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.

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.

Considering the fact that some people have been studying this subject for the last 40 years, men as victims of domestic abuse is one that few people know much about. This has largely been due to feminist activity over the same period which concentrated solely on women as victims and men as perpetrators. 

As feminists got themselves organised after 1960, they were very successful in bullying politicians into their way of thinking and bribing them with promises of “the women’s vote”. Sadly, many unthinking politicians in so many countries swallowed this approach, hook, line and sinker. One of the results in the USA was the setting up of N.O.W. and the passing of Title IX both with the idea of demonising and neglecting men.

In the UK the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1975. The intention of Parliament was to give women equality but the government, very unwisely, set up the alleged “Equal” Opportunities Commission to see that the provisions of the Act were carried out. The result was a publicly-funded body which turned into a feminist pressure group. They had the utter gall to tell employers that they should aim for a 50/50 representation of men and women on their staffs, and campaigned for more women in Parliament and other bodies of influence. Tony Blair was pushed to the extent of acting illegally, according to British Law, by instigating women-only candidates’ lists in the safest Labour constituencies.

The irony of all this was the appalling track record of the “Equal” Opportunities Commission itself regarding their own employment policy. In over 25 years they employed an average of 18% men and 82% women. Every senior executive appointed was a woman and when they had an assistant senior executive, that position also went to a woman. Even when they had two assistant senior executives, both were women. In short the majority of the staff and all the hierarchy were female. And this was the “Equal” Opportunities Commission. Last year it was mercifully done away with – and not before time!

Other organisations and charities continued to be set up during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Justice for Women was set up in 1990; not “justice for all” mark you – only for women! They weren’t interested in seeing any justice for men. Consequently, all over the UK, female killers were released from prison on the grounds that it was the male victim’s fault. One gross miscarriage of justice was the release of Sara Thornton who viciously stabbed her husband to death as he lay asleep. This was another “blame the victim” scenario despite the fact that even his ex-wife said that he was never violent. Pressure was put on the courts by large crowds of chanting feminists standing outside  while the appeals were being heard.

Prior to feminism rearing its ugly head, the police hardly ever took any action in domestic disputes. They realised it was a matter between husband and wife and, generally, after they’d both sobered up, no more was heard about it. But feminists were not satisfied with this state of affairs and urged all women to complain to the police if they were attacked by their husbands or boyfriends, even if they had started it all. 

By infiltrating the media: the BBC and the press, feminists were able to put the women’s case before listeners and readers whilst ignoring the men’s side of the case. I well remember that in the Daily Mail, every Saturday’s “Letters Page” was given over to children’s letters. Many of the so-called children’s letters were written by female workers at the Daily Mail, and feminist groups were urged to send in letters from “girls”. Some of those “girls” had very advanced vocabularies for nine and ten-year-olds who advanced feminist principles in their letters and complained about the way women were treated.

In 1970 the first women’s refuge was set up in London by Erin Pizzey. It was the first in the world. She sincerely believed, as a feminist, that women needed such a place. However, being a thinking woman, she soon realised that feminism was nothing to do with equality. She was bullied at their meetings and became thoroughly disenchanted with the movement. When she wrote her book, “Prone to Violence” she stated in it that, of the first 100 women to enter the refuge, 62 of them were as violent or more violent than the men they were allegedly running away from. 

The feminists were furious! Erin Pizzey received death threats and eventually had to leave the country for some years. Such was the feminist power at that time however, that they succeeded in getting the book censored. You couldn’t buy a copy in any shop and there was not a single copy in any library in the UK. Fortunately, the Internet, with its huge freedom of expression, arrived soon after and the book was put in its entirety on the web for all to read. There is a website you can visit which has a selection of literature for men and boys and “Prone to Violence” is one of the books. If you would like to read the book, just click here:   http://www.mankindwales.org.uk   and you will be taken straight to the site. On the home page you will see a notice advertising the literature section. You will see a pile of books, one of which is “Prone to Violence”. Just click on the book and you will go straight to it, to read or download.

The Manorama site has an interesting article on the way so many people have been duped about the true state of domestic violence against men. Use this address to go directly to the article:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/verismo/dv.againstmen.html or click here:  Domestic Violence Against Men