The female politician you seek at the end sounds a lot like Mrs Thatcher, whose main complaint about male politicians was that they were too timid and not manly enough. As I recall, the feminists at one point designated her an honorary man, or words to that effect.
Thatcher was an appalling creature who used her feminine charms to advance her career and then surrounded herself with weak men; she could not tolerate dissent or defiance and kicked out any man who showed the least sign of strength. For all her complaints of male timidity she feared genuinely strong men.
As a newly returned MP she set her cap at Edward Heath, who was known to be gay even then, which may account for the lifelong animosity between the two of them. Bloody awful woman.
She may or may not have been an “appalling creature” or a “bloody awful woman” but that’s hardly the point of referencing Thatcher in relation to the article. The point still stands.
Before Trump Derangement Syndrome there was Thatcher Derangement Syndrome and it’s still going strong four decades later.
My point was that your reply was tangential and didn’t address the original article or the comments you were responding to.
In short, whether Thatcher was bad or not doesn’t invalidate the claim that she was a female leader who was afeminine in the manner in which she governed.
Your claim that she surrounded herself with loyal yes men and eliminated competitors is hardly atypical of men in authority positions.
Another idiot. Do you know what 'tangential' means?
It must be the season, hopefully you'll all die off when the cold weather comes in or at least go back into hibernation. Please reassure me that you're up to date with your jabs.
Reference is a noun not a verb. The verb is refer and the gerund is referring, not referencing. I didn't make the initial reference, I commented on it What, apart from to mention Thatcher derangement syndrome, was the point of your reply?
I suppose you were attracted to the alliteration. That aside, your superciliousness is puerile and your ignorance of your own irony signal; you clearly have no self-awareness at all.
There seems to be one like you with every Fiamengo File article. Your sort are becoming so common that swatting is becoming tedious. I don't need to back it up, with 'thoughts' or facts; most people with more than half a brain and an open mind are aware that the mess we are in is a direct result of the spiv-fest privatised mess Thatcher left the country in.
I have a strong suspicion that you are too thick to understand the concept of 'cause and consequence', and will take absolutely no notice of anything I write in support of my assertion anyway, so I won't waste my time. I'm strongly disinclined to bandy brickbats with idiots so this thread is ended. You carry on though.
Ian, I suspect you get very few Christmas cards for good reason. My attempt at a normal exchange of ideas was met with an attack and you have never even seen another comment I have posted. My suggestion to you would be, step out of your echo chambers, breathe some fresh air and stop being such a twit.
A mess, that is common to most of the advanced countries. The privatisation of essential services such as water, transport, energy, the obsession with tax cuts, the "greed is good" mentality, the destruction of the environment, inequality etc are all a function of the neo-liberal economies built on the back of Thatcherism and Friedmanism.
You don't think she had any, I don't think she had any, however, a lot of people did and many still do. I think she held some allure for spineless men, the sort who like to be spanked by women in SS uniform and told they are very naughty boys.
Best estimate before Thatcher was that at the then-current rate, the UK's GDP would by 2030 equal Albania's. Was she perfect? No, but given everything else, quite good enough.
Janice you have a talent for speaking the things that are so often unsaid by most. I have wondered about female leaders for some time and have been told by my female friends that they think women should not be in leadership positions. They say that men have, for thousands of years, been responsible for the larger community while women have been responsible for their own families. This gives each of them an evolutionary advantage in their sphere of influence. Makes sense I suppose. Of course there are some men who are horrible leaders and some women who are excellent. Ain't nuttin simple. But your suggestion for women to not make use of their gynocentric advantage sounded like a wonderful idea that is likely not going to happen anytime soon....but those last three paragraphs sure sounded right to me! Such a joy to read them!
Lionel Tiger's Men In Groups explains this. It was notorious when it came out but is now neglected. A neglected masterpiece. (Yes, there is a person named Lionel Tiger. His parents must have had a sense of humor.)
And, since we're all terribly concerned about how women are treated in the workplace, what about Kamala Harris' well-known abuse of her employees, male and female? Any problems there? Of course not. Of her original 47 staff members when she became VP, just 4 remain, a 92% turnover rate in just 3+ years. Impressive!
Need more data. People in Washington move around a lot. It's all about climbing ladders. Need interviews with those who left who are willing to be frank.
My country has just appointed (by Standing Order, in a committee) its first ever female First Minister, the Right Unremarkable Eluned Morgan, Baroness of Ely. You can imagine the party atmosphere that becloaks the nation, following on as it does so swiftly from the tenure of our first black First Minister - also unelected - who managed to endure 118 days before succumbing to financial scandal.
The omens are not auspicious, however. Here are some of the very first sentences the good Baroness pronounced upon her unveiling:
"It's the greatest pleasure and privilege of my life to stand before you today as the first woman to become the First Minister of Wales."
"This isn't just about shattering glass ceilings, it's about shattering them forever, using the pieces to create a mosaic of new possibilities. I carry with me the wisdom of the women who have battled, struggled and persevered—many without the recognition that they've deserved."
"To the young women watching today, you need to know your potential is limitless, the path to leadership is not now just a possibility, it's a reality, and I look forward to the day when a woman becoming First Minister is no longer extraordinary, but a normal part of our Welsh political life."
That is ONE FOR THE AGES!!!! Many of my themes touched upon by the good Baroness. One thing is for sure: the speeches will rarely surprise. Extraordinary.
When a woman says 'leadership' she means not leading others but giving orders and bossing others about, taking the credit when what others have done goes well and shirking responsibility and blaming others when what she has ordered done goes wrong. What matters to them is the job title and the feeling of power, not the opportunity to get something done.
I think most women have no idea what leadership is. Women definitely imagine themselves more able to get along with people, able to 'lead' through collaboration and cooperation; and they may start out attempting to work that model. But most women, unlike most men, cannot help but over-personalize everything, which very quickly undermines attempts at fair or principled leadership.
I have watched your presentation for the ICMI today, followed by that of William Collins. It is incredible how many commentators on this platform and others who consider themselves informed as to the elements creating the current sinister social, cultural and political environment entirely disregard the centrality of feminism (and the gynocentrism which underpins it) in their analysis. Both William and yourself ought to be compulsory listening if such people are to be disabused.
Very true, and since the new FM has a tradition of such behaviour to build upon from her (male) predecessors, I fully expect it to be dialled up to 11.
Interestingly, the previous incumbent Vaughan Gething, upon hearing that a vote of no confidence in his leadership was to be held, DID shed tears, right there in the Senedd chamber. For this he was not afforded much sympathy, to say the least, even from a supine and obsequious national press. Clearly nobody told him that. despite his other progressive stack credentials, he lacked the one which would enable him to pull that off.
I don't have a problem with women expressing their emotions. They do, after all, operate a little differently to men. Nothing wrong with an outward expression of how you are feeling. It also helps to learn what a person's character is all about.
I do not like it though when it is being used as a manipulative tool.
Julia Gillard never did shed a tear when she lost the top job, but her counterparts Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd cried like babies. Exceptions that prove the rule.
As to the alleged misogyny of the American electorate, that myth was laid to rest in 1998 by a book that reported the authors' analyses of over 68,000 elections in the U.S. at the state and federal levels from the 70s to the 90s. Their conclusion: "when women run, women win exactly as often as do men." The win rate for the two sexes were statistically identical. Female voters tend slightly to vote for female candidate and males for male candidates, but the two tendencies cancel each other with the result being equality.
Very interesting, thank you! I wonder if there has been any shift since 1998? I wonder if 25 years of feminist proselytizing has led to a greater polarization in which women are more inclined to vote for a woman; and perhaps men slightly less inclined?
It's interesting to observe how women in politics and business describe themselves as being strong and also stronger than men whilst at the same time displaying extreme weaknesses at so called male toxicity.
So strong, they can move mountains, yet fall into a blubbering heap with lifeline scarring from a man who might look at her sideways.
Would you agree that the very fact that so called powerful women are so quick to pull out the victim card, cry misogyny, and seem almost incapable of empathy toward boys and men is because, deep in their psyche, they know themselves as the natural subordinates of men? Their frequent tirades result from the pain caused by fighting their own nature? That they might have to admit that they are lying?
Yes, it's called ressentiment, a term coined by Nietzche: "Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure on to an external scapegoat."
Indeed a great deal of modern feminism is devoted to doing men down. This even appeared in policy in Sweden, and thence to "progressives" across Europe. On finding that the reason Sweden has a very "gender segregated" workforce and few women in very senior posts, is that women choose public services because of the generous time off and short hours and actively avoid promotions that might mean greater time commitments. The "solution" was forcing men to take long paternity leave and trying to get men to be less ambitious. Of course this went down like a lead balloon with the nations very productive private sector (almost exclusively male workforces) and is persistently undermined by the men being productive and efficient. Meanwhile of course the country has continued its move to even more "gender segregation" in workforces, its public services deteriorate and no one thanks its male workforces for keeping the money flowing in. And of course this abject set of "failures" is all the fault of patriarchy and misogyny, rather than women's choices.
Yes, ressentiment is a subconscious defence mechanism, in which "the ego creates an enemy to insulate themselves from culpability" (for their own inferiority/failure). Another interesting aspect is that "after the weaker side has won out over the stronger side, there is a general sense of disappointment that the rewards of victory are much less than was expected. The former long time past resentment is perhaps increased by an inadequate outcome, leading to ressentiment."
This might explain why women, having won out over men under feminism, and discovering that working for a living is no bed of roses, are even more angry and hateful of men, and more demanding of further concessions and favouritism. In other words, despite the extraordinary success of feminism in recent decades, the demands of feminists are actually escalating. But it's like more of the same medicine which didn't work in the first place, in terms of making women happy and fulfilled. For most women, that kind of happiness and fulfilment lies not in careerism but in having children.
'"I want a VP pick,” she tweeted, “that's secure enough to be second under a woman ... '
What she's saying, although she seems unaware of it, is that she's not 'secure enough' to work with a man who is capable of getting the job done; she wants a man who won't show her up when she fucks everything up - she's a strong woman but she needs a weak man who will, paradoxically, be strong enough to take the blows for her, and not report her failures to the world.
She could, of course, show how really strong she is and pick another strong woman to be her vice presidential candidate. That way she'd avoid the bother of having a man who isn't 'secure enough' to be her number two, or isn't she strong enough to put her money where her mouth is and gamble on an all female ticket? My guess is that women wouldn't vote for it either.
She’s a candidate belonging to two minority groups. She has to have a VP who balances that. Barack Obama understood this, which is why he chose Joe Biden as his running mate.
Absolutely brilliant. The double-talk and double standards are everywhere. Harris was chosen explicitly for her skin color and gender, with pride by Democrats. But don't say it out loud.
Absolutely love your work Janice! Your academic integrity, courage and conviction at the intellectual and cultural coal face of ‘women’s studies ‘/toxic feminism is heroic. The fabrication, falsification, demonisation of men and hypocrisy associated with the ‘feminist’ crusade is appalling. It reeks of narcissism, neuroticism, blame shifting and self interest by bitter resentful underachievers!
Women’s prob in higher echelons of govt,are women. Hillary the war monger, used feminism as a platform. And women were told to be guilt ridden if we did not support the bitch. She sucked dick for aipac and screwed bern..cackled about the murder of Gaddafi, she could go to hell then and now. She is freaking irrelevant, and inhumane!
Every female Democrat was expected to support her unquestioningly simply because she would be the 1st female POTUS if she were voted in. A symbol. Never mind her resume, her baggage, her raw ambition, or her DC Insider Get Out of Jail Free card. I literally lost friends because I couldn't do that.
To add insult to injury, watch Kamala Harris "debate." It's all APPEAL TO EMOTION, in that sniveling, today's accent, semi-whiny voice.
Let's not forget the other diversity hire, Karine Jeanne Pierre, whose glowing eyelids give the appearance of making eye contact with the press while she's shuffling the pages of her binder.
Maybe what the country needs is exactly that: A dumb, selected for gynecological reasons, dark-skinned, slept-to-the-top, emotionally "reasoning" female dope. One might even hope that the shit-show would be so grand, it would end this ruse once and for all.
Unfortunately, the arbiters of morality haven't bothered seeking Harris' policies that are sorely absent from her website. Nor do they seem capable of remembering that Walz sat around like a putz letting Minneapolis burn. Talk about Tiki Torches!
And like a good "Mammala," Harris FORGAVE these race zealots, because, well, Moms forgive the trespasses of the overgrown toddlers they defaulted on raising because they were too busy working in an office, taking what's due the poor, downtrodden females in their hideous, nylon, pool-colored suits.
This may be controversial, but I've always encouraged men to pursue harassment and discrimination complaints against female offenders. I think it's important to 1) reveal the hypocrisy that feminism is seeking "gender equality" when, in fact, it is seeking to reserve the power of victimhood for women (the woman card), and 2) counter the fallacy that men don't face harassment and discrimination just because statistically there are far more complaints lodged by women. Men are subjected to harassment and discrimination constantly, but they carry on and don't expect a pity party. I lodged a complaint against a female harasser a few years into my career as a university professor. The chair of my department had a standing expectation that I would escort her to social events. I complied for years. To add to the irony, she would often tell me during these compulsory "dates" that she was terribly oppressed as a woman in the academy. When I put a stop to it and complained, I was resoundingly informed that I had no "woman card" to play: it was deemed patently ridiculous that a man would complain about sexual attention from a woman. I was subsequently black balled by the feminist community that held overwhelming power over humanities departments at universities throughout the country.
One wonders how our institutions would look if we committed to the notion that policies relating to sexual harassment and discrimination must either be applied with strict equanimity or not at all. Kudos to Dr. Fiamento for asserting that the only responsible action for Kamala Harris to take is to turn in her "woman card."
Here in the UK the laws are "gender neutral" in their written form (which is not the same as being applied in the same way of course) and men do bring such cases, with some success. Of course these are not widely reported and their are no pressure groups funded by public money telling men of their legal rights (as there are many for women).
The notion that sexual harassment has some natural, predetermined direction that men must "reverse" in order to speak about their experiences is a heinous feminist mythology that no one who cares about gender equality should accept.
I agree that men should flood their institutions with complaints of sexual harassment, including what the great Paul Nathanson calls 'identity harassment,' which is the plethora of anti-male slurs, arguments, and assumptions that women in positions of power regularly make. Unfortunately, it has not been my experience that either men or women tend to take such complaints seriously.
The female politician you seek at the end sounds a lot like Mrs Thatcher, whose main complaint about male politicians was that they were too timid and not manly enough. As I recall, the feminists at one point designated her an honorary man, or words to that effect.
Thatcher was an appalling creature who used her feminine charms to advance her career and then surrounded herself with weak men; she could not tolerate dissent or defiance and kicked out any man who showed the least sign of strength. For all her complaints of male timidity she feared genuinely strong men.
As a newly returned MP she set her cap at Edward Heath, who was known to be gay even then, which may account for the lifelong animosity between the two of them. Bloody awful woman.
She may or may not have been an “appalling creature” or a “bloody awful woman” but that’s hardly the point of referencing Thatcher in relation to the article. The point still stands.
Before Trump Derangement Syndrome there was Thatcher Derangement Syndrome and it’s still going strong four decades later.
Ok, thanks Dad. 😂
My point was that your reply was tangential and didn’t address the original article or the comments you were responding to.
In short, whether Thatcher was bad or not doesn’t invalidate the claim that she was a female leader who was afeminine in the manner in which she governed.
Your claim that she surrounded herself with loyal yes men and eliminated competitors is hardly atypical of men in authority positions.
Another idiot. Do you know what 'tangential' means?
It must be the season, hopefully you'll all die off when the cold weather comes in or at least go back into hibernation. Please reassure me that you're up to date with your jabs.
Thread ended.
Ok gamma.
In Australia we have Abbott Derangement Syndrome and it’s still exists.
Reference is a noun not a verb. The verb is refer and the gerund is referring, not referencing. I didn't make the initial reference, I commented on it What, apart from to mention Thatcher derangement syndrome, was the point of your reply?
This sort of puerile pedantry contributes nothing to the discussion.
I suppose you were attracted to the alliteration. That aside, your superciliousness is puerile and your ignorance of your own irony signal; you clearly have no self-awareness at all.
And that is the sort of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put.
I'm not asking you to, why did you waste your time typing that out?
I don't require your "asking."
Except that she saved Britain. Bloody brilliant, more like it.
You ass; the mess we are in now is because of the neo-liberal economic policies enacted by her governments.
Care to back that up with some thoughts.
There seems to be one like you with every Fiamengo File article. Your sort are becoming so common that swatting is becoming tedious. I don't need to back it up, with 'thoughts' or facts; most people with more than half a brain and an open mind are aware that the mess we are in is a direct result of the spiv-fest privatised mess Thatcher left the country in.
I have a strong suspicion that you are too thick to understand the concept of 'cause and consequence', and will take absolutely no notice of anything I write in support of my assertion anyway, so I won't waste my time. I'm strongly disinclined to bandy brickbats with idiots so this thread is ended. You carry on though.
Ian, I suspect you get very few Christmas cards for good reason. My attempt at a normal exchange of ideas was met with an attack and you have never even seen another comment I have posted. My suggestion to you would be, step out of your echo chambers, breathe some fresh air and stop being such a twit.
A mess, that is common to most of the advanced countries. The privatisation of essential services such as water, transport, energy, the obsession with tax cuts, the "greed is good" mentality, the destruction of the environment, inequality etc are all a function of the neo-liberal economies built on the back of Thatcherism and Friedmanism.
What feminine charms??
You don't think she had any, I don't think she had any, however, a lot of people did and many still do. I think she held some allure for spineless men, the sort who like to be spanked by women in SS uniform and told they are very naughty boys.
I have quite a fascination with the dear lady.
She was a nasty bitch, not a dear lady.
But not a crying bore....
Best estimate before Thatcher was that at the then-current rate, the UK's GDP would by 2030 equal Albania's. Was she perfect? No, but given everything else, quite good enough.
How does 'U'K GDP compare to Albania's now?
One of the most admired and successful politicians in history!
Sounds Machiavellian to me.
Great minds. :) I was writing the same thing seconds before you posted.
Me too!
and me too!
I would say me too too except that the phrase has become a sacred reserved expression. ;-)
She was in tears when she left no.10.
Ronald Reagan cried at his inauguration.
Yes, I had the same thought!
Janice you have a talent for speaking the things that are so often unsaid by most. I have wondered about female leaders for some time and have been told by my female friends that they think women should not be in leadership positions. They say that men have, for thousands of years, been responsible for the larger community while women have been responsible for their own families. This gives each of them an evolutionary advantage in their sphere of influence. Makes sense I suppose. Of course there are some men who are horrible leaders and some women who are excellent. Ain't nuttin simple. But your suggestion for women to not make use of their gynocentric advantage sounded like a wonderful idea that is likely not going to happen anytime soon....but those last three paragraphs sure sounded right to me! Such a joy to read them!
Lionel Tiger's Men In Groups explains this. It was notorious when it came out but is now neglected. A neglected masterpiece. (Yes, there is a person named Lionel Tiger. His parents must have had a sense of humor.)
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Groups-Lionel-Tiger/dp/0765805987
And, since we're all terribly concerned about how women are treated in the workplace, what about Kamala Harris' well-known abuse of her employees, male and female? Any problems there? Of course not. Of her original 47 staff members when she became VP, just 4 remain, a 92% turnover rate in just 3+ years. Impressive!
That wasn't her fault; they were obviously just too insecure to work for a strong woman.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Need more data. People in Washington move around a lot. It's all about climbing ladders. Need interviews with those who left who are willing to be frank.
Yes, we're not hearing too much about the tears that Kamala has caused to be shed:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13673913/kamala-harris-soul-destroying-bully.html
My country has just appointed (by Standing Order, in a committee) its first ever female First Minister, the Right Unremarkable Eluned Morgan, Baroness of Ely. You can imagine the party atmosphere that becloaks the nation, following on as it does so swiftly from the tenure of our first black First Minister - also unelected - who managed to endure 118 days before succumbing to financial scandal.
The omens are not auspicious, however. Here are some of the very first sentences the good Baroness pronounced upon her unveiling:
"It's the greatest pleasure and privilege of my life to stand before you today as the first woman to become the First Minister of Wales."
"This isn't just about shattering glass ceilings, it's about shattering them forever, using the pieces to create a mosaic of new possibilities. I carry with me the wisdom of the women who have battled, struggled and persevered—many without the recognition that they've deserved."
"To the young women watching today, you need to know your potential is limitless, the path to leadership is not now just a possibility, it's a reality, and I look forward to the day when a woman becoming First Minister is no longer extraordinary, but a normal part of our Welsh political life."
Wish us luck, Janice.
That is ONE FOR THE AGES!!!! Many of my themes touched upon by the good Baroness. One thing is for sure: the speeches will rarely surprise. Extraordinary.
Originality is not their forte is it?
When a woman says 'leadership' she means not leading others but giving orders and bossing others about, taking the credit when what others have done goes well and shirking responsibility and blaming others when what she has ordered done goes wrong. What matters to them is the job title and the feeling of power, not the opportunity to get something done.
I think most women have no idea what leadership is. Women definitely imagine themselves more able to get along with people, able to 'lead' through collaboration and cooperation; and they may start out attempting to work that model. But most women, unlike most men, cannot help but over-personalize everything, which very quickly undermines attempts at fair or principled leadership.
I have watched your presentation for the ICMI today, followed by that of William Collins. It is incredible how many commentators on this platform and others who consider themselves informed as to the elements creating the current sinister social, cultural and political environment entirely disregard the centrality of feminism (and the gynocentrism which underpins it) in their analysis. Both William and yourself ought to be compulsory listening if such people are to be disabused.
Very true, and since the new FM has a tradition of such behaviour to build upon from her (male) predecessors, I fully expect it to be dialled up to 11.
Yes male but not men; political males seem to behave in feminine ways these days.
Interestingly, the previous incumbent Vaughan Gething, upon hearing that a vote of no confidence in his leadership was to be held, DID shed tears, right there in the Senedd chamber. For this he was not afforded much sympathy, to say the least, even from a supine and obsequious national press. Clearly nobody told him that. despite his other progressive stack credentials, he lacked the one which would enable him to pull that off.
Good point.
Women in the public eye will stop engaging in those behaviors when those behaviors stop being rewarded. And that's a long, long time off.
Yes I think we have to deal with the reality as it is.
To be fair, it is a rare politician, male or female, who takes responsibility for their failures.
Too true, alas. But they don't usually cry!
Yes, female weepiness is a tearanny.
I don't have a problem with women expressing their emotions. They do, after all, operate a little differently to men. Nothing wrong with an outward expression of how you are feeling. It also helps to learn what a person's character is all about.
I do not like it though when it is being used as a manipulative tool.
Julia Gillard never did shed a tear when she lost the top job, but her counterparts Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd cried like babies. Exceptions that prove the rule.
Yes, Chris you are correct. She was a pretty tough character and very competitive. And Tony Abbott was a tough one too and gave as good as he got.
As to the alleged misogyny of the American electorate, that myth was laid to rest in 1998 by a book that reported the authors' analyses of over 68,000 elections in the U.S. at the state and federal levels from the 70s to the 90s. Their conclusion: "when women run, women win exactly as often as do men." The win rate for the two sexes were statistically identical. Female voters tend slightly to vote for female candidate and males for male candidates, but the two tendencies cancel each other with the result being equality.
Nasty data. So very misogynistic of you to use real data rather than feelings.
Very interesting, thank you! I wonder if there has been any shift since 1998? I wonder if 25 years of feminist proselytizing has led to a greater polarization in which women are more inclined to vote for a woman; and perhaps men slightly less inclined?
It's interesting to observe how women in politics and business describe themselves as being strong and also stronger than men whilst at the same time displaying extreme weaknesses at so called male toxicity.
So strong, they can move mountains, yet fall into a blubbering heap with lifeline scarring from a man who might look at her sideways.
And complete hysteria should a man not look at her at all.
Would you agree that the very fact that so called powerful women are so quick to pull out the victim card, cry misogyny, and seem almost incapable of empathy toward boys and men is because, deep in their psyche, they know themselves as the natural subordinates of men? Their frequent tirades result from the pain caused by fighting their own nature? That they might have to admit that they are lying?
Yes, it's called ressentiment, a term coined by Nietzche: "Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure on to an external scapegoat."
Indeed a great deal of modern feminism is devoted to doing men down. This even appeared in policy in Sweden, and thence to "progressives" across Europe. On finding that the reason Sweden has a very "gender segregated" workforce and few women in very senior posts, is that women choose public services because of the generous time off and short hours and actively avoid promotions that might mean greater time commitments. The "solution" was forcing men to take long paternity leave and trying to get men to be less ambitious. Of course this went down like a lead balloon with the nations very productive private sector (almost exclusively male workforces) and is persistently undermined by the men being productive and efficient. Meanwhile of course the country has continued its move to even more "gender segregation" in workforces, its public services deteriorate and no one thanks its male workforces for keeping the money flowing in. And of course this abject set of "failures" is all the fault of patriarchy and misogyny, rather than women's choices.
It may be, but if so, the knowledge is unconscious. To imagine that most women recognize their inferiority is to give them far too much credit.
Lol Janice, though for most it probably is unconscious, so you're probably correct.
Yes, ressentiment is a subconscious defence mechanism, in which "the ego creates an enemy to insulate themselves from culpability" (for their own inferiority/failure). Another interesting aspect is that "after the weaker side has won out over the stronger side, there is a general sense of disappointment that the rewards of victory are much less than was expected. The former long time past resentment is perhaps increased by an inadequate outcome, leading to ressentiment."
This might explain why women, having won out over men under feminism, and discovering that working for a living is no bed of roses, are even more angry and hateful of men, and more demanding of further concessions and favouritism. In other words, despite the extraordinary success of feminism in recent decades, the demands of feminists are actually escalating. But it's like more of the same medicine which didn't work in the first place, in terms of making women happy and fulfilled. For most women, that kind of happiness and fulfilment lies not in careerism but in having children.
Great insight - certainly a contributing psychoanalytic factor.
'"I want a VP pick,” she tweeted, “that's secure enough to be second under a woman ... '
What she's saying, although she seems unaware of it, is that she's not 'secure enough' to work with a man who is capable of getting the job done; she wants a man who won't show her up when she fucks everything up - she's a strong woman but she needs a weak man who will, paradoxically, be strong enough to take the blows for her, and not report her failures to the world.
She could, of course, show how really strong she is and pick another strong woman to be her vice presidential candidate. That way she'd avoid the bother of having a man who isn't 'secure enough' to be her number two, or isn't she strong enough to put her money where her mouth is and gamble on an all female ticket? My guess is that women wouldn't vote for it either.
She’s a candidate belonging to two minority groups. She has to have a VP who balances that. Barack Obama understood this, which is why he chose Joe Biden as his running mate.
Well, there was quite a lot of touting of Harris and Whitmer, wasn't there? I must admit my blood ran cold. Whitmer is the ultimate Devouring Mother.
Great point.
Absolutely brilliant. The double-talk and double standards are everywhere. Harris was chosen explicitly for her skin color and gender, with pride by Democrats. But don't say it out loud.
Absolutely love your work Janice! Your academic integrity, courage and conviction at the intellectual and cultural coal face of ‘women’s studies ‘/toxic feminism is heroic. The fabrication, falsification, demonisation of men and hypocrisy associated with the ‘feminist’ crusade is appalling. It reeks of narcissism, neuroticism, blame shifting and self interest by bitter resentful underachievers!
Great post Dianne. A much better and more succinct post than the long winded version I just posted.
Women’s prob in higher echelons of govt,are women. Hillary the war monger, used feminism as a platform. And women were told to be guilt ridden if we did not support the bitch. She sucked dick for aipac and screwed bern..cackled about the murder of Gaddafi, she could go to hell then and now. She is freaking irrelevant, and inhumane!
Every female Democrat was expected to support her unquestioningly simply because she would be the 1st female POTUS if she were voted in. A symbol. Never mind her resume, her baggage, her raw ambition, or her DC Insider Get Out of Jail Free card. I literally lost friends because I couldn't do that.
On the money, as always!
To add insult to injury, watch Kamala Harris "debate." It's all APPEAL TO EMOTION, in that sniveling, today's accent, semi-whiny voice.
Let's not forget the other diversity hire, Karine Jeanne Pierre, whose glowing eyelids give the appearance of making eye contact with the press while she's shuffling the pages of her binder.
Maybe what the country needs is exactly that: A dumb, selected for gynecological reasons, dark-skinned, slept-to-the-top, emotionally "reasoning" female dope. One might even hope that the shit-show would be so grand, it would end this ruse once and for all.
Unfortunately, the arbiters of morality haven't bothered seeking Harris' policies that are sorely absent from her website. Nor do they seem capable of remembering that Walz sat around like a putz letting Minneapolis burn. Talk about Tiki Torches!
And like a good "Mammala," Harris FORGAVE these race zealots, because, well, Moms forgive the trespasses of the overgrown toddlers they defaulted on raising because they were too busy working in an office, taking what's due the poor, downtrodden females in their hideous, nylon, pool-colored suits.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
This may be controversial, but I've always encouraged men to pursue harassment and discrimination complaints against female offenders. I think it's important to 1) reveal the hypocrisy that feminism is seeking "gender equality" when, in fact, it is seeking to reserve the power of victimhood for women (the woman card), and 2) counter the fallacy that men don't face harassment and discrimination just because statistically there are far more complaints lodged by women. Men are subjected to harassment and discrimination constantly, but they carry on and don't expect a pity party. I lodged a complaint against a female harasser a few years into my career as a university professor. The chair of my department had a standing expectation that I would escort her to social events. I complied for years. To add to the irony, she would often tell me during these compulsory "dates" that she was terribly oppressed as a woman in the academy. When I put a stop to it and complained, I was resoundingly informed that I had no "woman card" to play: it was deemed patently ridiculous that a man would complain about sexual attention from a woman. I was subsequently black balled by the feminist community that held overwhelming power over humanities departments at universities throughout the country.
One wonders how our institutions would look if we committed to the notion that policies relating to sexual harassment and discrimination must either be applied with strict equanimity or not at all. Kudos to Dr. Fiamento for asserting that the only responsible action for Kamala Harris to take is to turn in her "woman card."
Here in the UK the laws are "gender neutral" in their written form (which is not the same as being applied in the same way of course) and men do bring such cases, with some success. Of course these are not widely reported and their are no pressure groups funded by public money telling men of their legal rights (as there are many for women).
haha, you should have known there's no such thing as reverse sexual harassment, just like there's no such thing as reverse racism.
The notion that sexual harassment has some natural, predetermined direction that men must "reverse" in order to speak about their experiences is a heinous feminist mythology that no one who cares about gender equality should accept.
It's all about having your cake and eating it too. That's the definition of feminism.
I agree that men should flood their institutions with complaints of sexual harassment, including what the great Paul Nathanson calls 'identity harassment,' which is the plethora of anti-male slurs, arguments, and assumptions that women in positions of power regularly make. Unfortunately, it has not been my experience that either men or women tend to take such complaints seriously.