Thank men for women’s lib

The male side of the feminist struggle has been airbrushed from history

15 December 2012

9:00 AM

15 December 2012

9:00 AM

Let’s get this straight. I’m a feminist. That’s the way I was brought up. My mum was a passionate women’s libber and I always agreed with my mum — even when she was wrong — but she was right on that one. The struggle to free one sex has liberated both. The human species is now freer, more dynamic and more fulfilled than ever.

But here’s the oddity. When I read histories of the women’s movement I rarely find any hint that men were involved at all. Men are either sidelined completely or portrayed as a bunch of sexist wreckers who strove to hold women back at every turn.

Quite untrue, of course. But a fascinating prejudice. What’s even more fascinating is to discover why it still goes unchallenged. First, a few facts. Progressive men were at the forefront of the struggle for women’s liberation. And they didn’t just support the movement; at crucial moments, they led it.

The suffragettes were part of a wider crusade against injustice in all its forms. Its brand name was socialism and its leaders were predominantly male. Marx and Engels campaigned for equality between the classes. And between the sexes. Bernard Shaw’s plays satirised the shameful position of women in Edwardian society as ornamental chattels and drawing-room jewellery boxes. The first Labour MP, Keir Hardie, along with influential thinkers like H.G. Wells, D.H. Lawrence, Sidney Webb, John Maynard Keynes and others, argued passionately for women’s suffrage. Even that notorious womaniser Lloyd George sided with the feminists when it mattered. As prime minister, he led the all-male parliament that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918 and gave women the right to vote and to stand as MPs. Like it or not, Lloyd George is the original British feminist. Now, it’s true that these reformers hadn’t always seen the issue in this way. But as circumstances changed, they changed their minds. And they shifted tack not because a few posh ladies chained themselves to some railings but because men, in their millions, were pursuing a typically male activity: having a war.

In 1914, men trooped off to the Western Front, and women were called in to run the factories, workshops and farms. Women built tanks and guns. They drove lorries and tractors. ‘Men’s work’ turned out to be well within their capabilities. This social upheaval dismantled all the antique patriarchal certainties. War promoted women. It gave them responsibility at work, independence at home and cash in their pockets. They were free to dress as they pleased, to socialise where they liked, to drive, to smoke, to buy books and educate themselves. The war created a vast leap forward in the rights and expectations of women. And by 1918, the pressure to make them full partners in democracy had become irresistible. That was the result of 1914-1918. Men got killed. Women got the vote.


When peace returned, so did the veterans. And being men, they toddled off to their science labs and their garden sheds to pursue another characteristic male activity: bodging and tinkering and inventing new ‘thingummies’. And what thingummies they invented. During the 20th century, men came up with a huge array of technical wizardry that freed the world from the endless enslavement of domestic toil. Toasters, blenders, tinned food, central heating, washable fabrics, lawn-mowers, power-tools, microwaves, Superglue, ready meals, powdered soup. The list is endless.

By the 1950s, this technical revolution had made domestic service — whose burden had always fallen disproportionately on women — a thing of the past. Centuries of drudgery were ending and women were emerging from the shadows. Chaps? Take a bow.

And in 1961 came the greatest single act of liberation in human history. The pill. Now, some will argue that men devised the pill in order to increase women’s sexual availability to them. Well, maybe. But that doesn’t diminish its success in freeing women from the shackles of their biology. It brought an end to the 23-pregnancy marriage. And it consigned that silent killer, the back-room abortionist, to the dustbin of deranged science. Women were now free to postpone starting a family until after they’d finished their education. Or, if they were still at home raising a couple of kids (rather than a couple of dozen), they had the chance to study at the Open University, which was created by the socialist thinker Michael Young and introduced during Harold Wilson’s second administration. Both men were, of course, men.

By the mid-1960s, women were ready to enact the final phase of their revolution: complete equality under the law. Here again, men offered a lead. The civil rights protestors in America and the ‘great march’ on Washington inspired the women’s lib movement and gave it urgency and bite. The lesson from America was that aggressive tactics were far more effective than polite lobbying. Women’s lib marchers took to the streets and demanded an end to discrimination at work. And they got it, more or less immediately. The Equal Pay Act was brought in here in 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975. Both are primarily male reforms, by the way, because men in the Commons at that time outnumbered women by 30 to one.

You will, of course, have spotted the glaring omission in all this. Throughout history it was ‘bloody men’ who oppressed and exploited women. But these ‘bloody men’ were merely responding to Mother Nature’s uneven distribution of responsibilities which made sexual inequality a fact of life for hundreds of thousands of years. Finally, in the 20th century, we all wised up. Enlightened men, at the insistence of enlightened women, took on the ‘bloody men’ and campaigned for a fairer settlement. And it was male habits of behaviour that catalysed the key changes: male aggression, male ingenuity and ultimately men’s sense of fair play and social justice.

So feminism is largely a male achievement. But far from getting the credit, we men have been airbrushed out of that history altogether. What’s truly amazing, given how vain and boastful we are, is that we couldn’t care less. Why so bashful about one of our greatest ever triumphs?

Here’s my explanation. The sex wars have redefined what it is to be a man and to be a woman. The tragic irony is that the new settlement leaves women — yet again — at a huge disadvantage. A woman who wants to feel ‘properly liberated’ today has to shoulder twice as much donkey work as her grandmother. Raising a family isn’t enough. She needs a career as well. And to settle for anything less is to accept a major downgrade in her status as a woman.

Men face no such extra duties. Naturally we like to ‘do our bit’ around the kitchen, the nursery and the supermarket. ‘Bit’ being the operative word. In my case I reckon I handle about 15 per cent of the housework. And my wife reckons I handle about 0.0015 per cent of it, but hey-ho. This wasn’t our revolution. They asked for it. And we bowed to their superior wisdom.

For men, the happiest result of the new deal is the quality of the women we now face across the dating table. Women are smarter, sleeker, richer, better educated and bigger-boobed than they ever were. They get drunk more easily. They have sex more readily. Sometimes they even pay for dinner as well, ‘to assert their independence’. And do we stop them? No, Madame Chairperson, we do not. We’re feminists too, of course, and we make that pledge not because we’re shamed by the historic plight of women but because we’ve learned that it’s a great aphrodisiac.

This thesis will make uncomfortable reading for women. For men, on the other hand, it’s completely taboo. We males have reached a tacit agreement to avoid the subject of women’s emancipation altogether, and to draw a discreet veil over the fabulous peace-deal we’ve signed up for. If women want to portray us as a gang of bigoted throwbacks who never lifted a finger to liberate them, that’s fine by us. Small price to pay. The last thing we want to do is rock the boat. Because from our viewpoint — up in first class, as always — this cruise has never been better.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • http://www.facebook.com/rod.vanmechelen Rod Van Mechelen

    I used to be a male feminist. But then the mainstream of feminism stopped being about equality and started being about separatism, blaming men and, for “right thinking women,” female supremacy. Now I support real gender equality, for which countless feminists have condemned me as a misogynist.

    • mumble

      The word “misogynist” has now been so bandied about that it has lost meaning.

      • undergroundman14

        The word “racist” also has little meaning anymore.

        • http://twitter.com/gen_stewart Genevieve Stewart

          No, you’re just a racist.

          • Eddie

            No, you are. And you’re a sexist. You racist sexist bint!
            What a TWERP you are Mzzzzz Stoopid.
            Use a word too much and it becomes a general and trite term of abuse that loses values – just as money loses value if you print too much of the stuff.
            But women aren’t very good at difficult stuff like economics and mathemetics eh?
            Stick to women’s studies – a nice easy bullshit subject for mediocre minds.

          • mumble

            Um… How can you tell?

    • mumble

      The Associated Press Stylebook recently did a batch-banning of all the phobias, including “homophobia”, on the sensible grounds that they are a mental disease requiring professional diagnosis and thus different from bigotry or opposition to gay marriage. I appreciate their efforts, but I don’t think they have a hope.

    • Eddie

      I agree completely. But it’s a comforting thought that most women do not support these manhating feminists either – who are really misogynists because they hate the fact that most women are not just like them in their thinking.
      Most noise always comes from the shallow end of the swimming pool. Most women are not manhating crazies – they have sons, fathers, brothers, husbands. Most men don’t hate women either.
      The gender industry is what it’s all about really – being a feminist is a career move and one that allows professional feminists to make a career of fabricated gender divisions and playing the victim looking for someone to blame.

  • Sarah

    I don’t know where to start with this superficial assessment of what feminism is and the challenges it faces and the way it spectacularly misses the point.

    • mumble

      Begin at the beginning, state your case, refrain from the Grace Dent style of whistling-teakettle feminism, and you will find hearers. If you couldn’t be arsed and instead elect to play the “You just don’t get it” card, you deserve to be ignored.

      • Eddie

        I second that.
        We should always remember too that men did not get the vote all that long before women, and a great many early feminists were upper class ladies who really didn’t want to improve the lives of ordinary women and men whose misery and oppression enriched them.
        The inventions of men have made all people’s lives better – and without them, then society and biology would dictate that women would have to be baby machines. We should all thanks those great men of science and medicine. Men invented the pill, the computer, the telephone – and yep, even Twitter – which allow women to natter with each other.
        Sadly, feminism is just a silly industry now populated with women with chips on their shoulders who love to play the victim and fabricate ‘facts’ to try and claim special treatment and discrimination, where there is none. These ‘all men are bastards’ feminists are in such a minority though: most women hate them.
        Better to think of the PEOPLE who made the world better – and not to erase nasty men from the history of feminism out of sexism and discriminatory spite.
        The fact is that many feminists are just good ole-fashioned sexists. They hate men, want to do them down constantly, and accuse all women who are not nutty feminasties (ie most women) or being traitors – so these feminist are also misogynists as well as misandrists. Maybe they need a hobby or something, to get rid of all that pent-up aggression. Mud-wrestling perhaps?

      • Sarah

        Read this, come back to me with your questions and I’ll fill in the gaps.

        “On one level Evans’ piece is simply misogynist trolling.”


        • Eddie

          Oh dear.

          What feminists can’t get through their dim skulls is that feminism is itself predicated on fabricated and fake theory: the one that says men and women are equal in talents, aptitudes, abilities and attitudes, and thus the reason why women haven’t achieved what men have is the nasty bold ‘patriarchy’. That is just fantasy, I’m afraid. But flatearthers like you will cling to it like a dead religion of course.

          Of course men got women the vote – they also got men the vote, fought for democracy and justice, and took great risks to do so. Most suffragettes were upper class stuck up snobs who didn’t even want ordinary men or women to have the vote at all!

          This articles makes a refreshing change for the lies spewed by the noisy farty feminism industry sistas. Nothing in this article is misogynistics at all – however, you and your News Stateman feminists hate women who are not mad feminists like you (ie most women) and that makes you the misogynists as well as the misandrists. No wonder 85% of women despise feminists and don’t want to be called one!

          • Sarah

            Structuralism a bit above your pay grade is it?

          • Eddie

            Tosspotterism seeems more your style, love.

            That and sexism, misandry, misogyny, self-indulgence, self-pitying, craving for victimhood, obsession with the fabricated theory of ‘patriarchy’ (because of which nothing is EVER a woman’s fault, even murdering babies, because those nasty men created the patriarchal structures that make women do bad things…).

            Your constant manhating feminism is the reason why most women do not call themselves feminist any more.

            I think your brain is made of balloons, dear. Any fuckwit (like you then) can rant on about sociological theories (which I used to teach by the way), and I always find it’s the mediocre students who love to latch onto theories and parrot them as you do.

            The wisest words on this thread are here. Thanks, Rod:

            “I used to be a male feminist. But then the mainstream of feminism stopped being about equality and started being about separatism, blaming men and, for “right thinking women,” female supremacy. Now I support real gender equality, for which countless feminists have condemned me as a misogynist.”

          • mumble

            Oh, we’ve reached the ad hominem stage. Next stop: Hitler.

          • Eddie

            Her usual trick is to call posters misogynists before progressing to accuse them or rape and being child abusers.
            Why? Because she’s been outargued and told that really most women do not hate men or think in the perverse and nasty sexist way Sarah does.

          • mumble

            Thanks for the heads-up. I was rapidly coming to the same conclusion.

          • mumble

            Eddie, point of clarification: are all men misogynist, raping child abusers, or just the white, heterosexual ones?

        • mumble

          Read this, come back to me with your questions and I’ll fill in the gaps: http://www.policymic.com/articles/21325/why-feminists-should-support-the-return-of-chivalry

      • Sarah

        Yeah, but it would be like me writing an article about creationism being made of balloons. You know, can you really be bothered to correct it? When the author has shown no interest in even understanding the terms under debate let alone making his case. If he can’t show the reader the respect of being serious, should the reader return the compliment? Besides, do I really want to help this Evans character and the male bastion often Spectator get the notoriety they obviously crave for boosted Christmas sales and subscriptions?

  • Anthony Makara

    Women’s Lib demanded that women become wage slaves and that’s exactly what happened, this in turn effectively ended a concept of motherhood that had provided the under tens with security and moral instruction for hundreds of years. Little wonder then that over the last 35 years or so we’ve seen child/parent respect break down and with it respect for society beyond the family itself. Women who were once free to engage in real-life social networking with other mothers in building local communities are now isolated workers while the father has become comfortable pushing the buggy and applying facial creme. The Feminists achieved their sexual political goals and now females and males have been robbed of their gender identity, worse still children have been robbed of motherhood. No wonder marriage itself is dying out as homemaking has been reduced to mere finance with the working-mum is proud that she has more to spend on ‘her’ children even if she spends a good part of that money getting others to look after them. Yet the political elite of all parties are afraid to stand up for real-families, instead they want to push more mothers into work leaving more children to be brought up collectively.

    • mumble

      Since the Second Amendment had been around for 200 years before the rise of Columbine-style school shootings, enquiring minds wonder what is the real cause of this new menace. Maybe you’re onto something here.

    • StephanieJCW

      Women’s lib did no such thing.

      For one ‘wage slavery’ does not exist. Slavery implies forced labour. Most women who work do so because they wish to. And I do not accept working to obtain a certain lifestyle as being forced to work. Beyond the necessities of food, shelter (which can be rented) and clothing couples decide they want the bigger home, the bigger TV, the holidays etc and so ‘need’ two incomes.

      Additionally can you not impose a gender identity on be based on little more than my genitalia. I do not see my role as being restricted to that of wife and mother and want much more from life. If men are allowed such opportunities why do you seek to prevent women from accessing those same activities? Possibly out of base sexism (as evidenced by your sneery comment at men pushing buggies – what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

      • Eddie

        If you think the difference between males and females is solely in their genitalia, then you really have a HUGE amount to learn, love.

        Look at MRI scans which clearly show a difference between male and female brains and thus behaviours.

        Consider the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of complex mammals, which OF COURSE made male and female brains and instincts different. For example, in all maths and science degree classes, most students are men; in all languages clsses, most students are women. Innate brain difference proven, right there.

        You can’t argue with biology, and you should stop fabricating your victimhood too. No-one is seeking to prevent women having opportunities for certain things if they want them – but women are innately different so lack the aptitude for many male-type things (maths. science, high level business, driving trucks, flying planes, inventing things).

        You have a typically silly grass is greener view of men’s lives. YOu know, most men have few opportunities too – sometimes because women have been given them over better men. Women get far more in benefits than men, and work more is safe easy jobs.
        And all the homeless people I have seen recently have been white men too.

        Feminists like you are just sexist against men.

        • StephanieJCW

          STRAW MAN!

          I never once stated the things you have claimed of me. Go back and re-read what I actually wrote and try to understand it this time.

          (And I have never once claimed to be a feminist.)

  • http://twitter.com/clairestrickett Claire

    “Men face no such extra duties. Naturally we like to ‘do our bit’ around the kitchen, the nursery and the supermarket. ‘Bit’ being the operative word. In my case I reckon I handle about 15 per cent of the housework. And my wife reckons I handle about 0.0015 per cent of it, but hey-ho. This wasn’t our revolution. They asked for it. And we bowed to their superior wisdom.”

    Feminism isn’t close to achieving its goals until attitudes like this change. Men DO face extra duties – it cannot just a question of women doing more (careers, work outside the home etc.) but of men taking on more too, to balance things out (more housework, more childcare, not just a tokenistic ‘bit’) . Any rebalancing must cut both ways.

    A piece which can claim that ‘feminism is a male achievement’ while parroting views so misogynistic as to make me wince (“For men, the happiest result of the new deal is the quality of the women we now face across the dating table. Women are smarter, sleeker, richer, better educated and bigger-boobed than they ever were. They get drunk more easily. They have sex more readily”) must surely just be trolling of the highest order; I almost feel stupid for bothering to respond to it as a serious piece of writing. But there we go.

    • mumble

      Masculism isn’t close to achieving its goals until it is realised that a woman’s unilateral desire to leave the housework implies no duty, or even guilt-trip, on a man suddenly to cleave to it. Selfishness is occasionally balanced by selflessness in the short term, but trying to make injustice stick requires constant propagandising, as we observe.

      • Eddie

        Exactly. Women so long being martyrs and making a big deal of a bit of housework (and anyway, middle class women all have cheap Polish cleaners and au pairs to do their dirty work eh?).

        When I look around, it’s often women who have the easy peasy lives, with loads of free time, a little part time job, a nice house paid for by hubby – and then 70% of all that and automatic custody of kids in a divorce!
        Feminists do so love their grass is greener whinge-fest pity parties. If one looks at the reality, it is arguably men as a whole who have it harder – they pay most taxes, get less back in benefits and only a very few men have wifey at home to do everythingt (I sometimes think feminists want to believe all men live in The Good Life!)

        Some PEOPLE have it hard; the gender obessesion of some is wrong-headed. Some men do; some women do. Generally middle class women do NOT have it hard, thanks to men’s money and state subsidy.

        Men do plenty of work – real paid work, and so women SHOULD do the housework if they do not work outside the home! Men financially support women – and women get way more from a benefit system paid for mostly by male taxes.

        The writer os this piece makes the valid point that feminism has allowed men to have way more sex with way more girls than was possible back a few decades ago: in fact, men can now be more irresponsible than ever, thanks to feminism. Some victory huh?

        • StephanieJCW

          “The writer os this piece makes the valid point that feminism has allowed men to have way more sex with way more girls than was possible back a few decades ago: in fact, men can now be more irresponsible than ever, thanks to feminism. ”

          And us women can have way more sex than previously without fear of pregnancy or having to be married before having sex. This is not only good for men, it’s good for us women. Particularly those women who never want to be children. This reverse psychology won’t work. Women enjoy consequence free sex (i.e. a pregnancy following every sexual encounter) too!

          And having more sex isn’t a licence to be ‘irresponsible’ unless you’re a completely feckless male. Real men (and real women) face up to their responsibilities.

          • Eddie

            So you agree that all feminism has done is to allow women to behave like the very worst of men then?
            Interestingly, this only applies to the UK – which apes the USA. In France they do not have our ‘bitch feminism’ – so women there are slim, family-orientated, child-friendly, non-man-hating, and NO French women would EVER be seen publicly drunk. Excepot whores. It used to be the same here.
            Many women believe women are worse off now than before. Why? Because the scales have fallen from their eyes when they see the reality of working for a living like men – which really is not the grass is greener utopian that feminists made it out to be.
            But then, women are predisposed to moan and whinge. It’s an evolutionary bonding activity. Men are more solitary. Women need to reinforce their opinions and boost their confidence (which evolution has made women lack so as to make them risk-averse and thus protect their babies, born and unborn).
            Why not think about PEOPLE, not just ‘women’ trying to make our they are such pooor wickly innocent things oppressed all the time by imaginery forces?
            It is PEOPLE – male and female – who I support, No doubt the badly paid servants you have who do all your dirty work for a pittance and live in rented slums, while you get fat and rich by exploiting them eh? Typical fucking feminist!
            And really, women just cannot separate sex from emotion, no matter what they SAY. Brain scans prove this.
            Just accept that male and female brains are different because of evolution. Nothing sexist is any fact or any scientific discovery.

          • StephanieJCW

            I don’t believe enjoyment of sex is a bad thing though.

            And I don’t believe removing the procreational aspect of sex from the pleasurable aspect of sex is a bad thing.

          • StephanieJCW

            And you obviously have never visited a university campus if you think women cannot separate sex from emotion. They can, myself included. If they couldn’t sex workers and porn stars (using two extreme examples) wouldn’t exist.

    • alfoxton

      It IS just trolling. . I think that the spectator is just playing the section of the male crowd that have rather a chip on their shoulder about ‘wimmin’ just not knowing their place anymore. Let them play – they’re just trying to assert themselves in a world that they find confusing, and terrifying.

      • Eddie

        Really, well, here are some facts: British women are the unhappiest in Europe, and the fattest; British women are more likely to be single mothers or divorced than any other women in Europe; British kids are the most messed up in Europe, the most obese, with teh highest levels of drug use and mental illness.

        The successes of feminism eh?

        It is not men who find anything terrifying. The author of the article has pointed out that these days men can shag girls without consequences and have more sex than ever, without responsibility: feminism created that mess. Men really do not need women – that’s why men are sensibly avoiding marriage so they don’t lose their money and property when the mother of their children when she divorces them because she’s selfish and sees marriage as just a passing fashion – and can profit from its end.

        Feminism has been GREAT for men. Not so good for women though – except those women who have made a profession of moaning about men and coined it from their dull self-pitying tomes.

        And of course it is poor badly paid women who are the slaves whose sweat allows the socalled middle class women – all the usual loudmouthed feminists – to have their careers, with immigrants and poor servants doing their dirty work.

        NOTHING heroic or positive about ANY of that.

        • alfoxton

          Not sure what you *think* you’re responding to here. The imaginary feminist in your head?

          And with your blaming feminism for all the things you claim are wrong with the world – well – it rather supports my theory about you being confused and frightened. You’re clearly a bit misty eyed for a past that never existed.

          Feminism doesn’t seem tio have been so great for you Eddie – it seems to have turned you into a rather self pitying whiny little troll.

          But still – You boys are doing OK for youselves, bless you. You stand on your own two feet sweetheart. Show those big bad feminists you’re nobody’s pushover.

          I’m sure you ARE a strong independent man who doesn’t need a woman to make you complete – like you say ‘no man does’. You can now shag a woman and leave her if you want. WOOOO!!! No one could do that before. All YOU’VE got to do now is find one who’d want to.

          • Eddie

            Nice try, love – but really I was jjst responding to your stupid post about how men are terrified of feminism and women. The facts in my post are verifiable – why not do some research and see just where your bitch feminism has left most British women eh?

            Question: if men didn’t want society to change through their action, bravery, invention and desire, then why did men create a society which gave women reproductive freedoms?

            If women had been in charge of the evolution of society, we’d still be in the stone age. In fact, we wouldn’t have evolved from fish (oh dear so risky and dangerous leaving the rock pool and growing legs eh? Best just stay here nice and safe and secure and have a good old girly fish chinwag…).

            You and your sisters are sexist – you see men as the enemy. In fact, men are the liberators and saviours of women and men – and in my experience it is women who treat women worse than anyone else: just look at how poor women are mocked and demeaned by career women who never get their hands dirty but have maids and au pairs to clean up their shit for minimum wage eh?

            It is your delusion and fantasy that I or any other men are confused, frightened, misty eyes or self-pitying.

            Indeed, if self-pitying, moaning, whingeing and whining were an Olympic sport, I do rather think it’d be the only one in which women were better than men…

            Now, please realise that it is YOU who are the sexist with your pathetic blaming men for all bad in the world, when it is the niceness and kindness and benevolence of men that has created a society where women have equality – though feminists don’t want that, they want to make men inferior and sexually discriminate against them, JUST as the Rod van M post on this thread says.

            Feminists do a disservice to women and their motivations are utterly selfish.

            I find you all rather sad and pathetic to be honest, and amusing in a ‘let’s laugh at the freaks’ sort of way. I am very glad that most women despise you and the manhatred you stand for.

          • alfoxton

            Oh dear. The facts in your post are neither facts nor verifiable. They verification of my assertion that you’re one of that fortunately very small group of very small men a very large chip on his shouder.

            Bless you – No-one thinks men are inferior. That’s just your inferioty complex at work. Again – you’re having an argument in your head about feminism without the first idea of what it actually is. Or who you’re talking to. You’re not exactly coming to this from a position of great strength are you?

            MY favourite part of your post is this ‘why did men create a society which gave women reproductive freedoms?’ FANTASTIC. It’s almost as if you actually believe that men deliberately denied women reproductive freedoms for centuries just so that they could gallantly hand a few of them back recently.

            You’re clearly feeling a bit emotional here – might I suggest that you try and find some coping mechanisms. The world is a big scary place, but the monstrous regiment aren’t coming for you. Maybe have a lie down love.

          • Eddie

            You are a typical idiot feminist. You think in your ignorant addled brain that men had it easy for centuries living lives of luxury and poor wickle women were so oppwessed – ahhh boo hoo!
            Completely FALSE of course. You COULD argue that the ruling elite and upper classes oppressed evervyon – but actually, there were jist as many women of them as there were men, and there were just as many oppressed men of the lower orders as women – and in fact, one could say men had it tougher, what with fighting in wars and dying and ting! Making do with egg powder and babies hardly compares in the hardship stakes, does it?
            You are rather sad evidence that some women tend to be irrational and of laughably low IQ. And you also share that quality ot the hypocritical to accuse others of the fault they themselves possess: in your case having a massive chip on your shoulder and hating the gender to which you do not belong.
            I would also advise you to look up the word ‘trolling’ – it does NOT mean someone writing an article that touches a nerve in loudmouthed manhating feminazis, y’know. DOH!

          • Dan

            Hate to break it to ya Ed, but women’s lower IQ (and alleged lack of ‘genius’ i.e. creativity) was the symptom of being oppressed and lacking opportunities for self-fulfilment. That’s all changing now: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/07/16/women-surpass-men-in-iq-but-are-other-factors-more-important/

          • Eddie

            Not true at all. Innate biology cannot change – male/female IQ differences are not socially determined.
            All research shows that men dominate the top 10% of IQ levels by a factor of 20:1.
            Women tend to cluster around middling IQ levels, at which level one can get a degree and a career and do rather well. But not genius or great achievements in general.
            The research is there – look for it. Manchester university – and all gender IQ research on gender done around the world.
            And IQ tests though biased against men these days (pc bias to placate the feminutsies) they are pretty sound.
            And women were no more oppressed than men ever were either. You COULD argue that the upper class oppressed the lower class – but there were just as many women in the former and just as many men in the latter, so the thesis is nothing to do with gender.

          • mumble

            I’m shaken to the core; next thing, you’ll be telling me that little girls DON’T like pink.

          • mumble

            I always thought that “men [relative to women] can’t multitask” had the ring of truth to it, but there was a spate of articles a few months ago about new studies showing that it just ain’t so. However, so long as it’s out there on the Interwebs, any passing journalist is free to yank it in to any passing article.

          • Sarah

            Eddie is very attached to his Straw Feminist. She lives in a house with his Straw black man and Straw Asian, Straw rape victim, Straw child abuse victim, his Straw liberal, Straw benefits claimant and His Straw job in politics.

            Given the amount of effort he puts into creating all his imaginary enemies, you think he’d have found the time to ever pick up a book on his subject, but no, I don’t think he goes out much so can’t get to the library, and he hasn’t mastered Amazon yet.

            Ask him what his least favourite feminist theory is, it’s hilarious – go on ask him.

          • Eddie

            HA HA HA HO HO HO!
            Pots and kettles Sarah Psycho!
            You it iswho are CONSTANTLY attacking the Straw Man – the imagined Eddie you have decided in a sexist, misogynist, racist, rapist, paedo (based on ZERO evidence – and a REALLy sick a disgusting thing for anyone to accuse another of).
            For you, the enemy is men – who are all perverted nasty evil rapist paedos – to contrast with wll women in your eyes who are fluffy wickle innocent bunnies.
            Me, I think PEOPLE can be good or bad or both. I have constantly supported gender equality here – but that is not what feminist bitches like you wantg, is it )be honest now, binty!)
            As many here have commented, you are a mad psychotic Millie Tant type manhating feminazi. All men are bastards to you and are responsible for all bad things in the world.
            WHY OH WHY did you turn out like this Sarah? Your mum and dad must have been vile specimens indeed. Still, at least now you ‘work’ for a mental health charity which may be able to help you.
            You and your sick perverted false accusations of rape and child abuse actually lead to REA: abuse cases going unpunished. How does it feel to cry wold and in doing so to abuse children and women Sarah?
            You sicko.

          • Veddie

            The facts show that millions of men abuse and rape women. Why such virulent denial? http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/women-s-rights/violence-against-women/violence-against-women-information

          • Eddie

            Listen. Veddie lie-mouth – I have never claimed that certain people rape or abuse others.

            I do however state the facts: women abuse children more than men; mostbabies who are killed are killed by women; about half of all kids who are killed are killed by women; most violent and emotional abuse of children is done by women; sex abuse is mostly done by men but often facilitated by women esp selfish single mothers.

            YOur straw man argument really is pathetic! No-one posting here is a crime-denier or rape-denier.

            YOu however are clearly a lying bint though – UTTER lies from you and your Psycho femi-fwend. Bog off, femibot manhater hypocrite!

          • Veddie

            Well said Sarah.

        • StephanieJCW

          “Men really do not need women ”

          Yep they can have kids all by themselves.

          And if you think men can shag women without consequences you’re deluded. If they practice safe sex maybe (and you may be shocked to realise, us women enjoy sex too) but if they knock her up, that will hit his pocket.

          And badly paid people are not slaves. There is nothing wrong with men and women employing the services of cleaners and nannies etc to do jobs they don’t wish to do. It’s not negative in the slightest.

        • http://www.facebook.com/michele.keighley Michele Keighley

          Possibly British women are the most unhappiest in Europe – but then again they have to deal with the likes of British men like Eddie. I mean really, biologically other than being a walking sperm bank what damn use are you? Less brain synapses unable to multi task, incompetent communicators, quarrelsome, competitive, aggressive – nothing but a blot on humanity. If by some freak of nature all females of the species were removed from the earth tomorrow the human race would cease to exist at the death of the youngest boy. Gone! – done for!!, despite all your so-called vaunted superiority!! However should the males be removed there would be enough pregnant females left giving birth to males to carry on the species – there you are … completely and utterly useless!! Cue the rapid femiphobics without a sense of humour.

          • Eddie

            Ad hominem bitchy girly mobbing attackes – how VERY feminist of you!

            See, men do not debate like that, in the overly emotional way in which you try and garner support to bully others. Trust me, I have seen females bully others (usually other females) – in schools, colleges, workplaces. You are just another feminasty feminutsy – and every insilt from cunts like you is a compliment. Really.

            Most women would agree with me and disagree with you. Are you AWARE of that, oh femibonkers one?

            I have stated that male brains DO have superiority in terms of IQ and in the aptitudes needed to invent major things, do science and maths etc. Also, men have the obsessive attitudes and risk-taking status-driven aspect to really get to gthe top, create new things, discover new worlds etc. That is NOT sexist at all – all the women I know would accept that – and that males/females are innately different because of different brain biology.

            Saying that is no more sexist that saying women tend to be suprerior to men at roles that involve emotions – caring roles, people jobs, jobs with small children. You seem to agree with that – and then go on to parrot the usual crap that ‘only women can multitask or communicate’ when in fact, though I agree multitasking with small things (baby at breats picking berries) is a female talent, men can multitask very well too in a different way (and No MAJOR task, like doing brain surgery – almost all surgeons are men of course – can be done in tandem with other things).

            But you DO accept that males and females are innately different! Hoorah! YOu agree with me! Ah but then you don’t agree with men when I say men are innately better at some things than women because of brain biology and instincts. YOU ARE ONE CONFUSED HYPOCRITE, sister!
            You see, a quick glance at gender ratios at universities clearly shows way more females in language classes and way more males in maths/science classes. (see, women’s brain have evolved to be good at language and to be fluent at a youngr age than boys – a preparation for motherhood and the life of ‘social glue’ in human communities; for men, risktaking, action, creating, spatial-awareness were more importsnt to get status – and talking could distract them or weaken them, thsue boys adopt language later than girls!!!)
            As all teachers know, however, even in language classes the REALLY good students – the ones at the top – are almost always boys, even if there are only 2 in a class of 20 girls. Females tend to be middling – as evolution determined. You prove this.
            Multitask is a word invented in the 90s in order to disparage and criticise men. But:

            ‘Men can’t multitask’ – perhaps translates as women can’t focus on one thing for a sustained period of time (butterfly brains!)
            YOU ARE A SEXIST – as is evidenced by your statement: Men ‘are nothing but a blot on humanity’.
            So if a sexist calls me sexist that proves I am not one (two negative and all that. Don’t worry, love. It’s maths. It’s hard. Leave it to the boys)

            By the way, sweetie, LEARN some grammar: FEWER brain synapses (not ‘less’), and a superlative should not take ‘most’ – so one cannot say the ‘most largest’ etc.

            Oh dear…

      • StephanieJCW

        “I think that the spectator is just playing the section of the male crowd that have rather a chip on their shoulder about ‘wimmin’ just not knowing their place anymore”

        This – one million times. This is really want it boils down to. A bunch of men who are incensed that women really don’t know their place – “that place being a wife and mother and that alone” and are incapable of articulating why women should be denied the freedom allowed to men, a freedom which sees men’s role in society as more than merely ‘husband and father’.

    • Eddie

      Errr it is a FACT that women get more drunk easily. This is because they tend to be smaller and lighter than men, and also that in women’s bodies alcohol does not get absorbed in water as much but in fat (women have more fat). Learn some basic biology and shut up, sister. Stating a fact is NOT trolling (why are women here so THICK they don’t know what that word means?)

      Women do have sex more readily, as any modern man compared to any man 50 years ago can attest. Back then, it was hardly any sex before marriage; got a girl pregnant and you had to marry and provide. Feminism has paradoxically allowed men to have way more freedom than they have ever had – freedom to behave badly, which is most of what it’s given women too in the last 40 years.

      Women smarter? Well, women do tend to be middling in IQ and that is enough to gte a degree and a career. The top 10% of IQ levels is dominated by men of course by a factor of 20:1. Maybe why women don’t do genius and never come up with major inventions or theories or ideas.

      Richer? Well, women have ALWAYS been rich – for doing less work than men. The wealth comes from divorced and dead husbands and dead fathers. It has always been a female aspiration NOT to work (as the working classes did in factories or as maids to so-called ‘oppressed’ Victorian women). Women have, when compared to men, had it rather easy and still do – what with their houses paid for by their husbands, and hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money being sponged by them in the form of socalled maternity ‘pay’ and child benefit (which is not even to mention the stupid property prices largely caused by women going out to work more).

      Also, children are the ones who have suffered in this – not men or women. It is children who have to suffer parents’ divorces and the shitty life of being in a single mother family (and maybe being abused by stepdaddy who mummy has invited in to her bed). It is children who are paying the price: look at the increase in language problems in children – this is a DIRECT result of women not being there in the early months and years of life, but just selfishly dumping their babies here and there on non-English speaking au pairs. Ditto for autism and ADHD.

      But then, feminism was always self-centred and innately selfish. Having said that, it’s American style feminism which is like this (and we Brits copy it stupidly); in France, the feminism there is not manhating, anti-family or anti-children, and most women who call themselves feminists would agree with all my points above. I know, I lived there.

      • StephanieJCW

        “It is children who are paying the price: look at the increase in language problems in children – this is a DIRECT result of women not being there in the early months and years of life, but just selfishly dumping their babies here and there on non-English speaking au pairs. Ditto for autism and ADHD.”

        Out here in the real world children have two parents – a mother and a father. If a child develops speech problems as a result of being looked after by au pairs (and I doubt you have evidence to support this as being a widespread problem) it is a result of selfish PARENTS, not selfish women.

        There is no reason, whatsoever why it is automatically the responsibility of the mother to provide full time early years care. Fathers are equally able to do so. If they choose not to you should criticise them just as much as working mothers.

        • Eddie

          Learn some biology and science. It very much IS for women to look after children in the early years: evolution has created female brains and instincts to be prepared for this, and they do it so much better than most men ever could. It is not sexist to state such a scientiific truism either.

          Women DO sponge maternity ‘pay’. I am campaigning for that to be abolished because I think it is fundamentally unfair that women who earn maybe £200,000 a year and own a million pound house get 90% of income courtesy of the taxpayer (incl the poorest in society and pensioners and those who don’t own property).

          It is a national scandal that billions – YEP, BILLIONS – is shelled out to women like this is a benefit linked to pay, this rewarding the richests and punishing the poorest (nonworking women get f all!).

          Most teachers are women. A pregnant teacher will cost the taxpayer on average some £150, per pregnancy, once supply cover is sorted out – and that is not even inlcuded in the stats that show maternity ‘pay’ costs us all well over £4,000,000,000 per year; some figure cite double that.

          Fay Weldon has commented on the way that so many women entering the workplace has contributed massively to insane house price inflation which murts the poorest people most.

          But then, you are a TYPICAL feminist bigot – always take the side of tyhe woman, even the rich nasty selfish PIG women out there who take take take and force ordinary people to live in poverty. Just like a traditional suffragette then – those bitches didn’t give a fig about ordinary people (ie their servants) either.

          Of course, men pay most tax in society and women get back way more in benefits and health spending and pensions.

          Are feminists campaining for ‘equality’ and ‘parity’ there too, hmmm?

          • StephanieJCW

            I know biology and science and know a crock when I see one. You stating this does not undermine the fact that fathers are equally as capable of providing early years care as mothers. And that two parents create a child. And so if a child is looked after by an au pair it is a decision made by selfish PARENTS, not women.

            And even to follow your nonsensical ‘logic’, if women have special innate skills that make every last one of them better at looking after children then those skills are innate to ‘women’ not ‘mothers’ and so there is no harm in a child being looked after by a female au pair is there.

            Women don’t sponge maternity pay. They are taxpayers. For those on higher than basic SMP their employer will pay. For those on basic SMP the employer claims the SMP as a credit against Employer’s NI due to the government. Try to educate yourself slightly on the subject before pontificating on it. (I actually don’t care about maternity pay, I think insurance companies would step in in most cases. Without it, in present society I am sure we would see a fall in birth rates but people like you will just have to accept that. It’s just silly to claim it as a women’s issue. It’s not. It’s an issue for families. Women who don’t want children won’t much care about maternity pay. Men who are fathers and rely on their partner’s income will.)

            There is nothing selfish about supporting the right of a woman to be a working (or stay-at home) mother should she wish. You can whinge on about house prices all you like but house prices aren’t good enough reason to confine me to the home, when I would rather have a career. If it is selfish of me to wish to have a career it is equally selfish for men to wish for the same.

            As I said if you are worried about two income families leading to higher house prices encourage more men to stay at home.

            But it’s not about that with you. It’s about you finding any reason whatsoever to justify your old fashioned sexist beliefs that women should have any place in life except ‘mother’ and ‘wife’. My sister in law is a solicitor – according to you she is a selfish pig for liking earning her own money and having a job she loves.

  • Jakka

    Ha ha ha ha ha. Oh deary me what a comedian you are.

  • Jakka

    the pioneers of an oral contraceptive pill were Margaret Sanger (1st birth control clinic 1916) and Katherine McCormick
    refrigerator invented by Florence Parpart 1914
    cooking stove invented by Elizabeth Hawk 1867
    dishwasher invented by Josephine Cochran in 1872
    circular saw invented by Tabitha Babbitt 1812
    ironing board invented by Sarah Broone 1892
    fire escape invented by Anna Connelly 1887
    life raft invented by Maria Beaseley 1882
    medical syringe invented by Letitia Geer 1899
    windscreen wiper invented by Mary Anderson 1903

    but hey, who needs facts when you can make it up

    • Eddie

      Oh come OFF it – women in history have invented hardly anything at all – and just a few minor inventions. If you try and argue anything else, you make a fool of yourself indeed.

      And some of your citations are fake. A woman invented the dishwasher, yes (so her pretty china would not get chipped), but women did NOT invent the pill or any other major medication, the saw, the fridge, the syringe, the windscreen wiper, the fire escape, the stove (all of which existed before the dates you cite!). Your facts are not facts, dear – you made them up (or took them from some feminutty US website which did!).

      Even mad feminists like Greer admit that women do not do genius, that they are middling in IQ levels and do not excel in science or maths for innate reasons, that men have invented everything, that men take risks and are obsessive enough to do that.

      And it is NOT sexist to state the reality: that practically all major inventions were invented by men (incl many that you stupidly cite above). It is, au contraire, sexist to deny that and try to portray the exception as the rule. It smacks of desperation and a huge chip on the shoulder.

      To blow apart JUST ONE of your fabricated ‘facts’:

      “Irish born inventor James Henry Apjohn (1845–1914) devised a method of moving two brushes up and down on a vertical plate glass windscreen in 1903. This was patented in the UK.”

      • Jakka

        Bring it on Eddie. Let them hear what you really think.

        • Eddie

          It’s not what I think – it’s the facts. You have yours wrong. Really, women did NOT invent the first fridge, windscreen wipers, pill, stove, fire escape, syringe, life raft etc.
          To say they did is factually wrong. Not my opinion. Not what I think. But what the evidence shows (just to an online search on verifiable and respectable checkable sources).
          A woman DID invent the dish washer – based on an already existing male invention.
          I deal in facts; you deal is propaganda – ie opinion masquerading as fact.
          You are therefore either just misguided and ignorant, or you are desliberately intending to promote a lie. Either way, this shows you to be a liar.

          • Jakka

            Absolutely. And it was men who comapaigned tirelessly for women’s suffrage as you can see from the photo above.

          • Eddie

            Jakka the nut

            It was PEOPLE who campaigned for universal sufferage, and women getting the vote was just one of MANY successes won by those PEOPLE. And yes, it was men who campaigned – just as it was men whose inventions and political successes reformed society.

            Frankly, the women who were involved in the sufferagettes were almost without exception vile, upper class, self-obsessed, haughty, purinatical snobs (no wonder they are the role models fo modern feminasties eh?). They saw ordinary women and men as being of a lesser caste and almost a lesser species – they were NOT lovely liberal-minded tolerant persons at all. There was not much to admire in that bunch of nattering feminutsies.

            And that silly bint who chucked herself under a horse was a real feminutter too. Poor horse.

          • Remi

            I’m going to take a crazy guess that commenters such as Eddie and Mumbler are white hetrosexual men…

            Bless you guys – and this article – a lovely piece of wish fullfillment. Yes white men did change much of the laws during the 20th century to nurture equal rights, but only because of the blood and sweat of the many women, ethnic minorities and gays (and yes some men too!) who refused to remain invisible. People who – by the way – are much braver than you, or me, since rather than typing passive aggressively into internet comment boards, woke up every day and suffered and battled for what they believed in. Much more than I think you’d be able to fathom…

            But nether the less these comment are great fun to read, its like listening to the swan songs of the scared patriarchal elite unable to do much but sulk at their power being distributed to the masses.

            Good times.

          • Eddie

            Wrong again, you racist sexist American twerp.
            No, dear. It was NOT the blacks who freed the slaves, and it was not some upper class cliques of ladies who lunch who freed anyone (the suffragettes actualled wanted to STOP the vote for all working class people!).
            I also battel for what I believe in – yet you think that worthy of insults and false accusations of being sexist and racist (which no do you chuck at ALL white men like the racist sexist hypocrite you are).
            Look up the word ELITE, you cretin! The elite is by its very nature a tiny minority – so why do you assume all white men belong to it? Ah yes, I know – because you’re racist and sexist against white men and can’t seem to see the massive contradiction in your feminutsy nincompoopery.
            I agree though that I am braver than you. You are both a coward and a prat – but thanks for exposing your true agenda (racist and sexist discrimination against white men) so well.
            Me, I support the equal treatment of all people in law (something feminists and African American separatist white-haters and fans of racism – ie positive discrimination – disagree with violently).

          • mumble

            Well done for introducing race and sexuality into a discussion in the history of feminism. Kitchen-sink scattershottery is always helpful.

          • http://twitter.com/gen_stewart Genevieve Stewart

            It’s called intersectionality, google it.

          • Eddie

            It’s called bullshit, dear, if you have to rely on fabricated sociological theories cobbled together by some marxist lebisans in 1973.
            It’s called making a false argument by attempting to link subjects that have no connection to each other – usually in order to blame and disparage another group in society (white men) who are held responsible for all bad in the history of the world.
            It could thus be called SIMPLETON-ISM really. The art of making a false and specious and spurious argument because you have been outargued by others and refuse to accept the factual basis of their evidence (as opposed to the wish-fulfillment hypothetical nature of yours).
            Very popular with feminutsies, it seems.
            Google yourself, silly.

          • mumble

            Well done, Genevieve Stewart, for a skilled deployment of Ulrike Gesondheidsdóttïr Syndrome. Kindly supply a complete list of Gender Studies theorists whose outpourings I am required to study before I may see what is before me.

          • mumble

            It’s called a run-on sentence; Google it.

          • mumble

            So, anyway, having been well patronised by a feminist (oxymoron?), I dutifully trotted off and Googled it, and discovered an idea that started out as, at minimum, being worthy of serious consideration but which has now, as previously observed, been railroaded into an uncritical excuse to drag all one’s issues into every discussion.

            For example (the word “spittle” is not even in my mind), here is a contribution the well-measured reason of which must surely compel even the most cynical: http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my-feminism-will-be-intersectional-or-it-will-be-bullshit/

            “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” —Eric Hoffer (Dead White Man; sorry, but there it is)

          • mumble
          • mumble

            Thanks for the “eilte”, BTW: I am, indeed, so old and so far out into “don’t get it” territory” that I don’t get what’s wrong with elitism, and hanging around here isn’t helping.

          • Eddie

            I think you’ll find that most black men and Asian men (Muslim, Hindu etc) inlcuding Indians and Chinamen, really do rather like oppressing women and NOT giving them the equal rights and protection in law that white heterosexual men fought so hard to give everyone in the 20th and 19th century – and MUCH much earlier too, as men fought the oppression of the Church.
            In fact, many Asian and black men seem to be big fans of rape (which needds 4 witnesses in Islam), marrying underage girls, forcing young girls into prostitution, beating them up (no such thing as ‘domestic violence’ in Muslims societies – just good Islam…) and chucking acid in their faces and stoning them to death if they disagree etc.
            Read some history, you fecking idiot!
            Your racism and sexism against white men is really just bigotry masquerading as equality.
            White men are the only hope the world and sanctimonious spoilt bigmouthed selfish excuses for women like you have.

          • http://twitter.com/gen_stewart Genevieve Stewart

            Hahahahahahahahahaha racism against white people? Sexism against men? Oh, jolly good. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while.

          • Eddie

            Well, mental people do laugh to themselves. Good luck with the lithium, love.
            Sexism and racism and oppression and discrimination (no doubt what you’d call ‘positive action’) can apply to ANYONE – if you do not accept that then anything you say is invalid.

          • mumble

            Genevieve Stewart, the comments section of this article alone are saturated with racism against white people and sexism against men. Do you read [and comprehend] or do you just post?

          • StephanieJCW

            So you take a couple of examples from Islam to determine that the majority of black and Asian men like oppressing women.

            You really need to work on your debating skills including providing evidence to support your outlandish assertions.

          • mumble

            “Yes white men did change much of the laws during the 20th century to nurture equal rights”

            So you accept the thesis of the article; splendid.

            “but only because of the blood and sweat of the many women, ethnic minorities and gays”

            “ONLY”?! I think that one must take the palm for the most unjustifiable sweeping statement of the day. I’m looking forward to the book (nay, the movie) of Lloyd George’s heroic partnership with ethnic minorities and gays.

            “(and yes some men too!)”

            So you accept the thesis of the article; splendid.

          • mumble

            Oh, I do hope my aggression isn’t passive.

            Anyway, welcome to the ultimate democracy, where your posts stand or fall on their merits.

          • mumble

            I’ve been re-reading this for longer than it seems worth, but, y’know what? I kinda like it. Men did not do what they did do, because they did not do what they did not do. Such insight into the heart of the matter is what male-dominated debate has been lacking all this while. No wonder the patriarchy is in disarray; they’ve been relying on Socratic argument all this time when they could just have gone with their guts.

        • mumble

          Thank you for your well reasoned response.

      • mumble

        Word of the Day: “feminutsy”

      • http://www.facebook.com/michele.keighley Michele Keighley

        Sorry but Mary Anderson beat him to it, patented the windscreen wiper as we know it (not Apjohn’s which fell out of use) in the US in 1903.

        And just to deal another blow to your assumption of male superiority Kevlar is the substance which forms the basis of radial tires and brake pads, suspension bridge cables, helmets, hiking and camping gear, and most notably, bullet-proof vests as used by the British Army among others. And the inventor of this magnificent stuff? It was Stephanie Kwolek, from DuPont, who created Kevlar in 1964 – a female.

        Oh – and, poor ignorant one, the list posted by Jakka is mostly substantiated by a search of the US and UK patent offices. [there are one or two who, it is believed, had to have their patent filed in their husband’s name, but whose authenticity cannot be verified] Strange your profile isn’t public, but then again perhaps not. Prejudice is never pleasant, and your brand of it is disgusting. I am surprised to see it the Spectator – a magazine I once respected – but, alas, it appears that it too is rapidly deteriorating.

        PS Germaine Greer is an idiot – and I speak as an Australian.

        • Eddie

          Listen, twerp. My posts are not prejudiced – I do not recommend or support discrimination against anyone on grounds of anything, and support merit.

          This differentiates me from feminists who are sexist and often racist too against men who do not happen to be the big black primitives they seems to gush over.

          But facts is facts, honey – and the fact is that male and female brains are different, as are male and female aptitudes and attitudes – and that means most things and ALL major inventions come from the minds of men. Always have, always will. That is accepted by most women because it is a fact, not an opinion, and in no way disparages women, whose brains have other instincts as evolved: caring jobs, people jobs – these are what women excel in. Not nuts and bolts, science, maths, inventing. OK?

          Now, get off your highh horse honey and drink yer milk! It’ll probably be as disgusting as a misandrist’s gusset (BTW how VERY girly of you, and silly, to call those making arguments you dislike ‘disgusting’ – see, a man would never do that!)

          The windscreen wipers we use were invented by a man in 1963. Even if your dolly bird is credited with their invention in 1903 (a man patented them in the same year! So at best it’s a joint credit!), it is hardly a MAJOR invention.

          Who invented cars, trains, computers, the internet, TV, radio, the bicycle, the phone, ANYTHING major.

          All men. Fact, not opinion. Exaggerating the minor achievemnets of a few women who were excpetions to the ruls distorts the truth and is pure propaganda as bad as the Stalinist kind. Women inventors are very thing in the ground – and not one major invention came from a woman it seems (just adaptions of male inventions). Men are also much better at thinking in an abstract non-emotional way – and thus all major academic theories (even the bullshite ones on which some femi-theories are based) came from male brains.If you are arguing the opposite then you are an idiot – like Germane Greer.
          Look at some MRI scans and the link I gave for Christmas, and stop arguing that the earth is flat dear. You’re making a fool of yourself. Most women agree with me – and would also agree that what I say is neither sexist, nor prejudiced. Unlike most feminutsies, of course.

          • StephanieJCW

            Eddie refers to racist feminists and then immediately goes on to refer to

            “big black primitives”.

            Physician, heal thyself.

          • Eddie

            My point was: this is how WOMEN see these black men – exotic and primitive. NOT how I see black men.
            In fiction, it’s called the free indirect third person narrative style: I was revealing THEIR thoughts of black men, not mine.

            My language is probably too complex and subtle for those who read everything as bland statement.
            Race-obsessive: educated thyself.

      • Gaby

        ALWAYS seem to drift into the realms of fantasy aren’t you Eddie? How does it feel to be alone and sounding absolutely deranged with your prejudiced and vitriolic bile against women? Society, politics, religions and some of those men who control these corridors of power are moving on in their attitudes to women and black people. You are being left behind. You are only to be pitied and stared at with curiosity as you are terrible remainder from another era, a relic from an oppressive and regressive past. I just want to ask how do feel about the many men who agree with feminist values and campaign for it? Do you despise them as much as women? You’re a sad and pathetic individual who discriminatory views are beneath contempt. A knuckle dragging, troll

    • mumble

      The whole point about women inventors is that they are few enough to list; “What do bulletproof vests, fire escapes, windshield wipers, and laser printers have in common?” is a pub-quiz staple.

      (Incidentally, laser printers were invented by Gary Starkweather and the fire-escape ladder by Joseph Winters or Daniel McCree, depending.)

      • Eddie

        Yep, and windscreen wipers too (see most post) were invented by men.

        When will feminutsies understand that pointing out these facts – and even stating that there are innate biological and brain differences between men and women that lead to different aptitudes and talents and attitudes – is not at all sexist or anti-women.

        Women tend to excel in caring roles because the emotional part of their brain is always on: this obviously evolved for good reason, as did men;s instinct to take risks, have great spatial awareness, build and invent stuff, fight and hunt (women gather – ie go shopping – with magic beans gained from men’s hunting trips).

        Women just don’t invent much and tend not to excel in maths or the sciences – that is largely innate, which seems obvious as men and women evolved for specific reproductive and paternal roles, but even if feminists believe it’s learned behaviour, there is no denying the facts: women have invented very little, and also have come up with VERY few academic theories – exaggerating the importance of one or two minor female inventions really is silly.
        Most women have no problem accepting that men not women have invented all major inventions. Only full-on fury-spitting feminutsies do.

      • Sarah

        Just imagine for a minute how easy it would be to invent something when you are forbidden from  attending any university, music college or art college, you cannot leave the house unaccompanied, it is unsafw to do so if you are allowed, you cannot go to a coffee shop, socialise with, or work with men, your father does not allow you to read newspapers or books,  you haven’t money of your own, you wear restrictive clothing.   You are married at 18 and pregnant, nursing once per year from that point, often grieving for lost children.  Your role is to submit to your husband and to serve him.  You aren’t allowed to speak in public, it is deemed indecent for women to promote themselves and ungodly for them to lead, you have been taught you are morally and intellectually inferior to men,god invented you to be a helpmeet.   

        Does it not strike you as a bit of a coincidence that most inventions, literature and creative output at every point in history has issued forth from the group of people who have most social, financial, intellectual, political, religious, legal power? That it always comes from imperialists, the educated, the wealthy, the powerful, the people with the time and resources to dedicate to it?   

        I suggest you look at the list of famous inventors and see how many were paupers, uneducated, we’re unable to share their ideas. And how many went to kings College Cambrdge, where women were not allowed, how many were members of Royal Societies which women were banned from. How many had wealthy benefactors and patrons while their sisters did not, how many spent their time in social hot spots that women were not allowed to enter, how many had teams of women looking after their needs and their families. How many belonged to the richest nation on earth at the time.

        Do you think it’s a coincidence that women’s IQ has outstripped men’s now of all times? 

        • mumble

          Why, Sarah, that sounds just like Michael Faraday, Thomas Edison, etc., etc., etc.

        • mumble

          Um… It is widely accepted that we haven’t yet got a good way of measuring intelligence (we can easily measure how good people are at doing IQ tests, but that’s not the same thing). So claiming that women have higher IQ than men has as much validity as claiming that one race is differently intelligent than another.

        • Eddie

          The same old feminist LIE argument. And it is this, writ in stone: ‘men and women are excatly the same, and if women had had the same ‘advantages’ (HA!) that all men had (I KID YOU NOT!) then women would be 50% of all inventors, mathematicians, scientists, great artists/writers/businesspeople’.

          Utter wish-fulfillment fantasist tripe.

          Men and women have, to talk generally as we must, different brains and different evolutionary functions which evolved them. Thus males have always and will always dominate the very high IQ levels (men outnumber women by 20:1 in the top 10% of IQs).

          Even the feminist heroine Germane Greer says ‘WOMEN DON’t DO GENIUS’! Are you arguing with one of your gods, Sarah? Tut tut! Naughtly girl! They’ll cancel your subscription to Manhating Monthly if you’re not careful.

          Your argument is just SO 1973 Sarah. Things have moved on since then and MRI scans showing how different male/female brains behave have blown the feminist ‘social conditioning’ argument out of the water.

          Men will always be the vast majority of inventors, high achievers, mathematicians, surgeons, highfliers in business and politics. Why? 1) they have the brains for it; 2) the have the risk-talking, hard-working, obsessive instinct for it.

          I know no sane and reasonable woman who disagrees with that – becasuse to state that fact is not sexist in the least; it is stating reality. And a fact cannot be sexist.

          Look at MRI scans and research on IQs, Psycho Sarah, and do shut up your whingeing, there’s a good feminutsy!

          Read it and weep, whinger:


      • mumble

        By the way, this is a stupid conversation and would be even if it were factual; I was merely trying to steer it towards factual stupidity.

      • mumble

        By the way, this is a stupid conversation and would be even if it were factual; I was merely trying to steer it towards a more factual flavour of stupidity.

  • undergroundman14

    Feminism has long since been taken over by anti-white anti-male bigots, influenced by the likes of Susan Sontag and Gloria Steinem. My wonderful mother is the hardest working, and greatest person in the world, (yep, i’m a mama’s boy,) who of course is entitled to the same rights as i am. But many women don’t want the same rights as men, they want power. And a desire for political and cultural power is a very different thing from wanting equality.

    • Sarah

      Does it occur to you that women don’t just want the same rights as you has, that they might want to has a say in their design as well as their distribution?

      • mumble

        It occurs to me that not the least of the problems with dealing with feminism is getting a coherent idea of what women want.

    • mumble

      Andrea Dworkin was my favourite: “ALL SEX IS RAPE!” “ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS!”. When we get enough historical perspective, this may turn out to be when feminism jumped the shark.

      • Eddie

        Oh yes, I think you;ll find Sarah believes all men are rapists and paedophiles too. Women of course are fluffy wickle bunnies who never harm a fly…Yeah right.

        Moreover, I can see that the manhating sexist moron called alfoxton states on another board that it’s men who start wars – now this is a typical feminist fale argument.

        Yes, men fight the wars, just as men invented everything, created societies with human rights and law, and fought for those. One could say that men saved the free world in 1939-40 – women had it so easy in comparison! Yet enjoy the fruits of freedom men died for!

        But really, if one looks round the world one sees that women are the biggest warmongers there are – who do you think encourages suicide bombers? Women are also way more religious and extreme than men in every country – an innate instinct.
        And who do you think encourages men to commit crime and be violent to other men in local situations: there is usually a woman looking on loving the way her ‘man’ is kicking the shit out of some poor bastard. And then the same women complain they get beaten up by their boyfriends – they choose a thug, then moan about the consequences. Well, yer makes yer bed…

        PEOPLE cause wars – human nature. Anyone who blames one gender is a sexist twat.

        And of course, if women were in direct charge then all tanks, battleships and army uniforms would be pink, and we’d have a world war 5 days every month.

        Hey ho…

        • StephanieJCW

          So men only do bad things because women tell them to? Do you really believe this crock?

          • Eddie

            Nope. MOTIVATE THEM – (and not necessarily individual women either, but the existence of females who need to be impressed by wealth, power, status) which is the evolutionary striving of men to beat other men to become the alpha male and thus sire more offspring. Men get status from achievements.
            (Interestingly though the feminist lie-theory of patriarchy agues the opposite – that even when women do bad things, it’s all men’s fault, because women only did bad things because of male structures in society! There cretin-feminists argue that if female structures existed, then we’d live in Utopia and no women would ever do bad things! And you don’t think feminists are sexists?)
            Women get status from beauty and youth which represent healthiness for breeding.
            As evidence, I ask you to take a walk round any major city. Look at the mostly white and male (privileged?) homeless people – how many pretty women are stopping to make themselves available to be chatted up?
            Then walk into a bar at a posh hotel – the Savoy, the Hilton – look at the people there: all the older men (rich and with status) and all the girls who swarm around them.
            You might not like this, but it’s reality and it’s biology – and it melts all silly fabricated feminist theories into nothingness like the salt of truth dissolving a squirmin slug.
            This blog proves, if nothing else, that women really ARE very weak at science and have almost no knowledge of biology or scientific method – and that they can’t remove the emotion from debate either.
            QED. Fank u.

          • StephanieJCW

            So you do believe this crock.

  • Domini Canes

    You should see the spittle-flecked hissy fits going on on Twitter at this very moment over this article amongst the ultra-nutjob-feminists, it’s hilarious. Undergroundman14 is quite right, these women don’t want equality, they want power, actually I’m not sure half of them even know what they want and are just living out a perpetual angst-ridden social-political adolescence. Of course some men helped the Women’s movement, they’d never have got anywhere if we’d all stayed dead-set against it lets not kid ourselves. Admitting that would of course be a concession to the real world of course, and Heaven forbid they allow a silly thing like objective historical reality get in the way of their sacred half-baked ideologies.

    • alfoxton

      Well in that case the author got what he wanted from this little excercise in mysoginistic trolling didn’t he?

      One only has to read the patronising replies to realise that a any form of real equality is a long way off.

      Can’t help but thinking that if thios piece had been about black/ white rather than men/ women, this piece would never have seen the light of day.

      • Sam Skewer

        “Can’t help but thinking that if thios piece had been about black/ white rather than men/ women, this piece would never have seen the light of day.”
        What a deeply stupid thing to say, and a dumb analogy to put forward, especially considering the vile misandry that feminists promote day in day out.

        • alfoxton

          So it’s stupid cos you think that a piece saying that black people got the vote because white people allowed them to WOULD be published – or it’s stupid because it’s correct but you don;t want to admit and it wouldn’t but you need to find a strawman to hide behind?

          Find me some misandry and I can find you some anti white racism in response if you like and then we can go back to the original statement to see if you can refute it properly.

          • mumble

            Oh, get a grip. The only place Sam Skewer’s comment went wrong was in failing to capitalise “DEEPLY STUPID”.

          • Eddie

            Actually, you twerp, in the UK there was NEVER any racial or skin colour bar to having the vote (against catholics and criminals, yes). But NONE against anyone of any skin colour. You may think you are right but you are factually wrong, like all ignorant, ill-read students.

            Men with property got the vote after the Great Reform Act in 1832 (they used to teach that in schools before the identity politics of women’s and ethnic history took over); women got votes in local elections in 1870 (NOT 1918); all men with property got the vote in the 1884; women over 30 and all men in 1918, and all women and men over 21 only in 1928, and over 18 in 1969.
            So women got the vote just a small number of years after ordinary men – not long at all, in fact. The year was 1918 for ALL men too!

            You must be referring to the USA – and there, yes, black people and slaves would have been far better off if it had stayed British: they then would have been freed slaves in 1807 or 1832/3. Instead they had to wait till the 1860s.

            Most feminists like to promote the lie that men have had the vote and power for centuries and poor wickle women haven’t. What UTTER tosh!
            They portray the most upper class men and compare them tothe most poverty-stricken women. Specious, spurious argument – and how very typically dishonest.

            Well, how about comparing all the oppressed men – all those poverty-stricken teenagers forced into the first World War by women (oftehn suffragettes) giving them white feathers for cowardice, and then killed or mutilated – with the upper class callous bitches who WERE the suffragette campaign (and those women didn’t give a shit about their poor female servants either, just as feminists these days do not care about the immigrants who wipe their parents and children’s arses).

          • alfoxton

            Oh eddie – bless your cottons. Did that take you all that time to come up with that load of irrelevant tosh? What a waste. There you go again – having a little argument with the person you wish existed in your head. It’s easier for you to do that than actually adress anything, that anyone actually thinks isn’t it?

            Equality is more than just also having the vote sweetheart as you apppear to think. But I guess in Eddie world having the vote = equality.
            Still – well done for proving that some men at least are inferior to EVERYONE.

          • Eddie

            Ad hominem attacks and insults.


            Typical too of feminists – m,aybe why most women do not agree with you or call themselves the F word. Manhating angry hissy spitting liars like you put them off. Your post and many others here PROVE That feminists are nothing more than female chauvinist heffers – sexists who despise the men they envy and so want to be!

            Men and women are not equal and never can be in their aptitudes and talents, caused by brain biology.

            They should be treated as equallly worthy and equal in law (something feminists fight AGAINST), but no, men and women are NOT equal.

            This lie is promoted because of the feminist pity party theory of patriarchy which states that ‘if women had as much opportunity as men then women would achieve as much as men’. Well, sorry – they wouldn’t. That is deteremined in brain biology. So no matter how much you force girls into engineering (as pc teachers do in London schools) there is no way women will ever be major inventors.

            It is NO coincidence that the Internet and all major figures in it (nope not the CEO bullshitters, but the real creators of it) were all men. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Tim B-L could not have been women. And that alsop goes for childless women.

            Fact is, well off and privileged women have WAY more opportunity than most men, incl me: and yet we chieve more. Why? Maybe because there are twice as many men with IQs over 120 as women, and the top IQ levels are dominated by men (20:1 m/f ratio). Men are more creative, obsessive, abstract in thinking, risk-taking and a few are geniuses. Women do not DO genius.

            There is no discrimination stopping women; what stops themj achieveing the same as men is innate in their brain biologies, so can never change. Ditto for men, most of whom will never have their emotional brain always-on as women do.

            Men’s instinct as predetermined by their brains is to systematise; women’s is to empathise. DO SOME RESEARCH – I have added the link about IQs, but you could look at MRI scans of male/female brains or look at Baron-Cohen’s work at Cambridge.

            Don’t you think, femifibber, that this may be due to that ting called EVOLUTION, y;know?

            Science and common sense is on my side.

            Germane Greer, Andres Dworkin, and Camilla Puglier are on yours.

            Oh dear…

      • mumble

        The word “misogyny” implies “hatred” but is also applied by the whistling-teakettle school of feminism to affectionate paternalism, amused contempt and legitimate exasperation with stupid people being arseholes, which does language no good nor anyone either.

  • Rida17

    “Lloyd George is the original British feminist” So, the man who voted against the Conciliation Bill, which was the first opportunity to give women the vote, and participated in a government that sanctioned violence against women through force feeding in prisons was a feminist?

    How about Annie Besant who led the strike of women matchmakers or even Emily Davies who fought for university education for women and established Girton College?

  • your worst enemy

    if I was an arrogant bastard writing about an act that has been led by countless women; sacrificing all that they have. I would at least get my facts right and don’t forget spellings “behavior” “catalyzed”
    but hey at least they’re BIG words right? =)

  • A.L. Brown

    A rather empty and dangerous text. If you want to take personal credit for feminism, that’s fine, but then be a ‘real’ feminist — one who believes in and supports the overcoming of gendered behaviours and expectations — or more basically, fights against continued discrimination against women in other parts of the world. As it stands, your final paragraph absolutely contradicts your first paragraph; it clearly buys into the status quo of men having the power in society. You only have to enjoy the comments of the terrifying, narrow-minded Eddie, below, to see what kind of audience you are preaching to.

    The idea that men killing each other somehow magically provided women with equal rights is patently absurd — how then do you explain the fact that women in New Zealand got the vote in the late 1800s, some 20 years before the end of WWI? You might do well to read about the history of the women’s movement in that country.
    Several bills were proposed and did not pass until popular opinion gradually shifted in support of women’s suffrage. This only happened thanks to campaigning by women and women’s groups.

    To call the pill ‘the greatest act of liberation’ is also disingenuous. Yes, the pill gave women control over their bodies — and that was essential to freeing them to develop
    themselves in ways they couldn’t when they spent their lives bearing children.
    But why did this freedom only come with a chemical solution? Couldn’t men have
    respected women’s right to choose long before that? The pill has not redressed
    the issue of men feeling entitled to access women’s bodies whenever they want to, through prostitution and pornography, for instance.

    To imply that the Civil Rights movement was a men’s movement is even more ridiculous — “men offered a lead”? “Aggressive tactics were far more effective than
    polite lobbying”? Again, what history are you reading? The tactics of the Civil Rights movement were virtually identical to the tactics of the earlier suffragist movement. Primarily non-violent, involving marches, sit-ins and consciousness-raising. Women’s groups participated in the movement as well, unsurprisingly given that feminism was already a mature phenomenon at the time. You may be right in one way about this prompting a resurgence of feminism — but not in the way you are suggesting. The work “Sisters in the Struggle: African American Women in the Civil Rights-Black Power Movement” observes that women’s exclusion by men from participating in aspects of the movement led to a renewed feminist struggle by black women.

    But it is the argument from nature that is particularly egregious. “Men were merely
    responding to Mother Nature’s uneven distribution of responsibilities which
    made sexual inequality a fact of life for hundreds of thousands of years”.
    This is simply laughable; really, it is astounding that anyone possessing education
    or intellect would make such an argument. Not only does it ignore the many
    and varied forms of social order that have existed across human history (ask
    any anthropologist), but it suggests — incredibly — that forced marriage, veiling,
    bride kidnapping, rape, and other crimes and forms of control over women, indeed, the relegation of women to sub-human status, were somehow ordained by ‘Mother Nature’. No, men invented these all by themselves.

    Ofcourse men had to make concessions in order for women to gain rights, and that is admirable, in a way. And ideas of equality and rights can be traced back to enlightenment concepts synthesised primarily by male philosophers. But to imply that women should be grateful for this is shocking. It ignores the years of campaigning by dedicated women on the one hand; and on the other hand, the fact that men did, and continue to disrespect, degrade, abuse and kill women on a daily basis.

    To draw a parallel, you might as well say that all the men who ever achieved anything actually achieved nothing, and infact all the merit lies with the women who gave birth to them. But that wouldn’t make sense to you, would it? So why should men get the credit for what are essentially women’s achievements?

    Let’s try harder to love and respect one another, rather than seek to apportion credit or blame. There is still much to be done, together, to transform some of the primitive and toxic aspects of our society.

    • Eddie

      Glad that I terrify you, moron. Any insult for a manhating old hag buillshitter like you is a compliment indeed.

      And it is you who are narrow-minded, NOT me or most men – I just state the facts. You yourself admit that you hate white men. No much love or respect in that you self-contradicting twerp!

      And you just blamed men for all bad in the world, and then said ‘let’s stop apportioning credit or blame’. Errr – a tad confused there. Maybe up the Lithium dosage for Crimbo, eh?

      Maybe call up your sisters on that man invention the phone, or email them on the man invention the computer, with that other man invention, writing, before going shopping for things made and invented by men – and no doubt paid for by men too (from your husband or fathers money, or state benfits which come from taxes mostly paid by men), maybe some nice clothes (weaving technology all invented by men) and then have a sandwich (made from farming technology also pioneered by men) and a cup of tea in a china cup also invented by men WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
      Sorry, but they’s the facts. If it were different, I would say so – as I did before: a woman did invent the dishwasher (based on man-invented technology using man-discovered and harnessed electricity).

      You racist and sexist pig! Your arguments have been well and truly roasted, so trot along now, squealer.

  • A.L. Brown

    Oh yes and the ‘liberation’ from housework — another gem. (The points presented above, by the way, are so old and well-worn that it’s a wonder they still hang together solidly enough to be trotted out for the hundredth time.) Men, seeking to make a profit, manufacture machines that they know will sell to every household. A side effect of this is that women may face less domestic drudgery. But why did they face this drudgery in the first place? Because men refused to share the burden — ‘women’s work’ was considered unmanly — etc.

    Yet, according to the author, women ought to be grateful to the inventor of the toaster for their emancipation (!).

    If a man says to me, “I believe that a woman is a human being with exactly the same faculties and potential as myself; I have never spoken or acted in a way that implies otherwise, have never laughed with other males who engage in behaviours that degrade women, nor blindly accepted systems of male power that harm both men and women” — then I will embrace him as a fellow feminist.

    As for the inventor of the toaster, I will be sure to thank him every time I make a piece of toast. And Eddie can thank the women who invented weaving, pottery and agriculture every time he puts on a piece of clothing or eats some domesticated food from a plate.

    • Eddie

      Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that women invented agriculture, pottery and weaving! They did it, yes – but invented? No chance. Men invented everything because men takes risks and DO stuff which may go wrong – women play it safe. It evolution had been left up to females we’d all still be fish in rockpools (too risky leaving it to go on land to grow legs eh?)
      Your view of history as a nasty conspiracy of men against women is just SO absurd – it is YOUR invention, love – a fabrication which you came up with to fit your fake little theory of patriarchy (now exposed as a lie now we have MRI scans and can see that male/females brains are innately different)
      You are NOT a true feminist, as I am. You are a mah hating tit! YOur whole post degrades and denigrates men – all men who have ever lived. A TRUE feminist would be appalled by that blatant sexism – but then most self-identified feminists are nothing of the sort: the want INEQUALITY and SEXISM, and NOT equality for women but inequality for men!
      There are no ‘systems of male power’ you 1973 throwback! Jeez – how you old hags must miss them bra-burning days eh? Like some old git in a rocking chair talking bout the old days.
      What a bore!
      Fact is, in history, WOMEN have had it MUCH easier than men! No obligation to fight in wars or provide for a family usually. This is what feminutsies like you fail to see in your obsessive misandirst craving for pity party victimhood.
      Oh, and you’ve also got no sense of humour. Pity the man who has to spend Christmas with a femibot!

    • Eddie

      I think you’ll find, feminutsy, that many women were married to men who made profits and thus never did a day’s damn work in their lives (such wives exist now, motivating their banker husbands to be ever more greedy).
      Read a damn history of domestic service and realise that it is women and men from poor backgrounds who did the house work for the rich.
      Your these that all poor wickle women are victims and all men nasty exploitative perpetrators of evilness, is really very 1973 wimmin’s group. I award it an E minus – and that’s a fucking generoud Christmas gesture!
      Women had it easy doing the housework as maids even; men had to work 12 hours a day as miners or farmworkers or other workers, or get blown to bits on wars.
      Be careful what you wish for, sister.

    • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

      I hopelessly out
      of touch with reality, I know:
      and have been told so here…. ouch!
      Love:hubby and me, sorted this problem recently
      after years of struggle : on housework
      We bought a couple of robots:
      Zoomba has sexy womanly voice,

      which he loves, just like mine!
      (reason I picked,for him, actually)
      and I named him houseboy, when

      he objected, I said get over it.

      He transexual.

      Complemented by a Little Mint

      who just like me glides over our

      floors and blessing them…..

      Who I named Miss MOP, for him.

      I love miss mop with all me heart

      and chose her, after watching on

      Youtube. Just look for Mint

      Runway… they synchronized

      a whole bunch and had them

      dance in unison. Both send

      signals when they stuck. or

      need help and we both jump

      up to run to them.

      Could Eddie put in a word for

      my pottery family… who made

      pot for Mediavel London,

      some of which headed for

      America – on a Mayflower
      – to start some new lives.

      They must be strong some

      of em `still hanging in,
      I think.. but especially
      housed, with a warden
      on site.

      Wow, I`m loving everything
      here this week!

      • Eddie


        Is that what you Americans used to call ‘niggers’?

        Aren’t they all Hispanics now?

        Yes, they’re rather good, aren’t they?

        Very cheap to run, despite the poor communication wiring, and despite some odd smells from their inner workings, and occasionally hairy bodywork. But they sure do the job!

        That means all the oppressed women of the household don’t have to get their hands dirty and can instead spend their time at women;s studies workshops moaning and whingeing about how oppressed they are.

        And no need for anyone to know about them either or for you to pay tax on their earnings! Well, why on earth should they have a rat-free home to live in or adequate healthcare? They are only robots, after all.


        Equality at last!

        • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

          The name’s I be givin’ my shibboleths, speak about my inner being….. and I gather yours do to.
          I’m not locked in to… notions… of bl*ack
          or sp*c OR 1% – IN SAME WAYS – how could I be, in your eyes…in same way you are.
          As part of the diviness of multi-culti world I get treated as ‘ outsider ‘ on both sides of Atlantic, now.
          It’s a different class system on both sides, admittedly
          based on the caste system, I think.
          It’s a new form and even uglier kind of a reverse one, built around victims and untoucables.
          I refuse to be a victim
          and you refuse,to see me as
          less than, untouchable.. like so many posting at Spectator. a joke of a name, don’t you think?

          • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

            I’m always shocked when I come home, to see the rats
            abounding in London, especially the underground. The ones I saw when young, came streaming out of bombsites, being exposed to daylight. They would gnaw under houses and floorbeds, often die out of fright – and along would
            come the bluebottles, and the green iridescent flies.
            It’s quite a tony neighborhood now, but all I hear from relatives is about rats, and foxes attacking babies.

        • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

          They’re all human beings – you be maligning here, just not your kind.

        • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

          And your words dog-sicking on those you defend, to out my sinnin’ ways.

        • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

          No rat-free home for me as a child, either…they spilled out of old bombsites, under,our floorboards.
          Then came the bluebottles, and the green, iridescent
          flies… The rats are still there, when I come home.
          Popping up cutely, in the underground, and sewers.
          If you think your labels make you better than, we all in trouble.
          Here’s a thought, when you sippin’ that latte, in your digitally friendy, neighbourhood. Some of those rats festered under your floorboards, too.
          And it still shows.

          • http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/ Judith Fitzgerald

            ValGal? Gorgeous piece. I am so happy I checked and found this today, of all days. I saw that piece on the woman who’d been destroyed by the acid and began to weep; but, then, I didn’t. I became so angry and your poem comment makes something better, the world, our world, at least. For that, for this, for you blessing my life when I do actually visit anymore since I cannot stand the detractors and thrill-kill LCB factors. Such a great mind. I am still waiting to find out if he loses his OC. If so, as my friend Leo says, “They’re gonna hear from me.”

            Heh, did you see the piece in TGAM?


            Is why. Final journo-lit piece FOREVER. Retired. No reason to git rehired. I’d rather eat a nug (cf. Silent Partner).

            Heh, keep on keeping on keeping up keeping on top of it and keeping our blossoming friendship close even if I turn up missing. “I don’t trust my inner feelings,” also said he. I could be back tomorrow. We shall see.

            This coming twenty-thirteen will be the best we’ve seen (or else!)

            Undeniably, J/DiT xoxoxoxo

          • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

            Lookit – says me: I decided to show a tad more of my iceberg…LOL
            Bless you Judit, you first person, ever to put
            * and… and the word poem… in the same sentence, on
            one of my musings. And it came here of all places.

            I`m fine, I`m strong and I`m centred – haunting bigger back passages, as you can see… and letting rip at bigger fish!

            Cos it`s all just me, being me anyway.
            Comes from a long family tradition
            of people who could only write X
            but passing family, love
            culture and traditions.
            Through the spoken
            word, not, just the
            written, as it is

            It`s divine you happened along
            to nail my feet to floor again….
            This all came about because I put out
            a little bit here, about what I did with
            my tax refund – I bought a
            couple of gadgets. Which
            led to a triggered reaction,
            because was using my mountie,
            I don`t like it when people tell,
            me or my words not good enough!
            First time it happened was at
            age 8 when they handed me,
            the rules of poetry.
            He won`t do it again, I bet…
            May be I`ll give it a name, if it is
            a poem form. I call it glossa,mystyle…
            A bientot from me

            If I did this at Spectator 2013, is shaping up
            better, already says.me…. I`ll read the link, now…

    • StephanieJCW

      “If a man says to me, “I believe that a woman is a human being with exactly the same faculties and potential as myself; I have never spoken or acted in a way that implies otherwise, have never laughed with other males who engage in behaviours that degrade women, nor blindly accepted systems of male power that harm both men and women” — then I will embrace him as a fellow feminist.”

      Even if you don’t identify as a feminist (and I do not for my own reasons) I don’t see how anyone, apart from an old fashioned crazed sexist can disagree with this.

      • mumble

        I believe that women have the potential to fall pregnant and men do not. No embracing there, then.

  • Pav

    Hey Eddie and Lloyd, I’ve found your mother ship: http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com

    • Dan

      Awesome. It’s true, the men who experience rejection and feel insecure about their appeal to women are the most likely to start resenting them…Eddie would do well to remember that the causes of anger reside within, not without.

      • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

        well said young man! I started that tack, with some dark trolls last night, swooming in to attack.

        Not sure if it worked – but I felt a hell of lot better….

      • Eddie

        Nope, you sad bitch fantasist.
        I resesnt nothing. I do not deny that crimes includin g rape happen.
        But I attack liars and scumbags who hate men, promote sexism against them, an dthen say they promote their vile hatred in the name of equality!
        YOu are a sexist.
        Nothing wrong with being angry against fuckwits like you who promote lies.
        The really SAD thing is sad bints like Sarah who are angry against all men and hate them, obviously because of some bad experience. Feminasties are known for their anger – they hate men because they resent and envy them, and often were rejected in their younger days.

    • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

      I empathize guys, I’ve been a nice woman all of my life, it ain’t getting me anywhere either. Do you have a women’s chapter -_-
      To give me a few lessons in resentment to add to my skills, so I can get my nice words out…. lol

  • http://valedictoran16wordpress.com/ valedictorian16

    I posted something on this at National Post last night
    – and male trolls descended on me, called me stupid.
    Men helping suffragetism, not giving women the vote,
    but standing side by side, til their womenfolk got it too.
    I posted a bit of my societal history project , here last week
    same thing happened.
    I branded silly, maudlin, uselessy nostalgic,and stupider than
    them. In wrong place and wrong time to be talking!

    Most women won’t be as upset as you think, probably glad, you speaking out for yourself, and cheer you on: the feminists will feel betrayed, of course, but hopefully get over it.

    I like your piece it takes courage, and hope you continue…
    I’m working on thesis, too. For couple of years now,

    As Social and Democracy historian, with a unique skill set,
    and all about branding, labelling and
    messaging in society at three points in history. And in two
    Countries – Historical allies… Canada and Britain.
    Viewed through the lense of culture.
    So really it’s two, smaller ones – I can compare for patterns,
    similarities and differences .

    Some of my comment chums, from last week and last night,

    are in running for a mention, not names but types of behavior,
    arising out of press portrayals.

    So quite current and topical,
    in light of recent events, around the world.

    While you young man have gladdened my heart, while I assigned to
    dustbin of history… LOL Go forth and say whatever you think from your heart, and with joy.

  • Sarah

    “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve?… You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealed of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert – that is fpdeath – even the Son of God had to die.”

    Thanks Tertullian.

    • mumble

      Talk about getting your just deserts, eh? The wages of sin is fpdeath. Oh, my: now I’m spittle-flecking, too; it’s catching.

  • Sarah

    “older women should be reverted in their behaviour, not slanderers, not addicted to drink, teaching what is good, so that they may train younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good home makers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”

    Thanks Titus

    • mumble

      That woman in Connecticut, fex, who was shot by her deeply disturbed son: if she had taught her child to be self-controlled, the world would be a better place today.

    • mumble

      “reverted”? Goodness me: it that legal in Kansas?

  • Sarah

    “women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles or gold ornaments…. A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.”

    Thanks Paul

    • mumble

      Sarah, m’dear, if it’s in the Bible, we’re stuck with it. Sorry, but there it is.

    • mumble

      That woman in Connecticut, who was shot by her deeply disturbed son, was a teacher. And how did that all turn out?

  • Sarah

    “Mary … was a pure virgin, with a harmonious disposition… She did not want to be seen by men… She remained continuously at home, living a retired life and imitating a honeybee… She prayed to God alone…. Her speech was recollected and her voice low”

    Thanks Athanasius

    • mumble

      Sounds good to me. God loves a woman with a harmonious disposition.

  • Sarah

    ” we see man, made to Your image and likeness, that is by the power of reason and understanding; and just as in the human soul there is one element which takes thought and dominates, another which is subjected to obedience, so woman has been created corporeally for man: for though she has indeed a nature like that of man in her mind, yet by her bodily sex she is subjected to the sex of her husband, much as appetite which is the source or action, must be subjectd to reason if it is to learn the rules of right action.”

    Cheers Augustine.

    • mumble

      That nice young Mr. Evans must be quaking in his boots: there’s no reason for the Speccie to pay him to make his points coherently in beautifully written articles if you’ll do it for free in the comments.

      I’m sorry, on behalf of all of us, that the new meds aren’t working out; I was hoping for a lucid engagement.

  • StephanieJCW

    “Here’s my explanation. The sex wars have redefined what it is to be a man and to be a woman. The tragic irony is that the new settlement leaves women — yet again — at a huge disadvantage. A woman who wants to feel ‘properly liberated’ today has to shoulder twice as much donkey work as her grandmother. Raising a family isn’t enough. She needs a career as well. And to settle for anything less is to accept a major downgrade in her status as a woman.

    Men face no such extra duties. Naturally we like to ‘do our bit’ around the kitchen, the nursery and the supermarket. ‘Bit’ being the operative word. In my case I reckon I handle about 15 per cent of the housework. And my wife reckons I handle about 0.0015 per cent of it, but hey-ho. This wasn’t our revolution. They asked for it. And we bowed to their superior wisdom.”

    Your wife sounds like a bit of an idiot. I have never and would never tolerate a lazy man refusing to pull his weight around the house. Unfortunately she should have chose better and trust me, there is much better out there love. I know, I’ve found it.

  • mumble

    The radical abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens is enjoying a rediscovery as the moral center of Steven Spielberg’s film Lincoln. As portrayed in the film, he confronts the sort of dilemma faced by many people of strong ideological convictions forced to deal with political reality: Will he disavow his radical belief in full racial equality in order to ease passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery? (No spoilers here.)

    Stevens’s belief in equality under the law went beyond race…


  • belbylafarge

    Yt another “counter-intutive” , “smart” so called fact dreamed up by a conservative revisionist turd who never grew out of the 6th form debating society. Why is it that as a cutlture we keep prpducing turds like Llody Evans and why must they be given the opportunity to air their worthles views?

  • mumble

    “Sexual equality – and by that I mean equality in desire and behaviour – was almost imposed on women whether we liked it or not.”


    The only thing worse than not having equality is getting it.

  • mumble
  • mumble

    Regrettable but true: feminist discourse really cannot rise above the level of bickering over taking out the garbage.


  • http://twitter.com/PeterPiercy Peter J Piercy

    “Like it or not, Lloyd George is the original British feminist. Now, it’s true that these reformers hadn’t always seen the issue in this way.” – Mary Wollstonecraft?

  • Gaby

    THIS ARTICLE is absurd as it treats the great cause of feminism as a trivial pursuit that took the fancy of some privileged 20th Cen. males and kept them occupied and amused in between scoffing back the G&T and looking forward to playing the afternoon golf. It belittles the great struggle and demand for equal rights and power for women. I’m glad that Bea Campbell eviscerated your argument. Lloyd, learn to respect your equals and in some cases your superiors