Janice Fiamengo debunks feminist myth
Reply
Category Archives: Feminism
Are women more privileged than men?
Hell yes. This video – all accurate – describes how much.
White demographic suicide and their coloured replacement
I recently saw an article in one of Australia’s newspapers about young women who have sworn off having children. Photos of these childless women showed twenty-something white girls with naughty, rebellious smiles as if they were leading a long overdue social correction in their collapsing European society. Don’t they realise what they’re doing?
No, they don’t and couldn’t care less if they did know. The naughtiness and rebelliousness of their action are central to their self-esteem.
Australia’s ever-decreasing white population is contracepting, homosexualising, and aborting itself out of existence. I have been saying it for years.
Whenever people like me claim that the leftist/woke establishment has a policy of white replacement, you get reporters (mostly female) like Anna Henderson, Chief Political Reporter for the white-hating SBS, scoffing at the ignorance of such poorly educated, indoctrinated, far-right people. But have a look at the immigration figures. Over the last twenty years, migration to Australia has swung dramatically from predominantly white European countries to poor black and Asian countries.
The ABC and SBS support the change on the basis of woke ideology – both treasonous government-funded organisations – and the Labor Party support it because they can count on the votes of people who have migrated to Australia for the generous welfare. The undeniable figures are there, no matter what woke reporters like Henderson claim.
Daily Insight (highly recommended) raises the important points in the video below:
Heterofatalism?
(Hint: men should read this – what new thing females are cooking up)
An article by Bianca Farmakis in today’s Australian is titled What Women Really Want. Then comes a subheading: The huge cultural sex shift we all missed. Then a brief description of the article:
‘Steamy gay male romances like Heated Rivalry and Pinion are not anomalies: women in their millions now prefer to watch men loving men on screen [presumably she means men having sex]. But what does this new “heterofatalism” reveal about female desire – and where will it lead?’
I suspect it reveals something bad about men – it’s always something bad about men, these days. And God knows to what catastrophe it will lead. My interest was piqued, and I did some searching. I found this article on Mentalzon:
What Is Heterofatalism and Why Does It Matter?
It’s a feeling that settles in quietly at first, then all at once: a profound, weary disappointment with men in the landscape of modern dating. This isn’t just about one bad date or a single failed relationship. It’s a deeper state of emotional exhaustion, a collapse of hope that has been named heterofatalism. This term captures the fatigue many women feel when their desires for a serious, emotionally invested partnership repeatedly crash against a wall of indifference. It’s not an organized movement, but a shared, unspoken sigh of resignation echoing in a world of shifting social norms and growing pressures.
The Roots of a Modern Malaise
The term itself is relatively new, first coined as “heteropessimism” by researcher Asa Seresin in 2019 to describe a general disappointment with the opposite sex. It has since evolved to more specifically articulate the female experience of disillusionment. The idea quickly found its footing in mainstream conversations, resonating with countless women who felt their experiences were finally being given a name.
This feeling isn’t confined to one corner of the globe; it’s a sentiment that crosses cultural boundaries. At its heart is a mismatch of expectations. Women may hope for emotional cornerstones like support, attention, and care, only to find their partners seem unwilling or unable to provide them. This isn’t just about grand romantic gestures; it’s about the fundamental building blocks of a healthy connection. When even these basics are missing, the result is a slow burn of despondency and resentment.
Of course, this dissatisfaction is a two-way street. Men, too, often express frustration, feeling judged against impossible standards. A cycle of mutual resentment can take hold, with both sides raising their guard and their expectations. But here, we’ll focus on the specific phenomenon of female disappointment and where it stems from.
There’s also this:
The Feminisation of everything
Helen Andrews’ article in Compact’s online magazine exploded on the internet in October 2025. Commentaries and interviews with Andrews followed rapidly. I will post links following this post. It is curious that, for the first time, I recently came across this quote from George Orwell’s 1984:
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
Coincidentally, I recently found this shocking demonstration of the fundamental difference between male and female moral and political thinking HERE.
How many of us have had to give up talking to a screaming, overwrought female, as here with this poor man?
*****
The Great Feminization
Helen Andrews, COMPACT, 16 October 2025
In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.
The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?
Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
Pauline – you’ve done it again
Frantic moves by the woke class to ban it, but the attempts only made it more popular.
Be afraid of flying
Females head up Australia’s two biggest airlines. One of those female CEOs has publicly stated that she will follow quota guidelines for recruiting airline staff, including pilots. Pilots will be chosen based on identity rather than competence.
Sorry, I’m not stepping onto a plane without knowing who’s flying it. That will probably never happen again.
Fighting the patriarchy
The frivolous spite of young women. The video below is remarkable for the opening scenes portraying young women describing their ways of attacking the patriarchy – their indoctrinated form of the patriarchy. There are thousands of videos like this across the internet. They pop up everywhere.
Feminism and marriage
Laura How
“Feminism has always been a force for good and equality.” Is that really true? In this conversation with retired Professor Janice Fiamengo, we examine feminism’s actual origins, its pervasive influence on modern relationships, and why so many men and women are waking up to a very different reality than what we’ve been told.
Professor Janice Fiamengo, creator of The Fiamengo Files video series and author of Sons of Feminism, joins me for an unflinching look at how feminist ideology has shaped our attitudes toward men, marriage, and family life. From classrooms teaching children that men are the problem, to therapy rooms filled with women who’ve been taught to fear and distrust their husbands, we explore how these ideas have taken root and what the cost has been to both sexes.
This conversation challenges the narrative that feminism’s only critics are those who hate women or want to deny them opportunities. Instead, we examine the historical record, question why certain perspectives have been suppressed, and ask what happens to societies that tell men they don’t matter.
Women destroy civilisations
The (Female) Elephant in the Room
Will we continue to pretend that female power does not lead to civilizational disaster?
Janice Fiamengo Oct 16, 2025
Multiple surveys (see, for example, with thanks to James Nuzzo, here, here, here, here, here and here) suggest that when women hold power, they pursue typically feminine preferences and policies. Female-led institutions become more oriented to social justice than objective truth. Feelings matter above facts, context above law, and victimhood above expertise.
Protecting and promoting the allegedly vulnerable—through censorship, shaming, coercion, or lawbreaking/lawfare—becomes a greater priority than excellence or impartiality. Truth-tellers find themselves cancelled, Nobel prize winners reduced to tears, laws and policies applied unequally, white men accused and vilified, criminals cossetted, mental illnesses affirmed, and destructive policies embraced. No one who has paid attention over the past 20 years can be surprised by the findings.
Moreover, our ability to discuss this feminine revolution in values is hampered by the very logic of the revolution, as I will show. Both women and men, deeply disinclined to “harm” women, fail to confront the problem adequately.
Two discussions of the subject—an essay by two social psychologists at Quillette and, more recently, a conference speech by a feisty conservative woman—draw a line under the seeming inevitability of the west’s collapse. Even faced with that alarming prospect, most pundits cannot bear to imagine an alternative to the female-led assault on our core institutions.
Cheering on Women’s Empowerment
A 2022 article in Quillette, “Sex and the Academy,” provides a stark illustration of my thesis. The subtitle rules out the very conclusion the data supports, with the authors emphasizing that “The inclusion of women in higher education is a great achievement for Western liberal societies. How is this changing academic culture?”
The “great achievement,” as it turns out, will almost certainly be a lethal one.
The article was written by two academics, Cory Clark and Bo Winegard, both PhDs in social psychology. Winegard, a male scholar, had an unfortunate run-in with academic orthodoxy that led to his loss of employment; Clark, a female scholar, has a secure academic position. Both authors express enthusiasm for the takeover of academia by women even as they point out its damaging consequences. Neither one advocates any form of resistance, no matter how mild, to feminine academia’s assault on truth.