Feminists boast there are more females than males now enrolled at university as evidence women are superior to men. But what percentage of females graduate with feminist degrees? Unproductive man-hating degrees that would qualify them best for HR positions – where they have free rein to persecute and eliminate men.
Alexander Grace’s video below is about US circumstances. However, much of it would apply to Australia.
One should read the informative comments from males after the video.
I remember some years ago an elderly priest commenting on sin. As an aside, he said, as a priest hearing confessions year in, year out, in general men commit sins of lust and women sins of anger.
At the time, it was rather a surprise. Weren’t women kind, nurturing, sympathetic, patient, etc. etc.?
The priest’s words came back to me when the feminist-instigated conflict between men and women moved to centre stage. Not only could women fly into tempestuous fury but the way they expressed that fury was not in physical violence but in reputation destruction – total destruction. This was the theme of many of Jordan Peterson’s comments on the differences between men and women.
Since then others, particularly women, have commented on the uncontainable anger that often grips women. Janice Fiamengo made the comment below on the irrational fury that consumed many women following Donald Trump’s victory at the recent presidential election.
*****
Janice Fiamengo, Dec 15, 2024
Feminist uproar over Trump’s election was easy to predict, and not long in coming. Within ten days of the election, Clara Jeffery wrote in Mother Jones that “Women are furious—in a Greek mythology sort of way.” Taking examples from TikTok, Jeffery chronicled abundant “sorrow and disbelief and terror, but also incandescent rage,” which many women vowed to exorcise on men: “‘If his ballot was red, his balls stay blue,’” she quoted one.
In The New York Times, a 16-year-old girl, Naomi Beinart, charted her tumultuous emotions, which included a sense of betrayal because her male classmates had carried on with their lives on the day after the election, seemingly immune to the girls’ all-pervasive gloom and outrage. “Many of them didn’t seem to share our rage, our fear, our despair. We don’t even share the same future,” Beinart opined melodramatically.
No one with even a minimal acquaintance with social media can have missed the many similar, raging reactions: the heads being shaved, the death threats, the promised sex strikes, the fantasies of revenge against Trump-voting husbands. We are to understand that the re-election of a man rumored to lack sufficient pro-abortion commitment justifies thousands of self-recorded screams, imprecations, and poisoning plots.
At least one group of women gathered physically in Wisconsin to shout their angst and anger at Lake Michigan, and there have already been tentative (though apparently less enthusiastic than formerly) plans for a revival of the anti-Trump Women’s March protests, in which women with vulgar placards and pink hats exhibited their “collective rage.”
Women’s rage is all the rage.
In the article below Professor Kim Beswick, the University of NSW (female) professor of mathematics education, is reported as saying about an international survey that found a huge gap between male and female ability in maths and science:
“There is no reason for there to be a difference between boys’ and girls’ performance in maths. It relates to the social stereotype of maths being a male thing, and STEM careers are more male dominated. And that subtly influences how teachers and parents interact with students around maths.”
Crap, crap, and crap again. The professor deserves to have her employment terminated for such ignorance.
Few things have shown more regularity through the centuries than the natural differences between male and female in maths and science ability.
The survey will yet again provide excuses for feminists to hound the Labor government for more money to reconstruct the female mind – at the expense of boys.
Boys have become the great victim of feminist irrationality.
*****
Women’s Agenda, Jessie Tu, 5 December 2024
Australia boys are considerably outperforming girls in both maths and science, the latest study from a large-scale international analysis has found.
On Wednesday, The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) released the 2023 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (Timss), which analysed the skills of Year 4 and Year 8 students across the world.
Roughly 14,000 Australian students were involved in the test, which remains the world’s longest running assessment of maths and science skills among school students.
It revealed that the gender gap in students’ maths performance is among the widest in the world, with the country’s male students in Year 4 achieving over twenty-points ahead of their female counterparts. Male students were found to be outperforming female students in both primary and high school.
“There is no reason for there to be a difference between boys’ and girls’ performance in maths,” Professor Kim Beswick told the Sydney Morning Herald. “It relates to the social stereotype of maths being a male thing, and STEM careers are more male dominated. And that subtly influences how teachers and parents interact with students around maths.”
The University of NSW professor of mathematics education added that girls are less confident than boys about their ability, even when the results do not reflect their beliefs.
Almost three quarter of Year 4 students in Australia met the proficiency benchmark in maths, compared with 64 per cent of students in Year 8. In science, over 70 per cent of students met the subject’s benchmarks in both year groups.
Tom Golden’s substack MEN ARE GOOD is highly recommended.
*****
Tom Golden, Dec 05, 2024
In a previous post, we explored why men often choose not to fight back against women. Many reasons tie back to their biologically and socially driven desire for social status. Men tend to carefully assess conflicts, aiming to maximize gains while minimizing losses. Maintaining high status, especially within hierarchical structures, requires significant effort. These dynamics—marked by unexpected rises and falls—have shaped men’s behavior for generations.
However, beginning in the 1970s, feminists began weaponizing gynocentrism, using it as a protective shield while directing hateful accusations at men. If men were to treat women similarly, they would face immediate chastisement and punishment. Instead, feminists exploited their societal gynocentric privilege destructively, prioritizing their own agendas.
Initially, this hostility manifested in labels like “chauvinists” or “pigs.” Over time, unchecked accusations escalated, with men increasingly blamed for nearly every difficulty feminists perceived. Consider the many labels feminists have used to describe men over the years:
Now, imagine if men’s groups conjured similar names for women. How long would such groups last? Would they garner media support? Not a chance. Gynocentrism allows feminists to spew hatred without consequence, often gaining widespread backing.
This is the result of feminists forcing through quotas. Competence, training, practice, and experience mean nothing for feminists. Their concern is 50 percent or more of everything for women.
One female airline CEO wants 50 percent pilots. If female incompetence sabotages a navy ship because of a fundamental pilot mistake, at least the crew has a chance to get off the ship. With an airline, everyone dives headfirst from thousands of feet into the ground.
The irrationality of feminists knows no bounds. What will it take – what sort of a tragedy – will it take to bring authorities back to the standard of competence regardless of sex.
The video below provides all manner of evidence of what anyone with a mite of intelligence will observe if they take the trouble to look. Feminists and feminism are gradually collapsing academia. The rising population of women in higher education are turning once proud academic institutions into the academic equivalent of a women’s sowing circle where everyone is nice and equal.
To some extent, the fault is men’s. Contrary to feminist rhetoric, men don’t like fighting women, especially men in the once august academic environment. They have let it happen. If men don’t like what has happened, they have to fight back. But they have to do it the way feminists have gradually corrupted the universities. Manoeuvre and scheme.
The other way is to start again. Build up a male academic sector by shutting out those who haven’t the strength of mind for rigorous academic activities.
In another brilliant analysis, Janice Fiamengo demonstrates where Trump won the presidency.
******
Janice Fiamengo, Nov 15, 2024
In the week following the American election results, a consensus of sorts has emerged: this was about men.
Whether in distasteful embrace of “bro” masculinity, or in celebration of a world in which “male traits can build rather than destroy” (in the surprisingly sympathetic words of Quillette’s Claire Lehmann), men were the ones who determined the election outcome, so the story goes. Donald Trump was victorious over Kamala Harris because he gave men permission to reject feminist dictates, including about abortion.
A good deal of the commentary on this theme, not surprisingly, has been negative, ranging from the sneering to the hysterical. There have also been raucous celebrations and upbeat analyses of the “rebellion of American men.” Even amidst the male-blaming and catastrophizing, the talk of sex strikes and husband-poisoning, there have been signs that the era of men being taken for granted as voters may at last be coming to an end.
Democrat Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution under-stated the case when he pointed out that “Trying to either shame or guilt or scare men into voting Democrat was spectacularly unsuccessful.” Future Democratic campaigns, he suggests, will have to take men into account. Whether the Trump presidency will deliver on the hopes now raised among some men’s advocates remains to be seen.
*****
First, a review: the Democratic campaign vision for men was notable for its anti-male contempt.
Democrats promoted a progressive masculinity, one that was explicitly subservient to women. Francis Wilkinson at Bloomberg praised VP candidate Tim Walz as a man who “can happily play second fiddle to a Black woman” and “doesn’t have to live in constant fear of losing status.” In case the implied insult to imagined Republican men (with their fragile masculinity) was not clear enough, Wilkinson concluded his piece with a direct address: “He’s not frightened of women, afraid of Black people or terrified of the future. Why are you?”
Riffing on the same theme, Sam Berry at The Los Angeles Loyalan, a campus newspaper, celebrated Walz for his “gentle masculinity” and willingness to “take a backseat to his running mate.” A soft man happy to play a supporting role to a DEI presidential candidate was purportedly attractive to young people (by which he seemed to mean young women). Berry interviewed a sociology professor at UC Santa Barbara who saw it as a positive that “Walz overall doesn’t express his masculinity” (whatever that means) and who asserted that “People [by which she seemed to mean women] are more happy to see a man support a woman in power rather than using his role as a man in society to benefit his own self.”
For an uncompromising defence of patriarchy, one can consult Timothy Gordon’s youtube channel. He and his wife operate as a fantastic duo, Tim going in hard for a naturally constructed man. His thoughts are laid out in full, together with a theoretical demonstration, in his book The Case for Patriarchy. His wife, Stephanie, backs him up solidly with her book Ask Your Husband: A Wife’s Guide to True Femininity. I might add that Tim enjoys the singular privilege of having a wife who laughs at his jokes.
There is much devoted to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, but the fantastic duo’s views on men and women – and their union – will reach across religions and philosophies.
Women that hate men: essays on misandry — Vanessa de Largie
Connor Court Publishing
From award-winning writer, author and columnist Vanessa de Largie, comes a provocative collection of essays destined to reshape the way we think of modern media’s portrayal of men. Hating men is a blood sport and one doesn’t have to look very far to witness it. Misandrist messaging clogs up the media like the dead skin that clogs up a pore. We are essentially being brainwashed and re-educated via the media’s psychological techniques. It’s the sort of propaganda we condemn in autocratic nations!
Women that hate men: essays on misandry is a 2024 collection of essays by Australian writer and columnist, Vanessa de Largie. The book takes a look at man-hating and the way it damages men and boys, in most branches of society.
Unlike many YouTubers who try to speak off the cuff, Erin Byrd has done her research and written a well-argued presentation. This presentation is well worth viewing.