Saturday, December 16, 2006

Judge in RobeRage Outrage

Fathers 4 Justice activist Jolly Stanesby recently spent two days on the roof of judge David Tyzack's mansion, dressed in a Santa Claus costume, to protest about his court-enforced separation from his children. The noble Lord apparently threatened Santa with a shotgun. His Lordship has a talent for doing things likely to upset children it would seem. Perhaps Judge Tyzack should attend anger management classes.

Perhaps his name should be added to RobeProbe, which bills itself as the 'World's Most Trusted Judge Rating Site'. This website names judges as the best or the worst, depending on their track record for things like racial and gender bias, intelligence, and ability to control 'RobeRage'.

This is a potentially useful site for naming and shaming the most anti-male judges in the family court, and for crediting those who apparently act without bias. Ideally, we should have an on-going court-watch program, in which we identify all family court judges, log their decisions, and give them feedback on line. This would enable F4J and others to target their campaigns more effectively. Except in this case, naughty boys and girls are the ones who do get a visit from Santa.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The Lessons of Ipswich

What can we learn about British society from the recent events in Ipswich?

That all men hate all women (as Germaine Greer said in the Female Eunuch)? That women are the cowering victims of a vicious Patriarchy? If you think so, then let me ask you this:

Why do all those male police officers even bother to do anything at all? On learning that a male serial killer is murdering females, why doesn’t the Patriarchy’s Police just shrug its collective shoulders, go home and watch the football? Or beat their wives up, or whatever it is that heterosexual men are supposed to do. Why doesn’t the police commander order his men to ignore this trivial issue, and instead concentrate on pursuing women who haven’t paid their parking tickets? Why doesn’t the government offer to give the guy a knighthood for services rendered to the Patriarchy? Why don’t working class men stand in the pub, beer in hand, and talk about what a great guy he is? Once he is caught and imprisoned, the other prisoners will attack him on a daily basis. How do you explain that? Surely, they will all want to walk up and shake his hand in the lunch queue, congratulate him for being such a cool guy, maybe even ask for his autograph?

When it comes down to it, if this country is such a misogynist Patriarchy, as we are constantly being told, why is it even illegal to kill women? Surely, if all men hate all women, as the Demented Antipodean maintains, and if men run society for their own benefit, as feminists are always saying, then surely most of us would see killing a woman as a bit like killing a rat. Not even worthy of police attention.

That’s what the feminist model would tend to predict. Instead, we have the entire nation, men and women alike, expressing their outrage, with no discernible gender difference.

One of the things we can learn from the case of the Ipswich Strangler is that the UK is not really all that much of a Patriarchy after all. Bad luck, feminists. Let me tell you this, girls: If you think this is a Patriarchy, you’ve got no imagination. It could be Oh-so-much worse.

But that is really incidental. I’m just taking the opportunity to satirise feminism.

The real lessons to be learned in Ipswich are these:
(1) The War on Drugs is not working.
(2) Our prostitution laws do not work.

The fact that so many of our young people become addicted to drugs is an aspect of the widespread social breakdown we are experiencing in this country. All the academic evidence shows that growing up in a broken home with out a father is the single biggest indicator of delinquency, even more than poverty or ethnic group. By implementing their policy of ‘Divorce-As-Revolution’ for the last forty years, feminists have done a great deal to contribute to this youth delinquency and social breakdown. Feminism is, in fact, probably the single biggest factor.

So, we have a lot of young people from poor homes with heroin addictions. Treatment for young addicts is pathetically inadequate. The State is not going to do much to help them, except maybe criminalise them, so they tend to avoid the police. They need to make money to fund their expensive habits, so they turn to crime. In the case of boys, that may be mugging, theft and burglary. In the case of some girls, prostitution is the easiest option.

Prostitution is illegal in this country, and so young women cannot work in safe, regulated brothels. They are harassed by the police and the local community, apparently in the belief that if the job becomes sufficiently difficult, they will give it up and do something else. It doesn’t work that way. They are simply driven to the worst parts of town, and taught not to trust the authorities. In other words, they are painfully vulnerable.

Approximately one percent of the population suffers from a psychopathic personality disorder. Reference. Or more usually, everyone else suffers from it. Psychopaths have no ability to empathise with others. They often regard themselves as superior to everyone else. They are not immoral. They have no sense of morality at all. They are amoral. They regard other people in the same way as objects. You can meet white collar psychopaths at work. They inhabit all walks of life. A lot of psychopaths are not physically violent. The Ipswich Strangler is almost certainly a psychopath. People like him are, thankfully, very rare.

We have put these young women into harm’s way as a result of our ridiculous social policies. Why does this man kill them? Simple. Just because he can.

I have no doubt that this person will be caught before long. However, if we want to make sure this doesn't happen again, we need to learn some hard lessons.

Hysterical screaming isn't going to help. I'm sure that the feminist movement has already begun to make misandrist hay with this case. Demonising all men as monsters, and trying to marginalise them to the fringes of society is going to make matters worse. If you remove men from their families, isolate them, strip them of their rights, possessions and dignity, you will create more women-killers. If they find themselves constantly characterised as women-hating monsters, some men will eventually say, 'So be it'.

The lessons we need to learn from this case are several. The only way to make life safer for prostitutes is to legalise and regulate the trade. We need to fundamentally re-think the 'War on Drugs' fiasco. We should learn from the US Prohibition experience, and consider how it applies to our own situation. Most of all, we need to reverse the process of massive social breakdown which contributes to all of these problems. Stop the war against heterosexuality, marriage, the family, men and fatherhood, which the feminist movement and the academic Left have been waging for forty years. We need to leave both Karl Marx and Victorian morality back in the Nineteenth Century where they belong.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

New Move to Name and Shame the Deadbeats - Shame They are Mostly Women

"Ministers are planning to publish on the internet the names of absent parents who refuse to pay maintenance for their children. Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton said he aimed to "come down like a ton of bricks" on absent parents. New enforcement powers to be outlined in a White Paper this week include the removal of passports, curfews and electronic tagging." Reference

What few realise is that women refuse to pay child support more often than men.

The popular image of feckless fathers who leave the marital home and refuse to pay any money towards the upkeep of their former wife and children has been much exaggerated, according to new figures from the Child Support Agency. Latest returns from the government agency show that a marginally higher proportion of women than men persistently refuse to pay child maintenance. Reference

The situation is the same in the US.

The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts. Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures. Reference

Do you think for a second that the British government's new 'name and shame' website will be posting pictures of these selfish, irresponsible deadbeat mothers? Don't hold your breath. The feminists in the Civil Service will never stand for that. This is not really about providing for children; it is about politics. It is just another salvo in the on-going cultural war against men and fathers. The facts don't come into it.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

New, Improved Fascism Lite. Now Available in Lesbian Flavour.

Someone drew my attention to this gem today.

Poorly written, hysterical, inconsistently referenced, full of anecdotal evidence, as a piece of academic writing it is juvenile in the extreme. It is as though a freshman Women’s Studies assignment has somehow found its way on to the internet, and in fact we should be grateful for the opportunity to capture one alive.

However, let's not get involved in ad hominem attacks. Let us instead begin to unpack some of the unsubstantiated assertions, spurious statistics, myths and distortions it contains. Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the space to give this essay the treatment it deserves. It is indeed a fascinating specimen of contemporary feminist scholarship.

Ms. Bold clearly states, “Women, who outnumber men, are the single largest group of oppressed humans on the planet. Men have oppressed women nonstop for the longest length of time of any oppressed group, more than 5,000 years”

In order to understand why anyone, particularly a privileged middle-class girl in the world’s most powerful nation, would choose to view her own life as analogous to slavery (apart from her own tendency towards self-pitying narcissism), let me provide some basic intellectual context.

Karl Marx described society in terms of economic classes, and the political relations between these classes. The most significant political relation was the relation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and this relation was characterized as being essentially antagonistic in nature.

Radical feminists have cherry-picked some aspects of this theory. In feminist theory, society is again described in terms of classes, but these are defined sexually (i.e. biologically), rather than economically. The political relation between men and women is, again, characterized as essentially antagonistic. Feminism has moved the political Left from ‘class war’ to ‘gender war’.

In both cases, the favoured political relation is given almost metaphysical significance. Just as Marx claimed that ‘All history is the history of class struggle’, radical feminists claim that male violence against women, and rape in particular, is the single defining feature of human social life almost from the earliest times. We are informed:

“Even when men rape males, contempt for women is the underlying issue” It's all about Me. Me. Me.

Any such analysis of society in terms of class struggle tacitly assumes that classes are monolithic; the classes are easy to define, all members of a class share the same political interests, and members of different classes always have divergent or conflicting political interests.

That, approximately, is the conceptual framework underpinning this article.

M Bold takes as her subject matter violence committed by men against women. It is clear from the beginning that violence committed by women, and violence committed against men, are simply not going to be considered. Given the simple-minded quasi-Marxist structure of the theory, combined with her own over-riding self-regard, it should be easy enough to see why these issues don't matter to her.

The author begins by asserting that all men are responsible for violence against women, even men who have never committed violence against women - which is almost all of us. This is purely a political decision of hers, which she obviously thinks is some kind of fundamental truth. We are all to be held collectively responsible for crime, simply because we happen to belong to a biologically-defined group selected by the author herself.

This is like saying, following a news story about a black criminal, that all black people are collectively responsible for all crime. In fact, this is exactly the kind of tactic used by the British National Party and other extreme Right groups in order to stir up racial hatred. Radical feminists are doing exactly the same thing with regard to sex. Articles such as this one serve no function other than to promote fear and hatred of men by women. The entire text is an exercise in neo-fascist propaganda, and a poorly written one at that.

There is the curious feminist obsession with the notion of ‘breaking the silence’. The claim is that women have been ‘silenced’ and need to speak out. Recent scientific evidence has shown that women speak, on average, three times as much as men.

She quotes someone called Sonia Johnson: “If women steadfastly and courageously began to tell the truth and would not stop, would not be co-opted, would not become afraid, the truth of our enslavement would be undeniable”. There is a whole universe of complexity to unpack just from this one statement. I find it risible that someone could write an entire book full of lies, distortion and misrepresentation, and call it ‘Telling the Truth’.

Ms Bold seems to believe that merely by repeating something often enough, it will eventually become accepted as the truth. This was also the view of Adolf Hitler: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

The next section of the article is designed to enumerate possible responses to her bizarre claims. She is attempting to forestall any criticism. It is ironic that she talks about 'breaking the silence', when most of her article is designed to suppress debate and create silence.

When making her case that men are evil and women are good, she condemns war as one of the evils that men do. She then goes on to stress the importance of confronting one’s enemies directly, and cites as an example Allied action in WWII, without which the Nazis 'would now run the world'. Is she against war or not? The poor girl is confused.

She goes on to put forward a model of human history which I believe is often known as ‘ecofeminism’. Its most celebrated proponent is the man-hating genocidal psychotic, Mary Daly, whom in fact Ms Bold quotes in obvious fawning admiration. It is roughly the following. At the beginning of human history, society was an Eden-like paradise free from conflict. The reason for this is that women were in control, and everyone worshipped goddesses. Then, the Fall from Grace occurred. Men gained control, and everyone began to worship male gods instead. Men subjugated women, and violence, war and mayhem followed. The solution to this is to revert to the Old Religion. We must all go back to worshipping the goddess, and everything will be as it should be. This absurd and childish theory is completely unsupported by any evidence, archaeological, historical or scientific. That does not stop feminists such as Ms Bold from citing spurious pseudo-scientific evidence in support of her case. Ms Bold offers us as supposed scientific evidence, quotations from the kind of book one would find in the New Age section of one’s local bookshop. I find it surprising that goddess worshippers should even feel it necessary to attempt to justify their beliefs in terms of the hated phallocentric science. Feminists have shown time and time again that they are prepared to steal the clothes of science when it suits them, and condemn science as evil when that suits them better.

Deconstructing this mythology would require an entire paper in itself. However, it can basically be seen as a lesbians-only resurgence of the Romantic Movement. For more information on this particular outer reach of lesbian feminism – which, incidentally, seems to have become mainstream in many Women’s Studies departments in the USA – refer to “The New Victorians” by Rene Denfeld, and “Higher Superstition”, by Gross and Levitt.

Perhaps Utopia Bold believes that she has discovered the key to unlock the universe. In fact, she is simply a devotee of a strange, new and deeply unsavoury religious cult. I hope that she will grow out of it.

This essay is valuable evidence of the appalling state of contemporary academic culture in the Western world. Students in China, India and the Far East get on with the serious business of learning science, mathematics, engineering, economics, music and art, and building a brighter future for themselves. This essay, on the other hand, a product of the Womynz Studeez industry, is what passes for higher education or journalism in the Anglosphere. This situation, this undeniable decline in intellectual culture in the West, is a direct result of Feminism and the legacy of the 1960s Left.

Like broken families, the anti-intellectual, pseudo-academic culture prevailing in our universities, and our media, is another symptom of the social and cultural breakdown afflicting the Western world. We need to learn to take back the campus. We need to re-impose the values of traditional Liberal education on to academic life before any more harm is done to it. We are staring into the abyss.

New, Improved Fascism Lite. Now Available in Lesbian Flavour. Because You're Worth It. Reaches the Parts that Other Fascisms Don’t Reach. Doesn’t Do What it Says On the Tin. Reassuringly Nonsensical.