正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Helen Andrews drops a provocative thesis: Feminization = wokeness. Everything we call "woke"—empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition, inclusion over free speech—is just the natural outcome of institutions becoming majority-female since the 1970s. She points to surveys: ~2/3 men prioritize free speech, ~2/3 women prioritize inclusive... society. Men lean "ethics of justice" (rules/facts), women "ethics of caring" (context/relationships/emotions). Examples: James Damore fired not for facts but because it made women "feel bad." Kavanaugh hearings: masculine side demanded evidence, feminine side focused on "she's crying." Her take: When women predominate, politics/institutions tilt toward subjective feelings over objective rules—even if many women reject it (e.g., best Kavanaugh books by women critics). This 2:46 clip is bold, polarizing, and ties demographic shifts to cultural ones. Agree it's a key driver of wokeness? Or overreach? What's your read on the gender gaps in free speech/inclusion polls?show more

Teddy - PolyBackTest.com

103,707 subscribers

178,701 次观看 • 17 天前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

"Feminization equals wokeness." That single sentence from Helen Andrews at NatCon 5 stopped me cold. She argues that everything we call wokeness — empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition and hierarchy — is simply the downstream result of institutions that started admitting large numbers of women in the 1970s finally reaching critical demographic mass and quietly reorienting around feminine priorities. It’s a hypothesis that explains the timing better than most: the change didn’t come out of nowhere. It came when the numbers tipped. The slow feminization of our key institutions quietly producing what we now label “woke.” Does this demographic explanation land for you as the main driver, or do you see bigger forces at work?

"Feminization equals wokeness." That single sentence from Helen Andrews at NatCon 5 stopped me cold. She argues that everything we call wokeness — empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition and hierarchy — is simply the downstream result of institutions that started admitting large numbers of women in the 1970s finally reaching critical demographic mass and quietly reorienting around feminine priorities. It’s a hypothesis that explains the timing better than most: the change didn’t come out of nowhere. It came when the numbers tipped. The slow feminization of our key institutions quietly producing what we now label “woke.” Does this demographic explanation land for you as the main driver, or do you see bigger forces at work?

Camus

171,656 次观看 • 3 个月前

Helen Andrews' provocative thesis: The rise of "wokeness" in 2020 wasn't random mass hysteria — it was institutions becoming majority-female for the first time. In this 2:32 clip she argues: - Women tend to prioritize consensus, relationships, and keeping everyone happy - Men tend to prioritize facts, rules, and justice - Wokeness mirrors the former approach applied to power structures Key timing coincidence: - Law schools tipped majority-female in 2016 - New York Times workforce majority-female in 2018 - Medical schools, white-collar college-educated workers, and management roles all shifted heavily female in the same window - 2020 explosion of institutional wokeness followed right behind She’s not blaming women — she’s saying demographic change in elite institutions created conditions for a new moral style to dominate. Coincidence? Causal link? Or something else entirely? Watch the clip and decide. What do you think is the strongest (or weakest) part of her argument? Drop your take below.

Helen Andrews' provocative thesis: The rise of "wokeness" in 2020 wasn't random mass hysteria — it was institutions becoming majority-female for the first time. In this 2:32 clip she argues: - Women tend to prioritize consensus, relationships, and keeping everyone happy - Men tend to prioritize facts, rules, and justice - Wokeness mirrors the former approach applied to power structures Key timing coincidence: - Law schools tipped majority-female in 2016 - New York Times workforce majority-female in 2018 - Medical schools, white-collar college-educated workers, and management roles all shifted heavily female in the same window - 2020 explosion of institutional wokeness followed right behind She’s not blaming women — she’s saying demographic change in elite institutions created conditions for a new moral style to dominate. Coincidence? Causal link? Or something else entirely? Watch the clip and decide. What do you think is the strongest (or weakest) part of her argument? Drop your take below.

Camus

287,819 次观看 • 5 个月前

Helen Andrews drops two bold, provocative claims on feminization's impact on civilization: 1. Feminization isn't neutral—in key institutions, it's actively harmful. - Rule of law crumbles when judges prioritize "context & relationships" over strict, objective rules (even if outcomes feel harsh). - Academia loses its purpose when it censors "dangerous" ideas instead of pursuing truth relentlessly. - Business innovation stalls when HR-compliant niceness trumps bold, disruptive leadership. - Immigration policy becomes paralyzed: laws exist on paper, but enforcement is blocked if it might "make someone sad." Without rule of law, truth-seeking, secure borders, and innovation, a fully feminized society risks collapse. 2. Demographic feminization → substantive feminization Can we have majority-female professions (lawyers, judges, professors) while keeping the old uncompromising standards? Andrews says no—not enough women consistently embody the hard-edged, truth-first, outcome-over-feelings ethos that historically defined those fields. Some women absolutely do, but scaling to majority-female shifts the institutional culture inevitably. She calls it difficult but true: "A thoroughly feminized civilization will set itself on the road to collapse." Uncomfortable, politically incorrect, and worth debating. What do you think—does she overstate the case, or is there truth here?

Helen Andrews drops two bold, provocative claims on feminization's impact on civilization: 1. Feminization isn't neutral—in key institutions, it's actively harmful. - Rule of law crumbles when judges prioritize "context & relationships" over strict, objective rules (even if outcomes feel harsh). - Academia loses its purpose when it censors "dangerous" ideas instead of pursuing truth relentlessly. - Business innovation stalls when HR-compliant niceness trumps bold, disruptive leadership. - Immigration policy becomes paralyzed: laws exist on paper, but enforcement is blocked if it might "make someone sad." Without rule of law, truth-seeking, secure borders, and innovation, a fully feminized society risks collapse. 2. Demographic feminization → substantive feminization Can we have majority-female professions (lawyers, judges, professors) while keeping the old uncompromising standards? Andrews says no—not enough women consistently embody the hard-edged, truth-first, outcome-over-feelings ethos that historically defined those fields. Some women absolutely do, but scaling to majority-female shifts the institutional culture inevitably. She calls it difficult but true: "A thoroughly feminized civilization will set itself on the road to collapse." Uncomfortable, politically incorrect, and worth debating. What do you think—does she overstate the case, or is there truth here?

Camus

212,481 次观看 • 6 个月前

Wokeness isn’t an ideology you can argue away. Helen Andrews: “If wokeness is the inevitable result of demographic feminization — if any organization or institution that reaches a critical mass of women starts behaving this way, regardless of stated ideology — then we can’t assume it’s over just because the 2020 insanity has quieted down. Better arguments won’t necessarily win. The vibe shift may not stick.” She warns it’s more resilient than people think because it’s rooted in deeper demographic and cultural shifts. Do you see wokeness as primarily an ideology that can be defeated with better ideas? Or is it tied to something more structural like the feminization of institutions that makes it harder to root out? Your take 👇

Wokeness isn’t an ideology you can argue away. Helen Andrews: “If wokeness is the inevitable result of demographic feminization — if any organization or institution that reaches a critical mass of women starts behaving this way, regardless of stated ideology — then we can’t assume it’s over just because the 2020 insanity has quieted down. Better arguments won’t necessarily win. The vibe shift may not stick.” She warns it’s more resilient than people think because it’s rooted in deeper demographic and cultural shifts. Do you see wokeness as primarily an ideology that can be defeated with better ideas? Or is it tied to something more structural like the feminization of institutions that makes it harder to root out? Your take 👇

Camus

30,252 次观看 • 4 个月前

Helen Andrews just said what a lot of people have been noticing but won’t say out loud: Wokeness isn’t really about ideology. It’s feminization. It stormed into NASCAR, the NFL, and Wall Street — the last places you’d expect — and the pattern was unmistakable: women are far more likely to shut down speakers they disagree with, while men say “I disagree, but let him speak.” She argues wokeness is female group dynamics hardwired into institutions, replacing open debate with social enforcement and emotional harmony. Why it matters: We’re trading sharp truth-seeking and real argument for conflict-avoidance and speech policing. That quiet shift is reshaping how every institution actually works. This one landed because I’ve watched the exact change happen in places I’ve worked and hung out — more tone-policing, less willingness to clash over ideas. Not about blaming women, just seeing the pattern clearly. Do you think wokeness is more about feminization of institutional culture than pure ideology — or is that framing off base?

Helen Andrews just said what a lot of people have been noticing but won’t say out loud: Wokeness isn’t really about ideology. It’s feminization. It stormed into NASCAR, the NFL, and Wall Street — the last places you’d expect — and the pattern was unmistakable: women are far more likely to shut down speakers they disagree with, while men say “I disagree, but let him speak.” She argues wokeness is female group dynamics hardwired into institutions, replacing open debate with social enforcement and emotional harmony. Why it matters: We’re trading sharp truth-seeking and real argument for conflict-avoidance and speech policing. That quiet shift is reshaping how every institution actually works. This one landed because I’ve watched the exact change happen in places I’ve worked and hung out — more tone-policing, less willingness to clash over ideas. Not about blaming women, just seeing the pattern clearly. Do you think wokeness is more about feminization of institutional culture than pure ideology — or is that framing off base?

Camus

102,969 次观看 • 3 个月前

I have always been a firm advocate for women's inclusion in governance and decision-making. My commitment to gender equality is unwavering because I believe that a society thrives when women are actively involved in shaping policies and leading initiatives. It is imperative that we take legislative action to secure women's participation in politics. One of the key steps toward this goal is mandating that party delegate selections include women, this is not just about fairness; it is about ensuring that the voices of half our population are heard in leadership spaces. Beyond policy discussions, I have consistently highlighted the challenges women face within governmental structures. Many women in leadership positions hesitate to speak up, often out of fear or societal pressure. This must change. We need structural reforms, including the creation of special seats for women and the enforcement of laws that guarantee at least 35% representation in governance. We must break down entrenched gender stereotypes and cultural barriers that have kept women on the sidelines for too long. At the 69th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), global leaders—including UN Secretary-General António Guterres—reaffirmed the need for more women in leadership. The UN has made significant strides in achieving gender parity among senior leadership by expanding the search for qualified women, proving that when given the opportunity, women lead with excellence and impact. My participation in the Nigeria Women’s Day event at CSW69 is yet another step in my relentless advocacy for gender equality. The fight for inclusion is not just about women—it is about building a more just and prosperous society for all. I will continue to push for systemic change, and I encourage every Nigerian woman to take up space, raise her voice, and claim her rightful place in governance. Together, we can make a difference, not just in Nigeria but on the global stage. Ireti Kingibe, Senator representing the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

I have always been a firm advocate for women's inclusion in governance and decision-making. My commitment to gender equality is unwavering because I believe that a society thrives when women are actively involved in shaping policies and leading initiatives. It is imperative that we take legislative action to secure women's participation in politics. One of the key steps toward this goal is mandating that party delegate selections include women, this is not just about fairness; it is about ensuring that the voices of half our population are heard in leadership spaces. Beyond policy discussions, I have consistently highlighted the challenges women face within governmental structures. Many women in leadership positions hesitate to speak up, often out of fear or societal pressure. This must change. We need structural reforms, including the creation of special seats for women and the enforcement of laws that guarantee at least 35% representation in governance. We must break down entrenched gender stereotypes and cultural barriers that have kept women on the sidelines for too long. At the 69th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), global leaders—including UN Secretary-General António Guterres—reaffirmed the need for more women in leadership. The UN has made significant strides in achieving gender parity among senior leadership by expanding the search for qualified women, proving that when given the opportunity, women lead with excellence and impact. My participation in the Nigeria Women’s Day event at CSW69 is yet another step in my relentless advocacy for gender equality. The fight for inclusion is not just about women—it is about building a more just and prosperous society for all. I will continue to push for systemic change, and I encourage every Nigerian woman to take up space, raise her voice, and claim her rightful place in governance. Together, we can make a difference, not just in Nigeria but on the global stage. Ireti Kingibe, Senator representing the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

Sen. Ireti Kingibe

23,313 次观看 • 1 年前

The natural progression of women wanting to copy men is that British Vogue article. The crux of it is that women are jealous of other women being in relationships while they are not, and they use the masculine “boss babe” agenda to hide that fact. Make them believe the latter to deny the former. So it is the collective way for unsuccessful women to shame those who are successful in their personal lives. Women who are winning will then be influenced into believing that something is wrong with them. The single-female-friend-group self-sabotage is now operating on a grand scale through the networking effect of social media. Another example of the female self-stirring “shitshow” the more we give them a voice. The opposite is not true for men, as men are judged on their accomplishments first and foremost. If a man makes his whole or main identity being a husband, he is falling for the feminine value matrix through association in mating. This is how women are currently trying to frame men as accessories - as evidence of their own success, the same way men do with trophy wives. The copying here happens when women don’t want to come across as “less than” within a relationship, because we have entered a matriarchal and gynocratic society where the approval of other women outweighs the approval of the man they are with. This is further evidence of why “husband material” is an insult toward a man and an early sign of his future emasculation by her, in the same way women are being made to feel. Another effort of the mainstream is to eliminate any degree of polarity between the genders.

The natural progression of women wanting to copy men is that British Vogue article. The crux of it is that women are jealous of other women being in relationships while they are not, and they use the masculine “boss babe” agenda to hide that fact. Make them believe the latter to deny the former. So it is the collective way for unsuccessful women to shame those who are successful in their personal lives. Women who are winning will then be influenced into believing that something is wrong with them. The single-female-friend-group self-sabotage is now operating on a grand scale through the networking effect of social media. Another example of the female self-stirring “shitshow” the more we give them a voice. The opposite is not true for men, as men are judged on their accomplishments first and foremost. If a man makes his whole or main identity being a husband, he is falling for the feminine value matrix through association in mating. This is how women are currently trying to frame men as accessories - as evidence of their own success, the same way men do with trophy wives. The copying here happens when women don’t want to come across as “less than” within a relationship, because we have entered a matriarchal and gynocratic society where the approval of other women outweighs the approval of the man they are with. This is further evidence of why “husband material” is an insult toward a man and an early sign of his future emasculation by her, in the same way women are being made to feel. Another effort of the mainstream is to eliminate any degree of polarity between the genders.

French OG

37,506 次观看 • 9 个月前

Helen Andrews dropped a blunt explanation for why wokeness proved so hard to kill: It’s rooted in feminine patterns of conflict — where disagreement isn’t debated, it’s treated as emotional harm that must be punished or silenced. Instead of open argument (like James Damore’s memo at Google), the response became “I can’t believe you said that” followed by attempts to get the person fired. Men tend to argue, resolve, and move on. Women, she argues, are more likely to hold onto grievances. If wokeness is partly a byproduct of rapid feminization of institutions, Andrews warns it won’t simply vanish with one election. It may be structural. She points to overly “HR-ified” workplaces where feminine preferences for emotional safety now dominate promotions, culture, and daily life — often sidelining masculine strengths in the process. Do you think some institutions have become too feminized in ways that suppress open debate and masculine virtues? Or is this framing off-base?

Helen Andrews dropped a blunt explanation for why wokeness proved so hard to kill: It’s rooted in feminine patterns of conflict — where disagreement isn’t debated, it’s treated as emotional harm that must be punished or silenced. Instead of open argument (like James Damore’s memo at Google), the response became “I can’t believe you said that” followed by attempts to get the person fired. Men tend to argue, resolve, and move on. Women, she argues, are more likely to hold onto grievances. If wokeness is partly a byproduct of rapid feminization of institutions, Andrews warns it won’t simply vanish with one election. It may be structural. She points to overly “HR-ified” workplaces where feminine preferences for emotional safety now dominate promotions, culture, and daily life — often sidelining masculine strengths in the process. Do you think some institutions have become too feminized in ways that suppress open debate and masculine virtues? Or is this framing off-base?

Camus

940,253 次观看 • 3 个月前

Heather Mac Donald dropped a firecracker on John Stossel: universities are now run by a culture of emotional safety and equity, and she says the massive rise in female influence is the driving force behind it. Portraits of legendary male scientists are coming down because they might “trigger” female students. Polls show men overwhelmingly pick truth and academic freedom; women prioritize feelings and fairness. No overlap. She argues this is fatal for universities, whose only job is the ruthless pursuit of truth, not comfort. And she’s calling on parents and men to push back harder, even at home. If we trade uncomfortable discovery for emotional protection, we’re quietly breaking the institution that’s supposed to advance knowledge for everyone. I’ve been chewing on how stark these preference gaps are between men and women in institutions. This one made me rethink what “progress” actually looks like here. Do you believe universities should put emotional safety first, or is that a dangerous tradeoff?

Heather Mac Donald dropped a firecracker on John Stossel: universities are now run by a culture of emotional safety and equity, and she says the massive rise in female influence is the driving force behind it. Portraits of legendary male scientists are coming down because they might “trigger” female students. Polls show men overwhelmingly pick truth and academic freedom; women prioritize feelings and fairness. No overlap. She argues this is fatal for universities, whose only job is the ruthless pursuit of truth, not comfort. And she’s calling on parents and men to push back harder, even at home. If we trade uncomfortable discovery for emotional protection, we’re quietly breaking the institution that’s supposed to advance knowledge for everyone. I’ve been chewing on how stark these preference gaps are between men and women in institutions. This one made me rethink what “progress” actually looks like here. Do you believe universities should put emotional safety first, or is that a dangerous tradeoff?

Camus

116,622 次观看 • 2 个月前

Once institutions reach 50% women, they rarely stop there. Helen Andrews points out that many fields keep feminizing — 52%, 55%, 56%… and in psychology, it’s now 75% female graduate students. It’s not just women out-competing men and hitting natural balance. As environments become more feminized, they often start feeling unwelcoming to men: different conversation styles, more gossip and factions, less tolerance for certain kinds of debate. Men quietly leave, especially those drawn to the harder, more analytical sides of the field, which accelerates the shift. The cycle becomes self-reinforcing. Andrews suggests the only way to reverse it may be deliberately carving out spaces where men can work and debate in a more masculine way — without apology. It’s an uncomfortable but honest observation about how institutions quietly change character over time. Do you see this pattern playing out in fields you’re familiar with? Is there a healthy way to push back without turning everything into a gender war?

Once institutions reach 50% women, they rarely stop there. Helen Andrews points out that many fields keep feminizing — 52%, 55%, 56%… and in psychology, it’s now 75% female graduate students. It’s not just women out-competing men and hitting natural balance. As environments become more feminized, they often start feeling unwelcoming to men: different conversation styles, more gossip and factions, less tolerance for certain kinds of debate. Men quietly leave, especially those drawn to the harder, more analytical sides of the field, which accelerates the shift. The cycle becomes self-reinforcing. Andrews suggests the only way to reverse it may be deliberately carving out spaces where men can work and debate in a more masculine way — without apology. It’s an uncomfortable but honest observation about how institutions quietly change character over time. Do you see this pattern playing out in fields you’re familiar with? Is there a healthy way to push back without turning everything into a gender war?

Camus

599,805 次观看 • 4 个月前

A charity cancelled a choir because its leader believes that women do not have penises. Scope, a charity which supports disabled people, had invited a community choir to cheer on runners at the London Marathon under its banner. But just days before the marathon, Scope rescinded the invitation because the choir leader, Janet Murray, has publicly stated that she believes women are biologically female and that women should be entitled to single-sex spaces. Scope said these views conflicted with its “commitment to diversity and inclusion”. In correspondence with Janet, the charity reportedly said: “We are concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views.” It seems Scope is more concerned about policing lawful opinions than supporting its charitable work on behalf of disabled people — many of whom rely on single-sex care and spaces themselves. Cases involving people being penalised for gender-critical beliefs remain one of the largest categories of cases handled by the Free Speech Union. Under the Equality Act, gender-critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs. Janet is a member of the Free Speech Union and is taking legal action against Scope alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of her protected beliefs. If you have been discriminated against because of your belief that sex is biological and immutable, join the Free Speech Union — and we will stand up for your right to express lawful opinions. Hear from Connie Shaw below and join the FSU 👇

A charity cancelled a choir because its leader believes that women do not have penises. Scope, a charity which supports disabled people, had invited a community choir to cheer on runners at the London Marathon under its banner. But just days before the marathon, Scope rescinded the invitation because the choir leader, Janet Murray, has publicly stated that she believes women are biologically female and that women should be entitled to single-sex spaces. Scope said these views conflicted with its “commitment to diversity and inclusion”. In correspondence with Janet, the charity reportedly said: “We are concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views.” It seems Scope is more concerned about policing lawful opinions than supporting its charitable work on behalf of disabled people — many of whom rely on single-sex care and spaces themselves. Cases involving people being penalised for gender-critical beliefs remain one of the largest categories of cases handled by the Free Speech Union. Under the Equality Act, gender-critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs. Janet is a member of the Free Speech Union and is taking legal action against Scope alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of her protected beliefs. If you have been discriminated against because of your belief that sex is biological and immutable, join the Free Speech Union — and we will stand up for your right to express lawful opinions. Hear from Connie Shaw below and join the FSU 👇

The Free Speech Union

85,170 次观看 • 2 个月前

“I can define a woman… I just take an inclusive approach.” This means she includes men in her definition of women. Ffs. There is a lot to unpack in this snide & immature clip. First of all, Amanda Camm MP is correct: you cannot protect women if you can’t define them. Otherwise, who are you protecting? How are you catering to specific needs? How are you helping a woman whose protection involves single-sex care? Words only purpose is that they have objective meaning. Next, an inclusive approach to the definition of women is… only including women. That’s what inclusivity actually is. Allowing men to be classed as women simply turns the category of woman into a mixed sexed category. It dismantles the category. It’s not inclusive, it’s destructive. Then, she calls defining a woman as importing Trumpian-style politics to Australia. This is laughably stupid. Trump didn’t decide what a woman is, he acknowledged that accurately defining women in law & society was a no brainer political win & ceased upon the opportunity. If you do want to talk about importing American ideologies, that conversation will be about gender ideology. You don’t have an issue with importing problems, only the solution. Not wanting to stop with the stupidity, she then says that it’s all a distraction from the actual issue: men’s violence against women. Who and what are you talking about? If those words aren’t defined, the statement makes no sense. I’ll prove it: in the event there is male violence against men who claim to be women, that is going to be for a very different reason than men’s violence against women, requiring different plans & solutions. See, even to defend your stupid ideology it’s important to have correct definitions so everyone gets the correct help. Finally, she mocks being told it’s tokenistic to wear purple to support the “queer community”. It’s so pathetic, I’m not even going to bother commenting on it. When she was the Minister for Women, Shannon Fentiman blocked me because I said that a woman is an adult human female. She ignored pleas from me and many Queensland-based women to meet with her to discuss our opposition to self ID laws. She says she is not ashamed of her stance but she should be. She is ignoring women in favor of men, proving in actions instead of words that she knows *exactly* what a woman is.

“I can define a woman… I just take an inclusive approach.” This means she includes men in her definition of women. Ffs. There is a lot to unpack in this snide & immature clip. First of all, Amanda Camm MP is correct: you cannot protect women if you can’t define them. Otherwise, who are you protecting? How are you catering to specific needs? How are you helping a woman whose protection involves single-sex care? Words only purpose is that they have objective meaning. Next, an inclusive approach to the definition of women is… only including women. That’s what inclusivity actually is. Allowing men to be classed as women simply turns the category of woman into a mixed sexed category. It dismantles the category. It’s not inclusive, it’s destructive. Then, she calls defining a woman as importing Trumpian-style politics to Australia. This is laughably stupid. Trump didn’t decide what a woman is, he acknowledged that accurately defining women in law & society was a no brainer political win & ceased upon the opportunity. If you do want to talk about importing American ideologies, that conversation will be about gender ideology. You don’t have an issue with importing problems, only the solution. Not wanting to stop with the stupidity, she then says that it’s all a distraction from the actual issue: men’s violence against women. Who and what are you talking about? If those words aren’t defined, the statement makes no sense. I’ll prove it: in the event there is male violence against men who claim to be women, that is going to be for a very different reason than men’s violence against women, requiring different plans & solutions. See, even to defend your stupid ideology it’s important to have correct definitions so everyone gets the correct help. Finally, she mocks being told it’s tokenistic to wear purple to support the “queer community”. It’s so pathetic, I’m not even going to bother commenting on it. When she was the Minister for Women, Shannon Fentiman blocked me because I said that a woman is an adult human female. She ignored pleas from me and many Queensland-based women to meet with her to discuss our opposition to self ID laws. She says she is not ashamed of her stance but she should be. She is ignoring women in favor of men, proving in actions instead of words that she knows exactly what a woman is.

Sall Grover

40,674 次观看 • 11 个月前

FAKE FEMINISTS: Women's org celebrates man for International Women's Day You know, Canada used to produce real feminists. Women who actually fought for women. Women who risked their reputations, their safety, and sometimes even their freedom to win basic rights that seem obvious today. One of the most prominent examples of that fight happened right here in Canada with a group known as the “Famous Five.” In the 1920s, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby took on the Canadian government over a simple but outrageous question: Were women legally considered “persons”? Yes. That was the actual legal question. At the time, women could not sit in the Senate because the law only allowed “qualified persons.” And according to the courts, that word did not include women. So, the Famous Five challenged the system. They fought their case all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain and in 1929 they won the historic Persons Case, which affirmed that women were indeed persons under the law. It was a foundational victory for women’s political rights in Canada. Their legacy is supposed to be about defending women as a distinct class with their own rights and interests. Which makes what just happened in Ottawa so astonishing. Because the Famous Five Foundation — the organization that claims to carry on the legacy of those women — has decided to honour a biological man. Not just any man. A man who has openly advocated for silencing women who defend women-only spaces. His name is Fae Johnstone, a prominent activist in Canada’s trans lobby. Through organizations like Queer Momentum and Wisdom2Action, groups that together receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in public and institutional funding, he has built a professional advocacy career pushing gender ideology into Canadian institutions and fighting against parents' rights. That advocacy often comes with a very clear message to women: fall in line or be shut up — or worse. Women who question whether female-only spaces, sports, shelters or prisons should remain female-only are routinely labelled hateful, bigoted or dangerous by activists in this movement and by Johnstone more specifically. In other words, women who try to defend the very rights that the Famous Five fought to establish are treated like enemies. And yet, somehow, the Famous Five Foundation in Ottawa decided this was the person worthy of recognition as part of International Women's Day. Think about the absurdity of that for a moment. The women who fought to have women recognized as persons are now being invoked to celebrate a man who believes womanhood is simply a matter of personal identification. A movement that once fought to define women as a legal and biological reality is now apparently comfortable honouring someone who insists those boundaries don’t exist at all. And this isn’t the first time institutions have tried to sell Canadians this idea. Johnstone was previously the keynote speaker at the YWCA Regina’s Women of Distinction Awards, another event meant to celebrate women’s achievements — but apparently now open to men who identify as women. At some point, we have to ask the obvious question: If awards for women keep going to men, what exactly is left that belongs to women? It’s institutional cowardice dressed up as progress. Real feminism used to mean defending women, even when it was unpopular. Even when powerful people didn’t like it. The Famous Five challenged the establishment because women were being erased from the definition of “persons.” Today, their legacy is being used to applaud the erasure of women from their own spaces. If Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung could see what their foundation is doing now, they would probably ask a very simple question: After everything we fought for… how did it come to this? Because the truth is, the people running these institutions today are not continuing the legacy of the Famous Five. They’re dismantling it. REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:

FAKE FEMINISTS: Women's org celebrates man for International Women's Day You know, Canada used to produce real feminists. Women who actually fought for women. Women who risked their reputations, their safety, and sometimes even their freedom to win basic rights that seem obvious today. One of the most prominent examples of that fight happened right here in Canada with a group known as the “Famous Five.” In the 1920s, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby took on the Canadian government over a simple but outrageous question: Were women legally considered “persons”? Yes. That was the actual legal question. At the time, women could not sit in the Senate because the law only allowed “qualified persons.” And according to the courts, that word did not include women. So, the Famous Five challenged the system. They fought their case all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain and in 1929 they won the historic Persons Case, which affirmed that women were indeed persons under the law. It was a foundational victory for women’s political rights in Canada. Their legacy is supposed to be about defending women as a distinct class with their own rights and interests. Which makes what just happened in Ottawa so astonishing. Because the Famous Five Foundation — the organization that claims to carry on the legacy of those women — has decided to honour a biological man. Not just any man. A man who has openly advocated for silencing women who defend women-only spaces. His name is Fae Johnstone, a prominent activist in Canada’s trans lobby. Through organizations like Queer Momentum and Wisdom2Action, groups that together receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in public and institutional funding, he has built a professional advocacy career pushing gender ideology into Canadian institutions and fighting against parents' rights. That advocacy often comes with a very clear message to women: fall in line or be shut up — or worse. Women who question whether female-only spaces, sports, shelters or prisons should remain female-only are routinely labelled hateful, bigoted or dangerous by activists in this movement and by Johnstone more specifically. In other words, women who try to defend the very rights that the Famous Five fought to establish are treated like enemies. And yet, somehow, the Famous Five Foundation in Ottawa decided this was the person worthy of recognition as part of International Women's Day. Think about the absurdity of that for a moment. The women who fought to have women recognized as persons are now being invoked to celebrate a man who believes womanhood is simply a matter of personal identification. A movement that once fought to define women as a legal and biological reality is now apparently comfortable honouring someone who insists those boundaries don’t exist at all. And this isn’t the first time institutions have tried to sell Canadians this idea. Johnstone was previously the keynote speaker at the YWCA Regina’s Women of Distinction Awards, another event meant to celebrate women’s achievements — but apparently now open to men who identify as women. At some point, we have to ask the obvious question: If awards for women keep going to men, what exactly is left that belongs to women? It’s institutional cowardice dressed up as progress. Real feminism used to mean defending women, even when it was unpopular. Even when powerful people didn’t like it. The Famous Five challenged the establishment because women were being erased from the definition of “persons.” Today, their legacy is being used to applaud the erasure of women from their own spaces. If Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung could see what their foundation is doing now, they would probably ask a very simple question: After everything we fought for… how did it come to this? Because the truth is, the people running these institutions today are not continuing the legacy of the Famous Five. They’re dismantling it. REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:

Rebel News

63,740 次观看 • 4 个月前

Graham Linehan (Graham Linehan) was grossly misrepresented on Bill Maher this week. Glinner’s arrest was mentioned in the context of free speech - correct - but was used as a punchline more than a warning. His tweets were mentioned as “grossly offensive” without ever showing them. One of the three tweets he was arrested over said “a photo you can smell”. That’s not even offensive let alone grossly. This is just a bad cycle. Framing anything blatantly truthful about gender ideology as “grossly offensive” - especially when no evidence or context is given - literally repeats the dangerous pattern of arrest or worse. Trans activists thrive on this. They rely on it. Thousands of people - mainly women - have plainly stated the bullshit of gender ideology. Some people would say it’s grossly offensive to do so. Many have called us Nazis for it. Worse have sent threats because of it. All because we have said things like “there is no such this has trangender”, men who claim to be women are “con men”, and “all trans activism is trolling.” These are all true statements, ripe for healthy debate to anyone willing. None are. Once again, the sympathy is with the ideology taking away rights, not the poole it’s taking it away from. This is not progress. Graham deserves defending here not just because he didn’t say anything “grossly offensive” but because even if he did it doesn’t warrant being arrested or being a punchline.

Graham Linehan (Graham Linehan) was grossly misrepresented on Bill Maher this week. Glinner’s arrest was mentioned in the context of free speech - correct - but was used as a punchline more than a warning. His tweets were mentioned as “grossly offensive” without ever showing them. One of the three tweets he was arrested over said “a photo you can smell”. That’s not even offensive let alone grossly. This is just a bad cycle. Framing anything blatantly truthful about gender ideology as “grossly offensive” - especially when no evidence or context is given - literally repeats the dangerous pattern of arrest or worse. Trans activists thrive on this. They rely on it. Thousands of people - mainly women - have plainly stated the bullshit of gender ideology. Some people would say it’s grossly offensive to do so. Many have called us Nazis for it. Worse have sent threats because of it. All because we have said things like “there is no such this has trangender”, men who claim to be women are “con men”, and “all trans activism is trolling.” These are all true statements, ripe for healthy debate to anyone willing. None are. Once again, the sympathy is with the ideology taking away rights, not the poole it’s taking it away from. This is not progress. Graham deserves defending here not just because he didn’t say anything “grossly offensive” but because even if he did it doesn’t warrant being arrested or being a punchline.

Sall Grover

205,010 次观看 • 10 个月前

Helen Andrews makes a sharp, uncomfortable point in this 2:18 clip: the rapid feminization of elite professions—especially law—may have helped fuel the spread of “wokeness,” and she worries that’s particularly dangerous in the legal system. She argues that law, more than almost any other field, needs people who are literal-minded, rule-bound, and devoted to objective justice rather than consensus and making everyone feel comfortable. When the dominant moral style shifts toward relationships and harm avoidance, she says, you risk corrupting the very idea of due process. She points to the Obama-era Title IX campus courts and the Me Too movement as real-world glimpses of what happens when feminist priorities override centuries-old legal protections: lower burdens of proof, no cross-examination of accusers, lives ruined on weak evidence. The results, she says, were often unjust. Her concern isn’t women in law—it’s the potential loss of the cold, fact-driven, rule-following mindset that keeps the legal system fair and functional. Is she right that demographic shifts in elite fields can change institutional culture in ways that undermine justice? Or is this overstated? Watch the clip and decide for yourself.

Helen Andrews makes a sharp, uncomfortable point in this 2:18 clip: the rapid feminization of elite professions—especially law—may have helped fuel the spread of “wokeness,” and she worries that’s particularly dangerous in the legal system. She argues that law, more than almost any other field, needs people who are literal-minded, rule-bound, and devoted to objective justice rather than consensus and making everyone feel comfortable. When the dominant moral style shifts toward relationships and harm avoidance, she says, you risk corrupting the very idea of due process. She points to the Obama-era Title IX campus courts and the Me Too movement as real-world glimpses of what happens when feminist priorities override centuries-old legal protections: lower burdens of proof, no cross-examination of accusers, lives ruined on weak evidence. The results, she says, were often unjust. Her concern isn’t women in law—it’s the potential loss of the cold, fact-driven, rule-following mindset that keeps the legal system fair and functional. Is she right that demographic shifts in elite fields can change institutional culture in ways that undermine justice? Or is this overstated? Watch the clip and decide for yourself.

Camus

232,098 次观看 • 5 个月前

Modern dating is full of double standards that most people pretend don't exist. If a woman says she wants a fit, successful, emotionally intelligent man: She's "high value." If a man says he wants a fit, feminine, and pleasant woman: He's suddenly "superficial" or "objectifying." Same energy. Different verdict. A woman with many past partners is often called "empowered." A man with the same history? "Player" or "emotionally unavailable." Someone cancels last minute or ghosts? If it's a man, it's "toxic masculinity." If it's a woman, "she's protecting her peace." Same energy. Different verdict. Men are told to drop traditional expectations, split everything 50-50, and to be vulnerable. Women are told never to lower their standards and that their feelings are always valid. One side is told to drop the old expectations, while the other side is encouraged to keep the best of both the old and the new rules. That's not equality. That's a rigged game. And that's not sustainable. So, don't be surprised if the dating world today is as messy as it is. As it is, there are some inherent double standards. Most women find roughly 80% of men unattractive and focus their attention on the top tier. Whereas men are far less selective. I call these asymmetries that derive from biological realities. Women bear a higher reproductive cost, so are naturally choosier. Men compete, women choose. That's how it is. Deal with it! Expecting equality in every interaction – women not getting attention from the men they desire, and men not getting attention from the majority of women – only breeds resentment on both sides. The way forward for anyone serious about a real relationship? Drop the slogans. Be honest about what you actually want. Be honest about what you bring to the table. Have real conversations instead of playing by politically correct scripts. That's how you find genuine compatibility. If you're a busy, accomplished single tired of the games, this is for you. Save this. Share it with someone who needs the reality check. For more unfiltered perspectives on life, love, and relationships, follow along.

Modern dating is full of double standards that most people pretend don't exist. If a woman says she wants a fit, successful, emotionally intelligent man: She's "high value." If a man says he wants a fit, feminine, and pleasant woman: He's suddenly "superficial" or "objectifying." Same energy. Different verdict. A woman with many past partners is often called "empowered." A man with the same history? "Player" or "emotionally unavailable." Someone cancels last minute or ghosts? If it's a man, it's "toxic masculinity." If it's a woman, "she's protecting her peace." Same energy. Different verdict. Men are told to drop traditional expectations, split everything 50-50, and to be vulnerable. Women are told never to lower their standards and that their feelings are always valid. One side is told to drop the old expectations, while the other side is encouraged to keep the best of both the old and the new rules. That's not equality. That's a rigged game. And that's not sustainable. So, don't be surprised if the dating world today is as messy as it is. As it is, there are some inherent double standards. Most women find roughly 80% of men unattractive and focus their attention on the top tier. Whereas men are far less selective. I call these asymmetries that derive from biological realities. Women bear a higher reproductive cost, so are naturally choosier. Men compete, women choose. That's how it is. Deal with it! Expecting equality in every interaction – women not getting attention from the men they desire, and men not getting attention from the majority of women – only breeds resentment on both sides. The way forward for anyone serious about a real relationship? Drop the slogans. Be honest about what you actually want. Be honest about what you bring to the table. Have real conversations instead of playing by politically correct scripts. That's how you find genuine compatibility. If you're a busy, accomplished single tired of the games, this is for you. Save this. Share it with someone who needs the reality check. For more unfiltered perspectives on life, love, and relationships, follow along.

S. Anil Kumar

33,189 次观看 • 1 个月前

19 year old Mohammad Ayaz from Amravati, Maharashtra was caught after having physical relationships and recording them with 180 plus girls. Some were minors (16-17), some were his age, and significant women include working adult women and young professionals. They literally slept with him with consent. He himself was a minor when he started dating adult Hindu women. Now people are saying it's love jihad. No, it's the lack of character of those women, who face no accountability and always get victimized. It's a fact that it's not some luring or love jihad. It's the failed parenting of Hindus and the failed Hindu society. It's Hindus who pushed this equality narrative. It's Hindus who failed to teach morals to their daughters, while making men act like simps. You can see all over Insta, feminist Hindu women literally spread hate on Hindu men day and night. They spread hate on Hindu customs. They promote inter-religion marriages. They say women can still be Hindus after marrying out. They support Westerners in spreading hate on India. Our nation literally hypes those immodest Bollywood actresses as women icons. What else can you expect. And you all blame Muslim women for being loyal to their community. Make it make sense. Shouldn't women be loyal to their religion? You either think men and women are equal, or you treat women like women. You cannot cherry pick to make them a victim all the time. Start by stopping being a simp who will say don't judge women by clothes, virginity doesn't matter, etc. Conveniently blaming only Muslims and not those women who willingly date them just proves how weak our society has become. It was not forced. Use your brains to understand who the real culprits are. People even defend it by saying he will convert you after marriage. What kind of low testosterone mindset is that? She isn't supposed to even enter our temples after dating a Muslim guy. A Hindu girl who marries a Muslim isn't a Hindu anymore. How are so many adult working women and even married women getting lured every single day? I'm not defending that Muslim guy. He should be punished. But shouldn't we ask accountability from well educated adult Hindu women?

19 year old Mohammad Ayaz from Amravati, Maharashtra was caught after having physical relationships and recording them with 180 plus girls. Some were minors (16-17), some were his age, and significant women include working adult women and young professionals. They literally slept with him with consent. He himself was a minor when he started dating adult Hindu women. Now people are saying it's love jihad. No, it's the lack of character of those women, who face no accountability and always get victimized. It's a fact that it's not some luring or love jihad. It's the failed parenting of Hindus and the failed Hindu society. It's Hindus who pushed this equality narrative. It's Hindus who failed to teach morals to their daughters, while making men act like simps. You can see all over Insta, feminist Hindu women literally spread hate on Hindu men day and night. They spread hate on Hindu customs. They promote inter-religion marriages. They say women can still be Hindus after marrying out. They support Westerners in spreading hate on India. Our nation literally hypes those immodest Bollywood actresses as women icons. What else can you expect. And you all blame Muslim women for being loyal to their community. Make it make sense. Shouldn't women be loyal to their religion? You either think men and women are equal, or you treat women like women. You cannot cherry pick to make them a victim all the time. Start by stopping being a simp who will say don't judge women by clothes, virginity doesn't matter, etc. Conveniently blaming only Muslims and not those women who willingly date them just proves how weak our society has become. It was not forced. Use your brains to understand who the real culprits are. People even defend it by saying he will convert you after marriage. What kind of low testosterone mindset is that? She isn't supposed to even enter our temples after dating a Muslim guy. A Hindu girl who marries a Muslim isn't a Hindu anymore. How are so many adult working women and even married women getting lured every single day? I'm not defending that Muslim guy. He should be punished. But shouldn't we ask accountability from well educated adult Hindu women?

︎ ︎venom

1,077,687 次观看 • 3 个月前

A man who claims to be a woman attempted to explain what women think about men who claim to be women. He completely failed. *ahem* • “They reject the distinction between gender identity and sex and that these two things can be in conflict” No. We know that gender identity & sex are very different. In fact that is basically our entire argument. Gender identity = a manmade concept. Sex = Naturally observable over the entire natural world, including humans. Binary & immutable. • “They are concerned with the safety & integrity of spaces that are typically reserved for women” No. Not “typically”. *Are*. ARE reserved for women. “Typically” is an admission that you know the group trying to gain access to the women’s spaces aren’t women. Which is our entire point to begin with, sir. They’re men. • “Trans people are concerned with safety & privacy in private spaces.” Great. Then leave women’s spaces alone, respecting the women who want them, and focus on creating your own spaces catering to your “man claiming to be woman” needs, whatever they may be. We won’t stop you. • “Trans people are seeking to go about their business & mind their business” Cool story, but the problem is the process of that appears to be changing the definition of “woman” in law & gaining access to women’s spaces, services & sport. So we fight back because we are not willing to give up our rights & needs so men in dresses can “go about their business”. • “We have had inclusive policies… and there was not a spate of people pretending to be trans, going into spaces & abusing anyone.” Either a) you’re ignoring all of the cases of men invading women’s spaces & sexually assaulting women - we can name 10 examples just in prisons off the top of our head - because it doesn’t suit your argument; b) you’re completely aware & just lying; c) you argument is they weren’t “trans” which means they must have been making it up; d) even if there were no cases, it still doesn’t make men women! • “Discomfort alone is not grounds to exclude people.” No, it isn’t. Sex is. Men are excluded from women’s spaces on the basis of sex. We exclude all men, including men with a gender identity and men we are comfortable with. It’s frankly unforgivable to speak this untruthfully about this issue in 2026, and it’s utterly shameful that two men just nodded along to blatantly obvious untruths. This is the intellectual equivalent of junk food.

A man who claims to be a woman attempted to explain what women think about men who claim to be women. He completely failed. ahem • “They reject the distinction between gender identity and sex and that these two things can be in conflict” No. We know that gender identity & sex are very different. In fact that is basically our entire argument. Gender identity = a manmade concept. Sex = Naturally observable over the entire natural world, including humans. Binary & immutable. • “They are concerned with the safety & integrity of spaces that are typically reserved for women” No. Not “typically”. Are. ARE reserved for women. “Typically” is an admission that you know the group trying to gain access to the women’s spaces aren’t women. Which is our entire point to begin with, sir. They’re men. • “Trans people are concerned with safety & privacy in private spaces.” Great. Then leave women’s spaces alone, respecting the women who want them, and focus on creating your own spaces catering to your “man claiming to be woman” needs, whatever they may be. We won’t stop you. • “Trans people are seeking to go about their business & mind their business” Cool story, but the problem is the process of that appears to be changing the definition of “woman” in law & gaining access to women’s spaces, services & sport. So we fight back because we are not willing to give up our rights & needs so men in dresses can “go about their business”. • “We have had inclusive policies… and there was not a spate of people pretending to be trans, going into spaces & abusing anyone.” Either a) you’re ignoring all of the cases of men invading women’s spaces & sexually assaulting women - we can name 10 examples just in prisons off the top of our head - because it doesn’t suit your argument; b) you’re completely aware & just lying; c) you argument is they weren’t “trans” which means they must have been making it up; d) even if there were no cases, it still doesn’t make men women! • “Discomfort alone is not grounds to exclude people.” No, it isn’t. Sex is. Men are excluded from women’s spaces on the basis of sex. We exclude all men, including men with a gender identity and men we are comfortable with. It’s frankly unforgivable to speak this untruthfully about this issue in 2026, and it’s utterly shameful that two men just nodded along to blatantly obvious untruths. This is the intellectual equivalent of junk food.

Sall Grover

122,589 次观看 • 3 个月前

Watch this video keenly, Then you will understand what I will write below: — I don't know how many times I will say this, When it is time to sex your woman, Do it and do it well. Be ruthless. She is not an egg. She is not fragile. She craves a powerful, masculine moment that lowers her and belittles her. She wants a man to calm her ovaries and soothe her chaotic hormones. That is what she wants. If you don't, then that is your problem. Blame yourself. Every time you walk in the streets, you meet women who are so sad, disappointed and angry. All these chaotic women on social media are crying for help. They want a man so desperately to fuck the nonsense out of their heads. These women are under-fucked. They are overworked, underpaid, underfed, and overstimulated by the availability of sensual triggers all over the place. Music, Videos, Conversations, Situations, Social media, Amerix, All these triggers tickle their fertility hormones, making them wet and confused. It is the reason why a stranger with the guts of a night-runner is able to convince them for a one-night fling. 100% of gender conflicts will end the day these women will get men who don't entertain them. Screw these women so hard so that they can align and respect themselves. Most of them are petulant and bellicose because no man is calming their reproductive anxieties. I have not said you start sleeping with random women. I have not told you to be promiscuous. Promiscuity is despicable. I have said, if you are in a relationship, when it is time to slide into her pants, fuck her so hard. It is shameful to be meeting desperate, angry and sad women in the streets just because in their relationships, the man is unable to do what nature has commanded him to do. A Swahili proverb says, "Kitanda kisipovunjika, ndoa itavunjika." Translation: If the bed doesn't get broken, the marriage will instead be broken. #ManDay

Sensitive content

Watch this video keenly, Then you will understand what I will write below: — I don't know how many times I will say this, When it is time to sex your woman, Do it and do it well. Be ruthless. She is not an egg. She is not fragile. She craves a powerful, masculine moment that lowers her and belittles her. She wants a man to calm her ovaries and soothe her chaotic hormones. That is what she wants. If you don't, then that is your problem. Blame yourself. Every time you walk in the streets, you meet women who are so sad, disappointed and angry. All these chaotic women on social media are crying for help. They want a man so desperately to fuck the nonsense out of their heads. These women are under-fucked. They are overworked, underpaid, underfed, and overstimulated by the availability of sensual triggers all over the place. Music, Videos, Conversations, Situations, Social media, Amerix, All these triggers tickle their fertility hormones, making them wet and confused. It is the reason why a stranger with the guts of a night-runner is able to convince them for a one-night fling. 100% of gender conflicts will end the day these women will get men who don't entertain them. Screw these women so hard so that they can align and respect themselves. Most of them are petulant and bellicose because no man is calming their reproductive anxieties. I have not said you start sleeping with random women. I have not told you to be promiscuous. Promiscuity is despicable. I have said, if you are in a relationship, when it is time to slide into her pants, fuck her so hard. It is shameful to be meeting desperate, angry and sad women in the streets just because in their relationships, the man is unable to do what nature has commanded him to do. A Swahili proverb says, "Kitanda kisipovunjika, ndoa itavunjika." Translation: If the bed doesn't get broken, the marriage will instead be broken. #ManDay

Eric

280,023 次观看 • 5 个月前