Tag Archives: Man-hatred

Culture, Feminism, Media, Radicalism

Janice Fiamengo: her feminist story

Below is Janice Fiamengo’s fascinating and instructive story of how she was mesmerized by the feminist siren and later escaped its delusionary grip. She is perhaps the most articulate of those writing against the torrent of man-hatred that infects the western world.

*****

The Making and Un-Making of a Feminist Radical: My Story

Though I lived off the outrage-rush for years, I was, in the end, thoroughly sickened by feminism’s hypocrisy and hatefulness

JANICE FIAMENGO MAY 09, 2024

New York Radical Women Feminist Collective: An Oral History

I’ve told this personal story in bits, but here it is for the first time in one go.

Born in Vancouver in 1964, I grew up at the height of the feminist movement. In the Second Grade (’71-’72), I was taught by a feminist zealot who had her students color pictures of women wearing hardhats or driving fire trucks to make the point that girls could be and do anything. Even then, it seemed like overkill: nobody had ever indicated otherwise. The culture was overtly pro-female, and I rode the girl power wave without a thought.

Growing up, I received kind and respectful treatment from every man I encountered in school and elsewhere. My father thought it a matter of course that I would make something of myself. I was not sexually harassed or demeaned, and never witnessed or heard of such from female friends. My parents expected me to take responsibility for my life. I didn’t always follow their advice—in fact, I was a foolish pot-smoking, fast-car-riding teenager fascinated by the romance of danger—but I was never given cause to see myself as a victim.

I always had a passion for reading. With my parents’ encouragement, I completed a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s, and a PhD in English literature at the University of British Columbia. After two years as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Simon Fraser University, I landed my first full-time teaching position at the University of Saskatchewan, where I taught for four years. After that, I became a professor at the University of Ottawa, where I remained until my retirement in 2019.

When I interviewed at both Saskatchewan and Ottawa, there was not a single man on either four-person shortlist. So-called equity hiring—which usually amounted to the outright (or near-outright) exclusion of men from job competitions—was in full swing; it had been going on for about a decade and is still going on now, 25 years later (see the research of Martin Loney on the history of such hiring in Canada). How many generations of young men will have to be sacrificed to the great god of equity before feminists say enough?

The feminist mantra of heroic female victimhood had been the air I breathed as a university student, and it offered a near-irresistible fantasy of moral purity. I was a woman and therefore good. Men had to prove themselves good by allying with women against other men. I came to like the heady rush of sisterhood and the exhilarating fury of feeling oneself part of a wronged group. I particularly enjoyed the vision of myself as a bold heroine speaking against oppression (and being applauded and rewarded for it).

Teaching Feminism in High School: Moving from Theory to Action | Feminist Teacher

Everything on campus was about women. Vigils for the Montreal Massacre were a yearly opportunity for ideologues to decry the supposedly widespread misogyny that made women’s lives, even at the most progressive institutions on earth, a hell of assault, put-downs, and discrimination. The university women’s center, where no man could tread (well, actually …), offered women a “safe space” to learn about patriarchy and to plot its downfall.

Read the rest here . . .

Culture, Feminism, Law, Media, Radicalism

Gynocentrism and man-hatred – the state of play

We must be thankful for Bettina Arndt who does the heavy research work to bring together the facts of feminist control over just about every aspect of our society.

That a woman fills a position of power and authority is not the problem. It’s only a problem when that woman who does not have the skills and experience to fill that position, is chosen on a quota system, and – worse – uses that position to promote the feminist agenda – which is just about always.

All feminists are political activists.

*****

Women on top

-Why so many prized jobs are now in female hands.

BETTINA ARNDT, JUN 26, 2024

A picture speaks a thousand words. Look at this line-up, showing all the ACT Supreme Court judges. This formidable female-dominated bench wouldn’t exactly inspire confidence if you were a poor sucker facing a last-ditch appeal of a guilty verdict following a false rape accusation.  

All the more so when the bench is led by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum who recently grumbled in a newspaper interview about the “intractable problem” of “ensuring an accused person has a fair trial.” Women’s groups are working hard to solve her problem, with all sorts of inventive solutions that do away with any notion of a fair trial – like an alternate court system with a lower standard of proof.

Whenever there’s a big job announced in Australia, you can bet your bottom dollar that the prize will fall to a woman – even when that means the newcomer is decades younger and less experienced than her predecessors.

Gender is the trump card wiping out all other merit-based considerations. It must be rather maddening to be a high achieving Australian man clawing your way up the ladder knowing that the top rung is no longer available.

Often the result is just absurd. Here are the governors of the six Australian states – once again, there’s just one token man. The recent announcement of “equity advocate” Sam Mostyn as Governor General really took the cake, particularly when Albo announced this week he was proposing an astonishing $200,000 increase in her salary.

Perhaps none of this would matter if we could be assured that this new breed of female top dogs would simply do their jobs, without using their positions to constantly promote women at the expense of men. But across the board we see women in power misusing their positions to stitch men up or grind them down.

Queensland Chief of Police Katarina Carroll was forced out of her job when officers began to revolt. The police service had been found by the state’s anti-corruption watchdog to have engaged in “corrupt manipulation” to achieve a 50 per cent female hiring target. The report found 200 meritorious male applicants missed out on joining the force due to this corrupt practice.  

And it is hard to forget that Australia’s very first female top cop, Christine Nixon, also ended her career in 2009 thoroughly disgraced when it was found she spent the morning of Black Saturday, Australia’s worst bushfire, with a 90-minute appointment at the hairdresser followed by a 45-minute meeting with her biographer. In the evening, as the town of Marysville burned to the ground, she was having a leisurely meal in the pub.

And then there was NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb who desperately needed a reset after a series of unforced errors plagued her leadership. She was renowned for being an appalling communicator, failing to promptly address the media when police officer Jesse Baird was murdered, and following the tasering of a 95-year-old grandmother. Luckily, she was given a reprieve when she was able to bask in the glory of a female police officer’s heroics in the Bondi Junction attack.

Now she is making a name for herself tackling the scourge of domestic violence. She’s launched a series called Operation Amarok – where so far more than 3,500 domestic violence offenders have been rounded up and arrested. Nothing like scooping up thousands of wife batterers to win applause from the media. No one is going to bother to ask about the evidence supporting these arrests.

Clearly our female top cops haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory; and it is interesting that men have been slipped back into the job in Queensland and Victoria. Right now, Webb is the only remaining female chief.  

Read the rest here . . .

Culture, Feminism, Law, Media

Another horrific case of domestic murder

Again, it is sheer coincidence that I was alerted to the ABC report below not long after I finished posting the previous report.

I must congratulate the ABC reporters for their restraint. In the recent past, cases like the present have unleashed fiery condemnations from the ABC about the pernicious nature of maleness – as exhibited by a man setting his house on fire to kill his family.

However, this is a preliminary report, and the ABC may still have the chance to express their fury over that poisonous male entity in our society.

Two points are pertinent, though. The trio of reporters were able to convey the deadly information that the man tried to stop police from rescuing the children. What an evil bastard. On the other hand, they had to quote police as saying that the man had no criminal record, was not subject to an AVO, or was before the courts.

So, what motivated his murderous violence?

A hint to those man-hating feminists out there: just saying he’s a man is longer enough.

*****

Three children dead after house fire in Sydney’s west being treated as domestic violence incident

By Tony Ibrahim, Ethan Rix, and Holly Tregenza, ABC, 7 July 2024

A fire which killed three young children in a house at Lalor Park in Sydney’s west is being treated as a domestic violence incident. 

Fire crews were called to the scene just before 1am on Sunday. 

Police said two boys, aged two and four, were treated by paramedics and taken to Westmead Hospital in a critical condition, but died a short time later.

Fire and Rescue crews extinguished the fire before the third child, believed to be a 10-month-old girl, was found dead at the scene. 

Police allege a 28-year-old man, who is now in custody, tried to stop police and other emergency services from rescuing the children from the burning home. 

“I can confirm during police attempts to get into the property, those efforts were frustrated by a male inside,” NSW Police Acting Superintendent Jason Pietruszka said. 

Police tape cover the driveway of a burnt out home.
Fire investigators are making their way through the low-set brick house on Freeman Street in Lalor Park. (ABC News: Ethan Rix)

The man arrested is the father of the children who died and was under police guard in hospital. 

He was in an induced coma and being treated for burns and smoke inhalation. 

The mother, as well as four other children aged between six to 11 years, were also taken to hospital and were expected to recover.

Superintendent Pietruszka said the incident was being investigated as a domestic violence related offence, and said the man was not the subject of an AVO and was not before the court for any matter. 

“He is not adversely known to police at all,” Superintendent Pietruszka said. 

“We’re treating this as a domestic-related homicide, multiple homicide. “

Read the rest here . . .

Culture, Feminism, Media, Radicalism

O MY DARLING CLEMENTINE – A PHONEY SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT’S WILLING TEAT

4

Hateful Clementine Ford

Australia’s most ferocious feminist is now targeting Jewish women.

BETTINA ARNDT 1 JAN 2024

In a brilliant column recently published in The Australian, Henry Ergas summed up 2023 as “the year of living angrily.” Describing the successive waves of outrage and hatred dominating the year’s public discourse, he made the point that the Greeks believed rage differed fundamentally from ordinary anger: “anger had a defined focus; rage, a sign of fury at the world, was labile, readily shifting from one object to another.”

“Characteristic of personal immaturity, it was by its nature opportunistic, rushing to the target of the moment, like a child rushing to a new toy,” he explained.

One of Australia’s greatest haters has a new toy. For nearly two decades, feminist Clementine Ford has been spewing out her hatred of men. Now she has revealed herself to be also a zealous anti-Zionist who is stirring up her quarter of a million followers to attack Jewish women on social media.  

She started her man-hating campaign in media appearances back in 2007 but attracted widespread public attention in 2015 due to this infamous tweet:

From then on, she was regularly promoting outrage with her anti-male views.  In 2017, she signed a fan’s book with the words, “Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?”

In 2020, complaints were made about a funding grant she was receiving from the Melbourne City Council after she posted the following tweet:

The Melbourne City Council continued to fund her.

During a public address made when her only child was a newborn, she introduced the following comment with loud gagging noises: “Euch. I have a male baby and it’s just, all the time: Feed me! Pay attention to me! Engage me!” she said, before gagging again. “Euch. So boring.”

Read the rest here . . .

Culture, Feminism, Media, Radicalism

WOMEN ARE INCLINED TO RADICALISM

It’s there practically every day on news reports – women, especially young women, in the frontline of radical causes, daring to try security and established authority far more openly than men. Men know they will be swiftly dealt with if they showed the same hysterical audacity. Society naturally tolerates women behaving badly, especially young nubile women. Janice Fiamengo makes the point below together with the range of man-hating actions feminists unblushingly indulge in.

***

Women like J.K. Rowling Will Not Free Us from Gender Ideology

Only men of courage can do it, and it’s not clear they will

JANICE FIAMENGO APR 18, 2024

The fruits of gender ideology are plain for all to see: an assault on masculinity and marriage; fathers cut off from their children; a growing rift between the sexes; the denial of biological reality; children indoctrinated to seek hormone treatments and surgeries; and the perversion of language and law. A recent study shows women, but not men, favoring radical social policies and gender ideology. Yet it is still socially unacceptable to criticize the core dogma—feminism—that started us on this path or to observe that men are generally better suited to lead our societies than women.

We’ve heard a lot lately about the courage of children’s book author J.K. Rowling, who has taken on the hate speech law of her homeland, Scotland, and pushed the government to admit it to be unenforceable—at least against a woman of her stature. Rowling deserves the applause she is currently receiving for her boldness.

But Rowling is not the leader we need in current battles over free speech and sex realism. Like many prominent women, she is an enormously resentful feminist ideologue who trades in female privilege while pretending that women are everywhere in chains. While she rightly objects to the possibility that a woman could be charged with a hate crime for stating biological fact, she is preoccupied with so-called hatred against women, claiming bizarrely of gender-neutral phrasing such as “persons who menstruate” that “for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, [such language is] not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.” This is poor-me emotionalism and anti-male grandstanding pretending to argumentative coherence.

Rowling’s reflex hostility to men has led her to lash out at even obvious allies. She publicly disparaged Matt Walsh, conservative political activist and star of the documentary What Is a Woman, alleging that “He’s no more on my side than the ‘shut up or we’ll bomb you’ charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag.” This absurd exaggeration, which fails to distinguish between a man who makes sense and one who makes deranged threats, showcases the feminist muddle of Rowling’s thinking.

She objects to trans ideology, it turns out, not primarily because it is false to biological reality—despite evoking the truth of biological sex when useful—but because it involves men accessing women’s spaces and identities. For her, the transgender phenomenon is not about gender dysphoria or sexual fetish—nor 50 years of bigotry and discrimination against men—but about misogyny, her go-to explanation. Walsh too, she implies, is a misogynist despite his desire to protect women.

Read the rest here . . .

Feminism, Law, Radicalism

THE IRRATIONAL CONSENT LAWS

APRIL 23, 2024

There have been few feminist projects more irrational and unfair to men than the bundle of consent laws got up around Australia. Fundamentally, the laws say with punitive clauses that if a woman says ‘no’ while the sex act is underway, the man must immediately stop what he is doing – no matter what. In the article below, Bettina Arndt convincingly argues the insanity and nastiness of it all. What do I think?

At the risk of having the feminist thought police at the door, I think that once the act is underway – that is, the woman has allowed penetration – that’s consent enough. If for some perverse reason, the woman suddenly wants to stop, then good luck. If the man completes the gargantuan task of stopping, well and good. Otherwise …

That’s the experience of the ages.

*****

Coitus interruptus

– When a woman presses the eject button, men can’t be expected to immediately withdraw, says human factors science.

BETTINA ARNDT, 1 FEB 2024

Frozen, Disney’s highly successful animation series, captivated little girls across the world. So too, the feminists have had huge success in promoting their own version of “frozen” – instilling in criminal courts everywhere the notion that rape victims often suffer a physiological state known as “tonic immobility” which renders them incapable of resisting their plight.

No matter that the science behind this theory is problematic – as Emily Yoffe explained in her article on bad science supporting prosecution of sexual assault. “I froze” has become the uniform description covering every oddity in the rape victim’s behaviour and flawed memory of events – a description that’s invariably accepted, totally unchallenged.

But men’s physiology is seen as irrelevant. There’s zero interest in examining men’s capacity for response in varied sexual situations let alone any pressure for science on male bodily processes to be considered in criminal investigations and proceedings.

Yet this issue is central to determining guilt or innocence in a critical area of criminal law – the issue of revoked consent. With the introduction of affirmative consent laws, not only is consent required throughout sexual activity, but women have the right to pull the plug whenever they feel like it. And men are expected to immediately snap to attention and withdraw.

Easier said than done, you might say. Well, that’s the issue. Most judges seem to assume that there’s no problem in expecting an immediate retreat from the male in response to the female red flag. Never any consideration of whether he even noticed the flag, or realised what it was, or whether she was waving it clearly, or maybe that he might have been frozen, rendered immobile due to surprise and shock.

There’s a fascinating article on the legal issues at play here – Consent Interruptus: Rape Law and Cases of Initial Consent, by University of Western Australia law lecturer, Theodore Bennett. He spells out the legal arguments resisting any notion of allowing a reasonable time to withdraw after revoked consent, with feminists objecting that this “primal urge’ argument perpetuates the myth of the unstoppable male who can’t be responsible for his rampant sexuality. Kansas State feminist scholar Lois Pineau says the claim that men don’t have immediate control is “factually unfounded.”  

Not so fast, says an expert in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) – which is the science of how humans behave and interact with each other in various environmental contexts. I’ll call this Australian expert “Anton Crabtree” – unfortunately he’s decided he needs to disguise his identity due to the tricky ideological climate in today’s academic world.

Dr Crabtree also has expertise in aviation medicine which is precisely the area we usually associate with HFE, given its vital role in investigations of human error in situations like plane crashes.  Crabtree makes a compelling case that this type of examination of neurocognitive and physiological limitations also has bearing on whether men crash and burn in the bedroom.

“The absence of the rigorous assessment and well-established scientific considerations of Human Factors analysis is a glaring omission to any claim of a fair system of justice for persons accused of sexual assault after revoked consent.  Ignoring the science inevitably risks further miscarriage of justice which can be catastrophic to individuals and families and damaging to society,” writes Dr Crabtree in an academic paper he is preparing for publication on the subject, which examines case law revealing this ongoing deficiency in our justice system.

I’m including a draft of this groundbreaking research article here and hope you will help circulate it and ensure it receives proper attention – particularly in legal circles where there is such a dire need for education to address the ongoing injustice occurring in these cases. This research should also have a place in the sexual consent courses being taught in our schools and universities.

Read the rest here . . .

Culture, Feminism, Law, Radicalism

Feminism has been a disaster for women

APRIL 23, 2024 

More and more women are saying it. Despite the great promises and despite the real freedom and advancement in opportunities women have achieved, they are not happy. Some are even admitting that most men aren’t all that bad and are turning to youtubers, like The happy housewife, for advice on how to make their husbands or boyfriends happy.

Nobody puts the case against feminism better than Janice Fiamengo.

*****

The Goddess That Failed

On International Women’s Day, we should admit that the feminist movement has not been good for anyone—even its alleged beneficiaries.

JANICE FIAMENGO, 8 MAR 2024

Feminist magazine Nasty Women's Press launches at Glad Day Bookshop - NOW Magazine

A recent poll has shown that a majority of young people think feminist laws and policies have gone too far and now discriminate against men. It’s good to see reaction against anti-male discrimination.

For International Women’s Day, let’s also consider feminism’s impact on women, and recognize that it’s been very bad there too.

Not just radical feminism. Not just the hateful or fringe variety. The whole thing, with its sob stories and sentimental celebrations, its exaggerations and cover-ups, its relentless focus on the demands and alleged needs of one half of humanity at the expense of the other, has been a monumental disaster.

For over 50 years, the movement has been mired in fraudulent claims, myopia, special pleading, double standards, abandonment of principles, manifold hypocrisies, and emotional incontinence.

It has continually misrepresented the situation of women and men, and has induced in its female adherents an unhealthy mix of wounded self-regard, festering resentment, and self-righteous indignation, often overlaid with an unfounded conviction of moral superiority and contempt for the unenlightened.

And despite its energetic stroking of the feminine ego and repeated assurances that women are innocent of wrongdoing; despite also the various perks and exemptions, the fawning media representations, and the outsized public sympathy; despite steady exhortations of “You go, girl!” and promises of all that must still be done to protect, promote, succor, and bless the female of the species, the movement has not managed to make women happier or more satisfied than when it first took hold in the 1970s.

In fact, the opposite has occurred. Women are significantly less happy than previously.

An article in Neuroscience News for September, 2023 sounded the alarm, calling it “The Paradox of Progress: Why More Freedom Isn’t Making Women Happier.” In the same year, CNN reported that the Population Reference Bureau was identifying a marked decline in well-being among millennial women. In 2022, David G. Blanchflower and Alex Bryson declared that across time and space, “women are unhappier than men […] and have more days with bad mental health and more restless sleep.” Oft cited is a large meta-study from 2009 called “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” which demonstrated the persistence of women’s decreasing happiness across the decades.

What these feminist academics and journalists call a paradox may seem fairly straightforward to the rest of us: movements based on assertions of angry victimhood are not likely to produce happy customers. But before fleshing out that conclusion, let’s take a look at the pundits’ attempts to deny the obvious.

“The Paradox of Progress” in Neuroscience News outlines the problem thus: “Despite having more freedom and employment opportunities than ever before, women have higher levels of anxiety and more mental health challenges, such as depression, anger, loneliness and more restless sleep.” The article is typically feminist in its teeter-totter balancing act between two conflicting priorities: to assure readers that women are superior to men—in this case, “more emotionally resilient,” with “more intimate” friendships, greater “capacity for personal growth,” and commitment to “more altruistic endeavors”—while also stressing that women have it worse than men—in this case, are more depressed, lonelier, and more anxious.

It would seem that both cannot be true—capacity for intimacy, for example, ought to decrease loneliness—but the article attempts to resolve the contradiction by falling back on a third feminist chestnut: that women are (justly, of course) “unhappy at how society treats them.” All the emotional resilience in the world, it seems, cannot make up for that.

Read the rest here . . .

Culture, Feminism, Radicalism

‘Feminism was never sane’

Quoted on Tom Golden’s substack post: Women Say Feminist Hatred of Men Has Gone Far Enough

Ottawa professor Janice Fiamengo: 

“Feminism was never sane. It was never without deep rancor and bitterness against men, never free from the claim that women were absolute victims of male predation, never uninterested in destroying the family, never accurate in its claims about women’s social situation, never unwilling to slander men in the most vicious and unpitying ways, and it never expressed any appreciation for men nor recognition that men had made any contribution to society or that men had ever acted out of love and concern and compassion for women in the laws that had been made or social instruments that had been developed over time. It was always a deeply misandrist, man-hating, man-blaming kind of movement.”