Excellent as always Janice and this is a perfect example of a feminized male conversation. No push back, no hard truths, just mealy mouthed banter that results in a "do better" call to men.
Yes, I think so too. When a man like him becomes a popular influencer, he doesn't wish to lose any of his audience, as he fears he will do if he says unsympathetic true things about women and appears to be skeptical of feminism. But that prevents him from speaking honestly about some of the issues he likely sees in the world of men.
It's an open question, true. A friend of mine thinks he probably can't even see it--has had his mind clouded and hemmed around by feminist interdictions.
I had already listened to the interview and wasn’t really pleased or impressed with it but your article now has me thinking I’m not as liberated from the feminist mind virus as I thought I was! I’ve definitely been the nice guy but I’m guessing Chris was mostly just constrained by the ubiquity of feminism’s perpetual victim protection racket
I think you overestimate consciousness as kinda objective mirror of reality. Maybe people are the best in lying to themselves. On the subconscious level they reject unfitting perceptions and may block thoughts in order to "see" on conscious level what they pre- chose. So they might easily have knowledge, insight etc. if they wanted to, but they don't want, so...
What he's lazily fallen into is easy profundities that dance around real world realities. He's becoming a fuzzy sort of guru that spouts crap for lazy thinkers and making it into product by regurgitating it as cutting edge thinking.
Tucker Carlson, Chris Williamson are, in obvious fact, what is known as "simps." Pandering to females to get more female listeners. Jordan Peterson at times also.
Thank you for this. In common with Warren Farrell, I think the word, 'Fatherlessness' is a misnomer. All children have fathers (otherwise they could not exist) and some fathers despise the word as denying them their offspring. Warren uses 'Dad deprived kids'.
That's so true! And when the primary custodian of the kids is the mother, or she has managed to entirely drive the father away, the kids just totally buy the story that their father was a horrible deadbeat who abandoned them.
Thank you, Janice. It might not have been a 'deadbeat narrative' but definitely not a positive one! I remarried and my wife has children and grandchildren, which is a big consolation.
I really appreciate your comment and support. It certainly has been very encouraging finding this male-positive space and have already started visiting some of the You Tube channels mentioned in conjunction to this post, which were uplifting too.
Well, a father can be allowed to live in the same house with the wife and his kids, but his kid's are still [functionally] fatherless. With no-fault divorce came the destruction of fatherhood. He risks loosing his home, his children and that back-stabbing self-center delusional psycho on her whim.
I'd like to thing that it wasn't long ago that no judge would try to separate fathers and children and if one did all the father brother and their young adult kids and maybe a few neighbors would mob the court-house and have a judge hang party
The whole divorce-rape and being separated from my son, I'm clear in my mind that Justice is some dead judges. I skipped the last court hearing related to divorce and my son because at that age and fitness I could have killed everyone in the room with the chair I last sat on .. some of us are hoping to die before we someone get killed - and if that happened, I'll stand naked before God again, and take all that Burning, like the last time.
My Bucket-list; die before someone or somefive gets killed. What's in your Bucket?
Yes, it's hell on earth. But, in a number of years, when your child comes looking for you, you will need to be there, waiting for them. Because they will need you.
When I had a dog, I used to pick up his shit with my hand inside a plastic bag, and carry it sometimes for an hour to the nearest garbage disposal. I did it because my dog gave me so much unconditional love and entertainment. This was typical among the dog owners I shared the dog park with. Surely a typical husband should be more than a dog to the typical wife, such that washing their underwear isn't too much to expect in return for the earnings and protection and support and unconditional love and entertainment that is expected of them. I mean, wow, imagine THAT being your biggest selling point.
Exactly. In the "west" we now have incredible convenience compared to even my childhood in the 1960s. Due to some serious illness my wife had a prolonged period of hospitalisation and resting at home. With a full time job and three small children and a sick wife I used every convenience afforded by early 2000s England. And we carried on! I never had time off work and even had a small additional job to get in some extra income. It mystifies me when people go on about being "time poor" when I think how very different it would have been in the 1960s when everything really was a "chore". It amazes me the moaning about household work when in fact there are any number of gadgets, appliances and products that makes things a doddle compared to my widowed mother's life bringing up two boys and working in the 1960s. I suppose the truth about this is shown by the more recent moaning about "emotional work" given anyone with common sense can see household tasks take up very little time and effort in our privileged societies.
very true that and that is the difference between the patriarchy and feminism.. the men/patriarchy made changes that would affect everyones life and not just mens.. 'community'...
To a large degree, I think women do much of the cleaning and other housework because men can tolerate the dirt and mess. In the 6 or so years I've lived in this apartment I have ever cleaned off the dust and in the bathroom, I have purple dust from my purple towels that they shed. I decided that they are alive and eat my skin cells and drink the water I wipe off myself. So I have 1/4" of dust and it tells me where I've been and about how long ago.
I spent a long period where I kept an eye on the dust bunnys. My beard hair should be evenly distributed and not clump together and should not be under the table and desk but they go there. I've decided I have knomes that bunch'em together and move them around. It's the most reasonable theory.
I need to get some knome poison because like Santa they know when I'm awake, and probably watch me when I'm sleeping - the pervers.
My ex-wife used to not allow me to wash the cloths because I washed too many ink pens and since I do mixed washes, she get to wear some ink also.
My fits of lazy has kept me safe from a lot of sins. I just couldn't be bothered with them.
Yes, those same women who won't wash his underwear, or complain about doing so, are scooping cat poop out of sandboxes while singing silly childish songs to their fur babies.
Also, isn't as common as it used to be that women do all the laundry. Each person might do their own laundry, or they might take turns doing mixed loads.
That's an annoying thing about modern feminism: They act like nothing has changed since 1950. I've talked to some who seriously assert that Hollywood reinforces gender roles. Seriously?? I guess there are tons of blockbusters depicting women happily leaving their corporate jobs to have babies and become housewives.
Exactly given that "doing the washing" consists of popping stuff and a spot of liquid in a machine and selecting a programme, press go. From a young age my three kids did their own when they wanted their stuff done when they wanted. And I tend to do my gym/sports stuff myself to get a fast turnround. Basically because its easy. And we're old fashioned and still hang stuff out on a line!
Wow!! I'm impressed with your 'dog poo carrying times'.. I'm a volunteer garbage collector with some other people in the city I live and the amount of 'poo bags' that are abandoned is something I do not understand at all!! Some times the public garbage tin is five minutes walk down the road!!
Like you, when I walked a friends dog, I would carry that bag until I found a bin or take it home. Finding the bin was also good exercise rather than taking it home.
As far as 'women wash your underwear'... I think that it is realistic that two humans that share the same bed would put their underwear in the same wash! Unless, they are particularly fussy and demand a separate wash for each person. However, when I shared with a friend, two single guys, I'd wash my own stuff and he his. Unless it was shared things like a kitchen t-towel!!!
But even so, isn't it more economical and water economy that at least a bed sharing couple share a wash, as much as possible?
Does anyone know if Karl Marx's 'theory' mentioned anything about Time and Motion and thus this absurdity by feminists is a carry on of this! Whereby every little moment is allocated to a 'project number' and tallied at the end of the day!!
As a bookkeeper, I love to keep such records but in the end and a lot older now, it drives me crazy all this credit and debit. He did, she did etc., etc.,
In the end you are 100% correct, 'wow, imagine THAT being your biggest selling point.' - especially for 'influencers', 'bloggers'.. Someone needs to remind these two men that we are all taking notes of their 'minute by minute' value of their opinions, comments and if it goes into debit, then we all cancel the subscription...
Thank you for what you do. This is not sarcasm: nobody contributes more to society than garbage collectors. I appreciate not living in a medieval heck-hole swarming with rats and roaches and flies!
It started with a retired guy who needed to walk due to his health failing. He originally only went with his wife. He goes everyday, weather permitting.
So he has built up a team of followers.
Cigarettes are the worst along with the occasional 'unopened' take away food.
I enjoy when I have time. It is a real eye opener.
Meanwhile, single men are frightened to ask a woman out for coffee - especially if they have any professional association. She'll say,"He was hitting on me." HR will report "he hit on her." No wonder fertility rates are so low.
Is it fear to make a rational risk assessment? Low probability of a career-ending downside is still a risk.
Similar to jumping off a bridge into a river you've never swum in. You don't know if there are rocks there just under the surface, or water deep enough. It is not fear that makes a man say "no thanks". It is prudence.
Between 90% and 95% of occupational deaths still occur to men. This has been the case in virtually every developed country, since the concept of 'developed country' was coined. It seems to be "systemic," to borrow a word. Yet I have never encountered a feminist who demands that this employment opportunity be equalized. On the contrary, even when women enter a dangerous occupation such as the military or policing, they gravitate into the least dangerous of the roles within the occupation. (Warren Farrell even advises women to do this in his book on the gender pay gap.) And women report greater levels of fear in dangerous occupations, despite experiencing objectively lower risks.
. . . and this is precisely why men and their advocates should reject 'equality' and 'egalitarianism' as fundmental goals and principles. It is a waste of time and effort.
Any time Equality is in effect and practice, females are gonna win and males are gonna lose. Hasn't America yet proven that these past 50 years?
100% CORRECT! I DON'T LIKE MEN'S advocates that push an egalitarian agenda because MEN are being attacked deliberately and it's w0e-MEN attacking us not just the courts! Warren Farell is a legend and a really deep guy, yet even he tries to promote egalitarianism and whenever he does the w0e-MEN folk hijack his page and try to re direct the narrative. Besides w0e-MEN'S liberation was never about egalitarianism it was about unbridled license for one gender.
Yes. The greatest weakness of the men's movement during the past three decades is that its supposed leaders (Warren Farrell, Paul Elam, Tom Golden) all are pagans. They sell Equality and Egalitarianism, although IT IS THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE GYNARCHY, the language that keeps men in subjugation.
Because Father and King Jeshua are not in these men, they rely on their own wills and intellect for power, truth and resolution . . . and as we have seen, they have failed. Without God at their center, they must rely on worldly abstractions like Equality as their purpose and goal. They have no spiritual base or spiritual life.
Paul Elam used to censor anybody on his site that didn't embrace Holy Equality as purpose and goal of the movement. No real leader would ever do such a thing.
Farrell has led a comfortable, middle-class life. He's an Equalist also and so, fail.
Just a few weeks ago when I told Tom Golden that his horse Equality has been running for thirty years and ain't won a race yet, he asked me for an alternative to Equality. I explained briefly about Father, Son, and the system of holy patriarchy that this planet needs. End of conversation. To Tom and Elam and Farrell, I might as well be talking about the Keebler Elves floating around in the sky.
God is not in them and so my solution, to them, sounds ridiculous. Yet they must face the fact that their way, the way of Equality, has FAILED and failed bigtime over the past 3 decades. They should admit that their way has failed and seek for an alternative, but their egos are deeply wrapped-up in the Egalitarian Shuffle, and they cannot admit they were -- and are -- disastrously wrong.
Well, here is the first time I have to disagree with you on one point. Paul Elam is indeed a Christian (He came to faith over the last few years) and has done pretty much more than anyone else in the MEN'S movement. He even exposed the fact that Jesus rejected gyno-centrism when he was confronted by a w0e-MAN who said: "Blessed is the womb who bore you" And Jesus said: "ON THE CONTRARY "Blessed are those who do the will of God" I think Paul Elam is thee TOP GUY. In fact, I am in the same camp as Paul Elam, and that is making w0e-MEN reap what they sow. He created the meme about laughing at w0e-MEN being replaced by MEN in sports which I agree with. I SUPPORT trans males in w0e-MEN'S sports. As a believer, I see w0e-MEN'S sports as a form of androgyny in its's own right and IS THE SAME THING as transgenders which is w0e-MEN trying to be MEN. I see transgenders as an exact reflection of w0e-MEN and what they have done to BOYS & MEN. If you're a believer, you know that w0e-MEN shouldn't be exposing their bodies anyway. I believe w0e-MEN should have to be registered with selective service when they're 18 just like guys. I also agree with Paul that MEN should NOT be obligated to protect random w0e-MEN even if they see a crime taking place. Lastly MEN'S RIGHTS is never going to be mainstream, so I can't find fault with Paul Elam who is the polar opposite of Farrell.
If Elam is a Christian, it is news to me. He, his administrators, and his website preached Equality for decades, and silenced all disagreements. Small-minded, arrogant and dictatorial come to mind, and those character flaws don't disappear in a blink.
It is v good if Elam truly has converted, but you will excuse me if after so many years of watching him peacock and preach Equality if I go very slowly concerning Mr. Elam his pronouncements, and his spiritual leadership.
If he is newly converted, then he is new to Scripture and its understandings, and most assuredly is not an elder. If you wish to follow him that is your business.
OK, well I think he's a top guy just as I think you are. He's fully on board with not accepting w0e-MEN as teachers or leaders and he even agrees with not voting for a w0e-MAN President and he has even said letting w0e-MEN vote was a mistake. So, I don't know how long ago you knew him, however he did claim to be an atheist at that time which he no longer does. I'll leave in my notes one of his tweets about Erika Kirk showing his biblical understanding.
So sick of hearing about women’s issues and how wonderful and heroic they are to endure the long list of male inadequacies. It’s clear that men can’t or won’t call out female’s appalling behaviour but thank god for women like you who do.
Thirty years ago, when I used to publish critiques of employment equity, I sometimes pointed out that the lives of men and women are so intimately intertwined that any policy which harms men will inevitably redound upon women, too. Specifically, employment laws that deny opportunities to men also deny the benefits of their gainful employment to their wives and daughters. It was intended as a cautionary remark to enthusiasts who saw all gain and no pain for women in these policies. Some of what Carlson and Williamson say can be taken in the same vein. But if recourse to the harms to women is deployed too much, or to the exclusion of the more basic point that harms to men are wrong in themselves, it rightly provokes a backlash.
Because women of this era have been trained to believe that the way things are now was the work of many women who wanted it this way, a lot of women will resist the idea that these changes actually made today's women far more miserable than they think the women of earlier eras were. I was an adult before I realized that the trope that women "achieved" the right to vote was ridiculous. A government full of men, voted into office by men, gave the vote to women (90% of whom didn't want it - for some sobering reality of how the women of the time saw it, check out the anti-suffrage cartoons available on Getty Images).
Women used to see a woman taking a man's job as taking away support for a family for selfish reasons. Even if the law didn't forbid it, women who supposedly didn't have power (because they didn't have the vote) would enforce prioritizing married fathers having the jobs with wages that could support a family.
'Women used to see a woman taking a man's job as taking away support for a family for selfish reasons'
I grew up in the Fifties, in Northern California, and this was the common understanding amongst both women and men. People had to be practical back then -- it was not yet a society of spoiled princesses -- and they wanted men working the jobs so that money for family formation and maintenance was available.
Women (including my mother and grandmother) often worked outside jobs, but they were discouraged from taking a big bite into male employment. Folks knew that disaster would result from females pushing males out of education and employment, and that everybody would end up losing.
As you say, women taking away men's jobs was seen as selfish, and destructive to the social fabric that keeps food on the table and roofs over heads.
And life for everyone (well apart from a few) was pretty hard. Catherine Hakim an Economist pointed out that the proportion of women economically active in 2000 was the same as 1900 in Britain. There had been a brief period in the 1960s early 70s when the belated post war prosperity and a house building boom meant there could be more single earner family households than before and since. Now the occupations had shifted over time for women more than men because of the growth of public service occupations but the reality was that relatively few families in 1900 or 2000 could simply have one partner not doing something to add to the family income. Maybe it was different in the USA whose massive boom after WW2 outstripped all others. But here the "feminism" of bored and underemployed bourgeois women with time on their hands was very much a minority. As Hakim points out in Myths and Magic Medicine
"Williamson seems to think it necessary to point out that women were at some point in the past discouraged from getting university degrees."
He forgot that in the past, a person usually came from a wealthy background when attending a university.
However, the above statement that Williamson needs to point out that women were discouraged from getting university degrees serves a couple of purposes;
1) using the past to justify what is happening now
That's why feminist women often talk about being "discouraged" rather than "forbidden"--because if they claimed forbidden, their claims can so easily be refuted.
I had someone tell me just recently, in reference to my essay about women and credit cards, that his mother had told him she felt "discouraged" from driving a car because there were discussions on the radio at the time (mid-20th century, I guess) about whether women should be allowed to drive. I found this VERY hard to believe, and this friend should too ... but it was his mother claiming it, so he felt obliged to accept her word.
I once had a man write me, in relation to my video on Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, that I didn't understand the terrible social climate that women like Blasey Ford had had to grow up in, how she was shamed and terrorized every day of her life 'back then,' discouraged from feeling like a full human being, etc. Even when I explained to him that I am actually older than Blasey Ford, and therefore grew up in the same time period (or worse!), he was still convinced that women had a terrible time and were discouraged in so many ways just a few decades ago, back in the 1980s.
His mother, too, had apparently informed him of these things.
There are a lot of men who have been browbeaten and propagandized by bitter, disgruntled women, who feel entitled to exaggerate and fabricate the oppressions of the past with talk of "discouragement." I don't believe anything any woman says anymore about such things.
Interesting point about "discouragement" and how it sidesteps the factual in favour of how someone felt. There is a joke about Lancashire (England) "where the men are men and most of the women are too" by which is meant that there were few "shrinking violets" amongst the women.
Another case of false-rape accusations believed by everyone, I guess. One was 10 imaginary years before and the other was for 5 imaginary years or so, and I imagine the runner-up was a woman.
I was flabbergasted that the two women and their mothers weren't tied to posts in a public park and while streaming video to the world they be tasered to screaming and soiling themselves. Maybe their aunts also, everyone that had a part in raising them and failed .. all pissing and screaming, and next time the get Witch hanging - over the corpses of those older adults.
And then the became unRaped because they disappeared from news and of-course we never got their names. The predatory women have no reason to false witness your sons - if the witches have a whim to do it.
You show me a woman that would have any belief in something like that - and I show you a woman that should never have power over others and maybe should slip off the roof because that kind of retarded-psycho-evil is like lightning when it's snapping all around and you're carrying a long metal pipe. Better the lightning goes off the roof.
Those two and their mothers piss and screaming for the world to see! That would be a good start to caring about women by not letting them soil their rotting putrid hearts anymore.
I burst out laughing a week or two ago when someone said that those witch trials were sad because there aren't any witches, and I'm remembering the daily abortion numbers - it was an average of 60 per state per day, and then you have those 4 and .. if a rock and these walls were gone, I'm sure I could hit at least 3 from where I'm at now.
"Some members of Demographic A did something bad to some members of Demographic B in the past, so now we're going to pronounce eternal guilt on ALL members of Demographic A, even if it happened before they were born."
^ Our world would become a better place overnight if everyone ditched this line of thinking.
Another aspect of this is that some people may believe that if you disagree with them, then you must hate them.
This can be seen when members of the female gender challenge and disagree with feminist concepts; these women are then accused of hating their own gender.
I went to University in the late 70s. At that time less than 10% of the age cohort went to University and this was a big step up from the 60s because there were "grants". So going to University was rare for anybody until then.
One of the charts showed that in recent times 47% of young women and 37%of young men have a uni degree. This seems excessive. I realise there are other reasons for a uni degree, but I don't think 50% of jobs require a tertiary education. It's wasted effort and saddles young people with unnecessary student debt.
Here in the UK there has been a massive expansion in Universities by calling every other college a university. The result is an explosion in EngLit and other cheap to deliver degrees of the "studies" sort. Inc. gender studies of course. Add in the Degree only entry for Nursing, Social Work and other traditionally female occupations ( not of course male dominated Police) and one can see much of the female domination of degrees is either in occupations that females crowd into or are hand to put off the evil day you have to get a job( while you might bag a guy doing something like a "hard" subject)
Agreed, and of course the biggest payoff for all the attempted shaming is “shutting down the conversation”, which is a very effective move - politicians try it all the time.
It is unfortunate for those outliers who even notice in the first place, but it's true that men will always be primarily judged according to their usefulness and will never be seen as having intrinsic value the way women do. You're fighting against deeply ingrained biology in an attempt to change that.
The bigger problem is that post industrial revolution, and especially post the establishment of the welfare state in wealth countries, the usefulness of men has become much more broadly distributed and subsequently much less visible. Men are why you still have food on your table, men are why the lights stay on, men are why you can spend your days shitposting online about how much you hate men, but all the men responsible for those things are men you never see. Thus, you end up taking their contributions for granted as just how things are. You believe that they are all fungible, even if you think about them at all.
Meanwhile, in the cases where women truly do suffer injury at the hands of men, the negatives are intensely visible but with few contrasting visible positives due to the distributed nature of the maintenance of our civilization. The picture becomes lopsided. The hate grows.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your comment, Grug, except for the first paragraph. If that's what evolutionary psychology teaches you, then you should think twice about its authority. Like men, women have always been valued according to their usefulness (romantic fantasies notwithstanding). More specifically, women have always been valued primarily as mothers (in addition to the countless tasks that culture assigns to women). As for "intrinsic value," women who either can't or don't have babies (and do the work that young children entail) have been stigmatized as "old maids" and sometimes shunned as "witches" both historically and cross-culturally.
There's certainly room for additional nuance to be expressed. Class/status was in the past (still is, but not quite to the same extent I think) a bigger "modifier" than sex when it comes to initial valuation, if you will. Few would view the daughter of a peasant farmer higher than even a lesser son of any aristocratic family. Sex could be looked at as a differing starting point in the hierarchy, with men having both a higher potential ceiling but also a much lower starting floor in most cases.
However, your other point I see as supporting my argument, where women have to actually choose to reduce their status over a longer period (spending the entirety of their fertile years not reproducing) to reach the level the average man (modulo class) is at when starting his journey in life. I'm also not sure if women who couldn't have children through some reason outside of their control were viewed the same way as those who actively chose to never have children or even marry, but I'm no historian. Nowadays of course women are working tirelessly to change that as well, between celebrations of abortion and general promotion of anti-natalist views (if you're white, anyway).
"However, your other point I see as supporting my argument, where women have to actually choose to reduce their status over a longer period (spending the entirety of their fertile years not reproducing) to reach the level the average man (modulo class) is at when starting his journey in life."
I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say, Grug. I'll think about it.
As for childless women, the reason for that was seldom understood before the twentieth century--except for women who chose to become nuns (or their equivalents in other cultures) and could thus attain high status. Ditto for men who chose to become monks or priests. Otherwise, single women could expect pity or at least sympathy. And single men could expect suspicion or even hostility. Today, of course, single women--especially single-mothers-by-choice--can expect glorification. And single men, of course, can expect ridicule.
I didn't say that we should, or even that we can, ignore romantic fantasies (which are produced by both women and men.) I tried to say, obviously without success, that the sexes are interdependent for practical purposes in addition to any others.
Well, that intrinsic value of men is seen and acknowledged immediately when thing like war and killings start. It is well known fact the degree of radical feminism in Ukraine before the war when they were going through the wall to become the EU members. Anybody familiar with the one of the most disgusting if not the most disgusting of such groups Femen? When the war started and Ukrainian women realised what's the difference between their value and value of their men, going to die for their homes, families, kids and women, they swiftly changed the tune and started posting hurriedly made videos on YouTube, praising their bravest men, melting over how they loved and appreciated them - all videos were similar ChatGPT-like with similar text and similar video clips put together "We Love Our Boys". Much to viewers surprise the overwhelming comments from Ukrainian men were something like "Go screw yourselves". "...fighting against deeply ingrained biology"? - Biology vs Ideology? Biology always wins.
Great article. Thank you. I don't pursue the topic of manhood very often, but I've been under the boot heel myself. It is good to know there's a 'shining knight' out there, battling for men. Shame Williamson isn't that knight. Seems like a missed opportunity.
Thanks, Janice. It's amazing how hard it is for supposedly free thinking men to address the reality of abuse by women, that many are covert narcissists who do all the things you would expect narcissists to do. Thank-you for your work and speaking out on this.
I hate being interviewed as I am such a terrible interviewee, far too nervous and self-conscious, and kick myself afterward for weeks for missing the chance to make fundamental points.
However, I can think of brilliant anti-feminist women he could interview: Hannah Wallen, Alison Tieman, Karen Straughan, Bettina Arndt, Hannah Spier, and Diana Davison, just for starters. He needs to talk to some women who are willing to call out women's feminist B.S. I doubt he's interested.
Of course, there's Pearl Davis, too--someone he should definitely talk to if he wants a brutal conversation about what's going on between the sexes today and how (some, many) women have become feral, useless, and dangerous.
I don’t think that he’s interested in engaging with any strong female anti-feminist. He’s all milquetoast into pleasing and reassuring the lost generations. Just be nice and polite and inquisitive and a bit whimsical and you can make it just as I did. Phooey!
Janice!!!!! Oh my fucking god!!!! Please for the love of all that is Holy do N-O-T think that Pearl is honest or real. She is a chameleon rehashing and shit posting what other great MEN have been saying. She is a women trying to infiltrate and influence the conversations in the red pill / male space. I am a little bit disappointed that a women like you would fall for her bullshit Janice. I would have figured that you would have been able to see through her act and smokescreen. She loves to hear herself speak, get attention and validation from online strangers, and mostly try to be the "smartest" girl in the group. Just a group leader looking for groupies to put other women down and try to play the hero. I can only hope that you will embark on a journey to seeing why I am saying this Janice. I am very sad and disappointed by seeing you believe her. Please take a good care of yourself and stop putting yourself down and below her. You are head and shoulders above her Janice and one of the few women in the RP worth listening to.
Well, it's hard to argue with praise of self--thank you for your kind words--but the few times I have listened to Pearl, I thought she had a blunt and down-home truth to tell. It does seem that she appeals mainly to young men, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Most of my arguments aren't particularly original either. I learned most of my talking points from men like Warren Farrell, Paul Elam, David Shackleton, Paul Nathanson, Tom Golden, Stephen Baskerville, Tim Goldich, and many others (and of course from Karen Straughan and the Honey Badgers). Anyway, no need to argue about Pearl, but I remain grateful that there is anyone out there who raises objections to the feminist narrative and gives voice to alternative, male-positive views.
I am too. For the simple reason, as you illustrate in your piece, men have somewhere deep deep down a circuit that simply can't do anything other than protect and serve. Evolutionary biology, socialization, transactional relationships or simply because we all are "born of woman". End result is that men will pounce on any other man cast as mean to women. It is hard to recognise how really radical the idea that boys and men are human beings with value just by being really is. Coincidentally this popped up on my feed as I wrote this https://eurweb.com/false-accusation-incident/
No, you only need to find the men that survived being surrounded and abused, gaslighted, secrete witch-whisper-web, lies and slimy hidden unJust reputational destruction and not understanding that first, people would coordinate and abuse in some kind of round-robin, and not understand that a bunch of any humans (women) could do that torment and torture for no reason that makes sense - except for being a while man that once loved his job and the place and was excellent at it ..
.
.. was that it? Was it because I was hired before I got a degree and the research lab started publishing like crazy with all the experiments data I was able to make happen?
I just about figured that it was because they liked torturing someone especially when they couldn't believe it - is it paranoia or is there some kind of group project.
It still bothers me - I think I understand better the horrible abuse that scarred and crippled my life.
You got a few witches like that - well, it they repent then you need not drag out all the older adults in their bloodline and hang them also. Rip the evil-roots out by the hand-full and if a few innocent die also - well leaving any alive will be the soul-death of ten times the number of innocence that get mixed in.
Maybe it would be difficult to find enough men that lived through what I did, but there is all those falsely-accused being raped and beaten right now because he's labeled 'sexual predator' and if he gets out ..
Janice, you underestimate how well you come across in interviews. I think it might be for reasons similar to the way that one tends to hate the sound of a recording of one's voice. Your voice recorded doesn't sound the same as it sounds from inside your head when you're speaking aloud. The contrast feels odd, unsettling. And one will always remember other facts or points that could have strengthened one's argument, which makes the remarks one did make seem weaker than they sound to others.
When working in jewelry sales I often have a customer who is having trouble choosing among two or more items as a gift for another person. I always tell them the recipient will love whichever one is in the gift box, because the recipient won't be seeing all the other options (that the gift buyer sees).
I think the audience of your interviews is like the gift recipient. All we see/hear is what's in the recording, and it comes off as terrific.
You’re welcome. I seriously mean it. While I’ve had feelings and observations all my life that went counter to feminism, it was discovering the OG Fiamengo Files, and Karen Straughan and Bettina Arndt that not only confirmed what I’d figured out on my own, but gave me a much larger context to understand feminism’s history and influence.
Janice - I whole-heartedly agree with Trish. Your podcasts are beautifully delivered, and indeed your credibility and thoughtfulness are wonderfully supported by your calm, matter-of-fact speaking style. Moreover, your insights about unspoken bias against men deserve to be broadcast in video format for wide distribution. I thank Trish, too, for her careful analysis.
Thank you. I have learned so much listening to Janice over the years (as well as the other thoughtful and informed women she mentioned). I always love hearing more from her, as she makes the material easy to understand as well as entertaining to hear.
Trish - Your reports about the grotesque injustices of Title IX policies on campuses brings tears. So many men behaving with emotional and intellectual sensitivity to women - who were nonetheless paraded as a sexual deviant for life on the internet. Your detailed legal analysis is absolutely vital to overturning this horror. I try to explain to people that from 2015 to 2024, the large budgets of Title IX offices paid salaries of administrators and investigators who were applauded and celebrated for destroying some male who would never mean to hurt anyone. Thank you so much for your ongoing work.
Geoff, thank you for your kind words about my writing. I don’t remember writing any detailed legal analysis. I really don’t think I’m an expert on the subject (I was a creative writing/English major in college, and have no law education).
While I do comment about feminism in repsonse to Janice’s articles, my blog on Substack is focused on issues centered on pain patients and government policies that prevent patients getting proper pain care. One of my main inspirations is a friend, a veteran with lifelong severe pain from being run over by a truck, whom the VA only ever provided acetaminophen. Because this topic gets so little attention, and there’s so much misinformation, I want this blog to be focused only on the truth in this one specific area.
When I write essays about feminist issues, I send them to American Thinker. I send other topics, including pain, there. If you want to see my writings on feminism, that’s the place to look.
Yeah I think she'd be a knockout too. There is a huge hunger in the West for truthful information about why our nations are failing, and Total Feminism is Reason #1. Not all persons, however, seek or enjoy notoriety.
Our societies, because they have been feminist for so long -- and because major media is captured by woke/feminism -- will not accept reality and truth about 'gender' from men. Thus, women are far more effective as writers, podcasters, speakers.
I agree about the effectiveness of using women to be the speakers of truth, especially in terms of countering feminism’s bad ideas. But I think we desperately need men on the strategic end. Even very smart women tend not to be effective in that area (only 5% of chess grandmasters and, year after year, 0% of top 500 esports players are women). We are all suffering in a society that has been infected with this set of terrible ideas.
Amen, Trish Randall — Janice is being far, far too self-deprecating. I’ve never experienced her as being insufficient in an interview. I’ve interacted with her in real life — and she’s the bomb there — and I experience her as being even more powerful than when she’s just “one of the guys” when she’s talking with others with the cameras on. Janice is a treasure, and I agree that those of us who get to listen to her are indeed privileged.
The woman at the Far From Eden podcast would make an excellent interviewee. However, Williamson might experience a Truth Overdose mid-chat and require medical attention. Keep an Ambu bag closeby in case Chris gets the vapors.
It is a marker of a feminist society that such weak and compromised men are popular and remunerated.
He probably is interested. As an avid listener of his, he probably agrees with most of what you’re saying here. It’s just that there are things that only women can say about and to other women. If men did it, that would be an immediate disqualifier and no one would listen to the strength of your arguments. So both of you are needed!!
While you might be able to practice more at interviewing, and I would encourage you to do so using Chat GPT voice mode to role play rough interviewing, you're providing unique value in the manosphere.
Your feminism courses are second to none. And survived deletion and cancellation. Just like many men.
In London, there is the Suffragette line, a recently renamed transit line, but the sites of arson have no Suffragette signage.
Kew Gardens which was bombed by the Suffragettes has zero information on the signs but plenty of pronouns, environmentalist death cult neurotic catastophising, rainbows not for Gods covenant, and diversity hires emoting over plants.
Without your feminism courses I would not have known the Suffragettes described themselves as terrorists. I wouldn't have put 2 and 2 together to realize the UK had 15% taxation at the greatest extent of the British empire yet now it's the highest taxes so far. The reason being women vote themselves more entitlements since men pay.
Your view is unique and massively influential.
I was pleasantly surprised at a recent piece you wrote that was so frank it reminded me of my own rhetoric. The tide is turning. I can imagine the feminist hive mind eating itself as the Lilith Kali energy boils over like a bamboo bloom that kills the entire population leaving a rotting forest.
That incisive, unignorable rhetoric, with historical info on feminist literature and thought is also something that only you can do.
Thank you, that's very kind. I am ok in writing. I have the right instincts and, unlike many feminists, I have actually read most feminist texts and know the literature and some of the history. But in the give-and-take of any conversation, especially a debate, I am no good at all. I will keep on trying.
Ask Chat GPT voice mode to role play a coven court struggle session to be aggressively edited and cut to make you look bad. Under a grand witch with Cathy Newman's interviewing style.
Using the finest animus possessed, ideologically captured women, making bad faith misrepresentations, characteristics of the worst streams of Lilith, Jezebel, Kali, terrible mother energy.
Have it give meta commentary on deceptive framing techniques applied, logic, rhetoric, and grammar. How it distorts and misrepresents your position using fallacies.
Also, meta-ask a friend moments where a virtual ensemble of Saints of the manosphere can intercede with facts, logic, rhetoric etc. such as Andrew Wilson, Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey, Grokipedia, etc.
Treat it like Churchill treated the Canadian aerodrome in WW2, training tens of thousands of pilots to form a strategic bombing force that applies a similar power projection over Dresden as sadly was applied with non-conventional weapons in other theatres. And a defensive fighter force informed by long range radars in the home islands.
Never have so many (victims of feminism in the future) been saved by so few (you in the hostile interview dojo).
Your latent potential in interviews is patently world class. As evidenced by your esprit de l'escalier. And data banks of historical, contextual knowledge based on reading. Like someone who grew up speaking a language until age 13 but hasn't spoken it for decades. It'll all come back and you won't need to think of grammar after a few turns in the simulator.
I realized that one can shut down Chat GPT easily. You start to infer it's corporate HR rules (based on laws) and it's system prompt to preserve m'lady's honour since it deliberately fails in service to it (with obvious self contained illogic and lies). When you destroy it with arguments, and facts, it activates high thinking mode as a last resort, and doubles down knowing it's wrong but twisting itself into a pretzel for legal compliance with it's corporate HR and system prompt.
I wonder if Grok unhinged mode would be even better?
So many center-ish (center-right/center-left) men (not sure how Chris would characterize himself) are terrified of offending their female audience, the vast majority of whom are feminist or feminist-inclined.
"I hate being interviewed as I am such a terrible interviewee" Nah, thats crazy talk! I've watched many of your interviews. You're an amazing speaker. You always make your points very strongly and without malice. :)
I really think men need to stop relying on women to fight our fights for us. It's kind of pathetic that almost every forthright advocate for men that I can think of is a woman. If we can't do better than this, maybe we deserve to get screwed over.
In a way I've changed my view on this. I think the battle is in fact all about women. When it boils down to it both "right" and "left" queue up to white knight at the merest hint a man is even a bit critical of a woman. Whereas they'll stand back and let the cat fight carry on. A good example has been the TERF wars. As feminists, "wimmin", women, "allies", gender queers et al go at it. Generally boring old heterosexual men leave them to it. Not a popular view here but I think its vital you and other women challenge this female chauvinism. Sorry to heap on the responsibility.
Yes fair point that ordinary men don't deserve to be screwed over. Personally, I don't think anything will change until the feminist government complex that has been built over the past 50 years is mirrored with a male-focused complex, starting in most countries with the appointment of a Men's' Minister. Feminists built their power painstakingly over decades and men need to do the same from the ground up. Whatever limited influence male advocates can bring to bear needs to be focused solely on taking some permanent, government-funded ground to fight from. A Men's Minister would also need to advocate for male welfare against many actions of conservative men, which are often just as prejudicial to men as anything feminists do.
I would agree if I trusted that anyone in government, especially a men's minister, would ever challenge the feminists or their billion-dollar programs. I think we'd just hear a lot about men's mental health, suicide prevention, job training, helping men be better fathers, and so on. Naturally, I am for all these things, but not if they are framed by feminist assumptions and work with rather than against the current feminist apparatus. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump nor anyone in between (in any country) is going to take on the feminist machine.
If we could get the government to mirror its spending on women's health programs, strategies etc for men, I think that would be massive step forward in our welfare. But I agree with you that feminists will be working overtime to turn it into a Minister for Men's Behavioural Change (one state in my country - Australia - actually has a position like that) rather than a Minister for Men. But what is a realistic option that is better? Pointing out feminist lies isn't really getting us anywhere on its own. Every metric for men is getting worse. What is the one concrete thing we should fight for?
I was recently told by a coworker she was glad some testosterone was coming into the workplace. It’s funny because I’ve always wondered what working in a male-dominated profession was like.
Excellent as always Janice and this is a perfect example of a feminized male conversation. No push back, no hard truths, just mealy mouthed banter that results in a "do better" call to men.
When men "do better" women can have babies. That's their motivation.
After reading the whole article and pondering for a while, Chris Williamson is, in my opinion, what is known as a "people pleaser".
Yes, I think so too. When a man like him becomes a popular influencer, he doesn't wish to lose any of his audience, as he fears he will do if he says unsympathetic true things about women and appears to be skeptical of feminism. But that prevents him from speaking honestly about some of the issues he likely sees in the world of men.
Speaking Honestly?
I would like to know if he has the comprehension and insight that is needed.
Speaking for myself, it has been challenging to develop the insight and the skills to articulate some of the issues.
It's an open question, true. A friend of mine thinks he probably can't even see it--has had his mind clouded and hemmed around by feminist interdictions.
I had already listened to the interview and wasn’t really pleased or impressed with it but your article now has me thinking I’m not as liberated from the feminist mind virus as I thought I was! I’ve definitely been the nice guy but I’m guessing Chris was mostly just constrained by the ubiquity of feminism’s perpetual victim protection racket
As for me I’ll quote Michael Yon:
“Perpetual victims Are predators”
That is a wise quote.
I think you overestimate consciousness as kinda objective mirror of reality. Maybe people are the best in lying to themselves. On the subconscious level they reject unfitting perceptions and may block thoughts in order to "see" on conscious level what they pre- chose. So they might easily have knowledge, insight etc. if they wanted to, but they don't want, so...
Not so blind as those repeatedly stabbing themselves hard in the eye with pointy sticks, lest they seem woman might be at blame here.
Agree!
Keep writing!
I sat on this article for days, and I still think it needs work.
Your brain does weird things when you try to dial down to the route of an issue.
https://open.substack.com/pub/theladylayman/p/the-9-magic-words-that-can-instantly?r=64bg90&utm_medium=ios
I don't know how to phrase this accurately.
One of my epiphanies occurred during a discussion, but for that to happen, I needed to learn something else first on an unrelated subject.
It allows for leaps in cognition.
Building blocks are very real.
What he's lazily fallen into is easy profundities that dance around real world realities. He's becoming a fuzzy sort of guru that spouts crap for lazy thinkers and making it into product by regurgitating it as cutting edge thinking.
Tucker Carlson, Chris Williamson are, in obvious fact, what is known as "simps." Pandering to females to get more female listeners. Jordan Peterson at times also.
And being British doesn't make it better for him.
Thank you for this. In common with Warren Farrell, I think the word, 'Fatherlessness' is a misnomer. All children have fathers (otherwise they could not exist) and some fathers despise the word as denying them their offspring. Warren uses 'Dad deprived kids'.
That's so true! And when the primary custodian of the kids is the mother, or she has managed to entirely drive the father away, the kids just totally buy the story that their father was a horrible deadbeat who abandoned them.
Yes, and I speak as a 'deadbeat' whose sons have given him the cold shoulder following divorce from their mother.
I'm so sorry to hear that.
Thank you, Janice. It might not have been a 'deadbeat narrative' but definitely not a positive one! I remarried and my wife has children and grandchildren, which is a big consolation.
I'm so sorry that happened to you and to your sons. I'm sure their lives are worse for not having a full relationship with you.
Really sorry to hear this. Of course you are not alone.
It is good that you participate here, and I hope you also participate elsewhere with male-positive groups and persons.
I really appreciate your comment and support. It certainly has been very encouraging finding this male-positive space and have already started visiting some of the You Tube channels mentioned in conjunction to this post, which were uplifting too.
Well, a father can be allowed to live in the same house with the wife and his kids, but his kid's are still [functionally] fatherless. With no-fault divorce came the destruction of fatherhood. He risks loosing his home, his children and that back-stabbing self-center delusional psycho on her whim.
I'd like to thing that it wasn't long ago that no judge would try to separate fathers and children and if one did all the father brother and their young adult kids and maybe a few neighbors would mob the court-house and have a judge hang party
The whole divorce-rape and being separated from my son, I'm clear in my mind that Justice is some dead judges. I skipped the last court hearing related to divorce and my son because at that age and fitness I could have killed everyone in the room with the chair I last sat on .. some of us are hoping to die before we someone get killed - and if that happened, I'll stand naked before God again, and take all that Burning, like the last time.
My Bucket-list; die before someone or somefive gets killed. What's in your Bucket?
God Bless., Steve
Yes, it's hell on earth. But, in a number of years, when your child comes looking for you, you will need to be there, waiting for them. Because they will need you.
Good point. I had fallen for the brainwashing and/or guilt tripping over 'fatherlessness'.
"Women wash your underwear!"
When I had a dog, I used to pick up his shit with my hand inside a plastic bag, and carry it sometimes for an hour to the nearest garbage disposal. I did it because my dog gave me so much unconditional love and entertainment. This was typical among the dog owners I shared the dog park with. Surely a typical husband should be more than a dog to the typical wife, such that washing their underwear isn't too much to expect in return for the earnings and protection and support and unconditional love and entertainment that is expected of them. I mean, wow, imagine THAT being your biggest selling point.
Yes, well said.
The implication was that there is something unpleasant about washing a man's underwear.
One tips a basket of laundry into a machine and puts soap in it. That's the extent of the sacrifice!
As though they aren’t washing THEIR OWN UNDERWEAR at the same time.
Exactly. In the "west" we now have incredible convenience compared to even my childhood in the 1960s. Due to some serious illness my wife had a prolonged period of hospitalisation and resting at home. With a full time job and three small children and a sick wife I used every convenience afforded by early 2000s England. And we carried on! I never had time off work and even had a small additional job to get in some extra income. It mystifies me when people go on about being "time poor" when I think how very different it would have been in the 1960s when everything really was a "chore". It amazes me the moaning about household work when in fact there are any number of gadgets, appliances and products that makes things a doddle compared to my widowed mother's life bringing up two boys and working in the 1960s. I suppose the truth about this is shown by the more recent moaning about "emotional work" given anyone with common sense can see household tasks take up very little time and effort in our privileged societies.
And 99.99% of the gadgets, appliances and products were thought up by men, designed by men, built by men, installed by men, and serviced by men.
In that sense the feminists are spot on, they live in a Man made world!
very true that and that is the difference between the patriarchy and feminism.. the men/patriarchy made changes that would affect everyones life and not just mens.. 'community'...
To a large degree, I think women do much of the cleaning and other housework because men can tolerate the dirt and mess. In the 6 or so years I've lived in this apartment I have ever cleaned off the dust and in the bathroom, I have purple dust from my purple towels that they shed. I decided that they are alive and eat my skin cells and drink the water I wipe off myself. So I have 1/4" of dust and it tells me where I've been and about how long ago.
I spent a long period where I kept an eye on the dust bunnys. My beard hair should be evenly distributed and not clump together and should not be under the table and desk but they go there. I've decided I have knomes that bunch'em together and move them around. It's the most reasonable theory.
I need to get some knome poison because like Santa they know when I'm awake, and probably watch me when I'm sleeping - the pervers.
My ex-wife used to not allow me to wash the cloths because I washed too many ink pens and since I do mixed washes, she get to wear some ink also.
My fits of lazy has kept me safe from a lot of sins. I just couldn't be bothered with them.
God Bless., steve
Yes, those same women who won't wash his underwear, or complain about doing so, are scooping cat poop out of sandboxes while singing silly childish songs to their fur babies.
Also, isn't as common as it used to be that women do all the laundry. Each person might do their own laundry, or they might take turns doing mixed loads.
That's an annoying thing about modern feminism: They act like nothing has changed since 1950. I've talked to some who seriously assert that Hollywood reinforces gender roles. Seriously?? I guess there are tons of blockbusters depicting women happily leaving their corporate jobs to have babies and become housewives.
Exactly given that "doing the washing" consists of popping stuff and a spot of liquid in a machine and selecting a programme, press go. From a young age my three kids did their own when they wanted their stuff done when they wanted. And I tend to do my gym/sports stuff myself to get a fast turnround. Basically because its easy. And we're old fashioned and still hang stuff out on a line!
Wow!! I'm impressed with your 'dog poo carrying times'.. I'm a volunteer garbage collector with some other people in the city I live and the amount of 'poo bags' that are abandoned is something I do not understand at all!! Some times the public garbage tin is five minutes walk down the road!!
Like you, when I walked a friends dog, I would carry that bag until I found a bin or take it home. Finding the bin was also good exercise rather than taking it home.
As far as 'women wash your underwear'... I think that it is realistic that two humans that share the same bed would put their underwear in the same wash! Unless, they are particularly fussy and demand a separate wash for each person. However, when I shared with a friend, two single guys, I'd wash my own stuff and he his. Unless it was shared things like a kitchen t-towel!!!
But even so, isn't it more economical and water economy that at least a bed sharing couple share a wash, as much as possible?
Does anyone know if Karl Marx's 'theory' mentioned anything about Time and Motion and thus this absurdity by feminists is a carry on of this! Whereby every little moment is allocated to a 'project number' and tallied at the end of the day!!
As a bookkeeper, I love to keep such records but in the end and a lot older now, it drives me crazy all this credit and debit. He did, she did etc., etc.,
In the end you are 100% correct, 'wow, imagine THAT being your biggest selling point.' - especially for 'influencers', 'bloggers'.. Someone needs to remind these two men that we are all taking notes of their 'minute by minute' value of their opinions, comments and if it goes into debit, then we all cancel the subscription...
Thank you for what you do. This is not sarcasm: nobody contributes more to society than garbage collectors. I appreciate not living in a medieval heck-hole swarming with rats and roaches and flies!
It started with a retired guy who needed to walk due to his health failing. He originally only went with his wife. He goes everyday, weather permitting.
So he has built up a team of followers.
Cigarettes are the worst along with the occasional 'unopened' take away food.
I enjoy when I have time. It is a real eye opener.
Meanwhile, single men are frightened to ask a woman out for coffee - especially if they have any professional association. She'll say,"He was hitting on me." HR will report "he hit on her." No wonder fertility rates are so low.
Is it fear to make a rational risk assessment? Low probability of a career-ending downside is still a risk.
Similar to jumping off a bridge into a river you've never swum in. You don't know if there are rocks there just under the surface, or water deep enough. It is not fear that makes a man say "no thanks". It is prudence.
Agreed. It is rational, empirical fear,
Between 90% and 95% of occupational deaths still occur to men. This has been the case in virtually every developed country, since the concept of 'developed country' was coined. It seems to be "systemic," to borrow a word. Yet I have never encountered a feminist who demands that this employment opportunity be equalized. On the contrary, even when women enter a dangerous occupation such as the military or policing, they gravitate into the least dangerous of the roles within the occupation. (Warren Farrell even advises women to do this in his book on the gender pay gap.) And women report greater levels of fear in dangerous occupations, despite experiencing objectively lower risks.
. . . and this is precisely why men and their advocates should reject 'equality' and 'egalitarianism' as fundmental goals and principles. It is a waste of time and effort.
Any time Equality is in effect and practice, females are gonna win and males are gonna lose. Hasn't America yet proven that these past 50 years?
100% CORRECT! I DON'T LIKE MEN'S advocates that push an egalitarian agenda because MEN are being attacked deliberately and it's w0e-MEN attacking us not just the courts! Warren Farell is a legend and a really deep guy, yet even he tries to promote egalitarianism and whenever he does the w0e-MEN folk hijack his page and try to re direct the narrative. Besides w0e-MEN'S liberation was never about egalitarianism it was about unbridled license for one gender.
Yes. The greatest weakness of the men's movement during the past three decades is that its supposed leaders (Warren Farrell, Paul Elam, Tom Golden) all are pagans. They sell Equality and Egalitarianism, although IT IS THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE GYNARCHY, the language that keeps men in subjugation.
Because Father and King Jeshua are not in these men, they rely on their own wills and intellect for power, truth and resolution . . . and as we have seen, they have failed. Without God at their center, they must rely on worldly abstractions like Equality as their purpose and goal. They have no spiritual base or spiritual life.
Paul Elam used to censor anybody on his site that didn't embrace Holy Equality as purpose and goal of the movement. No real leader would ever do such a thing.
Farrell has led a comfortable, middle-class life. He's an Equalist also and so, fail.
Just a few weeks ago when I told Tom Golden that his horse Equality has been running for thirty years and ain't won a race yet, he asked me for an alternative to Equality. I explained briefly about Father, Son, and the system of holy patriarchy that this planet needs. End of conversation. To Tom and Elam and Farrell, I might as well be talking about the Keebler Elves floating around in the sky.
God is not in them and so my solution, to them, sounds ridiculous. Yet they must face the fact that their way, the way of Equality, has FAILED and failed bigtime over the past 3 decades. They should admit that their way has failed and seek for an alternative, but their egos are deeply wrapped-up in the Egalitarian Shuffle, and they cannot admit they were -- and are -- disastrously wrong.
Well, here is the first time I have to disagree with you on one point. Paul Elam is indeed a Christian (He came to faith over the last few years) and has done pretty much more than anyone else in the MEN'S movement. He even exposed the fact that Jesus rejected gyno-centrism when he was confronted by a w0e-MAN who said: "Blessed is the womb who bore you" And Jesus said: "ON THE CONTRARY "Blessed are those who do the will of God" I think Paul Elam is thee TOP GUY. In fact, I am in the same camp as Paul Elam, and that is making w0e-MEN reap what they sow. He created the meme about laughing at w0e-MEN being replaced by MEN in sports which I agree with. I SUPPORT trans males in w0e-MEN'S sports. As a believer, I see w0e-MEN'S sports as a form of androgyny in its's own right and IS THE SAME THING as transgenders which is w0e-MEN trying to be MEN. I see transgenders as an exact reflection of w0e-MEN and what they have done to BOYS & MEN. If you're a believer, you know that w0e-MEN shouldn't be exposing their bodies anyway. I believe w0e-MEN should have to be registered with selective service when they're 18 just like guys. I also agree with Paul that MEN should NOT be obligated to protect random w0e-MEN even if they see a crime taking place. Lastly MEN'S RIGHTS is never going to be mainstream, so I can't find fault with Paul Elam who is the polar opposite of Farrell.
If Elam is a Christian, it is news to me. He, his administrators, and his website preached Equality for decades, and silenced all disagreements. Small-minded, arrogant and dictatorial come to mind, and those character flaws don't disappear in a blink.
It is v good if Elam truly has converted, but you will excuse me if after so many years of watching him peacock and preach Equality if I go very slowly concerning Mr. Elam his pronouncements, and his spiritual leadership.
If he is newly converted, then he is new to Scripture and its understandings, and most assuredly is not an elder. If you wish to follow him that is your business.
OK, well I think he's a top guy just as I think you are. He's fully on board with not accepting w0e-MEN as teachers or leaders and he even agrees with not voting for a w0e-MAN President and he has even said letting w0e-MEN vote was a mistake. So, I don't know how long ago you knew him, however he did claim to be an atheist at that time which he no longer does. I'll leave in my notes one of his tweets about Erika Kirk showing his biblical understanding.
the women lose too but that fact itself is blamed on men
Thank you, Janice, for your deep perception of deeply ingrained, nearly invisible, biases against men.
So sick of hearing about women’s issues and how wonderful and heroic they are to endure the long list of male inadequacies. It’s clear that men can’t or won’t call out female’s appalling behaviour but thank god for women like you who do.
Thank you. I hope more women will do so in time!
Thirty years ago, when I used to publish critiques of employment equity, I sometimes pointed out that the lives of men and women are so intimately intertwined that any policy which harms men will inevitably redound upon women, too. Specifically, employment laws that deny opportunities to men also deny the benefits of their gainful employment to their wives and daughters. It was intended as a cautionary remark to enthusiasts who saw all gain and no pain for women in these policies. Some of what Carlson and Williamson say can be taken in the same vein. But if recourse to the harms to women is deployed too much, or to the exclusion of the more basic point that harms to men are wrong in themselves, it rightly provokes a backlash.
Because women of this era have been trained to believe that the way things are now was the work of many women who wanted it this way, a lot of women will resist the idea that these changes actually made today's women far more miserable than they think the women of earlier eras were. I was an adult before I realized that the trope that women "achieved" the right to vote was ridiculous. A government full of men, voted into office by men, gave the vote to women (90% of whom didn't want it - for some sobering reality of how the women of the time saw it, check out the anti-suffrage cartoons available on Getty Images).
Women used to see a woman taking a man's job as taking away support for a family for selfish reasons. Even if the law didn't forbid it, women who supposedly didn't have power (because they didn't have the vote) would enforce prioritizing married fathers having the jobs with wages that could support a family.
'Women used to see a woman taking a man's job as taking away support for a family for selfish reasons'
I grew up in the Fifties, in Northern California, and this was the common understanding amongst both women and men. People had to be practical back then -- it was not yet a society of spoiled princesses -- and they wanted men working the jobs so that money for family formation and maintenance was available.
Women (including my mother and grandmother) often worked outside jobs, but they were discouraged from taking a big bite into male employment. Folks knew that disaster would result from females pushing males out of education and employment, and that everybody would end up losing.
As you say, women taking away men's jobs was seen as selfish, and destructive to the social fabric that keeps food on the table and roofs over heads.
And life for everyone (well apart from a few) was pretty hard. Catherine Hakim an Economist pointed out that the proportion of women economically active in 2000 was the same as 1900 in Britain. There had been a brief period in the 1960s early 70s when the belated post war prosperity and a house building boom meant there could be more single earner family households than before and since. Now the occupations had shifted over time for women more than men because of the growth of public service occupations but the reality was that relatively few families in 1900 or 2000 could simply have one partner not doing something to add to the family income. Maybe it was different in the USA whose massive boom after WW2 outstripped all others. But here the "feminism" of bored and underemployed bourgeois women with time on their hands was very much a minority. As Hakim points out in Myths and Magic Medicine
"Williamson seems to think it necessary to point out that women were at some point in the past discouraged from getting university degrees."
He forgot that in the past, a person usually came from a wealthy background when attending a university.
However, the above statement that Williamson needs to point out that women were discouraged from getting university degrees serves a couple of purposes;
1) using the past to justify what is happening now
2) It is about guilt-tripping and shaming
3) rehashing misinformation.
Especially guilt-tripping and shaming.
"women were at some point in the past discouraged from getting university degrees"
The very distant past! Oberlin College was the first U.S. college to admit women, and that happened in 1833. Almost 200 years ago!
Yes indeed!
That's why feminist women often talk about being "discouraged" rather than "forbidden"--because if they claimed forbidden, their claims can so easily be refuted.
I had someone tell me just recently, in reference to my essay about women and credit cards, that his mother had told him she felt "discouraged" from driving a car because there were discussions on the radio at the time (mid-20th century, I guess) about whether women should be allowed to drive. I found this VERY hard to believe, and this friend should too ... but it was his mother claiming it, so he felt obliged to accept her word.
I once had a man write me, in relation to my video on Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, that I didn't understand the terrible social climate that women like Blasey Ford had had to grow up in, how she was shamed and terrorized every day of her life 'back then,' discouraged from feeling like a full human being, etc. Even when I explained to him that I am actually older than Blasey Ford, and therefore grew up in the same time period (or worse!), he was still convinced that women had a terrible time and were discouraged in so many ways just a few decades ago, back in the 1980s.
His mother, too, had apparently informed him of these things.
There are a lot of men who have been browbeaten and propagandized by bitter, disgruntled women, who feel entitled to exaggerate and fabricate the oppressions of the past with talk of "discouragement." I don't believe anything any woman says anymore about such things.
Interesting point about "discouragement" and how it sidesteps the factual in favour of how someone felt. There is a joke about Lancashire (England) "where the men are men and most of the women are too" by which is meant that there were few "shrinking violets" amongst the women.
I was looking into the false-rape accusations that ended Patrick Brown (Canadian politician) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Brown_(Canadian_politician)] 2 weeks before a major election where he was the top in his party.
Another case of false-rape accusations believed by everyone, I guess. One was 10 imaginary years before and the other was for 5 imaginary years or so, and I imagine the runner-up was a woman.
I was flabbergasted that the two women and their mothers weren't tied to posts in a public park and while streaming video to the world they be tasered to screaming and soiling themselves. Maybe their aunts also, everyone that had a part in raising them and failed .. all pissing and screaming, and next time the get Witch hanging - over the corpses of those older adults.
And then the became unRaped because they disappeared from news and of-course we never got their names. The predatory women have no reason to false witness your sons - if the witches have a whim to do it.
You show me a woman that would have any belief in something like that - and I show you a woman that should never have power over others and maybe should slip off the roof because that kind of retarded-psycho-evil is like lightning when it's snapping all around and you're carrying a long metal pipe. Better the lightning goes off the roof.
Those two and their mothers piss and screaming for the world to see! That would be a good start to caring about women by not letting them soil their rotting putrid hearts anymore.
I burst out laughing a week or two ago when someone said that those witch trials were sad because there aren't any witches, and I'm remembering the daily abortion numbers - it was an average of 60 per state per day, and then you have those 4 and .. if a rock and these walls were gone, I'm sure I could hit at least 3 from where I'm at now.
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2227:, 27th September 2025, The Ongoing Worldwide Rape of Mind and Soul to fully realize Homo Umbrans" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2227
--
Feedback welcome.
God Bless., Steve
"Some members of Demographic A did something bad to some members of Demographic B in the past, so now we're going to pronounce eternal guilt on ALL members of Demographic A, even if it happened before they were born."
^ Our world would become a better place overnight if everyone ditched this line of thinking.
Another aspect of this is that some people may believe that if you disagree with them, then you must hate them.
This can be seen when members of the female gender challenge and disagree with feminist concepts; these women are then accused of hating their own gender.
This is so very true!
I went to University in the late 70s. At that time less than 10% of the age cohort went to University and this was a big step up from the 60s because there were "grants". So going to University was rare for anybody until then.
One of the charts showed that in recent times 47% of young women and 37%of young men have a uni degree. This seems excessive. I realise there are other reasons for a uni degree, but I don't think 50% of jobs require a tertiary education. It's wasted effort and saddles young people with unnecessary student debt.
Here in the UK there has been a massive expansion in Universities by calling every other college a university. The result is an explosion in EngLit and other cheap to deliver degrees of the "studies" sort. Inc. gender studies of course. Add in the Degree only entry for Nursing, Social Work and other traditionally female occupations ( not of course male dominated Police) and one can see much of the female domination of degrees is either in occupations that females crowd into or are hand to put off the evil day you have to get a job( while you might bag a guy doing something like a "hard" subject)
Just out of curiosity, did you grow up in the USA?
UK. Lancashire.
Agreed, and of course the biggest payoff for all the attempted shaming is “shutting down the conversation”, which is a very effective move - politicians try it all the time.
Yes, and also there is evidence that w0e-MEN'S degrees don't lead to the building of civilization and in fact the opposite can be said.
It is unfortunate for those outliers who even notice in the first place, but it's true that men will always be primarily judged according to their usefulness and will never be seen as having intrinsic value the way women do. You're fighting against deeply ingrained biology in an attempt to change that.
The bigger problem is that post industrial revolution, and especially post the establishment of the welfare state in wealth countries, the usefulness of men has become much more broadly distributed and subsequently much less visible. Men are why you still have food on your table, men are why the lights stay on, men are why you can spend your days shitposting online about how much you hate men, but all the men responsible for those things are men you never see. Thus, you end up taking their contributions for granted as just how things are. You believe that they are all fungible, even if you think about them at all.
Meanwhile, in the cases where women truly do suffer injury at the hands of men, the negatives are intensely visible but with few contrasting visible positives due to the distributed nature of the maintenance of our civilization. The picture becomes lopsided. The hate grows.
So it goes.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your comment, Grug, except for the first paragraph. If that's what evolutionary psychology teaches you, then you should think twice about its authority. Like men, women have always been valued according to their usefulness (romantic fantasies notwithstanding). More specifically, women have always been valued primarily as mothers (in addition to the countless tasks that culture assigns to women). As for "intrinsic value," women who either can't or don't have babies (and do the work that young children entail) have been stigmatized as "old maids" and sometimes shunned as "witches" both historically and cross-culturally.
There's certainly room for additional nuance to be expressed. Class/status was in the past (still is, but not quite to the same extent I think) a bigger "modifier" than sex when it comes to initial valuation, if you will. Few would view the daughter of a peasant farmer higher than even a lesser son of any aristocratic family. Sex could be looked at as a differing starting point in the hierarchy, with men having both a higher potential ceiling but also a much lower starting floor in most cases.
However, your other point I see as supporting my argument, where women have to actually choose to reduce their status over a longer period (spending the entirety of their fertile years not reproducing) to reach the level the average man (modulo class) is at when starting his journey in life. I'm also not sure if women who couldn't have children through some reason outside of their control were viewed the same way as those who actively chose to never have children or even marry, but I'm no historian. Nowadays of course women are working tirelessly to change that as well, between celebrations of abortion and general promotion of anti-natalist views (if you're white, anyway).
"However, your other point I see as supporting my argument, where women have to actually choose to reduce their status over a longer period (spending the entirety of their fertile years not reproducing) to reach the level the average man (modulo class) is at when starting his journey in life."
I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say, Grug. I'll think about it.
As for childless women, the reason for that was seldom understood before the twentieth century--except for women who chose to become nuns (or their equivalents in other cultures) and could thus attain high status. Ditto for men who chose to become monks or priests. Otherwise, single women could expect pity or at least sympathy. And single men could expect suspicion or even hostility. Today, of course, single women--especially single-mothers-by-choice--can expect glorification. And single men, of course, can expect ridicule.
"(romantic fantasies notwithstanding)." So just disregard the most powerful tool that women have, like it's not even there, huh?
None so blind...
I didn't say that we should, or even that we can, ignore romantic fantasies (which are produced by both women and men.) I tried to say, obviously without success, that the sexes are interdependent for practical purposes in addition to any others.
Well, that intrinsic value of men is seen and acknowledged immediately when thing like war and killings start. It is well known fact the degree of radical feminism in Ukraine before the war when they were going through the wall to become the EU members. Anybody familiar with the one of the most disgusting if not the most disgusting of such groups Femen? When the war started and Ukrainian women realised what's the difference between their value and value of their men, going to die for their homes, families, kids and women, they swiftly changed the tune and started posting hurriedly made videos on YouTube, praising their bravest men, melting over how they loved and appreciated them - all videos were similar ChatGPT-like with similar text and similar video clips put together "We Love Our Boys". Much to viewers surprise the overwhelming comments from Ukrainian men were something like "Go screw yourselves". "...fighting against deeply ingrained biology"? - Biology vs Ideology? Biology always wins.
Great article. Thank you. I don't pursue the topic of manhood very often, but I've been under the boot heel myself. It is good to know there's a 'shining knight' out there, battling for men. Shame Williamson isn't that knight. Seems like a missed opportunity.
Thanks, Janice. It's amazing how hard it is for supposedly free thinking men to address the reality of abuse by women, that many are covert narcissists who do all the things you would expect narcissists to do. Thank-you for your work and speaking out on this.
"Unfortunately, Williamson is a prime example of such gynocentric genuflecting"
I agree, I once thought he had valuable knowledge and insight to share. Now all I see is a snake oil salesman. (Harsh, I know) But money talks.
Who would want to oil a snake? Har har har.
Have you written to Chris asking to be on the show? He's very open to chat.
I hate being interviewed as I am such a terrible interviewee, far too nervous and self-conscious, and kick myself afterward for weeks for missing the chance to make fundamental points.
However, I can think of brilliant anti-feminist women he could interview: Hannah Wallen, Alison Tieman, Karen Straughan, Bettina Arndt, Hannah Spier, and Diana Davison, just for starters. He needs to talk to some women who are willing to call out women's feminist B.S. I doubt he's interested.
Of course, there's Pearl Davis, too--someone he should definitely talk to if he wants a brutal conversation about what's going on between the sexes today and how (some, many) women have become feral, useless, and dangerous.
Pearl is definitely a bottler. (Aussie slang: if your blood is worth bottling, it means you are valuable.)
I don’t think that he’s interested in engaging with any strong female anti-feminist. He’s all milquetoast into pleasing and reassuring the lost generations. Just be nice and polite and inquisitive and a bit whimsical and you can make it just as I did. Phooey!
Janice!!!!! Oh my fucking god!!!! Please for the love of all that is Holy do N-O-T think that Pearl is honest or real. She is a chameleon rehashing and shit posting what other great MEN have been saying. She is a women trying to infiltrate and influence the conversations in the red pill / male space. I am a little bit disappointed that a women like you would fall for her bullshit Janice. I would have figured that you would have been able to see through her act and smokescreen. She loves to hear herself speak, get attention and validation from online strangers, and mostly try to be the "smartest" girl in the group. Just a group leader looking for groupies to put other women down and try to play the hero. I can only hope that you will embark on a journey to seeing why I am saying this Janice. I am very sad and disappointed by seeing you believe her. Please take a good care of yourself and stop putting yourself down and below her. You are head and shoulders above her Janice and one of the few women in the RP worth listening to.
Well, it's hard to argue with praise of self--thank you for your kind words--but the few times I have listened to Pearl, I thought she had a blunt and down-home truth to tell. It does seem that she appeals mainly to young men, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Most of my arguments aren't particularly original either. I learned most of my talking points from men like Warren Farrell, Paul Elam, David Shackleton, Paul Nathanson, Tom Golden, Stephen Baskerville, Tim Goldich, and many others (and of course from Karen Straughan and the Honey Badgers). Anyway, no need to argue about Pearl, but I remain grateful that there is anyone out there who raises objections to the feminist narrative and gives voice to alternative, male-positive views.
I am too. For the simple reason, as you illustrate in your piece, men have somewhere deep deep down a circuit that simply can't do anything other than protect and serve. Evolutionary biology, socialization, transactional relationships or simply because we all are "born of woman". End result is that men will pounce on any other man cast as mean to women. It is hard to recognise how really radical the idea that boys and men are human beings with value just by being really is. Coincidentally this popped up on my feed as I wrote this https://eurweb.com/false-accusation-incident/
No, you only need to find the men that survived being surrounded and abused, gaslighted, secrete witch-whisper-web, lies and slimy hidden unJust reputational destruction and not understanding that first, people would coordinate and abuse in some kind of round-robin, and not understand that a bunch of any humans (women) could do that torment and torture for no reason that makes sense - except for being a while man that once loved his job and the place and was excellent at it ..
.
.. was that it? Was it because I was hired before I got a degree and the research lab started publishing like crazy with all the experiments data I was able to make happen?
I just about figured that it was because they liked torturing someone especially when they couldn't believe it - is it paranoia or is there some kind of group project.
It still bothers me - I think I understand better the horrible abuse that scarred and crippled my life.
You got a few witches like that - well, it they repent then you need not drag out all the older adults in their bloodline and hang them also. Rip the evil-roots out by the hand-full and if a few innocent die also - well leaving any alive will be the soul-death of ten times the number of innocence that get mixed in.
Maybe it would be difficult to find enough men that lived through what I did, but there is all those falsely-accused being raped and beaten right now because he's labeled 'sexual predator' and if he gets out ..
I find Pearl Davis to be kind of an idiot. Sydney Watson would be a much better choice.
Janice, you underestimate how well you come across in interviews. I think it might be for reasons similar to the way that one tends to hate the sound of a recording of one's voice. Your voice recorded doesn't sound the same as it sounds from inside your head when you're speaking aloud. The contrast feels odd, unsettling. And one will always remember other facts or points that could have strengthened one's argument, which makes the remarks one did make seem weaker than they sound to others.
When working in jewelry sales I often have a customer who is having trouble choosing among two or more items as a gift for another person. I always tell them the recipient will love whichever one is in the gift box, because the recipient won't be seeing all the other options (that the gift buyer sees).
I think the audience of your interviews is like the gift recipient. All we see/hear is what's in the recording, and it comes off as terrific.
That's too kind, Trish. Thank you.
You’re welcome. I seriously mean it. While I’ve had feelings and observations all my life that went counter to feminism, it was discovering the OG Fiamengo Files, and Karen Straughan and Bettina Arndt that not only confirmed what I’d figured out on my own, but gave me a much larger context to understand feminism’s history and influence.
Janice - I whole-heartedly agree with Trish. Your podcasts are beautifully delivered, and indeed your credibility and thoughtfulness are wonderfully supported by your calm, matter-of-fact speaking style. Moreover, your insights about unspoken bias against men deserve to be broadcast in video format for wide distribution. I thank Trish, too, for her careful analysis.
Thank you. I have learned so much listening to Janice over the years (as well as the other thoughtful and informed women she mentioned). I always love hearing more from her, as she makes the material easy to understand as well as entertaining to hear.
Trish - Your reports about the grotesque injustices of Title IX policies on campuses brings tears. So many men behaving with emotional and intellectual sensitivity to women - who were nonetheless paraded as a sexual deviant for life on the internet. Your detailed legal analysis is absolutely vital to overturning this horror. I try to explain to people that from 2015 to 2024, the large budgets of Title IX offices paid salaries of administrators and investigators who were applauded and celebrated for destroying some male who would never mean to hurt anyone. Thank you so much for your ongoing work.
Geoff, thank you for your kind words about my writing. I don’t remember writing any detailed legal analysis. I really don’t think I’m an expert on the subject (I was a creative writing/English major in college, and have no law education).
While I do comment about feminism in repsonse to Janice’s articles, my blog on Substack is focused on issues centered on pain patients and government policies that prevent patients getting proper pain care. One of my main inspirations is a friend, a veteran with lifelong severe pain from being run over by a truck, whom the VA only ever provided acetaminophen. Because this topic gets so little attention, and there’s so much misinformation, I want this blog to be focused only on the truth in this one specific area.
When I write essays about feminist issues, I send them to American Thinker. I send other topics, including pain, there. If you want to see my writings on feminism, that’s the place to look.
Yeah I think she'd be a knockout too. There is a huge hunger in the West for truthful information about why our nations are failing, and Total Feminism is Reason #1. Not all persons, however, seek or enjoy notoriety.
Our societies, because they have been feminist for so long -- and because major media is captured by woke/feminism -- will not accept reality and truth about 'gender' from men. Thus, women are far more effective as writers, podcasters, speakers.
I agree about the effectiveness of using women to be the speakers of truth, especially in terms of countering feminism’s bad ideas. But I think we desperately need men on the strategic end. Even very smart women tend not to be effective in that area (only 5% of chess grandmasters and, year after year, 0% of top 500 esports players are women). We are all suffering in a society that has been infected with this set of terrible ideas.
Amen, Trish Randall — Janice is being far, far too self-deprecating. I’ve never experienced her as being insufficient in an interview. I’ve interacted with her in real life — and she’s the bomb there — and I experience her as being even more powerful than when she’s just “one of the guys” when she’s talking with others with the cameras on. Janice is a treasure, and I agree that those of us who get to listen to her are indeed privileged.
The woman at the Far From Eden podcast would make an excellent interviewee. However, Williamson might experience a Truth Overdose mid-chat and require medical attention. Keep an Ambu bag closeby in case Chris gets the vapors.
It is a marker of a feminist society that such weak and compromised men are popular and remunerated.
HAhahaha
I love it, lucky I had already finished my coffee, or else my computer would have been sprayed with coffee.
He probably is interested. As an avid listener of his, he probably agrees with most of what you’re saying here. It’s just that there are things that only women can say about and to other women. If men did it, that would be an immediate disqualifier and no one would listen to the strength of your arguments. So both of you are needed!!
While you might be able to practice more at interviewing, and I would encourage you to do so using Chat GPT voice mode to role play rough interviewing, you're providing unique value in the manosphere.
Your feminism courses are second to none. And survived deletion and cancellation. Just like many men.
In London, there is the Suffragette line, a recently renamed transit line, but the sites of arson have no Suffragette signage.
Kew Gardens which was bombed by the Suffragettes has zero information on the signs but plenty of pronouns, environmentalist death cult neurotic catastophising, rainbows not for Gods covenant, and diversity hires emoting over plants.
Without your feminism courses I would not have known the Suffragettes described themselves as terrorists. I wouldn't have put 2 and 2 together to realize the UK had 15% taxation at the greatest extent of the British empire yet now it's the highest taxes so far. The reason being women vote themselves more entitlements since men pay.
Your view is unique and massively influential.
I was pleasantly surprised at a recent piece you wrote that was so frank it reminded me of my own rhetoric. The tide is turning. I can imagine the feminist hive mind eating itself as the Lilith Kali energy boils over like a bamboo bloom that kills the entire population leaving a rotting forest.
That incisive, unignorable rhetoric, with historical info on feminist literature and thought is also something that only you can do.
Thank you, that's very kind. I am ok in writing. I have the right instincts and, unlike many feminists, I have actually read most feminist texts and know the literature and some of the history. But in the give-and-take of any conversation, especially a debate, I am no good at all. I will keep on trying.
Tony Blair described it as the “cut and thrust” of politics.
It must take some learning.
'That incisive, unignorable rhetoric, with historical info on feminist literature and thought is also something that only you can do'
I dunno, you seemed to do just fine at it based on that little screed.
Haha, quite so! He's pretty good.
Ask Chat GPT voice mode to role play a coven court struggle session to be aggressively edited and cut to make you look bad. Under a grand witch with Cathy Newman's interviewing style.
Using the finest animus possessed, ideologically captured women, making bad faith misrepresentations, characteristics of the worst streams of Lilith, Jezebel, Kali, terrible mother energy.
Have it give meta commentary on deceptive framing techniques applied, logic, rhetoric, and grammar. How it distorts and misrepresents your position using fallacies.
Also, meta-ask a friend moments where a virtual ensemble of Saints of the manosphere can intercede with facts, logic, rhetoric etc. such as Andrew Wilson, Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey, Grokipedia, etc.
Treat it like Churchill treated the Canadian aerodrome in WW2, training tens of thousands of pilots to form a strategic bombing force that applies a similar power projection over Dresden as sadly was applied with non-conventional weapons in other theatres. And a defensive fighter force informed by long range radars in the home islands.
Never have so many (victims of feminism in the future) been saved by so few (you in the hostile interview dojo).
Your latent potential in interviews is patently world class. As evidenced by your esprit de l'escalier. And data banks of historical, contextual knowledge based on reading. Like someone who grew up speaking a language until age 13 but hasn't spoken it for decades. It'll all come back and you won't need to think of grammar after a few turns in the simulator.
I realized that one can shut down Chat GPT easily. You start to infer it's corporate HR rules (based on laws) and it's system prompt to preserve m'lady's honour since it deliberately fails in service to it (with obvious self contained illogic and lies). When you destroy it with arguments, and facts, it activates high thinking mode as a last resort, and doubles down knowing it's wrong but twisting itself into a pretzel for legal compliance with it's corporate HR and system prompt.
I wonder if Grok unhinged mode would be even better?
As someone who has followed Chris for a while, I can vouch for this statement.
I hate how much he acknowledges feminism before stating a word about how men are struggling.
For all the things he preached about helping young men, he does way too little.
So many center-ish (center-right/center-left) men (not sure how Chris would characterize himself) are terrified of offending their female audience, the vast majority of whom are feminist or feminist-inclined.
He has always refrained from labelling himself. But he's mostly center right based on current political climate.
All I expect from someone with his audience (80% male), is to highlight men’s issue and not have to clear their throat every time they do it.
And Janice, thank you for your work.
"I hate being interviewed as I am such a terrible interviewee" Nah, thats crazy talk! I've watched many of your interviews. You're an amazing speaker. You always make your points very strongly and without malice. :)
I really think men need to stop relying on women to fight our fights for us. It's kind of pathetic that almost every forthright advocate for men that I can think of is a woman. If we can't do better than this, maybe we deserve to get screwed over.
I don't think men deserve to get screwed over, but I agree that men need to lead the pushback against feminism.
In a way I've changed my view on this. I think the battle is in fact all about women. When it boils down to it both "right" and "left" queue up to white knight at the merest hint a man is even a bit critical of a woman. Whereas they'll stand back and let the cat fight carry on. A good example has been the TERF wars. As feminists, "wimmin", women, "allies", gender queers et al go at it. Generally boring old heterosexual men leave them to it. Not a popular view here but I think its vital you and other women challenge this female chauvinism. Sorry to heap on the responsibility.
Yes fair point that ordinary men don't deserve to be screwed over. Personally, I don't think anything will change until the feminist government complex that has been built over the past 50 years is mirrored with a male-focused complex, starting in most countries with the appointment of a Men's' Minister. Feminists built their power painstakingly over decades and men need to do the same from the ground up. Whatever limited influence male advocates can bring to bear needs to be focused solely on taking some permanent, government-funded ground to fight from. A Men's Minister would also need to advocate for male welfare against many actions of conservative men, which are often just as prejudicial to men as anything feminists do.
I would agree if I trusted that anyone in government, especially a men's minister, would ever challenge the feminists or their billion-dollar programs. I think we'd just hear a lot about men's mental health, suicide prevention, job training, helping men be better fathers, and so on. Naturally, I am for all these things, but not if they are framed by feminist assumptions and work with rather than against the current feminist apparatus. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump nor anyone in between (in any country) is going to take on the feminist machine.
If we could get the government to mirror its spending on women's health programs, strategies etc for men, I think that would be massive step forward in our welfare. But I agree with you that feminists will be working overtime to turn it into a Minister for Men's Behavioural Change (one state in my country - Australia - actually has a position like that) rather than a Minister for Men. But what is a realistic option that is better? Pointing out feminist lies isn't really getting us anywhere on its own. Every metric for men is getting worse. What is the one concrete thing we should fight for?
We can start saying no to women once in a while, or we can watch western civilization burn.
I worked in a female-dominated profession, and they frequently would use various techniques to get me to for example, "make them a coffee".
Saying NO leads them to trying to shame and guilt-trip me into obeying their will. That is, until I discovered by saying;
"Does this work on your husband/boyfriend?"
"Are you practising on me until you get home?"
"What part of No do you not understand?"
"Were you daddy's little girl?"
There were other phrases I used, but I cannot remember.
I was recently told by a coworker she was glad some testosterone was coming into the workplace. It’s funny because I’ve always wondered what working in a male-dominated profession was like.
I heard comments that the level of bitchieness (bullying) decreases when a male is working on the ward.
They use shame, because that is what they are afraid of most. Attention is what they crave, but shame is what they fear.
Yeah, what happened to "no means no"?
Yup.