The Feminist War on Human Nature

A Treatise

Author's Note

This treatise owes an immense debt to the pioneering scholarship of Janice Fiamengo, whose meticulous research and fearless analysis made this work possible. Through her extensive writings on The Fiamengo File, her video essays, and our interview, she has provided the intellectual framework and historical evidence that form the backbone of this examination.

Professor Fiamengo's work stands virtually alone in its systematic documentation of feminist ideology's transformation from a movement ostensibly about equality into what she accurately identifies as "a perverse secular religion." Her courage in exposing uncomfortable truths—from the supremacist origins of 19th-century feminism to the casual cruelty of modern feminist culture—has created a body of scholarship that future historians will recognize as essential to understanding our era.

I am deeply grateful for her willingness to share her insights in our interview and for her decades of work that have illuminated patterns others refused to see. While this treatise incorporates perspectives from various thinkers, it is Fiamengo's unflinching examination of feminism's "fraud" that provides its essential foundation.

Any errors in interpretation or application of her work are, of course, entirely my own.

The Feminist War on Human Nature

By Unbekoming

Section 1: The Theft of Moral Authority

Reading through Janice Fiamengo's body of work is like watching someone methodically dismantle a house of cards that everyone else insists is made of steel. When I interviewed her for my Substack, I was struck by how her scholarship confirms something I'd long felt but couldn't quite articulate: that the elevation of one half of the population to holy status with the other half scorned is a sin. It's theft—the theft of moral authority, of basic human dignity, of the right to be seen as fully human with both virtues and flaws.

Fiamengo's research reveals that modern feminism has become what she calls "a perverse secular religion," complete with origin myths, salvation narratives, and heretics who must be cast out. But what makes her work so compelling isn't just the theoretical framework—it's the concrete examples she provides of how this ideology manifests in daily life, from TikTok confessions to Netflix propaganda to the casual cruelty of mothers teaching their sons to hate themselves.

In our interview, Fiamengo traced her own journey from feminist believer to critic. Like many academics of her generation, she initially accepted feminist narratives as truth. But studying literature of the past revealed massive holes in the feminist story. Women had been writing books, running businesses, and shaping history for centuries. The supposedly oppressed women of the 19th century were already doctors, lawyers, and journalists. How could this be possible in a world that allegedly doubted women were even fully human?

What Fiamengo discovered through decades of research is that feminism was never really about equality. From its inception with the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848—which declared all of human history to be male tyranny—through to today's "Kill All Men" hashtags, the movement has been characterized by female supremacism wrapped in the language of victimhood. This isn't a bug in the system; it's the operating system itself.

The real theft, then, is not just of men's dignity but of everyone's ability to see clearly. When half the population is deemed inherently guilty and the other half inherently innocent, we lose the capacity for genuine moral reasoning. We end up with female teachers traumatized by 11-year-old boys who won't accept their "toxic masculinity," with judges who openly admit they don't like sending young women to prison, with mothers who broadcast their sexual contempt for their husbands to millions of strangers online.

Section 2: The Victorian Roots of Sexual Liberation

The modern spectacle of women publicly degrading their marriages for internet fame has deeper roots than most realize. As Fiamengo's research reveals, today's Cat and Nat—those car-bound prophets of marital contempt—are merely the latest iteration of a movement that began in the Victorian era. The complaint has remained remarkably consistent across 150 years: monogamy is a prison, men are sexually inadequate, and women deserve unlimited options.

In the 1850s, Thomas and Mary Gove Nichols published their treatise on marriage, denouncing monogamy as "worse-than-slavery" and the "center and soul" of a system of "superstition, bigotry, oppression, and plunder." Their solution? Free love. Mary Nichols proclaimed that "Variety is as beautiful and useful in love as in eating and drinking." Thomas went further, arguing that "the only real difference between a wife and a prostitute is that the former is compelled to sleep every night with one man whom she does not love, while the latter has the happiness of sometimes sleeping with one she does."

Then came Victoria Woodhull, the spiritualist and stockbroker who ran for President in 1872. Her declaration rings with contemporary relevance: "Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional, and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please." She argued that sex without desire literally produced disease in women and their children. Only "mutual desire" should govern sexual choice.

These Victorian feminists wrapped their arguments in the language of health, spirituality, and social progress. They referenced biblical quotations and Christian ideals while advocating for what amounted to consequence-free promiscuity. The Oneida Community, which practiced "complex marriage" where every woman was wife to every man, was held up as a utopian ideal—until it collapsed when younger members wanted actual marriages.

Fast forward to today, and we have Wednesday Martin claiming women need sexual variety "probably even more than men do," that monogamy is a "tighter shoe" for women, and that female sexuality is naturally "assertive, pleasure-centered and selfish." The language has been updated, but the message remains identical: women's sexual desires are sacred, men's commitment is oppression, and any woman who remains faithful to one man is betraying her true nature.

What's particularly striking is how these arguments always position women's infidelity as liberation while men's desires are framed as either inadequate or predatory. The Victorian free lovers at least pretended their philosophy would benefit everyone. Today's feminists don't even bother with that pretense.

Section 3: The Public Performance of Contempt

The shift from Victorian discretion to modern exhibitionism represents something profound in feminist culture. Where once marital dissatisfaction might have been confined to whispered confidences, today it's performed for millions on TikTok and YouTube. Fiamengo's discovery of Cat and Nat Unfiltered—those "mom influencers" who turned spousal mockery into a business model—reveals how normalized female contempt for husbands has become.

These women don't merely complain about housework or childcare. They broadcast, with smirks and guffaws, how repulsive they find their husbands' sexual advances. They fantasize openly about being single, about casual sex with strangers, about lives where their husbands simply don't exist. The message, repeated like a mantra: dissatisfaction is normal, revulsion is relatable, and publicly humiliating your spouse is not just acceptable but heroic.

Fiamengo documents how this cottage industry of contempt extends far beyond social media. Psychology Today publishes articles like "Is Marriage a Bad Deal for Women?" that blame men for women's eagerness to divorce. Therapists affirm women's "exhaustion" at having to provide emotional support to husbands. The solution is never to address women's attitudes or behaviors—it's always to validate their resentment and encourage them to see marriage as "holding them back."

The infrastructure supporting this contempt is remarkable. Articles with titles like "Why Do Women Cheat?" offer sympathetic explanations ranging from "insecure attachment style" to the wonderfully euphemistic "outsourcing sexual pleasure in an effort to remain in the primary partnership." When women destroy their marriages, we're told, they're not selfish or cruel—they're brave pioneers exploring their authentic selves.

What would happen if men created similar content? Imagine husbands filming themselves in cars, laughing about how their wives had "let themselves go," joking about fantasizing during sex, or explaining why they're "exhausted" from providing financial support. The outrage would be immediate and total. These men would be branded as abusers, loses their jobs, and face social ostracism.

But women like Bibi van der Zee can write proudly about "losing it and walking away in tears" during family dinners when her sons and husband don't sufficiently embrace MeToo rhetoric. "Sometimes an argument should be that emotional," she declares, giving herself permission to tyrannize her family with what Fiamengo aptly calls "bully tears."

This performative contempt serves multiple functions: it signals feminist virtue, builds social media engagement, and creates a permission structure for other women to devalue their relationships. Most insidiously, it teaches children—especially sons—that their fathers are objects of ridicule and that male needs and perspectives are inherently worthy of scorn.

Section 4: The Feminist Creation Myth

Every religion needs its Garden of Eden, its fall from grace, its promise of redemption. Fiamengo's analysis reveals how feminism has constructed precisely such a mythology, complete with a lost matriarchal paradise, male original sin, and a promised land where hierarchy will vanish and women will love one another and the earth.

The origin story goes like this: Once upon a time, before the patriarchy, humans lived in egalitarian, nurturing societies led by wise women. These ancient matriarchies were peaceful, creative, and connected to nature. Women served as healers, inventors, and spiritual leaders. Then came the fall—men, driven by lust for power, created patriarchy. They imposed artificial gender roles, restricted women to domestic servitude, and severed humanity's connection to the sacred feminine.

This myth appears everywhere in feminist thought. From the goddess-worship movements to academic gender studies, from popular books about ancient matriarchies to Instagram posts about "remembering who we were before they told us who to be." The fact that no actual evidence supports this historical fantasy doesn't matter. Like any religious belief, it operates on faith, not facts.

William M Briggs, the statistician who dared challenge climate orthodoxy, sees this same pattern across modern "Science." As he told me in our interview, "We have to let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes." He identifies Equality—that sacred feminist principle—as the poison destroying science itself. "Because these ladies get into science, discover that they aren't as good at it as the people there, and then start whining and carping about being Victims." The annual conferences—Women in Physics, Women in Statistics—exist not to advance knowledge but to advance grievance.

Briggs' point cuts deep: "If they had anything worth saying about the world, and could prove it, then nobody would care if they were one-legged midget MAGA-hatted gypsies." But instead of producing better science, feminist scientists demand their poor work be accepted as good because of who did it. Equality, as Briggs warns, "infects and degrades and eventually destroys everything it touches."

Fiamengo identifies the mystical element that runs through feminist ideology: the belief in women's inherent spiritual superiority. Mary Daly wrote of women's "cosmic covenant." Carol Gilligan claimed women developed superior moral reasoning. Helene Cixous celebrated female creativity as flowing from the "fecund powers of the female body." Even contemporary arguments for more women in leadership rest on assumptions about feminine gifts for empathy, cooperation, and care that men supposedly lack.

The twisted brilliance of this mythology is how it transforms female supremacism into victimhood. Women aren't claiming to be better—they're simply reclaiming their stolen birthright. They're not seeking power—they're restoring the natural order that male violence disrupted. This allows feminists to pursue fundamentally supremacist goals while maintaining the moral high ground of the oppressed.

As Fiamengo notes, becoming a feminist resembles religious conversion. The believer experiences what Melissa Fabello called a complete reboot: "Feminism has colored every single thought and action that passes through me in a day." Previous experiences are reinterpreted through the lens of patriarchal oppression. Innocent interactions become microaggressions. Personal failures become systemic injustices.

What Briggs adds to this analysis is how this religious thinking corrupts the very institutions meant to discover truth. When scientists can get PhDs without studying philosophy, when they substitute ideology for methodology, when they demand we "follow the science" while ignoring that science cannot determine moral values—then science becomes scientism, another faith-based system. The feminists who insist sex differences don't exist while demanding special programs for women in science embody this contradiction perfectly.

But unlike traditional religions that at least preach love for enemies and redemption for sinners, feminism offers no path to grace for men. Male original sin—the creation and maintenance of patriarchy—cannot be absolved. The best men can hope for is to become allies, perpetually apologizing, perpetually learning, never quite measuring up to female moral authority. It's a theology of permanent guilt with no possibility of salvation, enforced now through what Briggs calls the "DIE" agenda—Diversity, Equity, Inclusiveness—in institutions that once pursued truth.

Section 5: The Oligarchic Bargain: Why Power Loves Feminism

If feminism were truly threatening to power, it would be crushed. Instead, it's lavishly funded, institutionally supported, and corporate-championed. This paradox reveals feminism's true function: not liberation, but labor market restructuring in service of oligarchic interests.

The economist Nancy Fraser, herself a Marxist feminist, admits what many feminists won't: modern feminism became "capitalism's handmaiden." As she documents, second-wave feminism's push for women's workforce participation perfectly aligned with capital's need to suppress wages and destroy worker bargaining power. When you double the labor force, you halve its value. When every family needs two incomes to survive, workers lose the ability to walk away from exploitation.

Consider the timing. Just as Western workers achieved unprecedented bargaining power in the 1960s—with single-income families buying homes, cars, and college educations—feminism emerged to tell women that being a housewife was oppression. The oligarchs couldn't have designed a better solution. Instead of paying one worker enough to support a family, they could now pay two workers barely enough to scrape by together.

Paul Collits, the Australian political scientist I interviewed, touched on this when discussing mass immigration as a "ponzi scheme for the economy." But feminism was the original ponzi scheme—promising liberation while delivering wage slavery for all. The Australian housing market perfectly illustrates this: once single-income families could buy homes, now dual-income families struggle to afford apartments. The "liberation" to work became the obligation to work, with mothers now paying strangers to raise their children while they serve corporate masters.

The destruction of the family wage wasn't an unintended consequence—it was the point. Strong families with economic independence can resist both corporate exploitation and state control. But atomized individuals, dependent on wages and state services, cannot. As Collits noted about COVID policies, "convergent opportunism" means different actors pursue aligned interests. Corporations wanted cheap labor. Governments wanted tax revenue and control. Feminists wanted power. The interests converged perfectly.

The oligarchic-feminist alliance against the family has even deeper ideological roots. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explicitly called for the "abolition of the family," declaring that "the bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course." They denounced the family as an institution of oppression where wives were mere "instruments of production" and children were exploited. Their solution wasn't to reform the family but to destroy it entirely, replacing parental authority with state education and communal child-rearing.

This anti-family ideology found its perfect vehicle in feminism. Where Marx saw economic oppression, feminists saw patriarchal tyranny. Where communists wanted to collectivize property, feminists wanted to collectivize reproduction and child-rearing. The slogans changed but the goal remained: destroy the autonomous family unit that stands between the individual and the state.

Consider how perfectly feminism executes the Marxist program. Engels wrote that the first condition for women's liberation was "to bring the whole female sex back into public industry." Done. Marx wanted the "education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments." We call it daycare and public schooling. The manifesto demanded an end to "the exploitation of children by their parents." Now we have children's rights that supersede parental authority, and parents reported to child services for traditional discipline.

Feminism accomplished what Soviet communism could not: the voluntary destruction of the family by those who should defend it most fiercely—mothers. Where Stalin had to use force to collectivize farms, feminism uses shame to collectivize children. Where Mao destroyed families through struggle sessions, feminism destroys them through family courts. The genius is making women believe that abandoning their children to state care while serving corporate masters is liberation rather than the fulfillment of Marx's vision.

This explains why corporations so enthusiastically embrace feminist ideology. It's not "woke capitalism" gone mad—it's rational calculation. Feminist workers don't form families that might compete with corporate loyalty. They don't leave to raise children, reducing training costs to zero. They police wrongthink in the workplace, creating self-enforcing ideological conformity. They transform workplaces into struggle sessions where class solidarity becomes impossible.

Consider how feminism fragments worker power. In previous eras, workers could unite against management. Now they're divided into hostile camps—women advancing through diversity quotas while men seethe at discrimination, each seeing the other as the enemy while oligarchs laugh all the way to their offshore accounts. The genius of "intersectionality" is how it creates infinite divisions, making unified resistance impossible.

The demographic collapse Fiamengo's work implies serves oligarchic interests perfectly. Native populations with cultural memory of rights and freedoms are replaced by desperate immigrants grateful for any work. The welfare state, expanded to support single mothers and childcare, creates permanent dependence. Children raised by the state from infancy—through daycare, public schools, and universities—emerge as perfect corporate-state subjects, their loyalties institutionalized rather than familial.

This demographic collapse isn't an accident—it's policy. In 1974, Henry Kissinger authored National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), which became official U.S. policy under President Ford. This classified document, declassified in 1989, explicitly identified population growth in developing nations as a threat to U.S. access to minerals and resources. But the strategies it outlined—promoting contraception, abortion, and delayed marriage—became the template for population control globally, including in Western nations.

NSSM 200 identified feminism as a key tool, noting that "raising the status of women" was essential to reducing birth rates. The document wasn't concerned with women's wellbeing but with their utility in suppressing population. It specifically promoted women's education and workforce participation not as goods in themselves but as the most effective means of preventing births. The oligarchs understood what took feminists decades to admit: educated, working women have fewer children.

The document's recommendations read like a feminist policy wishlist: expand women's education, integrate women into the workforce, promote family planning, liberalize abortion laws, and delay marriage. Every one of these became central to second-wave feminism. The Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and other oligarchic institutions poured billions into feminist organizations that advanced these goals. The population controllers and the feminists found perfect alignment: both wanted women focused on careers rather than children.

This explains the puzzle of elite support for abortion. It's not about women's rights—it's about population control. As Amelia documented in her correspondence with me, Australian states now allow abortion until birth for "psychosocial reasons." This extreme position makes sense only when understood as population policy. Every child not born is a victory for the Malthusian mindset that sees humans as "useless eaters" consuming limited resources.

The genius of using feminism for depopulation is that women police themselves and each other. Instead of governments forcing sterilization or one-child policies, women voluntarily sterilize themselves through careers, delay childbearing until it's too late, or kill their own offspring while calling it liberation. The oligarchs get their depopulation agenda fulfilled while women thank them for the "freedom."

Even the sexual chaos feminism promotes serves power. As Aldous Huxley predicted in Brave New World, promiscuity prevents deep bonds that might compete with institutional loyalty. The OnlyFans phenomenon Fiamengo documents isn't female empowerment—it's the reduction of women to atomized sexual entrepreneurs, their most intimate selves commodified for oligarchic platforms that take 20% of every transaction.

Most insidiously, feminism provides moral cover for exploitation. When corporations destroy communities by demanding workers relocate constantly, it's "opportunity." When they expect 80-hour weeks that make family life impossible, it's "leaning in." When they replace mothers with immigrant nannies, it's "supporting women's choices." The language of liberation conceals the reality of exploitation.

This is why every globalist institution—from the UN to the World Bank to the WEF—champions feminism. Not because they care about women, but because feminist societies are easier to control. Men without families don't fight back. Women without children don't think beyond quarterly earnings. Atomized individuals consuming antidepressants and porn don't revolution make.

The bitter irony is that feminism delivered exactly what it claimed to oppose: women reduced to their economic function, valued only for productivity, their worth measured in GDP contribution rather than human connection. The "freedom" to be wage slaves, the "choice" to be corporate servants, the "empowerment" to die alone surrounded by cats and Netflix subscriptions.

As Briggs observed, sometimes you must "let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes." But understanding feminism's service to oligarchy helps us see why the rebuilding is so fiercely resisted. Every intact family is a pocket of resistance. Every woman who chooses children over career is a defector from the corporate state. Every man who refuses to be demonized is a potential revolutionary.

The oligarchs know this. That's why they'll fund feminism until the whole rotten structure collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. The question is whether enough of us will see through the lie in time to build alternatives, or whether we'll have to rebuild from the ashes of complete civilizational collapse.

Section 6: When Violence Has a Woman's Face

Perhaps nothing exposes feminist hypocrisy more starkly than society's response to female violence. Fiamengo's analysis of the Netflix series "Adolescence" and real cases like Corbie Walpole reveals how thoroughly we've been conditioned to see women as victims even when they're perpetrators. But the most extreme example may be the legal sanctioning of violence against the unborn.

"Adolescence" presents the killing of a teenage girl by a 13-year-old white boy from a loving family who snaps because she "taunted him online as a sexual loser." The series was praised as a brave examination of toxic masculinity. Prime Minister Keir Starmer advocated showing it in schools. The message was clear: any boy might harbor this murderous rage.

But as Fiamengo discovered through William Collins' research, the entire premise is a lie. White male adolescents killing female classmates represents the least common combination in knife crime. The probability of the plot—a 13-year-old white boy from a stable home murdering a girl over online taunting—is vanishingly small.

Meanwhile, in Australia, the feminist establishment has secured the ultimate expression of female violence: the right to kill full-term babies. As Amelia revealed in her correspondence with me, in New South Wales and Victoria, women can abort healthy babies the day before birth for "psychosocial reasons"—relationship breakdown, financial challenges, or simply not wanting the child. Since Victoria decriminalized abortion in 2008, late-term abortions have increased by 39%. In 2011, one baby aborted for psychosocial reasons was 37 weeks—a full-term child.

The method is horrific: "To abort a baby which is close to its due date they make a hole in its skull, suck out its brain and then crush the skull." Yet this violence is not only legal but celebrated as a woman's right. The same society that clutches its pearls over a fictional boy's violence sanctions real violence against the most vulnerable humans imaginable.

Consider the contradictions. NSW passed "Zoe's Law" imposing harsher penalties for killing wanted unborn babies—recognizing them as victims deserving justice. Yet the same state allows mothers to kill unwanted babies at the same gestational age. The only difference between a protected life and a disposable one is the mother's desire.

In Australia, Corbie Walpole poured petrol over Jake Loader and set him on fire because he joked that she belonged in the kitchen. Loader suffered third-degree burns to 55% of his body, endured 10 surgeries, and lives with permanent disfigurement. Walpole's defense? She felt "overwhelmed by his presence." The judge, while sentencing her to a mere 7.5 years, openly stated: "It's never easy to send a young person, particularly a young woman, to jail."

Fiamengo traces this pattern back over a century to Ernest Belfort Bax, who documented how female criminals were "surrounded by a halo of injured innocence." Today's female perpetrators employ the same strategies: tears in court, claims of mental illness, assertions that they were provoked.

But even Walpole's violence pales beside the institutionalized killing of the unborn. Abortion increases maternal mortality—studies show women who abort face suicide rates up to 6.6 times higher than those who give birth. Yet feminists frame this self-destructive violence as liberation. Empire, through NSSM 200 and its population control agenda, has convinced women that killing their own children is empowerment.

The statistics Fiamengo cites are damning. Women comprise only 5% of the prison population, yet feminists demand more programs to keep female offenders out entirely. Feminist law professor Mary Anne Franks explicitly calls for increasing women's "justified" violence against men. The contradiction is breathtaking: women are simultaneously strong leaders deserving equal power and fragile victims who can't be held responsible for attempted murder—or actual murder of the unborn.

As one commenter noted, "Maturity can be defined as being willing to take responsibility for your actions." But feminism's gift to women is the opposite: endless excuses for violence, from burning men alive to killing babies, all wrapped in the language of rights and liberation.

Section 7: The Systematic Destruction of Boys

The war on boys begins early and it's waged by those they trust most—their mothers and teachers. Fiamengo's research into feminist parenting and education reveals a systematic campaign to psychologically break boys before they can become men. This isn't hyperbole; it's documented in the very words of feminist mothers who proudly share their methods.

Jody Allard's Washington Post essay "My teen boys are blind to rape culture" represents the apotheosis of maternal betrayal. Her sons, 16 and 18, refuse to "acknowledge their own culpability" in misogyny. Their crime? Saying "not all men" when discussing sexual assault—a simple statement of fact that their mother reinterprets as "mimicking the vitriol of a thousand online trolls." Six months earlier, Allard had written about one son's suicidal depression, declaring she wasn't responsible for it. The connection between a mother's public hatred and a son's self-destruction apparently never occurred to her.

The indoctrination starts even younger. Lane Brown decided her son, not yet two years old, needed lectures about objectifying women so he wouldn't attend preschool thinking "girls are there to be looked at." Louise Leontiades looks at her five-year-old boy and sees a likely future rapist because he rough-houses and has trouble admitting when he's wrong—unlike his superior seven-year-old sister. These mothers scrutinize their sons' every gesture for signs of toxic masculinity while blind to their daughters' flaws.

The educational system amplifies this abuse. Fiamengo's examination of UK schools found 62 schools teaching about "toxic masculinity," with 10 openly stating that "men and boys possess traits that are inherently toxic and negative for society." Teaching materials include "rape culture pyramids" claiming that "traditional gendered roles within the family" lead to sexual violence. Boys learn that their very existence within normal family structures makes them potential rapists.

When some boys resist this programming, their defiance is interpreted as proof of misogyny. The Monash University report Fiamengo analyzes is revealing: feminist teachers are "distressed" when 11-year-old boys won't accept their indoctrination. Boys who ask teachers to "explain what you mean" or want to debate ideas are accused of "enacting dominance over women." The teachers, all female, complain that boys make jokes about Andrew Tate, express skepticism about feminist literature, and sometimes say "women suck."

These adult women position themselves as victims of children. They're "personally attacked" when boys disagree with them. One teacher was traumatized because a boy said "Miss, your boobs look really big today." Another left the profession entirely due to the "stress" of teaching boys who wouldn't submit to feminist ideology. Not one teacher interviewed expressed interest in understanding boys' perspectives or addressing their actual needs.

The contrast with how girls are raised is stark. That mother in McDonald's telling her son not to apologize while his sister sprawls across multiple seats captures it perfectly. Girls are taught to be assertive, to take up space, to never apologize for wanting things. Boys are taught their space-taking is toxic, their assertions are domineering, their very existence requires constant apology.

Section 8: The War on Male Sexuality and the Destruction of Trust

If there's one voice that has consistently exposed the mechanics of feminist hatred in Australia, it's Bettina Arndt. For decades, she has documented what others won't: how feminism systematically demonizes male sexuality while women exploit it, how the domestic violence industry manufactures female victimhood while hiding female violence, and how an entire legal-industrial complex exists to destroy men through false accusations.

Arndt's most penetrating insight may be her analysis of what she calls "the sex supply crisis." Modern women, she demonstrates, have created a bizarre sexual economy where they simultaneously flaunt their sexuality for profit and power while criminalizing male desire. Young women spend their prime years in casual relationships with high-status men, then express outrage when ordinary men their own age aren't interested in commitment once these women hit their thirties. They've priced themselves out of the market, then blame men for not buying.

This manipulation extends throughout relationships. As Arndt documents, wives routinely weaponize sex, using it as a reward system while complaining about their husbands' "constant" desire. The same women who dressed provocatively during courtship suddenly discover, once married, that male sexuality is burdensome and oppressive. They create dead bedrooms, then act surprised when husbands become resentful or seek satisfaction elsewhere. When men cheat, it's betrayal. When women cheat, it's empowerment.

But nowhere is the feminist war on men more vicious than in the domestic violence industry. Arndt has exposed how this multi-billion-dollar complex operates on what she calls "the big lie"—that domestic violence is overwhelmingly male-perpetrated. The reality, backed by dozens of studies, shows women initiate violence as often as men. Yet men who report female violence are laughed at, denied services, or arrested themselves under "predominant aggressor" policies that automatically assume male guilt.

The statistics Arndt cites are staggering. Male victims have no shelters. Female perpetrators face no consequences. When Erin Pizzey, who founded the first women's shelter, tried to create services for male victims after discovering that many women in her shelters were equally violent, feminists sent her death threats and killed her dog. The message was clear: male suffering must remain invisible.

This invisibility extends to male suicide, which has reached epidemic proportions. In Australia, men kill themselves at four times the rate of women. Every day, six Australian men take their own lives—often after relationship breakdowns, false accusations, or family court decisions that strip them of their children and assets. Yet there's no national strategy, no awareness campaigns, no marches. As Arndt notes, male lives simply don't matter to the feminist establishment.

The family court system, which Arndt calls "an abattoir for men," systematically destroys fathers. Men routinely lose their children based on unsubstantiated allegations. They're reduced to "wallet dads," permitted brief visits while hemorrhaging support payments. False accusations of abuse are rewarded with immediate custody advantages. Parental alienation—the deliberate poisoning of children against their fathers—is ignored. Men emerge financially ruined, emotionally shattered, and legally barred from meaningful relationships with their children.

The #MeToo movement weaponized this further. As Arndt documented, universities now run kangaroo courts where young men are expelled based on accusations alone. The standard of evidence is "believe women," due process is abandoned, and the accused aren't allowed to question their accusers or present exculpatory evidence. Young men's lives are destroyed by morning-after regrets reframed as assault, consensual encounters rewritten as rape, and vindictive ex-girlfriends wielding institutional power.

Arndt tells the story of a mother who discovered her son's university was investigating him for "sexual misconduct"—his crime was breaking up with his girlfriend, who then decided their previous consensual sex had been assault. The mother spent $300,000 in legal fees. Her son contemplated suicide. The girlfriend faced no consequences for her false accusation. This story repeats across campuses nationwide.

Meanwhile, genuine male suffering remains unaddressed. Boys are drugged for being boys—medicated for the crime of not sitting still like girls. Young men are virgin-shamed while being told their sexuality is toxic. Middle-aged men are disposed of in divorce courts. Elderly men die alone, their lifetime of provision forgotten. Construction workers, miners, fishermen—men in dangerous jobs keeping society running—die at work while feminists complain about air-conditioned offices being too cold.

Paternity fraud represents perhaps the cruelest betrayal. Studies suggest up to 10% of children are not biologically related to the men raising them. Yet men who discover this deception still must pay support. They have no recourse against women who committed this most intimate fraud. The courts explicitly privilege women's financial interests over men's right to truth. As Arndt observes, we jail men who commit financial fraud but reward women who commit biological fraud.

The systematic destruction of trust between the sexes serves no one. When young men learn that accusations don't require evidence, that marriage is a trap, that their children might not be theirs, that their sexuality is criminal—they withdraw. They refuse to mentor female colleagues. They avoid dating. They eschew marriage. They go their own way. And society, dependent on male participation, begins to crumble.

As Arndt warns, we're creating a generation of angry, distrustful men with nothing to lose. These aren't the "toxic" males of feminist fantasy—they're ordinary men who played by the rules and got burned. They worked hard, treated women with respect, built families—only to lose everything to a system rigged against them. Their anger isn't pathological; it's rational.

The tragedy is that none of this was necessary. Men and women evolved to complement each other, not compete. Male sexuality and female sexuality could harmonize rather than conflict. Fathers and mothers could raise children together rather than wage custody battles. But feminism poisoned the well, teaching women to see men as enemies rather than partners.

Until we acknowledge female capacity for evil—for violence, deception, and cruelty—we cannot restore balance. Until we admit that men suffer too, that male lives matter, that fathers are not optional, we cannot heal. Arndt has spent decades documenting these truths, facing death threats and deplatforming for her courage. Her work stands as proof that some women, at least, can see through the feminist lies to the human tragedy beneath.

Section 9: The Objectification Paradox

Nothing illustrates feminist incoherence quite like the spectacle of women who build careers on sexual display while complaining about objectification. Fiamengo's analysis of this phenomenon—from Charlotte Proudman's "I'm asking for it" campaign to the epidemic of gym "harassment" videos—exposes a manipulation so brazen it defies belief.

But there's a deeper tragedy here, one that Zinnia captured brilliantly in her essay on "Zoomer Girl Derangement." As she writes, "Girlhood ends when the world looks at you. One day, you wake up and you're a sex object. This is terrifying. Men want you and they are bigger than you and stronger than you." Yet almost immediately, young women discover that this source of vulnerability is also their greatest power. The paradox is crushing: your desirability simultaneously endangers and empowers you.

Proudman, the feminist barrister who once publicly shamed a colleague for complimenting her LinkedIn photo, posed for an affirmative consent campaign with "a sexy, smoldering look," her face "carefully made up to accentuate her feminine sexuality, with dark-tinted eyelashes and gleaming red lips." The caption read "I'm asking for it"—meaning consent legislation, not sexual attention. But the deliberate provocation was obvious: sexualize yourself to complain about sexualization, invite the male gaze to condemn it.

This paradox runs deep in feminist culture. Sydney Sweeney builds a lucrative career displaying her body, then laments being unable to be appreciated "on a human level." Women strip naked to protest sexual violence, claiming nudity empowers them while denying it invites sexual attention. The "I'm tired of being looked at as a set of holes" meme is typically written on a woman's bare back, photographed in a pose that invites exactly the gaze she claims to reject.

What Zinnia reveals is how this contradiction psychologically fractures young women. They're told that male attention is dangerous and demeaning, yet as she observes, "Most women would rather be sexually harassed than ignored. In every complaint about male sexual attention lies a (not-so) secret brag." The modern girl grows up bombarded with images of impossibly beautiful women—products of surgery, filters, and digital manipulation—while being told that wanting male validation makes her a traitor to feminism.

The result? Some girls lean into hypersexualization, becoming Belle Delphines and OnlyFans entrepreneurs before they're emotionally equipped to handle it. Others retreat into eating disorders or gender dysphoria—what Zinnia identifies as "a pathological response to the threat of male sexual attention." They starve themselves until their breasts disappear or literally surgically remove them, seeking escape from the suffocating awareness of being watched.

Fiamengo documents how this extends to everyday exhibitionism. Women flood social media with videos that pretend to advertise products or demonstrate skills but are transparently designed to showcase their bodies. The gym harassment videos represent peak manipulation: women film themselves in skin-tight clothing performing exercises designed to display their assets, then catch men glancing and publicly shame them for "harassment."

Even professional spaces haven't escaped. Fiamengo notes how nursing uniforms have been redesigned to be form-fitting and revealing, allowing nurses to "showcase her breasts and ass in a style far closer to contemporary gym-wear." When patients—vulnerable, medicated, trapped in beds—notice what's being displayed, it's classified as "workplace violence."

The historical parallel is striking. Feminist theorist Sandra Lee Bartky argued that patriarchy forced women to "live their bodies as seen by another, an anonymous patriarchal Other." But today's exhibitionism is entirely voluntary, often lucrative, and frequently aggressive. As Zinnia puts it: "Because sexual norms today skirt around one obvious, horrifying fact: women like being sex objects."

This truth—that many women actively desire male attention and the power it brings—is the great unspeakable in feminist discourse. Instead of helping young women navigate these complex feelings, feminism denies they exist or brands them as patriarchal brainwashing. The result is a generation of what Zinnia calls "half-formed young women: stunted and scared," unable to reconcile their natural desires with the ideology they've been taught.

What's being stolen here isn't just male dignity but the possibility of honest interaction between the sexes. When women demand the right to display themselves sexually while criminalizing male acknowledgment of that display, when young girls are given no framework for understanding their own desires except denial or indulgence, everyone loses. The theft of honesty about female sexuality may be feminism's cruelest crime.

Section 10: The Coming Reckoning

Where does this all lead? Fiamengo's work points to an inevitable conclusion: a society that demonizes half its population while sanctifying the other cannot sustain itself. The signs of collapse are already visible for those willing to see them.

Young men are withdrawing. Not just from dating and marriage—though those trends are dramatic—but from society itself. They're dropping out of higher education, leaving the workforce, retreating into video games and pornography. Fiamengo quotes Chris Williamson suggesting men are being "sedated out of their usefulness," but it's more accurate to say they're making a rational calculation. Why invest in a system that tells you the "Future is Female" and your masculinity is toxic?

Paul Collits offers a deeper analysis of how we arrived here through what he calls "the long march through the institutions." As he explained, this Marxist strategy for capturing power by infiltrating key institutions—the family, Church, bureaucracy, universities, media—has been brilliantly successful. "The modern Marxists now hate the working class and their (perceived) racist, homophobic, xenophobic attitudes," Collits notes. They pivoted from economic revolution to cultural destruction.

The "Man Enough" political ad Fiamengo analyzes perfectly captures elite incomprehension of male reality. But Collits helps us understand why such tone-deaf propaganda emerges: "The beauty of the long march strategy has been that no one knew it was happening, until it was too late." The complete capture of institutions means that everyone in positions of cultural power—from ad agencies to universities—shares the same feminist assumptions.

But men aren't fools. They see female teachers traumatized by 11-year-old boys who won't accept their guilt. They see judges openly admitting bias against imprisoning women. They see their contributions minimized while their failures are magnified. And increasingly, they're saying: enough.

Fiamengo's research shows this isn't just male resentment—women are suffering too. Liberal women report higher rates of loneliness and dissatisfaction. Female happiness has been declining since the 1970s despite achieving most feminist goals. As Collits observes about COVID's "convergent opportunism," various actors had interests in erecting the new order: "There were the public health officials who discovered their fifteen minutes of glory and power... the petit fascists who luxuriated in the opportunity for social control and virtue signalling." The same dynamic drove feminist capture of institutions.

The feminist response to this suffering is predictable: we need more feminism. When boys resist anti-male indoctrination, they need more intensive programming. When women are miserable despite having everything feminism promised, it's because the patriarchy still exists. It's the therapeutic equivalent of treating alcohol poisoning with vodka.

What Fiamengo's work ultimately reveals is that feminism is a civilizational death cult. It offers women power without responsibility, victimhood without accountability, and moral superiority without moral behavior. It tells men they're toxic by nature and worthless by default. It literally advocates—through professors like Mary Anne Franks—for increasing violence against men to achieve "balance."

But Collits offers hope through resistance strategies. Since "all of the Western institutions have been captured," conventional politics is largely futile. Instead, he advocates two approaches: the "Benedict Option" of retreat, or forming "parallel societies" operating outside the system. "Shop local. Use cash. Have large families. Home school them. Form online and other communities of shared interests. Avoid paying tax. Get offline where possible. Shun social media."

These aren't just individual survival strategies—they're civilizational ones. As Collits notes, "The new divide is insiders versus outsiders, and the rejection of executive power and the deep state." The outsiders, radicalized by COVID and feminist overreach, "want governments to keep their promises, safeguard the interests of the dispossessed, stop being crooked, disengage from corporate power."

Societies can survive many things, but they cannot survive when half the population is taught to hate the other half. They cannot flourish when boys grow up believing they're potential rapists and girls grow up believing they're perpetual victims. They cannot endure when the fundamental complementarity of the sexes is recast as oppression.

The reckoning is coming. The question is whether it arrives through gradual reform as more people awaken to feminism's lies, or through civilizational collapse as the men who keep everything running simply walk away. As Briggs grimly notes, sometimes you must "let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes."

Either way, the theft I identified—the elevation of one half of the population to holy status with the other half scorned—cannot continue indefinitely. Reality has a way of asserting itself, and no ideology, no matter how entrenched, can hold back the tide forever. The only question is how much destruction we'll endure before we remember that men and women need each other, that both sexes have value, and that a society built on mutual contempt is no society at all.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.