Dear Janet, you embody the entire feminist problem


Writing in The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen takes umbrage with fellow columnist and self-confessed alcoholic Nikki Gemmell who had declared that men who choose to become obstetricians only do so because of reasons of power over women, you know the drill.

“Gemmell may not have meant to join this miserable movement. Maybe she was naive. But her claim that we should question the motives of why a man would want to be an obstetrician gives cover to others who choose gender as a determination of good or bad motives. Think of the obsessions about the white patriarchy and toxic masculinity. Rather than ­encourage more of these mindless accusations, can’t we agree that this genre of revenge feminism deserves no helpers? And that men should not have to defend themselves against inchoate claims about bad motives?

“Revenge feminism is one part of a larger body of grievance politics, each offshoot with its own misguided postmodernist pursuit.”

The term revenge feminism is a tautology, for feminism is predicated on ideas of revenge; revenge against men, revenge against other women, revenge against society, and revenge against God. Feminism is 24/7 revenge for the permanently outraged and lazy. It is why male-feminists are the most obtuse people in the world.

Albrechtsen goes on to make the case for men. She has a 19 year old son and now she worries for him. As a journalist with a very broad reach in Australia, perhaps she should have woken up to what was going on a few years ago. Would she have written the article if she did not have a son to worry about? I doubt it.

But for those of us in this corner of the interwebs there is not really anything of interest here. After all, we’ve been talking about this for years. I first had a conversation with someone about the growing legal discrimination against men in Australia back in 1991. Back then if you were a woman you had some sort of statutory protection. Likewise if you were black or disabled or any other number of victim hood categories. That’s how long this has been going on.

So why write about this? Because of an entirely different reason. This passage in her long and heartfelt piece caught my fearful yellow eye.

“Gender stereotypes can blow back on women, too. Working as a young lawyer at a large law firm in Sydney more than two decades ago, I noticed that a higher proportion of senior female lawyers, partners in particular, were rude and dismissive. Kind of like that ­female obstetrician I would encounter some years later.

“What was their beef? Maybe some thought young female lawyers had slid too easily into our chosen profession compared with their harder road. But why punish us for their trials and tribulations? Others didn’t discriminate on the basis of sex; they were equally awful to young men and women. The point is that some of us grew wary of older female lawyers and preferred to work for men. The men weren’t necessarily caring or gentle but they were fair.”

Anyone with experience of working with women in positions of authority knows this truism. They are consistently awful to women below them and consistently obsequious to women above them. They are awful to men as well but they save their most impressive bad behavior for the girls. Every single female manager that I have ever worked with has been like this, with only a single exception to buck the trend.

This is because in general women handle power very badly. To understand how women instinctively use power, one need only observe young girls playing in a schoolyard. Whereas boys will immediately begin to play an invented game and make up and adjust the rules as they are needed, girls spend nearly all their time carefully constructing a complicated and bewildering litany of rules that are all specifically designed to keep every girl in her allotted social place. This behavior does not change into adulthood; it merely becomes slightly more sophisticated. Everyone knows that girls mature faster than boys. What is left unsaid is that their maturity development permanently halts at the age of 16.

The revenge feminism that Albrechtsen complains about is merely unchecked female social behavior on steroids. And the type of women to practice it were the ones at the bottom of the playground social ladder. Feminism is bad for women because feminism is inherently antithetical to women. It is revenge for losing out in school, for losing out with the boys, and for losing out in marriage and childbearing. Consider these points when you look at this photo of the CEO of Rugby Australia, Raelene Castle.

One final quote from Albrechtsen.

“Today, the pendulum has swung even further. In our biggest companies, in government bureaucracies and at universities too, gender is more prominent than ever. The way it is panning out, with quotas and special privileges for women, we are focusing less on people as individuals.

“Today, if you want a genuine equal opportunity employer, your best bet may be a small business that is mercifully free of gender rules, and HR departments that enforce them.”

In other words, a small business that is mercifully free of women.

Which is the ironic thing about her entire article; Janet is part of the problem. High flying young lawyer and now journalist and political commentator, she epitomises the female overreach and invasion of society and the feminisation of our daily lives. Yes, she may well be one of the few women that are not part of the problem, but the very few that exist are in no way compensatory for the greater whole that are actively destroying our society to the point that women with sons and half a brain are now seriously concerned.

The very best thing that Albrechtsen could do to help fix what has been broken would be to immediately resign with an open letter to Australian women stating that they, along with the weak men who allowed this to happen, are the problem, and that they need to get out of the way, get back in the kitchen, start having babies, and shut the hell up.

But that won’t and shouldn’t happen. This problem was ultimately created by weak men who allowed women to run riot, and as such it must be fixed by strong men who know what has to be done. The harridans must be put back in their basket, banished from normal society, and only spoken of in whispers in the future so as to scare young girls into line so that they too do not stray and fall into the clutches of a chaotic cult that was once called feminism.

This article was originally published at, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here.