Pearl Davis: The HIDDEN Meaning Of Feminism | @girlwriteswhat @AnEarforMen

Our thanks to Gerry for alerting us to a video currently streaming, Pearl Davis interviewing Paul Elam and Karen Straughan. Enjoy!

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

3 thoughts on “Pearl Davis: The HIDDEN Meaning Of Feminism | @girlwriteswhat @AnEarforMen

  1. Thanks for passing this on. I have abandoned YT for the most part and I am unlikely to have seen it without your post.
    The discussion was interesting in that I hadn’t heard from Karen in a while. Nothing new here for you or I or anyone who has followed any of this issue for 10 years or more. It’s always nice to see another person open their eyes, Pearl, but this is dialog that we’ve heard time and time again.
    What is changing is society. The growing movement of men to MGTOW (even if they have never heard of it) and the panic in the Trad and Feminist voices. It’s a wonder to hear. You and many like you should be proud of your contributions.
    Good Luck my friend.

  2. Very interesting indeed. I do think Gynocentrism is a very important tool in understanding the rapid and often enthusiastic acceptance of feminists demands really from quite early on. And these came initially from Christian women really prior to the widespread acceptance of the marxist version of feminism. So bourgeois women in religious “societies”, often wives of prominent politicians where hugely influential in laws supporting “temperance” and limiting alcohol (leading to prohibition in the USA), making men guarantors for loans, banning prostitution (including the law that got Oscar Wilde and other gay men), breech of promise, preventing women from working in heavy industry (there were in fact protests from working women about this as if your town depended on a mine or iron works where else would women work?) All playing on the gynocentric notions of protecting women and their interest (prostitution, “indecency” (gay sex) Alcohol were all seen as preventing men doing their duty to wives and children). By the end of the 19th century this had shifted as illustrated by the Pankhursts, Emerline being the protege of her ardently socialist “Red Doctor” husband (many years her senior) and Sylvia one of the daughters being a supporter of the Russian revolution and Leninist USSR. As the prosperity of the second half of the 20th Century (including “the pill”) fueled consumerism welfarism and just much longer lives the pace picked up. In all of this, as feminists point out constantly, happened when men were “in charge” in all the machinery of Governance in society. Only very recently have there been significant numbers of women “in power”. Which of course begs the question of just why did “the patriarchy” respond so quickly and completely to feminists demands, if men really did/do only act in the interests of men? Particularly as in my lifetime much of the rapid advance of feminism’s agenda has been when “conservatives” have supposedly been in charge, why would they enact so much that by the late 20th Century was explicitly from a marxist/socialist agenda?
    Gynocentrism is the factor, and here I’m most sympathetic to GirlWhitesWhat’s analysis that it is so deep rooted (therefore “invisible” ) that it must reflect some evolutionary adaptation. However I’m not so pessimistic about it changing, for instance look how quickly the deep female desire for children has been changed! At least in the younger years when it would be most possible and healthy. The very ideology of “equality” (most widely understood by people as being treated the same) exposes the gynocentric nature of so much, hence the feminists fight so hard to keep the facts of male suicide, poor education, shorter lives, poorer health, injury etc. out of public hands.
    A final point raised is the way in which advanced economies are increasingly in massive debt, precisely because of the ballooning bills for welfare and inefficient industries held back by “work life balance” all sorts of “leave” and “diversity hires” are funded by men between their late 30s and mid sixties. Giving all sorts of privileges and “free stuff” to half the population has brought us to that point that Margaret Thatcher observed “eventually you run out of other people’s money” and as we found in 2022 even our creditors are not minded to led us even more.
    A really though provoking video from the ever watchable Pearl.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.