Feminism: The Ugly Truth. Mike J.D. Buchanan

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ deliberately ignoring it is a misandric ‘policy’ (as is the neglect of other male issues).

      On Monday, 22 March, 1999, the Bath Chronicle carried a small article (only about 8cm long by one column in width) entitled, ‘Three bodies found in Bath over weekend’. During the course of one weekend three bodies – all male – had been found in different locations in Bath, all having died of ill-health and exposure.

      If it were three women’s bodies that had been found in similar circumstances, in one city, over one weekend, it would have been a national news feature, questions would be asked in the House, Feminist MPs would be masochistically delighted at finding yet another example of misogyny, a Commission would be set up. But these were only male corpses… so only 8cm in a local paper.

      Widespread misandry dehumanises men. In numerous ways, men in modern Britain have become disposable, have become of lesser worth than women. A female columnist writes:

      A HYMN TO HIM: MEN ARE SEXY,

      SMART AND GOOD FOR WOMEN

      (The Sunday Times, 12 July, 2009: Minette Martin)

      Are men really necessary? That was the question that raised its ugly head following reports that scientists had created human sperm from embryonic stem cells. A team from Newcastle University claims to have produced fully mature mobile sperm in the laboratory, which may soon be able to create a living child. If men are no longer needed for producing sperm, perhaps they are no longer needed at all – that was the suggestion humming in the media and the blogosphere last week, often rather nastily disguised as humour, with lists of ways in which men are worse than useless. Misandry – the hatred of men – is a powerful force.

      With the feminisation of the media and of education and with decades of so-called positive discrimination favouring women, we have seen a growing female triumphalism; it has been accompanied by a growing bewilderment and displacement of men. There is an increasing sense that women can do well enough without them, and more and more women are embarking on a life to which men are only incidental.

      Misandry, demonising and dehumanising men, has devalued men’s worth compared to that of women’s; it has made society blasé about the disposability of men. It is responsible, for example, for the shocking bias in the lack of attention to men’s health in general. It is responsible for our blindness towards domestic violence against men. Britain today cares more about saving whales than about saving males, more interested in the rights of foxes than in the natural right of divorced fathers to see their children.

      Almost anything can be said about men, or done to men, without the expectation of a public outcry.

      The Public are Unaware of Misandry

      Both men and women fail to see misandry as a problem. This is because ‘sexism’ has been defined exclusively in terms of misogyny. So nobody is looking for ‘sexism’ against men, for misandry, and people don’t find what they’re not looking for. Have they even heard of the word or concept? Everyone would admit to noticing examples of men ‘perhaps losing out’ now and again, here or there, occasionally. But because Feminism has never been exposed to public debate, to questioning and analysis, people have failed to see the pattern, they fail to see the intended political strategy… because of this heavy censorship people have been deliberately denied the knowledge and the political insight to see Feminism for what it has become.

      After decades of society’s and the state’s relentless searching and probing, exploring in every nook and cranny of society, culture, education, the law, the media, employment, politics, to seek out misogyny and sexism against women, it can be very difficult for individuals steeped in this conventional wisdom, conditioned in this monopolistic, blinkered search, to see the dangers of widespread man-hating.

      Here is one reason why this book needed to be written. Part Four offers the reader the knowledge and the insights to see the pro-Feminist / anti-male pattern in sexual politics, to see how modern Britain expresses institutional misandry; to expose the Feminist fraud.

      In the Preface we saw how Feminist students (already well entrenched in their own political groups) aggressively attempted to prevent male students at the Universities of Manchester and Oxford from forming even non-political, innocuous, Men’s Societies.

      People have, so far, been unaware of how misandry has been employed as a major sexual political weapon in the Feminist armoury:

      -in condemning and demonising men (and thereby legitimising the institutional ‘punishment’ of men via laws and policies, and by ignoring male-specific problems and issues)

      -how it is used to ease and facilitate the implementation of the Feminist agenda

      And neither are people aware of how Feminism’s Quiet Revolution is being cleverly orchestrated. Or they may purposely have chosen not to be aware of these aspects of misandry. Male Feminists are particularly deserving of opprobrium for their lack of concern for men, their obsequious refusal to address misandry, and their obdurate refusal to even acknowledge its existence. Male politicians, male trade union leaders and male academics should be particularly singled out for condemnation.

      CAMERON: ABSENT DADS

      AS BAD AS DRINK DRIVERS

      (The Sunday Telegraph, 19 June, 2011)

      David Cameron today launches a full-scale attack on fathers who abandon their families, calling for them to be ‘stigmatised’ by society in the same way as drink-drivers.

      The Prime Minister’s intervention – in an article for The Sunday Telegraph to mark Father’s Day – is one of the most outspoken he has made in defence of traditional family life… He says, ‘It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink-drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they’re doing is wrong, that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn’t acceptable.’

      He says fathers must make the decision to support ‘financially and emotionally’ their children even if they have separated from their mothers, spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and ‘taking an interest in their education’.

      This is an attack on men, not just fathers. Cameron chose Father’s Day to make his words especially painful for those divorced men who are desperate to see their children but have been prevented from doing so, sometimes for many years, by vindictive ex-wives.

      Four out of five divorces are petitioned for by wives;¹ [Author’s note: the superscript ‘1’ – and the others in this chapter – reflects the source of cited materials in Why Britain Hates Men. The sources are provided at the end of this chapter]. It is fathers who are ditched and required to leave the family home. How can this fact possibly be construed as ‘runaway dads’? Such dishonesty could only be alchemised in the warped perspective of the Feminist and the Male Feminist. It isn’t fathers who are breaking up traditional families, but wives and mothers… but this dare not be openly admitted in our politically correct culture. So men are used as the scapegoats; in a misandric culture it is easier to demonise men than to face the wrath of Feminists by being truthful.

      Or is Mr Cameron thinking of young men who irresponsibly impregnate girls and then refuse to commit? Well hang on, there are two sides to this story. Young women are just as culpable as young men with their sexual behaviour. For every male youth who impregnates a girl and then disappears from the scene there is an equal number (if not more) of young women who have had children СКАЧАТЬ