Belinda Brown: Man-hating feminists corrode the love and respect of men for women

It is time we “called out” feminism. Feminism is being used by Western women to provide and promote careers, social status, privilege without any regard for the negative impact which this has on society and, I suspect, without any real consideration for the women, usually in Third World countries, on whom their ideology feeds.

Step forward Charlotte Proudman who has been building up her media profile for the past three years, doing a PhD on the no doubt well funded research topic of female genital mutilation, who has exploited her own appearance, and the naivety of an older male lawyer to garner the high octane publicity that her future career needs.

Alexander Carter-Silk mistakenly described her photo as ‘stunning’ (it is not, it is mediocre) and was described as being sexist, oppressing and silencing women. The comments were likened, on the Woman's Hour programme I was participating in (I mean the Radio 4 version), to street harassment and sexual abuse – parallels were even drawn with victims of rape.

As it happens Carter-Silk, commented on her photo, not on her, thereby recognising that there is a difference between an online appearance and the attractiveness of the person themselves. However let us be clear. We may as men or women be able to appreciate someone’s attractiveness, however this is no way interferes with our capacity to treat them as colleagues, employers, or fellow professionals, students, teachers, daughters or sons. We do not objectify a person because we appreciate their looks.

However, it can in some situations mean that we are drawn towards that person and in some way they get more attention from us. This would explain why good looking people of both genders are more likely to do well, and why women in particular go to such lengths to improve their looks. It explains why people such as Charlotte put up photos of themselves on their social networking pages. She is using her own, even fairly limited attractiveness, in order to do well.

And this is the real reason that feminists instantly slam down any man who draws attention to their physical appearance. They are coming far, far too close to recognising that woman’s game.

When Alexander Carter-Silk identified Charlotte’s photo as stunning, he identified, “called out” if you will, and therefore potentially disarmed Charlotte’s source of power, thereby creating the potential for a professional space. For this he deserved the Professor Tim Hunt/ Matt Taylor treatment, while media-seeking and media-savvy Charlotte tried to portray herself as martyred and elevate herself to the status of feminazi saint.

Charlotte will indeed receive fewer instructions but this is not because she has identified sexism, nor is it because she is a student anyway. It is because by publishing a private email exchange she has acted, in the eyes of other lawyers, in a highly unprofessional way.

Proudman’s exploitation of Carter-Silk’s gullibility is part of a much larger, damaging and deeply destructive movement which appears to be aimed at oppressing men.

On Friday, I attended a Masculinity debate held by insideMAN and earlier in summer a male psychology conference at UCL. What comes across is the extent to which men have changed, adapted and modified their selves, their behaviour, their jobs and their bodies, not out of wilfulness or self-interest, but in response to ‘society’s' – read feminist - demands. They have bent over backwards to facilitate equality but have been blamed when women shun stressful or demanding positions, prioritise childcare or act predictably in terms of career choice. They are expected to downgrade their careers to  look after children, only to find that their contact with children is frowned upon, the extent to which they can look after their own children is determined by maternal gatekeeping, and should they be kicked out of their family, future access is circumscribed by feminist family laws.

Boys grow up to know they are predatory and sexist, their values and sense of humour are in need of modification, and it is a risky, rebellious and potentially futile venture to simply be yourself.

Our current culture of misandry corrodes any vestiges of love and respect in which men once held women, it breeds mistrust and contempt and ultimately encourages exactly the type of behaviour which it claims it wants to stamp out. Where males receive little reward or recognition for their efforts to fit in with the demands of women, they themselves have little motivation to be nice.

Charlotte Proudman has been using her appearance to further her career in a totally hypocritical way. She has been trying to promote herself without any regard for people she might damage. She is promoting and feeding into a culture which actually victimises boys and men. This  will ultimately be very damaging to women themselves.

Belinda Brown

  • Bogbrush

    She sounds quite unwell and perhaps the most appropriate way for sane people to treat those like her is with sympathy and offers of help.

    She clearly has difficulty with the ebb and flow of discourse unless it stays within an extremely tight framework. This may or may not have come from issues in childhood, or perhaps she has repressed sexual matters that are distorting how she receives what to well-adjusted people would be close to meaningless. My guess, given that I’ve heard she can be quite “laddish” in her own online conduct, is that she’s troubled.

    Clearly her professional colleagues have seen this and some seem, rightly, to consider she has unsound judgement. My recommendation would be that she seeks professional help.

    By the way Belinda, may I compliment you on that picture, you look lovely in it.

    • Belinda Brown

      Thank you so much Bogbrush!

    • Feminist_Future

      “By the way Belinda, may I compliment you on that picture, you look lovely in it.”

      What a sexist creep.

      • Bogbrush

        You’re dying for one, I can tell.

        • Feminist_Future

          Not if you were the last man on earth.

          • Bogbrush

            But all this trailing around after me tells the real story; classic attention seeking.

            I’m married and not interested.

          • Feminist_Future

            Why did you attack me using crude sexual language, then?

            What would your wife say?

          • Bogbrush

            I just showed her the thread, she thinks you’re hilarious and I should keep you around!

          • Feminist_Future

            Any women who oppose Feminism, including your wife, should read this post by “The_greyhound”.

            https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/david-keighley-why-did-yentob-not-see-kids-company-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/#comment-2184855093

            It exposes the illusion that anti-Feminist men have women’s best interests at heart. And there are dozens of other posts like it on this site.

            If you ever succeeded in defeating Feminism, men like “The_greyhound” and attitudes like his would again hold sway.

            Do you think your wife, your sisters, your daughters, your mothers, would genuinely be regarded with dignity and respect and equality if men like him were in control?

            Do you see now why Feminism is so important? #YesAllWomen

          • Bogbrush

            I only have one mother.

            You are entertaining.

          • Feminist_Future

            Thank you for mansplaining that for me. I would have thought it was clear that I wasn’t just talking about you individually. Typical male egocentricity.

          • Bogbrush

            It’s a pity you pursued me again, you’ve pushed Belinda’s delightful reception of my compliment away from my post.

            I’m sure she won’t mind, she’s a real lady for sure.

          • Feminist_Future

            Define “lady”.

          • Bogbrush

            You’ll think it means something patronising. I’d explain why it isn’t but if I have to tell you I doubt you’d understand.

            The ladies who run this site know, and that’s good enough for us.

        • MyRightPenguin

          It’s the Fabian Delusions troll.

      • Rob

        “By the way Belinda, may I compliment you on that picture, you look lovely in it.”

        What a sexist creep.

        —————————-
        i guess irony and sarcasm went over your head then.

        Are you that jealous of charlotte proudmans position as angry femnazi No.1 ?

  • Jenny L

    I think this is one of the most perceptive articles I have ever read regarding feminism.
    I completely agree with every single word you have written. It is an absolute gem.
    Well done!!

    • Lock up your daughters?

      I prefered https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/belinda-brown-a-century-of-feminism-has-failed-us-women-have-betrayed-mens-trust/#comment-2014863854

      It got more of a reaction from the “Mens Rights” and “MGTOW” rabble whom ConWoman is courting. They like it rough, but secretly so do Conservative Women 🙂

      Rape and sexual aggression are successful genetic strategies. that is why these appetites are so deeply ingrained in men.

      We can sanitise and deny all we like, but it’s biology dear.

      • 5th column traitors

        “Rape and sexual aggression are successful genetic strategies. that is why these appetites are so deeply ingrained in men.”

        Speak for yourself. I can assure that there are many men for whom rape and sexual aggression are any form of strategy or even cross our minds let alone be ingrained at all.

        • Lock up your daughters?

          Good for you brother. Civilised man has his nature modified (to a greater or lesser extent). So is forced impregnation or sexual coercion a genetic strategy that is successful and widespread in innumerable species
          ……but magically (when left to his own devices) NOT for mankind?

          • Lock up your daughters?

            P.S. “5th column traitors”, I think you may have missed the word “not” out of your comment. Was it 🙂 ….Freudian ?

          • Eric Marsh

            Are you a 🙂 ….Troll ?

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Only if “a 🙂 ….Troll” means someone who does not agree with everything you say “masculinazi”

          • 5th column traitors

            Well spotted. But no it wasnt a freudian slip 🙂

      • KjempInari

        When you remove honour and dignity the old evils raise their head as “successfull strategies”. Roman law carried the death penalty for this crime as was common for a few hundred years after its demise. The english changed it from death penalty to blinding + castration in 1066. Later it got changed to simply imprisonment.

        Almost makes me miss the old ways.

        • Lock up your daughters?

          Through most of history and in most of societies (including Roman) the punishment for rape and even the recognition that a crime has even taken place usually depended heavily on the social position of the rapist and the victim.

          This was sometimes enshrined in law in western societies where a common rapist would receive those draconian penalties bu a “gentleman” could get away with a small fine. In places this was written in the law.

          Roman times actually spanned several ages but if a woman or child of low standing was raped, I’d wager that it would be a “property crime” against the slave’s owner/husband.

          You mention castration.
          Castration is unfashionable in the west but for all but the “mildest” of rapes might the surgical removal of one testicle be a suitable deterrent to a 2nd offence?

      • Eric Marsh

        “that is why these appetites are so deeply ingrained in men.”

        Show some evidence that this is the case, please? Or is this just misandry? I mean, given that the VAST, VAST, majority of men do not sexually assault women nor do they rape women. How does that suggest “deeply ingrained”?

        • Lock up your daughters?

          “that is why these appetites are so deeply ingrained in men.” Show some evidence that this is the case, please?

          …..Sigh!

          Where to begin?

          Women and girls have to be more careful not to go out on their own, particularly at night. They need to be careful how they dress and how they act or they are “asking for it”
          It is more dangerous for a Women or girl to get drunk/drugged than for their male counterpart.

          “the VAST, VAST, majority of men do not sexually assault women” …hopefully that is partly true but a good deal of that is down to social conditioning and the fact that there are serious consequences. Where this conditioning and consequences are removed (e.g. war zones) rape then becomes relatively common.

          Look at the proliferation of fascination with rape in the media. The proliferation of sexual violence in entertainment and porn. Is this because people are not interested?
          Or is it because it stirs something deep within us that we would rather not admit or face?

          • Eric Marsh

            “Where to begin?”

            You can start with something evidence-based, and that isn’t misandric feminist propoganda.

            Again, the VAST majority of men do not sexually assualt or rape. This is not “hopefully, partly” true, it is demonstrably true. And the very small percentage of male rapists is matched by a very small percentage of female rapists, too, despite this being deliberately obscured by ridiculous definitions of rape.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dean-esmay/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-t_b_6153578.html

          • AJ

            Asked to show evidence of a deeply ingrained appetite to rape you came up with this: “Women and girls have to be more careful not to go out on their own, particularly at night. They need to be careful how they dress and how they act or they are “asking for it”

            Do they need to or are they just conditioned as part of anti-male propaganda to? The statistics are that men are far more likely to be victims of violence than women. There are campaigns to end violence against women but none to end violence against those most likely to be victims – men and boys.

            In the discussion of this specific incident I have not heard one commentator who did not think the womens actions were far worse then the man’s (imagined?) offense. Despite this there have been endless articles about how men should modify their behaviour and not one about women avoiding over reaction and cyber bullying. There has been no comment on the willingness of a large group of women to attack a man on the flimiest most transparently baseless grounds. We will I am sure, continue to hear how, despite all evidence to the contrary, women are especially victimised on the internet. This just shows how ingrained misandry has become, even when a women is shown to be a bullying nasty sexist biggot it is all the men’s fault an dmen should change their behaviour to avoid giving offense.

          • disqus_QL05BqU79X

            “Look at the proliferation of fascination with rape in the media.” Indeed. The media. An industry that sells its wares by piquing emotion in accordance with a social narrative, rather than delivering balanced news. When rape is reported, it’s done so such that we are horrified. Same in the media. Not exactly what you would call celebrating sexual assault, is it? Unless it happens to boys and men, whence it’s generally found to be funny.

            Didn’t take long for you to shoehorn porn in, did it? I suppose you’re an “expert” on that as well. The most violent porn out there is the stuff featuring women battering and torturing men, by the way. Just don’t let the media know, right?

        • RV

          It doesn’t take long for some mad feminist to drag their nonsensical rape fallacies into any old topic does it? 🙂

      • disqus_QL05BqU79X

        Oh good grief. What is this, 1971? Your biology understanding hasn’t gotten off the ground.

        Women rape men more than the reverse. Hard for even the most ardent egalitarian to accept, I know, but this ugly truth has been made apparent in recent studies and also new trawls through old studies whose results were (gasp!) skewed by feminists. There’s a book on it, but you wouldn’t read it, I’m sure.

        Women used to kill men more than the reverse as well but the state has picked up half of that burden now though. Why murder your husband (or eight of them on the trot) when you can have him dispensed with for free, or even for profit? I suppose in a way the state steadily picked up the rape burden too, seeing as about 80% of all rape in the UK takes place in prisons and the like, and 95% of the incarcerated are male.

        Men are inherently designed to protect and serve women; it is our primary impulse. Men do not need to be taught not to rape; it’s just not something men are prone to do – less so now with so much displacement material around.

        • Lock up your daughters?

          A special welcome to the USA “Men’s Rights and MGTOW” rabble

          “80% of all rape in the UK takes place in prisons and the like, and 95% of the incarcerated are male.” and “Women rape men more than the reverse”

          Yeah right.

          P.S. Please tell me that “gotten” is not a word.

          • RV

            Female on female rape doesn’t happen in your mad little world apparently.

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Don’t think I mentioned “Female on female rape”

            The Men’s rights rabble like to make things up

            disqus_QL05BqU79X says “80% of all rape in the UK takes place in prisons and the like, and 95% of the incarcerated are male.”

            Maybe I got this wrong but are the majority of those rapes by men on a male victim? or are you lot saying that ‘80% of all rape in the UK is Female on female, perpetrated by the 5% of prisoners who are female.’

            The stuff you lot pass for facts. Priceless!

          • RV

            No you fruitloop. I am saying women raping women in prisons is very common. You are so hopeless you can’t even troll properly.

            Even outside prison lesbians stalk abuse molest rape assault other women in huge numbers, in far larger percentages than women in stable relationships with men.

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Actually what you said is “Female on female rape doesn’t happen in your mad little world apparently”

            To which I replied “Don’t think I mentioned Female on female rape”…..

            (I never said it didn’t exist or is not a problem)
            Is plain English a bit hard for you?

          • RV

            You have said alot of things fruitloop.

          • disqus_QL05BqU79X

            What I was saying is that people’s understanding of rape is based not on fact but ideologically-led falsehood. The vast majority of rapes occur in prisons, the military and other institutions where people are to some degree held or trapped. The per-capita rates of sexual assaults in women’s prisons is higher than in men’s, but there are so few women incarcerated.

            In free society women rape men more than the reverse.

            I know how easy it is to ridicule, and please do, but these ugly facts are not diminished by your lack of understanding.

          • ThisIsTwentyFifteen

            The difference between men raping women and women raping men is that when women rape men, everyone refuses to believe that they are even morally – much less physically – capable of it.

            And you must be old enough to know that there are far, far more subtle ways for a woman to get a man to have sex against his will than by her physically overpowering him. Presuming you are a man, if it ever happens to you, you will regret not taking the idea seriously.

            BTW, if you get drunk and have sex with a drunk woman, neither of you is capable of giving consent. But try telling that to the judge.

          • Lock up your daughters?

            “there are far, far more subtle ways for a woman to get a man to have sex against his will than by her physically overpowering him”

            Oh bless!

          • disqus_QL05BqU79X

            Blackmail being one of them.

          • disqus_QL05BqU79X

            I’m English. And yes, gotten is a word. An English one falsely claimed as an American neologism.

      • JCM

        “Rape and sexual aggression are successful genetic strategies. that is why these appetites are so deeply ingrained in men. We can sanitise and deny all we like, but it’s biology dear.”

        Reads like just another excuse for rape to me, are you excusing theft and murder on the same basis ? seems like murder is a sure fire way of ensuring your own survival strategy too, (limited resources and all that).

        A man who is attractive and looks after a woman is likely to have a far longer and more exclusive relationship with her, than one who attacks her. The latter being the most successful for the raising of children ie the passing on of genetics, (which requires more than a single ‘wham- bam’ in the dark).

        • Lock up your daughters?

          “theft and violence” are also prevalent and I do not condone them any more than I would condone rape. Again these antisocial behaviours are reduced by being “civilised” and by likely unpleasant consequences.

          Humans are an opportunistic species and this applies to behaviours including sexual ones. Males and females tend to adopt more than one strategy and no strategy is likely to be universal.

          In your example of a good family man. Do no good family man ever take opportunity elsewhere? Do they always ask nicely and always take “no” for an answer?

          The behaviours predate modern civilisation, and civilisation modifies these behaviours.

          You don’t agree? Fine.

  • 5th column traitors

    I agree with your article but please do us all a favour and stop putting pictures of this vacuous, self-centred ego maniac up thereby giving her the oxygen of publicity she obviously craves. It’s selfish, obnoxious, me, me, me generation idiots like her that will do more to put back the real issues of misogyny such as the wholesale female subjugation, rape and genital mutilation by the Islamic bunch than anything.

    She’s not even much of a looker.

  • Kanaris

    “When Alexander Carter-Silk identified Charlotte’s photo as stunning, he identified, “called out” if you will, and therefore potentially disarmed Charlotte’s source of power, thereby creating the potential for a professional space.”

    So wait, a woman’s appearance is her only source of power?

    • 5th column traitors

      Only, no. But it is a source of power that males generally do not posses.

      • Kanaris

        Hokay…. so, imagine I’m five – please explain to me how appearance is a source of power?

        • Paul Jackson

          Oh FFS! Maybe you ARE five!

          • Mez

            And you’re calling her ‘five’ on what basis – being honest?

            To focus on attractiveness for the sake of marketing products – is what objectification is about, and because it works on both women and men proves the point. Objectivity has been created in and by the media, it encourages a situation where looks are perceived as more important than personality or capability, and is one component of the background of why girls have issues with their physical appearance, (eating disorders etc).

          • Paul Jackson

            ‘Objectivity has been created in and by the media’ – was that a Freudian slip or don’t you know the definition of objectivity? It wouldn’t surprise me it you didn’t. You strike me as just the type to deny objective reality.

            Women have been using their looks to gain benefits for themselves for all of human history and Mzzz Proudman is no exception with her carefully applied make up in her professionally executed photograph. She’s just too much of a hypocrite to admit it.

            Good looks confer social and professional advantage (power if you like) to the men and women who are blessed with them and it is not just women who are affected. It has been shown, for instance, that taller men tend to do better career-wise on average than equally capable men who are shorter.

            You would have to have the naivety of a five year old not to grasp this self-evident fact.

          • Mez

            Good looks have been used by women for centuries because women had no other power – it was withdrawn by men..

            >>Objectivity has been created in and by the media’ – was that a Freudian slip or don’t you know the definition of objectivity? <>Good looks confer social and professional advantage (power if you like) to the men and women who are blessed with them and it is not just women who are affected. It has been shown, for instance, that taller men tend to do better career-wise on average than equally capable men who are shorter.<<

            That's basically what I wrote..(Objectivity has been created in and by the media, it encourages a situation where looks are perceived as more important than personality or capability). There's an enormous difference between a young girl who's figured out that she can gets men to behave in her favour if she's pretty, and a situation whereby women are thought about more in terms of their sexual parts than about themselves. The latter (sexual objectification) is created by the media.

          • ThisIsTwentyFifteen

            On the basis that she refuses to acknowledge the most fundamental facts of life simply because she disagrees with them.
            But what would be the point in giving you any reason? You’ll just ignore it.

          • Groan

            In reality marketing simply takes full advantage of human nature. One could suggest it distorts it. Certainly from a psychological perspective it is interesting that in the Anglophone “west” it is women who “police” women’s appearances in terms of attractiveness or being “sexy” while evidence from other cultures women police other women in terms of maintaining traditional conservative modes of appearance. From the simplest decorations of tattoos and shells to the most elaborate productions of Lagerfeld or Westwood it is pretty clear humans have been busy managing their appearances for archaeological history. From the point of view of disability, from people with “spoilt identities” most of this debate does indeed seem both trivial and framed by deliberate and studied disingenuousness.

          • Bogbrush

            You’re deluding yourself if you think advertisers created the instincts of people. Advertisers don’t have the time or money to waste on anything other than selling stuff, so they do what gets people moving. It could be bright colours for kids, or sexy girls for adults. Sexy girls in particular are brilliant for selling because guys can’t take their eyes off them and women want to be them (because they want guys to be interested in them).

            To be really specific, men look for symmetrical features, indicators of health, and an optimum waist / hips ratio. we do this because we want good breeders.

            Now do you think those instincts were developed by billions of years of evolutionary advantage………. or a couple of decades of adverts? Oooooh, let me think…….

        • Niall Porter

          Health and beauty are highly sexual to a man, this gives her power over him because he is distracted and not listening to the quality of her abilities, which may not exist, so the appearance wins the day not her competence. This is a powerful tactic most women utilise, thus neglecting any potential competence they may have achieved, because they dont need to bother.

          • Kanaris

            OK, so men are so distracted by secondary sexual characteristics that they can’t focus on a woman’s abilities? Have I got that right? If so, that’s not very flattering to men is it?

          • Paul Jackson

            …and how many women will vote for a parliamentary candidate because he’s handsome?
            It works both ways you dope!

          • 5th column traitors

            Yes. Not always, but very often.

            But if you don’t know that already you are either a child, extremely naive or live a very sheltered life.

            Almost every teenage girl knows how to “control” teenage boys by using their sexuality and a lot of women carry that on into adulthood in some way or another. Unfortunately sometimes they pick the wrong male – one with no self control – and find themselves on the wrong end of sexual assault. (And before I get accused of saying they asked for it I’m not, I’m pointing out the very real fact that you have no idea of what someone is really like until you push their buttons, just like road rage incidents that turns to assault or worse).

            Equally why do you think adverts for perfume normally have some ripped male model in them writhing all over the place and fawning over the female?

            So yes. Basically sex sells and it alway will whether you like it or not

        • disqus_QL05BqU79X

          Female beauty is the most valuable currency on earth (and to both sexes, hence why pretty women have been used in advertising commodities to men and women) and women, by nature, control breeding, sex and thus life. Basic stuff. Are you five?

          • Kanaris

            Hahahahahahahahahaha, Seriously? Did you actually type that?

          • disqus_QL05BqU79X

            Yup. Basic biological fact understood for millennia but no longer fitting current narratives and paradigms.

            Anyway, I think it’s break time. Be careful on the climbing frame.

        • RV

          She is using a flattering photo of herself to help her network.

          It’s a tactic utilised widely by women, and it works.

          It’s not difficult to understand.

          • Kanaris

            Have you got evidence of that? Or did she just use a photo of herself she likes? Is your linkedin photo a picture of you in your pyjamas?

          • RV

            Well she is not that attractive and made some effort to use a flattering photo.

            I don’t have a photo on my linked in profile.

          • Kanaris

            Why don’t you have a photo on your linkedin profile? Surely you want people to recognise you?

          • RV

            Hers looks like it was done by a professional, she is being more than a tad hypocritical. Looks like she is quite a calculating woman. She wanted publicity, we’ll now she got it.

          • Kanaris

            Have you seen his? So does his, and no-ones suggesting that he’s “using a flattering photo of [him]self to help [his] network

            (here’s a link for you: http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10496087.ece/alternates/w620/Alexander-Carter-Silk.jpg )

          • RV

            That’s because he is not making a huge fuss about nothing.

            But she being a hypocritical opportunist.

        • 5th column traitors

          You really need that explaining?

          I have no idea if you are male or female, but anyway… Males (of the Human genus anyway) are genetically programmed to respond favourably to attractive females as they are most likely to be good mothers for their children and to pass on good, healthy genes.

          You may not like the “genetic truth” but it is simply this: Well proportioned, symmetrical features with blemish free skin and and bright shiny eyes means healthy and likely to survive. Ugly, badly proportioned features with dull and poor skin is an indicator of poor genetics and poor survival chances (without modern medicine – but that doesn’t even enter the genetic equation).

          For females the genetic target for their offspring is males who are successful and powerful as they are most likely to be the ones to pass on good genes and be able to provide and protect the family.

          The reality is – putting aside our very recent civility and medicial abilities – Attractive women and Powerful Men are what ensure the survival of the species.

          These are the genetic truths that Femnazis find so terribly difficult to come to terms with.

    • ThisIsTwentyFifteen

      No, appearance is only one source of power for a woman.
      She can also whine about how oppressed she is in many other ways too, and how everyone owes her something as a result.

  • Reconstruct

    Surely the biggest and most sinister damage is being done to legion of boys being doped with Ritalin, allegedly because of ADHD. Apparently, this ‘disorder’ happens only very rarely in girls.

    Has it never occurred to the dominantly female school staff (73.6% of teachers are female, 92% of teaching assistants are female – source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335413/sfr11_2014_updated_july.pdf) that they are failing boys systematically, and then absolving themselves by using the ‘chemical cosh’.

    I wonder how may ‘ADHD’ boys would still be ‘ADHD’ if, for example, they were sent out to rugby every afternoon for a couple of hours? Or, indeed, any competitive, and preferably violent sport? Unfortunately, I deeply doubt whether our female dominant teaching population has either the interest, the knowledge or the enthusiasm (‘competitive sport? Ughh!) to offer this. So much easier just to condemn, label and dope.

    This is surely a massive national disgrace.

    • Eric Marsh

      While I agree with most of what you said, I’m going to offer up routine infant circumcision as being even more damaging and sinister. It’s irreversible, for one, and when done to a baby so it is all that individual has ever known, it makes the mutilation seem normal, so they are more likely to do it to their own children. It is a worldwide disgrace how this complete disregard for boy’s bodily integrity is allowed to continue, hell even encouraged, based on some of the worst “science” I have ever seen.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsaby03byPM

      • Secret Squirrel

        Circumcision – disgusting. Why do cultures want to mutilate their children in this way?

    • Secret Squirrel

      ADHD is like having tonsils and adenoids removed in the 60’s, GP’s backed it both of my brothers had ops – it was fashionable at the time, and totally un-necessary

  • Feminist_Future

    Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate men.

    • Paul Jackson

      Feminists not only hate men, they hate little boys.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDCOhfsQTQ

      • Feminist_Future

        Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

        I don’t know any women who don’t like men. Feminists like men but we hate the patriarchy. Men ought to be our allies in the fight against patriarchy because the patriarchy hurts men too.

        • BSO

          Ms Future,
          Unless its Bill Clinton sexually exploiting women and then you back the patriarchy. Juanita Broddrick is awaiting your apology, as is Monica Lewinsky who you referred to as a “blow job.” Not very sisterly. I have to say Hillary is not exactly setting the primaries on fire…

          • Feminist_Future

            Hillary has no serious rivals for the nomination.

            You are going to have to deal with the fact that she will become the first Feminist President of the USA.

          • Bogbrush

            I hope she wins. After 4 years if her we won’t have to put up with another one like her and she won’t do any harm because she can’t do jack without Congress and has no worthwhile ideas anyway.

            Why can’t they find a person of tremendous capability and vision, who happens to be a female?

          • Feminist_Future

            Who said anything about Congress? When Hillary becomes President it will be a victory for all women.

            It will be a victory for feminism.

            It will pave the way for millions of girls to strive for their dreams and achieve the highest positions as business and political leaders.

            And best of all will be the utter despair on the faces of male chauvinists and conservatives everywhere, as they realize they have lost the culture war. It will be their final defeat.

            I can’t wait.

          • Bogbrush

            Bill can’t wait too, he gets to take his pick of White House skirt again and get some relief from the old harridan!

            Meanwhile we all get to watch her have to show what a useless old frump she is and achieve nothing, and the whole glass ceiling nonsense gets dumped!! Brilliant!!

            Hillary Clinton couldn’t carry Thatchers handbag, there was a real woman of achievement. Pity the Sisterhood couldn’t live up to get standard and has been all ‘whiney girlie’ ever since. Tragic.

          • Feminist_Future

            You just can’t help yourself, can you?

            Using gendered insults is sexist and misogynistic because it is offensive to women.

          • Bogbrush

            Oh I can, it’s completely deliberate.

          • Reconstruct

            It’s a great shame that the cost of the prize of having the first female US President is to elect such a haughty and obvious crook. The feminists discover their inner Richard Nixon.

          • BSO

            Ms Future,
            You can not change the subject, simply apologise for calling Monica Lewinsky a “blow job,” simply accept that Bill Clinton used his male power to rape Juanita Brodderick as Christopher Hitchens discovered.Otherwise you are a hypocrite. On Hillary Clinton you are Delusional: “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s support falls by 21 points as Donald Trump gains”

          • Feminist_Future

            “apologise for calling Monica Lewinsky a “blow job,””

            I never did that. You lie.

            “rape Juanita Brodderick”

            No, you’re wrong there.

          • BSO

            BSO Feminist_Future • a month ago

            Ms Future,

            Matthew 7:4 “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”

            Mr Greyhound’s robust sarcasm and blunt suggestion that you should put a brew on and do some house work in no way can be used as a
            predictor for his social policy objectives were he to be elected to office.
            Such an illogical leap would shame a 70s comprehensive education.

            But wait is this not the Ms Future who is advocating to put Hillary and her rapist husband back in the White house. I repeat again – the following women might disagree:
            Eileen Wellstone,
            Juanita Broaddrick,
            Carolyn Moffet
            Elizabeth Ward,
            Paula Corbin,
            Sandra Allen James,
            Christy Zercher,
            Kathleen Willey,
            Monica Lewinsky.
            There are no doubt many others too fearful or traumatised to come forward.

            Some of these women were bitten in the face during their assaults, several are democrats, many are low income. When you have a satisfactory answer for your support for a Sexual abuser’s colluder and her rapist husband we all might take you a little more seriously.

            Now I quite literally have to put the washing machine on and make a cup of tea.

            Feminist_Future BSO • a month ago

            Please prove that President Clinton “raped” any of the above women.
            I am well aware that President Clinton was subjected to an unprecedented smear campaign by Fox News and the Republican Party. However none of these accusations have ever been proven. Apart from the bl*wjob, there remains no conclusive proof that President Clinton ever committed any wrongdoing in this arena.

        • Paul Jackson

          You don’t know any women who hate men? How about Julie Bindel who recently called for all men to be put into internment camps

          http://theothermccain.com/2015/09/06/guardian-columnist-julie-bindel-says-put-all-males-in-some-kind-of-camp/

          • Feminist_Future

            Lol. Can’t you men take a joke?

        • Rob

          Men ought to be our allies in the fight against patriarchy because the patriarchy hurts men too.
          ——-
          who wants to be allies with an idealogy that wants to commit hate and removal of men, and spouts out the patriarchy crap

          no doubt you should be out campaigning against MGM , DV against disabled men( since feminism keeps quiet about that but not about disabled women)

          as for your LOL can’t men take a joke

          do you see anywere in history where the idea of putting people in camps is just a joke?
          boers, jews, gays, lesbians, trade uninists, communists, muslims, ethinic minoritys.. and now the idea by bindel that it should be men
          and you think its a joke?
          Bindel has past form and yet can’t see her pattern for what it is typical hateful feminism.

          perhaps you would like write complaint to hilary clinton( self procalimed feminist) who let down the girls kidnapped by boko harem becasue she chose not to intevene despite advice to do so, not forgetting the boys mudered by boko harem for which the feminists kept very quiet( yeah, no patriarchy to blame for that right?)

          feminism is the only joke in town

        • Guestronomy

          The first step in recovery is for you to admit your hatred,

        • Mike Buchanan

          FF – ‘Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.’

          Thanks for the gift, once again. Cue Big Red, who memorably makes exactly the same laughable claim at the end of this short video, which has had 94,000+ hits on my party’s channel alone:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH_ZryBfCtU&lc=z12cyb5y0ovoslqos04ccjghvlipt53zlm40k

    • Lock up your daughters?

      Feminism IMO is about fairness and justice.
      Nothing more, nothing less. Well almost; we are IMO about 75% there. Due to biological constraints there will never be total equality.

      Keep calm and take your time.

      Hate is an ugly word. Let’s leave it for the extremists.

      • Lock up your daughters?

        “Feminist_Future”, Another word to the wise (or four, if I may)

        Your avatar is too ‘sexy’
        Is “Get Angry and Smash Patriarchy” too antagonistic and maybe gets you into fights you don’t need or want? -just a thought, no big deal.

        I even wonder if the term “Feminist” is outdated. In some quarters [MR mostly] it is claimed that it means “Female Primacy”. “Masculinist” is what the extreme Men’s Rights mob are about, so I prefer a term like “gender equality” to avoid any misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

        I mentioned “biological constraints”, this cuts both ways and at the moment there is female primacy when it comes to rights over children and custody. It is still predominantly a “man’s world” but I feel that as other attitudes move (hopefully) towards balance the female primacy in this area has to give a bit.

        Children IMO benefit from a secure environment, ideally with two parents. I am unimpressed with both sexes regular inability to achieve this and this is IMO a threat to the good health, or even the survival of western nations.

        I hope that you can agree with most (or at least some) of that.

        • Mez

          Family – ie divorce law was changed in the UK last year after a long consultation process lasting several years, because of concerns raised by men. If women were in total control how could that even be possible?

    • VacantPossession

      Writing in bold typeface says (to me) the writer thinks their posts are so important they need to draw readers attention to their posts first.

      I disagree; It is the content that matters. Writing like everyone else is the first step for bold writers to receive equal treatment like everyone else.

    • Guestronomy

      Nazis hate the international banking conspiracy, not Jews,
      Your statement is just the same form of genocidal dehumanization,
      You lost all credibility when you identified as part of a hate group.

    • Gibble Tronic

      I don’t think that the word patriarchy means what you think it does. I believe that the correct word that you are looking for is “Illuminati.”

  • Feminist_Future

    Ms. Brown

    Please read this post by “The_greyhound”.

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/david-keighley-why-did-yentob-not-see-kids-company-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/#comment-2184855093

    It exposes the illusion that anti-Feminist men have women’s best interests at heart. And there are dozens of other posts like it on this site.

    If you ever succeeded in defeating Feminism, men like “The_greyhound” and attitudes like his would again hold sway.

    Do you think you, your sisters, your daughters, your mothers, would genuinely be regarded with dignity and respect and equality if men like him were in control?

    Do you see now why Feminism is so important? #YesAllWomen

    • Lock up your daughters?

      You will not get through to Belinda.

      I can’t work her out. I’m guessing that Belinda’s hatred of feminists is religiously based …..so reasoning with her & using logic will not work.

      • Mike Buchanan

        I’m guessing that Belinda’s hatred of feminists is based not on religion, but on reason and logic, so your shaming tactics won’t work. Feminism has always relied not on reason and logic, but on conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions and myths. They’ve all been forensically analysed and discredited over decades. William Collins’s blog http://mra-uk.co.uk is a good place to start.

        Do you still not get it? Feminism is firmly on its way towards the dustbin of history, and taxpayer-leeching Gender Studies ‘academics’ and other professional feminists with it. Few women claim to be feminists today, because they know the term is synonymous with hatred of half the humans on the planet. Only the speed of your evil ideology’s annihilation is a matter for debate now. Good riddance.

        • JCM

          Not that you’re biased of course..

          “Feminism has always relied not on reason and logic, but on conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions and myths.”

          What a joke … I suppose W Collins is giving us an insight into the head up his ass

        • Lock up your daughters?

          Mike,Your response is a bit extreme IMO.
          First off, my “guess” that Belinda’s hatred of feminists is based not on religion is rather more than a guess. It is logical ….this is a Conservative Christian site using Conservative Christian writers and volunteers. That is their right but it is a relevant observation that religion is the primacy of faith over logic. That is what “faith” is. Otherwise it WOULDN’T be faith, it would be… fact and logic…. surely?

          In my discussion with the feisty “Feminist_Future” below I point out that the term “Feminist” is outdated. In some quarters [MR mostly] it is claimed that it means “Female Primacy”. This is NOT what feminist mans to most but as I point out on analysis of the words in isolation “feminist” would be just as skewed as “masculinist”?

          I prefer the term “gender equality”, or do you have a problem with that?

          Unfortunately a good deal of Men’s Rights movement is “extreme masculinist” and quite biased or hateful.
          This is regrettable because “MR” have some fair points on child custody etc. etc.

          Thanks for your link to the William Collins’s blog LOL
          There is nothing “extreme masculinist” about it I hope?

          • Mike Buchanan

            Thank you. The whole idea of ‘masculism’ as a male equivalent of feminism is a feminist projection. There is not an MRA of the slightest consequence in the world who self-identifies as such, to the best of my knowledge. Feminism has grown naturally out of gynocentrism, there is no androcentrism in the developed world – at least in the UK – from which ‘masculism’ might grow.

            I’m not interested in what feminism ‘means to most’, but what it demonstrably is, and has been for a long time. For the past 30+ yeas the only form of feminism of any consequence has been radical feminism, a female supremacy movement driven by misandry. It really is as simple as that. And if you doubt that, I refer you to our 80-page-long election manifesto, which demonstrates the point in 20 areas.

            William Collins’s blog is very impressive.

          • Mez

            Feminism has more likely grown out of mysogyny (Encyclopedia on line)# this is quite a length and informative decription about worldwide male prejudice towards women. Excerpt

            >>As a sexual dogma or prejudice, misogyny appears to be virtually universal. Oddly, this gratuitous sex hostility was largely unreciprocated by institutionalized male-hatred among women until recent fulminations of a few radical feminists. For example, there is no word in English to describe female revulsion about men—no lexical obverse of misogyny. Misanthropy, which would be the semantic equivalent, simply means a dislike of humanity, not of males specifically. The one-sidedness of this prejudice is no less salient in preliterate cultures, and this fact in itself poses many questions about why so many men think so negatively about women in so many places. It also raises questions about the underlying ambivalence of male sexual desire, which seems so wedded to shame and guilt and thus with the need to scapegoat women. There seems to be something about being a human male that produces a conundrum in relating to women (as in the complaint, “can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em”). Misogyny then, is a frequent component of male psychology and of subsequent cultural representations, what might be called a male gender neurosis.<<

            http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Misogyny.aspx

            Misandry was used by the Spectator in an article and the word is changing it's meaning.

            There's a male psychologist (who works with men), who has a theory that mysogeny arises following the emotional transfer of bonding from mother to father, when the mother hasn't loved her son enough, and that this sense of loss is carried into adulthood. There's also the possible the sense of guilt, that in impregnating women in bygone era's, there was a high probability it would kill them, and also with the issue of venereal disease, which used to be a killer.

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Right Mike, so Feminism/gender-equality exist but are an “evil ideology”?
            But “masculism” is of no significance and is a “feminist projection”

            I don’t care if “There is not an MRA of the slightest consequence in the world who self-identifies as such” [masculinist]. Because that is what they are (at the very least) unless you have a better definition of the word (see end)

            As a man I can confirm from experience most of the extract below which “Mez” quotes on the subject http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Misogyny.aspx

            However I would observe regarding “the underlying ambivalence of male sexual desire, which seems so wedded to shame and guilt and thus with the need to scapegoat women”. The scapegoating of women is real and the “shame and guilt” are purely the cultural throwbacks to the Abrahamic religions and that ‘Forbiden Fruit’ LOL. Shame and guilt are only of logical relevance if there is deceit or consequences detrimental to welbeing.

            The explanations for endemic misogyny below by Mez’s “male psychologist (who works with men)” are possible but IMO rather flimsy.
            I think the explanation is far simpler. Bullying (of one sort or another) is a widespread trait of humanity because picking on the smaller/weaker/unprotected individuals around tends to be a successful strategy. Endemic misogyny (or at least an ambivalence to womankind) is a consequence and downside of sexual dimorphism (with women generally being more vulnerable).

            Bullying (by whichever sex BTW) is especially easy for those who fall into gangs/groups.

            You sound like a reasonable guy, Mike: “Do you still not get it? Feminism is firmly on its way towards the dustbin of history, …… Few women claim to be feminists today, because they know the term is synonymous with hatred of half the humans on the planet. Only the speed of your evil ideology’s annihilation is a matter for debate now. Good riddance”. If only you had thrown in a few more logical facilities you might have convinced me 🙂

    • CortexUK

      Hi Kate! You still sockpuppeting?

  • Secret Squirrel

    Article by a male US professor about the insecurity/immaturity of young American men, and how widely it’s influencing American life.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/the-insecure-american-mal_b_7688270.html

    You would expect comments to consist of people who are outraged, there are also – usually several highly vocular individuals trying to refocus people on

    a) male rape figures are the main issue, (as in female rape figures are all bogus). 1 in 33 men in the US are raped, 1 in 5 women mostly in their first year at a Uni Campus, (according to the recent Brown study). Sexual violence is a major issue, no matter who the victims are.

    b) the mis-reporting of rape is the main concern, and not actual rape. While the US system is not as harsh as the UK, the UK figures for misreporting are tiny compared with prosecutions, most crimes go unreported anyway.

    The last two points seem to be conditioning society to redirect/accept rape and violence, which is what a rape ‘culture’ actually is ? Putting the onus on women to avoid situations, basically condones the habits of perpetrators. ‘Masculinity’ does not excuse men to become violent, plenty of men are very masculine and don’t need to dominate or attack others to massage their ego.

    I must add at this point, that I don’t think ‘all men are rapists’ and I do like men. I have several male friends, (and in fact I’m still in touch, very occasional pen pal, with one of my first boyfriends of 40 years ago); what I do think is that ignoring or minimalising this, is endorsing and perpetuating a major crime, which is totally unacceptable in any civilised society.

    • FriendlyFire

      …”1 in 5 women [are raped in the US] mostly in their first year at a Uni Campus, (according to the recent Brown study)”

      If this were true it would mean that more than 10% of the entire US female population are raped in their first year at university. More than 10% of the total, including the ones who don’t even go to university! Thus perhaps 30% of those who do go to university. Does anyone seriously believe this?

      Hmmm, I wonder if that Brown study might possibly be fatally flawed by – oh, I don’t know – selective sampling, loaded questions, absurd definitions, etc…

      • Secret Squirrel

        or maybe beause this issue only developed recently, maybe not as many in the US are affected as you think – although then again, maybe they are – and you choose to ignore it?
        .BTW, the Brown study focus was on Uni with a focus on a specific Uni as an example – how did you manage to extrapolate that into the rest of the female population who didnt go to Uni? -= looks like a diversion tactic to me

        • FriendlyFire

          The incidence of rape – just like the incidence of murder and other violent crime – has been going down in western societies for years. Look up Steven Pinker and The Better Angels of Our Nature if you want all the evidence of this. It’s not getting worse, it’s getting better. There is no “rape culture” – virtually nobody thinks rape is acceptable and it is not culturally condoned by men or by women.

          As for the extrapolation, it’s a subtle point so I’ll elaborate. if 1 in 5 women are raped, and that happens “mostly” in their first at uni, that means at least half of those rapes are committed against women in their first year at uni. That’s the clear logic of what you said. So, given that most women don’t go to university, the rate of rape amongst those women that do (which, remember, is making up “most” of the 1 in 5 total), must be astronomical. Which of course it is not.

          But, even if we allow for you having accidentally misrepresented the data, you’re still suggesting that at least 1 in 10 females are raped in their first year. How utterly and obviously ridiculous.

          Please bear in mind that such studies, including ones on “sexual assault” by the NUS in this country, are highly selective (the NUS study was online, so people unaffected by the issues were far, far less likely to bother to complete all the questions, obviously) and the definitions are usually spurious (e.g. “have you ever had sex when you were drunk and then wished you hadn’t?” gets counted as rape – really, I’m not kidding).

          Here’s a 4min44sec video by an intelligent American feminist where she explains how this all works
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKgrYVtYSCk

  • SkypeColorado

    “Our current culture of misandry corrodes any vestiges of love and respect in which men once held women, it breeds mistrust and contempt and ultimately encourages exactly the type of behaviour which it claims it wants to stamp out.”

    This is funny! The well has already been poisoned by you “ladies”, men loathe you now without apology. Drink deep of the bitterness and enjoy!

    • Lock up your daughters?

      But Belinda is doing her best to please.
      How could you laugh at her?

      • Secret Squirrel

        easy – because he’s a woman hater

    • Secret Squirrel

      you could say the same thing about mysandry (which is a lot more wide spread and evident). Old adage two wrongs don’t make a right.

  • Barry Sheridan

    An excellent summary Belinda. As I reflect on this incident it causes me to wonder what on earth someone who entered a profession in which the ability to think logically is requisite believes they are doing by issuing forth a stream of obscene claims. Let us be real here, a gentle comment was made, and gentle it was, irrespective of whether or not it was right to do so, yet from the ranting of Ms Proudman you would think the guy was advocating rape or even murder. Ridiculous is not the right word for this.

    • Paul Jackson

      Proudman was equating this harmless compliment with violence against women. The only word for such an assertion is ‘insane’.

    • Rob

      i listen/watched the interview with proudman on the news( she only spoke by phone) and when her couterpart( a barrister) stated that her over reaction was absurd and unprofessional and out of proporation, she just countered with “you are part of the sexist problem”. Despite having taken the bar, she can’t argue?

      … and yet we have at the topof these comments the same attitude with “lock up your daugthers” who has stated

      “and overtly misogynistic attitudes in the MR movement”

      you then wonder why these feminist just don’t get it.

      if your counter arguement is to accuse someome of being sexist or overtly misogynistic, then you are being hypocritcal.

  • corinium

    A female friend of mine who works in a government job told me a story the other day – a male work colleague came into work one day, and there were 3 or 4 woman standing around nattering. He said ‘Hello ladies!’ cheerily to them. Next thing he knew a supervisor was calling him in to her (surprise surprise) office, where she informed him that he should not say ‘Ladies’ he should say ‘Colleagues’ instead as if a man was present he could be offended.

    This is how men are treated now in the work environment.

    • Paul Jackson

      Especially in the public sector I expect.

    • CortexUK

      Similarly, I was once hauled over the coals by my HR manager for saying “I like [x] as much as the next man.” Apparently I should have used “person”.

  • Lock up your daughters?

    Belinda, this is quite remarkable. At the time of writing, your article appears to have been rated at 5 stars by all 31 who have voted.

    I could only give it a 3 myself because it is all too predictably one sided but I can’t bring myself to blemish your perfect score. No big deal but I after a moments thought I just don’t want to.

    What is yet more remarkable is that you have largely been spared the anger of the more extreme haters in the “Men’s Rights” movement.

    There is a little derision from the likes of “SkypeColorado”, but I think that’s all.

    It is like treading on eggshells but you at ConWoman have learnt well from your ill fated attempts to court this community in the past:

    Belinda Brown: A century of feminism has failed us. Women have betrayed men’s trust
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/belinda-brown-a-century-of-feminism-has-failed-us-women-have-betrayed-mens-trust/

    Kathy Gyngell: Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-men-should-stand-up-to-feminists-not-turn-their-backs-on-womankind/

    Both those articles provoked an angry reaction from the MR community and some of those comments are simply cringe worthy. You must be congratulated for honing your current piece not to cause any offence in the “Men’s Rights” community. I do however think it rather odd that the comments on those threads did not highlight that there may be issues and overtly misogynistic attitudes in the MR movement which would benefit from being confronted rather than pandered to.

    • Barry Sheridan

      Belinda’s articles, as with those penned by Kathy, Laura and others here provides a counter to the routine diatribe put out by feminist bigots of all shades, and let us be clear, every facet of feminist creed represents a bigoted outlook to one degree or another. That some men have finally tired of the twisted logic that lies behind this endless campaign is no great surprise, I am only amazed it has taken so long. It is has been a huge relief to find that there are still women who are not wholly consumed with blaming men for everything that is wrong in their lives which is why this is such a popular blog. If, as is apparent you cannot find it within yourself to recognise the justifications that prompt some of these male responses, that is of course your privilege, I would recommend you reconsider your policy of visiting this site because this irritation with feminist bigotry is only going to grow.

      • Secret Squirrel

        “let us be clear, every facet of feminist creed represents a bigoted outlook to one degree or another”

        what – like rape, FGM, domestic violence, mysandry in the media? no wonder there is a feminsist movement, that’s all I can say.

        • Barry Sheridan

          Rape is not a feminist issue, it is in essence a crime of violence and as such contaminates us all. Domestic violence involves both men and women in patterns of behaviours that range from mental cruelty to violence, it is another problem that is far from being owned by feminists given that around half of all perpetrators or initiators of the incidents are women. As for FGM, this is essentially cultural and little known in the European world apart from recent immigrants who remain backward in how they behave. Again given the ramifications it is not really a feminist issue, but is instead contrary to our way of life and needs to be dealt with as such. Misandry, or hatred of men, is primarily related to the behaviour and demands of feminism, so not I am not certain why you list it here.

          • Secret Squirrel

            Misandry is actually hate of people ,,, although I confused the situation by adding it, it should have read mysogeny. All the others above are feminist issues, since women are the vast majority who are abused in those situations. The fact that it is already illegal doesn’t mean there should be no campaiging against it!, there are women who object to having to alter their lives to accommodate the ‘risk’ of being raped, when there’s no teaching against rape in schools. The UN for example has engaged Emma Watson with exactly those issues in mind. Equal pay for equal work has been a feminist issue for decades, and is also part of the UN’s, Human Rights agenda. Feminists are also keen that women should have access to work, and not be dened access in small business purely because thet they are potentially ‘walking baby makers’.

          • Barry Sheridan

            Unfortunately for you the Oxford English Dictionary says misandry is hatred of men.

            While I understand your point of view, the truth is that rape is first and foremost a crime of violence, for both men and women, and yes men are raped. This means it is a criminal activity and not an exclusive issue just for feminists, you are failing to see the whole picture, although that is normal for feminists who are limited due to the institutional foundations of their creed.

            As I sought to highlight, both men and women contribute to the abuse that we heap on each other from time to time. Should you feel that women do not contribute in spades then you need a little more experience of life.

            While I am sympathetic to the point that a women needs to be careful about where and when they go in case of assault, the same applies in other situations where people of one colour or sort might need to avoid entering an area known to be hostile. It is just a fact of life. As it stands violent behaviour targets young men more than women, although as you might respond, a women is at a disadvantage physically. Quite true.

            I see no need to single out rape for UN attention, what is needed is more in the way of mutual respect, regrettably feminism cannot come to terms with its own abysmal attitudes in this respect. Attitudes that are only making matters worse.

            As far as I know there are few barriers to women working, although your contemptuous dismissal of those keen to have children says much about what you are. Do any of you feminists have any regard for anyone apart from yourselves?

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Barry, Thank you for a reasonably well balanced comment but I think in your last paragraph you mis-represent “Secret Squirrel” ….She(?) may well be a mother/parent.

            I can confirm the point that I think Secret Squirrel was making ……..it is a risk for a small business to employ a [younger] woman “because they are potentially walking baby makers”. Employ a man and there will be less risk of cost and disruption ……or pay the woman less!!!!

            Perhaps you think that this is OK or perhaps you think (as I do) that there is a good case for the state to indemnify small business because the economy needs them to survive and grow.

    • Secret Squirrel

      “I do however think it rather odd that the comments on those threads did not highlight that there may be issues and overtly misogynistic attitudes in the MR movement which would benefit from being confronted rather than pandered to.”

      I agree with this comment, it gves the impression that CW is more interested in ‘clicks’ than womens issues

  • Rob

    “It is because by publishing a private email exchange she has acted, in
    the eyes of other lawyers, in a highly unprofessional way.”

    its the act of a breach of confidentality, the disclosure, the inability to practice emotional dettachment from the issue. all of these are required by practicising lawyers in their professional lives( and yes linked in was professional as proudman likes to claim).

    the SRI and the law society do expect their members to uphold good professional counduct and proudman will find she has demonstrated misconduct, just as lawyers are also expected to uphold the law( for example if you break the law or a court order you can find yourself suspended from practice because your integrity has been breached as in the case of proudman).

    lack of instructions for proudman won’t be a big deal becasue she is moving away from practice into sociology towards legal counsel etc- she does not have the ability to be a good human rights lawyer as demostrated by her behaviour here ( and in the courts where she has has clashed with others including judges- although she blames them)

  • Ken Michael

    The inference of Ms Feminist Future’s comment “When Hillary becomes President it will be a victory for all women. It will be a victory for feminism” is that Hilary Clinton is a paradigm of feminism to behold.

    Am I therefore to understand that a tier-one government officer who has endeavoured to keep herself beyond scrutiny by conducting her official business on her own private independent non-compliant comms system, fully insulated from scrutiny under any Freedom of Information Act search (compliance has been mandatory under the FOIA since 2009) is to be regarded as a champion by the feminazi? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised…

    God help us.

    .

  • Konnur Harteet

    Great article.
    This “vulnerable” poppet is merely shaking down the totem pole(dare I say that?) of male privilege in the hope of a good career soon….with the smell of burning martyr left behind.
    If she`s not the “poster person” for the Guardian/Indie/BBC for all things sexist…imagined or real..very soon, then my names not Vicky Pryce or Chris Huhne.
    She sent her LinkedIn spat to the Fabian Society and to some “Everyday Sexism” pal of hers…so it`s not as if she was not deliberately setting out to create a stink.
    A shocker of a story…and all too typical of the current climate of non-stories and agitprop.
    She`s on Channel 4 next, and doubtless she`ll see no hypocrisy in her OWN leering at stock photos of blokes…as if THAT is not “objectifying” others!
    How great to be a self-certain Lefty on a mission.

  • thesteelguy

    Thank you for your observations Ms. Brown.

  • Groan

    In re reading this I have say it is a concise gem. I note that even the “outed” middle aged sexist actually prefaced his comment with an understanding it wasn’t PC. So men are indeed aware and changing to meet demands. And as you say it looks like the demands are in fact limitless and actually literally insatiable because they are often directly contradictory.