Feminism Increases Global Warming

I have received so many emails about the article below by Deborah Orr that I have decided to post it in full, and comment about it here on the website, rather than respond to all the different questions I have received regarding it.

But first, let me point out that this method is inherently rather unfair on Ms Orr. After all, anyone can pick off sentences from an article and make a meal out of them - especially a short article designed for a wide variety of readers.

I have tried to be as fair as I can, but, nevertheless, the cards are all stacked in my favour. 

And I'm in a bad mood.

The truth about this male crisis

Deborah Orr   The Independent

"Masculinity in crisis" is rather an hysterical call-to-arms, and the banner under which London's Royal Festival Hall is running a series of public discussions involving all manner of men, and one or two women as well. It's a term that gets people going, especially as the very idea of masculinity and crisis living in the same universe are contradictions in terms to any man wedded to the thought that his masculinity may define him.

The robustly feminist view as espoused by, among others Germaine Greer, is that masculinity jolly well ought to be in crisis, because it's such a rancid old construct anyway. The more inclusive feminist view, as explored by Susan Faludi in a recent book, is that this is a crisis which women ought to be concerning themselves with, too, and not just because it is impacting on women and children.

The masculine, as distinct from the male view, is that if there is a crisis, it's been caused by women. (If there is a 'crisis', it has been caused by lying feminists and their repulsive, but heavily influential, misandric ideology.) They have taken men's jobs, insisted they can look after themselves and their children as well, (Whereas, in fact, they clearly can't! - as is evidenced by the problems that their children are having, together with the problems that those same children are inflicting upon the nation; crime etc.) and have used up the nation's health care resources (EIGHT TIMES as much money is spent on specific women's health issues than is spent on men's. This is a fact, like it or not.)  Then they have the cheek to complain when they're 10 months pregnant and not being offered a gentlemen's seat on the train.

All this is, of course, rot. Masculine work such as ship-building or steel-working has been nicked not by women but by other men. We call it globalisation, and it is not a consequence of feminism. (Nowhere have I seen men arguing that their shipbuilding or steel-working jobs have been lost on account of feminism. NOWHERE! This is just misandric nonsense.)

Women, far from breaking ground in looking after themselves and their children, have retreated, refusing to take full responsibility for looking after other perfectly able adults (i.e. the fathers) as well as themselves and the kids. (This is repeating a feminist deceit. The idea that women alone did the raising and the 'looking after' is nonsense. For example, industrialisation forced men out of the homes to spend their days in WORK. And so they provided money. Is this not an important part of 'looking after' one's children - and one's wife? And is Deborah Orr really suggesting that women should not look after their partners?) Women patently want more help from men in raising families, not less, which is why it is so very churlish of some men to misunderstand so completely. (Many women specifically do NOT want this. Others want it only when it suits them. And, of course, women can always change their minds. They can still keep the house and the kids while getting rid of 'him', should they so desire.)

And as for women hogging all the healthcare.... Well, if masculinity is all about dying of prostate cancer because masculinity is all about never being wishy-washy enough to need to visit the doctor, then it is hardly surprising that a crisis has ensued. (This is typical feminist disparaging of the male gender. There are numerous reasons why men do not receive, or seek, more health care - and feminist histrionics and censorship can be blamed a great deal for this. For example, two months ago an article concerning men's health was pulled from a national newspaper because it might have been found offensive to some women! Further, Ms Orr conveniently forgets to mention the fact that millions upon millions of pounds has been spent by government to 'educate' women about their health and to take it seriously, and to encourage them to see their doctors regularly (e.g. Well Women Clinics). She also forgets that doctors' surgeries are packed full of leaflets concerning women's health while often having none AT ALL  pertaining to the health of men. She also forgets that there has been a continual deluge of TV programmes about women's health over the past two decades, but hardly any on men's. And she forgets that the ubiquitous feminist propaganda and the thoroughly selfish concerns of the government's Women's Unit have drowned out any health messages and funding targeted at men. And she conveniently forgets to mention that EIGHT times as much money is spent on women's health issues in the UK than is spent on men's. No mention! Finally, one only has to take a look at the current Health Pages of the GOVERNMENT-funded BBC to see how much more help is being offered to women than to men.)

As for offering seats on the train, some men are confident or thoughtful enough to do that thing, but many are simply afraid that they'll get short shrift from some scary lady. Some among those take pleasure in seeing the scary lady suffer. They are the ones who needed the disguise we called masculinity most of all, and the ones who feel the most naked and vulnerable without it. (Deborah Orr is now playing at being a 'psychologist' who can interpret why it is that men do or do not offer seats - and, again, her remarks are clearly disparaging with regard to the male gender.)

For masculinity was never much to do with being a man, any more than femininity was much to do with being a woman. (Really? And what evidence is there for this bold statement?) Each has only ever been a complementary construct for the other. With the erosion of (I'd prefer to say, 'successful feminist denigration of') traditional ideas of femininity the old ideas of masculinity have also been exposed. Traditional ideas of masculinity are as outdated as the idea that the wife should vote, not just gratefully, but also as her husband tells her. (Women have never been that interested in politics - and this is STILL the case, statistically speaking.) A masculine man was once head of his household, even though he didn't know how many sugars he took in his own tea. Which is, of course, absurd. (Not so absurd if he spent 16 hours a day down a mine for seven days a week.)

It's absurd really as well, to talk about a "crisis" in masculinity. (ABSOLUTELY!) Masculinity isn't what it used to be, that's for sure, and as an identity to hide behind it no longer works. Whether or not this amounts to a crisis depends on how willing people are to adapt. The problem, as I see it, is that men and women are both adapting like mad, but to new models that for both of them are extremely stressful.

Post-industrialisation, the middle class ideal was that a household should contain a woman working within it and a man working without it. This system, if it ever had a "golden" period, didn't last very long at all, (it lasted for quite a few centuries before!) because it was so utterly unsustainable from the female point of view (as soon as jobs became easy, and the contraceptive pill arrived). Women were over-feminised, and rebelled against their stereotypes. (But it's amazing how they resort to those very same 'feminine' stereotypes when in today's courtrooms or when playing at being 'victims'!) Men did not, on the whole, join them to question their masculinity. Which is how masculinity reached its "crisis". (Personally, I have not come across one man who appears to be having a 'crisis of masculinity'. Indeed, this whole 'crisis of masculinity' seems more of a media fabrication endorsed by the likes of an extremely wealthy happily married politically-correct media psychiatrist Anthony Clare - and who, in my view, talks rubbish for most of the time.)

Part of the trouble is that the system offers little flexibility. Women, unable to beat it, have little choice but to join it. The sensible new division of labour would have been to maintain the 40 or so hours of outside work in a week, but divided between the two adults. What has happened instead is that it has become the norm for both middle-class women and men to spend a great deal of time at work.

The financial gains that are supposedly driving this double income model, are largely spent on childcare, stuff to amuse the kids, cleaners, gardeners, having two cars (Yes, more traffic congestion, more pollution - i.e. feminism adds to global warming! You think I'm kidding. I'M NOT!) instead of the time to walk or cycle to school with the children, and so on. Not to mention the mortgage, and the fact that the more money people have, the more items will cost.

The idea of workers' solidarity is not fashionable at the moment. But the fact remains that if the will was there for everyone to insist on working fewer hours (what, by law? as in communist countries?) and spending more time with our families, then civilisation would survive and thrive under the change. But at the moment, the pressure for part-time work comes mainly from women, setting up further oppositions and competitions within the jobs market.

Men in numbers still cling to the idea that long working hours are bound up with their masculinity, even though this idea is again absurd. (Given that women still select men very much on the basis of their wealth and their power, and given that men seem quite happy to aim to achieve both of these things by working long hours in a COMPETITIVE world - especially since it also attracts the women - I am not sure where this supposed 'absurdity' lies - and neither do men see these endeavours as being particularly reflective of masculine traits! Working hard is certainly not a mark of 'masculinity' - and I've never heard a man say that it is. Again, it is only the media psychobabblers such as Anthony Clare and wishy-washy pop-psychologists and journalists who make such ridiculous and false claims about men. Men may well work harder at their jobs, but do they really work harder overall than women? You certainly won't find such a claim on this website!) Either gender can work all the hours God sends. (Exactly!) It's just that work in the home and family pays in kind not in money. Some of each is better for everyone.

And if this middle-class crisis – plenty of money but not enough time – seems destructive, the impact on lower earners is much worse. In Scotland, the number of female workers has now overtaken the number of male workers, while at the same time Scotland also boasts a high number of single-parent households headed by women, and overall lower pay.

There is evidence here that some men are opting out altogether – opting out of work and opting out of family, leaving a female-dominated workforce desperate to take jobs for which they are paid little. This speaks less of "masculinity in crisis" than of "masculinity in retreat". (Yes, men are retreating from the family. What a surprise, given that they have very little future in the family! 

But they are also being kicked out of the family - though, of course, this isn't mentioned by Deborah Orr. 

Not only are men likely to be divorced at the whim of their women - and 50% of married men are divorced - they are also likely to lose their houses and their children and face the prospects of financially funding the whole enterprise with little thanks and, unless they're rich, an utter devaluation of their entire futures. 

When it comes to the family, men are very much fourth-class citizens. 

Of course they're retreating!)

The inference could be drawn that instead of adapting, some men are withdrawing, blaming women for their troubles, and punishing women and children accordingly. Which is tragic, not just for those men, but for all of us. (Yes it is tragic. But what is conveniently forgotten by Deborah Orr is that feminism has been OPENLY aiming at achieving this 'tragic' end - men withdrawing - for three decades!)

For this is the way in which the vicious circle will continue. There had been plenty of venom spread around between the genders over the years in which feminism has fought its corner. (Pardon? Perhaps Ms Orr would like to tell us where exactly men have been allowed to fight their own corner in all of these years. In what papers? On what TV or radio programmes? Where? For thirty years the media has pumped out almost nothing but man-hating feminist propaganda and lies. Where have men been allowed the same space? Where, for example, are the government-funded 'Men's Studies' courses?) I for one have had enough of it. (Enough of it!? Goodness me. It's only just started. And you haven't seen anything yet!)

There are plenty of men who are more than willing to adapt to life in which they have the kind of relationship with their own children that they could not have imagined having with their own fathers. Likewise, there are plenty of women keen to step back from the all-encompassing model of motherhood and give fathers time to parent their children properly. (How jolly decent of them! Until they unilaterally decide otherwise, that is.)

In the past, from all sorts of branches of psychology, we have heard theories about the pernicious effects of smother love, or dominant mothers, or withholding mothers and so on. The obvious inference to be made from all these observations is that too much of the parental responsibility is falling to the mother, and not enough to the father. Now men have a real chance to redefine their up-until-now rather narrow role in life, and seize the opportunity to enjoy a more rounded maleness than masculinity ever could have offered. It would be terrible if men found there just wasn't the time to really take their chance. (And they won't find the time while the law actually disempowers and threatens them with regard to their family roles, while the law gives precedence always to the women, and while the histrionics of the feminists and the abuse industries continue to demonise the roles of men in relation to their very own children.)

What I find particularly aggravating about this article from Deborah Orr (and from nearly all other media folk who discuss these issues) is the complete failure to recognise that there has been the most MONUMENTAL, THIRTY YEAR, FEMINIST-INSPIRED onslaught against men when it comes to the family - and, indeed, with regard to their relationships with ANY children. 

It's as if feminism never existed! Or that it never had any effects!

1. There has been unrestrained hysteria over men and child abuse, with organisations such as the NSPCC fostering a complete terror of having men anywhere near children. For decades this organisation has fueled hatred of the male gender with its hysterical and scandalous behaviour. Not only has it stirred up the population, FOR YEARS, with ridiculous notions concerning 'satanic abuse' and 'recovered memories', it has bombarded the entire nation with lurid, 'abuse' advertisements to further its own ends (MOSTLY income for its cronies) at the expense of fathers and fatherhood. And, for all this time, this organisation has completely failed to notice that fathers are among the least likely to abuse their children! 

2. Three schoolteachers every week were being suspended on the basis of FALSE allegations of abuse and were ruthlessly and vindictively pursued by foolish, status-seeking social workers who ALWAYS 'believed' the children regardless even of any overwhelming contrary  evidence that was laid before them. Some of these teachers committed suicide. 95% of the allegations were false.

3. Social workers still investigate almost 1,000 INNOCENT families EVERY WEEK on the basis of information from organisations such as Childline. Not only are these investigations intrusive and alarming for those concerned, it has made many men throw in the towel completely when it comes to dealing with children. And the social workers' ridiculous beliefs in secret rituals of satanic abuse and 'recovered memories' has made men realise that, when it comes to children, they can be accused of anything, at any time, even forty years later - and without a shred of reality-based evidence standing against them!

4. A major and ubiquitous feminist-inspired piece of misandric propaganda has been that women do NOT need men in the family. 

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

And millions of women have been indoctrinated into believing this and have for years now taunted their men with the very notion of it. How much more hateful and gender- divisive can these revolting feminist women get?

Further, the lies from the feminist propaganda machine, together with its intimidation of those who dared to speak against it, even managed to cover up the appalling problems that many children faced when raised in fatherless families. 

Goodness me. Think of the enormous amount of money being spent on all those 'experts' on children - the children's charities, the teachers in the schools, the social services, the police, the sociology and social science departments, the therapists, the psychologists, the psychoanalysts, the priests, the agony aunts, the journalists. 

There are millions of these people!

And no-one f**king noticed for thirty years the massive negative consequences of fatherless not only on the children but on the whole of society!

Bullsh*t.

They noticed all right.

But they didn't dare speak. They didn't dare do the research. And the media didn't dare publicise anybody who did.

That's feminism and political correctness for you.

They are ideologies based on little more than man-hatred and lies.

And huge social and psychological structures and institutions have now been built on the falsities that these ideologies have engendered. But their pillars and their foundations are rotten through and through.

They are going to crumble.

Further, the record clearly shows that histrionic, vindictive, lying feminist groups, women's groups and political correctoids not only falsified and/or distorted the evidence that was being placed before them, it also shows how they intimidated those who dared to speak out. 

Finally, given that women are still continually being indoctrinated with the view that marriage oppresses them or disadvantages them in some way, that divorce is actually a 'route to liberation', and that the law now provides women with a one-sided contract, what is this "real chance" that, according to Deborah Orr, men now supposedly have with regard to becoming more involved with the family.

But Deborah Orr doesn't mention any of these things and so, presumably, thinks that men should be unaffected by them.

5. "The home is the most dangerous place for a woman to be." "Most women in casualty departments are there because of domestic violence in the home." These are examples of vindictive, spiteful propaganda against men that are STILL being perpetrated by leading feminists - particularly by those in the domestic violence industry, headed by the likes of Sandra Horley of Refuge. And people, including the politicians, still believe this rubbish

And anyone who has watched the domestic violence 'experts' and 'victims' ranting all afternoon on TV chat shows, constantly urging women to kick out their male partners and to phone the police even if their partners are merely shouting, can be left in no doubt that men are considered to be highly undesirable when it comes to the family and children.

And when these women's shows actually invite murderesses on to the stage to the accompanying applause of hysterical women who clearly approve of the murder of male partners, it should hardly surprise anyone to discover that men are becoming increasingly unwilling to enter the arena of marriage or its modern-day equivalent!

6. UK laws with regard to the family and sexual assault are now so perverted, corrupt and unjust that there can hardly be a man left in the country who believes that he will get fair treatment in any of his close dealings and relationships with women.

ALL the above are feminist-inspired and feminist-driven. 

The message, for thirty years, has been that men are violent and abusive to have around. Women don't need them. Children don't need them.  Men are dangerous. Men have to be disempowered. 

The government and the media have all been giving out these same repulsive feminist messages.

And they have done so by utilising a propaganda machine that not only POSITIVELY DWARFS even the one that led Germans to commit great crimes in the past, but it is also one that has had 30 long years in which to polish and promote its foul, discriminatory, man-hating messages. The whole country has been bombarded relentlessly with them.

And Deborah Orr, part of the media machine, doesn't mention any of these things!

Not one of them!

Isn't it astonishing that, in an article entitled The Truth About This Male Crisis, NOT ONCE, does Deborah Orr mention the negative impacts of feminism? 

NOT ONCE!

Feminism - one of the most influential and leading ideologies for the past thirty years - has absolutely nothing to do with any of all this!

But, No, it's not really astonishing at all. It's absolutely par for the course.

The Truth About This Male Crisis is very simply put. 

It, and just about everything else, is entirely the fault of men. And feminism has nothing to do with it!

This is what Deborah Orr's message boils down to.

But, as I keep reminding readers, men are so low in the scheme of things that, for example, when their penises are cut off, people laugh. 

This fact alone makes a thousand statements about the true status of men in this society. The hatred of men now goes very deep within people's psyches.

And perhaps Deborah Orr would do well to reflect upon this single fact, and the thousand statements that it makes, when she considers The Truth About This Male Crisis.

In summary, the feminist message for three decades (wholly endorsed by government and the media) has been that women and children do NOT need men, and that those men who do get involved with women and/or children should always be under suspicion, and that they should expect no justice at all when things go wrong or when anyone makes any sort of accusation against them. No wonder men are retreating. And no wonder many of them are saying to their women, "When it comes to the children, you deal with them."

End Bit

I like Deborah Orr, and have done for years. I read her articles in the Independent and I like them. In this article, it was the paragraph about health that happened to set me off! And, as a result of my moaning about it on this website, a few days ago, as I've mentioned, I received loads of emails concerning the article.

However, though I approve well of Deborah Orr, it still doesn't trouble me in the slightest to attack her views - even if unfairly. Doing so (and the same applies to those newspapers I attack) merely raises her profile among those who visit this website, and I am more than happy for this to occur.

And now, particularly with the internet, journalists have to remain in high profile in order to earn a good living. They have to attract attention from within an ever-widening pond of competing information and entertainment. (Just like musicians.)

Now, given that it is clearly in all our interests that our newspapers maintain an online presence, I have no problems at all with regard to creating controversies with journalists or newspapers if the result is that they receive more attention.

They thrive on it.

I want people to go to their internet pages and, if possible, to spend money through their adverts! Indeed, it would be a catastrophe in so very many ways if newspapers or journalists started pulling their pages off the web.

There is a real possibility that this will happen in the near future, unless we, the internet users, go to their sites and avail ourselves of their business offerings!

END

(Press the BACK button on your browser)