If you can quote any statement in which I said that ALL women lack objective truth, etc., this would be an intelligent comment. But since that was not what I argued, this is just silliness.
Its funny, how leftist either pretend not get it or simply dont get it, that humans usually speak in generalities when debating.
Lefties seem to think the demand for a "#not all" descriptor is a valuable counterargument, as if the one person out of the group can be a stand-in for the whole group.
For me its a sign of very low IQ and heavy academic indoctrination, when the counter argument to:
"ALL humans have 10 fingers"
is:
"I know a carpenter, who has 9 fingers. Are you saying he is not a human?"
90% of leftist discourse is a circle jerk anyways. Its useless to debate them and at this point people like andrew wilson who do this daily for hours have proven it with enough empiric evidence to make a study out of it.
When people use an extraordinary woman as an example of what all women are capable of, I tell them that three fillies have won the Kentucky Derby but that proves nothing about fillies in general. It only proves there were three fillies that could run with the colts. (The number of fillies that beat the colts in other races are also rare.)
Some of the Soviet era Marxist logic was actually quite excellent. They understood what assumptions their logic rested upon. The problem today is that nothing replaced Marxism. Even worse, the white hysterical classes have chosen to decry logic itself. You can see this in self-destructive statements such as "Math is racist" or "Grammar is white supremacy." It is not surprising that this kind of thinking quickly stopped the convergence of black wages to the national mean in the US.
I suspect that the driving force behind the campus activist professional protestor types is a deep-seated misanthropy and a desire to see the world burn. This is not socially acceptable, so they promote policies that lead to this while claiming that they are environmentalists and similar lies. What I find most interesting is how women in other cultures are not like this. In East Asian societies you will see far more female engineers and scientists, and far less of the creepy rich white lady activism that is dominant here. It is also the driving factor behind the racist hatred these "Progressive" white ladies harbor towards Asian and increasingly Latino Americans and immigrants. Given the strong families and success sub-Saharan African immigrants are defined by, I suspect they will be next on the creepy rich white lady hit list.
"In East Asian societies you will see far more female engineers and scientists"
Yes, Asian women are extremely capable in STEM, there's no great disparity between Asian women and men like there is in the West. Unfortunately Western women only excel when it comes to bitching and whining, where they are undisputed world champions.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of better relations between men and women among other races. From what I've seen, Asian women (for example) can be just as demanding, unreasonable, bitter, and nasty as white women, given the chance. In Thailand, which most people think is a paradise for men, there has been a spate of "suicides" and "accidental deaths" in which white men who married Thai women fall to their deaths from apartment balconies. Often their wives just happened to be home at the time of the suicide/accident. In the 1970s, Thai women carried out dozens and possibly hundreds (no one knows the number) of penile amputations to punish allegedly unfaithful husbands. The idea that non-white women appreciate men and love them is a fantasy that has lured many unsuspecting men to horrific circumstances in the Philippines, South America, and elsewhere.
Yes, Asian women can be evil too, and plenty of Western men have found out the hard way. I was commenting on their superior aptitude for STEM, not their moral character! I think most Western blokes these days have few illusions about Asian women, especially Thai women, and all the expat Youtubers are constantly warning 'newbies' about the dangers of getting into relationships with them. But some men never learn, so there will always be a steady supply of naive Western men seeking love in these countries, and many will fall victim to predatory women. But for sensible men who know the score, these countries are indeed paradise compared to their own feminized Western countries.
To be fair, though, many of these Asian brides are just fine and often admirable. They'll fight *for* their famililes rather than fight them. As they serve as good role models, feminists hate them more than anyone else.
It's a gamble both ways. At times it's the Western man, a loser or creep, who is the villian. I mention this because of an odd case in my own family. A long-divorced cousin went to Thailand and brought home a wife and her teenage daughter. Though I've never met them, from reading the accounts in the news, they had the strong odor of the manipulative type, probably doing this for immigration purposes. My cousin had had a lot of grief in his life, but it was mostly self-inflicted. His own adult son calls him dishonest and manipulative.
But the system is tipped, especially in California. He went to jail for a year on some "domestic" charge, which likely had a kernel of truth but was equally likely somewhat trumped-up. The women suffered nothing, and are almost certainly still in the country enjoying our citizenship. (And maybe a second or third victim.)
The best part of this story is that with two such bad eggs hooking up, innocent members of both sexes and both nationalities were spared!
My wife is from Thailand. I grew up with many peers who had parents married to Asian spouses, and they are all still married decades later. I lived in Taiwan and spent considerable time in Thailand, Japan and the PRC. I think you can find all kinds of horrific acts (women castrate men in the US all the time, and on average American women murder more partners than any county in East Asia).
Overall, Thailand has good families. That is what matters. As a rule, the women in places such as the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Korea, Colombia, Estonia, Romania,..., they seem to have avoided the angry, miserable perspectives so many women in the US have adopted. They also appear to value family more, and it shows up in statistics on divorce.
Now, there are a considerable number of psychotic freaks who move to Southeast Asia for terrible reasons, but your average expat analyst or accountant who marries a local does just fine there, and when he brings the family home. Drop by any local Thai Buddhist temple or Thai-Chinese church to see. Divorce is rare among these groups, and the same is true with Filipinos and others.
All of the random unfortunate events you reference happen everywhere. The insanely high divorce rate in the US is the result of a failing culture where people care more about a good time than their children. There are many wonderful American white women, perhaps a solid 15% of them, but for other cultures it is more like 80%, just like in the US a century ago (I am making up those percentages, not referencing any actual stats).
Undoubtedly there are many terrible American white males, but they are usually easy to identify. The problem with deranged women is that they hide it well. When I observe women complaining about such men, almost always it relates to infidelity. More often than not these women were warned about it before they got married (including by the husbands' own mothers), but they some how managed to be surprised by this. One could probably add husbands that develop autogynephilia, but I doubt that is a significant number. That is the only event I know of that roughly aligns with the American female mental breakdown.
You might want to work on logic. I find work in math or computer programming to be some of the best ways to do this. Math beyond linear algebra and calculus can be a bit too abstract if you do not use it at work, but you can always automate stuff at work or find new ways to get stuff done or build tools to help colleagues complete their work better and faster. It really helps one see how logic systems work. Over time you can even use Visual Studio (or whatever you prefer) to test your own positions.
You will also end up making more money and getting promoted. Furthermore, all those people who now can finish their work in the two days they must be in the office, they will adore you.
I am sorry that I implied that I was in some way putting you down. I meant no disrespect nor did I want to insult you. I do not want to insult you. I simply wanted to share a tool I have used to better understand formal logic. I have benefitted greatly from such suggestions given to me here and on many forums.
I want to apologize for any harm I caused. I also apologize on behalf of men for what was done to you. We should execute criminals who target female victims. Women deserve to live in safety, and as a society the US has failed to provide this for nearly sixty years.
I find it personally offensive that you insist upon any sort of distinction between what you said and someones understanding of it. What is wrong with you?
“Pundits such as Helen Andrews, Cory Clark, and Bo Winegard (see my discussion and links here have made the evidence-based case that women in general are not as committed as men in general to objective excellence and the pursuit of truth.”
As per Miriam Webster :
general:
1 of 2
adjective
gen·er·al ˈjen-rəl ˈje-nə-
Synonyms of general
1
: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2
: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group
So to recap: you are objectively wrong. And seeing as how my testosterone levels are high, I’m probably more objectively right than a fancy, cute, femme, lil estrogen-brained proper lady like you. :*
That I’m a formally educated, self-possessed, well-rounded, human who hasn’t forgotten that women create men’s entire lives in our bodies—not the other way around?
Because we can read what she writes and understand English.
This sort of thread isn't a refutation of anything Janice says, it's if anything supporting it. Kind of amazing that the first post is literally someone doing the meme (where a woman replies to a point being made about group averages with a single exception).
What no one else is smart enough to say is this—you’re the cookie from the factory and the factory is your mom’s pussy—any woman’s pussy actually. And it bugs you. That’s why all the aggression towards women you don’t know. That’s why you love a woman flogging her own gender for you. Because you feel insecure about the fact that women are the Original Source and men are always just kind of the fan art—you know—to put it like a man would. That’s why leaving a comment like that makes you think you’re having an impact. But you must troll enough women to know that this is just another day interacting with men on the Internet.
Your question implies that ALL women cannot express what is an objective truth.
You are a woman.
So, according to your logic, you express the objective truth that ALL women cannot express objective truth, but since your are a woman this is not true and women CAN express objective truth etc etc - in short, your original claim is a paradox and therefore false.
Women CAN express objective truth. As for the specific things written in this post - that a whole different subject, and a valid one. Why don't we talk about that.
“The female brain [...] tends to be geared toward empathy, which includes emotional sensitivity to other people and deep interest in understanding them and their feelings."
The ability to read and manipulate emotions has a very dark side. Women can be phenomenally good at manipulating men into feeling guilty and in their debt. This is how they convince men to serve women. Even in their use of language, there is often a subtle implication that the man is somehow guilty of something and owes the woman compensation. This is an unacknowledged common female-typical form of interpersonal abuse. First induce a sense of guilt, then imply a duty to restore moral balance through service.
In my own experience, the feminists that run Human Resources departments have been anything but empathetic - they made no effort to hide their discrimination against men.
Last week, a gentleman went into our HR department and showed the (95% female) HR staff all of the wonderful things that AI can do. The staff quickly put 2+2 together and they are not happy. Those cry bully bitches' days are clearly numbered.
The problem is that there is a vast bank of feminist literature upon which all AI LLMs are being trained. AI is not a blank slate: it relies on training to be useful. They are all heavily feminist simply because that is the prevailing literature available to them upon which they have learnt about the world.
A feminist AI taking over from feminist workers is, if anything, worse. Workers can, in time, be taught differently and made to appreciate their errors. An AI engine, often these days taught by other AI engines, will remain feminist and will not even be able to think that it is doing something wrong.
But with feminism it is worse. Feminism is a minority belief, with something like 5% of the population self-identifying as a feminist (according to British and German research). Yet in terms of literature available, it is massive. On gender issues it clearly wins hands down but even on matters like law and mathematics, feminism is way over-populated with books. Try telling an AI the things that we know from studying feminism in the real world and you will come up against a wall of resistance. Existing real-world bias is against feminism. Existing managerial, media, education and — of most relevance here — literature is heavily skewed in favour of feminist lies and nonsense.
It hardly matters. I work with AI and read AI research papers every day.
For one, the models have got a lot more neutral over time. They (mostly) aren't the crazed woke whackjobs the first versions were.
But more importantly with models context is everything. People don't appreciate how powerful that is. Would you like a non-feminist performance review? (why is HR doing this in the first place.... don't know but bear with me). Not a problem. Invoke the model once and ask it to remove the employee's name and any signals about their gender. Then invoke the model again and ask it to review the now anonymized promo packet. This kind of trick can be used extensively to work around latent biases.
However, having said all that, I don't think AI will have the effect on female employment some are predicting. A lot of those jobs were unnecessary and redundant before AI, they're there only to create female employment so computers getting smarter isn't going to suddenly change anything.
HR should start an employee exercise regime of jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle, beating around the bush, running down the boss, going around in circles, dragging their feet, dodging responsibility, passing the buck, climbing the ladder, wading through paperwork, pulling strings, shooting the breeze, throwing their weight around, stretching the truth, bending the rules, pushing their luck, shuffling papers, and playing hide and seek. At least this way they might make dealing with HR more pleasurable.
If you get prostate cancer, you will learn that your feminist buddies made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer.
The funding for this kind of thing has little bearing on life expectancy. We have spent billions on AIDS research and achieved no real advancement in decades (although there were real breakthroughs in the 1980's and 1990's).
Breast cancer funding is massive, and nothing has come of it. One could say that breast cancer both impacts more people and can often come far earlier in life than prostrate cancer, but it does not matter. Spending on both is more about subsidizing university science labs than obtaining any practical knowledge.
Getting upset about funding differentials only makes sense if you want to defund it all. Whining about irrelevant disparities is not something men want to emulate from the most disgusting of the female activist class.
Men holding themselves to high standards. Men working hard and achieving. Men walking away from corrupt organizations and trying their luck somewhere new. I think Jordan Peterson has done a good job inspiring young men to find their way, or at least he did before he had his born again transformation.
The key is to never give up. If one place is corrupted, abandon it and build another. All the white women around you are creepy and sadistic, ask out women from other cultures which have not lost their way.
Movies are more or less lost, but fantasy and sci-fi books are still going strong, as is gaming. I got into PC gaming as an adult, and I love it. I gave up cable television twenty years ago, and my books and games have been more than enough to fill the gap.
The following is illustrative: a common female strategy is to do nothing, and wait for the man to take initiative. Then, without providing any contribution of her own, she will criticize him and/or his actions. This is abusive. Most men don't know how to repond and are caught off guard. They felt the social pressure to move things along to a solution, and responded in good faith. But the subtly applied psychological or social pressure, often with body language and context, is often NOT in good faith. And even if it was in good faith, the entire negative interaction is corrosive to the soul. Our culture is nowhere near ready to talk about the prevalence, and profound depth, of female abusiveness.
I think it significant that when women do excel at something, using things, ideas, systems and methods devised by men, they tend to say, when asked why they wanted to do so, not that they wanted to test themselves and see if it could be done but that they wanted to beat the men. I think that demonstrates a deeply rooted inferiority complex.
women have the ability to abuse under the radar. Because the only real indicators of it are people around them feeling hurt over a long period of time but by then it is already too late
Another way to put it is that since actual, genuine misogyny is so rare, feminists have all sorts of pent-up hate to unleash. Nobody in authority positions is saying anything anti-woman or anti-feminist. So what can they do?
They teach in classrooms that women face misogyny everywhere, but really it's nowhere. So they have to go after a guy with a shirt!!
The hilarity is that a woman made the shirt for him. It's likely he wore that shirt on camera to make her proud, to show off her handiwork to the world!
I think that's called the March of Dimes syndrome. You mobilize helpers to fix a problem, it gets fixed, the helpers are still mobilized and want to continue, what do they do now? For the March of Dimes they found other handicaps to support, for feminism and racism it seems they continue to insist it is as bad as ever and omnipresent, it seems.
Feminists don't like it when pretty young wimmin are seen as the tempting, juicy desirable creatures that they are. The shirt was no different from a renaissance painting of forest nymphs and glowing God-Esses. But the world has worshipped a One Male God for such a long time that both sexes have forgotten to love every aspect of our physical experiences. The Feminists are as misogynistic as any man, or possibly more so than many men.
Yes, Tony, and thanks for saying what I would have had to say (and have said many times). I see no evidence that women are more "agreeable" (pleasant, compliant or passive) than men are--even though women, unlike men, have been trained from early childhood to act that way. And I don't care if the social scientists use that word with more subtlety among themselves than most people do in the public square.
Not being a clinical or evolutionary psychologist, I can't demonstrate my challenge with statistics. Relying by necessity on my own "lived experience" over almost eight decades, though, I find it impossible to take seriously the common belief that women are innate experts in creating social harmony, let alone in feeling genuine compassion for those beyond their own families, communities, tribes or whatever class qualifies as "us" instead of "them."
By now, women might well be over-represented among those who protest or riot as champions of the "marginalized." But much of what they actually say and do amounts to nothing more than naive virtue-signaling at best. At worst, it amounts to nothing less than outright malice, fueled for decades by feminism or allied ideologies, toward those whom they consider innate "oppressor" classes. The result is revenge, not justice, and polarization, not harmony.
And I dare the experts on domestic violence and family law to argue that women have some innate genius for peacemaking even within the home. What should be true, according to either moral philosophy or scientific theory, isn't necessarily what actually is true. And that reality, I think, is more important than whatever its explanation might be.
Yes, but they HAD to be trained. That was my whole point about the need for culture. There was nothing stupid about them. They learned from experience and acted accordingly.
But that is exactly how the hustler, hustles. Women create, insinuate or present men with problems, and expect men to pay for the fix or supply the fix.
Also your quote: “The female brain [...] tends to be geared toward empathy, which includes emotional sensitivity to other people and deep interest in understanding them and their feelings."
Needs some changes. Women are indeed very empathetic, but not towards others, not towards other women, but firstly, and mostly, towards themselves.
Women always have some roundabout way of thinking and puzzling with words, rules, objective reality, etc. The reason why women "care about other women" is because they think that they will benefit from this. They see a random bitch that they don't give a fuck about, but one that is in a situation that they can find themselves in later down the line, or they want to put other women in a (more) compromised position (then they're already in).
You can't be empathetic towards yourself, by definition.
But yeah that can be a problem. I never quite understood the trope that women are more empathetic than men. Maybe it's true on average but amongst the men and women I've known, the men are much more able to pick up on and understand feelings.
Especially problematic is that women often over-interpret emotions and see emotions that aren't actually there. It's been a very common experience over the years in relationships and also now with my wife that I'll get asked questions like, why are you upset? But I'm not upset nor was there any reason to be upset. I was literally just thinking, or looking out of the window, or had nothing to say at that moment. Or I'll be asked to express an opinion and say something like, "It's OK but I'm not a fan of the color" - and then I'll be told I'm complaining.
If the woman is upset at the time all this is multiplied by 100x. Their descriptions of what I'm feeling and thinking will bear no resemblance to reality.
This kind of strange empathy misfire never happens with men. My experience is admittedly biased though, as I tend to hang out with smarter-than-average programmer types. The stereotype that we're all autists who don't understand other people doesn't match my experiences at all.
The ability to manipulate is there for a reason. In a healthy society it works as a disciplinary force that holds everyone accountable. Men can do whatever but they won't if they know women will reject them for it. Because women are mothers and potential mates and any sane man will struggle to go against that kind of soft power. This system turns problematic when society is not healthy - rules and boundaries are perverted by whoever sets them and women start attacking wrong targets. That's your average Western country today. I wouldn't go so far as to blame men for setting the targets, but given the premise that men are those who build structures and set rules, it would make certain sense. Too bad it's not easy to put the proverbial genie back into the bottle. But as a woman, who changed her views from extremely liberal to very conservative, I can tell it's not impossible. We just need to keep pushing.
yeah, the evidence is in a study which proves that the female brain is better at recognizing sadness and joy while the male brain is better at recognizing aggression.
Thats why woman dont realize the dangers of certain situtations they are in and end up victimized while men get Defensive/Offensive in realizing danger much faster than woman.
It might be the explanation for migrational politics and empathy with foreign rapists and why they vote against their own interest. They are just wired that way.
(2006 Do angry men get noticed? Mark A. Williams ∙ Jason B. Mattingley)
I do believe that this kind of behavior is at the root of the appeal dark individuals such as the Tate brothers cultivate. I have had the misfortune of seeing women from other cultures arrive here happy, industrious and eager to take on the challenges of the world. Then they integrate into white American female groups and the transformation is both obvious and terrifying.
The immigrant woman starts giving back-handed compliments and engaging in morally repugnant behavior. She starts consuming vapid American mass-culture (broadcast television, so-called women's magazines (that consist entirely of advertisements with random tiny how-to articles scattered about, all oriented around creating misery for oneself and her family). Then the crying, the anger, the imagined family problems, and finally the full assimilation with either full-blown mental illness, substance abuse, or some variation of sexual misery (adultery, sex with teenage boys, escort work, unpaid escort work--which white women will assure you is deeply empowering, but not for their daughters,...).
In the end, you have an angry, sad, lonely woman who ruined her family, harmed her children, alienated her community, and once they are done, their so-called white female friends no longer come calling because they have other lives to ruin. I have watched security footage where every time an Asian or Latina woman left the group, all the white women would say terrible things about their "friends." These racist, selfish monsters are the ones promoting "tolerance" and "anti-racism."
Other cultures do not appear to suffer from this civilizational rot. Women in East Asian societies are not destroying their universities and scientific institutions. I suspect the best place for the next generation will be in the East, perhaps in Australia or Singapore, working in a group of sustainable cultures that do not cultivate hate but instead cultivate refinement, just like we used to do.
Although women are at the center of the Rot in the West, I am not convinced that women in other cultures hate their children so much that they would emulate our stupidity.
Now, now, Tom, let us be fair. Feminism has also brought about some amazing social changes:
- The need for both parents to work instead of one to work and provide for the other as she takes care of the family and home;
- A steadily decreasing level of happiness among women, recorded across all nations that feminism has infected;
- Changing yet apparently vital goal posts to satisfy women which started in the early days as for calls for 'fairness', moved on to 'equality' and are currently 'equity' with 'enhancement' now being mooted in the international circles that decide these things;
- Social collapse created by - if nothing else will work for them - a falling birthrate that is too sudden to allow for sustained social systems.
In fairness, it did genuinely bring a lot of benefits for women. That this came with some more subtle downsides for men, women, children and society is self-evident, but it's not like there were no benefits for anyone.
I can refute most of what you might mention, though I can't do so well across all countries. On balance, though, do any of the benefits (usually only for a select few) outweigh the massive harms?
I'm old enough to remember the first home computers in the early 1980s. They immediately became games machines (I loved it). The programmers were individuals or groups of 4, sometimes brothers, who poked around the hardware of these machines and created great games in their bedrooms that went on to sell in the thousands. It was a successful niche industry. These young men became celebrities to their small audience. They were interviewed in magazines called 'Crash' and such like. And they looked every bit the nerd. Mullet hair, thick glasses, scrawny bodies. This was not a sexy industry. And they boys in school who played these games were much the same. I was one of them.
Roll forward to 2000s when games became a became a multi-billion global business that employs thousands. And of course women complaining that they are being left out.
They were never there when it was an unpleasant, self-driven, obsessive geek hobby. They didn't have strange bits of motherboards piled up in their bedrooms. They weren't up all night, utterly unaware that it was 4am in the morning. They made up a tiny fraction of the customers (I worked in a game shop and I guess 10% at most were girls).
Notice how there's never any female under-representation amongst train spotters or airport watchers. Yet it's that single-minded fixation that drives innovation.
Those who follow popular culture critics on Youtube, like Critical Drinker, will be well aware of Kathleen Kennedy of Lucasfilm, Jennifer Salke of Amazon TV and others like Lesley Headland and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. These women were put in charge of some of the great pop-culture and literature works of men - Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings. They set about 'smashing the patriarchy' of these works. And smash them they did. They then stepped back and expected us to applaud their piles of rubble.
The Wheel of Time series was cancelled by Amazon. It was losing money. I watched the first few episodes and gave up as it was severely infected by feminist crap. You know, domestic abuse, wife murdered, lesbian relationships etc. etc. none of which featured in the original story.
No doubt rape would have featured at some point.
A magnificent piece of fiction by Robert Jordan debased by a debauched culture. I hope that Amazon lost a stack.
In recent times a new genre has appeared called Romantasy. Full of something referred to as "Spice". Directed at a demographic which is obsessed with sex.
The destruction of movies has been a bizarre ride. I am fine with strong female lead characters and all that, but why not spend time making the story good? It always feels like they took a story, then broke it to insert in their social message, then never bothered to refine it in any way. Why not simply choose stories with the desired characteristics first?
At least we still have fantasy/sci-fi books and PC gaming. If those are taken from US I am leading the armed insurrection.
Good point. I often hear Critical Drinker and Nerdrotic etc.. ask the same question - why not invent their own franchises? But it's not just a case of building up leading women characters - the whole point is to destroy the male ones. It's like painting over the Mona Lisa with finger paints. They are driven by destruction.
PS the names of any good male fantasy/sci-fi would be welcome.
Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn is a good place to start. I adore the Confederacy of Dunces, anything by Raymond Feist, the Wheel of Time books are great, F. Paul Wilson's Repairman Jack novels are glorious, The Cinder Spires books by Jim Butcher are some of the best recent books I have read, and for fun books you can buy at the air port, Lee Child's Jack Reacher books are easy to read and deeply satisfying. Tad Williams the War of the Flowers is another good one, or Sanderson's Stormlight Archive, but I would read Mistborn and some of his other books first. the Stormlight Archive is big and kind of heavy. I like it, but other fans of his do not. Neil Gaiman is another good author. I would read American Gods first.
I would end with Clive Barker Imajica. All of his books have a boring first 80 to 100 pages where he sets up the story, then the book flies. Just prepare yourself for those first pages.
Women forgot that "The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." They actually resent being a woman so much that they demand all women act, work, and behave like the worst of men* (whom they hate). The fact they don't see this is amazing to me.
*I would argue though that the "toxic men" they emulate are actually easier to be around and work for. Even the most bombastic, power-driven jerk is relatively easy to deal with--it's when men take on more feminine traits (secrecy instead of discretion, manipulation instead of coalition-building, etc) that they become hard to interact with.
"Women in the main tend not to work as hard as men to succeed because they don’t have to. Women developed different strengths and tendencies"
Thank you, Janice. A few years back, there was a Russian woman computer programmer that came up through the ranks, and started her own company. At a public meeting, she announced that she refused to hire female computer programmers, calling them "lazy".
My mom worked for Prudential, an insurance company, in the 1950s and early 60s. She said that one of her main concerns in hiring was figuring out which women were going to be lazy employees. Obesity and excessive nail length were two red flags.
One of the most brilliant, hardest-working people I ever knew was an obese female programmer-analyst. I know probability distributions, but I just think that it is funny. In general, many if not most of the best male analysts come across as lazy (dirty homes, dirty cars, slovenly clothing, infrequent haircuts,...), and this is because they work non-stop.
I hated that the feminists did that to Matt Taylor when it happened, I didn’t realize it was as ridiculous as this, ‘A female friend had made the shirt for him….’ 🤦🏻♀️
I’m a woman with a Physics degree and I worry tremendously about the negative effect of shrieking feminists. From what I understand the percent of women in stem jumped to 10% in college when legal barriers were removed, and has pretty much stayed at that percentage ever since. I have never experienced sexism in the sciences. It’s really hard to do biased grading when the answer is either correct or incorrect. This may change in the future if feminists get their way as they want a handicap for women in stem to let women who are not good at math in. Participation by women in stem in work environments is lower because they quite often leave to be super homemakers when they have children. (Which is common with high performing women, and completely rational from a female perspective).
I have had sexist grading ironically, from a woman in the english department, who thought men didn’t have to cite their papers because she assumed their papers were all completely original work….
A little over a decade ago universities in New South Wales were complaining about first year physics students not being competent mathematically. It turned out their year 12 physics was being presented in the manner of a history subject with very little in the way of experimental work or calculus. I can guarantee this was not done to help the boys.
Bingo. Years ago, I read an essay by Rick Bradford (William Collins) pointing out that A levels in the UK were trying to attract more girls into Physics by de-emphasizing mathematics and highlighting the social history of Physics: important discoveries, the interesting lives of the researchers, controversies and debates, etc. Girls tend to be more interested in people than in things, so let's change the most thing-focused of subjects! Naturally, that would make Physics a lot less interesting to the nerdy guys who excel at it.
I've written about changes in education regularly and continue to point folk to The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Summers. The focus in western education shifted to serving girls learning needs exclusively and across the board more than three decades ago. If nothing else it demonstrated how well feminists were networked prior to the advent of the internet but it also signalled they'd turned their nasty intentions towards boys and genuinely become child abusers.
Feminist women's hatred of boys is truly astounding. They even made Christina Hoff Sommers change the subtitle of her book when she issued a new edition. It went from "How Misguided Feminism is Harming our Young Men" to "How Misguided Policies are Harming our Young Men." No matter what feminists do, they must never be blamed for anything.
The most revealing essay in this regard, exhibiting pure hatred and enjoyment of boys' suffering, was by feminist Jane Caro in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which she admitted that she was simply unable to care about "privileged" boys.
That would perhaps lead them to tech writing not physics or applied mathematics. A capacity for math is a necessity in physics, it’s actually a language that simplifies explaining complex changing systems.
That is seriously sadistic. Calculus and statistics are two subjects most people really need to learn young. If you wait, the chances that you will never get it go up, and everything is calculus and statistics. Denying calculus to a young mind literally cuts that person off from science, economics, finance, computer science, engineering, better jobs in insurance,....
No question if keeping score made sense that men as a class have scored a ton more points in technological breakthroughs. Feminists also love to keep score and in order to pretend women and minorities have accomplished as much they really stretch it.
An example is I saw a meme trying to argue that Native American Copper Culture since it preceded the Bronze Age by thousands of years was actually more advanced. No, actually in Michigan there was copper ore so pure it didn't need to be melted down - you can just smash the ore itself into objects. Their 'breakthrough' was nothing more than hitting rocks with other rocks. smh
But I think keeping score is a mistake. Nothing can come of it but division and resentment. History has some great women, and often they were in fact under-celebrated.
Ever hear of Elizabeth Friedman? Virginia Hall? The funny thing is that feminists are such whack jobs they cannot recognize greatness in their own ranks. They celebrate Sacagawea and Susan B. Anthony, mediocrity incarnate (both of whom they've had put on American coinage!).
One of my favourite examples of feminists forgetting about other great women is J.K. Rowling, who decided to publish without it being obvious she was female on the basis that people don't read stuff from women.
Yet Mary Shelley started an entire genre of fiction all by herself; you have to be pretty illiterate not to have even heard of the Brontë sisters; Agatha Christie is arguably the head of another entire genre of books; closer to Rowling's own sphere is Anne McCaffrey, a massive seller of SF-based magical work.
All of these great examples and others, Rowling missed in her feminist blindness.
Margaret Thatcher is perhaps my favourite famous woman. I liked her style; in parliament she would scold the opposition for their milquetoast attitudes on fighting inflation and trade union demands. Who would want to argue with aunt Bertha? She was conservative to the bone and a realist. Her British accent convinced you that she must be right. Many people didn't like her because she was tough but she was what Britain needed at the time. I lamented when she developed Alzheimer's in her senior years(a great mind defeated by age). I lamented the harsh words from her critics when she passed. My favourite Thatcher moment: she would go home at noon to make tea for her husband. She was not oppressed.
Dr. Fiamengo made a fine video regarding the delusional Virginia Woolf where when Woolf was writing about how 'oppressed' female authors were, she goes through a whole list of 19th century female authors whose successes belied Woolf's claims. It's astounding to me how much demonstrably false information feminists have published to "prove" female oppression, is allowed to stand as if true, for centuries.
Women were writing books freely and men were publishing, printing and distributing them 200 years ago. The women got the rights and the credit and royalties apparently equal to what male author counterparts received. (We know this because if women had received a lower percentage, boy would we have heard about it. I mean they'd still be shrieking about it as if it happened yesterday.)
Don't forget Ursula McGuin, Enid Blyton, E. Nesbit, Diane Wynn Jones and Jacquline Wilson - all top selling authors for children and Sci-Fi.
Rowling is an insufferable pain in the ass. She's yet another of those feminists that refuse to believe that feminism had anything to do with trans gender ideology.
I saw Pete Townsend do that very thing at a free concert in Central Park sponsored by Schaefer Beer (links to famous Schaefer jingle: https://youtu.be/CMQHDg6fTZc?si=V6c3CFoFcTL10W85https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=317403215335878 ). I also saw Led Zeppelin at Madison Square Garden where Robert Plant's inimitable voice and Jimmy Page's distinctive guitar playing held sway. Then a few days later, Robert Plant flirted with me in the lobby of the Plaza Hotel. I was so naive, I didn't even recognize his teasing was flirting. My girlfriend who was with me at the time enlightened me a few decades ago. That was a 'WOW!' moment.
Which is why I have long said that feminism is an oxymoron. If you are strong and independent, like a man, then you just getbon with whatever you have the urge to do, without legups and special programmes.
Fantastic article. I love "Is There Anything Good About Men" great book. Personally, I don’t find women more pleasant to be around than men and have no clue where he got that idea from. (Not saying I find men necessarily more pleasant to be around either.)
Women have always contributed to the world through various areas of life, largely in the domestic sphere. We should value women for what they already brought to the world, but not try and push women into a masculine role, especially considering most women are not suited to this.
Agreed. Women especially in groups openly criticize and berate men. They are lauded for it. Men on the other hand must hedge and be extremely careful about criticizing women. Even a little bit can cause huge blowback.
I find groups of women certainly not more pleasant than men because women are more judgmental, conformist, intolerant, and likely to spread nasty rumors.
In short guys might blow off steam and then let it go. Women hold onto whatever offends them and then plot subterfuge. And what offends a woman can be so trifling it's shocking that it would offend anyone.
"Women especially in groups openly criticize and berate men."
Erin Pizzey referred to the nastiness of women talking about their husbands with other women. I recall this came up in an interview with Tammy Peterson.
I gave it a listen. Thanks for that. Erin P. is a legend.
My comment's intention was that women can and do blame men as a class as faulty beings, merely collections of negative traits, and teach this as if fact. Meanwhile a man saying anything negative about women as a whole is taking a risk, and no matter how true his claim it will be met with harsh consequences or at best deadpan silence (except on rare forums such as this one).
I wasn't reflecting that women in groups berate *individual* men freely but I suppose that double standard exists too.
Men will issue a warning to other men though, "she's a psycho," which applies to more and more women these days.
Totally agree re the company of women. In my experience, any group of women eventually reaches a point of bullying another women outside the group or one who doesn't conform totally to the group. I know because I've experienced that "pleasure." I so prefer being around men.
The 'mean girls' phenomenon is finally being studied by a brave researcher, Dr. Fiona Girkin. She has especially studied women who bully in the workplace for advancement and how ruthless they are. Her dissertation referred to them, diagnosed them apparently, as "psychopaths!"
As I reflect on the many jobs I've held at many organizations, I cannot think of any men who behaved in the manner that her work exposes with these women.
I think interpersonal ruthlessness is far more common in women than in men.
Years ago, there was a book called "In the Company of Women" that got into this in depth. This book was secretly passed around by men in certain organizations because it was insightful on how to deal with some of these games. I found it to be spot on.
In my experience most people are decent but I do prefer the girls. Men have their own equivalents to the toxic femininity you’ve described. Just ask gay, gender nonconforming, or autistic men how nice other men treat them lmfao
Everybody's experiences can vary. Anything not proven by scientific studies is just opinion. I do think a vital difference though is what society deems acceptable. The woke crowd are the dictators of that, and they hardly advocate for equality. They advocate that some groups everybody has to tiptoe around and others you can and should beat the shit out of them, no problem. That is effed up.
I'm old enough to remember when gays were really treated badly. That has massively changed. Even the people who opposed gay marriage back in 2004 have relented and no longer seem to be bigots. And slurs are no longer acceptable; in fact a video or tweet that somebody used a gay slur 15 years ago will get them mobbed/fired today. In the US there is no pro-homophobia caucus, though there used to be.
So, no, I'm not buying your b.s. that homophobia is some constant crushing pressure. I do know that hate against men is normalized, and serious injustice and abuse of men is an outgrowth of the nonsense being taught that we men are "privileged" or the real howler, "oppressors."
I'm fine with girls one-on-one. It's the groups that I have issues with. My mom used to have a saying about being careful of "threes." It took me some experience to see what she meant. I'd add "fours, fives and sixes" too.
Women can and do build civilization, in partnership with men, when they have and raise children. It goes without saying that our society no longer places any value on this.
Failing to produce children is wrecking the western civilization built by men. If only women could realize that what they had been doing is of enormous value, and without it, we're toast.
I don’t think it’s just a choice made by young women. The economic realities of most western societies are such that young people find it hard to get housing. I know in Ireland and UK households are being formed later and later. Couples are moving into their first home in their late thirties with the obvious impact on birthrates.
Here in Europe most of the smaller nations are busy with political debates about population decline. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Baltic States, Switzerland even Italy and Poland. This feeds into the strange uniformity of controls on immigration and research about supporting "family formation". Strange because it is from "left" and "right". Interesting also because its opened up the issue of gender roles and how families are formed. Of course as yet there isn't a real examination of feminism's role. Though already the reintroduction of various forms of draft or national service, with only a couple including females in these mandatory policies has stimulated protests and recognition of the "sexist" nature of enforcement only on males. As the realities of struggling economies, political instability and conflict, integration of migrants and in some countries startlingly rapid population falls bite ..... maybe the role of bearing and nurturing the next generation of Danes, Finns, Poles etc. might be rehabilitated from the current formulation that its patriarchal oppression to be avoided at all costs. To be fair in the UK this latter view seems to be largely the preserve of University Educated White Women, maybe this is so across Europe too.
Thank you for these insightful words, Dr. Fiamengo. It is certainly dismaying that feminism has tried to divert cultural achievement away from advancing human civilization and toward establishing and asserting victimhood. It is even more dismaying that feminists have used disingenuous tactics to create the illusion of victimhood where there is none (such as the constant insinuation that women are disadvantaged in STEM when any reasonable assessment would show just the opposite). This certainly doesn't bode well for humankind, and I can only imagine the situation will worsen as more and more men feel alienated from meaningful relationships with women and decide that it is not in their best interest to make the sorts of deep sacrifices they have traditionally made to ensure that everyone--especially women--thrives and benefits from their efforts.
I had something of an epiphany around 2 years ago, when I realized how many jobs and resources were being poured into a kind of futile project of giving women high-status and comfortable positions (some of them earned, some not). We have poured untold billions of dollars into this project - for cultural reasons and to satisfy political constituencies - and we’re still doing it. In fact, it seems to be getting worse.
Masculine men (leaders, fighters, builders) used to sometimes move into leadership at certain points in their lives. Now, positions of social authority seem to be kept way from such men. Men still build things and they still fight and protect… but unless they bow to the modern sanctimonies of progressive feminism they will never (in most cases) get to lead a community or a police department or a university.
Why is it that we seem to require statistical analyses and lengthy, detailed academic investigations in order to establish that which we knew without question to be true a generation ago? Glad you asked. It is because certain women, driven by a combination of penis envy (thanks, Sigmund) and hormonal problems decided that life as it had been lived for millenia was "unfair," because they felt denied their rightful place at the top of every social unit. Whether it was the local PTA or church or business or government, if it was not both headed up by a woman and contained the same proportion of women-to-men as the population in general, it MUST be IMMORAL and the result of THE PATRIARCHY! These radically unhappy women were able to convince other women to fall for their line of bullscat and since women (and ultra-feminized men) basically control the education process in kindergarden through high school, they were able to inculcate billions of female students with their bogus pseudo-philosophy deceptively called "feminism." We are now reaping the crop that has been sewn by feminism and it bodes ill for our continuation as a society, not to mention a species. Without men, who find satisfaction in "doing," women will soon find that they can't survive on their intellectual sewing circle mentality, which emphasizes talking and emoting over doing. (Adam Carolla has expouned on this at greater and much more amusing length and I recommend searching out his videos on the subject.) Unless we return to the pre-feminist modes of behavior, we are doomed.
Janice, you've hit the nail on the head. The Matt Taylor episode revealed the spectacular indifference, and often hostility, of organized feminism toward the kind of obsessive, single-minded excellence that moves civilization forward. On this, the evidence is not particularly ambiguous.
Where I'd want to go deeper, though, is on the question of what women actually ARE rather than simply what they're not. Yes, absolutely, Baumeister's systems-versus-empathy framework is one of the more unflinching accounts of male civilizational drive in recent social psychology. And it's precisely because it's so accurate that it needs extending rather than qualifying.
The capacity for deep relational attunement, for reading emotional weather before it breaks, for creating the conditions in which another human being can function at their best — these are not incidental to civilizational development. They are, in a very real sense, its substrate. At her highest expression, a woman's deep spiritual connection to her feeling nature allows her to tune into and align with something that masculine system-building cannot generate from within itself: the healing, the restoration, the renewal without which any civilizational project eventually exhausts and cannibalizes itself. As I write in my own work: "What many women fail to realize is that their softness, their yin, is their most powerful force. Being a deeply feeling, loving, compassionate woman is sadly given little credence in modern times. Yet this force can heal the world." You cannot build cathedrals on a foundation of men who are emotionally shattered, relationally isolated, and spiritually depleted.
My term for this is "force multiplier". A conscious woman — one who has done her own psychological work, who understands her nature rather than being unconsciously possessed by it — doesn't simply support a man. She amplifies him. She takes him further than he could go alone. Not by becoming a system-builder herself, but by being precisely what she is.
This points toward something that tends to get lost in these discussions: the question of structure. Masculine energy is, at its core, "architectonic" — it builds forms, holds boundaries, creates the stable conditions within which things can grow. The conscious man in relationship isn't merely a provider or protector in the material sense; he provides a psychological container — a space defined by clarity, steadiness, and trustworthiness — within which the feminine can express itself fully rather than defensively. Feminism misread this container as a cage. But architecture is not imprisonment. A river without banks is not free water — it's a flood. The banks don't oppress the current; they give it direction, depth, and power.
The form of relationship that honors both sexes is what I'd call conscious partnership — structured around chosen surrender rather than coerced submission, and masculine leadership rather than masculine dominance. The man provides the architectural container: clear, boundaried, trustworthy. The woman brings her full creative and relational nature into that container and, in doing so, liberates rather than diminishes herself. Not the pedestalized ornament of Victorian idealization, nor the competitor of feminist ideology — but the sacred counterpart without whom masculine purpose remains, as Minogue almost said, a house with no one living in it.
The world that emerges from this is not owned by either sex. It will be built by both, in their complementary fullness.
If you can quote any statement in which I said that ALL women lack objective truth, etc., this would be an intelligent comment. But since that was not what I argued, this is just silliness.
Its funny, how leftist either pretend not get it or simply dont get it, that humans usually speak in generalities when debating.
Lefties seem to think the demand for a "#not all" descriptor is a valuable counterargument, as if the one person out of the group can be a stand-in for the whole group.
For me its a sign of very low IQ and heavy academic indoctrination, when the counter argument to:
"ALL humans have 10 fingers"
is:
"I know a carpenter, who has 9 fingers. Are you saying he is not a human?"
90% of leftist discourse is a circle jerk anyways. Its useless to debate them and at this point people like andrew wilson who do this daily for hours have proven it with enough empiric evidence to make a study out of it.
When people use an extraordinary woman as an example of what all women are capable of, I tell them that three fillies have won the Kentucky Derby but that proves nothing about fillies in general. It only proves there were three fillies that could run with the colts. (The number of fillies that beat the colts in other races are also rare.)
Some of the Soviet era Marxist logic was actually quite excellent. They understood what assumptions their logic rested upon. The problem today is that nothing replaced Marxism. Even worse, the white hysterical classes have chosen to decry logic itself. You can see this in self-destructive statements such as "Math is racist" or "Grammar is white supremacy." It is not surprising that this kind of thinking quickly stopped the convergence of black wages to the national mean in the US.
I suspect that the driving force behind the campus activist professional protestor types is a deep-seated misanthropy and a desire to see the world burn. This is not socially acceptable, so they promote policies that lead to this while claiming that they are environmentalists and similar lies. What I find most interesting is how women in other cultures are not like this. In East Asian societies you will see far more female engineers and scientists, and far less of the creepy rich white lady activism that is dominant here. It is also the driving factor behind the racist hatred these "Progressive" white ladies harbor towards Asian and increasingly Latino Americans and immigrants. Given the strong families and success sub-Saharan African immigrants are defined by, I suspect they will be next on the creepy rich white lady hit list.
"In East Asian societies you will see far more female engineers and scientists"
Yes, Asian women are extremely capable in STEM, there's no great disparity between Asian women and men like there is in the West. Unfortunately Western women only excel when it comes to bitching and whining, where they are undisputed world champions.
Black women might beat them.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of better relations between men and women among other races. From what I've seen, Asian women (for example) can be just as demanding, unreasonable, bitter, and nasty as white women, given the chance. In Thailand, which most people think is a paradise for men, there has been a spate of "suicides" and "accidental deaths" in which white men who married Thai women fall to their deaths from apartment balconies. Often their wives just happened to be home at the time of the suicide/accident. In the 1970s, Thai women carried out dozens and possibly hundreds (no one knows the number) of penile amputations to punish allegedly unfaithful husbands. The idea that non-white women appreciate men and love them is a fantasy that has lured many unsuspecting men to horrific circumstances in the Philippines, South America, and elsewhere.
Yes, Asian women can be evil too, and plenty of Western men have found out the hard way. I was commenting on their superior aptitude for STEM, not their moral character! I think most Western blokes these days have few illusions about Asian women, especially Thai women, and all the expat Youtubers are constantly warning 'newbies' about the dangers of getting into relationships with them. But some men never learn, so there will always be a steady supply of naive Western men seeking love in these countries, and many will fall victim to predatory women. But for sensible men who know the score, these countries are indeed paradise compared to their own feminized Western countries.
To be fair, though, many of these Asian brides are just fine and often admirable. They'll fight *for* their famililes rather than fight them. As they serve as good role models, feminists hate them more than anyone else.
It's a gamble both ways. At times it's the Western man, a loser or creep, who is the villian. I mention this because of an odd case in my own family. A long-divorced cousin went to Thailand and brought home a wife and her teenage daughter. Though I've never met them, from reading the accounts in the news, they had the strong odor of the manipulative type, probably doing this for immigration purposes. My cousin had had a lot of grief in his life, but it was mostly self-inflicted. His own adult son calls him dishonest and manipulative.
But the system is tipped, especially in California. He went to jail for a year on some "domestic" charge, which likely had a kernel of truth but was equally likely somewhat trumped-up. The women suffered nothing, and are almost certainly still in the country enjoying our citizenship. (And maybe a second or third victim.)
The best part of this story is that with two such bad eggs hooking up, innocent members of both sexes and both nationalities were spared!
My wife is from Thailand. I grew up with many peers who had parents married to Asian spouses, and they are all still married decades later. I lived in Taiwan and spent considerable time in Thailand, Japan and the PRC. I think you can find all kinds of horrific acts (women castrate men in the US all the time, and on average American women murder more partners than any county in East Asia).
Overall, Thailand has good families. That is what matters. As a rule, the women in places such as the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Korea, Colombia, Estonia, Romania,..., they seem to have avoided the angry, miserable perspectives so many women in the US have adopted. They also appear to value family more, and it shows up in statistics on divorce.
Now, there are a considerable number of psychotic freaks who move to Southeast Asia for terrible reasons, but your average expat analyst or accountant who marries a local does just fine there, and when he brings the family home. Drop by any local Thai Buddhist temple or Thai-Chinese church to see. Divorce is rare among these groups, and the same is true with Filipinos and others.
All of the random unfortunate events you reference happen everywhere. The insanely high divorce rate in the US is the result of a failing culture where people care more about a good time than their children. There are many wonderful American white women, perhaps a solid 15% of them, but for other cultures it is more like 80%, just like in the US a century ago (I am making up those percentages, not referencing any actual stats).
Undoubtedly there are many terrible American white males, but they are usually easy to identify. The problem with deranged women is that they hide it well. When I observe women complaining about such men, almost always it relates to infidelity. More often than not these women were warned about it before they got married (including by the husbands' own mothers), but they some how managed to be surprised by this. One could probably add husbands that develop autogynephilia, but I doubt that is a significant number. That is the only event I know of that roughly aligns with the American female mental breakdown.
You might want to work on logic. I find work in math or computer programming to be some of the best ways to do this. Math beyond linear algebra and calculus can be a bit too abstract if you do not use it at work, but you can always automate stuff at work or find new ways to get stuff done or build tools to help colleagues complete their work better and faster. It really helps one see how logic systems work. Over time you can even use Visual Studio (or whatever you prefer) to test your own positions.
You will also end up making more money and getting promoted. Furthermore, all those people who now can finish their work in the two days they must be in the office, they will adore you.
I am sorry that I implied that I was in some way putting you down. I meant no disrespect nor did I want to insult you. I do not want to insult you. I simply wanted to share a tool I have used to better understand formal logic. I have benefitted greatly from such suggestions given to me here and on many forums.
I want to apologize for any harm I caused. I also apologize on behalf of men for what was done to you. We should execute criminals who target female victims. Women deserve to live in safety, and as a society the US has failed to provide this for nearly sixty years.
I find it personally offensive that you insist upon any sort of distinction between what you said and someones understanding of it. What is wrong with you?
Sorry, but as I've never actually encountered this sort of thing before, I think I may have overreacted.
I see 'ShesABloodyNightmare' anagrams to only this single two word phrase:
- brandishes hematology
As hematology has to do with the study of blood I find this fascinating and why the commenter is a bloody nightmare of course. :<)
No. I can't help you if you can't understand my argument. You've set up a straw man.
LOL.
“Pundits such as Helen Andrews, Cory Clark, and Bo Winegard (see my discussion and links here have made the evidence-based case that women in general are not as committed as men in general to objective excellence and the pursuit of truth.”
As per Miriam Webster :
general:
1 of 2
adjective
gen·er·al ˈjen-rəl ˈje-nə-
Synonyms of general
1
: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2
: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group
So to recap: you are objectively wrong. And seeing as how my testosterone levels are high, I’m probably more objectively right than a fancy, cute, femme, lil estrogen-brained proper lady like you. :*
Kisses!
Are you dense? She is clearly talking about the effect of feminization on society, women as a whole, not individually.
She used the words she used. Either you’re both lying or she’s dense—not me. I didn’t assert any of this. She did. But nice ad hominem. Try again.
The fact that this comment has no likes should tell you something
That I’m a formally educated, self-possessed, well-rounded, human who hasn’t forgotten that women create men’s entire lives in our bodies—not the other way around?
You’re a perfect example of what she describes
Because we can read what she writes and understand English.
This sort of thread isn't a refutation of anything Janice says, it's if anything supporting it. Kind of amazing that the first post is literally someone doing the meme (where a woman replies to a point being made about group averages with a single exception).
Others are too polite to say it, but I'm not.
You're just a cheap, common narcissistic bitch. There are millions of you, stamped out like tin cookie cutters from a factory.
🤡 too polite 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What no one else is smart enough to say is this—you’re the cookie from the factory and the factory is your mom’s pussy—any woman’s pussy actually. And it bugs you. That’s why all the aggression towards women you don’t know. That’s why you love a woman flogging her own gender for you. Because you feel insecure about the fact that women are the Original Source and men are always just kind of the fan art—you know—to put it like a man would. That’s why leaving a comment like that makes you think you’re having an impact. But you must troll enough women to know that this is just another day interacting with men on the Internet.
Do another one for me.
Nope. I just know a cunt when I meet one.
Well at least you can tell that much, Queef.
Your question implies that ALL women cannot express what is an objective truth.
You are a woman.
So, according to your logic, you express the objective truth that ALL women cannot express objective truth, but since your are a woman this is not true and women CAN express objective truth etc etc - in short, your original claim is a paradox and therefore false.
Women CAN express objective truth. As for the specific things written in this post - that a whole different subject, and a valid one. Why don't we talk about that.
Wow, that was a super fast reply (under 2m!). Are you even human?
I didn't understand your reply.
The neon-soaked giraffe successfully negotiated a ceasefire with the sentient toaster over the last remaining crumb of rye bread.
While the clouds were busy rehearsing their interpretative dance routine, a rogue tuba began dispensing lukewarm maple syrup to the confused crowd.
Yesterday, the concept of Tuesday filed a formal grievance against the color purple for infringing on its copyright of mid-week existential dread.
“The female brain [...] tends to be geared toward empathy, which includes emotional sensitivity to other people and deep interest in understanding them and their feelings."
The ability to read and manipulate emotions has a very dark side. Women can be phenomenally good at manipulating men into feeling guilty and in their debt. This is how they convince men to serve women. Even in their use of language, there is often a subtle implication that the man is somehow guilty of something and owes the woman compensation. This is an unacknowledged common female-typical form of interpersonal abuse. First induce a sense of guilt, then imply a duty to restore moral balance through service.
In my own experience, the feminists that run Human Resources departments have been anything but empathetic - they made no effort to hide their discrimination against men.
Last week, a gentleman went into our HR department and showed the (95% female) HR staff all of the wonderful things that AI can do. The staff quickly put 2+2 together and they are not happy. Those cry bully bitches' days are clearly numbered.
The problem is that there is a vast bank of feminist literature upon which all AI LLMs are being trained. AI is not a blank slate: it relies on training to be useful. They are all heavily feminist simply because that is the prevailing literature available to them upon which they have learnt about the world.
A feminist AI taking over from feminist workers is, if anything, worse. Workers can, in time, be taught differently and made to appreciate their errors. An AI engine, often these days taught by other AI engines, will remain feminist and will not even be able to think that it is doing something wrong.
AI can only replicate existing biases.
But with feminism it is worse. Feminism is a minority belief, with something like 5% of the population self-identifying as a feminist (according to British and German research). Yet in terms of literature available, it is massive. On gender issues it clearly wins hands down but even on matters like law and mathematics, feminism is way over-populated with books. Try telling an AI the things that we know from studying feminism in the real world and you will come up against a wall of resistance. Existing real-world bias is against feminism. Existing managerial, media, education and — of most relevance here — literature is heavily skewed in favour of feminist lies and nonsense.
"But with feminism it is worse."
Gynocentrism is one of the existing biases.
It hardly matters. I work with AI and read AI research papers every day.
For one, the models have got a lot more neutral over time. They (mostly) aren't the crazed woke whackjobs the first versions were.
But more importantly with models context is everything. People don't appreciate how powerful that is. Would you like a non-feminist performance review? (why is HR doing this in the first place.... don't know but bear with me). Not a problem. Invoke the model once and ask it to remove the employee's name and any signals about their gender. Then invoke the model again and ask it to review the now anonymized promo packet. This kind of trick can be used extensively to work around latent biases.
However, having said all that, I don't think AI will have the effect on female employment some are predicting. A lot of those jobs were unnecessary and redundant before AI, they're there only to create female employment so computers getting smarter isn't going to suddenly change anything.
Yes, exactly!
Hallelujah!
...and any white person...
Yes, that too.
HR should start an employee exercise regime of jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle, beating around the bush, running down the boss, going around in circles, dragging their feet, dodging responsibility, passing the buck, climbing the ladder, wading through paperwork, pulling strings, shooting the breeze, throwing their weight around, stretching the truth, bending the rules, pushing their luck, shuffling papers, and playing hide and seek. At least this way they might make dealing with HR more pleasurable.
I have a correction.
Feminist women don't climb ladders to get to the top.
They ride up in an elevator built by men.
Exactly!
Thank you. Well stated
White, heterosexual men.
aw gross i hate racism toward ethnically European men
Exactly, Frank or Neil. The very movement that claims to speak for women is also the movement that pioneered in mobilizing resentment toward men.
I'm sorry you had that experience.And unfortunately, it doesn't seem that only women can do that
Thank you.
Or Asian people. I can live with discrimination against men, but looking down on refugees is disgusting.
If you get prostate cancer, you will learn that your feminist buddies made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer.
The funding for this kind of thing has little bearing on life expectancy. We have spent billions on AIDS research and achieved no real advancement in decades (although there were real breakthroughs in the 1980's and 1990's).
Breast cancer funding is massive, and nothing has come of it. One could say that breast cancer both impacts more people and can often come far earlier in life than prostrate cancer, but it does not matter. Spending on both is more about subsidizing university science labs than obtaining any practical knowledge.
Getting upset about funding differentials only makes sense if you want to defund it all. Whining about irrelevant disparities is not something men want to emulate from the most disgusting of the female activist class.
Okay, so what can offset and mitigate disgusting feminism?
Men holding themselves to high standards. Men working hard and achieving. Men walking away from corrupt organizations and trying their luck somewhere new. I think Jordan Peterson has done a good job inspiring young men to find their way, or at least he did before he had his born again transformation.
The key is to never give up. If one place is corrupted, abandon it and build another. All the white women around you are creepy and sadistic, ask out women from other cultures which have not lost their way.
Movies are more or less lost, but fantasy and sci-fi books are still going strong, as is gaming. I got into PC gaming as an adult, and I love it. I gave up cable television twenty years ago, and my books and games have been more than enough to fill the gap.
The following is illustrative: a common female strategy is to do nothing, and wait for the man to take initiative. Then, without providing any contribution of her own, she will criticize him and/or his actions. This is abusive. Most men don't know how to repond and are caught off guard. They felt the social pressure to move things along to a solution, and responded in good faith. But the subtly applied psychological or social pressure, often with body language and context, is often NOT in good faith. And even if it was in good faith, the entire negative interaction is corrosive to the soul. Our culture is nowhere near ready to talk about the prevalence, and profound depth, of female abusiveness.
I think it significant that when women do excel at something, using things, ideas, systems and methods devised by men, they tend to say, when asked why they wanted to do so, not that they wanted to test themselves and see if it could be done but that they wanted to beat the men. I think that demonstrates a deeply rooted inferiority complex.
women have the ability to abuse under the radar. Because the only real indicators of it are people around them feeling hurt over a long period of time but by then it is already too late
Women's compassion is very selective and available only for the ingroup. That's why they hen pecked the rocket nerd.
Yes, only members of approved victim groups receive compassionate treatment.
wait hold on that explains some of my own behavior !!
because my 'approved victim group' is often people feminists hurt, and very, very often men (as well as victims of assault of course)
Another way to put it is that since actual, genuine misogyny is so rare, feminists have all sorts of pent-up hate to unleash. Nobody in authority positions is saying anything anti-woman or anti-feminist. So what can they do?
They teach in classrooms that women face misogyny everywhere, but really it's nowhere. So they have to go after a guy with a shirt!!
The hilarity is that a woman made the shirt for him. It's likely he wore that shirt on camera to make her proud, to show off her handiwork to the world!
I think that's called the March of Dimes syndrome. You mobilize helpers to fix a problem, it gets fixed, the helpers are still mobilized and want to continue, what do they do now? For the March of Dimes they found other handicaps to support, for feminism and racism it seems they continue to insist it is as bad as ever and omnipresent, it seems.
Feminists don't like it when pretty young wimmin are seen as the tempting, juicy desirable creatures that they are. The shirt was no different from a renaissance painting of forest nymphs and glowing God-Esses. But the world has worshipped a One Male God for such a long time that both sexes have forgotten to love every aspect of our physical experiences. The Feminists are as misogynistic as any man, or possibly more so than many men.
feminists are deff more misogynistic lol
Yes, Tony, and thanks for saying what I would have had to say (and have said many times). I see no evidence that women are more "agreeable" (pleasant, compliant or passive) than men are--even though women, unlike men, have been trained from early childhood to act that way. And I don't care if the social scientists use that word with more subtlety among themselves than most people do in the public square.
Not being a clinical or evolutionary psychologist, I can't demonstrate my challenge with statistics. Relying by necessity on my own "lived experience" over almost eight decades, though, I find it impossible to take seriously the common belief that women are innate experts in creating social harmony, let alone in feeling genuine compassion for those beyond their own families, communities, tribes or whatever class qualifies as "us" instead of "them."
By now, women might well be over-represented among those who protest or riot as champions of the "marginalized." But much of what they actually say and do amounts to nothing more than naive virtue-signaling at best. At worst, it amounts to nothing less than outright malice, fueled for decades by feminism or allied ideologies, toward those whom they consider innate "oppressor" classes. The result is revenge, not justice, and polarization, not harmony.
And I dare the experts on domestic violence and family law to argue that women have some innate genius for peacemaking even within the home. What should be true, according to either moral philosophy or scientific theory, isn't necessarily what actually is true. And that reality, I think, is more important than whatever its explanation might be.
"...even though women, unlike men, have been trained from early childhood to act that way."
Maybe our ancestors weren't stupid and did so for good reason.
Yes, but they HAD to be trained. That was my whole point about the need for culture. There was nothing stupid about them. They learned from experience and acted accordingly.
But that is exactly how the hustler, hustles. Women create, insinuate or present men with problems, and expect men to pay for the fix or supply the fix.
Also your quote: “The female brain [...] tends to be geared toward empathy, which includes emotional sensitivity to other people and deep interest in understanding them and their feelings."
Needs some changes. Women are indeed very empathetic, but not towards others, not towards other women, but firstly, and mostly, towards themselves.
Women always have some roundabout way of thinking and puzzling with words, rules, objective reality, etc. The reason why women "care about other women" is because they think that they will benefit from this. They see a random bitch that they don't give a fuck about, but one that is in a situation that they can find themselves in later down the line, or they want to put other women in a (more) compromised position (then they're already in).
You can't be empathetic towards yourself, by definition.
But yeah that can be a problem. I never quite understood the trope that women are more empathetic than men. Maybe it's true on average but amongst the men and women I've known, the men are much more able to pick up on and understand feelings.
Especially problematic is that women often over-interpret emotions and see emotions that aren't actually there. It's been a very common experience over the years in relationships and also now with my wife that I'll get asked questions like, why are you upset? But I'm not upset nor was there any reason to be upset. I was literally just thinking, or looking out of the window, or had nothing to say at that moment. Or I'll be asked to express an opinion and say something like, "It's OK but I'm not a fan of the color" - and then I'll be told I'm complaining.
If the woman is upset at the time all this is multiplied by 100x. Their descriptions of what I'm feeling and thinking will bear no resemblance to reality.
This kind of strange empathy misfire never happens with men. My experience is admittedly biased though, as I tend to hang out with smarter-than-average programmer types. The stereotype that we're all autists who don't understand other people doesn't match my experiences at all.
The ability to manipulate is there for a reason. In a healthy society it works as a disciplinary force that holds everyone accountable. Men can do whatever but they won't if they know women will reject them for it. Because women are mothers and potential mates and any sane man will struggle to go against that kind of soft power. This system turns problematic when society is not healthy - rules and boundaries are perverted by whoever sets them and women start attacking wrong targets. That's your average Western country today. I wouldn't go so far as to blame men for setting the targets, but given the premise that men are those who build structures and set rules, it would make certain sense. Too bad it's not easy to put the proverbial genie back into the bottle. But as a woman, who changed her views from extremely liberal to very conservative, I can tell it's not impossible. We just need to keep pushing.
Good explanation.
Brilliant
yeah, the evidence is in a study which proves that the female brain is better at recognizing sadness and joy while the male brain is better at recognizing aggression.
Thats why woman dont realize the dangers of certain situtations they are in and end up victimized while men get Defensive/Offensive in realizing danger much faster than woman.
It might be the explanation for migrational politics and empathy with foreign rapists and why they vote against their own interest. They are just wired that way.
(2006 Do angry men get noticed? Mark A. Williams ∙ Jason B. Mattingley)
Nicely put, and unfortunately accurate.
I do believe that this kind of behavior is at the root of the appeal dark individuals such as the Tate brothers cultivate. I have had the misfortune of seeing women from other cultures arrive here happy, industrious and eager to take on the challenges of the world. Then they integrate into white American female groups and the transformation is both obvious and terrifying.
The immigrant woman starts giving back-handed compliments and engaging in morally repugnant behavior. She starts consuming vapid American mass-culture (broadcast television, so-called women's magazines (that consist entirely of advertisements with random tiny how-to articles scattered about, all oriented around creating misery for oneself and her family). Then the crying, the anger, the imagined family problems, and finally the full assimilation with either full-blown mental illness, substance abuse, or some variation of sexual misery (adultery, sex with teenage boys, escort work, unpaid escort work--which white women will assure you is deeply empowering, but not for their daughters,...).
In the end, you have an angry, sad, lonely woman who ruined her family, harmed her children, alienated her community, and once they are done, their so-called white female friends no longer come calling because they have other lives to ruin. I have watched security footage where every time an Asian or Latina woman left the group, all the white women would say terrible things about their "friends." These racist, selfish monsters are the ones promoting "tolerance" and "anti-racism."
Other cultures do not appear to suffer from this civilizational rot. Women in East Asian societies are not destroying their universities and scientific institutions. I suspect the best place for the next generation will be in the East, perhaps in Australia or Singapore, working in a group of sustainable cultures that do not cultivate hate but instead cultivate refinement, just like we used to do.
Although women are at the center of the Rot in the West, I am not convinced that women in other cultures hate their children so much that they would emulate our stupidity.
also known as, my ex-wife…
So well said Janice. This is the first time I remember falling in love with a title! I love it, says it clearly, all of it.
What has feminism brought us?
Astounding levels of ingratitude
Monumental arrogance
Record levels of projection
and an extreme intolerance of dissent
I won't miss it, even a little bit.
Now, now, Tom, let us be fair. Feminism has also brought about some amazing social changes:
- The need for both parents to work instead of one to work and provide for the other as she takes care of the family and home;
- A steadily decreasing level of happiness among women, recorded across all nations that feminism has infected;
- Changing yet apparently vital goal posts to satisfy women which started in the early days as for calls for 'fairness', moved on to 'equality' and are currently 'equity' with 'enhancement' now being mooted in the international circles that decide these things;
- Social collapse created by - if nothing else will work for them - a falling birthrate that is too sudden to allow for sustained social systems.
In fairness, it did genuinely bring a lot of benefits for women. That this came with some more subtle downsides for men, women, children and society is self-evident, but it's not like there were no benefits for anyone.
I can refute most of what you might mention, though I can't do so well across all countries. On balance, though, do any of the benefits (usually only for a select few) outweigh the massive harms?
I'm old enough to remember the first home computers in the early 1980s. They immediately became games machines (I loved it). The programmers were individuals or groups of 4, sometimes brothers, who poked around the hardware of these machines and created great games in their bedrooms that went on to sell in the thousands. It was a successful niche industry. These young men became celebrities to their small audience. They were interviewed in magazines called 'Crash' and such like. And they looked every bit the nerd. Mullet hair, thick glasses, scrawny bodies. This was not a sexy industry. And they boys in school who played these games were much the same. I was one of them.
Roll forward to 2000s when games became a became a multi-billion global business that employs thousands. And of course women complaining that they are being left out.
They were never there when it was an unpleasant, self-driven, obsessive geek hobby. They didn't have strange bits of motherboards piled up in their bedrooms. They weren't up all night, utterly unaware that it was 4am in the morning. They made up a tiny fraction of the customers (I worked in a game shop and I guess 10% at most were girls).
Notice how there's never any female under-representation amongst train spotters or airport watchers. Yet it's that single-minded fixation that drives innovation.
Perhaps we should be looking at this in reverse. There is no outcry from men about a lack of opportunity or encouragement to take up needle-point.
Hand size is a real issue here. I have tried. I find carving to be easier with better results.
Handcarving a doily is a lost art!
Those who follow popular culture critics on Youtube, like Critical Drinker, will be well aware of Kathleen Kennedy of Lucasfilm, Jennifer Salke of Amazon TV and others like Lesley Headland and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. These women were put in charge of some of the great pop-culture and literature works of men - Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings. They set about 'smashing the patriarchy' of these works. And smash them they did. They then stepped back and expected us to applaud their piles of rubble.
God, they were full of resentful crap.
The Take, another channel, are similar. Very pro-feminist, it's exhausting. I used to love their film analyses but then got fed up.
The Wheel of Time series was cancelled by Amazon. It was losing money. I watched the first few episodes and gave up as it was severely infected by feminist crap. You know, domestic abuse, wife murdered, lesbian relationships etc. etc. none of which featured in the original story.
No doubt rape would have featured at some point.
A magnificent piece of fiction by Robert Jordan debased by a debauched culture. I hope that Amazon lost a stack.
In recent times a new genre has appeared called Romantasy. Full of something referred to as "Spice". Directed at a demographic which is obsessed with sex.
The destruction of movies has been a bizarre ride. I am fine with strong female lead characters and all that, but why not spend time making the story good? It always feels like they took a story, then broke it to insert in their social message, then never bothered to refine it in any way. Why not simply choose stories with the desired characteristics first?
At least we still have fantasy/sci-fi books and PC gaming. If those are taken from US I am leading the armed insurrection.
Good point. I often hear Critical Drinker and Nerdrotic etc.. ask the same question - why not invent their own franchises? But it's not just a case of building up leading women characters - the whole point is to destroy the male ones. It's like painting over the Mona Lisa with finger paints. They are driven by destruction.
PS the names of any good male fantasy/sci-fi would be welcome.
Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn is a good place to start. I adore the Confederacy of Dunces, anything by Raymond Feist, the Wheel of Time books are great, F. Paul Wilson's Repairman Jack novels are glorious, The Cinder Spires books by Jim Butcher are some of the best recent books I have read, and for fun books you can buy at the air port, Lee Child's Jack Reacher books are easy to read and deeply satisfying. Tad Williams the War of the Flowers is another good one, or Sanderson's Stormlight Archive, but I would read Mistborn and some of his other books first. the Stormlight Archive is big and kind of heavy. I like it, but other fans of his do not. Neil Gaiman is another good author. I would read American Gods first.
I would end with Clive Barker Imajica. All of his books have a boring first 80 to 100 pages where he sets up the story, then the book flies. Just prepare yourself for those first pages.
Women forgot that "The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." They actually resent being a woman so much that they demand all women act, work, and behave like the worst of men* (whom they hate). The fact they don't see this is amazing to me.
*I would argue though that the "toxic men" they emulate are actually easier to be around and work for. Even the most bombastic, power-driven jerk is relatively easy to deal with--it's when men take on more feminine traits (secrecy instead of discretion, manipulation instead of coalition-building, etc) that they become hard to interact with.
Sharp assessment.
"Women in the main tend not to work as hard as men to succeed because they don’t have to. Women developed different strengths and tendencies"
Thank you, Janice. A few years back, there was a Russian woman computer programmer that came up through the ranks, and started her own company. At a public meeting, she announced that she refused to hire female computer programmers, calling them "lazy".
Oh boy!
My mom worked for Prudential, an insurance company, in the 1950s and early 60s. She said that one of her main concerns in hiring was figuring out which women were going to be lazy employees. Obesity and excessive nail length were two red flags.
As Pinocchio's nose measured his lying, a woman's nails measure her sense of entitlement.
Well, super-long nails make most kinds of manual labor impossible, haha!
or wiping
I always wondered how that worked (or IF it worked) but was afraid to ask.
One of the most brilliant, hardest-working people I ever knew was an obese female programmer-analyst. I know probability distributions, but I just think that it is funny. In general, many if not most of the best male analysts come across as lazy (dirty homes, dirty cars, slovenly clothing, infrequent haircuts,...), and this is because they work non-stop.
Indeed, stereotypes are based on some truth, but they're not always accurate.
I post a link to an article "The Single Sex Workplace" when the internet connection works.
Secrets of the single-sex workplace Darren Blacksmith
https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20060427004522/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20060423-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/06_jun03mag/warrior_07.html
Daniel! Incredible!
I hated that the feminists did that to Matt Taylor when it happened, I didn’t realize it was as ridiculous as this, ‘A female friend had made the shirt for him….’ 🤦🏻♀️
I’m a woman with a Physics degree and I worry tremendously about the negative effect of shrieking feminists. From what I understand the percent of women in stem jumped to 10% in college when legal barriers were removed, and has pretty much stayed at that percentage ever since. I have never experienced sexism in the sciences. It’s really hard to do biased grading when the answer is either correct or incorrect. This may change in the future if feminists get their way as they want a handicap for women in stem to let women who are not good at math in. Participation by women in stem in work environments is lower because they quite often leave to be super homemakers when they have children. (Which is common with high performing women, and completely rational from a female perspective).
I have had sexist grading ironically, from a woman in the english department, who thought men didn’t have to cite their papers because she assumed their papers were all completely original work….
A little over a decade ago universities in New South Wales were complaining about first year physics students not being competent mathematically. It turned out their year 12 physics was being presented in the manner of a history subject with very little in the way of experimental work or calculus. I can guarantee this was not done to help the boys.
Bingo. Years ago, I read an essay by Rick Bradford (William Collins) pointing out that A levels in the UK were trying to attract more girls into Physics by de-emphasizing mathematics and highlighting the social history of Physics: important discoveries, the interesting lives of the researchers, controversies and debates, etc. Girls tend to be more interested in people than in things, so let's change the most thing-focused of subjects! Naturally, that would make Physics a lot less interesting to the nerdy guys who excel at it.
I've written about changes in education regularly and continue to point folk to The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Summers. The focus in western education shifted to serving girls learning needs exclusively and across the board more than three decades ago. If nothing else it demonstrated how well feminists were networked prior to the advent of the internet but it also signalled they'd turned their nasty intentions towards boys and genuinely become child abusers.
Feminist women's hatred of boys is truly astounding. They even made Christina Hoff Sommers change the subtitle of her book when she issued a new edition. It went from "How Misguided Feminism is Harming our Young Men" to "How Misguided Policies are Harming our Young Men." No matter what feminists do, they must never be blamed for anything.
The most revealing essay in this regard, exhibiting pure hatred and enjoyment of boys' suffering, was by feminist Jane Caro in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which she admitted that she was simply unable to care about "privileged" boys.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/how-to-help-boys-do-better-at-school-stop-giving-them-a-legup-in-the-outside-world-20160811-gqqhyj.html
half math half conceptual works wonders. That's what my physics class was. That way we all went down with a C together 🥰
That would perhaps lead them to tech writing not physics or applied mathematics. A capacity for math is a necessity in physics, it’s actually a language that simplifies explaining complex changing systems.
That is seriously sadistic. Calculus and statistics are two subjects most people really need to learn young. If you wait, the chances that you will never get it go up, and everything is calculus and statistics. Denying calculus to a young mind literally cuts that person off from science, economics, finance, computer science, engineering, better jobs in insurance,....
'Men are more violent than women.' That's a problem?
Some hairy guy took some flint and smashed it with rocks to create tools.
Then his friends chopped down a tree, hacked out its core, pushed it into the sea and set sail to wherever.
Galileo took his telescope and shoved it up the Pope's ass and broke the model of the Solar System.
Giotto vandalised the flat wall and thought it looked better with persepective.
Newton took a prism and smashed light to give us the science of optics.
Montgolfier Brothers put sheep into baskets and sent them up into nowhere to give us the first flight.
Alfred Nobel though dynamite would be fun and we've blasted tunnels though mountains.
Some dudes broke into an orchestra and stole the brass section, beat them up and gave us jazz.
James Joyce took the sentence and strangled it out of time and place.
Picasso took the flat canvas and punched his fist through it and created cubism.
Elvis perverted gospel with toxic masculine gyrations and well, invented pop music.
And then the Beatles put Elvis and blues into a blender to really destroy the natural order.
Andy Warhol smashed up a supermarket display and turned it into pop art.
Then Robert Plant destroyed his voice while Jimmy Paige smashed up his guitars.
Some more dudes broke into a library and stole the poetry section, tore it up and gave us rap.
And then 25 years ago it all stopped.
We need more violent men in art and science.
I'm sure you could add to this list, better than I did.
No question if keeping score made sense that men as a class have scored a ton more points in technological breakthroughs. Feminists also love to keep score and in order to pretend women and minorities have accomplished as much they really stretch it.
An example is I saw a meme trying to argue that Native American Copper Culture since it preceded the Bronze Age by thousands of years was actually more advanced. No, actually in Michigan there was copper ore so pure it didn't need to be melted down - you can just smash the ore itself into objects. Their 'breakthrough' was nothing more than hitting rocks with other rocks. smh
But I think keeping score is a mistake. Nothing can come of it but division and resentment. History has some great women, and often they were in fact under-celebrated.
Ever hear of Elizabeth Friedman? Virginia Hall? The funny thing is that feminists are such whack jobs they cannot recognize greatness in their own ranks. They celebrate Sacagawea and Susan B. Anthony, mediocrity incarnate (both of whom they've had put on American coinage!).
One of my favourite examples of feminists forgetting about other great women is J.K. Rowling, who decided to publish without it being obvious she was female on the basis that people don't read stuff from women.
Yet Mary Shelley started an entire genre of fiction all by herself; you have to be pretty illiterate not to have even heard of the Brontë sisters; Agatha Christie is arguably the head of another entire genre of books; closer to Rowling's own sphere is Anne McCaffrey, a massive seller of SF-based magical work.
All of these great examples and others, Rowling missed in her feminist blindness.
Margaret Thatcher is perhaps my favourite famous woman. I liked her style; in parliament she would scold the opposition for their milquetoast attitudes on fighting inflation and trade union demands. Who would want to argue with aunt Bertha? She was conservative to the bone and a realist. Her British accent convinced you that she must be right. Many people didn't like her because she was tough but she was what Britain needed at the time. I lamented when she developed Alzheimer's in her senior years(a great mind defeated by age). I lamented the harsh words from her critics when she passed. My favourite Thatcher moment: she would go home at noon to make tea for her husband. She was not oppressed.
Pity about the destruction economically and socially. A disaster on high heels.
Dr. Fiamengo made a fine video regarding the delusional Virginia Woolf where when Woolf was writing about how 'oppressed' female authors were, she goes through a whole list of 19th century female authors whose successes belied Woolf's claims. It's astounding to me how much demonstrably false information feminists have published to "prove" female oppression, is allowed to stand as if true, for centuries.
Women were writing books freely and men were publishing, printing and distributing them 200 years ago. The women got the rights and the credit and royalties apparently equal to what male author counterparts received. (We know this because if women had received a lower percentage, boy would we have heard about it. I mean they'd still be shrieking about it as if it happened yesterday.)
Don't forget Ursula McGuin, Enid Blyton, E. Nesbit, Diane Wynn Jones and Jacquline Wilson - all top selling authors for children and Sci-Fi.
Rowling is an insufferable pain in the ass. She's yet another of those feminists that refuse to believe that feminism had anything to do with trans gender ideology.
But you did pretty good.
Pete Townsend used to smash guitars, I can't imagine Jimmy Page ever doing anything like that.
I saw Pete Townsend do that very thing at a free concert in Central Park sponsored by Schaefer Beer (links to famous Schaefer jingle: https://youtu.be/CMQHDg6fTZc?si=V6c3CFoFcTL10W85https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=317403215335878 ). I also saw Led Zeppelin at Madison Square Garden where Robert Plant's inimitable voice and Jimmy Page's distinctive guitar playing held sway. Then a few days later, Robert Plant flirted with me in the lobby of the Plaza Hotel. I was so naive, I didn't even recognize his teasing was flirting. My girlfriend who was with me at the time enlightened me a few decades ago. That was a 'WOW!' moment.
I stand corrected! Did Richie Blackmore smash his?
Sorry I don't know about him. But I know Page is quite precious about his guitars.
Love it, H.C.!
Which is why I have long said that feminism is an oxymoron. If you are strong and independent, like a man, then you just getbon with whatever you have the urge to do, without legups and special programmes.
You never heard a grown man call himself "a strong, independent man." He just lives his life and expects no applause for being a competent adult.
Fantastic article. I love "Is There Anything Good About Men" great book. Personally, I don’t find women more pleasant to be around than men and have no clue where he got that idea from. (Not saying I find men necessarily more pleasant to be around either.)
Women have always contributed to the world through various areas of life, largely in the domestic sphere. We should value women for what they already brought to the world, but not try and push women into a masculine role, especially considering most women are not suited to this.
Agreed. Women especially in groups openly criticize and berate men. They are lauded for it. Men on the other hand must hedge and be extremely careful about criticizing women. Even a little bit can cause huge blowback.
I find groups of women certainly not more pleasant than men because women are more judgmental, conformist, intolerant, and likely to spread nasty rumors.
In short guys might blow off steam and then let it go. Women hold onto whatever offends them and then plot subterfuge. And what offends a woman can be so trifling it's shocking that it would offend anyone.
"Women especially in groups openly criticize and berate men."
Erin Pizzey referred to the nastiness of women talking about their husbands with other women. I recall this came up in an interview with Tammy Peterson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnTYsdjCW-c
I gave it a listen. Thanks for that. Erin P. is a legend.
My comment's intention was that women can and do blame men as a class as faulty beings, merely collections of negative traits, and teach this as if fact. Meanwhile a man saying anything negative about women as a whole is taking a risk, and no matter how true his claim it will be met with harsh consequences or at best deadpan silence (except on rare forums such as this one).
I wasn't reflecting that women in groups berate *individual* men freely but I suppose that double standard exists too.
Men will issue a warning to other men though, "she's a psycho," which applies to more and more women these days.
Totally agree re the company of women. In my experience, any group of women eventually reaches a point of bullying another women outside the group or one who doesn't conform totally to the group. I know because I've experienced that "pleasure." I so prefer being around men.
The 'mean girls' phenomenon is finally being studied by a brave researcher, Dr. Fiona Girkin. She has especially studied women who bully in the workplace for advancement and how ruthless they are. Her dissertation referred to them, diagnosed them apparently, as "psychopaths!"
As I reflect on the many jobs I've held at many organizations, I cannot think of any men who behaved in the manner that her work exposes with these women.
I think interpersonal ruthlessness is far more common in women than in men.
Years ago, there was a book called "In the Company of Women" that got into this in depth. This book was secretly passed around by men in certain organizations because it was insightful on how to deal with some of these games. I found it to be spot on.
Can’t relate.
lucky you. All the best to you.
In my experience most people are decent but I do prefer the girls. Men have their own equivalents to the toxic femininity you’ve described. Just ask gay, gender nonconforming, or autistic men how nice other men treat them lmfao
Everybody's experiences can vary. Anything not proven by scientific studies is just opinion. I do think a vital difference though is what society deems acceptable. The woke crowd are the dictators of that, and they hardly advocate for equality. They advocate that some groups everybody has to tiptoe around and others you can and should beat the shit out of them, no problem. That is effed up.
I'm old enough to remember when gays were really treated badly. That has massively changed. Even the people who opposed gay marriage back in 2004 have relented and no longer seem to be bigots. And slurs are no longer acceptable; in fact a video or tweet that somebody used a gay slur 15 years ago will get them mobbed/fired today. In the US there is no pro-homophobia caucus, though there used to be.
So, no, I'm not buying your b.s. that homophobia is some constant crushing pressure. I do know that hate against men is normalized, and serious injustice and abuse of men is an outgrowth of the nonsense being taught that we men are "privileged" or the real howler, "oppressors."
You don’t need to buy “my” BS, I said go and ask them. I’m not a male so I can’t report on that side. Maybe ask trans people
I'm fine with girls one-on-one. It's the groups that I have issues with. My mom used to have a saying about being careful of "threes." It took me some experience to see what she meant. I'd add "fours, fives and sixes" too.
Women can and do build civilization, in partnership with men, when they have and raise children. It goes without saying that our society no longer places any value on this.
Failing to produce children is wrecking the western civilization built by men. If only women could realize that what they had been doing is of enormous value, and without it, we're toast.
I don’t think it’s just a choice made by young women. The economic realities of most western societies are such that young people find it hard to get housing. I know in Ireland and UK households are being formed later and later. Couples are moving into their first home in their late thirties with the obvious impact on birthrates.
Here in Europe most of the smaller nations are busy with political debates about population decline. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Baltic States, Switzerland even Italy and Poland. This feeds into the strange uniformity of controls on immigration and research about supporting "family formation". Strange because it is from "left" and "right". Interesting also because its opened up the issue of gender roles and how families are formed. Of course as yet there isn't a real examination of feminism's role. Though already the reintroduction of various forms of draft or national service, with only a couple including females in these mandatory policies has stimulated protests and recognition of the "sexist" nature of enforcement only on males. As the realities of struggling economies, political instability and conflict, integration of migrants and in some countries startlingly rapid population falls bite ..... maybe the role of bearing and nurturing the next generation of Danes, Finns, Poles etc. might be rehabilitated from the current formulation that its patriarchal oppression to be avoided at all costs. To be fair in the UK this latter view seems to be largely the preserve of University Educated White Women, maybe this is so across Europe too.
Thank you for these insightful words, Dr. Fiamengo. It is certainly dismaying that feminism has tried to divert cultural achievement away from advancing human civilization and toward establishing and asserting victimhood. It is even more dismaying that feminists have used disingenuous tactics to create the illusion of victimhood where there is none (such as the constant insinuation that women are disadvantaged in STEM when any reasonable assessment would show just the opposite). This certainly doesn't bode well for humankind, and I can only imagine the situation will worsen as more and more men feel alienated from meaningful relationships with women and decide that it is not in their best interest to make the sorts of deep sacrifices they have traditionally made to ensure that everyone--especially women--thrives and benefits from their efforts.
I had something of an epiphany around 2 years ago, when I realized how many jobs and resources were being poured into a kind of futile project of giving women high-status and comfortable positions (some of them earned, some not). We have poured untold billions of dollars into this project - for cultural reasons and to satisfy political constituencies - and we’re still doing it. In fact, it seems to be getting worse.
Masculine men (leaders, fighters, builders) used to sometimes move into leadership at certain points in their lives. Now, positions of social authority seem to be kept way from such men. Men still build things and they still fight and protect… but unless they bow to the modern sanctimonies of progressive feminism they will never (in most cases) get to lead a community or a police department or a university.
Are our institutions better off for this change?
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-4
I'm going with "no" to your last question
Why is it that we seem to require statistical analyses and lengthy, detailed academic investigations in order to establish that which we knew without question to be true a generation ago? Glad you asked. It is because certain women, driven by a combination of penis envy (thanks, Sigmund) and hormonal problems decided that life as it had been lived for millenia was "unfair," because they felt denied their rightful place at the top of every social unit. Whether it was the local PTA or church or business or government, if it was not both headed up by a woman and contained the same proportion of women-to-men as the population in general, it MUST be IMMORAL and the result of THE PATRIARCHY! These radically unhappy women were able to convince other women to fall for their line of bullscat and since women (and ultra-feminized men) basically control the education process in kindergarden through high school, they were able to inculcate billions of female students with their bogus pseudo-philosophy deceptively called "feminism." We are now reaping the crop that has been sewn by feminism and it bodes ill for our continuation as a society, not to mention a species. Without men, who find satisfaction in "doing," women will soon find that they can't survive on their intellectual sewing circle mentality, which emphasizes talking and emoting over doing. (Adam Carolla has expouned on this at greater and much more amusing length and I recommend searching out his videos on the subject.) Unless we return to the pre-feminist modes of behavior, we are doomed.
Janice, you've hit the nail on the head. The Matt Taylor episode revealed the spectacular indifference, and often hostility, of organized feminism toward the kind of obsessive, single-minded excellence that moves civilization forward. On this, the evidence is not particularly ambiguous.
Where I'd want to go deeper, though, is on the question of what women actually ARE rather than simply what they're not. Yes, absolutely, Baumeister's systems-versus-empathy framework is one of the more unflinching accounts of male civilizational drive in recent social psychology. And it's precisely because it's so accurate that it needs extending rather than qualifying.
The capacity for deep relational attunement, for reading emotional weather before it breaks, for creating the conditions in which another human being can function at their best — these are not incidental to civilizational development. They are, in a very real sense, its substrate. At her highest expression, a woman's deep spiritual connection to her feeling nature allows her to tune into and align with something that masculine system-building cannot generate from within itself: the healing, the restoration, the renewal without which any civilizational project eventually exhausts and cannibalizes itself. As I write in my own work: "What many women fail to realize is that their softness, their yin, is their most powerful force. Being a deeply feeling, loving, compassionate woman is sadly given little credence in modern times. Yet this force can heal the world." You cannot build cathedrals on a foundation of men who are emotionally shattered, relationally isolated, and spiritually depleted.
My term for this is "force multiplier". A conscious woman — one who has done her own psychological work, who understands her nature rather than being unconsciously possessed by it — doesn't simply support a man. She amplifies him. She takes him further than he could go alone. Not by becoming a system-builder herself, but by being precisely what she is.
This points toward something that tends to get lost in these discussions: the question of structure. Masculine energy is, at its core, "architectonic" — it builds forms, holds boundaries, creates the stable conditions within which things can grow. The conscious man in relationship isn't merely a provider or protector in the material sense; he provides a psychological container — a space defined by clarity, steadiness, and trustworthiness — within which the feminine can express itself fully rather than defensively. Feminism misread this container as a cage. But architecture is not imprisonment. A river without banks is not free water — it's a flood. The banks don't oppress the current; they give it direction, depth, and power.
The form of relationship that honors both sexes is what I'd call conscious partnership — structured around chosen surrender rather than coerced submission, and masculine leadership rather than masculine dominance. The man provides the architectural container: clear, boundaried, trustworthy. The woman brings her full creative and relational nature into that container and, in doing so, liberates rather than diminishes herself. Not the pedestalized ornament of Victorian idealization, nor the competitor of feminist ideology — but the sacred counterpart without whom masculine purpose remains, as Minogue almost said, a house with no one living in it.
The world that emerges from this is not owned by either sex. It will be built by both, in their complementary fullness.
Well said, thank you!
Wow. That’s prose