Tag Archives: Janice Fiamengo


Who Will Rid Us of DEI?

Despite recent enthusiasm, the era of DEI is well-entrenched and will not easily be dismantled


Virtual event explores unearned privilege

I was a diversity hire. My department hired diversity hires.  

DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was all the rage in university humanities and social sciences departments when I was a graduate student in the 1990s: everything was about gender, race, class, and empire; oppressor and oppressed; white privilege, the male gaze. Over time, the category of class was edged out as gender and sexual identity muscled in.    

On the job market in 1999, I was shortlisted at two universities, both shortlists of all-female candidates. Job advertisements “strongly encouraged” applications from women and visible minorities.

Over the next four years, the department that had hired me hired into four more positions, all heavily influenced by sex and skin color.

“Is it true that there are people in this department who are against equity?” one of the diversity hires asked, scandalized, at a small welcoming party. The clear implication was that anyone who believed in merit-based hiring must be a bigot.

This was already the unchallenged academic mindset.

Our department practiced what was then called equity hiring (a Canadian euphemism for affirmative action). I was told that equity hiring meant that whenever two or more job candidates were equally qualified, the candidate should be chosen whose hiring would make the department more diverse.

The idea is nonsense: no two candidates are ever truly equal.

Once the decision is made to prioritize diversity, that quickly becomes the only urgent criterion. White men’s applications—hundreds of them—simply went into the reject pile; most were barely even read.

Read the rest here . . .

Women are inclined to radicalism

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here . . .


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

Nobody puts the case against feminism better than Janice Fiamengo.


The Goddess That Failed

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


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

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

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

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

For over 50 years, the movement has been mired in fraudulent claimsmyopiaspecial pleadingdouble standardsabandonment of principlesmanifold hypocrisies, and emotional incontinence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here . . .

The Suzanne Venker Show

Feminism’s harshest critics are now women. When Women’s Liberation (as it was then called) broke on us in the late 1960s, I, like most, could think of no objection to the equal treatment of women in the workplace. In those days, the issue was ostensibly about equal pay and equal opportunity. By 1975, I had changed my mind about feminism, at least about the feminism the activists promoted and forced on us. It was feminism underwritten by Marxist theory.

It was no longer about a fundamental equality, an equal dignity, and equal opportunity. Now men and women were claimed to be the same. To suggest differences was an outrage and an injustice. Equality of outcome had replaced equality of opportunity.

To me this was unfair and a denial of the essential observable differences between men and women. Feminism was fast destroying the natural relationship between men and women, I often said, and still claim. The result would be misery for many men and women. I have aired my criticism from that time, on occasions making myself very unpopular.

In recent years, I have stopped my personal criticism because a growing group of very articulate women are savaging the feminists far better, and with more insight, than I could do. Many claim that women more than men suffer in the destruction of the natural relationship between men and women.

There are long established tabs on this website about the issues of feminism and men and women. One only need to click on the drop-down menu to find them. My two favourite critics are Janice Fiamengo and Suzanne Venker. The links are there. Below are links to four of Venker’s recent youtube videos.

 The Secrets of Happily Married Women & Men

What it means to be a man

The Feminization of men and boys

Why women don’t want ‘nice’ men

The Big lie of feminism

There are many articulate women on the internet attacking feminism. In Australia we have Bettina Arndt, Daisy Cousens, and Sydney Watson. Daisy Cousens and Sydney Watson are young attractive women, but don’t be fooled. They are articulate, intelligent and do their homework. In America there is a battalion size group hammering the feminists. The best of them for me is Janice Fiamengo whose vlog is The Fiamengo file. Here’s her latest.