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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Let's at least start with a name change.
International Gynocentrism Day, and an official slogan - 'Poor me, Awesome me.'
' ... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.