(Dr Victoria Bateman is an Economic Historian and Fellow in Economics, Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, and Fellow of the Legatum Institute, London who believes to be a capitalist you have to be a feminist)

Victoria Bateman is on a mission. She wants feminists to make progress in social and political spheres. As feminist ideology is ubiquitous and highly influential and  male inequality routinely ignored, it is female domination she is talking about here.

However in focusing on the contribution that women can make to capitalism she is travelling a well worn path. The waxings and wanings of the feminist movement do as Neil Lyndon suggests, appear to reflect the economy’s demands. The conspiracy theory about Rockerfeller funding the feminist movement expresses this relationship well. Cameron’s drive to get all women into the workplace is the most recent example of these processes at work. Women can certainly play a positive role in capitalist processes, but this will only work as long as capitalism remains the outcome of the ‘invisible hand’, rather than an interest group being in charge.

Women also play a crucial role in supplying and nurturing the workforce. This is something that exercised the socialist feminists who thought it meant that women were invisible and  subordinated to the means of production and that actually men were in charge. What they failed to understand was that through the vast (but not all) expanses of human history and society the needs of the family motivated production, the family was the invisible hand , and women were in charge.

This can be seen in peasant economies, where far from lacking agency as Bateman claims, women often have a final say in decision-making processes, they play a key role in agricultural production and are central to  barter and exchange.  Likewise in much of the developing world women play management roles  in both production and reproduction with men providing the physical strength and stamina where required, or else  an additional  income from their work in the towns. While it is difficult to encapsulate the breadth of human experience in a single paragraph – to claim that women lack agency in comparison to men is simply a downright lie.

In developing and peasant societies where the private realm forms the heart of society men are peripheral and women are central. Women’s far more direct and unmediated responsibility for the nurturing and raising of children provides them with the motivation for production and for organising the community as well.  The complaint of women in these societies is not the socialist one – that women lack direct access to the means of production. It is that men are lazy and women do all the work.

The big achievement of Western society has been, as MGTOWs have realised , that women have identified and harnessed and utilized the potential of men. We found ways of motivating them so that they wanted to create for us, build for us, work for us and protect us. We did this by  giving men the experience of a personalised dependency of significant others; i.e. women and children, just as women had always experienced the personalised dependency of children on them. Women understood that it was this experience of dependent others which pushed them to work and self sacrifice. So they set up a system which placed some of this dependency on men. This was patriarchy – a system which harnessed the potential of men through motivation and reward.

Within the resulting  gendered division of labour there is room for flexibility and interchangeability but if we want a capitalist society some distinction between the family and  public realm needs to be maintained.  A strong family and private realm not only provides the engine for capitalism, it also provides a check on it ensuring that it is responsive to the needs of the individual and the family. Where it no longer does so it becomes unsustainable – a capitalism out of control.

If, as Bateman appears to want, women have control over both production and reproduction this would simply carry on the erosion of the family and private realm. Men’s relationship to children is almost invariably mediated through women; they are secondary here. Decreasing their role and influence in the family is simply going to entrench a growing alienation and the social ‘checking out’ which is going on among men.

If there is no one to care for the family this will massively increase the burden on  businesses and the State.  A truly vast amount of ‘caring’ work is currently done willingly by women with some indirect  financial recognition of their contribution from their partner or the State.  Women do this work in their own time, and in their own homes and on their terms, and receive recognition and authority for it, and  do not expect direct financial rewards.  If we erode this system the work will  have to be paid for at the market rate, which  would involve huge financial investments, which would directly or indirectly have to be deducted from profits made.

There is also the question of what will happen if women increasingly take over those arenas which were previously the preserve of men. Men without family responsibilities to motivate them, or interesting or prestigious jobs to drive them, will increasingly be a drain on the community as they decide, as they already are beginning to, to simply go their own way. This may be why as female employment increases, male inactivity is on the rise. In the long run we will return to a situation where women do the bulk of labour and childcare – a situation seen in swathes of the developing world.

Finally there are questions of what will happen to children as they increasingly grow up in childcare institutions, without a solid base in family life to nurture them. Evidence suggests that children who grow up in fractured or single parent families fare far worse than those who grow up with two parents. One can only guess at what will happen if children grow up with almost no family at all.

Bateman implies that she is interested in the wellbeing of the capitalist system and gender equality. I would suggest that Bateman is interested neither in gender equality nor capitalism, neither in men nor even in women.  What Bateman is really interested in is feminist power and control.

Previous articlePhilippa Taylor: Latest research suggests a link between abortion and breast cancer  
Next articleWeek in Review
Belinda Brown
Belinda Brown is author of 'The Private Revolution' and a number of well-cited academic papers. More recently, she has started writing and blogging for The Daily Mail and The Conservative Woman. She has a particular interest in men's issues and the damage caused by feminism.


  1. A good analysis of some aspects of society of the past and, to a lesser degree, present, but…
    “The complaint of women in these societies … is that men are lazy and women do all the work” – this will need a citation if it is meant to be anything more than the complaints women everywhere always have about men.
    “Men without family responsibilities .. will increasingly be a drain on the community” – I won’t even bother going into the brazen patronising and degrading of men as it seems to be par for the course for tradcons.

    I fully agree that whatever contribution women make to the work force must be on a free market, meritocratic, equal opportunity basis, and not through artificial inducements and discriminatory policies. But thereafter the article seems to lose itself in a paen to family values and traditional roles. To centre arguments for basic equality and human rights on family values and economic efficiency is to cheapen humanity. It is also to stick obstinately to the past because “it worked” and refuse to consider alternatives in a much changed and rapidly changing world. Men are going their own way because the shock of feminist betrayal has woken them up and they feel the need to “find themselves” (as the cliche goes) without reference to women. This cannot be undone or reversed, no matter how compelling the economic argument. Women have decided they are not content in their gilded cage pulling men’s strings and want to actively participate in all aspects of society. This too cannot be undone or reversed no matter how tempting the past might seem. Future relations and roles of men and women will therefore be on a completely different basis and be subject to continuous shift until the new basis is found. In my opinion, this article would have been better off simply pointing out the many factual errors Bateman makes about women’s lack of agency, and omitting the appeal to the past.

    • Thank you for mansplaining how you would like women to behave for your benefit.

      What gives you the right to tell us what to do?

      No wonder you’re “going your own way” – because you can’t get a girlfriend. LOL.

      • Not speaking for the OP, but it is an interesting counterpoint that I do much better with women since shedding what feminist ways I used to have.

      • Well that did not take very long at all for this liar to pull out the old and worn “you can’t get a girlfriend”

        Jesus lady.
        Can’t you even think about an original lie on your own but you have to resort to regurgitation lies and comical drivel??

        This clearly shows your inability to think for yourself i.e. feminist.

        No wonder you are a feminist! You can’t do ANYTHING unless you are shaming some man!

        Go feed your cats as they will be the ONLY thing you will have left.

        As it should be-

    • No not meant to be anything more than the complaints women have everywhere about men.
      On one hand being of free of family obligations can facilitate great creativity and lots of wonderful things. But there is evidence to suggest that men who have family obligations may be more likely to be employed. I think there is also evidence to suggest that single men suffer from poorer health. I suspect, but maybe it is just prejudice that men who are single long term are more likely to use drugs and alcohol and possibly to engage in anti-social behaviour – and that there could be a causal relation going from the lack of responsibility to the possibly destructive behaviour. I think having responsibility for others, does, particularly for those who don’t have access to interesting work, help to get the most out of people. For all those reasons I stand by the sentence – however clumsily it might have been put.
      Discussion about past and future is something that bothers me. It does seem to me feminism has inflicted such damage it will be difficult to go back. But anyway I wouldn’t want to go back to things being exactly the same anyway- men being able to do more caring and women being able to do anything they want workwise – is a good thing. I am not sure about the completely new basis – although I think feminists would very much go along with you there. I do believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. We have had social shock waves but there are other parts of the world run along more traditional lines. I do suspect that there is a link between patriarchal structures and civilizations. If we completely abandon any form of positive patriarchy we can go to hell in a handcart but other forms of civilization will arise elsewhere.

      I don’t really agree with the gilded cage analogy because I think that apart from privileged women, women have always carried a heck of a lot of responsibility and done a huge amount of work. Just that we shared it with men and now we seem determined to do it all ourselves.
      Last point. Maybe you’re right.

      • I agree that men are more motivated to work when they have a family, but it’s quite an unsavoury stretch to say men without family will be a drain on the community.

        I am not sure about the new basis either, in the sense that I can’t spell out what exactly it be. And I too am bothered by discussions of past and future, when they cling to the past or get prescriptive about the future. This article seems to do both in one stroke. I would rather focus on removing the distortions, lies, and injustices that are disrupting gender relations so that people can freely form the relations that work best for the times and organically evolve the new basis.

        You say you support women being able to do anything they want workwise, yet in the article you argue that:
        1) The success of western society was due to women becoming dependent on men.
        2) women having control over both production and reproduction would erode the role of men and lead to their checking out.
        3) If women work, the burden of caring for family will fall on businesses and state.
        4) If women take over men’s arenas men will become a drain on the community.
        5) If both parents work, children will fare far worse.
        So I have difficulty understanding your position. It is possible that you are only against social pressure and artificial inducements to get women into the work force, but this does not come across in the article because all your arguments are equally valid as arguments against women working at all.

        The traditional structure has worked well in the past, but that doesn’t mean it is best or that it will even continue working. In any case I think western society has crossed a Rubicon and has no choice but to find a new arrangement that works just as well. Though there could be a temporary resurgence of traditionalism when the economy turns down further.

        Yes, the gilded cage is not equally applicable to all social classes, but it is the gilded cage women, or a segment thereof, who have always been the drivers of feminism and lead the female group think.

        • First couple of paras – fair enough I agree.
          As to the rest – I think it is a question of degree. My position is as you say I am against social pressures to get women to go out to work. I am very much in favour of women working if they want to – they have always worked and I am very glad that things like the marriage bar are no longer in place. But I get the feeling that feminists want women to be where men are and I don’t think this properly deals with who is going to look after the private realm of family and community. Also I don’t think this is what the majority of women (or men) want. Perhaps feminists think that men will do what women used to do – take over childcare, but this would require giving a lot of rights re: childcare and reproduction to men and feminists don’t seem to want to do that. Besides there is a lot more to community life than childcare and that has not been factored into the equation and I don’t think men could take over there (sorry). Probably I would like to put the clock back a wee bit (e.g. with my 22 year old – it was perfectly acceptable to stay at home till he was three or so, with my 9 year old the pattern was to go out to work before the child hits 1 – that is crazy). I feel like the feminists aren’t content to stop where we are they just seem to want more and more and more and that is what I am arguing against. I am not dealing with this very well. Its complicated.

          • Your idea of what feminists think and want, reads like a lot of cliches. Everybody writing in the media has their own opinion which doesn’t mean they speak for a majority of anybody else, even feminists.

            “Perhaps feminists think that men will do what women used to do – take over childcare, but this would require giving a lot of rights re: childcare and reproduction to men ”

            what – serously? are you even remotely thnking about what the average persons or couples life is like?

            You do realise don’t you that the majority of male suicides are because of the gender sterotypical roles that you are promoting. The idea that men should be the strong ones and look after women, which means that when they really need help they don’t ask for it (considered a sign of weakness). A lot of men are born as caring people, they are born artistic and creative, some are born gay! Everybody is different. many men work in the care industry, there have always been male primary school teachers and there should be more to counter balance single woman households.

            “and feminists don’t seem to want to do that. Besides there is a lot more to community life than childcare and that has not been factored into the equation ”

            a community which is formed from men…. and women

            “and I don’t think men could take over there (sorry). ”

            Well there you go – back to a stereotype theme. There would probably be a lot less male suicide and far happier older single men were more of them actively involved in community, and building relationships with other people of both sexes, which are just plain friendships.

          • Male suicide rates have increased significantly with the rise of feminism. Radical feminism has nothing to do with equality it is a female supremacy movement, it aims to sideline men and empower women. The following is a good example – it is believed that unemployment is a major driver of male suicide, 4 out of 7 unemployed adults are men, and yet while there are numerous state sponsored schemes which encourage women into formerly male-typical fields, e.g engineering, there are none encouraging men into female-typical fields.
            Feminism has a total disregard for male issues and masculine values.

          • Men are doing a lot of care in middle class households. However the overall amount of care which men do is likely to be going down because of the very high proportion of single parent families. If we want men to be doing more childcare then institutions will have to change. Men would need to get de facto and not just de jure child custody. Mothers I believe can leave fathers off the birth certificates. Do men have equal access to income support, benefits, council housing and all those things which make looking after their own children possible? I doubt it and I doubt whether feminists are fighting to help them.
            Men are not committing suicide because they can’t talk about their problems. They are committing suicide because they have problems. It is men in low income groups who are most likely to commit suicide. These men have no role for themselves either as fathers (they have seen their own fathers excluded from their birth families or they have been excluded themselves). Nor do they have a chance of interesting employment let alone any employment. If they were bringing home a decent pay package they would be less likely to be excluded from family life.
            Community means – watching out for the kids in the playground, heloing people with their shopping, teaching in schools, telling off kids when they misbehave. If a man comes into a playground mothers and children will leave. Men are not choosing to be teachers because they are worried about being accused of sexual harassment. I had boys on my estate who carried my shopping up the stairs and often helped top ick up my husband when he fell down. Do you know what happened to them? Estate women got an anti-social order put on them because they were hanging around. Women and feminists play an active role in excluding men from community life.

      • Belinda, you say ‘I think there is evidence to suggest that single men suffer from poorer health . . . [and] are more likely to use drugs and alcohol and possibly to engage in anti-social behaviour’.
        I would like to see that ‘evidence’ as, being a (64-year-old) man who has been GMOW my entire adult life, I don’t fit the stereotype; nor do the single men I have come across over the years.
        Part of the way of coping as one of the MGTOW is to ‘grow out of’ a need for capitalist, female-defined, domesticity – ie be the definition of a bachelor – someone who never makes the same mistake ONCE. Avoid (and don’t regret avoiding) marriage and babies, live in a parallel universe (even if it means taking up the equivalent of train spotting) and tolerate (and maybe even thrive on) the capitalist system.
        However, where a man has had his singularity forced on him, having first dipped his toe in the ‘domestic bliss’ capitalist waters and been rejected, via divorce and/or unemployment, then I would think your thesis is more likely to stand – maybe he can look forward to all that sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll – without the sex and rock ‘n’ roll, of course.
        If I was one of those guys and I met me, I would really envy me!

        • yes very good point. Most stats on single men are probably men who have been subjected to horrible divorces etc.

  2. The real reason why men don’t want equality for women is they are scared of us.

    They can’t handle competition from women in the workplace.

    That’s why men can’t handle the idea of a woman becoming President.

    They want to return to the 1950s where simply being a straight, cis white male gave you a massive advantage in the job market.

    Well it’s not happening, boys.

    Men are going to have to get used to competing against us in the job market.

    Men are going to have to get used to being out-earned by your wives and girlfriends.

    Deal with it.

    • We progressives have taken over. Britain belongs to us now.

      We even have control of the courts and the military – once bastions of conservatism.

      Our military is now a feminist and gay institution, with women soon to be serving on the front lines and openly gay, lesbian and transgender people in the military.

      • You confirm the first and last points in my article. What Bateman is really interested is feminist domination and feminist power and control. But when it comes to people, men women and children, you feminists really don’t care.

        • No, you’re wrong there.

          Progressives and Feminists care about Equality between the genders. We want every little girl to grow up knowing that she can do anything she wants to, just the same as the boys in her class.

          • She cannot do ‘anything she wants to’ anymore than a boy can do anything he wants to.

            Patriarchy ? You seem to under the impression that there are homogenous groups spilt into males and females. There is no evidence to suggest women make any fewer poor judgements than men. Hence, it really doesn’t matter who the sits in power, they are all egoistic basket cases.

            In terms of equality of opportunity, beyond the obvious biological differences, it would appear women have the same opportunities as men. I can’t understand why feminists continue to crab on about it-you already have it- therefore it would appear that you aren’t actually satisfied with equality of opportunity and therefore your agenda is far more sinister.

          • Feminism is only good for men and boys in that it serves feminism.

            For men to resist their masculine nature is to throw them into turmoil.

          • “And it’s a myth that we don’t care about men and boys.”

            It’s easy to blatantly lie in cyberspace isn’t it? Just because you have the audacity to actually lie, and to put those lies down in writing, do you actually expect us to succumb to your deceit? Do you hope we are stupid, like you are?

            Let me remind the readers what the truth really is; you don’t give a rat’s-ass about men and boys and everyone knows it~ This is why you need to be eradicated like the vermin you and your ilk really are!

            There are no feminist who care about men and boys and that is why you are a liar!

            Now what?
            Any more lies to come from you? Like you can do anything I can do only better? Or the feminist standard, “you can’t get laid?

            Idiot liar you are-

          • Is this a spell or incantation of some sort? Begone Gorgon. My “outmoded” masculinity bears the shield of truth. Thy snakes hiss will be silenced with the mighty light from the MGTOW lantern. Ye fool no-one.

          • You don’t care about the injustice within school system: females earn 66% degrees.
            No sane man should trust a single word by feminists: they always lie and they use just only absolutely fake stats in order to ask for special treatment.

    • Do you really have to come here with your lies and hatred?
      Can’t you be happy with all the privilidges the men HAVE ALREADY died to give you and
      IDIOT feminist liar-

    • Ah bless!

      What man wouldn’t love to have a wife who was out-earning him?! its actually a right pain having to be responsible for prime income generation, it’d be great to put the feet up a bit more.

      Still, it’s sadly a pipe dream. Girls will continue to come and play in the job market but shuffle off when the going gets tough. Still, we can hope, and in the meantime they still brighten work up no end!

    • Women are going to have get used that many men will not want wives anymore.

      Feminists are going to have to get used that if women will out-earn and marginalise men too much, men will start screaming “oppression” and “matriarchy”, and they’ll start a masculinist movement. It’s already happening.

      66% dergrees earned by females and just only 33% by males is NOT equality – it means the system is designed to be in favour of women.

      • Boys outperform girls on tests. It’s the coursework that lowers boys marks and lifts girls marks. Why would they introduce coursework expecting hyper young boys, hormones raging and impatient at the best of times to sit for hours each night working on boring modules. They implement policies that cause maximum damage and then the next government does nothing to reverse detrimental policies. I’m starting to think it was a plan.

        • I already told my 11 yo son school system is subtly (and mostly unwillingly) biased against him, and in order to have success he must mostly behave like a girl but without forgetting he’s a boy and why he’s behaving so. It seems to work fine: he’s the very best in his classroom, and at a birthday party with 13 boys and 13 girls he let other boys playing soccer and he played “spin the bottle” with the girls: basically he kissed ALL girls of his classroom 🙂 while other boys were playing soccer 🙂

  3. In my experience, lots of men clearly feel threatened and emasculated by powerful, assertive, successful, smart women.

    I’ve found that to be the case in my past relationships.

    My last boyfriend in particular didn’t like the fact I earn more than him.

    He didn’t like it when I wore heels that pushed me over 6 feet and made me taller than him.

    He didn’t like it when I corrected him or demonstrated my superior education and intellect.

    Men need to grow up and accept the fact that 21st century British women aren’t going to be passive, sweet, submissive little housewives any more.

    We are your equals (at the very least!) and want to be treated that way.

    • You are NOT my equal and never will be!


      How stupid can you be to actually write “when I corrected him or demonstrated my superior education and intellect” as though you are special somehow because you have a vagina?

      You are not special and never will be!
      You are a pathetic whining princess and need to get lost!
      I would kick your ass to the curb so fast and your boyfriend should do the same!

      Your obvious deficient in cognitive functioning impresses nobody.

  4. Trigger warning: the above article is (i) anti-Feminist; (2) an attempt to defend the patriarchy and justify the subordination of women by men.

  5. Yawn, yawn, yawn. Who cares? Feminists get over yourselves, you are not that important in the grand scheme.

    • We are becoming more important. Take the current Labour leadership election for example. 3 of the 4 candidates are women. We could soon have women leading all 3 main parties in Scotland. Feminism is being talked about more and more on social media.

      • Not enough to have equality – you won’t be happy till you rule the world – well it’s not going to happen – get over it.

      • If you lot are ever seriously put in charge, all you will do is boss and moan, and write books blaming men for everything. That is ALL you do.
        Men on the other-hand, build and invent and discover and design. You’re not jealous are you?

        • Best to see the similarities between men and women than to look for the differences. Women also, build, invent, discover and design.
          What we see in feminism isn’t about equality of opportunity as we have long passed that stage. Within feminism lies the evil seed of collectivism. It wishes to set one group against another for the purposes of achieving its squalid aims. Unfortunately many feminists are naively indictrinated into this institution, for the wrong reasons. Instead of fuelling the feud, it’s better to dissipate it.

        • ‘Men on the other-hand, build and invent and discover and design. You’re not jealous are you?’

          Women do all of those things too, that you think otherwise is telling. Why should one person be ‘jealous of another’ because of their gender?

          • Women, generally, don’t do any of those things. Women, generally, consume things without any idea of who invented, designed and produced them, nor any idea of how they work, how they are made, where they come from or what happens to them when women throw them away.

            Note that my definition of design necessarily excludes the whimsical arrangement of shapes and colours in subjectively pleasing patterns or the ad hoc production of baubles with which to adorn themselves like childishly decorated Christmas trees.

          • During Victorian era the main hobby of middle-class and rich women was: painting.
            What is your preferred Victorian painting made by a woman?
            😉 🙂

        • I love it when a woman makes a man like me feel good as that is why men like me believe women like you deserve love and respect for your strong minded views and independent strength and yet so appreciative of us men.

      • Yes but are they talented, you seem to forget that a fair more equal world can only come from meritocracy. I don’t see any women in the Labour Party who can debate well and put their point across in a forthright manner. At least Mrs Thatcher got to be Prime Minister by merit and not because of her gender.

      • “Feminists get over yourselves, you are not that important…”

        And you reply with:

        “We are becoming more important. Take the current Labour leadership election for example. 3 of the 4 candidates are women.”

        So you think “feminist” = “woman”. How deluded are you?

      • To your comment, you seem proud that women have taken a superior lead over men in this area, yet are implying it is just a start. To that I have to ask: What are the short and long term goals of modern feminism right now (in 2015) in your opinion? And in the context of your above comment, how are you defining equality?

  6. There is equality of opportunity and that is all.
    Equality of anything else is a mirage. Everyone is an individual and gender is only one part of that individuality. A blind man will never see as equally well as a sighted man. The sensible approach is to celebrate the differences, not blind the sighted.

  7. I see a few comments here from the deluded who believe they are going to take over the world, or at least the western world. This fantasy will not come to pass, instead what is going to happen is first a self induced process of social disruption that will gradually erode the complex interrelationships necessary for a modern economy to work. This situation will develop until it overwhelms the capacity of governments to contain. The prime mechanism involved here centring on the destruction of the family, which is already in harness. Coincident with this evolving dislocation is the expansion of ideas and attitudes that are incompatible with the western norms responsible for todays pampered way of life. Unfortunately being bound together we will all experience what we would rather not, but it does appear as if those who govern are determined to bring this chaos about, although from what they have shown from our various interventions elsewhere, is an inability to succeed in creating social stability when it does not exist. So quite why they are so keen to experiment with that idea here is beyond me. I have to admit that regrettably stupidity is a part of being human, sometimes experience pushes it back, but it always makes a return. It is now doing so led by feminist bigots.

  8. Evidence suggests that children who grow up in fractured or single
    parent families fare far worse than those who grow up with two parents.

    The evidence seems to suggest that children, especially boys, who grow up in single mother, rather than single parent, families ‘fare far worse than those who grow up with two parents’. Children brought up by single fathers generally do considerably better than those brought up by single mothers.

  9. So in “peasant societies”, women have agency but are really bad at motivating them men; however in Western society, women have more agency than they appreciate(d) and are brilliant at motivating men to such a degree that they have created the patriarchy. However said women now are abusing their power whilst ignoring the routes of their agency (family life control) and also causing men to flee the control of women (men’s “checking out” from family life) which is all causing capitalism to go out of control. The solution is to reinforce the notion of family life and lure men back into it: are you not just reinforcing a) the patriarchy and b) the notion of control of women over men. So the feminists sideline men, and you want to control them? And in order to regain control over men, women should return to nurturing which most of them do willingly anyway apparently (because after all men don’t want anything to do with their children) but should also give up their jobs because men have no ability to motivate themselves save as inspired/driven to do so for women and family life.

    Phhhhheeeew. I can see why men would want to go their own way. Sidelined or shackled.

    Couple of points:
    1. You do realize that no amount of pleading that tradcon women aren’t feminists is going to lure MWGTOW back. What you are offering is not capable of being detached from the system from which they are going.

    2. Actually, (and I am not male, so cannot “GMOW”) I think men broadly going their own way is a good thing. I am not keen about some elements which can be a bit anti-women and generalize an entire gender based on the experience of some of that gender – but I don’t seek to characterize the entire movement by those elements. Men thinking about what they want from life, how they ought to be treated, freed from the societal commitment and expectations (of courting, marriage and children) I think has the potential to make for a much happier human race. It will hopefully mean that people will be more thoughtful about the sort of partner they want in life and choose with more care (if they want one at all). Basically I am in favour of encouraging better thought out life decisions.

    3. What people therefore ought to be fighting for is the freedom to make their own choices (whilst respecting other people’s bodily integrity and property) – and the market will respond to that, rather than using the “invisible hand” to push people into certain social and economic positions.

    • What I am actually saying was that the patriarchal system worked very well for women from many points of view and women I suspect had a very strong hand in creating it. if I am right about that then the whole basis for feminism is undermined. Women did have power – and a lot of it, just not in the arenas where feminists chose to look. Where we go from here I am more open minded about than people assume. Also the previous system did have a lot of benefits for men – but as that is what the majority of women complain about it seemed unnecessary to spell it out.

      • My idea about the patriarchal system is that it was created mainly to meet the needs of women, then, through time and generations, men took a little too much power: it’s the same mechanism of the rising up of feudalism: initially were poor and weak people who asked for the protection of the landlords, and initially the system benefitted much more these poor people. Through time, men have been selected and raised by women to be their protectors and providers: feminists are just destroying an ancient social pact, without offering a serious alternative – if feminists will have success and women will have the control of 60% of the economy (or maybe even 70% – that’s likely to happen if the “right” solution to the fake issue of gender pay gap will be applied) women in power will have to face major issues, like men social marginalization and anti-social behavior, and manage that while facing the rampant alternative models represented by Islam (male-dominated) or more egalitarian (gender-speaking, not on the whole) societies like China.

        • And they way feminism (the supposed representative of women) is facing these issues is 1) ignoring men and not giving a damn what they suffer 2) subverting all other societies with their pernicious ideology so there will be no competing models. Though they are somewhat shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to Islam.

Comments are closed.