About five hours ago the feminist blogger Glosswatch – a regular contributor to the relentlessly pro-feminist New Statesman – posted the following piece:
http://glosswatch.com/2013/09/15/the-telegraph-the-niqab-and-pseudo-feminism-in-action/
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:
http://j4mb.org.uk/our-public-consultation-exercise-2/
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:
http://j4mb.org.uk/our-public-challenges-to-feminists/
Have a good evening.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
(and the women who love them)
