A perceptive piece by Fidelbogen for A Voice for Men.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Fidelbogen asks “Ask yourself, where does feminism get its real muscle? ” In my answer the core is Gynocentrism. For until the end of the 1990s it was true that there were few women “in power” and the people actually enacting “feminist” ideas as legislation, policy and procedure were male, and still the majority are male. So a general deep social proclivity to protect and favor females individually and as group and shared by both sexes (and possibly all the recently invented genders) is what powers the very rapid advance to a position wherein females have “sex based rights”. The “TERF wars” clearly demonstrate this as do “family law” (where in Australia a equal legal right was abolished). The claims to this position of “sex based” rights being boosted by claims they are needed for the “safety” of women with an explicit statement that even eunuchs are inherently likely to pose a threat to females. As Fidelbogen points out the idea of “equality” can be rather elastic, but feminists almost always base their arguments in the idea that females are under threat from males and consequently require all manner of advantages and privileges as protection and further more also need males to have their rights curtailed and harsh punishments delivered as preventatives to the ways they otherwise would endanger females. Thus, generally, in a gynocentric society it is axiomatic that everyone should do everything and anything that appears to protect females. Feminists have simply monopolized the description of the threats (down to “staring” and “unwanted compliments”) and remedies (for instance “go” orders based on no actual evidence).
So of course any hint of “supremacy” has to be hidden as the muscle is based on the “vulnerability” of females (and the invulnerability and frequent malevolence of males). Thus the claims for “strong women” are always they are “amazing” because its so hard to imagine rather as Dr. Johnson observed “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog‘s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” Having just read a medieval epic poem (Roland) and studied the female obsession with implementing bans on Alcohol in the 19th Century, it seems clear this gynocentric impuse was equally present in knightly chivalry and the religious revival of the Victorian era.
So simply equal rights under the law of the land would be a remarkably revolutionary innovation in our society…… for men.
LikeLike
The Communist regimes of the last century were the most aggressively feminist societies ever, in terms of applying the same law and public policy (and misery) to both sexes and doing away with all vestiges of “traditional roles”. Specially in their most revolutionary phases (like the Maoist periods where everyone even wore the same suit and hat). Rigidly enforced equality from pay, to allocated occupations, childcare (done by the state),abortion, abolishing marriage in fact all the sorts of equality many feminists say they want. Curious that one never sees feminists point to these examples of just the sort of equality they say they want. Anyone would think they don’t want to be linked in any way to these exemplars.
LikeLike
A case in point Saoirse Ronan says reaction to Graham Norton viral women safety clip is ‘wild’ – BBC News No amount of facts about this (for instance that young men are by far the most at risk of violent crimes) will prevent a huge queue of luminaries of both sexes “supporting” all manner of action. Based on the “fears” of women rather than the evidence. And of course no one will even consider that males should have the same expectation of never even having to think of their safety because they are invulnerable, even though they are far more likely to be assaulted or killed. Gynocentrism.
And what does Saoirse base her comment on, conversations around the dinner table, not about actual experiences but things the women do when they are suspicious” The fake phone call refers to someone who suspects they are being followed by a potential attacker, and pretends to take a call on their mobile to protect themselves” Could it simply be “suspecting” someone reflects her feelings rather than anything about the “suspect”? I’m certain had any of the male panel mentioned precautions they may have taken they’d be basically treated as “wimps” even though they’d be wiser to do so given the actual stats.
LikeLike
I caught Martin Lewis (money saving expert) on LBC and then this was reported Martin Lewis’ Budget reaction as he raises serious question – Manchester Evening News
In the LBC interview he included what wasn’t mentioned in the Budget speech but in the Budget documents. And in the detail is a bit of feminist inequality in administering Child Benefit
“The Money Saving Expert also highlighted what he saw as ‘bad news’ when it comes to claiming child benefit in the budget. He posted: “(Bad) NEWS govt docs it says it will NOT shift child benefit to household income from individual income as previous govt had announced (and I and others had campaigned for). This is a shame and leaves inequity rife, bad news for single parent and single earner families.”
He points out that Jeremy Hunt had committed to dealing with this inequality because it makes a real difference to single earner families, and of course to single parent families where the parent is earning, rather than “married to the state”. Readers may recall that data on single parent households showed a that the vast majority of those led by a father are single earner whereas the vast majority of those mother led rely on welfare. Just as the vast majority of single earner two parent families it is the father earning. In other words the inequity is on father led families in practice. He examples the effect:
“From 2025 employees will be able to pay the higher income child benefit charge through your tax code, and self assessment forms will be pre-populated with child benefit data.” “The benefit is still based on individual rather than household income, which makes it incredibly unfair. A household where two parents each earn £59,999 — a combined £119,998 — would get the full benefit, but a household where one parent earns £80,000 would get nothing. Perhaps not a large number overall but one example of the feminist project of undermining the “traditional” family.
LikeLike