Andrew Cadman: We are paying a high price for the feminisation of Britain

So President Donald Trump has banned transgenders from serving in the American military. The decision is brutal, discriminatory, exclusive, logical and right.

And masculine.

It shows how far we have travelled in Western civilisation during recent years that such a decision seems remotely controversial, because our society has become so completely, utterly feminised at every level: the present is undoubtedly female, with feminine strengths and feminine weaknesses, and it is reluctance to confront the latter that explains a great deal of our current malaise.

To start with, a couple of caveats: firstly to talk of the “feminisation of society” is rather insulting to women: the private sphere has always been feminised, and so the phrase implies that the only kind of society that matters is the public, previously masculine, sphere. We should also acknowledge that public sphere has benefited greatly in some ways from being more female oriented: it is some ways much kinder, more empathetic and with considerably less casual intolerance and violence.

However, the current imbalance between male and female culture is now deeply damaging the Western world, in the ways listed below.

Society has a pathological need to be inclusive: as a rule women dislike hierarchy, discrimination or exclusion. This has led to a catastrophic crippling of society’s ability to be exclusive and discriminatory when this is necessary.

The most glaring example of this is the total unwillingness to accept that Islam and many of its practices are both vastly inferior and incompatible with Western culture and should instead – despite huge evidence that it does not deserve it – be automatically afforded equality of respect.

A belief that love conquers all: after each Islamic atrocity, we are told we should ‘not look back in anger’ and instead of taking firm action hold sentiment-drenched candlelit vigils. Violence and confrontation in self-defence is frowned upon. ISIS must be quaking in its boots.

Emotion over logic: most glaringly manifest by the current transgender madness, this has reached the level of basic denial of biology in place of subjective emotion.

Censorship based on offence: once repressive societies repressed freedom of speech as a way of supressing truths that embarrassed the regime. Now, it does so because such truth causes hurt and offence. Feelings matter more than facts. John McEnroe’s recent attempted shaming by the media over entirely factual observations he made about women’s tennis being just the latest insane example.

Psychological manipulation: whereas once we had bullying and coercion in society through masculine physical force, now it takes the form of Twitter storms and the endless repetition of media narratives to enforce ‘correct’ behaviours – a public form of female nagging.

Victim culture: the much greater readiness of women to complain has led to an unhealthy victim culture spreading throughout society, and the establishment of a victim hierarchy.

Virtue-signalling: the feminine instinct for both giving and receiving validation is expressed through empty gestures designed not genuinely to help others but to invite praise for one’s own goodness.

Risk aversion and short horizons: it is said that men are romantics pretending to be practical and women are practical but pretending to be romantic. The feminisation of our politics has led to the ascendency of a dull, cautious technocracy, bereft of vision or big ideas. For example, where America builds hyperloops, we build new railways based on 1970s' ideas and technologies. The masculine lust for risk and adventure that so fired Britain in our golden ages of trade and industry are tragically lacking from the Brexit debate.

Misandry: the elevation of feminine values over masculine ones has led to a widespread belittling of men and masculinity. This has been perhaps most damaging in the education system, which vastly favours the co-operative style of learning favoured by girls over boys. More generally there is a now deep-rooted, knee-jerk prejudice in society that anything male-dominated must somehow be wrong, and must be reformed.

Economic stagnation: the feminist Camille Paglia once famously said: “If civilisation had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts”. A rather sweeping statement, but could the long-term economic slowdown throughout the West be attributed, at least in part, due to its feminisation?

Sooner or later, some public figure is going to find the considerable courage to speak the truth: the cumulative effect of feminisation is that society has lost almost all capacity to reason, and slides further and further into the abyss of economic stagnation, social malaise and cultural repression; unable to defend or even reproduce itself.

Plainly we should not aim to swing the pendulum back too far the other way; to construct some Life On Mars masculinised dystopia, but instead to a more balanced society with masculine virtues as well as feminine ones.

The future should not be female.

(Image: David Holt)

Andrew Cadman

  • Groan

    Enumerated the problem well. The core of the problem is actually that feminism sees the world in terms of two “classes” based on Biology (hence their antipathy to Trans. issues). So assume (contrary to what they say) there is are differences. Of course Biology backs this up to an extent, but generally what is observed are tendencies rather than uniformities. Of course this means that behaviours, which can be learned, are assumed to be intrinsic. So rather than look at economics and presume that successful behaviours of competition are essential to the activity they assume its “male”. The former would mean that a good idea would be to teach people the behaviours rather than our current plan which appears to be to change the sex of the “players” and assume the game will be completely different! The latter is high risk for its success in a global economy relies on all “players” adopting new rules and indeed the thesis that something other than capitalist economics can deliver. The Swedes overcome this by concentrating men in their competitive productive sectors and women in services with the wealth from the former funding the latter. So simultaneously they are the supreme feminist society and one of the most occupation and sector “segregated” societies with a very “poor” record of women in higher management (even in the feminised public services in fact). As they continually try to get the productive sector to force men to take leave and work shorter hours they are attacking the goose that lays their particular golden egg.

  • David

    This article gets to the root of the matter very well and correctly identifies many of our problems, which are simply not being addressed, but allowed to foster for future generations to either endure or rectify, a process which is itself immoral and selfish in the extreme.
    Apart from the recent, factually accurate “Dunkirk” film, the products of the over-powerful media/education and political cartel are uniformly feminine in tone. It is must be tough growing up as a boy or young man in this feminised PC world. Males sure have the odds stacked against them nowadays. It is no wonder that so few young men are prepared to take on the thankless task of being good, loyal and hardworking husbands and fathers.

    • EmpressJadis

      What goes on in universities is dire

      • ale bro

        all that learning and teaching in universities is a huge affront to right minded people!!

        • Baron_Jackfield

          The “learning” is OK… The Marxist PC brainwashing not so much so.

        • EmpressJadis

          No. The obsession with artificial gender-constructs and the whinifacation of history.

          • 3aple

            I think this illustrates where it has taken us.

            Transgender high school student stars on female track team: ‘I do hope I inspire people’

            Coach: ‘I have a spectacular female athlete. There’s nothing more to say’
            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/7/andraya-yearwood-transgender-athlete-stars-on-fema/
            This is not the only instance I have read. Now that ‘progressive’ US educational politics mean young girls are now likely to lose out on sports scholarships to university, its suddenly OK to start questioning where its all going.
            .

    • Ron

      Recommend group-viewing the 1969 “Battle of Britain” film with surround-sound if possible immediately after seeing “Dunkirk” – factually accurate description of events immediately afterwards, and even-handed with a lot of genuine equipment and attitudes. Many younger people will be as unaware of reality of BoB as of Dunkirk.

      • martianonlooker

        I seem to recall Susannah York in full webbing and I don’t mean military. Made my somethings move.

        • 3aple

          That wouldn’t be ’58 Pattern, then?

          .

  • James Chilton

    “….as a rule women dislike hierarchy, discrimination or exclusion.”

    Is this true? If so, it’s news to me.

    • martianonlooker

      That struck me as well. The high price we are paying is the result of the vociferous followers of the cult of feminism demanding more and more resources, whilst policing language to leverage control over the rest.
      ‘Daddy issues’ bint will be on in a moment to lecture us all with quotes from feminism’s equivalent of Mao’s red book.

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Fair enough – an interesting point. But outside the family they don’t seen to form the hierarchical networks the way men do – not many female versions of exclusive gentlemen’s clubs, for example.

      • AKM

        My, possibly flawed, understanding is that women avoid hierarchies by tending to only socialise with their equals. So a large and diverse group of women will naturally tend to subdivide into a number of smaller/more homogeneous groups with only limited contact between the groups. Any sense that one sub-group thinks it is better than another group tends to lead to social conflict and further enforces the group-preference of the individuals.

        The male ability to form hierarchical groups to achieve an objective is one of our distinctive features. This is not to say that you don’t see own-group socialising amongst men, but that the hierarchy allows the sub-groups to cooperate with each other without much social drama beyond a certain amount of grumbling.

  • Ralph_Baldwin

    Yes we are screwed over in the West still at least we will have the satisfaction of seeing you all seek “a real man” from the muslim community and sharia law is always there waiting for you all as it does not affect us in any serious way and after all you guys are the defenders of it. There are plenty of affectionate kind hard working and capable Asian women for us. Who give us the respect and kindness we cherish and who receive the validation and affection they need. Do not think we have no options we have plenty.

  • Paul Williams

    Douglas Murray’s book ‘The Strange Death of Europe’ should have been titled ‘The Strange Death of the White Male’, because that in essence is what is happening, right across Western democracy.

    None of this matters anyway. The white race is going to become extinct within a thousand years, perhaps less, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

    • Sargv

      > The white race is going to become extinct within a thousand years, perhaps less, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

      Why?

      • Paul Williams

        Try plummeting birth rates, lower sperm counts, booming non-white birth rates, massive increases in inter-racial marriage, and mass non-white immigration for starters.

        • Sargv

          I’m 30 with two kids (5 and 10) and a perfectly white wife, so we doing our bits.

          Europe is a phoenix, and so is my native Russia, and so is the USA. They died dozens of times, only to reborn and achieve greater glory.

          • Paul Williams

            I’m afraid you’re in for a shock, my friend. Russia is one of the countries being worst affected by a declining population.

          • Sargv

            Only if you look at fifteen years old’s data. There was a significant positive shift since 2001 onwards.

            It is not all roses still, but with the current fertility rate at 1.78 (1.70 among non-Muslims), Russia is on par with France, UK, Norway and USA, doing much better than Germany and the rest of European states.

            Anyway. We’ve seen Chingiz Khan. We’ve seen Khazars and Tatars, Karl XII, Napoleon, Kaizer, Hitler, Trotsky and Stalin. We’ll muddle through. And so will the English.

          • Yep, I’d bet your right. The mere fact of living in the USSR would have likely suppressed the birthrate, and the end of that, even if all isn’t perfect, would have caused it to rebound.

          • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

            Glad to hear your socially conservative policies are bearing fruit!

          • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

            It certainly is – but interesting that is why they embarked upon very socially conservative policies – they could see the writing on the wall. Say what you like about Putin – he puts survival of his own country above all else.

          • You need 0.1 more to keep up replacement, or so the statistics say. 🙂

            Yep, when time get bad, men get hard, and then times get good.
            It’s happened before and we’ve come back, and your delineation is on point

            Although the combination of Russia, US, Europe (should I list UK too) is actually the proper definition of Western Civilization, and we came back from Rome, stronger than ever. It’s not over till we say it is, and we won’t.

          • Sargv

            > You need 0.1 more to keep up replacement, or so the statistics say. 🙂

            We are not done yet!

          • Good on you, if all else fails you can cover for me, I didn’t make it, at least as far as I know.

  • Bugle

    You’re a braver man than I am, Andrew Cadman – but well said.

    • Baron_Jackfield

      Let’s hope that Wiltshire Plod aren’t watching too closeley, else they’ll be after him for “hate crime”…!!! 🙂

      (and me – I agree with every word he’s written, but I’m doubtless a sexist misogynist dinosaur)

      • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

        Wiltshire plod are too busy correcting embarrassing spelling errors in their tweets, from what I have seen.

        It is difficult to take the police seriously these days and in fact I don’t believe legally they can do much unless you incite violence.

        • choccycobnobs

          “they can do much unless you incite violence”. Tell that to Tommy Robinson

          • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

            True enough – I’ve just finished reading “Enemy of the State”. Frightening stuff. However the more people speak out the weaker their power becomes.

          • Bugle

            True. Keep speaking.

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Thanks – believe me its been on my mind for some time but I kept finding a reason to put it off.

      It probably sounds rather pompous but after the latest round of Islamic atrocities killed an 8 year old girl all we do is hold a candlelit vigil, plus the latest transgender madness I felt as the father of two I couldn’t bottle it any longer.

  • PierrePendre

    A lot of what Cadman sees as the ills in modern society coincided with rather than were caused by feminisation. The proof is that a lot of them can be traced back to the 1960s and the intellectual wing of the Labour party when men were still overwhelmingly in charge.

    Cite Roy Jenkins as exhibit A and Tony Crosland as exhibit B. Between them, they tore up the traditional consensus in social policy and education. We are still living with the consequences. Feminists alone could not have brought about the later flood of women into the workplace without the active cooperation of the men then leading it.

    It was inevitable that the male-dominated world of work had to change to accommodate women and that part of that accommodation meant a great deal of positive discrimination to hike them into senior jobs. It could be said with justice that this has gone too far – especially with the extension of similar privileges to minorities – but it has to be admitted men and women are of equal ability in many formerly male domains.

    It’s true that woman have an understandable preference for sitting down, indoor work with a particular bias in favour of administration where they can dictate the terms of their employment. But they also have to juggle their professional lives with being the mothers and carers we want them to be.

    I would agree that the bias against men has been absurdly overdone but we all know that the world as depicted by the media and advertising bears little resemblance to the world we live in. Men and women like each other and get on well together at least as well as they ever did. Parents complain that anti-male bias harms their sons. But in my anecdotal experience, there are as many young women demotivated by modern society as young men.

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Yes – Labour are entirely responsible for forcing “diversity” and “equality” upon us. As any fule know, equality can only be achieved at the cost of Liberty. As the French found out. Regardless, the Conservatives are entirely culpable for running with this garbage.

    • AKM

      There is such a thing as a male-feminist so it is quite possible that Roy Jenkins and Tony Crosland were feminists. The intellectual links between the women’s liberation movement and the wider socialist movement isn’t exactly new.

      “…and that part of that accommodation meant a great deal of positive discrimination to hike them into senior jobs.”

      I don’t agree that this was inevitable at all. In fact there is very little justification for the idea.

  • Ominous

    Feminsation sets in when a civilisation is in its death throes – The (native) British are a dying people – their culture and heritage is being erased and replaced by foreign peoples and cultures – the response from the British is to subdue themselves with booze, benefits and football.

    • Your comment reminds me of this, from Cavafy

      “What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

      The barbarians are due here today.

      Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
      Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?

      Because the barbarians are coming today.
      What’s the point of senators making laws now?
      Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.

      Why did our emperor get up so early,
      and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate,
      in state, wearing the crown?

      Because the barbarians are coming today
      and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader.
      He’s even got a scroll to give him,
      loaded with titles, with imposing names.

      Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
      wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
      Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
      rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
      Why are they carrying elegant canes
      beautifully worked in silver and gold?

      Because the barbarians are coming today
      and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

      Why don’t our distinguished orators turn up as usual
      to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

      Because the barbarians are coming today
      and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.

      Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
      (How serious people’s faces have become.)
      Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
      everyone going home lost in thought?

      Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven’t come.
      And some of our men just in from the border say
      there are no barbarians any longer.

      Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
      Those people were a kind of solution.”

      • Harley Quin

        The barbarians are within the gates.

  • Kanaris

    Andrew…. are you just unlucky in love?

    • Arthur Peacock

      Shouldn’t you be asking the feminists that question?

    • Phil R

      Ignore the issue and attack the person.

      Did you learn it from Trump or was it the other way around?

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Far from it! 🙂

    • Mike Buchanan

      A pathetic and lame shaming tactic. Truly pathetic. And deeply unoriginal. Is that the best you can manage?

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    I will need to have it explained to me why a significant number of viraginous women want to BE men, at least in terms of their perception of what a “male” role is, at the same time that we are all lectured (“hectored”?) about “toxic masculinity.”

  • ale bro

    i believe that the feminisation of society has created a whole class of unskilled writers who all appear to be moonlighting as journalists on this site.

    • martianonlooker

      Is that because you are p*ssed?

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Bloggers. Skilled or unskilled.

  • grumpyashell

    Basically all this equality/emotion over logic means that we have missed out one word….meritocracy….gaining position on merit…..!

  • Ravenscar

    During the London Bridge attacks, how many lasses went out to face down the attackers, cowering in a pub, just who was it, were expected to go out and face them?

    On a theme and somewhat relevant, I used to play for my school soccer team, we had a very fierce rivaly with the other lot, also a Grammar and during these games it was open warfare, “no prisoners” was always the cry – albeit a tacit instruction and not from our sportsmaster I might add. One day after a 1-4 defeat……… the master cried out “three cheers for St …….!” and the reply there echoed was,

    to the effect of ‘go forth and multiply’ – there was no love lost and no quarter given. We were reported and given time to reflect and of ‘extra tuition’ – after hours.

    In school, at break, during the lunch time break and before and after we played footie, competitively very competitively; friend against friend, schoolmate against schoolmate and no holds barred, I can remember the range of bruises if not the pain [and these were my FRIENDS I thought but we smiled in great camaraderie]. IN all things in school, academically, sports between forms inter form we competed and competed hard and the rivalries were what made us. These days we’re all made to be winners…………and that’s just daft.

    I will watch the ladies in their semi final tonight and greatly support them in their efforts but it ain’t what we knew it as and no contact sport not as we were so familiar with.

    I will perhaps and gently chide, chortle at the amateurish play, you could see better level competition on a Sunday League match hereabouts where I lived and when I was old enough, I also joined in representing a reasonable standard. If I wasn’t down to play, Saturday afternoons were reserved for the big boys; Manchester United, Liverpool, Leeds United – and crunch, tackle crunch and sublime was the game and hard, very, very hard. The gap will never, ever be bridged.

    As in most things when it comes down to it, only the men can really play at life, in sport, and some women can never accept that. Women are strong in other ways and evidently as nature intended – the sexes compliment, dovetail with each other: Yin and Yang = Chi.

    • martianonlooker

      “crunch, tackle crunch and sublime was the game and hard, very, very hard”.
      I prefer Lawrence Dallaglio’s comment in an interview when asked about the F.A. cup…..The Andrex cup, soft and overly long.

      • Ravenscar

        There’s no comparison between RU/RL and football of the rounded variety – true enough and I’ve play 15 in my time.

    • Harley Quin

      Women’s Rugby is a contradiction in terms.

  • Simon Platt

    True enough. But surely the US is no better? At least as bad?

  • Damaris Tighe

    There are some interesting comments questioning the author’s thesis here, but I have to say that as a woman I recognise a lot of his descriptions. I’ve sat in groups where women are the majority and my heart sinks because I know what they’ll be like every single time: cloyingly ‘nice’; averse to any risk that might make them feel uncomfortable, like plain speaking which is equated with aggression; a preference for inclusion over clear boundaries; and yet a willingness to hunt as a pack against any group member who violates these values, which nowadays is replicated by twitter storms. Above all there was a complete lack of energy compared with male dominated groups. It’s as if the knitting circle has been translated into management and politics.

    Clearly, many women aren’t like this at all but in the days when only highly motivated women like Margaret Thatcher moved in a man’s world, they tended to be the type who exhibited more masculine values. It was only when government policy moved large numbers of ‘ordinary’ women into the public space that they stamped it with their personality traits.

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Thanks. Obviously I was rather worried that the piece may come over as bitterly misogynist. It isn’t meant to belittle women or suggest they are inferior to men in any way, just that things have become badly imbalanced, just like, for example, a decade as aggressive as the 1970s could be seen as too hyper masculine.

      • Damaris Tighe

        It didn’t at all. I’ve been worried about the over-feminisation of society since the start of the migrant crisis, when it became really striking. And then there’s Sweden …

        • Harley Quin

          Then there was Sweden. Sweden is history- like Britain will be soon enough.

    • Partridge

      ‘Stamped it with their personality traits.’ And with their lack of talents (with a few honourable exceptions)..

  • Sargv

    Nature abhors vacuum, and every problem eventually solves itself. Islam is a perfect Yang to western feminism’s Yin.

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      OH yeah – great! Can’t wait for all that Islam personally!

  • OwlHoot

    It will help when Hollywood and the like stops making so many films where women are the high kicking heroes or brisk detectives and CEOs and most of the men report to them and are hopeless subservient nincompoops. That may have been edgy once, but now it is corny and tiresome.

    • lizmilton

      You might like to search and read

      The Frankfurt school of subversion 11point plan…

      And all becomes clear…

  • Nockian

    Feminism is just a symptom of the rot in western society. The rot is caused by our intellectuals who have abandoned reason for subjectivism and pragmatism. Listen to any politician or academic talk about things being the ‘pragmatic choice’ or how they are ‘pragmatists’. The use of that word is evidence that these leaders do not believe in black and white, they look for compromise and fluid reality-well, now we have it.

  • “We should also acknowledge that public sphere has benefited greatly in some ways from being more female oriented: it is some ways much kinder, more empathetic and with considerably less casual intolerance and violence.”

    This sentence gave me pause in your fine article. My feeling is that for all the talk of a more tolerant society, we actually live in comparatively intolerant times. What passes for tolerance now is – more accurately – the tyranny of relatively small special interest groups. As for empathy, it seems to be distinctly lacking where males are concerned in the largely feminised state education system and the feminised CPS where the mantra seems to be, female good, male bad.

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Fair point – but I did qualify what I said by “in some ways”.

      I think in past times it could be pretty nasty to belong to a minority. “Queer bashing” for example wasn’t a myth.

      • I do agree… but we were not obligated to ‘bash queers’ and took a dim view of those that did. Most of us knew that homosexuality existed but it didn’t affect us directly and what others did in private was not our concern. Now, my taxes go to Sussex Police to paint their very expensive patrol cars in rainbow colours for proliferating ‘Pride’ marches and the courts insist that the Christians among us bake cakes and let rooms to people in direct contradiction to the tenets of their faith. Effectively, we are all obligated to ‘celebrate queers’ on pain of being prosecuted for a hate crime.

  • Mike Buchanan

    Andrew, thanks for this excellent piece. You ask:

    “A rather sweeping statement, but could the long-term economic slowdown throughout the West be attributed, at least in part, due to its feminisation?”

    Undoubtedly. The world-renowned British sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim explained in her Preference Theory (2000) that while four in seven British men are ‘work-centred’, only one in seven British women is. Compared with men, women are more likely to not work (or work part-time) from the moment they leave full-time education to retirement age.

    The work ethic gender gap is the cause of so much that is wrong with the NHS, to take but one stark example. The average male graduate of a medical school will work twice the time over his career compared with his female colleagues (for many of whom medical school is an excellent dating agency, and they never practise medicine). Put another way, you have to train two female doctors (at enormous cost to taxpayers, mainly men) to get the work output of one male doctor. 70% of medical students are female, and the GP service (50%+ of GPs are doctors) is in crisis because female GPs prefer to work part-time, whether or not they have children.

    • Phil R

      I was very interested to learn that the NHS Wales is such a well funded organisation that it can give its staff up to three months off work to learn Welsh. (Or at least attend the courses) even in our English speaking area of Wales.

      Anyone can apply for the three months leave and the criteria is inclusive. Part time, full time, short term contract etc etc (of course it is)

      Meanwhile the old soldier who lives in my village has waited over 18 months for a hip operation and in huge pain.

      The feminised NHS is a huge waste of our money.

      • choccycobnobs

        I have to go to the local GPs every year for blood tests. I would have a better chance of arranging a combined audience with the Pope and the Dalai Lama than those blood extracting nurses. They always seem to be off for some reason.

    • the future is female

      A lot of men feel threatened by strong, independent, assertive women like me.

      Here’s the headline, boys.

      We will never go back to being the meek, submissive doormats of the 1950s, content to squander our talents on household drudgery.

      No Millennial man could seriously expect his wife (assuming she’s a uni graduate) to put food on his table when he came home from work. She would either laugh in his face, slap him or divorce him. Every modern couple I know share the cooking and cleaning.

      In the old days, women had to accept men’s domestic rule because we depended on you as breadwinners.

      Now we are independent and if you want a partner, you better respect her and treat her as your equal.

      • Andy

        You cannot cook you mean.

        Lazy fat Woman about as useful as a three legged dog.

      • 3aple

        My mother wasn’t a doormat in the fifties. No self respecting husband should expect his wife to be a doormat, though some, inevitably will, just as some wives will expect their husbands to be.

        You appear not to mind if wives without degrees are left to put food on the table. This appears somewhat ‘classist’. You also appear to belive that resorting to domestic violence, provided perpetrated by a wife, is perfectly acceptable. Would you think the same of a husband doing such a thing?

        Finally, yours is the only comment in bold. You appear determined to be ‘outstanding’.

        It all says a great deal.

        .

      • David

        No, you won’t go back to being doormats because now you expect men to be them. Apparently it’s OK to slap your husband over a meal. That’s feminist equality.

      • AKM

        You’ll get treated as an equal when you become our equal.

  • Vasubandhu

    There may suddenly be a pressing need for the traditional masculine virtues if, instead of the much-hyped global warming, we enter a mini-Ice Age (you don’t have to search very hard on Youtube to find people proposing that). I reserve judgment.

    You will be interested to read August Lovenskiolds’ research about the propensity of some female CEOs to leave after a few years https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-hate-being-ceos-and-they-suck-at-it/

    The take-away message: In 2012 20 S&P companies had female CEOs. By 2017, 10 of the women were no longer CEOs. By 2017, all the female CEO’s companies had fallen in the S&P rankings.

    • Enoch Powell

      We’re actually still in an ice age, geologically speaking, while there is ice at the poles, we’re in an ice age. We are currently in an interglacial period. If a glacial period returns, where the glaciers advance over the continents, we will be in a f^cktonne of trouble.

      • Vasubandhu

        Good point. We’ll be in a feckload of trouble even if the growing season is reduced by a substantial amount.

  • Snoffle Gronch

    Excellent, and provocative – in a good way.

    We might also ask whether Britain’s woeful productivity is in any way caused by the draconian laws that force employers to offer jobs to women whose priorities lie elsewhere.

    • the future is female

      If you had daughters, would you want them growing up in a world where the women they see on TV are paid less than the men – for doing the SAME WORK?

      The gender pay gap in the BBC is highly problematic and must be eliminated.

      Whether it’s cleaners and factory workers, or TV stars, the principle must be the same:
      Equal Work means Equal Pay.

      It’s that simple.

      • choccycobnobs

        Was it hard for you when daddy did a runner? The reason I ask is because you seldom post an original thought. Mainly guff regurgitated from your feminist gender studies lecture. Anyway, you are late on tonight, did that feminista bint keep you in detention. I have previously enquired if you want a note excusing you.

        • the future is female

          Leave your pop psychology out of this.

          • Andy

            Never bought you a pony either did he?

          • the future is female

            Lol. He is an investment banker and bought me more than you can ever dream of. But you are kidding yourself if you think material gifts make a good parent. I didn’t need him then and I don’t need him now.

          • Andy

            Yeah, of course he was dear.

          • AKM

            LOL. You are such a stereotype. A poor little rich girl with daddy-issues and an indoctrinated, dogmatic feminist/socialist at the same time.

          • choccycobnobs

            Bet the pony was relieved.

      • Andy

        Women never do the same work as men, they are lazy and slackers.

        So they should get paid less.

        • the future is female

          You clearly have a problem with women, you sad little man.

          Was a female rival promoted instead of you?

          • Andy

            There is no such thing as a female rival.

            I take it your lack of children is compensated for by your ‘career’ as a secretary?

          • the future is female

            Actually I work in management, in the third sector and I probably earn more than you.

          • Andy

            I doubt it.
            A secretary earns far less than me.

        • Partridge

          That’s true. I used to work in a large office, two thirds were women; they spent half their time gossiping, their productivity barely matched the men’s and the quality of their work, the same. A few honourable exceptions, it must be said, but they were not feminists.

        • Harley Quin

          It’s not really a question of doing the same work. It’s a question of what the paying public wants. This is the difference between freedom and oppression.

          • Exactly, the whole ‘equal pay for equal work’ presupposes socialism. It is simply an end-run on private property rights!

      • David

        The problem with the BBC salaries is that they are so extortionately large, including the women’s. The BBC makes money by imposing a mandatory licence fee on virtually anyone with a TV in the UK. So it is silly to refer to a “principle” common to both factory workers and TV stars. This is because although Claudia Winkleman may do the same work as Gary Lineker, his show may get more viewers (with special value to the consistent viewers) which means more people are paying licence fees to watch Gary, not Claudia. Therefore his salary is higher. Factory workers do not have the same popularity factor.

        Often with figures which show a gender pay gap the data has not been grouped correctly. For example, a male factory worker may work in department A. He produces 12 components per hour. But these components are more expensive, and more of them are needed per each finished product. A female factory worker may work in department B also producing 12 components an hour. But these components are less expensive than A, and less are required per finished product. This obviously means that employee A will be paid more because his work is more valuable due to the factors which concern the components (quantity and cost) regardless A having the same productivity as B. A just happens to be male.
        But, if and when the factory publishes figures, their salaries will be published separately according to gender, but alongside each other because A and B work on the same particular product. This will seem like the male employee is being paid more for no reason, yet in fact it is because of the particular component of the product he deals with having more value.

        So you see, gender pay gaps may be common, but only where important factors are not observed.
        Employee A could just as easily have been female (actually they are twice as likely to be female if the job requires a STEM subject qualification due to all the quotas forced on companies be feminist pressure).

        It’s not as simple as you say. The gap at the BBC is due to popularity, not patriarchy. It cannot be cited as a model for the “injustice against women in the workplace” because it does not represent a typical workplaces.
        And I have already established that gender pay gaps in typical workplaces are due to important factors not being observed and therefore data is misrepresented.

        The most disgusting thing that feminists are ignoring about the BBC pay is that all the women who are “underpaid” are living quite comfortably. More comfortably than most of us could hope for. Indeed, while children starve and die in impoverished countries and women are forced to give birth underground in war torn zones (because hospitals are targeted) some feminists see fit to demand more than 400,000 a year just because some man gets more.

        Or can we expect more humble feminists (contradiction in terms?) to demand that the male salaries be cut (while theirs remain the same) and the money be given to third-world women who actually need it to feed their families and to live in decent conditions?

        No, I thought not.

      • David

        The problem with the BBC salaries is that they are so extortionately large, including the women’s. The BBC makes money by imposing a mandatory licence fee on virtually anyone with a TV in the UK. So it is silly to refer to a “principle” common to both factory workers and TV stars. This is because although Claudia Winkleman may do the same work as Gary Lineker, his show may get more viewers (with special value to the consistent viewers) which means more people are paying licence fees to watch Gary, not Claudia. Therefore his salary is higher. Factory workers. do not have the same popularity factor.

        Often with figures which show a gender pay gap the data has not been grouped correctly. For example, a male factory worker may work in department A. He produces 12 components per hour. But these components are more expensive, and more of them are needed per each finished product. A female factory worker may work in department B also producing 12 components an hour. But these components are less expensive than A, and less are required per finished product. This obviously means that employee A will be paid more because his work is more valuable due to the factors which concern the components (quantity and cost) regardless A having the same productivity as B. A just happens to be male.
        But, if and when the factory publishes figures, their salaries will be published separately according to gender, but alongside each other because A and B work on the same particular product. This will seem like the male employee is being paid more for no reason, yet in fact it is because of the particular component of the product he deals with having more value.

        So you see, gender pay gaps may be common, but only where important factors are not observed.
        Employee A could just as easily have been female (actually they are twice as likely to be female if the job requires a STEM subject qualification due to all the quotas forced on companies be feminist pressure).

        It’s not as simple as you say. The gap at the BBC is due to popularity, not patriarchy. It cannot be cited as a model for the “injustice against women in the workplace” because it does not represent a typical workplaces.
        And I have already established that gender pay gaps in typical workplaces are due to important factors not being observed and therefore data is misrepresented.

        The most disgusting thing that feminists are ignoring about the BBC pay is that all the women who are “underpaid” are living quite comfortably. More comfortably than most of us could hope for. Indeed, while children starve and die in impoverished countries and women are now forced to give birth underground in war torn zones (because hospitals are targeted) some feminists see fit to demand more than 400,000 a year just because some man gets more.

        Or can we expect more humble feminists (contradiction in terms?) to demand that the male salaries be cut (while theirs remain the same) and the money be given to third-world women who actually need it to feed their families and to live in decent conditions?

        No, I thought not.

      • David

        The problem with the BBC salaries is that they are so extortionately large, including the women’s. The BBC makes money by imposing a mandatory licence fee on virtually anyone with a TV in the UK. So it is silly to refer to a “principle” common to both factory workers and TV stars. This is because although Claudia Winkleman may do the same work as Gary Lineker, his show may get more viewers (with special value to the consistent viewers) which means more people are paying licence fees to watch Gary, not Claudia. Therefore his salary is higher. Factory workers. do not have the same popularity factor.

        Often with figures which show a gender pay gap the data has not been grouped correctly. For example, a male factory worker may work in department A. He produces 12 components per hour. But these components are more expensive, and more of them are needed per each finished product. A female factory worker may work in department B also producing 12 components an hour. But these components are less expensive than A, and less are required per finished product. This obviously means that employee A will be paid more because his work is more valuable due to the factors which concern the components (quantity and cost) regardless A having the same productivity as B. A just happens to be male.
        But, if and when the factory publishes figures, their salaries will be published separately according to gender, but alongside each other because A and B work on the same particular product. This will seem like the male employee is being paid more for no reason, yet in fact it is because of the particular component of the product he deals with having more value.

        So you see, gender pay gaps may be common, but only where important factors are not observed.
        Employee A could just as easily have been female (actually they are twice as likely to be female if the job requires a STEM subject qualification due to all the quotas forced on companies be feminist pressure).

        It’s not as simple as you say. The gap at the BBC is due to popularity, not patriarchy. It cannot be cited as a model for the “injustice against women in the workplace” because it does not represent a typical workplaces.
        And I have already established that gender pay gaps in typical workplaces are due to important factors not being observed and therefore data is misrepresented.

        The most disgusting thing that feminists are ignoring about the BBC pay is that all the women who are “underpaid” are living quite comfortably. More comfortably than most of us could hope for. Indeed, while children starve and die in impoverished countries and women are forced to give birth underground in war torn zones (because hospitals are targeted) some feminists see fit to demand more than 400,000 a year just because some man gets more.

        Or can we expect more humble feminists (contradiction in terms?) to demand that the male salaries be cut (while theirs remain the same) and the money be given to third-world women who actually need it to feed their families and to live in decent conditions?

        No, I thought not.

    • the future is female

      I’ve been banned from Guido Fawkes because they can’t handle the truth. I don’t care anyway, I was planning to leave in any case.

      It’s a shame that many weak men still feel insecure around strong, assertive, opinionated women like me.

      • AKM

        And yet weirdly enough you come across as weak and lacking in self-confidence due to the way you constantly need to denigrate others.

      • Bram

        Give us one original thought. Just one. Go on, surprise us with something that is not a straight copy-paste from the Bindel McDworking Man Hating Handbook. Just. One. Original. Thought. Otherwise we must, sadly, conclude that you’re a fembot. And that wouldn’t be nice.

  • AtilaTheHen

    This transgender stuff has all got a bit – well I don’t know. I saw a thing in the paper the other day about a sturdy young American, born a male and still in possession of all the relevant tackle, who now runs in women’s athletics.
    It’s only a matter of time really, I think, until young women give athletics up as a bad job, and refuse to take part. How can they compete against men who just declare themselves to be women? Say what you like. Men do tend to be bigger and stronger.

    • the future is female

      “Men do tend to be bigger and stronger.”

      How much of that is down to societal reasons, though?

      Read The Frailty Myth by Colette Dowling.

      • Andy

        Yes of course dear, you are ‘strong’.

        I’m sure you look like you could pull a catapult from Mordor.

        • the future is female

          Actually I’m tall but slim and toned.

          I’m 5’10 but only 160lbs.

          I could beat you in any physical test of strength such as arm wrestling.

          Would that be too much for your male ego to handle?

          • Andy

            Oink oink,

            Manflesh!

          • the future is female

            Only weak men are scared of strong women.

          • Andy

            Most men are scared of Orcs.

          • Mike Buchanan

            I’m guessing 5’00” and 300 lbs. Average feminist stats.

          • 3aple

            “I could beat you in any physical test of strength such as arm wrestling.”

            Such certitude about people you know nothing of. Do you believe yourself to be stronger than every other person, or only every other man? You must be a very famous athlete.

          • this idiot is female wrote:

            Actually I’m tall but slim and toned.

            I’m ripped and hung like a donkey, let’s hook up Toots.

            I could beat you in any physical test of strength such as arm wrestling.

            The sort of claim one might expect from an immature thirteen year old boy with problems of self-esteem.

        • Andy wrote:

          I’m sure you look like you could pull a catapult from Mordor.

          Thanks for my first chuckle of the day.

      • Mike Buchanan

        “How much of that is down to societal reasons, though?” Let’s scrap “women’s sports”, and have women compete in “sports” and find the answer. The answer will become clear in weeks. What will Colette Dowling have to say, I wonder, haha? Hell, even if we take physical performance out of the equation, why are none of the top chess masters women?

        • David

          Nice one.

      • 3aple

        Then we’ll be seeing the daughter you bring up prove McEnroe wrong?

        .

      • this idiot is female wrote;

        “Men do tend to be bigger and stronger.”

        How much of that is down to societal reasons, though?

        Sexual dimorphism as a ‘scocial construct’? And your next wacky theory is?

      • AKM

        Try checking out average height stats for men and women and the weight lifting world records for men and women of different weights. The male athletes lift considerably more than female athletes of the same weight. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weightlifting ) You appear to be claiming that the female athletes are lazy and don’t have the same dedication as their male counterparts.

      • AtilaTheHen

        How do we make up for our lack of testosterone?

  • Snoffle Gronch

    On the credit side, the best conservative website is founded by, staffed by, and titled by women.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Jolly d.
    I imagine you’ll get abuse for this slice of truth.

  • the future is female

    Mr Cadman

    You need to read Hanna Rosin’s magnum opus “The End of Men”

    Ms Rosin explains how technological and social changes are making traditional masculinity obsolete in the modern world. Women are increasingly becoming the breadwinners, becoming more assertive and taking the lead in sex and relationships.

    Women no longer need a man to take care of us. No longer do we have to settle for a boring or mediocre husband simply because we need a provider. Young women have more power now and we know it.

    No longer do we submit to men, blush or bow our heads in deference when a man walks past.

    We have stormed all the male bastions and in Hillary’s words, “the future is female”.

    For men to find a place in an increasingly female-dominated world, they will need to work with Feminists to re-invent masculinity for the 21st century. The old toxic masculinity will have to go.

    • Partridge

      How about you re-invent your humanity and get rid of that feminist ideology with which you’ve been indoctrinated?

    • KilowattTyler

      You display ‘toxic masculinity’ in abundance.

      You are obsessed with power and domination, and plainly see human relations overwhelmingly, if not wholly, in those terms. It is for this reason that you cannot conceive of genuine equality between men and women, only conquest of one sex by the other. We could no more expect someone who proudly adopts the antique feminist slogan “The Future is Female” to be in favour of equality between the sexes, than we could expect a sincere commitment to race relations from someone calling themselves “The Future is White”.

      You brag endlessly about your physical strength, your mental strength and your earning power. I have met men who are power-obsessed braggarts but you would certainly be up there with the worst of them.

      You mention elsewhere that you work in management and that your father is an investment banker. You are standard issue upper-middle class, a stratum of society which considers its defining feature to be education but which in fact exists largely to control the mass of society for the benefit of transnational big business and the big, increasingly transnational, government that goes with it.

    • this idiot is female wrote:

      Ms Rosin explains how technological and social changes are making traditional masculinity obsolete in the modern world. … Women no longer need a man to take care of us.

      Until the batteries run flat or a fuse blows. Most of you think a screwdriver is for prising open piggy banks.

      No longer do we have to settle for a boring or mediocre husband simply because we need a provider.

      You’ve never had to do that, yet as your expectations and demands grow ever more unreasonable, increasingly you’re left with no choice other than to ask, in whining tones, ‘where have all the good men gone.

      For men to find a place in an increasingly female-dominated world … ‘

      Men have built every ‘world’ in human history and we’re quite capable of building an alternative to the mess your kind are making; many men are doing just that. We don’t have to settle for anything, you do.

    • J.L.W

      Good. Except please keep your hands out of mens wallets. If you don’t need a man you need to stay away from “the redistribution of wealth” to be legitimate.

      Anything else is double think!

    • David

      I’d never noticed women blushing or bowing their heads when I passed them on the street. I should have enjoyed it while I had the opportunity. Damn.

  • the future is female

    I’ve noticed that men are afraid of strong women.

    I recently started working out and doing CrossFit.

    My boyfriend didn’t seem to mind at first but the other day he implied he’s afraid of me becoming stronger than him. I was like “b*tch I already am”.

    I told him he if he’s so bothered about it, he should start working out too instead of sitting on his scrawny a*se all day.

    Lol, boys and their egos.

    • hedgemagnet

      Oh dear. CrossFit is so 2015

      • choccycobnobs

        That’s because she has been posting that self same guff since 2015. She must have it as a cut and paste file, along with a few others of that ilk.

    • Mike Buchanan
    • this idiot is female wrote:

      I was like “b*tch I already am”.

      Lol, boys and their egos.

      You’re a mistress of unintended irony, and you’re completely unaware of it. LOL indeed.

    • David

      I dread to think of the horrors that would befall your BF should he ever dare suggest that you need to work out. Patriarchy! Opression! Hegemonic Masculinity! Institutionalised Sexism!

  • Jonathan Tedd

    You chickened out in that penultimate sentence.

    Birds love strong, decisive and chivalrous blokes.

    How did the Gemans put it? Children, church, kitchen.

  • Andy

    The future is female is a well known troll. Feminist solutions etc.

    We throw her a bale of hay every now and then just to keep her fed. She has no boyfriend, who was possibly previously moving to Canada and no one likes her.

    • the future is female

      Actually I do have a boyfriend. I was thinking of moving to Canada until Jeremy Corbyn’s general election victory. Now I want to stay here and do my bit to realise Jeremy’s dream for a new Britain.

      • Andy

        Jeremy Corbyn lost the election dear.

        • the future is female

          No, the Tories lost the election. Labour gained seats and ended the Tory majority.

          • Andy

            No dear, is politics a bit too complex for your pretty little head to understand?

      • Bob

        You should save yourself the time and effort and move to Venezuela. He rates their system highly.

    • J.L.W

      The difference between the parodies and the real deal is getting thinner and thinner.

  • J.L.W

    Very thorough!

  • RV

    it’s the wholesale adoption of feminist, as opposed to feminine, values is the problem. So much of it is just silly.

  • Liberanos

    This is all part of the equality industry. Equality is profoundly unjust…as well as unobtainable. Even were I not so sadly unfit and untalented, I should not be allowed to share a gold medal with Usain Bolt. With a school boy science ability, I should not be handed a Nobel prize for physics. What the world needs to aim for is Fairness.

    • choccycobnobs

      “With a school boy science ability, I should not be handed a Nobel prize for physics”. Self identify as a girl then you can demand a Nobel prize. You still might not get it but the authorities will shower you with grants (Daphne Jackson, Ann Maclaren etc) then smooth your STEM application by twisting the university’s arm through the Athena Swan guff.

  • c50

    ‘Economic stagnation: the feminist Camille Paglia once famously said: “If civilisation had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts”. A rather sweeping statement, but could the long-term economic slowdown throughout the West be attributed, at least in part, due to its feminisation?’
    So the mother’s union caused the financial crisis? You are moronic.

  • “Ballsy” article – full of truths that need repeating! I think possibly the most damaging manifestation of our “feminized” society is the shift away from free-market capitalism towards “nanny-state” progressivism.There is nothing more soul-crushing for masculinity than to be treated like a child by an overbearing, irresistible “benefactor”.

  • Nephthys

    Jordan Peterson said that the west might be experiencing an age of female totalitarianism. Heretofore, tyranny has been patriarchal. We could be entering a world structured by the excesses of feminine personality such as extreme neuroticism, openness and agreeableness.

    I found the idea quite funny.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Let’s add narcissism. Jordan Peterson is an extraordinary and brave man, one of a handful of academics globally (Prof Janice Fiamengo, another Canadian, comes inevitably to mind) who dare speak the truth about the evil nature of feminism.

    • MikePage

      The idea most women are agreeable? Yes that is quite funny. TBF they’re fine as friends just not as partners.

      • Nephthys

        “Agreeableness” as a statistical construct has the qualitative facets of being highly trusting, ultra-altruistic, being non-judgemental and having high expectations of compliance.

        The negative name would be “naivety”.

        • MikePage

          Naivety is one behaviour of agreeableness (not its opposite).

          Most people will experience disagreeableness in a relationship as intolerance, fussiness, hectoring. And when I say most people, I mean most men.

  • I think it’s pretty insulting to women to blame them for Cultural Marxism. These are not necessarily feminine traits, they’re leftist ones.

    • I think the point is not that women are at fault but that leftists have politically exploited the differences between men and women to pit us against eachother. Leftists have divided society (by marginalising masculinity) to conquer society.

      • Mmm… that’s not what the writer is saying though. Feminists thrive by doing that, sure, but the article is blaming *all* of society’s ills on femininity, not on feminism.

        To argue that women are more emotional and more prone to let that emotion overwhelm logic than men is reductio ad absurdum. Most women I know are far more rational than any male SJW that I’ve ever met, for example. “feminisation” isn’t the problem. Stupidity is. And that crosses gender lines pretty much down the middle.

        • If the article is blaming “all of society’s ills on femininity” then I would be strongly opposing the article, my point is that I believe the author would be too! I certainly don’t think the article is saying “stupidity” is more of a feminine trait. I read the article in terms of a critique of the dominance of what are traditionally considered feminine characteristics at the expense of masculine characteristics, within society today.

          • The author cites inclusivity, “love-conquiers-all mentality”, emotion over logic, censorship, psychological manipulation, victim culture, virtue-signalling, misandry and economic stagnation all as evidence of “feminisation” – whereas in fact, these are signs of Cultural Marxism.

            I don’t disagree with any of the points raised, but with the central premise that these are somehow the fault of one gender.

          • Haha ok, well I definitely can sympathise with where you are coming from but I disagree with your assertion that the central premise of the article is that our current malaise is due to women. As I understood the article the central premise was that “the current imbalance between male and female culture is now deeply damaging the Western world”. To me the key theme was societal “imbalance” between the sexes which I believe is the aim and fault of the cultural Marxists.

          • For clarity, I don’t think the author’s blaming women, but is making sweeping statements about what are feminine characteristics. He might as well throw in “people are less good at driving than they used to be” and “The country doesn’t know the offside rule” to support his claim!

          • Haha, very good! “People are less good at driving…” – that would be a masculine characteristic I presume 😉 For clarity I didn’t agree with all of the generalisations either, but I do think that the current imbalance between permitted masculine characteristics and permitted female characteristics in society (whatever their exact content) is devastating to our nation. I particularly hate to see motherhood and its associated characteristics denigrated by society in favour of “bread-winning” and its associated characteristics!

  • Mike Buchanan

    Last year we hosted the second International Conference on Men’s Issues in London http://icmi16.wordpress.com. Possibly the most relevant presentation (of 20) to the subject of this blog post is that given by Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat), a Canadian anti-feminist and men’s rights advocate, who’s been blogging since 2010. She’s probably enlightened more people on gender matters and the evils of feminism, than any other person in the history of the Men’s Rights Movement. Her conference presentation on ‘Toxic Femininity’ is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0JDjKs1Wb0

  • MikePage

    What you’re describing is left-liberal. There is some overlap between average left-liberal and average female traits but it’s a slur to equate them.

  • Andy

    It looks like the future is no longer female, she has run away!

  • Tom B

    They’d be nothing without the infrastructure provided by men and only men , every product they use the utility network the houses they inhabit the medicine that cures them is all provide by men , ungrateful cows now want to destroy us from within .