I recently started subscribing to The Spectator, a weekly publication, and always enjoy reading it, even if its grasp of gender politics is utterly woeful. Julie Burchill and Germaine Greer are among its occasional contributors, maybe there’s a connection. But I was shocked recently by a recent piece in the column penned by Charles Moore (59), a highly respected journalist and former editor of The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, and The Spectator. He’s also the official biographer of Margaret Thatcher, and the first two volumes of a projected three-volume biography have been published to well-deserved critical acclaim.
Charles Moore must surely be an exceptionally well-informed man, yet in a recent column he speculated that male circumcision might one day be refered to as ‘Male Genital Mutilation’. Along with the head of a British charity concerned with the subject, I wrote a letter to the paper. Needless to say, neither was published.
All of which brings me to The Oldie, a monthly publication. I’m not a subscriber, but I receive second-hand copies from a person living near me. The editor is Alexander Chancellor, a 76-year-old journalist. I assume he must be the person who pens the introductory “The Old Un’s Notes”. In the May edition (yes, I know, it’s still April) he has some mind-numbingly ignorant things to say about the Women’s Equality Party – here. Start at the third large red star.
I’m increasingly convinced that the paucity of mainstream media coverage of men’s issues has less to do with feminist influence in the media, and more to do with the utter lack of interest in men’s issues among men in senior positions, who are utterly blind to (and therefore disinterested in) the suffering of men and boys.
It gets worse in The Oldie. On the final page Irish journalist Mary Kenny (72) refers to the crime of paternity fraud as ‘affirmative action’ in her response to the third question, remarking that ‘the male can like it or lump it’.
The meat of your post is in your last paragraph, although your figures are incorrect. There are nearly seven million people on the planet and when over population and individual consumption on an unprecedented scale are the problems facing our sub species, a sub species in which one sex is responsible for more than two thirds of the consumption and produces all of the problematic population, the solution ought to be blindingly obvious.
Men are unlikely to ‘address their evolutionary gynocentricism’ until they see that it does them no good, and that cannot happen until men suffer for it to the extent that even the dullest man suspects some foul play somewhere. When that happens men may just start to think as a group and vote for our interests. Nothing can be done until we do.
Women also compete against other women on an individual basis in the professional world nowadays. But when it comes to men vs women, the sisters always stick up for each other. We men must remember though, that in the old days, we did not face any ( let alone unfair) competition from women in the professional world. We did not face the possibility of a divorce with the loss of children and property. We did not face endless streams of often trumped up accusations from women either. So It was only fair and natural that we treated women in a super lenient,’above the rules’ way, so to speak. Now when you look at today’s situation men live in, the conditions are just about the opposite of what they used to be. Therefore, it is imperative that we start treating women as competitors, which they are, and not the supporters, which they used to be.
Treating women the way we did 150 years ago in today’s world is sheer madness and men come out 100% losers because of it. if you own a company, and the rival company is owned by a woman, are you going to tolerate that her company is allowed to play by more lenient rules and thus beating your company, just because it is owned by a woman?
Same logic applies to your female colleague at the office. The conclusion is that if you insist on playing the gentleman in a world where women are your competitors and not your supporters, you will come out the loser 100%..
So, why do it anymore?
All the evidence adds up to humans having evolutionary proclivities which include this tendency of hierarchy in males. Of course this is a difficult area because these observable behaviours are taken by feminists to be “proof” of their contention that this results in a conspiracy of men as a whole. However if there be a “conspiracy” at all it appears to be among the powerful, which includes women too. For MHRM there is a double problem in that not only does it challenge feminism but it is also a challenge to the powerful, often men. Hence a truly up hill struggle (all there more kudos for Mike B and others for taking this on). It also means that women are crucial allies and often in the forefront. So the sistas particularly hate the many women who are in or allied to the MHRM and particularly wish to suppress issues that show men as not at all benefitting from a supposed conspiracy of a whole sex. Often the biggest losers are powerless males ; infants, children, adults (circumcision, education , glass cellar, homelessness, health etc.) and the sistas have merely harnessed the existing disregard for such males to their ends.
In a very real sense it is not only the deep animus to chivalry towards females men need to confront but also to develop at least some greater fraternity.
There really isn’t that much difference between the present and the huge campaigns of women’s clubs/groups etc. in the industrial revolution to establish a protected status for the new middle class women as uniquely virtuous and fragile alongside their powerful male relatives and husbands. Always a few dabbled in business etc. and perhaps the “dabbling” looks more like non exec. Directorships, public sector management , single person businesses and “family friendly” work patterns long after the family have grown or left. However they remain with the lofty disdain for the men (and women in fact) who work to sustain their prosperous comfortable lives and have a particular horror of those who are dirty and rough. And of course the men who “don’t commit” etc. who weaken the reality of the privileged if they don’t get up for work.
With 4 billion people our animus to protect the female at all costs is both powerful but really redundant, the tribe will not dwindle and fade if males address their evolutionary gynocentricism. But its deep and a tough job. And really useful to those who harness it for their comfort.
Yes indeed. The silver lining to the cloud of feminisation is that the failure of women to perform in roles they are not suited to will be obvious to all but the wilfully blind. Unfortunately, men will have to pay the price and make the sacrifices necessary to clear up the mess. Let us hope that they do not allow the present situation to develop again and the chivalrous impulse will come to be seen as an aberration, something to be derided rather than admired.
I am startled that such a concept has only now occurred to you Mike considering your MHRM credentials. The thought occurred to me quite a while ago, whilst I was ruminating about the almost total ambivalence of the male dominated establishment in respect of the mutilation of infant boys. What have they got to gain by protecting young boys? They are just potential future competition. Let boys know their place in the scheme of things before they even know they are born. Show them who’s in charge, just like my matriarchal grandmother did to me!
I agree that the generally competitive relationships of powerful men does mean a “devil take the hindmost” is very apparent. As is a powerful need to appear strong and protective toward women and children. Feminists have simply harnessed this to their causes (hence the need to make everything “RAPE” or “HATE”, rather than actually respond as ” a strong woman” the objective is to engage men in power to rescue). After all in reality almost all legislation, Policy and professional practices that support feminist causes had to have been enacted by men because women weren’t present in any numbers!
Paradoxically feminists, if they believed their own theory, should call out this “benign sexism” but of course they use it all the time. My hope is that younger generations of both sexes will see this so much more clearly than mine, still wedded to a protective impulse. In a way I’m pleased to see many more women in Parliament etc. because their own actions breaks the naïve belief of many men that they will be somehow nicer and more virtuous.
I have a theory on this Mike. We already know that men on average have less of an in-group bias than women. But it could be that men, especially ambitious ones, see all other men as competition so actually enjoy other men’s downfalls. Of course keeping their fingers crossed behind their backs, but after all, false accusations only generally happen to ‘other’ men. A concept of fraternity needs to be cultured, men recognised as a social group, and representation in parliament demanded.
WEP, better known to me as the Women’s Entitlement Party.
With regard to ‘the utter lack of interest in men’s issues among men in senior positions, who are utterly blind to (and therefore disinterested in) the suffering of men less privileged than themselves’ don’t forget that men in senior positions often discover they have become mysteriously attractive to women and therefore maybe hypnotised by a feminist view of the world.