The Miseducation of Women by James Tooley

Another seminal (pun intended) book on the destructiveness of feminism, which dates national decline back to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Very readable and makes its points clearly.

Any woman who wonders where all the decent men have gone will know that they lie buried after extermination in the mass grave of feminism.

Instead of limiting the supply of sex only to marriageable men (thus incentivising them to behave decently), men and women have been behaving like promiscuous constantly copulating gay men but with the additional disadvantage of producing offspring that have the effect of lowering the quality of the national gene pool.

So that is why Andromeda seeks Perseus in vain. The Age of Heroes is well and truly over.

Anne Phillips disagrees at

She says:

"Tooley is probably right that young women are drinking too much chardonnay, and no doubt right that many are unhappy. But the problems facing women can hardly be explained by the successes of a feminist campaign against the housewife. We live in a workaholic society that conscripts men and women alike into longer hours of employment than most of them would choose, and prices decent accommodation beyond the reach of most households with a single earner.

In this context, young women would be ill-advised to give up on their education or rely on a male provider to sustain them in their domestic joys."

Voting for a political party which offers low taxes, give tax breaks to married couples, with the stated intention of repealing all anti-discrimination legislation would be the obvious answer.

Unfortunately, it is only the BNP who dare propose this.

The BNP either cannot or will not address their image problem by changing their racist constitution and their racist membership policy. They would actually be performing a great service to the nation, but they are unable to see The Enemy Within, who are their WAGs and of course their own understandable desire to continue worshipping at the shrine of sexual liberation.

They certainly will not be making themselves unpopular by complaining about the availability of no-strings sex and are determined to treat the symptoms (ie Muslims, mosques, burqas, foreign workers, illegal immigrants) rather than the causes (feminism, promiscuity, single parenthood, no-fault divorce, a corrupt and corrupting political system, liberalism, the cowardice that restricts the condemnation of single mummery).

They are content to leave this to the despised Muslims, who are the only group who can question feminism and sexual liberation without being laughed at.

The BNP's reluctance to take the bull by the horns is not that surprising since they, like most of us, are already divorced, single parents, illegitimate or parents of illegitimate children, or have close friends and family who tick all or some of these boxes.

The BNP will continue to keep quiet about the taboo topic that will be even more divisive than paying non-white citizens to go "home" or withdrawing from the EU.

Judging from how quickly their ex-London organiser Nick Ericksen fell on his sword after saying things offensive to feminists, they will not be addressing the issue of toxic feminism that is even now destroying the happiness and potential of both the men, women and children of this country.,+BNP+candidate+claims/

No doubt the Muslims will sort all this out when they take over.

Their clearer understanding of The Enemy Within is well-established.

O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Andrew Slade said…
The wonderful Orkney writer & historian Eric Linklater quotes an old Scots proverb, "HOW CAN A MAN PROSPER, IF HE IS NOT MASTER IN HIS OWN HOUSE?"

If the man cannot prosper, how can his family & offspring? Well, feminism has made men skivvies in their own houses, afraid of their wives & children. Emasculated. Thereby impoverishing everybody, up to & including the economy as a whole, because feminism dumps millions of young men onto welfare & unemployment, so that the jobs can go to young foreign women for the asking. But without the energy, enterprise & creativity of young men the whole country spirals down into disaster, under colonialism (foreign rule).
Jeff Marshall said…
I began to distrust Tooley when I read in the early part of his book how he himself had proselytised on behalf of feminism in the past - even to the point of (possibly) wrecking the lives of some of his female students by offering them unsound advice - advice that militated against their instincts.

I have never met a man in my life who describes himself a 'feminist' that I would consider to be a normal man.

Personally I see no reason at all why a woman should not pursue an education and then a career and at the same time find a suitable man.

Indeed this does happen in most cases I believe. Bridget Jones was nothing more than a best-selling novel followed by a halfway amusing movie.

Of course an underclass of single mums subsist on welfare - that is because there is welfare. And some middle class women may be raising their children singly - big deal.

What is all the fuss about?
Andromeda said…
I do hope you will finish James Tooley's book before you arrive at your final judgement on whether feminism has hurt society.

Why should a woman not pursue an education and then a career and at the same time find a suitable man?

Of course she should, provided she is sure that this is what she wants. In theory it is possible. In practice it is harder to juggle than to do just one thing really well.

1) Because our eyes are invariably bigger than your stomach.

2) Because there aren't enough hours in the day and years in our lives.

3) Because I know a professional man who said he would rather not marry another professional.

4) Because we are meant to be complementary as male and female couples, rather than competing.

5) Because someone must look after the children.

6) Because men with stay-at-home wives are known to do better in their careers than men with working wives.

7) Because most women would rather not have two jobs.

8) Because most women have been indoctrinated into hating themselves if they do not have a career.

9) Because so many single women I know are deeply unhappy and neurotic.

10) Because a woman is not going to put up with much from her man once she does not need his financial support. It would be a good thing for her if she can divorce him easily, but not a good thing for her children or society.

11) Because the consequences of family breakdown leads ineluctably to civilisational decline.

12) Because the sheer number of middle aged single people I know makes me uneasy.

13) Because the truly successful man would want his wife to stay at home and look after the children and be able to afford to keep her at home.

14) Because only the not-so successful man would want his wife to go out to work in order to help pay the bills.

15) Because it is harder to have it all than most women are led to believe.

16) Because something happened to a lawyer girlfriend of mine who thought she could have it all. She complained of post natal depression after she had her baby and then we lost contact.

17) Because, except for the privileged few, most of us cannot have it all and will end up having the worst of both worlds.

Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

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

The easy and cheap availability of British women