The good Dr Rake is the Director of the Fawcett Society. It is interesting to note that "Her recent book, co-authored with Mary Daly, is Gender and the Welfare State: care, work and welfare in Europe and the USA, 2003, Cambridge: Polity Press" Reference Mary Daly is the feminist who was fired from her job at Boston College because she would not permit male students to attend her classes. She is one of the Nazi feminists who advocate the mass extermination of men.
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore”. Reference
Katherine Rake is working in collaboration with someone like that. That is who is in charge of the Fawcett Society, and that is who gets published in the Guardian these days. Be scared. Be very scared.
In the Guardian article, the dishonesty and self-delusion begin with the very first sentence.
“Roll up, roll up, for a spot of that old favourite, feminist-bashing. Anyone can have a go, it's easy.”
The article is supposedly about ‘feminist-bashing’, by which I take it she means people expressing disagreement with, or criticism of, feminist claims. Is she going to answer the criticisms levelled at feminism by the emerging men’s movement? No, not a bit of it. She refuses to believe that there even could be any valid criticism.
“Trot out that readymade mythological figure of the dungaree-clad, scary, hairy and humourless feminist… The stereotype of the mythological feminist, while ridiculous, is dangerous in that it gives the impression that feminism is first and foremost about how women should dress or whether they should wear make-up.”
I do not criticise feminists because of the way they dress, and I am not aware of anyone else who does. I couldn’t care less how they dress; it’s their cult religion I find offensive. Their lies, their hypocrisy, their deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, their double-standards. Their penchant for demonising men and destroying families, and endorsing and concealing destructive female behaviour. That will do to start with.
What she also fails to acknowledge is that it is feminists themselves who talk about how women should dress or whether they should wear make-up. Take for example, Jackie Clune’s article, My Crime Against the Lesbian State:
“The most radical among us struck fear into the rest with their certainty and their expert deployment of feminist guilt. I was frequently berated by the Lesbian Police in bars and clubs; for wearing red lipstick (apparently an obvious allusion to my vagina and therefore an invitation to men - why not women?), for wearing a black biker's jacket (blatantly disrespectful to victims of the Nazi Holocaust who would be reminded of German storm troopers every time they saw black leather) and hilariously, on one occasion, for having "too much fun" with my mates. (Didn't we know we were excluding other women in the bar and probably making them feel inadequate because we were laughing so loudly? And, besides, with female circumcision still at large, what were we doing laughing in the first place?)”
It is feminists who try to dictate to women what they should and shouldn’t wear, and what they should and shouldn’t do: no-one else.
The claim “Anyone can have a go, it's easy” is particularly ironic given the ferocious intellectual gulag (the ‘Lace Curtain’) that the feminist movement has created. As with other religious cults, the feminist movement has taken great pains to demonise, ruin, isolate and destroy anyone who has the temerity to question its holy writ.
I have cited already on this blog the kind of Maoist-style shaming and isolation inflicted on people like Neil Lyndon and Erin Pizzey.
Other examples include Esther Vilar, author of The Manipulated Man. “I hadn't imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life - violent threats have not ceased to this date” Reference
David Thomas, author of ‘Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man’ tells how he was threatened by a group of feminists at a publishing industry event, with Kathy Lette telling him “You’d better make sure you get your statistics absolutely right, or we’ll crucify you”.
I have already mentioned my colleague who started his own domestic violence helpline for men, and was terrorised by feminists into closing it down.
The examples can go on and on.
Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Femnism and The War Against Boys, was jeered off stage by a mob of feminists for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. Reference
Canadian academic Jeffrey Asher describes how he was persecuted by academic feminists for teaching a course representing men positively.
This is just a selection of many such examples. Rake’s article is itself simply another stitch in the Lace Curtain, as its whole purpose is to de-legitimise any kind of critical thinking or dissent.
The mere existence of this oppressive political and cultural censorship is enough reason in itself to be profoundly distrustful and suspicious of the feminist movement as an entity.
“Roll up, roll up, for a spot of that old favourite, feminist-bashing. Anyone can have a go, it's easy.”
But only if you want your life destroyed by a mob of middle-class political thugs.
“It belittles feminists' true legitimate and serious concerns - that the pay gap still exists, that violence against women is at crisis levels, that women's caring roles are so undervalued, that women are still woefully underrepresented in positions of power.”
Here we have some of the most hackneyed feminist myths, long exploded, still being repeated like the religious catechism that they unquestionably are. OK, let’s go through the evidence again. There are four points here.
1 The Pay Gap. The pay gap is one of the most tenacious and perennial of all feminist myths. Warren Farrell does as good a job as any of exploding it in his book ‘Why Men Earn More’. His most cogent argument is this: If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 59 cents, why would anyone hire a man? Reference The feminist story about the pay gap, like most feminist claims, is a juvenile conspiracy theory. It argues that employers will actually waste money on employing men rather than women, thus making themselves less efficient, less profitable and less competitive, just because of some kind of irrational prejudice on their own part. This shows a startling degree of ignorance of economics. In the white heat of global commercial competition, any employer who behaved in this way would soon be driven out of business by his more efficient competitors. The picture of the workplace which is painted by the feminist movement is impossible to sustain in practice. It doesn’t happen because it simply can’t happen. The truth about the Pay Gap is much less simple, and is based upon the choices which men and women make.
The real situation is this:
- Women tend to choose more casual, people-orientated jobs which pay less. They pay less because they require fewer technical skills, and more people are willing to do them.
- Men tend to choose more technical, dangerous, boring or less people-orientated jobs, because they pay better. They pay better because they are more difficult or risky, and fewer people want to do them.
In other words, men and women just have different priorities in life. This startling fact will come as no surprise to anyone except a feminist, and there are good evolutionary and cultural reasons why it should be so.
Secondly, there is the effect of reproduction on the job market. If we examine never-married men and women in the same job, there is evidence that the women actually earn slightly more than the men. Once they have children, however, everything changes. Fathers tend to work harder to earn more money, and women tend to work less, as they take time off to stay at home with their children.
This arrangement suits everyone, except feminists. The feminist story of the Pay Gap is a misleading distortion of the facts in every detail.
2 Domestic Violence
This is the most recent research that I am aware of.
Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD
Take a look at this diagram:
Click on the image to read the full article.
- Most relationships are not violent, so what she means by ‘crisis levels’ is not clear.
- Domestic Violence is just as common among homosexuals as among heterosexuals.
- Domestic Violence correlates strongly with alcohol and drug abuse.
- Domestic Violence is usually reciprocal.
- Here comes the big one: "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."
The feminist story about domestic violence is completely wrong in every single detail, but woe betide you if you try to point this out. There is good money being made from telling men-hating lies, and feminists don’t want anyone messing with their government-funded cash cow.
3 Women's caring roles are so undervalued.
It is not really clear what Rake means by this. Conservatives talk fondly of motherhood and apple-pie. Motherhood is an institution which is held in the highest esteem by absolutely everyone - except feminists. I suspect that what she is hinting at is the idea that women should be paid by the government to cook their own food, clean their own houses and look after their own children. However, she doesn’t really say what she means.
4 Women are still woefully underrepresented in positions of power
I refer you to my arguments above regarding the myth of the ‘Pay Gap’. See also this article, Women Know Best Why They’re Not CEOs “…few women make it to the very top of the business world... Why is this? Liberal feminist groups, like the National Organization for Women (NOW), tend to insist that sexism and discrimination are the primary cause. Yet many individual women recognize that their choices — particularly the choices they make once they have children — make the difference”
Not only do feminists arrogantly ignore individual personal choice on this issue, but there is a much deeper flaw in feminist logic here also. Corporate Capitalism is an aspect of the Patriarchy (or is it the other way round? No-one quite seems to know). Corporate Capitalism is one of the evil works of men, destroying the world, oppressing the poor (especially women), perpetrating the rape of Mother Earth. It must be stopped. But we need to get more women into top boardroom positions. So is Corporate Capitalism a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to be a good thing when women do it, but a bad thing when men do it. This, needless to say, makes no sense whatsoever, but Rake does not trouble herself over trifling matters of logic.
“Add to this the fact that there is no one organisation or definition of feminism, and it makes it all the easier for people to indulge in a spot of feminist-bashing; they can pick and choose and exaggerate the elements they want and then knock them down.”
Ironically, we have here a perfect illustration of the original purpose of sex, that subject which is the very source of the feminist neurotic complex. Populations of organisms protect themselves against attack by parasites by maintaining genetic diversity. I covered this in an earlier article. Feminists attempt to do the same. ‘Feminism is not just one thing but many, so you can’t attack it’. The argument is pure smoke and mirrors. All feminists share a central corpus of core beliefs, otherwise they could not call themselves feminists. It is these which I am examining. My arguments apply more or less across the board, but even where they do not, so what? If I manage to destroy one of the crazier outlying regions of feminism, thus forcing them to restrict themselves to the realm of sanity in future, surely I am doing them a favour, as feminist thinking is strengthened as a result? Not a bit of it. Feminism is primarily a religion, not a coherent theory of politics, and religions do not like to submit themselves to critical examination. Faith is everything. The ‘diversity’ argument is also a double-edged sword; if it makes you less vulnerable to attack (and I don’t think it does), it also makes your case less coherent.
“Feminists aim to transform not just who gets the top jobs in business, but also who gets the job of cleaning the toilet at home. Feminists want to change not just who walks the corridors of power, but also who feels safe walking home at night. Feminism is not just about allowing women to lead the same lives that men have for many years; it's about changing the rules of the game... It's about more than tinkering at the edges - and that feels threatening to a lot of people.”
This paragraph illustrates, no doubt intentionally, the broad sweep of feminist ambition. These middle-class women intend to re-engineer every aspect of our lives, public and private, whether we like it or not. The arrogance of it is truly remarkable. Here we have an admission, straight from the horse’s mouth, that feminism is an attempt to undertake fundamental root-and-branch re-engineering of human society, and all on the basis of precious little in the way of convincing evidence or rational thought.
“Feminists want to change…who walks the corridors of power”. The fact that they want to fundamentally re-engineer our political system should set alarm bells ringing everywhere; it should open feminists to an extraordinarily high level of scrutiny, not immunise them from it. The rest of us would not be doing our duty as citizens if we allowed anyone to undertake such a program unchallenged, and even more so, given the appalling record of feminists’ Twentieth Century predecessors. The Twentieth Century contains plenty of examples of such attempts to artificially re-engineer society, and they resulted in mountains of corpses on every single occasion. As the great liberal philosopher Karl Popper once said “Those who promise us heaven on Earth have only ever delivered hell”.
Does this feel “threatening to a lot of people”? It should do. If you don't find it profoundly frightening, then you haven't been paying attention.
Despite its egalitarian smoke-screen, and its pretensions about saving the world from itself, feminism is deeply self-serving. “…who gets the top jobs in business”: Why, women of course – feminists themselves - and they think they can forcibly re-engineer the entire world to bring this about. “…who gets the job of cleaning the toilet at home”: someone else, of course, a compliant man, or a low-paid immigrant servant. It’s all about me, me, me.
If Rake really wants men to do more house-work, which is obviously what she means, she would do well to start off by being honest. All the feminist movement is able to do is nag men for not doing enough work, and laugh at them for being useless around the house. Hardly constructive. Not to mention patently false.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women.Reference
But there is another side to this also. The fact is, women don’t want to give up their control at home.
Caregivers can clash when stay-at-home fathers step up their game. "It's still the norm for moms to act as the gatekeepers to fathers' involvement with their kids".
Why women won’t give up ruling the roost ”…through all the turmoil of feminism, postfeminism and gender equality crusades, actually, when it comes to the housework, I only want my husband to be equal on my terms….I think of these habits as faults, but actually they are simply choices — just not my choices. So, despite the fact that we are equal, I still think of the house as my domain, where things should be done my way…Real equality does not mean that everything is done the woman’s way. It means that just as workplaces have to accommodate the particular needs of women, so homes have to accommodate the particular behaviours of men. And more than that. It means that women have to accept their partner’s domestic ways, provided they don’t threaten household safety, as being as good as their own. Like many women, I find this almost impossible, which means that though I pay lipservice to the idea of my husband being an equal partner in the house, I don’t really want him to be anything of the sort. In the house, I wish to be in charge and I don’t want to make any allowances.”
Maternal chauvinism is a dad's greatest obstacle to parental parity. “If men haven't become equal partners at home, it's because women won't allow it. Women, they say, may seek equality with men in the public world, but they want to maintain control over their traditional domestic turf, and are particularly slow changing when it comes to relinquishing their primacy as mothers. "Generally, men are as involved with their kids as their wives will let them be," says Armin Brott, author of several advice books for fathers.“
Until men are given equal status within the family, there will never be equality. This will not happen until women relinquish some of their power, and take responsibility for their own negative attitudes. I don’t think that Rake and her ilk really want to hear these uncomfortable facts.
"Feminism is...about allowing women to lead the same lives that men have for many years" What can she mean? Is she advocating compulsory military service for women? Is she advocating a system in which women will be forced to either work full-time or face complete social exclusion? Is she aware that men are more likely than women to die younger of all major diseases, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to become homeless, more likely to go to prison, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to be a victim of violence? Yes, you too can have it all, just like the men. Statements like this make me think that feminism is based, not only on zero evidence, but also on simple envy. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence - until you get there. Men's lives are not, and simply never have been, the paradise that feminists insist they are.
As for “who feels safe walking home at night”, I hardly know where to begin. The epidemic of gang culture and its accompanying gun and knife crime can be traced directly to the decline of the family, fatherlessness, and the decline of traditional sources of authority such as police and teachers. The feminist movement has been one of the main driving forces behind this trend. It has done more to promote fatherlessness and family breakdown than any other single factor. Where families and fathers disappear, the gang takes over. Where gangs rule the streets, you have violent crime. After spending forty years attacking marriage and the family, demonising men and separating fathers from their children, feminists are largely to blame for the current mess.
The evidence is all around for anyone honest enough to look. Take for example this excellent report from Civitas, The Cost of the Fatherless Family
Or this: Feral Britain. “Committed fathers are crucial to their children’s emotional development. As a result of the incalculable irresponsibility of our elites, however, fathers have been seen for the past three decades as expendable and disposable.”
Why does Rake think that feminists have a unique perspective to offer on the subject of street crime? What are they going to say: “Nasty men should start behaving more like women”? Very profound. Given that it demonises men, destroys families, consigns boys to educational failure and conceals the anti-social behaviour of women, feminism is not only utterly bankrupt on reducing crime; it actively promotes it, by creating the social breakdown which produces crime.
The lying and distortion continue.
“The pay gap short-changes women every day; quality childcare is out of the reach of most parents; rape conviction levels are at their lowest ever; and more than 80% of MPs are men.”
Whing, whinge, whinge.
The Pay Gap I’ve covered. Let’s look at these other myths and lies.
Childcare. What does Rake recommend exactly? No doubt she thinks that the taxpayer should pay for a servant to look after her children for her (assuming she has any) while she flounces around shopping, eating lunch with her friends and going to the gym. Why on Earth should we do that? They are her children. She had them. She should take responsibility for them. By going out to work each day and earning money, the father is already taking responsibility.
Rape convictions. The scientific evidence shows that most rape allegations are false and malicious. The police and the courts already know this. I have already written at length about the case of Warren Blackwell, who spent over three years in prison for a sexual assault that never happened, after having been falsely accused by a mentally ill serial accuser, and convicted by a corrupt system. Consider also the recent Duke University Lacrosse scandal in the USA. All the evidence shows that such cases are far from unique.
Feminists, of course, can never admit that the system is working correctly, and that the conviction rate for rape is so low because there are so many false accusations. Instead they try to rig the court system so that innocent men are convicted on the mere say-so of a mad woman. The feminist movement is using rape as a weapon to demonise men and destroy as many of them as possible. They are not concerned about protecting women. The real agenda is a political one.
More than 80% of MPs are men. I covered this above in my discussion of men and women in leadership positions. Once again, we see this simple-minded feminist suspicion, this juvenile conspiracy theory. “There are more men than women in government. That’s not fair. They hate us. It’s a conspiracy”. There may be any number of perfectly good reasons why the situation is as it is, individual personal choice being the main one. If the system is rigged to balance the statistics, as feminists such as Rake advocate, who is going to benefit? Democracy? The electorate? No. Rake and her middle-class feminist friends. Do not be fooled into thinking that feminism is about equality. It is nothing of the kind.
“And we now also have to contend with the hypersexualisation of our culture, a phenomenon that has developed and snowballed with hardly a murmur of dissent. Against a backdrop of ubiquitous images of women's bodies as sex objects, rates of self-harm among young women are spiralling, eating disorders are on the rise, and plastic surgery is booming”.
The claim that we are living in a ‘hypersexualised’ culture is a highly questionable one, given, in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic world, our long history of censorship of sexual discourse. In the English-speaking world in particular, we have a significant Protestant heritage of Puritanism. Compare our culture to that of the ancient Romans or Hindus, for example, and Rake’s claim seems absurd. These cultures featured images of copulation as public, even religious, art. It is only in the last few decades that our own draconian censorship has been relaxed to some extent, and I wonder if this is really the source of Rake’s displeasure.
Rake cites a causal link between images of women in the media on the one hand, and eating disorders and self-mutilation among women on the other. She does not say what solution she proposes to these alleged problems, but it is difficult to imagine any ‘solution’ which does not involve a return to draconian censorship of the media; as ‘images of women's bodies as sex objects’ in the media are deemed to be the source of the problem, the solution must be to control what the media is allowed to publish. It is 1970s anti-porn feminism re-hashed as liberalism. Control of the media is the real agenda here, not the welfare of women. ‘Images of women as sex objects’ will be the beginning, but it will not stop there. I have already discussed feminism’s dislike of criticism at some length above.
In an interesting article entitled Anti-Porn is the Theory, Repression is the Practice, the English Collective of Prostitutes describe how an article they had written was censored by radical feminists simply because it questioned their agenda. Feminists like Rake will call for censorship under the guise of protecting women, but this will not be the real agenda. It will be used to censor anything they don’t like, and anyone who disagrees with them.
So is there any evidence of such a causal link, and if there is, what should we do about it? We are all exposed to the same media, and most of us do not develop these psychiatric conditions.
Suicide is the most dramatic form of self-harm, and boys are much more likely than girls to commit suicide. In the USA, boys commit 86 percent of all adolescent suicides. Reference This source contains this incredible statement: “It occurred to me that if 86 percent of adolescent suicides were girls, there would be a national commission to find out why. The Center for Adolescence at Stanford has no one who can speak on the topic. Neither does the American Association of Suicidology. "Try to go out and get funding for it. If there is no research money available, no academician is going to go that route.”
Rake, interestingly, does not seem to be concerned about male suicide. No doubt this is because (i) she is simply not concerned about the welfare of boys, and (ii) no-one would believe that male suicide is caused by the media, so there is nothing to be gained by mentioning it – for control of the media, I believe, is her real agenda.
In addition, boys are also affected by eating disorders, although in smaller numbers. However, Rake needs to explain why this is. Is it images of men in the media which cause this? It would seem unlikely.
There is evidence that you are more likely to develop an eating disorder if
- You were not breast-fed as a baby.
- You were forced to ‘clean your plate’ (i.e. you could not control your own food intake) in childhood.
- You are female.
- You are middle-class.
- You have a difficult relationship with your mother.
- You live in an ‘eating disorder hotspot’ such as the US.
In other words, although local culture is a factor, it is not clear precisely what role the media plays, compared to say, peer pressure. Controlling middle-class mothers, on the other hand, are an established cause.
Even if it could be established that the media is the sole cause of eating disorders – which is clearly not the case - it would not be obvious that censoring the media would constitute a solution. The costs to the wider society of doing so might be higher than the benefits, given that we already have other ways to address mental illness. The feminist agenda here is really about political control of the media, not about protecting women at all.
What is the feminist problem with sex in the media? The feminist movement can be regarded as a powerful trade organization, like a union. It attempts to set the price of access to women. It keeps trying to force the price ever-higher while women are expected to deliver less and less. That is why they object so strongly to any kind of commercial sex; it undercuts middle-class women. This is the reason behind all the anti-porn and anti-prostitution propaganda from the feminist movement. It is presented as being designed to protect women, but it is nothing to do with that. The evidence clearly shows that porn-stars are rich, successful and popular, and that the only way to improve conditions for prostitutes is to legalise the industry.
It is also interesting to note that relaxing censorship on sexual discourse in the media actually reduces the incidence of sexual violence: When pornography was made freely available in Denmark in the late 60's, the incidence of sex crimes, sexual violence towards women and children, dropped markedly. In 1967 erotic material in Denmark was removed from the obscenity statute. This resulted in sex crimes in Denmark which had been stable from 1958 to 1966 decreasing by 25 percent in 1967, 13 percent in 1968 and 30.5 percent in 1969. Patricia Petersen, Lecturer in Psychology, Central Queensland University, Brisbane.
Once again, the truth is the direct opposite of what the feminists claim it is. If porn causes rape, then relaxing censorship should lead to an increase in rape; instead it leads to a decrease. By extension, we can expect that increasing censorship will lead to increased sexual violence. It is sexual repression which produces sexual violence, not sexual libertarianism.
Feminists also wish to make it impossible for Western men to seek foreign wives for the same reason: ”International Marriage Broker Regulation Act is a brute blockade making it impossible for foreign women to meet American men for marriage. American men must provide hardcopy about their criminal...records to marriage introduction services, which must then show it to the woman and get her signature, before sharing contact information...matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt”
So it is perfectly acceptable for women to seek foreign spouses; it is just men who must not be allowed.
When trade unions realise that their own jobs are being threatened by 'cheap foreign imports', they demand that the market is rigged in order to artificially protect them. The same thing is happening here. What feminists are engaging in is protectionism. It is about protecting Western middle-class women’s monopoly over the price of sex. Feminists see themselves as the gatekeepers. Introducing censorship of the media, under the guise of ‘protecting women and children’, is a part of that agenda.
Now here comes the rallying cry to the troops.
“We need to harness the beginnings of a third wave of feminism. A unified movement must include those who [sic] feminism has failed to reach in the past, such as men, many ethnic minority women, working-class women, and young women.”
This is a straightforward admission of the fact that feminism only appeals to white middle-aged, middle-class women, which is, of course, perfectly true. Unfortunately, and despite their pretensions to the contrary, that group exercises a vast amount of power and influence, and not always benignly.
“This vision could be centred around five key freedoms: power, rights, autonomy, respect and choice”.
Its not clear what the difference is between these, as she does not define them.
“In a world of equal power, women politicians would no longer be seen as a rare breed, whose clothes attract more comment than what they say”.
Who is it that comments on their clothes? It certainly isn’t the male heterosexual community.
“Choice would make it unremarkable to see a woman managing a Premiership football team, or a male nursery nurse”.
Football team? Is it only prejudice that keeps women from managing football teams? Or is it that they are simply not interested? Most managers are respected ex-players, and this would tend to preclude most women. Rake seems to forget that qualifications and experience are necessary when applying for a job – not to mention motivation.
As for male nursery nurses, now this is a whole can of worms. I wonder if Rake has been living on the moon for the last twenty years. How else could she not be aware of the fact that men have been driven out of the teaching profession by a false accusations pandemic, for which feminists like herself are largely responsible?
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the UK, most English-speaking countries, and other countries such as Norway, were in the grip of a moral panic about children being sexually abused by Satan-worshippers. Even writing this down, it seems scarcely believable that people could take such an absurd idea seriously. This moral panic originated in the USA, perpetrated by Evangelical Christian groups. It was quickly taken up by radical feminists, who saw it as an opportunity to demonise men, and to wage war against the family.
The first significant case in what was to become a witch-hunt, was the McMartin pre-school trial in the USA. A casual remark by a child led to accusations from a mother. Other parents joined in and panic quickly spread: “By spring of 1984, 360 children had been identified as having been abused. No physical evidence was found to support the allegations. The mother who made the original complaint was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in the same year.”
The panic soon crossed the Atlantic to the UK, and spread further afield to Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Describing the entire history of the Satanic Panic is beyond the scope of this article, and I have written about aspects of it already, especially Cleveland and Orkney
Some particularly shameful miscarriages of justice occurred as a result. Take for example, Peter Ellis, a New Zealand child-care worker falsely accused of child abuse, and the victim of a witch-hunt by 'professionals'.
Similarly, Bernard Baran, a male childcare worker spent 22 years in prison for child sexual abuse he did not commit.
In the UK, the Shieldfield Case was particularly disturbing. It is covered particularly well by the writer Richard Webster:
In November 1998, when the report of an inquiry into allegations of multiple abuse at a council-run nursery was published, no one questioned its authority.
The report, written by three social workers and a psychologist, was the most sensational in the history of British child protection. It led to front-page headlines in practically every national newspaper. “Some depths of human depravity simply defy belief”, said the Daily Mail. “Children as young as two were repeatedly molested by staff and … supplied to paedophiles for filmed sex sessions … In scenes of almost unimaginable horror, rapist paedophiles dressed as clowns or animals slashed terrified toddlers with knives”.
The report’s authors had been asked to examine complaints by parents that two trained nursery nurses, Dawn Reed and Chris Lillie, who worked together at Shieldfield nursery, had sexually and physically abused a large number of very young children in their care. Although Reed and Lillie had previously been acquitted in a criminal trial, the inquiry concluded that they were guilty not only of carrying out horrific acts of abuse themselves but also of supplying children to a paedophile ring whose members had raped and abused their young victims, and used them in the making of child pornography.
For the first time in living memory, two people found not guilty in a British court of law had become fugitives, living in fear of the lynch mob.
All of the cases, in the USA as well as the UK, turned out to be unfounded, but not before generating a media frenzy, and putting the families concerned through hell...the misanthropic assumptions underlying it have only been strengthened since the early 1990s. Organisations like the NSPCC are more rather than less influential, and the idea that child abuse is going on in countless apparently normal homes is absolutely mainstream...it is worth remembering what the professionals are capable of. Reference
Even leaving aside the individual miscarriages of justice, the consequences for the wider society of this latter-day witch-hunt against men have been all too predictable.
On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert”. Reference
Male teacher numbers hit lowThe number of men working in primary schools in Wales has reached its lowest level in nearly 10 years. It is thought one of the reasons for the decline could be fears about false allegations of abuse against children.
Discipline fears as female teachers outnumber male peers by 12 to 1…the decline has been particularly marked in secondary schools, fuelling fears of rising misbehaviour among disaffected teenage boys whose lives lack male authority figures….There are fears men are being scared away by the fear of false child abuse allegations while others are thought to be put off by the absence of male companionship in primary schools.
For further reading on the Satanic child-abuse panic, see these references:
Child Abuse at Mens-Links.Net
Education at Mens-Links.Net
False Accusations at Mens-Links.Net
At the same time, as the links above will show, the feminist movement conceals and denies genuine child abuse committed by females.
This is the kind of oppressive, psychotic regime that feminists such as Rake have produced and seek to extend, a political system based on panic, subterfuge and coercion. She and her ilk have already inflicted untold harm upon a generation, but still they are calling for more.
“This world, that feminism could deliver, is one that many ordinary men and women want to see…To make it happen, we have to reclaim the f-word, show what we are really about and unite for change. If we do, we can put a stop to feminist-bashing forever”.
I do not believe for a second that feminism can deliver a fairer or more just society than the one we have presently, nor even wants to. In her criticism of ‘feminist-bashing’, Rake seems to be more interested in silencing criticism than in improving society. I think I can see very clearly what she is really about.
The article is a catalogue of lies, myth and distortion from beginning to end. It is intended to be a call to the troops to rally around the feminist flag. In this sense, it is a response to the emerging men’s movement, and the increasingly vocal criticism of feminist claims. But it is a deeply conservative and predictable response; rather than attempting to address the sharp evidence-based criticisms being levelled against feminist dogma, she merely attempts to repeat and reinforce it, repeating mythical claims of victimhood, emphasising the nobility of the feminist cause, shaming its detractors and calling for declarations of loyalty and hard-work from the troops on the ground. To my mind, the mere fact that the feminists are sufficiently rattled that they feel the need to write propaganda such as this is evidence that the message is getting out.
Let’s not forget that, as that wise and humane political sage Chairman Mao once said, The Personal Is Political. As head of the Fawcett Society, Katherine Rake is one of those who profits from the demonisation of men and families. She is one of the fat sows feeding at the government-funded trough of taxpayers’ money. She certainly doesn’t want to see that being threatened.