Conservative Woman readers

In response to Laura Perrins’s Thursday reading list – Royalty, Harvey and Hillary, making a man and conservatism’s end, Coniston wrote:

The American Franciscan, Richard Rohr, has written a number of articles and books about bringing up boys. He points out that in many traditional societies, teenage boys underwent a test to bring them to manhood – to initiate them – such as surviving in the wild for a period. This was (partly) to break their bond with their mother. Mothers have most to do with bringing up their children; to become men, boys have to break from this (girls learn more gradually to become women by copying/following their mother’s example). In the past, in the West, National Service provided some kind of initiation programme. In the absence of this, many boys/young men find a substitute in various types of gangs.


  1. True enough, but what avenues do young lads have nowadays? Boy Scouts are increasingly female dominated; Boys Brigade going down a similar route; YMCA (is that now a single mothers’ support group?) army/sea & air cadets have changed from my day. Meanwhile the likes of the Girl Guides proudly promotes the feminist agenda as does society as a whole. This in turn discourages adult males from being youth leaders.
    Are we surprised that young lads join gangs? It is about the only resource available that escapes the warped equality guff

    • Agree.
      Just look at running groups / clubs.
      Historically they were male, then the feminist demanded entry and over 50 years, the number of female runners have sky rocketed from 25% in 1990 to 57% while the number of males has plummeted from 75% o a 43% and getting smaller as bumping in to female running is now sexual assault.
      Of course ‘safe spaces’ are a social construct and so only work one way….

      • “… bumping in to female running is now sexual assault.”
        Some of my youth was spent at the YM doing judo, mind boggles as to what that must be like nowadays.

      • With running though, you can form your own splinter faction or sub-group. As the roads and trails are public use, all that’s required are contact details, a time and a place, and then you can run (or at least train) with who you choose to.

    • Baden-Powell’s Scout organisation must return to its foundational
      principles. The Scout movement is specifically for boys, i.e. scouting
      for boys. Girl scouts and women scout leaders must be expelled from the
      Scout movement with immediate effect. There is zero place for females in
      the Boy Scouts. Females are welcome to find an association elsewhere,
      for example in the Girl Guides. If we have even the slightest concern
      for the welfare of our boys, then we must require scouting to become the
      Boy Scouts once again. We must implement these reforms immediately. Let
      us not forget the the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow.

      • I agree, but isn’t the simple solution to found a Scouting group and only accept boys? Then people can decide which group they want to be in and that’s that. Sure, it might not be aligned to the main Scouting movement but so what, why does it take any of that to do all the scouting things?

        • Quite true. But why should anyone have to start the whole shebang over again? It takes a lot of energy, commitment and yes, money, to get a proper, organised movement like that off the ground. When it has been done once, successfully, why should the wheel have to be re-invented just because the original one has been turned into a square? Especially when we can all see what would happen to any “new” boys-only movement. It will be attacked by feminists, vilified as sexist on every social media platform, and starved of any official support let alone any public funding because it will not be inclusive enough. The pressure to, once again, cater for girls will be enormous and relentless.

          • Sometime around 2000 the Bristol Boys’ Club had their funding threatened. They admitted girls to the club twice a week, but it had to now accommodate them every night that the club was opened. Doesn’t happen the other way round, does it?

          • Sadly, this is what happens when you rely on funding provided by someone with no goodwill towards you. They quickly start dictating what you can and cannot do. Classic bullying.

          • True, but for someone with the time and inclination, and who enjoys a bloody good argument, it could be quite entertaining couldn’t it?

          • True. I agree that it would be a most worthwhile challenge for a chap with sufficient time & inclination to spare. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that the safeguarding of children is entirely controlled by the agents of Feminism. There is almost no end of caltrops and barriers that the safeguarding authorities could deploy in order to frustrate the aspiring Scout-Leader. The aspiring Scout-Leader would need to ‘be prepared’.

        • Boy Scouts and Girl Guides – the clue is in the names. A sensible mixed gender proposition should have combined the two into one organisation but as all too often with the feminist movement it’s “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is my own”. Everything to do with feminist driven “equality and diversity” has created a mess of complexity, confusion, double standards, inconsistency and discrimination, which since one of its prime architects was Harriet Harmthenation should be no surprise.

        • I would say yes; the solution is to establish a scouting movement that is true to the spirit of the Boy Scouts, i.e. the ‘Real Boy Scouts’. On a practical level, however, it is difficult to establish any such group without encountering accusatory suspicion, stubborn resistance and outright hostility from the Feminist agents that control the safeguarding of children.

          The Feminists know that the current political climate, which is openly hostile to men launching such initiatives, very strongly discourages men from establishing new groups that might offer sanctuary to boys. So, all the Feminists need to do is to take over the existing groups (which they have already done) and the damage is almost irreversible.

    • The boxing club I visit is 100% male. Lots of boys from 5 years old and up. There’re much more Slavs than English though, especially among the older crowd.

      I wouldn’t blame the lack of men spaces.

        • Martian, before allowing women the place should alter the standards to became reachable for women, and drift toward activities that women can master (and arguably enjoy).

          You want a men-only space? Make blood, sweat, pain, the risk to health and life, and general competitiveness an organic, mandatory part of the experience. Voila. No women, except for those cheering for their men.

          Institutions feminise first and allow women second. That’s what happened with the scouts, that’s what happens all over the West. Women infiltrating men’s spaces because modern men are in love with girly things.

          (And it works both ways – there are now boys in my youngest’s ballet group).

        • You got the girly gym. I made the same mistake at first, was surprised by kickboxing session having a “no sparring rule” until I found it populated by ladies.

          Now my MMA club is 100% male. Cons: showers are not working half of the time. Pros: you can get a black eye and a bleeding nose.

  2. The deliberate feminising of society all seems a bit sci-fi to me. It has happened so rapidly and with so little “meaningful” debate. Godfrey Sandford, below, highlights one absurdity that the Boy Scouts becomes open to girls and boys whilst the Girl Guides remains for girls only (including wannabe girls) “to provide a female-centred programme”. But the Scouts has now become a “female centred programme” too, like many other hitherto male areas of activity, because the entry of females means that everything must be adjusted to accommodate them.

    Equality is one thing but supremacy another.

    • The really funny thing about it is that all this only displays the true neediness of females to keep tabs on males. I’m sorry ladies of The Conservative Woman but deep down you know that the need of women to be part of men’s lives is not mirrored by our interest. In fact, our interest in women’s lives extends no further than what it takes to get you to agree to have sex with us. After that it’s a real trial for us to have to pretend to be interested in what you’re telling us and once we get married we can even slacken off on that part so long as we remember family events.

      As Scott Adams (The Dilbert comic strip writer/artist) says, woman can’t believe that men are as one dimensional as we are because you can multi-task, whereas if we’re in a conversation with you we have to choose between listening to the subject matter or fantasising about having sex, and there’s usually not much competition there, which is why we never listen. It’s not our fault, evolution made us this way.

      • > In fact, our interest in women’s lives extends no further than what it takes to get you to agree to have sex with us.

        I presume you are not fathering any daughters or supporting your elderly mother?

        • Both, in fact two of the former. But since I’m not a complete pervert it’s perfectly natural to operate positively with them. It’s the general relationship between men and women that I’m talking about.

          Sorry I didn’t make that completely obvious, which it would have been anyway to anyone who hadn’t got their SJW hat on.

          • > It’s the general relationship between men and women that I’m talking about.

            How’s mother-son and father-daughter relationships are not a major part of “general relationship between men and women”? Each of them takes – what? 16? 20 years of one’s life? How many LTRs last that long?

            Don’t you think that shallowing the relationships between the sexes to be only, well, sexual in nature is a part of the problem we now have? A procreative instinct that went wild in a situation with lots of sex and hardly any procreation.

          • Oh do lighten up.

            The reality of the relationship between UNRELATED males and females is directed toward procreation. The fundamentals of those are very different because of biology, and what I characterised has its roots in reality.

            There’s no need to get all SJW over it.

          • I am not sure why you keep mentioning SJW. I am neither a religious puritan, nor a believer in social justice.

            I do agree that sex is always there when it comes to interaction between men and women aged from 12 to 65 (at least). But my point was, that there is so much more than a delight of a romantic pursuit or sexual pleasure. Fathering my little daughter and being nurtured by my mother in my youth are both magical and non-erotic interactions with the feminine.

            I find it unfortunate that men are so keen to discard those moments, or miss them altogether – never being in a centre of attention of their emancipated working mothers, never fathering their daughters (or postponing that well into their 40s). For me, those experiences grant the depth to the eternal bond between men and women. Without them, all we are left with is chase-and-catch – or outright war of the sexes.

          • I think it is the opposite. The over mothering of boys, especially in single parent upbringing, appears to have crippled many of them for proper engagement with women in a sexual context. The absence of responsible male role models in families is unhealthy and some of the “bonding” now seen between mothers and young sons is quite creepy. When masculinity self-denounced as “toxic” is added to the brew the result is policemen prancing around in high-heeled shoes and nail polish naively thinking that is not detrimental to the good order of society.

          • I do agree that fatherlessness and overprotective parenting are major problems. But I do not think it contradicts what I said, which was merely that mother-son relationship is another integral part of male-female interaction (and so is father-daughter).

    • > It has happened so rapidly and with so little “meaningful” debate.

      That just means that men surrendered their ground without a fight.

      Feminisation is an obvious consequence of the big State. You see, State loves women. From the State’s perspective, they are effectively weak, castrated men: never riot, always pay their taxes. What’s not to like?

      • “That just means that men surrendered their ground without a fight.”

        Not all men. But generally men in the UK do seem to find it difficult to resist the demands of controlling or opinionated women, and political women often become strident and emotional when facing disagreement, playing the gender card in the same way that the race card is played. They are often defensive as to their collective gender in a way which men are not – hence “the sisterhood” and sexist programmes on TV like “Loose Women”. Apart from Philip Davies most male MPs seem unwilling to confront the excesses, inconsistencies and falsehoods of political feminism. The mythical patriarchy is polite to a fault and womens demands for absolute equality collide with the still imbued gallantry of many men.

        • I am afraid by that point it’s no longer gallantry, but cowardliness.

          A part of the masculine is to always be ready to accept the certain amount of damage. I can’t see this in most British men. A lot of them give up after the first fight they lost. This is anything but manly behaviour.

          Although this is, of course, an opinion of a foreigner, and only based on observations of younger English Londoners.

          • #MasculinitySoFragile

            Why do you find it so hard to accept the new phenomenon of women’s equality?

            Most Millennial men, as you admit, have come to terms with the changes in gender relations.

          • Those are not men, darling.

            As for “women equality”, I will consider accepting it when women will start to contribute income taxes on par with men. At the moment, according to HMRC, 75% of income taxes are collected from men, 25% from women. Hence, based on productive output, 3 women = 1 man.

          • > Men earn more than women and therefore pay more tax.

            Yep. Because we work harder. But women can’t just accept it without their ego melting. So they invent excuses.

          • Bollocks.

            Girls out-perform boys at all levels of education. Nearly two-thirds of all uni graduates are women.

            Women are objectively the smarter and harder-working gender.

          • > Girls out-perform boys at all levels of education. Nearly two-thirds of all uni graduates are women.

            A person. who takes a loan to get a useless degree is an idiot. Nearly two thirds of all idiots are women. It’s 4/5 if you get STEM out of the picture.

            > Women are objectively the smarter and harder-working gender.

            Objective measure of smarts and work ethics is, obviously, money earned.

          • The gender pay gap exists because of patriarchy.

            Women are still discriminated against for top jobs. That’s why fewer women are CEOs, politicians, Supreme Court judges, bankers, barristers, surgeons, engineers and pilots. We need more women in top jobs.

            There is still a societal perception that the above jobs are for men, not women. Girls are subtly discouraged from aiming for these careers.

            Moreover, because of patriarchy girls are taught from a young age not to be assertive, not to be ambitious, not to ask for a pay rise etc.

            Men are afraid of strong women and that’s why women are conditioned to be meek and submissive.

          • Wow. Did you just broke to tears? Damn, you are so fragile.

            Top positions require being tough, babe, and all you do is looking for scapegoats.

            > that’s why women are conditioned to be meek and submissive.

            The women, who CAN be conditioned to be meek and submissive – are week and submissive. Try to condition a Russian man in the same manner. You know what would happen?

          • Don’t patronise me.

            Unreconstructed, macho men like you are the problem.

            The good news is that Millennial women don’t respect men like you any more. We only respect male feminists and allies.

            The future of masculinity doesn’t look like you.

            Face it, most Millennial males are feminists who respect women as equals.

            You belong to the past.

          • > Unreconstructed, macho men like you are the problem.

            Yes, the problem – your problem. But nobody cares about your problem. Sort it, or stop whining. It’s pathetic. Men do not act in this way, hence women who do are not equal to men.

            > The good news is that Millennial women don’t respect men like you any more.

            My wife is a Millennial woman, and she respects me. Out of you two, I command the respect of 50% of Millennial women.

            > Face it, most Millennial males are feminists who respect women as equals.

            They play along to get laid. They do not commit, marry and raise the children, do they? Heck, they are SCARED TO DEATH to be responsible for a family before they hit 35. I fully provided for my wife and our child at 21, in our own place rented on money I earned.

            “Males” suits them well. Those are not men.

            > You belong to the past.

            I forge the future. Drop the attitude if you want a place in it.

          • Putin was terrified of Hillary which is why he wanted Trump to be elected.

            Some “tough guy”.

            And there are feminists in Russia, such as P*ssy Riot. We will convert Russia to the progressive cause, the journey is long but we will always win because history is on our side.

          • > Putin was terrified of Hillary which is why he wanted Trump to be elected.

            Putin funded both parties, so did the Saudi and everyone else. Only fools keep all their eggs in one basket.

            > And there are feminists in Russia, such as P*ssy Riot.

            Sure. Here’s their first photoshot:

          • Nonsense, the gender pay gap is a statistical sleight of hand. Full time salaries for women are the same as men up to the age of about 40. They’re are lower thereafter because women who left the full time work force in their 20s and 30s to look after their children begin re-entering full time work, inevitably at lower salaries because they’ve been out of the labour market for 5-15 years. Mothers value looking after their children more than work, get over it.

Comments are closed.