feminist furies

Peter Lloyd , author of  Stand By Your Manhood, is fighting back – against the feminisation of society.  Good for him and good for the Daily Mail for serialising parts of his magnum opus.

He is right to argue that there has never been a worse time to be a man. Many of the statistics of anti-male bias in modern British society are ones we have rehearsed here on TCW too.   He is also right to describe the routine rubbishing of men as feminist fascism and stiletto sexism and men as the new second class citizens.

I call this deeply hypocritical behaviour, feminist chauvinism or misandry. Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.

Reading through his account of the contemporary vilification of men – the extent to which the dice are loaded against men in work and health, you cannot be surprised that men are going off women.

Just pages away, in same edition of the Mail, is an example of why.  The paper reports the claim of Goldman Sachs banker Sonia Pereiro-Mendez that she’s been treated unfairly after getting pregnant.  She sounds like the feminist employee from hell. Not content with secretly filming her colleagues to get their ‘sexist’ behaviour on record when she became pregnant, she objected to a salary drop to a sum most women (or men) would still dream of, £192,000.  Her bonus too – of £284,000  – she deemed inadequate,  despite retreating into the company car park to breast feed her baby (during breaks).

This is the sort of ’high flier’ who gives women a bad name.  Would her male colleagues have kept their full bonuses  if they took off to the car park to feed their baby in breaks? I doubt it.  Being paid enough to have proper nanny care and not compromise her very well rewarded career was insufficient. She wanted more – the money and to breast feed her baby at work to boot –  and to turn her ‘cause’ into a legal nightmare for her company.

Ruthless feminists like this lady ride roughshod over their companies and their colleagues.

But the answer to the new feminist oppression is not male gender quotas ‘for us poor blokes’, as Peter Lloyd suggests.   Shameful feminist tactics and orthodoxies are the problem not the solution. Competing in the victimhood stakes is not the answer either.

All this will do is create two competing victim groups – with their competing sets of rights.  What a legal nightmare and what a recipe for non communication. But this, I fear, is where Peter’s analysis – and that of  many of the men’s rights groups that have emerged – is leading.

In my view, the beleaguered male must challenge, not adopt, the feminised rights and victim culture, however difficult that is.  Men need to demonstrate that they are, as Peter argues, a brilliant sex – inventors,  creators,  doers,  fighters and  protectors.

Women who think they  don’t need or want this are deluding themselves – however much the Julie Burchills, Barbara Ellens and Suzanne Moores tell us otherwise. These feminist scribes speak for the minority, not the majority.

But what all women need to face up to are the two types of  ‘modern men’ that feminism has so cruelly manufactured for them:  The Oh so correct  honorary Nick Clegg-type feminists  (Miliband and Cameron also fit this mould) who promote and toe the feminist party line – men who I suspect don’t really turn women on at all.  Second are the refuseniks who have gradually turned into a worrying class of embittered, angry misogynists –  leading the sexodus.  These men will not even  give women the chance to see if they find them attractive.

Woman need to understand they have hoist themselves on their own feminist petard. Any idea that women have ‘won’ misses the point. Feminism has not secured a good deal for women, any more than it has for men. They are paying a bitter price in loneliness for refusing to or understanding how to accommodate men and maleness.

This is the thrust of Peter’s second extract in the Mail. “For an army of women, Mr Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him. And the reason? When it comes to marriage, men are on strike. Why? Because the rewards are far less than they used to be, while the cost and dangers it presents are far greater.”

As sociologist Geoff Dench has pointed out too, the lower down the social pecking order they are, the worse this is for women.  Their unemployed male counterparts are even less likely to step up to the plate as partners, let alone as providers or protectors.

In this case there is no divorce to complain about; it is not a case here of women keeping the children and men paying the bill.  These ‘couples’, if they ever were, were never married, the men have never paid any  bills. The taxpayer has, for them.

The crux of the matter is where all this leaves children .  As Lloyd points out:“not having a father leaves a hole in the soul of a child”.  The next generation should be of concern to men as much as women.  That’s why men playing victim, however badly they have been treated,  is no answer.  It will not stop that gap. It will just speed up the sexodus.

The challenge for real men (and real women) is otherwise.  It is to challenge feminism not to ape it.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.


  1. Interesting. Dont doubt it for a moment. Going to be interesting to see what the replies are going to be to this thread….

  2. “A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

    Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are
    naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat
    the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations
    discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve
    financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal
    mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower
    the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the
    park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron
    stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

    Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

    If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?”


    • I’ll believe you when I see feminists actually devoting as much time and effort to these causes as they do on fighting university “microaggressions” and whining about imaginary pay gaps.

    • Oh please stop!
      Feminism is all about special entitlement for women, female supremacy, and is full of anti-male rhetoric.
      You check your privilege!

    • “Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are
      naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.”

      Except it was feminism that pushed for exactly that. Arguing that women were far better suited to raising children than men.

      “Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.”

      No I’m pretty certain many feminists and a significant number of non feminist women believe women are inherently superior to men.

      “Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.”

      Except it was NOW that have repeatedly blocked reforms in this area, whilst simultaneously complaining that as women are earning more, are more often having to pay out alimony more.

      “Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.”

      The term “Rape Culture” actually came about as a description of the conditions faced in US Federal prisons. It was co-opted by feminists who then conveniently ignored the men for the next 60 years. This pattern has repeated itself whenever feminism has come across a “worthy” cause.

      “Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.”

      Indeed, they simply deny that false accusations occur in a significant enough number to bother dealing with, if they acknowledge them at all that is.

      “Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.”

      All evidence to the contrary. You know which group shouts “man up” louder than any other group? Feminists. They can barely hold their contempt in check when faced with someone who isn’t stereotypically masculine. The only time they even recognise such men’s existence is to make them the butt of jokes, to imply their likely being a predator of some type, or to use them as door mats.

      I skipped the next one because frankly unless given preferential treatment, feminists are the first to complain.

      “Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coalmines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.”

      Number of times any feminist organisation in the west has pushed for women to do those sorts of dangerous, heavy and poorly paid jobs? Zero. Not once in all of it’s history.

      “Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lowerthe quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.”

      Except that many of the pressures men in the west face today are a direct result of liberating women at the behest of feminism, whilst they continued to demand all the privileges they previously enjoyed. Typically this would involve the use of shaming tactics “man up” etc.

      “Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to thepark (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.”

      Except that it was feminist groups, in conjunction with certain conservative groups who throughout the late 80s to the present day who have actively pushed this narrative, despite women abusing children far more often than men, both as a percentage and as raw numbers.

      “Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and ironstuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.”

      Want to take a wild guess at which group was one of the strongest proponents of the White Feather campaign?

      “Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.”

      No, victimhood is something actively pushed by feminists themselves. But you’re right, feminism doesn’t want to stop prosecutions, just the punishments that would follow.

  3. Male privilege is a fact.

    The power structures of society are still dominated by males – in most cases, white males.

    • I fully realise I am not the same as the people who want me to check my privilege. Therefore, I have now checked my privilege, in relation to them, and continue to believe that they are an utter flaming nightmare.

      Thanks to the Daily Mash for covering “privilege” properly.

  4. Well there are people and groups who try and I’d say succeed in fighting back in some areas. But there is now such an industry built up around the fundamentalist feminists that they are all too often able to cow business into pre-emptively taking action against those groups who fight back meaning that even if the feminists lose the argument in the long term they achieve their main aim of shutting down the debate when they are on a high visibility media platform.

    Gamergate is a good example of this. On both sides there were some wrong-uns doing some pretty shady things – publicising personal details etc etc. But the thrust of the Gamergate was about corruption in gaming journalism and the way that developers had less than healthy relationships, both financial and sexual, with some gaming journalists. Now if you were to ask most people – assuming they were aware at all – most would probably say they thought it was to do with sexism and misogyny. That is because of the way that the developer at the heart of the first scandal, Zoe Quinn, was able to frame the issue with help from Anita Sarkeesian.

    Again this last week a group of self-confessed comic and gaming nerds attending the Calgary Comic Expo were kicked out for ‘disrupting’ a panel discussion. Apparently asking questions the panel didn’t want to hear was disruptive and created an ‘unsafe’ environment for the feminists to continue.

    That is the battle that is being fought. The language of safe spaces, unsafe environments, claims of misogyny being used to shut down any dissent and so on. It is impossible to debate the extremist feminists as they don’t want to debate they want compliance and sadly event organisers, universities and even a great deal of the media are allowing them to get away with it.

      • If I may suggest one thing. Take your language of victimhood and divisiveness and shove it. My opinions are as valid as anyone else’s. I refuse to allow you to dictate what I may or may not say because you’ve become addicted to a language that enshrines victimhood and misandry in your life.

        I do not need anyone to tell me anything. I think for myself and don’t simply trot out lazy platitudes or use copy and paste to make my arguments.

    • That’s the point that so many commentators miss. You can’t debate someone who won’t engage in debate with you.

      Also, how are men to stand up to the legal discrimination against them? It’s all very well Kathy saying that we should stand up to feminism, but when it’s backed by the Courts (as in ridiculously unfair divorce settlements) what can you do? Tell the judge that you don’t accept their decision? It’ll be off to jail for you, matey.

  5. I wonder if all these feminists who demand All Women Shortlists in politics to address the imbalance, saying 50% of the population is female therefore 50% of MPs should be female, would support All Male Shortlists for teachers within primary school education in which females outnumber males by about 20 to 1 it appears. After all, a male role model at school for many children who don’t have one at home can only be an added bonus?

    Problem is, they don’t. Our lacklustre PCC (Carlisle) only gained her position via an AWS but won’t answer the above questions regarding addressing the more important and urgent imbalance in education. It appears the looney left only support selective balancing.

    Good article Kathy, I’d love to hear your views on balancing males/females within primary education.

    • As a feminist I’d be delighted to see more males becoming primary school teachers and working in childcare.

      • Talk is cheap. What actual practical things is the feminist movement doing — you know, pushing for compulsory 50-50 hiring quotas in primary schools, changing the culture of primary school education to make it more macho and aggressive and attractive to men, that sort of thing?

  6. How are women accessing these ‘powers’ ?
    All the issues come from the same place. Women were sidelined by political power and now they are utilising it. Good for women. If the mechanism exists then one group or another will use it to benefit themselves.
    One must choose to give up this violence. It is only when we realise we get nothing that we really value via this method that we might begin to see the reality of the situation.
    Just as our fairy stories implored us not to rely on three wishes or genies, then neither should we accede to the state to grant our commands.

  7. Agree. Utterly and without reservation. This is the world The Left wanted, and they are getting it, because those with sense just walk away and say “I’m not getting involved”.

    The professionally offended win, because everyone else is getting on with enjoying their lives in the best way possible, not writing angsty pieces about how unfair everything is. It’s hard to complain when you understand that the only person who holds you back from whatever you deem as success is yourself. For those that don’t grasp this fundamental, everyone else is to blame.

    I, for one, shall raise my children of all (smirk) genders to be patriarchs of their own existence, not to do anyone else down, but to achieve all they can for themselves, in whatever field they so desire. If they meet a suitably strident mate, who further empowers them to success, then so be it, and with my blessing. But I shall ward them strongly away from those who would limit their power, those people are beneath contempt.

  8. I know not all men are rapists or rape apologists. There are plenty of “nice guys” out there.

    So why don’t more of the decent men on here speak out against rape culture, which is
    becoming a bigger problem on our university campuses and society as a whole?

    I hate to say it, but the fact that so few men are willing to join hands with the Feminist movement in condemning ALL rape, as a heinous crime, and in campaigning against the disgustingly low level of rape convictions, is a savage indictment of the male gender as a whole.

    If men checked their privilege, you would realise that in the patriarchal society in which we live, you are extremely unlikely to ever be raped (unless you go to prison).

    • Maybe we don’t talk about rape culture because we think it doesn’t really exist. In order to get the ludicrously high estimates for female probability of being raped they’ve had to stretch the definition of rape to include such BS as “I had sex with my boyfriend/husband because he wanted it, even though I wasn’t really in the mood”. Male chances of being raped is as high as women’s, not because we have much of a chance of being raped by other men in prison, but because when you use the same BS definition as for women it turns out that men have sex with their girlfriends/wives, even if they’re not really in the mood, just as often as women do. In other words; women “rape” men just as often as men “rape” women.

    • Plenty of men are opposed to ALL rape, as you put it. They don’t “speak out against rape culture” because rape culture is a myth invented to justify feminist misandry.

  9. There’s only one group that can stand up to the feminists, and thats other women. Men can’t do it for all the reasons other have enumerated. Its the Nixon going to China concept. Only a rabid rightwinger could pull off a rapprochement with Red China on the basis that he’s not doing it for ideological reasons, but pure pragmatism, so it will be accepted as OK. Same goes for attacking feminism – men have something to gain, so whether or not any proposed changes are actually right and fair, because they come from a side with something to gain from them they will be written off as self interest. Only if women themselves voluntarily demand changes that will in fact work to their personal detriment (ie changes to child custody, changes to divorce laws, changes to AWS in employment etc etc) will such demands be seriously considered.

    And thats why it won’t happen – there are not enough fair minded women who will actively campaign for changes that could negatively affect them personally. There are probably as many fair minded women as there are feminist nutjobs, both are probably quite small in number. Its just that the feminists are in positions of power (spread through the State and Third sector in a Long March through the Institutions), the fair minded women are not in power, and the broad mass of women don’t actually care enough about any male issues to do anything about them. They are quite happy with things as they are, so have no incentive to rock the boat, or indeed ever really think very hard about them. Things have been the way they are for so long that for many women its just a case of ‘Well thats just the natural order of things’, much in the way men would have had the same attitude in the 50s about male domination of the workplace and female relegation to the domestic sphere.

    We have come full circle – only this time I don’t think there are as many fair minded women as there were fair minded men back in the day who were prepared to fight for womens rights against their own gender’s selfish interest. Then there were men in power who were prepared to fight for women’s rights – I can think of no women in power today who would even consider fighting for mens rights, most of them would argue there is no problem, and women need even more special treatment than they get already.

    Hence why men are just dropping out – there is literally no way for them to win this argument, so they refuse to participate. Like the classic 80s film War Games says ‘Sometimes the only winning move is not to play the game at all’

    • Well, you are underestimating Men. It is Men who has stood up against all devils of the past- and elimination of present evil of feminism shall not be any different….. off course they need to avoid woman in this war for most the women are using vested interest created by feminists in their favour.

    • I think that people are starting to see what feminism has become, a nasty, ideology that pushes women to the front of the queue, not on merit or need, but because of their gender. What’s more there are a whole bunch of us women fully aware and deeply concerned about feminism and its prejudice against men, because we are the mothers’ of sons.
      Don’t despair!

      • Unfortunately while you having your eyes opened by having sons and seeing how the world treats them is a good thing, its also part of the problem. Sadly women generally only come round to seeing the evils of feminism when it personally affects them. When their boys are treated badly in school, just because they are boys. When their son gets falsely accused of rape, when their son is done over by the divorce courts, when their husband has to deal with a psycho ex-wife using the courts to make his (and her) life hell.

        And that isn’t enough people to create a mass movement. What you need is women to join in based purely on a sense of unfairness. That men are being treated badly, and its not fair. Not because they have personally experienced problems because of feminism, but because they can see others (male and female) are being affected and they want to help.

        And I know its not PC, but I don’t think women think like this. They are very much about their little bubble of the world. If something affects that bubble they will move heaven and earth to fight it. But things outside that bubble, in an theoretical way, they aren’t interested in. Thus until feminism manages to screw things up for a large proportion of women (and those women actually realise that feminism is the reason things are screwed up for them) then there will be no mass movement of women demanding change.

  10. I have to disagree. The dangers in “challenging” feminism are simply too great for men. It is far too easy, for instance, for a man to have his life destroyed with a false allegation combined with “listen and believe”. It is far too easy for a man to get married and lose far more than half of everything in a divorce. It is far, far too easy for men to be accused of sexual harassment, bias and privilege and silenced. Today there is already one college requiring an “ideologically approved feminist reeducation” for mere ADMISSION to their programs.

    From a cost/risk analysis-nope-it is far better for men to simply walk away. Period.

  11. I’ve pretty much had it up to here with Feminists. Oh sure they loved me when I said I was Anti-Rape but the second they found out that I made comments that suggested my sexual submissiveness towards men(yes I’m one of those Dom/Sub types and I do in fact have a Dom make of that what you will) and an interest in BDSM as a Submissive I was compared to Karla Homolka(a woman who helped her husband kidnap, rape and murder several young women including her baby sister) and told I was setting back Feminism

    -_- Ok ya rabid broads you know that part where you harp about sex positivity and consent and being in control of your sexuality? Yeah that’s what I’m doing sorry not sorry if you disagree with the choices of my own free will.

    I will point out that I cannot and will not have sex with random strangers, can’t do it too weird so there’s that along with not having any physical sexual contact with anyone yet. I don’t feel pressured to have sex but I know I will and I know with whom. After that I’m content with just living out my life either with someone or on my own.

  12. LOL
    “Come back to the plantation fellas! Never mind those laws!”

    Notice how these articles never take the laws into account. Why? Because women love and want those laws.

    Go your own way boys.

  13. Restore the presumption in law that a man is the natural guardian of his legitimate children, and we can talk.

  14. A passable piece of comedy by Ms Gyngell, but lacking the satirical edge of some of ConWoman’s better pieces.

    Got the usual chavs et al out in force. Well done 🙂

    • Oh, and what happened to various other of my other ConWoman comments BTW?

      Too challenging to the dogma and narrative were they?

    • Right. Because how dare men stand up against being abused, right?

      You better check your female privledge……

  15. Kathy Gyngell’s analysis is good, although second hand, and little more than a repetition of already well-rehearsed arguments. She is wrong, however, in asserting that men should fight back. That argument completely fails to understand the nature of the problem and is over simplistic. I would go so far as to say it is a typically female response to what is now undoubtedly a very serious threat we are all facing from feminism.

    Put in a nutshell, feminism is the politicisation of gender. For almost five decades, since women’s so-called liberation started its crusade, a small but influential élite (and now a powerful one, because they have colonised our political system, which is why we have a major political crisis looming in the general election) has been steadily turning women into a political class, convincing them that they are oppressed by another political class – men – and agitating for an uprising, which has happened.

    Women have become combative and competitive. They want to be able to do all that men do, just to prove they are at least as good as men (Like who cares? Only women). They invade men’s social spaces just because they can, leaving nowhere for men to be just men. At the same time, they demand their own segregated social space, and they are demanding, selfish, strident, attacking, rude, denigrating of men and maleness. Put simply, women are on a political rampage trough society, kicking over the tables, pushing men around and provoking them to fight back, which is what feminism wants. It wants social upheaval, because that will achieve what it has always wanted – a broken society which it can then reconstruct as totally gynocentric.

    Franky, Kathy Gyngell’s argument that men should fight back is just going to play right into the hands of the feminists. Except for it being uncomfortably close to yet another feminist’s male taunt to ‘Man up’, it shows yet again how women today really just do not understand men because they have disconnected themselves so much from mens’ rationality, responsibility, and wisdom.

    Men are becoming heartily sick of the calumnies women heap on them daily. They are not wife beaters, rapists, or boardroom hogs, and so they are responding in the only way possible – contempt. Men cannot fight back against women. They are programmed to turn away, giving the cold shoulder, giving ground, and refusing to fight. If men fought back, there would be blood on the ground, and it wouldn’t be theirs.

    Across the world men are doing the only rational thing they can. They are ‘going their own way’ (called MGTOW in the US), just switching off and getting on with their male-focussed lives, enjoying the fruit of their labour, free from the responsibility of wives and children – and who can blame them when those responsibilities are now so full of pain with no gain? In Japan, we are seeing the asexual ‘grass eaters’ or ‘ojo men’, and these are just the visible manifestations of what will become a mass response of men. Men are acting rationally not hot-headedly to what has become an unstoppable force and if women don’t let up, men will just disengage completely in a mass denial of service.

    The only way this problem, which will knock on for generations yet, will be solved is for women to re-covenant with men and with society in their rôle as mothers and wives: the co-creators of stability in life long relationships in which they are the primary curators of the next generation: the creators of social capital, not solely economic capital.

    Women need to wake up to the pup feminism has sold them. They need to get off their flimsy female built high horses and wake up to the stark reality that nothing happens in a vacuum in society. What goes around comes around. One group cannot demand rights without recognising the diminution of others’ rights; as a result.

    Men fighting back is not the answer. Women started this stupid assault on men, and they are going to have to end it. Men and women are not political parties vying for social power. They are human beings who should be engaged in a joint effort to build a society for everyone’s happiness. A society that is at peace with itself. One in which women can live happily with men; where men can trust women again, and where their children can be brought up to be successful future citizens. That is the hard-won pinnacle that men and women had reached until the wrecking ball of feminism came along.

  16. ‘Most men have a sense that this obsession with ‘rape culture’ and ‘privilege’ has more to do with a loony-left worldview than reality’. How many men do you talk to about their sexual behaviour?, probably not than many, if at all, yet that is the prevailing mind set which assumes there ‘is no rape culture’, and so only goes to enforce it.

  17. What we’ve achieved is the world of the ‘Female Eunuch’ , by Germain Greer published in the 1970’s , which received a lot of criticism from other feminists at the time by the way, but carried because of the authors profile in the media. It’s really the media which has promoted promiscuity, (selling films, magazines and newspapers) and still does through male writers who have distorted our perception of historical attitudes, and now the internet.


    ‘True’ feminism should recognise that a matriarchal society is as damaging as a patriarchal one, and attempting to garner and excercise control over men by replacing one system of dominance and control with another, isn’t a step foward.

    Liberty should be about being free to fulfill ones own life in the way one chooses, and making decisions from a position of understanding without being forced into what others want, which is as much about being subjected to enforced sexual violence as it is domestic servitude. We should be free economically to choose to have young children grow up with a parent living with one (or other) at home; we should also be free to be able to persue a career which ultimately offers greatest security early on, and should things go wrong; and we should receive the education (early on) that allows us to make the those choices to best advantage.

    • We’ve also achieved something else Germaine Greer said ‘Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true, willy nilly, so let’s get on with it.’

      Feminism’s war on patriarchy is actually a war on fatherhood. The notion of family no longer automatically includes the rôle of the father: the protector, the guide, the provider – and yes the final authority in the home, where the mother makes the rules and the father enforces them. Your utopian dream is a nightmare. Men as fathers are being systematically deprived of their rights to be loving parents by a family courts’ system in thrall to political correctness, and served by a courts’ welfare system that is overwhelmingly populated by feminists whose values have become almost institutionally creedal.

      A third of British children are now caught up in the family justice system, and under the mendacious idea of acting in the best interests of the child, far too many of them are being deprived of their natural fathers.

      Large numbers of them now live in families where the mother has replaced the father as the head. This is de facto matriarchy encouraged by the family courts’ policy of consistently parcelling out children’s care and upbringing to mothers, many of who flaunt father’s access orders granted by apparently blind eyed judges.

      Even more children thrust unwillingly into ‘blended families’ with ‘new dads’ in a jumble of step parents, half-brothers, half-sisters, and assorted non-blood relatives, which institutionally denies them their right to the protection of their natural father, and to his and his family’s cultural influence in their lives, let alone the child’s rightful financial inheritance.

      Your free to be lived life is all about you. You are failing completely to factor in your responsibility as a woman, as a co-creator of society – with men, not against them – all you’re interested in is me, me, me. Real women don’t do or think lie you do. Real women, if there are any left that is, recognise the dignity of their own sex, and that of men. They ought to take the likes of you and kick you out of their and their men’s lives, and good riddance to your cultural Marxist claptrap.

  18. Education is life long, available to everybody (including the 90% of men you say are not bothered about it) and costs very little. Virtually everything you want to know, you can find in a book or on line.

  19. I had forgotten the name behind the stupidity but was aware she is a long time poster of buzzword* bingo comments. Not feeding the troll is all well and good and usually I would dismiss her inane ramblings but on this occasion I thought a short paragraph wouldn’t be too much for her to take in.

    I would love to know how the DT ever thought she was fit for employment when all she seems capable of is trotting out lunatic lefty feminist shibboleths using copy and paste in lieu of actual thought.

    * (polite version)

  20. Corinthians 11:3
    http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-3.htm But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    A woman doesn’t look for direction from a man…Corinthians 11:3 is in fact stating that there is no difference between a mans head and a womans head in terms of access to God ..and since science is showing we are all part of the universal consciousness that is absolutely correct. What isn’t correct is that women have to be subjugated under men, which itself is directly opposed to the teaching of Jesus: Mathhew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets – and that’s no different even in the King James.

    • “science is showing we are all part of the universal consciousness ”

      Never heard of the “Universal Consciousness” except on Star Trek possibly. Have you got a link to explain what it is?

  21. A larger problem coming down the line is the fact that the feminist education system has discriminated against boys to the extent that now 60% of third level entrants are girls and 40% boys. Where are all these high flying women going to get husbands – women generally are hypergamous?

    • How does higher levels of education discrimate against women getting husbands? only if you assume husbands will not accept wives less well educated than they are, or that wives will not help support a family financially

  22. Could not agree more, James. Men NEED women to help in this fight, for we cannot do it on our own.

  23. >That’s why men playing victim, however badly they have been treated,
    is no answer. It will not stop that gap. It will just speed up the

    You are heavily implying that speeding up the sexodus is a bad thing.
    But it isn’t. It’s the greatest thing that ever happened for men. And it will continue to grow, whether women like it or not.

    The time has come for women to truly be on their own and see how it’s like.
    Will some decent women be affected by this? Of course. But men shouldn’t even consider caring about that. It’s not like women stopped for even one second to consider how many decent men were affected by their “revolution”.

    Do I sound too rough? Absolutely. But I didn’t make the rules. I don’t like the sexodus thing too much either -> but the society has been relying for far too long on men’s willingness to sacrifice for women and children. And what the author of this article proposes is for men to find new ways to sacrifice even further for women -> and we can’t have that.

    Time for women to get some cats. Don’t be afraid! Kittehz are cute and fluffy 😀

    • Which revolution are you talking about, the one that gave women the vote?
      The revolution that allowed women to be educated?
      The revolution that supported the industrial revolution and took the West out of poverty?
      Or the one that needs to happen now to take familes out of poverty globally?

      When you educate women you also educate their children to expect something better..

      “According to the economic historian Bob Allen, it was the combination of these high wages with cheap coal (which made capital cheap to run) that brought about the Industrial Revolution – that made industrialisation profitable. In the simplest possible terms, the decisions made by the average woman – decisions about work, marriage and family – had the power to transform the economy. In fact, as much power as the male inventors with whom we are already very familiar.

      What history shows is that greater freedoms for women underpinned the very beginnings of modern economic growth. If we want to understand why the West became rich and why so many other parts of the world are still poor, gender (in) equality, is precisely the place to look.”


      • Silly girl.

        “Which revolution are you talking about, the one that gave women the vote?”

        Women were fighting for women’s suffrage when not all MEN could vote. Selfish women.

        “The revolution that allowed women to be educated?”

        Oh please, EYEROLL, women have always been educated, even back to the Greeks and Romans.

        “The revolution that supported the industrial revolution and took the West out of poverty?”

        And the globalization that thrust it right back into poverty.

        “What history shows is that greater freedoms for women underpinned the very beginnings of modern economic growth.”

        EYE. ROLL. This is a common feminist tactic called “putting the wagon in front of the horse” – ie, confusing cause and effect. Economic growth is what ALLOWED for freedoms for women, NOT the other way around. And what did women do with freedom… oh yeah… they became so nasty that 70% of men ages 20-34 have decided to remain single…

        This is what feminism does:

        – It reduces the value of labor by inflating the amount of workers
        – It reduces female fertility dropping the birth rate
        – It raises taxes
        – It creates conflict between men and women and increases divorce rates
        – Which then results in a “marriage boycott”
        – So on and so forth an endless string of negative consequences

        There’s a difference between “rights and freedom for women” and *feminism*.

  24. >One in five women aged 16-59 have been subjected to a sexual assault

    Women in Europe are by far the most protected group on the entire planet in the entire mankind’s history.

    • Not according to the Ministry of Justice or the Office for national statistics who comied the statistic in their 2013 report, your last comment shows you up for what you are.

  25. From the report you link to:

    “Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16.”

    Which is pretty much in line with what I’d expect for a more rational estimate than more alarmist numbers used by the feminists; the yearly rate would have to be extremely low in order for only 5% of women to report being the victim of at least one serious sexual offense up to 43 years ago. The feminists like to claim that 1 in 5 (or whatever) women are likely to be raped while at collage in the USA which is a significantly higher order of magnitude.

    “Extending this to include other sexual offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16.”

    This repeats the one in five number, but includes low order offenses and extends to the period from “while at college” to “since age 16”.

    That report does not really support the idea that we have a rape culture.

    From your quotes from the University of Colorado:

    “Rape Supportive Culture is a term or concept used to describe a culture in which sexual assault, rape, and violence is common…”

    5% of women reporting a serious assault since age 16 does not really support the idea that that rape is common by any reasonable definition.

  26. Mez darling, I think maybe you miss the comedic elements of this particular ‘Herberts’ critique of dear Kathy’s efforts.

    A nice touch is the mock praise “Kathy Gyngell’s analysis is good…..”

    ohhh, get her purring with praise from [no less than] a man……..And then swiftly on to burst her bubble

    “[Kathy Gyngell’s analysis is good], ……..although second hand, and little more than a repetition of already well-rehearsed arguments. She is wrong, however, in asserting that men should fight back….
    ……. I would go so far as to say it is a typically female response….

    ……Put simply, women are on a political rampage trough society, kicking over the tables, pushing men around and provoking them to fight back, which is what feminism wants….

    …..Women started this stupid assault on men….

    Please don’t tell me that Herbert is for real 😉

    • Yes I am real. And well spotted as to my literary devices. Aren’t you clever! Frankly, there’s no need to lock up your daughters, they’re safe enough. No decent man is going to want them in future. Watch this social space….

      • Nah mate you are not for real, you are still a Herbert.

        Yes I am “watching this social space” but only because it is so funny

        Thanks for the crystal-balling regarding the future of my kids, but I don’t think that the whinge-fest of a bunch of losers will have too much impact on their futures.

        I certainly will not lock up my daughters and they will probably be safe if they stay away from the fanatical and bigoted posters on this this thread. If only these people wore labels.

        To keep them safe I shall give them what advice I can including that issued by Sussex Police:

        imo Good advice from Sussex Police “women stick together and look out for your friends”

        Surely this advice would be unnecessary if there was no RAPE CULTURE which some of you “MR” nutters deny even exists.

        Hopefully natural selection will swiftly mitigate the problem. Darwin awards aplenty LOL

        Losers = evolutionary dead end
        All the smart girls know this. [Their dads tell them]

  27. Kathy Gyngell! I know that feminist woman that went crazy on me because I stood up to her and told her that yeah, men were taller and had more muscles than women. -and you know why I said that? Because she asked!-

    This woman told me that women didnot need men anymore! But, what she doesnt know is that I am “redpill” -a term the manosphere uses- to describe I am aware of women’s lies, deceits, etc.
    She was used to track down on dating sites doctors, army guys, cops, and firemen, only guys with safe jobs.

    What do you think would have happened after she procreated or married with any of those guys? And men need to answer to feminists? Isnt it what Mras do? Arent they called a hate movement?

    If you hate the rules of a game, just don’t play it to lose. If you don’t like feminism, condemn it! Fight sexists bigoted laws, and may be between to xbox parties, we will notice that finally, the deal is interesting for us. For us… we go Galt.

    So, we are gonna show them

    • In the UK that statistic comes from the Office for National Statsics and the Ministry of Justice 2013 report. So it won’t be ‘debunked’

      • Rubbish. It does not come from the ONS or the Ministry of Justice. It is an inference drawn from an estimate based on a sample taken from the British Crime Survey mentioned in a report produced in 2004 by Walby and Allen, and seized on by feminist pressure groups such as Women’s Aid. It is a feminist factoid – basically a lie – consumed with delight by idiot feminists intent on proving what they already ‘know’: that women good, men bad. Remember what I said earlier about abandoning male wisdom? Try it. It might change your life.

        Oh. and btw, it’s not 1 in 5, it’s 1 in 4 – check it out in your little red book. You don’t even seem to know your feminist catechism. Shame on you. The sisterhood will NOT be pleased.

  28. You cannot “walk away” from a doctrine that’s long been embedded into our social belief systems and is poisoning the minds of children at school with potentially lethal effect. The next generation of teachers, lawyers, judges, MPs, police and NGO execs are being taught lies – ones they’ll probably believe forever – as I type. Right now, some little boy is being gently shamed and sidelined; edged onto the road to homelessness, prison or suicide without a clue of how it’s happening. At the same time, a little girl is acting up and getting away with it.

    There is no justification for feminism whatsoever and never has been. It’s merely the latest name for a supremacist movement based on false, revisionist history. Men have not been “more solitary” throughout history at all; they’ve just been increasingly driven this way.

    Women are naturally biologically dependent, to a degree, as they are the life-givers; men are the protectors. It’s why we’re larger and stronger. Feminism teaches women to attempt to negate biological fact and “act like men,” without actually acting like men at all, while simultaneously tipping the playing field. All feminism has done is decimate men’s legal rights while indoctrinating girls into becoming demanding women with entitlement – but without accountability, responsibility and obligation. Women are not to blame for this. Feminism is.

  29. P.S. Kathy, Re.11:02am “Kathy darling,What has feminism done for you? …….”

    Well done for rattling the cages. The reaction has been underwear-changing-hilarious

    These are your supporters! Has it been a eye opener?

    Let me guess ……..all WOMANS fault?

    “MGTOW” ……. errrrr…..bye! All the more opportunity for improving the gene pool PMSL

    • People like you make me realize that now is a great time to invest and buy some stock in Pet Supplies Plus….

  30. Labour over spending policies (Keynsian side economics) coupled with lack of bank regulation caused the 2008-9 crisis in the UK.

    The suffragettes were feminists. Do you understand what feminism is? this is Googles definition :

    fem·i·nism ˈfeməˌnizəm/
    the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

    synonyms:the women’s movement, the feminist movement, women’s liberation, female emancipation, women’s rights;

    informalwomen’s lib
    “a longtime advocate of feminism”

    In no part of that definition is there any suggestion that feminism is about taking control over and subjucating men . It is entirely about equality.

    The point made by the economics article was that the industrial revolution wouldnt have happened without women contributing to the labour force. At that time labour revolved largely around agriculture, had most farm workers up and left for the towns and better paid work in industry, who would have grown crops in the countryside?

    • fem·i·nism ˈfeməˌnizəm/
      the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to only the top 5% men, but with those benefits applied to 100% of the women.

      That is the real definition, and it doesn’t sound like equality to me.

  31. What additional responsibilities are held by a man that the 92% of female lone parents don’t already have (and more- they have to make up for often totally absent fathers)

  32. Historically speaking, the West has the highest standard of living than it’s ever had. Men still earn more than women, in the United States for instance men earn more than women in every field of work, in the UK the gender pay gap stands at 15%




    • “in the United States for instance men earn more than women in every field of work”

      WRONG. Your information is about 10 years out of date. Get with the program. Women control over HALF of wealth in the USA and 20-something women earn more than 20-something men. You’re spreading lies and propaganda. Real eyes see real lies.

    • The pay gap is not as high as that if you want to see how feminists cook the figures have a look at the 11 of June letter in this listing – I think 2011

      To the extent that there is a wage gap it is because women prioritize childcare. We really do. My youngest child is 8 and oldest 22 and I have observed plenty of mothers over the years and we simply have completely different priorities. Even if we have a good job it just seems less important after we have children. And even if we go out to work when our babies are babies we suddenly realise we are missing out and work less. It happens all the time. Katherine Hakim has done lots of work on the wage gap have a read of this as well

      The other reason women choose different jobs is because we are different from men and have different interests so we are less likely to choose science engineering etc.
      Mez give up on feminism. It has been letting you down very badly.

  33. I’m not talking about financial dependance, I’m talking about psychological & emotional dependance. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00289888, but there’s plenty more information available; if you’re legitimately interested, I suggest should look into it. Men and women are very different psychologically. Generally, women have a difficult time with extended solitude. They’re far more socially focused than males and are more reliant on external validation (specifically from the opposite sex) for healthy self-esteem, self-worth and overall quality of life.

  34. Nickel – female surgeons make up less than 10% of those in the UK. Have you considered that highly educated women might be interested in similarly highly educated men because they then have more in common? the worse scenario with somebody of either sex is having to point out why they’re wrong about something – anything, and being put in that situation continually belittles the other person. So ‘because’ men generally want to put themselves into positions of power and control in all forms of relationships, simply because they are male, lopsided relationships of intellect become difficult.

    • Mez, dumb dumb, it doesn’t matter WHY highly educated women are interested in highly educated men, it only matters that they ARE.

      God, you’re so bad at this, no one is buying your crap, no one is letting you cloud their vision. You should just give it up, quit while yer… uh, behind?

    • Well, seen the long list of expectations women have on men, it’s women that put men in position of power over them.

      Income, height, status, fame… women want that in a man. I’m not blaming them. I was just answezring to your previous comment.

  35. CW is pulling the link I’ve already posted several times on different parts of the blog. The full report is on the gov uk web site ‘sexual offending overview 2013’ . here’s an exerpt stats are at the bottom. Rather than dispensing this as a nothing..it’s worth bearing in mind what the criminal definition of ‘assault ‘ is

    At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

    An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civilliability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is,however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

    This report brings together, for the first time, a range of official statistics from across the crime and criminal justice system, providing an overview of sexual offending in
    England and Wales. Most of the information presented in this report has been previously published in other official statistics bulletins.
    The report is structured to highlight: the victim experience; the police role in recording and detecting the crimes; how the various criminal justice agencies deal with an
    offender once identified; and the criminal histories of sex offenders. Providing such an overview presents a number of challenges, not least that the available information comes from different sources that do not necessarily cover the
    same period, the same people (victims or offenders) or the same offences. For example, the results from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) are
    based on self completed questions from a representative sample of adults (aged 16 to 59), asking about an individual’s experiences of sexual offences in the last 12
    months. The police recorded and court information cover all sexual offences, as legislated for in law, committed against any individual irrespective of age or when the
    crime took place, but exclude the large volume of crimes not reported to the police..
    Other issues that prevent direct comparisons include:
     the CSEW focusing on the most recent experience of adults as a victim of sexual offence in the previous 12 months (thus, for example, does not include
    sexual offences experienced by children or those aged 60 or over);
     police recorded crime figures being based on offences per victim (i.e. for each victim in a given incident, a crime is recorded) in the year the crime was reported, irrespective of when the offence took place;
     the criminal justice outcome information (e.g. cautions and convictions) being on an offender basis at the date of the final outcome, again irrespective of when the crime took place. The latter two points mean that figures between the police and court sources will differ, as there will be crimes involving more than one victim or more than one
    offender, or possibly multiple victims and offenders relating to a single crime. It is not currently feasible to track individual cases from initial recording by the police through
    the CJS.
    When interpreting the flows of offences and offenders through the CJS, it is important to note the various stages of attrition and the inherent challenges associated with
    detection and prosecution of crime, in particular with sexual offences. Second, the issue of ‘downgrading’ of offences (when a decision is made by the Crown Prosecution Service, between the initial hearing at the magistrates’ court and the first hearing at the Crown Court, that the initial charge is incorrect and should be changed to another offence) as they move through the system presents analytical challenges
    and requires careful consideration when interpreting the statistics.
    For example, one method of calculating rape conviction rates often used by commentators shows the number of people convicted of rape as a proportion of all rape crimes recorded. Given the different currencies of the two number and the effect of downgrading of offences through the CJS mentioned above, this method is incorrect and misleading in terms of presenting evidence on convictions for rape.
    For the purposes of this report, the results from the last three years’ CSEW have been combined to provide a large enough sample to enable more reliable findings to
    be presented. Elsewhere, the report mainly covers the period 2005 to 2011(for police recoded crime 2005/06 to 2011/12), as 2005 was the first full year following the
    introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Where readily available, longer time series have been provided.
    Detailed statistical tables are provided in the spreadsheets alongside this bulletin.
    Tables referenced in the text are included within the bulletin, whereas others
    referenced are found only within the spreadsheets.
    It is acknowledged that any sexual offence will be a traumatic experience for the
    victim. For ease of reference however, throughout the report, sexual offences have
    been referred to as falling into two groups:
     “Most serious sexual offences”, covering all rape, attempted rape and sexual
    assault offences; and
     “Other sexual offences”, which includes sexual activity with minors (excluding rape and sexual assaults), exposure, voyeurism etc.
    A full description of the offence types included, with reference to the relevant legislation, is included in the glossary in the spreadsheet tables accompanying
    Chapters 3 and 4. A number of summary sexual offences, such as kerb crawling and letting premises for use as a brothel, have been considered outside the scope of the
    publication. Within each chapter, introductory information is provided (in italics) to give a overview of the chapter content, the basis of the statistics included, and the relevant data
    sources. Further background information can be found in the ‘Background to the criminal justice system’ and ‘Data sources and quality’ sections of this bulletin.

    Based on aggregated data from the ‘Crime Survey for England and Wales’ in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12, on average, 2.5 per cent of females and 0.4 per cent
    of males said that they had been a victim of a sexual offence (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. This represents around 473,000 adults being victims of
    sexual offences (around 404,000 females and 72,000 males) on average per year.
    These experiences span the full spectrum of sexual offences, ranging from the most serious offences of rape and sexual assault, to other sexual offences like indecent
    exposure and unwanted touching. The vast majority of incidents reported by respondents to the survey fell into the other sexual offences category.
    It is estimated that 0.5 per cent of females report being a victim of the most serious offences of rape or sexual assault by penetration in the previous 12 months,
    equivalent to around 85,000 victims on average per year. Among males, less than 0.1 per cent (around 12,000) report being a victim of the same types of offences in
    the previous 12 months.
    Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16. Extending this to include other sexual
    offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16.
    Around 90 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences in the previous year knew the perpetrator, compared with less than half for other sexual offences.
    Females who had reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences in the last year were asked, regarding the most recent incident, whether or not they had
    reported the incident to the police. Only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had done so. Frequently cited reasons for not reporting the crime were that it was ‘embarrassing’, they ‘didn’t think the police could do much to help’, that the incident was ‘too trivial or not worth reporting’, or that they saw it as a ‘private/family
    matter and not police business’
    In 2011/12, the police recorded a total of 53,700 sexual offences across England and Wales. The most serious sexual offences of ‘rape’ (16,000 offences) and ‘sexual
    assault’ (22,100 offences) accounted for 71 per cent of sexual offences recorded by
    the police. This differs markedly from victims responding to the CSEW in 2011/12, the majority of whom were reporting being victims of other sexual offences outside
    the most serious category. This reflects the fact that victims are more likely to report the most serious sexual
    offences to the police and, as such, the police and broader criminal justice system (CJS) tend to deal largely with the most serious end of the spectrum of sexual
    offending. The majority of the other sexual crimes recorded by the police related to ‘exposure or voyeurism’ (7,000) and ‘sexual activity with minors’ (5,800).

    Analysis of the three most recent survey years indicates
     Females aged between 16 and 19 were at the highest risk of being a victim of a sexual offence (8.2 per cent) and as age increased the risk of victimisation reduced.
     Single females6
    and those who were separated were more at risk than other
    females (5.3 per cent and 3.7 per cent respectively).
     Females from households in the lowest income bracket (under £10,000 per year) showed an increased risk of victimisation (3.8 per cent) as did full time students
    (6.8 per cent), and the unemployed (3.8 per cent).
     An increased risk of victimisation was apparent for females with limiting disabilities or illnesses (3.4 per cent) and those who were economically inactive at the time of interview due to long term illness (4.9 per cent).
     Factors relating to household location, and housing tenure were also related to risk of victimisation. For example, prevalence rates were higher among females in
    the ‘City Living’ Output Area Classification category8
    (5.5 per cent), people living in flats or maisonettes (3.9 per cent), those living in an urban area (2.6 per cent)
    and in rented accommodation (3.4 per cent for social rented accommodation and 4.6 for private rented).
     Sexual victimisation rates were higher for females who reported visiting a pub at least once a week (4.3 per cent) or a night club one to three times a month (5.6
    per cent). Those who visited a night club at least four times a month had the highest victimisation rate of any characteristic covered by the CSEW (9.2 per cent).
    Many of these characteristics will be closely associated, so care should be taken not to view the categories in isolation. Particular attention should be paid to the
    relationship between age and characteristics such as marital status, full-time student status and use of nightclubs and pubs; as should the relationship between household
    income and economic status, output area classification, tenure, occupation and residential characteristics.
    Previous reports in this area have used logistic regression to help identify factors which are independently associated with increased risk of victimisation. Previous
    analysis by the Home Office9 found that the characteristics which contributed most to explaining the risk of sexual offence were the respondent’s sex, use of any drugs in
    the last year and age. However, other variables such as marital status, having a longterm illness or disability and frequency of visits to a nightclub were also important.

    • Is that the best you can do? Repeating screeds of official commentary without any understanding, just to show that you are a clever as men? Typical feminist technique me dear. Doesn’t wash. I prefer thinking – try it, if you can do it that is.

  36. nobody would be complaining about being pushed past through a door..this is the criminal definition of non sexual assault, does it allow for being pushed through a door? how many people have been imprisoned for pushing somebody through a door by mistake? really.

    At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

    An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability tocause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civilliability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is,however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted butunsuccessful Battery.

    • You are either being deliberately obtuse or you have missed the point again. Considering you ignored my other points as well I suspect the former. The fact you then proceed to paste a load of non-relevant nonsense identifies you as a troll.

  37. So once again you want men to stand up and fix your problems. Not once do you consider that women may have a greater moral obligation to challenge feminism since feminism claims to represent women’s interests. What does that say about you?

  38. Not sexual violence but “sexual offence” which “include other sexual offences like indecent exposure and unwanted touching”. I am pretty sure similar number of men have experienced “unwanted touching”.

  39. If I may say so, a typical response from a chauvinist feminist. Thank you for so precisely making my point. You need to change the record my dear, the times they are a changin’. ‘The first ones now will later be last’.

  40. Most men in America are some degree of MGTOW – 70% of men ages 20-34 are unmarried. If a man doesn’t get married by the age of 35, he probably never will get married. Men are living happier lives as pick-up artists or bachelors than they would with LTRs and marriages. And then there are the men seeking brides overseas… These facts terrify white American women.

    Face it: Women got what they wanted, they liberated themselves from all social graces and freed themselves to engage in their base animal sexuality and indulge in their constantly changing feelings…. and now they’re realizing what a bad deal it was for THEM. I have NO interest in “standing up” and “fixing” anything – feminism was a really good deal for me and men like me! Casual, commitment free sex? Yes please! Don’t have to get married? Yes please! Don’t have to be a workhorse/mealticket for any broad? Yes please!

    Thank you feminism!

  41. Er, no Kathy. The best option is the simple “If you don’t want me, I’ll just go.” It’s what women prefer in every other male/female conflict situation. I’ll just go and be a man somewhere else.
    Australia’s nice…..

    In truth, you personally want us to fight because you want to fight, you know you ought to fight, but are scared to.

    • Even as we’re walking out the door, the demand we “get back here and fix this mess I made!”. Amazing, the female mind, isn’t it?

  42. Well said Yan. Very well said. You mention going Galt. Remember what John Galt said in Ayn Rand’s prescient novel Atlas Shrugged?

    ‘‘… our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind…We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.’

    This is the MGTOW manifesto, written almost 50 years ago!


  43. What are you doing for men? It doesn’t matter whether a woman is conservative or leftwing crazy, all she knows how to do is TAKE TAKE TAKE!

  44. More lies! You utter fool. ‘Approximately 85,000 women are raped on average in England and Wales every year’ WRONG!

    If you go to table 2.2 in the Crime Survey for England and Wales Dataset User Guide: Adults aged 16 and over 2011/12. Crime Statistics Office for National Statistics, you will see the 85,000 figure in the 4th column, 3 lines down where it can clearly be seen as referring to the upper limit of an estimated range of 54,000-85,000, based on a 95 per cent confidence level of accuracy of a sample (which is what the British Crime SURVEY is – geddit? A survey, not statistics). Just to the left of this we can see that the ONS statisticians give their actual best estimate, which is 69,000.

    What is more, and this is the bummer for you my dear, these data include attempted rape AND sexual assault. The phrase ‘including attempts’ is used no less than seven times in the table, and it really cannot be missed except by feminist bigots who cannot see anything except their blind dogma.

    What you are saying is just plain wrong – hello? Are you receiving?

    Even to say that 85,000 women are raped on average in England and Wales every year’ wrong on three counts:

    1. The 85,000 figure is itself wrongly quoted as I have pointed out;
    2. It is not a factual number, it is simply an estimate;
    3. It cannot be said that these serious sexual offences are happening ‘on average every year because the very title of the table is unambiguously specific. It says the data come from only three years, 2009-12 and the figures given are average of those three years only.

    This might seem like a fine point, but the fact is, the survey to which the figures relate has only been carried out since 2009 and it produced different results in each year, which is why the data have been averaged over the three year period.

    The best that can be said is that 69,000 women were estimated to have been raped, including attempted rape and sexual assault, on average over the three years 2009-12 – and even then the figures are not statistics recording actual incidents, as I have already pointed out.

    You are spreading a lie when you say this. Will you retract and apologise?

    I might add that Vera Baird, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria, and raging feminist, was held to have failed the ‘legal, decent, honest, truthful’ test by the Advertising Standards Authority earlier this year for making precisely the same claim on advertising in her area. She was made to desist. Will you?

  45. “92% of lone parents are women”: Yes indeed, and they are dependent on the State. The State has replaced a man in large sections of society, but those women still need someone or something to provide resources for them while they raise those kids. They aren’t (by and large) doing it by the fruits of their own labour. If single parent benefits disappeared tomorrow, the stampede of ‘independent’ single mothers towards men and family units with men at their head would be Biblically epic.

  46. “1- The data published in a report by the ONS and Ministry of Justice is for sexual violence, not an ‘offense’ and clearly states one in five women in the UK have experienced sexual violence between the ages of 16 and 59.”

    It says nothing of the sort. This is the relevant quote from the report:

    “…throughout the report, sexual offences have been referred to as falling into two groups:

    “Most serious sexual offences”, covering all rape, attempted rape and sexual assault offences;


    “Other sexual offences”, which includes sexual activity with minors (excluding rape and sexual assaults), exposure, voyeurism etc.”

    The basic 5% figure is for the first category and the 20% is for the second category. But even if you were right, 20% of women suffering sexual violence at some point in their lifetime would still not make that type of offense “commonplace”.

    I’ll have a look at your second point later, it’s too late to read it all now.

  47. “Men need to demonstrate that they are, as Peter argues, a brilliant sex – inventors, creators, doers, fighters and protectors.”
    Uhm, that’s what we’ve been doing for thousands of years. Feminists know we do all that, and they take advantage of it for their own profit.

  48. Metz you are full of crap my dear. Come back when you have some accurate stats and not your cherry picked, misinterpreted, inflated horseshit.

  49. I’m assuming he means that the sales of cats and dogs to all the single women will be going through the roof, and pet food supply firms will be doing roaring trade…….leastways thats what I hope he means……….

  50. Sorry, not sorry.
    Men are smarter than the stereotype you see in modern sitcoms on TV, or in Ads, or anywhere else. We’ve changed thanks to Feminism. Shaming used to work on us, but now it only works on the few who still hold their manhood cheap. So I and I suspect the majority of men in the world will not be picking up the white feather of your argument.

    Sorry this battlefield is of women’s making, and we’ve bled on it already. What is going on today in Universities, in the halls of government, and all across the main stream media is Feminist global thermonuclear war. As the quote from the movie goes, “Strange Game it seems the only way to win is not to play.” That is exactly what the “Sexodus,” and MGTOW is, men choosing not to play.

    So when the Feminists like Amanda Marcotte, and Jessica Valenti spew their brand of hate all it does is widens the gulf. At some point their may come a time when an emerging nation figures out that if they make their culture more egalitarian and less gynocentric then western men will bring their skills, and backs. Then the “Sexodus,” will become a true, “Exodus,” and western women with their first world problems will get to add new third world problems to their lists because they will have to do all the dangerous, dirty jobs for their selves.

  51. Where’s the giving? All I saw was an article by yet another conservative woman whining about how bad it is for WOMEN if men boycott traditional marriage. She’s no better than the feminists. The entire article is about how feminism has gotten women are bad deal because men are not around to do their heavy lifting for them.

    Men don’t need to demonstrate that they’re “…brilliant sex – inventors, creators, doers, fighters and protectors…”. History’s already demonstrated that.

    It’s time women stopped whining and started fixing their own problems.

    • They aren’t womens problems though are they ?

      “Men don’t need to demonstrate that they’re “…brilliant sex”

      that’s highlighted one problem – focus on the inventions brought about by the few in a larger society which also refused to educate women beyond reading writing and needlework, refuses (comments on this blog) to even consider now that sexual violence is on the increase, and says it’s all rubbish, is that brilliant? I think not.

      • Are you serious? All we talk about is women’s problems! The entire world, from the average coffeeshop employee to the entire fuckin’ UN; it’s always about the women; even when their problems are ridiculously trivial; but open your mouth once and say something in support of men, overwhelmingly dying on battlefields, the majority of the homeless, the minority in universities, the bias against them, the fraudulent charges brought, by women no less, against them, the divorce courts taking them for everything they’ve got and their children away from them, and yet we still can’t shut up about women.

        Even now, when society is finally feeling, somewhat, the effects of men abandoning ambition in society, going their own way, we can only discuss it from the lens of “how it affects women”.

        Where do you people come up with this crap?

    • “Where’s the giving?” [RE Kathy is all GIVE, GIVE, GIVE]

      Open your eyes man. Kathy runs this NeoCon site which is IMO little more than a ‘mens rights’ site, run by Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian women.

      Sure, she is a little miffed by MGTOW (for they shall go to hell btw)

      She will even give you her daughters and their rights to fairness (which are not even hers to give BTW)

      Men’s “rights” and Women’s “rights” are not mutually exclusive, they are all HUMAN RIGHTS. Non-radical feminism is purely a requirement for fair treatment and equal opportunity. As you point out in your other comments there are difficulties where these rights interface. The worst conflicts seem to be in the case of divorce where the laws in some countries are certainly outdated. Often CHILDREN’S RIGHTS must take priority and if you father a child it is expensive. Yes, children’s rights should include the right to see, or even be brought up by non-abusive men.Yes the courts are used as a blunt instrument for bickering couples to beat one another with, and yes some women abuse too and there needs to be a cultural recognition of this.

      There should be no free rides for females purely via marriage, and no free rides for males (if they don’t make the grade to get into university)

      If one were to judge from the comments on this thread one could be forgiven for doubting that many of the commenters are even fit to bring up children. We have the whinging losers and the haters spreading their spite and denying common sense.
      Radical masculism?

  52. “…sweetie. Alpha males with those prize genes don’t want you”

    That’s a relief dude cos I’m a fella “sweetie” LOL
    [certainly ‘the man’ compared to you dude]

    Oh bless! And you think you are an Alpha male? or that these prize ‘prize dudes’ haunt your embittered-loser forums?

    I think you will find that they are busy getting laid, generally within the context of a long term relationship.

    Not always averse to a bit on the side though (evolution is a free for all, with “winners” and errrr….. “losers”)

  53. That argument didn’t work against feminists. It won’t work against us.
    We aren’t going to be shamed into silence anymore.

  54. “YOU said nothing about alimony and women winning custody in 80%+ of cases while men go to jail for missing payments they can’t afford.”

    Govt and the courts make decisions about alimony custody and affordability not feminists, feminists are interested in equality and that includes both parents being financially responsible for bringing up their own children. When women don’t have adquate income -( and because so many women grow up thinking their life will revolve around getting married and having children ), a career is put to one side, obviously there’s going to be a problem with support later, in the event of a break up when the woman is in the lowest paid job. Access is and should be a right. These things could form part of a prenup and maybe that’s where things should go – a formal contract before people start out and have any children at all, which then forms the basis for financial decision making later.
    Men earn more than women generally and are required to help support their own children, that’s not only fair, but if they don’t, it then forces the state to take over, which is a problem for taxpayers not feminists, and even excluding the reprehensible idea that men shouldn’t participate in their childrens upbringing.

    • Feminists are not interested in equality. Nobody believes that anymore. We are only reminded of the word ‘equality’ when it is used by women as a salve for men’s complaints. Please show us the hard work by feminists to make equal on that 80% and the jailed men.

  55. When relations between men and women have fallen to the level of general promiscuity, there will be a situation when people are picking partners for the wrong reasons. If you’ve picked partners who have wanted love but been unable to give it, who’s fault is that?; you voluntarily accepted a situation in which you were given no real affection, so don’t blame women, blame your own decision making. My parents knew nothing about sex before they got married, that was the norm in the 1950’s and before, so something other than sex drew and kept them together for a lifetime, That is what binds people in real loving relationships- actually knowing and caring about each other.

    • Florence Nightingale is a woman you microwit. And we all know how women love to deflect blame. They are after all delicate little snowflakes who can do no wrong. God shall have his little joke.

      For more information on woman’s inherent inability to love I suggest you read “The Manipulated Man” by Esther Villar…also a woman.

      • Florence Nightingale WAS a woman (and IS now dead)
        Just as well that YOU are not a “microwit” [and Mez is the aggressive one?]

        Interestingly her massive contribution to medical care was in the field of statistical analysis and presentation and NOT in her ability to hold a lamp (as was the narrative of the time)

        IOM you can’t hold a candle to Ms Nightingale (or Mez)

        • Haven’t you finished grooming your steed, white knight?
          I’m surprised your wife let you use the computer this long. You must have been a good little boy this quarter.
          Please, you’re so insecure as to drift off into an irrelevant showcase of your acquired knowledge.
          Perhaps if you stayed on topic and humbled yourself, your lone wolf crusade for marriage may be more effective.

          • Hi Gorf, Thanks for the more intelligent insults, they are more fun to receive, 2+2=5 ? …..I owed you an upvote anyways :-p
            Don’t worry for me, I get to wear the trousers here.

            “..an irrelevant showcase of your acquired knowledge.” ……..No it is team-MR/team-misogynist who have brought up Florence Nightingale multiple times and even selectively quoted her ……..and also congratulated themselves on MAN the inventor, Man the achiever etc. etc.
            Obviously there are past issues with female education and female opportunity but historically when women have achieved (against massive odds) e.g. volunteer nurse Nightingale (turned clinical statistician) history is re-written along gender lines and in the narrative she is the caring “lady with the lamp”.

            “[my] lone wolf crusade for marriage” ………marriage? Meh. My “crusade” (such as it is) is against the abuse of children. Particularly sexual abuse http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/leon-brittan

            and closer to home in my case http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/chief-minister-ian-gorst-interview.html

            Here in Europe probably more girls are abused but they often survive it better (much of the most extreme sex abuse is perpetrated against boys). My interest in child protection brings me into conflict with a significant portion of the MR movement who think kids are fair game.

            IOM women still get the shitty end of the stick but I do agree with some points of the MR movement.

            Please feel free to “go your own way” but how are you going to raise the next generation in order to keep your nation alive?
            Do women have to save the nation, and do so on a shoestring?

          • Ah yes, the “duty to the party” argument straight out of Orwell’s mouth. We must have children, not to perpetuate our legacy, not out of love, not out of our desire to create life but to do our duty to the nation. Spoken like a true patriot!
            I hope you do wear the trousers at home as you’ll need them in case wife picks up a phone and divorces you. Those pants may be the only thing you have left when divorce/family court has their way with you. Or maybe you’re one of those “real men” who have enough control over their wives to prevent them from using a telephone.
            I don’t know what branch of MRA you’re looking at but I have not seen any promotion of child abuse among them. Please present your sources before making such an inflammatory claim.
            If anything, you tradcons shaming men for not marrying and having children in a climate where 50% of marriages end in divorce, 70-80% of divorces are initiated by women, children are used as bargaining chips so the ex wife can extract the most resources, fathers are ejected and demonized, are putting children at risk of suffering the emotional abuse associated with divorce. None of you tradcons move an inch toward even addressing such disgusting laws let alone lobbying for their abolishment. It is better for one to go his own way and have non existent children than to contribute to the single mother raised children epidemic by gambling against 1 in 2 odds.

  56. Ha ha, is this a real comment??? The ladies went out and fought in all the wars of the world??? You have reaped the wealth of the world off the backs of men. Ages and Ages? Pppffffttttt……

    • “Ladies” have been fighting to be ALLOWED to fight in wars to die alongside you, but you deem them too weak. “Ladies” have been fighting for ages to be ALLOWED to work jobs like like men and EARN the same pay (thus autonomy) men have. All that you complain about? That’s just patriarchy backfiring on you.

      • So now that women are allowed in the military why have they not matched the male presence on the battlefield? Wouldn’t their zeal of having to fight for such a right result in an equal presence? Why are the standards lowered so women can qualify? Why are women still exempt from selective service?

        • Because there is still a long way to go, especially where the military is concernned. Lowered standards so women can join are wrong. They should be held to the same standards as men. Same with exemptions. But progress IS being made towards a more equal military.

  57. Where in his post can you deduce he hasn’t a girlfriend? Maybe he has one every night of the week? I know feminism has made it so easy to pick up, have sex and dump all within the same 24 hours….. no need for a “girlfriend” as you put it….I have my male friends and my dog for companionship….. and before you try the shaming tactics of “living in your mothers basement”, yawn, I am successful, wealthy, travel the world and still single….thank you feminism!

  58. Just read up the Wiki bio on this harpie…..her death brought on by “her decades-long struggle with schizophrenia, along with speculation of self-induced starvation, as probable contributing factors.” And she is held up as some sort of emancipator?

  59. Many didn’t just stand idly by but cheered every attack and every injustice aimed at men and boys. Feminism is just politicised female nature and it has unmasked the ugly, parasitic, manipulative and exploitative side of that nature for all to see.

  60. I think you have put your finger precisely on the point here GORF. Mez, who seems a very angry, aggressive person, full of feminist factoids, and steeped in mantra-like rhetoric rather than reality, shoots herself firmly in the foot. (I am assuming Mez is female, it seems pretty obvious from the way she argues, and her vigorous defence of feminism.)

    The point is, relations between men and women have fallen to the level of general promiscuity, and that is why things are so bad. And the reason for that is because free love was one of the means by which 1970s women’s liberationists perverted women’s thinking about their own sexual value. Free Love is a Marxist concept going back into the 19th century and feminists introduced it to women convincing them that it would liberate them, and they were stupid enough to believe it. What it did, of course, was devalue their sexual currency, and made them cheap. The truth is, men will use easily available women for sexual gratification, but if they are going to commit to marriage they’d rather not have second-hand goods for the simple reason that they need to be sure that the children they are presented with to support and love are actually theirs, That is driven by biology. For countless millennia, men have needed to know they were actually passing on their genes, not another man’s by being cuckolded by a devious woman. Nothing has changed.

    In her confused thinking, Mez blames men for lack of affection. Well, what is a promiscuous woman signalling I ask? Is that not the loudest expression of a lack of affection? When sex becomes gratification, it loses affection. That applies both ways. If what Mez is saying is men choose women only for sex, what is she saying about women who have multiple casual partners? What is more, what is she saying about her own ideology – feminism. After all it is feminism that has ‘liberated’ women to be free sexual beings, choosing how they use their own bodies. Responsible to no one, least of all men, and certainly not to social conditioning. The truth is, it is feminism that has reduced women to being just sex objects, which of course is massive contradiction when you think of the endless bleating of feminists about women being objectified. (A la Simone de Beauvoir’s ideas of Self and Other. De Beauvoir, of course, was a NAZI sympathising, bi-sexual paedophile, who groomed her young female students for sex with her and Jean Paul Sartre, her part-time heterosexual lover – but I’ll skip over that!)

    In really rather limited logic, Mez also suggests that because men and women in the pre-feminist world, knew nothing about sex before they married, that meant something other than sex drew them together. Well, first of all her indoctrination by feminism is thrown into sharp relief by her believing people knew nothing about sex before marrying. I mean, is she serious? (I guess she is). What a ridiculously unworldly feminist stereotype. Then, she makes another step of false logic by saying that this meant sex didn’t draw them together. No. Sorry. Abstinence and the general lower level of promiscuity in those times probably made the desire to marry and have a socially legitimate sexual relationship stronger. Sex in fact was probably a bigger initial driver in those days.

    Of course, love was and is important. I have no doubt that it played a major part in keeping people together then. But the sort of love that did that was not the fickle emotional feeling it has come to be in our brave new feminist world. The Greeks had three words for love, whereas we have only one. They understood the different aspects of brotherly love, friendship, loyalty, bonding in common purpose and so on, and this was seen to be an essentially male characteristic, hence its name. They also understood erotic love, which is fleeting, as we know! But the word agape was what described the love that kept people together. Agape is focussing your entire effort to ensure that another person achieves his or her highest potential. The love that preserves relationships is selfless, and giving – not selfish and taking.

    This is the love that kept men buckled into supporting and caring for their wives and children: going to work, day in and day out, bringing home the bacon as they say. And often dying within a year or two of retirement at 65. That is what kept wives buckled into supporting and encouraging their husbands. Each was giving what the other needed so as to get back the same in a society that held it all together by its social norms and – yes, difficult for feminists to swallow, of course – that big bogeyman of social conditioning. That is what daily built commitment and what produced lifelong marriages, which we really don’t see anymore.

    Since feminism’s virus-like re-programming of women – not men, men have not engaged in revolution for liberation from women – until now of course, as we have seen from the fascinating, considered, intelligent contributions to this comment stream, albeit with a clear thread of anger in men showing through – now, we have women ending their marriages around three times more than men. That is a trend seen in easily available statistics (to which I would be happy to point if necessary). It started in 1970 and it has remained so ever since. It is women who have thrown off commitment in marriage; women who have thrown countless millions of children into turmoil, and caused them to lose their fathers (which, as I have said is because patriarchy means the rule or authority of the father, and destroying patriarchy is the principle aim of feminists, like Mez is, I presume); and Marxists in government, who have eased feminism’s passage into our lives by hammering the nails into the coffin of committed marriage, through the introduction of quickie, no-blame divorce, which is the communist model, and like Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt have redefined what family means, saying openly that families didn’t necessarily need a father in them.

    Mez ends her comment by stating the obvious, in real loving relationships, people care for each other. Well, yes. But I will end this comment by asking, then show me the care in all that I have said here? She seems to imply that marriages for life are a good ideal. I would like to know if she does believe that, and, if she does, how does she reconcile that noble aspiration with the sheer destruction of relationships that feminist-inspired women have been engaged in for almost half a decade now?


    • Remarkable comment! Thanks for this! With your permission I would like to post this on a MGTOW forum if that’s OK with you.

      • You’re very welcome to re-publish this GORF. Spread the message about the inept logic and sheer unmitigated bigotry of feminists as far and wide as you can. They need exposing.

        Frankly, if I were you I would stop engaging with the taunting twaddle that is going on here. You’ll never win. Feminists argue like women. Reason and facts make no difference. All they ever do is regurgitate feminist factoids – lies basically – intended to deceive – and their own writers as though normal, sensible people should believe them. When that fails, as it always will when pitted against wider reading and intelligent debate, they just revert to the ad hominem, that most basic of logical errors of debate. It’s the only means of fighting they have – dirty.

        It’s all just vag-speak. Forget it. Go Galt, is what I say and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

  61. Ok, let me explain something to you.
    I support and donate to “Justice for Men and Boys” the ONLY political party in England fighting for the rights of men and boys. This year I donated money to help pay for the election leaflets, last year I donated money to help Mike Buchanan, founder and leader of J4MB (please view their website) attend the 2014 Detroit Conference on men’s issues.
    I have written to the BBC to complain about their anti-male bias, I have phoned the BBC to complain about their anti-male bias, I have complained to BBC 2 Newsnight when they completely ignored the number of domestic violence cases against males.
    I have been to see my Member of Parliament, to complain about the injustice men and boys face, and on and on. Oh, and when Mike Buchanan asked if I would write a piece explaining why I support justice for men and boys, I did so, and he put the result on his website.
    You are on an anti-feminist website, and you are ruining it for women like me who have felt able to express their anti-feminist views in safety.

    • Reread my comment. I was talking about women on the whole. But always trust a woman to steer the conversation towards a showcase about herself. Just count the “I”s in your comment.
      Every woman thinks she’s the exception to every rule.

    • GORF ask’s you to “put your money where your mouth is” and from your answer you have demonstrably done so. Bravo. However you are patently the exception that proves the rule – that remains the problem. You must unfortunately excuse many men because of the injustice they have suffered.

      I’ve seen your video on J4MB and it was excellent. Keep up the good work!

  62. Great comment.
    It is men who are the lovers. Women are the takers. You cannot be so obscenely selfish as a woman is and presume they are a source of love. Women care about no one but themselves and their children but even that is a long shot as women cheerfully destroy families and children’s lives by ejecting the fathers from the home. It is this realization that is contributing to men going their own way. Men will not come back to the plantation. We know now everything about female nature that society has tried to suppress for years. The internet is freeing men one man at a time.
    It’s our turn to be as selfish as women!

  63. Women have cried wolf enough about rape and there are enough innocent men in jail on account of this. That’s why I do not care.
    I won’t even begin to entertain the rest of your amateur psychoanalysis.
    Respect is earned. I don’t have to respect or consider anyone, least of all women who respect no one but themselves. They must prove their worthiness of respect like anyone else.

    Your Elliot Rogers reference is laughable. Elliot Rogers was a female worshipper. Like you, he believed his life was worthless without female approval and their company. It is guys like you and women like those who shame MGTOW who cultivate such personalities. If anyone is responsible for guys killing other people because they “can’t get a woman” (about as hard to get as a Big Mac) it is YOU and your kind. I am a MGTOW and I am celibate. I would have saved his life and the lives he took. You would have contributed to his misery.

    “Ignore the scriptures, they were written by ancient men with camel dung under their finger nails”

    Likewise, your comments.

  64. Wow, just as uninformed as I expected.
    First off, the website that he took part in, “puahate.com” is an anti pick up artist website. Therefore it is not part of the so-called manosphere that encompass MRAs, PUAs and MGTOW. All three groups now have strict rules against any “incel” (involuntarily celibate) members.
    Second, one does not take part in an internet forum then decide to shoot up innocent people because they can’t get laid. Sure, to media brainwashed people whose minds are easily swayed by rulings in the court of public opinion, this is possible. But to those of us who think, we know that his actions were the culmination of many factors. He was a rich entitled brat, he was part of the Hollywood community where fantasy and delusions supplant reality on and off screen, he had NPD, and like you, he was a female worshipper.
    MGTOW such as I would have saved him by teaching him to value his own life and also the true nature of women. We would also have taught him about the shaming he would be bound to endure from the likes of you and your kind to protect him from the pressures of getting a woman to be worthy of oxygen. Believe me, if Elliot Rogers did peruse MRA or MGTOW sites his life and more importantly the lives of the innocent people he killed would have been saved.
    You are the type that would drice emotionally unstable people like him over the edge with your sycophantic, stiletto licking, invertebrate doctrine of penance to the female.
    Hope this answers your question.

  65. I was wondering whether you would have the chutzpah to respond and how long it would take for you to do so. Frankly, I think you are either being culpably mendacious, or stupid. Judging from the time it has taken for you to respond, I also think you are the product of a gender studies course from one of the madrassas of feminist radicalism that we call universities, which are producing endless numbers of radicalised feminist clones, armed with some information, but not enough.

    Here are my comments to your comments:

    “Cultural Marxism [a la the Frankfurt School] is not a feminist concept”

    RUBBISH! You don;t know what you’re talking about.

    Erich Fromm, who incidentally was finally rejected from that bunch of neo-Marxist thinkers that comprised the Frankfurt School, anticipated much of later feminism, and its thinking about socially constructed gender. Douglas Kellner, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, said ‘Eric Fromm is one of the few members of the Frankfurt School who seriously engaged himself with theorizing the problems of gender and the differences between men and women’.

    “Hollywood has perpetuated the promiscious [sic: watch your spelling m’dear!] ‘love at first sight’ behaviour, now generally accepted in literature and most other media. Hollywood scriptwriters are mostly male.”


    Love at first sight does not equate to promiscuity. It’s a non-sequitur. Go read about logical errors from Greek history.

    I just love the way you shoot yourself in the foot. If, as you say (like all feminist apologists you offer no proof), Hollywood scriptwriters are mostly male, what does that tell you about men’s creativity, and men’s romantic nature? And, are you really saying that women’s undoubted promiscuity is because men perpetuated it through the creative writing? What does that say about the ability of women to discern what is right and wrong for themselves? And what does it say about the truly liberated woman, who is capable of making decisions about her own body?

    “Feminism ( definition of) is about equality”


    You cannot gain equality by creating inequality. Feminism is about empowering women, gaining privilege and advantage – that is not equality. One person’s rights end, where another’s begin. Geddit?

    “Hunter gatherer societies are egalatarian – equal. Historically, societies in pre-history married…” etc, etc.


    And you seem to deny the link between feminism and Marxism? You undermine your own argument, I’m afraid.

    Oh, and btw, égalité is true equality – equality for men AND women. Women’s equality is an oxymoron.


    “Jewish women were denied a lot of rights and freedoms including property ownership, which is maybe why this system became eventually embedded in Europe.”


    Go read this: http://biblehub.com/kjv/proverbs/31.htm

    This paean to ‘the virtues of noble woman’ doesn’t sound like women of Biblical Israel were oppressed or denied any freedoms to me. No doubt the feminist lenses in front of your eyes will read it as men’s oppression of women. Whatever. There’s none so blind who will not see.


    Your general twaddle on the reasons and outcomes of divorce.


    I guess you are trying to mitigate the stark fact that women have been ending their marriages three times more often than men for more than 40 years now, since feminism started its rampage through society, convincing women that marriage didn’t matter and causing them to throw their children’s lives into turmoil, damaging them for life; causing them deep trauma that affects their future relationships because they don’t trust easily, based on their observations of their mother’s abandonment of marriage?

    I’m sorry, I don’t think there is any mitigation for this appalling self centredness and lack of responsibility in women, caused by feminism’s cajoling sophistries that marriage is unimportant and women can be free of men without consequences. Rubbish, frankly.

    “Equality is not about replacing paternalism with maternalism.” NON SEQUITUR, and twisting the argument. The issue is patriarchy vs. matriarchy – social authority of women – something that Friedrich Engels advocated, and which Marxist feminism is seeking to bring about.

    “Where is the equality in maternalism? NON SEQUITUR. Wrong conflation of ideas. Who cares?

    “Feminism is in favour of maternalism (the outcome of divorce) and that is clearly illogical.” ARGUMENT BY ASSERTION and irrelevant. Don’t talk to me about logic.


    “The reason for divorce is more likely to do with patriarchy, (lack of relationship equality).”


    It is to do with women refuging to accept the time-honoured meaning of patriarchy, which is the rule and authority of the father, and fighting to destroy it. And it is to do with the reality that, when women buy the feminist party line, marriage and the conventional family, where mothers make the rules for children and fathers use their socially-conferred power to enforce those rules, become unworkable.


    “Feminists strive for equality” Yes, FOR THEMSELVES. The feminist’s use of the term equality is a lie.


    “- trying to prove that feminism is all about women ‘behaving sexually like men’ is an immeasurable confusion,”

    “Immeasurable confusion” is a ‘Terminological inexactitude up with which I will not put” (Churchill – a man!)

    AND, if you are denying that ‘free love’ is not a Marxists concept that re-emerged with a vengeance in 1970s women’s lib, you need to go back to your history books and learn (or, better still, read my book when it is published later this year – sign up for news about it here http://herbertpurdy.com/). I wouldn’t recommend your feminist ‘herstory’ books however. They’ve been redacted and reworked just as they did in the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four.

    “It could just as easily be a result of too early sex education with lack of parental involvment in relationship counselling.”

    Is that the same ‘too early sex education’ advised in Everyday Feminism perhaps? (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/ways-parents-teach-consent-doesnt-matter/), or ‘Children as young as 11 to be given lessons about rape’?, as ordered by the feminist minister for education, Nicky Morgan? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11457899/Children-as-young-as-11-to-be-given-lessons-about-rape.html)

    As to the rest of your stuff – well it is all just stuff – standard feminist stuff – and, frankly it is just boring. It’s time to change the record.

    Life and society is moving on – men are moving on and leaving you behind in your Marxist, whining and whingeing. Go get a cat and live on your own when you’re old – and don’t forget your women’s studies notes, so you can reminisce on the good old days when feminism was at its rampant height.)

    Now, I’m moving on. I’ve spent far too much time on your clap trap already. I shall not be responding to anything else you say.

    Have a good life (not).

  66. That makes no sense. You will never see the same number of women soldiers in graveyards if you never allow them to fight in combat. To posit that none want to fight in combat would be dispelled easily with some cursory searching.

  67. No. Woman should stand up to feminists. Why do we constantly make demands of men to step up and take charge of something that they did not cause. Feminists have been spewing hatred at men for a century now and women have been broadly silent. That is our fault as a group, not men’s fault.

    Men are finally walking away because men are hard-wired not to want to fight women. If we want to support us in any fight against this feminist / progressivist totalitarianism, then we have to be in the front-lines ourselves. We are not worthy of their support if we are not prepared to show them that we are going to be in the front lines with them.

    So far very few women have shown that they are willing to step up, so why should men?

  68. Fix the problem yourself, and let THE NEXT GENERATION know when it’s safe to come back. I’m never coming back to the plantation.

    • Men will never return to the plantation regardless if women set up sharecropping. Once a man has tasted freedom he will never return.
      It is over for women and marriage.
      The artificial womb and make birth control is here.
      We win again.

  69. Yes, my mind is wide-open. To facts.

    Peers Corston, Cox, Hale and Butler-Schloss are the prime offenders of feminist bigotry at state level. This ruling came into effect years ago. Just because you didn’t read it does not mean it doesn’t happen.


    Sentencing disparity favouring women has been known about for decades. There is reams of unassailable data on that.

    The only studies about “pay gaps” that have not been juked by lying feminists with their hands out, demanding special treatment, have shown that per hour of effort, women now earn slightly more than men. Men (as one whole demographic) earn more than women (as one whole demographic) because more men work, men do most of the full-time work, they do more of the necessary work and work for more time of their lives. Because women have babies. If you want a family and a career, one or both is sacrificed. It’s why men do most work and always have, to provide. Thus, more women choose to take part-time work, or safe/easy work – which is low-paid because of oversubscription. If you think women are discriminated against in work and pay here, you know nothing about work or pay. All studies claiming gender pay gaps have been debunked. Easily.

    Funny how you demand proof of me but will not show any of your own. You people are comical, but fun to shoot down.

  70. “The only way most men were kept in line, marching off to their dreary jobs, was with a Noble Lie, that it would make them honoured as heads of houses. You can make a man literally die for honour; but he won’t work himself to death for an ungrateful woman who regards him simply as somewhere between a joke and an oppressor.”

    –David Collard

    • And even that lie is not worth it. Screw honor, call me a coward all you want, I ain’t dying or slaving my life away for anyone.

  71. Um,
    1) It is not our jobs to fix things, carry your own damn weight.
    2) You seem to see men’s value in being protectors and providers to women. How is that an incentive to wanting to be with you (or women in general)?
    3) You’re telling us to shut up about our issues.
    4) Shaming tactics and attempt at ego stroking. You know, it’s not because of feminists that men are walking away, it’s because of women like you, who only view us as an utility and who try to manipulate us in doing their bidding, whilst doing nothing yourself to fix the problem you’re a part of. Why don’t you publicly call out feminists and challenge them yourself if it’s so important to you?
    5) If men don’t complain about their issues, who will? You certainly won’t, lol.

    Suggestion rejected. Also stay away from us.

  72. That’s your only gripe with feminism?

    And men should oppose feminism because it hurts some women? That’s why? Wow, oppose it yourself.

    • Men are getting their balls cut-off anyway…..so I am not asking them to oppose feminism. Feminism is a twisted, perverted and morally corrupt ideology that has nothing to do with the well-being of women….in case you didn’t know. The same as the rest of the sinister collection of -ism polluting society….Feminism is a weapon of mass destruction disguised as….pushing the culture of deception.

Comments are closed.