You’ve probably heard some women talk about “men’s primitive ways” despite the fact that men have been leading the way forward in countless civilizations for millennia. Well. the final and deadliest blow to this feminist point of view is the latest scientific proof that the Y chromosome, the one that makes men male, is evolving very much faster than the rest of the human genetic code. The study lasted two years – twice as long as expected – because of the huge evolutionary changes that were found.

One of the co-authors of the study, Dr David Page, who is director of the Whitehall Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology, said “The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes. It’s an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It’s like a house that’s constantly being rebuilt.”

You will doubtless have heard the many myths promulgated by feminists and their many unscientific “findings”, the classic one being that because the Y chromosome had fewer genes than other chromosomes it was actually shrinking and that in 50,000 years (a safe prophecy!) it would disappear altogether and so would the whole of the male human species. But now the exact scientific data is available, we know that it’s not going to happen. In fact the Y chromosome is leaving women’s X chromosome way behind. If you read my post for August 2008: “Another feminist prophecy goes pear-shaped” you will see how so many prophecies about women overtaking and surpassing men in years to come have just not materialised. In fact the reverse has been true: men are fast outstripping women. The Y chromosome seems to offer an explanation as to why this is so.

Even in the field of literature, which large numbers of women have engaged in for many years past, there has never been a really great book written by a woman. In the well known series of lectures published by the Teaching Company of America, the 36 lectures on “Books that have made history: books that can change your life”, all the books studied are written by men. Even the arch-feminist, Germaine Greer” in her book “Reluctant Sibyls” had to admit that women cannot write great poetry.

There are two reasons why the Y chromosome enjoys its superiority. One is that it stands alone and is not one of a pair like the other 44 chromosomes. This means that when there are mutations there is not a matching chromosome to recombine and cover up the change. Women have two X chromosomes so they cannot enjoy this unique situation.

Other scientists have been amazed by the results of this research and have declared it astounding. After years of bad press inspired by feminists and their acolytes, the Y chromosome is fighting back; it’s going where no chromosome has gone before.

During the twenty-first century, feminism has taken a real battering with so many of their home-made myths being totally destroyed by researchers spreading the truth, so much so that few women today even dare to admit that they are feminists not even one of the “newer” brands. Thinking modern woman knows that the feminist game is up, it’s over, it’s ended. They realise that it was a dreadful mistake.

HOW THE BBC DESTROYS GOOD LITERATURE WRITTEN BY MEN

The BBC feminatrics have been at it again. Ruining good literature by men by turning it into a feminist farce. When I saw that a new version of John Buchan’s “Thirty-nine Steps” was to be screened I decided to view it. I’ve seen it on several occasions before and it’s a really good yarn. This version was  a bad yawn. It was a thoroughly ludicrous adaptation by a woman called Mickery. She’d completely altered the plot to introduce some marvellous heroine character who was the embodiment of everything a woman is not. She had a photographic memory, was exceedingly brave – naturally – and was a secret agent of unbelievable experience. A pity we don’t have women like this in real life. Needless to say there is no such character in the Buchan story.

I should think that the BBC could legitimately be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act for saying it was by John Buchan. He must be turning in his grave! After the publication of the Thirty-nine Steps, Buchan became the most successful thriller writer for the next twenty years. The sloppy effort presented by the BBC was a travesty. It was more like a badly written soap opera than a thriller.

This is not the first time the BBC has allowed “adaptations” of great literature which have been ruinous to the original. They did the same thing with the remake of The Forsyte Saga by John Galsworthy; once again the plot was altered for no valid reason.

I quote below a piece by David Smith commenting on some alleged “research” by two female academics and draws some rather comical conclusions from it. Naturally he writes for the Observer. Who else?

My comments are in red:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Women are still a closed book to men. Some would say an “open” book that’s easily read.

Research shows men mainly read works by other men

David Smith   The Observer, Sunday May 29 2005

Men have finally realised what they are missing, (Have they? This is just an assumption. No proof whatsoever.) but they still aren’t all that keen to do anything about it.

This is the conclusion of a study (Study? Perhaps they asked a dozen girls in their literature classes??) into sex differences in reading habits, which found that, while women read the works of both sexes, men stick to books written by men. And the boys can no longer use ignorance as an excuse.

‘Men clearly now know that there are some great books by women – such as Andrea Levy’s Small Island – they really ought to have read and ought to consider “great” (or at least good) writing,’ the report said. (See how it takes two women to tell men how they should think!)’They recognise the titles and they’ve read the reviews. They may even have bought, or been given the books, and start reading them. But they probably won’t finish them.’ If a book doesn’t grab you, stop reading it. The author or authoress has failed.

The research was carried out by academics Lisa Jardine and Annie Watkins (Both women! The word “bias” just crosses one’s mind!) of Queen Mary College, London, to mark the 10th year of the Orange Prize for Fiction, a literary honour whose women-only rule provoked righteous indignation when the competition was founded. (Obviously it was sexist! Imagine the outcries if Orange had awarded the prize to men only!!) They asked 100 academics, critics and writers and found virtually all now supported the prize. (Which means that, as the prize turned out to be meaningless, men stopped criticizing it.)

But a gender gap remains in what people choose to read, at least among the cultural elite. Four out of five men said the last novel they read was by a man, whereas women were almost as likely to have read a book by a male author as a female. When asked what novel by a woman they had read most recently, a majority of men found it hard to recall or could not answer. Women, however, often gave several titles. The report said: ‘Men who read fiction tend to read fiction by men, while women read fiction by both women and men.

‘Consequently, fiction by women remains “special interest”, while fiction by men still sets the standard for quality, narrative and style.’ (My point exactly!)

In the survey, men were asked to name the ‘most important’ book by a woman written in the last two years. Brick Lane by Monica Ali and Carol Shields’s Unless were frequently among the replies, but many men admitted defeat (Not being able to mention something which doesn’t exist is hardly a defeat.) and confessed they had no idea. At least one who suggested Brick Lane admitted he had not read it. If men don’t think that women write “important” books, why should they recall the titles of any?

The report added: ‘Men’s reading habits have altered very little since the Orange Prize burst onto the fiction scene in 1996. Proving that sexism does not pay dividends.

Although no one would admit that the gender of the author had any influence on their choice of fictional reading-matter, men were still far less likely to have read a novel by a woman than by a man, whereas women read titles by either.

‘Pressed for a preference, many men also found it much more difficult to “like” or “admire” a novel authored by a woman – for them “great” writing was male writing (oh – apart from Jane Austen, of course),’ the report said. (BBC brainwashing regarding Jane Austen has evidently been partially successful.)

‘No wonder, then, that each year when the winner of the Orange Prize is announced a chorus of disappointment goes up from “mainstream” critics: how could such an undistinguished book have won?’ If you limit the competition to undistinguished writers, what else do you expect to happen?

A decade ago the Orange Prize drew the scorn of many leading writers, including Kingsley Amis (‘If I were a woman, I would not want to win this prize. One can hardly take the winner seriously’), and AS Byatt (‘I am against anything which ghettoises women. That is my deepest feminist emotion”).

The prize is now estab lished just behind (Like several miles??) the Man Booker and the Whitbread in the literary hierarchy and had huge support among survey respondents, although some still expressed ambivalence. Julie Burchill said: ‘I see where it’s coming from but totally understand the reasons why women don’t want their novels to be entered for it.’ And Burchill is a rabid feminist!

Jardine said: ‘When pressed, men are likely to say things like: “I believe Monica Ali’s Brick Lane is a really important book – I’m afraid I haven’t read it.” I find it most endearing that in 10 years what male readers of fiction have done is learn to pretend that they’ve read women’s books.’ Men, like everyone else are only able to read a certain number of books. If they don’t read an “important” book it is probably because they are reading a “very important” book.

All this article proves is that BOTH men and women realise that men are better writers than women. There has never been a female writer to equal Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens etc. Even Germaine Greer admitted in her book “Reluctant Sibyls” that women cannot write poetry.

The one genre that is dominated by women writers is “romance”, e.g. Mills and Boon etc. The contents are usually trivial and the books are churned out in large numbers. The readership of these is almost exclusively women. Men are not interested in this sort of trashy fiction; so they read books by men.

Hence: women read books by men and women. Men read books by men. Why on earth should David Smith think that men should do anything about this situation?

FOOTNOTE:

London, 18 June 2009: John Boyne’s novel “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” has been voted the Penguin Orange Readers’ Group Book of the year.

Votes were collected from people entering the 2009 Penguin Orange Readers’ Group Prize on the Spinebreakers website (overwhelmingly female membership).

Perhaps this and the above article merely mean that women, just like men, are able to discern great writing when they come across it.

Older visitors might remember the Virago publishing company which was set up to publish work by women only. Because they could find so few really good women writers, fewer and fewer women bought the books and the venture failed.

Likewise, the Orange award is doing nothing to advance the cause of serious women writers who will have nothing to do with it.

Governments all over the world are having to cope with the economic downturn but in the UK the Government have an extra problem to deal with: corruption amongst its members of Parliament; over the last few weeks many of them have been caught with their fingers in the till and are now having to pay back thousands of pounds to the exchequer. Some have already resigned, some have been told they cannot stand as MPs at the next election and many know that, even if they do stand they most certainly will not win their seats again.

 

The Labour Government’s reputation was at a very low ebb before all this was revealed but now it’s hit the cellar floor. The recent local council elections for Labour was a disaster of huge proportions as were the results of the MEP voting; it was a wipe-out and they now don’t control a single council in England. It is patently obvious that at the next general election they will be thrown out.

 

Consequently a lot of Labour MPs are rebelling and blaming it all on their leader, Gordon Brown. Because of resignations from his cabinet he has had to do a quick reshuffle and now the knives are out and, as one newspaper put it, so are the sharpened stilettos! (The women’s footwear sort frequently wielded by feminists.)

 

Caroline Flint, Europe Minister, having declared her support for the Prime Minister on Thursday, stabbed him in the back on Friday by resigning because she didn’t get the job she’d hoped for. Diddums den! She accused Gordon Brown of using women in the Cabinet as “window dressing”. Coming shortly after she posed for a glamour photo shoot, that is hypocrisy of a very high order.

 

The previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seeking female votes, was keen on getting more women into Parliament, even using methods declared illegal by the British High Court. At a subsequent general election he declared, hoping for the female vote again, that, if he was re-elected he would put more women in his Cabinet. When he said that he didn’t know what ability those women might have but he was going to put them in the cabinet just because they were women. This is often termed “sexism”.

 

His underhand scheme worked and more women came into Parliament albeit by the back door. Blair promised that the “Blair Babes” would help to keep Parliament pure and honest and that the Labour Government would be whiter than white. Well, recent events have proved beyond doubt that female MPs can be just as dishonest as their male counterparts and, when it come to disloyalty they can easily beat their male counterparts. 20% of the UK’s MPs are women – a lot of them feminists – but, at the time of writing, 30% of resignations have been by women proving that they are much better than men at letting the side down.

 

I was recently sent an excellent article on this matter written by George Rolph. He has given me permission to reprint his article here:

 

 

“I popped over to the Reuters web site to have a look at the news as reported by them and I found a little gem of typical feminist duplicity and guilt tripping. It was hard to keep myself from laughing as I read about Caroline Flint’s less than gracious departure from her job. Caroline is a feminist and therefore, unlikely to have anything more than a tenuous grip on reality. They are programmed to be daft. It runs in the ideology. The best way I have found to picture them as a group, whether male or female, is like spoilt kids screaming for more and crying like babies if they don’t get it….NOW!!!!

 

Croline Flint quits with swipe at Brown/UK/Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE5545TU20090605)

 

What they want NOW!!!! is often so far fetched it is ludicrous. Don’t be fooled by their “equality” speeches either. They have no intention of seeking equality. What they want is total power over you and me. They are like be-knickered dictators (even the males among them) that live in a state of almost constant P.M.T. (even the males among them). When feminists have a period it can last twenty years or more and during that, er, period (of time, I mean) they are virtually unfit to be with the rest of us (Even the males among them). 

 

Feminists have a number of strengths. Chief among them is they know how to bully. They have the abusing of others down to a fine art and, even more skilfully, they can make their victims look like it is they who are in the wrong as they can switch from aggressive “assertiveness” to passive victim in the blink of an eye. 

 

 Another strength is the ability to lie  straight to your face, in a softly spoken “reasonable” tone of voice, as they pour out false domestic abuse statistics like those office coffee machines that pour out something that looks real but tastes fake. 

http://www.archive.org/details/FalseDomesticViolenceFiguresExposed

 

 

False accusations is another area where they excel. In court rooms, in Parliament and in the office these gals (and guys) can destroy an entire career with one carefully staged managed accusation. Then, when they have thus disposed of their rival, they can wield another guilt trip about the need for their boss to indulge in some “positive discrimination” to get their former work mate’s old job. 

 

I could go on listing these strengths all day but I will just add one more. Manipulation. Boy! They can certainly manipulate and the full gamut of their weapons are deployed when they do it. The lies, the bullying, the assertiveness, the victim-hood, the amateur dramatics, the false accusations, the poison-pen letter or email dropped in the right address. The whole arsenal can be unleashed in one manipulative encounter. The only way I have ever found to be effective in helping me withstand these attacks from feminists in full flow is to picture them naked, wearing only one grey sock, one orange Marigold rubber glove with a finger missing, a flower sticking out of their back orifice and a tattoo that says, “This is what a feminist looks like” emblazoned on their stomachs.

 

This is doubly effective when the feminist is male, by the way.

 

Their biggest weaknesses are their inability to stop boasting about how they are going to destroy men and always, with a gleeful look on their faces. (I know! But what can you do with the deluded except pat them on the head and say, “Yes dear”?) Another, is also one of their strengths. It is, of course, their lying. Feminists will lie through their back teeth and then express total bewilderment when you catch them out. This is because they have no idea what a lie is. They are self programmed to think everything they say is utter truth. In fact, the opposite is true, but their programming will not let them see it. Thus, if a feminist tells you it is a red hot day outside, order a snow plough from E-bay.

 

Another massive weakness of feminists is their disloyalty. Even towards each other. You probably think that feminists are all extremely loyal to each other because they seem to speak with one voice. Yes, but so do politicians. Even when they are busy stabbing each other in the back. Feminists are the same. In fact, since their morphing into their present radical form in the 1960s they have split into more factions than a British Army grenade at a live firing exercise.

 

Now we have had a tour of their attributes as human beings, let’s take a short look at this delicious story on the Reuters web site.

 

Time to rearrange some paragraphs in order to get maximum humour from this tale of high drama in low office.

 

LONDON (Reuters) – Europe Minister Caroline Flint accused Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of using women as “female window-dressing” in his government when she quit her post Friday.

 

*[Only a complete fool would use a feminist as "window dressing" and Gordon Brown is.....Oh no. Forget it. ED]*

Her office released a copy of a strongly worded resignation letter to Brown in which she accused him of allowing few women colleagues into his inner circle.

“Several of the women attending Cabinet, myself included, have been treated by you as little more than female window-dressing,” she wrote. “I am not willing to attend Cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer.”

*[Spotted the manipulative guilt trip yet? ED]*

“I am extremely disappointed at your failure to have an inclusive government. You have a two-tier government: your inner circle and then the remainder of Cabinet.”

*[If you find all this intimidating, remember the flower and the grey sock etc. ED]*

Flint first entered parliament in 1997 as one of the original “Blair Babes,” the nickname given to the 101 female Labour MPs elected when Tony Blair came to power.

 

*[Blair was not noted for his good judgement was he? Iraq war. Marrying Cherie. Being mates with the corrupt, thieving, liar, Harriet Harpic. Doing a deal with Gordon over the premiership. Defecting from the Tories, Oh no. Sorry. He didn't do that one. Being born and so on. ED]*

Three other women ministers have resigned this week — home secretary Jacqui Smith, communities secretary Hazel Blears and children’s secretary Beverley Hughes.

*[Yay!!!! All feminists.ED]*

Newspapers have billed their resignations as the “Revenge of the Sisterhood.” Some commentators say the Mother of Parliaments is still a male-dominated environment where a macho culture flourishes, despite government attempts to make politics more family-friendly.

*[For "Some commentators" read other feminists and Fleet Street and TV land girly boys. For "girly boys" read ex males who are now feminists. Also known as "grils" which means, confused girls. ED]*

So there we have it. The attributes of a feminist pouring out of a story like effluent on a holiday makers beach. Here though is the missing paragraph. This is the best laugh of all.

Her departure came less than a day after she declared her loyalty to Brown following speculation that she would resign.

He He. See what I mean?”

The Suffragents website is the place to visit if you like to read the unvarnished truth about women and feminism. The subjects are dealt with frankly and with considerable humour.

 

Athos, one of the three musketeers who write on the site, in his article on “Women in High office” has this to say: 

 

“A short while ago I came across a website of quotations. It was, quite obviously, run by some man-hating feminist as I realised when I read the section on men and the section on women. The latter contained the following quote:

‘I will feel equality has arrived when we can elect to office women who are as incompetent as some of the men who are already there.’

 

This must be out of date as almost every woman elected so far has proved more incompetent than any man.

The main reasons women don’t get elected are :

Men are more competent, more business-minded, and have a stronger work ethic than women, whereas women want all the benefits enjoyed by males, without having to work as hard as their male counterparts.  In short, they want ‘equality’ just for being women, regardless of the fact that most people don’t want women chefs, women clergy, women councillors, AMs or MPs, women pilots, women soldiers, women policepersons, women busdrivers, women builders or heavy plant operators, women engineers (their brains can’t absorb anything more technical than how to turn a tap on), women managers (a contradiction in terms, of course) or women in any responsible position where other people have to be dependent on them.”

 

(To read the complete article go to:  http://suffragents.freehostia.com/politicalmatters.html)

Almost everyone in the UK will recall the great victory of 12 years ago when Tony Blair was swept to power promising “change” for the better with none of the “sleaze” we saw in the Conservative party which preceded him. We all remember the “Blair Babes” which for some (unexplained)  reason was supposed to “improve” the business of the House of Commons.

 

But what a total let-down it’s been! Blair left the sinking Labour ship just before it hit the rocks and many of his supporters are looking to jump ship before it goes down at the next election and hundreds of Labour MPs lose their jobs.

 

And the Babes? Even as I write, two of them in the Cabinet are busy stabbing Gordon Brown in the back and the female Home Secretary is under investigation for corruption. Yes, Athos is correct: almost every female MP so far elected has proved to be more incompetent (not to mention corrupt and over-ambitious) than any man.

 

As most people know, the “thinking” of politicians is about ten years behind that of most of the public, so that, despite the absolute failure of the Blair Babes, the leaders of all the major parties are planning some “women-only” candidates’ lists in the hope of getting that non-existant “female vote”. With the demise of feminism as we entered this new century, the majority of women will now freely assert that they no longer vote for a politician “because she’s a woman”; they’ve been let down too many times. 

 

As I’ve said elsewhere in this blog, women who manage to become MPs, (albeit not on merit by by the “backdoor” of the “women-only” lists,) assume, and act, as though they are there “to represent women”. Harriet Harman, the current Deputy Prime Minister is a case in point; she moves from one disaster area to another with her underhand schemes to advance “the cause of women” whatever that might be.

 

Fortunately the UK will have another general election next year and two things are quite certain to happen. The first is that the Labour government will be thrown out of office possibly even coming in third after the Liberal Democrats. This means that any “Brown Babes” will be thin on the ground in the House of Commons, and if David Cameron, as Leader of the Conservative Party, is any sort of pragmatist, the number of “Cameron Chicks”  will be fairly nominal.

 

Why? Not only the UK but the whole world is in a gargantuan financial mess, and when things are in a mess, people look to MEN to sort things out. I forecast that the population of the UK will indicate this with their votes.

Some people say that women never invent anything. I disagree! Feminists and their supporters have invented some of the biggest hoaxes of the twentieth century. The “rule of thumb” hoax was one of the most well known and, despite the fact that it was exploded by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book “Who Stole Feminism?“, some untinking people, even today, still quote it as though it were a fact. Sadly some academics and publications like Time magazine, all of whom should know better, do the same.

Here is the truth of the matter as given by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book:

“…The ‘rule of thumb’ story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed…

The ‘rule of thumb’, however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. It is not to be found in William Blackstone’s treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.

That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.

According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, “The real explanation of ‘rule of thumb’ is that it derives from wood workers… who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs.” Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of ‘modern folklore’ and compares it to other ‘back-formed explanations.’ such as the claim asparagus comes from ’sparrow-grass’ or that ‘ring around the rosy’ is about the plague.

We shall see that Hiscock’s hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-1780), the Englishman who codified centuries of legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organized tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife-beating does not occur in Blackstone’s compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted “domestic chastisement”….

In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled “Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America“:

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal… Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: “No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine.”

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to thievery or adultery. Religious groups – especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists – punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

Just how did the false account originate, and how did it achieve authority and currency? As with many myths, there is a small core of fact surrounded by an accretion of error. In the course of rendering rulings on cases before them, two Southern judges had alluded to an ‘ancient law’ according to which a man could beat his wife as long as the implement was not wider than his thumb. The judges, one from North Carolina and one from Mississippi, did not accept the authority of the ‘ancient law.’ The North Carolina judge refered to it as ‘barbarism,’ and both judges found the husband in the case in question guilty of wife abuse. Nevertheless, their rulings seemed to tolerate the notion that men had a measure of latitude in physically chastising their wives. Fortunately, as Pleck takes pains to remind us, they were not representative of judicial opinion in the rest of the country.

In 1976, Del Martin, a coordinator of the N.O.W. Task Force on Battered Women, came across a reference to the two judges and their remarks. Neither judge had used the phrase “rule of thumb,” but a thumb had been mentioned, and Ms. Martin took note of it:

“Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain restrictions did exist… For instance, the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband ‘the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb’ – a rule of thumb, so to speak.”

Ms. Martin had not claimed that the term ‘rule of thumb’ originated from common law. Before long, however, the ‘ancient law’ alluded to by two obscure Southern judges was being treated as an unchallenged principle of both British and American law, and journalists and academics alike were bandying the notion about. Feminist Terry Davidson, in an article entitled ‘Wife Beating: A Recurring Phenomenon Throughout History,’ claims that “one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the ‘rule of thumb’ and castigates Blackstone himself. “Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate.”

These interpretive errors were given added authority by a group of scholars and lawyers who, in 1982, prepared a report on wife abuse for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice – A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. On the second page, they note: ‘American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This ‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a ‘rod not thicker than his thumb.’” It went on to speak of Blackstone as the jurist who “greatly influenced the making of the law in the American colonies [and who] commented on the ‘rule of thumb,’” justifying the rule by noting that “the law thought it reasonable to intrust [the husband] with this power of… chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children.”

The publication of the report established the feminist fable about the origins of the term in popular lore, and the misogyny of Blackstone and ‘our law’ as ‘fact.’ Misstatements about the ‘rule of thumb’ still appear in the popular press.

That same 1993 Time magazine article that popularized the nonexistent March of Dimes study on domestic violence and birth defects and reported that “between 22% and 35% of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults” also cited new York University law professor Holly Maguigan: “We talk about the notion of the rule of thumb, forgetting that it had to do with the restriction on a man’s right to use a weapon against his wife: he couldn’t use a rod that was larger than his thumb.” Professor Maguigan’s law students would do well to check their Blackstone.

Misandry of the Welsh Assembly

In the Western Mail (a Cardiff, UK newspaper) on18th February I read an article on domestic abuse by Nerys Evans who is a member of the Welsh Assembly. The title was “Open up the domestic debate” which was more than a little misleading as the writer dealt only with one side of the problem. It was in typical “femmyspeak” with all the usual feminist myths shining through. She mentioned “women” no less that 17 times not seeming to realise that domestic violence is something which is suffered and perpetrated by both men and women. To deal with only half of this important problem is certainly not “opening up” anything. I am writing this reply to deal with the other side of the issue thus giving both sides of the picture. One would assume that any responsible newspaper would do just that, but the Western Mail still seems to be in the grip of twentieth century feminism as their daily output shows.

The writer’s opening remark was to state that it was the 70^th birthday of Erin Pizzey who opened the first women’s refuge in the UK, in London. To ostensibly celebrate Erin Pizzey’s 70th birthday with an article such as Nerys Evans’s would, I have no doubt, be a bitter disappointment to Erin. I have known her for a number of years. Several years ago, it was my privilege to present an award to Erin for her work on men’s issues. She is now one of the Patrons of a leading UK men’s charity.

Censorship of books in the UK

Nerys Evans mentioned the fact that it was Erin Pizzey who opened the first refuge for women in Chiswick in 1971. That is a matter of recorded fact, but a corollary of that fact is that in her book “Prone to Violence”  Erin Pizzey stated that, of the first 100 women who entered that refuge, 64 of them were as violent or more violent than the men they were allegedly running away from. This so enraged the feminists at that time that they even issued death threats against Erin and she was forced to flee the country for some years. It’s also interesting to note that feminist pressure was instrumental in getting the book censored in the UK. When I tried to borrow it from my local library, there was not a single copy in any library in the country. Fortunately I was able to borrow a copy from the National Library. As it is now freely available on the Internet, anyone can read it. It is available as a free ebook on the ManKind Wales website at  http://www.mankindwales.org.uk. Simply click on the orange box on the home page to go to the literature page then click on the title “Prone to Violence”.

Massive neglect of men’s charities by Welsh Assembly

Nerys Evans also mentioned that the Welsh Assembly has just finished a review of domestic abuse services in Wales. I do hope the Assembly took note of both male and female victims. Unhappily, the Assembly’s track record of giving any help to men is appalling. I have recently acquired from the Welsh Assembly itself, official figures showing how much money has been granted by the Assembly to organisations and charities which support only women or mainly women (such as Women’s Aid) and charities which support only men or mainly men. The figures speak for themselves: £13,049,872 given to women and a mere £208,442 given to men. How can the Welsh Assembly possibly justify giving almost 63 times as much money to women as to men? The men of Wales might like to take account of this fact at the next Assembly elections!

The help available for women all over Wales was referred to by Nerys Evans. She is correct; it’s available all over the UK with millions of pounds being spent on the provision of over 500 refuges for women and also helplines etc. And how many refuges are provided for men? Just five, and only one of those is in Wales.

Why men do not report domestic abuse by women

Another truth came out in the statement: “Statistically of course, we know there are likely to be more experiences than the survey exercise showed.” Absolutely correct, but, sadly, most of those “experiences” would have happened to men. The BBC survey in the “Here and Now” TV programme showed conclusively that men are eight times less likely than women to report domestic violence against them. Men know that they’ll get very little help from the police, and might end up being blamed even when the perpetrators are their wives or partners; even when injured, it is usually the man who is arrested.

The hoary old figures of “1 woman in 4 will experience domestic violence in her lifetime” is quoted, yet again, in Nerys Evans’s piece. The fact that some of this is woman on woman violence she conveniently ignores. But the real howler committed by the writer is the question: “Does this mean that 1 in 4 men in Wales commits domestic abuse?” Her ignorance of the mathematics of probability shine through brightly here and the simple answer to her question is: “No, it does not!” What she also fails to mention is that, in the same survey that gives the “1 in 4” figure, it also states that 1 in 6 men will also suffer domestic violence in his lifetime. Nerys Evans seems good at “selective” factfinding. But, to use her particular brand of mathematical logic, does the fact I have given mean that 1 in 6 women are perpetrators of domestic violence? and to further use her logic, does it mean that some women in the Welsh Assembly could be perpetrators?

I can absolutely agree with Nerys Evans’s final point:

“The time has come to extend the debate about domestic abuse. We all have a vital role to play in making sure these behavioural patterns and attitudes change, so we break the silence about, and the acceptance of, domestic abuse in all our communities in Wales.”

I hope the facts I have given above help to extend the debate just as she suggested and that male victims of domestic abuse by women will be taken into account.

There is currently some talk about the possibility of a Welsh referendum to decide whether the Welsh Assembly should have full law-making powers. Taking into account the figures I have given above, and having regard to the Assembly’s misandric attitude and discrimination against men for years past, I imagine that all Welshmen will assume that the idea is some sort of sick joke.

 

 

Several years ago I read an account by a woman who owned a large New York flower shop; she said that 25% of all the flowers she sold on St Valentine’s Day were paid for by women who sent the flowers to themselves. How sad! These women must feel so alone and unwanted by any man. Truly we live in unromantic times.

But romance was another casualty of the feminist attack on society and on marriage in particular. I recently saw the results of a poll on chivalry in the workplace which aimed at getting women’s views on the matter. So many said they’d love men to open doors for them, to pull out a chair for them in a restaurant, to offer their seat on a bus or to help them on with their coat. In mid-twentieth century such acts of courtesy were common but in the sixties feminism was let loose and “equality” was the watchword. I remember in an episode of one of the very early Australian “soaps”, a man opening a door for a young woman, only to be told, “I’m quite capable of opening a door for myself thank you!”  It was thus that the feminist media killed off chivalry.

Today, with marriageable women outnumbering marriageable men in the UK, the well-known jewelry chain, H.Samuel, have just launched a new type of engagement ring – FOR MEN! It’s called the Tioro ring – a titanium band embedded with a diamond which costs £80.

Samuel’s based this launch on the well known fact that today women have to make a lot of the running if they want to get a man; it’s women who have to shape up. Many are now so desperate in their chase for a mate that they are often the ones who “pop the question”, and if his “yes” is forthcoming, they buy him a ring. Of course it’s also a way of warning other women that their man is spoken for, though rings can easily be removed in some circumstances. Who knows? The way things are going, we might soon hear of some men making a collection of engagement rings like some women have in the past. Could diamonds end up being a BOY’s best friend?

I know of one man who will be getting his usual Valentine’s card today from the partner he’s been living with for over twenty years. Every card carries the request to him to marry her but they are still just living together. It’s possible that this year she might offer to buy him an engagement ring.

Three women lived in the same house. One was a judge, one was a lawyer and one was a feminist. One day they went shopping in an antique shop looking for a large mirror. Eventually they bought one and asked the shopkeeper whether it had any special qualities.

“Oh yes,” he replied. “If you stand in front of it and tell a lie you’ll disappear in a cloud of smoke.”

The trio took the mirror home and hung it on the wall. The lawyer stood in front of it and said, “I think I’m the fairest thinking person in the world.” Immediately she disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

The judge then stood in front of the mirror and said, “I think that all my judgments are perfectly fair to all parties in my court.” Then she disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

The feminist stood in front of the mirror and said, “I think . . .” And she disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

 

Most women and practically all men now realise what an utter waste of money and time feminism has been. Thinking and feminism are not even on nodding terms! As things started to fall apart in the 1960s, feminism rode in on the wave of liberalism created at the time. Even feminists have now been forced to admit that feminism was one of those things that seemed a good idea at the time, but it has backfired to such an extent that it has caused grave damage to men, women and children. This quote from Phyllis Schlafly’s article Academia’s war against marriage, published in 1997, proves the point:

 

“The Independent Women’s Forum has just published an issue of its Women’s Quarterly that is guaranteed to enrage the feminists. Called “Let’s Face It, Girls: The Sexual Revolution Was a Mistake,” it levels a broadside attack on feminists for teaching young women that liberation and fulfillment come from romping around like men in casual sex while building their all-important careers.

They are angry because they discovered too late that the cost of uncommitted sexual relationships is that “the window for getting married and having children is way smaller than one can possibly foresee at age 25.”

So, we hear the anguish of babyless fortyish women frustrated by their inability to get pregnant, spending their money and tears on chemicals and on clinics dispensing procedures with high failure rates. They’ve even realized that a lot of female infertility comes from exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, and that’s a high price to pay for those dead-end serial relationships.

In this Women’s Quarterly, Carolyn Graglia exposes the consequences of the foolish feminist notion that men and women are equal in their sexual desires. This myth, which is contrary to all human experience, has deprived women of the societal support they need to refuse to engage in casual sex.

Far from being empowered in their relations with men, women have lost control over ordinary relationships. Adult, educated women are now demanding that the government (or plaintiff attorneys) protect them from “date rape” and “sexual harassment” in situations that, in the pre-feminist era, unsophisticated high school girls could handle with confidence, knowing that a No would be respected.”

 

We are now faced with the most severe recession for many decades and things will soon get much worse with mass unemployment in all countries, and, as ever, when any country is in a position of danger it’s always the men of that country who have to sort things out. It was ever thus; all the pictures of men in TV adverts as being incompetent and bungling idiots with terribly smart wives are forgotten. The fictitious “G.I. Janes” and “Superwoman” are put on hold while the solid ability of men is trusted to sort out the problems. 

For years past, under the guise of getting equality for women, men of higher calibre have been by-passed in favour of the promotion of less able women. Consequently, we have had the building up of inefficiency in teaching, the police, banking and many businesses in order to give the appearance of political “correctness”. Equal outcome has been the order of the day. All that inability has now translated into disaster; we now need the efficiency of men to sort it out.

While businesses were flush with cash it’s been all very well to employ women of child-bearing age who at any time may say they want a year off on pay to have a baby while someone else is paid to do their jobs, but, with so many workers being laid off, that luxury can no longer be afforded; businesses can no longer carry such passengers who are unproductive.

It has been all very well in past years training female doctors who, when qualified, only work part time so that it takes two of them to cover one practice, but now we will have to rely on one man to do the job thus saving a lot of money on training which is not efficient.

 

Feminism has been an increasingly dying concept ever since we entered the twenty-first century. The recession will, for certain, be the final nail in its coffin.

I chose the title for this post advisedly after – unfortunately – coming across one of those “dolly diatribe” blogs entitled “I blame the Patriarchy”. The banner was in an appropriate washed out green, but the title was discernible.

Judging by the blog’s contents, the writer is obviously some feminatric who attended a mid twentieth century course on women’s studies and is still using the notes she made at the time.

Her “style” impinges on the English language from time to time but is mostly confined to diatribish with such offerings as “I wouldn’t give him the steam off my piss”. The blog is full of such academic and uplifting “thinking” and is about as high as it gets.

The sycophants who read her blog quite naturally agree with her every utterance, and everyone who falls into this predictable mould is allowed to have their say; but there is a warning that no dissent is allowed. This has always been a feature of feminism and one of its many failings. It has never countenanced a differing point of view.

You might remember that in January 2005 the President of Havard University, Lawrence H. Summers, caused something of an uproar at an “academic” conferance when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason why fewer women succeed in science and maths careers. In this connection he also happened to mention the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite American universities. These are two facts which have been amply illustrated by school and university staffing and results over past decades but, sadly, it does not accord with feminist “thinking” which declares that there is very little difference between men and women – this despite clear DNA evidence that the difference genetically between men and women is about 2%, the same sort of gap as between a woman and a female chimpanzee.

One female teacher, from an Institute of technology, felt compelled to walk out of Summers’ talk saying that, if she hadn’t done so, “I would have either  blacked out or thrown up”. I would have thought that anyone so academically parochial and unstable that she is unable to appreciate a point of view which differs from her own would be eminently unsuitable to teach young people how to study and how to think; but such is the state of American education at the moment.

Feminists, such as the writer of the blog I refer to, totally justify the comments by Robert H. Bork in his outstanding book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”:

“Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the sixties . . . by now it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of intellectual barbarisms”.

In true feminist style, the blog blames everything in the world, from big business to religion, for having taken part in “the oppression of women”. But fortunately there are some women who think clearly on these social issues. Midge Decter, for instance, in her article “You’re on your own baby” in The Women’s Quarterly, asks:

“Why there should have been an explosion of angry demand on the part of women who as a group were the freest, healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived and most comfortably situated people the world has ever yet laid eyes on.”

Decter anwers this question by stating that it is her freedom that frightens today’s woman:

“The appeal to her of the women’s movement is that in her fear and disorientation, the movement offers her the momentary escape contained in the idea that she is not free at all; that she is, on the contrary, the victim of an age-old conspiracy that everything troubling to her has been imposed on her by others.”

Think of all the freedom and choice available to modern woman: whether to take up a career in any field she chooses, whether to get married; and if she marries whether to juggle both or to make the choice of becoming a career mother and wife, and so on. In short, today’s woman has to take responsibility for her own actions and decisions. How much easier it must be to retreat into victimhood and “blame the Patriarchy”. Hence white, heterosexual men have become the universal blamees.

The most constructive comment I’ve ever read about feminism was by a woman who said: “Let’s face it, girls, feminism was a mistake”.

 

Imagine you are sitting in a Dallas Area Rapid Transport bus one day and you happen to notice the two posters shown above. One shows the fresh face of a young boy with the caption “One day my mother will kill me”; the other shows the innocent face of a young girl with the words “When I grow up I will abuse my children”. I expect you’d be rather shocked, and if you asked the driver of the bus why his company was spreading such misinformation about domestic violence, and he answered “Well, most child abuse is by Moms and most of their victims are boys”, you’d be staggered by this truth; but you’d still not think it was depicting the actions of most women.

I expect this was the reaction of the majority of people travelling on DART transport when they saw the actual posters which the buses carried, shown below.

Husbands do occasionally kill their wives, just as wives also kill their husbands, but young girls who see these posters should not expect to be killed by their husbands as the posters suggest, and young boys should not think that they will be expected to kill their wives.

This whole idea is a travesty of the true situation and all concerned with this campaign have good reason to bow their heads in shame at such misuse of these photographs and the promulgation of such obviously misleading ideas about domestic violence.

Fortunately the situation was brought to the attention of Glenn Sacks who, through his large and popular website, and by other means, informed the world about this child-hating campaign by “The Family Place”. Paige Flink is the Executive Director of this organization and she was happy to pay $25,000 for what turned out in the end to be a massive international backlash against her organization and DART who allowed her to engage in this tacky campaign. Thousands of protests poured in from all over the world; DART didn’t have the staff to deal with them.

The biased Miss Flink said that “Ninety percent of the victims of the reported cases of domestic violence in Dallas are females”. I think the important word here is “reported“. Men who are victims of female domestic violence rarely report the matter either because they are ashamed to admit it or for some other reason. In the UK, even the misandric BBC admit that men are six times less likely to report DV against them as women are.

Glenn Sacks truthfully pointed out that up-to-date research clearly shows that men account for half of all domestic violence victims and about one third of all domestic violence injuries. In the UK the ManKind website, which specialises in accurate and up-to-date information on domestic abuse, publishes very similar figures.

Glenn Sacks also provided the world with the statistics published by the US Department of Health and Human Services in their Child Maltreatment report  from 2001 to 2006 which show that:

70.8% of children who are killed by one parent are killed by their mothers and

70.6% of children abused by one parent are abused by their mothers.

60% of the victims are boys.

This clearly proves that the information contained in the top two posters on this post are much more accurate than the second two. But, even so, I think most fair thinking and responsible adults would consider that, to use any of the above posters, is putting children at risk and is thoroughly reprehensible. I do hope that Miss Flink has learned a lesson from her expensive $25,000 headache!