Specific Abilities: Female Advantages

 11a. Verbal Ability  

Females have higher average verbal ability than males in school students reported at .29d in a meta-analysis of American studies of more than 10 million students in grades 3 through 11, in which the female advantage increased in a linear pattern from grades 3 to 8 and then remained steady in high school (Petersen, 2018). The female advantage is also present in grammar and punctuation assessed in the Language Usage Test in the 14 to 18 year-old adolescent standardisation samples of the DAT (Differential Aptitude Test) of .43d in the United States, of .20d in 14-year-olds in Britain and .35d in 18-year-olds (Lynn, 1992). In a review of 24 large data sets (including several large representative samples of US students, working adults, and military personnel), Willingham & Cole (1997) reported that girls performed better than boys in the elementary school grades in language usage at fourth grade (d > 0.2) and at the end of high school, females performed better than males in language usage (d between 0.4 and 0.5). However, in adults, males have higher verbal ability than females at .25d assessed as the median of 42 studies of the WAIS verbal IQ, as given in Table 5.4 and consistent with the developmental theory.

11b. Verbal Fluency  Verbal fluency is the ability to produce a larger number of words in a given category (e.g., birds, dogs, etc.) in a short period of time. Kimura (1999) and Hyde (2014) have shown that females have higher verbal fluency than that of males. This female advantage has been confirmed by Colom, Juan-Espinoza, Abad & Garcia (2000) in a Spanish sample of applicants to a Spanish university (n=6879, age 23) in which females obtained a higher verbal fluency score of .15d; and further confirmed by Schaie (2005, p. 77) in a study of 4,850 American adults aged 25 to 81 in which females obtained a higher score than males of .17d, and again by Maylor, Reimers, Choi et al. (2007) who reported an adult female advantage of .18d. A recent longitudinal study of clinically normal adults found a female advantage in fluency tasks (e.g., name as many words as you can that begin with a selected letter or have a similar meaning to another word) and higher performance for males on some tests of visual-spatial abilities, with a steeper decline for men over time (McCarrey et al., 2016). However, higher verbal fluency in females has been confirmed by Kosmides, Vlahou, Panagiotaki & Kiosseoglou (2004) or by Waber, Skirrbek & Herlitz (2014), who have reported that in Northern Europe there is no sex difference and in Southern Europe males scored higher than females in verbal fluency. Despite the last two studies, most studies have reported a female advantage in verbal fluency. The likely evolutionary explanation for this is that women who produce a lot of words promote the acquisition of language in their children. 

11c. Second Language Ability  Several studies have reported that females have higher average ability than males in second language ability. A female advantage of .17d has been reported among 13-year-olds in England (Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen & Hargreaves, 1974), of .64d among 12-year-olds in Ireland (Lynn & Wilson, 1993), .20d among 12-year-olds in Israel (Lewy & Chen, 1974), .27d among 12-year-olds in Sweden (Ljung, 1965), .19d among 14-year-olds in Lebanon (El Hassan, 2001), .50d among college students in the United States (Payne & Lynn, 2011) and of .32d as the median of 17 studies in a number of countries given by Lynn & Piffer (2011). In all these studies of school students who learned the second language at school, females did not perform better than males in first language ability, consistent with the results given in Chapter 9, showing that females are not better than males in verbal abilities. 

The likely evolutionary explanation for the female advantage in second language ability is that normally in the great apes, including evolving hominids, females were exogamous. Thus, “[a]mong baboons, chimps and humans, males stay where they were born and females disperse” (Gamble, 1993, p. 115) and “[i]n the great apes, including humans, males tend to stay in their birth groups and females tend to reside in the birth group of their mate” (Geary, 1998, p. 296). These exchanges have the advantages that they strengthen alliances between neighbouring groups and reduce inbreeding and the numerous genetic disorders these cause, including an impairment of intelligence (Jensen, 1998). 

When females joined a neighbouring group by exchange or capture, they would have had to integrate with their new group, and the better they integrated, the greater their chances of survival and that of their children. The neighbouring groups that females joined would sometimes have spoken a different language. For instance, in West Africa “[t]he tribes are traditionally at war with each other and speak mutually incomprehensible languages” (Dembrovitz, 1945, p. 70). And when the Caribs (the original inhabitants of the Caribbean) defeated neighbouring groups, “[t]hey used to kill the men of conquered peoples and take the women for wives, which resulted in the men and women speaking different languages” (Muller-Lyer, 1930, p. 120). When this occurred, the ability of females to acquire the new language would have facilitated acceptance by the new group. Humans are co-operating animals. Males typically hunt for meat and share it with females and children, and females help other females in a variety of tasks, such as child rearing, food sharing and caring for one another during illness. To benefit from these co-operative activities, females joining a new group would have evolved a stronger module (an innate ability designed for a specific purpose) for the acquisition of a foreign language. A female who joined a new group but was unable to acquire its language would have found it much more difficult to gain acceptance. Men, however, who remained in their own group would have had no need of the aptitude for the acquisition of a new language.

11d. Visual Memory and 

 Memory for Object Location  Females have better average visual memory and memory for object location than that of males reported as .66d in a study by Eals & Silverman (1994) and confirmed at .58d by Barnfield (1999), at .33d by Maylor, Reimers, Choi et al. (2007) and at .31d in a meta-analysis by Archer (2019). The likely evolutionary explanation for this is that in the evolutionary environment, women specialized in foraging and gathering plant foods and this would have favored the development of accurate memory for their locations. In addition, Kimura (1999, p. 51) suggested that the female advantage may be attributable to their ability to detect small changes in the home environment because “[i]f a predator or vermin entered the home, noticing displacements of objects in domestic space could help in detection of the intruder, and so contribute to survival”. 

11e. Spelling Ability  Females have higher average spelling ability than that of males of .50d in the American and of .24d in the British standardisation samples of adolescents on the DAT (Differential Aptitude Test) (Lynn, 1992). The female advantage in the British standardisation sample increased from .09d in 14-year-olds to .39d in 18-year-olds (Lynn, 1992). Arribas-Agula, Abad, & Colom (2019) reported data for a Spanish sample giving a female advantage in spelling ability in all ages from 12 (.19d) through 18 (.11d) with no significant age trend. The greater female spelling ability is likely attributable to the female advantage in visual memory that enables them better to visualize the shape of words and hence their spelling. 

11f. Perceptual and Processing Speed  Females have higher average ability in perceptual and processing speed assessed in tasks requiring “the ability to make rapid comparisons among a number of designs (letters, numbers or pictures)” (Kimura, 1999, p. 87) and the rapid encoding of abstract symbols (Estes, 1974). The female advantage in perceptual speed is shown in the 9 studies in the WISC-III, WISC-IV and WISC-V, given in Table 5.3.The female advantage in processing speed is shown in the 12 studies in the WAIS-111 and WAIS-1V with a median advantage of .12d, given in Table 5.5. The female advantage in perceptual speed is shown in the Clerical Speed and Accuracy Test in 14 to 18 year-old adolescents in the standardisation sample of the DAT (Differential Aptitude Test) of .48d in the United States (Lynn, 1992). In the British standardisation sample of the DAT (Differential Aptitude Test), the female advantage increased from .19d in 14-year-olds to .54d in 18-year-olds (Lynn, 1992). The female advantage is also present in the latent processing speed (Gs) factor in the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Keith, Reynolds, Patel & Ridley, 2008). Maitland et al. (2000) reported a study of sex differences in processing speed across the adult life span in three age categories of younger (22–49), middle-aged (50–63) and older (64–87). They found that women in the younger and middle-aged groups performed better than men in processing speed, and across all age groups, women performed better than men on verbal recall. 

11g. Reading Ability and Comprehension  Females have higher ability than males in reading ability and comprehension in a number of studies summarized by Halpern (2012, pp. 123f) and confirmed in America’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (Reilly, Neumann & Andrews, 2018) and in a meta-analysis of American studies at .19d by Petersen (2018). Higher female reading ability of .18d has also been found in a large sample of 149,465 German 9-year-olds by Loesche (2019). An expression of this advantage is that females have a lower prevalence of dyslexia than that of males (Arnett, Pennington, Peterson et al., 2017). The female advantage is probably a function of the greater female verbal ability given in section 11a. 

11h. Episodic Memory  Episodic memory consists of remembering past experiences such as what one did yesterday. A female advantage in most episodic memory tasks has been reported by Herlitz & Yonker (2002) and by Asperholm, Hogman, Rafi & Herlitz (2019) in a meta-analysis of 617 studies conducted between 1973 and 2013 with 1,233,921 participants. They reported a female advantage for more verbal tasks, such as words, sentences and prose, and for materials that cannot easily be placed along the verbal-spatial continuum, such as faces, odour, taste and colour, and a male advantage in more spatial tasks, such as abstract images. It has not proved possible to find studies on whether there are sex differences in episodic memory at different ages that would confirm or dis-confirm the developmental theory. The female advantage is likely attributable to the greater female verbal ability given in section 11a.

11i. Writing Ability  Females have higher writing ability than males in the United States in a review of the literature by Hedges & Nowell (1995) and confirmed by Willingham & Cole (1997) in a review of 24 large data sets (including several large representative samples of US students, working adults and military personnel) that concluded that girls performed better than boys in elementary school grades in writing and reading at fourth grade (d > 0.2), and by the end of high school, females performed better than males in writing (between .5 d and .6d). The female advantage was confirmed by Reynolds, Schreiber, Havjovsky et al. (2015) and again in the National Assessment of Educational Progress with an effect advantage of .55d among 17–18 year-olds (Reilly, Neumann & Andrews, 2018) and in a meta-analysis of American studies at .45d by Petersen (2018). These studies show that the female advantage in writing ability increases with age. The female advantage is likely attributable to the greater female verbal ability given in section 11a.

11j. Fine Motor Skills  A female advantage in fine motor skills in infants involving hand-eye coordination has been reported by Nagy, Kompagne, Orvos et al. (2007) and at older ages by Halpern (2012, p. 109). Kimura (1999, p. 37) suggested that the female advantage may be due to their better control of their fingers and in the ability to coordinate several movements into a unit, which also contributes to their advantage in perceptual and processing speed. There is no apparent evolutionary explanation for this female advantage. 

11k. Immediate Memory  Hedges & Newell (1995, Table 2) in their meta-analysis give a female advantage of .25d. However, immediate memory is measured by the digit span test in WISC and the WAIS tests and in these there is a negligible female advantage of .05d in the WISCs given in Table 5.4 and a negligible male advantage of .09d in the WAISs given in Table 5.6. 

11l. Vocabulary  It was stated by Kimura (1999, p. 91) that “[w]hen speaking first begins, girls on average articulate earlier and better than boys, and produce longer sentences. To the extent that they speak earlier, they also have larger working vocabularies at very young ages”. This contention is confirmed in studies reviewed in Chapter 3 that showed that in 4- or 5-year-olds, females have larger vocabularies than those of males. The majority of studies show that this female advantage ceases by the age of 6 years. This was confirmed by Lynn & Cheng (2021) in a study showing that girls obtained statistically significantly higher means on vocabulary at the ages of 3 and 5 years but not among 14-year-olds, as shown in Table 6.2. 

The evidence on this was reviewed more than half a century ago by Tyler (1965, p. 144), who concluded that “[o]n vocabulary, the sex groups have turned out not to differ significantly”. This conclusion has been confirmed in a number of subsequent studies. Hyde & Linn’s (1988) meta-analysis of 40 American studies gave a negligible female advantage of .02d. Hedges & Newell (1995, Table 2) in a subsequent meta-analysis gave a negligible male advantage of .02d. Salthouse (2004) gave a negligible male advantage of .03d, derived as the average of 33 studies of samples aged from 19 to 95 years, and more recently Hyde (2014) gave a negligible female advantage of .02d. All four of these results are effectively zero. This was confirmed in the American General Social Survey (2019) which gives a zero sex difference in the knowledge of 10 words in Wordsum. There was no sex difference in vocabulary in the United Kingdom in the standardisation samples of the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (mean age 12.5 years, d=.0; Raven, 2008a) and in a further sample on the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (mean age 10.5 years, d=.0; Raven, 2008b). 

There have been some contrary results. A study of a sample of 5,389 Nigerian public school students aged 11 to 19 years on the British Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale reported that females obtained a significantly higher score than males of .11d (Lynn & Hur, 2021). There have also been some studies that have reported larger vocabulary scores in males than in females. A large male advantage of .26d was reported on the norms (n=210) for adults aged 25 to 88 years on the Boston Naming Test (Tombaugh & Hubley, 1997). This test consists of 60 pictures of objects that have to be named in decreasing order of word frequency from “bed” to “abacus”. A small male advantage has been reported in Belgium on the Boston Naming Test (n=371, mean age 9 years, d=.08; Storms, Saerens & De Deyn, 2004) and in England in a sample on the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (n= 2000, mean age 9 years, d=.10; Dunstan & Roberts, 1955). In the vocabulary subtest of the Wechslers, males obtained negligibly higher median scores than females of .04d in the WPPSIs given in Table 5.1, of .01d in the WISCs given in Table 5.4, and of .09d given in Table 5.6. The sex differences reported in these studies are inconsistent and suggest that there is virtually no sex difference in vocabulary except in infants among whom girls have a larger average vocabulary than that of boys. There is no apparent evolutionary explanation for this female advantage in vocabulary in infants. It is likely an effect of the earlier maturation of girls.

11m. Social Cognition 

 and Emotional Intelligence  Social cognition is the ability to understand what other people are thinking and is a designated theory of mind. A female advantage in social cognition assessed by the ability to decode non-verbal cues was reported by Hall (1978) and by the ability to identify emotions by Thompson & Voyer (2014). Social cognition is associated with emotional intelligence, on which a meta-analysis by Joseph & Newman (2010) reported a female advantage of .47d. There is no apparent evolutionary explanation for this female advantage.

Richard Lynn 

Sex Differences in Intelligence ...

A Nation Undefended

 

Simon Sheppard

Birmingham, England, 21 June 2026. A solitary inebriated white lad is mobbed by black men, struck to the ground by two of them, and a female police officer rushes up and aggressively manhandles and arrests him. A second female police officer follows the black group to ask if they are alright. Police charged him with assaulting a police officer and “have no concerns over the officer’s actions.”

Who defends a nation? It’s not women, or children, or recently arrived immigrants. It is always the men who resist invasion and plunder. At certain times, men are called upon to become warriors.

So it makes sense that if alien forces seek to subdue a country, to take it over and exploit its resources, men would be the primary target. Incapacitate the men by modern, surreptitious methods such as psychological warfare (4GW) and practically all resistance is removed. Co-opt the institutions, and demean and traduce the males, emasculating them, and malevolent forces can progress unimpeded.

Recently I witnessed the sharp end of this, and detailed some of the travesties against men I encountered here. To illustrate, let me turn some tables, exchanging the sexes.

Consider cuckolding by women, a “sex offence” by definition. David Buss, probably the best-known evolutionary psychologist, has detailed that female extra-marital trysts tend to occur during the woman’s fertile period, when she is ovulating. Statistics involving DNA tests over more than a decade indicate that about 1 in 6 children in Britain have a different father than the one they believe. This is wrongdoing on a massive scale. Firstly the woman has broken what is supposed to be a solemn vow. Secondly and much more seriously, if she falls pregnant, a man is tricked into expending resources on a child which is not his. His responsibilities last from infancy to adulthood (and perhaps beyond), and those considerable financial and emotional investments arise from betrayal.

Suppose then that we were to apply the new standards to this crime, the standards which are currently being applied to men. That is, retroactively applying laws based on what are often dubious memories of events alleged to have occurred up to forty years previously. This, incidentally, is contrary to the Statute of Limitations if not the now abrogated British Constitution. Another class of “crimes” which are certainly contrary to Common Law is the new offences invoking what they think you intended to do, what you were thinking at the time, or your motivations, instead of what you actually did.

Suppose that the State were to DNA-test anyone under 40 to establish whether their mother had engaged in this deceit, and imprison the women for fraud if they had. This is comparable to what is being done to men, and men have been imprisoned for domestic violence even when their spouse has objected to the prosecution. Except that in this hypothetical but entirely feasible scenario, the crime would be proven scientifically and irrefutably, with DNA evidence.

Or, turning another table, imagine that the thousands of “asylum-seekers” arriving on British shores were not almost entirely composed of young, military-age men, but instead consisted of petite and feminine young women, from the Orient say. The female instinct is to intensify male breeding competition (selecting for fitness), but if the situation were reversed women would never countenance such competition. There would be no ranks of women holding “Refugees Welcome” signs and similar advocacy.

What a disaster the emancipation of Jews and women has been! It’s said that “Doing what’s popular is rarely doing what’s right, and doing what’s right is rarely popular” but giving women the vote in 1918 was neither right nor popular.

Female influence has led to a dearth of critical thinking and objectivity. Instead there is sycophantic woman-worship, with men expressing emotions which are overwhelmingly borrowed second-hand from women. Instead of caring wives and mothers we have women addicted to smartphones and fussing over dogs and cats. Instead of warriors we have simps pushing prams.

https://www.heretical.com/main.html#directory

The Signal - Guy de Maupassant

The petite marchioness of Rennedon was still asleep in her snug and scented bedroom. In her big, soft, low bed, under cambric fine as lace, light and caressing as a kiss, she was lying alone and peaceful, deep and happy in a divorcée’s sleep.

Voices woke her, raised in the little blue drawing-room, and she recognized her dear friend, the petite baroness of Grangerie, arguing with the chambermaid, who was barring the door of her mistress. So the petite marchioness rose, drew the bolts, turned the lock, opened the door, and pushed her head through, just her blonde head, half-hidden under a cloud of hair.

‘What’s going on?’ she asked. ‘Why are you here so early? It’s not even nine o’clock!’

The petite baroness, pale, nervous, upset, replied:

‘I must speak to you. A dreadful thing has happened.’

‘Well, come in, then, ma chérie.’

The baroness entered, the two women embraced, and the petite marchioness got back into bed while the chambermaid opened the windows, letting in air and light. When the maid had left, Madame de Rennedon said:

‘Go on, then, tell me what’s happened.’

Madame Grangerie started to cry, shedding those lovely transparent tears that make women even more attractive. She stammered, careful not to rub her eyes in case they reddened: ‘Oh! ma chère, it’s dreadful, dreadful, what’s happened to me! I didn’t sleep a minute last night, not a minute, you know, not a single minute. Look, feel my heart, see how it’s beating.’

And, taking her friend’s hand, she pressed it to her breast, that round firm shield of a woman’s heart, so satisfying to men that they often don’t bother with what’s beneath it. And yes, her heart was beating very hard. The baroness began to tell her story:

It happened yesterday... about four o’clock... or half past four, I can’t be sure. You know my flat well, you know that my little drawing-room, where I always sit, overlooks the Rue Saint-Lazare from the first floor. And you know how I love to sit at the window and watch the world go by. It’s so gay, the district around the station, so bustling, so alive... And I love that! Well, yesterday, I was sitting on the little chair that I’ve had put in the window-recess. The window was open and I was letting my thoughts wander, just enjoying the fresh air. You’ll remember how fine it was, yesterday!

Suddenly I notice that, on the other side of the street, there’s another woman at her window, a woman in red. I was in mauve myself, you know, wearing my pretty mauve dress. I didn’t know this woman, some new tenant, only there a month, and because it’s rained for a month, I hadn’t caught a glimpse of her before. But I realized suddenly that she was a tart. At first I was disgusted and shocked that she was there at her window like me, and then, bit by bit, I found it amusing to watch her. She was leaning on her elbows, watching out for men, and men were looking up at her, all or almost all of them. You’d have said that they were alerted by something as they approached the house, that they smelt something the way dogs smell game, because they raised their heads suddenly and very quickly exchanged a glance with her, like a kind of Masonic question-and-answer.

Her glance said: ‘Do you want it?’

Theirs answered: ‘Too busy!’ or: ‘Another time!’ or: ‘No money!’ or: ‘How dare you, you hussy!’ It was the eyes of respectable family men, making that last reply.

Well, you can’t imagine how droll it was to watch her having her fun, or rather plying her trade! Sometimes she suddenly closed the window and I saw a man going in through the door. She had reeled him in, that one, like an angler taking a fish. Then I started to check my watch. They stayed from twelve to twenty minutes, never more. She really fascinated me in the end, this spider-woman. And she wasn’t bad-looking either, you know.

I asked myself, how does she make herself so easily understood, so quickly, so completely? Does she make a movement with her head or hand as she looks at them?

So I lifted my opera-glasses to see how she did it. Oh! it was quite simple: first a glance, then a smile, then a very small movement of the head that asked: ‘Do you want to come up?’ But so small, so casual, so discreet, that it took a lot of skill to carry off like that.

And I asked myself: Could I do it as well as her, that tiny jerk of the head, both challenging and charming – because it was very charming, the way she did it.

So I went to try it in front of my mirror. Ma chère, I did it better than she did, much better! I was delighted, and I returned to sit at the window.

She wasn’t hooking anybody now, the poor girl, nobody at all. No, she was having no luck at all. How terrible it must be to earn money that way! Terrible, but entertaining too, because, you know, some of them aren’t so bad, the men you see in the street.

Now all of them were passing on my side, not a single one on hers. The sun had moved, you see. They came along one after another, young men, old men, dark, fair, grey, white.

I saw some very nice ones among them, very nice ones indeed, ma chère, much better than my husband, and than yours, your ex-husband that is, since your divorce. Now you can please yourself.

Well, I said to myself, if I made the signal to them, would they understand me, even though I’m a respectable woman? And suddenly I was seized by an insane longing to make the signal, oh such a longing, like one of those pregnant women get... a terrible longing, you know, one of those longings... that you just can’t resist! I have them sometimes like that, you know. It’s so stupid, isn’t it? I think we’re very like monkeys, we women. Someone once told me – it was a doctor who said it – that a monkey’s brain is very like ours. We always have to imitate somebody. We imitate our husbands, while we love them, in the first month after the marriage, and then our lovers after that, our friends, our confessors, when they’re good ones. We adopt their ways of thinking, their ways of talking, their words, their gestures, everything. It’s stupid.

Anyway, when I’m very tempted to do something, I always do it.

So I said to myself, let’s see, I’ll try it on one man, only on one, just to see. What could happen to me, after all? Nothing! We’ll exchange a smile, and that will be it, I’ll never see him again. And if I do see him again, he’ll not recognize me, and if he does recognize me, I’ll just deny that I know him. So I start looking out for the right man. I wanted one who was good-looking, very good-looking. Suddenly I see a big fair one, a very handsome young man. You know how I like the fair ones.

I look at him. He looks at me. I smile, he smiles; I make the gesture, oh so subtly, so very subtly. He nods at once and my God, he comes straight in, ma chérie! He comes right in by the main entrance of the flats! You can’t imagine what I felt right then! I thought that I’d go crazy! Oh! what a fright! Just think, he’d speak to the servants, to Joseph, who’s completely devoted to my husband! Joseph would certainly believe that I’d known this stranger for a long time. What could I do, tell me, what could I do? And he’d be ringing the bell very shortly, in the next instant! What could I do, tell me? I thought that it would be best to run and meet him, tell him that it was a mistake, beg him to go away. He’d have pity on a woman, on a poor helpless woman! So I rushed to the door and I opened it just as he was lifting his hand to the bell. I stammered, completely beside myself: ‘Please go away, monsieur, please go away, you’ve made a big mistake, I’m a respectable woman, a married woman! It’s all a mistake, a dreadful mistake, I thought you were one of my friends, you look so much like him. Have pity on me, monsieur!’

So he bursts out laughing, ma chère, and he says:

‘Well, darling! You know, I’ve heard that one before. You’re married, so you’ll charge two louis instead of one. Don’t worry, you’ll get them. Come on, show me the way.’

And in he pushed. He closed the door, and as I stood there, terrified, in front of him, he embraced me, took me by the waist and led me back into the drawing-room, whose door I’d left open.

Once he was in, he had a look around, just like an auctioneer, and said: ‘Well, this isn’t bad, your set-up, it’s very smart. You must be short of cash at the moment to play the window game!’ And me, I started to beg again: ‘Oh! monsieur, please go away, please go away! My husband will be back soon! He’ll be back very soon, he always arrives at about this time! I swear to you that you’ve made a mistake!’

And he replied calmly: ‘Come on, beautiful, enough of that. If your husband comes back, I’ll give him hundred sous to pop across the way for a drink.’

Then he sees Raoul’s photograph on the mantelpiece and asks: ‘Is that him, then, your husband?’

‘Yes,’ I said. ‘That’s him.’

‘He doesn’t look up to much. And that girl there, who is it? One of your friends?’

It was your photograph, ma chère, you know that one of you in a ball-gown. I didn’t know what I was saying any more, I just stammered, ‘Yes, it’s one of my friends.’

‘She’s very nice. You’ll have to introduce us.’

And right then the clock started to strike five o’clock, and Raoul comes back every day at half past! If he came back before the other left, well, think of it! So... so... I lost my head... completely lost it... I thought... I thought... what... what the best way... was... of... of... getting rid of him as... as quickly as possible... The sooner it was over with... you understand... and... and well... well... since he had to have it... he had to, ma chère... and he wouldn’t have left without it... Well, I... I... I bolted the door of the drawing-room... And that was it.

When she stopped speaking, the petite marchioness of Rennedon burst out laughing, laughing madly, her head buried in her pillow, making the whole bed shake. When she had recovered a little, she asked:

‘And... and... he was a good-looking lad?’

‘Yes.’

‘Then what are you complaining about?’

‘But... but... look, ma chère, it’s like this... he said... that he’d come back tomorrow... at the same time. And I’m... I’m out of my mind with worry... You’ve no idea how determined he is... and how strong-willed... So what can I do, tell me, what on earth can I do?’

The petite marchioness sat up in her bed to think it over, then she said abruptly:

‘Have him arrested.’

The petite baroness was astonished. She stammered:

‘How? What do you mean? What are you thinking of? Have him arrested? On what pretext?’

‘Oh, it’s quite simple! You go to the chief of police and tell him that some man has been following you about for three months, that he was brazen enough to come to your flat yesterday, that he threatened to come again tomorrow, so you’re asking for the protection of the law. You’ll be given two policemen to arrest him.’

‘But, ma chère, if he spills the beans...’

‘He won’t be believed, you silly thing, after you’ve got your story straight with the chief of police. You’ll be the credible one, you’re a respectable woman, without a stain on your name.’

‘Oh! I wouldn’t dare.’

‘You’ll have to, ma chère, or you’re in big trouble.’

‘But just think what he’ll do... he’ll say what I got up to... when he’s arrested.’

‘So what? You’ll have plenty of witnesses for your good character and you can get a court order against him.’

‘What kind of court order?’

‘He’ll have to pay damages. In a case like this, you have to be merciless!’

‘Oh, yes, speaking of damages.... there’s something that’s worrying me a lot.... a lot, you know... He left me... two louis... on the mantelpiece.’

‘Two louis?’

‘Yes.’

‘That was all?’

‘Yes.’

‘It’s not much. I’d have been humiliated by that. Well?’

‘Well, what should I do with the money?’

The petite marchioness hesitated a few seconds, then answered in a serious voice:

‘Ma chère... You’ll have to... you’ll have to... buy a little gift for your husband... It would only be just, after what’s gone on.’

Charles Darwin on the inferiority of women

Woman, owing to her maternal instincts, displays these qualities towards her infants in an eminent degree; therefore it is likely that she would often extend them towards her fellow-creatures. Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness. These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright. It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison.

Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,– that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,– from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, 1874, pp. 858, 859-860.




      

How to Destroy Feminism, "Root & Branch"

 

It is well within our power.

Janice Fiamengo’s devastating new expose of feminism occasions some thoughts about how we might act upon her insistence that feminism is beyond reform or redemption and that it must be, as she says, “destroyed, root and branch”.

And if Dr Fiamengo’s book is not occasion enough, the trial of Lindsay Clancy for the gruesome murders of her own children — and perhaps even more, the chilling, mass-psychotic endorsement of those acts by both feminists (predictably) and millions of women under their influence — would seem to make the elimination of this deadly ideology an urgent imperative.

Dr Fiamengo’s scathing indictment of feminism sits atop mountains of less articulate discontent and legitimate anger. Even before the Clancy trial, the internet generally and the “manosphere” in particular were exploding with debates, arguments, and yes, enormous amounts of pointless chatter — all attesting to the ongoing breakdown of families, marriage, courtship, dating, sex, childbearing, childrearing, “relationships” generally between not only the sexes but also the generations, and finally, as she puts it, “civilization itself”. And now we might extend the list to basic human decency. This fear and anger proceeds from the growing realization that almost all of it results from feminist ideology.

Yet amid the growing consensus that feminism is a plague on our society, I also detect unbroken pessimism about the prospects that we can ever hope to rid ourselves of it. It is the most hazardous agenda of the left to criticize, and so hardly any effective opposition exists. From the quarters where we most expect resistance — conservatives and churches, for example — we find not only silence but active collaborators.

Dr Fiamengo herself refrains from offering solutions, and elsewhere she has expressed doubts about how to put an end to it. Others who attribute impending civilizational collapse to feminism are likewise at a loss to offer much hope. Another harsh academic critic of feminism, Dr Danielle Sulikowski (likewise recently interviewed on The Mansplainers), whose intriguing anthropological theory attributes civilizational decline to dysfunctional, feminist-inspired sexual dynamics, often ends her video interviews saying she sees no hope in checking the trends she describes and admits she can offer no remedies.

All this comes alongside a broader consensus that is now emerging in many fields of public affairs, perhaps most notably international politics, that contemplates the catastrophic decline of western global hegemony and even western civilization itself — predictions likewise frustratedly devoid of solutions. Seldom does this larger consensus connect the decline to sexual trends such as feminism (at least not openly), but the final result is the same.

So, can we really be rid of this pestilence?

Yes, and it is actually simple; it may even happen without our conscious or active effort. Feminism can be eradicated, unlike the way it imposes itself, without resorting to authoritarian measures or censorship or infringing anyone’s personal freedom.

It is true that little will be achieved by traditional political methods: voting, letter-writing, lobbying, litigation. Nor by engaging with the vast, largely feminine media industry catering to feminists and conveying chit-chat about “relationships”, he-said/she-said, celebrity gossip, other gossip, and similar self-indulgences.

Fortunately, the chatter is now superfluous. Janice has exposed the horrors of feminism — radical, liberal, “moderate”, socialist, the lot. Armed with this book, and a few others like it (many of which she cites),¹ the rest of us can concentrate our energy on using the power men still possess, not to complain about the problem but, as men have always done, to solve it.

What Is Needed

Breaking the back of feminism requires that men regain control of the two things that give women and feminists power: sex and children. Men can exercise their natural leadership role and free themselves, women, and their societies from the feminist-driven trainwreck by taking back their authority over the two things that naturally “empower” women and give feminists the leverage to inflict their tyranny over men and the rest of the society: sexuality and the reproductive system. These were the first things that feminists learned to control before they came to control, as Fiamengo shows, almost everything else.

Once men regain control over these two things, everything else will fall into place. Men’s secondary grievances will be easier to rectify. We can then all resume normal lives: finding mates, raising families, rebuilding our deteriorating civilization. We can even once again (strange as it may be to say) entrust children to the care of women.

Here Is How

So how do men regain their control over sex and reproduction? The first is relatively easy and provides the means to the second. In fact, many men have already embarked on this path without realizing it. They just need to do so with more determination and purpose.

Men can regain control over the terms of sex just like women do: by withholding it; by sexual self-control. This is already being provided spontaneously by the Marriage Strike: men’s impromptu boycott of marriage, families, and women generally. This is the larger importance of MGTOW, “incels”, and healthy versions of demands for male self-reliance. This trend is already starting to bite, which is why feminists and tradcons are so annoyed by it.

This in turn provides the leverage men need to re-establish iron-clad rights and authority over their children. Prior to the modern state’s quasi-totalitarian intrusion into private family life, this authority could just be assumed, not only by law, but simply through superior male strength. Nowadays, under the overweening state that effectively supersedes and neuters that strength, it is called “custody”, and it is bestowed by overmighty functionaries, from whom it can be re-acquired only by influencing or controlling the state power, which means taking it back from women and feminized men. Men must therefore use the leverage they are now steadily acquiring from the Marriage Strike to single-mindedly demand custodial authority over all children born within a legally binding marriage contract.

But demands must be backed by strength. Enough women can be persuaded to surrender their monopoly over reproduction, and even enlist themselves as allies to enact laws restoring paternal authority – but only if they are deprived of husbands and male attention for a time. Men exercising sufficient sexual self-control to boycott marriage and families are building the leverage they need to regain control over the reproductive system.

Those with public voices must be the ones to make clear to the world — including women, tradcons, churches, media, and the judicial/bureaucratic authorities — that these are the terms that men demand before they will return to engagement with women, mating, reproduction, and the rest. And they are the terms for resolving those manifestations of the crisis that agitate even the political class and mainstream media: birth dearth, fatherlessness, crime, shootings, plus many more ills from which they avert their eyes and hold their tongues but that lie within our power to remedy.

These conditions are not my opinion. The existing trend shows that they are a matter of objective fact.

Scolding and nagging and demonizing men are pointless. Nothing will change until the injustices of the custody machine are rectified. Change the laws and clean up the courts, and women — along with men, and children, and entire societies — will once again have families, along with the blessings and benefits that accrue from them: an abundance of happy and well-adjusted (and safe) offspring, social stability, law-and-order, economic prosperity, political freedom, constitutional rights, an enduring civilization.

Once men regain their authority over reproduction, feminism will wither. The cat women can still rant on about “inequality,” “wage gaps,” “male violence,” even “reproductive rights”, and whatever petty “unfairness” they care to concoct (“himpathy”? “gender washing”?), but no one will care. With fathers firmly ensconced as heads of their families, the cat women can no longer recruit massive numbers of teenage girls, and they will gradually age out of the population.

Is that not a pleasant thought?

1
An important virtue of this book is that Fiamengo is a professional scholar and cites sources. This is important not only for fairness but because it establishes a body of literature and shows the world that she did not dream all this up last week. Unlike our Tweets, this book and its documentation does not join a gazillion others out there in cyberspace. Politicians, judges, media, other scholars cannot dismiss it as some passing fad. Fiamengo cites a rich body of high-quality literature, published in mainstream publications and going back at least three decades, much of which is in danger of being forgotten. Some authors sacrificed enormously for their honesty, and some were so burned that they turned to other topics and never looked back: University of Arizona psychologist Sanford Braver’s book on divorced fathers; Helen Smith on the Marriage Strike; Melanie Phillips’ scathing book on gender politics; Cathy Young’s numerous articles on fathers and feminism, including a cover story in the The American Spectator; Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young’s books on misandry; plus more recent authors like William Collins, author of The Empathy Gap. She also cites my books, especially Taken Into Custody, where I likewise try to cite the many brave scholars and journalists who risked and often sacrificed their careers to challenge the injustices against fathers and children: Daniel Amneus on father custody; John Waters, who used (and gave up) his post on the mainstream Irish Times to expose the injustices; Kathleen Parker, who wrote a good book on men before being bought off by a cushy job at the Washington Post; Donna Laframboise’s series of exposes of domestic violence shelters in another mainstream newspaper; Canadian Senator Anne Cools’ outspoken criticisms of feminism; anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly, who single-handedly defeated the Equal Right Amendment and who valiantly took up the cause of fathers against resistance from her own organization. (I know I have omitted some who deserve mention.)

Links in the original article

StephenBaskerville.com

Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood

 

A Note on Jews and Feminism

My recent review of Janice Fiamengo’s The Goddess that Failed cited her summary of a study by four Israeli social psychologists of a personality trait they called “TIV,” or the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. Fiamengo considered it valuable as a description of a kind of woman frequently met with in feminist circles, and I agree. I also noted in my review that the Israeli origin of the researchers might not be an accident: readers of this site are familiar with the salience of victimhood within the self-concept of many Jews. I did not explore this question in the review, because I wished to keep the focus on Prof. Fiamengo’s ideas, but will try to address it briefly here.

Here, as a reminder, is Fiamengo’s summary of the TIV type:

Passionate belief in one’s victimhood creates an identifiable personality type, one that ruminates on grievance and interprets all experiences through the victimhood lens. Belief in victimhood need have no correlation with actual experience of victimization. The victim personality is characterized above all by a strong need to have one’s suffering recognized. With this need comes a conviction of immaculate morality, a resulting inability to accept criticism or disagreement, and a profound lack of empathy for those perceived as enemies. The researchers also found that people with a victim personality believe themselves justified in taking revenge on those who appear to oppress them. Even when presented with facts and evidence to rebut their beliefs, they are unwilling to relinquish their worldview, which becomes intimately associated with their sense of self. Anger at others and the belief in innocent victimhood create a toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness.

A look at the original paper by the Israeli psychologists (which can be read here)* reveals that the ethnic angle did not escape the authors’ attention. They refer explicitly to the cult of the holocaust, and recognize that it can represent a moral hazard for their own people by way of the TIV personality. Good for them: we all know what epithet would have been assigned to any gentile researcher bold enough to make the same point.

Group differences are statistical, and the TIV personality presumably occurs at different rates in different races and ethnicities. It is likely to be elevated among Jews, although it would probably be futile to expect any objective research on this question in our current cultural and intellectual environment. But the TIV type can and does occur within other races.

Indeed, much group conflict over the past forty years has been aptly described as a “victimhood sweepstakes” wherein not only Jews and feminists but blacks, homosexuals, the handicapped, and other identity groups competitively jockey for moral authority by signaling their victimhood. The only group not allowed to participate in the sweepstakes—White, heterosexual, able-bodied men—are by now a distinct minority of the American population (possibly a third). So the increasing prominence of the personality type described by these Israeli researchers would seem to help explain many aspects of our historical moment, and not just feminism or Jewish-gentile conflict.

Anyone who writes against feminism as I do eventually encounters the thesis that it is all simply a product of Jewish subversion, often backed up with long lists of prominent Jewish second-wave feminists. Here is a popular graphic currently doing the rounds on the internet that embodies this thinking: (under the text)

This view is historically myopic: it requires that one’s familiarity with feminism be limited to the American second wave, usually dated from 1963. But feminist ideas have been widely circulating in the West since the eighteenth century, and not only in the form of Mary Wollstonecraft’s celebrated tract. A review of long-forgotten German debates for and against the “emancipation of women” in the 1780s and -90s, for example, reveal that there is not much novel in twentieth century feminism (cf. Klaus Epstein’s The Genesis of German Conservatism pp. 229–236). Indeed, we have plentiful evidence that similar ideas were discussed in ancient Athens, as witness book 5 of Plato’s Republic and Aristophanes’ comedy The Assemblywomen. Western man did not need the Jews to invent feminism for us.

It remains true, however, that Jews have been massively overrepresented in second wave feminism—by far the most successful version, as they have been in other forms of twentieth-century radicalism, and this calls for explanation. A good place to start might be the work of the above-discussed Israeli psychologists on the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. If Jews are indeed especially susceptible to this “toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness,” it would explain much of their involvement in destructive movements such as feminism without our having to assume the existence of a conscious conspiracy to subvert alien races.

* https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/2020-gabay.pdf

F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

Women can destroy any society to which they belong simply by refusing to be wives and mothers

 

Second Thoughts from an Ex-Feminist

The Goddess that Failed: Feminism’s Unending War Against Men, Families, and Civilization Itself

Janice Fiamengo
New English Review Press, 2026

Janice Fiamengo, born 1964, is a retired professor of English at the University of Ottawa. Entering the academy as an impressionable young woman in the 1980s, her initial acceptance of feminism must have been almost a foregone conclusion: “I have felt its euphoric exultation and its self-flattering conviction of moral purity,” she admits. She studied all the standard feminist texts and for many years took the validity of their analysis for granted. But The Goddess that Failed is not her personal story. However her disillusionment came about, she began speaking out against the movement in 2012. Her work can be followed online at The Fiamengo File. https://substack.com/@fiamengofile

The author does not blunt her message with any assumption that there must originally have been a good, moderate, or reasonable feminism that was later hijacked, betrayed, or taken to excess by wayward followers. She reminds us, for example, that the campaign for women’s suffrage in the United Kingdom over a century ago escalated from heckling politicians and smashing shop windows to arson attacks on homes and churches. Some suffragettes concocted letter bombs out of phosphorous and sulfuric acid. One threw a hatchet at Prime Minister Asquith:

Through all the destruction of property, threat to livelihoods, and physical harm to innocent bystanders, the suffragettes saw themselves as sacrificial heroines. Like many terrorists, they envisioned their cause as pure enough to justify nearly any level of violence…. They were successful in their campaign at least in part because the men they castigated as villains couldn’t bear to deal firmly with their maudlin claims and dangerous acts.

Fiamengo knows that a crucial element in feminism’s success has been the strong natural bias in favor of women that characterizes both sexes: a synergy between female in-group preference and the male protective instinct. There has been some objective research on this timeless phenomenon. In 1994, for example, psychologists Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic reported that both male and female research subjects were more likely to ascribe positive traits to women than to men, with the bias measurably stronger in women; they christened this the “women-are-wonderful” effect. Later studies found women’s in-group bias four and a half times stronger than men’s. In 2019 British psychologists Martin Seager and John Barry developed the concept of “Gamma bias” to describe “unconscious prejudice against men and boys,” as observed in the tendency of both men and women to sympathize more with women than men.

Such studies are valuable, but as with much of social psychology, they merely confirm something that has always been widely known: men are expected to put the needs of women and children first. As Fiamengo points out, feminists could never have achieved the success they have if men were remotely similar to the selfish brutes they depict. Even half a century of feminist fury has been unable to do away with men’s natural bias in women’s favor.

The other side of male bias in women’s favor is what the author calls “the empathy gap”—the often-shocking inability or unwillingness of many women to empathize with male suffering. She recounts that after the sinking of the Titanic, a group of women survivors organized to build a memorial to the men who had sacrificed themselves in the women’s favor:

Some feminists refused gratitude, noting that men had built the ship and therefore could be expected to take their lumps when it proved faulty. Some proclaimed with fury that women suffered daily under men’s cruelty; a single day of suffering and death paled by comparison.

During the First World War, thousands of British women participated in a mass-shaming ritual of their menfolk, accosting any man they found in civilian clothing to present him with a white feather as a symbol of his cowardice. They accompanied the gesture with rehearsed speeches making clear their furious contempt: “Why don’t you fellows enlist? Your King and Country want you. We don’t.” This went on for the entire duration of the war, and feathers were even given to wounded men on leave or underage boys. One sixteen-year-old was so mortified by the bullying that he lied about his age in order to enlist and was promptly killed. Fiamengo also mentions an officer awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery; that same day he changed into civilian clothes only to be given a white feather by some female passers-by: “He accepted without a word and, as a curiosity, put it with his V.C. He remarked to a friend that he was probably the only man who ever received on the same day emblems of bravery and cowardice.” The man later died at the front.

Such attitudes continue to this day, as feminists brag online about “bathing in male tears” and exult over various instances of male suffering.

The similarities between feminism and Marxism have long been noted: indeed, as far back as 1884, Friedrich Engels explicitly drew a parallel between wives and the oppressed proletariat. Most importantly, feminism shares the Marxist mental gestalt whereby society is envisaged in terms of conflicting innocent and guilty groups. As Fiamengo observes, this leaves feminism unable to affirm any universal principles of justice: “it is incapable of extending empathy to whose it has been taught to see as oppressors” or “of demanding accountability from those it has been taught to see as victims.” Because of this inability, “one of feminism’s biggest lies has been its declared aim to overthrow traditional Western gender arrangements in order to liberate men as well as women into an equal partnership.”

This last remark is a useful reminder: in the more optimistic days of early “second wave” feminism, back in the 1970s, the movement did indeed claim to seek the liberation of men as well as women from traditional arrangements. Female careerism, e.g., would supposedly ease the burden upon husbands to be sole providers for their families. Such talk has now largely disappeared.

The parallel with Marxism is instructive here as well. Officially, socialist revolution was supposed to liberate the bourgeoisie as well as the working class from the “alienation” that characterizes capitalism. The sons of capitalists would one day join hands with the sons of the proletariat in order to build the classless society of the future, and the unfortunate but necessary stage of “merciless class struggle” would barely survive as a memory. But Marxist practitioners such as Lenin quickly became too preoccupied with killing the class enemy to worry much about healing him of his capitalist alienation.

A similar development can be observed in feminism as well: an involuntarily divorced husband would not make much headway in family court by appealing to the supposed feminist goal of reducing his burdens as a provider. “The last thing aimed at by feminism,” Fiamengo notes, “is the liberation of men from their traditional roles and obligations.” Feminists alternate opportunistically between their explicit egalitarian ideology and appeals to traditional notions of male duty; logical consistency is not important to them.

For this reason, close analysis of feminist doctrine is perhaps of less use in making sense of the movement than a look at the psychological rewards it provides to adherents. A relevant 2020 study involving researchers from America and—perhaps not accidentally—Israel identifies what it calls “TIV,” the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood, as a stable personality trait involving a chronic, deep-seated feeling of being a victim across many different relationships and situations. Fiamengo summarizes:

Passionate belief in one’s victimhood creates an identifiable personality type, one that ruminates on grievance and interprets all experiences through the victimhood lens. Belief in victimhood need have no correlation with actual experience of victimization. The victim personality is characterized above all by a strong need to have one’s suffering recognized. With this need comes a conviction of immaculate morality, a resulting inability to accept criticism or disagreement, and a profound lack of empathy for those perceived as enemies. The researchers also found that people with a victim personality believe themselves justified in taking revenge on those who appear to oppress them. Even when presented with facts and evidence to rebut their beliefs, they are unwilling to relinquish their worldview, which becomes intimately associated with their sense of self. Anger at others and the belief in innocent victimhood create a toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness.

Fiamengo notes that many young women experience something like a religious conversion upon “finding” feminism: “adherents feel washed clean, reborn, filled with purpose and zeal…. All of life’s dissatisfactions make sense and can be blamed on the oppressive system. Nothing is one’s own fault.”



Caption on Fiamengo’s website: Feminism Cannot Be Reformed

Obviously, not all women are feminists. American conservatives have long taken comfort from the well-attested finding that a majority of women express reservations about the label. But all radical movements involve a small, hard core and a far larger and fuzzier periphery, and feminism’s periphery now extends deeply into Western society. Fiamengo writes that, while she tries to maintain the distinction between women and feminists, this can sometimes be difficult.

A 2020 Pew poll found that only 19% of American women say the term feminist describes them “very well,” but another 42% say it describes them “somewhat well.” So that makes 61% unwilling to distance themselves from feminism unambiguously. A closer examination of the other 39% would probably reveal plenty of feminist influence as well. As the author notes, most women now take for granted that they belong to a “historically oppressed group,” and accept as a matter of course that special legal protections and government programs should promote their advancement and well-being. People cannot be marinated in an ideology their entire lives without coming to believe that at least some of its claims must be true. Fiamengo also mentions the phenomenon of “confirmation bias:” applying a feminist lens when viewing the world helps one see evidence supporting it while screening out contradictory information.

The author is under no illusions that feminism can be reformed:

Even today, half a century after the implementation of equity hiring programs as well as ceaseless female empowerment campaigns in schools and universities, many women are still angry and many men still trying to make amends. It must be stopped. We will never reach a point where feminists decide to call off the gender war, accepting that men have done enough for them. There will never come a point where the suffering of boys and men matters more to feminists than their own power.

Women can destroy any society to which they belong simply by refusing to be wives and mothers. Feminism brings such a refusal about by directly undermining women’s ability to love. No less than other hostile forces discussed on this website, it is a deadly threat to European Civilization.

F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.
From replays:

StrathClydesays

I’ve studied this issue for a few years and have come to a few conclusions.
Firstly, as the authoress of the book states, there is no ‘correct’ Feminism. Feminism in all it’s guises and methods is a disease. But it’s also a disease caused by a precedent.
Secondly, it is incorrect to lay the blame for Feminism at only the doorstep of the Jews. As with many ‘issues’ of our age, the soil was first ripe for it’s poisoning. Beginning in the 19th century, men of the West began the process of becoming feminized. We advanced our civilization and societies too fast. Treitschke, was one of a number of commentators writing in the end of the 19th century who complained of it in his time and place. This feminization of the White race was enormously exacerbated in Europe in particular by the dysgenic processes caused by two fratricidal world wars. These were wars the scale of which had no precedent, and as such, the dysgenic results also has no precedent in terms of scale (though there were precedednts in a smaller scale following, for example, Greece [5th cent. BC] and Rome’s own [1st cent. BC] fratricidal wars). British-Italian social philosopher Anthony M. Ludovici wrote of it extensively following the First World War (see ‘Man: An Indictment'[1927] and Woman: A Vindication'[1929]). David S. Jordan’s book, ‘War and The Breed’, written specifically on the topic of the dysgenic cost of the industrial slaughter of the First World War is also very much worth reading.
Thirdly, and directly connected to the above, women did not simply ‘adopt’ Feminism and declare war on men. Women are built as reactive creatures, and throughout the entire history of civilization, men have always been the tone-setters, the arbiters. Or at least, they’re meant to be. But Nature deplores a vacuum. The men became feminized, lost too many of the old masculine qualities, the women became masculinized and – most crucially – the women (at the collective-unconscious level) subtly lost respect for their menfolk.
Lastly, the most profound conclusion I have come to is that Feminism and many other aspects of recalcitrant behaviour exhibited by females (“the women are out of control”) are all efforts towards provoking men in order to elicit a response from men that may befit the default masculine nature of their ancestors – one of God’s/Nature’s great attempts at ‘resetting’ for the sake of returning to a healthier equilibrium. The problem – for many, many decades now – is that men have not been responding the way women/Nature/God would prefer and have instead been accomodating women’s displeasing unwomanly behaviours (the ‘tests’) and worse, giving them more extensive opportunities to displace us and undermine masculinity that remains in our civilization.
The women give the ‘tests’, but the men have been failing them, again and again and again (“Refugees Welcome”). The modern phenomenon of White women actively seeking out new arrivals right off the boats (often at cost of their lives – proof they are acting at an unconscious level) is a classic example of this GOADING that I am talking about. These women – unconsciously, making use of the ‘skills’ gifted to her by nature/God, are trying to provoke a reaction from the menfolk by using the interlopers as pychological weapons; they are trying to trigger a reaction that would result in the resetting of the national fabric to a status that is more conducive to a safer, healthier and more beneficial state for all the natives through extirpation of the interlopers. But the men are not doing this and the women willc keep performing these ‘tests’ until the men finally colectively respond, respond in a manner that is strictly exclusive of the trends of modernity or the wishes of foreigners. In their soul, Womankind understands that it’s the menfolk who determine the course of civilzation and whether the race thrives & multiplies or declines and dies out.
“The women are out of control” Because the men have lost the will to control them.
Feminism is more about men than women.

F. Roger Devlin:

I agree that women are unconsciously hoping for us to take charge and restrain them. But this is difficult when doing so is considered “violence against women” and gets you jailed. So many men are simply shunning them altogether instead.

 https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

Summary of Traits of a Reviling Wife

It would be helpful to see a list of common traits of the Reviling Wife.  Of course, there is a certain caution that needs to be exercised in lists and bullet points.  If you have read this far, however, you understand that this list is not given in isolation from all that precedes it.  Please remember the context in which these are given and do not use these points in isolation from more detailed explanations elsewhere in this book. The common traits are:

Control  >  Perhaps there is no trait more pervasive in the Reviling Wife than this one.  She insists on her husband thinking a certain way, agreeing with her about certain issues, and not resisting her plans.  In Ecclesiastes 7:26 it is pointed out that there are some women with whom is it “more bitter than death” to be “ensnared by them.” Nearly every single husband whom I have counseled would say that living with their reviling, shrewish wife is more painful than death itself.  In fact, most wished death upon themselves.  Though this passage is probably making reference to a woman who lures men into sexual sin, the principle would seem to apply to any woman who wishes to control her husband.  On the other hand, most wives who are reviling and abusive are also going to sexually control their husbands (see below). 

Intimidation >  Since the Reviling Wife is usually not bigger or stronger than her husband, she will resort to verbal intimidation.  Most wives can talk circles around men and men will often simply withdraw and retreat rather than fight.  The Reviling Wife loves this since this increases her ability to control him. 

Dictatorial >  The Reviling Wife will be extremely demanding and not allow herself to be held accountable.  She will dictate “how” her husband leads the home—it must be the way that she herself wants it to be.  So in essence, she is leading the family and she refuses to follow the husband’s leadership.  A husband who has no one to follow him cannot function as a leader. 

Seared Conscience > (See 1 Timothy 4:2; 2 Timothy 3:7). She lacks empathy and appears to have no conscience.  She feels no guilt over her cruel and reviling speech.  She never apologizes and never asks forgiveness for what she has done wrong. 

Sex is a Weapon  > Denying the husband of sex, or using it to “get him back under control” (1 Corinthians 7:5).  One wife refused to have sex with her husband for the last 4 years of their marriage and then she divorced him since he refused to submit to her controlling ways.  In fact she was so repulsed by him that she would not even allow him to hold her hand.  By contrast, another would speak unspeakably harsh and cruel things with her husband and then seduce him into bed.  She would act as if she hadn’t said anything harsh or hostile to her husband.  In both cases, the wife is trying to “gain control” of her husband—either through denial or through seduction.  Another wife said, “I will have sex with you if you…” Anything after the words “if” are coercive and manipulative and evil. 

Bitter > This has been covered in depth earlier.  She is seething in anger and unwilling to forgive and even unwilling to overlook things that are not in the “sin” category. 

Hyper-sensitive  > The Reviling Wife is sensitive about things said about her, but completely insensitive when she says things to others (Proverbs 12:16; 29:11; 14:17; 14:29; 15:18; 29:22; Ecclesiastes 7:9) 

Lack of Submission  >  an unwillingness to follow, despite her protests that she is a “submissive wife” and believes in male headship.  She is not and does not. 

Hypocrisy > The Reviling Wife will demand certain behavior and a certain standard from her husband, but she herself will refuse to hold herself to even a remotely similar standard.  She will yell and scream at the husband, and he will patiently listen to her.  But then when he loses his temper even one time, she will cry, or tell others how cruel he is to her, or accuse him of things of which she herself is guilty.  Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 2:1-3 describe her perfectly. 

Meddles >  (See Proverbs 26:17; 1 Timothy 5:13). The Reviling Wife will see herself as the one who fixes problems in other people’s lives—even towards those who do not welcome her involvement.  Yet she will not take care of obvious “logs” in herself (Matthew 7:1-5). 

Lacks Friends  > Often a Reviling Wife will not have any female friends.  She is so caustic and harsh that she probably acts this way towards other women, not just her own husband.  Other women will typically make excuses for not spending time with her, or going out to lunch with her, or becoming close friends with her.  She offends most people that she meets, and then complains how cold these other women are towards her.

The Abusive Wife

Ministering to the Contentious Woman

 David D. Edgington, PhD

Feminism The Ugly Truth

 FOREWORD

This book details many radical feminist myths and barefaced lies, and explores the damage radical feminism has wrought on relationships and the family in our Western world. It often does this with some humour, but its message is very serious. 

Like so many women of my age I became involved in the very early days of the newly emerging women’s movement and I would have called myself an ‘equity’ feminist. I was interested in making sure that men and women could compete with each other on a level playing field. Radical feminists are now – as they were then – different from the majority of feminists, and they’re highly unrepresentative of women in general. They hate men and they want equality of gender outcomes at any cost, regardless of what men and women choose to do in their personal and working lives.

I was rapidly disillusioned when I recognised that the women’s movement was never meant to be a movement for most women. It was an attempt by militant women in the Marxist movement to wrest power from men and to create a movement of their own. They simply moved the political goalposts and instead of capitalism being the enemy it was now patriarchy i.e. all men. It didn’t take them long to hijack the entire domestic violence debate and use the money to fill their coffers and state that ‘all women are victims of male violence.’

Mike Buchanan is a very brave man. I’ve known other men who’ve tried to draw the public’s attention to the damage done by the radical feminist movement. Many lost their jobs and none of them were able to find publishers for their books. Men have been thrown out of their own houses and unjustly accused of domestic violence towards their partners, and some of sexually abusing their children. The legitimate interests of men in Western society have been systematically assaulted by radical feminists, as this book explains.

Men are starting to campaign more effectively for their interests, though they still have a long way to go before they halt the tide of feminist influence, let alone start to reverse it.

Feminists can expect more challenges from another quarter. With every year that passes, more women are becoming aware of the damage that men-hating and family-hating feminists have wrought (and continue to wreak) on society in general, and on women’s interests in particular. An increasing number of women are summoning up the courage to openly criticise feminists. This shouldn’t surprise us, given that the vast majority of women don’t share the feminists’ political ideology.

How much more damage will radical feminists be allowed to wreak before they’re more widely recognised as the evil women they are? 

Erin Pizzey

London, 23 January 2012

Erinpizzey.com

MISANDRY (THE HATRED OF MEN)

Feminism cannot exist without blaming and demonising men. It needs to spread misandry as a necessary device to justify its existence. Misandry is the fuel that drives the feminist ideology and agenda, and keeps its Grievance Gravy-Train Industries in business.

Swayne O’Pie Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism (2011)

Misandry has been well documented in the modern era, most notably in a series of books by two academics at McGill University in Canada, Paul Nathanson and Katherine K Young. The first two in the series were Spreading Misandry (2001) and Legalizing Misandry (2006). Both are well worth reading.

I covered the topic of misandry at some length in The Glass Ceiling Delusion and I didn’t plan to return to it in this book. But just two months after that book’s publication in July 2011 a book focusing on the topic of misandry, within the context of feminism, came to my attention. It was written by the British writer Swayne O’Pie and titled Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism. Despite the title, the content will be of interest to readers across the developed world. The book is currently available to order only in the UK, but I understand from the publisher that it will shortly be made available internationally in both paperback and ebook editions. 

The remainder of this chapter is drawn from Why Britain Hates Men with the writer’s kind permission. He shares my opinion of David Cameron, the current British prime minister, a very unconservative leader of the Conservative Party, the senior partner in the coalition currently in power.

LAY OFF MEN,

LESSING TELLS FEMINISTS

(The Guardian, 14 August 2001: Fiachra Gibbons)

Doris Lessing, who became a feminist icon with the books The Grass is Singing and The Golden Notebook, said a ‘lazy and insidious’ culture had taken hold within feminism that revelled in flailing men. Young boys were being weighed down with guilt about the crimes of their sex, she told the Edinburgh book festival.

‘I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed’, the 81-year-old Zimbabwean-born writer said yesterday.

‘I was in a class of nine- and ten-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls fat with complacency and conceit, while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.’

Lessing said that the teacher ‘tried to catch my eye, thinking that I would approve of this rubbish’.

She added: ‘This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing. It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man, and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they cannot fight back. And it is time they did.’ 

Universities have a great deal to answer for by producing ideologically-driven teachers who prejudice the minds of children against their fathers and their brothers, against the male half of the population. Totalitarian states, fascist and communist, also used the education system to create an ideologically-complicit populace, to create a compliant conventional wisdom. We don’t expect it to be so used in Britain. 

Misandry and Men’s Lesser Worth

The stereotyping of a group as ‘bad people’ makes us callous to the death of its members.

IT’S SO HARD BEING A MAN

(The Sunday Telegraph, 7 November, 1993)

Last week the chief executive of the Samaritans drew attention to the growing number of young men committing suicide. There was little reaction…

Men are the last group that can be freely prejudicially denounced. It is perfectly acceptable to make general slurs about men that could never be made about an ethnic group, and certainly not about women. 

That was written in 1993. Nothing has changed since. The male suicide rate is still four times greater than the female suicide rate. Do a gender switch… and imagine the media and political outcry that would ensue. Suicide is overwhelmingly a male issue; deliberately ignoring it is a misandric ‘policy’ (as is the neglect of other male issues).

On Monday, 22 March, 1999, the Bath Chronicle carried a small article (only about 8cm long by one column in width) entitled, ‘Three bodies found in Bath over weekend’. During the course of one weekend three bodies – all male – had been found in different locations in Bath, all having died of ill-health and exposure.

If it were three women’s bodies that had been found in similar circumstances, in one city, over one weekend, it would have been a national news feature, questions would be asked in the House, Feminist MPs would be masochistically delighted at finding yet another example of misogyny, a Commission would be set up. But these were only male corpses… so only 8cm in a local paper.

Widespread misandry dehumanises men. In numerous ways, men in modern Britain have become disposable, have become of lesser worth than women. A female columnist writes:

A HYMN TO HIM: MEN ARE SEXY,

SMART AND GOOD FOR WOMEN

(The Sunday Times, 12 July, 2009: Minette Martin)

Are men really necessary? That was the question that raised its ugly head following reports that scientists had created human sperm from embryonic stem cells. A team from Newcastle University claims to have produced fully mature mobile sperm in the laboratory, which may soon be able to create a living child. If men are no longer needed for producing sperm, perhaps they are no longer needed at all – that was the suggestion humming in the media and the blogosphere last week, often rather nastily disguised as humour, with lists of ways in which men are worse than useless. Misandry – the hatred of men – is a powerful force.

With the feminisation of the media and of education and with decades of so-called positive discrimination favouring women, we have seen a growing female triumphalism; it has been accompanied by a growing bewilderment and displacement of men. There is an increasing sense that women can do well enough without them, and more and more women are embarking on a life to which men are only incidental.

Misandry, demonising and dehumanising men, has devalued men’s worth compared to that of women’s; it has made society blasé about the disposability of men. It is responsible, for example, for the shocking bias in the lack of attention to men’s health in general. It is responsible for our blindness towards domestic violence against men. Britain today cares more about saving whales than about saving males, more interested in the rights of foxes than in the natural right of divorced fathers to see their children.

Almost anything can be said about men, or done to men, without the expectation of a public outcry.

The Public are Unaware of Misandry

Both men and women fail to see misandry as a problem. This is because ‘sexism’ has been defined exclusively in terms of misogyny. So nobody is looking for ‘sexism’ against men, for misandry, and people don’t find what they’re not looking for. Have they even heard of the word or concept? Everyone would admit to noticing examples of men ‘perhaps losing out’ now and again, here or there, occasionally. But because Feminism has never been exposed to public debate, to questioning and analysis, people have failed to see the pattern, they fail to see the intended political strategy… because of this heavy censorship people have been deliberately denied the knowledge and the political insight to see Feminism for what it has become.

After decades of society’s and the state’s relentless searching and probing, exploring in every nook and cranny of society, culture, education, the law, the media, employment, politics, to seek out misogyny and sexism against women, it can be very difficult for individuals steeped in this conventional wisdom, conditioned in this monopolistic, blinkered search, to see the dangers of widespread man-hating.

Here is one reason why this book needed to be written. Part Four offers the reader the knowledge and the insights to see the pro-Feminist / anti-male pattern in sexual politics, to see how modern Britain expresses institutional misandry; to expose the Feminist fraud.

In the Preface we saw how Feminist students (already well entrenched in their own political groups) aggressively attempted to prevent male students at the Universities of Manchester and Oxford from forming even non-political, innocuous, Men’s Societies.

People have, so far, been unaware of how misandry has been employed as a major sexual political weapon in the Feminist armoury:

-in condemning and demonising men (and thereby legitimising the institutional ‘punishment’ of men via laws and policies, and by ignoring male-specific problems and issues)

-how it is used to ease and facilitate the implementation of the Feminist agenda 

And neither are people aware of how Feminism’s Quiet Revolution is being cleverly orchestrated. Or they may purposely have chosen not to be aware of these aspects of misandry. Male Feminists are particularly deserving of opprobrium for their lack of concern for men, their obsequious refusal to address misandry, and their obdurate refusal to even acknowledge its existence. Male politicians, male trade union leaders and male academics should be particularly singled out for condemnation.

CAMERON: ABSENT DADS

AS BAD AS DRINK DRIVERS

(The Sunday Telegraph, 19 June, 2011) 

David Cameron today launches a full-scale attack on fathers who abandon their families, calling for them to be ‘stigmatised’ by society in the same way as drink-drivers.

The Prime Minister’s intervention – in an article for The Sunday Telegraph to mark Father’s Day – is one of the most outspoken he has made in defence of traditional family life… He says, ‘It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink-drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they’re doing is wrong, that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn’t acceptable.’

He says fathers must make the decision to support ‘financially and emotionally’ their children even if they have separated from their mothers, spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and ‘taking an interest in their education’.

This is an attack on men, not just fathers. Cameron chose Father’s Day to make his words especially painful for those divorced men who are desperate to see their children but have been prevented from doing so, sometimes for many years, by vindictive ex-wives.

Four out of five divorces are petitioned for by wives;1 [Author’s note: the superscript ‘1’ – and the others in this chapter – reflects the source of cited materials in Why Britain Hates Men. The sources are provided at the end of this chapter]. It is fathers who are ditched and required to leave the family home. How can this fact possibly be construed as ‘runaway dads’? Such dishonesty could only be alchemised in the warped perspective of the Feminist and the Male Feminist. It isn’t fathers who are breaking up traditional families, but wives and mothers… but this dare not be openly admitted in our politically correct culture. So men are used as the scapegoats; in a misandric culture it is easier to demonise men than to face the wrath of Feminists by being truthful.

Or is Mr Cameron thinking of young men who irresponsibly impregnate girls and then refuse to commit? Well hang on, there are two sides to this story. Young women are just as culpable as young men with their sexual behaviour. For every male youth who impregnates a girl and then disappears from the scene there is an equal number (if not more) of young women who have had children by numerous fathers and who refuse to live with any of them because this would reduce their single-parent benefits, including jeopardising their state-provided flat or house. In addition, there is extensive and compelling evidence to show that young women actually choose to become single-parent mothers.2 Senior research fellow Patricia Morgan states:

‘Most unwed mothers conceive and deliver their babies deliberately, not accidentally.’3 

Senior research fellow Geoff Dench:

‘The existence of state benefits as a source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners.’4

And Cameron’s own research team, a body specifically set up to investigate the breakdown of the traditional family, reached the same conclusion. Iain Duncan Smith speaks for the Social Justice policy group ‘Breakdown Britain’:

‘However, over the lifetime of this working group we have been concerned by the extent to which it appears that the current benefits system incentivises lone parenthood and acts as a driver towards family breakdown.’5So young men don’t leave single mothers to fend for themselves. Today, single-parent motherhood is mostly driven by young women. It is not caused by ‘runaway dads’. By disregarding all the evidence and all the research, including his own, we can see that Cameron is bloody-minded in his determination to blame men, fathers, for the supposed ‘victimhood’, and the huge public cost, of the single-parent mother phenomenon.

Cameron goes on to say that divorced fathers should be involved with their children and have an emotional input. He suggests ‘spending time with the kids at weekends, taking them to football matches, going to the nativity play, taking an interest in their education.’

The man’s an idiot. He has no idea just how difficult it is for the majority of divorced fathers to even see their children, let alone be permitted to participate in their emotional care (this ostracism is also experienced by many unmarried fathers). These loving fathers spend £1000s desperately trying to have some sort of meaningful contact – against the combined might of their vindictive ex-wife (free legal-aided to keep him away from ‘her’ children), the Feminist-friendly Family Courts and successive Feminist-sympathetic governments (both the latter supporting and encouraging the cruelty of the ex-wife). Cameron offers not a word of comfort, in the form of father-friendly policy, for these seriously distressed and desperate men.

Cameron’s statement is virulently anti-male. It is not accidentally insensitive; he deliberately chose Father’s Day to inflict his cruelty on already-hurting divorced fathers. So not only is his attack on men delusional; it is despicable. And it encapsulates (and proves) the thesis of this book – that modern Britain hates men; and that this systemic misandry is not only cultural but institutional. Here we see man-hating from the very top.

Why did Cameron perpetrate this deliberate hurt, this planned misandry? Two reasons. By blaming and demonising men, by further hurting and tormenting divorced fathers, he appeased and pleased the Feminists. It is dangerous for a politician today to incur the wrath of the powerful Feminist lobby, sycophancy is a much easier policy to keep these influential ideologues ‘on side’. Secondly, by cuddling up to and flattering single-parent mothers he hopes to glean and secure the ‘women’s vote’. Cameron’s motives were political, dishonest, devoid of integrity, insensitive and lacking in compassion.

Cameron did it because he could. Today anything can be said about men, or done to men, and nobody protests. Men are the whipping boys, they are an easy target. Modern Britain hates men. 

Cited sources

1 Social Trends 31 (2001) and Social Trends 32 (2002), Office for National Statistics, London: The Stationery Office. Reported in Rebecca O’Neill, ‘Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family’, Civitas (2002). 

2 For example: ‘Fractured Families’ (2006) and ‘Breakthrough Britain: Ending the Cost of Social Breakdown’ (2007), The Social Policy Justice Group, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, ‘Broken Hearts: Family Decline and the Consequences for Society’, Centre for Policy Studies (2002). 

3 ‘Farewell the Family? Public Policy and Family Breakdown in Britain and the USA’, Patricia Morgan, IEA Health and Welfare Unit (1999). 

4Daily Mail 26 February 2010.

5 ‘Breakthrough Britain’.

FEMINISM The Ugly Truth

Mike Buchanan