I am joining a strip club. This is what I was thinking as I waited in line for my confession at Westminster Cathedral. So, not a great state of mind to be in if I’m honest, but this is where we are at in light of this #metoo, #Presidents Club pearl-clutching hysteria.

I read that Theresa May was going to stop the objectification of women by men. Let me tell you, good men, gentlemen can objectify women – it is another less nice way of saying men are sexually attracted to women. This ‘objectification’ does not automatically lead to sexual harassment. To stop that, we need to socialise men to use their masculinity for the good of society which includes but is not limited to getting married and having children, as well as protecting and providing for the women and children.


And let me tell you something else. Older men are and always will be attracted to young, slim, beautiful women. This is why the entire hostess industry exists. It’s a grey area, that hostess/escort industry, is it not?

You are wearing the figure-enhancing dress for a reason – and it is not to show off your trigonometry knowledge. Men like looking at beautiful women, and will pay good money to do so. If you don’t like it, put your clothes back on.

Normally, I would be on this bandwagon but I know, deep down, this is not a revival of Christianity morality, good manners or decency. This is an all-out assault on the masculine, and male heterosexuality. It is condemning men for even being attracted to women.

This is how it goes with the feminists: slut walks are great, hostesses are not. Female promiscuity is awesome, but the male gaze is poison. White girls being raped in Rochdale gets buried under a mountain of other news; rich men flirting with hostesses – hold the front page. Adultery is fine, as long as the mistress consents. So no, there is nothing honest or honourable about this hysteria.

And so we go on, the constant switch and bait to men: anything goes replaced in the blink of an eye with pearl-clutching, Victorian prudery with none of the female modesty. This will just drive the sexes, the decent men and women even further apart. It means women wandering around wondering where have all the good men gone? So, they freeze their eggs instead or post advertisements for a baby-father on Craigslist.

This is no way to revive a very degraded culture. Count me out.

196 COMMENTS

  1. An assault on masculinity? If masculinity means a drunk probably married man paying a 19 year old girl for complicity and silence, so that he can stick his hand up her skirt, then you can keep masculinity. And forget strip clubs, lap dancing is where it’s at. Go lap dancing Laura, especially in the sleazier places where it blurs into prostitution. Then tell me that’s ok, and that you are a social conservative.

    • Mr Toddington, I find that you are pushing this matter to an extreme and then framing the extreme as typical in character.
      No one on this site would endorse sleazy lap dancing.
      At its worst, the President’s Club dinner might be described as an evening of ribald banter and drunken horseplay. The sort of buffonish larking that occurred at a rugby club dinner back in the day.
      The problem here is that feminism has taken advantage of the Puritan streak in our Anglo-Saxon society in order to slur healthy heterosexual masculinity as inherently toxic.

      • Well I would endorse the right of adult women to perform sleazy lap dancing if they want to and the right of adult men to watch it if they want to. Providing there is no coercion involved that should be none of anyone’s business.

        I have to accept the right of shrieking “Class War” hooligans to march in the streets with banners displaying skulls and crossbones, dripping blood and declarations that “We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live”.

        Lap dancing seems pretty unthreatening by comparison.

        • Endorse implies wholehearted support, which would be going a bit far for me.

          I would say that I tolerate lap dancing, but I do not endorse it. By my way of thinking, lap dancing and prostitution are the same thing. I do not endorse prostitution, but I tolerate it.
          I agree that, provided of course that there is no coercion, then prostitution is a private arrangement, a matter concerning only the two parties involved.
          I also take the view that the ‘tart with a heart’, who provides certain personal services without clipping her clients, is actually an honest woman, far more honest than 95% of the fairer sex, who shamelessly manipulate men with sex.
          However, none of this is to say that I would endorse prostitution or any of its variants, such as lap dancing. To endorse implies that I would be happy for my daughter to do it, which clearly I would not. ‘Tolerate’ is about right.

          • You have misread my comment. I wrote that I endorse the right to do it and watch it – not the activity.

          • Ah, yes, I see what you mean.
            And, furthermore, I would agree that, if I am obliged to tolerate Class War hooligans (which I am indeed obliged to tolerate thanks to our cucked body politic), then the toleration of lap dancing seems like the lesser of two weevils.

      • Mr Sandford, do you consider bottom-pinching and boob-grabbing “healthy heterosexual masculinity”? I don’t, I call it an overbearing expression of power.

        This event at the Dorchester wasn’t a men-only event. A number of women were present. Nevertheless the men said and did things they wouldn’t have dreamed of doing in front of their wives or daughters. It’s not as if the women were employed to move about inconspicuously; they were given the dress instructions because they were paid to be noticed (the President’s Club could have employed professional male waiters to bring and take away the food and see to it that glasses were kept filled without interrupting the man-to-man banter and horseplay) but they weren’t being hired as prostitutes.

        A man is well within his rights to be attracted to a woman. Nobody is disputing that. What he isn’t entitled to do is to act on that attraction without her consent. Whatever her terms of employment, a woman’s body is private to herself, and you don’t go there without being invited (that applies just as much to a man’s body by the way). If he can’t control his attraction, the Dorchester has very well-appointed lavatories (so I’m told) in which to sort that out for himself.

        Mr Sandford, I assume that you are married, or have been in the past. Did you court your wife by pinching and fondling her in front of other women? Would you allow your daughter’s boyfriend to woo her like that? I fancy not but maybe I’m wrong. I can tell you from many years of experience that sensitivity, charm and discretion will get you and other men a lot further than a full-on assault.

        • Then you must adopt the same approach to hen nights with male strippers.
          The point here, surely, is that feminists are trying to control in-private adult male behaviour with consenting adults. They should be told to f-off!

        • Don’t be daft.
          I am not condoning bad behaviour. In the final analysis, each man is responsible for his own actions.
          However, what I am asking is that we look at the bigger picture. Ribald, rugby-club style horseplay is not rape and it is not sexual assault. Sure, there is plenty of bravado, and frequently an alcohol-inspired overture towards a pretty barmaid, but I repeat that this is not rape and this is not sexual assault. If anyone is humiliated or made to look like a fool, it is invariably the men of the rugby club, who invariably suffer from sore heads the next day.
          If you honestly believe that a men’s rugby-club dinner is a rape gang situation where women are molested or maltreated, then you have fallen for the ‘all men are rapists’ propaganda as promoted by feminism.

        • “What he isn’t entitled to do is to act on that attraction without her consent”

          That’s new and has been invented by feminists. The holding of hands, the clumsy pass, the “stolen kiss”, the impulsive embrace, are rooted in centuries of courtship ritual and have been dealt with by sensible women without a fuss for as long, a rebuff usually followed by an apology. To put those in the same category as rape or sexual assault by a stranger is po-faced nonsense.

    • Have you seen what women get up to on hen do’s? The grabbing, the lunging? I’m surprised the men leave those do’s with their tackle intact.
      Get some perspective. This kind of thing happens with both sexes – the difference is that men’s clubs have been established longer and, therefore, have more rules. When drunk, rowdy women bring in a stripper, it tends to be a free-for-all.
      Not all women and not all men are drunken letches and there’s a mass difference between serious sex assault and a hand on a bum – you can slap away and rebuke the latter. If women are what the feminists claim – strong and independent – then they should have no problem with the word ‘no.’

    • We really have to decide as a society whether women are equal, their own agents and capable of looking after themselves or vulnerable shrinking violets requiring constant protection from the predatory male.

      To switch between the two in order to suit the particular feminist agenda being peddled is hardly credible, even if we put to one side for a moment the very different feminist reactions to the Presidents Club bawdiness, so far unproven, and the years of systematic abuse in places like Rotherham, proven in courts of law.

      • Whataboot the girls in Rotherham. The old CW standby. All women who complain about sexual harassment have it coming apparently, except of course for the girls in Rotherham. This has nothing to do with feminism. It is disgusting sleazy behaviour, and I strongly resent the idea that it represents any kind of masculinity. Just because Jess Phillips doesn’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s right.

        • You demonstrate the “Cathy Newman” gambit. Nowhere did I suggest that “women who complain about sexual harassment have it coming”.

          You don’t know what kind of behaviour it was, except what you have been told by people with an axe to grind, which has reinforced your prejudices. Has anyone complained of sexual harassment except an “under cover” FT reporter creating a story? And whether “Whataboot” or “CW standby” the fact remains that in contrast the behaviour in Rotherham and other places has been PROVEN in courts of law.

          You completely missed the point, which was about the double standard in reaction, which has EVERYTHING to do with modern, British feminism.

  2. Our Elite Feminists must really really be disappointed in .err… women

    These women had ‘agency’ didn’t they? Any one of them could have walked out at any time. Obviously not. They must be viewed as naive children, with no common sense. For this whole Presidents Club story to work we must infantilise women.

  3. May the stupid woman going all leftie. Soon this country will make it compulsory not only an offence to look at women but everyone must be a homosexual.

  4. This isn’t just a war on masculinity or even a war on human reproduction, it’s a war on humanity. By going to such extreme methods to blatantly divide the sexes they are ensuring that millions of people will never find their true love as they are just too distrustful of the opposite sex. People will spend all their lives lonely and unhappy so that the liberal hegemony can achieve its depopulation agenda.

    It is only through gaining knowledge of what this is really about and by undoing the years of conditioning to understand what women are about to provide the competence required that Peterson was talking about to ensure a healthy relationship in the #MeToo era. Men and women need each other more than ever

  5. Thank you, Laura, for an excellent article. The CW is at the moment just about the link with sanity in a world gone stark staring bonkers. Just for the sake of balance, why is in this debate we nothing about ‘hen’ activites and clubs where virtually naked men are oggled and pawed (at the very least)?

    • We don’t hear about hen do’s et al because the media isn’t interested in double standards. To them, women can do no wrong and men are pre-crime sexual perverts. There’s no balance because they don’t know the meaning of the the word. Fringe media sites, such as this, can discuss it – you try debating on the BBC site and see how far it gets you. Usually removed after 2 minutes.

  6. I was watching Question Time last night when the question on The President’s Club inevitably came up. It turned into a fun (for the Beeb) free-for-all attack on men in general, never mind lad’s culture or locker room talk.
    What bothered me, and I imagine quite a few others watching it, is that they were arguing conjecture as if it was fact. Not one single panellist argued against the voracity of the claims – never mind a distinct lack of evidence, never mind that the only woman who has spoken about it was the FT journalist (who hasn’t given evidence or explained why she was undercover). There’s not a shred of evidence that anything appropriate went on but the MSM, en masse, were all over this story, based purely on the say so of one woman.
    I really hope this hysteria blows up in the faces of the BBC et al when certain hostesses at the event come out and claim there was nothing untowards. Then, at least, this hysteria may die down when they realise they dedicated an entire day and a bit to a story which didn’t exist.

    • They’ll come up with more contrived hysteria in a few days to maintain the anti male momentum. It doesnt have to be true or real.

    • It was all demagoguery, hyperbole and virtue signalling. Not one voice of reason. One idiot even described the money raised for the charity as “dirty money” as though drunken revelry was equivalent to drug cartels.

      • Though I didn’t agree with Peter Oborne, I did agree with him when he said he found it astounding that GOS wouldn’t accept the money. Apparently virtue signalling towards some unknown cause or unfounded accusation (which is all it was) cures kids better than £20m.

        • Coming soon: a big, virtuous, song and dance from the govt about how they’re going to have meet the donation shortfall to GOSH.

    • I suspect the sensational headlines were written before the event:

      Editor: We’ve prepared the article, now go out and find the evidence”.

      • They’re freelance mainly or agency workers. There’ll still be plenty of promo work, modelling, ‘acting’, silver service or honest-to-goodness waitressing work out there for them.

    • Sexism is the new racism, so expect false allegations, grandstanding, double standards and miscarriages of justice until the left move onto another cause to suck dry.

  7. “I read that Theresa May was going to stop the objectification of women by men.”

    If she is as successful at doing that as she has been at stopping mass immigration over the last 7 years there might be a long wait.

    • If any of that is true, I don’t see how she’ll implement it. Prosecute men who are looking at women? Have men and women only pubs, clubs and other night spots? Like I say, if it’s true, she’s setting a very dangerous precedent.

      • She’ll probably implement it in the way that all disapproval has been legalised since Blair slithered into No.10 – by creating even more bad law. You might think she had other things to worry about than this trivia.

        To attempt to criminalise the expression of male admiration for the female body is akin to criminalising bears who defecate in the woods and reveals what a very dangerous and silly nanny she is.

  8. Back in the day when I worked in the investment world, my boss (who was Gene Hunt in an Amani suit) took his mostly male team plus me to a place called Skool Dinners. Here we were served by young hostesses looking like the St Trinians girls. There was a lot of drunken horseplay involving pudding and the hostesses sitting on my male colleagues’ laps. Now, I did wonder whether it was appropriate for my boss to take me and the female secretaries there. But not for one minute was I offended (just a bit embarrassed).

    The place was for men to let off testosterone steam. New Wave Feminism is more than an attack on men. It’s an attack on testosterone – the biological impulse that makes men masculine. Yes, it can manifest in negative ways, but it’s also the impulse that when socialised makes men soldiers and fathers. If you eliminate testosterone from men altogether you’ll have not men but androgynes. And that’s the aim.

    • Wow, that is a stroll down memory lane. I remember going to skool dinners once and I found it uncomfortable and embarrassing as well but maybe that was because, as a minion, I was completely ignored by any female in the room.
      I do remember there being women guests, but from memory (not the most reliable source of evidence), they behaved much like the hostesses, they draped themselves round and giggled and laughed at every utterance of the guys throwing around the cash!

      • Er yes … I did omit the fact that – well tanked up with booze – I also sat on my boss’s lap! I was trying to fit into the whole thing, but I wasn’t comfortable. My innate modesty was overriden. But again, my feeling wasn’t that such places shouldn’t exist but that I shouldn’t be there.

        • I suspect that some of the men might have felt uncomfortable too, but peer pressure is a powerful thing for both sexes, especially in the context of corporate hierarchy. No one wants to be seen as the ghost at the feast.

    • I actually knew a young “lady” who worked at Skool Dinners, there was never any offer of afters……

      • Lol. That despite my colleagues banging the tables with their spoons and shouting “pudd-ing, pudd-ing”.

  9. This is unfortunately a failure of politics and fundamentally democracy as the views of the bulk of the elite are now pretty much in sync with each other but out of sync with the populace.
    So no matter who you vote for you get the same sh*t.
    If we had a strong actual socially conservative party (left or right) that called out this nonsense for what it was, it would romp home every time.

    • If we had a united UKIP, we’d be fine. But even that isn’t good enough for voters. Sick of the 2 party system? Try something else. We don’t want something else, we want to go back to the 2 party system. Nuts.
      People tend to stick to the same old sh*t so they can’t really complain about what they’ve got. If they had the balls, we’d have UKIP and these stupid arguments wouldn’t come to the fore. But in UK politics, voters are cowards.

      • I hear you and did what I could by voting UKIP.
        And to be fair to the voters they did get something like 4 million votes but only 1 MP. I believe the SNP got less but ended up with around 50 MPs!
        The UK voter still defers to those it feels are competent, many of UKIPs votes were protest votes, as was mine. The line up that UKIP presented did not give that message and had too many spivs and eccentrics that the MSM and main stream political parties could have a field day with and eventually killed them.
        They have not exactly covered themselves in glory since and are effectively dead.
        To change the current zeitgeist in politics is going to need us to act smart and perhaps take a leaf out of the cultural marxist playbook.
        Stop voting for candidates helicoptered in to safe seats, investigate your MP and find out what he believes and how he votes and vote accordingly, run yourself as a conservative independent to show up the false ones standing, work on the next generation as they are the ones who will make the change.

      • UKIP was not a socially conservative party though, it was a single issue party with a random hodge podge of people that had no coherent philosophy or vision. They were only kept together by the desire to leave the EU, hence they are now falling apart rapidly.

        • UKIP IS a party which envelopes the principles of social conservatism – something which the current conservatives don’t. They were only a single issue party in the eyes of those who could not be bothered to read beyond the usual trite from the MSM. If you actually read their 2015 and 2017 manifesto’s, you’d see they are a party of substance and could evolve into something much bigger were they given the opportunity to.
          Even when Bolton has gone (which he will) and Kurten elected (which I hope), voters in general have had ad nauseum regarding UKIP for years and it will take a long time to build up trust in the party. Even united, this country are too unwilling to move away from the 2 party system, usually using the excuse that ‘if we don’t vote Tory, Corbyn will get in’ and vice versa. I abhor tactical voting. If you despise the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and SNP, get some balls and vote for the party whose policies suit you, the voter. Tactical voting is a cowards politics.

          • I disagree, Farage himself is far from a social conservative and most of its well know people aren’t either. They rarely ever mention issues like family breakdown, abortion, Christianity, conservation and so on which would be deal breakers for me.

            It’s elementary at this point because they are toast now, but I never voted UKIP and never would do, but then I’ve not voted for anyone since 2001.

          • Have you not read the excellent David Kurten articles on TCW? Many of your issues are talked about by him constantly. As for well known figures, I presume you’re talking about not-very-UKIP figures like Bolton, Suzanne Evans, Diane James – people (aside from James now) who are part of UKIP but in name only.
            By the way, if you do adhere to my wish and look for/read Kurten’s articles, check out Andrew Charalambous, who has worked tirelessly for conservation. Also, look at the manifesto’s I mentioned in my previous comment. At least then, you will see that UKIP are far from a single issue party.

          • One man does not a party make. Like I say, it was not a coherent entity built around a conservative philosophy, and it never will be now.

          • Which proves to me that you were never interested in reading into the party’s policies. That’s all you had to say – I can’t be bothered looking into UKIP. That easy.

          • I’m familiar with its thin array of “policies” which were not well thought through, but it was more that it was not a serious outfit that was full of unsavoury characters and had a primary focus on a single issue.

            The real tragedy is that you can say the same things about the Tories.

            The problem is, UKIP partisans are equally blind to reason as Tory partisans and Labour partisans. The parties keep doing things they hate yet they vote for them and try to defend them anyway, it’s bizarre.

          • The manifesto and policies are one thing; why people voted for UKIP was often quite another. I voted for them for one reason only, not for all their other policies; and enough people did the same as I did to frighten the other parties into changing course.

  10. In a world of fear, in a land of distrust, the government (2022) issue a new standard system tracker to keep men in check. If a man so much as looks at a women in the wrong way, this system tracker will activate and blow their manhood to bits!
    Coming to a country near you (or, probably, YOURS) – Ball Breaker!

  11. Yesterday morning, Sky News, ran as their main head “Should all-male events be banned”

    Just think about that for a second. One of the main 2 news channels in the UK. We have come a long way in 50 years.

    I have been thinking for a time now that the only way this perpetual denigration of men is going to end is when a war comes along – unless women like Laura and lots & lots of other women turn it round.

    • “the only way this perpetual denigration of men is going to end is when…” men finally grow the balls to put an end to it.

  12. “Victorian prudery with none of the female modesty.”

    Thanks for finally pointing this one out!

    Also, the Guardian has been going full bore on this one, but the outrage has utterly swept away anyone remotely associated with this event, irregardless of any proof that the scandal was planned or in any way deliberate (i.e. there are no WhatsApp chats or email chains going on about how they plan to spend a debauched evening groping waitresses). So my question is, if men are so powerful in our society rather than women, why is there even any outrage at all about all this, never mind the absolute annihilation of careers and institutions that has taken place?

    We are shifting away as a society from a position of neutrality on sex that gave some (restricted) space to male sexual desires (things like strip clubs, porn etc) and in the direction of a female-centric version of desire. That is not going to go down well with the majority of men, and it certainly isn’t going to make them husband material. I suspect society will more come to resemble lion prides, or perhaps even elephant herds (after reaching maturity the male elephant will either roam the savannah alone or team up with other males in a loose bachelor herd).

    Sad, as someone would say lol.

        • Well, it’s certainly no fun being falsely accused of rape or assault and effectively having your life ruined on the say-so of a woman. For that is the situation men now find themselves in. Constant pandering to feminist demands by weak and cowardly politicians and police apparatchiks have got us to the point where a woman can destroy a man simply with a few words. This is encouraged by the granting of anonymity and the paying of compensation if she can get away with it. Every man who does not follow the MGTOW philosophy needs to bear this in mind, and be afraid, very afraid.

  13. Wonderful article! I have been telling my husband that these Feminist wimmin conveniently forget the seductive behaviour of women… the way they entice men and have no qualms when they entrap a man and destroy him, I have known a big number of women who abuse their husbands, bully them and keep them under complete control… and as you pointed out these Feminists are so selective in their condemnation of male vices… they are hypocrites of the first order.

    • You can only be enticed and trapped if you want to be. Or if you have such a poor level of control over your appetites that you shouldn’t be out alone.

      • Do you expect men to be angels? What about you? Have you never never even once looked at a woman with lust or physical desire even at your own wife or partner? Self control is a virtue that needs to be cultivated. That is why we both men and women need to practise virtues so that life would not be as difficult as it is getting to be. The problem with these wimmin and the Leftists is that they want virtue minus God and Scriptures. Human beings can not be virtuous unless there is an objective standard by which virtues could be rewarded and vice punished.

        Besides there is a big number of women who marry rich men for their money, use them and abuse them for their money… divorce can bring them money they have not worked hard for.

          • On what moral basis? If love is love and we throw out previous moral values and laugh at chastity and faithfulness, you are left in a morass of a society with no value system.

        • The left now want to replace the inherent self-restraint and good manners of the English with state imposed behaviour control. Having first “liberated” people from their societal and religious inhibitions in the late 1960s, they have now morphed slyly from “anything goes” to “nothing without the permission of the state”.

          We have lived through a socialist revolution and all revolutions result in tyranny.

    • ‘Feminist wimmin conveniently forget the seductive behaviour of women… ‘
      Convenient! It’s more likely that because they’ve forgotten, or lost that wonderful power over men, they’ve become Feminists.

    • Well said. If women were not controlling within relationships the new kitchen and new sofa industries would probably collapse overnight.

  14. Feminists are angry about the Presidents Club dinner. They are very angry. Yvette Cooper and Jess Phillips stood up in Parliament and were very angry.

    I don’t recall feminists being as angry about the Rotherham abuse scandal. They weren’t as angry about what was euphemistically described by some as “child sexual exploitation” but others may describe as the rape of underage girls on an industrial scale. They weren’t as angry about the failings of the Labour council which was supposed to protect those girls, the police force which was supposed to prosecute the rapists and the New Labour government which was supposed to be “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”.

    I don’t recall feminists being as angry about the Jimmy Savile scandal. They weren’t as angry about a rich white man who used his position to sexually abuse women and girls. Perhaps they weren’t as angry because he also used his position to sexually abuse men and boys and because his position was a BBC presenter.

    I don’t recall feminists being as angry about the Manchester Arena bombing. They weren’t as angry about a terrorist armed with a bomb packed with nuts and bolts detonating it as thousands of woman and girls left a concert where they had been listening to and watching a young woman perform. They weren’t as angry about an act of mass murder motivated by an ideology which is more misogynistic than it is murderous because it doesn’t want to kill all women and wants to keep some of them alive so they can be sold in the slave markets of the Caliphate, raped and forced to give birth to the next generation of terrorists. Indeed, after the Manchester Arena bombing we were urged not to look back in anger.

    But feminists are angry now. I am angry too but not for the same reasons.

    • Most UK feminists are associated with what we call “the Left” which has much in common with the 1930s “right”,something of a misnomer, since Mussolini’s fascists were not Jew Haters & HItler’ socialists were.
      Today the Left embrace, as did Germany’s Nat Socs, Islam as their secondary,
      multiple voting, power base, with the expected results.
      Today a front bench Labour peer was sacked because he attended this silly
      fund raiser. He behaved perfectly well & was not aware of the odd piece of bad behaviour.
      He just happens to be Jewish & a Friend of Israel.
      Meanwhile other Labour politicians are still in place despite associating with rent boys,
      offering to buy illegal drugs for them, vile Jew hating rants, contempt for the
      indigenous proletariat etc etc.

    • The Presidents Club business infuriated Phillips and Cooper from several aspects. The Labour idiot on QT summed up the bigotry involved when he accused the attendees of tax evasion.

      The furore for those two was political as well as inciting Phillips’ notorious misandry. If it had happened in a working men’s club up north they would not have been incensed or indignant.

      Unfortunately no MPs had the guts to call out the pretensions of those two divisive trouble stirrers for what they were.

      • Colonel Mustard, I think you’re right and if we had a political and media culture which had more diversity of opinion the likes of Yvette Cooper and Laura Bates would have been shown up for the bandwagon-chasing money-grabbing blind-eye-turning hacks they are.

        However, I think the main reason why the Presidents Club dinner has become the major news story that it has but does not deserve to be is because of the type of people who attended. They are straight white males and if any of them do anything wrong feminists and their media allies go into full attack mode because straight white males are their biggest enemy. One person who was the target of such an attack was Sir Tim Hunt and his crime was to make a joke. When Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault for feminists and their media allies it was like all their Christmases had come at once because he was pretty much the perfect villain (he was a straight white male who was rich and married and the only thing which prevented him being the perfect villain was his support for the Democratic Party).

        Meanwhile, a Muslim drug dealer who grooms and rapes underage girls and his brothers and friends who do the same things are ignored by feminists.

        • I know Laura Bates. Not only is she a bloody good human being, but she’s created real, positive change that has had a demonstrable impact on people’s lives and inspired an awful lot of of other women, including my present partner, to do some genuinely amazing things. And she’s a funny, warm person who is a joy to be around.

          • Barry Guevara, you may know Laura Bates but her Everyday Sexism Project has not been subjected to serious scrutiny. If it had been subjected to any scrutiny it would have fallen apart and it and Laura Bates would have been exposed for what they are.

            You don’t need to have a Social Sciences degree which included a module on the Theories and Methods of the Social Sciences to see the fundamental flaws in the methodology of the Everyday Sexism Project. A 14-year-old GCSE Humanities student should be able to see them. However, the media and political classes have given Laura Bates a free pass which has allowed her access to newspapers, TV and radio studios, conferences and schools where she has been allowed to speak, sometimes without any questioning or scrutiny.

          • She’s not a sociologist. What she is doing is giving women and young girls a voice and a chance to talk about some of the things they’ve been subjected to mainly,it pains me to say, by men who haven’t been socialised properly or who shouldn’t be at liberty.

          • Its proper name is, of course, Everyday Narcissism. It’s navel gazing on an industrial scale…on second thoughts, that’s giving too much credit. Industry is not a word I would associate with Everyday Narcissism…

          • Its proper name is the Monetising Sexism Project.

            “Hello. You’re through to The Guardian Sexism desk. How can I help you?”

            “Hello. I’d like to make an allegation of sexism.”

            “Great. We’ll pay you £320 for a thousand word article alleging sexism. Is that okay?”

            “That’s fine. When do you want it?”

            “As soon as possible. E-mail it to us and we’ll publish it straight away.”

            “So you’re not going to fact-check it before you publish?”

            “No. You’re a woman. I’m a woman. I believe everything you say.”

            “Thanks. I’m sending the article now.”

            “I’m just checking my e-mail now. It’s arrived. I’m just copying and pasting it and it’s online now. The cheque’s in the post.”

            “Great. Thanks. Bye.”

            (a week later)

            “Hello. You’re through to The Guardian Sexism desk. How can I help you?”

            “Hello. Last week you published an article I wrote alleging sexism. I’ve written another one and I think I’ll be able to write one every week.”

            “Great. We’ll give you a column. An annual contract worth tens of thousands of pounds is in the post so once you’ve signed it and returned it you’ll be our latest sexism columnist.”

            “Great. Thanks. Bye.”

            (a month later at a feminist event)

            “Hello. I work for a book publisher, I’ve been reading your Guardian column and I really love it. Do you want to write a book alleging sexism? If you do I’ll give you a contract for a hundred thousand pounds.”

            “I’d love to but that other woman over there has just offered me a contract for a hundred thousand pounds.”

            “Has she? The bit…”

    • The media are complicit with the feminists in their coverage of the Rotherham scandal. When did you last read an article by a journalist demanding the prosecution of the police, social workers and councillors who decided to ignore the crimes in the interests of community cohesion? Come to think of it, have you ever read an article in the mainstream press or heard anyone on the BBC, ITV, or Channel 4 demanding the prosecution of those who chose to ignore the crimes.

      When did being an accessory to a crime cease to be a crime in itself? Perhaps that useless Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, could tell us.

      • No, no, Alison Saunders won’t tell you. She’s far too busy being angry about the President’s club and wondering if any men can be prosecuted.

  15. Don’t think with your balls and you’ll be fine. And don’t consume chemicals that mean thinking with your balls gets easier, such as alcohol and other intoxicants, as it’ll lead to tears.

    If anyone here feels ‘under attack’ because some men were called to account for putting their hands up women’s skirts and generally behaving like an onanistic adolescent, then they’re to be pitied as a thin-skinned little darling.

    • Men and women take alcohol precisely so as to to loosen inhibitions, both in conversation and other vectors. Some danger there no doubt, but a necessary risk for many of both sexes.
      Does Barry imagine these “thin-skinned” darling women took no alcohol at this disreputable event? Bizarre notion. Probably most took some, often so as to enable and excuse themselves from going on to behave disreputably?

      • The advice to both sexes is not to drink. Chances are you’ll end up doing something that you regret with someone you shouldn’t have been doing it with.

      • Men and women take alcohol precisely so as to to loosen inhibitions

        When I take alcohol, it is not usually for those reasons, but when it is for a purpose other than mere habit, it is for relief from either muscular stress or from my chronic pain.

        Those who drink alcohol in order to alter their behaviour are using it like a hard drug.

  16. In a nutshell, the idea that the hostesses were “forced” to do anything is baloney. Ill advised the event was in today’s climate but surely the “girls” were equally complicit – accepting a fee, clearly advised of the risks and knowing the format etc.

    • You can still do a job while recognising that some of the behaviour directed towards you in that job is unconscionable. I know a number of bouncers and the nonsense they have to put up with is ridiculous, but these were women whose job shouldn’t have included fending off complete idiots.

      • The accounts seem exaggerated. Men keep their heads down but some say they saw nothing. Doubtless victim-hood chasing will unearth victims. It would be extraordinary if no touching occurred – what with the alcohol etc. Moreover, did any of the girls “assault” the men by choosing to sit on them, or purring in their ears (with or without the agenda of being able to complain that they were touched up)?
        Of course not! Perish the thought – platonic, intellectual conversation all the time the natural expectation? Don’t be daft..
        Pretty women who dress and behave in the most sexually attractive way possible and then complain if they are touched are on thin ice. How insulted would the be if they attracted no attention for heaven sake!. Probably most of them enjoyed the occasion along with the opportunities offered, but none would dare to say so. Instead they may turn into instant victims one and all Bah.

        • You never, EVER touch anyone who doesn’t make it obvious that such a thing would be welcomed. And I mean, EVER. At work, I never touch another person for precisely that reason and, as someone who entered the workplace two decades ago, I make sure nothing I say could be misconstrued.

          • He comes from a fairly strange place ideologically but his advice makes absolute perfect sense. And make sure you understand this: it’s not about them – it’s about you. YOU must protect yourself against any and all possible hatchet jobs that could be performed on you. So, in no particular order:

            Never touch a woman. A nod is perfectly fine and (probably still) safe. Never hold open doors.
            Never explain anything to her or help her out. Do nothing that could possibly be construed to be “benign sexism”. Which is, in all likelihood pretty much everything you say or do.
            Never be alone in the same space with a woman.
            If you inadvertently find yourself in such a situation, ensure the door is wide open, ensure surveillance cameras are working, and record record record absolutely everything.
            Do not have conversations other than what is strictly and professionally necessary. Everything you say outside the professional realm can and possibly will be used against you.
            Absolutely no compliments, ever. Neither personal nor professional.

            In short: don’t be stupid and protect yourself. Nobody will do this for you. Not your colleagues. Definitely not HR. Let alone your country’s ideologically biased and corrupt prosecution system.

  17. Militant feminists fall over themselves to demand ‘equality’ for women yet when they get judged on equal terms they often have zero compunction about playing the sexist card. Not too many men would complain of some poor male waiters being stuck in a female-only drunken party, nor most likely would the waiters.
    As for equality…I present Exhibit A…a female candidate on an identical-to-all-applicants police dog handler course failed….and promptly sued for ‘sex discrimination’. Naturally she won and was awarded £15,000!
    As a nation we’re losing our marbles.

  18. For the feminists, particularly here in this sceptic isle all the battles have been won, men are in the doghouse and only allowed out when leashed.

    The feminists aren’t happy though, their perfect Amazonian dystopia has left (uh huh) the field clear, now if they’re not battling the translobotomy crew, they’re finding…..mining – “new depths of depravity” wherever they can be choreographed – it’s tough work staying up on top and holding down their manhood even if you’ve emasculated them.

  19. Are you similarly in favour of women objectifying other women, or men objectifying other men, Laura? And, if not, why not?

    • The existence of the human race depends on heterosexuality. Lesbianism and homosexuality are not equivalent in any way to heterosexuality.

      • Actually of course it doesn’t. As Katie will tell you, all you need to do is to read her advisory manual “Brave New World” and then you will see that its not necessary at all.

  20. Morality? more ……….not enough sarnies to make up a full picnic.

    “In fifteen years’ time when your daughters miss out on their Uni
    places cos of men, when your mum is in a hospital ward with men, when
    the Olympic women’s 100m gold is won by a man and when a fully grown man
    follows your little girl into the women’s loos at Maccys… remember us”

    Guido here

    They are consuming themselves and why should men not enjoy the spectacle – split a frothy as our Aussie cousins say, pull up a chair and get the popcorn out!

  21. “This is an all-out assault on the masculine, and male heterosexuality. It is condemning men for even being attracted to women.”…..are you Richard Littlejon?

    • Come on. I have boys I don’t like all this any more than the writer. You don’t have to be Richard Littlejohn to have grave concerns. I fear fort he future of my boys in the poisonous world we’re in.

          • They also often hand it out. Just for the record most domestic violence is consensual and in cases where only one partner is violent its usually the woman. Although of course its usually the man that gets the blame.(find out about the work of Erin Pizzey before you comment on the subject of violence against women.)

          • And women are often the perpetrators, only they’re usually too weak to do much damage. Mind you, that’s only considering physical violence. They’re much more adept at the other forms of violence, especially against defenceless children.

        • There is no answer. It’s rather typical of left wing hatred. Through an insult (Littlejohn is a left wing insult) and that is meant to end all argument. No reasoning or logic required. I get so fed up with it all

    • More to the point, who are you? You say you are a publisher. What do you publish and does that give you a vested interest in attacking this site?

      • I publish quite a few things. My point of view leads me to disagree with much – not all, but much – on here. I’m sorry that you judge everyone else by your own ‘vested interest standards’.

  22. The Endgame is obvious. Now that all ‘Western’ men throughout the Anglosphere have been criminalised as ‘potential’ rapists, more and more will just have minimal contact with women and ignore any complaints from women when a real rape culture is imported from the Third World. You see, crying wolf has is consequences.

  23. “White girls being raped in Rochdale gets buried under a mountain of
    other news; rich men flirting with hostesses – hold the front page.”
    And so it came to pass that equivalence beats reality, and still no one stands up and says stop this b****x.

  24. Yes Laura yes. This is the point. Things look like a sort of return to morality but they’re not. The purpose is so clearly demonstrated by the comments stream here. It is to sow dissention and discord. Its precisely why the branches of feminism lunge one day at hostess’s at dinner and proudly proclaim “slutwalks” the next and all the other contradictions. The point is to so disrupt the traditional processes of pair bonding and family formation because its these that “perpetuate the class power in capitalism”. Of course not every feminist realises the origins of their theory and its windmills but set on the road to bring them down they contribute to “broken Britain”. Its not a secret, just in lots of academic and left wing academic books and articles, where few in the ordinary world will read.
    The appeal to morality and “aren’t men beasts” card frequently appeals to daughters of the manse become Prime Minister , but it is a trap. Because the aim isn’t about female domination, or male domination even. The aim is “deconstruction” of all the ties that bind people that are not “rational”. Because of course Political “Science” is clear the only rational society is socialist

  25. Reports of Mrs May planning to stop the objectification of women by men (is she also planning vice versa for the sake of “equality”?) remind this reader of the story of King Canute and the tide, but there’s one major difference: probably unlike Mrs May, King Canute had the wisdom to know that he was attempting the impossible (and again probably unlike the case with Mrs May, demonstrating the impossibility of what he was attempting to do seems to have been his intention).

    • If Canute were running Britain nowadays he would put the most useless member of his cabinet – Theresa May? – in charge of climate change!

  26. This is a middle class obsession. Time limited as the women have largely opted out of child rearing. Particularly the newly educated ones. They are not breeding themselves to extinction.
    Contrary to feminist myth very many men like children and family.
    Our middle class women are going to find themselves sidelined.
    If this is what they want fair enough but they are looking at a lonely old age. As for the men they will look elsewhere. It is the way of the world.

  27. No, it’s about power. Feminism is always about power. It was a planned attack to discredit all-male business gatherings. Destruction of male spaces is one of their chief strategies. There shall be no all male gatherings outwith the control and supervision of women. By that means they will control everything; feminise everything. Just look at how soon the media reports have morphed into “should we allow all male business meetings?”. No longer about protection of women – that was always just a ruse, a means to another end.

    • Yes it was always just a ruse. I can remember feminists objecting to the Miss World contest in the name of protecting women from being viewed as sex objects. They totally ignored the fact that women took part of their own free will and it was watched mainly by women. but they had to justify their desire to control everything by presenting it as a “good ” cause.

  28. I can’t help but feel that given the accelerating wave of outrage, it will only be a matter of weeks until we’re all covering the piano legs again, lest the mere sight of something suggestive of an ankle renders men an uncontrollable mass of hormones and leads to a surge of attacks on poor, defenseless musical instruments.
    The women were there exercising their agency. One may not like their choice, but it is their choice. They weren’t forced to be there. I’m not condoning unwanted touching, but leaving that aside, who really had the power? The middle-aged man, who, in most cases was flattering the girls and overbidding in an effort to impress them, or the girl who decided that she was going home alone?
    In the end, it’s just the same overwhelming desire for conformity. Women can’t want to be liked for their looks. Men can’t like women for anything other than their minds. Everyone has to have fun in the same way. Unfortunately, humanity has infinite variety and most men quite enjoy looking at pretty women. I dare say women like looking at attractive men. Once again, the greatest tragedy of the left is a beautiful theory ruined by an unfortunate humanity. Time to elect a new people…

    • Hang on – this is like saying that, when you take a job, you have to accept everything that comes with it, even illegal activity. I know a number of bouncers and a few have had to deal with idiots trying to stab them or, in a couple of cases, a fool with a gun. This is not ‘what they should expect,’ it’s illegal activity. As with the female hostesses, they may or not be aware of how some men behave, but if those said men are sexually harassing them, then that may also be illegal activity.

      • It’s not saying that at all. If there was any criminal activity, there is nothing to stop the girls reporting it. Equally, there was nothing stopping them leaving. Do bouncers really think that every client they meet is going to be sweetness and light (in which case, there’s no need to employ them)? Yet, they turn up, knowing the risks. It is their choice, that’s surely the most important thing.

      • Exactly. It’s time you began reading objectivism. It’s to the self respect of the men that they don’t take the unearned – by abusing the women. The man with no self-control is a pathetic spectacle. It isn’t masculinity, but lack of principles which leads men to behave like dogs. It used to be the same at works parties – everybody falling over themselves to get drunk at the free bar.

  29. Hi… I must be dreaming. Did you really write this, or is it fake news?? Men.. men looooveee and respect women… we always have. Always will.. the less they wear.. the crazier we get. It’s mother nature.. and women love the attention! Thank you so much for writing this… keep it up.. for the sake of humanity and our sanity 🙂

  30. “To stop that, we need to socialise men to use their masculinity for the good of society which includes but is not limited to getting married and having children, as well as protecting and providing for the women and children.”

    How can anything you say be taken seriously Laura. You are now reaching the point when the intersection between religion and socialism becomes ever more clear. It’s obvious that you are now struggling to define the differences. ‘For society’ is exactly that which socialists advocate. Society, as the standard.

    Government should stay out of the bedroom. It’s only proper purpose is to protect rights. Men and women seek to gain and keep chosen values through their chosen principles. Masculinity and femininity are a balance, just as Government and the Governed are a balance. Men and women must be free to seek any values they desire, it is not the Governments place to determine behaviours, it’s place is to prevent the initiation of force.

    The ‘degraded culture’ is the result of abandoning reason for mysticism-for pragmatism, for feelings as cognition. It is the abandonment of truth; of reality and mans capacity to know it directly. It is the failure to realise ethics are not from society, the state, nor God, that they are principles necessary to deal with existent reality.

    • You are now reaching the point when the intersection between religion and socialism becomes ever more clear

      Oh FFS this whole rant of yours is an utter caricature.

      FYI the real society of real people with real ideas is NOT subjected to the contents of your bollox one-size-fits-all totalitarianist ideology.

      You have demonstrated an extremely powerful resistance to either self-criticism or rational philosophical debate.

      Fine.

      But I’m done being your hand-holder or treating ANY of your ideologically informed bollox with any respect whatsoever.

    • Men are already “socialised” for the good of society. If they weren’t, we’d be living in a sort of hell beyond the imagination of Hobbes. Your problem isn’t with socialisation or education but that there is a seam of criminality embedded in human nature. Most men spend their lives working hard, living peacefully with women and bringing up families and the fact that a minority do not doesn’t mean that we are faced with some sort of existential crisis. We’ve been trying to abolish sin since the dawn of mankind. Of course there’s no harm in continuing to try but I doubt we’ll ever get there.

      • What do you mean by ‘socialised’ and ‘the good of society’ ?

        There is no embedded criminality in human nature. Everyone chooses what they do and is fully aware of it.

        I believe we are faced with an existential crisis of civilisation.

        What do you mean by ‘sin’ ?

        • Of course people choose wittingly to do what they do. When they stick their hand up a girl’s skirt at the President’s Club, it’s a sin; when they donate £1,000 to charity at the President’s Club – presumably with their free hand – its a good deed. The 10 Commandments are an accurate summary of the way men would behave if they lived according to their nature. Instead, they have been “socialised” – your word – not to murder people or to covet their neighbours’ wives for “the good of society” and in the main do so. The alternative is for everyone to live under his own stone. There is no existential crisis of society. A minority of people choose to live in defiance of the 10 Commandments, that’s all. If they do and we catch them, we stick them in the pokey for the good of society.

          • If I stick my hand up the skirt of someone permitting me to do, then it isn’t a sin, indeed it’s a pleasure. Giving £1000 to charity is no more of a good deed than spending £1000 on a prostitute. They are values of mutually beneficial exchanges.

            I didn’t use ‘socialise’ that was the word used by Laura Perrin. People don’t murder other people because of the Ten Commandments; it’s because they have adopted a moral code based on their own experience of existent reality -either consciously or unconsciously. Lots of people covert their neighbours wives and possessions, but most realise that to act on that impulse would not bring them happiness. It would be a denial of reality, of their own virtues and hence a denial of themselves as competent human beings fit to be happy. Some people have yet to learn the lesson, others evade reality and eventually discover a hard truth-that reality can be evaded, but that the results of that evasion cannot be avoided.

            As a prime example of your detachment. ‘Thou shalt not steal’. Yet, you will find few who will not hold up taxation as some necessary beneficial good for society.

          • I think you’ve been reading too much cod philosophy. If I stick my hand up the skirt of a girl who would rather I didn’t, that’s a sin according to religious teaching and sexual harassment according to secular law. Either way, it’s something I shouldn’t do if I value a virtuous society. The jury’s out, philosophically speaking, on why I don’t covet my neighbour’s wife or steal his car. It could be that it’s because I’m a good person or it could be that the thrill is not worth risking a punch on the nose and a visit from PC49. We could be in agreement on this one but it’s hard to tell. Taxation is not theft whichever way you cut it in a society which has voluntarily vested taxation powers in the appropriate legal authority.

          • I don’t stick my hand up a woman’s skirt who I haven’t asked, because it lowers my own self esteem to act like a pig. It’s nothing to do with a virtuous society, God or the law. I wouldn’t do it if the law permitted it. I don’t steal my neighbours car for the exact same reason.

            Taxation is theft with menace. Robbery. Taxation isn’t voluntary. As I don’t wish to pay it, then as you feel inclined to, then you can stump up on my behalf. There you go. Just because something is legal does not make it morally right.

  31. Excellent article, thank you.

    I get the distinct feeling that this so-called under cover” work was intended to be a hatchet job. Think of it: this Club has been running for 33 years. Did it really take them this long to “expose” what was supposedly going on. In addition, the FT article is surprisingly thin on facts and relies predominantly on hearsay and heavy suggestion. Hence my hunch: hatchet job. Question: why now and who/what was/is the target?

  32. I follow Laura on Twitter and sometimes dip into the ConWoman articles. Mostly I agree sometimes not so much but in this instance, unfortunately I’m 100% behind her. I say unfortunately because the most serious chapter for me in this story is the “all-out assault on the masculine”. From where I’m sitting (white, 50, male, married with a teenage daughter) it seems the so called Liberal Left see that demonising and deconstructing Western patriarchy is the silver bullet for all inequalities. I’ve no doubt that some negative situations can be improved with the patriarchal status quo being challenged but it feels, from my personal viewpoint, that this isn’t enough for some and I think we’re far from ‘peak’ male hetro condemnation. Unfortunately.

  33. The attack on white men & masculinity has a sinister ulterior motive – to shut us up and stop us objecting to being replaced in our own societies.

Comments are closed.