Rick Bradford (William Collins) for TCW: “The Great Feminisation, part 4: The mistake of demonising men.”

Interesting.

—————————-

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.

3 thoughts on “Rick Bradford (William Collins) for TCW: “The Great Feminisation, part 4: The mistake of demonising men.”

  1. Women were content (if not happy) to nail their colours to the mast of one man when they’d have had to plough fields or build ships for a living as an independent alternative. Particularly in northern climes, where the winters are harsh, and male labour guaranteed female survival.

    When employment is Powerpoint presentations and Zoom calls, they want to feel free of male ‘oppression’. That is, they wish to follow the female reproductive preference of rotating temporary monogamy (otherwise known as some kind of interesting carousel). This allows them to capture the best genes available at any particular time, always aiming upwards. Bringing cash & prizes (including the family home) following divorce allows her to climb divisions from the Vauxhall Conference to the Premier League in no time. As does preferencing in employment opportunity & educational opportunity. ‘Sexual Harassment’ legislation erects an invisible force field around her, repelling all men beneath her pay grade.

    University is now a hostile environment for young men. This means that the political & jurisprudence class of the future will be mainly female.

    In that future, if you’re male but do not have qualities that fit into the top 10% of some Gaussian Curve, be it looks, intelligence, physique, drive or ambition…

    ..well, you can pretty much forget passing on your genes.

    And you can forget being a meaningful ‘father’ to your children for the entire 18 to 21 years where they still depend on you.

    She isn’t yours, it’s just your turn.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I suppose my hope s that the realisation, apparent in the USA these days, that deliberately trashing the most energetic, inventive and productive part of any society leads to lacklustre and inefficient industry and going bust (or at least evaporate profits and dividends). In Ukraine the debates early this year about conscription were very interesting. In a society struggling with high losses and injury rates they eventually called up young men in their mid 20s. The logic for doing so being that to call up 18 year olds risked losing large numbers of precisely the “people” (the ones with balls) who they’d need to “rebuild” the country. In a way they were ruthlessly frank. No one seriously suggested young women were going to fill the rebuilding occupations (and many it was assumed were likely to stay in their refugee EU “homes”) or doubted that the engine for driving the recovery of the nation was young men. Certainly few suggested women might be recruited to fill the depleted ranks of the Armed forces.

    I mused on this thinking on Mr Collin’s analysis. The old fashioned “decadence” suits well the condition of much of the UK’s elite. And the observation about the collapse of the Caliphate, that they simply assumed the wealth would continue to flow no matter what they did, describes the current policies of the UK. Were it not for a long standing reputation for paying the interest on our national (and private) debt our economic decline would have been evident to everyone a decade ago. As it is our creditors (often our own pension funds and financial institutions) are getting more skeptical by the week. Perhaps that may make the bubbling concern about the “inactive” young men grow into a concern about who exactly to we need to rebuild our prosperity.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This is interesting The Guardian view on men’s health: the needs of different groups can only be addressed in a functioning system | Editorial | The Guardian In a way its surprising in that for once it doesn’t major on the idea that a focus on males is automatically to mean females will get less. Also in that it does set out some of the major issues for men. In the context of Mr Collin’s thoughtful analysis I reflected that this piece from the Grauniad is far too measured and practical to have been passed through their usual feminist lens. And that led me too another observation of the feminine, that although there is indeed female in group preferencing the other psychological driver is more insidious. That it the tendency to dramatize and relate things to the personal and emotional rather than an analysis. So there are often things in the Grauniad on womens’ health, always written as a call to action, claiming “inequality”, “women suffering”, vague notions that something/somebody is somehow being deliberately a meanie to women or at least to specific women whose “stories” are told as if they are representative of “lots of women”. In short something akin to the sensational storyline in Emmerdale or “Corrie” rather than a serious piece giving a thoughtful factual consideration of the worth and difficulties of what is a worthy strategy. In short the dominance of females as the creators of our media and its consumption has shifted us to a more and more hysterical public debate obsessed with hyperbolic words but little relationship to actual analysis and full of personal stories and drama. A simple example is a few female celebrities approach middle age and find “the change” difficult. Their “stories” become big news and suddenly “menopause” becomes a huge societal problem that “is everyone’s business” and demands all sorts of action. Yet oddly enough Davina MacCall or Carol Vorderman are not the discoverers of “the menopause”, medical science and industries have long developed all manner of things to help with the change not least because the market is every single woman (biological) who reaches middle age. A vast market. And the fact that even with all this “the change” is not banished completely from the lives of celebrities, is presented as somehow some terrible malicious “inequality” rather than still a work in progress from the medical professions and the companies that already work furiously to satisfy this vast market. And of course the confused and hyperbolic furor does nothing useful for its absence of any analysis means it offers no solutions other than “awareness”, as if humanity has been unaware of this until Davina’s epiphany.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to nrjnigel Cancel reply