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.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Justice for Men & Boys 
William Collins made great use of Stephen Baskerville’s book ‘Who Lost America?’ and F. Roger Devlin’s quote of Daniel Amneus: “The lynchpin in the feminist program is mother custody following divorce. Pull that pin…and the feminist structure collapses”, in his brilliant article, ‘A Gentleman’s Strike’, which was posted on ‘The Empathy Gap’ on 26th August 2024. [http://empathygap.uk/?p=4595].
I only know this because I have a printed copy. I’d link it, but my computer seems unwilling to acknowledge its existence.
Computer says no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cp, at my request William has just put it up again:
http://empathygap.uk/?p=4595
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Mike!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with the thesis. In high welfare countries a big part of this is the ability of the mother to be “married to the state” terminology that seems to have dropped out of use. But accurately describes the effect (and purpose) of all the “child poverty” benefits. The overall effect is most clearly seen in the afro-caribbean community in the UK (relatively small and concentrated so easy to research) where to all intents and purposes the “traditional” family structure is a thing of the past. However if you look at poorer boroughs and districts of “white” people the same pattern is seen. In effect the feminist’s dream of female led “families” funded through the public purse. This became stark to me 20 years ago becoming friendly with parents of our children’s friends. They worked in the DWP on monitoring claimants. They had a fund of stories about the many and varied ways in which claimants, “single” mothers, tried to conceal evidence of the “man” who was clearly living with her but whose presence would mean reassessment. In effect the ideal feminist household of a mother and “her” children funded by the public with a father, partner, boyfriend in effect lodging there. The male really dependent on the whim of the mother for his home. Though also contributing to the household from his work (often of the trades, cash in hand, sort). So we have a state funded “matriarchy” where the males are, often literally, shadowy precarious presences. So the reality is that the huge swathes of our society (as demonstrated by the figures bandied about on child poverty) have effectively become married to the state where the fathers etc. are entirely peripheral.
Many commentators are unaware of the way the benefits system “passports” claimants to in fact a huge range of additional funding(as demonstrated by the “eligibility”for the recent policy on school meals) With housing benefit being massively valuable in our current housing crisis but including things from free prescriptions, clothing vouchers, transport, additional allowances (a member of my extended family has 4 children with various “special needs” which nets a huge additional income in attendance allowances).
Put briefly the feminists are wise to the idea that men may go on marriage strike and will believe that this can only further facilitate the continued spread of the pattern, now the norm in many areas, of mothers married to the state. So for the UK the marriage strike has little prospect of much success unless combined with a roll back of the state, a tax strike. After all the next feminist ploy is to create “common law marriage” where men have the same financial obligations whether or not they are actually married! Again the object to do away with any reciprocity in a “contract” and explicitly to benefit women. Maybe in the USA where welfare is less and variable according to State the thesis will work. In the UK the first act is to reduce the massive tax burden of what is in effect the funding of huge swathes of the society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, and the answer as to why our friends managers didn’t sanction the clamping down on the fully known “industrial scale” fraud? It would mean of “mums” in court and “increased child poverty” both politically unacceptable. In a sense the epitome of William Collins’ examination of the “moral usurpation” whereby it is impossible to challenge the feminist project without looking like a mean bastard to women and children. Paradoxically two of the worst moral failures men can commit in the eyes of men! The feminists will always it seems have their “white knights”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It was women who defaulted on any semblance of reciprocity in the social contract. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/human-reproduction-as-prisoners-dilemma
Robert Briffault certainly knew what he was talking about, his Briffault’s Law being the bottom line of his major work ‘On the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions’ showing that societies were always matriarchal. https://mgtowsolution.wordpress.com/briffaults-law/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks cp, I’ll link to the Biffault’s Law piece shortly.
LikeLike