Clear, precise observations and persuasive writing, Tom. Feminists are stuck with their founding analysis that men as a group oppressed and still oppress women as a group. That entrenches their mindset in the way you describe - they are entirely unable to generate any "new approaches" outside of that incorrect context. They are trapped by their experience of what "feels right" to them, which is only narratives in which women are morally elevated as victims and men are morally denigrated as perpetrators.
Clearly, nothing good can come from such a perspective, and nothing good has.
Thanks David. Trapped in what "feels right" calls it precisely. And unwilling to hear the balancing rational feedback from men who love them. go figure.
If I am understanding your comment correctly (I may not be), the stability over time of the cultural "feels right" response (emotional reasoning?) comes from the fact that it is patterned by a shadow form of the family archetype that I call the Matrisensus (the female correlate to the Patriarchy, which is the shadow form of the society archetype). In this psychological pattern, designated victim groups get the felt attribution of family members, while designated oppressors are "them, not us, not family".
Being around feminist women requires lots of emotional labor from myself, and I'm no longer giving it for free. From now on, there will be an hourly charge whenever I engage with feminists and their issues (* 10% surcharge on weekends).
It's emotional incontinence. The projection of an inner chaos, explained by Von Franz as Bluebeard. This is negative animus possession.
A man can't keep his cool five minutes around a woman possessed by her animus, as Jung famously wrote (and he enumerated immediate solutions that'd get you cancelled in this day and age).
Agree. Love the phrase "emotional incontinence." Captures quite a bit. Animus possession is real and in this day and age it is deadly since there is no counterbalance available.
I guess the Johnny Depp trial shows the counterbalance against animus possession.
His bed was shat in. His finger severed. He was told no one would believe him. His reputation was savaged and he suffered hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.
That's no counterbalance.
Surely his grand parents would have had a bit more balance.
I've read 18% of police recorded crimes in England as family. And more than 20% of police time is spent on family. While single mothers receive $400bn tax per year in the US. It's like animus possession through the institutions. And 500 abortions per day in UK, this is a psycho spiritual event of a scale unprecedented by the holocaust, by the black death, nothing comes close.
At what point do men stop playing a game with a bad faith player?
5 million men are wrecked in family court per year in USA so when?
Women's instincts are on show
- maternal control
- daddy complex blame nearest man
- women authority, men accountability
- negative animus possession
- neuroticism
Capturing the legal system with unconstitutional family courts processing 5000 men a day with the efficiency of an Amazon distribution center is the last straw.
Men lost respect, authority, property rights, due process, etc. and there's no one coming to save us.
The birth rate is 1.5 or minus 25% per generation.
We're being pressure tested by women's lack of insight, moral development, and animus possession projecting on to men.
One way or another, we'll be replaced by people who solve these problems.
Fact check: 3.8 million per year. Assuming 252 work days per year. 15,079 cases per working day.
However, of the 3.8m, 1m are divorces, 0.9m are child support, 0.4m are paternity, 0.33m are child abuse and neglect, 0.3m are guardianship, and 0.1m are adoptions.
I'd be keen to get the case notes, and apply constitutional law, and property rights, and fairness to child and man versus mother, to shake out all the injustices using A.I.. I reckon this'd be a truth and reconciliation project for a post grad in the 2050s.
Yes, male feminists are even worse than female feminists. I like to tell them that if they get prostate cancer, they can thank their feminist sisters for making sure that there is vastly more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
I like how all women instinctively know it's all a big roleplay make believe that is fully enabled by men. They are afraid the men will stop playing and they will get punished for the terrible acts they did.
Men in feminism. What a hilarious concept! It takes me back to the bad old days of Vietnam, when the protestors' mantra was, "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."
I think I understand your point. I'd usually come at it from another perspective.
I think the spirit of 'Legion Jezebel Marx-Engels' is so much amplified by inflated animus possession that the imago Mater and Pater are imperceptibly small in collective consciousness.
As a father, I realize it triggers most parts of society now. I've been attacked and hated upon by police, medical, educational, HR, men in parks, etc. because of presenting as a father.
I think there's free floating anxiety and also rage waiting to supercritically appear due to men allowing society to crumble, weaken, and disappear.
So yes, men, and fathers, are others by the gynocentric lense, hacked by feminist axioms to never depend on a man, or help a man, to believe all women even if she's lying etc.
I'm also critical of emotional reasoning because it leads to incoherent behaviour. Family law is majority female (90% judges in US I read). They're more likely to be subjective (standpoint epistemology) and apply zero value to male interests (empathy gap) and empathy (for women) is prized over systematising (needed for universal truth). Hence system spits out inconsistent judgements conflicting with eachother. There's no quality control. An incoherent illogical state of affairs that subjective emotionalist empathy-gappers are oblivious to.
Females *need* men, in order for feminism to manifest. They are so incompetent they need weak men to take up the cause and force the political ideology and control on other men. Those same men, they do not even respect.
You are right. Erin Pizzey noted that affluent men were eager to support her women's shelter, but were indifferent when Erin wanted to open a men's shelter.
Nice, Tom. Wouldn't it be wonderful -- a dream come true -- for PM&M, or any peer-reviewed journal for that matter, to recognize masculism as a balanced counter-proposal to today's virulent strain of feminism and conjure ways to get women to be more masculist...?
Feminism is lies and anti male hatred, women have better rights and better treatment than men, i have always wished i had been born female, they have luxuries men never have yet the more they get the more they want and it isn't equality, its cherry picked rights that amount to favouritsm,.
The editors of the journal should be fired for allowing such a piece in a journal on men's health issues. It is time we see feminism for what it is...misandry in any form it takes...and refuse to cooperate with it.
Great post and beautifully written; one jaw-dropping quote after another, each one digging an even deeper hole than the last.
I follow a few writers on Medium and have found a few kindred spirits, but also many men and women who express the essence of the article you quoted. There is no dialogue - It’s a brick wall.
Of all the great insights and quotes the line that cut the deepest was this one “There is no vision of mutual growth or shared humanity.”
Ow. This, on the heels of David Shackleton’s terrific recent conversation about the power of an inclusive vision (using Martin Luther King as an exemplar), really stung. There is as you say nothing inclusive in this feminist vision, not even an acknowledgment of the humanity of men and boys.
Excellent piece. I’m a member of division 51 and I just keep hoping they start righting the wrongs of imbalance, incorrect research and downright lies in research. Holding out hope over here.
There are some indications that they are shifting just a little bit but this last journal edition is saying loud and clear that they continue to be stuck in a feminist worldview. I was a part of their mailing list many years ago and was ejected for being "Hostile." This meant that I disagreed with what they were saying. lol I could tell you some gruesome stories....
Thank you, Tom. On the link you provided, there are nine names listed as contacts for their "special issue". Have you provided this post to any or all of them? I think that would be very good, if you did.
Hi Frank, having been involved in div 51 before I am guessing that it would be a fruitless exercise. They are in no way ready to actually discuss things. They are fast asleep to being able to love men for who they are.
Thank you, Tom. It's disappointing to hear that their minds are made up, and don't want to be confused with facts. I wrote to one of them, stating that if they really wanted to help men, they would write to President Trump, and ask him to take action on male suicide - that serving men a big bowl of feminism would only worsen things for men. No reply, of course.
Clear, precise observations and persuasive writing, Tom. Feminists are stuck with their founding analysis that men as a group oppressed and still oppress women as a group. That entrenches their mindset in the way you describe - they are entirely unable to generate any "new approaches" outside of that incorrect context. They are trapped by their experience of what "feels right" to them, which is only narratives in which women are morally elevated as victims and men are morally denigrated as perpetrators.
Clearly, nothing good can come from such a perspective, and nothing good has.
Thanks David. Trapped in what "feels right" calls it precisely. And unwilling to hear the balancing rational feedback from men who love them. go figure.
Emotional reasoning... not sure how scalable this is in large organisations that persist over time.
More like waves of fashion appearing in a hive mind that updates moral values from eachother.
If I am understanding your comment correctly (I may not be), the stability over time of the cultural "feels right" response (emotional reasoning?) comes from the fact that it is patterned by a shadow form of the family archetype that I call the Matrisensus (the female correlate to the Patriarchy, which is the shadow form of the society archetype). In this psychological pattern, designated victim groups get the felt attribution of family members, while designated oppressors are "them, not us, not family".
Being around feminist women requires lots of emotional labor from myself, and I'm no longer giving it for free. From now on, there will be an hourly charge whenever I engage with feminists and their issues (* 10% surcharge on weekends).
I feel your pain. A small part of my soul dies after every work day.
It's emotional incontinence. The projection of an inner chaos, explained by Von Franz as Bluebeard. This is negative animus possession.
A man can't keep his cool five minutes around a woman possessed by her animus, as Jung famously wrote (and he enumerated immediate solutions that'd get you cancelled in this day and age).
Agree. Love the phrase "emotional incontinence." Captures quite a bit. Animus possession is real and in this day and age it is deadly since there is no counterbalance available.
I guess the Johnny Depp trial shows the counterbalance against animus possession.
His bed was shat in. His finger severed. He was told no one would believe him. His reputation was savaged and he suffered hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.
That's no counterbalance.
Surely his grand parents would have had a bit more balance.
I've read 18% of police recorded crimes in England as family. And more than 20% of police time is spent on family. While single mothers receive $400bn tax per year in the US. It's like animus possession through the institutions. And 500 abortions per day in UK, this is a psycho spiritual event of a scale unprecedented by the holocaust, by the black death, nothing comes close.
Great writing - thank you.
At what point do men stop playing a game with a bad faith player?
5 million men are wrecked in family court per year in USA so when?
Women's instincts are on show
- maternal control
- daddy complex blame nearest man
- women authority, men accountability
- negative animus possession
- neuroticism
Capturing the legal system with unconstitutional family courts processing 5000 men a day with the efficiency of an Amazon distribution center is the last straw.
Men lost respect, authority, property rights, due process, etc. and there's no one coming to save us.
The birth rate is 1.5 or minus 25% per generation.
We're being pressure tested by women's lack of insight, moral development, and animus possession projecting on to men.
One way or another, we'll be replaced by people who solve these problems.
Thanks for your comment.
5000 a day? whoa, is that correct?
Fact check: 3.8 million per year. Assuming 252 work days per year. 15,079 cases per working day.
However, of the 3.8m, 1m are divorces, 0.9m are child support, 0.4m are paternity, 0.33m are child abuse and neglect, 0.3m are guardianship, and 0.1m are adoptions.
I'd be keen to get the case notes, and apply constitutional law, and property rights, and fairness to child and man versus mother, to shake out all the injustices using A.I.. I reckon this'd be a truth and reconciliation project for a post grad in the 2050s.
"One way or another, we'll be replaced by people who solve these problems."
No, we'll be replaced by people who don't have these problems. They're called Muslims.
An-Nisa 4:34 does say to gently spank her under specific circumstances.
But I wonder honestly whether feminism has taken root in the islamic world.
I know the Anglosphere is blighted by feminism.
But what of the Spanish world, Germany, Japan, China, India, maybe there's a cure in nature?
Muslim women outbreed Western women. It's that simple.
I’m aware that I’m not exactly adding any great nuance or insight, but does anyone else harbour an intense loathing for male feminists?
The performative, start every sentence with “as men we should recognise our role in (insert today’s example of oppressive male acts here)”.
The unearned sense of moral superiority, walking around like he’s the next level of human evolution.
Winds me right up 😅
Yes, I think it was Paul Nathanson who called them "Uncle Toms." So true.
Yes, male feminists are even worse than female feminists. I like to tell them that if they get prostate cancer, they can thank their feminist sisters for making sure that there is vastly more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
Great post Tom. Sad that the APA has drifted so far from common sense.
It is sad. All the more reason to be glad about the great work you are doing in GB! https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/
I like how all women instinctively know it's all a big roleplay make believe that is fully enabled by men. They are afraid the men will stop playing and they will get punished for the terrible acts they did.
Men in feminism. What a hilarious concept! It takes me back to the bad old days of Vietnam, when the protestors' mantra was, "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."
Yes, or like "destroying a village in order to save it."
"We had to burn the city 'cause they wouldn't agree,
That things go better with democracy."
- One of the best protest lyrics ever, by Don McLean, "Prime Time".
Hmm.
I think I understand your point. I'd usually come at it from another perspective.
I think the spirit of 'Legion Jezebel Marx-Engels' is so much amplified by inflated animus possession that the imago Mater and Pater are imperceptibly small in collective consciousness.
As a father, I realize it triggers most parts of society now. I've been attacked and hated upon by police, medical, educational, HR, men in parks, etc. because of presenting as a father.
I think there's free floating anxiety and also rage waiting to supercritically appear due to men allowing society to crumble, weaken, and disappear.
So yes, men, and fathers, are others by the gynocentric lense, hacked by feminist axioms to never depend on a man, or help a man, to believe all women even if she's lying etc.
I'm also critical of emotional reasoning because it leads to incoherent behaviour. Family law is majority female (90% judges in US I read). They're more likely to be subjective (standpoint epistemology) and apply zero value to male interests (empathy gap) and empathy (for women) is prized over systematising (needed for universal truth). Hence system spits out inconsistent judgements conflicting with eachother. There's no quality control. An incoherent illogical state of affairs that subjective emotionalist empathy-gappers are oblivious to.
Females *need* men, in order for feminism to manifest. They are so incompetent they need weak men to take up the cause and force the political ideology and control on other men. Those same men, they do not even respect.
You are right. Erin Pizzey noted that affluent men were eager to support her women's shelter, but were indifferent when Erin wanted to open a men's shelter.
Erin Pizzeys book the violence prone emotional terrorist opened my eyes.
She's a star and did great things to help the needy.
Women use their majority voting power to vote in the interests of women.
Men use their minority voting power to vote in everyone's interests.
Men pay vast majority of taxes.
Guess who gets most votes and collects more tax transfers than they pay over a life time?
It's systemic.
I say introduce selective service, willing to take a bullet? You just earned a ballot.
So clear that women vote for women and men vote, as you say, for everyone's interest. And yet, no one notices or cares. Gynocentrism.
Yeah, if you update moral values to apply low weight to men's suffering, and high weight to women's suffering, then it makes sense.
But birth rate is 1.5 so minus 25% per generation just wait to see the effects on survivors.
Who says evolution has finished? We're black dearthing ourselves with female supremacist Marxist informed policies.
Nice, Tom. Wouldn't it be wonderful -- a dream come true -- for PM&M, or any peer-reviewed journal for that matter, to recognize masculism as a balanced counter-proposal to today's virulent strain of feminism and conjure ways to get women to be more masculist...?
Feminism is lies and anti male hatred, women have better rights and better treatment than men, i have always wished i had been born female, they have luxuries men never have yet the more they get the more they want and it isn't equality, its cherry picked rights that amount to favouritsm,.
The editors of the journal should be fired for allowing such a piece in a journal on men's health issues. It is time we see feminism for what it is...misandry in any form it takes...and refuse to cooperate with it.
I agree, but their bosses are worse than they are!
A great discussion, Tom, and it has produced some helpful comments. The APA has been on the wrong track for some time.
Great post and beautifully written; one jaw-dropping quote after another, each one digging an even deeper hole than the last.
I follow a few writers on Medium and have found a few kindred spirits, but also many men and women who express the essence of the article you quoted. There is no dialogue - It’s a brick wall.
Of all the great insights and quotes the line that cut the deepest was this one “There is no vision of mutual growth or shared humanity.”
Ow. This, on the heels of David Shackleton’s terrific recent conversation about the power of an inclusive vision (using Martin Luther King as an exemplar), really stung. There is as you say nothing inclusive in this feminist vision, not even an acknowledgment of the humanity of men and boys.
Simultaneously heartless, pointless, and sad.
Thank you David. I had a very good editor who deserves credit!
The original poster deserves that extra credit.
We all feel in our liver the feminist article is wrong.
But David Shackleton waded through it to identify it's fallacies and articulate them for us.
I only hope we can automate this using grok AI so that no more thinkers need to suffer so much.
Excellent piece. I’m a member of division 51 and I just keep hoping they start righting the wrongs of imbalance, incorrect research and downright lies in research. Holding out hope over here.
There are some indications that they are shifting just a little bit but this last journal edition is saying loud and clear that they continue to be stuck in a feminist worldview. I was a part of their mailing list many years ago and was ejected for being "Hostile." This meant that I disagreed with what they were saying. lol I could tell you some gruesome stories....
Thank you, Tom. On the link you provided, there are nine names listed as contacts for their "special issue". Have you provided this post to any or all of them? I think that would be very good, if you did.
Hi Frank, having been involved in div 51 before I am guessing that it would be a fruitless exercise. They are in no way ready to actually discuss things. They are fast asleep to being able to love men for who they are.
Thank you, Tom. It's disappointing to hear that their minds are made up, and don't want to be confused with facts. I wrote to one of them, stating that if they really wanted to help men, they would write to President Trump, and ask him to take action on male suicide - that serving men a big bowl of feminism would only worsen things for men. No reply, of course.
lol! No surprise there!