive association, the questions start with the usual gender stereotype, males/science, females/arts. So word association then becomes automatic. Then they switch the categories.

Bit like a word association, have the word orange, but the word is coloured blue. or a picture of a orange, that is coloured blue.

This is the Stroop test, and it measures response time, in dealing with conflicting information for example a picture of an Orange coloured blue. So it measures neuroplasticity.

Our minds are trained from a very young age, if we see the word Brown, and it is coloured blue or red, it causes an association conflict, because we have been conditioned to associate the word brown, with the colour brown, and if we don't get it right, the Stroop test says there is an unconscious bias.

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

The women who complain of being oppressed by white patriarchy are often starry eyed over indigenous culture.

Life for girls and women in Australian indigenous culture wasn't all that good:

- Girl babies killed and eaten in poor seasons, not boys

- Older women were often killed for eating, like livestock

- A woman who was unfaithful was killed and eaten

- Ritual gang rape of girls

- Current Aboriginal customary law allows all kinds of violence against women at mens' discretion

- Girls from age 13 married off to older men

- If women or girls transgress the marriage law tradition decrees they be speared through the leg. Other no less barbaric cruelties are inflicted to keep women under the thumb of tribal patriarchy

- Early explorers noted the amount of bruising and wounds on Aboriginal women and how they were made to do most of the work

And along with inter tribal warfare to genocidal levels, including cannibal raids, it's plain that European settlers were a net boon to the Australian indigenes, especially the women

Are there reports like this for Canada?

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for this, Greg. Life for the Indigenous peoples of Canada was characterized by a short life expectancy and frequent warfare. I know little about pre-contact indigenous women's lives; the media tout the matriarchal nature of some of the cultures, but from what I can tell, violence and deprivation were the common lot of both men and women.

Expand full comment

I wonder if all primitive societies were dominated by violent men, and if so, how on earth did we get to our current feminist ridden society?

Perhaps the Gadfather has something to say on this.

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Same here in New Zealand. Maori people had short brutal lives with ongoing inter tribal warfare. Women were offered in exchange for muskets. The introduction of these weapons caused The Musket Wars and a huge number of people were killed in inter tribal fighting. We have a new history curriculum that omits this event along with cannibalism.

Expand full comment

I think this is mentioned in Nigel Biggar's new book, which defends colonialism from post colonial anti Western historical revisionism. Plenty of cannibalism there, too, along with hunting large flightless birds to extinction. Once Were Moa and People Eaters instead of Once Were Warriors.

Expand full comment

Thanks Greg. I've just been reading an extract from this book which is very informative (and calmly written!)

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

Not bad. There a study from New Zealand showing that women don't pay taxes in a sense that they take more out of the economy, as well as taking it out men's taxes, than they put in it. Almost socialist in nature.

My only disagreement is the emphasis on internationalism. Anything to do with commemorating internationalism, which I abhor. I will argue that some aspect of equality needs to be repudiated.

Expand full comment
author

You're right about the international aspect--best avoided. Individual national or local cultures should be free to shape male-female relations in the manner that works best for their societies.

Expand full comment

Do you have a link?

Expand full comment

I salute you in the ways you call for celebration of amity between women and men as the way forward. Exactly. It's not International Feminism Day but women's day. I'm imagining a new allyship with women that recognizes that both sexes become themselves in the company of the other. Despite the historic battle of the sexes, our separation is a distortion a fundamental love and connection.

I celebrate women on this day and pledge myself as an ally in the restoration of our recognition of each other as our "other half." I welcome and love love love when women see and appreciate women. I stand with them and with the women who've been taken in and seduced by the separative and communist-fomented feminism. They've been duped, just as have the men who bought into the divisive absurdity of one-sex triumphalist feminism. Onward! And thank you!

Expand full comment

I recommend you to watch Mary Harrington on Triggernometry.

Expand full comment

That was excellent Greg, and useful for me. Thanks!

Expand full comment

You're very welcome, Andrew. I need to reread your substack.

Expand full comment

Thanks Greg. I think I saw it go by but didn't watch. Will check it out.

Here's my own "Women's Day" piece, just finished it minutes ago: https://andrewcartermacdonald.substack.com/p/the-alliance-of-women-and-men?sd=pf

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

What also needs to be cancelled is the "Ministry for Women" & the "Minister for Women". The commonwealth and each state in Australia have a Ministry & Minister for Women. There have been calls for a Ministry & Minister for Men which has been meet with shrill outrage from feminists and their woke puppets, decrying such calls as "patriarchal /male privilege" & "misogynistic”. In AU males make up 49.8% of Australia. With support services & funding is invariably weighted towards women, even when they make up a small minority in most spaces.

Just a few AU examples of feminist privilege:

Suicide: 78% of victims are male but females get over 50% of the funding; for every $25 spent on female suicide prevention per female, just $7.15 is spent on male suicide prevention per male.

Cancer: the number of new cases of prostate cancer (which is increasing annually) diagnosed each year is more than the number of cases of breast cancer (which is decreasing annually) diagnosed. The funding for breast cancer research is more than twice that from prostate cancer research as is the funding for post operation support. Each state has its own fleet of “breast screening buses” (mobile screening units for mammograms and other testing) yet no state has any screening busses for prostate cancer (mobile blood test laboratory + possibly ultrasound equipment); the official reason being “that is something between a male and his doctor”.

Domestic violence shelters: there are over 500 shelters in Australia for women and girls “escaping” DV (most don’t let boys 10 to 12 or older stay) compared to just 1 for males “escaping” DV.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for this. Well said.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I as a man will ally with women, as long as we work on issues men and boys face first.

Like 85 men reaching age 65 for very 100 women reaching 65, equality in careers teaching, nursing where men are 10% of the workers.

There’s discrimination and hostility harming men preventing them from becoming teachers and nurses.

A lack of senior male role models , mentors and men focus initiatives in teaching and nursing is harming boys from even getting educated in those careers and no pipeline for men Mens no equality.

Equality and then equity to fix decades of harm against men.

Expand full comment
founding

Janice's refreshing historical perspective shows up the self-regard and self-pity at the heart of this kind of celebration. It's amazing that the needs these people point to invariably relate to women rather than to men. Men have, women need, and international regulators should fix it. End, as they say, of story.

Expand full comment

I really like the last couple of sentences there. You captured the issue so accurately and elegantly.

Expand full comment
Mar 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

I’ve often wondered why so many feminists seem to behave contrary to their female nature and then I leaned about a study that showed many feminists have the male hand pattern. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo

The best strategy is to do what Conor Friedersdorf did in his review of "One Professor’s Case for Hating Men Missed." The review of the book is deftly structured around Aristotle's point that convincing arguments hinge on logos (logic), ethos (ethics) and pathos (appeal to feeling). After demonstrating her bankrupt logic and ethics, we are left with the question of why you feel so strongly about this issue? Hate and anger are uniting, and allow people to feel powerful and morally righteous. The best strategy is to continue asking logical and moral questions. Continued reaction, with vitriol, makes them look like fools. I always go to the age old clip of an unduly angry young woman with fire-engine red hair, speaking from a hateful vantage point. She became fixed in the public imagination as an example of what is so problematic about this perspective.

Both the red head woman, and Suzanna Danuta Walters, rant about the "patriarchy" as if it was an all powerful magical force confounding women at every step. Generally, we relegate ideas that cannot be measures, and tested to thing interesting thought systems (e.g., Marxism, religious systems of thought). In these instances, humanities scholars generally begin by examining the plausibility of their of the view of human nature at the core of their argument. Friedersdorf showed that it was wanting.

Generally, I would argue that we this type of "scholarship" or at least Walter's position has been tolerated and even encouraged because we are empathetic toward individuals' denied opportunities and treated badly. However, when a self-conception of one's position as a victim crosses over to denying moral limits to our actions, the font of sympathy closes. It is the difference between a victim and a terrorist. For example, the Palestinians have had a rough time, but their leadership's historic embrace of terrorism completely erodes the moral high ground of their position. Explaining this to activists on this issue, is near impossible.

The risk that Walters is taking is that she may end up a "meme" like the red headed woman. Worse her work may be a study in the moral decline that leads to hateful ideologies. She may share more in common with bigots, racists and terrorists then she would ever like to entertain. As International women's day is highjacked by this type of thinking, it does so as well.

Expand full comment