Feminist Chauvinism

Vote: Should men question chauvinistic feminism that allows them to simultaneously claim to be

1) equal to men
(2) superior to men AND
(3) the weaker sex in need of greater protection?


If single parenthood has its origins in feminism and female emancipation, is it conceivable that women are partly to blame for the decline and fall of Western civilisation?

After all, they want to mother everything, don't they, and get offended if you point out the irrationality of their emotions?Are we not, as a society, morbidly infantilised and over-feminised? Is not Health and Safety run almost exclusively by bossy, over-nannying safety-obsessed women?

Perhaps there is a connection between the oppressiveness of health and safety regulation and women who wait until nearly the end of their fertility to have children because they had to develop their careers. (The loss of an only child by a woman who has come to the end of child-bearing years is of course a greater disaster for her than a woman still young and capable of having more children.) This is understandable, but what sort of attitude does it create about taking calculated risks? Is it healthy for boys to be tied to mother's apron strings and be seen jogging with their trendy mums?

Should European men be seen wearing baby slings and other baby-carrying implements, just like female peasants in third world countries? Is masculine pride now completely a thing of the past?

Cato: "As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors."


Does a civilisation deserve extinction because it is irrational, infantilised, sclerotic and risk-averse, when it allows the quality of its next generation to be progressively impaired by its continuing tolerance of single-parenthood, illegitimacy and chauvinistic feminism - the kind of chauvinistic feminism that is allowed to claim that women are simultaneously

(1) equal to men
(2) better than men yet
(3) require and demand the financial support of men - such as Alyce Faye Eichelberger - without fear of contradiction?


Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.The 63-year-old Miss Eichelberger, a psychotherapist, who married John Cleese in December 1992, is demanding half of his earnings since their wedding.

And in the meantime, her lawyers have submitted court documents that specify she needs an astonishing £71,250 a month to live on, this includes £2,000 for clothes, £5,000 on gifts, entertaining and holidays, and £1,000 for eating out.

Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.Not bad for a woman who was living with her two sons in a third-floor London council flat when she met Cleese 18 years ago.

Muslim marriage contract anyone?



af said…
Is this another one of those women hating sites? eg all women are led by radical feminism and must be group punished and hated for it (aping the very ID politics they claim to hate). It appears to be.

Andromeda said…
Why don't you keep reading and see, "af"? It is a questioning sort of blog for men and women to vent their spleen.

By the way, are you one of those people who won't allow dissenting forms of thought and always assumes the worst of people if they don't completely agree with you all the time?
Steve Moxon said…
No ceiling, 'concrete' or glass

There is no "concrete ceiling" for women. Or even a glass one, come to that. Yet this entirely bogus and unscientific notion is claimed by the Equality & Human Rights Commission -- as a continuation of the old mantra from the unlamented EOC. Women newspaper columnists have queued up this last week to rubbish it, though only on the unenlightened usual lines of women being held back by babies. The broadcast media struggled even to manage this, notably remaining as scientifically illiterate on this as on all matters.

Women certainly are 'going backwards', but it's not just over the past year as the EHRC fears: the position of women at the top has been consistently falling for well over a decade -- probably two. Women become less evident in commercial organisations the more commercial (and therefore hierarchical) they are. The numbers of women on the board has declined, and even more so have the numbers of women even in any 'head of function' role -- which is the launchpad for future board membership. This means that the decline will continue to accelerate.

Why? Because women are not men.
Regarding almost any sort of ability or achievement that you care to measure, you always find mostly men at both the top and at the bottom. Women by contrast bunch in the middle. This is the result of the very different motivations of the sexes. Men have to compete with each other for status in order to 'have a life' -- 'mate value' in biological terms. They tend to have an all-or-nothing approach and to put their eggs in one basket. They either succeed or fail rather than hanging about to be merely mediocre. For women, it's another world. To 'have a life', status is of no use at all to them -- at least in any direct way (women can of course compete to place themselves in the milieu of high status men, but even this often backfires). Women 'have a life' simply as they are. Their youth and beauty is the measure of their fertility, which is what 'mate value' is for females. This does not have to be -- and cannot be -- competed for.

Nothing will ever get round this most profound sex difference at the very root of all social organisation -- in ourselves and in all other animal species. Even if women on average became more able than men, the stark reality of different types of distribution of attributes and abilities that characterise the sexes would still leave the top of organisations predominantly if not exclusively male.

But why do we never hear about the men correspondingly at the bottom? This is because of the basis of the greatest prejudice in all societies, which is against men generically -- based on the biology of 'policing' the male hierarchy. Equal opportunities bodies would do much better to focus on the real disadvantaged sub-group in this as in every society: the majority of (necessarily lower status) men, and not women at all.

Indeed it is the greatest political scandal that they don't. Especially given the very recent research on profound sex discrimination against men in applying even for the most male sex-typical professional jobs. Men are now discriminated against to the point that they are four times less likely to get an interview (Riach & Rich, 2006). Now, if anything in the world of work needed something done about it, then it is this stark new sex discrimination. But being the 'wrong way round', as it were, for the liking of contemporary political prejudice, then we can expect a deathly hush.

[Cathy Newman of Channel4 emailed me to say that she disagreed with all of the above. Does this mean that science is not allowed on Channel4? On the basis of just what theory or data does C4 base its line on men-women? None at all: there is no theory or data to support it.]
Andrew Slade said…
So why should Berlusconi's wife get any money at all off him? He has looked after her generously for decades; the children are grown up with their own money & he has already settled on her some shares in his businesses.

On the other hand, she should pay him compensation for the last two years in which she has deprived him of wifely support; for the disruption to his life & reputation caused by her divorce & the cost to him of finding a younger substitute.

When Nelson Mandela bought himself his third wife Graca Machel he only paid 60 cows for her (cash equivalent) the top rate in Mozambique. Jacob Zuma (60 piccaninnies from 20 different women) only offers them 3 goats each (cash equivalent). Why should Berlusconi, Sir Paul McCartney or John Cleese have to pay more, just because they are white? Surely secondhand (or even more used, in their cases) white women are not worth more than black women? The black ones are harder working & do more to look after their menfolk.

Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The 30 second rapist

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?