Unfortunately there’s nothing feminine about feminism - feminists despise themselves, women, men and children. They are fascists who are responsible for the destruction of the family, community and civilisation.
And the ultimate expression of feminized men is the transgender fake female. Soon to be replaced by the android version! Upgradeable for a fee. Subscription rates apply.
Whilst I always enjoy your thought provoking work I think this time you gave been led astray. I don't live in America so I cannot comment on American society but I know hundreds of American women and have good friends there. I think you have been naive to promote this person Andrews and perhaps you should have asked what is her agenda. The views she expresses are juvenile and surface only, what nonsense to say females suppress disagreement and do anything to avoid conflict to the detriment of society. Sheer nonsense. This idea suggests that women are self abnegating and passive. In terms of America why no mention of the Rockefeller promotion of feminism? As for the Pankhursts et al, their actions have been taken out of context. As you should know, from all the research you have conducted and brought to light here, "all roads lead to Rome", in other words, the minority controlling the health systems, the military, global economics and environmentalism are the same people who have created this tipping point you refer to. Nothing to do with women. And while I am here, please stop using AI generated images, they make my flesh crawl
The issue under discussion is not uniquely American but increasingly worldwide, including Ireland which has its own set of existential problems. Ask https://johnwaters.substack.com for his opinion on that.
As concerns "this person Andrews" (such a belittling statement), I wonder if you actually read the references listed at the end of the article or did you only glance at the information included above and decide that Andrews is a lightweight piece of fluff, not to be taken seriously and dismissed without further investigation?
As concerns the Rockefeller angle, read Section #6 above. It explains quite clearly why corporate interests delight in the feminization of society.
As concerns the Pankhurst angle, how did the author take their actions out of context? Details, please.
As concerns the minority controllers, if the systems referred to have "nothing to do with women", then, by reason of logic, they must be all, i.e., 100%, about men and men's machinations, just more male-dominated and oriented systems to control women and keep them down. In other words, everything negative which we are experiencing today is entirely the fault of the male side of the species and the female side is simply an unwilling victim, completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Is this really what you meant to say? I suggest some soul-searching before you answer this. Pointing fingers and casting blame simply will not work. If you think that is too extreme, please remember that you did say, "NOTHING to do with women."
One point of agreement. I second your request about the AI generated images. I think they are creepy and add nothing to the conversation.
I agree, this issue is not just American but it is written from an American perspective, by an American and about America. You criticise me for referring to this "person Andrews" whilst you suggest that I do some soul searching, how belittling of you to presume I need to do that based on a short comment. I am not pointing fingers at any one, as a woman I fjust ind it very surprising that an article written by another woman, actually did a lot of finger pointing and blame casting. What I meant by "nothing to do with women" refers to ordinary, every day women such as myself who do not go around acting like victims, incapable of discussion and debate - not those who are in politics and in positions of authority, (who in my opinion tarnish the very notion of equality by behaving in the main, like the worst of men).
Maybe it is my age or maybe it is different in Europe but I honestly don't think women need any lessons in how to be disagreeable. Here in Ireland we have many historical women who have been "disagreeable" to the authorities and only recently, there were far more women criticising the government about the covid era policies. I really think the notion that passive or aggressive behaviour occurs along gender lines is not true. My husband and my brother are both more empathic and understanding than I am because they are genuinly good people. Some women who compete in a "man's world" or "corridors of power" can become far more aggressive and psychopathic than the men who are already there, think Ursula, Maggie, Madeleine, Hilary. Such women may have made it but at the cost of their femininity and what makes them female. It is upsetting to see women writing like this, saying the problems of our society should be laid at the feet of women and it reminds me of those who are crazy enough to think that their biology should be ignored because it enslaves them.
“The saddest casualties are women who followed feminist scripts perfectly. They excel academically, establish careers, delay marriage and children. By thirty-five, they panic.”
My eldest daughter supervises many women in this category: necessarily high academic achievers because the profession demands it. The stories she tells…. Sadly, so many are heavily medicated, miserable, and struggle to cope with professional demands. My daughter thinks that many of them secretly feel they would be happier raising children but have invested so much in their careers that they can’t bring themselves to admit it.
Have rarely found a woman who another says is “smart” to actually be smart.
Women have been getting hiring and promotion preference for many decades.
Edit: Worked with PhDs. I don’t even have a Masters. Who said I was “smart”.
At the time I thought it ridiculous. I would ask them questions about stuff they knew. They knew more than me. How could they think I was “smart”? That was 20 years ago.
Only now do I know. I asked questions. Now, to be fair to others. I was asking them questions about things I was interested in that they had knowledge about. And I knew they had knowledge in it.
Very good work to say the least. It's just one of the agendas that breaks down natural law like allopathic medicine, environmentalism, wokeism, peodophelia, and so on . These are diabolical groups that have been playing god for millennia and it is all an inversion of natural laws and has confused and confounded humanity to the point of extreme disfunction which has been it's aim.
Thanks Tony, It is just a superficial response to a deeper rabbit hole of what this world (matrix) is all about. The physical 3D control system thought up by Archons as a loosh factory where fear is constantly generated as an energy source. This is not possible in the energetic ,true world it was copied from. See David Icke, Howdie Mackowski, Wes Penre, Jordon Maxwell to name a few. Like nothing anyone is taught in the mainstream institutions growing up but has reemerged with help of the internet.The history of the world is not anything like we have been taught and once you realize this fact it is a new dawn of learning.
I'm 68 years old, and lived through most of this-was probably in one of the earliest cohorts of when women were expected to graduate and join the professions-teaching, law, medicine.
Feminism is I believe one of the most pernicious ideologies to afflict humanity. It has made women miserable and men resentful.
Young girls are expected to be sexually available from their early teens, to take toxic hormones to prevent pregnancy, and to destroy their babies when pregnancy occurs. This is not "liberation", but the opposite. When I was a child, one income could feed and clothe a family of five or six children, and pay a mortgage. Now two wages for many still means they live in poverty and debt.
Feminism is a lie. The Covid debacle has brought me back to my Catholic faith, and caused me to revaluate some of my previous ideas. The Church's teaching on marriage and the family is correct-ideally that the man is head of the household, and the mother will be with her children to care for and nurture them. Such families (mostly) thrive in terms of the things that matter.
The education system-what Padraig Pearse so correctly called "The Murder Machine" is designed to make unquestioning automatons and consumers. I am a mother of five adults. I wish I had known when they were small what I do now-they would have been home schooled, and my medical career would have been a far second to my home duties. The retrospectoscope is a wonderful instrument.
For a century now, American women (and to a lesser but still significant extent women in the other Anglo nations) have been circumcising their sons at birth: subjecting us to overwhelming pain and mortal terror, which totally destroys the vital bond of primal trust between infant and mother. Very effective conditioning as our introduction to life in this world.
No other species does anything like this to its young. This is only one of many factors that have led us to where we are, but once I was awakened to the harm it had done me, I see the consequences everywhere in the culture. I wonder why no one ever talks about it in essays like this?
It is men's job to take care of women (and children) – but women's job to take care of the infants and children who will be the men of the next generation. Both sexes have abandoned their responsibilities, but as I see it, everything does begin with Mother.
We have very seriously lost our way. Seems all we can do is complain about each other: "Men are no good!" "Women are no good!" It will take a lot more than complaining – and blaming – to find our way back to sanity.
We, or should I say, I didn't know. My whole life has been filled with regret for what I allowed, because I didn't know. When I found out no anesthesia is given to infant boys for circumcision, I cried my heart out for what I did to my boys. As day old infants, at first sight, one son looked up at me and identified me immediately as his savior. The other son, never made eye contact. Different reactions to the same trauma they had just experienced. Your comment made that memory come back to me and I agree completely with your analysis. Circumcision is a horrific jewish mutilation of defenseless babies and the basis for which I have never been able to trust our medical system since I learned of it.
I'm willing to bet that the Jesuits (aka Free Masons) are behind feminism! Feminism was designed to crush the family, thereby destroying family values and as a consequence throwing society into chaos. This is exactly their aim.
From Google AI:
"Ordo Ab Chao" is a Latin phrase meaning "Order from Chaos," and it serves as a motto for the 33rd degree of Freemasonry. It symbolizes the idea of creating order and structure from disorder and confusion, reflecting a deeper philosophical concept within Masonic teaching
And then when society is completely traumatized, they provide the solution, whatever they've decided that is. We've seen this playbook used again and again, including the covid "pandemic" - how else could they convince billions of innocent people to accept a lethal injection? It was, for a time, the new religion - even staunch atheists told me they "believed in the vaccine" - such faith and without a shred of evidence it was safe or effective!
The First Wave of Feminism (1880 to 1920) had two objectives:
1) Give women economic agency to escape marriage, exploitation and male violence.
2) Stop men from raping children since already unhealthy children died premature and painful deaths from STDs. Remember antibiotics didn't exist.
Freemasonry - if anything - weaponized male violence and sex within the context of patriarchal religion to promote global imperialism.
Freud contended that women were masochists but given economic agency, women live their lives differently unsubordinated to the State and male violence.
Re your last paragraph, women who dump their husbands and know the State will serve as a substitute breadwinner for their children, albeit at a lower level, are entirely subordinated to the State. When the full system of digital ID/CBDCs and social credit comes in, they'll be completely unable to resist the digital gulag. A bit further down the line, it will be no (poison) jab, no welfare.
It's education and equal access to employment that give women opportunities whether they chose to get married and have children or not. If you want to give up your rights to education, the ability to have a credit card and a bank account, to buy property and access a drivers license and vehicle, go for it. These are the hard won rights of feminism for women.
Access to appropriate medical care is already difficult for many in the USA and in certain States, getting pregnant is problematic with many families leaving those States.
We're all headed for a digital gulag and Impact Investment whether male or female. I live in Third World country where disadvantaged women with children sit on the street and beg. I hope you're not cruel enough to wish this fate on women with children who need a hand up however with food stamps disappearing perhaps it's inevitable anyway.
I don't wish that fate on anyone. That's a different situation from the change in reasonably affluent countries, from families able to survive on one modest wage, while one looks after young children, and the deliberately engineered situation of both spouses working - by necessity - to keep a roof over their head - there is no real choice for women in that situation.
I can also see, over the years (since I am not young) the deliberate encouragement of women to divorce for much less serious reasons than before, and to use the State to substitute for a main breadwinner. Things aren't black and white.
I worked most of my life, am divorced (unfortunately, because I made a bad choice) and remarried. Because it was paid up before I remarried (late) I own the flat we live in, because my husband lost his own through a business failure. I was also partially dependent on the State for a while when my children were young and I was (by choice) on my own for a fairly long time with them, but working in insecure (albeit graduate) temporary employment.
I can still see the damage done by deliberate efforts to undermine the family and expose children to more State indoctrination.
Thank you for your measured response. You survived and thrived in less than ideal circumstances. I'm a traveler and an observer, which is a different type of education. We live in challenging times with children being the object of State indoctrination - as you observe. Cheers.
Gees Marcella. Somebody really traumatized you at an early age! That was quite an accusation. Males clearly have been a major threat in your life. Sorry.
I'm responding to the claim the Freemasons are responsible for feminism. The Freemasons are behind the creation of the Abrahamic religions being manipulated like sports teams with the players being played and the owners laughing all the way to the bank. Feminism is a response to the subjugation of women as cheap or free labor.
I gave you the bare bones of historical feminism and its response to male violence, in particular children. Women and children are the real victims of the world of warfare we live in. Obviously it's a more complex matter.
This is amazing information. Putting into words what is so obvious. I am a retired NP and it took over a year to recover from the dysfunctional workplace and regain true femininity.
Women thrive at home - at a work environment there is a tendency to try and be masculine but we only take on the worst of the characteristics e.g. aggression and not the noble ones e.g. courage and objective reasoning.
Excellent essay and I appreciate the nod to Janice Fiamengo, who has made many guest-star appearances and cameos on my channel. I would point out that the work on the feminist terror campaign was conducted by Simon Webb. Fiamengo has written about it extensively and pointed me to Webb's primary work, The Suffragette Bombers. Though she has pioneering scholarship in her field, her work on the terror campaign is as a secondary source. It is worth reading both her analysis and the book itself.
One missing document is a chronology that would span from about 1907 through about 1914 (though feminist action during the war sent many men and boys to their deaths in the obscenely patriarchal World War I).
This was one of the most shocking books I've ever read, and I am a reader. More jolting was sitting on an airplane next to someone who asked why I was practically groaning and holding my head after finishing a chapter. I told her. She said she knew about this topic and thought that the bombings were a perfectly good way for women to get "the vote" (in a monarchy — the book is set exclusively in England).
The question today is, what did "the vote" get women, or anyone? In what way is society better? What is better today than it was in 1970? In the true First Wave, Seneca Falls, women were promising world peace if they could only get some influence in the affairs of the state. That has not happened; the wars have only become ubiquitous, and seemingly never ending.
And it seems to have worked against feminist goals. Today a supermajority on the Supreme Court seems dead set against women's autonomy; antifeminist and conservative women (who twice were influential in getting a faux sham fraud conservative "elected" president) also are against the right to abortion on demand, birth control and queer rights* — all fundamental planks in the feminist platform.
However, what this book demonstrates if not proves is that no measure is too extreme for the cause, even if the result was to delay the vote by up to a decade because nobody was interested in giving those people power until it could not be avoided. And remember this was in England, a hereditary monarchy, where the only elections are for Local Council and House of Commons. It was similar in the States, where the only direct elections were for House of Representatives, and local elections such as governor and state reps.
The American president is still chosen by indirect election (electors), and at the time of suffrage, so was the all-powerful Senate (federal senators where chosen by the state senates). But this is still in the frame of women as "special interest" group, which is the original sin of feminism: dividing society in half.
I struggle today to identify one thing that is actually better — besides technology — than it was on the day that I was born. I am not saying this is the fault of women. I am asking, where are the results that we were promised ***as a society***?
From reading this essay, it's easy to see what those really are.
*To their credit, the Scotus supermajority refused to re-litigate Obergefell v. Hodges. I say this not exclusively in favor of queer rights but in honoring the Common Law.
And have you noticed during the recent years (there must be an analysis somewhere) the increasing promotion of female assassins/killers in movies and TV? No empathy, no natural maternal instinct or values, just merciless murder and mayhem.
Thank you, from an early feminist…I’m no longer a feminist in its current form. The movement left me, long ago. I am 100% for women becoming authentic to themselves, which includes biological realities and drives. But most importantly it is both women and men understanding and pursuing genuine growth supported by ability to use rational, logical considerations of both self and others. Way too much “cult” mentality dominating so-called feminism.
Feminism doubled the work force, stagnating wages, took mothers out of the home, and sent the children to government schools. Sure, we can ignore all those actions and consequences brought on by feminist doctrine, but why?
As far as women being property, I can just as easily state that men were essentially batteries, slaves to the economic system in order to attract and keep a woman as a wife, and their collective children provided for. He took his energy and ambition and fought with other men to rise up within the economic system, “charged” up with money that went back into the family.
A lot of people get “Mad Men” twisted, a sort of apex fallacy. Most men were not having martinis at lunch and trying to run the world. They were hustling to be providers in the best jobs they can find.
We are all property of the people that tell us what to do.
The way they tricked us to fight each other in the beginning of civilization was by restrictions on rights. First sex, then race and so on.
We fight each other for the power that is already ours.
I used to think the 50s and 60s were better but these days I'm seeing that time was really fucked up. Perhaps it was engineered that way, lead changed the way humans thought in Rome too.
If, as demonstrated in the article, corporations\professions\education are feminized, where are people going to be employed that feminism is NOT an overriding issue?
As a male RN in an 80%+ female-dominated field for 30 years I attest to the complete accuracy of this. Learned very early in my career to keep my mouth shut, my head down and to never date any woman who worked in the same facility. Also to never date one in the "mental health" (sic) field. EVER.
Finally had a bellyful of the bullschitt, left the field and started a facility maintenance company. BINGO! Made over twice the hourly money, never had to work with a crazy feminist again and finally learned the meaning of the word serenity.
Perhaps not coincidentally, met and married one of the few sane, traditionally-minded RN's
This essay is false. It’s not femininity that is the problem. It’s fallen and unredeemed women. Have you worked in a fallen and unredeemed masculine environment? Just as evil, but a different version of evil.
No. Rome and it’s Vicar are demonically generated entities that have oppressed entire populations and are responsible for the wholesale murder of the same. Pope Innocent III for example and all his Bulls are source material for degenerate behaviour so strikingly inhumane and disgusting as to make a grown man puke. From Peter to pedophile priests the entire structure is from evil dstkness below. Spare me the insult of the magic arts of the Mass and Transubstantiation. All is corrupt and sucks life from its “faithful”. I am not Catholic. Never have been. But I can read.
Feminism arose within a culture dominated by patriarchal structures for millennia. The fact that so-called feminism is so contentious shows that it is still deeply rooted within patriarchy. The assumption that the suppression of feminine aspects (in men and women) throughout many eras and cultures could swiftly be integrated and healed by opening academic institutions and the economic system to female students and workers, and 'listening more to the emotions' within those institutions is naive.
Arguments such as "women are increasingly unhappy despite more opportunities and alleged 'equality'" doesn't take into account the roots of the issue. It not only ignores the fact that increasing mental and physical health issues despite an abundance of opportunities and so-called 'economic progress' affect all genders. The whole premise of this essay is falsely based on a tacit assumption that women and men who initiated the waves of feminism had 'equal' access to resources and power within ruling patriarchal systems.
Having equivalent (or higher) numbers of female doctors, lawyers, teachers, business people etc. within a patriarchal structure is no indicator that a balance of feminine & masculine aspects in a society or culture or its individuals has been achieved. What this essay shows is that we are still deeply submerged in the process and struggle to improve such an equilibrium.
IMO, feminism was designed in the 20th century exactly how Rockefeller paid women to walk down 5th Avenue, smoking. A win-win for CEO's of tobacco companies. Feminism absolutely destroyed the family unit to bring in more tax revenue for the government.
Mothers taught their children to read & write, to be an asset to the family, to show respect and care for the family. Those valuable lessons lasted a lifetime. Instead, children are placed into schools or caregivers much too early depriving them of familiar childhood with those who want to influence those children in ways a mother would never do. Like learning how to curse in preschool.
The irony, hilarious really, is that women never saw their true goal in life and succumbed to massive brain washing. So, not so smart, were they? The movement elevated non-thinking robots to throw their children aside for a little extra cash on a non-career to replace her real career that she willingly participated in, until she decided not to.
The careers to which women have risen to would have naturally occurred without the sick ideology of feminism, the results of which, speak for themselves.
Wow. Respect. The questions about timing, causation, correlation, miss - imho - interesting possibility. Possibility that although feminism is kinda grass root movement, but in essence as a process in society that we observe has been imposed on people (men and women) by other actors. Lets say... who and how established, financed the first nation-wide feminists magazine?
There are two facts I find the most interesting. Janice told me that there was never a majority of women in favor of "the vote." The highest it polled was 40%. Second, there is what came along with "the vote" was the abandonment of women's influence and involvement in the local community, the village being an extension of the household. Instead, what happened was that women were siphoned from the household and the village into the corporate world, where they had the great honor and distinction of paying income taxes. Today, nobody much runs the village or the household. And for most families with two parents, two salaries are necessary to raise the children.
Good points. About a decade ago I came across the Dunbar Number, a rough estimate of what makes up a healthy human community. Dawned on me that this “tribe” is the root of human social interaction, best supported by nuclear families, and choosing leaders to healthfully relate with other communities. Men were already engaging with the larger world through work away from the community. With women following them, the base community inexorably weakens. Very effective way to enslave the masses.
HI Marcus, the term "nuclear family" enters the English language in 1925 per the OED. It is a new term, and though there were families consisting of mom, dad, buddy and sis, it is a relatively new concept with no roots into earlier forms of human society. Families until WW II were usually multigenerational and lateral out to close or even more distant cousins, as an active state of being.
I am aware that there were exceptions, but even in the early 20c agrarian "nuclear" families of two parents and the kids in one home had much contact with neighbors and local relatives and were not isolated as we think of the modern suburban family. We do not have this today. And we certainly do not have it with both parents working and/or the vast number of single parent households and various "brady bunch" situations.
Even after the war in urban environments there were families that lived in multiple adjacent or nearby dwellings. There was always someone available to help such as with babysitting.
The rural farmstead often consisted of siblings (and kids and elders) living in a kind of mini-village consisting of multiple branches of the family, and this still can be found in agrarian and rural areas today.
The "nuclear family" has been held up as some kind of ideal but it does not have a long history and it seems to be a political and economic construction with its practical origins in the suburbanization of the U.S. in the 1950s. Yes, it exists earlier and (for example) was depicted by Rockwell as an ideal in the 1943 painting Freedom from Fear.
This type of family unit facilitated economic growth due to easier access to credit and every household needing one or more of everything.
I consider the concept "nuclear family" to be an idealization rarely lived up to in practical terms. I know very few such families that were happy and functional, having counseled and taken the life history of many, many people. I do not see any association with this type of closed and limited structure with any roots into tribal / hunter-gatherer times.
We lament the loss of that ideal today but I would argue that in a functional sense it was the exception rather than the rule.
I would suggest 'nuclear family' was another part of the psyop to atomize families into discrete controllable units, as a step to do away with the family altogether. The lateral multi-generational family exists much more in Latin countries, such as Italy. I have a friend who lives with her daughters on the first floor of her house, her parents live on the top floor and her grandmother on the ground floor. The sense of caring and connection is so evident.
Marcus I did not mention that humans are only monogamous in theory, and that while some people do seem to be so, most are not. We would be a lot happier if we could take this into account and structure our lives around it. But what we usually get is a big mess...
ok the Dunbar number...gee...and many people say they have between zero and two friends...then there are the salespeople and city councilmen who can maintain relationships with hundreds of people. I imagine that H-G tribes were much smaller.
I think the Dunbar Number reflects something between 150-500, the high number being the max. It’s not really a reflection of deep friendships, it’s more a reflection of functional community: like-minded people who are living in close proximity with goals of social harmony.
"from the household and the village into the corporate world"
That might be inevitable. If not west than east, if not east than maybe south, because the number of potential workers has doubled, so the economy would have advantage over parts of the world when women don't work in professional meaning.
One huge influence the authors apparently ignore. Men are being feminized not just by psychological, coercive and corrosive social forces; they are being feminized by physical changes in the environment. Even back in the 1980s hermaphroditic frogs were being noted in abundance. That was not the case in my childhood of the 1950s and 60s. Many of the pesticides, plastics and common chemicals ubiquitous in our environment are estrogenic (aka xenoestrogens).
In addition, the increasing and now rampant use of powerful radio-frequency devices (such as cellphones, wifi, smartwatches, along with all their infrastructure) adds to the impairment of hormone production and skews the balance towards feminine hormones. We have all probably noticed the proliferation of 'man-boobs' these days. Male fertility has declined; sperm counts are way down; some reports say 50% less than post WWII. Even ten to 15 years ago, fertility clinics were asking young men if they stored their cellphones near their genitals. i myself have noticed the decline in normal male characteristics and behavior over the last 60 years. i think many of the authors' points may be valid, but they are missing a big part of the real back-story.
I am very sad to see and hear this talk of "toxic masculinity", especially now when many men have become so feminized that they need support and validation to re-inhabit and express their natural, beautiful and God-given masculinity.
Thanks for including this. Add chemtrails to the list. Sorry, what I meant to say was stratospheric aerosol injection to mitigate climate change. That should do it. We're being bombarded since birth with toxicity, and none of it is "masculine". I remember years ago drinking a soda and reading the ingredients, which included estrogen. WTF was that doing in a can of soda? According to one study, the estrogen content of London drinking water was considerably above normal and increasing.
totally agree re chemtrails - or whatever they're calling them : ) wow, i never heard of estrogen actually in the list on sodas! was that in the US or europe/UK? not surprised tho except that it was admitted.
That was in London in the 90s. They didn't care about being so obvious back then. I'd like to see stats over the decades of estrogen levels in drinking water.
Unfortunately there’s nothing feminine about feminism - feminists despise themselves, women, men and children. They are fascists who are responsible for the destruction of the family, community and civilisation.
I think it's obvious upon a close look that under "feminism," the only thing feminized is men.
AND, the ugly trashy looking tattoos women have adopted to look like men. Ironic, isn't it.
Exactly!
And the ultimate expression of feminized men is the transgender fake female. Soon to be replaced by the android version! Upgradeable for a fee. Subscription rates apply.
Well stated Anne. I completely agree.
Whilst I always enjoy your thought provoking work I think this time you gave been led astray. I don't live in America so I cannot comment on American society but I know hundreds of American women and have good friends there. I think you have been naive to promote this person Andrews and perhaps you should have asked what is her agenda. The views she expresses are juvenile and surface only, what nonsense to say females suppress disagreement and do anything to avoid conflict to the detriment of society. Sheer nonsense. This idea suggests that women are self abnegating and passive. In terms of America why no mention of the Rockefeller promotion of feminism? As for the Pankhursts et al, their actions have been taken out of context. As you should know, from all the research you have conducted and brought to light here, "all roads lead to Rome", in other words, the minority controlling the health systems, the military, global economics and environmentalism are the same people who have created this tipping point you refer to. Nothing to do with women. And while I am here, please stop using AI generated images, they make my flesh crawl
The issue under discussion is not uniquely American but increasingly worldwide, including Ireland which has its own set of existential problems. Ask https://johnwaters.substack.com for his opinion on that.
As concerns "this person Andrews" (such a belittling statement), I wonder if you actually read the references listed at the end of the article or did you only glance at the information included above and decide that Andrews is a lightweight piece of fluff, not to be taken seriously and dismissed without further investigation?
As concerns the Rockefeller angle, read Section #6 above. It explains quite clearly why corporate interests delight in the feminization of society.
As concerns the Pankhurst angle, how did the author take their actions out of context? Details, please.
As concerns the minority controllers, if the systems referred to have "nothing to do with women", then, by reason of logic, they must be all, i.e., 100%, about men and men's machinations, just more male-dominated and oriented systems to control women and keep them down. In other words, everything negative which we are experiencing today is entirely the fault of the male side of the species and the female side is simply an unwilling victim, completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Is this really what you meant to say? I suggest some soul-searching before you answer this. Pointing fingers and casting blame simply will not work. If you think that is too extreme, please remember that you did say, "NOTHING to do with women."
One point of agreement. I second your request about the AI generated images. I think they are creepy and add nothing to the conversation.
PS - glad we are in agreement about the images.
I agree, this issue is not just American but it is written from an American perspective, by an American and about America. You criticise me for referring to this "person Andrews" whilst you suggest that I do some soul searching, how belittling of you to presume I need to do that based on a short comment. I am not pointing fingers at any one, as a woman I fjust ind it very surprising that an article written by another woman, actually did a lot of finger pointing and blame casting. What I meant by "nothing to do with women" refers to ordinary, every day women such as myself who do not go around acting like victims, incapable of discussion and debate - not those who are in politics and in positions of authority, (who in my opinion tarnish the very notion of equality by behaving in the main, like the worst of men).
You are correct. My comment about "soul searching" was presumptuous. I apologize.
Apology accepted
Very astute comment!
Thank you
Maybe it is my age or maybe it is different in Europe but I honestly don't think women need any lessons in how to be disagreeable. Here in Ireland we have many historical women who have been "disagreeable" to the authorities and only recently, there were far more women criticising the government about the covid era policies. I really think the notion that passive or aggressive behaviour occurs along gender lines is not true. My husband and my brother are both more empathic and understanding than I am because they are genuinly good people. Some women who compete in a "man's world" or "corridors of power" can become far more aggressive and psychopathic than the men who are already there, think Ursula, Maggie, Madeleine, Hilary. Such women may have made it but at the cost of their femininity and what makes them female. It is upsetting to see women writing like this, saying the problems of our society should be laid at the feet of women and it reminds me of those who are crazy enough to think that their biology should be ignored because it enslaves them.
“The saddest casualties are women who followed feminist scripts perfectly. They excel academically, establish careers, delay marriage and children. By thirty-five, they panic.”
My eldest daughter supervises many women in this category: necessarily high academic achievers because the profession demands it. The stories she tells…. Sadly, so many are heavily medicated, miserable, and struggle to cope with professional demands. My daughter thinks that many of them secretly feel they would be happier raising children but have invested so much in their careers that they can’t bring themselves to admit it.
Have rarely found a woman who another says is “smart” to actually be smart.
Women have been getting hiring and promotion preference for many decades.
Edit: Worked with PhDs. I don’t even have a Masters. Who said I was “smart”.
At the time I thought it ridiculous. I would ask them questions about stuff they knew. They knew more than me. How could they think I was “smart”? That was 20 years ago.
Only now do I know. I asked questions. Now, to be fair to others. I was asking them questions about things I was interested in that they had knowledge about. And I knew they had knowledge in it.
Very good work to say the least. It's just one of the agendas that breaks down natural law like allopathic medicine, environmentalism, wokeism, peodophelia, and so on . These are diabolical groups that have been playing god for millennia and it is all an inversion of natural laws and has confused and confounded humanity to the point of extreme disfunction which has been it's aim.
Very insightful comment!
Thanks Tony, It is just a superficial response to a deeper rabbit hole of what this world (matrix) is all about. The physical 3D control system thought up by Archons as a loosh factory where fear is constantly generated as an energy source. This is not possible in the energetic ,true world it was copied from. See David Icke, Howdie Mackowski, Wes Penre, Jordon Maxwell to name a few. Like nothing anyone is taught in the mainstream institutions growing up but has reemerged with help of the internet.The history of the world is not anything like we have been taught and once you realize this fact it is a new dawn of learning.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Many thanks! and have fun getting to some truth!
I'm 68 years old, and lived through most of this-was probably in one of the earliest cohorts of when women were expected to graduate and join the professions-teaching, law, medicine.
Feminism is I believe one of the most pernicious ideologies to afflict humanity. It has made women miserable and men resentful.
Young girls are expected to be sexually available from their early teens, to take toxic hormones to prevent pregnancy, and to destroy their babies when pregnancy occurs. This is not "liberation", but the opposite. When I was a child, one income could feed and clothe a family of five or six children, and pay a mortgage. Now two wages for many still means they live in poverty and debt.
Feminism is a lie. The Covid debacle has brought me back to my Catholic faith, and caused me to revaluate some of my previous ideas. The Church's teaching on marriage and the family is correct-ideally that the man is head of the household, and the mother will be with her children to care for and nurture them. Such families (mostly) thrive in terms of the things that matter.
The education system-what Padraig Pearse so correctly called "The Murder Machine" is designed to make unquestioning automatons and consumers. I am a mother of five adults. I wish I had known when they were small what I do now-they would have been home schooled, and my medical career would have been a far second to my home duties. The retrospectoscope is a wonderful instrument.
For a century now, American women (and to a lesser but still significant extent women in the other Anglo nations) have been circumcising their sons at birth: subjecting us to overwhelming pain and mortal terror, which totally destroys the vital bond of primal trust between infant and mother. Very effective conditioning as our introduction to life in this world.
No other species does anything like this to its young. This is only one of many factors that have led us to where we are, but once I was awakened to the harm it had done me, I see the consequences everywhere in the culture. I wonder why no one ever talks about it in essays like this?
It is men's job to take care of women (and children) – but women's job to take care of the infants and children who will be the men of the next generation. Both sexes have abandoned their responsibilities, but as I see it, everything does begin with Mother.
We have very seriously lost our way. Seems all we can do is complain about each other: "Men are no good!" "Women are no good!" It will take a lot more than complaining – and blaming – to find our way back to sanity.
We, or should I say, I didn't know. My whole life has been filled with regret for what I allowed, because I didn't know. When I found out no anesthesia is given to infant boys for circumcision, I cried my heart out for what I did to my boys. As day old infants, at first sight, one son looked up at me and identified me immediately as his savior. The other son, never made eye contact. Different reactions to the same trauma they had just experienced. Your comment made that memory come back to me and I agree completely with your analysis. Circumcision is a horrific jewish mutilation of defenseless babies and the basis for which I have never been able to trust our medical system since I learned of it.
"Battle of the Sexes". Part of the preplanned "Forever Wars" and needless distraction from the real Gremlins behind the scenes.
That's it. Divide and rule.
💯🎯
I'm willing to bet that the Jesuits (aka Free Masons) are behind feminism! Feminism was designed to crush the family, thereby destroying family values and as a consequence throwing society into chaos. This is exactly their aim.
From Google AI:
"Ordo Ab Chao" is a Latin phrase meaning "Order from Chaos," and it serves as a motto for the 33rd degree of Freemasonry. It symbolizes the idea of creating order and structure from disorder and confusion, reflecting a deeper philosophical concept within Masonic teaching
And then when society is completely traumatized, they provide the solution, whatever they've decided that is. We've seen this playbook used again and again, including the covid "pandemic" - how else could they convince billions of innocent people to accept a lethal injection? It was, for a time, the new religion - even staunch atheists told me they "believed in the vaccine" - such faith and without a shred of evidence it was safe or effective!
The First Wave of Feminism (1880 to 1920) had two objectives:
1) Give women economic agency to escape marriage, exploitation and male violence.
2) Stop men from raping children since already unhealthy children died premature and painful deaths from STDs. Remember antibiotics didn't exist.
Freemasonry - if anything - weaponized male violence and sex within the context of patriarchal religion to promote global imperialism.
Freud contended that women were masochists but given economic agency, women live their lives differently unsubordinated to the State and male violence.
Re your last paragraph, women who dump their husbands and know the State will serve as a substitute breadwinner for their children, albeit at a lower level, are entirely subordinated to the State. When the full system of digital ID/CBDCs and social credit comes in, they'll be completely unable to resist the digital gulag. A bit further down the line, it will be no (poison) jab, no welfare.
Read my concise message more carefully.
It's education and equal access to employment that give women opportunities whether they chose to get married and have children or not. If you want to give up your rights to education, the ability to have a credit card and a bank account, to buy property and access a drivers license and vehicle, go for it. These are the hard won rights of feminism for women.
Access to appropriate medical care is already difficult for many in the USA and in certain States, getting pregnant is problematic with many families leaving those States.
We're all headed for a digital gulag and Impact Investment whether male or female. I live in Third World country where disadvantaged women with children sit on the street and beg. I hope you're not cruel enough to wish this fate on women with children who need a hand up however with food stamps disappearing perhaps it's inevitable anyway.
I don't wish that fate on anyone. That's a different situation from the change in reasonably affluent countries, from families able to survive on one modest wage, while one looks after young children, and the deliberately engineered situation of both spouses working - by necessity - to keep a roof over their head - there is no real choice for women in that situation.
I can also see, over the years (since I am not young) the deliberate encouragement of women to divorce for much less serious reasons than before, and to use the State to substitute for a main breadwinner. Things aren't black and white.
I worked most of my life, am divorced (unfortunately, because I made a bad choice) and remarried. Because it was paid up before I remarried (late) I own the flat we live in, because my husband lost his own through a business failure. I was also partially dependent on the State for a while when my children were young and I was (by choice) on my own for a fairly long time with them, but working in insecure (albeit graduate) temporary employment.
I can still see the damage done by deliberate efforts to undermine the family and expose children to more State indoctrination.
Thank you for your measured response. You survived and thrived in less than ideal circumstances. I'm a traveler and an observer, which is a different type of education. We live in challenging times with children being the object of State indoctrination - as you observe. Cheers.
Gees Marcella. Somebody really traumatized you at an early age! That was quite an accusation. Males clearly have been a major threat in your life. Sorry.
I'm responding to the claim the Freemasons are responsible for feminism. The Freemasons are behind the creation of the Abrahamic religions being manipulated like sports teams with the players being played and the owners laughing all the way to the bank. Feminism is a response to the subjugation of women as cheap or free labor.
I gave you the bare bones of historical feminism and its response to male violence, in particular children. Women and children are the real victims of the world of warfare we live in. Obviously it's a more complex matter.
Marcella. I made no such claim. You are really reaching for something I cannot entertain. No offense but I am gone. Bye.
This is amazing information. Putting into words what is so obvious. I am a retired NP and it took over a year to recover from the dysfunctional workplace and regain true femininity.
Women thrive at home - at a work environment there is a tendency to try and be masculine but we only take on the worst of the characteristics e.g. aggression and not the noble ones e.g. courage and objective reasoning.
Back to the Bible. It has been right all along!
Excellent essay and I appreciate the nod to Janice Fiamengo, who has made many guest-star appearances and cameos on my channel. I would point out that the work on the feminist terror campaign was conducted by Simon Webb. Fiamengo has written about it extensively and pointed me to Webb's primary work, The Suffragette Bombers. Though she has pioneering scholarship in her field, her work on the terror campaign is as a secondary source. It is worth reading both her analysis and the book itself.
One missing document is a chronology that would span from about 1907 through about 1914 (though feminist action during the war sent many men and boys to their deaths in the obscenely patriarchal World War I).
This was one of the most shocking books I've ever read, and I am a reader. More jolting was sitting on an airplane next to someone who asked why I was practically groaning and holding my head after finishing a chapter. I told her. She said she knew about this topic and thought that the bombings were a perfectly good way for women to get "the vote" (in a monarchy — the book is set exclusively in England).
The question today is, what did "the vote" get women, or anyone? In what way is society better? What is better today than it was in 1970? In the true First Wave, Seneca Falls, women were promising world peace if they could only get some influence in the affairs of the state. That has not happened; the wars have only become ubiquitous, and seemingly never ending.
And it seems to have worked against feminist goals. Today a supermajority on the Supreme Court seems dead set against women's autonomy; antifeminist and conservative women (who twice were influential in getting a faux sham fraud conservative "elected" president) also are against the right to abortion on demand, birth control and queer rights* — all fundamental planks in the feminist platform.
However, what this book demonstrates if not proves is that no measure is too extreme for the cause, even if the result was to delay the vote by up to a decade because nobody was interested in giving those people power until it could not be avoided. And remember this was in England, a hereditary monarchy, where the only elections are for Local Council and House of Commons. It was similar in the States, where the only direct elections were for House of Representatives, and local elections such as governor and state reps.
The American president is still chosen by indirect election (electors), and at the time of suffrage, so was the all-powerful Senate (federal senators where chosen by the state senates). But this is still in the frame of women as "special interest" group, which is the original sin of feminism: dividing society in half.
I struggle today to identify one thing that is actually better — besides technology — than it was on the day that I was born. I am not saying this is the fault of women. I am asking, where are the results that we were promised ***as a society***?
From reading this essay, it's easy to see what those really are.
https://www.amazon.com/Suffragette-Bombers-Britains-Forgotten-Terrorists/dp/1526796678
*To their credit, the Scotus supermajority refused to re-litigate Obergefell v. Hodges. I say this not exclusively in favor of queer rights but in honoring the Common Law.
And have you noticed during the recent years (there must be an analysis somewhere) the increasing promotion of female assassins/killers in movies and TV? No empathy, no natural maternal instinct or values, just merciless murder and mayhem.
Thank you, from an early feminist…I’m no longer a feminist in its current form. The movement left me, long ago. I am 100% for women becoming authentic to themselves, which includes biological realities and drives. But most importantly it is both women and men understanding and pursuing genuine growth supported by ability to use rational, logical considerations of both self and others. Way too much “cult” mentality dominating so-called feminism.
The reason why women in Asia aren't getting married is the same reason why younger generations aren't in the West.
The economy sucks.
Nobody can afford to get a place and raise kids.
Blaming feminism is incorrect.
Feminism just made it possible for women to not HAVE TO MARRY TO SURVIVE as it was in the past when they were basically property.
I am against the authoritarian feminism stuff. However, that's focused on the upper class institutions like universities and corporations.
Obviously those kind of people are going to latch onto anything they can to have an advantage as it is a dog eat dog system.
None of what they do, including the trans subject is representative of the typical citizen.
Feminism doubled the work force, stagnating wages, took mothers out of the home, and sent the children to government schools. Sure, we can ignore all those actions and consequences brought on by feminist doctrine, but why?
As far as women being property, I can just as easily state that men were essentially batteries, slaves to the economic system in order to attract and keep a woman as a wife, and their collective children provided for. He took his energy and ambition and fought with other men to rise up within the economic system, “charged” up with money that went back into the family.
A lot of people get “Mad Men” twisted, a sort of apex fallacy. Most men were not having martinis at lunch and trying to run the world. They were hustling to be providers in the best jobs they can find.
Are the sexes better off now than in the 50’s?
You hit a good point there.
We are all property of the people that tell us what to do.
The way they tricked us to fight each other in the beginning of civilization was by restrictions on rights. First sex, then race and so on.
We fight each other for the power that is already ours.
I used to think the 50s and 60s were better but these days I'm seeing that time was really fucked up. Perhaps it was engineered that way, lead changed the way humans thought in Rome too.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/violence-down-since-they-banned-lead
If, as demonstrated in the article, corporations\professions\education are feminized, where are people going to be employed that feminism is NOT an overriding issue?
As a male RN in an 80%+ female-dominated field for 30 years I attest to the complete accuracy of this. Learned very early in my career to keep my mouth shut, my head down and to never date any woman who worked in the same facility. Also to never date one in the "mental health" (sic) field. EVER.
Finally had a bellyful of the bullschitt, left the field and started a facility maintenance company. BINGO! Made over twice the hourly money, never had to work with a crazy feminist again and finally learned the meaning of the word serenity.
Perhaps not coincidentally, met and married one of the few sane, traditionally-minded RN's
left in the US a year later. Best decision ever!
This essay is false. It’s not femininity that is the problem. It’s fallen and unredeemed women. Have you worked in a fallen and unredeemed masculine environment? Just as evil, but a different version of evil.
There is no salvation of any kind in Rome. Never has been. Never we will be. The RCC is totally destructive of what makes civilization possible.
Your words are from the pit of hell
No. Rome and it’s Vicar are demonically generated entities that have oppressed entire populations and are responsible for the wholesale murder of the same. Pope Innocent III for example and all his Bulls are source material for degenerate behaviour so strikingly inhumane and disgusting as to make a grown man puke. From Peter to pedophile priests the entire structure is from evil dstkness below. Spare me the insult of the magic arts of the Mass and Transubstantiation. All is corrupt and sucks life from its “faithful”. I am not Catholic. Never have been. But I can read.
Feminism arose within a culture dominated by patriarchal structures for millennia. The fact that so-called feminism is so contentious shows that it is still deeply rooted within patriarchy. The assumption that the suppression of feminine aspects (in men and women) throughout many eras and cultures could swiftly be integrated and healed by opening academic institutions and the economic system to female students and workers, and 'listening more to the emotions' within those institutions is naive.
Arguments such as "women are increasingly unhappy despite more opportunities and alleged 'equality'" doesn't take into account the roots of the issue. It not only ignores the fact that increasing mental and physical health issues despite an abundance of opportunities and so-called 'economic progress' affect all genders. The whole premise of this essay is falsely based on a tacit assumption that women and men who initiated the waves of feminism had 'equal' access to resources and power within ruling patriarchal systems.
Having equivalent (or higher) numbers of female doctors, lawyers, teachers, business people etc. within a patriarchal structure is no indicator that a balance of feminine & masculine aspects in a society or culture or its individuals has been achieved. What this essay shows is that we are still deeply submerged in the process and struggle to improve such an equilibrium.
IMO, feminism was designed in the 20th century exactly how Rockefeller paid women to walk down 5th Avenue, smoking. A win-win for CEO's of tobacco companies. Feminism absolutely destroyed the family unit to bring in more tax revenue for the government.
Mothers taught their children to read & write, to be an asset to the family, to show respect and care for the family. Those valuable lessons lasted a lifetime. Instead, children are placed into schools or caregivers much too early depriving them of familiar childhood with those who want to influence those children in ways a mother would never do. Like learning how to curse in preschool.
The irony, hilarious really, is that women never saw their true goal in life and succumbed to massive brain washing. So, not so smart, were they? The movement elevated non-thinking robots to throw their children aside for a little extra cash on a non-career to replace her real career that she willingly participated in, until she decided not to.
The careers to which women have risen to would have naturally occurred without the sick ideology of feminism, the results of which, speak for themselves.
Patriarchy. Where most men are batteries and sperm banks, while the collective few run things. It’s Apex Fallacy, writ large.
Wow. Respect. The questions about timing, causation, correlation, miss - imho - interesting possibility. Possibility that although feminism is kinda grass root movement, but in essence as a process in society that we observe has been imposed on people (men and women) by other actors. Lets say... who and how established, financed the first nation-wide feminists magazine?
There are two facts I find the most interesting. Janice told me that there was never a majority of women in favor of "the vote." The highest it polled was 40%. Second, there is what came along with "the vote" was the abandonment of women's influence and involvement in the local community, the village being an extension of the household. Instead, what happened was that women were siphoned from the household and the village into the corporate world, where they had the great honor and distinction of paying income taxes. Today, nobody much runs the village or the household. And for most families with two parents, two salaries are necessary to raise the children.
Good points. About a decade ago I came across the Dunbar Number, a rough estimate of what makes up a healthy human community. Dawned on me that this “tribe” is the root of human social interaction, best supported by nuclear families, and choosing leaders to healthfully relate with other communities. Men were already engaging with the larger world through work away from the community. With women following them, the base community inexorably weakens. Very effective way to enslave the masses.
HI Marcus, the term "nuclear family" enters the English language in 1925 per the OED. It is a new term, and though there were families consisting of mom, dad, buddy and sis, it is a relatively new concept with no roots into earlier forms of human society. Families until WW II were usually multigenerational and lateral out to close or even more distant cousins, as an active state of being.
I am aware that there were exceptions, but even in the early 20c agrarian "nuclear" families of two parents and the kids in one home had much contact with neighbors and local relatives and were not isolated as we think of the modern suburban family. We do not have this today. And we certainly do not have it with both parents working and/or the vast number of single parent households and various "brady bunch" situations.
Even after the war in urban environments there were families that lived in multiple adjacent or nearby dwellings. There was always someone available to help such as with babysitting.
The rural farmstead often consisted of siblings (and kids and elders) living in a kind of mini-village consisting of multiple branches of the family, and this still can be found in agrarian and rural areas today.
The "nuclear family" has been held up as some kind of ideal but it does not have a long history and it seems to be a political and economic construction with its practical origins in the suburbanization of the U.S. in the 1950s. Yes, it exists earlier and (for example) was depicted by Rockwell as an ideal in the 1943 painting Freedom from Fear.
This type of family unit facilitated economic growth due to easier access to credit and every household needing one or more of everything.
I consider the concept "nuclear family" to be an idealization rarely lived up to in practical terms. I know very few such families that were happy and functional, having counseled and taken the life history of many, many people. I do not see any association with this type of closed and limited structure with any roots into tribal / hunter-gatherer times.
We lament the loss of that ideal today but I would argue that in a functional sense it was the exception rather than the rule.
I would suggest 'nuclear family' was another part of the psyop to atomize families into discrete controllable units, as a step to do away with the family altogether. The lateral multi-generational family exists much more in Latin countries, such as Italy. I have a friend who lives with her daughters on the first floor of her house, her parents live on the top floor and her grandmother on the ground floor. The sense of caring and connection is so evident.
Yes, I agree with the thrust of that. The nugget of human interaction is the Dunbar number.
Marcus I did not mention that humans are only monogamous in theory, and that while some people do seem to be so, most are not. We would be a lot happier if we could take this into account and structure our lives around it. But what we usually get is a big mess...
Yes, agree with this
ok the Dunbar number...gee...and many people say they have between zero and two friends...then there are the salespeople and city councilmen who can maintain relationships with hundreds of people. I imagine that H-G tribes were much smaller.
I think the Dunbar Number reflects something between 150-500, the high number being the max. It’s not really a reflection of deep friendships, it’s more a reflection of functional community: like-minded people who are living in close proximity with goals of social harmony.
"from the household and the village into the corporate world"
That might be inevitable. If not west than east, if not east than maybe south, because the number of potential workers has doubled, so the economy would have advantage over parts of the world when women don't work in professional meaning.
One huge influence the authors apparently ignore. Men are being feminized not just by psychological, coercive and corrosive social forces; they are being feminized by physical changes in the environment. Even back in the 1980s hermaphroditic frogs were being noted in abundance. That was not the case in my childhood of the 1950s and 60s. Many of the pesticides, plastics and common chemicals ubiquitous in our environment are estrogenic (aka xenoestrogens).
In addition, the increasing and now rampant use of powerful radio-frequency devices (such as cellphones, wifi, smartwatches, along with all their infrastructure) adds to the impairment of hormone production and skews the balance towards feminine hormones. We have all probably noticed the proliferation of 'man-boobs' these days. Male fertility has declined; sperm counts are way down; some reports say 50% less than post WWII. Even ten to 15 years ago, fertility clinics were asking young men if they stored their cellphones near their genitals. i myself have noticed the decline in normal male characteristics and behavior over the last 60 years. i think many of the authors' points may be valid, but they are missing a big part of the real back-story.
I am very sad to see and hear this talk of "toxic masculinity", especially now when many men have become so feminized that they need support and validation to re-inhabit and express their natural, beautiful and God-given masculinity.
Thanks for including this. Add chemtrails to the list. Sorry, what I meant to say was stratospheric aerosol injection to mitigate climate change. That should do it. We're being bombarded since birth with toxicity, and none of it is "masculine". I remember years ago drinking a soda and reading the ingredients, which included estrogen. WTF was that doing in a can of soda? According to one study, the estrogen content of London drinking water was considerably above normal and increasing.
totally agree re chemtrails - or whatever they're calling them : ) wow, i never heard of estrogen actually in the list on sodas! was that in the US or europe/UK? not surprised tho except that it was admitted.
That was in London in the 90s. They didn't care about being so obvious back then. I'd like to see stats over the decades of estrogen levels in drinking water.