Phi Wire Hand Picked Politics - Live

  • Norman Smith | DUP say BBC decision barring them from #tvdebates "very difficult to justify" an...

    • source icon
    • 17:00
  • PoliticsHome | The BBC has rejected the DUP's request to be included in the televised party lea...

    • source icon
    • 16:31
  • Josh Lowe | The Department for Education needs to open up

    • source icon
    • 16:21
  • George Eaton | Miliband won't win by telling voters how great New Labour was

    • source icon
    • 16:20
  • Benedict Cooper | Labour's NHS plan: selective rhetoric or socialist principle?

    • source icon
    • 16:19
  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

PH Opinion

PH Opinion

Views and comment from Westminster

Dominic Raab: We must end feminist bigotry

Men are getting a 'raw deal' despite tough equality legislation, Dominic Raab MP writes as he calls for an end to 'feminist bigotry'.

Last week Nick Clegg made a valiant effort to address the pervasive challenge for modern working parents, striving to find the right career-family balance - including announcing a more flexible system of maternity-paternity leave. It is one of the most relevant issues for young families in Britain. The coalition would do well to grasp it in place of Labour’s outdated and obsolete ‘equality and diversity’ agenda.

Take the gender pay gap. The fascinating thing is just how sexist its champions have become. The government’s decision to abandon mandatory gender pay audits, under Labour’s Equality Act, sparked a wave of soul-searching – almost exclusively by women. It is almost taboo for a man to question the assertion that the rapidly dwindling pay gap is the result of discrimination, rather than genuine choice. The debate has been consumed by the prejudice it seeks to purge.

Yet, research shows the pay gap has halved since the 1970s. Office of National Statistics data in December showed that, since 1997, the difference between full-time median earnings has fallen from 17% to 10% - and the shrinkage is accelerating. So much for the Equality and Human Right’s Commission’s claim last October that progress is ‘grinding to a halt’.

Look further at the data available. According to research for the Institute for Economic Affairs, women in their twenties earn 1% less than men, single women a shade more. Gay men earn more than straight men, lesbian women more than heterosexual women. Does that sound like a society riddled with discrimination? In fact, the gender pay gap also reflects the higher numbers of women in work in Britain compared to other European countries. Keeping women out of work is one of the easiest ways to bridge the gap: Swaziland and Sir Lanka have the lowest pay gaps. Meanwhile, pay is just one of the terms of employment. Men work longer hours, enjoy their jobs less, commute further and are more likely to get the sack.

While we have some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world, we are blind to some of the most flagrant discrimination – against men. From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal. Men work longer hours, die earlier, but retire later than women. That won’t be fixed for another seven years. One reason women are left ‘holding the baby’ is anti-male discrimination in rights of maternity/paternity leave – which Clegg wants to tackle. Then there are ‘pre-nups’, recording the wishes of partners before they get married. Those wishes were serially ignored in this country, until last year – when one was enforced in favour of a woman, loaded German heiress Katrin Radmacher. Meanwhile, young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls, and divorced or separated fathers are systematically ignored by the courts. A father turned up to one of my constituency surgeries, complaining that dozens of court orders requiring access rights had been flouted by his ex-wife. He asked me to write to Ministers, not because he harboured any hope of changing the situation, but so he could show his children he had tried everything when they reach adulthood.

Then there is the more subtle sexism. Men caused the banking crisis. Men earn more because they are more assertive in pay negotiations. One FT commentator recently complained that: ‘High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.’ Can you imagine the outrage if such trite generalisations were made about women, or other minorities? Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in equality or you don’t. If you buy into the whole Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus theory of gender difference – with all its pseudo science - you can’t then complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions.

Britain’s not perfect, and we will never eradicate all human prejudice. But, we have reached a stage where the differences between men and women in our society are less reflective of overt discrimination, and more their common challenge of trying to find the right way to earn a decent quality of life for their family, whilst sparing some time to enjoy it. That means taking a consistent approach to equality, ditching outdated gender warfare and finding practical solutions to the challenges couples go through together.

In some cases, it will beg more questions than it answers: the surge in career-minded women landing top jobs has reduced social mobility, because so many are middle-class. In other areas, we might be pleasantly surprised. Making maternity leave transferable (without increasing it, to avoid extra burdens on business) would give men greater equality, and free up women to share their career-family compromises with their other halves – if they choose. The phenomenon of young couples on middle incomes both doing a four day week, to save on childcare, looks set to rise. It makes economic, as well as egalitarian, sense.

Likewise, family-friendly policies could help exhausted families struggling to strike a sensible work-life balance. Critics mocked the idea of transferable tax allowances for couples as socially regressive and financially insignificant. Yet, transferable tax allowances for parents with children under five would support women who choose to stay home, when their children are young, while helping them save for childcare, if and when they choose return to work. A little tax relief would go a long way.

Young British couples are tired of the equality bandwagon, dreamt up in the 1960s, pitting men and women against each other. We need consistent equality for men and women, an end to ‘soft’ feminist bigotry and support for hard-working families trying to juggle competing priorities in their hectic daily lives. Maybe it’s time men started burning their briefs, to put an end once and for all to what Emmeline Pankhurst used to call ‘the double standard of sex morals.’

© PoliticsHome, 2011.

Dominic Raab is Conservative MP for Esher and Walton.

Western men die some five years earlier than women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health.

Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys.

Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys. They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media.

Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.

In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety. 

They are nowadays also being heavily discriminated against in the work place.

How is it possible, therefore, that women are being 'oppressed' more than men?

In what areas?





Oh please, do stop now. Equal should mean equal not more than in any scenario. Men are not universal victims just as women are not. I in the past had a very raw deal off my ex financially, physically and emotionally but I don't claim all men are the same because they are not.


At last. We need someone to correct this total in-balance. This total and utter discrimination against men means I lost touch with my daughter at the age of 3 and only managed to get back in touch when she was 17, at her choice. 14 years of a parents bond that has been lost. I think the way males are treated in the UK is simply disgusting and unfair. I hope you do make high government, and soon. I'd certainly vote for you. Please don't drop this issue. It's important... very important. Not just for men, but for everybody.


Having read a lot of the comments I have mixed feelings. I feel optimistic that many men seem to have realised that fairness should be extended to them as well. But this is tempered by my pessimism at the female response. Most of the women either do not see the problem or ridicule men who raise the issue. This is disappointing to say the least because it seems to me that men have been very helpful to women over the years in fighting for their causes and yet I see no reciprocation of understanding.


The point being, whatever 'stereotyping' or minor social unfairness men may suffer, it doesn't compare. I'm afraid it truly doesn't. 2 women a week die from domestic violence. The male equivalent is very, very small. UK rape conviction rates are under 6%; that affects men in negligble quantities. Women earn less than men (27%) 90% of eating disorders are suffered by women - because we're the ones raised under phenomenal psychological pressure to conform to impossible aesthetic ideals. This goes on and on.

The real point here is that inequality and gender stereotyping is overwhelmingly worse in its consequences for women than for men. But it also has a knock-on effect, a kind of aftershock, for men. Gender stereotyping's bad for everyone. But it's worse for women. And it needs to be addressed as such.


Where do you get your statistics from? They are all wrong. A short, simple internet search shows this. I can't comment on the eating disorders but I fail to see how that is  because of women being discriminated against by men.

Women are 'overwhelmingly worse off'? Check your statistics again, please. Who is worse off isn't even the issue, it is addressing clear and obvious forms of discrimination that are wrong.

Why is something being done on a government level to stop discrimination of a different group to that which you belong such a bad thing? I don't oppose the discussion of rights for any group that are the clear victims of discrimination, why would you?

Unless you hate the group that wants equality that is, or feel that they are somehow inferior or undeserving.


2 women a week die from domestic violence, and probably 200 to car accidents. Yet women are "worse off" because of sexism.

Of the 2 women who are killed, 1 man is also killed. Yet what we are not told is that two more men commit suicide, because they are trapped in abusive relationships because they simply have nowhere to turn.

Over the centuries, millions of men were forced to die in military warfare. Millions have been forced by their own government to kill people who are probably no better than they were, but were just on different sides. And if they miraculously "survived" (at least physically), they often had to live in a state of shellshock because of the literal hell on earth they suffered. This is something very few, if any women can relate to.

Thousands of men walk our streets daily without food and shelter. If they were women, they would have someone to provide those things for them, because many men still see it as their role to provide it. But they don't have that [female] privilege. These men are forced into the straits of poverty, wherein they often must steal in order to survive.

The TRIAL conviction rate for rape (this does not include the % of plea bargains) is 6%, but you assume that all or most of rape complaints are 100% truthful. Many are blatantly true, yet many are outright lies, while most of them are simply he said/she said, and we'll never know what the truth is. And while men who are proven to rape women receive harsh sentences, women who lie about being raped are rarely punished at all.

Yes women suffer from eating disorders because they are expected to be unrealistically healthy. And men die from violence because they are expected to be tough. Women are not the only ones singled out here.

For every women's issue there is a men's issue. So please, refrain from the "women have it worse" refrain.

  • 16:42 |
  • 25 Jan 2011
  • 0

I can't express enough gratitude to you for finally highlighting the sameful discrimination that white, middle-class male Tory MPs have endured for years. Let's make the madness end. PS you are a horrendous, horrendous human being.


Oh Dear Me

There you go again.

Calling people nasty names and trying to demonise them all the time.

Tut Tut.


  • 17:32 |
  • 25 Jan 2011
  • 0

A well argued article. However, there is danger that language selection (e.g. "bigotry") and the one-sided nature of the examples (which, I guess, is to balance exactly that tendency in many articles arguing the opposite point of view), means that the debate will miss the most important points. It is not a question of whether men or women have it better, or are more 'wronged' than the other. This simply leads to lists of 'facts' being launched at the other side as if this will somehow win the argument. "Women earn less." "Men have a lower life expectancy." "Women are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence." "Men are more likely to be portrayed as incompetent in adverts." It is this selective approach to argument that makes many gender-related articles appear very one-sided and intellectually unsatisfying. The issue is whether our legal system, and other institutions, are adequate (which is what one should be asking for any social issue). In the context of the current debate, are anti-discrimination laws sufficient, or is more needed (dare I utter the words, positive discrimination, quotas, lists...)? Going back to the issue of the gender pay gap, the author argues that what remains of the gap is likely related to career and life choices. Given the available statistics, discussed in the article and in other comments, such a position does not seem unreasonable for the economy in general. Nevertheless, there may well be areas where discrimination still exists (e.g. in football, as suggested by the disgraceful comments by Sky Sports' commentators, etc.), and this should be addressed (either through enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, or more actively). Quoting 'evidence' such as the 20% pay gap (as Harriet Harman did yesterday in response to this article), without important caveats and contextual information, is misleading and unhelpful. It certainly does not address the nuances of the debate. It would be good to hear a balanced debate, which is not selective in the evidence it quotes in support of pre-held beliefs and other generalisations. This article goes some way in starting such a discussion, but is in danger of swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

  • 22:23 |
  • 25 Jan 2011
  • 0

I have read with interest all the comments as I was extremely interested in the debate that Dominic Raab has reignited. At the age of 49 I have experienced a great deal in the way of the gender difference and unfairness of being a woman. I am pleased that, if nothing else, the debate will hopefully provoke change. From my experience, I would say that now, it is not whether you are a man or woman, it is the life you choose. Unfortunately, not all of us are privileged enough to be able to choose as we don't all start at the same point in life. Some of us are born 'further back' and our struggle, whether it is for part of our life or all of our life, is to get just to the point where we can choose. Women can earn as much as a man and a man can now care for a child. It is not whether we are man or woman it is the circumstances we are born into and the situations and how we deal with them along the way that determine what job we have and how much we get paid. I would, however, add that, again in my experience, men seem to be afforded more 'help' if they are left 'holding the baby' whereas a woman is just expected to be able to cope. Whilst I understand that men are usually not given custody of children in a marital breakdown, perhaps they ought to look not at the unfairness of that but at the fact that as most men are usually not such good parents, men are seen with caution as a good carer. Also, with regard to men dying earlier, I understand that men simply choose not to visit the doctor when they are unwell. I think this could be seen as irresponsible. A mother, on the other hand, needs to look after herself otherwise who looks after her children? In other words, men are men's worst enemy when it comes to a good track record for caring for children and looking after themselves. I believe that a person who does a job should be paid for the job they do and the pay should not be dependent on gender, race or creed. Perhaps a revision of the employment and, in particular, interviewing process needs to be addressed. Why does an employer need to know whether you are a man, woman, what age you are, where you were born, to know if you can perform a job? I think the issue is only a symptom and the cause needs to be addressed. We should be working towards an education system where boys are allowed to be male. Where each and every child is encouraged to develop into the person they are, rather than having to fit into the boxes that make teaching and life easier. Children should be encouraged to fulfil their chosen career in life. If people are encouraged to be more fulfilled they would have less cause for complaint with what others have.

A. bystander
  • 04:54 |
  • 26 Jan 2011
  • 0

Great article. I am from the hard left, where the 'all-women-are-vitims' mentality is prevalent. One reason why I have different views on this is - unlike the vast majority of the left - I come from a genuinely poor and working class background. It really shows the poverty of the intellectual thinking of the left that they are unable to see this issue sensibly. I do not believe you have to become a rapid pro-capitalist simply because you call a spade a spade. One day, soon hopefully, the left will grow up and be anti-capitalist as well as pro-equality, and see that middle class women have dominated this area of feminist thinking for way too long.


There are two threads running through this article, as far as I can see. The aspect of this article that makes sense is an assertion that gender equality means establishing equal rights for both sexes, and rejecting assumptions about people based on sex. I agree entirely with this. Equal parental leave is an excellent example. The second thread seems to be that feminists who campaign for women to have equal rights with men are at fault for not campaigning on issues which are detrimental or unfair to men. This is rubbish. First, people can campaign on issues that they think are important and on which they feel they have something to contribute, without implying that other issues are not important. If the author objects to women campaigning on issues which negatively affect women just because they are not paying as much attention to issues that affect men, this is ridiculous. The response should be to start campaigning on the issues he thinks are important, not criticizing feminist campaigners for their work. If he thinks that feminists are actively promoting states of affairs which have an unfair effect on men, he should identify the types of feminist activism he has in mind. Every feminist I can think of would wholeheartedly agree that gender equality means treating men and women with as diverse individuals deserving of equal respect. The 'feminist bigots' the author seems to have in mind are, I would argue, figments of his petty imagination.


Congratulations Mr Raab for saying what must have been obvious for years. In education it is not just male pupils who are falling behind, male teachers are also being unjustly treated. Playing the numbers game in promoting staff is a signifcant cause of male teachers becoming as infrequent as sitings of the Himalayan Yeti. In the cause of pay equality no account is taken of female staff who, quite reasonably take time off or job-share for family committments. When promotions are made ineperienced females can be promoted over males with unbroken expereince of their profession. Good for PC statistics but not for the pupils or male staff retention!


Young British MP Puts Feminists on the Defensive

by W.F. Price on January 26, 2011

A few days ago, Conservative MP Dominic Raab went after feminism in the most extraordinarily explicit terms anyone has used in decades. He states that men get the shaft at work, feminists are “bigots” (!), the wage gap is a myth, and the feminist attack on men must be stopped. His statements could have come straight out of The Spearhead or Angry Harry, sites I’d assume he has some familiarity with. Although I’m sure many readers have already seen the comment Raab made, much of it is worth repeating. Coming from a politician, the following passage is jaw-droppingly frank:

While we have some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world, we are blind to some of the most flagrant discrimination – against men. From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal. Men work longer hours, die earlier, but retire later than women. That won’t be fixed for another seven years. One reason women are left ‘holding the baby’ is anti-male discrimination in rights of maternity/paternity leave – which Clegg wants to tackle. Then there are ‘pre-nups’, recording the wishes of partners before they get married. Those wishes were serially ignored in this country, until last year – when one was enforced in favour of a woman, loaded German heiress Katrin Radmacher. Meanwhile, young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls, and divorced or separated fathers are systematically ignored by the courts. A father turned up to one of my constituency surgeries, complaining that dozens of court orders requiring access rights had been flouted by his ex-wife. He asked me to write to Ministers, not because he harboured any hope of changing the situation, but so he could show his children he had tried everything when they reach adulthood.

At nearly 37, Raab is right in the transitional generation that grew up in the wake of feminist changes to society. I should know — he’s only about a half year older than me. For men of this age, it started from birth. Naturally, they went after the children first, so the feminist juggernaut forged resolutely on just a step in front of us our entire lives. For us, male privilege sounds like a cruel joke — it’s never existed. As small children, we were subjected to gender neutral toys and propaganda (e.g. “Free To Be, You and Me”), girls were favored throughout grade school, and just when we started to come of age the most draconian anti-father laws in human history were put in place. It doesn’t surprise me in the least to see that the first male politician to confront feminism head-on comes from this generation.

Such a powerful statement from a politician can only come from a position of moral strength, and it must have a good deal of support, because the feminist response has been defensive — something we never would have seen in the 90s, when they were in full attack mode.

In The Guardian, which appears to have become the feminist mouthpiece for the UK, Laurie Penny responds by calling Mr. Raab’s assertions “myths,” and attempts to do some damage control. She denies that feminists have made men’s lives worse, argues that “equality” legislation strengthens ordinary families, and tries to avoid the issue of women’s choices and decisions in regards to the so-called “wage gap.” Much of her response is a recapitulation of the standard feminist strategy of dissimulation and projection:

Raab is absolutely correct to suggest that many are “fed up of men and women being pitted against each other in an outdated battle of the sexes”. Unfortunately, his insistence that working men’s problems are the fault of feminism seems set to stir up yet more bitterness between men and women in the workplace: a classic strategy of divide and rule. Convincing ordinary people that women are making gains at the expense of men, or vice versa, distracts us all from the truth – that more than ever under this government’s austerity programme, it is the rich who are making gains at the expense of the poor.

Those not in the know – and their numbers are fewer every day – might not see that the above passage contains a couple whoppers, such as the suggestion that it isn’t feminists who are inciting war between the sexes for their own benefit, but rather those selfish, greedy patriarchs who refuse to raise taxes even higher for the benefit of the “poor.” What a load. Feminists know well that social services are geared to remove money from men and put it in the hands of women, often those with high-paid government and nonprofit positions. Gender warmongering is an integral part of this process — loaded DV and sexual harassment stats have been a huge source of funds for female bureaucrats and professional activists, and they have led to laws that quite clearly oppress men and advantage women both in the home and the workplace.

Raab’s salvo against feminism was impressive and heartening, but it wasn’t the first shot fired back at the feminists. At the grassroots level, men have been on the front lines for decades. The first few were a lonely crew, but the voices that were once drowned out by the crowd are growing in strength, and more and more men are coming into the light. If it weren’t for this growing awareness among men that they are suffering under an unjust regime, and an increasing willingness to express it, Raab wouldn’t have had the support that allowed him to take such a resolute stand against feminist excesses. Our efforts truly are beginning to pay off, and this is just the beginning.



Why We Need A Men’s Movement by Featured Guest on January 22, 2011 By Gorbachev There’s a lot of talk in the Manosphere about how evil feminism is and that not one drop of Feminist talk can ever be allowed a positive spin. The manosphere often demonizes women, out of resentment at the hypocrisy of feminist ideology, or the refusal of feminism to acknowledge consequences. For example, many feminist writers (both men and women) refuse to admit that false rape accusations are far more common than they like to think, and that their effects are utterly devastating on the men affected. The lives of countless men are destroyed every year in what amounts to an irrational Moral Panic being cruelly manipulated by selfish individuals – in these cases, women. Male resentment and anger is the inevitable result. Does this make feminism evil? Or does it tell us that feminists are in willing denial, and are acting out of pure self-interest? We see it as hypocrisy, self-assured righteous indignation and cognitive dissonance, all grounded in narrow, exclusive self-interest exercised at the expense of others. But this is part of basic human nature. It’s not unique to feminism. The initial goals of feminism weren’t contrary to fundamentally male interests. It’s possible to be pro-equality without being anti-male, or even anti-family. But in this climate of ideological absolutism, it becomes hard to separate reason from rhetoric, and self-interest from the public good. Liberals and left-leaning feminists are past masters at demonizing their enemies to the point of dismissing every concern they don’t like; anyone who reads the MSM knows this is true. But anti-feminists and the right are guilty of exactly the same tactics, though at the moment the left is ascendant. Narcissism is the fundamental source. The “Public Good” is rarely a factor on either side. Feminism is A Trade Union Movement Like every union, feminism only serves the narrow (perceived) interests of its members. Teachers’ unions regularly claim to be interested in the “education of students”, but their actual actions and policy demands belie the mostly private nature of their concerns. They rarely focus on raising education standards and making the system and teachers accountable to their students. It’s telling that the only solution to every single problem they identify is More Money for the System. Whenever benchmarks are introduced, tests floated, evaluations considered, for either students or teachers, the outcry from union ideologues is always fierce and unrelenting. In exactly the same way, feminism is very defensive about attacks on the effects of its political programs. If there’s something wrong, even if this there is a grave threat to the public good, it’s shunted aside and ignored. Studies that deny the existence of the threat are bought and paid for. Medical Associations are unions for doctors. Bar Associations are unions for lawyers. Police unions are only incidentally interested in public security; their key interests are the interests and security of their membership. Expecting feminism to represent the best interests of society is the same as expecting public sector unions to advocate for fiscal responsibility. Feminist Hypocrisy ? As for feminism being a monolithic evil, this is also demonstrably not the case. Feminist ideology is often in conflict. - There’s a sharp division between Lesbian and straight women. The abolitionist/anti-pornography/pro-sex-regulation feminists are almost always straight. The liberals are more reliably lesbian or lesbian-identified. - Anti-marriage and “men are evil” feminists are usually “political” lesbians, or those with specific axes to grind, or single-issue interests, or ideologically socialist. - Actual bona-fide lesbians live in a separate world and don’t see any need for men at all, personally or socially. Their writing often doesn’t even concern itself with the key issues that bother heterosexual women. These women inhabit different worlds. Lesbian politics often support obviously anti-male policies because men are irrelevant to them, and they don’t care how men are affected. The truth is that they have little to say to straight women, because straight women are interested in the health of male society. Straight women like men, and interact with men on an intimate level. What both agree on is that women always need more power, regardless of the amount of power they already have. - Sexual-libertarian feminists want less social/legal control over sexuality, resulting in a free-wheeling, Sex Is Always Good “hook-up” culture, filled with consequence-free sex and the elimination of the concept of “slut”. Eventhe very concept of monogamy comes in for ridicule. In effect, these women are more prototypically “male” in their “variety-is-life” outlook than men ever were. - Sexual-Moralist feminists take a different approach, seeing this freewheeling sexual liberation as serving male interests. Women, they think, have different interests. Sex for its own sake is not a goal for these women. These feminists don’t see sexually open women as Liberated – they see them as Deluded Sluts, no matter how they sugar-coat the label for feminist solidarity. The fact is that their outlook on sex and relationships bears no relationship to the feminists who advocate for sexual liberation. They have nothing to say to each other. Their views on social policy are in direct opposition. These groups of feminists may have blurry boundaries, but their distinct interests are the reasons for the apparent hypocrisies. That said, they don’t so much consciously contradict each other, as speak past each other. Manipulating Moral Panics Our society regularly goes through phases of Moral Panic. There have been many. Witch hunts, Miscegenation, incest, racial hygiene, Prohibition, McCarthysim, Spanking Children, Satanic Abuse, Drugs, Pedophilia, Drugs and Date Rape, Workplace Harrassment, Moral panics are easily manipulated by those with political agendas. While there were genuine communists in dangerous positions of power in the early 1950’s, many non-communists were threatened and extorted during the McCarthy years into complying with policies or giving up opportunities. The same was true in the Soviet Union, but there, the victims were called “counter-revolutionaries”. Much the same attitudes are now displayed towards “Conservatives” or “Liberals”. An example of a moral panic manipulated by all sides, while those affected just go about their lives, is Prostitution. Straight and married women are the biggest advocates for eliminating prostitution and sex work. They mask this as a concern for the women involved, but on examination, the truth becomes clear very quickly, as sex-worker activists point out: It’s really about controlling the sexuality of their own men, and it’s not about the health and security of sex workers at all. Laura Augustin is a highly engaging writer who catalogues this rank female hypocrisy extensively. Many feminist activists use the force of Moral Panicsl. Irrational Anti-Date-Rape Crusaders use twisted and exaggerated claims and false statistics as a rule of thumb. Anti-Pornography activists have more in common with the prohibitionists of the 1920’s than they do with other feminists. Then there’s Socialism and Collectivist ideology, as well as Anti-Capitalism. These movements don’t fundamentally care about feminism; feminism or anti-racism, or any other isms. These are just tools for the Revolution. Left-wing activists use movements like feminism to help advocate for their own revolutionary ideas. Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union all betrayed the related movements that helped foist “moral dictatorships” on the people. Reality makes the Rules: Finance and Feminism When it comes to the public sector, harsh budget realities will ultimately decide issues for unions. Facing national bankruptcy, and the inability to collect more taxes, it’s no longer tenable to maintain an artificially bloated public sector. Had we had honest debate before, and had the unions not been so exclusively self-interested, we might not have reached this precipice. . Reality has a way of imposing discipline on ideology. Our financial bankruptcy is equally the fault of the public and our leaders for enabling union demands. We should have had the courage to force through reform, despite public-sector opposition, before we reached this tipping point. Now, we all face the consequences. This “correction” will claim many victims. Biology doesn’t play ideological games. Biology is what it is. It doesn’t care about “fair”. Its mechanisms don’t conform to the Human-Ideology-Of-The-Moment. The screaming, the rage, the railing, the Marches, the Protests, the angry bloggers or the activist legislation; at the end of the day it can’t change human nature. Even when we deny that there is a human nature. Human nature still exists, and we still need to do the things we need to do. A natural consequence of feminism is the declining number of babies. Having and raising children is a difficult and onerous task. It requires social support and certain social structures to make it bearable and attractive. Take these away, and there’s no incentive to have children. The predictable result of feminism is that fewer and fewer women end up having babies. We therefore have a left-wing that advocated for mass, open immigration of unfamiliar cultures. The irony is that these immigrants have beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the goals of feminism. Feminism, by semi-unintentionally denying the critical imperative to reproduce, has doomed western societies, something no-one predicted or wanted. It wasn’t deliberate. But for feminists to admit this now, or to admit that this has far-reaching and profound implications for Western societies, would be to admit that there are consequences to their movement that can’t be controlled. But the “correction” will come – whether we like it or not. Just as budget shortfalls sound the death-knell of massive public bureaucracies, demographics will have damning effects on feminist movements. All of this was predictable, but it wasn’t necessarily deliberate. Union! We need A Men’s movement There is one correction we can engage ourselves. “Men” are the only obviously identifiable collective in American society that does not have its own movement. In effect, while other interests have advocates – anti-racism activism, women, children’s rights, Teachers, white racists, black separatists, Christian fundamentalists, Muslims – men have none. When issues affect us, we can’t muster collective responses. We need a clearing-house, an umbrella under which we can debate the issues that matter to us. Feminists argue that a men’s movement is unnecessary. My question is: Why do we care what feminists think? Men told women then a feminist movement was unnecessary in the 1880′s, as well. They created one anyway. Nobody gives you rights. Nobody gives you the right to make collective demands. Nobody grants you permission to want something. Other interests will oppose us. “Strikebreakers” will intimidate us, and the Powers that Be may send out their goons, but the fundamental issues remain in place and unless we’re prepared to act collectively, unless we’re prepared to respect our issues enough to protect ourselves, and advocate for change, we can’t expect to be respected by anyone else. Do we want father’s rights? Do we want fair family courts? Do we want equal opportunity in the workplace? Do we want freedom from harassment claims? Do we want to live in fear of false rape accusations? Do we want power over our own lives? Women are able to manipulate moral panics to their advantage. There’s one moral panic we can immediately use to our advantage, before feminism neuters it. Even women are now calling for men to take a greater role in their families and yet it’s women who have largely pushed men out of the family unit. Radical feminism had a core goal of destroying the Husband-Wife family unit, and it has almost achieved this in some segments of our population. But we can turn the tables. If women can manipulate a moral manic for their own advantage, we can certainly manipulate this new moral panic it for the advantage of our families and ourselves. There are other moral panics that can work in our favor. We must exploit them. Don’t Worry About Disagreement We should expect a lot of division within our own ranks. Feminists have to deal with severe factionalism themselves, and internal feminist debates often become bitter and acrimonious. We can’t shy away from the same discussions. And we can’t expect to agree. I can already sense where factions will likely emerge. That said, just like feminists, we can all probably agree on general goals, even when we demand different policy decisions. Ultimately, the only way to be free is to free ourselves. If we believe we have rights, rights to raise our children, rights to fair divorce settlements, rights to sexual freedom, rights to workplace opportunity fairness – then we need to take those rights. Nobody is going to give them to us. And there is power in numbers. Share Post: * Digg * Reddit * StumbleUpon * Twitter Tagged as: disagreement, factionalism, men's rights, moral panics Ref:

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)

Fantastic stuff Dominic!! Well said!!!

  • 17:23 |
  • 27 Jan 2011
  • 0

Absolutely agree with the broad strokes - because I'm a feminist if that word describes a woman who wants genuine equality. I'd argue on some of the detail but generally double standards do not create the even playing field we're after. It is on this basis that I question the wisdom of all female shortlists for MPs. Unless the real issues are addressed - i.e. that young women often put a family first and that older women are generally seen as no option for a role with status. This short-term distortion will not help to bring about genuine equality in the long term.


Thanks for this - absolutely spot on. More of this please.

Anonymous age 68

Looking at the comments here from most women proves once again something I learned back in the 80's. Women are totally devoid of any empathy for men, period.  It is impossible to discuss these issues with women. There is something missing in their psyches or brains which make it impossible for them to fully understand men are human, too, and can suffer.

Every single problem the dearies (a sarcastic term I invented many years ago to describe the view women have of themselves in comparison with men) mentioned here, the governments both of the US and UK have expensive programs to try to cope with. Yet, because no system works 100% of the time, that means according to the dearies there is evil discrimination against women. Wahhh! Wahhh!

Every problem men mentioned that men have, there is no program, and no plan to have such program. And, any man who even mentions men having any problems, or suggests such programs, is called every shaming name in the English language.

Even the most ignorant ante-bellum African slave knew to go to Canada if possible.  Yet, millions of men sit in the US and UK in dire straits because of the attack on men. Mexico, not Canada, is the answer, so why are you still there?  My niece in Mexico City knows a lot of Brits. Not the entire two million your census bureau can't find, but a lot.


Anonymous age 68

This hoax about women making less than men for the same work has been around for decades. This sort of thing happens because most men feel it is unacceptable to call women, LIARS! So, women lie. In the early 90's, some wimp wrote a guest column in the local newspaper in my small Midwestern US city, whining how women nationally were making less than men for the same work. I fired in a response. I said I was not going to challenge him to show evidence for discrimination on the national basis. I was challenging him to show ONE case in our city of 100,000 where a woman was doing the same exact job with the same responsibilities, working the same hours a week, and with the same seniority as a man, who made ONE CENT LESS than the man. After I mailed the column, I got nervous. I had been a thorn in the side of the local man-haters for nearly a generation, and if they could make me look stupid, they would. And, all it would take would be one woman making less than a man same job, etc., in our city of 100,000. The column was printed. No example was found, which is what I had assumed would be the case. So, the man-haters simply kept their mouths shut for 3 months, their usual response to being shown as liars, and then went back to whining about women getting less money for the same job. I am not going to supply sources on this. Over 20 years, we supplied sources, and the dearies don't care. They just continue with the same old lies.


It is time that men realised how serious the attack on them has been. They have lost their (British) legal right to be innocent until proved guilty and they can be sent to prison without proof beyond reasonable doubt. They can now be removed from thieir homes for 48 hours on the basis of a mere allegation. Someone has commented that there is no limit to social justice, but there is. When one sex or minority gets privileges in law, the legal rights of the rest are diminshed (See Dominic's comments about the treatment of fathers in the courts).


Some of the ladies seem to get their arguments a bit mixed up. I think it was Rita who made points about the difference once a woman has a child. That is the whole point. There can be no identical equality. We cannot change human biology. The idea that the sexes can be made identically equal is pure Maxism. Use your eyes and ears. The sex discrimination laws are an attempt to enforce an impossibility and are bound to result in injustice.


Sorry about the typo in my previous comment. The word should be Marxism not Maxism. It is strange, but I used that word when talking to a friend, who is an indefatigable campaigner on men's issues, and he objected and used the word "Fascist" instead. But whatever Fascism means, they are certainly not equality fanatics. What is more two ladies, Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer, noted for their Feminist contributions, were Far Left sympathisers. But the idea that men and women could be identically equal and have identical abilities has Marxist connotations. The comic side of it is that the British Tory Party passed its own Sex Discrimination Act in 1986 (under Margaret Thatcher) and George Bush. a few years ago, was hoping to export "Women's Lib" to Arabia. If it is not labelled "communist" even the USA does not see it for what it is, men as the bloated capitalists and women as the down-trodden workers. Orwell was right, but 1984 was 1975, the year of Labour's SDA, and the communism has mutated. It did not die with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is screwing up Britsh society right now.


My guess is that the extreme left, which includes the feminists, have too strong a whole on British institutions to bring about any meaningful change. Even though we in the US are poorly positioned to make any meaningful assessment of the future in Europe, I still would hazard to guess that the self-destructive trends in your society will continue until you hit the brick wall of Sharia Law.


As the mother of 3 sons, I say it's bloody well about time we stopped exalting girls and crushing boys. In my opinion, strong, healthy and effective men are more important now than ever before. Women don't need an extra hand anymore. If a woman can't compete in the marketplace, it's her own fault and she should quit whining and find something to do at which she's competent.

Feminist Feed
  • 12:35 |
  • 30 Jan 2011
  • 0

Being feminist and all, we of course have more important things to do (like bra-burning). But this guy seems to have a genuine grievance. So we’ll take some time out to address this seriously. No-one should have to feel they’re helpless to affect their treatment, like obnoxious bigots are running your life for you. But here’s the rub. Raab has either mischaracterised or misunderstood feminism. The point is: you don’t have to be anti-man, to be pro-woman. Newsflash, I know. Think about it –why on earth would I have to say I want my son to get bad grades in school, in order to say I want my daughter to get good grades. This isn’t Sophie’s Choice, however much Raab wants us to believe it is. Which begs the question: why does he insist on the anti-man/pro-woman model? We wrote a blog about it:


Dear Mr Raab, I applaud your courage and I admire your bravery in saying the ‘unsayable’. I would like to write from my own experiences. I am forty nine and for much of my life I have been aware of the sexism to which you refer. I have two children, one boy and one girl. I don’t want my son growing up in a society where he is made to feel inferior because he is a man. The rhetoric and media messages I have received had, for years left me feeling that I should feel shameful for being a man. I felt a constant pressure to atone for the sins of the generations before me. For years I listened to clichés about men being unemotional, uncaring, irresponsible, inconsiderate, foolish, aggressive and at times, evil. It was only when I changed my career from working in the media to becoming a therapist that I discovered that much of this was untrue, or rather that these attributes were, on the whole, shared equally between the sexes. I work as a therapist and even here I found a general acceptance that men are inferior. As an example, in my recent Training on Domestic Abuse the literature clearly has a bias when it refers to the perpetrator as ‘He’ and the victim as ‘She’. The facilitator began by claiming that a significant percentage of victims were women, but no mentioned of men as victims of Domestic Abuse. In my weekend employment, I work with detainees at a city centre police station. I have come across more male victims of Domestic Abuse than female victims. If a woman seeks practical or therapeutic support, then she has numerous agencies and shelters to assist her. If you are a man over 25, then you are quite simply on your own. I regularly see Therapeutic Groups which are specifically for women. I see cinema, Gym timetables and night clubs which state that they are ‘Women Only’ and at the same time I hear men’s social clubs vilified for being sexist and outdated. Should Andy Grey have been dismissed from his employment for a sexist remark made in public? After the incident there was much debate as to whether it was right or wrong. I think it is both; people have a right to speak their mind in private and equally, people have a right to be offended. Being offended doesn’t make someone right. If we can tolerate blatant sexism in the media (an example is Loose Women on TV), then surely we can tolerate an offensive remark made in private. Take Nicole Scherzinger – Poison Pop Video; At 2.50mins into the video it shows Nicole first punching a man in the face, then kicking him in the face. If Society wants equality let’s not celebrate violence or any prejudice against either sex. I applaud the strides Feminism has made in enhancing equality for women, but feminism is now in danger of becoming the new Fascism. Thank you for highlighting this ongoing and ever increasing problem. I hope this trend can be reversed by highlighting it publically.

George Rolph

I will not "burn my briefs" because that would make me look as stupid as the bra burners. I will go on fighting the gender war because its real and it has to be fought against. You have shown great courage in speaking out and men everywhere salute you for it but, this is a dirty fight men did not start and until politicians put our money where their mouth is, the feminists will go on dominating and the outrageous hate against men will continue. For over 50 years MRA's have warned about the femnist Marxist agenda and politicians have done nothing. It is hard for us to believe they are serious now. Start removing funding from feminist projects. Reveal the REAL truth about domestic violence instead of faux domestic abuse figures feminists cook up in their advocacy "research." Start supporting male victims of abuse. Deal with the gyno-centric health service policies. Attack the boys bad, girls good culture in Schools. End the BBC Marxist bias they pour into all of their programming (it is supposed to be illegal for them to do it. So enforce it!). Tackle the staggering hatred poured out at men in Adverstising, media reports,retail markets (such as boys are stupid throw rocks at them T-Shirts sold to young girls). Strat letting men's groups discuss Domestic Abuse and fund them to the same level as womens groups. Start a debate on feminism and allow the lies being told by them to be exposed (Such as the great Superbowl Sunday Domestic Abuse Scam -- Google it). Give men a voice and listen to what you hear instead of filtering it all through feminist ideology. It's time to end this crap but politicians seem to lack the guts. Present company excluded. Go look at the man, woman, myth web site. Then the voice for men web site. Either help or get out fo the way because men are getting angry and we are NOT going to shut up.

  • 08:17 |
  • 11 May 2011
  • 0

It's time to connect with single women and men seeking women in our singles chat rooms. You can also use live web video and audio instant messaging. Become a part of a free dating service with millions of dating personals, a community of singles dating looking for great dates, interested in meeting new friends online dating

  • 07:22 |
  • 11 Aug 2011
  • 0

We know you have a lot of sports shoes, and many are valuable, you must feel very troublesome to take care of these shoes. In fact, you only need to spend a little effort can make your shoes in top form. mbt shoes australia care following a few tips to teach you the knowledge and proper care of your shoes, and extend the life of mbt shoes australia sale. Dust and other debris can easily embed the leather, so your MBT Barabara Shoes or boots in the shoe before the need to clean. Shoes cloth shoes and shoe brush can easily remove dust and debris above. In order to effectively shoe, the best to shoe laces untied before the first. This is a clean tongue and the best way to avoid the lace dyeing. In order to use shoe polish to achieve the best results, first with a shoe brush or soft cloth to polish evenly in the shoes and boots, when the shoe is almost drying time with natural bristles horse can be very simple and polished bright. Attention to the different colors of shoe polish and shoe polish when applied separately to use a different brush and shoe cloth, it is very important if you want a more convenient way, we recommend that you use shoe polish. Simply remove the upper dust, and then evenly coated with this liquid shoe polish on the shoes. MBT shoes maroon shoes, shoe polish formula to restore the color, and dry immediately after the glossy, does not require additional polishing. If you need more moisture and convenient leather and shoe polish, then we suggest you try to use Free Run shoes rub milk, its formulation in a short time to shine shoes, and nourish the leather, the design is also very easy to use. More professional leather shoes care is to use tin shoe wax, because it contains the most abundant wax and grease, it has the best light, waterproof, mildew role. Shoe wax is the world's most popular shoe wax, has been 100 years of history. KIWI shoe care products to use to help your shoes completely waterproof, avoid the water, mud, dust, dirt caused by snow or salt. Read the introduction, we must understand some of the knowledge, it is applied to the life of the go!

shg drtfh
  • 03:14 |
  • 15 Sep 2011
  • 0

Certainly he made aWoolrich Arcticname for himself at Lesbos as a kitbaroedos-i.e., a com-poserwoolrich arctic parkaand singer of musical lyrics. Having killed a man in a brawl, he was exiled, and found it convenient to accept an woolrich parka invitation from Sparta. There, it seems, he lived the remainder of his days,teaching woolrich arctic capmusic and training choruses. We are told that he ended his life at a drinking party: while he was singing-perhaps that extra note which he had added at the top of thewoolrich arctic parka ukscale-one of his auditors threw a fig at him; which,woolrich arctic parka womenentering his mouth and his windpipe, choked him to death in the very ecstasy of song.’Woolrich Arctic,woolrich arctic parka,woolrich parka,woolrich arctic cap,woolrich arctic parkas,woolrich arctic parka uk,woolrich arctic parka women,woolrich arctic parka men,WoolrichOutlet,woolrichcoats,woolrichjackets,woolrich london,woolrich clothing,woolrich sale

essay service
  • 09:43 |
  • 25 Dec 2011
  • 0

Did you know about Freelance writing job service? I wanted to tell that your ideas connecting to this good post is supreme! Thank you very much for creating it!


Latest Videos & Audio

Labour Party Political Broadcast for 2013 elections 19/04/13

UKIP Party Political Broadcast for 2013 elections 19/04/13

Green Party Political Broadcast for 2013 elections 19/04/13

Conservative Party Political Broadcast for 2013 elections 19/04/13

Lib Dem Party Political Broadcast for 2013 elections 19/04/13