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.

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!

If, by any chance, you are still in twentieth century thinking mode regarding domestic violence, you might like to read the following quotes from experts on the subject which will quickly bring you into the twenty-first century. Please feel free to copy these and send them to anyone you know who needs to be brought up to date.

Domestic Violence Experts:
Research Has Discredited the Woman-as-Victim/Man-as-Perpetrator DV Model

“Men account for half of all DV victims and incur a third of DV-related injuries. Ignoring female-on-male violence inhibits our efforts to combat domestic violence.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

“Half of violent relationships were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”

Dr. Daniel J. Whitaker of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, describing a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Public Health

“Every time we tried to say that women’s intimate partner abuse is different than men’s, the evidence did not support it.”

Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling of the University of South Alabama

“My independent research as to gender and domestic violence reveals that women use all forms of domestic violence at least as frequently as do men and with very similar effects on male victims.” 

“A meta-analytic review of 552 domestic violence studies published in the Psychological Bulletin found that 38% of the physical injuries in heterosexual domestic assaults are suffered by men.”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

“Both boys and girls who observe their mothers engaging in violence toward her partners tend to use more violence in their romantic relationships. Moreover, such girls are more likely to be aggressive with their peers.”

Psychology Professor Marlene Moretti of Simon Fraser University BC

“I have conducted surveys of nationally representative samples of American families funded by the National Institutes of Health in 1975, 1985, and 1992. 

“In 2006 I conducted a study of partner violence in 32 nations. In all of these studies, the rate of men victimized by physical and psychological attacks by their partners is about the same as the rate of women victimized by male partners…”Physical attacks by women account for about a third of the injuries.”

Murray A. Straus, Professor of Sociology and Co-Director Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire:

“When men with children try to access domestic violence services and are turned away, we deny their children services and put them in danger. There is an unknown quantity of children…who cannot find the services they need to escape their violent mothers, and therefore, they must remain in their homes. Thus, by discriminating against male victims of domestic violence, we are also discriminating against their children and putting both the father and his children at risk. It is imperative, then, to assure that male victims and their children can get access to domestic violence services.”

Denise A. Hines, Ph.D. of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire

“It’s mandated that I have the Duluth Domestic Violence Power & Control Wheel prominently displayed in the office where I provide batterers’ treatment classes. I do, but with one minor modification — I drew a circle around it and a line going through it.”

[In the Duluth theoretical framework, domestic violence is caused by a patriarchal society that sanctions violence by men against their female partners. Women are assumed to be either victims or, when they are found to aggress against their male partners, to be doing so in self-defense.]

Claudia Ann Dias, MSC, JD Batterers’ Treatment Provider

“A recent study [published in the journal Violence and Victims] analyzed data originally obtained through the National Violence Against Women Survey in the mid-90s…[which was] a study which was designed, conducted and analyzed by feminist researchers.

“Researchers looked at 10,000 respondents who were currently married, and found that adult women are just as controlling and jealous towards their male partners as the other way around. 

“They also found that the relationship between use of control and jealousy and physical violence existed equally for both male and female respondents, and that ‘intimate terrorists’ can be either male or female.” 

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

“The domestic violence establishment–of which I was once very much a part–has distorted the research to minimize and ignore female and mutual domestic violence.”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC Author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

California State Long Beach University professor Martin Fiebert maintains an online bibliography summarizing 219 scholarly investigations, with an aggregate sample size exceeding 220,000, which concludes “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”

“Research shows that domestic violence is actually more common in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships.”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC Author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

“According to the [female] victims themselves, the majority of these cases did indeed involve mutual abuse and, and some featured a dominant female perpetrator whose [male] partner was arrested after fighting back. This clinical data contradicted much of what I had been taught, and led me to conduct an extensive review of the research literature. What I found more than corroborated my clinical findings.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

‘Domestic Violence Is a Serious Problem for both Women and Men’

“California domestic violence laws violate men’s rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled. 

“The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence…

New California Appeal Court Ruling

“Domestic violence ‘research’ has been misleading, in that data has been extracted from crime reports and/or ‘crime victim surveys – in which men underreport more than women – and have been publicized as indicating domestic violence is a gender issue (male-perpetrator/female-victims). In fact, when larger surveys with representative samples are examined, perpetration of domestic violence perpetration is slightly more common for females…”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC Author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

“The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ‘missing persons’ of the problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted…

“Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women. 

“Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go—more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is no place to go and no one to whom to turn.”

Richard James Gelles, PhD, Director for the Center for Research on Youth & Social Policy

“Under current policy, abused men are both denied services and told, essentially, that they don’t even exist. Ignoring male victims is not only a human rights issue, but also a public health issue. Until all perpetrators of family violence are held accountable for their actions, regardless of gender, our efforts will be limited, with serious implications for future generations.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

“I interviewed women in battered women’s shelters and wondered why some were leaving in less than a week. The answer, it turned out, is that they too were engaging in violence against their partners, and in some cases had left to pick up the battle again. We weren’t helping these women because [by ignoring their role in DV] we were ignoring their paradigm

Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling of the University of South Alabama 

“The majority of mainstream researchers are now acknowledging the gender-inclusive nature of intimate partner abuse.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

Erin Pizzey who opened the first women’s refuge in London in the 1970s, states in her book “Prone to Violence” that, of the first 100 women who entered the refuge, 62 were as violent or more violent than the men they were allegedly running away from.

For many years her book had been successfully censored in all UK libraries and bookshops but now it is available to download free. You can do so by visiting:  http://www.mankindwales.org.uk  and going to the literature section. Erin Pizzey is a patron of the UK ManKind charity.

Hans Christian Andersen’s story, The Emperor’s New Clothes, is a vivid illustration of how people can easily be deluded. You will remember that two tailors told the emperor that they had manufactured a really marvellous cloth, very fine and more beautiful than any other. They told the emperor that it was so special that only very intelligent people could see it; ordinary people couldn’t. This great con trick was swallowed in wholesale fashion by the emperor and all his subjects. When the tailors ostensibly made him a magnificent outfit from the cloth the emperor paraded down the street in it admired by all his subjects who said they could see the cloth. It wasn’t until a small boy, who wasn’t taken in by the trick, cried out that the emperor had no clothes on, that everyone came to their senses and realised they had all been party to a big lie.
Such was the case when feminism was introduced in the second half of the twentieth century. Women were told that for centuries they had been dominated by an evil patriarchy and that they were a downtrodden section of the community that needed to fight for freedom and equality. Some people say that women never invent anything; I disagree; feminists have been inventing, or rewriting, their own version of history – which some of the sillier sisters referred to as “herstory” – for half a century. In doing so their total ignorance of true history stands out like a sore thumb.

Back in the Middle Ages women were much better cared for than the feminists would have us believe. Joseph and Frances Gies’ book Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages records that “Widows were given half or full provisions of their husband’s estate after his death. (The children were sometimes given the other half.) This includes monies, land and houses. Children were also explicitly cared for in their fathers’ wills, with guardianship entrusted to the widow.” In cases of adultery men were charged equally with women.

Paintings from that time show us wives chasing their husbands with broomsticks. Modern surveys clearly show that women are just as violent in the home as men; perhaps they always have been. 

It was always assumed that only men were promiscuous and fathers always assumed that the children borne by their wives were always their offspring. With the advent of modern DNA tests it has now been proved beyond all question that one in five children in all developed nations are not the children of the man claimed to be the father by the woman. Mothers today are having to repay many thousands of pounds to men who have discovered that they are not the fathers of the children as claimed by the mother.

The alleged “oppression” of women by men in not allowing them to enter certain jobs and professions such as the medical and legal professions were attempts to shield women from danger within society. Women were forbidden to work down coal mines on the ground that it was “too dangerous”. However, it wasn’t too dangerous for men and thousands were killed doing the job.

So successful were feminists with their “emperor’s new clothes” trick that we have now reached the stage of “let’s pretend” by allowing women into the military on an alleged equal footing with men; equal except that the standards expected of men and not the same as the watered down standards expected of women. Also women do not share the same dangers as men. If they did they would share the same percentage of casualties. Of course, women can be casualties but they are few and far between as the following graph clearly shows:

Men represent 90% of the armed forces but 98% of the casualties.
Women represent 10% of the armed forces but only 2% of the casualties. 

Something else that feminists have invented are false statistics and, by infiltrating the media over the last four decades, they have managed to get those false figures accepted by a gullible public. Many people today are convinced that domestic abuse is something perpetrated by men on women whereas the truth is that women are equally as violent in the home as men.

Child abuse is another case in point. Aided and abetted by the BBC and the National Society for the Prevention of cruelty to Children (NSPCC) the impression has been given in the UK that men are responsible for most child abuse. This is hypocrisy of a very high order as the figures published by the NSPCC show that the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by mothers. Figures from Scotland show that over half child abuse there is perpetrated by mothers as the following graph shows. 

As you can clearly see, the only area where child abuse has increased from 2002 to 2003 is that by mothers. All the others have decreased or remain the same. As recent figures in the UK show that violence by women has doubled in the last five years, one can only suppose that child abuse by women has increased also. This is probably the reason why I couldn’t find an up-to-date table of child abuse on the Scottish Government website. It’s been well and truly hidden. The statistics on domestic violence on the website are truly antique. I think they are about as old as Edinburgh castle!

But the game is up! Feminism is now known as one gigantic lie. The empress is found to be wearing no clothes!

The girl who accused Mike Tyson of rape received a telephone call from him at two o’ clock in the morning, got out of bed and went to his bedroom where she took off her clothes and got into bed with him. Did she think he wanted to play tiddlywinks? Of course Tyson was a rough character and also the “wrong” colour, so he was found guilty. It was one of the many outrageous miscarriages of justice in the American system.

America is designed around women and run by feminists of both sexes so that Tyson never stood a chance once the cry of “rape” went up. Given that feminists scorn all men, even those who have given their lives to preserve free speech but for “feminists only”.

Over the last forty years the people of America have had political “correctness” blasted at them from TV presenters anxious to keep their jobs, politicians trying to gain votes and advertisers trying to sell to women with the result that it is now the “received wisdom” in society in general and in the police force in particular, that “a woman would never lie about something like rape”. The truth is that women do – frequently.

Surveys have proved beyond doubt what the reasons are for false allegations of rape. These are the most common ones given by women who have made false rape allegations:

1.They agreed to have sex but thought they might be pregnant

2.They didn’t want their husband or boyfriend to know they had been unfaithful

3.They had second thoughts afterwards and wanted to blame the man

4.They wanted to get revenge on a man

5.They felt ashamed and didn’t want the blame

6.To test a partner’s love.

 The Times in the UK reported the case of Julie Renouf who wasted 2,000 hours of police time and was responsible for a man being unjustly questioned for 15 hours by police. Her lame excuse was that she didn’t want her husband to know that she had betrayed him. She was jailed for a mere six months! 

In the USA a former stripper made a false accusation against some Dallas cowboys and was charged by police with filing a false report. She received a derisory 90 days in jail and was fined $1500.

There are many other reasons why women cry rape falsely. All women like to be thought of as “desirable to men” and “lusted after” etc. even though many don’t qualify in any way in this direction, so if she can tell her friends that “he took me against my will” she can imply that she’s hot property.

Even the late Andrea Dworkin tried doing this. She claimed that a young waiter working in a hotel had tried to rape her. Can you imagine that? Andrea Dworkin being raped! I recently read a hilarious article on this on the Suffragents website. If you want to read it put this URL in your address bar – but hold your sides! – http://suffragents.freehostia.com/articles%20file/feminism.html#dworkin

Then there is the messy divorce where the wife wants the children but the husband also wants to see them. A rape charge will influence the judge to hand over the children to the wife, despite the husband being totally innocent. Wil Hetherington was caught by his wife in this way which resulted in his being incarcerated for 30 years. His wife visited him voluntarily, agreed to having sex and then cried rape.

The answer to this social evil of lying women is to punish them – really punish them – by giving them the same jail sentence the man would have received if he had been found guilty. We are talking 10 to 20 years!  In the case of Mrs Hetherington, 30 years.

The tragic aspect of this problem from the point of view of normal women is that it detracts from the case of a woman who has been genuinely raped; but one thing’s for sure, any woman who goes to a man’s bedroom, takes off her clothes and engages in sexual activity, only to cry “No!” at the last moment, cannot expect to be treated seriously by the police, and it is certainly not a matter for the courts.

 In the 1970s Sir John Glubb, (a.k.a. Glubb Pasha) wrote his book “End of Empire” in which he examined the rise and fall of the major empires of the last 4,000 years. Bernard Goetz in “When the Empire Strikes Out“, by using some of the material published in Sir John Glubb’s book, points out the following features of a declining empire:

1.   The decline of sexual morality.

2.   An aversion to marriage in favour of cohabitation.

3.   An increased divorce rate. This happened in Rome and was one of the factors responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire.

4.   Gay sex becomes publicly acceptable. This happened in Greece before they were conquered by Rome.

5.   The increased economic and political power of women. Women were found in large numbers in the workforce and professions. They became athletes, actresses and even gladiators.

6.   An influx of foreign immigrants into the empire’s capital and major cities. The argument was that they “helped the economy” and helped to protect the empire. Actually the multi-cultural element introduced helped to bring about the downfall of the empire.

7.   Both frivolity and pessimism increase among the people and their leaders. In order to find “solutions” to life’s problems, people turned to a luxurious lifestyle often funded on debt, extreme sexual activity, drugs and alcohol.

8.   The government provides welfare for the poor extensively. By providing handouts people were encouraged to become dependent and lazy and were content to live a lower standard of life without fear of starvation and regarded it as “their right”.

Does all this sound horribly familiar and terribly modern? This quote from an article by Charlie Rees makes an interesting comparison:

“Of all the corrosive, nonsensical and damaging movements that have come and gone in American society, none has caused more damage than feminism. Thank God it now seems to be falling out of favour.

It goes without saying that no country can be strong without strong families, and feminism directly attacked the very concept of families. It urged young women to slut around. If men are promiscuous, why shouldn’t you be? That alone shows the degree of stupidity that is characteristic of the feminist movement. That’s why the feminists bear responsibility for the plight of so many single mothers.

Rules that conform to nature produce positive results. Rules that conflict with nature produce bad results. Through the centuries, Western civilization developed some rules that took into account the natural differences between men and women. The male is by nature promiscuous. Sex to the male is like eating a good meal – an enjoyable experience but one you can get up and walk away from without any thought. The woman, designed by nature to be a mother and susceptible to becoming pregnant, invests much more emotion in it.           

So society, to protect women, develops rules to discourage promiscuity by both sexes. Even in my day, the rule was iron-tight. If you got a girl pregnant, you married her. No debate. No excuses. If you abandoned her and the baby, you were a worthless, lowdown dog. There were also social penalties against the girl who slept around. These rules weren’t 100 percent effective, but they definitely put a restraint on the libido. There were far fewer teen pregnancies and single moms than there are now.           

But the feminists dismantled these rules. Women are just like men, they said. You pick your own guys to sleep with and walk away when you’re finished. Sex is for recreation. Well, anybody but a stupid feminist would have realized that the group that welcomed that message the most was the males. When females started saying, “Let’s have sex with no obligations,” the male said, “You betcha.”           

Of course, a necessary ingredient of feminist-promoted promiscuity is abortion on demand, since no method of birth control is 100 percent effective. This has literally led to the deaths of more innocents than the Holocaust. And for what reason? Simply as an adjunct to recreational sex without responsibility.           

Another stupid thing feminists did was attack motherhood and make it seem that working was the better choice. Anybody with life experience knows that it is 100 times more difficult and requires more intelligence and more energy to be a good wife and mother than to perform any corporate job. Corporations run themselves. Families don’t. Most of the jobs men do no sensible woman would want to do.”

Robert Wagner writes about feminist ploys to advance their cause along the following lines:           

“It was the 2nd wave of Feminists, active in the early 20th century, who were marxists. They were all over the government bureaucracies by then, and a lot of them ended up in propaganda offices. The big wars of the 20th century were their playgrounds. Every time we had another war, they gleefully saw young men leaving their wives and sweethearts behind. Back then they openly advocated the masculinization of women. They had female combat troops in Russia and Israel, and were active in the WACs in the USA, and they recruited for women to replace men in the factories (PERMANENTLY-that was the whole point of the permanent revolution; moms in the factories and pushing the ploughs, dads in the trenches). That butch poster of “Rosie the Riveter” by communist propagandist J. Howard Miller is still popular in lesbian bars; they know what they are doing.”

He also adds these stinging rebukes to feminism later in the same article:

“Equal pay for equal work” is an oxymoron. You don’t have to tell employers how much they are required to pay ANYBODY. That is communism. Employers pay people what they are worth, or people move on and find someone else who will. It is as simple as that. Women get paid less because they spend fewer late nights, can’t lift as much, take more sick days, etc. All so-called “civil rights” laws (a malapropism; they have nothing to do with civil rights), which promote “positive rights” (that is, priviledges) instead of negative rights (ie, right NOT to be tortured to extract a confession, right not to be considered guilty before proven so, etc), should be abolished. Their very existence distracts attention away from all the negative rights we have already lost.

            Voting is also problematic. If women vote, they will tend to vote themselves welfare, which is their reward for keeping quiet when the breadwinners are dispatched to the colonies for the “white man’s burden” thing. Again, this is communism. The solution is to have less voting for both genders. Voting yourself a bigger slice of someone else’s pie is not an option. That’s how Lord Acton predicted that democracy would collapse on its own corruption.”

            Obviously then society needed feminism like it needed the proverbial hole in the head. Of the three “isms” promulgated as saviours of the twentieth century: communism, fascism and feminism, it is now clear that it was feminism which caused the greatest damage and misery in the Western World. Interestingly, in the list of books voted to cause most damage in the twentieth century, books on these three subjects came in the top seven.

            To most societies, both communism and fascism were enemies from without which tried to infiltrate other systems and societies, whereas feminism was an enemy within, always more insidious and destructive and therefore more difficult to eradicate. But to save our society, eradicated it must be, root and branch, otherwise the decline and fall of Western Civilization is soon to parallel that of the Roman Empire.

Feminists on both sides of the Atlantic – the few who remain – now have a new hate figure in the shape of the authoress Kathleen Parker. Her book “Save the Males” tells the truth about the massive damage feminism has wrought throughout the Western World. In particular she deals in truthful detail with the way in which feminists, aided and abetted by governments, the media and the law courts, have downgraded fathers thus perpetrating child abuse of the worst kind on so many children.

Its witty style makes the book easy to read but it doesn’t deal lightly with the important issues. The writer is one of an increasing number of perceptive women who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of both men and children who are now suffering from the effects of the feminization of society. She cuts through the cant promulgated by so much of the media for decades past as she deals with marriage, sex, education, pornography etc. in a responsible way seldom seen in today’s media. The book is by no means politically correct; it’s not that shallow, but time and again, I gave a mental “Hear! Hear!” as nail after nail was hit right on the head.

Men, and women with a sense of humour, will love reading chapter five of this book. Kathleen Parker’s style really comes into its own here where she deals with the diatribe of the “Vagina Monologues”. Be sure to hold on to your sides if you are a man. This chapter is a real hoot. The mental health of Eve Ensler and the women who attend performances of these monologues which encourage the female rape of a young girl, must be in considerable doubt.

Here are just a few quotes from the book, to whet your appetite:

“The same feminist movement that encouraged women to use their critical faculties also gave them the green light to be hostile and demeaning towards men.”

“We’ve had a few decades of this shtick and have produced a new generation of children tattooed, pierced, angry, depressed, obese, anorexic, drugged, self-mutilating, whoring, pimping, failing.”

“Boys had absorbed the message that life isn’t fair and that girls are to blame . . . Nobody likes a teacher’s pet, and girls were the culture’s pets.”

“Twenty-five million American children are more likely to see a father on television than in the home.”

“A 2007 University of Washington study . . . revealed that women reported instigating domestic violence twice as often as men in the previous year.”

“Women can kill their husbands with relative impunity as long as they can convince a jury that they were in an abusive marriage.”

“The state’s power in criminalizing fathers and alienating their children is an astounding development in a free democratic society.”

“For the past thirty years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all life’s ills.”

This cartoon is mine. It’s not in the book, but the sentiment is.

This is, without question, one of the most important books to be published this century and points the way to saving our society. Writers like Kathleen Parker deserve our support. The hardback book can be obtained from Amazon at about £10 including postage.

About 15 years ago I was the deputy headmaster of a medium sized junior school. The headmaster was good at his job and I backed him to the hilt; we got on well. The staff was a good mixture of male and female, were happy in their jobs and we ran a very efficient and happy school. 

Discipline was good and we could take the children anywhere confident that they would, with very few exceptions, behave well. On several occasions when we were on  school trips, members of the public approached our staff to congratulate us on the children’s behaviour. On a few occasions, even other teachers, out with their schools, did the same.

The story of John

One morning the headmaster came into my classroom and, very sheepishly asked me whether I could take another boy into my class of 32 children. I replied that, if one had moved into our catchment area and was eleven years of age I had no choice.

He then went on to explain that it was not that simple. He had just had  a phone call from a terribly distraught headmistress of a small country school some eight miles away. She had an eleven year old boy in one of her two classes and there was nothing they could do with him. He just ruled the roost. He played havoc in class and had even put up his fists at the headmistress and challenged her to a fight. Apart from the headmistress there was an assistant mistress on the staff and she was unable to handle him either. She pleaded with us to take the boy off her hands.

I told the head that I was not at all keen on importing other people’s troubles but if it was just a case of the lad being given a fresh start, and if he was willing to take it, I would agree to have him for two or three weeks. If he settled down, well and good; if not, he would have to go back. The head said he would reply to the headmistress along those lines.

They couldn’t get rid of him quickly enough, and the very next morning John appeared. While everyone was filing into morning assembly the head took me aside and asked whether I wanted to see the report on John from his previous school. I said I would prefer not to. I would treat him exactly the same as every other new child.  The head knew me as a strict disciplinarian, but I also pointed out to him that, should John choose to kick over the traces, he would be in for a couple of rough weeks.

After assembly I allocated John a desk and gave him all the necessary books, pen, pencil etc to enable him to work normally. Then I carried on as usual but kept a weather eye on my new recruit. 

The first day passed without any sign of rebellion. I thought he might be lying low and planning something for the next day. But that arrived and passed without any move by John. By the time the third day had passed I began to wonder just when this mutineer in embryo was going to emerge. By the end of the first week, not only was the ‘terror’ not showing any signs of aggression, he was becoming positively friendly and polite. I must confess that I thought this might be some sort of ploy.

By the middle of week two my new pupil was turning out good work, getting on well with his classmates and was one of the most polite pupils I have ever taught. I began to wonder just what was going on, so in various oblique ways I started asking a few questions. I then set my class an essay with the title ‘My Home’. It’s amazing what children tell you in this sort of essay, and John was no exception.

Then the penny dropped! I suddenly realised the source of his trouble. During a break time during the third week I went into the head’s office to have a chat.

‘I know what John’s trouble is,” I said. The head looked interested.

‘Oh, yes. What?’

‘He’s a misogynist,’ I replied.

The head looked incredulous. ‘What! At eleven years of age?’

I then asked to see the report from his previous school, and my worst fears were confirmed. John’s parents were separated. He lived with his mother during the week and spent the weekend with his father. His mother worked full time so naturally did not have a great deal of time to spend with her son. If he played up to get some attention she often punished him or shouted at him. In school he was in the charge of two women. Whenever he misbehaved there he was told off or punished by a woman. At the weekend his father took him to football matches, out hiking, camping, playing cricket and so on. Consequently John got the impression that all women were a pain in the butt, whereas men were kind and did interesting things with him. He would do anything for me because I was a man, and, being very happy in my class, he just about managed to put up with the few times he encountered the female members of staff.

Now I am not saying that John’s outlook was just, or even fair, but from where he stood I could quite understand how he came to the conclusion he did.  But the frightening part of this story is that there are probably a few hundred thousand ‘Johns’ who hate women and, like a time bomb, are waiting to go off. And even more frightening is the fact that we can do nothing about it. John’s only chance for a normal relationship with women will be to meet some loving girl who will fall in love with him and show him that women can care too. But an unsatisfactory relationship could mean that the balloon would go up and there would be yet another domestic violence scene; possibly even a killing.

Boys need to know how to grow up to be men

But there is something we can do to stop this sort of thing happening in the future. The Government must act urgently to make absolutely certain that there is no school in this country where boys do not come under the influence of male teachers. Boys need to know how to grow up to be men, and only men can teach them how.

But the sad part about this is that men are turning their backs on teaching, and for very good reasons. The pay for a man is poor particularly in the primary sector; he can probably do a lot better in industry. Short contracts also do not appeal to men. With 80% of main wage earners in households still being men, they need something more permanent. Also there is always the danger of a false allegation of abuse.  With men being such a rare commodity in many children’s lives, when one appears in their classroom they like to crowd around and clutch at him which is open to misinterpretation, particularly if there are envious feminists on the same staff who might try to make the most of such an event

The presentation of male teachers – and indeed male role models, such as fathers, in general – on TV does not help the situation. Teachers, for example in Home and Away, are presented as wimpish characters, not authority figures. It is irresponsible of the media to alienate men from such a challenging and necessary profession.

Over the last decade there has been a catastrophic drop in the number of men opting to work in primary schools. 

The following quote from “The Times” starkly outlines the tragedy in our UK schools today:

Statistics published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families disclose that only 2 per cent of staff in nursery and reception classes at English primary schools – who teach under-fives – are male.

In schools with receptions but no nurseries, this falls to just 1 per cent. Recent figures show that men account for just 16 per cent of all primary school teachers.

Its report admits: “As has been the case in previous years, the childcare and early years workforce is overwhelmingly female, with only between 1 and 2 per cent of staff being male.”

This is despite efforts by the Government to increase the proportion of men in nursery and primary schools.

Last year the then education secretary, Alan Johnson, announced a drive to recruit more male teachers to work in primary schools and to train male teaching assistants to work with “hard to reach boys”.

Recent research has shown that primary school pupils themselves want to be taught by men.

A study by the Training and Development Agency for Schools found that 76 per cent of boys are in favour of schools having teachers of both genders, and 51 per cent admitted they behaved better in the presence of a male teacher.

It also found that 39 per cent of boys are not taught by any men, and that 8 per cent had never had a male teacher.

  This could prove disastrous for young boys, particularly those who do not live with their fathers. They desperately need a male role model.

Boys need the provision of masculine games,  competitions and controlled aggression. When these are lacking there is always the danger that some boys might display bullying, or commit crime and violence.

June Smedley, a retired primary teacher, said at the conference of the Professional Association of Teachers, ‘No woman teacher, however able, can identify from her own experience with the problem of being a boy and growing up into a young man.’

We need men in infants’ schools also

The Plowden Report wanted more men in the infant schools of our country, but Elizabeth Arnold Davies, head of Grove Infants in Portland, Dorset, which has no male teachers, said ‘In 15 years I have never had a man apply for a job’. The trend to suspect any relationship between men and young children is backfiring. The media is responsible for much of this paranoia by misleading reports and news bulletins.

The area of childcare is the most sexually segregated occupation in Britain with 98% of the workforce being women. Some of the chattering classes even suggest that it is unwise to let men work with young children at all. Fortunately a more intelligent voice is heard in a report from the European Union Childcare Network, “Men as Workers in Childcare Services”. It argues unequivocally that it is important to increase the number of men working with young children. 

Single mother families: the breeding ground for criminals

It has been proved without any shadow of doubt that three-quarters of our criminals come from families headed by single-parent mothers. The Government must pass urgent legislation to ensure that no-one profits from divorce, that married couples are given large tax incentives to live in families, and that an immediate campaign be launched to get men back into our classrooms. If necessary we may have to offer them financial incentives. The Teacher Training Agency has made some rather timid moves to try to rectify the situation, but really strong measures are necessary now. Politically correct attitudes in teacher-training institutions need to be totally discarded and the truth, namely that men and women are not equal as far as teaching is concerned must be recognised. We have heard enough cant from politicians over recent months about ‘supporting family values.’ If they mean it, let’s see some action.

Apart from the male-female relationship angle, there are other reasons why we must employ many more men in our schools.  As more and more women have taken up teaching because it is reasonably well paid, the holidays are good and, generally the hours fit in with looking after their own children, so standards have been dropping. There is now a positive mountain of evidence to prove this. If you doubt this, then read Melanie Phillips’ book “All Must Have Prizes”. When universities have to provide remedial English teaching to students with top A-level grades in the subject, there must be something wrong somewhere. Some examination boards have been manipulating their A-level results to give the impression that pupils are doing better.

Women teachers prejudiced against boys

One of the reasons why boys in particular are not doing so well is that, according to Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools, teachers, of whom the majority are women, are prejudiced against them. A study by the Inspectors, published even back in 1996, states that secondary school teachers, again the majority of whom are women, tended to stereotype boys as less sensitive, less reliable, and less inclined to be cooperative than girls. This resulted in more criticism of boys. The teachers believed that girls were more dutiful, more ready to please and less questioning. The latter attitude is, of course, the very thing you do not want in higher education which is why at both A-levels and degree standard, the really excellent results are nearly always obtained by boys.

Some schools, happily, have recognised that their teachers have discriminated against boys. One such school decided to do something about it, and doubled the proportion of boys who obtained five or more good GCSEs.

When I was a member of the National Association of Schoolmasters some years ago, they stated that boys should always come predominantly under the influence of male teachers. They were so right! They still are!

Those readers who are parents might well be asking ‘What can I do to stop my children suffering from this shortage of men teachers?’ You can take some direct action – right now! If any of your children attend any sort of educational establishment which does not have a good representation of male workers, complain!  Write to organisers of playgroups, head-teachers,  governors, school managers, directors of education, your MP. But write! Phone! Complain! 

If you are not going to fight for the well being of your children, no-one else is. It’s up to you.

In the UK, Harriet Harman has never tried to hide her hatred of men and her favourable treatment of women. Whether any men actually voted for her to become Gordon Brown’s deputy is open to doubt, though a few crackpots might have done so thinking they were “being fair”. Well, I expect by now they’ve seen the foolishness of their ways.

Feminism was never anything to do with equality for women. The aim was to provide a favoured status for all women within society. If anyone has ever doubted that in the past, their doubts will certainly have been removed at the news of her latest attempt to provide women in the UK with a licence to kill their husbands, partners and boyfriends.

Of course, supporters of this illegal and sexist measure will say that it will only be in the most extreme circumstances that women will be let off after murdering their man. You will probably recall that when the bill to allow abortion was introduced we had similar assurances. It would only be allowed if the life of the mother was at stake or something equally as serious. It was all hogwash of course. A woman was given the magic password: “Doctor I’m so upset at the thought of having my baby that I feel like committing suicide.” The doctor instantly signed on the dotted line and another baby was murdered.

Harman wants to give women another password this time: “Your honour, I was so terrified at the things he said to me that I thought he might kill me”, and the murder charge will be instantly reduced to manslaughter. Of course this will not apply in the case of a man who kills a woman. If he says that she threatened to kill him, the judge will deal with the assertion in the same way the police deal with a man who complains to the police that his wife or girlfriend is regularly attacking him at home: it will be ignored.

This is not the first time that women have used the “abused woman” technique to get away with murder. Sara Thornton used it some years ago after stabbing to death her sleeping husband. She claimed that he had come home drunk and was violent. The court believed her version despite the fact that even Mr Thornton’s ex-wife said that, although he had an alcohol problem, he was never violent. Sara Thornton couldn’t claim self defence because her husband was asleep when she killed him. If Parliament is stupid enough to allow Harriet Harman to get away with her feminist ploy in this proposed legislation then the Thornton scenario will be repeated again and again. The victim will be blamed.

Doubtless a number of gold-diggers in the UK who usually are allowed by a judge to take her husband to the cleaners  with a divorce settlement, will be encouraged to make an even bigger “clean-up” with a murder charge she knows will be reduced to manslaughter.

The amount of misandric legislation produced by the Labour government during their term in office has been massive; men in the UK are more disadvantaged now than at any time in history and any man contemplating voting Labour in the next election must be a head-case. Recent bye-elections and local elections have shown that, at the next general election, Labour are going to get a well-deserved thrashing; nothing is more certain. If Harriet Harman manages to retain her seat at that election she will be very fortunate indeed; if she doesn’t then the men of the UK will be fortunate.