Tuesday, December 30, 2008

More Authoritarian PC Madness

Check out this story.

"A row has broken out at the University of Manchester after its students' union toilets were "de-gendered".

Temporary signs have made the "ladies" simply "toilets", while the "gents" have become "toilets with urinals".

The changes are in response to an unspecified number of complaints from trans students who are uncomfortable using the men's toilets.

There are no figures on the number of transsexual and transgender students believed to be among the university's population of more than 35,000 students.

The students' union welfare office declined to reveal the number of complaints, but said it was an important issue".


The video accompanying the article is well worth watching. Check out the green-haired adolescent Dworkin.

"Women's officer Jennie Killip told the BBC: "If you were born female, still present quite feminine, but define as a man you should be able to go into the men's toilets - if that's how you define".

Who is this dysfunctional teenage Stalin to dictate who can and who cannot use a men's toilet? It is the usual Left-wing mix of authoritarianism and secrecy. 'We need to take radical action which affects everyone, but we can't tell you why'. I can guess how many people complained about the current toilet signs: zero. I can guess how many transsexual students there are at any given time: zero, and never more than a tiny handful at most.

If someone perceives themselves to be of the opposite sex to that suggested by their own genitalia, is this really the most effective measure for helping them? Perhaps a visit to a clinical psychologist would be more useful.

I thought democracy was about the will of the majority. Why should the vast majority be inconvenienced for the sake of a tiny handful, who suffer no ill-effects from conventional toilets in any case? What happens to them if they go off-campus, which they inevitably must? They have grown up as a member of a species which reproduces sexually, and consists of two sexes. They must be used to the idea of male and female toilets by the time they reach university. They are intelligent people after all. No doubt this is precisely why none of them has complained.

The fact is, this has got nothing to do with helping transsexual students. It is part of a scramble for power within the small, incestuous world of student politics, a crass attempt by the tiny but vocal radical lesbian feminist lobby to foist its agenda onto all 35,000 students. No doubt they think that we in the heterosexual dictatorship are too ignorant of the issue of transsexuality, and would benefit from having our consciousness 'raised', by having it brought to our attention every time we go to the toilet.

It seems also that the rest of the student body (you know, the well-adjusted ones) want nothing to do with it.

Asked about the change, some female students questioned the move. One said: "Girls might not want to use the same toilets as boys, so then you just end up with people complaining about that - so you can't really win".

The PC BBC only asked the girls, of course. Who gives a fuck what the boys think?

I wonder if the acne-prone Dworkinette realises that the Ladies' toilets are now available to the men's rugby team. I hope that its members take full advantage of that during their well-known social soirees. Once a few straight girls complain about drunken oafs vomiting in the ladies, that will be the end of it.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Male DV Research Project Seeks Subjects

Researchers at Clark University and Bridgewater State College are conducting a study on men who experience aggression from their girlfriends, wives, or female partners. If you are a man between the ages of 18-59 and have experienced aggression from your partner within the past 12 months, you may be eligible to participate in this study. We invite you to follow this link to the study webpage where you can complete an Internet survey about your experiences. Link: http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Masturbation was not a Crime. It is now.

This is some belated news. I've been meaning to write about this for a while, and I've already missed the bus in terms of topicality, but it seems to be such an important case that it is worth drawing to the attention of anyone who may have missed it.

"A man caught trying to have sex with his bicycle has been sentenced to three years on probation.

Mr Stewart was caught in the act with his bicycle by cleaners in his bedroom at the Aberley House Hostel in Ayr.

Gail Davidson, prosecuting, told Ayr Sheriff Court: "They knocked on the door several times and there was no reply.

"They used a master key to unlock the door and they then observed the accused wearing only a white t-shirt, naked from the waist down.

"The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex."

Both cleaners, who were "extremely shocked", told the hostel manager who called police. "
Reference

It seems that this case has already caused entirely justifiable controversy.

"More than a million people have read the story on the BBC news website and it has been hotly debated on forums elsewhere.

One contributor asked: "Would they have done the same to a woman with a sex toy?"
Reference

The sheriff presiding over the case has to take responsibility for this decision. This man was alone in his room when he was engaged in a sexual act. That is called masturbation. Masturbation is now a crime in Scotland - if you are a man, and someone walks in. This is a gross breach of this man's human rights. The two female cleaners and the manager should have been given a clip round the ear and told to grow up.

The sheriff judging the case should be sacked.

People who live in hostels tend to be vulnerable, socially-marginalised individuals to begin with. If you choose to work with these people, you need to understand that their behaviour will not always pass muster in a middle-class drawing room. You are there to care, not to persecute. But the implications go far beyond that.

The fact is that you can now be placed on the sex offenders' register for masturbating in the privacy of your own room. But only if you are a man.

This is a frightening level of authoritarianism. It is not the place of the courts to legislate on morality or taste. Only on crime. The question that the sheriff failed to ask himself is: Who was harmed by this? The answer is: no-one. This man has been criminalised for simply being a man in his own home.

This case sets a legal precedent. Do not masturbate in Scotland from now on. Unless you have changed the locks.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

The Myth of Multi-Tasking

I was a child in the 1970s. My family was working-class. My father had a job in a factory, and my mother was a house-wife. That role was still called ‘house-wife’ back then, and it was still regarded as perfectly respectable. The poison hadn’t yet spread quite so far at that time. My parents were good people. They led simple lives. They went to church. They were typical of their generation.

After dinner in the evenings, my mother would wash up while my father sat down in front of the TV with the children. There were a few occasions when she was having a particularly stressful day. “It’s all right for you!”, she would say, “You only have one job to do during the day. You come home at 5 o’clock and that is it. I have a dozen jobs to do. My work is never finished!”

It was hard not to feel some sympathy for her. She was my mum after all. Only when I got older did I start thinking about it.

There were some days when I was at home, either because of school holidays or illness. On those days, I remember her daily routine was more or less the following:


  • 6:30 – 7:00 AM Wake up and help my dad get ready for work. Make his lunch etc. Get the kids up. Feed them breakfast.
  • 8:00 - 8:30 AM Pack the kids off to school.
  • 8:30 AM Go back to bed. Sleep for a while.
  • 9:30 – 10:00 Get up again. Do some light housework for an hour. Maybe go to the shop to buy something for dinner.
  • 12:00 - 4:30 PM. Eat lunch, listen to music, watch TV, read a book, meet friends, drink tea.
  • 4:30 PM Kids come home from school.
  • 5:00 – 5:30 PM Start to prepare dinner.
  • 6:00 PM Dad arrives home. Eat dinner together.
  • 8:00 PM Washing up all done. Sit down with family to watch TV or chat.
  • 9:00 PM Kids go to bed.
  • 11:00 PM Parents go to bed

My father, in contrast, worked 8:00 – 5:00 in a factory, doing a job he didn’t like, in order to finance the family. He was injured a couple of times by factory machinery and had to go to hospital. He was a local trade union organizer. There was no sleep or TV during the day for him. At the weekends, he was expected to take care of the car, the garden, and any repairs that needed to be done, as well as help my mother with shopping or whatever, and spend time with his kids. There is no question in my mind that my dad did far more work than my mum. We were a typical family. All the dads did far more work than all the mums. That is why the mums live longer.

But that is not what you would think if you listened to the feminists.

The domestic arrangements I describe have many advantages. That routine allows time for just mum and kids, just dad and kids, mum dad and kids, just mum and dad, just mum. Everyone’s material and emotional needs are taken care of (Well, nearly. There was not much in the way of dad-time. But that’s OK. Proper men are not expected to need anything for themselves).

But if you think that household sounds cosy, you’re wrong. Our minds have been poisoned by bourgeois-Patriarchal false consciousness. That home was in fact a “comfortable concentration camp”, in which my mother was being held in a state of perpetual servitude.

It became a feminist war-cry to complain that men have only one job to do, whereas house-wives (sorry, home-makers), have many. This was a strategy to extort more concessions out of men and/or the government by means of emotional manipulation. It is clear that, as in my parents’ case, a house-wife might finish work later in the evening than her husband. If you don’t bother to do the sums, it looks, on the face of it, like the feminists are right in claiming that women do more work than men. Of course, as with so many feminist claims, the truth is the direct opposite.

Having established by subterfuge the widespread belief that women do more work than men, the feminists then turned this into a virtue. The complaints of exasperated mothers to their husbands that “You only have one job to do, I have many”, later became “Women are better at multi-tasking than men”. “Men can only do one thing at a time, whereas women can manage many tasks simultaneously”.

This is the idea that I wanted to examine here.

The term itself has been appropriated from the computer industry. It refers to the ability of computers to perform several jobs simultaneously. An interesting fact to note is that computers can only perform one job at a time. Multi-tasking operating systems simply allow them to create the appearance of being able to do several things at once, by switching from one job to another faster than the human eye can detect. It comes in two flavours: co-operative multi-tasking, and pre-emptive multi-tasking. In co-operative multi-tasking, one job hogs the processor until it gives it up voluntarily, so that another job can have a chance. The problem is if the job goes into an infinite loop and cannot give up, the computer hangs, and needs to be re-started; then all jobs are lost. In the more sophisticated pre-emptive multi-tasking, the computer allocates a time-slice for each job, and once its time is up, the job is kicked out, and the next job is run. In both cases, all the jobs take turns one after the other. This creates the appearance that all jobs are running simultaneously. It is curious that the feminist media has chosen such a term to describe human behaviour. What they are referring to is the ability to perform several tasks at once, again by some kind of time-slicing or attention-switching.

As far as I am aware, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim that women are better at multi-tasking than men. Feminists who make such claims offer nothing in the way of any kind of credible psychological model, or theory in the Philosophy of Action, no appeal to evolutionary theory. Nothing. It is an example of what is called ‘folk psychology’.

Let’s consider a simple case study. There is a family rather like my own. The father is a mechanic who spends his day fixing cars. The mother is a house-wife who stays at home and looks after the kids. I have already examined the routine of such a woman, but what about the man? He only has one job to do, right? Fix cars. That’s it.

He probably has to do the following:

  • Receive customers and discuss their car problems.
  • Drive a wide variety of vehicles and park them in small spaces.
  • Inspect the vehicle to diagnose faults.
  • Contact suppliers to order parts, chasing them in case of problems.
  • Receive parts deliveries and check them to ensure they are correct, dealing with any problems found.
  • Fit the new parts to the vehicle, and test the vehicle to ensure correct function. This is a safety-critical job. If he gets it wrong, people may die.
  • Receive cash or credit card payments from customers.
  • Deal with the company accounts, including paying taxes.
  • Advertise the business.
  • Recruit other staff including juniors/ apprentices.
  • Train and manage other staff.
  • Ensure government licenses are in order.
  • Clean vehicles
  • Clean work area
  • Maintain tools in good condition.
  • Maintain safe and healthy working environment
  • Be able to deal with accidents and administer first aid.
  • Keep up with new technology and developments in the industry.

There are probably other things I have missed. In fact, any one of these sub-tasks can be further sub-divided.

This sounds to me like multi-tasking. It seems to me that fixing cars is a lot more difficult than looking after children. It is more dangerous, and more intellectually and socially demanding.

By saying, ‘you only have one job to do, I have many’, feminists are playing a cheap intellectual con-trick. They are using different levels of description in each case, so they are not comparing like with like. They analyse ‘looking after children’ into its constituent detailed parts, but refuse to analyse ‘fixing cars’ in any detail at all. Thus, they create the cheap illusion that they have many jobs to do, whereas a man has only one.

Having been established as a popular urban myth, the Myth of Multi-Tasking has been used to claim that women make better commercial managers than men. In the new knowledge-based economy, so the story goes, multi-tasking and networking skills are at a premium. Because women are better at these than men, they are better suited to the new economy. Hence the future is female.

In fact, a future in which women sacrifice having children for swaggering around an office selling insurance is no future at all. It is cultural death.

The argument collapses once the Myth of Multi-Tasking is debunked in any case. It fails on many other levels too. I am a software developer, so I work in the ‘new knowledge-based economy’. We are notoriously bad at multi-tasking. We need to be left alone for a long time to write one program. It has some similarities to writing a book. We don’t often do a lot of ‘networking’ (except in a purely technical sense). I couldn’t work if I had to juggle three ringing phones, and endless meetings. I can do that, but I would have to take a different job. I am making two points:

  • The ‘new knowledge-based economy’ does not always require 'multi-tasking' skills.
  • There is no evidence that women are better at these than men in any case.

The Myth of Multi-Tasking has been further used in combination with the Myth of the Pay-gap: Despite the fact that women are better then men – not just as good as men, but actually better – they are still paid less by the evil Patriarchal-Capitalist Establishment. That goes to show just how much contempt men have for women. Woe, woe and thrice woe.

Warren Farrell once asked a very simple question. I have yet to hear an answer to it. Any answer. Even a bad one. There has been dead silence from the feminist camp so far. The question is this:

If women are just as good as men (or even better), and they are cheaper to employ, then why do employers ever hire men at all? Why don’t they just hire an all-female work-force? If one employer refuses to employ women because he is a sexist hater, then another employer down the street (perhaps a female one) will do so. The cut-throat world of business is a very Darwinian place. The sexist hater would be driven out of business before very long. Thus, the Myth of the Pay Pap, like the Myth of Multi-Tasking, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Jacqui Smith Exposed

Click here to listen to deputy head nanny, Jacqui Smith, being interviewed on the BBC, in which she debates her new plans with a spokeswoman from the English Collective of Prostitutes. Which one do you think makes the most sense?

Friday, November 21, 2008

Grow up, Jacqui Smith

This article is an excellent response to our 'Home Secretary's latest bid to lacerate the legal system in order to win the approval of the feminist harpies who constitute her support base.

"Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, under whose care all these lost girls are found, is not interested in prostitutes. Not really. She hasn't actually ever met one, or personally canvassed an opinion from one.

This week, she announced that her focus is on the men who use their services instead. And like the casino doorman, she turns a coy, blind eye to the antics of the independent high-class hooker and escort girl.

Smith has just unveiled a steaming mess of new laws aimed at criminalising men who pay for sex with trafficked or exploited women. Ignorance of the girl's background will be no defence for punters, and men who knowingly pay for sex with trafficked women may be charged with rape.

You may ask yourself how a commercial transaction, no matter how distasteful or amoral it may seem to others, can be suddenly reclassified as rape. Answer: it can't.

This is just the worst kind of gesture politics from a politician desperate to recast herself in the rosy glow of sexual reform. Patronisingly, she sees every prostitute as a helpless victim. And to the suggestion that many 'trafficked' women are actually just economic migrants, she says: 'I do not buy that argument.' End of.
Men need to think twice about paying for sex, says the Home Secretary, who wants to obliterate the sex industry by strangling demand for it - rather like trying to stop tooth decay by banning the baking of cupcakes.

Do you know, her naivety would be endearing, if it wasn't so petty and dangerous. Jacqui, there are lots of things that men need to think twice about, but as they usually go right ahead and please themselves anyway, what is the point?

Smith's mad ramblings and ideals, forged in the hairy armpit heat of Seventies feminism and untrammelled by a sliver of practical common sense ever since, make me want to scream. All she will succeed in doing is driving the trafficked women further underground - making them more vulnerable to deeper depravity - and undermining the country's rape laws while she is at it.

In all the years of New Labour lunacy, in all their obsessive, spirit-sapping social tinkering, has there ever been anything quite so mad, or ill thought out?
This country is in a bigger mess than it has been since the war. Toddlers are murdered in their cots. Teenagers are shot going home from school. Half a million migrants poured into the UK last year - and that's just the official number - while hundreds of businesses are going bust every day.

And what is the Government doing to stop the rot? Getting its knickers in a twist about prostitution. It is indeed true that women have been trafficked across borders and are being held as sex slaves in this country. This is a dreadful business, but it is a criminal matter, not a civic one".

Monday, November 17, 2008

Melanie Phillips: The liberals who did so much to destroy the family must share the blame for Baby P

I wanted to draw your attention to this superb article by Melanie Phillips.

"The truth about family life was deliberately concealed. Research shows a vastly greater risk of violence and abuse by boyfriends or stepfathers than biological parents or married spouses. A recent American study says a child is 50 times more likely to be abused by a non-biological parent.

In Britain, however, official statistics years ago stopped distinguishing between married and unmarried households, so it became impossible to identify the risks from unmarried relationships. Instead, 'progressives' claimed falsely that husbands and fathers posed the greatest risk to women and children.

This was part of the attempt to destroy marriage and all norms of sexual behaviour by the Left-wing intelligentsia: self-regarding social commentators and corrupted academics, feminist zealots and spineless male child psychologists and psychiatrists and sociologists who all connived at the Big Lie.

Not only that, they refused to publish research that told the truth or hounded out those few brave and honest researchers who managed to do so. This fearsome political correctness not only silenced informed debate but also made it impossible for social workers to apply basic common sense to situations crying out for action.

But the people who really have blood on their hands are the progressive intelligentsia who have simply written orderly, married, normative family life out of the script, enforced the doctrines of multi-culturalism and nonjudgmentalism with the zealotry of the fanatic, and caused Britain to descend into an age of barbarism."

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Music Video: A crime to be a man

A crime to be a man


Excellent song from a Swedish father. You are free to reproduce or embed this video.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

The Tide is Turning

Every morning I take the train into London and join a dense river of people walking into the commercial district. This population of office workers is a great resource for marketeers, and on a daily basis I am handed everything from free newspapers to product samples, and promotional leaflets offering every conceivable service. This week I was handed this leaflet for a dating agency.



I don't need it, but I thought I would pass it on. The thing that struck me about it is the caption. The unique selling point is that the women are 'unspoiled by feminism'. My regular readers will already know my views on dating Western women. More and more men are waking up to the fact that they don't have to put up with this crap any more, and it seems that commercial service providers are now beginning to recognise this.

I think this is yet more evidence that the tide is beginning to turn. The idea that someone would hand out leaflets like that would have been almost unthinkable ten years ago.

Some of my male friends have just abandoned relationships altogether, and are resigned to remaining single. These are decent guys with good jobs and money to spend. They would make ideal husbands, but they have just given up, put off by the behaviour of their female peers, verbally abusive, selfish and grasping, endlessly difficult and demanding. I find that sad. I, however, was never cut out for a life of celibacy. I am recommending all the guys I know to date foreign girls, and find out what women should be like.

This dating agency specialises in introducing British men to women from the Czech Republic. It is further evidence that my prediction will come true. Globalisation will be the death of feminism. As I have already highlighted, feminists are waking up to this as well, and are already trying to implement the kind of protectionism that any 1970s trade union would be proud of. Between IMBRA in the US, and endless lies about people-trafficking in non-existent sex-slaves, feminists are trying hard to stop Western men from meeting foreign women by rigging the market. However, the market cannot be rigged forever.

Western women have only themselves to blame if they find themselves growing old alone. Feminism has led Western women to utterly abandon their responsibilities towards men and the family. Feminists then try to blame the collapse of the family on deadbeat dads and feckless fathers (not that they approve of stereotyping, or anything). Western women now expect to have relationships entirely on their own terms. In Western culture, a man's responsibilities are still towards his wife and children - that hasn't changed. However, a woman's responsibilities are now only towards herself and other women. The feminist movement has manipulated them into thinking that if they do not treat men like slaves, then they are selling out politically, demeaning themselves and betraying the sisterhood.

So be it. My body, my choice. The personal is political. I hope your sisters will support you in your old age, but frankly I doubt it.

It is not even as if this bizarre world-view makes them happy. Precisely the opposite. When is the last time you met a happy feminist? They are deeply miserable creatures. Why would you think to date one of them? Not only are they wretched company, endlessly abusive and complaining, chronically aggrieved, interested only in themselves, but they are about as much fun in bed as a wet Sunday afternoon in Wolverhampton.

In fact that was probably the issue. Feminists know full well that they have nothing much to offer as partners, and are full of resentment. If men don’t find me attractive, that cannot possibly be my fault, it must be their fault for being stupid and narrow-minded. Or it could be because of the social construction of the beauty myth. We must forcibly re-engineer the popular understanding of beauty so that they do find me attractive (Good luck with that). In the mean-time we must break up as many other happy relationships as we can (what Valerie Solanas called ‘couple-busting’, a most female form of revenge).

It is interesting to note that marriage has actually never gone out of fashion among the upper-class and many ethnic minority communities. It is only in the indigenous British underclass that we see family breakdown, the work of left-wing activists with social work degrees, who believe that marriage and the family are oppressive to women. It is ironic that the Left has long claimed to be the champion of the working-class, and yet has, in the last forty years, done its best to utterly destroy it, by taking away the two things that it needed most: the family, and education.

Have you noticed also that getting married is perfectly acceptable as long as you are gay? Since the introduction of civil partnerships a few years ago, gay people have been flocking to get married. It is only heterosexuals who must not do it. Perhaps it was the politics of resentment yet again; if I can’t get married, then you shouldn’t be allowed to either.

Human nature will always reassert itself. Heterosexuality and the family are not about to go away. Day-by-day, the creepers gradually encroach upon the ruins of the Nazi settlement in the Amazon jungle. Those twentieth-century totalitarian programs were nothing but misguided folly. Mother Nature cannot be contradicted, and as a wise woman once said, Mother Nature is not a feminist.

Czech Female Child-Torturers Escape With Lenient Sentences

A cannibal cult mother who tortured her son in a locked cellar while relatives skinned him and forced him to eat his own flesh has been jailed for nine years.

Story here

Klara Mauerova, 31 - a member of a sinister religious cult and her sister Katerina led the sickening torture of her eight-year-old son Ondrej and his ten year-old brother Jakub.

A court in Brno in Czech Republic heard how relatives partially skinned Ondrej and forced him to eat his own flesh.

The judge also jailed Katerina, 35, for ten years for her role in the sickening abuse.

The two boys had told judges how their mother and relatives had stubbed cigarettes out on their bare skin, whipped them with belts, and tried to drown them. They were also sexually abused and forced to cut themselves with knives.

The terrified youngsters said they were kept in cages or handcuffed to tables and made to stand in their own urine for days.
The sick abuse was discovered when a neighbour installed a TV baby monitor to keep watch on his new daughter.

But it picked up the signal from an identical monitor next door showing one of the victims beaten, naked and chained in a cellar.

Mauerova had installed it so she could gloat over her victims' suffering from the comfort of her kitchen.


Nine years? Is that a joke? No. It's called the pussy discount.

It is interesting to compare this case with that of the Austrian Josef Fritzl. It is unthinkable that Fritzl will ever be released from prison. Yet the Mauerova sisters' crimes were arguably worse. The abuse did not continue for as long, but it seems to have been vastly more violent and sadistic. Fritzl did not skin his own children alive and force them to eat their own flesh. Crimes do not really come any worse than that. But look at the sentence. Nine years.

The other interesting thing to notice is that women like this operate in small groups, egging each other on, covering each other's stories. Men like Fritzl tend to work alone.

The most interesting thing of all to notice is the difference in the level of press coverage given to the cases. Where is the Guardian'coverage? Where is the BBC's? I haven't been able to find any. There is something to be said for the tabloids. They do not subject themselves to ideological censorship in this way. Ironically, these politically-corrected news sources regard themselves as 'liberal'. In fact, they are the least liberal news sources we have.

I suppose we should be grateful that these women are in prison at all. If certain British feminists had their way, there would not be any women's prisons at all.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Counting the Days

The current Labour government is easily the most authoritarian, ideologically-driven government that this country has had since World War 2.

I voted for Blair in 1997, and was delighted when he won. My first doubts began to creep in when he introduced tuition fees for students. I came from a poor background, and I was only able to go to university because it was free. My parents could never have afforded to pay for my tuition. I was amazed and disgusted that the Labour Party, of all parties, had struck such a serious blow to social mobility in this country.

The second major disappointment was Jack Straw’s decision to allow Disgusto Pinochet to escape justice on the grounds that the poor old soul was feeling ill.

Then came the coup de grace. In 2003, Blair scampered after the Bush junta into two illegal invasions of sovereign countries in the middle-east, supposedly in response to the highly dubious events of 9/11, even though none of the supposed hijackers came from those countries. You do not have to be a supporter of the thug Saddam, or a crazy conspiracy theorist, to feel that this whole episode and its precursor events - the 2000 US election (remember hanging chads?), the death of Dr David Kelly - stink very badly indeed. To most European noses, it is probably the worst stink since Hitler. New Labour however, was prepared to lie to the British people in order to cosy up to the US neo-con fanatics, whom Bush Snr once labeled ‘crazies’. Then came a shop of horrors that we would never have expected to see coming from America of all places: extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, out-sourced torture.

The main consequence for us was that the country became a target for terrorists. London was attacked on 7/7/2005. The result was a progressive increase in draconian legislation designed to limit civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Detention without trial. Comprehensive surveillance of individuals (Hello GCHQ officers)

These policies have not even been pursued competently. Having gathered all this information about us, the government cannot even keep it safe. On successive occasions it has ‘lost’ disks or laptops containing huge amounts of sensitive information. New Labour seems to become ever more authoritarian in response to its own stupidity. Let’s not forget the accidental police shooting of an innocent Brazilian electrician.

The British Left’s response to all of this was to make common cause with Islamo-fascists. George Galloway’s Respect Party was an unholy alliance of hard-left socialists and Islamic fundamentalists.

At the same time that the government has been dabbling oafishly with Fascism Lite, a parallel attack on men and the family has been relentlessly pursued. Removing any mention of marriage from government forms. Rigging the tax and benefit system to encourage couples to separate. Allowing employers to discriminate against white men.

Hardly a week goes by without another insane-sounding proposal designed to undermine men and families, and to distort the justice system to such an extent that it can no longer be described as being anything to do with justice.

Closing down all women’s prisons.

Altering the laws on murder to allow women to murder their husbands and get away with it, but not vice versa.

Allowing female staff to know how much their male colleagues are earning, but not vice versa.

Some of these things have come to pass, and some are proposals which will never make it into law.

At the same time Labour has presided over significant levels of corruption. Apart from the cash-for-honours scandal, there has also been attempted election-rigging.

Labour attempted to fix the election at Blanau-Gwent, Labour’s safest Welsh seat, by forcing an all-woman short-list on to the constituency, effectively sacking the sitting MP, Peter Law, for no reason other than that he is a white man. The good people of Wales however, are made of sterner stuff than that. Law stood as an independent, and the voters returned him to office. Labour lost its safest seat in Wales. That was a slap in the face for Harriet Harperson, but not nearly a hard enough one.

Law enforcement – such as it is - is being directed towards salving the ideologically-driven neuroses of Labour women and their radical feminist patrons. The ridiculous police raids designed to rescue non-existent sex-slaves. The on-going witch-hunt against the imaginary paedophiles lurking outside every school and in every internet chat-room is another good excuse to clamp down on civil liberties and to monitor private internet use. Meanwhile, behaviors that used to be regarded as crime go unpunished.

What has come to pass is comprehensive social breakdown. After a decade and more of relentless meddling in the family, the police service and the education system, gang violence has become a routine feature of British life. Teenagers, mainly black, have been dying on British streets on a weekly basis. The black community, one of the Left’s favourite causes, blames the decline of the family and the decline of religion; two of the Left’s favourite targets. In other words, it is the feminist-dominated middle-class Left who have done this.

New Labour is possessed of a classic totalitarian mindset. The Polenta Politburo of Islington differs from the Soviet politburo only in its PR skills. We saw the same approach before in the Communist nations during the twentieth century. The Holy Book of Marx dictates that we must perform action X in order to improve society. Action X is performed, and the consequences are disastrous. Rather than questioning the ideological Holy Writ, the ill effects are blamed on counter-revolutionary wreckers and spies, and the witch-hunt begins. In our case, the scapegoats are white heterosexual men, paedophiles, terrorists, racists, sexists and homophobes, and the ‘forces of conservatism’, whatever they are.

The British Left is dying on its knees. The only thing we need to do is to ensure that it does not drag the whole country down with it. I am counting the days until Harman, Smith and the rest of them are kicked out of office.

Cameron has pledged to reinstate tax breaks for married couples, on the entirely sane grounds that all the empirical evidence shows that children do better with two parents, and that married parents are more likely to stay together. The Conservatives seem to recognize that the family is the building block of all human societies. Labour are clinging on to their pathetic and discredited neo-Marxist nonsense that the family is a sinister conspiracy designed to oppress women.

Cameron has stated that he intends to be as radical a social reformer as Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer. Let’s hope he can deliver on that. Personally, I’m prepared to give him a chance. God knows, Britain certainly needs it.

New Book recommendation: The Woman Racket.

I'm reading an excellent new book called 'The Woman Racket' by Steve Moxon.

From the jacket: "Notwithstanding its provocative title, The Woman Racket is a serious scientific investigation into one of the key myths of our age - that women are oppressed by the 'Patriarchal' traditions of Western societies. Drawing on the latest developments in evolutionary psychology, Moxon finds that the opposite is true - men, or at least the majority of low-status males - have always been the victims of deep-rooted prejudice."

"Even so, you won't find me suggesting adding men to the ever-expanding list of 'victims'. As it stands there's but a minority of people who aren't already on this list... Instead the real story of men and women is the key to tearing up the entire list and throwing it away" (p2).

"The whole edifice rests on a vague imagining of an overarching description of masculinity, both within and without individual men, whereby somehow women are victimised. This is the ghost in the machine of society that somehow gave rise to 'Patriarchy'. No mechanismn for this has ever been tendered, let alone tested empirically, for the reason that researchers know that nothing of the kind does or could exist" (p18).

Moxon attempts to draw out the economic and philosophical origins of the current mess in chapter 1, after which he goes on to tell the real story of men and women, based upon scientific evidence. In some ways, this is the book that I have wanted to write for years. I highly recommend it.

The Accidental Heroine

I have become something of a fan of the British TV historian Bettany Hughes.

I first came across her in a Channel 4 series called The Spartans. At one point in the series she described Spartan women’s role in the construction of Spartan militarism. Women had a powerful role in encouraging men to fight, and in publicly shaming those who did not show sufficient courage or ability. Among several examples, Hughes tells of a Spartan mother berating her son for cowardice. Standing in the middle of a crowded street, she screams at him, “What’s wrong? Do you want to crawl back inside my belly?” This caught my attention for reasons I will discuss below.

Hughes has also made another excellent series called ‘The seven ages of Britain’. In one episode about Britain in the medieval period, she was discussing the influence of the church on peasant life. She visited a medieval church, whose walls are covered with murals intended to illustrate moral lessons to the illiterate population. Of all the murals in the church, she decided to focus on the one which taught the female populace not to gossip.

Her interpretation of this was an orthodox modern feminist view. With a haughty look she told us, “The church did not want women to use their visits to church as an excuse to gather together to exchange ideas, or – worst of all – to exchange gossip about their men”.

Why would men object to women gossiping about them? Because they know that it will harm them. It is intended to harm them. How dare we object to women harming us? They should have a God-given right to do that if they so wish.

I wonder how Ms Hughes would like it. If she discovered that her husband sat in the pub with his friends and discussed her shortcomings, her sexual preferences, her physical flaws, I wonder if she would feel angry about that. She would not be normal if she did not feel that her trust and privacy had been violated, and that her husband had betrayed her and harmed her socially. She would probably end the relationship, but, in a small community, her ability to form new ones might be severely damaged by his actions.

Ms Hughes thinks that women should have the right to harm men’s reputations and privacy any time they like, but not vice versa. This right of women’s, furthermore, should be utterly unassailable.

In fact, the church was aware that gossip had a corrosive effect on society generally; it was not just men who were likely to be damaged by it - this is just Hughes' modern interpretation. In reality, the church spoke out against anti-social behaviour of all kinds. Hughes mentioned in passing the church’s condemnation of young men drinking and gambling too much, but she didn’t question it. No doubt she thinks the church was right in this regard, and that male viewers everywhere should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. On the question of female anti-social behaviour on the other hand, the church should keep its mouth shut.

In another episode in the same series, she explained that in the early modern period, the criminal law in England did not apply to women. They simply could not be arrested for crimes. This was a revelation to me. It is something that feminists don’t seem to want to talk about very much. She recounts the tale of how a mob of seamen’s wives in Essex stormed aboard a foreign ship in port and overpowered its crew, safe in the knowledge that the crew was unlikely to attack them, and that the law could do nothing. She seemed to be very pleased with this exercise of girl power, but again, my ears pricked up.

Hughes seems to be a very capable historian. Looking at her website, she only really seems to be interested in writing about women. She comes across at times as a haughty feminist who is attempting to make her male audience feel ashamed, and to imbue her female viewers with a sense of gloating moral superiority. The history documentary as revolution.

Why do I describe myself as a fan? Well, her work is undeniably interesting, but more curious than that, if she is a feminist, then she seems deeply naive; she obviously hasn’t thought through the ideological significance of what she says. The kind of evidence that she is presenting openly contradicts much of orthodox feminist dogma, and she doesn’t seem to have realized that.

The standard feminist line on war, for example, is that war is one of the bad things that men do to women. Women are the principal victims of war. Wars only happen because men like fighting. War is an essentially male institution, which women want nothing to do with, have no part in, but merely suffer from. Here is Hughes presenting evidence that from ancient times, women were up to their necks in the incitement of organized male violence. In fact, women’s role in the incitement of male violence should not come as a surprise to anyone; it just seems surprising because feminists have been denying it for the last forty years. Indeed, it has never ceased, and continued right through both world wars, most notably with the Order of the White Feather in World War I.

Similarly, the standard feminist account of women’s position under the law is that they were systematically disadvantaged, and only disadvantaged. Yet Hughes reveals that English women were completely exempt from criminal responsibility. As a feminist, how can she explain this?

Hughes seems to have inadvertently let the mask slip in a cheap attempt to emotionally manipulate her audience. I however, do not sit on my sofa cringing in shame; instead I recognize her as a useful source in the (actually pathetically easy) attempt to debunk feminist mythology.

The world simply is not the way that feminists say it is, and what is more, it just never has been. Hughes’ documentaries provide valuable evidence which backs up this contention.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Male Dissent at the BBC

BBC news anchorman Jeremy Paxman is the latest to criticise the BBC for an increasing anti-male bias.

White middle-class men face discrimination at women-dominated BBC, says Jeremy Paxman
“White middle-class men are the most discriminated against group in television, Jeremy Paxman has claimed. The Newsnight presenter, 58, pointed to a string of women senior executives as evidence of their growing dominance in the industry.

And he even said he had advised white middle-class men not to bother going into TV because they have little chance of succeeding. 'Do I think it is a man's world? That is the most ridiculous question I have been asked all week.'

He then listed several women in senior positions, including BBC Vision director Jana Bennett and BBC1 Controller Jay Hunt, adding: 'Is this evidence of some male conspiracy keeping women down?' “


A string of high-profile male personalities has made the same complaint in recent years.

The BBC is being ruined by women, says leading astronomer Patrick Moore
Sir Patrick, 84, was asked by the Radio Times if television had got better or worse during a career spanning the medium’s life. The answer was worse – “much worse”. He said: “The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn’t have had that in the golden days.”

Former director general blames BBC women for 'dumb' shows
Former BBC director general Alasdair Milne has accused the corporation of producing "terrible" programmes and blamed the domination of female executives for too many "dumb, dumb, dumb" cookery and gardening shows.

"I have nothing against women - I've worked with them all my life. It just seems to me that the television service has largely been run by women for the last four to five years and they don't seem to have done a great job of work," Mr Milne told the Times.

The former director general, who ran the BBC between 1982 and 1987 during a turbulent series of clashes with Margaret Thatcher's government, claimed that a phalanx of senior female executives at the corporation had led to a decline in standards and an increasing reliance on "dumb" lifestyle and makeover shows.

Mr Milne, 74, said he had shared his concerns with BBC chairman Michael Grade at a recent lunch. "I told him I thought the programmes were terrible," he said.


It's a woman's world, moans Michael Buerk
Newsreader Michael Buerk has said "almost all the big jobs in broadcasting are held by women" who "decide what we see and hear".

The former Nine O'Clock News presenter told the Radio Times: "Life is lived in accordance with women's rules" and men are now merely "sperm donors".

Buerk added that it was time for society to admit there was a problem.


Comedian Rik Mayall made the same complaint several years ago.
It seems to me that there is obviously something in this. The BBC, which as a state-owned broadcaster is essentially a branch of the government, is scrupulously politically correct, and espouses that liberal-Left middle-class agenda. There seems little doubt that it has made efforts to promote women into senior positions over men. Furthermore, as the likes of Neil Lyndon and Erin Pizzey have commented, feminists in the early 1970s set themselves the task of 'taking over the BBC', which they did very effectively.

There is no question that dumbing down has followed. Can anyone name one current serious BBC science program? In the 1970s, Horizon was the science flagship of British television, and other great documentaries such as David Attenborough's Life on Earth were produced at that time. It is also worth mentioning Granada's multi award-winning 'The World at War' from 1973, all the more remarkable because it was made by a private company. Nothing of that quality is made any more. BBC TV now consists of dumbed-down news, soap operas and lifestyle shows about fashion, cooking and gardening, all of which reflect narrow, superficial female interests.

I hope that leading male TV personalities continue to speak out.

Thursday, August 07, 2008

XKCD: Excellent Website

I loved this cartoon. Just had to share it with you.

Official Duplicity over War Awards

Twenty thousand surviving “Land Girls”, the women who toiled on the Home Front to provide food and timber for Britain in the Second World War, are to be honoured officially for the first time.
After a long campaign by the Women’s Land Army and Women’s Timber Corps, the Government announced yesterday that their wartime efforts would be recognised with the presentation of a special badge commemorating their service that can be worn on Remembrance Sunday and at other ceremonies.

At their peak in 1943, the Land Girls numbered about 80,000, and the Timber Corps, whose members were known as “Lumber Jills”, about 4,000.

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, who made the announcement, said that the women “worked tirelessly for the benefit of their nation” and deserved to be recognised.
Reference

More than 60 years after the end of the Second World War, there is a growing call for a special campaign medal for Bomber Command: for the 30,000 pilots and aircrew - and more than that number of ground crew - who are still alive; together with the next of kin of those who were killed in action during the war, or have since died.

The scale of the achievement of these brave men was expressed, in 1945, by Winston Churchill, when he wrote to Sir Arthur Harris, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Bomber Command: "All your operations were planned with great care and skill. They were executed in the face of desperate opposition and appalling hazards, they made a decisive contribution to Germany's final defeat.

Harris was made a Marshal of the Royal Air Force. His 125,000 aircrew (Harris called them his "old lags") still await a campaign medal for outstanding bravery, where the chances of survival were about one in two.

Harris also wanted recognition for the untiring, 24-hour service by the ground crews, who kept the aircraft fit to fly in difficult and dangerous weather and operational conditions: among them, the airfield drivers, mechanics and armourers. The time has surely come for a campaign medal - and also for a monument in London to these brave men.
Reference

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Why I Stopped Reading the Guardian

I just wanted to point out this article to you, in case you haven't come across it.

Why I Hate Men, by Julie Bindel

There are a couple of good responses to it, here and here.

She hates men, so she tells us, because we are violent towards women, and she cares deeply about the welfare of all of her 'sisters'.

What I have absolutely no intention of doing in response to this poisonous libel is to meekly explain that I am not violent towards women, and that although some men are sometimes violent, I do not condone blah blah blah...

I will not fall into that rhetorical trap. Articles like this are nothing more than fascist hate-speech. Can you imagine the reaction if the Guardian published an article called "Why I hate blacks: At least those who perpetrate crimes against whites and those who do nothing to stop it." Such an article would be rightly regarded as neo-fascist propaganda. The fact that the Guardian publishes this material demonstrates just how bankrupt the political Left has become. When this counts as liberal and progressive discourse, we are really in trouble as a society.

Like other forms of fascism, radical feminism tries to unite a client population (in this case women) under a totalitarian leadership (Bindel and her mentally-disturbed sisters) by trying to convince them that they are under threat from a common enemy, and that they must unite in mutual self-defence. Although she has changed the names, Bindel's rhetoric is literally the rhetoric of Hitler. The parallels are striking.

The Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s was one of the most liberal, democratic societies in history. Within this society the Nazi party arose. The Nazis appropriated German identity for themselves; they claimed to speak on behalf of all Germans. The Nazis regarded themselves, and therefore all Germans, as victims of an international conspiracy by Jews and Communists. Hitler called for bold action. The embattled Germans must rise up against the common oppressor and defend themselves. The newspapers of the time were full of anti-Jewish propaganda, inciting hatred against the target group. Once a climate of hatred and suspicion had been successfully established, a legal process began whereby Jews were systematically stripped of their rights. Few objected to this because the propaganda campaign had been so effective, and the Nazis' claims were protected by a reign of terror: anyone who opposed Hitler was eliminated. Violent attacks against Jews began, and were tacitly encouraged by the leadership. The Nazi ideology resulted, to cut a long story short, in the total destruction of German society.

Hitler thought that he was being forced to defend himself in a race war. In reality, he was the only one fighting it. Real conspiracies often emerge as a defence against imagined ones. The same is true of the feminist movement.

Bindel and her ilk are among the most privileged human beings in history, leading lives longer, healthier and safer than those of any Roman Emperor. But they think that they are being persecuted. Just look at any radical feminist text, such as Susan Faludi's "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women"

The media and popular culture have been full of rampant anti-male propaganda for decades. The legal rights of men are being systematically dismantled. This is being done deliberately. Anyone who opposes this process is condemned as a misogynist and socially marginalised.

Feminism is a paranoid conspiracy theory. It is a fascist conspiracy, because it targets a biologically defined group, and it maintains its rule by means of intimidation.

There simply is no such 'war against women'. However, as with the German case, the 'defensive' counter-conspiracy is real enough. As Christina Hoff Sommers stated "Insofar as there is any gender war going on, feminists are the ones fighting it themselves".

The claims that fascists make are intended to instill fear into the population, and do not stand up to any rational strutiny. I hardly need to to point out that men are far more likely than women to be victims of violence, or that women are also capable of violence. This week's Ministry of Justice report, quietly leaked onto the internet when they thought no-one was looking, demonstrates that violence is now the most common category of crime committed by women. Fascists like to cherry-pick their evidence to match their prejudices.

There is no doubt that Bindel is a mentally-disturbed extremist, and is a neo-fascist by any meaningful definition. People like her do what they do partly as a result of their personal neuroses. Dale O'Leary and others have pointed out that radical lesbian feminists often harbour deep resentment against their fathers. They also do it to impress the girls. Bindel swaggers in the Guardian, the big swinging dick in the jungle. It is not about rescuing women from danger at all, for there simply is none to speak of. It is about personal self-aggrandisement and eliminating competition for mates.

We are already seeing widespread social breakdown in Britain as a direct result of this poisonous ideology. This war will not be so dramatic; what we have now is a kinder, gentler fascism. Instead of Jews being stripped of their rights and businesses, we see men being stripped of their rights, property and children. The effects are more subtle, more low-key. Instead of getting a chunk of shrapnel in your chest, you will get a hoodie's blade. The long-term effects will be the same. The kind of radical feminism espoused by Bindel is long-term cultural suicide.

Bindel enjoys the confidence of Harriet Harman, who in effect rules the country while Brown is on holiday. Many of Harman's insane-sounding anti-male reforms come from Bindel and her politburo. Brown's leadership is now in question. Harman seeks to replace him. If that happens, then Bindel will be the power behind the throne.

Be scared. Be very scared.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

Joan Bakewell: The Thinking Woman's Nazi

We are seeing a different side to Joan Bakewell these days.

She is an elderly British TV presenter with a reputation for being intellectual, which back in the 1970s earned her the nickname “the thinking man’s crumpet”. ‘Crumpet’ is archaic British slang roughly equivalent to the American ‘tail’ or ‘pussy’. It was literally true, as for years she was the lover of the playwright Harold Pinter, even though she was supposedly married at the time. None of this stopped her presenting the highly moral religious BBC documentary series ‘Heart of the Matter’.

She seems to be engaged in a one-woman media crusade to abolish women’s prisons. Take this article from 2006: Joan Bakewell: How to solve the prisons crisis: free all the women

“I refer…to the long-foreseen crisis in prisons…and the howls of alarm from all those forces and individuals who have the solution at their fingertips.
It is quite simply this. Let the women go! The Government should close women's prisons down, forthwith. They could then use the buildings to house the male prisoners”


The fact that such an idea can even be met with serious consideration shows just how far the rot has set in. And what rot it is. Can you imagine the reaction if a British national newspaper published an article entitled “How to solve the prisons crisis: Release all the whites to make more room for blacks”? Yet that is exactly the Nazi logic that Bakewell is offering.

“all research by penal reformers tends to the view that it is totally inappropriate to slam women when other ways of dealing with them help avoid their re-offending.”

All the ‘evidence’ and ‘advisory papers’ to which Bakewell refers are works of radical feminist lobbying. The Fawcett Society, chaired by one Catherine Rake, a lesbian feminist who collaborates with the American gender-fascist Mary Daly.

The Howard League for Prison Reform, a once-respectable organization, founded in the Eighteenth Century by the Christian reformer John Howard. Nowadays, it is led by one Frances Crook, another feminist.

The Prison Reform Trust, led by Juliet Lyon.

That is who is heading up your prison reform charities. Where are all the men?
Given Bakewell’s claim that “Crime is one human activity where there is a clear difference between men and women”, one can ask how, then, can a woman be expected to understand the predicament of the male prisoner? Given that the vast majority of prisoners are male, shouldn’t the Howard League rightfully be headed by a man?

And what do all these female prison reformers want to do? Why, they want to reform prison life for women. Or more specifically, just open the gates and let them all out. We have to ask ourselves, is that really what prison reform is all about? Are we really getting value for money out of these people? Male prisoners certainly are not.

Yet after years of concerted lobbying by radical feminist groups, the Labour government apparently considered letting them have their way.

“After six young women committed suicide within one year at just one prison, Styal in Cheshire, they [the government] were forced to take notice. Following a Fawcett Society report in April about the very same subject, the matter could be delayed no longer. Earlier this year Baroness Corston was asked to conduct a review of vulnerable women in the criminal justice system.”

There was clearly a management issue at Styal, as there is in many prisons, and elsewhere. The feminist lobby has appropriated these events in order to make radical demands that all women’s prisons should be closed down ‘forthwith’. A little drastic, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps a change of governor and some staff training would be a more reasonable response?

Let’s examine this claim about prison suicide.

The Howard League for Prison Reform’s very own website states the following:

“In 2005 there were 78 suicides in prison. This included four women and 12 prisoners under 21 years old. The proportion of suicides by black and minority ethnic prisoners has risen from one in ten of all prison suicides in the last five years to over one in five during 2005.“

Four women? So in other words, seventy-four men committed suicide in UK prisons in 2005. One in Five? So in other words, eighty per cent of prison suicides were white. White men, in fact, are mainly the ones who commit suicide. Bakewell and her cronies don’t seem to be terribly concerned about that, do they? Surely, if preventing suicide is her aim, we should close down men’s prisons instead of women’s?

But humanitarianism is not the intention here. Prison reform is being used as another weapon in the ongoing cultural war against men that is being waged by the feminist movement.

However, it all came to naught.

Plan to shut women's jails is shelved
"Radical proposals to close all 13 women's jails in England and Wales and replace them with small house units holding up to 20 offenders were today rejected by the Government.

Today's announcement is a bitter blow to penal reform groups who had put their trust in key female members of the Government (my emphasis).

Instead the Ministry of Justice highlighted initiatives to support women including pilot projects in five jails in which a new search technique is being used which does not require them to remove their underwear."


If we wish to make the experience of body searches less humiliating for women prisoners, it might be an idea to purge the prison staff of predatory lesbians. Body searches are humiliating for male prisoners too, but hey, who cares?

“Baroness Corston proposed closing women’s jails and replacing them with a network of small units located in city centres and run by families of women” (my emphasis).

Families of women? What exactly does that mean? It sounds like the kind of dyke mafia that runs the women’s domestic violence shelters in Canada.

I thought feminists were opposed to the family. It seems that they are just opposed to a biologically-related family that includes men.

“but even as her report was published last year Ministry of Justice sources made clear there was no money to implement such an ambitious and controversial proposal.”

So it was never a serious prospect in the first place. Just a PR effort by the feminist lobby, to sow the seeds of an idea.

This week, Bakewell was seething because she didn’t get her own way.

Prison - a cruel and unusual punishment for a woman
Jailing mothers for trivial offences is harsh on them and their children. But the Government has lost its nerve on reform

But the Government has now rejected its central proposal and an important social gain been scuppered either by lack of money or out of fear of an uproar from the right-wing press.


Oh those pesky right-wingers! How dare they oppose the authoritarian Left!

Get this: “Prison is certainly not one of the places where women aspire to equal treatment.”

Equality under the law means exactly that. You cannot pick and choose.

Her case is remarkable. She cites the following raft of problems suffered by women prisoners:


  • Prison is hard for women.
    Isn’t that the idea? It is supposed to be a punishment, not a holiday camp. It is hard for men too, but like I say, who gives a toss?

  • Women prisoners commit suicide.
    Four as opposed to seventy –four. Boo Hoo. Any suicide is a tragedy, but the fact is that men – whether in prison or not – are vastly more likely than women to commit suicide.

  • Women prisoners re-offend.
    So do male ones, but the solution is not to abolish prisons. If we just abolish the law altogether, then no-one will commit any more offences. Recidivism solved. That is more or less what is being advocated. If you don’t put women in prison, then they won’t be able to go back a second time. The same logic, if I can call it that, applies to men.

  • Women prisoners use drugs.
    So do male ones. And they all use drugs on the outside as well, hence the body searches.

  • Women miss their families.
    Male ones don’t of course. But it is somehow worse for women. Even though men and women are equal. Except when in prison, then they are different.


All of the problems she mentions apply to male prisoners as well as female ones. Male prisoners are vastly more numerous. But they deserve it because they are bad.

I’m surprised to hear such a pitifully incoherent case from someone like Bakewell. Maybe she is losing it. Maybe she is in fact ‘the unthinking woman’s crumpet’.

Like Germaine Greer in the article I covered a couple of weeks ago, Bakewell has, in her old age, rejected the sexual abandon of the 1960s in favour of a dewy-eyed romanticism about the family.

The family is central to women’s world view and their lives revolve round it. Men of course, couldn’t care less about their families.

Bakewell’s generation of 1960s feminists have striven for forty years to destroy marriage and the family. The result is fatherless children stabbing and shooting each other on the streets of London on a weekly basis. Now, in her dotage, she seeks to defend the family.

Her autobiography The Centre of the Bed, concentrates on her experiences as a woman in a the male dominated media industries, but now she admits that women are weaker than men. The poor little lambs shouldn’t go to prison because it upsets them. They pine for their families.

It is important to expose the feminist myth that innocent women languish in prison for not paying their TV license. I occasionally provide samples of stories about women offenders, like this recent one. These stories are rarely covered in the so-called liberal media like the Guardian and the BBC, but the tabloids and the Right-wing press have no such qualms. But yesterday, the truth was out, despite the government's best efforts to hide it:

"Last year 87,200 women and girls were arrested for attacks – the equivalent of 240 every day. It is the first time in history that violence has been the most common crime among women and girls, taking over from theft.

The category includes every violent offence from street brawls and assault to grievous bodily harm and murder.

The Ministry of Justice report, released quietly on to the internet yesterday after MPs had left for the summer recess, also includes alarming figures on the scale of violence by children. "
(my emphasis)

Make no mistake, women commit violent offences. The call to close down women's prisons is nothing short of a fascist attempt to turn men into a legal underclass.

The fact is, prison doesn’t work for anybody. But as the old saying goes “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Why does Harriet Harman hate marriage?

An excellent article by Leo McKinstry:

Political ideologues live in a permanent state of denial, refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts them. A classic example of this pattern lies in family policy.

For decades, feminist zealots have told us that family structure is irrelevant, fathers are unnecessary for child-rearing and marriage is outdated.

These views have had a disastrous influence, encouraging the state to preside over the breakdown in the traditional family. The results are everywhere - in crime, in benefits dependency, poverty and the rising costs to public services.

Yet, amid all this wreckage, hardliners still cling to their dogma. And none is more hardline than the High Priestess of British Feminism, Harriet Harman.

In an extraordinary interview published yesterday, she declared marriage was 'irrelevant' to public policy and described high rates of separation as a 'positive development', as it reflected 'greater choice' for couples - never mind the children.

Watch a Movie: 'A Father's Rights'

A new movie, 'A father's Rights', directed by William Fain, was brought to my attention.

"A Father’s Rights" is hard hitting, factual, and potentially embarrassing to some in high places. It is meant to expose the system that treats children differently across the U.S. and the world: a system that needs to change. This movie was made to bring attention to and educate the public about a corrupt system that is not taking care of the future: making sure children are well taken care of.

Watch the trailer

View the whole movie online right now.

I recommend you get everyone you know to watch this excellent movie, based on a true story.

Monday, July 07, 2008

Another PC Gem

This story was so funny, I just had to share it with you. I laughed until I had tears in my eyes.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

What is to be done?

In a city which has now grown used to hearing of fatal stabbings and gang violence on an almost daily basis, this case stands out above the others for its savage ferocity. Yesterday in South London, two French students were tied up, tortured and killed in their own home, before having their bodies and apartment set on fire to destroy the evidence. For some reason I find this case particularly depressing. The situation just seems to get progressively worse.

This week, Britain's most senior female police officer stated that gang life is replacing family life in the UK.

'Barbara Wilding, the Chief Constable of South Wales, said:“In many of our larger cities, in areas of extreme deprivation, there are almost feral groups of very angry young people.

“Many have experienced family breakdown, and in place of parental and family role models, the gang culture is now established. Tribal loyalty has replaced family loyalty and gang culture based on violence and drugs is a way of life.” Disaffected young people were also a prime target for terrorist recruiters, she said.'
Reference

Of course she is right, and many people are starting to take this view. We have the feminist movement and the 1968 generation to thank for this catastrophic social breakdown. We can now also add encouraging terrorism to the feminist movement's list of social evils.

For four decades, the feminist-led anti-family movement has been on a rampage of social and cultural vandalism. They have set themselves the task of destroying marriage and the family, tearing fathers away from children, and driving men to the margins of society. All the evidence shows that fatherlessness is the single greatest indicator of delinquency and educational failure. Those two innocent French students have reaped what the feminist movement sowed.

The tragedy is that it will probably take as long to repair the damage to society as it took to create it, even if we start now. But we are very far from even starting, and we will not even begin as long as Labour remains in power. The public political agenda in Britain reflects the neuroses of the white middle-class women who now run the country. In their talcum powder tyranny, Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman passionately pursue the post-1968 anti-family agenda, while abolishing basic principles of justice.

The concept of habeus corpus, enshrined eight hundred years ago in Magna Carta, was abolished this year by Ms. Smith. The police can now hold you without charge for up to 42 days. Our own little Guantanamo Bay in every provincial town.

The basic rules of evidence and the onus of proof are being threatened in an effort to bang up more innocent men on trumped-up charges of rape, while the clear scientific evidence that false accusations are rampant is studiously ignored, because it is not politically correct. This is being done to satisfy the demands of the radical feminist lobby groups who have the ear of the Labour wimin.

The police spend their time trying to rescue non-existent slave-prostitutes, just as they spent the 1990s pursuing non-existent devil-worshipping paedophiles.

It is easy to guess the kind of crime that haunts the dreams of Labour women, if not the actual streets.

The streets, in reality, are haunted by urban gangs, mainly black, who tool themselves up with knives and guns for personal protection against other gangs. Why do they do that? As Chief Constable Wilding was not the first to identify, the gang is a substitute family. The knife-wielding hoodie is the bastard offspring of Germaine Greer.

Since the feminist-led Left systematically dismantled the family, and robbed them of their fathers and a decent education, youths are left dangerously exposed, without guidance or direction. They gang together for mutual protection. In the social and moral vacuum which the feminist movement has created, the armed gang, the most basic of all non-familial social groupings, is the inevitable result.

Where do we go from here? How do we stop the killing and the torture on the streets of one of the world's richest countries? In the short term it seems that only some kind of authoritarian crackdown will make a difference, and I find myself thinking "So be it".

The sister of murdered teenager Ben Kinsella today called for the reintroduction of national service to combat knife crime. Former EastEnders' actress Brooke, 24, said violent boys should be made to channel their aggression productively in the armed forces because current measures such as weapon amnesties were not tough enough. Reference

Maybe she has a point. But it should not just be boys. Despite the sexist prejudice perpetrated by the feminist movement, girls are also deeply involved in this wave of gang violence. Check out this, Or this. Or this. Or these.

What does the Labour government have to say about female crime? Close down women's prisons. What does the feminist movement have to say about gang violence? It's boys' own fault for being born male.

All of these events throw into sharp relief the fact that feminists are not concerned - are unable to be concerned - with anything except their own narrow self-interest.

Putting hoodies in the Army would be a partial solution in the short-term, although the Army doesn't particularly want them. Apart from that, we need to expose the feminist agenda for the socially catastrophic hate-movement that it is, and purge its devotees from the civil service, eduction, media and charity sectors. We should maybe pass a law against incitement to sexual hatred. We could put Greer and the other feminist crones on trial for crimes against humanity while we are at it.

We need to provide incentives, both financial and cultural, to encourage the return of marriage and the family, tried and tested institutions which continue to work perfectly well in most other countries. Perhaps then we can start to see a return to common sense. But it will take decades. For those of us who can, it is probably easier just to emigrate.

Women Offenders: A Recent Sample

Here is a short selection of recent crime stories featuring female offenders. All of these stories were in the press in the last month. These contain the most serious crimes imaginable: child rape, torture, extortion, gang-related murder, serial killing, cannibalism, it's all there. Yet I don't recall seeing these stories on the BBC or in the Guardian. The politically-corrected 'liberal' press censors itself very heavily. It doesn't want the public to think that women commit crimes. That is why it is important for us to highlight these stories.

Remember Josef Fritzl keeping his daughter in a cellar? In the nearby Czech republic, some women were holding boys in a cellar, torturing, killing and eating them (See below). Where was that on the mainstream media?

Young woman stabbed to death by female attacker
A woman has been stabbed to death by a female attacker in London in the latest stabbing to hit the capital. Dee Willis, 28, was stabbed in her upper body during the attack at around 11pm last night in south east London. She was taken to hospital but died shortly after midnight. A gang of up to 20 girls was seen in the area around the time of the attack, according to one eyewitness."

Female teacher admits sex with underage student
A former teacher has pleaded guilty to fleeing to Mexico with a 13-year-old student so she could have sex with him. The deal 26-year-old Kelsey Peterson struck with prosecutors means she'll likely face nearly six years in federal prison.
She pleaded guilty Wednesday to a reduced charge of transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.

Woman 'murdered mother-to-be and cut her full-term baby alive from her womb'
A crazed American woman cut open the womb of a pregnant mother to steal her baby and later tried to claim it was her own. Sisouvanh Synhavong, 23, bound and gagged her victim before using a craft knife to slice open her stomach. Araceli Camacho Gomez, who was two weeks away from giving birth, died from loss of blood after the gruesome attack. She was also stabbed multiple times in the chest.

Woman gets probation in underage sex case
A 39-year-old Louisville woman who had two children with an underage boy was sentenced this morning to 20 of years probation and ordered to not have any contact with her children until she successfully completes sex offender treatment. "I don't think there's any question that (if the gender roles were reversed) we'd be talking about a prison sentence here," said prosecutor Amy Okubo, who had argued for a tougher sentence

Mother jailed for 12 years after leaving her daughter, three, to starve to death.
The mother of a three-year-old girl who starved to death showed more concern for the family's pet dog. Tiffany Wright was left neglected and unloved to die alone locked in a squalid bedroom above the pub run by her mother and stepfather. Yesterday Sabrina Hirst, 22, was jailed for 12 years after admitting the manslaughter of her daughter. While Tiffany was dying upstairs, her mother was caught on CCTV in the pub expressing concern about one of her dogs not getting enough vitamins and not putting on weight."

Millionaire businesswoman gets 11 years for enslavement
A millionaire businesswoman who inflicted years of abuse on her two housekeepers held as virtual slaves in her suburban New York mansion has been jailed for 11 years. Varsha Sabhnani, 46, was convicted on 12 charges after her victims testified they were beaten with brooms and umbrellas, slashed with knives, and forced to climb stairs and take freezing showers as punishment. One victim was forced to eat dozens of chili peppers against her will, and then was forced to eat her own vomit when she could not keep the peppers down, prosecutors said.'

Female Teacher Convicted of Planting Threatening Notes Throughout School
'Susan Romanyszyn was convicted of 11 counts of leaving threatening messages in the hallways of Longstreth Elementary School in the fall, when she was a teacher there, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. In October, 15 notes including the messages "You die today," "Bomb today" and "I have a weapon and a nife," were found at the school, The Morning Call reported. In addition, a fake bomb was found in a student's desk and nails were scattered in a faculty parking lot. Romanyszyn is under house arrest at least until her sentencing in a month. The crimes carry a maximum sentence of 73 years in jail.'

Woman Gets 10 Years for Kidnapping and Torturing her ex-boss
"A 'greedy and wicked' estate agent, who hoped to pocket a fortune kidnapping and torturing her former boss, was jailed for 10 years today. Ambreen Gul, 23, was so furious when she was fired that she recruited another sacked colleague and two other thugs to make her ex-boss pay. Having lured Waqas Malik to her flat, the unsuspecting businessman was kicked, punched and pistol whipped repeatedly. During seven hours of suffering one of his captors stood on his head, while another warned he had he would never see his family again unless he raised £200,000 ransom. He was told failure would result in the executions of both himself and his 13-year-old son."

Woman who killed 2 boyfriends found guilty
A woman who claimed she was an angel sent from God to punish pedophiles was convicted Friday of murdering two boyfriends by a jury that rejected her insanity defense. Sheila LaBarre, 49, was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Czech women torture, kill and eat boys in cellar
"An eight year-old boy was skinned and his flesh fed to cannibal relatives after his mother kept him locked in a cellar, a court has heard. Evil Klara Mauerova - a member of a sinister religious cult - wept in court as she admitted torturing her son Ondrej and his ten year-old brother Jakub. The court heard how the family had sexually abused them and even made them cut themselves with knives. They said they were kept in cages or handcuffed to tables and made to stand in their own urine for days.

Ex-teacher charged in sex case; eight male victims identified

'Julie Pritchett, 34, is charged with two counts of second-degree sodomy and one count of second-degree sexual abuse in the cases of two boys under 16. The victims in the cases with which she is charged are under the age of consent.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Video: Organised Criminality in Canada's DV Industry

Everybody needs to watch this video (50 minutes).

I posted it before on Mens-Links.Net, but it is worth reminding everyone one more time.

"A mother from Ontario, Canada describes her horrifying experience residing in women’s shelters in Ontario. In the shelters where she was a resident, women were beaten, robbed, intimidated and sexually exploited. Children were exposed to violence, swearing and abuse by the women and often witnessed their mothers being abused and humiliated by shelter staff."

These shelters are funded by the taxpayer with no accountability or oversight whatsoever. Almost all the staff who work there are predatory lesbians. Most of the residents are foreign immigrants, not 'battered wives'. The 'domestic violence' industry is a scam which in places borders on organised crime.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Boycott Bookstart

Dear Bookstart,
I want to complain to you about your current television commercial. It is a cute cartoon in which a little boy and his father go on a day trip by bus. Due to the fact that the father has brought a book along, the little boy excitedly reads about space rockets. In the final scene however, the father delivers the boy back to his mother and says goodbye. The father is a non-resident parent.

This is a disagraceful message to send out, and it is completely irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with selling books, and is unnecessary. I wonder if you would care to explain why you chose to frame a book commercial in this way? Why do you hate men and families so much? It seems hypocritical that you are presenting yourselves as an organisation which is concerned about children's positive development, when you seem to be promoting fatherlessness, statistically the single biggest indicator of delinquency. It has been demonstrated that children who live with both parents enjoy much better educational outcomes. I can provide you with references supporting these claims should you be interested.

I cannot help but conclude that you have been ideologically motivated in this. I will be advocating through my various websites that your organisation is boycotted, unless you can come up with a convincing explanation.

Regards,

Heretic

Please write to Bookstart and complain.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Poverty of Feminism

I have three main objections to feminism.

1 The political territory which feminism claims to occupy is already covered by classical liberalism. We already have perfectly good theories about human rights and civil rights and political equality, and we just don't need another one. Under a liberal reading, women are no different from anybody else: there isn’t really any such thing as ‘women’s rights’, any more than ‘left-handed people’s rights’.

2 The intellectual quality of the analysis offered by feminists is desperately poor. Feminists have appropriated the domain of sexual politics for themselves. 'We are the authority on this matter', they claim, 'if you want to know about sexual politics, come to us, and we will tell you what to think. Your opinions are not welcome'. Not only is this a deeply authoritarian attitude, which should arouse our hostility in itself, but having seized power in this area, they have, from society's point of view, done a spectacularly poor job. Surely the first task of any such organisation would be to produce an analysis, a model of the task domain. Yet not only is feminism's analysis of sexual relations pathetically inadequate, it is, even worse, dangerously misleading, dogmatic, self-serving and divisive.

3 They are not fulfilling their responsibilities to society. Surely, the role of any organisation which claims to address problems in sexual politics should be, first and foremost, to act as an honest broker. Feminists should be the UN peacekeepers of the sexual landscape, the impartial police who arbitrate in disputes, who identify potential sources of conflict and pour oil on troubled waters. The primary role of any such organisation should surely be to promote harmony, good relations and communication between the sexes. Yet feminists do precisely the opposite. Far from impartial, they act only in their own narrow interests, they regard men as an enemy to be defeated, they stir up hatred and moral panic at every opportunity. They are not police but vigilantes.

Forever married to the outdated Marxist and Psychoanalytic dogmas of the late 1960s, their analysis of issues can never improve. The 1960s counter-culture produced an outlook on life which is deeply anti-social and maladjusted to say the least.

The society in which we grew up, the safest, wealthiest, healthiest and most liberal society in history, is regarded as the root of all evil in the world. The whole society in which we live, our own culture, must be completely razed to the ground. Only then can we rebuild a New Jerusalem from the ashes. To say that this is an irrational belief is putting it mildly. Revolutionary politics is misleading and pessimistic, because it teaches us that social reform is impossible. We cannot change anything unless we change everything. Yet that is the political outlook, derived from the most unsavoury role models, Marx, Lenin and Mao, that the hippies of the 1960s adopted.

Feminism is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of that totalitarian thinking. Feminists have concentrated their efforts on attacking marriage, the family, heterosexuality and men in general. The fact that they think women’s interests will be served by this indicates just how deeply deluded they are.

Coupled with this destructive and irrational hatred of one’s own culture was a peculiar narcissism. Experimentation with ‘alternative lifestyles’ was probably inevitable once a sufficiently wealthy and liberal society appeared. The data is now in, and the results are deeply unedifying. What the 1968 generation – the last surviving remnant of which is the feminist movement - gave us was widespread social collapse. Divorce, fatherlessness, family breakdown, abortion, crime, drug abuse, child neglect, sexually transmitted infections, personal heartbreak, educational failure. Single-parent households living off public funds, leading to an increase in traffic, pollution, housing shortage, taxation and the intrusive power of the State.

The feminist movement has served the short-term selfish interests of middle-class white women, but its effects on the wider society have been catastrophic. They are under the delusion that they are trying to save a misguided world from its own folly. The arrogance of this position is stunning.

There are several reasons why feminist theory is so intellectually bankrupt. One cause is an inherent left-wing distrust of the establishment. Any theorizing done by the male establishment must be rejected. Thus, science and logic cannot be pursued in any honest way. Aspects of mainstream science and philosophy will be appropriated (and then arbitrarily dropped) if they happen to suit short-term political convenience, but that is all.

The second factor is that women are very socially-focused creatures. I know from my own experience that men will discuss science, economics, history and philosophy, but women only ever talk about themselves and other people. They find men’s conversation on these subjects boring and geeky. They concern themselves with the minutiae of personal relationships, almost to the exclusion of all else. This tends to militate against any kind of large-scale theorizing, which the feminist project requires.

A second outcome from this preoccupation with social issues is a desire to fit in and be accepted. This tends to mean that women will latch onto any passing fad or trend. Most of the feminists I have known in my life are interested in every kind of mysticism from astrology to reiki to homeopathy. It’s easier and more fun than reading evolutionary psychology. With a lack of intellectual rigour and a desire to be trendy and popular, every kind of nonsense is actively embraced. This tends to make for very poor theory. Post-modernism comes to the rescue by claiming that every theory is just as good as every other, a notion as intellectually bankrupt as it is possible to get.

Thirdly, there is the dogmatic moral arrogance of feminism. Anyone who dares to ask questions is pilloried as a misogynist. This is a deliberate tactic used to suppress debate and silence criticism. Naomi Wolf recommends that dissenters should be subjected to female psycho-social violence around the middle-class dinner table. At every social gathering, the unfortunate victim will be subjected to scorn, filthy looks and verbal abuse until they cave in and stop disagreeing with feminists. This is an openly totalitarian mindset. It is the middle-class equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. This behaviour can have real and very severe consequences, including the breakup of relationships and damage to people’s mental health. For some reason, feminists seem to think that they are immune from scrutiny or criticism. Such attitudes simply cannot be accepted in a democracy.

Lastly, feminism is a modern-day religion, and its adherents act like any other religious believers. They dare not question the Holy Writ for fear of excommunication. They hold established religious ideas in sacred reverence. Anyone who does not do so is a heretic or an infidel. They create cults of personality around significant past leaders, whose wisdom cannot be questioned. This religious mindset is anathema to free intellectual enquiry, which, again, makes for very poor theory. Once a bad idea has become established, it is very difficult to displace it.

Feminists are not fulfilling their responsibilities towards the wider society because they simply do not believe that they have any; they believe only that society has responsibilities towards them. I don’t have to do anything, I’m already perfect. It is a cult mindset which strokes the ego of insecure and dysfunctional women.

It is long past the time when this bizarre cult must be openly challenged.