Tag Archives: Men and boys

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

JANICE FIAMENGO MAY 01, 2024

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 . . .

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

Who is killing relationships?

Bettina Arndt and Suzanne Venker think women are killing relationships. They give their reason in this video: Woke women are killing relationships. They begin with a funny story to illustrate their fundamental thesis. There are more Suzanne Venker videos under the tab ‘Coaching women’ (under Men and Women) and a lot more on youtube. See Venker’s blog. See also Janice Fiamengo’s videos under the tab ‘Feminism’.

The deliberate degradation of Australian men

The Unique Discrimination White Men Face

Augusto Zimmerman, Quadrant, 17 November 2020

There are compelling reasons for white men to believe that bias against them is increasing. Take the example of politics. While Australians are worried about the rising unemployment and how to pay expensive electricity bills, the ruling party frets about “gender balance” among its members of federal Parliament. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he is deeply committed to boosting female representation.

The Liberty Party has recently stated that it wants to increase the representation of female MPs to at least 50 per cent over the next decade. Currently, around 22 per cent of female Liberal MPs grace the federal parliament. The internal report, entitled ‘Room for Movement: Women and Leadership in the Liberal Parity’, relates decreasing electoral support for Liberals with the low proportion of female leaders within the party and, particularly, in the parliament. Currently about 50 per cent of Labor MPs are female. How’s that working for them?

The Australian Labor Party lost the last federal election. And not only that but it received around 300 thousand fewer votes from women than did the Liberal Party. Labor now despises the working class and their voters feel disenfranchised, abandoned, forgotten and ignored. Labor is now a party of social engineers and completely infected by new-leftism, feminism and radical environmentalism. 

As for the Liberal Party, its leadership certainly should think twice before advancing the same leftist agenda. Rather, this party should consider the advice of their founder Sir Robert Menzies, who once said he would vote for a woman ‘with no prejudice and with great cheerfulness’ only if he was satisfied that she is the better and more qualified person to occupy the job.

The argument that the Liberal Party needs more “representation of women” is misuse of language. After all, every MP is supposed to represent men and women alike.[1] As noted by James Macpherson in The Spectator, ‘the sexist idea that only a woman can truly represent the interests of women was well and truly dismantled [this late October] when it was revealed Australia’s foreign affairs minister Marise Payne was yet to speak to her Qatar counterpart about the alleged strip search of 13 Australian women at Doha’.[2]   

It’s unbelievable to think the party founded by Menzies would allow itself to be defined by sexist ideology, especially when the New Left cannot even define the word “woman”. The Liberal Party is taking “incremental steps” towards higher female representation, boasts its left-wing leadership. One would expect a supposedly conservative party to pre-select candidates on the basis of their merit, regardless of gender. However, writes Macpherson, ‘their fixation on social engineering shows that they are taking Australia down the same work cul-de-sac as Labor, only more slowly’.[3]

Read the rest here…

Is this the worst analogical argument you’ve ever heard?

There are feminists in high positions who seemed to have been born with a degraded reasoning faculty, compensated for by rampant emotions that we are to take as rational thinking.

Sarah Silverman thinks it’s time to start legislating male masturbation

Look, Sarah Silverman gets it. We live in a country filled with anti-abortion activists who feel they have the right to decide what a woman does with her body. It sucks, but that’s where we’re at. In 2016. Sure, fine, OK.

But if we’re going to defend the right of men to enact laws that limit the options of pregnant women, Silverman has just one follow-up question: Shouldn’t we do the same with men who wish to regularly masturbate without consideration for the poor sperm cells they kill every time they do so? Read on…

 

Pornography and the degeneration of maleness

A comparison of the education of boys and men and their social influences in the 1950s with those of men and boys in early decades of the 21st century will give a glimpse of the causes of male degeneration over the last sixty years. This state of affairs (the degeneration of men and maleness) is of the utmost seriousness to the Burkean conservative and deserves far more attention than has been given to it. Two major features of this degeneration are excessive consumption of alcohol and pornography. LifeSite has posted a piece that claims ‘Neuroscience has proved that pornography is literally making men’s brains more childish. Seriously.’ If the appalling behaviour of some our male sporting stars is any indication then neuroscience is on to something here.

Two hundred years ago in the U.K., if you said you were going to a “gentleman’s club,” it was understood you were going to a private upper-class establishment where you could relax, read, play parlor games, get a meal, and gossip with others of your class. Today, in the U.S., if you said you were going to a “gentleman’s club,” it is assumed you will be paying to see a striptease in a low-lit bar.

Is this really what should typify a “gentleman”?

Pornography is often classified, along with other sexually oriented businesses, as “adult” entertainment—something for “mature” audiences. If this meant that these kinds of entertainment are “not suitable for children” then few would protest…Read on here