Category Archives: radicalism

Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s ‘Hate Speech’

54 million views and counting . . .

Conservative commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek from the Netherlands, who was one of the speakers featured at CPAC Hungary 2024, recently had one of her videos taken down by YouTube for ‘hate speech’. She posted a screenshot of the notification email to her X page.

The video in question was her speech at CPAC Hungary, titled ‘The Great Replacement is not a theory — it’s a reality’. Thankfully, as she pointed out in her tweet, the video is still up on X, and is performing very well there—it has racked up 54 million views and 102,000 likes.

In her speech, Vlaardingerbroek talks about the crime wave hitting Europe in recent times, and names mass migration as one of its primary causes. She told the audience:

‘Our new reality in Europe consists of frequent rapes, stabbings, killings, murders, shootings, and even beheadings. But let me be clear about one thing: This did not use to happen before. This is a newly imported problem.’

Replacement theory, included in her video title, is the theory that proposes that the ruling elites are actively trying to replace white, Christian populations with immigrants from different cultures in Western countries. On this subject, Vlaardingerbroek stated that this is a phenomenon that ‘everyone who has eyes can see’. She backed this statement up by citing statistics, claiming that 56 per cent of the Dutch capital city of Amsterdam’s population are migrants; while other major cities, such as The Hague and Rotterdam, are almost 60 per cent migrants.

Read the rest and see the speech here . . .

Who will save boys from feminist abuse?

In the last few weeks, we have been treated to a festival of man-hatred led, of course, by the Labor and Greens Parties – and their affiliates in the media. Labor’s Minister for Quotas and Man-hatred, meangirl Katy Gallagher, was again in the thick of it. The festival followed a period during which there was (allegedly) an unusually high rate of females murdered by their partners.

Two points yet again came to mind.

First, there was no mention of how many males were murdered during the same period. Fact is that males, due to the gene pool nature has dealt them, are more likely than females to resolve conflicts with violence – violence that in extreme cases ends in murder.

Females have a very different way of dealing with conflict where their mouth plays a big role. Their mouth can be just as deadly as a punch in the face for what it can unleash. Again, this is fact.

In a recent post (The True Statistics of Male and Female Murders) I quoted figures from The Australian Bureau of Statistics that showed about two-thirds of all murder victims are male, most often by a male. These figures contradict the feminist claim that men naturally focus their violence on women.

The second point is about the motivations that bring men to kill their women. There’s no talk about what brought a particular man to that point. No, it’s misogyny, say the feminists. Men just kill women because that’s what men do. There’s no other reason. To deal with this feminist fact, the government must pump millions more into no end of self-appointed feminist bodies to deal with the ghastliness of maleness.

In the most shocking case where a man ambushed his wife and children during peak hour traffic, threw a can of petrol into their car, and set them alight, I wondered – and still wonder – what set of circumstances brought that man to such an appalling act.

In another perceptive article, Janice Fiamengo offers a scenario that must play a role in men’s desperate actions.


When Feminism is Child Abuse

Feminist mothers’ (and some fathers’) words to their sons reveal insidious anti-male prejudice


Women's Leadership | Raising a Feminist Son — Tabby Biddle

In a recent video clip, a mother tells of how she stopped her five-year-old daughter from apologizing. The daughter’s apologies, which tended to be made when she was told “No,” were a red flag, the mom noted, for her daughter’s excessive concern for others. The mother wants her daughter to be comfortable advocating for herself. She wants her to “take up space,” and, above all, not to be sorry for wanting things.

This sort of advice seems typical of modern moms and daughters. It’s all the rage now to raise girls to be assertive and not to apologize.  

What does a feminist mother tell her son? Nothing similar.

Whether in the classroom, in mainstream magazine articles, or in statements by politicians, boys learn that they should apologize. Their “taking up space” is a problem that may make girls uncomfortable. They need to be aware of girls’ discomfort and vulnerability, and they should be willing to put girls’ needs first.

The anti-male message is pervasive even, or especially, in articles by mothers of sons, as I discovered when I scoured the internet for feminist parenting advice. In these remarkable articles, mothers and some fathers openly admit to undermining and guilt-tripping their boys. They demonstrate the radical extent of feminism’s assault on the male psyche. What follows is a small, representative sample.

In 2016, the On Parenting section of The Washington Post published an alarming essay by Jody Allard, a feminist journalist. Allard’s article discussed the failure of her teenaged boys, ages 16 and 18, to be feminist allies. The sons, laments Allard, “refuse to acknowledge their own culpability” in misogyny. Here is a classic feminist Kafka trap: If the boys won’t admit they’re to blame, then they’re to blame for not admitting they’re to blame. In the revealingly-titled “My teen boys are blind to rape culture,” Allard’s anger at her sons’ disinclination to acknowledge the pervasiveness of rape is palpable in every line. “They aren’t willing to sacrifice their own comfort for my sake, or for anyone else,” she seethes. But one could more convincingly argue that it’s Allard who isn’t willing to sacrifice her comfort for the sake of her boys. Why does she insist that her children believe what she believes and see what she sees, even if they actually can’t see it or believe it? She explains that “in this broken system, anyone who isn’t with us is against us. Particularly, and especially, men. Even my own sons—even yours.”

It is a horrifying article in which the sons’ expressions of skepticism about rape culture make them indistinguishable, in their mother’s mind, from the ghoulish internet misogynists she conjures. “Not all men, they remind me, and my guts wrench as my own sons mimic the vitriol of a thousand online trolls,” she tells readers melodramatically. Notice how she redefines a simple factual statement as vitriol. That her sons might be expressing a natural resistance to unfair self-castigation seems never to occur to her.

It’s difficult to fathom the psychological discomfort of being one of those sons, growing up in an atmosphere heavy with moral disapproval, and responding to the mother’s impossible-to-appease rage. It may be no coincidence that just six months earlier, this same woman had written about the suicidal depression of one of her sons, stating that “My son’s depression doesn’t belong to me. I didn’t create it and I am not responsible for it.” Perhaps not, but the damning anger can’t help.

Unfortunately, Jody Allard’s feminist convictions are not at all unusual.

How to raise a feminist

Some mothers begin their proselytizing of sons at an even earlier age. An article by feminist mother Lane Brown in the Christian Science Monitor, “NYC Candid Catcall Video: How Can We Make Our Sons Stop,” tells in toe-curling detail how a mother who watched a video about catcalling decided she would need to start lecturing her son, not yet two years old, about the objectification of women so that when he attends pre-school, for example, he will not go there with the thought “that girls are there to be looked at, or just to play the wife in a game of house.” Addressing her little boy in imagination, she outlines her standard of rectitude: “My hope of hope, before you even are able to form a sentence, is that you will never form a sentence that makes someone feel ashamed or embarrassed.” She realizes that she will have to repeat her injunctions again and again. One can only imagine the confusion, shame, and dread such lectures are likely to produce in a little boy trying to figure out his place in the world.

Read the rest here . . .


Fighting academia’s feminist tentacles

– Perth exercise scientist leads the charge.


As the toxic sludge of feminist claptrap seeps through the academic world, there are many principled researchers grinding their teeth at this blatant ideology and poor scholarship. Most don’t dare put their head above the parapet. But now there’s a lone warrior calling it out, well aware he is likely to implode his academic career in the process.

James Nuzzo (pronounced ‘NEW zo’) is a Perth-based exercise scientist who grew up in rural Pennsylvania keen on sports and weight-lifting. A high school anatomy and physiology course inspired him ultimately to pursue a PhD on the neuroscience of strength training at the University of NSW, followed by several successful years researching the physiology of muscle strength and fatigue. He’s currently affiliated with Edith Cowan University, busily churning out academic articles on topics like exercise neurophysiology, physical fitness testing, the history of exercise research and strength training equipment, and sex differences in exercise preferences and performance.

Men’s health has also been one of his key interests and he wasn’t happy to see his discipline infiltrated by gender ideologues whining about women missing out while totally ignoring the health outcomes of boys and men.

He came across one article which took this bias to a whole new level. A bunch of mainly female exercise physiology students from UNSW cooked up the dubious argument that “gender-based violence is a blind spot for sports and exercise medical professionals.” That was the title of their journal article  published in Sports Medicine, an article which could be used as a primer for feminist tunnel-vision.  

The ideologues started off with a position statement from the peak American sports medicine body alerting healthcare providers to the health impacts of sexual violence. But then they did a neat pivot, without any explanation, to devote their entire article to regurgitating all the usual dogma about gender-based intimate partner violence (IPV). All the familiar cherry-picked data is there showing women as the only victims – the only mention of men referred to their “socially determined privilege,” an alleged cause of violence against women. No mention of young male victims of abuse by coaches or fellow athletes, of which there have been plenty, nor of lesbian perpetrators of abuse (lesbians top the chart of rates of IPV). And not one word about the decades of research showing men and women are victims of IPV at roughly equal rates.

Nuzzo set out to put them straight, seeking to get the true facts published in a letter in Sports Medicine. And he succeeded, but only after nearly a year of back and forth with the journal. It helped that he combined forces with Deborah Powney, the University of Central Lancashire psychologist doing work on male victims of coercive control, and John Barry, from the Centre for Male Psychology in London.

It was revealing that Sports Medicine took the unusual step of submitting the letter to peer review but, amazingly the three reviewers all concurred with the critique by Nuzzo and his co-authors. Next, the original authors were given a chance to respond – but after months, they declined that option. So ultimately the letter was published – one small victory for proper scientific inquiry.  

Their published comment proved it was the UNSW academics who had the blind spot, by providing a summary of some of the best research showing equal gender rates of IPV victimization, which also applied in sports environments.

Read the rest here . . .


Hateful Clementine Ford

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Melbourne City Council continued to fund her.

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

Read the rest here . . .


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 . . .

Ever heard of ESG?

David Penberthy Herald Sun February 24, 2024

As another millionaire CEO loses his job over another PR disaster, maybe it’s time sanctimonious corporations resorted to honesty. There was an interview in last month’s Qantas inflight magazine with the chief executive of the mining giant Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto you will recall is the company which landed itself in deep strife when it emerged in 2020 that it had blown up two 46,000 year-old Aboriginal caves in Western Australia to access $135 million worth of iron ore.

The revelation was pivotal in the departure of former CEO Jean-Sebastien Jacques and his replacement with new boss Jakob Stausholm, the subject of the profile piece in the Qantas mag.

In that article, Stausholm talked about how he has always placed himself at the vanguard of what’s known in business circles as ESG, which stands for environmental, social, governance. ESG is basically the progressive corporate checklist covering everything from carbon emissions and reconciliation to gender equality and LGBTQI friendliness, against which “enlightened” modern corporations assess their conduct as good corporate citizens.

ESG strikes a delicate and often unsuccessful balance between doing the right thing, and coming across as preachy and sanctimonious.

It creates a real risk that companies can be seen as straying from their day jobs.

And it can also set them up for accusations of hypocrisy, as was the case last year when Rio Tinto took time out from its once-hectic schedule blowing up indigenous sacred sites to campaign for a Yes vote at last year’s referendum.

Continue reading Ever heard of ESG?

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 . . .


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

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

That’s the experience of the ages.


Coitus interruptus

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here . . .


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 . . .