Fall of Rome
Ah, gender! It’s a hall of mirrors, full of misdirection.
You must forgive me if I have not followed the details of all this #MeToo business and the ‘revelations’ of mass sexual victimisation of women in Parliament. I don’t do social media, I am not a regular reader of newspapers, and I haven’t watched TV for years (excepting last night’s Newsnight, a distressing experience which reconfirmed the wisdom of my normal practice). But one would have to be living on the moon not to have heard the gist of it. (I have considered moving). I understand one woman is still recovering from the trauma of a man putting his hand on her knee 15 years ago. I believe another woman is alleging rape “at a social event”. Hmm, one might have hoped that men had got the message by now that having sex with a woman who has been drinking is not legally advisable.
Despite best attempts to isolate myself from the horror, I keep hearing feminist types telling us that “it’s not about sex, it’s about power”. Yes, indeed – but I disagree as to who has the power. I’m a simple minded chap. I suggest that he who is forced to resign over a matter of supreme triviality is not the one with power. I suggest that the group of people whose behaviour is to be modified, constrained, dictated and controlled is not the group with power. “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness” (Farrell 1993). What we are looking at here is an exercise in bullying, made possible by gynocentrism. But it is bullying with a purpose, and that purpose is the furtherance of female power. It is the most disgusting spectacle to witness.
I do wonder, if sexual abuse is defined as “unwanted touching of a sexual or suggestive nature”, what proportion of men have been sexually abused? I have a suspicion it might be most men, though probably few men will ever have registered it as abusive, or even sexual. I can offer three personal experiences which are clear cut. Be warned, this is not going where you think.
I was a particularly pretty young man, though seeing me now you would be forgiven for being incredulous. On two occasions in my early twenties I had my bottom very firmly tweaked by a ‘gang’ of Amazonian women who appeared to be prowling the street for that express purpose. I assumed at the time it was a gender-political statement. But possibly it was simply sexual. This was outside UCL, so I presume they were students of some sort.
Most people would regard my other experience as more significant. This happened at primary school when I was about eight. A number of boys from my class, perhaps about eight or ten of us, were paraded in the headmistress’s office. She was there with a woman ‘friend’. We were told to strip to our underpants. One at a time we had to approach the headmistress’ desk, where she put her hand down our underpants and fondled our testicles. We had then to walk to the other side of her desk where her female ‘friend’ also fondled our testicles. That was it. We got dressed and returned to class.
Of course, this may have been a medical examination to check that our testicles had descended, and the ‘friend’ might have been a nurse. I cannot recall anything of the sort being said. At that age, we would not necessarily be told anything – one just needed to obey. However, that explanation does not legitimise the headmistress getting in on the act, does it?
Aren’t I brave in speaking out about this abuse?
No, is the answer, in case you were in any doubt.
Some people opine that men’s rights advocates are simply indulging in victimhood Olympics. Some people say that men’s rights advocates are just another type of snowflake. No doubt you, dear reader, have much the same impression of my foregoing tale. Ah, the misdirection!
Let me make this absolutely clear. My purpose is exactly the opposite.
You see, my “dreadful experience” completely failed to ruin my life. It didn’t even ruin my day. In fact, not the slightest frisson of trauma was inflicted upon me, either then or later. It was just a bit weird. Clearly it must have registered as a bit weird or I would not even remember it.
But get real. The average eight year old boy is poked about at will by any adult woman who wishes to do so. Perhaps things are different now, but that’s certainly how it was in that era (I’m talking circa 1962). As a wee boy I sported a mass of tight ginger curls. I hated my hair. Not so the local matrons. It was a common experience for me to have women I didn’t know come up to me on the street and run their hands through my ringlets, going goo goo about my lovely hair (yuck!). As far as I was concerned the ball-feeling incident was much the same thing – the only difference being that that happened only the once.
So my message to the poor traumatised female researchers and Members of Parliament is, frankly, to man up. I don’t expect a terribly high standard of manliness, mind you. Just as manly as I was at eight, that’ll do.
But this is more misdirection. You see, these female MPs and researchers were not really traumatised any more than I was. It is widely appreciated – not least by many women – that these complainants are playing the victim. It is acknowledged that victimhood confers advantage.
Sensible women commentators deplore this victimology, observing that it presents women as feeble and needy rather than as strong and independent. Seeking victimhood status is seen by these sane women as disempowering rather than empowering. Well, yes indeed – as long as one confines attention to the impact on an individual woman. But, for women as a class, it is a power strategy, as I shall argue below. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how many Sarah Vines or Julia Hartley-Brewers or Kathy Gyngells or Joanna Williams speak out about this Parliamentary madness. I’m afraid the monster is out of control.
Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons, told MPs she would be ‘setting the bar significantly below criminal activity’. She went on to say that all people are deserving of our respect and “your age, gender or job title should have no bearing on the way you are treated in a modern workplace, and nobody is an exception to that”. But, Andrea, I think you meant to say that childcare work is an exception, didn’t you? After all, you are the woman who said we should not hire men in childcare work because they may be paedophiles. That sounds rather like gender ‘having a bearing on the way men are treated in the workplace’, doesn’t it?
But people, people – this is yet more misdirection. There is a broader dynamic at work here than merely victimology, one that makes sense in terms of power-seeking behaviour. Let me approach this obliquely with a short digression.
It has long been the case that male teachers avoid being alone with a female pupil. They will keep the classroom door wide open if such a condition becomes unavoidable. Kato Harris advised men not to go into teaching, the risk of false accusation being so great. It is beginning to be the case that university lecturers are also being formally advised to keep their office door open when meeting female colleagues (let alone female students). In the workplace more generally, men are now becoming increasingly reticent about their interactions with female staff, for fear of accidentally provoking an accusation of some sort.
In particular, it is not so much a brave man as a foolish man who attempts to date a female colleague. The days of the office romance are over. You may, like Mike Spence, be accused of misogyny if you openly admit to any reluctance to meet a female colleague socially. But the irreversible fact is that few men are now willing to take the risk of asking a female colleague out. Inevitably, instead of this being seen as resulting from long-standing policing of male behaviour, the complaint is now that women’s career prospects are being harmed by men becoming more distant.
Calls are beginning to be made for men to be ‘trained’ in how to interact with women in the workplace. So, having absorbed the lesson of what they must not do, men are now to be instructed in what they must do. What is not forbidden will be compulsory. The end result will be that those men with any remaining self-respect will increasingly withdraw from such environments. The space becomes female in nature by a process of making men uncomfortable to be there.
Do you see the social dynamic at work here? What we are seeing in Parliament is the same. For sensible women to decry the disempowering nature of victimhood is to fail to appreciate the implicit strategy. This is a power play. All feminism is a power play, it always was. The objective to is to convert male space into female space. Let me spell it out.
The social dynamic of a male space is different from that of a female space. The former is based on hierarchy and competition. Generally, it is inaccurate to refer to this as a ‘dominance hierarchy’, this being more relevant to other primates than to Homo sapiens. In man, it is generally some form of competence hierarchy which is significant, and this may give rise to a hierarchy of authority. In contrast, female spaces tend to be organised around consensus and mutual caring and support with less overt competition (though there may well be concealed competition). Roy Baumeister has argued that the female group dynamic can only function within small to medium sized groups. He argues that the male group dynamic is essential to form the very large social structures essential for the creation of culture and societies larger than hunter-gatherer societies. Whether that is correct or not, it seems clear that male and female group dynamics are different.
What happens, then, when a few women enter a male space? They are obliged to function within the male dynamic, which is likely to feel unnatural to them and may be perceived as discriminatory. But when the proportion of women in a formerly male space becomes sufficiently large, a female sub-dynamic will naturally form. In Parliament, the broad, cross-party coalition of feminists is part of this female sub-dynamic. Inevitably there will be conflict between the two coexisting dynamics, simply because they are incompatible.
We have seen repeatedly over the last few decades that the female dynamic expands and tends to drive out the male dynamic (e.g., the decline of male teachers). Male spaces are transformed into female spaces. Why? The answer is simply gynocentrism. Men are intrinsically inclined to oblige women, whereas women have no intrinsic inclination to oblige men. Women have strong in-group preference which powerfully assists their group interests, whilst men have no in-group preference. This asymmetry has its origin in the evolution of the human pair bond. This behavioural asymmetry coevolved with the species and is made possible by the male disposability inherent in anisogamous sexual reproduction.
The term ‘gynocentrism’ sounds very pejorative. But it should be understood simply as the constellation of emotionally-based behavioural characteristics which underpin the human pair bond and, by extension, relations between the sexes generally. If you thought that sex was all there was to it, think again. Gynocentrism underpins inter-sex interactions even when there is no sexual attraction on either side at all.
So now we have the ‘abuse’ of women in Parliament in perspective. You should not be misdirected by the details of the current debacle. You should view it as part of a process. This process exerts pressure on men to change to accommodate women’s social dynamic, pressure which is not resisted because men’s gynocentric nature impels them to acquiesce. This episode will be one of many in which Parliament is gradually converted to a female space. At no point will there be any question as to whether this is a good thing. Gynocentrism provides the direction of change, not functionality.
So you now see why those sensible women who have spoken out have not grasped the whole picture when they focus only on the disempowering effect of victimhood. Victimhood may seem to disempower an individual woman, but it is part of the gynocentric mechanism which leads to increasing female power en masse. This is accomplished by the drive for an increasingly dominant female social dynamic via the destruction of the male dynamic through a process of shaming.
Whence cometh the social power which drives the ascendency of the female over the male dynamic? It is important to appreciate that this power does not originate in victimhood. The victimhood acts merely as a trigger or switch. The power is already in place, implicit in ancient gynocentrism. As an analogy consider turning on a light. It is naïve to think that the switch causes the illumination. No, the real cause is the national network of turbogenerators which, via a sequence of transformers, causes a permanent 240 volt potential difference over the terminals of the light switch. Gynocentrism is the national grid; victimhood is just the switch.
Consequently, victimhood stimulates a beneficial societal response only when triggered by a member of an identity group with pre-existing moral cachet. Thus, victimhood works for women, and ethnic minorities, and the LGBT minorities, because their moral entitlement has been constructed in advance. But claims of victimhood would bring no rewards of societal support for men, or conservatives, or white people as a whole, because these identity groups have been morally disenfranchised by decades of conditioning.
I labour this point as a rebuttal of the claim that is levelled at men’s rights advocates that they are indulging in victimhood Olympics. On the contrary, MRAs discover very early that the reaction to the male disadvantages is that no one cares – there is no reservoir of moral cachet to be tapped for men. So victimhood is not an applicable strategy for men.
So why do MRAs bang on about male disadvantages, then? What is the point? Well, I guess reasons vary. Some people come to the view that there is indeed no point and become MGTOW. This is a perfectly rational response. Unfortunately it leaves other men – and boys – to their fate. Others make strenuous attempts to address a specific issue on behalf of male victims, be it DV or child contact or sexual offences against males, etc. What these groups have in common is lack of funding.
For my part the motivation is, firstly, that I believe there is intrinsic merit in truth – though truth can be a slippery fish to catch. My second motivation is to shine a light on gynocentrism itself. In other words, to illustrate the empathy gap – which is just the other side of the same coin as gynocentrism. It is the empathy gap which precludes any advantage in victimhood for men.
The current pogrom is not just in Hollywood and in the UK Parliament. This mass exercise in denouncing-shame-bullying is spreading everywhere, driven by social media. There have already been male suicides in the Vancouver club scene as a result. There will be more*. It may be your club, your workplace, your town next. It may be you next.
*Four days after posting this article, the Labour MP, Carl Sargeant, who had been suspended following allegations of misconduct, was found dead at his home – apparently suicide.
Where will all this end? I don’t know. Moreover, fascinating though it is to attempt to understand what is happening, no amount of understanding will divert this historic process from its course – whatever that is.
So here I am on the deck of the Titanic, intent on studying closely the hydrodynamics of shifting buoyancy. Well, what else is there to do? We are in the same boat, but unfortunately one side seems to think that smashing the other end of the boat will be beneficial. Human life rarely rises much above the level of farce, so at least our decline has the merit of genuine tragedy.
‘No such thing as cultural marxism…’ ??? I should coco. Ever heard of Gramsci? ‘The Long march through the institutions…’ etc, etc. Seriously, in the realm of unresearched nonsense, your statement is up there with the best.
I stay away from women, i have lived on my own for 11 years, no girlfriends, just mgtow. I went mgtow before i new the word. Basically the tweets say men should be locked up with minimal evidence on the say so of a woman, well because men who rape do it where there are no witnesses so we must believe the woman.
Check this out on rape allegations from a well known journalist.
I was glad to read
“In Parliament, the broad, cross-party coalition of feminists is part of …”
Too often, among critics of feminism and among male rights advocates, it is thought that feminism is a left-wing issue. While modern feminism has its roots set in Cultural Marxism, it is incorrect to see it as a left- or right-wing matter and the truth is that feminism is a political undercurrent infiltrated into all colours of politics.
Agreed. I need only point to Theresa May, Maria Miller, Andrea Leadsom…..Emmeline Pankhurst! Gynocentrism is not politically affiliated.
Not true. Feminism is inherently a leftist issue as it’s always been a front for Communism under whatever brand name is fashionable. The terms “left” and “right” in politics stem from revolutionary France but would be more sensibly viewed as “wrong” and “right.” In fact, the Latin term “sinister” for “left” has the dark connotation you expect for this very reason.
There are no right or left wings either side of a moderate middle-ground in politics, merely a sliding scale of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Or, if you prefer, 2+2=4 on the right and 2+2=5 on the left. Moderates are miseducated dupes that settle for 2+2=4.5.
What most people are taught to see as “right-wing” is just another form of Leftism. Both are funded by the same finance powers as a means of creating dissonance and division, while drawing the whole political spectrum to the so-called “left.” Factions that are almost the same are the ones that battle each other hardest, hence clashes between neo-Nazis and neo-Commies etc.
“Too often, among critics of feminism and among male rights advocates, it is thought that feminism is a left-wing issue. While modern feminism has its roots set in Cultural Marxism”
No such thing as Cultural Marxism, is a right wing conspiracy theory, and the term has is origins in anti semitic right wing communities.
Patriarchy theory, a conspiracy theory about a powerful group of men, looking to keep women down.
Cultural Marxism, a conspiracy theory about about leftists hijacking society and taking it over and spreading degeneracy.
This is why the MRM is a failure, it has been derailed and hijacked by right wingers.
Right wingers have to make a choice, they are either for right wing politics and continued failure, or they are for men, and can let go of their political obsessions that do not help.
“No such thing as Cultural Marxism, is a right wing conspiracy theory, and the term has is origins in anti semitic right wing communities. ” Wow. Talk about getting it backward!
Fantastic as usual, thank god we have you!
A superb piece, resonant with power and full of the ring of truth. Much to mark, learn and inwardly digest, but the last paragraph nothing short of a work of art. very many thanks.
A nice video about the empathy gap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKJ8x9ut1hU&t=1s
I think some people may be a little nervous of what you mean by ‘discipline’ here. I trust you mean verbally?
Yes, after all, we’re not Wahhabi muslims passionately wielding Koranic sub-sections about how to punish our women when they bring hot coffee to another man before us, etc… We are westerners, versed in Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Blake, Newton, Einstein, et al, ad infinitum. Part of the glory of our culture – such as it WAS – was our very elevation of reason to the point where it could be used effectively to counterbalance the perceived excesses of any (pseudo)religious dictat. Feminism is now the tyrannical moral monotheism of the age – only we have now been told that we may not employ reason to analyse its horrible excesses.
I am afraid your elevated reason is a useless guide. You cannot use reason to confront the feminists. If you fail to win a rational argument with a woman within ten seconds you have lost. You may go on and on arguing, but you are never going to win. Not only is she far better than you at presenting arguments that appear logical, but at any point in the proceedings she is prepared to up the ante. Suddenly you will find she is not going to join you for lunch. If her voice rises, she may not argue with you again.
A man’s most important philosophical argument is the one he has with his wife. It is perhaps ten percent of all the arguments he will ever have. Thus it would be reasonable to expect roughly ten percent of a male philosopher’s output to be concerned with this argument. Furthermore, a goodly proportion of this ten percent should be ways to help the man win. For example: arguments techniques that have proved successful in the past; warnings about arguments she will deploy; and ways of dealing with the inevitable defeat.
So how do our philosophers fair by this measure? Dismally. Not one single one has helped husbands. All over the whole world, since time immemorial, no philosopher has ever addressed this most important subject. From a man’s point-of-view.
True, some philosophers boosted men, but they failed to support them against their wives. Aristotle, who knew men should rule the world, had a special name for strong leaders: Megalopsychos — proud, magnanimous man. But he forgot all about his wife. Cato the Elder in 213 bc made a splendid attempt to warn men: “Suffer woman once to be your equal, and from that day forth she will be your master”. But only women listened to him, hence equality. Quintus Tertullianus, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Carlyle — all damned men with faint praise.
Having thus far totally failed, philosophers started retreating. Instead of boosting men, they decided to criticise women. This of course is worse than useless to our poor, beleaguered husband. It will only make her angry. Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Otto Weininger — all failed to recognise women’s strengths, made half-hearted attempts to criticise them, and then forgot to confront them.
Most ignominiously of all, having failed completely to engage women in any meaningful way, modern philosophers decided to appease women instead, by joining them to fight men. The husband is most heinously betrayed. His wife now has more and more arguments with which to berate him. Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault … and finally Jacques Derrida. The leader of the feminists until he died. His ‘deconstruction’ was simply the destruction of man. His terms ‘phallocentric dogmatism’ and ‘phallocrat’ became key weapons in the feminist arsenal.
In 1998, I confronted him with this over the phone, and he agreed to read my diatribe. Over the phone again a week later I asked if he had received it: “Yes, Mr. Butlin, I have.” “Well, do you see any merit in it?”, I asked. He went silent … and then, very slowly, he replied: “Mr. Butlin, you have disturbed me deeply”. He knew I had rumbled him, and he had no idea how to answer me. This treachery in the form of postmodernism has undermined the Western world.
Poor husband. After two thousand years of male philosophy, philosophy has all but destroyed him. It has also helped build the feminist movement. And where were the female philosophers? They were the ones who so effectively redirected the male philosophers away from dealing with women.
Powerful stuff and I concede the articulate incontrovertibility of much of what you say. The trouble is that the reasons underpinning male hegemony in previous ages have been so far forgotten as to be morally irretrievable. I am of the opinion that it all went wrong around the time of the industrial revolution (ha!) when men’s ingenuity defeated nature and thus rendered our gender redundant into the bargain! Put simply, men conquered famines by industrialising food supply; beat illnesses with vaccines; defeated harsh elements with technological energy innovations – and then invented The Pill to vanquish female fear of unplanned pregnancy. Result? When women ceased to need us to protect them from any of these previous disadvantages, they ceased to need us at all! Conversely, in past eras, when a woman became pregnant she was utterly and completely dependent on her man both to protect and provide for her. This, and this alone provided the moral force behind the biblical inclusion of woman amongst man’s chattels. Namely, that without his all-consuming dedication to the cause of her pregnancy (his child) she was comprehensively lost! A burden on society (of families who all had their own battles to fight to secure their existence) and thus more than likely an outcast. – Not so today! What does a young woman need a husband for these days? She can get state aid, state housing, state child care. The very need for marriage is dead. So I’m not really sure what you mean by re-establishing conscious male dominance via conscious female acquiescence. Could you explain please? You’re wrong also about dear old Friedrich Nietzsche being easy on woman and their propensity to beguile and obfuscate in argument. In Zarathustra he comically opines: “What? You go to visit a woman – then don’t forget to take a whip!”
I concede the general point, nevertheless you are both being slightly disingenuous! Arch feminists proliferate on the left far more than the right, and are more usually more deeply entrenched in their position there, as we all know.
Duncan, I’m still not sure how or why women would submit to this new dispensation you outline? Also, please note: Nietzsche’s ‘whip’ was metaphorical not actual! Physical bullies appal any right-minded man.
Another brilliant article William.
Thank you for your passion, commitment and meticulous research and reasoning.
I think those of us who care and feel overwhelmed, need to remember the social reformers who worked for centuries to overcome the oppression which was inflicted on powerless groups . Think about slavery; working conditions in Victorian times; abject poverty; torture. The list goes on.
We simply have to go on and create memes which compete effectively, and who knows, maybe in a future generation a general awareness will spread, and memes we have created will balance the distortions we are currently seeing.
Women do need to get a grip. Who among us has not been groped, assaulted and made to feel like punching a bloke? I suspect there may be more to the Fallon resignation than is being currently disclosed.
I do take exception to the remark that “one might have hoped that men had got the message by now that having sex with a woman who has been drinking is not legally advisable.” One has to assume that the man may have been drinking too. It seems that Fallon was felled by his Jekyll and Hyde personality, which is said to go tits up when he’s taken a drop.
This sorry trend of bringing up historic events is costly for society on many levels.
I stand by my statement as written – note that I linked to advice from a solicitor that men should avoid sex with women “who have had even a single drop of alcohol”. In contrast, a woman can have sex with an inebriated man, even using coercion, with no risk in practice. I do not claim that this position is just – it is prejudice – but it is the de facto position. There are laws against coerced sex which are gender neutral, but societal prejudice is such that there would have to be extremely unusual and compelling circumstances for charges to be brought against a woman for coerced sex with a man. In particular, I cannot imagine courts would regard a man incapable of consent merely because he was drunk, which is the formal and accepted position for women.
It’s amazing that we have only recently discovered that male gender identity is the unique exception to the rule that all groups show in-group bias. This suggests very strong social processes at work, both in terms of social identity theory and of gender blindness. Can we, as a society steeped in the currents of these natural forces, see beyond their destructive limitations and save ourselves? I think the only solution is for the media to lead the way in helping us see the truth. However the BBC and Sky have such dismal records in telling the truth about gender, we can only rely on them to cheerlead the way to our cultural demise.
Yes, well put.
Market forces! Reintroduce them in the media. Abolish the communist BBC licence fee (it will happen eventually). Let people vote with their feet and ‘buy’ their news from preferred ‘agencies.’ Here we have no choice – ‘Sky’ is essentially leftist and experiences little or no opposition. But in The States they have Fox, which disseminates a right-of-centre worldview, plus numerous other localised news outlets. In a way, YouTube is a great example of how things could work. The platform given thereon to anti-leftist luminaries such as Prof Jordan Petersen, Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Somers, Paul Michael Joseph, Milo Yiannopoulos et al, is invaluable. Don’t know what I’d do without it. Leftists hate it of course. Wonderful!
The abandonment of the principles of innocent unless proven guilty and treating everyone equally regardless of race, sex, religon is quite shocking.
That so little evidence is required to destroy a man’s reputation, a single disputed recollection of a minor event or mis-judgment decades in the past which was not reported at the time is sufficient despite the well known fallibility of human memory.
It all seems very grim and given the factors that drive this which is the deep rooted asymmetry in the way men and women feel about other men and women , coupled to the dominant ideology in the media of modern feminism with its innate misandry it is difficult to see anything but things continuing to get worse. I do not see any amount of evidence changing the common impression of women as the oprressed and disadvantaged. It has not worked in the health, penal or educational environments despite overwhelming evidence, so why should it work anywhere else?
However even when I was a boy, a woman or girl would be believed above me and I knew I could be destroyed at any time by a malicious accusation. Women teachers were often overtly sexist against boys. Nothing has really changed. Men will continue to be the dominant leaders, shapers, creators, scientists and engineers simply because we are driven to it and women are not. The more women are cosseted and pampered as perpetual vicitims the less competent and capable women there will be. The trivial ‘sexual harassment’ claim will become a trope and discreditted and men will use technical means to protect their reputation with ubiquitous recordings.
Men will rise to the top through hard work and women will seek to short circuit the process and moan if things do not work out. Plus ca change ….
It would be nice to be optimistic, wouldn’t it? But my feeling is that something has shifted, and once these things start to go they move very rapidly until some new equilibrium is found. What that will look like, I have no idea, but I fear it.
I’m not too concerned to be honest. The whole gynocentric train will come crashing to a halt the moment they have to deal with a jar that has a mildly stubborn lid.
I should add though, that was a seriously excellent piece Mr Collins.
But lids can be so pesky.
I suspect many men will empathise and make their own shift from campaigner to chronicler as we come to recognize that campaigning is nothing but an ‘exercise in absolute futility’.
I cannot fault your analysis. And in my darker moments I’d agree with the conclusion. But I derive hope from two sources. The first is my experience of nearly 40 years in female “dominated” sectors. In these there is a constant “problem” that men get on in management even when numerically very rare. From my observation I’d suggest that reflects that men find it easier to navigate different ways of doing things and adapting to the “rules” . In doing so they become more adept. The second is that I do think many women do observe and realise the truth of what you say . For instance I have generally found that women do often support men if alerted to their different needs. I suspect the visceral response of feminists in “no platforming” any contrary view or facts reflects their fear of this.
Apologies for being such a miserable bugger. And certainly there is no shortage of sane women who deplore what is happening. Unfortunately, though, there appears to be a critical mass of women, and men, on the dark side.
Advice please. I write as a fellow male victim aged about the same as you, of despicable child abuse by a female in a position of trust. Ms Keene, at some time my teacher and our lodger was very keen to have her back washed by me, an 8 year old male (without golden locks!)- on Sunday mornings. I thought nothing of it but was fascinated about what she had a flannel covering her “lower regions” for. Should I see if I can get her prosecuted for grooming? After all she’d only be about 92 or 93 now, and if already dead I could perhaps wastefully consume a couple of thou of police money and perhaps ruin all the reputation she ever had. And if she is still alive maybe the CPS would consider bringing a prosecution, in the public interest, of course!
I concur with what you have written between the lines. Like you I never raised the matter because – why bother? No real harm done and why destroy a woman’s reputation for the sake of it? Unfortunately the present debacle is precisely because young women today do not have the same attitude towards older men. Quite the opposite, it seems.
Men have no in-group preferences – men excel in the physical world when tasked. I think of the gargantuan construction possibilities of a team of men working and conversely the enormous damage which men can do in war. This brings me to the almost inevitable final result of where we are destined – war or extinction.