Glosswatch: ‘The Telegraph, the niqab and pseudo-feminism in action’

About five hours ago the feminist blogger Glosswatch – a regular contributor to the relentlessly pro-feminist New Statesman – posted the following piece:

GW moderates comments on her blog, as I do on mine. I posted a comment which she hasn’t yet been published, and she’s published later comments from other people. Since I went to a little trouble to write it, I’ll publish it here instead:

“GW, good evening. I hope this finds you well.

Given that the only form of feminism of any political consequence for the past 30 years in the UK has been gender feminism, a female supremacy movement based upon and fuelled by misandry, the idea of ‘Conservative feminism’ is truly absurd. I wish some female Conservative politicians (and numerous prominent female journalists, for that matter) would grow a backbone and publicly declare themselves what they really are, anti-feminists (or at least non-feminists). 34 years after Margaret Thatcher won the first of her three election victories, the majority of female Conservative MPs appear ideologically nearer to Harriet Harman in their public utterances. Pathetic. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. And David Cameron should be ashamed of himself for pursuing all the anti-male and pro-feminist agendas of Harriet Harman and her kind, but with yet more enthusiasm and lack of interest in meritocracy.

The idea that the Telegraph is anti-feminist is just hilarious. Very troubled to learn the paper still employs white male journalists with opinions. Shouldn’t be allowed. I can’t recall one genuinely anti-feminist piece in the paper EVER. The Times gives acres of column inches to Caitlin Moran. And as for the Independent and the Guardian

As for the general tone of your piece, I guess I could boil it down to:

As a woman, I have a right to tell men what to think, say, and do, in the area of gender politics. Men have no right to hold opinions, or voice them, in the area of gender politics.

We see the tide turning against that paradigm, because it’s based upon an age-old female sense of entitlement which men are increasingly rejecting. Why are they rejecting it? It’s simple. Men are recognising the paradigm as highly dysfunctional in the modern era as feminists – directly, or indirectly through their collaborators, notably politicians – relentlessly assault men’s and boys’ interests.

We still haven’t managed to track down even one feminist – anywhere in the world – prepared to give detailed feedback on our public consultation document. Why might that be? Is it possibly because the document outlines the many areas in which the interests of British men and/or boys are assaulted by the actions and/or inactions of the state, and feminists can’t dream up even one area where the interests of British women and/or girls are assaulted by the state? The document was recently extended to cover 20 areas, including MGM:

One final thing. Our public challenges of prominent feminists (and their collaborators) grows by the month. Not one feminist (or collaborator) has yet had the integrity to rise to the challenges, e.g. admitting to making misleading statement on the radio or TV. You must all be so proud of maintaining narratives based upon denying publicly-available evidence bases. Here’s a link to just 11 of those challenges:

Have a good evening.

Mike Buchanan


(and the women who love them)

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • I can’t post comments on Glosswatch after a discussion some time ago in which I told her I felt removal of Lads Mags from newsagents is a rather narrowminded, conservative view of sexual liberation, especially while women’s media from advertising to magazines continue to show male nudity (diet coke break anyone?).

    Glosswatch seems to me to be typical of the feminist movement – constantly looking for a crusade which she can Join to persecute or criticise men. Utterly unable to accept the concept of “equal but different” when talking about gender. This is something I subscribe to quite strongly when dealing with people. We are all equal in worth and value and are deserving of exactly the same opportunities. At the same time we all have different goals, ideal and dreams and hold different views and beliefs about the world. This concept isn’t confined merely to gender, although I think the differences between people are more pronounced when talking about gender. Age, Race, sexual orientation all have a huge impact on what makes us tick, what we enjoy and what we do not and I find it completely offensive when people try to foist their own beliefs on everyone else in an attempt to make society suit them personally, rather just letting people who are doing no harm to anyone else just get on with their lives in peace. But this is what people like Glosswatch constantly try and do. They tell us what we should do, what we should like and enjoy, how we should interact with women. They never ask us whether people want to enjoy those things or whether people want to be treated in the ways that she describes. People like that cannot just ignore behaviours they don’t like even when they have no affect on their life at all. The similarities between Feminism, a supposed liberal movement (although people such as Glosswitch do an admirable job of proving it is anything but) and any number of religions are staggering.

    • Thanks for this. Feminism is a typical left-wing ideology, presenting itself as liberal and progressive whilst being the complete opposite. Glosswatch’s pieces appear to me to be typical of those posted by feminists these days, a catalogue of asserted victimhood, women having no responsibility for themselves and anything that happens to them… a long whinefest, in the same tone as The Everyday Whining Project.

  • But the author of the article is quite correct when he says the Niqab is a demeaning garment. It demeans the women forced to wear it, or worse, convinced that they should wear it of their own free will. It also demeans men, who are being told by anyone wearing such a garment that they are not worthy to look at the woman’s face.

    Ignoring the potential ramifications of anyone wearing them and committing a crime (I would be barred entry to most businesses if I similarly obscured my face, Hoodies are banned in many shops for the same reason) obscuring your face seriously impedes your ability to communicate effectively. A simple statement such as “don’t worry, I don’t mind” loses conext if you cannot see the speaker’s face. One of the reasons that it can be so hard to convey meaning when posting written words online is because there is no body language to back up the statement – 90% of spoken communication is made by body language, facial expression and intonation. So by hiding your face you are also saying that you do not want to communicate with people.

    Niqabs shoud be frowned as much for what they say or imply about the people around the wearer than what it says about the person wearing it.