The BBC, the most potent weapon in the hands of the femocracy, is at it again with 100 Women. We hear the drone of predictable platitudes about how women can change the world in a month or a week or whatever it takes.

And indeed they are changing the world. They are destroying our families, our ways of political representation, they are robbing us of our health, happiness and children and they are making things much, much worse.

Feminism is rotting the warp and weft of society and feminism must be fought.

I could just do battle with the slogans.

No, diversity is not necessarily a blessing in the workplace – actually it can be a bit of a curse. And when it does help, this is the diversity of different perspectives, and different abilities; not a difference of sex.

When women go on about harassment, what they really mean is imposing a feminised culture on the workplace. They should find out more about male horseplay and how men treated each other before the wimmin came along.

And what better evidence is there that there is nothing sexist about ‘mansplaining’ than the fact that men ‘mansplain’ to each other?

And while I am a great supporter of workplace flexibility, no research on the costs appears to have ever been done.

Feminists present their case as if it were a gift to everyone. In fact even elite women are disadvantaged by the constant pressure to perform in the workplace. The feminist agenda has been set in perpetual motion. They are like hamsters who don’t know how to jump off the wheel.

But I am tired of pointing out the gaping flaws in the feminist agenda. It gives me infinitely more pleasure to set out an agenda of my own. Here goes.

Core to the PSHE curriculum for older girls in secondary school should be information about the dramatic decline in female fertility as we women age. Girls should be encouraged to think about whether they might ever want to have children and if so, they need to build this into their plans. This might mean choosing employment which combines easily with childcare, or delaying their career till a little bit later. And rather than seeking sexual gratification, they might put their focus on finding a young man who shares the same goals.

We need to hear more from women who enjoyed time at home with their children and then went on to build a career or simply went back to work.

If a mother, or father, stays at home for a few years to look after the children, such efforts could be recognised by having tuition fee debts significantly reduced. This could be part of a package of educational or training incentives to help those who have taken time out of the labour market to look after their children to get back into work.

And those who are prepared to devote themselves single-mindedly to the workplace should be rewarded for this. Even if they are mainly men.

While age has a dramatic and negative effect on female fertility, the possibility of bringing wisdom, skills and dedication to employment is likely to improve with age. Ageism rather than sexism should be the focus of our attentions and this would fit in well not just with mothers who wanted to have their children and then their careers but with the need for all of us to spend longer in work.

We desperately need to recognise that mothers want to spend more time with their children. If we ignore this we are going to be stuck in a place where mothers have no choice but be forced into the workplace with breasts full of milk and cravings for the child so recently in their belly, while their husband stays at home and looks after the baby. Compared with a slightly lower status in the workplace, this is a far greater abuse of human rights.
And the abuse will have been created by feminists who doggedly deprive men of education and force women into work.

Men should also be enabled to spend more time with their children. But it is rates of single parenthood and the break-up of families which I suspect has the most dramatic impact on the amount of time fathers spend with their families. We know that male employment has a significant impact on partnership formation, so if we want to bring men back into looking after their children what we actually need to do is increase particularly young men’s access to work.

Beyond this I would be in favour of restrictions on working hours. The demands which workplaces make on family time can be extremely unfair.

Marriage! While the well-off still flock to get married, it is a dying institution among the less privileged who would benefit the most. Those below a certain income level should get a chunk of money towards the cost of a wedding. I would suggest £500. When it comes to local housing lists, a marriage certificate provided by those who have children could lead to a significant increase in housing points. Such steps would provide a little incentive to less well-off couples to formalise their relationship.

Finally, we as women must get together and fight this feminist cancer which has so effectively invaded every social institution. This does not just mean declaring our antipathy to feminism. It should also mean making it clear that we do not need, or want, special privileges in the workplace. That when it comes to harassment we women can protect each other, and if anybody bothers us we are not fragile flowers but can give as good as we get. And we should make it absolutely clear that we don’t have to be the same as men to be absolutely equal. We are equal. What the feminists really seem to have forgotten is that men are equal to us.


  1. Agree about the feminist thing. Don’t like the statist nonsense about social engineering by handing out taxpayer dosh. One problem when women brought up their children and then went back to work was that they then proceeded to treat adult colleagues as though they were four-year-olds. So, leave the bossy-boots at home ladies. Ruling little children is not a model for ruling the world.

    • I think there are people out there who simply don’t get married because they don’t have the money. And the money would have to be spent on the wedding! The details come later….

      • The kind of people who are motivated to get married by £500 are not the people who will treat marriage as a sacred institution. They will look upon their marriage certificate as a £500 note. And get divorced the following year.
        Sorry, my hard earned tax money is not for that.

        • I went to my friends’ wedding at the Southbank. They have this day – it isn’t exactly a communal wedding – but it is a day when everyone gets married. It was so brilliant. Each couple had their own little wedding. It was actually fantastic. It took so much organisational hassle out of it. And getting married is such a serious faff if you are working all the time and have hardly any cash to spare. I think it is great if there are ways of just taking some of the hassle out of it. It isn’t about being motivated to gete £500 – it is about people who literally don’t have spare cash to pay for the meal for friends, for the champagne – there are plenty of people who just don’t have that.

          • If you have hardly any cash to spare then this is not a good time in your life to get married. If marriage is supposed to be about having a good environment to bring up your children, how are you going to do that if you need £500 for the wedding?

            I didn’t get government handouts, neither did my parents and we’ve all had successful marriages. Compare that to all the Jeremy Kyle scratters who will waste the £500 up against the wall and then split up the next year.

            It’s not about money, it’s about attitude. I can’t believe anyone would think this is a good use of taxpayer’s money.

          • I have just given you lots of upticks but maybe I shouldn’t have done so – I have no idea which political party you support/voted for at the last election/hold membership with.

          • I don’t hold any membership since like you I prefer to be independent. Last election I voted Conservative. I have voted in the past for Margaret Thatcher and am proud to say so

          • I was never old enough to vote for Mrs T but am proud to say that I was the only girl (out of more than 700) who supported her. I understood the hypocrisy of feminism from an early age – girls and teachers banging on about women’s rights but never ever lauding Mrs T for achieving her position; rather being very critical of her….. .The school mag I received last week is the first time I have seen a positive mention of the Iron Lady emanating from that female institution.

          • You can create a good environment for your children even if you are poor. The likes of Jeremy Kyle create a very one sided view of poor people.

          • So he does. I’m not sure myself about the marriage grant as such but giving a message, in whatever way, that it is a serious and worthwhile thing to do is valuable. I work in the one of the bottom 30 deprived boroughs in the UK. generally I find even those most mired in todays problems actually imagined they’d one day form a little family. This will probably seem patronising but I do think people need to be helped to see how they can do that, a “route map” I think people genuinely don’t know as the media they consume and much of their surrounding community gives no idea. We have created a sort of self perpetuating crumbling of civil society, but it is totally wrong to presume that the people living in it want it to be so.

          • > You can create a good environment for your children even if you are poor.

            I’d say, you can’t create a good environment for your children if you can’t lift yourself out of poverty first.

          • I reflected on this. In my experience the “sort” who cheat the system with compo claims, benefit scams etc. tend to think “celebrity” and actually 500 pounds would seem derisory for the “themed” weddings which are common here (it probably wouldn’t cover the hair and acrylic nails bills) so maybe a “help” would be a useful token.

        • I think you should always avoid anything that makes marriage quick or easy. It is a commitment and should be considered carefully and gone into with the view to having children and think of the long term that involves.
          If you can’t see living with a person through raising a child or two to adulthood then don’t get married and the subsequently the divorce rate would be a lot lower.

      • The real reason people don’t get married is because it is no longer deemed neccessary, there is no stigma attached to unmarried mothers or those who scrounge off the state, and male partners are obsolete.
        I can’t believe the cost of a civil marriage is a stumbling block.
        We have emasculated men to the extent that they no longer feel the need to be responsible partners and fathers.

        • We should attach even more stigma to men who create children and then clear off to smoke weed, play on their Xboxes, and claim dole at the taxpayer’s expense leaving the mother to do all the work.
          And I don’t think about emasculation, it’s that they are so cosseted in today’s world they don’t feel any need to frame themselves. Indeed, why bother when the taxpayer is going to pay for your food, weed and Xbox anyway?

          • I think for both sexes they actually get no messages about being responsible. Nothing is demanded of them. For Girls having a baby enforces some purpose to life however poorly executed. In expecting nothing from young men (or those in “sink estates”) it should be no surprise that’s what we get.

          • You can’t even say that feminists “expect nothing” from men – they expect them to get lost, and that’s what men do.

            You don’t like the patriarchy, the rule of fathers? Easy: when there are no fathers – there is no patriarchy. Just be careful about what you are asking for.

          • The patriarchy created the male law lords whose misplaced desire to “look after women” means that the woman gets nearly everything after a divorce.
            The patriarchy looks after men no better than feminists do.

          • The patriarchy was not supposed to look after men. It was supposed to create men that can look after themselves and their families.

          • Instead it creates an environment where divorced men lose the shirts off their backs and have can a hard time seeing their children if the owman so desires. The patriarchy is feminism’s biggest gift

          • > We should attach even more stigma to men who create children and then clear off to smoke weed, play on their Xboxes, and claim dole at the taxpayer’s expense leaving the mother to do all the work.

            It’s women who create children, not men. Women control their reproductive function, and women are making the decision if the child will be born or not. Responsibility is fully with them.

            I say, both single mothers (except for widows and confirmed abuse victims) AND deadbeat fathers should be equally punished by the society. Because single parenting is a child abuse. Cruel? Absolutely. As cruel as throwing anti-social elements to jails.

            Instead, the state actually PAYS people for making the choice of single parenting over family.

          • >women are making the decision if the child will be born or not
            Depends on your views on abortion laws I suppose. And the men are an equal party in this, they should have the basic common sense to “put something on the end of it” so I say responsibility is 50:50

            Single parenting is abuse? In many cases, excluding the ones you mentioned, yes the child does suffer as a result. Which is where I’m sure we are on the same page: marriage and creating children are things to be taken seriously and with good judgement.

          • > Depends on your views on abortion laws I suppose.

            The above is not how I want it to be, it’s how it de-facto is, based on values we currently have.

            My personal view is that men should strive to be responsible for our actions (and assume the lead), while women might be excused from responsibility (as long as they do not claim power in associated areas).

          • So women have no responsibility over their reproductive functions or who they reproduce with?
            They have been seduced by the narrative of sex is just fun and any consequences will be dealt with by the state so what does it matter who they sleep with.

        • There is no reason why a wedding should be expensive. The problem is that too many are influenced by “celebrity” weddings with Cinderella dresses, afternoon receptions, evening dances and exotic honeymoons. My youngest brother is pretty well off, as is his wife. They married (first marriage for both) last year in church on a Thursday morning. Apart from the bride and groom and the vicar the only others present were me and my wife. We were all well dressed but no one had bought any new clothes. After the ceremony the four of us plus the vicar walked down the road to the pub for lunch. The honeymoon was 3 days at the bride’s parents’ home in Wales and on Monday both bride and groom were back at work. No one (including the bride’s parents) got upset about not being invited. The cost amounted to the church fee and the honeymoon (diesel for a round trip from Stafford to Cardigan). I paid for the lunch.

          • It is common for young couples to postpone the wedding because they think they cannot afford it. For goodness, sake, a knees-up in the village hall would be perfectly satisfactory.

      • > I do strongly believe we need to incetivise marriage.

        Why not concentrate on preventing divorces instead?

        • Totally agree. The way we have successful marriages is through attitude not £500 bribes. We can reduce divorce by trying to instill good judgement in our younger generation together with a sense of commitment.

  2. None of that can happen because there is no political will for any of it. The government does not represent the people any more. It represents high powered minority lobby groups. There is no “agenda” for “ordinary people”, at least not one which is not dressed up with fatuous soundbites like “hard working families”.

    This morning Gove announced the intention to ban all sale of ivory, including antique ivory, with a three month consultation. We know what that means. A “consultation” with agitators, lobby groups and fake sock puppet “charities”, then going ahead with what was originally planned. Unless the leftist establishment is against it there will be no u-turns. Fatuous gesture politics to pander to taxpayer funded and government subsidised agitators whilst the much bigger fish to fry are left uncooked and reeking.

    • So it doesn’t matter if elephants become extinct? Their numbers are declining drastically because of the ivory trade.

      • Er, “Current UK law allows trade in ‘antiques’ carved before 1947 but government bows to campaigners and will ban sale of ivory regardless of age”

        Which is just silly, because it will have no effect on the illicit ivory trade, distract enforcement for pointless exercises, and encourage the “Ban Everything Because We Dissaprove Of It” nutters to agitate for even more bad law.

        Gesture politics and coming from Gove surprising. But I expect Chairman May is behind it.

  3. US academic Stephen Baskerville has written a great book called The New Politics of Sex. The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Governmental Power. It exposes the dreadful harridans for what they truly are; dangerous power seekers.

  4. To put a spanner in the works – it appears one can now “self-marry” and it’s supposedly “a symbolic and feminist act”.

    1) if fellas can’t do it, then I call that discrimination of the highest order
    2) wedding anniversaries for those involved must be interesting

  5. I don’t agree with all your programme but I commend the positive approach. Which matches to the actual evidence. So all the evidence is that both sexes continue to aspire to family formation along pretty traditional lines, as we know from the gay marriage lobby even those who see themselves as different. Yet we have consistently dismantled any assistance or even lip service to these aspirations. There has just been another national (UK) survey on sexual identity, and yet again there are regional variations but confirmation that even at the highest only 2% of the population are “non binary” yet immense policy and government time and effort is spent on being “sensitive”.
    Possibly the various ideologues are right in their apparent presumption that our society will simply carry on quietly and stoically reproducing itself (in every sense) without any time and attention and with frequent lambasting for being imperfect. But the evidence is that parts of the society has crumbled and now reproduces dysfunction and misery.
    Though the feminist agenda is most vocalised by women, as the feminists repeated tell us, the institutions that enact their demands were and are mainly male (clearly men haven’t had the memo about being Patriarchal Oppressors).
    Finally I do so agree about the complete ignorance about “men” from a group always going on about “listening”, there are swathes of assumptions about boys and men completely untested by actually listening to boys and men. The early research into “dating abuse” (prior to its colonisation by ideology as a sort of junior Patriarchy) noted amongst other things that males interacted with each other through ” horseplay” and bad language and translating that into relationships with Girls could often cause problems. So it could be a point of “education”. Interestingly another common finding was that boys were far too tolerant of being hit themselves. Overall all this early work brought out the fraught nature of forming relationships during the teenage years. For both sexes.
    I hope your positive approach causes more people to present an alternative future that aligns to peoples aspirations. Being for something is so much more uplifting than being against things. Sadly too few present the alternative as a positive step.

    • I’m reading an excellent book “What to expect when no ones expecting”. Jonathan Last. We are now below population replacement rate and unless we do something serious about creating a family friendly society – where people actively want to and are encouraged to and enabled to have families – our time as a civilization is running out. That sounds a bit hyperbolic but I don’t think it is.

      • It’s not. All one has to do is look at continental Europe. No country in western Europe, and few in eastern is maintaining their population. When I say Europe’s future is Islamic, that’s what I mean, they have no need to conquer it, they’ll simply walk in when it dies out. Britain on the spreadsheet looks a little better, as does the US, but not all that much.

  6. I think you are wrong about marriage; £500 wouldn’t offer the slightest encouragement.

    The actual marriage costs would present no problem, as our Vicar explained to a young couple who were having their baby baptised, but who themselves were not married. They could get married in church for just the statutory fees, they didn’t have to have the organ, choir or the bells rung. All they needed to do was to give the required notice for the banns to be called, and come along to the church at the agreed time. No need for a wedding dress or even bridesmaids, perhaps just a couple of friends to be witnesses.

    But that was not the point, they couldn’t afford to get married because they couldn’t put on a show like various friends. The stag and hen parties, wedding dresses for the bride and bridesmaids, posh cars, followed a big ‘do’ at one of the local wedding venues. Followed, of course, by a honeymoon at some exotic location. Anything less, and they would “looked down on” by their “friends”.

    As a bell-ringer at the local church, I’ve helped ring the bells for hundreds of weddings over the past 30 or so years and have reached the conclusion that the length of a marriage is inversely proportional to the cost of the wedding!

    • My parents reception (1956) was in the upper room of a railway station hotel – then honeymoon in Rhyl.
      My stag do (1991) was plates of sandwiches (and a pint or three) in a country pub.

      How times have changed relatively quickly.

      These days people feel deprived if they’re not “stagging or “henning” in Dublin, Amsterdam or wherever the trendy place to go is. Not forgetting the swanky reception and exotic honeymoon on top.
      What austere times we live in.

      • Exactly. We had a party in the garden after we got married, our mothers organised the food. My wife made her own dress and those for the two little bridesmaids. Our honeymoon was a couple of weeks package holiday in Spain.
        But now, the money that most couple seem to spend on a wedding would cover the deposit on a house, which, of course they can’t afford because it’s all the government’s fault!

        • I understand that my grandparents (both sets) thought the honeymoon in Rhyl was somewhat extravagant!

          • In those days, getting a home together was the number one priority and every available penny was saved for that purpose. I can’t imagine what my parents would have thought about present day “essentials”, such as the latest iPhone.

    • Indeed. Me and the other half are hopelessly bonded after 47 years. We went down the registry office and had a party (bring a bottle) afterwards.

  7. Modern day feminism has nothing to do with the causes of women.
    They are just the female shock troops of the cultural marxist/post-modernist progressive left.

  8. Hypergamy is rife in women and this becomes a massive disadvantage when you are a high flyer.
    Men are quite happy breeding with someone irrespective of their status as they are looking at suitability to have children and a family and for their partner to take on that role.
    Women in general do not think that way and are quite turned off by a man they feel is inferior to them irrespective of whether they are happy to take the subordinate role. Conversely, men in general do not want that role so it rarely happens and is doomed to fail.
    All of these things are biologically built into us through hundreds of thousands of years of biological and behavioural evolution and 50 odd years of PC social engineering isn’t going to change that.

    • There’s a way to fight hypergamy. Avoid turning to a couch potato. Never stop at being better. All. The. Time. Maybe that was the secret to marriages of past: no man before was able to allow himself the life of idleness and passivity. The world was too harsh a place to allow that.

      Red Pill is a bitter medicine, and some men who take it, only swallow one half of it, the one about women. Those tend to choose MGTOW.

      The other half is: if, as a man, you want to be loved for what you are, for your precious inner world or charming personality – you’d better go gay. It is not the type of love women can provide.

      If you want to stay with a woman (young and fertile one – later years are different, and are about companionship), you have to bring value. So, 1) make sure she’s never anxious around you (she’s physically safe, she doesn’t have to make choices she’s not want to accept responsibility for, and she knows you can protect your borders – including from her attempts to bend them); 2) make sure she gets your attention and you hear her; 3) make sure you are a good utility animal. Otherwise, why should she waste her reproductive potential on you?

      • I’m not actually sure how to interpret your comment?
        Hypergamy is a problem for women not men.
        As men get older and accumulate resources, female hypergamy is great as male sexual value increases.
        As women get older and accumulate resources, that hypergamy works against them as they are competing with the younger versions of themselves and also with a worldwide pool of women who don’t have such airs and graces.
        Even the most boring guy can come home with a Thai bride!

        • Female hypergamy is a problem for children, as it breaks families apart.
          It allows top men never to settle – instead of being head of dynasties, we have old playboys that will leave no legacy.
          It makes young men (esp. plain looking ones with average IQ) resentful and eventually anti-social, as young women overlook them, concentrating their attention on top-20% of older men. As a result, they former out of the society before accumulating any resources.
          It makes women themselves very anxious about their looks, which messes with their heads.

          I do not whine – I am a good quality man, so I get my share of female attention (I am also Russian, so have the direct access to crème de la crème pool of women). But those things are no good for society in the long run.

          Sexuality is a dangerous thing and must be controlled to some extent – both for women AND men (which is a part of patriarchy that is rarely being discussed). I despise Middle Eastern attitude toward women, but I have a feeling that they might be the reason why they will last when West perishes.

          • I think we are swimming in the same direction here.
            I have said previously that it wouldn’t surprise me if many western men turn towards Islam for this very reason.

          • > I don’t necessarily agree with your first point. This is probably the way families have formed and existed for centuries.

            I have a little theory on that point. The initial mating game during hunter-gatherer times was probably a sexual free market that favoured top men and women and heavily discriminated against the rest. It confirmed by the genetical studies, stating that only 40% of men were able to pass their genes toward the next round.

            Agriculture (the ability to linearly increase the population numbers and to slowly accumulate the wealth) probably changed that. Tribes settled and gradually adopted the new model: life-long pair bonding with socially enforced fidelity. It was, de-facto, a sexual socialism, and a compromise: men traded novelty for guaranteed access to sex, women traded hypergamy instinct for life-long security (besides class societies limit hypergamy by classes being isolated and homogenous). Best quality men and women (who had it both under the previous system) were impacted the most, but it was beneficial for the rest of the species (by reducing the Darwinian pressure).

            It allowed women to raise many children, and for men to pass accumulated capital toward predictable successive lines of male heirs (strengthening the inter-generational contracts). Gradually, enough wealth was accumulated to bootstrap the modern industrial society.

            Which leads to modern anonymous lives in a concrete jungle of big cities. We are back to hunter-gatherer times regarding sexual mores. We consider this to be the liberation of the individual – which, frankly, it is. But I am not sure that we are ready to accept the loss of all the benefits of life-long enforced monogamy.

            > Your second point may well have its advocates but a lot of men still want families and to leave a legacy.

            Please note that I was talking about the best men. With current sexual mores, the better quality man you are (from the female perspective), the less incentive you have to settle. Men who want a family really bad are often men, who can’t attract a woman to start one with.

            > Your third point has probably also always existed and exists across nature.

            “No sex before marriage” + “life-long marriages” = almost everyone was able to find a mate. And no one had to witness their friends sleeping around with dozens of women while not being able to get one. Lower chances and more reasons to build up resentment (and beat yourself down) are what is different now.

            > I have said previously that it wouldn’t surprise me if many western men turn towards Islam for this very reason.

            I don’t think that Western men can accept Islam, it’s too different a value system. (Funnily enough, I think it’s much easier to Western women to adopt it – and that is what happens!). I believe we’ll have a Soviet Union-lite: statistically significant number of men will degenerate into useless drunkards (or opiate addicts – that’s what happens in the USA) – either emasculated or overly aggressive and anti-social; both ways with severely under-developed masculine instinct – until the system will finally collapse due to economic reasons.

            It will bounce from there, and sexes will polarise again. But the massive damage to the society (both to accumulated wealth and human potential) will be already done by that point.

      • you have women well worked out. My husband used to say that women want men to do the dirty work – which was very broadly defined – but do those things which might be tough and difficult or make us look mean or bad. And that husbands should protect women from other women! I thought that was a good one (and so true). Not sure what you mean by good utility animal…

        • I am a son, a husband and a father of a daughter, so I had enough time to figure out that mysterious half of the species.

          I think that shift in family formation is what complicated mating a lot. When your mother spend her prime in the office instead of being around you; and you had no female siblings (because your parents decided that one child is enough), and you delayed parenthood until your very late 30s, – all you know about women is whatever you read from books, saw on TV or experienced during dating. Not very insightful, and will cause a lot of problems in whatever relationships you’ll manage to start.

          “Men are utility animals” is a common semi-bitter retort to the feminist narrative of “women being house slaves up until the 1960s”. Sure, women were house slaves. And men were their domesticated donkeys, wasting their lives on being good providers for the wife and kids. Basically, that’s what I meant: a man has to strive to be a provider, to bring value, to take the load and stubbornly carry it through life.

          But for me, that’s more to that. I used this unobvious metaphor because I like it, as it reminds me of one specific passage from Nietzsche’s “Those spoke Zarathustra”:
          “Of the three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
          There is much that is difficult for the spirit, the strong, reverent spirit that would bear much: but the difficult and the most difficult are what its strength demands.
          What is difficult? asks the spirit that would bear much, and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. What is most difficult, O heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength? Is it not humbling oneself to wound one’s haughtiness? Letting one’s folly shine to mock one’s wisdom?…
          Or is it this: stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?
          Or is it this: loving those that despise us and offering a hand to the ghost that would frighten us?
          All these most difficult things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel that, burdened, speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert.”

          Those are the good men I see around me: they never shy away from responsibility. On the contrary, they are eager for the new load. They welcome it, for lifting the heaviest thing you can and carry it is how one becomes stronger. And those men tend to have happy women by their side.

          • Oh thank you very much for that. I haven’t read Nietzsche I am ashamed to say but that really makes me want to read it. I want to know how the camel becomes a lion and the lion a child. I like that. And about carrying burdens. I love that.

    • Evolution has shaped women to look for good providers – it is as natural for women to look for good providers (providing broadly defined) as it is for men to look out for signals of fertility (youth and beauty).

  9. Well Done Belinda!!!! You have beautifully articulated what I have been shouting for many many years. I stopped listening to woman’s hour twenty years ago because the feminist push so disgusted me.

    Women should be taught from a very young age that it is more important to form a loving relationship and enjoy their children while they can. Babies grow into toddlers and then in to young adults so quickly. To hand them over to strangers to instil values you may not agree with is asking for trouble. To not have the time or encouragement to build bonds with you children when they are young can never be fully regained when they are teenagers and influenced by friends, internet etc.

    In today’s world education in many guises can be gleaned throughout our lives. Opportunities come and go but the future of our children is in our hands for a few fleeting years. The joy, the angst, the achievement and subsequently the pride we have in our offspring comes from the early bonding and providing them with a security of love and warmth.

    I did not have a higher education. I worked as a secretary and subsequently as a Personnel Officer in a large publishing company. (That title shows my age)!!!! I had my first child at 30yrs old. I had by that time worked for thirteen years and wanted to be at home with my son and subsequently my daughter. My career path had to change because of family commitments. I could not reasonably travel up and down to London every day. So I started my own printing and design business. I built it up over many years and worked around the important times in the childrens’ lives. I retired five years ago and sold my business to an employee who had worked with me for 15 years. Life needs to be looked at around family and children. Not the around work and career.

    The feminists in our midst are selling the women in our society down the river. It is ironic that we have more women in Parliament than ever before and yet they do not work for women and motherhood. It is a shocking reality that they spend more time destroying the family and sidelining men instead of creating strong, healthy communities with mutual respect between men and women. That I feel is the socialist agenda and it needs to be called out and stopped.

    • Yeah that is why female politicians are no good for women. They are totally different from you and me and do not push and promote the kind of society which we believe in. Male politicians in the past would have had a wife at home to advise them – rather than following a destructive feminist agenda.

      • I believe that most female politicians in the UK are either childless, not attracted to men or extremely disagreeable (a rare trait for women and agreeableness is considered to be linked to maternal feelings). They just can’t relate to the majority of women! Maybe even more so as men, who at the very least might be fathers and husbands.

        Most feminist politicians are as distant from daily lives of women as gay men are.

        • Most male politicians can’t relate to the average British man either. As we all witness on an almost daily basis.

    • Mojo, what a wonderful woman you are. I despair at the lack of respect given to the most important role in a woman’s life that of Mother.
      Left wing politics have smashed the family unit and pushed people into being ever more reliant upon and no doubt in turn are meant to be grateful to an inferior Nanny State for care provision.
      Babies and young children are dumped for long hours in nurseries with young staff on minimum wage.
      It’s inhumane to have children spending equal or longer than an adult working day in institutions what with breakfast clubs/ the school day/ and after school clubs.
      Do our society and selfish feminists not care about the human rights/ needs of babies and children wanting to be with their Mothers? That’s all a baby and young children want to be with their Mothers. Do their needs and wants not matter?
      Quite frankly, I’ve often said an ape in a zoo cosily carrying it’s young around on it’s back and in it’s arms all the time looks after it’s baby better than working women who dump and run.
      And it’s an absolute feminist lie to give the impression that it’s emotionally easy for women to be away from their babies and young children. As a female I would have been emotionally devastated to have to dump my baby in a nursery.
      Feminists are turning women into heartless automatons, full of self importance and entitlement. I as a female am sick of seeing the impact of Feminism all around me – my exhausted working friends for a start who moan about their work places.
      Take note though, the babies and children dumped in nurseries today will be the adults who dump their elderly parents into institutions cared for by strangers on minimum wage.
      I agreed with much of Belinda Brown’s article, Thank you Belinda.

  10. Again, sorry to blog my parental journey but I recently did the open evening for my youngsters possible new secondary school.
    Wow, what an eye opener.
    The usual intro from the head teacher”s” (one male, one female of course) was a basic primer on diversity, equality and empowerment – for girls!
    The boys were always referred to in less than complimentary terms while the girls were always referred to in very complimentary terms. The whole experience gave the impression that boys are just broken girls that need to be fixed.
    It certainly did not give the impression that it would be a good place for a male to develop and certainly not a place where differences of opinion would be treated in any other way than as a re-education issue.

  11. A real treat to hear an attempt at a positive model for combating feminism, and from a woman who refuses to be fooled and to buy into the seductive agenda that has captured so many of her sex. I have always believed that both men and women are in fact so much better than feminists would have us all believe.

    Does human history really consist of a miserable saga of brutal, misogynistic men conspiring for centuries to beat down helpless, wimpy, perpetually victimised women? Which massive injustice can only be corrected by emasculating their sons and turning their daughters into poor imitations of the very men who have been branded as toxic?

    It’s tosh from beginning to end. Get a grip and grow up, for heaven’s sake. Doing the exact opposite of what feminists prescribe is probably a good starting point for improvement.

  12. Where is this £500 incentive to get married coming from. The taxpayer of course. So why should the rest of us subsidise anyone other than those in genuine need?

    • I think we need to find a way to incentivise marriage. My Danish aunt and uncle got married in the 60s because back then it helped them to get a flat in Copenhagen. And they are still together 60 years later …if they hadn’t got married I doubt if they would be. In our society there are few social pressures to keep marriage in place so we need to think about how to do it.

      • I have tried to reply on Disqus but unfortunately the system doesn’t seem to be working. I agree with you about the problem and I admit that I am not being rational here . I am just fed up with my money being used for yet another “Good ” cause. Of course going back a couple of generations the lack of contraception was an incentive to marry., and the lack of a welfare state was an incentive to stay together. Neither of these incentives exist now so we have solved some problems and created another. The real problem of course is human nature and the solution ? Well that is more difficult

        • I think the biggest problem is the idealism and utopianism on which ideologies like feminism are based. Life is tough and difficult and whether your problem is you are gay and can’t have children, or have chosen motherhood and can’t do that amazing job you want to do or whether you have to slog it out at work each day supporting your family – that is life, it is not a bed of roses and you just have to deal with it. That is the solution.

        • I do take your point too by the way. Marriage could be incentivised without using money – just reducing taxes for people who behaved in ways which will provide future generations who will be able to pay taxes.

    • Belinda’s argument is that this is a genuinely productive use of taxpayer’s money, i.e. that it will create more wealth (benefit outweighs cost)

      • I have tried unsuccessfully to reply on Discuss but I take your point . I am just grumpy about being expected to fund yet another “Good ” cause. Two generations ago the lack of contraception was an incentive to marry and the lack of a welfare state was an incentive to stay together. The problem of course is human nature and the solution? Well that is more difficult.

  13. I’d like to see the return of a tax allowance for married men. No reason why a wife can’t have it too if she is the main bread-winner. It would a small recognition by the government of the value of marriage to society. No doubt the feminists will start screaming about patriarchy and misogyny. Best thing they can do is to take a long walk along a short pier.

    • There is a marriage allowance! It allows the transfer of £1200 of tax allowance between married couples as long as neither pays 40% tax. Virtually every pensioner couple in the UK could benefit from this, as could many where one or the other works part time with annual earnings below the personal tax allowance, or the spouse does not work at all.

      Inevitably its abolition was included the manifesto of the Labour Party, and as such I presume the Tories will not be increasing it because of the inevitable howls from the “not fair to ….” whingers.

    • The marriage tax allowance as it stands is absolutely minimal compared to all other OECD countries (except Mexico). I am very much in favour of it too – but have mentioned it so frequently in other contexts I didn’t mention it here. You know that feeling of getting tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again and no one listening. I am afraid Mrs Thatcher was the person who originally helped to get rid of marriage tax allowance – I am afraid she had rather a disdain for the housewife – a serious fault which us women here at TCW (myself included) tend to overlook….I find this document really helpful in understanding how the government undermines family and marriage:

  14. ” They should find out more about male horseplay and how men treated each other before the wimmin came along.”
    Indeed. Even now, my wife (after 23 years together) finds herself shocked at how myself and my friends talk to each other. To an outside female the level of insult and invective would surely be the precursor to fighting, the childish tone of voice and use of simplistic language when explaining something we feel another should understand automatically would make any ‘mansplaning’ they may have come across seem reasonable, but to us it’s just normal.
    I tried to explain it to her thus: when our wives go out together, the Lauren, Ellen, Peta and Becka meet and compliment each other on their dress/make up/ hair etc. When we go out, Baldy, Queerboy, Psycho & Fat B’stard meet to exchange insults and denigrate each other, just as we have for the last thirty years. If one of us didn’t join in the the insults and horseplay we’d know instinctively that something was wrong.
    Not saying we’d do anything about it being wrong (aside from pour an inordinate amount of alcohol down said person’s neck) but we’d know. And maybe mention it in the next day’s interrogation so as our other half can get the full story from the appropriate wife.

  15. I think points for being married to put towards entitlement to social housing is a brilliant and affordable idea. But sadly not PC.

  16. It seems that no-one has noted the potential effects of the c.35% predominance of females at university.

    In the old days, when women at university were a rather small minority, even someone as ghastly as Lynn Barber was capable of “…just jamming them in” as she delicately put it whilst being interviewed on ‘Desert Island Discs’ in 2010. Nowadays young men at university can be choosy, and need not bother with the most obnoxious women in their peer group.

    We hear a lot about women who despair of finding a man of sufficient quality. Could it be that what is actually happening is that male graduates no longer need to put up with pompous, arrogant and haughty women as they can find nicer women to form relationships with?

Comments are closed.