Voy Polloi: Mankind and Morality in These Darkening Days

/17 Comments/in , /by

Dr William Pierce was a stale pale male who lived in West Virginia. Monika Kim is a vibrant Korean-American who lives in Los Angeles. What do they have in common? Very little, of course. Nevertheless, I thought of Pierce when I was reading Kim’s second novel. It was the title of the novel that caught my eye: Molka. And the eyes eyeing the title — they caught my eye too. Here’s what I’m talking about, the front cover of Molka:

The eye-catching cover of Monika Kim’s Molka (2026)

What does Molka mean? I had no idea, so I picked up the book and found out on the back cover: “molka (n): the Korean term for spy cameras secretly and illegally installed, often to capture voyeuristic images and videos.” Yes, I’d read about those scandals in Korea. And here was a novel based on them. A horror novel set in Seoul. Well, that sounded interesting, so I got a copy of the book and began reading. But while I was reading, I was reminded of Dr William Pierce, the neo-Nazi mystic who headed the hate-group National Alliance until his death in 2002. More specifically, I was reminded of something Pierce once said about cruelty. He said that a man’s true character is revealed in the way he treats those weaker than himself.

High tech and low deeds

That’s “weaker” in the full sense: unable to defend oneself or call on defenders. Pierce was talking about cruelty to animals, but his point has much wider relevance and resonance. How do we behave when we think there would be no consequences for bad behavior? That’s a true test of character. The molka scandals in Korea have answered the question on behalf of large numbers of sometimes very ordinary men. Their true character is bad, because advanced technology has allowed them to invade women’s privacy without fear of retribution. Some of those men were wrong not to fear, because they’ve been caught and jailed. Not enough men and not for long enough — that’s what Molka says. But being caught doesn’t alter the psychology of the voyeurs: they thought they wouldn’t get caught, so they chose to behave badly. That’s certainly the reasoning of a male character called Junyoung in Kim’s novel (inter alia, Junyoung means “Handsome Excellent One” in Korean). He installs spy-cameras in the women’s toilets at the company he works for, so that he has on-demand private porn at the desk where he supposedly devotes all of his time to computer security.

Men have really behaved like that in Korea. And in lots of other countries. I wrote about one example from Britain in my article “A Clown Called Chleo,” where I described how I had been puzzled in 2025 by a headline that read: “Woman jailed for recording hundreds of men using the toilet in Aldi.” Woman? I thought. But women don’t do that sort of thing to men. My instinct was right: it wasn’t a woman, it was a male pervert called John Leslie Graham who claimed to be a “transwoman” called Chleo Sunter. OK, maybe there are real women who have installed spy-cameras and gotten depraved thrills by watching unaware men use the toilet. But there can’t be many.

This kind of voyeurism is what feminists call a “gendered crime.” It’s overwhelmingly carried out by men and overwhelmingly directed at women.[1] Hoi polloi, “the many,” is a Greek term for the great mass of ordinary men and women.[2] But “Voy Polloi,” the great mass of voyeurs created by modern tech and the internet, are overwhelmingly men, not women. That “gendered criminality” is the basis of Monika Kim’s novel Molka, which describes how an ordinary Korean woman called Dahye (“Many Graces” or “Much Intelligence”) strikes back at the patriarchy after being the victim of video’d voyeurism, first by the toilet-camera installer at her place of work, then by her rich and manipulative boyfriend Hyookjun (“Radiant Handsome One”).

“Castrate cruel males”

Molka was described as “wildly original” by the New York Times, but that isn’t a good description. Contra the myths of Clown-World about White racism and White male sexism, Monika Kim enjoys non-White privilege and female privilege, so she’s been praised beyond her merits and has been successful beyond her due. “Wildly original”? Nope. I’m not an expert in or an aficionado of female-revenge fiction and films, but I can describe Molka as like a cross between a book from 1991 and a film from 2000. Molka has the “all men are bastards” and “castrate cruel males” of Helen Zahavi’s novel Dirty Weekend from 1991 and the “vengeful ghost of unjustly killed woman” of Robert Zemeckis’s film What Lies Beneath from 2000. And although I finished Molka easily enough, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

I kept asking myself what I increasingly ask myself nowadays: How much of this was written by AI? Then again, maybe AI would have done a better job. The prose was bland and uninspired, conjuring little before the mind’s eye and conveying no strong sense of place or character. And there was a big wodge of woke in the mix. Although Molka is set entirely in Korea, the first cruel male defeated by the Korean heroine Dahye is a White American called Bobby. He tries to force fellatio on her in a Seoul nightclub and doesn’t reckon on the sudden appearance of a vengeful female ghost, that of Dahye’s dead sister Eunhye (“Kind Blessing”). A cruel Korean male had made Eunhye pregnant and she’d committed suicide by jumping in the Han river that runs through Seoul.

Not monsters, just men

Her watery death means that the imminent appearance of her ghost is announced by dripping taps and leaking ceilings. Has that been used in a horror-film before? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s been used in lots of films and is even a cliché. It’s certainly something designed for the camera and microphone: a close-up of a suddenly and mysteriously dripping bathroom tap as a ghost prepares to manifest to presently oblivious living characters. Or a sudden drip-drip-drip in the darkness of a bedroom where an oblivious living character slumbers. Like so much fiction since the rise of cinema and TV, Molka was written with a cinematic or televisual sensibility. It’s about screens and was shaped by screens. But if the novel isn’t a good read, it is an interesting one. Modern technology has given the human race much more opportunity and flexibility to do bad things. And lots of humans have seized that extra opportunity.

More precisely, lots of men have done so. And not just as individuals. Modern technology allows bad men to find each other and collaborate in ways that were once impossible. And when I say “bad men” I don’t mean monsters like Jeffrey Epstein. No, I mean perfectly ordinary men whose true character was revealed by what they thought was the opportunity to do bad things without consequences. Molka reminded me indirectly of William Pierce. It also reminded me directly of Gisèle Pelicot. She’s the French woman whose husband Dominique drugged her and pimped her out to male strangers for nearly a decade of nocturnal rape and voyeurism. In Molka, Dahye is drugged and pimped out by her bastard-of-a-boyfriend, which is another reason for her to chop off his penis at the end of the book.

“An international network of rapists”

But condign castration is feminist fantasy. The real victim of cruel drug-rape, Gisèle Pelicot, didn’t want to behave like that. Instead, she behaved with dignity and courage after being stripped of dignity by the man she thought she could trust. That was part of what made her story so uncomfortable for me as a male. I didn’t like to think that perfectly ordinary men could behave like that. Even less did I like to think that perfectly ordinary White men could behave like that. I was both disturbed and fascinated by what had been done to Gisèle Pelicot. So I followed the court-case, trying to understand what had gone on and wondering whether I should write about it for the Occidental Observer. But there was no apparent racial or religious angle, no way to contrast the bad behavior of White men with the worse behavior of non-White men or Muslim. The same is true of similar cases now receiving attention across the world: see articles like “‘Truly international’ network of drug-facilitated rape uncovered by UK crime agency,” which describes how “offenders arrange to sexually assault and film victims via online networks with crimes often taking place in trusting relationships.”

That’s an article at the Guardian, because it’s the left that are most heavily covering and condemning these crimes. After all, they support the leftist world-view, don’t they? Men are evil, women are innocent. Well, I think these cases expose the contradiction in the left’s world-view, the double-think I’ve summed up in the phrase “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy.” The crimes themselves are masculine in a way that can’t be denied by any honest observer, but the leftist response to them is moralized in a way that can’t be justified by a core leftist principle. How so? Well, think of how a core leftist principle explodes the left’s moralism about the White “enslavement” of Blacks. If human beings are indeed all “The Same Under the Skin,” there’s no way to justify a hierarchy where one group, such as women or Blacks, is morally superior to another group, such as men or Whites. If egalitarianism is true, good behavior and bad behavior are contingent on circumstances outside any individual’s control. As I said in “Destroy the Goy,” the leftist principle of human equality entails omnia ex alea — that “all things come from the dice,” from the unchosen and undesigned contingencies of geography, environment and history, which are effectively random from the ethical point of view.

Disgust or temptation?

By leftist principles, we can’t pass judgment or erect a moral hierarchy because Whites enslaved Blacks and because men are preying on and perving over women. It would be like saying that someone who rolls 10 with three dice is morally superior to someone who rolls 5 with one dice. If history had been different, Blacks would have enslaved Whites (Blacks have no problem enslaving other Blacks in Africa) and it would be women preying on and perving over men. As it is, even in our present time-line leftist principles entail that vice or virtue can’t belong wholly to one side or another. If we’re all the same under the skin, our propensity to bad behavior is the same, whether or not we express it to the same extent. As groups, Blacks can behave badly towards Whites and women can behave badly towards men. And will indeed be doing so, if we look. But leftists don’t look. And don’t report on the findings of those who do look: “Studies finding anti-female bias are shouted from the rooftops [while] those finding no bias or bias against men are reported in a whisper or simply ignored.”[3] That’s something I didn’t expect to see in the New Statesman, that other citadel of British leftism where the disgusting crimes committed against Gisèle Pelicot have been extensively covered.

And I do find those crimes disgusting. But what if she had been younger, more attractive, and her husband had been offering her not to a group of men but just to me? Even as it is, I have to think “There but for the grace of God go I” about Dominique Pelicot. If I imagine a younger and more attractive Gisèle Pelicot, disgust starts to dwindle and temptation starts to rise. In my defence, I can say that I consciously chose not to look at the “topless” photos of Kate Windsor, the Princess of Wales, during the furore about paparazzi intrusion in 2012. I thought: “She wouldn’t want me to look, so I won’t.” But it was easy to think like that, because I’ve never found Kate Williams attractive and never wanted to see her naked. Would I have resisted the temptation to perve if I did find her attractive?

“First endure, then pity, then embrace”

I hope so, but I don’t know so. I would certainly have resisted if I’d known I’d have to face consequences for perving. But consequence-free perving is what modern tech and the internet have offered in abundance for decades. Or so millions of men have thought. Most of them have been right, because most tech-aided voyeurs and most consumers of illegal porn aren’t in prison. They couldn’t be: there wouldn’t be room. The bad character of millions of men has been revealed by modern porn in a way that was once impossible. That’s because modern porn is much easier to find and much more stimulating to view than the older kind. I’m glad that I grew up before the internet and gladder that I had little exposure to porn as a teenager. I wasn’t glad at the time, mind you. I wanted to see naked women. If I’d grown up in the internet age, I would have seen women not just naked but doing nasty things that I would’ve regretted seeing. But maybe I wouldn’t have regretted seeing them for long. Using porn is like taking drugs: you don’t know what you’re doing to yourself until after you’ve done it. As the poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) so wisely, and unsettlingly, wrote:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace. (Essay on Man, 1733)

Like the depraved baby-rapist Jamie Varley, the depraved wife-pimper Dominique Pelicot was probably conditioned to depravity gradually by using porn. It’s improbable that either man started with the worst first. The worst porn would probably have repelled them at the beginning. In the end, they were embracing the worst and acting on it. That’s why Dominique Pelicot is world-infamous and Jamie Varley should be world-infamous. It’s easy to explain why he isn’t: he committed a worse crime than Dominique Pelicot, but his crime wasn’t suitable for leftist propaganda. Leftists are very happy to talk about straight men drugging, raping and pimping their wives or girlfriends. Leftists are not happy to talk about homosexual men raping babies to death.

So they don’t talk about it and they ignore the probability that baby-rape is more common, maybe much more common, among gay men than among straight men. If it is, I don’t think that makes straight men morally superior to gay men. Instead, it makes them differently depraved. And I don’t think women are morally superior to men because it’s men who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of sexual violence and women who are overwhelmingly the victims of it. Monika Kim and her novel Molka do assume moral superiority for women, but can’t justify it by their own leftist principles.

The wingless and the stingless

As a man, I don’t like to see men behave so badly with spy-cameras or collaborate so disgustingly in sex-crimes. But stats are stats. And these stats don’t lie. For obvious biological reasons, men are much more likely to become perverted and to practise perversions. But men don’t choose their biology any more than moths do. In some species of moth, the males are winged and the females are wingless. Is that pernicious patriarchy at work, literally denying females the freedom to fly?

Pernicious patriarchal aptery? The winged male and (almost) wingless female of the Winter Moth, Operophtera_brumata (Wikipedia)

No, it’s not patriarchy. The female moths are wingless for the same reason as male bees are stingless. The biggest hate criminal of all has been at work. It’s that giant racist, sexist and homophobe called Mother Nature. And she’s still at work in the tech-nourished and tech-aided human depravities of the twenty-first century. Biology doesn’t allow us to excuse men’s crimes and perversions, but it does allow us to understand them better and to see through the left’s attempts to exploit them not for the benefit of women but for the benefit of leftism. The Christian doctrine of original sin is also an antidote to leftism. The doctrine states that we all inhabit a Fallen World and all inherit the moral fallibility of Adam and Eve. We all sin, because we’re all the children of sinful Adam and Eve.

I think that’s a metaphorical truth, not a literal one, but it’s a metaphor that’s soon going to become inescapable. Israel’s war on Iran is not going to end well. If it crashes the world’s economy and leads to mass starvation, depravity will become everyday reality. If we escape the worst, we’re still going to see seismoclasms and surges in sin. My advice to myself and others remains the same: Seek Sophia, not stimulation. Sophia is the divine personification of wisdom; “stimulation” is the mind-numbing and morality-sapping in all its forms, from drugs to porn to television. William Pierce sought Sophia, not stimulation. He would be a good man to follow in these darkening days.

[1]  It is possible that homosexual voyeurs are using spy-cameras much more than we’re aware of, but there seems much less incentive for homosexuals to behave like that. Sex is much more easily available to homosexual men than to heterosexual men, including in toilets. Plus, invading men’s privacy is, for men, less of a transgressive thrill than invading women’s privacy.

[2]  “Hoi polloi” was one of my earliest introductions to how much literacy has frozen English pronunciation. I first encountered it spoken as “hoy floy” by someone who wasn’t very educated and had presumably never encountered it in print. That kind of phonetic change is natural enough for a foreign term (p- in English is aspirated and can easily be misheard as f-). It would have altered English a lot more without literacy.

[3]  That claim is made in the psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams’ A Billion Years of Sex Differences, a book about biological sex reviewed by a “gender-critical” feminist. The review is entitled “Ignoring sex differences harms us all.”

Review of The Last Men and their tendency for liberal politics

/7 Comments/in , /by

The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity
Charles Cornish-Dale
Passage Publishing. 2025 

“A cross between Jordan Peterson and The Most Interesting Man In The World, Nationalist blends the sensational with the scientific. Dr. Peterson shot to fame telling young men to clean their rooms; Mr. Nationalist is busy telling men to clean up their diets.”
—John MacGhlionn, The Federalist

“A man’s testosterone levels may be the difference between a life of sex and success and a life spent rotting in a fetid basement, playing video games and eating chicken tenders heated up in the microwave by Mum,” explains Charles Cornish-Dale is his fascinating yet slightly frightening book The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity. He goes on to introduce us to the hikikimori, Japanese “herbivore men” who have done exactly this. Completely lacking in any kind of drive whatsoever, they have simply dropped out of life. This phenomenon, argues Cornish-Dale, who is more commonly known as “Raw Egg Nationalist,” is increasingly being seen in the West.

The West has become an anti-masculine society. Cornish-Dale reminds us that Francis Fukuyama’s infamous book title The End of History, which people quote as hubristically implying that the world’s conflicts are over, was actually The End of History and the Last Man, and he notes that it actually alludes to something particularly poignant. Man has always built a society in which he can engage in what the Greeks called thymos; the ability to thrust. However, with the key political battles won there is no longer room to do this. Instead, we see the victory of the submissive slave who will conform to the system. There is nothing left to strive for, so what are men supposed to do now?

This, argues Cornish-Dale, is the unfortunate situation that the “the last men” find themselves in. Indeed, there are many ways in which modern society is actively reducing their testosterone levels; actively making them into lesser men. Studies find that average male testosterone levels are falling year on year, contributing to a growing fertility crisis among Western males. A significant contributor to this is endocrine disruptors which are found in plastics and numerous other industrial products by which we are increasingly surrounded. Cornish-Dale points out that Alex Jones was roundly mocked in 2014 for ranting that certain herbicides were causing frogs to become gay. However, it appears that he was correct, and the same is true in humans. Certain industrial products do actually appear to be feminising men and so rendering them less heterosexual and less fertile. Cornish-Dale presents evidence that the epidemic of transgenderism in recent decades might possibly be related to endocrine disruptors.

There are also very specific industrial products that have been shown to interfere with masculinisation. Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was given to millions of pregnant women in the mid-twentieth century who had a history of miscarriages. It may have stopped them from miscarrying but it had a devastating impact on their sons: “Exposure to DES in utero has been linked to terrible reproductive abnormalities in both sexes, including undescended testicles and micropenises in boys . . .” A class of chemicals known as phthalates are used in many plastic products. They lead to reduced semen quality and lower testosterone. Cornish-Dale notes that if you use these plastics to store food then they will leak into the food and, by extension, into you and they can be transferred to a baby via breast milk. At one point in the book, Cornish-Dale notes that micro-plastics are in all of us and all parts of our bodies including the “meat,” that is within the tissue of the penis.

Naturally, argues Cornish-Dale, this has a serious impact on politics. If men are low in testosterone, they lack not just sex drive but any kind of drive—the two are intimately connected. They become docile, permitting replacement migration, but this can never work because it doesn’t take long before testosterone begins to drop among the immigrants as they begin to be exposed to the same industrial chemicals. Also, observes Cornish-Dale, various liberal ideas, such as vegetarianism, cause a collapse in testosterone as well. The obesity epidemic, caused, in part, by a lack of exercise and the consumption of appalling food—in particular, highly processed food—further adds to this testosterone decline.

Cornish-Dale sets out a clear manifesto on what needs to be done, giving advice that reaches into minutiae of everyday life. Use wooden chopping boards; don’t use plastic ones. Don’t store food in plastic and for goodness sake don’t microwave food if it’s on a plastic plate because this will cause serious leakage of plastic into the food. Much of his advice is common sense: exercise, lift weights and eat meat. One of the problems with this area of research is that it is so often espoused by obvious fanatics; “gyms bros” and the like. The Last Men is popular-academic in style. It carefully and reasonably argues its case and fully references its assertions with copious academic studies.

As a person who has researched the causes of changes in political viewpoint across time in the West, I found The Last Men very persuasive. Male testosterone is in decline and this, surely, at least in part, helps to explain the feminised kind of men who, as studies show, tends towards liberal politics.

Devlin Talks Sex

/19 Comments/in , /by
What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Dr. F. Roger Devlin, author of Sexual Utopia in Power.

* * *

James Edwards: You have dedicated a great deal of your work to offering a sociobiological critique of radical feminism and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s, which you have argued is a utopian experiment that clashes with reality and leads to chaos. Why is this a topic that people should be more focused on?

Roger Devlin: Nations and races, like individuals, must perpetuate themselves sexually. But men are more inclined to focus on politics than on families, which they view as women’s natural concern. This works as long as women are in fact upholding the family by insisting on marriage and being faithful to their own vows. When they forsake that role to indulge in frivolous divorce and the chasing of sexual excitement for its own sake, men have no choice but to step in and restore order. This is difficult for us, both because most men do not understand women very well and because we have an extremely strong natural bias in their favor.

Edwards: Today’s society suffers from a lack of morals, confused sexual roles, high divorce and celibacy rates, childlessness, and widespread unhappiness, which you contend is linked to the breakdown of monogamy. In what ways are monogamy, family, and sexual discipline essential for societal stability?

Devlin: European man is a K-selected organism, to use the evolutionary terminology. This means that he is not very fertile, but invests heavily in the offspring he does have. A family with a father in residence is the necessary setting for such investment, which includes the transmission of a complex civilizational patrimony. The breakdown of stable pair-bonding cheats children of this inheritance and amounts to a return to barbarism.

Edwards: You point out that the welfare state, no-fault divorce, and affirmative-action feminism have basically turned the government into a substitute husband for millions of women. When did the West really start down this path—women’s suffrage, the pill, or something even earlier? And is there any historical precedent for a civilization surviving this level of sexual disorder?

Devlin: No, civilization may have begun with the imposition of monogamous marriage and will not survive its abolition. Sexual liberalization and female “equality” are symptoms of a society that had enjoyed too much prosperity for too long. When mere survival is a difficult challenge, everyone understands the importance of family solidarity and mutual duties. When times get easy, people turn to individual self-realization. Women’s suffrage, for example, was a shift from viewing the family as the basic unit of society to individualism: it is a luxury, and in no sense a matter of justice.

Edwards: Interestingly, your perspectives on this issue challenge both feminist and mainstream conservative views. How so?

Devlin: Men understand their own sexual nature, but not that of women. Male traditionalists are, therefore, inclined to assume that liberating sex means liberating men’s desires at women’s expense. Hence the conservative press is filled with endless sanctimonious denunciations of young men as predators. In fact, anthropologists have long known that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies where monogamy is not enforced, 60% of men are unable to become fathers. Nature puts women, not men, in charge of mating, and whenever they are liberated from monogamy, they simply mate with the highest-status men. Monogamous marriage exists not to restrict the amount of sex men are able to get, but precisely to provide sex (and families) for as many men as possible. For non-elite men the sexual revolution has meant not more sex but a greater difficulty, or even an outright impossibility, of finding a wife. This is one of the best-kept secrets of the past half-century due to men’s reluctance to complain about it.

Edwards: You’ve noted that we now live in a world that offers promiscuity for the few and loneliness for the many. Who really loses the most in this new order?

Devlin: Both men and women lose out, but it is children who lose the most, in the form of fatherlessness. Until we initiated this great experiment of sexual liberation, we had no idea just how important fathers were to the proper development of children. Nearly every social pathology you can name is exacerbated by fatherlessness. And fatherlessness is overwhelmingly due not to men being irresponsible deadbeat dads (as the welfare state falsely claims) but to women indulging in two vices: 1) sex outside of marriage and 2) frivolous divorce.

Edwards: Let’s talk about the campus rape hysteria you dissect so brilliantly. We’re told there is an epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses, yet the statistics you cite tell a completely different story. Is this whole narrative just a weapon to demonize normal male sexuality and justify more anti-male policies?

Devlin: Much of it is exactly that, driven by lesbians in women’s studies programs. Young women are impressionable, and the campus lesbians want them fearing and mistrusting men. Women’s studies is a radical and destructive political and sexual movement, not a legitimate field of academic study, and it needs to be abolished (not reformed). The narrative of young men as ruthless predators, by the way, is virtually identical whether produced by man-hating lesbian feminists or male traditionalists.

It might also help to inform young women that throwing themselves at the handsomest guy on campus is not the route to love and “commitment.” It should be obvious that if women insist on exceptionally attractive mates, they will be forced to share them; this is due to simple arithmetic, and not to men being scoundrels.

Edwards: No white nation in the world currently enjoys replacement level fertility. How does everything we have been discussing tie into the demographic decline we talk about so often — the falling birthrates among our people?

Devlin: Where men are in charge, women have babies; where women are in charge, they fornicate and abort — as we have learned by putting women in charge for a few decades. The solution should be obvious: put men back in charge of the family! Women may be left free to choose a husband, but only subject to two constraints: 1) that the man not already have been chosen by another woman, and 2) that they stick to their choice for life — and not just until they get bored or imagine they could do better on a second try (seldom true in any case).

Sexual equality in the workplace simultaneously lowers men’s wages by increasing the supply of labor, and raises women’s expectations of how much a man ought to earn in order to be a “good provider.” Moreover, the women who best succeed in the world of work are those who can suppress their natural femininity and remain childless. It is thus a complete disaster for Western civilization. Sexual discrimination in employment should be not merely legal but mandatory.

Edwards: With Tinder, OnlyFans, and Instagram turning every halfway-attractive woman into a mini-celebrity, many “regular guys” are checking out of the dating scene altogether. Couple that with the onset of artificial intelligence giving men the option to have simulated relationships with programs that still trigger chemical releases in the brain in the same way that authentic relationships do, and hyper-realistic synthetic “females” coming in the very near future, how much worse could this get?

Devlin: Without wishing to defend pornography or other sex substitutes per se, I see some justification for men preferring them to actual women under current conditions. The dangers of divorce, deprivation of one’s children, and extortionate child support orders are so great that men are correct not to stick their necks into the noose of modern marriage. I hope to see more men shunning marriage, dating, and women altogether until women get the message good and hard. It is only just beginning to register with them, I am afraid. Most people only learn through suffering, so a lot more suffering is going to be necessary.

Edwards: Is there any realistic way back from this, or are we stuck?

Devlin: Besides an end to “equal pay for equal work,” unilateral divorce must be abolished. No man should marry when his life can be ruined at any instant at the whim of a fickle or vindictive woman.

Edwards: What message do you have for young men and women who want to build strong families in spite of the culture?

Devlin: For young women, my advice is to accept any man with a working set of sexual organs still naïve enough to get married, and to cling to him for dear life. For most men, as I have made clear, my advice is not to date or marry. And above all, do not give your hard-earned money to Only Fans whores. Life in this declining civilization is still just about tolerable for those men who escape the maw of the family court system. Women have been telling us for decades that they need us the way a fish needs a bicycle. Now they are finally going to have the opportunity to prove it.

As for all the advocates of traditional marriage out there who think I am being too radical: just you wait. When millions of women finally realize they have no realistic prospect of obtaining any husband — and this is where we are headed — things will change so fast it will make your head spin.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. For more than 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

Attack of the Cat Ladies

/14 Comments/in , /by

America has been invaded but not by a foreign force. No, this invasion is much more insidious. America has been invaded and subverted from within. A female army of obnoxious, humorless, censorious, scolds and shrews has slithered out from beneath various rocks to occupy, moderate and control all thought, speech and behavior public and private.

The foot soldiers in this army are called cat ladies. They run the churches, schools, drama groups, choirs, orchestras, garden clubs, book clubs, libraries, town boards and fire and police departments  — everything. As a result, America has been feminized. It is all yin and no yang. It is plagued with an epidemic of feigned cuteness, pretend niceness and all too genuine incompetence. Kamala Harris (a woman noted for nothing but her ability to advance in politics by pleasing powerful, California-Democrat men from her knees) is the clueless, incoherent leader of the cat ladies. The late Jewess Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is their patron saint.

The genus “Femina felina Americana” is not new. It first appeared in the early 19th century when female social reformers harangued men about money, marriage and meat. Then came the abolitionists led by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin played a crucial role in inciting Northern hatred of all things Southern thereby fueling The Civil War aka The War of Northern Aggression. Ironically, before writing her novel, Harriet had never been to the South or seen a planation. But, in classic cat lady style, her ignorance didn’t stop Harriet from holding forth on a subject of which she knew nothing.  The Scottish cat lady Fanny Wright was a racial reformer of even more spectacular stupidity. Neshoba, her mixed-race utopian commune, collapsed under the weight of the first winter snow and the tug of racial reality.  Our Fanny then skedaddled back to Europe where she was kept by a much older man –  the Marquis de Lafayette. Funny how often these proto-feminist heroines managed to find Sugar Daddys.

Those harridans were followed by the temperance hags whose leader Carry Nation smashed up perfectly good saloons with hatchets thus giving us the term “old battle axe.” Then the singularly charmless Margaret Sanger emerged in the 20th century to lead the birth control movement called Planned Parenthood. Like her British counterpart Marie Stopes, Sanger had a failed marriage. Sanger also failed to look after her own children while having many affairs with powerful men and dabbling in spiritualism. I suspect she attended seances to contact her offspring who died from neglect. Welp… that’s one form of birth control, I guess.

Franklin Roosevelt, one of America’s most disastrous presidents, compounded his sins by foisting his repugnant, loudmouth wife Eleanor on an unsuspecting public. Due to polio, FDR was practically a helpless invalid from 1935 on so Eleanor served as Madam President for almost 10 years. At the same time, she used her newspaper columns and radio programs to explain to America just how wrong it was about just about everything. By the way, Ellie was a secret lesbian. But then, cripple though he was, FDR managed to jump the bones of his secretary and cousin so…

In the late 1960s, “second wave” feminism reared its decidedly Jewish head and created the current generation of aging, childless, single, obese, blue haired, tattooed, pierced and miserable creatures called cat ladies. The Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce brilliantly observed, “There is nothing sadder than an aging hipster.” Man was he right. These gals are not  happy campers. They cut a pathetic figure in their self-consciously ethnic attire accessorized with clunky earrings made by indigenous jewelers and carrying a hemp tote bag emblazoned with the sayings of Maya Angelou, Harriet Tubman or Cher. They are obviously disappointed by life, furious about the mistakes they made (especially the tattoos and piercings) and determined to take their misery out on everyone else – especially men. Their regret fuels the unhinged, petulant rage they display whenever they don’t get their way.  You can see their hilarious and horrifying fury in full flow at any protest du jour.

With no children or men in their lives, these sad singletons had no outlet for their natural nurturing instinct. But they did have excess leisure time to run around with their pink hair on fire proselytizing for every harebrained do-gooder fad that came their way. Queer rights. Animal rights. Trans rights. Plant rights. Free abortions. Free Palestine. Free any negro currently incarcerated for anything anywhere.

They sat on their substantial backsides gorging on Cheetos and chardonnay while having their substantial egos stroked by female TV chat show hosts who validated their every imagined slight, social justice mania or hypochondriacal concern. And because they were neither as intelligent or well educated as they believed, they fell for every health and beauty scam advertised while complaining that it was men who obsessed about women’s bodies.

Enter – Oprah Winfrey. She came on the scene in the 1990s. Her Jewish handlers did a brilliant job of marketing this fat, no-talent, dimwit as an “Everywoman” who shared every woman’s pain. Oprah was perfect for this role because she had weight and relationship problems and she wasn’t very bright — just like her audience. So she was relatable and non-threatening. Plus, she was black which gave White women a chance to virtue signal that they weren’t racist. (Soon after Oprah appeared,  Barack Obama rode that same White guilt train into The Oval Office.)

All the chat shows consist of cat ladies sitting on sofas clutching each other’s hands as they weep together and play a game of “Can you top my misery?” This is just a TV version of the newspaper advice columns written by  “Sob Sisters” and “Agony Aunts.” Hillary Clinton’s handlers knew who her voting block was so they ran presidential campaign commercials that mimicked this scenario. She was featured sitting on a sofa in a cozy living room set with a fire crackling in the background. You could smell the bread baking. And with legs curled casually beneath her she purred, “Let’s have a chat?” Yeah, a chat. See, running the country is  just one big  coffee klatsch between us girls. We don’t need those nasty men no way, no how. (Please observe that when the Left says, “Let’s chat” or “It’s time for a national conversation” they mean, “Shut up! I’ll do the talking.”)

Since Hillary’s campaign, we have seen an ever-increasing feminization of American political discourse. Now, it is all about feelings. Consider – at its heart, the Harris presidential campaign was an attack on Trump for not being “nice” and daring to challenge  Kamala’s obvious right to the presidency because she was black and a woman. Worse — Trump dared to be unashamedly male and to bristle with testosterone.

Social media, especially Facebook, is the “Hall of Lies” where cat ladies  stroke each other. But I promise you that if every woman had to be truthful on Facebook for one day, this female fantasy world would crumble. As it is, in “Facebookland” every woman is assured by her thousands of Facebook girlfriends that she looks beautiful in her latest outfit or facelift. Every day is a good hair day.  Every woman’s child is a genius and gorgeous. Every performance given is virtuoso. And no woman’s butt ever looks big in any dress. Ever. This bubble of hysterical happiness is fueled with Oxycodone, Ozempic and Ouzo. Yes, Madam definitely enjoys a tipple or two or three.

In the universe of cat ladies every woman and child (Men need not apply) wins a participation medal for every act in daily life no matter how banal. Eating breakfast and having a bowel movement garners fulsome praise and multiple smile emojis. (Where would cat ladies be without cutesy-wutesy emojis?) The lowest common denominator is the highest standard.  Criticism (at least outspoken) is forbidden. Meanwhile, in private, these cat ladies can be as catty as anyone. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “Women only call each other sister when they have called each other a lot of other things first.”

Horrible to report — this pseudo-saccharin sorority of psycho-sexual misfits has a strangle hold on education. And, you guessed it, academic achievement has nose-dived. I have been told by two female College Deans at two different universities to “go easy” on my students since “The students don’t respond well to criticism.” Hmnnn… would you want to be treated by a surgeon who had been pampered that way in med school?

This removal of masculinity from American life has also undermined government at federal, state and local level. Don’t believe me? Listen to a speech by any of the women in Congress of either party. Research the many, many black, female Mayors, Fire Chiefs and Police Chiefs that pollute the American landscape. Watch these cretins address the press while sporting outrageous ‘hood rat hair weaves and enameled fingernails longer than an eagle’s talons. (I wonder how they complete certain bodily functions without slicing their nether regions to bloody bits!)

Ask yourself how many bodies these morbidly obese couch potatoes have carried out of a burning apartment and down a ladder or how many violent criminals they have disarmed and wrestled to the ground. But as these Affirmative Action airheads struggle to complete a simple declarative sentence in comprehensible English you are not allowed to laugh or even notice. Yet, there they sit. Entrenched by DEI. Shielded from criticism by the cat ladies. Even if fired, these nitwits will get a Golden Parachute sweeter than any you can ever hope of receiving.

But the worst result of Americas retreat from sexual sanity is how  the benign “Soccer Moms” of yesteryear have morphed into the “Castrating Cat Lady Moms” of today. I see them in the supermarket with their sissified, soy boy sons. These boys never had a chance. Mom has fed them nothing but crap since the cradle and as a result they are sporting man boobs at age nine. They have obviously never thrown or kicked a ball. Dad has flown the coop and left Junior in the clutches of a woman with serious man issues. You bet Junior might pretend to be a girl to avoid mommy’s rage and maybe even win her approval. Cue: hormone “therapy” followed by cross dressing and eventually genital mutilation. If you think this sounds melodramatic, you haven’t been watching the family dynamics around gender reassignment surgery for minors. It’s the mothers who, in effect, wield the scalpel.

Not as horrific but still emblematic of the disease and just downright annoying is the glut of female sportscasters who know nothing about sports — “The team that scores the most runs will win this game. Back to the studio.” And the inane news babes – “The candidate with the most votes will win this election. Back to the studio.”  (Hand to heart, I have actually heard both of those quips.)

Older readers may recognize that I am making many of the same points about the American female as those made by Philip Wylie in his brilliantly venomous diatribe A Generation of Vipers (1943). So not only have cat ladies been with us for far too long but they have been identified and dissected by a brave few male anthropologists — your humble reporter among them.

But wait. Put down that vial of hemlock. Mother Nature always has the last word and laugh. As Shakespeare put it, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Indeed. As much as the cat ladies claim to despise traditional female roles and values their behavior suggests otherwise. Case in point — at a recent country music camp yours truly attended, there were more than the minimum daily requirement of lesbians present. Several of these “Sapphic Sadies” sported beards. Yet hirsute though they were, they were anxious to learn the most traditional form of country music – ballads derived from Celtic songs that were derived from medieval madrigals. These achingly romantic songs speak of knights in armor, fair maidens, courtly love and chivalry i.e. every little girl’s dream.

In publishing, the leading genre is romance novels. These books are churned out to formulas that suit various education levels. They are written to templates that specify settings, professions, names, locales, periods and levels of eroticism. But the plots are always “damsel in distress” or “Cinderella.”  There is even a sub-genre of romance novel – Amish Romance. The covers of these books feature impossibly good-looking models dressed in Amish drag making goo-goo eyes at each other over a butter churn. This proves that women yearn not only for love with a man but love with a man in a traditional societal context. Never mind that in reality the Amish are the least attractive and least romantic society on earth – with the exception of the Satmar Jews. And all this literary tripe is catnip to cat ladies. One look at the cat ladies who control publishing will make all things literary abundantly clear.

In film and television, romantic-comedies (rom-coms) are the leading genre. I blush to confess that I have been prominently featured in several of these treacly abominations. As a result, I am regularly recognized and asked for selfies and autographs by uber-masculine Lesbyterians. They squeal that they and their mothers watch the films together over and over and they cry every time. Note to the curious: These films are all modern-day versions of Cinderella. (Anyone else see a pattern here?)

I can attest that the America I left in 1990 was not riddled with autism and gender dysphoria. But the America to which I returned in 2021 had become a nightmare world where women hated men and men were too beaten down and bored to care. (Think of that Incel nonsense.) Call me paranoid but I’m ready to believe the conspiracy theory that “they” have been putting something in the water or food or vaccines. Somehow or other this  country’s mojo has been messed with.

Still I sense that men and women have some species memory of how things ought to be. Even those suffering from gender dysphoria hunger for the natural order. Note that they aren’t trying to do away with male and female roles just to switch places.  Meanwhile, they vicariously slake their hunger for romance and adventure with books, movies and computer games.  I believe that hunger can be stoked back to a healthy, happy generative heat if we can clear our minds and bodies of the poisons and filth that modern Jewified culture has placed there.

I believe that within every odious cat lady there is a Sleeping Beauty. I believe that within every soy boy there is a Prince Charming. Now all we have to do is get these two crazy kids together and let nature take its course.  You may think I’ve been watching too many rom-coms myself. But it is an awful truth that we must have a rebirth of Adam and Eve or we must perish.

Jack Antonio resides in rural America. He is the author of Boy Outa Brooklyn — a murder memoir. It is available on Amazon as a paperback and e-book and from all major e-book distributors. Or visit Jack’s blog at https://boyoutabrooklyn.com/blog/

Attack of the Cat Ladies was originally published in issue 127 of Heritage and Destiny magazine 40 Birkett Drive Preston PR2 6HE England – www.heritageanddestiny.com

The Treatment of Prince Andrew Proves We Live in a World Run by Bullying Schoolgirls

/6 Comments/in , /by

Like the previously posted article on Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization,” Ed Dutton’s article also deals with the feminization of culture, also citing Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers.

Things have moved fast in the Royal Family since I reviewed the book Entitled for this publication; the book proving beyond reasonable doubt that Prince Andrew is a liar, happily associates with and takes money from a convicted paedophile, is a statutory rapist and is a supreme Narcissist. Despite his maintaining that he “vigorously denies” the allegations against him, Prince Andrew paid off his accuser, Virginia Roberts, and has now gone even further. Now an email to Jeffrey Epstein has come to light in which Prince Andrew wrote to sex offender, “We’re in this together.” The King has swiftly reacted. The way he has done so, however, is a fascinating reflection of just how feminized the West has become.

As American psychologist Joyce Benenson has explored in her book Warriors and Worriers, males and females punish transgressions in markedly different ways, and this also extends over into the way in which they bully each other. Men are evolved to create large coalitions to fight for the interests of the group; in effect, to create armies. If you seriously break the rules, then you will be punished, often physically as seen in the floggings that were common in the British Army until the twentieth century. Once you are punished, then it is over and the group moves on, almost as though the transgression and the punishment never happened. If your crime is especially egregious – such as cowardice – then you were executed, usually with a priest present, as English journalist Tim Stanley has pointed out in the Daily Telegraph “We don’t know how to handle Prince Andrew because we no longer understand sin.” The Church, which is intimately connected to the Army, forgives you and we move on.

Stanley further observes that, “In place of retribution, which we’ve decided is cruel, we isolate and ostracise the accused,” and that punishment has been replaced by the far crueller system of “cancellation.” However, he fails to mention the obvious reason for this shift, which is the rise in the influence of females. As Benenson observes, women do not “punish” in the conventional, male sense; they exclude. Women are evolved to be part of part of a system centred around dominant males. They create closely bonded cliques of a small number of “alloparents” to help raise their children; the Alpha male often gradually neglects them in favour of the newest and most nubile wife. In that their children are involved, these cliques must be based around complete trust and equality, so they bond by sharing intimate information; by being “vulnerable” with each other.

Women are physically weaker and a fight is dangerous because if they are killed, then their child may die from neglect. Women therefore seek safety. Moreover, the entire system of punishment is different. It involves being “cancelled,” excluded from the parties with the popular girls, shamed, whispered about and, generally, excluded. This is a far more vicious way of punishing because it is, potentially, without end: there is no forgiveness, there is no moving on, it is never “over with” and the process – of being excluded – is the punishment.

Of course, some people don’t care about being excluded by the Leftist elite, something the left, being feminine, find incomprehensible. They have no “shame” and they find a new clique of which to be part; the growing right-wing counter-elite which has welcomed ex-Leftists such as the comedy writer Graham Linehan, who criticised the Trans insanity. This is what you must do in the world of girls; you must find a new “clique” to protect you.

Prince Andrew has been treated in exactly this “female” way by his brother, the King. Rather than being punished by being stripped of his military honours and the titles of “His Royal Highness” and the Duke of York, he has voluntarily renounced his military honours and agreed not to use the prenominal “His Royal Highness” and, as of October 2025, not to use his title of Duke of York. In other words, despite what some newspaper commentators are wrongly saying, Prince Andrew has not been “stripped of his titles.” He has agreed not to use them but, legally, he is still “His Royal Highness,” because he is the son of the Queen, and he is still “the Duke of York” and he will remain so unless the King formally strips him of this title, which would require an Act of Parliament.

Put simply, Prince Andrew hasn’t been punished – nothing has been taken from him. He has been pressured to relinquish things or stop being open about things he still possesses, such as the Dukedom of York. This may be seen as a benevolent compromise for Prince Andrew; his royalty is very important to him and this process means that his ego is not too badly hurt. He gets to be in control and can say to himself, “I am His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, but I merely choose not be publically styled as such.”

However, this also means that he hasn’t really been punished at all and that there can be no “moving on.” He will spend his life in this limbo where can attend some royal events but not others, where he is royal but not fully. I suspect this, itself, reflects the female focus on “harm avoidance.” To really punish Prince Andrew would be to overtly harm him, which might make the punisher look “mean;” the ultimate sin the world of women — an egregious sign of lack of empathy. Much better to covertly harm him; harm him, but with plausible deniability.

If Prince Andrew could simply be punished, by being stripped of his dukedom for example, then society could move on and perhaps Prince Andrew could live out his days doing charity in order to atone for his behaviour. But, it seems, the UK is too feminized for this happen. In a world run by women, he is to be excluded from the party run by the “glossy posy.” It will be Purgatory. Forever.

Helen Andrews: The Great Feminization

/5 Comments/in , /by
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.

Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.

One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”

The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

Continues …

 

Women’s Workplace Equality Under Threat—Hooray!

/21 Comments/in , /by

According to a Substack article from this past May [link: https://substack.com/home/post/p-162330198?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]—I just stumbled across it—a recent survey of 8th and 10th graders shows a sharp drop in the percent of boys who believe that women should have the same professional opportunities as men. Here is the graph:

Had I been asked these deceptively simple questions as a naïve eighth or tenth grader, I would certainly have given my assent. Who (I would have reasoned) could possibly be opposed to simple fairness and the impartial treatment of women? Feminism, like other utopian doctrines, can be highly plausible and seductive before it is actually put into practice.

Half a century has gone by and the American workplace is utterly saturated with women. They completely dominate certain lucrative fields such as publishing. In some cities, young women are outearning young men. You go, girl!

What have been the consequences? Two of the most obvious have been cratering fertility and the proliferation of miserable spinsters and divorcées furious at the entire male sex. These have gotten some public attention, since everyone likes children and sympathizes with unhappy women. Less attention gets paid to men, since they are largely expected to take whatever knocks life hands them and keep plugging away—not unlike a popular brand of watches promoted as able to “take a licking and keep on ticking.”

But men do not have hearts of oak or stone, and there are limits upon what can be demanded of them. Their lives have been profoundly affected by the mass invasion of the workplace by women, and it has not resembled what feminism promised them. At first, they were assured by a young and confident feminist movement that having women work would benefit men as well as the women themselves—by reducing both the pressure upon men to provide all the economic support for their families and the emphasis placed by women upon the earning-power of potential husbands.

Several decades of “women in the workforce” have ensued and the results are in. They are not pretty. For many men, the principal consequence of competing against women at work has been increased difficulty—for some an outright impossibility—of finding a wife and starting a family. In part this is because when women have their own money, they only perceive men who earn even more than they do as possible “providers,” and therefore as potential husbands. So pressure on men to earn has increased, not decreased. At the same time, the entry of large numbers of women into the workforce has increased the supply of labor, thereby reducing earnings all around. Women have gained some financial independence, it is true, but only because men have been hit with the double-whammy of lowered earnings and raised female expectations.

But there is more—much, much more. Whereas unmarried men and women used to go to dance halls or similar places of public amusement to meet members of the opposite sex, they now rub elbows every day at work. Naturally, both men and women are interested in the possibility of discovering a mate among their workplace colleagues; they would not be human if they were not. But workplace mate-seeking is not exactly treated in the same way when engaged in by women as when engaged in by men.

“Human resource” departments are a heavily female part of today’s corporate world that hardly existed before the mass entry of women into the workforce. Today they control hiring for most entry level positions. Unsurprisingly, experimental studies reveal that these female-dominated departments are more likely to extend job offers to attractive than to unattractive men. On the other hand, they incline to hire plainer women more often than pretty ones. It is not enough to bring in more handsome fellows, you see—competition from prettier girls must also be eliminated!

No doubt a company’s bottom line depends crucially on its entry level employees consisting of Adonises and plain Janes.

The obvious lesson here is that women unhesitatingly pursue their own mating strategies in the workplace. They may benefit themselves in this way, but it does nothing for efficiency, the rational allocation of resources, or edging out the competition. Yet companies tolerate the behavior. Without those HR departments, they might be liable to lawsuits over failing to hire enough women.

In a sexually integrated workplace, there will inevitably be men as well who hope to meet a nice girl to marry from among their work colleagues. But, of course, the mate-seeking behavior of such men is not indulged like that of the women in the HR department. Since the 1980s, a whole new body of law has arisen to punish male courtship behavior in the workplace under the name of “sexual harassment” (a term only coined in the late 1970s). Sexual harassment is big business now, causing countless millions of dollars to change hands every year and making a few lawyers and female plaintiffs rich. Since the term has no clear or agreed-upon definition, and since companies are legally liable if they fail to prevent the undefined phenomenon, they must assume the guilt of any man accused. Careers that took years to build up can be destroyed overnight by an unguarded word or misinterpreted gesture.

The recent #MeToo bruhaha has made the dangers clear to even the most naïve and traditionally chivalrous men. They are now deeply suspicious of their female colleagues, and with excellent reason. Cases have been uncovered of women teaming up to fabricate accusations in the hopes of getting lucrative court settlements. Many false or frivolous accusations are motivated by nothing more than the thrill of power some women experience at their ability to destroy men professionally. Much of #MeToo was of the nature of a copycat crime: women envied the attention and sympathy being expressed for accusers and waned to share in it.

Inevitably, men are adapting. An informal code has arisen under which men refuse to speak a single word to female colleagues that is not strictly work-related. No more “that’s a pretty dress,” no friendly chats around the water cooler. Every interaction that can be documented must be. Telephone calls must be recorded; complete records of all email correspondence with female colleagues must be preserved in triplicate and stored in a safe place, for any man can be called upon at any time to prove his innocence in court. In short, women have nothing more to teach men about “hostile work environments”—men are experiencing a level of hostility and suspicion in the workplace of which few women can have any conception.

Now back to that poll we cited at the beginning: it would not surprise me one bit if working men responding safely and anonymously to a pollster were to have begun telling them that women can take their “workplace equality” and stick it up their collective arse. But the really astonishing thing is that this was a poll conducted among eighth and tenth graders! As noted, this author would almost unthinkingly have agreed to feminist platitudes about equality at that age, having as yet had little experience of either women or the workplace. How is it that mere boys are now among those wising up to the feminist reign of terror over working men? Are they hearing about the realities from their fathers or elder brothers? Do they observe the privileging of girls in their own juvenile environment?

Whatever the explanation, this poll indicates that feminism is finally in serious trouble. Women have never had any right to equal work or to equal pay. At best, they have a right to support themselves in some fashion if they fail to marry. They also have a right to get married—presuming they can find a man foolish enough to propose to them, which most can if they play their cards carefully when young. They have a right to be faithful wives and dutiful mothers. And they have a right to stay out of working men’s way while men keep the world running and support their families. The future depends on women’s exercise of these rights, not the imaginary ones cooked up by utopian dreamers sixty years ago.