Feminism is a scourge. I jumped into it for a year, after which sanity was restored. Growing up, I never ever heard a fight, much less an argument or word of profanity coming from my parents. Can anyone today even imagine that? I doubt it. Ma was the caretaker, Pa was the breadwinner. I took my lead from them when I married, even though I also worked outside the home, but not for long. Providing a beautiful refuge for my husband to come home to was my priority. In that way he would be proud of me. A flame in the fireplace waiting for him as he entered the door, clean children, candles burning, dinner on the stove, zero chaos and above all his beautiful smile as he looked upon me with appreciation, and that kiss, expressing his joy of being home.
What I see today, after 60 years of feminism is the woman spread out on the couch (oh, she worked so hard), husband walking in, no greeting (other than "hey") kids made such a mess you can't walk thru the L/R, dinner not made, "It's your turn to change the diaper", men doing their own laundry, it's girls night out, husbands falling asleep from exhaustion on the couch, and staying there thru the night. Weekends come, no breakfast on the table for everyone, kids chauffeured hither & yon, men do all the yard word, start cleaning the house as she can't do it alone, don't forget, we have to go grocery shopping today.
Really, you can't grocery shop alone? I did it forever. It wasn't a chore. Putting laundry into a machine is not a chore. Anything that takes a minute to do is not a chore. Making a bed is not a chore. Bringing him a cold beer after he cuts the grass is not a chore. Ironing his shirt is not a chore. Running into your husbands arms when he comes home is not a chore. Kiss him.
Appropriation is patriarchy's greatest trick. Surrogacy, sterilisation, 'transhumanism', and the poisoning and mutilation of LGB and autistic children under the brand of gender ideology is not feminism.
"and the poisoning and mutilation of LGB and autistic children under the brand of gender ideology is not feminism."
Not feminism?
Yeah, feminists only spent decades trying to convince the world that all gender differences are created sociologically. Maybe they should have been a bit more careful what they wished for.
Quote <female writers like Lucrezia Marinella who in 1600 AD recounted that women of lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by men who acted as servants or beasts born to serve them, >unquote
It seems to me that @CM Maccioli took up the one right that we all have and that is: the right to take the actions she deemed necessary to achieve her happiness; it did not mean that others must make her happy.
It's very interesting to me the way that women can't seem to intellectually graps that anti-feminism isn't particularly related to being a homemaker.
Men are are systematically abused by infantile and braindead and neurotic women who are just off their rocker. they are discrimiated against under the law very objectively.
Being against this doesn't have much of anything to do with being a homemaker.
It's so strange that women's only real understanding of feminist politics is the working/homemaking meme.
I guess its true that for women the personal is political.
Frankly, my antifeminism has to do with the treatment of men as human beings and ending the genocidal abuse. It has nothing to do with working or homemaking.
I have seen and loathe all that you mention. It did not get by me. I have always been grateful I am a woman and never had to carry the load a man carries. I used homemaking as a way to show my undying respect for my man and all men. I hope that got across.
A very interesting interview; nice to get a different perspective. As a man who got divorced in the late 1980s (not my choice) I was expected to hand over the house (which I had mainly paid for), pay loads of cash, and what - go and live in the car? I refused of course. And looked after the children over 50% of the time anyway as a house-parent doing my PhD on the night-shift. I stayed single for nearly a decade whilst the children grew up, to give them stability (so I believed was the right thing to do), and when eventually found someone else (to whom I am happily married 25+ years later) got another load of interfering demands. All this mainly because of the feminist it's-all-men's-fault flavour-of-the-era in the 1980s/90s. This interview exonerates my experience and choices :))
"Damned Lies Statistics and Lenore Weitzman" by Christopher Rapp, is no longer available, but the article points out how dishonest her research was that influenced divorce and property divorce laws. It was accepted as fact because people wanted to beleive her findings that following divorce/separation, a woman's standard of living fell by 73%, and a man's increased by 46%. Her research eventually was found to highly inaccurate.
A lens through which we look at feminism ought to be how it serves ruling class interests. Many feminist organizations are (oligarch) foundation funded. For example, feminist icon Gloria Steinem was a CIA asset (this was not a secret, she was recorded on TV saying so - proudly).
Sadly my mom heard the clarion call of feminism when I was growing up. She had abundance of free time and could have taken the time to further develop her wonderful mind. Could have deeply scrutinized the movement that destroyed that opportunity.
One of the wonderful aspects of women in the work force was the lowering of wages all around and the destruction of the middle class. I don't blame feminist for this. I certainly think the powers that control the means of production saw the future and realized how to manipulate women into the workforce and denigrate men, and thus reduce the cost of labor. Destroy the middle class and plunder the world.
In just my life time health in the US has fallen from fourth in the world to 79th. Chasing false dreams instead of caring for family and hearth (for clarity Amish) has lead to our current disaster. But our cell phones and entertainment will deaden the pain. We are so lucky.
I liked your comment wm, but I DO blame feminists. The goal (and these women were financed) of feminism was to destroy the family unit. To take the mother out of the home, to farm out control of her kids to others, to exhaust the cohesiveness of the family, in addition to what you said. So they brought in more money and spent it on buying "stuff" for their kids to appease them, when all they really wanted was a mother waiting for them when they got home from school. They changed the world, but not for the better. Our way of life happily does not exist in so many other countries.
“The goal …. of feminism was to destroy the family unit.” I think this was the goal of those pulling the strings from behind the scenes - and then unwitting feminists did the rest. The same could be said of “The Global Warming Crisis”, “Covid”, most religions, science, academia, etc. Someone sets the base-line going, and unwitting masses join in with the melody … but the base-line never changes.
Yes. The power of suggestion. Strike the right cord and get everyone to believe women are the victims, they don't get paid enough (maybe because they don't work as hard or as long as men?), not enough breaks (they deserve more than men), they need their own spaces and childcare services. Abortion is also feminism. As you see every day now, "no abortion for rape & incest " commercials. Who are they kidding. How many cases of R & I are there compared to convenience abortions? My guess is a statistical zero.
Completely agree especially with mom being home. Our Mom was an amazing teacher and had deep insight into insects and animals. All kinds from Bob Cats to Deer and bird, she knew so much about living things.
So what you say is all true and there are many markers take then and now that show beyond doubt that times were better when mom was home. Wonder why the sitcom happy days had mom at home? I may have got that wrong as I rarely watch TV. But seems Rich's mom was always there for them.
Sadly Genie's daughter wants to be super mom. She has been a great mom giving birth to a health girl. Dad is Chinese (awesome person) and mom like her mom is Korean. But now after a year at home she is going back on the road as a pharma liaison to the Medical community. Won't even hear of another way. But her husband who is a police officer will be home to care for their daughter 5 days out of 7. What can I say?
Indeed! For instance, teaching people about male privilege reduces their compassion for men suffering homelessness or hunger or poverty, which certainly serves the ruling class.
The Rockefellers -- one of the most evil families on the planet -- poured money into Big Feminism for many decades. Think they had an interest in seeing families divided and broken? Not to mention seeing tens-of-millions of women flooding the job market, thus reducing wages automatically and drastically.
Yup, they are key. The Rockefellers like a few other Robber Barons (or oligarchs as we would refer to them now) are responsible for the centralization and corruption of medicine and science; the advancement and then rebranding of eugenics and technocracy, engineered and profited from most wars, they were there at the birth of the CIA, CFR and WEF just to name a few. A straight line can be drawn from them to the ideologies of Climate Change, Woke and transhumanism. And that's likely just the tip of the iceberg...
Erin PIzzey wrote about the Trust Fund bunnies and now feminist organisation are not grass roots, they are State Funded by various government organisations and politicians.
Feminism has never been a "women's movement." Indeed, the most difficult task feminists have ever faced has been dragging the members of their own gender along with them. As for 'isms' being hijacked by extremism, all secular ideologies encourage people to think about things, issues, whatever along certain lines of thinking to the exclusion of other perspectives. All ideologies represent group think demanding conformity to the group and ideological purity. Their adherents make a bad habit of favoring information that confirms their predilections and ignore the information that does not.
Thank you for the name. Sounds like an Army that wants to destroy!!
I'm not an American.
My reply to the second part about 'sexually assaulted... etc' I am more interested in justice for others and following the Process of the law rather than Naming and Shaming people rather than going to court.
I assume the 'enablers and apologists' were men and women?
I find it increasingly difficult to follow the idea of knee jerk reactions all through society and no one has a proper philosophy about anything that we all live by.
This. Yes. I came here because I felt the deeper truth but without the light of nourishing healing solutions we as humans will only continue to fight one another. It’s good reporting, but we need to keep talking about the solution.
And some Rock n' Roll to represent them. Walk On The Wild Side by Lou Reed and Lola by the Kinks are two of my favorites. The cover of Lola by Lake Street Drive is excellent.
Thank you for this interview. I grew up in the 90’s and I have never been a radical feminist, but as I look back, I definitely could have been a better wife. My marriage was undoubtedly impacted by feminist ideology. Although no society is perfect, I would prefer the patriarchy to our current matriarchy. Women in power are awful, especially to other women and their own children- born and unborn.
It's been wonderful to observe how you, Janice have refined over about 8 years of public exposure, your irrefutable critiques of misandrist feminism. Thank you too for overcoming fear and in so doing have become a leading light against the tyranny of institutionalised misandry.
It is sad that women got so many more rights and opportunities, yet happiness has not increased. I would be hesitant to attribute that to feminist attitudes, though. Since the 1980's, when feminists were still nice to men and did not see their future as separate from men, antibiotics have been prescribed for every little ailment that would have resolved itself. Fast forward to today and only 4% of Americans have the bacteria lactobacillus reutieri in their bodies, which is key for the production of oxytocin(happiness hormone). Oxytocin is not just a happiness hormone for both sexes, it is a motivating hormone for women. Without it you are not just less happy, but less likely to want children.
As a rural man (valedictorian of a class of 13) who attended Columbia College and U of Arizona, I can definitely state the more intelligent and educated a woman is, the less likely she will have children. So empowering! Never did understand how giving up the goods for a bunch of random men who basically have no interest in her future is empowering, either.
Yes, it's good information. Too bad Ms. Fiamengo runs a substack where angry men come to shriek ad hominems at women commenters with whom they disagree.
This is a great summary in one place of the import and impact of feminism, and it's obvious you've checked every word and calibrated the tone to perfection, as usual, for today. Your words feel important now more than ever.
I'm Australian, and believe it or not, Ive never yet voted to the right of the Labor Party. But next election, I promise that I won't be. I believe that climate change IS the most pressing issue of our time. Elected largely on this platform, the current Labor party government in Australia is smuggling in a variety of legislation including the removal of the presumption of equal access to children for fathers after separation, weakening the presumption of innocence for men when accused by women, and most recently the 'MAD' bill - "Combatting misinformation and disinformation", which represents the most Orwellian attack on free speech I have ever seen. And on climate change, their only solution is an increasingly questionable economics and logistic of renewable energy, with a complete refusal to consider the very likely better alternative of nuclear on a level playing field.
These are dangerous times, and it it often difficult to keep a level head. With left-wing governments acting as they are, they really must be deaf to what people at large believe. The more they clamp down, the more people revolt, move the the right, and adopt the very conspiracy theories that they supposedly fear. I believe that (for example) US citizens don't so much love Trump as fear the alternative, and the left is either blind to this or does not care.
I see feminism as somehow central to all of this. Feminism was the first, the advance scout of this push, which has most successfully and completely saturated every public institution. Here is an astonishing quote, which is hard for me to accept, but which I fear makes the best sense of where we are today.
"We need to understand that we are living in a post-revolutionary society". "The revolution has already happened, we are now the underground resistance".
Janice, you are living proof that it is possible to recover from a feminist worldview, and through careful observation and discernment to become someone who sees clearly and speaks powerfully.
Although I've opposed feminism for many years and even written books from that point of view, I was at one time a (male) feminist myself. This means that I'll always be a "recovering feminist." Moreover, it means that, like Janice, I have a "coming out story" (not as a gay man, although I am a gay man, but as an ordinary man in a world that runs on relentless gynocentrism and implacable misandry). And yet I keep learning more about what feminists have successfully hidden from public discourse.
Janice's historical essays, in particular, never leave me thinking, "Been there, read that." That's partly because history, like science, is never "settled." Feminists don't own history any more than Marxists do, after all, not even their own history. Many people are surprised to learn about seemingly ironic connections between the British suffragettes and, say, the white-feather campaign. Before reading Janice's interview, I knew something about the suffragettes and their hunger strikes--but not about their extensive terrorist campaign.
Of particular interest right now, given the current political struggle, is what Janice says about the supposedly ironic connection between feminism and transgenderism. The irony, she points out, is an illusion. Being gay, though, I can't help thinking about another connection with feminism. At first, gay people wanted what women wanted: fuller integration within society. The rhetoric was all about equality, and it still is for many of us--equal rights, that is, but not necessarily equal obligations (which is why the eventual campaign for "equal marriage" was primarily about the rights of gay adults, not about the right of their children to grow up with both mothers and fathers). But then came "queer theory." Like the feminist ideologies that were becoming increasingly influential as early as the 1980s, and like the even earlier racial ideologies that had replaced the civil-rights movement, this gay ideology relied on the model of segregation (and implicitly of superiority), not of integration (equality). Followers of all these ideologies have adopted victimology, which is a defining feature of identity politics. Versions of "critical race theory" and "critical gender theory" allow them to join forces under the banner of "intersectionalism" or "wokism." This presents a grave danger in any democratic country, because liberal constitutions are good at discouraging any tyranny of the majority but not at discouraging any tyranny of allied minorities.
I was born into Catholicism, never really a believer, and yet when the marriage equality referendum came to Australia, I abstained. Nothing was ever explained to the voters, including what the current situation was with defacto couples, exactly what new rights they would have, what 'marriage' meant in this context and so on. While not a believer, I see marriage as a primarily religious institution, and grounded in a long history where some sort of optimisation undoubtedly took place.
The 'Yes' campaign (which won) was nothing more than 'If you believe in LOVE than you will vote yes'. I never saw any treatment deeper than this ever aired on the national broadcaster. It was basically 'feed the punters a fairy story, it's all they deserve'.
And I'm a Jew, Paul, though not an Orthodox one. Judaism has a very long tradition of emphasis on marriage. But marriage is a venue of holiness, for traditional Jews, not merely a perfunctory "slip of paper" or a phase in serial monogamy. Even so, my argument for marriage and against "gay marriage" is not a religious one. That's partly because only secular arguments are taken seriously in the public square. But it's also because religious teachings on marriage (as an institution, not a private arrangement) emerged, both historically and cross-culturally, from universal human needs: (a) the need to provide an ideal context for bringing children to maturity; and (b) the need to bring men and women together on an enduring basis. From this perspective, marriage is not primarily about the personal gratification of adults (although most societies have always encouraged mutual respect and emotional attachment in a context of self-sacrifice). It's about the innate psychological (and material) needs of children and therefore about demographic continuity--that is, collective survival.
I don't blame gay people for undermining marriage, however, because straight people had already done precisely that by adopting a hedonistic and self-centered worldview.
I guess that marriage is a 'venue of holiness', a sacrament, precisely *because* it's been found necessary for that universal human condition and continuity.
I think the feminist are correct when pointing to the male mess around us today. Just look at Trump.
But wait. Janice has made very valid claims as well. Just look at Harris.
Needless to say these two personify the caricature of both women and men. A sad testament to the politics of today, as these are supposed to be the best candidates the citizens of the USA can put forth.
I lost interest in the feminism movement when I was about fifteen and burning bras became a so called ‘stand against the oppression by men’. How utterly foolish I thought. However, although extreme
feminism has for me, shot itself through the heart never mind in the foot, I do feel that some gains were made for women.
The problem with society is that everything is taken to extremes. Women wanted equal opportunities in education and professional achievement not an insidious and often outright condemnation of males, which is what in so many ways we have got.
Children it was felt needed protection from brutality and neglect. What have we got, feral, ill mannered, disrespectful and frequently uncontrollable youths of both sexes. A society that regards anyone under the age of eighteen as not being responsible for their own actions. We have “boys” of seventeen and likewise “girls” of the same age being almost exonerated for brutal and sadistic behaviours even murder because they are now classed as “children”.
Why do we have such extremism? Because we allow stridency in society to overwhelm our natural desire for a peaceful and harmonious life. I like many males, some I don’t like and I have exactly the same attitude towards females.. Alas though, I have issues with the way that society is ruining relationships between men and women and between adults and young people. Whatever happened to common sense and moderation?
I believe that the gains that were supposedly made (and always claimed) by feminism were simply changes that would have happened regardless. Feminists were pushing against an open door, with the real impetus being the societal changes wrought by the industrial and technological revolutions, the world wars, and the consequent benefits of abundant energy, prosperity, healthcare and hygiene, transport, efficient communication, the birth control pill and so on.
I also have wondered about these changes. The analogy of feminism pushing against an open door seems to be accurate.
Take, for example, "birth control" which liberated the female gender in a way feminism never did and both occurred at roughly the same intersection of history.
I think it was Peterson who pointed out other previously ignored concepts, such as until recent times, "Public rest houses or public lavatories did not exist". The other was to do with female hygiene products; it was not until after WW2 that they became readily available and manufactured.
No, without the impetus of women becoming involved in what had previously been jobs and professions ,mostly male dominated, caused by both the World wars progress would probably have been fairly static. It was due to heroic effects mostly by women aided by some men that females were “Allowed” to vote. Other reforms followed very slowly like an unmarried woman being able to get a mortgage, a cheque book in her own right, take out a loan without a male guarantor to stand for her. We cannot say whether reforms would have come without effort or not. Would there still be lawful slavery if it were not for the humanitarians of the 19th century?
A bit late to reply, but I believe that women would have the vote, and slavery would not exist now, regardless of the activists for either cause. About as early as it was possible for women to work outside the home due to increasing prosperity, a wider variety of paid employment, and labour saving devices, it happened. We’re talking within the span of a generation or two, which in the span of human history, is negligible. Similarly for slavery - about as soon as it was possible to build large projects with steam power etc, slaves became redundant and society could move away from it. The corollary however is that if energy use or labour saving machines are restricted sufficiently (eg due to existential threat from climate change) you can expect to see the return of slavery. Of course, it would be called something else, and the elites would characterise it as a boon to society and an ornament to their reputations, just as before.
There are many more rational explanations for what you want to portray.
Until recent history, firstly brought about by the Industrial Revolution and then the post-WW2 wealth boom.
The economic growth of the middle class.
Men were held responsible for the debts incurred by their wives.
The voting issue is a furphy; the truth of the fact is that in a relatively short time in history, it began with men who owned property gradually being allowed to vote. Men who did not own property were excluded.
The Suffragettes initially only wanted middle-class women to be able to vote,
before the issue expanded, once women won the right to vote, by default, men who were previously excluded also gained the right to vote.
Your facts are right with regard to voting amongst the general population. As a man you had to be a property owner in order to vote. To begin with your property had to have a certain financial value. In the very beginning only the nobility had any say I
In anything concerning governance.
History moved on. It was a widely held belief amongst society generally that women had no ability to think rationally, even though some women had proved that their grasp of mathematics and science was solid and in many cases, innovative. Female authors had to assume male names in order to be published. Do you honestly believe that the reforms that were enacted to give women the opportunity to govern themselves would have occurred spontaneously with the passage of time? I had a cheque account at the age of fifteen, not allowable in those days but our bank manager did not see that an extra year was gong to make me more responsible.
At the age of 21, I had to have a male guarantor ( my brother) for a financial transaction. The fact that I earned more than he did was neither here nor there. My friend’s mother bought a house in 1959 and although he had no interest financial or otherwise in the property, her deceased husband’s brother had to sign as guarantor for her. Plus the poor chap hardly knew her and her daughter. Do you really imagine that all that semi feudalism would have changed without the input of men and women demanding those changes. Also, we need to remember that without the support of men, women would still not have the vote.
As for your mention of my post being emotionally driven, it was ever thus. Women could have no say in anything to do with governance or self government because they were too emotional. I rest my case against the bias that still exists in some places against females.
There is another way to look at your experience with getting loans which I think is legally and historically more accurate. It’s not that banks didn’t consider women responsible in the sense of possessing good character. It’s that they needed someone who could be *held* responsible - forced to work off the debt, have his wages garnisheed,and, when all else failed, sent to prison.
< It was a widely held belief amongst society generally that women had no ability to think rationally,>
I believe this belief mainly occurred during the Victorian Era; to extrapolate that to the whole history of the human race is, in my opinion, dishonest.
And I think it was mainly the upper and middle classes that suffered from that affliction.
The genius of feminism was in adopting the childishly-simple idea of pitting the two easily-identifiable halves of the human race against each other. 'Childish' because that's what children do: boys are like this/girls are like that - end of story! It's just a natural, instinctive, oversimplified response children have to the opposite sex until they gain more maturity and wisdom. Same as people being instinctively racist or instinctively toying with the idea of wanting to be the other sex - it's just part of the maturation/education process and eventually most grow out of it ... basically a fear of someone who's different from themself.
Anyway, enough of the philosophy.
The 1915 quote that "women were “the more spiritual half” of humanity and that when women had the right to vote, war would be no more" hasn't aged well. It immediately brought to mind a few of the current crop of 'spiritual', Quakeresque representatives like Victoria Nuland. Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris and the Danish Prime Minister who essentially encouraged the west to wage an all out war against Russia a few days ago - I'm not sure which faction of her Social Democrat party this reflects.
Don't forget Margaret Thatcher's Falklands war - a brutal, needless and unprofitable conflict which may have been undertaken for no higher goal than to secure her political future.
Feminism is a scourge. I jumped into it for a year, after which sanity was restored. Growing up, I never ever heard a fight, much less an argument or word of profanity coming from my parents. Can anyone today even imagine that? I doubt it. Ma was the caretaker, Pa was the breadwinner. I took my lead from them when I married, even though I also worked outside the home, but not for long. Providing a beautiful refuge for my husband to come home to was my priority. In that way he would be proud of me. A flame in the fireplace waiting for him as he entered the door, clean children, candles burning, dinner on the stove, zero chaos and above all his beautiful smile as he looked upon me with appreciation, and that kiss, expressing his joy of being home.
What I see today, after 60 years of feminism is the woman spread out on the couch (oh, she worked so hard), husband walking in, no greeting (other than "hey") kids made such a mess you can't walk thru the L/R, dinner not made, "It's your turn to change the diaper", men doing their own laundry, it's girls night out, husbands falling asleep from exhaustion on the couch, and staying there thru the night. Weekends come, no breakfast on the table for everyone, kids chauffeured hither & yon, men do all the yard word, start cleaning the house as she can't do it alone, don't forget, we have to go grocery shopping today.
Really, you can't grocery shop alone? I did it forever. It wasn't a chore. Putting laundry into a machine is not a chore. Anything that takes a minute to do is not a chore. Making a bed is not a chore. Bringing him a cold beer after he cuts the grass is not a chore. Ironing his shirt is not a chore. Running into your husbands arms when he comes home is not a chore. Kiss him.
Like having rights though, don't you?
I never ran into a door I could not open. I've always had my God given rights.
Women fought rights.
Feminism in the 20th century was funded by the Rockefellers. Not exactly a stellar endorsement
Appropriation is patriarchy's greatest trick. Surrogacy, sterilisation, 'transhumanism', and the poisoning and mutilation of LGB and autistic children under the brand of gender ideology is not feminism.
The big boogeyman of the Patriarchy used to scare little children.
It fits very neatly into the conspiracy theory category that, somehow, all men have conspired throughout history together to keep women oppressed.
"Appropriation is patriarchy's greatest trick."
And projection is yours.
She's right though. The Patriarchy turned me into a newt. (But I got better).
"and the poisoning and mutilation of LGB and autistic children under the brand of gender ideology is not feminism."
Not feminism?
Yeah, feminists only spent decades trying to convince the world that all gender differences are created sociologically. Maybe they should have been a bit more careful what they wished for.
Quote <female writers like Lucrezia Marinella who in 1600 AD recounted that women of lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by men who acted as servants or beasts born to serve them, >unquote
Will you please expand on what “autistic children under feminist ideology” means?
Women haven't done shit but throw tantrums. Your masterbatorial rape fantasies aren't real life.
Women had rights throughout the entirety of western history.
Also, lots of these "rights" aren't rights.
No, women should not have the right to vote, as they have demonstrated they are unfit pyschologically.
You're frothing at the mouth hysteric one liner just proves my claim.
Which rights would they be then?
It seems to me that @CM Maccioli took up the one right that we all have and that is: the right to take the actions she deemed necessary to achieve her happiness; it did not mean that others must make her happy.
It's very interesting to me the way that women can't seem to intellectually graps that anti-feminism isn't particularly related to being a homemaker.
Men are are systematically abused by infantile and braindead and neurotic women who are just off their rocker. they are discrimiated against under the law very objectively.
Being against this doesn't have much of anything to do with being a homemaker.
It's so strange that women's only real understanding of feminist politics is the working/homemaking meme.
I guess its true that for women the personal is political.
Frankly, my antifeminism has to do with the treatment of men as human beings and ending the genocidal abuse. It has nothing to do with working or homemaking.
I have seen and loathe all that you mention. It did not get by me. I have always been grateful I am a woman and never had to carry the load a man carries. I used homemaking as a way to show my undying respect for my man and all men. I hope that got across.
Well, that's fair. I suppose I was quick to assume things.
Good for you. Well done.
A very interesting interview; nice to get a different perspective. As a man who got divorced in the late 1980s (not my choice) I was expected to hand over the house (which I had mainly paid for), pay loads of cash, and what - go and live in the car? I refused of course. And looked after the children over 50% of the time anyway as a house-parent doing my PhD on the night-shift. I stayed single for nearly a decade whilst the children grew up, to give them stability (so I believed was the right thing to do), and when eventually found someone else (to whom I am happily married 25+ years later) got another load of interfering demands. All this mainly because of the feminist it's-all-men's-fault flavour-of-the-era in the 1980s/90s. This interview exonerates my experience and choices :))
"Damned Lies Statistics and Lenore Weitzman" by Christopher Rapp, is no longer available, but the article points out how dishonest her research was that influenced divorce and property divorce laws. It was accepted as fact because people wanted to beleive her findings that following divorce/separation, a woman's standard of living fell by 73%, and a man's increased by 46%. Her research eventually was found to highly inaccurate.
Thank you for fact-check.
A lens through which we look at feminism ought to be how it serves ruling class interests. Many feminist organizations are (oligarch) foundation funded. For example, feminist icon Gloria Steinem was a CIA asset (this was not a secret, she was recorded on TV saying so - proudly).
Sadly my mom heard the clarion call of feminism when I was growing up. She had abundance of free time and could have taken the time to further develop her wonderful mind. Could have deeply scrutinized the movement that destroyed that opportunity.
One of the wonderful aspects of women in the work force was the lowering of wages all around and the destruction of the middle class. I don't blame feminist for this. I certainly think the powers that control the means of production saw the future and realized how to manipulate women into the workforce and denigrate men, and thus reduce the cost of labor. Destroy the middle class and plunder the world.
In just my life time health in the US has fallen from fourth in the world to 79th. Chasing false dreams instead of caring for family and hearth (for clarity Amish) has lead to our current disaster. But our cell phones and entertainment will deaden the pain. We are so lucky.
I liked your comment wm, but I DO blame feminists. The goal (and these women were financed) of feminism was to destroy the family unit. To take the mother out of the home, to farm out control of her kids to others, to exhaust the cohesiveness of the family, in addition to what you said. So they brought in more money and spent it on buying "stuff" for their kids to appease them, when all they really wanted was a mother waiting for them when they got home from school. They changed the world, but not for the better. Our way of life happily does not exist in so many other countries.
“The goal …. of feminism was to destroy the family unit.” I think this was the goal of those pulling the strings from behind the scenes - and then unwitting feminists did the rest. The same could be said of “The Global Warming Crisis”, “Covid”, most religions, science, academia, etc. Someone sets the base-line going, and unwitting masses join in with the melody … but the base-line never changes.
Yes. The power of suggestion. Strike the right cord and get everyone to believe women are the victims, they don't get paid enough (maybe because they don't work as hard or as long as men?), not enough breaks (they deserve more than men), they need their own spaces and childcare services. Abortion is also feminism. As you see every day now, "no abortion for rape & incest " commercials. Who are they kidding. How many cases of R & I are there compared to convenience abortions? My guess is a statistical zero.
Nonsense! Feminists want to destroy the patriarchy. Which is another way of saying, "Death to the institution of Fatherhood."
Completely agree especially with mom being home. Our Mom was an amazing teacher and had deep insight into insects and animals. All kinds from Bob Cats to Deer and bird, she knew so much about living things.
So what you say is all true and there are many markers take then and now that show beyond doubt that times were better when mom was home. Wonder why the sitcom happy days had mom at home? I may have got that wrong as I rarely watch TV. But seems Rich's mom was always there for them.
Sadly Genie's daughter wants to be super mom. She has been a great mom giving birth to a health girl. Dad is Chinese (awesome person) and mom like her mom is Korean. But now after a year at home she is going back on the road as a pharma liaison to the Medical community. Won't even hear of another way. But her husband who is a police officer will be home to care for their daughter 5 days out of 7. What can I say?
Indeed! For instance, teaching people about male privilege reduces their compassion for men suffering homelessness or hunger or poverty, which certainly serves the ruling class.
The Rockefellers -- one of the most evil families on the planet -- poured money into Big Feminism for many decades. Think they had an interest in seeing families divided and broken? Not to mention seeing tens-of-millions of women flooding the job market, thus reducing wages automatically and drastically.
Yup, they are key. The Rockefellers like a few other Robber Barons (or oligarchs as we would refer to them now) are responsible for the centralization and corruption of medicine and science; the advancement and then rebranding of eugenics and technocracy, engineered and profited from most wars, they were there at the birth of the CIA, CFR and WEF just to name a few. A straight line can be drawn from them to the ideologies of Climate Change, Woke and transhumanism. And that's likely just the tip of the iceberg...
Real feminist orgs are grass roots funded. Anything patriarchy calls feminism isn't.
Erin PIzzey wrote about the Trust Fund bunnies and now feminist organisation are not grass roots, they are State Funded by various government organisations and politicians.
The ones you hear about?
Get lost fembot liar.
I have been involved in this for many decades, watching learning, listening and asking questions.
If you have an Instagram look for https://www.instagram.com/thetinmen/
Everything you say wrong, every thing I say right!!! Serious big brains over here...
Care to share the name of these 'real feminist orgs'?
B.S. They are elite-funded. The Rockefellers funded most fembot orgs in the twentieth century. You are a liar.
Feminism has never been a "women's movement." Indeed, the most difficult task feminists have ever faced has been dragging the members of their own gender along with them. As for 'isms' being hijacked by extremism, all secular ideologies encourage people to think about things, issues, whatever along certain lines of thinking to the exclusion of other perspectives. All ideologies represent group think demanding conformity to the group and ideological purity. Their adherents make a bad habit of favoring information that confirms their predilections and ignore the information that does not.
Feminism has always been a female supremacist, hate movement since day 1. Being anti-feminist is a good thing.
and what was the original 'core motivation for the original women's liberation movement'?
So you are blaming 'extremists' for 'real feminism' not achieving its goal or has it achieved its goal?
Thank you for the name. Sounds like an Army that wants to destroy!!
I'm not an American.
My reply to the second part about 'sexually assaulted... etc' I am more interested in justice for others and following the Process of the law rather than Naming and Shaming people rather than going to court.
I assume the 'enablers and apologists' were men and women?
I find it increasingly difficult to follow the idea of knee jerk reactions all through society and no one has a proper philosophy about anything that we all live by.
This. Yes. I came here because I felt the deeper truth but without the light of nourishing healing solutions we as humans will only continue to fight one another. It’s good reporting, but we need to keep talking about the solution.
Whatever you say, Hillary. Everybody knows you are always right.
'Diverse' is part of the hijacking. There are only male and female people.
Intersex people are still either males with a deformity or females with a deformity.
Yes, see also 'neurodiversity' which is a glamourized smokescreen for the medically injured, many of whom are sucked into the gender ideology mill.
'medically injured' ??
How did you get to this please...
And some Rock n' Roll to represent them. Walk On The Wild Side by Lou Reed and Lola by the Kinks are two of my favorites. The cover of Lola by Lake Street Drive is excellent.
Pardon me.... Lake Street Dive.
Thank you for this interview. I grew up in the 90’s and I have never been a radical feminist, but as I look back, I definitely could have been a better wife. My marriage was undoubtedly impacted by feminist ideology. Although no society is perfect, I would prefer the patriarchy to our current matriarchy. Women in power are awful, especially to other women and their own children- born and unborn.
It's been wonderful to observe how you, Janice have refined over about 8 years of public exposure, your irrefutable critiques of misandrist feminism. Thank you too for overcoming fear and in so doing have become a leading light against the tyranny of institutionalised misandry.
It is sad that women got so many more rights and opportunities, yet happiness has not increased. I would be hesitant to attribute that to feminist attitudes, though. Since the 1980's, when feminists were still nice to men and did not see their future as separate from men, antibiotics have been prescribed for every little ailment that would have resolved itself. Fast forward to today and only 4% of Americans have the bacteria lactobacillus reutieri in their bodies, which is key for the production of oxytocin(happiness hormone). Oxytocin is not just a happiness hormone for both sexes, it is a motivating hormone for women. Without it you are not just less happy, but less likely to want children.
As a rural man (valedictorian of a class of 13) who attended Columbia College and U of Arizona, I can definitely state the more intelligent and educated a woman is, the less likely she will have children. So empowering! Never did understand how giving up the goods for a bunch of random men who basically have no interest in her future is empowering, either.
Feminists were never nice to men.
They were nice to me.
You're thinking like a woman. Aka, personalizing everything.
Thank you for sharing and promoting this valuable information and the work of this valiant & insightful author!!! 🙏❤️
Yes, it's good information. Too bad Ms. Fiamengo runs a substack where angry men come to shriek ad hominems at women commenters with whom they disagree.
We disagree with you when you are a liar!
Even a liar can see the logic in that. Any other ‘man hating’ comment’s to help solidify the truth of the article?
You always were a liar, Hillary.
🌹🌻🌸💐💚💜❤️🌼😍🥰
This is a great summary in one place of the import and impact of feminism, and it's obvious you've checked every word and calibrated the tone to perfection, as usual, for today. Your words feel important now more than ever.
I'm Australian, and believe it or not, Ive never yet voted to the right of the Labor Party. But next election, I promise that I won't be. I believe that climate change IS the most pressing issue of our time. Elected largely on this platform, the current Labor party government in Australia is smuggling in a variety of legislation including the removal of the presumption of equal access to children for fathers after separation, weakening the presumption of innocence for men when accused by women, and most recently the 'MAD' bill - "Combatting misinformation and disinformation", which represents the most Orwellian attack on free speech I have ever seen. And on climate change, their only solution is an increasingly questionable economics and logistic of renewable energy, with a complete refusal to consider the very likely better alternative of nuclear on a level playing field.
These are dangerous times, and it it often difficult to keep a level head. With left-wing governments acting as they are, they really must be deaf to what people at large believe. The more they clamp down, the more people revolt, move the the right, and adopt the very conspiracy theories that they supposedly fear. I believe that (for example) US citizens don't so much love Trump as fear the alternative, and the left is either blind to this or does not care.
I see feminism as somehow central to all of this. Feminism was the first, the advance scout of this push, which has most successfully and completely saturated every public institution. Here is an astonishing quote, which is hard for me to accept, but which I fear makes the best sense of where we are today.
"We need to understand that we are living in a post-revolutionary society". "The revolution has already happened, we are now the underground resistance".
- Rafe Heydel-Mankoo Triggernometry podcast.
Thank you for this interview, not least because now there is a different image atop Dr. Fiamengo's website.
🤣👍
Janice, you are living proof that it is possible to recover from a feminist worldview, and through careful observation and discernment to become someone who sees clearly and speaks powerfully.
Takes an exceptional person, however, with an exceptional -- or at least well-above-average -- upbringing. As was revealed in the interview.
Most people are not exceptional. They just think they are.
Although I've opposed feminism for many years and even written books from that point of view, I was at one time a (male) feminist myself. This means that I'll always be a "recovering feminist." Moreover, it means that, like Janice, I have a "coming out story" (not as a gay man, although I am a gay man, but as an ordinary man in a world that runs on relentless gynocentrism and implacable misandry). And yet I keep learning more about what feminists have successfully hidden from public discourse.
Janice's historical essays, in particular, never leave me thinking, "Been there, read that." That's partly because history, like science, is never "settled." Feminists don't own history any more than Marxists do, after all, not even their own history. Many people are surprised to learn about seemingly ironic connections between the British suffragettes and, say, the white-feather campaign. Before reading Janice's interview, I knew something about the suffragettes and their hunger strikes--but not about their extensive terrorist campaign.
Of particular interest right now, given the current political struggle, is what Janice says about the supposedly ironic connection between feminism and transgenderism. The irony, she points out, is an illusion. Being gay, though, I can't help thinking about another connection with feminism. At first, gay people wanted what women wanted: fuller integration within society. The rhetoric was all about equality, and it still is for many of us--equal rights, that is, but not necessarily equal obligations (which is why the eventual campaign for "equal marriage" was primarily about the rights of gay adults, not about the right of their children to grow up with both mothers and fathers). But then came "queer theory." Like the feminist ideologies that were becoming increasingly influential as early as the 1980s, and like the even earlier racial ideologies that had replaced the civil-rights movement, this gay ideology relied on the model of segregation (and implicitly of superiority), not of integration (equality). Followers of all these ideologies have adopted victimology, which is a defining feature of identity politics. Versions of "critical race theory" and "critical gender theory" allow them to join forces under the banner of "intersectionalism" or "wokism." This presents a grave danger in any democratic country, because liberal constitutions are good at discouraging any tyranny of the majority but not at discouraging any tyranny of allied minorities.
I was born into Catholicism, never really a believer, and yet when the marriage equality referendum came to Australia, I abstained. Nothing was ever explained to the voters, including what the current situation was with defacto couples, exactly what new rights they would have, what 'marriage' meant in this context and so on. While not a believer, I see marriage as a primarily religious institution, and grounded in a long history where some sort of optimisation undoubtedly took place.
The 'Yes' campaign (which won) was nothing more than 'If you believe in LOVE than you will vote yes'. I never saw any treatment deeper than this ever aired on the national broadcaster. It was basically 'feed the punters a fairy story, it's all they deserve'.
And I'm a Jew, Paul, though not an Orthodox one. Judaism has a very long tradition of emphasis on marriage. But marriage is a venue of holiness, for traditional Jews, not merely a perfunctory "slip of paper" or a phase in serial monogamy. Even so, my argument for marriage and against "gay marriage" is not a religious one. That's partly because only secular arguments are taken seriously in the public square. But it's also because religious teachings on marriage (as an institution, not a private arrangement) emerged, both historically and cross-culturally, from universal human needs: (a) the need to provide an ideal context for bringing children to maturity; and (b) the need to bring men and women together on an enduring basis. From this perspective, marriage is not primarily about the personal gratification of adults (although most societies have always encouraged mutual respect and emotional attachment in a context of self-sacrifice). It's about the innate psychological (and material) needs of children and therefore about demographic continuity--that is, collective survival.
I don't blame gay people for undermining marriage, however, because straight people had already done precisely that by adopting a hedonistic and self-centered worldview.
I guess that marriage is a 'venue of holiness', a sacrament, precisely *because* it's been found necessary for that universal human condition and continuity.
This is such an insightful interview. I love when people dare to say what so many are thinking but feel they can't say for fear of being jumped on.
I think the feminist are correct when pointing to the male mess around us today. Just look at Trump.
But wait. Janice has made very valid claims as well. Just look at Harris.
Needless to say these two personify the caricature of both women and men. A sad testament to the politics of today, as these are supposed to be the best candidates the citizens of the USA can put forth.
I lost interest in the feminism movement when I was about fifteen and burning bras became a so called ‘stand against the oppression by men’. How utterly foolish I thought. However, although extreme
feminism has for me, shot itself through the heart never mind in the foot, I do feel that some gains were made for women.
The problem with society is that everything is taken to extremes. Women wanted equal opportunities in education and professional achievement not an insidious and often outright condemnation of males, which is what in so many ways we have got.
Children it was felt needed protection from brutality and neglect. What have we got, feral, ill mannered, disrespectful and frequently uncontrollable youths of both sexes. A society that regards anyone under the age of eighteen as not being responsible for their own actions. We have “boys” of seventeen and likewise “girls” of the same age being almost exonerated for brutal and sadistic behaviours even murder because they are now classed as “children”.
Why do we have such extremism? Because we allow stridency in society to overwhelm our natural desire for a peaceful and harmonious life. I like many males, some I don’t like and I have exactly the same attitude towards females.. Alas though, I have issues with the way that society is ruining relationships between men and women and between adults and young people. Whatever happened to common sense and moderation?
I believe that the gains that were supposedly made (and always claimed) by feminism were simply changes that would have happened regardless. Feminists were pushing against an open door, with the real impetus being the societal changes wrought by the industrial and technological revolutions, the world wars, and the consequent benefits of abundant energy, prosperity, healthcare and hygiene, transport, efficient communication, the birth control pill and so on.
I also have wondered about these changes. The analogy of feminism pushing against an open door seems to be accurate.
Take, for example, "birth control" which liberated the female gender in a way feminism never did and both occurred at roughly the same intersection of history.
I think it was Peterson who pointed out other previously ignored concepts, such as until recent times, "Public rest houses or public lavatories did not exist". The other was to do with female hygiene products; it was not until after WW2 that they became readily available and manufactured.
No, without the impetus of women becoming involved in what had previously been jobs and professions ,mostly male dominated, caused by both the World wars progress would probably have been fairly static. It was due to heroic effects mostly by women aided by some men that females were “Allowed” to vote. Other reforms followed very slowly like an unmarried woman being able to get a mortgage, a cheque book in her own right, take out a loan without a male guarantor to stand for her. We cannot say whether reforms would have come without effort or not. Would there still be lawful slavery if it were not for the humanitarians of the 19th century?
A bit late to reply, but I believe that women would have the vote, and slavery would not exist now, regardless of the activists for either cause. About as early as it was possible for women to work outside the home due to increasing prosperity, a wider variety of paid employment, and labour saving devices, it happened. We’re talking within the span of a generation or two, which in the span of human history, is negligible. Similarly for slavery - about as soon as it was possible to build large projects with steam power etc, slaves became redundant and society could move away from it. The corollary however is that if energy use or labour saving machines are restricted sufficiently (eg due to existential threat from climate change) you can expect to see the return of slavery. Of course, it would be called something else, and the elites would characterise it as a boon to society and an ornament to their reputations, just as before.
I find your comment to be emotionally driven.
There are many more rational explanations for what you want to portray.
Until recent history, firstly brought about by the Industrial Revolution and then the post-WW2 wealth boom.
The economic growth of the middle class.
Men were held responsible for the debts incurred by their wives.
The voting issue is a furphy; the truth of the fact is that in a relatively short time in history, it began with men who owned property gradually being allowed to vote. Men who did not own property were excluded.
The Suffragettes initially only wanted middle-class women to be able to vote,
before the issue expanded, once women won the right to vote, by default, men who were previously excluded also gained the right to vote.
Your facts are right with regard to voting amongst the general population. As a man you had to be a property owner in order to vote. To begin with your property had to have a certain financial value. In the very beginning only the nobility had any say I
In anything concerning governance.
History moved on. It was a widely held belief amongst society generally that women had no ability to think rationally, even though some women had proved that their grasp of mathematics and science was solid and in many cases, innovative. Female authors had to assume male names in order to be published. Do you honestly believe that the reforms that were enacted to give women the opportunity to govern themselves would have occurred spontaneously with the passage of time? I had a cheque account at the age of fifteen, not allowable in those days but our bank manager did not see that an extra year was gong to make me more responsible.
At the age of 21, I had to have a male guarantor ( my brother) for a financial transaction. The fact that I earned more than he did was neither here nor there. My friend’s mother bought a house in 1959 and although he had no interest financial or otherwise in the property, her deceased husband’s brother had to sign as guarantor for her. Plus the poor chap hardly knew her and her daughter. Do you really imagine that all that semi feudalism would have changed without the input of men and women demanding those changes. Also, we need to remember that without the support of men, women would still not have the vote.
As for your mention of my post being emotionally driven, it was ever thus. Women could have no say in anything to do with governance or self government because they were too emotional. I rest my case against the bias that still exists in some places against females.
There is another way to look at your experience with getting loans which I think is legally and historically more accurate. It’s not that banks didn’t consider women responsible in the sense of possessing good character. It’s that they needed someone who could be *held* responsible - forced to work off the debt, have his wages garnisheed,and, when all else failed, sent to prison.
< It was a widely held belief amongst society generally that women had no ability to think rationally,>
I believe this belief mainly occurred during the Victorian Era; to extrapolate that to the whole history of the human race is, in my opinion, dishonest.
And I think it was mainly the upper and middle classes that suffered from that affliction.
It is interesting how you are extrapolating your situation.
<"Women could have no say in anything to do with governance">
If we are talking about European society, that is not true.
<"Also, we need to remember that without the support of men, women would still not have the vote".>
That statement is an assumption.
Does this apply to islamic countries too then?
The genius of feminism was in adopting the childishly-simple idea of pitting the two easily-identifiable halves of the human race against each other. 'Childish' because that's what children do: boys are like this/girls are like that - end of story! It's just a natural, instinctive, oversimplified response children have to the opposite sex until they gain more maturity and wisdom. Same as people being instinctively racist or instinctively toying with the idea of wanting to be the other sex - it's just part of the maturation/education process and eventually most grow out of it ... basically a fear of someone who's different from themself.
Anyway, enough of the philosophy.
The 1915 quote that "women were “the more spiritual half” of humanity and that when women had the right to vote, war would be no more" hasn't aged well. It immediately brought to mind a few of the current crop of 'spiritual', Quakeresque representatives like Victoria Nuland. Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris and the Danish Prime Minister who essentially encouraged the west to wage an all out war against Russia a few days ago - I'm not sure which faction of her Social Democrat party this reflects.
Don't forget Margaret Thatcher's Falklands war - a brutal, needless and unprofitable conflict which may have been undertaken for no higher goal than to secure her political future.
The ancients believed that men were the more spiritual half.
Frankly, i'm inclined to agree, given men's superior abstractions.
Women seem rather personalized, animalistic, and self-centered.
The spiritualism is really just masturbating to their own emotions.