Victoria Bateman, a self-declared feminist, recently wrote a piece where she rediscovered the advantages of marriage for women. But predictably her explanation for the reason that women don’t get married has nothing to do with feminists; it is of course the fault of men of the working class.

Laura Perrins has already criticised Bateman’s thesis. As Laura points out, it is women themselves who are to blame for devaluing sex.

Another of Bateman’s most fundamental misunderstandings is that men can be tied into a traditional style of marriage simply in exchange for sex. Men have always been able to find sources of sexual satisfaction without being married. As Geoff Dench explains in his book Transforming Men, they need a little something extra to keep them on board. They have to feel that women actually need them, that men have a responsibility for supporting women  and for this they receive social status conferring a sense of importance. This is the source of ‘patriarchy’. Sex on its own was not sufficient reward.

Bateman describes marriage, which as any good feminist knows, is inherently patriarchal, as a “commitment device”. This is accurate. Where she slips up again is to believe it is held together by society.

We all know there is no such thing as society. Mrs Thatcher told us so.

This commitment device, patriarchal marriage, was held in place, not by society, but  by women. A device which keeps men monogamous, supporting individual women and children, was not – even with sex thrown in –  hugely appealing, to freedom loving, independent men. Patriarchal marriage used to be held in place by social conventions and pressures established by grandmothers, aunties and  wives. These are exactly the sorts of conventions which feminists have been busy undoing. Their purpose was  to maximise the usefulness, the potential of men.

Dr Bateman forgets this and creates a convoluted story about how this “commitment device” – marriage – fell apart.

Initially her story is fairly plausible. Sex becomes decoupled from marriage partly because of birth control. Pregnancy no longer leaves women so vulnerable, as the welfare state and female employment mean that women can if necessary look after themselves and their children. They are therefore no longer as reliant on ‘others’, by which we should read men.  And for reasons, which she conspicuously fails to go into,  fathers are no longer necessarily financially able to step up to the mark.

Her story then starts to fall apart. As a result of this decoupling of sex and marriage, men become feckless, they don’t bother to support families. After all they only did this in order to get sex and now they can get sex for free. Less well-off women underestimate the costs of pregnancy and, as they no longer have men to support them,they are a whole lot worse off.  This, she indicates, needs to be sorted out by feminism. But beyond appearing to suggest that working class women only need to keep their legs closed until they get married, she doesn’t tell us how feminism is going to help these problems to be solved.

To suggest that feminism can sort out these problems is  a bit like an insurance salesman, throwing a brick through your window on Monday, then coming to you on Tuesday to sell you his wares.

Bateman  disingenuously explains that: “Numerous hypotheses abound to explain the declining popularity of marriage and the rise of unmarried parenthood”. Dr Bateman: thank you, we don’t need numerous hypotheses. There is a very simple explanation why sex became decoupled from marriage, why men were pushed out of families, and why men were no longer able to provide support. It was feminism,  and it appears that you need to be reminded of how feminists set out to destroy marriage, to rip men out of families, to render men impotent, to set men and women apart. Where is the evidence?

Perhaps we should choose from the feminist bible “The Female Eunuch”

“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed slavery of the wife…Within the family he is the bourgeois  and his wife represents the proletariat”

Or maybe you prefer Kate Millet in her mad, consciousness- raising heyday:

“Why are we here today?”

“To make revolution,”

“What kind of revolution?”
“The Cultural Revolution,”

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”

“By destroying the American family!”

“How do we destroy the family?”

“By destroying the American Patriarch,”

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?”

“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!”

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!”

For feminists not only is marriage bad, but they want to have the father systematically removed. For example, here is Polly Toynbee writing for The Observer:

“Women and children will suffer needlessly until the State faces up to the reality of its own inability to do anything about the revolution in national morals. What it can do is shape a society that makes a place for women and children as family units, self-sufficient and independent.” ‘The worm-turned syndrome’, in The Observer,  17 October 1989

Anna Coote said similar things in The Guardian. And Germaine Greer, the feminist high priestess, said similar things around the same time:

“The State having taken over the duties of children towards their parents….it had better finish the job and take over the duties of the father towards the child”, The independent Magazine, 25 May 1991.

This kind of thinking has been implemented into policy which has created a tax system which  has ensured that lower income families are better off living apart. The Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2010, calculated that 95 per cent of single people would incur a “couple penalty” if they married or started living together  as couples. 89 per cent of existing couples  with children presently incur a couple penalty averaging £109 per week. A recent pamphlet shows how much better of a family is when its members separate. It explains that if the family stays together the main provider (usually the father) is caught in a tax trap and does not escape it until his salary reaches £38,000. If he chooses to live apart from his family he could escape the tax trap at about £16,000 while the mother could access state benefits as a lone parent with children.

This makes it difficult for working class men to participate in family life even before the other disadvantages are factored in.  For example boys are discriminated against in the education system,  they are much less likely to go to university or even get A levels or GCSEs. When it comes to apprenticeships even these are more likely to go to women than to men.

These problems  do not affect the men who Bateman and her peers marry. Their privileges will enable them to make it through the education system. But it does affect the men at the bottom of the pyramid where males have much higher rates of long term youth unemployment,  and where those not in employment, education or training, are to be found. These men would love to be married, they would love to be able to look after their children, but they have been neglected by a system which has so focused on the absence of women at the top of the hierarchy, that they have nothing to offer in return.

If Dr Bateman wants to help her less advantaged sisters she needs to start by dismantling  the force which has been so destructive of marriage and family – feminism – and start thinking about ways of empowering and enabling working class men.  Only when working class men have education, skills and employment  will they be able to make a real financial contribution towards their families. This  in turn will help to re-create much needed new interdependencies between less well-off women and men.


  1. Just look at the Black community in the states. Welfare destroyed the black family unit. Do you think black women are happy with the outcome?

    Of course #BLM, its all the cops fault…

  2. Here is a graph of marriage rates in the UK over the last 80 years or so.

    You can see that up until 1972 about 350,000 to 400,000 marriages were taking place. That means just about every woman in the country was getting married at that time. After 1972 we see a dramatic change in the trend with a gradual decline from that point to the present day with now just over 50% of all women getting married. The message is clear. something happened just before 1972 that set off a trend where marriage gradually became less and less popular.

    The divorce reform act came into being in 1971. It meant people could get a divorce if they had been separated for two years. Fundamentally this rendered a marriage certificate worthless. It meant marriage would last only until one party to the marriage decide they wanted to end the marriage – then a divorce would happen. After this act became law, marriage became less popular. What you are seeing in the marriage trend after 1971 is the children of broken marriages realising through direct experience that modern marriage is a farce and not bothering with it.

    The MSM is still promoting the idea that the divorce reform act enabled people to escape from unhappy marriages. Indeed you can see that in 1972 there is a sudden uptick in the number of divorces. But only 10% of people got divorced at that time (the entire latent supply of unhappy marriages from the previous 20 years or more) – and they got divorced immediately which means they were not stuck in unhappy marriages – they had actually already left and were living separately, but not divorced.

    The fact is that the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 didn’t save anybody from an unhappy marriage. It merely rendered marriage a worthless concept so as people realised this by seeing what divorce meant for their parents, they stopped indulging in it. Shame, because before 1972 it was really very popular and most kids could look forward to growing up in a stable and secure family unit.

  3. Slightly OT but picking up from an important point made in the article:

    “Men … have to feel that women actually need them … & for this they receive social status conferring a sense of importance.”

    It is this view of the relation between men & women that (putting aside the theological arguments) has made me oppose women’s ordination from the start. Without men as anything more than sperm donors, we slip into a matriarchal society where the family is the mother-child unit. If we further strip out unique non-biological male roles men will – as we have seen – abandon their commitment to institutions such as the family which give them function & place.

    In the Church context, it’s sometimes pointed out that unlike Islam Christianity is a very female religion. It emphasises ‘feminine’ values of kindness, compassion & peace, not war, honour & harsh patriarchy. Because the Christian religion does not offer extreme male values, men have to be bound into it in other ways. That’s the importance of a male clergy – in my view they inject a dose of masculine energy into Christianity. Female clergy by contrast are natural pastors – so when the priesthood is opened to them it will, as we’ve seen, very quickly become a female profession.

    The results are twofold: men will no longer be attracted to the clergy, one of the few remaining roles that were exclusively theirs; & men will desert the churches as they become more & more the sole province of women. Then, without male investment, they will die.

    • I agree with the bulk of what you say however, to be fair, men were deserting the churches long before women priests became a thing.

      • Indeed, so the last thing that was needed was women priests! What do men find in an average church now? An elderly congregation of more women than men, led by a woman. No wonder that some young native men, looking for a place & the strong boundaries that religion provides, turn to male-dominated Islam instead. Here they’ll get patriarchy in spades.

          • Yes, & doesn’t that indicate something? Nevertheless, the Evans usually dispense with ritual & liturgy &, like the Pents, often fall into the entertainment trap.

        • Um, they could just try Catholicism? Seems a bit of a leap to avoid female clergy by going Islamic.

          I think the problem with the CofE and Catholicism is that they are hopelessly out-of-date and weighed down by their medieval history. The pentecostalists are growing like crazy but it’s so much more exciting. Of course, when the war between Islam and Christianity in the UK kicks off it is likely to be the American Evanglelical churches leading the charge because the wishy-washy CofE is having a big love in with the Muzzies for some curious reason.

      • Actually to AKM and Damaris – in 1989 just before women were being ordained church numbers were going up – I found out in an article in New Society which I had cut out – so I think they started declining just after. With the introduction of women priests I think the priesthood has become more of a job or career rather than vocation or calling and I think men are less likely to enter it as a result. Your own argument has been made very cogently by Geoff Dench in Transforming Men – you really should read it and I am not just saying that coz he’s my husband.

    • That is a very significant insight.

      It had occurred to me before that all the most devout Christians I had ever known tended to be women, and tended to be older too. I don’t think that is only a consequence of declining church attendance, I suspect this has always been the case. The most devout Muslims on the other hand I noticed, are usually male, and usually younger.

      It left me to ponder the deeper differences between two religions that appeal more to older women and younger men respectively. Many atheists, whom in the West tend to be Christian atheists (much as they would deny it), still think of Islam as simply Christianity with a different book cover.

      • PS: In ‘Perelandra’, sometimes called ‘Voyage to Venus’, C S Lewis explores the ‘ontological’ masculine & feminine represented by the two great angels, Venus & Mars, of which the biological masculine & feminine are simply their lowest manifestations.

        • Thank you, I’ve been meaning to find time for Lewis. Other than a very insightful excerpt on ‘chronological snobbery’ from Surprised by Joy I’ve not read any.

  4. We have only been together for 55 years and just about getting used to it. The marriage thing has changed a lot in that time. It does not appear to be for the better for the younger generations. Far too much is now expected too early in a world that is more complex and demanding. You cannot have it all despite what the media and the government tell you.

  5. Patriarchal marriage used to be held in place by social conventions and pressures established by grandmothers, aunties and wives. ” Which is pretty much the central thesis of P G Wodehouse and all his characters fearsome ‘aunts’…

    • That might have been true for the upper middle classes (and is likely still true to some degree), but for the working class and the underclass I suspect it had more to do with the fact that marriage was a real legal commitment freely entered into and for most a divorce “on a whim” was not an option.

      What has happened since 1969 is divorce on a whim has become possible. 50% of divorces are instigated by people who subsequently regret their divorce. If you discouraged “divorce on a whim” then the divorce rate would drop right down to its historical level, because not only would you reduce the rate of failed first marriages, but re-marriage and subsequent divorce would come to an end.

      If the government wanted to reduce the number of single parent families, it could introduce a two-tier marriage system. The marriages on offer could be called Committed Marriage (you need to prove in a court of law that there is a good reason for the marriage to be dissolved) and Uncommitted Marriage (either party can simply walk out of the relationship and divorce after 2 years as of now).

      I have a feeling that Committed Marriage would turn out to be quite popular, just as it was when it was first thought of.

      • You are taking me far too seriously. But, funnily enough my general point stands in that all classes have ‘aunts’, even worse ‘great aunts’, and IMHO they brook no argument, whatever ‘class’ they come from.

        • My aunts would not hesitate to let me know what they thought of any low action on my part, even though they are all well past eighty, and I wouldn’t dare provoke them.

  6. “We all know there is no such thing as society. Mrs Thatcher told us so.”

    It is bad enough that liberals and Leftists quote her out of context, let alone conservatives. When read in its full context, what Mrs Thatcher said makes sense.

  7. We do have a need to care for our women, at least the correctly wired amongst us do. It would be disheartening to think my wife didn’t value the protection and care I offer, just as I massively value the care and support she gives me (she’s miles stronger than me really, but I’ll bear the weight)

  8. Some women seem to have lost all sense of respect for themselves not only in the sex department but in the drinking area as well, if they get mistreated they have no one else to blame than themselves.

    • I’d say they shouldn’t be surprised if they are mistreated but I don’t agree that they are responsible for any mistreatment they suffer. If in response to my wife’s constant nagging I thump her several times and leave her with a broken nose, several missing teeth, a fractured jaw and two big black eyes, I alone am responsible for my actions, not she. Her nagging may be a mitigating factor, it does not absolve me of responsibility.

          • I don’t know what’s more disgusting – “Grumpy”‘s misogynistic joke or your response.

            Both of you are glorifying violence against women. That is unacceptable.

            If you do not withdraw your posts, and apologize properly, within the next hour, I’ll report you to the Moderators.

          • Krazy_Kate thtamped her foot and wrote, in bold again:

            If you do not withdraw your posts, and apologize properly, within the next hour, I’ll report you to the Moderators.

            ” … and then I’ll thqueam and thqueam and thqueam and thqueam, and then I’ll be thick all over you, and then you’ll be thorry.”

          • A tip for your Toots:

            Years ago, when I was young, self-employed and having trouble obtaining payment from clients, my solicitor advised me against taking out summonses too often, and cautioned me never to threaten anyone with any action. Before that, I had learned that no one who threatens one with any sort of terrible retribution is terribly likely to follow through.

            What you won’t have got from that is 1) the courts, or the moderators, do not look favourably upon habitual litigants and 2) no one who is going to hit you warns you.

            I’m sure that has flown right over your tiny head.

          • Toots, not KitKat wrote:

            I have a degree from Oxford University.

            You’ve claimed that before, and we weren’t impressed then.

            A lot of us have degrees here, and many of us know that a degree from Oxford or Cambridge, if you actually have the same, proves only that you were able to blag your way in, not that you have a brain. There was a time when those who went there earned real cachet by being sent down or otherwise failing to take their degree. I’ve know a lot of dimwits who were alumni of both places, having scraped a pass in some mediocre subject. Grooovey Dave has a PPE 1st from Oxford, as does Liz Truss, and both are idiots.

            You have a tiny head because you’re a girl and nothing annoys a girl more than telling her not to worry her tiny head. That’s why you have a tiny head, Toots.

    • Please take your dated, unfunny Bernard Manning-esque humour back to the 1970s where it belongs.

      And while you’re at it, take your unreconstructed misogynistic comments as well.

        • I think that question is academic since I can’t imagine that any man would willingly have any sort of sex with Kate, unless she drugged and raped him.

          • 1. I’m not called Kate or any variation thereof. Why are you still calling me that?

            2. It’s legally impossible for a woman to rape according to UK law, which defines rape as penetration with a penis.

          • Very true. They can only be done for sexual assault or sexual assault by penetration.

            So much for equality eh?

          • 1) Not Kate nor ‘any variation thereof’? So not Kit, nor Kat, nor even KitKat then? You leave me no alternative, Toots.

            2) ‘Not legally possible’ and not actually or physically possible are not actually the same thing Toots.

            Don’t forget to thqueam and thtamp your foot, Toots.

  9. Belinda, there is no joy in recognising what you are saying is right. In setting out to destroy marriage, feminists and their male acolytes have created a social and economic disaster that cannot help but eventually consume us all as new generations turn on those who were disinterested in their well being. Foolish in not the word for this act.

  10. One of the arguments used against the suffragettes was that women are always irrational. And indeed some of them are bonkers, as this article demonstrates. But that’s just like men, really.The important thing is not to encourage these people by taking them seriously. Often, like Germaine Greer and Kate Millet, they’re only showing off.

    • Very wise Malcolm, very wise, and. if I may say so, indicative of a very superior mind. Ignoring attackers and thinking of them as ‘show offs’ is the most effective way of defeating them.

    • No, you’re wrong there.

      Women were denied the vote because men wanted to preserve the patriarchy for as long as possible.

      • Learn some history. Most women got the vote when most men got the vote.

        By the way, it was the Conservative Party that reduced the female voting age to be in line with the male voting age in 1928.

          • And some men were drafted during WWI but NO women were.

            That patriarchy thing turns out not to have been all bad after all….

          • Oh yeah, the Pankhursts were falling over themselves to sign up. There they were campaigning for women to be allowed to fight. Well known. Oh wait, no that didn’t happen. They were campaigning for the MEN to fight while they stayed cosy at home.

          • Please cite an historical source stating that no women were campaigning for the right to join the Armed Forces in 1914.

          • No I’m not. Go and read something about Occam’s Razor. Come back when you’ve understood it….in about a week.

          • Toots wrote:

            Please cite … >blah, blah deleted<

            How long have you been commenting here, Toots? And you haven’t learned yet.

          • From Hansard, for 1st January, 1915:

            ‘Will my Rt Hon friend, the Prime Minister, confirm that not one petition or letter was received in 1914 from a women demanding to serve in the muck and mud of Flanders?

            PN: ‘I can confirm that not one white feather giving, vote demanding, hag faced cow has sought the right to live and die in the lice ridden, rat infested mud of Flanders’

            There’s your source.

      • Krazy_Kate wrote:

        No, you’re wrong there.

        And thereby gave herself away. Whatever pseudonym she uses, Kate always replies to someone with ‘no, you’re wrong there’. Ironically it’s always actually she who is wrong when she uses the reply.

  11. It’s acceptable to never marry the mother of your children. Men like the freedom to drop the woman when she ages up, and they get all the wife perks, including children, with none of the paternal investment. Why would they?
    Social acceptability keeps people in line.

    • Yes indeed. Unfortunately traditional methods of maintaining social cohesion have effectively been prohibited where they haven’t actually been criminalised. Social disintegration has been the result, which most of us know was always the intention.

    • Well as I say below it would appear that young men have gained from the experience of their fathers that getting married and then finding your wife can divorce you on a whim, then take the home and the kids off you has put them off marrying. The “no fault” divorce made it to easy for women to take the spoils and too hard for men to keep theirs.

      Men obviously preferred it when being married to a woman meant she could only walk out on you if she had good reason, proven in a court of law. Now a woman can walk out on you because she’s bored/slept with the milkman/jealous of the attention her teenage daughter is getting from boys/thinks there are greener pastures elsewhere despite being 45 years old and well best her “best before”. 50% of them learn eventually but by then the damage is done.

      • Even if they met the perfect woman they wouldn’t commit. That’s their flaw. They are immature.
        No fault needs to be revoked.

  12. Feminism is not to blame for the fecklessness of today’s young men.

    The fault lies with a new toxic masculinity, promoted by internet pornography, the advertising industry, Hollywood blockbusters and video games, which is responsible for the wave of rape culture spreading across our university campuses.

    Boys are being taught – by men, it has to be said – that it is acceptable to objectify women and to use “banter” which is a euphemism for misogyny.

    Instead we should be teaching boys to treat women and girls with the respect we deserve.

    • Krazy_Kate wrote, all in bold:

      >risible misandrous tosh deleted<

      For 'treat women and girls with the respect we deserve' read put us on a pedestal and worship us.

      • No, respect isn’t the same as worship.

        It simply means being treated as a person, not as an object as today’s “lad’s mags” seem to do.

        • The first part of your reply is as disingenuous as everything else you contribute here, the last part ignores the truth that if women are treated as objects now, it is because women have objectified themselves so shouldn’t be surprised when that is how men treat them.

          If women kept their knickers on men may perhaps think of them as more than sex objects.

          • “because women have objectified themselves”

            Please explain, with concrete examples if possible. I suspect you’re slut-shaming again.

          • Another of my detailed replies rejected. I can’t be bothered to reply again, except to write that too much concrete in the diet causes constipation. I think you should leave concrete out of your diet, Toots.

          • Plenty of objectification on PornHub, Xvideos, YouPorn, Adultwork, Punterlink, and LiveJasmin.

            Still us guys should be grateful – none of that would have been possible before feminism. Feminism has opened up a veritable sweetie-shop of readily available women to eat-in or take-away and all at low, low prices.

          • Toots wrote:

            Does your wife know you’re writing filth on the internet?

            I show her what I write in reply to you, if she’s interested, and she roars with laughter – and she can roar.

            That aside, I note, as I’m sure do others, that you appear to have put an obscene connotation on my otherwise innocuous words, which suggests a dirty mind.

            I also note that you reply to these posts with an alacrity that is tantamount to indecent haste, and I recall that girls used to flirt as you do when I was eleven or thereabouts. I think you’re manless and gagging for it; I think you come here for the mantention and it arouses you; I think you fantasise about the men who mock you here and dream of serving us. Well you’ll have to try much much harder.

          • Of course she does. She’s given a shopping list of the kind of man she’s after in this thread. Obviously the big daisy she’s with at the moment doesn’t float her boat. Needs a real man, just like daddy was. Daddy always gave her what she wanted and always said she was right.

          • As I recall, Theresa May is cracking down on internet pornography. Looks like it will be back to the magazines in the attic for you before too long.

    • Ah yes, the myth that we are living in some sort of internet porn fuelled “end-of-days” with rapists around every corner. Even in the US, home of porn, action movies and video games this isn’t remotely true as evidenced by this graph:-

      Maybe the boys are too busy playing games and masturbating to bother with women at all?

      • You can buy an awful lot of wrist action for the price of a night out with a modern gal, and use it again and again and again at no extra cost.

        • Thank you for this charming insight into your life.

          Tell me, is it by choice or can’t you find a real woman to date you?

          • My robust reply to this idiocy was deleted by the moderators / moderatresses. This is a more considered reply.

            Your attempt at disgusted condescension coupled with a cutting riposte is silly and infantile, although typical of you.

            I’ve given you no insights into my life, although you’ve given us many into yours.

            I haven’t ‘dated’* a woman for many years, largely because my dear and devoted wife comes over all insecure whenever she thinks I’m considering the possibility of doing so. She’s everything in a woman you are not, which is everything admirable and nothing risible, reprehensible or despicable. If she has a fault it is that she has low standards. I’ll explain the joke should you not understand it.

            Nice try, Toots, but not nice enough. Try again but try harder.

            * Were I to be as dutiful in my obligation to inform the less educated as I was brought up to be, I would point out that it is, or was, considered impolite for a man to ask a woman her age. I’ll explain the joke should you not understand it.

          • I don’t suppose your wife is a Feminist.

            Do me a favour. Buy her a copy of The Female Eunuch and tell me what she makes of it. It changed my life.

          • Toots wrote (she’s so retro):

            Buy her a copy of The Female Eunuch and tell me what she makes of it.

            1) Is that the same female eunuch who cannot accept a male eunuch who believes that ‘gender’ is a ‘social construct’ as female?

            2) My wife is not a eunuch, emotionally, intellectually, physically, economically, socially or academically.

            3) My wife buys her own books. The only books I buy for her are those I know she wishes to read. I do choose all her clothes however, and she seeks my advice on what to wear.

            4) I can tell you what she’d make of anything written by Germaine Greer; compost, after shredding it first, and adding some organic aids to decomposition.

            5) You have no life to change, as is suggested by your admission that the most significant thing to happen to you was reading an hysterical misandrous diatribe written by a serial misandress more than forty years ago.

            6) Get yourself a man, sweetie, and try hard to please him. You’ll be a lot happier.

          • 1) I admit that Dr. Greer has transgressed on this occasion, but I have no doubt that she will in time realise the folly of her ways and repent of her transphobic. However, her immortal contribution to the Feminist cause remains intact in my view.

            2) I already have a man – who, by the way, is a Feminist ally. My partner and I do our best to please each other. And we are very happy, thank you for asking.

            3) Please give one quote by Dr. Greer, if you can, which is in any way misandrous. Otherwise, I’ll conclude that you’re making up this accusation out of thin air.

          • Germaine Greer, the childless professor of English literature that hasn’t had a relationship since the 70s that purports to know all about men and relationships. You find her credible do you? Credible in the same way as David Icke is credible perhaps?

            Is the Female Eunuch the guy you mention keeping as a pet in (2) above?

          • I find someone who has a PhD from Cambridge University, and a retired University professor, a lot more credible than most people including yourself.

          • Yes she has a PhD in English Literature from reading Shakespeare (yes, yet another Marxist Feminist English teacher – what is it with English teachers becoming RadFems? Not enough female writers with any balls I guess). If you think that qualifies her to be considered an expert on men and relationships then perhaps you’d consider her a useful heart surgeon too.

            I’d say she was less interested in men or relationships, since she had neither, and was far more interested in Marxism and Anarchy. As are you.

          • Toots you’re a hoot.

            1) Her transphobic what?

            2) (re. 1) Books are inanimate so cannot be immortal. As some sort of dealer in English you really should know that.

            2a) re (2) Had you a man you wouldn’t be on-line as often as you are. You may have a neutered male, you don’t have a man.

            3) Give it up Toots! Demanding ‘concrete evidence’ is soooo charlatan’s last gasp, you know?

            4) (re 3) ‘Conclude’ whatever you will but, whatever you do, do please familiarise yourself with the language that pays you.

    • It’s just rubbish to say that we live in a rape culture. Almost everyone thinks that rape is evil and that rapists are despicable.

  13. There is a crisis in masculinity taking place today as younger men fail to adapt to the realities of Third Wave Feminism and “girl power” – and are falling behind their empowered, confident, successful female peers.

    Women are more intelligent than men, as the latest A-level results prove. That’s not to say men aren’t better in other areas. Men are still, on average, superior in upper body strength, although the strength gap is also closing as physical jobs decline and more and more women are working out (Ronda Rousey is a case in point, while Serena Williams is as powerful as most male tennis professionals – something unthinkable 30 years ago).

    But women are also more empathetic, better at understanding people, more conciliatory and less prone to act rashly. The same goes for the City and Wall Street as for politics.

    As Harriet Harman once said, if Lehman Brothers were Lehman Sisters, the current economic crisis might have been averted. The greed and recklessness of the bankers, who are mainly men, is as one female CEO put it, “typical male behaviour. A penis competition.”

    Look, I understand many men are failing to adjust to this new world order where their old dominance is fading fast, partly due to the Feminist movement but also due to the decline of manufacturing and mining which required typically male attributes.

    In many ways, I pity men for their increasing irrelevance in today’s world and the crisis in masculinity, which was articulated in Hannah Rosin’s book “The End of Men”. The increase in male suicide is a problem that society needs to confront.

    That’s why, as a Feminist, I believe women should work together with men and boys to re-invent masculinity for the 21st Century. The extinction of outmoded patriarchal attitudes is a must if men themselves are not going to become increasingly marginalized and useless in the modern world.

    • Typical GCSE options selected by my sons:

      1] Maths
      2] Physics
      3] Chemistry
      4] Computer Science
      5] English Language
      6] English Literature
      7] German
      8] Religious Studies
      9] Biology
      10] History
      11] Art
      12] Geography (human)

      My boys only wanted to do [1] to [4]. The rest of the subjects they considered required a lot of boring wiffly waffly essay writing, i.e. girl stuff. So even after they selected their OWN options they could only fill the time with 33% stuff that boys want to do.

      They were lucky. In a school with no computer science and combined science instead of triple science, they would have been looking at a curriculum that was over 80% boring, deadly deadly dull.

      Now if we lived in an age where English literature/German/RS/History/Art or Geography was a passport to individual or societal success than we’d be laughing – because we’d have lots of well-trained girls that could be packed off to do the work while the boys stayed home looking after the kids whilst watching day-time TV programmes on deep-sea fishing and ice-truckers.

      Sadly, it turns out we need people that can do math.

      • We need to encourage and incentivise more girls to study STEM subjects and more boys to study arts and humanities. This can be done from an early age.

        • Why? They are free to choose to do them if they wish, they choose not to. Girls are tired of listening to dreadful harridans like you telling what they must do anyway.

          Anyway, I bet you’re an English teacher. They’re always rabid socialist feminists. Everybody laughs at them because they are just so 70’s.

          • Do you mean to say that Toots isn’t Kate Day, the former journalist with The Daily Telegraph?

            You had to spoil my fun, didn’t you.

          • As far as I know she’s just some inconsequential teacher, probably bullied by her own pupils during English Literature lessons, who pretends to be all assertive to strangers on the net because she can’t manage it in real life. Maybe she’s called Kate Day but as far as I’m aware she’s never worked for the Telegraph.

            Anyway, I’ve got to take my son to cadets. Maybe I’ll be back to tease her later.

          • I hope your son’s cadets are fully inclusive and not riddled with cisgendered heteronormative patriarchal role models of how men behave.

    • Toots wrote:

      >yet another copy and paste job from her stash of kill ’em dead fembot condescension she’s used recently<
      It must take you longer to find that stuff on your hard drive than to write afresh each time.

    • It isn’t true to say that women are more intelligent than men. There are plenty of surveys that show that men greatly outnumber women among people with very high IQs.
      It may be a fact that girls are gaining more and better A-levels than boys but there are various reasons for this that have nothing to do with intelligence.
      These include things such as the use of greater internal assessment in modern courses as well as the lack of a strong male role model in the lives of many boys. Girls also mature more quickly than boys and, as such, are less affected by poorer discipline in schools.
      A-levels-like most other educational tests-are easier now than they were 20 to 30 years ago and, when courses and exams were a lot harder, it was boys who did better.

      • It’s mostly down to the way that A levels are graded. For instance, only a tiny proportion of students get an A in A level electronics, but in other courses it is very easy. You would expect the proportions to be the same but they are not.

        I presume the whole thing has been rigged to give the required outcomes, but it’s kind of irrelevant anyway. There is a great demand for people that specialise in STEM – not just from companies that need STEM but also from accountancy firms and banks and stockbrokers and so on, but girls are not so keen on these courses. The difference has increased over the years because the variety of A level courses available has widened dramatically. My son had a choice of 40 different A levels at his FE college.

    • “Women are more intelligent than men, as the latest A-leval results prove.” When I took my A-levels in 1975 boys did better than girls. Does this mean I am more intelligent than you?

    • ‘Women are more intelligent than men, as the latest A-level results prove.’

      As an A level examiner I was constantly reminded that questions should be ‘girl friendly’ – essays about environmentalism were better for girls than valency problems.
      The is little co-relation between intelligence and A level results. Plenty of MENSA members have poor A levels; plenty of dons fail the MENSA test.

  14. As more and more women start out-earning our partners, becoming the breadwinners, the old relationship dynamic is changing.

    No longer do millennial women need a high-earning, high-status man to provide for us. We are independent and quite capable of looking after ourselves, thankyou very much.

    No, today’s young women are able to take the initiative in choosing our men. We can be more demanding than our mothers and grandmothers.

    It’s not enough for our men to have a good job (though that is necessary). Or even a good personality. Physical attractiveness matters just as much to millennial women.

    We want our men to be taller than us in our highest heels – that means generally over 6ft. Fit (no scrawny men or dadbods, thank you). Well-groomed, good dress sense, good cook and willing to pull his weight when it comes to housework. And most importantly, good in bed.

    It’s clear that today’s young men have got the message, which is why men’s grooming and fashion industries are booming, as well as the fitness industry.

    You might call us superficial for focussing on men’s appearance. Well it’s only the same as men have been doing to us for all these years. Now men know what’s it’s like to worry about how you look all the time. The boot’s on the other foot.

    Better get used to it, boys 😉

          • So your statement “you aren’t out-earning anybody” was wrong, wasn’t it?

            As a matter of fact I out-earn most men, including my partner.

          • Let me guess, your husband was not at all bothered that you earned more than he and accepted and supported your decision to give up work to stay at home? Most men do. My wife earns a lot more than me (I earn nothing because I’ve been unable to find paid employment for more than five years and I’m not claiming benefits), and she’s the bread winner. Toots would love to believe that I sit at home and seethe with bitterness but I don’t.

            Most men don’t actually care who earns the most, we just care that enough is being earned, which is one of the reasons men work so much overtime.

            It’s frightening to think that something like Toots is free to indoctrinate your daughters, if indeed she is a teacher.

    • Toots wrote:

      >Yet another of her stock copy and paste posts<

      You posted this no more than a month ago, elsewhere on The Conservative Woman. You’ve got a little stash of modern assertive women porn on your PC, haven’t you Toots?

          • Have you been drinking, or are you high on cat’s p*ss or some other post menopausal stimulant?

            I’m not intimidated by anyone, you poor, sad smelly old cat lady you. I assume that you believe that we all live in a ‘rape culture’ and that no woman, not even a feminist, is safe?

            Assuming that you’ve nodded yes excitedly, tell me why it is I might fear a woman I can throw on her back and f***, after I’ve beaten her black and blue and broken several bones in her face?

            What will you have? One or the other? You can’t have both, whatever feminism says.

  15. An excellent article – thank you for writing it. This website really is great to find writers who have looked at the issues with reason and carefully thought about it. By contrast everything in the Guardian, Telegraph and especially New Statesman is depressingly predictable; just the same trendy feminism from people who don’t understand human nature.

    There’s little to add apart from one obvious point that often seems to be forgotten in the debate I think. For decades we have been told by feminists that marriage was an awful controlling and wicked thing that enslaved women. By leaving behind the loving husband and lifetime of devotion and embracing promiscuity when young and then desperation when older, the modern woman has been “liberated”. It’s obviously a cruel lie but many seem oblivious to it. I read an article in the Telegraph women’s section where the feminist writing it spoke of women in the 1950s having been “dragged” into the home and kitchen.

    The simple thought experiment is to ask why was it then and even continues today to be women that push for marriage. In a solid 95%+ of people I know it has been this way with men reluctant. Even in the past when a man couldn’t usually sleep with a woman until he had promised to spend his life devoted to her (thank God feminism saved women from that awful fate) it was still the case then if most literature is to be believed. So why is it that women want to join this terrible institution? The answer is that it wasn’t a terrible institution. It gave women security and love, far more important than the “right” to be promiscuous.

    Most women would, if given the choice, devote most of their lives to raising children. To be frank it has often surprised me how near universal this predisposition is, with very intelligent and driven women I met at university a decade later, if they can, very often giving up all work to raise their family and those that can’t being miserable. But it shouldn’t surprise us; there is nothing more important than raising children, it is certainly more important than a career. It’s a real cruelty to women that so many are robbed of that precious chance to spend years with their child.

    In the past a woman would devote herself and, yes, serve her husband. In return he would love her, provide for her and stay with her until the day he died. Today most women still serve a man; it is their boss at work. And they are far more likely to go home to a broken family. It is not a sign of progress, however much the feminists might insist it is. To think today so many women spend the bulk of their lives in a factory or call center, devoting their energy to making the boss man richer, doing whatever he says, accepting his demands. And yet the 1960s onward feminists shrieked that it was oppression for a man to return from a day of grueling physical work and hope to have dinner made.

    Thank you again for the article.

    • ” loving husband and lifetime of devotion ”

      ” In return he would love her, provide for her and stay with her until the day he died.”

      You have a touchingly rose-tinted view of 1950s marriage.

      Try telling that to the thousands of wives who were beaten, physically, emotionally and mentally abused by their husbands – and lacking the financial independence to escape from their marriage.

      • And you have a predictably inaccurate view of marriage. No, being beaten was not normal. Most husband and wives stayed together until the man died.

        I could use exactly the same rhetorical device you employ – what about those women today who are beaten and attacked in unmarried, casual relationships? That proves the problem is it being casual, therefore you support women being beaten. Do you see how silly you sound? Just picking extreme cases and trying to paint that as the general rule.

          • And yet it is women who in nearly all cases push for marriage. Alas, the world isn’t as simple as you might want it to be.

          • “And yet it is women who in nearly all cases push for marriage.”


            “Alas, the world isn’t as simple as you might want it to be.”

            No, you’re wrong there.

          • Oh dear, so the real world doesn’t conform to your extreme ideology so you can snap your fingers and change it. Honestly, you sound deluded.

          • Yeah babe, there’s no end of wedding magazines and wedding shops aimed at men. I mean Jeez, what planet are you on.

          • Toots wrote:

            >the usual insane nonsense<

            Try bringing up a baby without a husband and a bloated public sector to play that role in your life.

          • Many of my friends are single mums through no fault of their own. They were let down by their male partners.

            I dare you to tell them to their face that their parenting is inadequate without a man.

            The same goes for the lesbian couples I know who have children.

          • Let down by their male partners?

            Would that be the male partners they had sex with in the disabled toilets at the Kings Arms? I think you may be stretching the word “partner” there?

            Or maybe the “partner” that was told she was on the pill and had no intention of getting preggers?

            Or maybe the maybe the partner that didn’t know she had stuck a pin through the condom in his pocket?

            Or maybe it was just a guy that has been told his whole life that men are bad news for children and should stay out of their lives because kids are women’s property and that’s the way the law works?

            Or maybe it was a guy that found his partner refused him access just out of spite even though he had spent £100,000 in court fees to get access?

            Oh yeah, you like evidence don’t you? Prove to me these single mothers were abandoned. From what I’ve seen they either tried to entrap a man to be their husband and failed or they just wanted that baby all to themselves.

          • Toots wrote:

            Many of my friends are single mums through no fault of their own.

            I haven’t typed the following for a very long time and I haven’t laughed so hard at anything so absurd for as long. I make no apology for typing it now, as absurd as it may seem:


            ‘Through no fault of their own’?

            Their bodies, their choice? Didn’t feminists argue that? Aren’t feminists still arguing that?

            Were those women raped?

            If not, it was their fault they became pregnant, not that of the men who inseminated them (men who have no choice but to become fathers if the women they inseminated choose to make then fathers and no option but to grieve if the women they inseminated choose to deny them fatherhood.

            ‘No fault of their own’? They were just standing at the checkout one day and the next thing they knew, they were lying on their backs with their legs apart. Were they conceiving a baby or delivering one? We’ll never know because they weren’t responsible at the time.

            If a woman has control of her own body she is responsible for growing another within it, unless she has been raped.

            You are insane and I claim my free Silly Clobber.

          • Lesbians have a particularly high rate of relationship failure. Check the ONS statistics if you don’t believe me.

    • ” It’s a real cruelty to women that so many are robbed of that precious chance to spend years with their child.”

      Why is it so much more precious for a women to spend time at home with her child than it is for a man?

      If being a housewife is such a great job, why aren’t more men queuing up to become househusbands?

      • Mainly because women are better at it and more suited to it. Also women on the whole want to do it. I often think feminists need to re-take o-level biology – only women can have children. It creates a unique bond.

        Someone has to work and better it is the father who does, who risks his health, who devotes his time elsewhere and allows the mother to be happy and raise the child.

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

          We are your equals and want to be treated that way.

          • Your last sentence is where you are going wrong. Men and women are not equal, they are very different. Most people, including most women, like this fact, it’s part of the rich tapestry of life. Feminists forcing people to pretend away reality is the cause of much unhappiness.

            You’re probably correct in the first sentence but your triumphalism is misplaced. The sad thing is though that that attitude results in the women being unhappy when they find themselves aged 35 and unmarried. Ultimately you can’t re-educated human nature away, as they found in the Soviet Union. Men on the other hand are happier with the new situation and can simply enjoy themselves as every year there are more women growing up. Feminism has in that way made women replaceable, almost disposable. It’s a terrible thing to have done.

          • “Ultimately you can’t re-educated human nature away”

            Why not? We’ve done it before.

            100 years ago, most people believed a woman’s place was in the home.

            Now, thanks to Feminism, women’s equality is firmly entrenched, especially in the under-60s.

            Through a comprehensive educational and media programme, we can, must and will mould the beliefs of future generations in order to permanently extinguish reactionary hate-beliefs such as sexism, racism, misogyny and homophobia. This must become the social and legal duty of schools and parents.

            Already we are seeing the fruits of our labours in the fact that most people, especially the under-30s, are now overwhelmingly pro-gay marriage. Something that was unthinkable even 20 years ago. We have witnessed a sea-change in attitudes towards homosexuality.

          • Gosh what a strange rant. You sound very authoritarian, almost Stalinist. And no, human nature remains constant, behaviour and views change of course – look for example at the way the white man’s civilisation successfully ended slavery – but human nature remains. The history of the Soviet Union is something you should read although you might find it deeply uncomfortable.

            Thank you for at least admitting that you want to re-programme human nature to suit your ideology, most feminists try to hide how extreme they are. It is very telling that you think a man devoting his life to providing for the woman he loves is a “hate-belief”. I only hope for your sake you one day outgrow such nonsense.

            It’s also interesting that you say women’s equality is entrenched – that is to say something make-believe, that isn’t real, since men and women always have been and always will be unequal – much to the pleasure of both sides – is “entrenched. How bizarre. Time and again women behave as humans always have, they look for the man who will love and provide for them. It’s natural and emphatically hasn’t changed and won’t change. What has changed is that feminists poison the minds of young girls and rob them of their innocence and chance for love.

            Look at careers for example – after decades of feminism women simply weren’t interested in devoting their lives to business hence there were very few women on boards of successful companies and they have had to resort to threats of quotas. Women and men do best when they compliment each other, not try to compete. I think the tide is going against you now as more and more women are refusing to go along with the nonsense of feminism; the loudest opposition I have heard against the plan to force FTSE 350 companies to fire men and replace them with women has come from women themselves. And look at politics, without all-women shortlists very few women want to go into politics – they just aren’t interested in it. And look at education – with every advantage women still refuse to study STEM subjects in large number. Men and women are different.

            Ultimately you just don’t give women enough credit, most of them are not feminists and never will be – much to their credit.

          • We are pro gay marriage because we’re hoping they will cut down on doing it in public lavs with complete strangers spreading HIV which is costing the nation a fortune.

            As for women their FREEDOM in an increasingly LIBERTARIAN world is permitting them to differentiate from men even more in their life choices.

            Which is why you wanted to become a teacher because it appealed to your lovely cuddly nurturing side. So girly. No oil rigs and refuse collections for you. Is it a primary school you teach at?

          • Through a comprehensive educational and media programme, we can, must and will mould the beliefs of future generations in order to permanently extinguish reactionary hate-beliefs such as sexism, racism, misogyny and homophobia. This must become the social and legal duty of schools and parents.
            Come now Damaris
            Education has always been used to mould young minds
            Michael Gove knows this

          • Toots wrote, incredibly:

            >yet another copy and past quip from her stash of emasculating lierary knives<

            Is that the third or fourth time this evening Toots?

          • “lierary ”

            I think you meant literary.

            Ironic that you can’t even type or spell the word “literary”. Oh dear.

          • Thank you for the second excuse to type a string I haven’t used for almost twenty years.


            ‘I am woman, hear me roar’?

            Oh please give me back my penis. I promise to type ‘T’ when I should from now on.

            I bet you’re a big Helen Reddy fan, aren’t you?

            and for the third time, as Toots replies ‘no. you’re wrong there’.


      • Toots wrote:

        Why is it so much more precious for a women to spend time at home with her child than it is for a man?

        Ask the thousands of women doctors who’ve chosen part-time work so that they can enjoy being mothers as well, at the overwhelmingly male tax payers’ expense.

        If being a housewife is such a great job, why aren’t more men queuing up to become househusbands?

        Being a housewife is not a job, it’s a role and it’s one that most women prefer. Most women work because they have to, for the sake of the family, or parental aspirations (“oh yes, my daughter is a GP. She was at … , of course we’d have preferred a boy but … – this from the woman’s mother), or because they don’t have children and prefer to, or because their silly women teachers have told them they need to be successful men to be complete women.

        Men don’t queue up to be ‘househusbands’ because we aren’t wired that way, which is why our wives married us.

        Incidentally, house husband (two words, watch your spelling and typing) is a tautology. Hus in husband is the Old English hus meaning house, so hus bond and hus wife. Your construction would require house husband and house housewife. That aside, had you any knowledge of the status of housewives you’d know that they had complete control over the household economy without any responsibility for household liabilities, which is pretty much all that women want (nothing wrong with at), as demonstrated by the acceptance by women of non executive directorships.

        It isn’t generally in a man’s nature to be a housewife and it isn’t generally in a woman’s nature to marry a man who is so inclined, just as it isn’t generally in a woman’s nature to be a husband and it isn’t generally in a man’s nature to marry a woman who is so inclined.

      • “Why is it so much more precious for a women to spend time at home with her child than it is for a man?”

        I don’t believe Feminist Fighter is a woman.

    • You are living a fantasy world if you are expecting today’s millennial women to go back to being 1950s housewives and give up our careers and ambitions and dreams.

      Never again will women acquiesce to male demands to get back into the kitchen.

      • We don’t need you to go back to the kitchen. We’ve got microwaves and ready meals and dishwashers. We invented them to make your lives easier and in the process made you redundant.

        I’d like to say you have some purpose as objects of sexual desire but feminists are pretty poor at that in my experience.

        Nope, can’t see any use of a modern British woman to a modern British man these days. If he needs one it is better to rent her by the hour. Modern women are like the yachts down at Ocean Village – costly to maintain and rarely used.

        • Are you reading this Belinda?

          This is what your readers think of women.

          Aren’t you going to rebuke him?

          • His point about appliances is a good one – it is the miracle of the technological advancements made in the west – all made by men as it happens – that has provided the dishwasher and electric oven, as well as modern medicine and agriculture that means western women today are the most pampered people in history.

            As for the rest, what does what he have to write have to do with the lady who wrote this article? As it happens feminism has made women redundant for many men, this is shown in their behaviour. Why bother with an aggressive woman who resents men being men when every year another lot of girls turn 18 and have been told they can be empowered through promiscuity – for a man it means he might as well just enjoy himself.

            If you read any history you would see that time and again revolutionaries hurt the people they promised to help. The Soviet Union for example was a disaster for the poor. And feminism has been a disaster for women.

          • Toots


            then thqueam and thqueam and thqueam and thqueam, and thtamp your feet and tear your hair out and thick up over everyone. They they’ll be thorry.

      • “Never again will women acquiesce…”

        They will, actually.

        While western civilisation gives up on itself, Islam retains its cultural confidence. In forty to fifty years most west european countries will either be majority Muslim or have such large Muslim populations that they will be the dominant force in politics.

        If you want to see the future of women in the west, look at any of the Muslim countries. Was that worth all your effort destroying our society for?

      • And necer again will us men aave you from your ridiculous habbits. Go raise your own damn kids without the help from us. Stop collecting welfare to feed those little monsters you create. My rax dollars do not velong in your hands. You want equality? Prove it, live life with no help from society like men do.

    • One other irony is that being a married woman and dependent on my husband gives me the independence to write what I like – which I never had when I was employed. So called dependence actually gives me independence. I am sure that could be extrapolated further – all those independent women without husbands or families need to depend on feminism in order to feel secure…speaking of which don’t bother reading feminist fighter (used to be feminist futures) she has been around ages and always carries on like that.

      • Kate was also Fabian_Solutions, and others, and probably still is, that sort of mental illness being incurable.

          • Ok Toots.

            We’ve been through this. Not Kate, not Kit, not Kat nor Kitkat. No one actually cares what you are called; we all think of you as Mrs Mad, the basement dwelling cat lady.

          • I considered calling you a number of different names but the modbot deleted them all.

            Anyway, it’s late and whilst it has been fun toying with you like a cat toys with a mouse I am reminded of my teachers at school that told me not to tease the special needs kids.


      • Thank you for your reply. I am always impressed when a writer bothers to read the comments, largely because they are often full of negativity. But here you can see many are in agreement with you and yes I now realise feminist-fighter is a troll, I shouldn’t have engaged him/her in debate.

        Your point about independence rings true. One can also point out how it depends on the welfare state too. Ultimately I think human nature is the result of thousands of years of evolution and it is not something that can just be re-programmed and those who try end up hurting everyone.

        It is good to see a woman see through the lies and easy slogans of feminism, especially as if you played the victim and claimed to be oppressed you would no doubt have plenty of opportunities to write for the BBC and Guardian etc. I think feminism has utterly rotted society. I used to think only women suffered as I saw us go from my grandparents’ generation where almost every woman got a loving husband for life to today where that has all been traded in for promiscuity. But society suffers from it, through a cycle of children being raised without fathers and falling standards in every part of life from the law to education and even standards of thought decline and we will soon see business undermined by women appointed to company boards without merit. It isn’t a cliche to say that the family unit, the authority of the father and love of the mother was the foundation of our civilisation and our freedom. Destroy it and all else can fall – as communist revolutionaries understood well.

        Thanks again – I hope we can look forward to more articles from you.

    • “It is not a sign of progress, however much the feminists might insist it is.”

      That rather depends how you define progress. To the feminists, the destruction of the nuclear family was always a stated objective and achieving it is definitely progress for them.

      Furthermore, while we can see that this ultimately means the destruction of society – and would therefore argue that it is regressive – this is the ultimate feminist objective. It is a Marxist ideology and as such seeks the dismantling of society so that it can be replaced by the inevitable (in their eyes) perfect communist alternative.

      In reality, all that’s going to happen is that the declining birthrate among western societies will hasten their replacement by immigrants – particularly Muslims. Islam will be the ultimate winner.

  16. Ms Brown, i think you should realize the time for saving this sinking ship is long long gone. You need ro salvage the next generarion. Teach the young conservative principles. Do what the feminist did, invade the schools. My generation is too steeped in the feminust dogma to do anything. Besudes too many men have been destroyed by this feminist society to want to help it back. Why should we? Women have failed us for 40 years, and now that women are feeling the brunt we need to fix it? No thanks, you broke it, so you fix it. Men are realizing we are no longer your tools.

  17. Maybe men don’t want to go back to being the wage slave of the family. Maybe they like the freedom. Maybe the enormous penalties for the man when the woman decides to ditch their slave and take him to court are just too much. They are for me. I’d never, ever do it again.

Comments are closed.