In Saturday’s blog I explained how a feminist politics was undermining women’s and families’ interests, contributing to a top heavy political system and eroding participatory mechanisms. Today I will explore what we should do about this.

First, politicians should be held more accountable to us, becoming less loose cannons ever ready to inflict their latest policy whims on us, and more like cogs in our political machine. We need to focus on the processes by which our needs are identified and transmitted. There is a massive technical capacity for collecting and crunching data about the conditions which maximise health and wellbeing. There is also a fantastic capacity for communication through social media. All these technical facilities should be harnessed to maximise the efficiency of the political system so we are less reliant on individuals, whatever their sex.

We also need to dismantle ideologies that might have an undue influence on those individuals. And feminism should be the first to go. We need to make feminism history, a thing of the past, which we can dispassionately talk about and analyse, without gainsaying positive changes that it may have achieved.

Feminism is responsible for the damaging belief that anything less than a numerically equal representation of women in all areas is a result of discrimination. It is not. It is a product of the different choices that men and women make as a result of their different reproductive roles.

The assumption that we should achieve numerical equality, not only fuels feminism but provides the ideological justification for the economic policies driving women into work. Without this ideological legitimacy the greed behind the policies would be laid bare.

We need en masse to get our priorities right and recognise that the private realm of family, friends, home and community is central, and that the economy along with other areas of public endeavour such as politics, science and art are there to serve and protect and enrich the lives of our families. And it won’t matter if men are more influential in public life because this is the secondary sphere.

It is the wellbeing of our families and communities that should be the arbiter and yardstick of social policy. Instead our families are in the service of the economy, producers of GDP.

But perhaps the most insidious and lethal aspect of feminism is the way it persistently, invidiously, poisons women’s understanding of, and attitude towards, men. While the whole machinery of ‘rape culture’ or the Everyday Sexism Project are perhaps the starkest examples of this, we are continuously ‘reminded’ that we need protecting from men in a drip, drip, drip which damages relations with our nearest and dearest and harms the quality of our everyday lives.

This is the context that takes for granted that a quarter of mothers of dependent children are on their own. As men are regarded as redundant, unreliable and feckless, it is never necessary to ask why single parenthood occurs.

Single parenthood has very concrete causes. It can be traced back to boys left behind in education, men lacking of qualifications, and lack of decently paid working class jobs. It can be traced back to male unemployment which we have persistently, since deindustrialisation under Thatcher in the 1980s, turned a blind eye to because we can score political points by giving employment to women rather than men. It can be traced back to the lack of roles we have for men in society, leaving them at the whim of whatever women need them to do. It can be traced back to a culture that tells men they are unimportant and unnecessary, a drag on the efficient functioning of society as a whole.

Yet we all know the grim statistics about single parenthood. What we may not know and what Dench’s analysis of British Social Attitudes shows us is that single mothers, whether working, inactive or housewives are unhappier than mothers with partners.

Yet it is middle class women with all the benefits of a helpmate, who in their supine acceptance of feminism, help to keep the institution of single parenthood in its place.

Finally, as women we need to take responsibility for the damage that feminism has wrought on society and help create something better in its place. We need to welcome interdependence in place of independence. We need to replace self-interest with altruism and self-fulfilment with self-sacrifice. Once we start doing these things we won’t need safe spaces or self-esteem classes. We won’t be fragile flowers ready to collapse at an insult to our egos. We will be strong because we will know our worth.


  1. An intelligent and correct analysis Belinda but how many women are intelligent enough to understand this, concerned enough to implement it and capable of putting “me,me,me” to one side (even temporarily)?

    Even this analysis is fundamentally based on men being the providers for what women view as important to (primarily) their lives. Will we be replacing the ‘me,me,me’ of feminism for the “me,me,me” of conservative women? Will this improve the lot of men in the Family Court, in Divorce proceedings, in mental health and suicide, in health care provision etc etc? I think not.

    For this to happen there needs to be a realisation on the part of women that men are human too and that their needs and the injustices perpetrated upon them are just as important to campaign about (ref your comment in the last blog “Why should we campaign for you?”). Women must begin to care about justice.

    What women DO understand is the withdrawal of ALL services – because it affects them. Until such time as society starts to care about men then I won’t care about it. Nihilistic perhaps, but MGTOW remains the only viable way forward.

    Yes, in time, men can and will bring the system to it’s knee’s but many of the unjust privileges your sex enjoys (which none of you wish to lose) shall also be abolished. I merely hope that mens compassion doesn’t get the better of us when that time comes.

    • Gammiosiuwong – okay my comment about men campaigning for themselves. I simply do not believe that the sexes are utterly interchangeable. I think women are better suited to childcare and home and men are better suited to work. I think any woman can achieve and what is more should be able to achieve anything she wants in the workplace and the same for men in the family (or workplace for that matter). I think we have reached the point where that can happen. There are various reasons why I am not going to campaign for men to spend more time in the family none of which are to do with valuing men less than women. I value men very very highly. For all the men I have known their provider role or the absence of their provider role has been a very important part of their identity. In depth research by Andrea Doucette – excellent research, confirms that the provider role is extremely important to men – even to totally full time fathers. I don’t want to take that away and not just for selfish reasons.

      I do think that babies are best cared for my mothers and this leads to a path dependency where mothers do become the main carers. I have no issue at all if men want to take this role – I really don’t but I feel this is an individual thing, and men can find women who will support them into taking this role. But I won’t be one of them.
      The privileges which my sex enjoyed through history did actually come as a result of our childcare role. The assumption was that women sacrificed their self interests for their children and men sacrificed themselves for women because of this. You didn’t just sacrifice yourselves for us because we were women – rather it was something we all did to ensure the well being of future generations. But we worry about ourselves now it seems more than we worry about our children so we don’t deserve your support in the same way.
      I get confused because when us women start getting all cross about what feminism is doing to men we get rude remarks about how you don’t need our help. And then when I turn round and say well I’m not going to campaign for you to spend more time at home you grumble. I actually really care about all the issues you mention and run with John Barry and my husband Geoff Dench the Gender Equity Network where we have been giving publicity to all these issues. So there! (sorry couldn’t resist that:])

      • “I get confused because…”

        I think the problem is, Belinda, that there is just a huge amount of anger out there.

        Personally, I’m in the “if society has no time for me then I have no time for society” camp but there is a lot fellows out there who want to fulfill a traditional role and feel frustrated that they do not have the opportunity to do so.

        People also tend to get angry about unfairness and the current situation between men and women – particularly legally – is monstrously unfair. For people raised to believe in justice, that really gets their goat.

        Unfortunately, that anger bubbles up whenever the subject is raised – even by women who are sympathetic.

      • All housework (including childcare) is work! And, as it is work, should be paid work. After all, childcare is looking after the reproduction of labour.

        Also, Belinda, have you got evidence for this: “The privileges which my sex enjoyed through history did actually come as a result of our childcare role. The assumption was that women sacrificed their self interests for their children and men sacrificed themselves for women because of this.”? Either in terms of what those “privileges” were (Marital Rape? Not so much a privilege), or in terms of how they came about as a “result of our childcare role”?

        • Being able to remain at home looking after children and doing the lighter work rather than the heavier work, not having to sacrifice themselves in wars and fights, having someone looking after their needs because that someone knew that the well being of their offspring depended on it. See my first post in this series if you want to know more. You can always find examples of female suffering – just as you can male. It doesn’t mean that women were oppressed or disadvantaged as a whole. Arguing that they were or are is a political expedience designed to achieve certain goals.

        • “….All housework (including childcare) is work! And, as it is work, should
          be paid work. After all, childcare is looking after the reproduction of

          You really think someone should be paid for bringing up their own children and maintaining their own house?

          • Indeed I do. After all, their children are (hopefully) going to end up working and contributing to the economy, so it would make sense to pay the people responsible for their upbringing. Is that really that surprising?

          • Yes it is.
            I don’t understand who could view their own children as a financial asset.
            After all, having children is a choice and one only the parents are responsible for.

          • It’s not about viewing children as a financial asset, it’s about viewing child rearing as being worth recompense, on the basis of the fact that it’s work

          • Raising your own children is a responsibility brought from the decision to have them in the first place. Viewing child rearing as being worth recompense on the basis of it being work (which it isn’t, it’s a responsibility) is indeed viewing your children as a financial asset.
            There is the right to choose whether to have children (for most people)
            There is then the choice of having the child.
            The result of that choice then becomes the responsibility of the person making that choice.
            There is no ‘Work’, only the responsibility of ones actions.

          • you are putting the economy at the centre as if that is the be all and end all and point of everything. Therefore we should be paid for anything which contributes to the economy. I put the family at the centre and the family isn’t based on financial exchange. It should be based on loving and caring and looking after each other. Financial recompense would totally destroy the family.

        • 1) To say you should be paid for cleaning up your house is like saying you should be paid for eating.
          2) Your suggestion that, if you don’t get paid, your kids will wreak havoc is like the robber who says, “Your money or your life.” But you have a point, which is why there are already social services for single mothers galore. But the aim is to reduce the number of new single mothers to zero, and that could perhaps be done by refusing to provide social services for single mothers.
          3) 84% of working women in the U.S. “aspire” to be stay-at-home mothers, according to a Forbes Magazine poll, so women agree that it is a privilege to stay at home.

          3) Talking about marital rape is like talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry reports that in 1992, the first full year marital rape was recognized as a crime in England and Wales, only 6 cases were reported in 9 newspapers (presumably, major ones), with none being reported in “The Times” newspaper in 1993. In 1992, 311,564 couples got married in England and Wales. As a professional mathematician, I can assure you that 6 out of 311,564 is a very small number. (Yes, there may have been more than 6 cases, but there were also many more marriages, and it is reasonable to believe that a case involving such a new crime would make the news.)

          Amusingly, around the same time, the FBI decided not to investigate female-on-male rapes because out of 3,172 cases of forcible rape or sodomy from 3 American states in which the sexes of the attacker and victim were known, only 6 involved female offenders and male victims. Six out of 3,172 is also very small, but 100 times bigger than 6 out of 311,564, the numbers relevant to marital rape, an issue of burning importance and relevance to every person.

          (page 1495)

          • Nowhere did I suggest that if housework isn’t paid for then the kids will raise havoc… where did you get that idea from?

            I wasn’t really making a point about rape (marital or otherwise), I was merely asking what Belinda thought were the “privileges which [her] sex enjoyed through history” because of their “childcare role”

          • I misinterpreted your statement that “their children are (hopefully) going to end up working and contributing to the economy, so it would make sense to pay the people responsible for their upbringing.” I can edit my original reply if you want.

          • We have been able to stay at home and look after our children and our elderly and our neighbours rather than go out and labour in the fields all the hours God sends us and fight and do horrible, grimy dirty work which might maim or disable us. We were spared these things because we were women and the children depended on us. For goodness sake lets stop pretending being at home and looking after the children should be so highly paid. Jobs get paid according to the number of people willing to do them and women blooming pay a fortune to become mothers rather than get paid to do it. All this housework should be paid stuff is just a nonsense.

          • Except that’s not true, is it Belinda? All the current evidence seems to suggest that in pre-industrial Britain most women worked in the fields alongside their husbands, and in industrialising Britain large proportions of child-rearing women did some form of out-work, not to mention the huge numbers (up to 40% of labour force in some industries) actually working in factories. The “working husband, stay-at-home wife” is a 20th century middle-class myth.

          • Look if you want to carry along on the current trajectory of forcing women out to work as much as possible and leaving children in the care of someone else – you go right ahead. You can feel responsible for destabilizing the family, ruining childhood and making life generally extremely unpleasant for everybody. I won’t.

          • “All”? “All” the evidence? The same evidence that said Viking women fought alongside their husbands?


            Unfortunately, feminist scholarship has cried, “Wolf!” too many times to be believed. But I’m happy to look at references.

            Googling, I found a clearly feminist bit of research, and even that cited the following account: “The man carried the common burden practically alone.” It refers to the poor in London in 1908.


          • A. Hey there. It’s good to see you’re passionate about your cause, but your statistics are terribly wrong. You have stated that in 1992, only 6 rapes were reported in the news, and you have thus concluded that only 6 rapes occurred in a total of 311,564 marriages.
            However, the number you found – six – is from marital rapes which were REPORTED in NEWSPAPERS, not the total number of rapes which were reported to police and relevant health workers. You got this number from ‘Marital Rape in the News’, in The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, an article which was ironically decrying the way that ‘coverage of marital rape cases has been muted’.

            Here are some actual ‘Statistics About Spousal Rape’:

            1. Only 2 surveys have ever been done in an attempt to determine how prevalent spousal rape is today.
            2. In one randomly sampled group of married women in San Francisco, 8% of them stated that they were a survivor of marital rape.
            3. A similar study… in Boston found that 10% of married women were… victims of spousal rape.
            4. 30% of adult rape cases were committed by husbands, common-law partners, or boyfriends.
            5. 29% of all sexual assaults of adult women were perpetrated by a husband or lover.
            7. 9% of all reported rapes are perpetrated by a husband or an ex-husband.
            9. When domestic violence is part of a relationship, the chances of spousal rape occurring rise by 70%.
            11. Only 3.2% of the women who were raped by people they knew reported the incident to police.
            (source: I’ve not included every numbered fact, just the most relevant).

            2. You talk about single mothers as if you believe all are single by choice. They’re not.
            In addition, cutting support and funding won’t end the problem, it will just fill orphanages: before there was welfare, there were lots of children in orphanages. If a parent died, or a family’s fortune changed, or a man abandoned his family, the children would often be put in orphanages if there was no money for food and no support.

            You know what IS proven to end single parenthood? Education, and, secondarily, birth control. Kids who are educated and have access to birth control rarely become single parents. As a mathematician, I am sure you’ll be able to find the mountains of statistical evidence supporting this statement.

            I think that perhaps, as a mathematician, your skills are better left in the realm of mathematics – obviously pure or abstract mathematics, or some such thing, and not dirty, messy statistics, as any ‘professional’ statistician worth his or her salt wouldn’t use such shoddy sources to support their arguments.

          • A. The page you took your statistics from provided no source, so it’s hilarious that you talk about “us[ing] such shoddy sources to support their arguments.”

            Actually, what I wrote was correct, because I did indeed make it clear that my statistics were from newspaper stories and that there were more marriages than those. The fact that there were many more marriages means the incidence of marital rape is even lower.

            The cases that made the news presumably were special only in that they were marital rape cases, so it is reasonable to suppose that pretty much all marital rape cases would have made the news.

            I can dismiss almost all rape statistics stories—it’s the girl who cried, “Wolf!” Here’s an article explaining how the rape-hysteria promoters lie even about what the respondents in their surveys have said (usually by using a definition of “rape” that the “rape victims” would disagree with):

            “Do the math: rape stats don’t add up”
            The Baltimore Sun newspaper (September 26, 2014)

            It’s time to stop using the term “survivor”: it’s overly dramatic.

            B. Pretty much all single mothers in America today are single by choice. All have the choice of giving their kids up for adoption. And we know the profile of single mothers in America: they made the choice to have relations without prophylactics with criminals they were not married to.

            I don’t know what would work, but you’ll note that I didn’t say my suggestion would work. I think it is worth trying to solve the long-term problem of the creation of single mothers, which is what I stated clearly.

          • Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were an adult with google at your fingertips. I used that info because it is the most comprehensive, and easy to google to fact-check.
            Here’s what happens when you do google that info:



            That you believe that statistics collected from newspaper stories are in any way useful or pertinent is laughable. But, you’re also racist and trying to to argue that your own suggestion – to cut of welfare for single mothers- is an ambiguous one, when it’s crystal clear.

            Now, to cover up your shoddy ‘research’, you’ve linked to ONE biased, lazy article which pulls apart the discussion on COLLEGE rape and also attacks some research which we haven’t been discussing at all – a whole different kettle of fish than your original argument.

            Nice work. Obviously a ‘professional’.

          • You provided the link with the snark about shoddy statistics. I used your link. There were no references backing up your statistics. I merely pointed out your error.

            Compounding your error with further snark doesn’t make your argument any more sound.

            Why would I google the 11 different statistics you mentioned. It’s your job to provide the references.

            Your new links aren’t any better. Your first refers to Diana Russell. In my link, I point out how flawed Diana Russell’s study was. So my “lazy” article debunked your link before you even posted your link. Hence when you say my link “attacks some research which we haven’t been discussing at all,” I have proven you completely wrong.

            You say, “That you believe that statistics collected from newspaper stories are in any way useful or pertinent is laughable.” It is not just me: the people who wrote the refereed research article that I cited think that. The authors write: “Surprisingly, there is no evidence of any marital rape cases being mentioned in The Times in 1993 which suggests either that the new crime of marital rape is not being much used or that there is now an avoidance of potentially contentious cases coming before the courts.”

            In fact, your statement that my statement was racist was racist, as I suspect that Somalians in America don’t have a 72% rate of illegitimacy, and they are blacker than most African-Americans.

            I’m not sure what you mean when you say I say that my suggestion to discontinue welfare programs for single mothers is ambiguous: what I am saying is that I am not sure if it would work, but it is worth considering. You have a reading comprehension problem.

          • YOU SERIOUSLY believe that all marital rape cases would make the news. Your argument reads like that of an A-B paper for high school – there’s no way you’ve learnt how to research properly. Your OWN LINK SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS MEDIA SILENCE CONCERNING MARITAL RAPE – meaning that your own MAIN LINK ARGUES AGAINST YOUR MAIN ASSERTION.

            Regarding your ”Diana Russell’ argument: One of my links REFERENCES MORE THAN 70 PAPERS, of which DIANA RUSSELL’S IS ONLY ONE.
            IF YOU HAD ANY academic knowledge, you would see that those papers support the statistical analysis performed by the papers I have supplied, and that if Diana Russell’s work was anomalous, it would stick out like a sore thumb.

            You have provided one lazy news article, and decided that one article about the problem of media non-response to rapes is definitive proof of the dearth of marital rapes. ARE YOU SERIOUS? You can’t be, and I don’t waste my time on trolls and racist kids.

            I hope in 5 years time, your attitude improves, because if you go into work with the attitude that what you’re doing now is good enough, you’re going to get your ass handed to you.

          • All you’re doing is asserting that my argument is so foolish, it doesn’t warrant a response (and then you write a 5-paragraph response saying you don’t have time to waste responding to me).

            If you have statistics showing that marital rape is rampant, show them. You have tried twice and failed to do so.

            If the seventy references make your point, then you find the two or three that support your argument and show them to me. The fact that the link you chose—I didn’t force you—uses debunked research doesn’t help your case. What you call a “lazy” news article refuted your argument. What does that make your argument?

            The words “definitive proof” aren’t in my postings on this page. But I repeat: it was the researchers in the refereed journal who seemed to think that the dearth of newspaper accounts implied something about the actual incidence of marital rape (to be more precise, what is called “marital rape”).

            In 5 years’ time, you’ll probably be just as dense as you are now, thinking that saying someone is stupid refutes what he has said.

          • Calling me a “moron” really shows how logical your argument is!

            “Debunked,” “refuted”—either way I proved you wrong.

            I stated what the authors of the article were saying—that the dearth of newspaper accounts was relevant to the actual occurrence of what is called “marital rape.” You said it wasn’t relevant. Again, I proved that the authors of this refereed article think you’re wrong. I did indeed provide the link so people could read it.

            I looked at your links and showed that they do not establish what you claimed. You provided two more links and I refuted—or is it debunked?—a researcher cited in one of them. Indeed, the link you keep calling “lazy” did so.

            And to finish off your strong argument, you call me “lazy” and a “child” instead of, you know, proving any of your claims.

            An officer and a gentleman, to the last!

        • “All housework (including childcare) is work! And, as it is work, should be paid work.”
          But who pays?
          The husband, on a single salary?
          The State? The State does not have any money of its own, only what it gets in taxation – so the family’s income is taxed further?
          Who pays?

      • Thanks for your response Belinda and I am both well aware and appreciative of all the hard work you put in on behalf of men. I am not one of those men who deny we need the help of women; because in a gynocentric world a mans contrary opinion is drowned out or ignored. It’s just that that help has never materialised from your sex…..and I doubt it ever will.

        You seem to think that because I mentioned divorce and custody matters that that must equate to a fight over the children as to the most suitable parent. As an aside, my considerable experience leaves me far less convinced than you are as to a woman’s “natural” ability and men are every bit as as capable if not more so in this regard. But I doubt that this would materialise in most cases. It’s the financial and emotional abuse that women remorselessly utilise – particularly with regard to children – that the courts facilitate and endorse, that must be stopped. We treat our pets with more compassion than men. Would no men be prosecuted if paternity fraud were a crime against women?

        But “justice” relates to more than domestic issues. It relates to education, employment, criminal justice, health, mental health, PTSD, “rape culture” etc etc.

        While your ‘men sacrificing themselves for women because of children thesis’ may have some hIstorical truth, I don’t agree that men, and it was men, have prioritised the position of women in all aspects of society over the last 40 years of feminism because they have sacrificed for children. No, women have abandoned the patriarchal torture of marriage and children for the myopic and narcissistic allure of self.

        You are right that women no longer deserve mens support because as I’ve said, your sex has forgotten about the humanity of 50% of the population and until you learn to share again (its been over 40 years of one-way traffic) my back will be firmly turned.

        If only you were not an anomaly but representative of your sex!

        • I agree with you about the capability of men re: looking after children, but path dependency can be set up by breastfeeding for example. Also maybe it is just a bit more important to women to spend time with their children than it is to men. But I do think we are all incredibly malleable and that men can very often do a much better job with children given half a chance. Often that only happens if the mother dies.
          And then of course there is just a part of me that feels upset with all that feminism destroyed and I would like some of it back.
          Men prioritized the position of women out of a deeply ingrained habit that evolved out of something to do with women giving birth.
          I think you know I agree with you otherwise I wouldn’t be writing etc.

          • But we are far too far down the road now to hope that a sensible course of corrective action as you propose will wash away the oceans of mistrust built up over decades; however much you want to turn the clock back. I, for one, will not forget. Men will not return with soothing words and insults no longer work either.

            Men want to see fundamental legal change and NOTHING less. Men want their taxes spent on their needs. Women want to hold on to their advantage and bury their head to injustice. Things will have to get a whole lot worse before your sex finally, at the very last gasp, comes to the realisation that men have options. A poor economy will hasten the process.

            Sorry, but I really hope we rub your sex’s nose in the disaster you’ve created. I’ve got my knitting ready for the scaffold! You’ll be welcome to join me. I’m sure we’d both enjoy the spectacle.

      • We will never know exactly what happened at the fall of Rome but it is pretty clear that within a few years a society based on law was replaced in the main by a society based on strength, family allegiance and tribe. Most aspects of civilisation were destroyed. Whole professional armies refused to fight or lost to irregular and untrained men, who’s motivation was plunder and fun, usually at the expense of Roman men and boys who lost their lives and women who lets say….. had to adapt.

        History never repeats itself exactly but it is pretty clear that after the fall of Rome, for a man life did not change all that much and may well have been much more fun and interesting. For Roman women, life might also have been more fun (if more unpredictable) in the new culture.

        The issue is that the culture changed and in historical terms, overnight. Think of a young unattached man, which side do you think appeals?

  2. Male suicide rates are going through the roof, divorced fathers are ostracised from their children by vindictive mothers and assisted by a heavily female biased family court system in the UK, the feminisation of our education system in schools is failing boys dramatically.

    3rd wave feminism as created a complete new victim culture wthin our society, everything is an offence, women are offended by everything and anything especially if it is male and white. God help any young male student stepping onto a college or university campus and that applies to both sides of the Atlantic.

    Men are angry and are tired of the constant demonising of masculinity. False rape claims on campus, boys in schools brainwashed by pro feminist teachers, all this is distorting and effecting our society. No wonder lots of men don’r trust women any more and will not commit to a binding relationship. Women now treat marriage as a cash cow, get divorced, she gets the house, money ££££££ etc and the father is ostracised from seeing his children. Marriage is now a massive CON for men.

  3. Great piece. I think a lot of younger woman are now questioning the feminist mantras. Change itself will have to come from women. The vast majority of women are egalitarians and know and dislike unfairness when they see it.
    I think that work, such as is done in the gender equity network, is great because it give names to problems and information and statistics to back it up. I think the younger genration is picking up on all the work being done by organisations fighting feminism. Often in life, all one needs, is to see that all those concerns that one has internally are actually shared by a lot of other people. This in itself encourages change.
    Its great, for example, to see that large amounts of young democratic women in the USA are rejecting Hillary and going for the more egalitarian Sanders ( not that I agree with his politics!)

  4. Another factor is the whole concept of Equal Pay, and in particular the pernicious notions of “equal value” and “rated as equivalent”. A cleaner in a school or a dinner lady is not worth as much as a bin man or a porter; the work is indoors and it’s not so physically demanding, and nobody in their right mind would say they were worth the same money. These concepts, together with the European judgment requiring awards to be backdated six years, have near bankrupted local authorities and NHS Trusts – Birmingham City Council had to sell major assets to meet this liability.

    At least partially the size of the awards has been due to the productivity and other bonuses that were introduced, with the support and encouragement of the then government ( the responsible minister being Barbara Castle) in order to achieve the socially desirable objective of maintaining men’s earnings at the expense of women’s to enable them to support a family. Those extra payments were made to make working class men marriageable.

    That’s all gone now, because for very obvious financial reasons the levelling has had to be down – men’s pay has had to be reduced to the level of women’s and/or there have been job losses.

    Middle class feminists are doing the same jobs as their male counterparts and therefore any disparity in pay is usually down to hours worked, which is a factor they generally ignore.

    • All companies today will try to pay any employee as little as possible and is why we out-source to Vietnam where labor workers of any gender are paid 75 cents and hour. America has 3 laws to protect women in the workplace. If you are paid unfairly SUE!

  5. It seems to me that you’re adding up a lot of reasons why a computing an answer which suits your agenda, but has no real basis for that assumption , opinion rather than analysis.
    1) Women are being currently encouraged into work as a result of a policy framework proposed by a male expert, not a woman whether feminist or otherwise.
    2) There’s no proof that men are any better at proposing policy for women than women are proposing policy for men. The ideal is choice.
    3) Arguing that people make choices to suit their reproductive nature, seems odd, eg men join the armed forced because they want to be fathers?, not all women want to, or even can be mothers, they should still have a choice, this is a key aspect of self not state ownership and free will (politics of the right).
    “We need to welcome interdependence in place of independence. We need to replace self-interest with altruism and self-fulfilment with self-sacrifice.” See above, you’re in danger of promoting the politics of the left. Self fulfilment for some women is becoming a mother, are you saying that form of self fulfilment isn’t acceptable, or that some are, but only of your (the states) choosing ?. Lack of self fulfilment can contribute to a great deal of unhappiness, also see ‘self actualisation’ (self fulfilment), and the creative personality. Not everyone ‘self actualises to the same degree and for some people its a states they enter and leave continually, but it is thought that is is the final psychological stage for the developing individual. Looking at the list below it seems we need many more self fulfilled people rather than less

    In general, self-actualized people:
    Accept themselves and others.
    Maintain deep and meaningful relationships.
    Can exist autonomously.
    Have a sense of humor, particularly an ability to find humor in their own mistakes.
    Accurately perceive reality, both as it pertains to the self and others.
    Have a sense of purpose and perform regular tasks geared toward that purpose.
    Experience frequent moments of profound happiness (what Maslow called “peak experiences”).
    Demonstrate empathy and compassion for others.
    Have an ongoing appreciation of the goodness of life. Some might refer to this trait as childlike wonder.

  6. Belinda mentions Mrs. Thatcher here, in a way that might be understood as not entirely complimentary.
    Well I don’t mind a difference of opinion over this – that’s free speech for you!
    But it’s perhaps worth remembering that Mrs.T is on record as saying “feminism is poison”.
    Just thought I’d mention it…

  7. “We also need to dismantle ideologies that might have an undue influence on those individuals”. Let’s start with Gender Studies departments in Universities.

      • Janice Fiamengo is a brave and articulate woman in a country infected by the feminist virus. UK Universities are going the same way as those in Canada. A degree in misandry is now considered a qualification.

  8. Feminism has giving women of all stripes free rein to exercise their true nature. You are suggesting that women voluntarily put that genie back in the bottle. It ain’t gonna happen. The demographic collapse is well underway and is now irreversible as more and more men adopt MGTOW as their only viable survival strategy. God help us all.

    • Perhaps what needs to happen is that certain young men who find it difficult to build the right kind of relationships with women, need to find and nurture positive male role models, instead of ‘copping out’ of life, which MGTW basically is..

      • I must disagree. Feminism has so drastically altered the legal relationship landscape that only an uninformed blithering idiot would expose himself to the machinery of the divorce and DV industries. And they are industries in need of raw material just like any other and that raw material is uninformed blithering idiot males.

        Are there “good women” out there? Absolutely. Only a fool believes that 100% of any large population sample is homogeneous. But a man does not find out she is not a “good woman” until it is too late and he finds himself forced through the slaughterhouse entrance doors at, literally, gun point. For the general population the odds are 50/50. If both are college educated the odds are 60/40. Those are pretty cruddy odds for a man to risk his career, wealth, health, reputation and most importantly his freedom.

        Are you suggesting that positive male role models are the answer for young men? They all have seen with their own two eyes what females have done to their fathers, uncles, brothers, and friends. Mythological platitudes preached at them will in no way negate the real world evidence nor convince them to bet everything on a spin of the feminist controlled legal roulette wheel.

        MGTOW is anything but “copping out” of life. It is recognizing reality and accepting life as it now defined by society for what it is. If you knew anything about just how deep MGTOW philosophy really runs, you would understand that for a man accepting the truths of MGTOW it is a billion times harder than rolling over for the myths espoused by so called “good women” and the traditionalist.

        A man goes his own way on his own terms. Sheep are led to the slaughterhouse by a shepherd they made the mistake of trusting. MGTOW reject the role the shepherd has in mind for them and choose to be men. Educate yourself, my friend.

  9. The Journal of Applied Economics reports that “the most critical factor affecting the prospect that a male youth will encounter the criminal justice system is the presence of his father in the home.”–p. 228)

  10. “But perhaps the most insidious and lethal aspect of feminism is the
    way it persistently, invidiously, poisons women’s understanding of, and
    attitude towards, men.”

    That it why I would be happy if my boys married women from Asia or anywhere outside of Western Europe or N America.

    As my eldest put it, you see a pretty British girl, she opens her mouth and usually within a couple of sentences you have already moved on and are looking for an excuse to walk away.

    • Doesn’t say much for the women concerned if they believe everything they read, most of us don’t and make excellent life partners. On the other hand go to communist China.hmm

      • “most of us don’t and make excellent life partners”

        The thing is….how many do? Really?

        Get your stats out and prove that the majority of western women make good life partners.

        Divorce stats would imply otherwise.

        • I think we should not confuse the morass in the English speaking “west” with all western countries. There is some step differences across advanced western countries. Not all are anywhere near as “broken”.

          • Agreed. but it is a direct relationship

            More feminism = more brokenness.

            (Don’t confuse feminism with equality of opportunity. Those days are long gone. Standard Feminism is almost Mao China lunacy now)

  11. “… deindustrialisation under Thatcher in the 1980s …”

    “Allister Heath points out that manufacturing output rose during her time in office.

    Yet the facts show that far more coal mines closed under the Labour Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and James Callaghan [than Mrs T].

    Based on these figures from the government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in office, and about 160 under Thatcher.”

    • It isn’t the mines I am talking about. I read a book about her (John Campbell) – and what I picked up on was that lots of industry shut down during her period in office. I am no historian but I remember coming away from the book thinking that she had unwittingly fueled the feminist revolution.

      • “Allister Heath points out that manufacturing output rose during her time in office”

        A lot of unskilled jobs were lost and replaced by skilled jobs, increasing productivity, which is what is wanted.

  12. Oh Belinda you are a card!

    Men do make single mothers. Slutty irresponsible women make single mothers, who then scrounge off the rest of us.

    I am not your slave. I’m not coming back to the plantation.

    The past is gone forever and it’s never coming back.

    Bed. Made. Lie.

  13. Great post in many points. In particular it resonates with my own theory that society is patriarchal *because* it is gynocentric. It’s not my theory alone, of course. Evolutionary analyses see human society built upon that fact also.

  14. This prescription for male servitude separated from family sounds horrible. No thanks. We’re no going back.

    • No, we are going forward and questioning what we mean by EQUALITY. Just the same numbers of male, female, gay, lesbian and trans? Why are there number quotas. Do we need number quotas in coal mines, nursing and nuclear clean up activities?

  15. Number quotas will not work very well. Nursing is a mostly female oriented career, straight men are discriminated against at the top feline management levels, gay men fit well. Should we demand change to the clinical culture. Fashion models who make the most money are women, should we demand change? There are 9,000 men repairing the Fukashemia nuclear meltdown, do we demand half of these be women?

  16. It is remarkable that Belinda ‘assumes’ men will just fall into line and become her willing slaves. Yes we will do what you say.


Comments are closed.