Belinda Brown: Feminism erodes the role of the father

One day, I hope, feminism, which has been described by Erin Pizzey as “The most fraudulent movement the world has ever seen”, will be relegated to the annals of history. The second International Conference on Men’s Issues, held a few weeks ago in London, will be regarded as one of the significant events which helped to bring this about.

The three days of the conference were richly packed with information, knowledge sharing, insights and ideas: the untold damage of male circumcision, the impact of pornography on the male brain (Martin Daubney), the subversion of due process (Martin Evison), the unequal treatment of women and men in prison, strategies for educating younger generations about men’s issues (Josh O’Brien), how we build up the Men’s Movement (Anil Kumar). These were just some of the issues covered which I hope, in the coming weeks, to be able to touch upon here.

Also to the delight of many there was nearly a full deck of American Honey Badgers with Janet Bloomfield, Janice Fiamengo and Karen Straughan.

Seeing men (and women) coming together to address issues affecting men, is significant because, as Pizzey explained, while men will die for their country, their families or their children they don’t come together to fight for themselves. I would argue that this is still true. The men (and significantly fewer women) who came to the conference, are above all, fighting feminism because they see it ruining the lives of their children, their families and society and individual women and men. They came because of a love and concern for others, and out of a wish to tackle gross injustice. They came to fight feminism’s incessant bare-faced lies. Men are not fighting feminism out of an interest in themselves.

So different from feminism.

The battle lines were drawn on the first day. A fundamental belief of feminism is that patriarchy is very, very bad. The feminist solution, as Herbert Purdy explained is “the culling of fathers”. Pizzey pointed out that if you take the authority of the father out of the family, you destroy the family. Eroding the role of the father is at the heart of feminism and this is how it has its most damaging effect.

Herbert Purdy reminded us that destroying the family was at the heart of Marxist ideology: “Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian states , and once that withers away Marx will have come true, will nilly, so let’s get on with it” – Germaine Greer famously proclaimed.

If the communists had achieved an iota of what the feminists have achieved in terms of family destruction, communism would be with us to this day.

The family is under attack from all sides. First feminism erodes the bases for trust and relationship between men and women. Purdy, and others spoke about the moral panic surrounding rape culture and Violence Against Women and Girls. Boys are made to feel ashamed for being boys and men are born guilty. Women, ever anonymous, are always victims and always to be believed.

Eloquent testimony to this was Mark Pearson. He did absolutely nothing but at the word of an actress who appears to have had severe mental health problems, had his life turned upside down. This Erin assured us, was not an isolated incident.

This sort of system and ideology no doubt contributes to the low rates of marriage but so too do the chances of ending up the loser in a nasty and messy divorce.

Women initiate divorce at three times the rate of men and the family courts support them. Pizzey explained how men could be forcibly excluded from their families, with accusations of domestic violence or child abuse. The result is that up to 1/5 of children from divorced families find their own father is excluded from their lives.

Kathy Gyngell explained how feminism has not simply ‘destroyed’ families but has created and continues to perpetuate very dysfunctional ones - leading to high rates of mental illness in children, suicide amongst men and unhappiness in women. She explained how Britain’s ‘feminised’ tax and benefits system has led to a situation where responsible married men’s taxes are used to support larger single parent families, encouraging and incentivising fatherlessness, at the expense of their own ‘fathered’ family size.

Paul Apreda is on the front line trying to help and support the traumatised victims of this system. He comes from the Welsh branch of what was formerly called “Families need Fathers”. However, in a country where a prominent politician could tell us that “It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion”, it is hardly surprising that the authorities objected to the name. The organisation is now called ‘Both Parents Matter’, and I suspect even that is risqué.

Paul is in the business of supporting and advising victims of the family court process. His matter of fact, down to earth approach must be reassuring in the face of battle, reminding victims (and for once the word is used appropriately) that this is not about them as individuals; it is about an ideology and they are very far from alone. In fact, it became clear from the many speakers that the family court system is a prime recruiting ground activists and advocates in the men’s movement. From the sickness also comes the cure.

Kathy Gyngell also reminded us that the ultimate victims in all of this are the children - one on four of whom are not living with both biological parents by the time they are two and one in two of whom are not living with both biological parents by the time they 16 and whose life chances diminish with every ‘half sib’ they have. The feminised family system which neither values fathers' nor mothers’ roles directs women into the labour force too early, forcing their babies and infants into day care, while ignoring and burying evidence of the damage this has done and does to child development and well being.

These were just some of the topics touched upon on the first day of a truly magnificent conference. If you would like to find out more, Justice for Men and Boys is making available recordings of the speakers available here.

Belinda Brown

  • weirdvisions

    The Mark Pearson case is chilling. How on earth were things allowed to escalate on no evidence whatsoever? And what about the true villain of the piece? Did she end up in court?

    This is an appalling national scandal. It is an infection that needs to be treated before it becomes systemic and destroys the body of the law.

  • Groan

    It still amazes me that the fact that the UK is at the very bottom on so many indicators of family stability and children with two parents, doesn’t get more of a hoo ha in our media. Even the most cursory glance at European data shows that the UK is the very epicentre of family breakdown, often by a long way. And still Gov. and responsible agencies ignore the evidence.

    • Woman at home

      It doesn’t suit their narrative.

  • Slowcoach

    “Feminism erodes the role of the father”. As it is intended to do.
    No mystery there!

  • Mez

    I don’t agree with the idea that if you take authority from the man you errode the family automatically. There are I’m sure many many healthy families in which the male role isn’t authoritarian. There’s a difference between having authority..which mum also has, and Victorian style authoritarianism. You’ll find its more of a generational issue. Subservience is a negative for all relationships, whether the woman or even the man is on the back foot. (Google emotional violence, psychological violence). According to Christian marriage guidance counsellors in the US, this is one of the main marital breakdown areas. If you can’t compromise with a partner or agree how you’re going to raise your children together, you’ve really no business starting a family. Men obviously need to have authority in families but too much and it becomes damaging.
    Other than that I agree with the summary of your issues. Porn does affect the male brain, and worryingly, there’s also increasing violence towards women appearing in games and the media. Censorship isn’t what it was.

    • Belinda Brown

      In the past families might not have had fathers because in was off fighting or migrating (I am thinking Poland here) or whatever. But the family still had a concept of the father. And that is really important. Even if the father is dead he can still be alive in someway. But if there is no father and no concept of father – that is really odd. I was a single parent for a short time and I often used to wonder if we were still a family because in some sense it didn’t feel like a family anymore. It really didn’t. I was only a single parent for a short time and I think people underestimate how hard and horrible it is being a single parent.

  • Colkitto03

    I think that the International Conference on Men’s issues is doing great work. It will be a long hard journey but then nothing worthwhile was ever easy.
    I wanted to applaud the women involved in it as to be honest their voice carries more weight in combating radical feminism. And I use the term ‘Radical feminism’ as i see it as clearly distinct from ordinary Feminism which i don’t have a fundamental problem with. As for Belinda, Kathy and Laura and the ladies mentioned by Belinda in her article I would guess that they all receive their fair share of social media abuse but I have never heard any of them complain about it. Probably because they are all grown ups.
    As for fathers, the best course forward is to ensure that legal aid is not paid out in any situation regarding families. Its either mediation (50/50 starting point) or stump up the cash. Taxpayers should not be made to fund feminist driven family break up.
    I did read this week that there is a government proposal to force courts to punish women much harder is ther illegally deny access? I don’t know how realistic that is.

    • NickNax

      No such thing as non-radical feminism, from a results based standpoint. The moderate feminists are quite quick to “yes, but” or “not all of us” when called on their hypocrisy, but the moderates don’t seem to do much when their radical friends push for ever more misandrist laws or ever more hateful speech and writing.

      Moderate feminist women want every possible benefit that feminism can give them while avoiding the justifiable bad name being a radfem garners. Moderate feminist men want to get laid. Neither is worth supporting.

      • Colkitto03

        For rich western middle class girls that fill the ranks of radical feminism I would agree. Its become a lifestyle for them. They are 30 years to late. So we see them make domestic violence a feminist only issue when it is actually societies issue. They are desperate for issues.
        But there are plenty of moderate feminists whom I am are are disheartened by the extremists. Unfortunately the radicals with their social media hate mobs silence men and women.
        In large parts of the globe (third world) there is a need for greater equality for women, it just you won’t see a radical feminist within a country mile of that subject.

        • weirdvisions

          We’ve seen the face of priviledged radical socialist feminastyism. Anyone taking the likes of Laurie “Red” Penny seriously needs a reality check.

  • no feminism? well then shut up and stay home and take care of the kids. stop writing articles on the internet. it’s not feminine. put a smile on that face. dress nice and shut up.

    • Colkitto03

      Or another altenative is egalitarianism.
      True equality not just equality when it suits.

    • Stuart Fairney

      Thanks for the considered and balanced response, you come across as thoughtful and calm.

      • weirdvisions

        You are clearly a gentleman, Stuart. My response may well have ended in “off”.

        Anyone who conflates femiloonism with normal femininity is clearly out of her tree. Femiloonism is abnormal. None femiloonists (that would be me) are more than capable of freely thinking and doing for ourselves. Unfortunately we consort with the enemy, interacting with men without extreme prejudice. Apparently that makes us slaves to domestic drudgery, child rearing and a life of obedience. Apparently, according to the drivel in the comment above Stuart’s, we don’t have a voice in the “debate”. We must shut up.

        I am married. I have reared a child. I like nice clothes. I am the worst domestic godess on the face of the Earth. No man is my master but a particular one I share my life with is my best friend. No femiloon will ever shut me up. I despise every unnatural thing they stand for. I despise their hypocrisy. I despise their weapons grade stupidity. I despise their poisonous ideology.

        I am not alone.

        • Colkitto03

          well said

  • Cecelia O’brien

    I hope we’ll be reading more from the conference – sounds fascinating and much needed

  • Anne O Regan

    Can we ever again learn to put our children first. Its never should be a battle.