They myth of the gender pay gap obscures a multitude of truths.

One such truth is that women under 35 are – believe it or not – paid more than men because they are the privileged beneficiaries of our education system.

Another reality is that men over 40 earn more than women only because they work more hours, for more years without taking a break.

It is also true that the alleged pay gap is, in fact, only an affliction confined to privileged women. Among the less well-off women are paid more than men.

And, again, if you count take home pay, rather than net pay, it is actually women who earn a tad more than men.

They myth of the gender pay gap hides all these truths and realities, but the dirtiest secret it is hiding is what is happening to men.

By the age of 30 men are earning twelve and a half thousand pounds less than their fathers, reflecting the success of the feminist effort to annihilate the male provider role.

This is partly because while women are moving into more skilled employment, the men whose fathers would have worked in manufacturing are moving into the lowest paid service occupations. It is also partly because for the past 20 years the number of hours that men work has been trending down. This is reflected in the increase in men’s part-time employment which has quadrupled while women are increasingly likely to work full-time. Men are less likely than women to want to be in part-time employment. Perhaps this is because they are paid 7 per cent less.

The collapse of male work is not entirely the fault of feminism. Globalisation created the competition in Asia and while Mrs Thatcher can be blamed for destroying the unions, they did not help themselves with their over-bloated demands.

However, feminism helped to legitimise each successive government’s desire to increase the number of employees because this reduces wages. They made it look as if it were about getting women on board. Where women competed for jobs with less educated men this drove their wages down. And as female employment increased, so did unemployment among men.

But the key issue in propelling the decrease in male earnings is male educational disadvantage. Even when men have so much to gain from higher education, they are much less likely than women to get further than school.

Here we can plainly see feminism’s hand. Research has shown a very strong correlation between the changing family structures ushered in by the 1960s ‘Liberation’ and declining rates of males attending college. Boys growing up in families without fathers and saw they were no longer needed. When feminists insisted that women should be independent, they destroyed men’s motivations which were not, as the feminists thought, to dominate, but to care for, look after and provide.

When they were no  longer needed, men were liberated from relationships, education and employment and it turns out that this suits men surprisingly well. Men with lower levels of education are now much more likely to live with their parents than with partners and they are spending increasing amounts of time playing video games. In fact one third to one fifth of their decline in work hours has been attributed to them playing these games.

And without the stresses of relationships, or the pressures of providing or failing to do so, their happiness levels are increasing more than those of any other group. Feminist social engineering may be destroying society, but the young men are happy. The MGTOW have reasons to crow.

Women at the top will go on marrying and spending the money of the men who earn more than them but thanks to feminism the future for the rest of us looks increasingly bleak.

The rates of marriage of those with the lowest earnings decrease but they still have more children than nearly any other group. And if their fatherless offspring are boys they are significantly more likely to fare poorly on a whole range of outcomes, including attending college, rates of incarceration, employment or finishing school.

Feminists have succeeded in creating the two tier society which they railed against, but it is not and never has been women at the bottom. It is men.

With each new generation of boys growing up in single parent families, the vicious circle will spiral lower. Women will be trapped with the entire burden of supporting their children. As men increasingly check out, there won’t even be anyone to fund what is largely a women’s welfare state. The men will be happily playing their computer games in the disastrous world that the feminists have created.

The Women’s March people threaten us with a day without feminists. The real threat is that we will increasingly live in a world without men.

(Image: Guido van Nispen)


  1. Thanks Belinda, an excellent piece, I’d like to comment on this:

    “Women will be trapped with the entire burden of supporting their children. As men increasingly check out, there won’t even be anyone to fund what is largely a women’s welfare state.”

    Much of the financial burden of supporting those children will fall not to women but to taxpayers, and in the UK men pay almost three-quarters of the income tax received by the state. The last time I checked, the proportion had been increasing year-on-year for at least four years:

    In 2013/14, men paid £75.4 BILLION – £75,400,000,000 – more income tax that women.

    Women have been replacing individual men as providers, with male taxpayers. As Steve Moxon pointed out in ‘The Woman Racket’ (2008), the female beneficiaries of their benefits wouldn’t touch the vast majority of the male taxpayers funding their choices (e.g. single motherhood) with bargepoles.

    There’s also the issue that women who choose to become single mothers take up a disproportionate amount of the social housing stock, one contributor to the fact that 90% of the street homeless are men. Street homelessness cuts life expectancy by an average of 30 years, and it’s a major driver of male suicide, 3.5 times more common than female suicide (it was 1.7 times more in 1983).

    • The feminist nirvana of Sweden (currently with a “feminist” Government in its own rhetoric) is really interesting in this context. Unlike the UK the producer part of their economy is not so attenuated and much of it is buoyant in fact. If one leaves aside “quotas” in politics etc. the economic tale of feminism has followed a very clear pattern: The public sector has progressively more female as women take advantage f generous conditions offered. whilst the Productive Private sector has become practically a male preserve. This means that Sweden has progressively become more “gender segregated” in terms of occupations and sectors over the past 30 years. In effect men producing the wealth that supports the generous state provision. Indeed a recent move by the Swedish Government to have female Quotas on Private business’s boards was abandoned because there are so few women in the industries at any level, unlike I should say the UK.
      So one sees the same process as here in the UK with a slightly different shift because Sweden is much more of a producer rather than services economy. Thus skilled manual jobs are still much more available.
      Of course one big point is that the UK still has not replaced its dependence on “funny money” Banks and services the gap filled by massive borrowing. The main point that in feminist “heaven” Sweden one can see the clear movement to a more “segregated” economy even more dependent on men’s economic production than in the supposedly dreadful UK. But it appears Swedish men are “lucky” in that they still have strong industries to work in to support their women (through tax).

          • Gender is a neologism for sex. There are only two sexes/genders. Feminism is not a science, it’s a religion …. and not a good one.

            If gender was a social construct, transsexual “women” wouldn’t do themselves up like drag queens and wear skirts and hair extensions, you dafty. As for roles …. humans are animals. We are a sexually dichotomous species and women and men have different physicality, physiology and neurology.

          • Well I don’t disagree with identity politics per se. It’s the type of identity politics they support that’s the problem. For example, British is an identity. I think British identity should be well up the list of priorities, as opposed to this extreme individualist globalist open borders global village politics that results in weakened nations with no self confidence or personality.

            The identity politics you mean leads to men chopping off their tackle and calling themselves Gemima Tugwell. That’s not identity, that’s mental illness.

          • When you put it like that, I suppose it’s their promotion of tribal/victimhood identies that keeps groups divided and gives them the fuel for ‘More Laws’

            I concede.
            They use tribal ID politic to dilute national identity, create friction and herald themselves as the saviours of all.

            Quite sinister really isn’t it?

          • It’s great you can see that now. I find many many guys on the so-called Right rail against identity politics and call it ‘collectivism’ and ‘leftism’, ignoring that nationalism is a form of collectivism. They want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thing is, I see it differently. I see SJWism and this identity politics as extreme individualism, i.e. express yourself, be free, be who you are, fly like a bird, etc. Ugh! If you go back to the mid-70s this was when the Left decided collective action wasn’t achievable anymore like the old school workers of the world unite types, probably because people had become more apathetic due to bread and circuses entertainment and increased living standards. So they decided to try and change the way people think with artistic expression. Patti Smith was one of these , for example. I suppose they’d fall into what some would call the category of ‘cultural marxists’.

            They took over the art world, the media, the literary world including poetry as well as prose, spread graffiti on our streets (visit Bristol, for example, and see how vandalising buildings is encouraged and promoted), opened tattoo and piercing parlours, held plays in theatres promoting alternative lifestyles that contradicted traditional gender role beliefs and nuclear families, etc.

            I’m oversimplifying and the “free love” thing goes back earlier, as does feminism and progressivism and suchlike, but the whole “be free and express yourself and don’t follow society’s rules” mindset really kicked off in the 70s. Coincidentally (or not) it was at the same time banks usurped governments as the true managers of society.

          • Such definition is wrong: it includes “sexual behavior” within gender features. Sexuality = / = gender.
            And it include even “choice of hobbies” and “choice of career” within gender features. That’s even more stupid.
            I’m femsplaining it to you since being a bisexual masculine man I’m both a better man and a better female than you…

      • Ah, that ridiculous assertion, destroyed countless times.

        Feminism is demonstrably not a gender equality ideology, and never has been. It’s always been an ideology aimed at extending women’s privileging. I refer you to:

        1. ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ (1913) by Ernest Belfort Bax, a Marxist philosopher, downloadable for free here:

        2. A recent Karen Straughan video (26:54), ‘Why I am not a feminist’:

        Have a nice day.

    • These realities are sobering…as is the indifference, hostility, and glee from feminists. My question is how do we respond without shooting ourselves in the foot….particularly since men don’t seem to care to organize in the same ways feminists do?

      • Men are responding to this by doing what they always do , ‘ oh just give her what she wants and she’ll be happy ‘ anything to keep the peace . Pathetic .

  2. Great article. Yet we still see the paradox of declining female happiness. Modern feminism is the enemy of men and women.

    I think a major factor in the earnings gap is male attitude to risk. I have worked with many talented women during my career and its true, I have seen males colleagues achieve higher positions and reward. But has been very noticeable that the ones who have gotten higher and earned more have been much more likely to take a risk.

    I saw a guy in a tee-shirt once with the words ‘The voices in my head are telling me Go for it!
    Yes it was humorous, but actually I guess nearly all men have this voice in their head to a greater or lessor extent.

    • In my working life I think hat I have observed is its also about responsibility. This has always seemed curious as women often take the responsibility in their care of children. but I have found they avoid responsibility in work. To be more accurate individual responsibility. I suppose its linked to risk. Thus the trend in health services and care services has been to have meetings of all sorts designed to share responsibility and the endless production of policies and procedures designed to avoid an accusation that one took a decision. Given that this is in a “world” of medical and other professionals who one would have thought would want to exercise autonomy and professional judgement its very striking.
      Thinking about it I guess this is the same point as its about avoiding risk being placed at ones door.
      Some years ago, I was reading some academic stuff on Feminism, somebody Butler (apparently “big” in feminism) tackling the “invention gap” . The fact that in feminist research there wasn’t an explanation for the gender gap in innovation and invention. She pinpointed to the willingness to take risks and to be “wrong”. At its simplest level I suspect it is also why women are so rarely found in occupations where one works alone. After all the plumber takes an individual risk he may not know the problem or be able to fix the problem.
      Its interesting how the concentration on “toxic” male traits blinds us to all the usefulness of many of these.

      • I think you are right, risk and responsibility go hand in hand. There are profound evolutionary reasons why men who took risks succeeded in passing on their genes.
        There are equally profound reasons by female aversion to risk is just as vital to human evolution. Female aversion to risk should be lauded equally, as the success of humankind would have been immeasurably less without it.

        • Agreed. Women’s risk aversion is also evident in their reluctance to use their own money – even if stolen from ex-partners, through the divorce courts – in setting up businesses. The government’s ‘support’ of wannabe entrepreneurs is principally targeted at women. If the women fail, the taxpayer (men, mainly) pay the cost. If the women succeed, they get to keep the rewards. It’s that female mantra, “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose”.

          The BBC programme “Dragon’s Den” is laughable, with one or sometimes even two of the entrepreneurs being women. In my time working in procurement for major companies over 25+ years, I encountered only a handful of successful female entrepreneurs, but a large number of successful male ones.

          Unsuccessful male entrepreneurs often go bankrupt then commit suicide, sadly.

          • Yawn. How’s the Leftie search for a viable alternative to capitalism going? You’ve had 169 years to come up with one, since two German plonkers published The Communist Manifesto (1848). The last figure I read of deaths attributable to communist regimes was 90 – 100 million.

            You’re surely aware of the evidence of a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and corporate financial decline? If not, links to five longitudinal studies here:


          • You might like this Mike:


            “Ignoring other big wars due to capitalism and only focusing on US action and only including one year for things that are systemic (ie. poverty), which is being really damn conservative because Japan engaged in brutal imperialism, we get a total of 205,000,000 killed directly or indirectly because of capitalism.”

            (You won’t like it, but it’s still interesting to those who actually spend half a minute engaged in actual thinking, of which there are some on this site)

          • I’m neither a supporter of capitalism nor of communism. I’m a pragmatist. But what that guy is pinning on capitalism is very dishonest. Capitalism is not bombing countries. Capitalism is simply the ability to sell your product or buy a product. Unfortunately we don’t have that at present. Going back in time to basic trading centuries ago, yes, that’s capitalism, but the problem is that capitalism when taken to a global level along with high technology like we have, leads to cronyism.

            You can argue crony capitalism isn’t capitalism. Some do. It’s my belief right now that the ultimate result of capitalism is what we have. Monopolies are guaranteed without regulation, for example. And once monopolies form they have huge financial influence and are able to exploit the greed of politicians.

            The same can be said of communism. Since Marx wrote his books, communism has never existed and will never exist while we have such high technology. It was maybe possible many many centuries ago in small communities. Not now though. What we’ve had with the likes of Soviet Union and China is simply statism. Animal Farm basically.

            So to be truly objective you’d have to recognise both capitalism and communism are imperfect. And once you realise that, you have to ask yourself, so what other system is there? Personally, I’m a pragmatist and think nationalism and protectionism are the best way. But then that leads to nations competing against each other more and makes war a possibility. So there is no perfect system. I’d opt for the least worst system, which I believe is true nationalism (not civic), national identity, protectionism as much as is needed, discipline, conservative values, a “for God and country” mentality (and I say that as an atheist as I know that religion does have value despite its downsides), and traditional gender roles that reflect what’s best for women, men and children from a utilitarian perspective, as opposed to ‘I want I want I’m an individual let me express myself and stop oppressing me with rules” ideology.

          • Do you realize that communism and socialism have been invented by men, too, right?
            Do you realize that feminists asking for female quotas on corporate boards and pushing women to focus on careers and making money are being very capitalistic (though the first request is dirigistic capitalism)?
            Do you realize that communism and socialism are totally unrelated with feminism, right?
            Do you realize that both Russia and China, and also Vietnam, after so much decades of communism, still have more patriarchal attitudes than western countries, right?
            Do you realize that both you and Buchanan are confusing economy with gender/sex issues?

          • Show me where he says that risk taking always leads to a positive outcome. If it always led to a positive outcome, it wouldn’t be risk, would it?

          • Naturally.
            You have to do something in order to make mistakes.

            It’s also men who invented the whole finance, also accounting, and also math.
            It’s also men who pilot airplanes that crashes.
            It’s also men who pilot airplanes that safely land.
            It’s also men who invented airplanes.

            Yes, your contribution is exactly zero, apart from your usual “gimme gimme gimme” badly disguised as “equality”.

            Your point being?

          • I know of lots of married women who work part time , one common theme is that they keep there wages while the mans goes into the kitty

    • Leftist economic theory’s flaws become apparent to all very rapidly since all need to eat every day.

      Leftist social theory ie feminism is a slow silent killer of cultures and male/female interaction. Unfortunately, multiple generations of females have fallen for the ’empowerment’ canard whole but cannot understand why they are lonely, unhappy etc.

  3. “Feminists relegate men to the lower rung of our two tier society”- er … isn’t this the whole point of feminism …?

  4. It cannot be observed too often, feminists want power. False claims about the “gender pay gap”, the destruction of marriage, the reduction in life chances for boys, are just some of their advances in the war against men.

    It will all end in tears.

    • I suspect the debts, public, private and corporate will cause a lot of tears. We have not learned the lesson of 2008, that one can’t build a future on shopping and services. At some point the country will have to stop squashing its most industrious members. Having spent two decades obsessed with dividing the “cake” at some point we’ll have to get some lads in to start the cake baking production line again.

      • “… shopping and services …”
        Actually, if you think about it, any economy depends on actual consumer demand, even if it’s secondary – e.g. selling JCBs to the developing world to build houses.

        What is unsustainable is expanding debt (private or public) to sustain consumer demand, without the prospect of it ever being repaid. Eventually people stop believing you / the bank / the government.

        • Precisely . To feed our addictions to imported goodies we have in fact rebuilt the billowing cloud of debt. Usually debate focuses on the only just slowing expansion of the public debt. However far more dangerous in many respects is the private debt that has reached its pre crash levels.
          Selling a lot of JCBs would be a very good idea.

      • The Stoke by election would be a good place to start. It would be very simple to bring back the glory years of the potteries with the right policies. However, I think Paul Nuttall is well and truly f**ked now. I do believe him when he says the website info was an assistant’s mistake. However, the fake news media is at it again, spinning it to stoke up anti-UKIP sentiment. And the British people, even in a 70% brexit constituency, could easily fall for it. I agree with Aaron Banks’s “insensitivity” when he says he wishes everyone would stop banging on about Hillsborough. It got old long ago. It’s being used to manipulate the votes by pressing their hyperemotional buttons.

  5. I’ve never believed this “women get paid less than men for the same job” line.
    All companies reduce internal costs as much as they possibly can. Therefore, they will not pay over the odds for a male to do a certain job if they can get an equally competent woman to do the same job for less.

  6. ‘The real threat is that we will increasingly live in a world without men.’

    Without mass immigration this may have been a possibility.
    The truth is of course, that projected demographics indicate that this is most unlikely in 50 years time.
    By then feminists will be as rare as pig farms.

  7. “Feminists have succeeded in creating the two tier society which they railed against, but it is not and never has been women at the bottom. It is men.”

    Sounds like Mission Accomplished. Bed made. Now for them to lie in it.

    • the idea that men are somehow second class citizens in our society is laughable.

      75% of our mps are male.

      the vast majority of business leaders are male.

      women still make up a minority of people at the top of leading professions like law, medicine, finance and journalism.

      • Thankyou for so clearly illustrating one of the great fallacies of feminist theory – careful cherrypicking. When you look at the full picture of our society, including most importantly those struggling at the bottom, you can clearly see a very different picture. It should be well known by now that men dominate at both the top and bottom of the ladder.

        Trying to shoe-horn more women into the top tier when there are simply not enough of them with the talent to replace the men that are already there, not to mention the fact that there is absolutely nothing stopping them if they really do have the talent, while completely ignoring the much more important and critical problem of the huge numbers of males failing at the bottom, is a lopsided and unworthy approach.

        • It’s because she’s a middle-upper class privileged brainwashed numpty who sees things “though a feminist lens”. She only cares about rich privileged women in the top 1% of jobs.

      • “the idea that men are somehow second class citizens in our society is laughable.

        75% of our mps are male.”

        If we were back in the 16th century and I said the idea women are second class citizens in our society is laughable because we have a female Queen, you’d laugh your pants off.

        I am laughing my pants off. Join me.

          • It’s sadistic, eh? Maybe part of the reason these women do this is a sexual fetish? The average person doesn’t think of things like this but there are some real weirdos out there. Like men who promote routine infant circumcision because they get a sexual thrill from watching and thinking of males having their genitals mutilated.


            Brian J Morris who’s on the list is the sort of person “liberal elite” would worship because he’s a professor of molecular biology and thusly a high priest of progressivism. The fact he releases “peer-reviewed” papers extolling the virtues of circumcision MUST mean it’s all true because muh academia. Yet those of us in the know know he’s motivated by a sexual illness (speculations that he’s a repressed homosexual/pederast too) and every single one of his papers is unscientific nonsense.

            There are so many ill people out there and the illnesses often manifest themselves in SJW activism and things like this. This ties in with the “fake news” phenomenon, too. The progressive elites have really dealt themselves a body blow by coming up with the ‘fake news’ term. It’s now being used, rightly , against them. I’m loving Trump right now.

  8. a lot of embittered men here. what’s the matter, boys? feel threatened by female empowerment?

    get over it.

    • No, feeling righteously angry at relentless (and still growing) female privileging, mainly financed by male taxpayers.

      And since you see fit to be condescending – ‘boys’ – you should yourself be described as a very silly girl.

      • you are a white male. a white male. the most privileged group in society. do you not see how privileged you are?

        • No, on account of I’m not. Never have been. I don’t see what’s not there.

          Goodbye, you’ve wasted enough of my time.

          • what’s the matter, you’ve got no arguments and you can’t handle having your ass kicked by a girl. i thought men were supposed to be good at reasoning. no wonder 60% of graduates are now female.

          • Maybe you need to access some sort of higher education where they teach you to always begin a sentence with a capital letter? Or is fighting a two-tier alphabet your self-identified role in society?

          • Uni’s don’t teach thinking, they indoctrinate.
            That’s why the average graduate is very good at articulating themselves, but very poor at reasoning and terrible at debate.

          • Truth bomb. They will tell you critical thought is a good thing, then tell you you can’t write an essay without citing at least a couple of dozen progressives whose papers are subjective themselves. It’s hilarious how these enlightened liberals think they are better at thinking after completing a degree.

          • They cite each other’s feminist ‘progressive’ PC rants and blogs, false histories and distorted statistics, rather than any objective independent factual source. Confirmation bias, much?

          • Maybe that is why, if true, 60% of graduates are now female. Working on the assumption that the contributor is part of that 60%, she can barely articulate herself either….

          • It’s feminism that lacks the arguments, and you’ve kicked no ass, just stomped your petty feet a little.

          • “60% of graduates are now female”

            Thinks women are disadvantaged.

            You are mentally ill. I truly believe that. But it’s not your fault. You are a victim.

          • I disagree, she has chosen to be a fool, as it is more comfortable than exploring for truth.
            Uni used to be a place for having your worldview challenged.
            Now it’s a place to have one installed for you.

          • You ask someone to read a list of totally evidence-free subjective whinges written by some anonymous creature on a blog??

            Are you for real?

            No wonder no-one has cited any of your work in over 5 years.

          • I’ve looked at the link. An anonymous blog with a list of personal, subjective whinges, not one of which is listed as having any supporting evidence.

          • You clearly haven’t taken more than a few seconds, if that, to check the link. Every piece is packed full of supportive evidence. Every last one.

          • Supporting evidence? That never bothered the propagators of the gender pay gap theory or rape culture or ‘FGM is worse than male ‘circumcision’ ‘ crowd, of which you are a member.

        • Your malewhiteprivilegedthewholeworldisagainstwomenyoumusthelpuspleasebecauseeveryoneisavictimexcepttheevilmen has been disproven again and again, and your cries simply mean nothing.

          Please, grow up.

        • White males are the most discriminated against group in society. You’re looking at the House of Commons and extrapolating to the entire population. You silly naive victim of fake news.

        • Give us a few examples of the excessive privileges bestowed upon white men just for being Caucasians with a Y chromosome then.
          If they’re so obvious and numerous a small list shouldn’t be too taxing, even for you.

        • A white man (men, not male: being a feminist you’re just a defective male with penis envy, but I’m a man, so please call “male” yourself, not me) isn’t a group, he’s an individual. All feminists are the same, perfectly interchangeable, but men are individuals, each one different from the other one.

    • A lot, I’m shuddering 🙂
      And by shuddering, I’m defeating the male gender role that establish that men have to be courageous! 🙂

  9. “Belinda Brown is author of ‘The Private Revolution’ and a number of well-cited academic papers.”

    Here’s wee Belinda’s citation record in the last 5 years:

    “Conference Paper: The impact of feminism on the representation of women’s interests and their political participation
    0 citations

    0 citations

    Conference Paper: A critique of hegemonic masculinity and developing an alternative approach using ethnographic evidence
    0 citations

    Article: The Internal Contradictions of Feminism
    0 citations

    Conference Paper: Feminism and the Free Market: does liberty entail liberation?
    0 citations

    Conference Paper: Changing Families and Feminist Blind Spots: Have female-friendly policies been captured by middle class feminists? A response to Alison Wolf’s lecture for Demos
    0 citations

    Article: Family Friendly Feminism
    0 citations

    Article: The Family Strikes Back: Changing Attitudes to Work and Family, Hera Trust Working Paper 09/2014
    0 citations

    Article: Reviewing Gendered Employment policies
    0 citations

    London: competitiveness, cohesion and the policy environment
    3 citations

    Article: Using transport policy to increase physical activity
    0 citations”

    As usual, right-wingers just blatantly lie, and assume no-one will actually check the facts.

    No wonder she writes for the Fake News Mail.

      • I missed out those because – as you deliberately omit to mention – they’re all more than 5 years ago.

        Not one human being anywhere on the face of the earth has cited any of your papers and articles in the last 5 years. Nice work.

        And every one of those which have been cited – including the single one in my list – were on other subjects totally unrelated to your anti-feminism rantings. Which again you fail to mention.

        It may surprise you to hear that, out here in the real world beyond the tiny fetid right-wing bubble, the rest of us have rather more stringent criteria for what is the truth, and what isn’t.

        • So if I cited a paper from 1800 that stated a fact like copulation between a fertile man and a fertiile woman results in a baby, it wouldn’t be true because it’s 217 years old?

          Your mind is cancer.

          • You are so correct.

            ‘So why did you employ inexperienced Mrs Shortlist to the top position?’

            ‘Coz it’s 2017.’

            ‘Ah, it was that simple.’

          • And remarkably it’s a line that even people like my conservative dad use, albeit rarely relative to the SJWs. They hear a view that would be more popular in 1900 along with a reasoned argument for such a view, and they say but it’s 2017 you can’t do that! It makes no sense.

        • Grimble,

          People might take your complaint about fakery more seriously if you weren’t hiding under a bogus identity.

        • “what is the truth, and what isn’t.”

          Says the bigot, the clueless zealot.

          There’s no such thing as “the truth” in social science.

          Take sociology, in example: where is “the truth”? Simmel or Durkheim?

          According your moronic approach one have to be “the truth” and the other one have to be “a lie”.

          You just proved that the media is biased in favor of misandry/feminism, clueless ignorant moron.

    • The problem with your theory is this:

      Peer-reviewed journals are riddled with lying papers. Given all modern peer-reviewed journals are filled with peer-reviewed (or progressive- or pal-reviewed) papers that conform to progressive social norms and push political agendas using fraud and/or poor methodology, how is she meant to find anything to support her views?

      I can show you hundreds of papers claiming routine infant male genital mutilation is harmless and/or confers medical benefits on victims .. er , I mean ‘patients’. Every single one of them is fake news. The BBC is fake news. Sky is fake news. Channel 4 news is fake news. Some of what we’re told about WW2 is fake news. Academia claiming women pre-feminism were oppressed as a group is fake news.

      We are living in a society surrounded by fake news.

  10. The only thing I disagree with in this article is the claim men are happier. On the contrary. Men and boys may have drifted toward playing more and more video games, but this is a way to pass time, a hobby, and is not what they want for themselves as a life deep down. They don’t want to live with their parents and never own their own home either. Every single one of these men (the straight ones anyway) will daydream about how nice it would be to meet an attractive woman who hasn’t been infected with the feminist/progressive/SJW virus and to settle down and maybe one day have kids. But their experiences tell them that such women are either like hens’ teeth or they are extinct. And how can you raise kids to be sensible sane adults when they’re going to be brainwashed by the ‘cathedral’ (

    I completely sympathise with MGTOWs, obviously, because of the way society is geared against men, specifically white men, but to say they want this is to do what feminists do when they say things like “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”.

    Men need women as much as women need men, but in different ways. If MGTOWs were so happy with life, they wouldn’t form online communities and start Youtube channels to constantly complain about women. (I think it’s highly likely many of these feminists who post daily videos about fighting sexism and wanting men to express their feminine side and talk about their problems, are saying one thing but thinking the opposite, too.) While I recognise that and will take flack for it from these men, I’m not someone who’ll dismiss them as “bitter lonely socially inept neckbeard virigins”, which is what the right-on progressive brigade will do because they lack coherent arguments.

    MGTOW is similar to the ‘grasseater’ phenomenon in Japan. There are reasons for it happening. The progressive establishment don’t want to address these reasons either because either their ideology prevents them from seeing things objectively or because they do understand what’s happening and are in favour of it.

    The ex-Coronation Street actress who’s prepared to get married to a loony who lives in prison isolation 22 hours a day and names himself after a Hollywood actor known for depicting vigilantes in film, exemplifies the mental illness that pervades the citizens of the modern world. I can’t say for sure what’s going on in her head, but I don’t think it’s as simple as attention-seeking (though that could very well play a role). I think women (and men) just aren’t meant to live such an unnatural existence and, though we adapt and put on a front, on some level we are all unhappy and suffering. She describes the man as “old school”. That sums it up. She is seeking a man who is masculine and prepared to use violence to sort out problems rather than ‘reason and dialogue’. In contrast, Justin Trudeau, a man who represents the modern day mangina perfectly, says “if we kill our enemies, they win” and “I am a proud feminist”. Despite the media waxing lyrical over Trudeau’s pretty boy effeminate looks and claiming women love him because he’s a feminist, the red-pilled among us know women, while they may find him handsome, will have crotches like deserts after listening to his right-on PC views. Women lust after masculinity and male violence in the same way men are desperate to find loyal, non-promiscuous wholesome women.

    European civilisation is dying. I do not believe we can turn it around outwith a civil war/revolutionary scenario or running out of fossil fuels so we remove the luxury and excess and associated destruction of the traditional moral framework. Brexit and Trump gave me some hope, but they are just a couple of minor speedbumps in the progressive transhumanist experiment.

      • To be fair, male suicide will always have been far far higher than that of women, throughout the centuries. Men are far less likely to do it for attention. When a man makes his mind up, he’s more likely to use a method that works. I can understand why the MRAs would highlight male suicide, emulating the logic of the feminists, but I don’t believe it’s something that can be attributed to any single factor like feminism or progressivism.

        And I don’t think it’s something that can be solved either. It’s like rape, for example. The feminists say women suffer because of “rape culture”. Rape has always happened and will always happen. You can create anti-rape laws, which will bring it down due to punishment and making it more socially unacceptable, but you will never eradicate it. A minority of women being raped doesn’t mean women are disadvantaged, just like men being more likely to kill themselves doesn’t mean men are disadvantaged as a whole. Of course, in the modern day men are disadvantaged (white men especially) but not because of the suicide issue.

        • The issues adversely affecting men may have varied somewhat over the years, but male suicides and disadvantage have always been a result of such issues, not their cause.

          • I disagree that it deserves to be a huge issue for debate. People commit suicide. It has and will always happen. Sometimes it’s preventable, e.g. I have often had bouts of suicidal ideation because of how circumcision ruined my sex life.

            This makes me think that if males were to stop being mutilated tomorrow, this would have some effect on the suicide rate. It may or may not be significant but there will be men n the future who would have committed suicide due to having dysfunctional numb penises that won’t because they will not have been mutilated.

            But feminism isn’t responsible for male genital mutilation. It’s a thousands years old religious blood sacrifice that also got adopted in Victorian times to sexually suppress males. But female genital mutilation was done for the same reasons, albeit on a less frequent basis. But its continued practise despite being illegal is largely because of the huge power Islam/Judaism have and the power of social conditioning in countries like the USA.

            A man could commit suicide because he’s never been able to find a woman to settle down with and is lonely. Or he could commit suicide because he failed his exams. There are many reasons. It’s just my belief that men are more likely to kill themselves because it’s a logical rational solution to their unhappiness. It’s an answer. Depressed men generally do not respond well to talking therapies. I know from my own experience and from speaking to other depressed men. They tend to be practical and need a solution to their problem, not the psychobabble. Women respond way better to talking for the sake of talking as they are more social creatures.

            There are some differences in stats that pertain to men and women that show that one or the other suffers more in certain areas for reasons such as biological differences (childbirth) or political (all women’s shortlists). But I don’t see the suicide gap as proof of men suffering under a matriarchal feminist system. I’m willing to bet the gap has been just as big or bigger before feminism was even a word.

    • “The ex-Coronation Street actress who’s prepared to get married to a
      loony who lives in prison isolation 22 hours a day and names himself
      after a Hollywood actor known for depicting vigilantes in film,
      exemplifies the mental illness that pervades the citizens of the modern
      world. I can’t say for sure what’s going on in her head”

      She likes rough violent sex Lawrence, thinking about it and doing it. And when he attempts to saw her head off she will tell us all how horrible it all is!

      • Possibly. But from experience, I’ve noticed women in general get excited over men fighting. They truly love it, especially when you’re fighting over them.

    • The one who posts videos on MGTOW are mainly the one “maintaining” and trying to get money from the MGTOW movement. It doesn’t reflect the majority of men who are in fact GTOW for a few years now.

      The same way, most people posting on MGTOW forum (on reddit for exemple) are pretty new to the concept and are using this to vent their frustration regarding the current society and what happened to the them. After a while they just stop posting and just GTOW never to be seen again. And that’s the ultimate goal.

  11. One fact which never seems to be brought up when anyone discusses the “Gender Wage Gap” is the rather obvious refutation by simple mathematics: If one sex is earning an average of 80-ish percent of the wages of the other sex, but is doing only 7 percent of the dying at work, the underpaid sex is quite patently NOT doing equal work for that pay.
    Feminists are either stupid, or they’re aware of this, but lie anyway.
    Any guess as to which it is?

  12. I remember a guy in Africa who told me that he did not really need to work as he had three wives and they worked his fields for free and looked after his children.

    He did not need to provide at all , so he went to work for himself and spent the money enjoying himself which it seemed included other women.

    Not far off what the feminists have achieved here….

  13. “never has been women at the bottom”

    This is such a ludicrously untrue statement that, in itself, it disqualifies the author’s views from serious consideration.

    There “NEVER HAS” been a 2-tier society with women at the bottom?? Never? Not when women were denied (by men) the right to participate in democracy? Not when women were denied (by men) the right to the same level of education as men? Not when women were denied (by men) the right to practise in all the major professions? Not when women were denied (by men) the right to own property????

    Whatever Ms Brown is smoking, I’d like some. But I wouldn’t expect anyone to take my views seriously afterwards.

    • Everything you just said about women can be said about men. Most men didn’t have an education while some very privileged upper class women did. Most men didn’t have the vote while some property owning women did. It’s not the battle of the sexes phenomenon you think it was. While all this was going on, men were forced to run to their deaths on battlefields when not one woman was. You are a victim of FAKE NEWS.

      • And while most men didn’t have an education while some very privileged upper class women did, those uneducated men also had to fight in wars, and privileged women like Grimble shamed men who didn’t want fight by giving them a white feather…

        • Exactly. I understand all this. I’m not going to engage in oppression olympics and say, “Men were always oppressed and women were at the top of the food chain.” It was what it was. It was a product of biological reality. But biological reality stings progressives like acid.

          • Highlighting that the old society was oppressive towards both sexes isn’t “playing oppression olympics”.
            Feminists are highly hypocritical and well aware of biological differences between men and women, and they’re exploiting it: I had a gender studies class in Lund, Sweden, in the 90s. The radfem professor exposed this theory: “women are forced into heterosexuality by the capitalistic system”. She was basically saying that women – at least according her and the radfems who postulated such theory – are more interested in money than men, and that women wants men being providers, to the point that her subtle implications were that all women are potentially bisexuals but aroused by men’s wallets, so much that women give up to half their sexuality. That was highly insulting for women. I mocked the theory by waving a banknote and asking if there were girls who were aroused by the banknote. I had been throwed out from the classroom, but then especially thanked by a Spanish classmate (she also paid the dinner in Lund old town 🙂 ).

          • No, I wasn’t having a go at you. I wasn’t accusing you. Just saying that some from the anti-feminist side can do this.

            I don’t view it all as oppression. Just Man and Woman in their natural habitat. The further back you go, the brutal it becomes because the closer to lower animals we were.

          • It was a necessary oppression, necessary to survive. It also was full oppression for non-conforming people, but that last one wasn’t mainly due the system itself but mainly due ignorance and herd mentality.
            Personally I think that a soft MGTOW approach is the only reasonable answer from men, especially young men, to the actual environment: not avoiding women but making women not a priority, even at the end of your priorities.
            Feminism is basically about women stop trying to understand men and stop trying to empathize with men, is about women focusing on themselves.
            Good, MGTOW is about men stop trying to understand women and stop trying
            to empathize with women, is about men focusing on themselves.
            That’s equality, though it isn’t really equality since feminists have a lot of power especially in academia and, at a minor extent, in politics.

    • The right to…….The right to……….

      But never the willingness to take responsibility.


      Whinge whinge whinge. Moan moan moan.

      Now I feel much better, so how about a few quotas or free money?

      What no?

      Whinge whinge whinge. Moan moan moan.

      It seems that you are getting the society you deserve.

      Good luck with that.

      • Responsibility is a masculine concept and attitude. Hence why the role of protector and provider.
        How many relationships do you know of that feminists have where
        the women make more money than the men and are happy with that?
        How many feminists do you know who say that they would love to be the
        protector of their family?
        When was the last time you heard a feminist talk about how
        they like doing nice things for men?
        You’ll never see that, because those are men’s things…

    • With feminism, women have come full circle in just over a century.
      A century ago, women were considered “wards of the state”,
      at least in states where they didn’t have the vote. Of course, in the
      intervening years, instead of women being raised the status men, men,
      at least low wage, low skilled men have been reduced to the status of
      women, i.e., wards of the state. I recommend pulling up the Muller v
      Oregon opinion cited below for a brief filled with the modern
      feminist argument for special protections for women.

      “You can have regulation of the hours of labor of a woman of
      full age in general employments, by court decision, in three States
      (Massachusetts, Oregon, and Illinois), … but the Oregon case,
      decided both by the State Supreme Court and by the Federal Court in
      so far as the Fourteenth Amendment was concerned, after most careful
      and thorough discussion and reasoning, reasserted the principle that
      a woman is the ward of the state, and therefore does not have the
      full liberty of contract allowed to a man. Whether this decision will
      or will not be pleasing to the leaders of feminist thought is a
      matter of considerable interest.”

      Muller v. Oregon. 208 U. S. 412. (1908)–Popular Law-making: A Study of the Origin, History, and Present Tendencies of Law-making by Statute, Frederic Jesup Stimson

    • All the unfairnesses you mention were corrected by men. I should actually be more specific and say western men. They are the only group in history to ever willingly give up advantages.

      Perhaps you might also remember that when women didn’t have the vote, neither did 40% of men. These men could die in the trenches, unlike their more fortunate sisters, but couldn’t vote unless they were the named ratepayer.

      • > All the unfairnesses you mention you mention

        You ALLEGE

        Universal female suffrage may have taken 10 years longer to arrive than universal male suffrage, but this was at a time when the main business of government was national defence, for which men, and not women, were liable to be be conscripted.

        Education? Needed by men so they could support their wives, a one-way legal obligation.

        The right to own property? Again not the whole story. This applied only to married women, who still had a ticket to support even after divorce. Property she brought into the marriage was hers after the marriage ended, whereas property he brought into it were to be divided up. The injustices “in the past” repeatedly referred to by feminists need to be taken together with all the relevant context. As it stands, these arguments are like saying men had the right to go into a shop an take stuff, without mentioning the concomitant obligation to pay for it.

    • I know , all those oppressed women on the Titanic . And those women in jail for non payment of their husbands debts , and those poor women who did national service . Do you need a light ?

    • Men always were the one working 6 days a week to support their family. Men always were the one being draft to loose their life protecting their family. Men always were the last exiting when a building was on fire, or the boat was sinking, etc…

      Believe me, the status of men was not pleasant a few decade ago…

      Honestly, I’m so much more comfortable now living by my own, working barely 35 hours a week making just enough money to sustain myself and my hobbies in an office and non-stressful job, without being worried about nor working my ass off for an ungrateful family.
      I am a 35 years old software developer, I have an engineering degree but have refused every
      proposal of advancement in my work so far: I’m not interested in
      managing a team and being stressed for nothing else than more money.

      I’m not complaining, why should I? My life is great! I got to do what I want on my free time, I manage my money exactly as I want and I have more than enough for myself even being a “low wage” earner (despite my degree, I choose to stay at the bottom of the ladder, to keep an easy going job).

      But I know that when all men will be like me, the society wouldn’t be able to continue and our economy would certainly come to an halt. I don’t contribute much to it, I earn little, I pay little in taxes overall. I’m not interested in buying non useful stuff (I have a 20 years old car that works fine and that I take care of myself, I buy clothes only when I need new ones not by trend, I have a 8 years old phone that do perfectly the job, my computer at home is 12 years old and still run Windows XP but I can do everything I need on it, etc.) and I’d rather rent a small apartment (easy to maintain, little housekeeping) than being in debt for 25 years by buying a house… I am debt free and will stay like that, not contributing to the economic.

      I have opt-out, and honestly not having a family of my own (no wife, no kids) is such a relieve as I absolutely do not care how the future will be. There could be a nuclear war that kill every humans on that planet in a few decade I wouldn’t care at all: I have no descendants.

    • Oh, don’t worry: feminists are leftists, not into capitalism.
      That’s why they’re pushing women to focus on careers and making money: that’s sooo communist!
      That’s also why they’re asking for female quotas on corporate boards: corporations are the quintessence of socialism! 🙂

      They’re going to advocate for more welfare supporting poor men, through more taxation on economically empowered women.

      They’re also going to give to men much more sex, when women will be finally “sexually liberated” through a bunch of new misandrist laws, in example while men approaching women in the streets will be officially an hate crime (it’s already recorded as so in Nottingham).

      They’re also going to advocate for making UK rape laws gender neutral (now it’s just only people with penises who can commit rape).

      They’re also going to decriminalize waking up your partner with sex (it’s sexual assault, actually, because it lacks affirmative consent).

      They’re also going to turn all airplanes into giant flying pink unicorns, so pollution will end! 🙂

  14. belinda, mike, and others – you need to read hanna rosin’s magnum opus “the end of men”

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

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

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

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

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

    • I love “The End of Men” by Hannah Rosin, though Julie Bindel is still better.

      Regarding “they will need to work with Feminists to re-invent masculinity for the 21st century. the old toxic masculinity will have to go”: a woman lecturing on “masculinity” is like a man lecturing her on “how to be pregnant”.
      When a woman uses the word “masculinity”in a sentence, she no longer exists.

      You do not exist, then.

      Men will adapt to the new situation, in their own terms.

        Nice Graph. It seems men aren’t out yet. Certainly not in Germany and interesting that the Dutch , with apparently Europe’s happiest women and children, is actually at the bottom of the “two full time partners” league. Is Germany and Netherlands the past? Somehow the saviours of the crumbling Euro don’t look like their oomph has gone yet. As the headline breadwinning male still in place in Germany.

        • Being breadwinner is still a bad deal for men: usually wives control 80% of the house spending while working much less, and even including housechores their work on the whole is still less. I know because after the divorce I live alone and I do 100% of my chores, also working full time, and keeping care of my kids a lot (6 full days + my son is here almost every afternoon, having dinner with me + my daughter is also here at least once a week).

          Also, after some years of marriage, especially after a pregnancy (or two), sex becomes relatively rare.
          Last year I dumped the new partner because she blackmailed me insisting too much: she wished to cohabitate.

          No. I still have 2 houses, 2 cars and a boat, I’m not going to risk my stuff through “cohabitation rights”.

          • Perhaps so, a bad deal. Interestingly from time use studies(stuff done by economists there is a continued series of them and I won’t bore with details). Both the Netherlands and Sweden (at opposite ends of the breadwinner table) show their men do more “work” (not just in jobs but in the home childcare etc) than women. In the Uk its about even by the way. Now as Sweden has similar levels of F/T job work for men and women and the Netherlands very much lower for women it would appear the Swedes are either quite blasé about housework chores or very much more efficient about it than the Dutch. One suspects that housework shopping etc. tends to fill the time available rather than the reverse.
            I wish you well in fathering your children and finding personal happiness.

          • Thank you, I’m actually living the best time of my life.
            I lived in Sweden for 3.5 years. I was stabbed with a knife by my then partner: she was my HR manager, 17 years older than me, she hired me, and I was cohabiting with her. I’m not an angel: she caught me cheating, but still stabbing men with knifes shouldn’t be allowed. She also throwed me out of home (at night, November in Malmoe is quite cold – however even if wounded I slept in an hotel, I’m not a beggar) and the next day she fired me.
            The lawyer strongly suggested to not proceed against her: “she’s a woman and among your hobbies there’s a body building”.

            The difference in the various studies about chores is probably due:
            Often “men’s chores” aren’t take in account, that includes things like: driving the car (when both husband and wife are onboard is almost always him who drive) , walking the dog, cutting the grass, throwing the garbage, house and car basic maintenance, and so on.
            Women spend much more time while shopping for useful things: that’s due men evolved as hunters and women as gatherers. I actually spend about 2 hours per week at shopping (including food and such things) while my ex wife did spend at least 10-12 or even more hours per week – a good half of this time was actually for useful things. I also save more money than her. She is a good person but she had (still have) compulsory shopping syndrome. Also “I’m never at fault complex”. Both developed some years after the marriage.

    • Pathetic , you are and all women are totally dependant on us guys , every product you use , the gas electric and water supplied to you is by men . your work place , the roads , your house , your medical treatment , go on strike for a day but remember if men do the same your world will collapse and the sistor hood can’t rebuild it . The end of men will also be the end of women .

      • Actually when men go on strike over gender issues then you have to call the


        “On Thursday, the Nagaland government called in five column
        of the Indian Army and imposed section 144 in Kohima after month-long
        protests in the state turned violent on Tuesday. The government has also
        suspended mobile services in the region, according to India Today.The state has been burning over the issue of granting women reservation in civic polls for over a month.”

        And still you cannot stop them

        “Chief Minister T.R. Zeliang resigned on Sunday night bowing to the
        demands of protesting tribal groups opposed to his move to hold civic
        polls with 33 per cent reservation for women.”

    • So you’ll start paying some tax soon? And doing all the difficult, dirty and dangerous work? Gender studies doesn’t keep the lights on or build anything.

      I’m sure women will just love being the breadwinner! I think men will love it more.

      So, a female dominated society is your idea of equality? Remember, if men get too fed up withs your arrogance, they might decide to tear your silly world to shreds, which would take them about two minutes.

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

      Re-invent masculinity for the 21st century?

      Ok….how about some reproductive rights for men that are equivalent to what women already have? We can’t do abortion obviously but we could do adoption or legal abandonment.

      How about we eliminate all involuntary servitude for men such as forced military service / draft etc?

      Oh…and how about we legalize prostitution?

      What say you, feminist?

      • Rights for women, duties for men = feminism.
        Toxic masculinity = excess of freedom for men. It includes men spending too much time with their hobbies.
        Rape culture = men being openly proud about their heterosexuality.
        Absence of rape culture = men being prude as a Victorian lady.

    • Internet feminism is a funny thing i must admit, from catchy(ahem)taglines like ‘the future is female’ to the supposed woes of modern masculinity. In the real world however, people don’t live their lives with this internet feminist lens that a lot of women(and men)see the world through.
      If feminists ever had to re-invent masculinity(hah!)then humankind would be in real trouble.
      Men are just doing what they always do, all the horrible dangerous disgusting jobs that keep the world running.

      And thank god for them i say!

  15. Come on girls join the strike …………. oh hang on what’s that light on dashboard ? is there a man about ? HELP

  16. Yeah, the first time I see a Woman not skip off on Maternity Holiday whilst manipulating her leave to give herself even longer off I’ll believe I’m redundant.

    Maternity leave is just laziness.

  17. Very interesting.
    I find it fascinating. Apart from the obligatory general reference to pay gap statistics (without definite reference to any particular source) it seems to me to be the view from within a rather privileged bubble.
    “…they destroyed men’s motivations which were not, as the feminists thought, to dominate, but to care for, look after and provide.”
    I wonder how women who have escaped domestic violence and/or psychological/emotional abuse feel about the fact that in reality men just want to care. I wonder how all the women who in the past neither had the opportunity nor the means to leave abusive and/or unhappy marriages feel about that statement.
    Umarried mothers bringing up fatherless children? Statistics on cohabitation might suggest that unmarried does not equal fatherless. Even children of single mothers have fathers who are involved in their upbringing (I know it sounds unbelievable, but is true)

    As for boys’ education & self worth suffering because they are aware that they might not be needed to look after a wife and children, men being lost because they have “no purpose” if women can look after themselves – I wonder where homosexual men fit in that view? Are they doomed to never achieve a true sense of self worth because they might end up a husband who earns more. Will they feel lost because they might not be the provider?
    Few, if any, boys would make “looking after my wife and children in future” a prerequisite for achieving&working hard in school. Unless obviously, they are told that without being the provider they are worth less.

    • I wonder how many men & children are victims of paternity fraud ? HO figures for DV 1.2 m women 750k men , so what’s your point ? Only men are bad ?

      • 750k men doesn’t count because according feminists men are disposable, men aren’t human beings.

        “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at
        approximately 10% of the human race”, Sally Miller-Gearhart, WOMEN’S STUDIES PROFESSOR and FEMINIST, in her essay “The Future-If There is One-Is Female”

      • I apologise for omitting that men are also victims of domestic violence. But my comment was in regard to the statement that “men want to care for, look after and provide”. The suggestion was that domination by men is fabricated, something I think victims will disagree with.

        • You are kidding ? Domination ? Virtually every marriage I know of it’s the wife who rules the roost , being horrible isn’t gender specific nor is coercive control , family courts are not full of women seeking access , I admit men can be horrible , why can’t women admit the same .

          • Are you purposely trying to not understand the point made?
            I did not say that being horrible or violent towards a partner is gender specific. I shall repeat: the original statement by Belinda Brown was “they destroyed men’s motivations which were not, as the feminists thought, to dominate, but to care for, look after and provide.”
            Not some men, most men, the majority of men but men. In reply to that statement I commented that not all men care, lool after and provide, and that those who have experienced domestic/psychological /emotional abuse by men might disagree with the statement that “men care, look after and provide”.

            At no point have I suggested that some women aren’t perpetrators. I have simply responded to a statement. There was no statement “women care” that warranted the reply “not all women care, some are horrible”.

            As for the fact that in virtually every marriage you know the wife rules the roost – so be it. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other scenarios. That also doesn’t mean that in the past (the good old days of provider and home maker) women in abusive relationships did often not have the means or options to leave. (And yes, equally men who were victins would not have left due to the stigma attached).

        • It’s a generalization, that doesn’t make it less valid because on the whole it’s true: the vast majority of men who marry women have such attitude.

          How many times have you heard of a woman saving a man’s life?
          How many times have you heard of a man saving a woman’s life?

          Why is such thing that men save women’s lifes immensely more than the opposite?

  18. Feminism is a crap test like any other. If you put up with it, you fail. I have a fifty-something, never-married, childless, and p*ssed-off-at-everything feminist who works for me. I keep her around for three reasons: 1) She’s very good at her job and rarely calls out. (I’m sure there’s a cause and effect relationship there). 2) She’s so mean and angry(hitting 50 with an empty dance card hasn’t helped) no one is likely to suck up to the woman who does my payroll. 3) She has a metric ton of entertainment value . For instance we had the following conversation about the ‘wage gap’ at my business.
    Her: You know you pay the men here more than the women.
    Me: That’s because the men are engineers and architects and the women move papers from an ‘in’ box to an ‘out’ box.
    Her: why don’t you hire more female engineers?
    Me: there aren’t any and the ones who do exist don’t want to travel to Russia and China for six moths at a time.
    Her: well you still have high turnover even among the men.
    Me: I send them to Russia and China.
    Her: what does that have to do with anything?
    Me: everything, They go to Russia for six months where they meet beautiful and traditional Russian women, marry them, and stay there. I should run adds in Russian newspapers. Send me 500$ and I’ll send you a clean-cut, decent-looking, nice, and kind 32 year old American Engineer. It says a lot really.
    Her: About what?
    Me: About the pathetically low caliber of American women that a young, good-looking, quality man is willing to live in a totalitarian state to have a quality relationship. Seriously, B. If you want a raise just ask for it like everyone else around here does. You don’t need to call the DNC and get a rent-a-mob to picket the front office.

  19. It’s too late.
    Like a 200,000 ton tanker the education system has been advantaging women over men for a long time and any change made now will take 1 generation to take effect – too late.
    The dice have been thrown and no one knows how they will land.
    Men, young men & boys are checking out in greater numbers and let’s hope women can save them, for indeed ultimately it will be ordinary women who will suffer the devastation reaped upon the male sex. So, thanks to Belinda and other women who lead.

    • It’ll keep get worse for the next years: now it’s 40% degrees earned by men, it’ll reach about 33% or even 30% before we’ll see something starting. Actual misandry in the campuses is designed to make boys not feeling welcome.
      Belinda contribution is appreciated but it’s not up to her or conservative women: there’s almost nothing left to “conserve”.
      Men enabled feminism to have success, by pandering to feminists’ requests.
      Men will establish when “equality” is reached: by openly rebelling to the system.
      Even 30% degrees are more than enough in such perspective. Even 25% would be enough, actually.
      The problem is that at the moment of such rebellion some religion (do you guess what religion I’m thinking about?) could decide to jump on the bandwagon, that would have devastating consequences. I have a daughter, I don’t want to see her enslaved.

  20. She is right. the future is not sustainable. I would also add that educated women are not partnering up with men and having children. There are not enough educated men for them to partner up with. Educated women to date have not shown any enthusiasm for partnering up with a man who does not also have a degree. Something else I have noticed is that vocal feminists do not tend to have male partners. So maybe if they do not reproduce they will not poison their children with the male hate they constantly spew.

    But the writer is correct we are in a downward spiral and it is not possible to break free. Politically it would be suicide to tray and give men more family rights in the courts or insist that half of all primary teachers are male. Ensure Universities have a 50% male undergraduate requirement.

    There is a lot that can be done but absolutely nothing will be.

    The future is very bleak.

      90% vets at Sydney are women, they’re trying to give more grants to men.
      Feminists are protesting.
      Apparently, 90% degrees is barely “equality”: according feminists true “equality” would be 100% female degrees.

      Most vocal feminists do not have male partners because most them are lesbians, actual feminism is mostly about two things:
      Hurting boys and weakening men, with every possible mean.
      Lesbians trying getting into the pants of heterosexual girls, trying “converting” them. That’s why in “The Vagina Monolgues” by Eve Ensler that they play each 14 February on V Day there’s a scene of an adult woman having sex with a 13 yo girl, celebrated with such words: “if it was a rape, then it was a good rape”.
      Feminism is paedophiliac rape culture, too.

      WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or
      persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot
      Indeed those disgusting beasts celebrate paedophilia and rape while labelling as rapists drunk boys who have happy but not lucid sex with drunk girls of the same age…

  21. “Women will be trapped with the entire burden of supporting their children….”

    If they can’t support them, then they don’t need to have them. Every possible reproductive choice – from birth control, to abortion, to adoption, to legal abandonment – has been provided for them.

    • I believe use of condoms is a way to avoid reproduction, and they are made for men to use.
      And according to the Adoption and Children Act of 2002 (entered into force in 2005), gay and lesbian single persons as well as same-sex couples have a right to adopt a child in the UK.

      So not every possible reproductive choice is provided for women only.

      • Women can legally abandon the child just after the birth.
        Men cannot legally give up to fatherhood.
        Men are required to be more responsible and accountable than women.
        “Condoms failure” is a major argument for feminists while praising abortion, but when it comes at men then “condoms failure” doesn’t exist anymore. Double standars, much?

        You keep pretending it’s the same, but that just only shows your misandry.

      • I apologise, another oversight. Above statement is obviously meant to include bisexual amd transgender individuals in regard to same-sex or opposite-sex couples’ adoption rights.

        • Bisexual man here. Bisexuals adoption is already included in same-sex couple adoption: a bisexual either have an opposite sex partner or a same sex partner.

      • I was actually referring to giving children up for adoption rather than adopting a child.

        Does the Adoption and Children Act of 2002 also allow single heterosexual men to adopt a child in the UK?

        • Using a condom is a man’s option. Oh and obviously sterilisation. But that’s rather drastic. I think reasons as to why there are not more options, like the male pill or injection, are a valid point of discussion.
          I think we can’t get away from the fact that (born) women only have the option of abortion, as a womb is required for that.

          And yes, single men can foster and adopt in the UK, whatever their sexual orientation.

          • “And yes, single men can foster and adopt in the UK, whatever their sexual orientation. ”

            If that’s true, then I think that’s brilliant.

          • Can you advise how much of a gap there is between single men having the theoretical, legal entitlement to adopt, and single men actually achieving adoption in practice? Is it anything like the gap between the legislation on equality and the difficulty so many men have in getting that legal entitlement actually to work for them in their individual circumstances – like in the divorce courts, for example?

            I may have the legal right to own a Rolls Royce, but if I am always turned away from the Rolls Royce dealership because I can never satisfy the conditions for ownership (in this case never having enough money), then that right is not of any use to me.

          • If you want to buy a child you might have to go abroad 😉

            I’m sure you’d be able to find the stats about how many single men have applied to adopt and how many of those have been approved somewhere.

  22. Also, feminism is a red herring. Everything that was done, was done with jubilant approval of the majority of women, who are totally “not like that”.
    Indeed as Karen Straughan noted: To an average woman Feminism has been the same as a race riot to a looter.
    Meaning while most women would distance themselves from the label, because they instinctively understand that it’s a boner-killer for potential suitors, they will happily take advantage of the spoils of war on men.

    • “Meaning while most women would distance themselves from the label, because they instinctively understand that it’s a boner-killer for potential suitors, they will happily take advantage of the spoils of war on men.”

      The NAWALT’s like having their cake and eating it too.

  23. And now with MGTOW philosophy growing like wildfire , the women will now have exactly what they want, slave all their lives for a corporate without men in their lives, and yes, many men will further reduce their oppression by not choosing to impregnate them. Enjoy your empowerment ladies

    • MGTOW men are portrayed as sad losers , the reality is somewhat different , true liberation , freedom and fulfilment , self reliance .

      • That’s good: as long as MGTOW will be portraited as few sad losers we aren’t going to have much pressure on us by the government. I also think that “losers” applies in most cases, at least in mine case: when you’re divorced, lost the family house and the kids for three quarters of the month you cannot be “a winner”. The point is that if you totally avoid marriage contract and also “cohabitation rights” you can be a true winner, and if you manage to avoid most negative outcomes in the divorce you can be a loser still having a comfortable and happy life 🙂

      • “mgtows are and always will be a tiny minority.”
        Hopefully, otherwise feminists and women are going to whine to the government to force us to marry, probably through tax on celibacy and the likes! And the government would pander to them: just like they did with “cohabitation rights” that is basically subtly turning cohabitation in a sort of marriage with rights (for her) and duties (for him)…
        However they cannot force gays to marry women, and I have an LGBT association membership card… 🙂

  24. [Feminists have succeeded in creating the two tier society which they railed against, but it is not and never has been women at the bottom. It is men.

    With each new generation of boys growing up in single parent families, the vicious circle will spiral lower. Women will be trapped with the entire burden of supporting their children. As men increasingly check out, there won’t even be anyone to fund what is largely a women’s welfare state. The men will be happily playing their computer games in the disastrous world that the feminists have created.

    The Women’s March people threaten us with a day without feminists. The real threat is that we will increasingly live in a world without men.]

    Excellent analysis!

  25. Interesting stuff. I think consumerist culture is responsible for the largest part of it – when you’re told there is no higher goal in life then making lots of money and accumulating lots of possessions, that’s not really an inspiring vision of the future. The easiest way to back out is to stay at home and play computer games.

    Policies to ensure full employment and to make buying a home affordable would solve some of the problems, but beyond that something needs to be done to change the culture and stop self discipline being so unpopular.

  26. Just a thought, and one that I hope is not too off topic.

    Does the word “love” exist in the feminist vocabulary? Because I don’t think I have ever read or heard the word used by any feminist.

    I don’t mean “love” as in “I would love a curry” or “I love to see men crying”, but altruistic love in the sense of “I am ready to work my socks off for you, whatever it takes, because I just love to see you smiling and happy.”

    And could love in that sense ever exist in the sort of world that feminists seek to impose? Would that world simply kill off the huge capacity for altruistic love that has always existed in the minds of the male sex towards the female sex? The frightening thing to me is that we are already seeing it happening. And I don’t think anyone is really grasping what the consequences would be if it continues at this rate.

    • Nope.
      Feminism is about men being viewed as tools, and disposable. It’s always about usefulness of men, never about empathy towards men.
      Altruistic love is a masculine thing: that’s why men usually don’t have problems downmarrying while women usually wants men earning more than them (even Belinda admits it in her article).

          • Being a “little” man would be good: little weak men aren’t dominant/oppressive 🙂
            Sorry if the truth is offensive. A little suggestion:
            “The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.
            The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are” – Marcus Aurelius.
            Basically, MGTOW philosophy in a nutshell. The very opposite of feminism.

          • So to suggest that you are alone is an insult, but to suggest that I Love Julie Bindel is shorter than average height is fine?

            For all that you see yourself to have a bold perspective on gender, you are full of the same old cliches about it.

          • “Happy wife, happy life”.
            Feminists don’t change the parts of patriarchy that give advantages to women. 🙂
            Have you ever heard of a feminist protesting against “women and children first!” when a ship is sinking? 🙂

    • women make up a vast majority of charity workers and the caring professions like nursing, social work and childcare

      women are more altruistic than men

      • Partly because they get their courses paid for, partly because it’s reasonably well paid for easy work. I worked in a mental health facility once. The women were lazy and always got the men to tackle the dangerous and hard jobs.

      • Don’t make the mistake of believing that the people who conduct the majority of the “hands on” type of “care” are more caring than those who do not. The guys who build the care homes and hospitals, the guys who ensure they are supplied with electricity and fresh water, the guys who mow the lawns and empty the trash bins, are every bit as caring as the women who sit inside in the warmth and comfort, holding hands and drinking tea with the inmates and never having to worry about keeping the whole shebang running because men are taking “care” of all that for them. Care can come in many forms. Not all of them actually have the word “care” in their titles; but maybe they should, for the enlightenment of people who cannot see beyond the end of their noses.

        That answers your point, but it is not directly relevant to what I was talking about. I was referring to intimate, personal relationships. If men are constantly being told that their affections are “toxic” and unwanted, then they will learn to switch off. That is what is happening. And no amount of cheap sexist point-scoring can obscure that; nor will it ever make anything better.

      • Who built the hospitals and developed all the innovations that mean we can actually treat the horrible diseases that we suffer from?

      • Women prefer warm, safe, clean work with lots of ‘rights’. They gravitate heavily towards the public services and leave the harsher world of wealth production to men who generally do more technical, difficult and dangerous work. Having opted for the cosy stuff, they then invent a ‘pay gap’ to give them another grievance. Men pay 78% of income tax, which pays for the much cosier jobs and part time work that most women enjoy.

  27. The women will do fine, they’ll simply marry the state.

    One thing that is continually ignored is the spending gap. While women earn much less than men they still control more than 89% of purchases.

    Measuring earnings is a poor way to measure equality. Measure benefits.

      • My problem with women in control is that they generally have zero responsibility/accountability and it’s always men’s fault.
        However as long as is OTHER men’s fault, that isn’t my problem.

        • i generally take the lead in my relationship and i happily take responsibility

          my partner and i are happy with this arrangement. he is happy with me being the dominant/ more assertive partner as it suits our personalities

          • So patriarchy doesn’t exist, not anymore.
            There’s no such thing as a woman leading a relationship and having full responsibility in a family within a patriarchal system.
            “In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.”

            Thank you for making it clear.
            I did already know, though.

        • Feminism is about maximizing sexual freedom for women while putting maximum limitations to male sexuality.
          It’s like training a snail to run as fast as s/he can while cutting 4-in-6 legs of an ant, in order to make them competing “on equal grounds” 🙂 maybe they’re equal but the race is slooow 🙂 (meaning: less sex for all).

    • Exactly.
      Single women can be perfectly fine with having some sex with top 20% men, it’s not that they need sex on a regular basis like a man.
      I would however suggest to give to men the chance to give up to rights and duties on fatherhood: by this way most women could have children, when and if they wish, with top 20% men, and the gene pool would improve on the whole: wild female instincts can be usefully used to have a more healthy and better humanity, women should be encouraged to procreate with superior men through a mix of welfare to single mothers and men being able to give up to rights and duties of fatherhood.

      • with every post you are confirming my suspicions that you hate Feminism because you keep being rejected by women and you can’t get laid

        you are a typically entitled white male

        • How one who is always rejected can be “entitled”? 🙂
          Entitled is the one who is very rarely or never rejected 🙂

          • Good, I like women who are taller than me. But I don’t date feminists: once one asked me a date and I answered “sorry, I’m gay!”
            Her: “since when?”
            Me: “since at least 2 or 3 minutes!” 🙂

          • Because I don’t like people who blame other people for their faults, and I’m not their savior.
            I also don’t date jobless or very low income persons, and persons who don’t own their house, due similar reasons. A car is very important, however I can make an exception if they have other qualities. Culture and a bright conversation is essential: who talks about daily troubles in a boring job is out.
            High sex drive would be theoretically essential too, but it doesn’t matter anymore: I like penetration without condom (both active and passive) and oral sex (both ways) especially for waking up in the morning. All those things are basically available just only within a long-term relationship preferably living together. Casual sex is practically just only about PIV with a condom, I had it even too much in the past, it’s just only about scoring points, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. On the other hand LTR living together means not just only many little compromises but can be also quite dangerous: cohabitation rights+hypergamy (I don’t even mind marriage contract, already had one) are a very dangerous mix, through times sex tend to become rare while rights “of the weaker part” (do guess who is?) become large and larger, so it must be ponderated.
            So my available pool of potential partners is extremely narrow while incentives are very low: I already have 4 children (2 official with ex wife, others being raised by other persons), and I don’t want others.
            The fact that I like transwomen too doesn’t make things better in a relevant way: they’re few, very few.

          • Nice body shaming – way to go. I suppose it’s fine when women do it? You feel you’re entitled to do it, is that right?

Comments are closed.