Feminism Against Progress, Part 2

This is the second part of a review of Feminism Against Progress by Mary Harrington. Part 1 is here and that constitutes a more conventional review. This second part is a more discursive ramble around issues that arose in my mind in reading the book.



  • The Law in History
  • Work & Pay in History
  • Patriarchy is Theatre
  • Male Dissident Opinion
  • Are Men Human?
  • The Destruction of Marriage
  • The TERF Tendency
  • Trans and Feminism
  • Conclusion

The Law in History

Harrington notes, correctly, that the law of coverture and its precursors in medieval law were not all to women’s disadvantage, as ill-informed feminists might believe, illustrating this via its shielding of women from “legal and economic exigencies”. It worked both ways. Property ownership under coverture was not quite the patriarchal monopoly that is sometimes claimed, and legal non-existence could prove very useful to women who decided to exploit it (not least the avoidance of imprisonment), see my essay Coverture.

One could make the case that the advantages of coverture to women outweighed the disadvantages. I would cite here the Victorian debtors’ prisons. Some 10,000 people, 95% to 98% of them men, were imprisoned yearly for debt in the Victorian era. Yet such debts were most often household debts to tradesmen, grocers, etc., and such a debt might be as likely due to the wife’s profligacy or carelessness as the husband’s, but it was the husband who went to prison. This was the reality of so-called patriarchy under coverture.

In the context of not wanting to reverse feminism, Harrington declares she has “no wish to be banned from voting”. I cannot but be irritated. It is frankly ignorant. See Centuries of Oppression for the true story of The Vote. This is one of the many feminist myths that must be corrected before there can be a healing of what feminism has wrought over the last 60 years.

Work and Pay in History

Harrington’s vision for a desirable future is essentially a return to the era of domestic trade. In as far as it would be possible, I concur. There is, however, a massive problem. Harrington’s ignoring of it would seem to emanate from the feminists’ marked tendency, not only to ignore the male perspective, but also to be completely blind to what men do.

You cannot do work at home when it is fundamentally work that takes place elsewhere!

It is still the case, and always will be the case, that men do almost all the work that involves interaction with inanimate matter. Being a tradesman means working in other people’s houses. (And I refuse to be browbeaten into writing a sex-neutral version of “tradesman”). I often hear women farmers referenced in books or in interviews. Indeed, women outnumber men massively in agricultural sciences at college. However, living in the country, I also see farmers working in the fields, on a daily basis. They are always men. Always.

Harrington is right to point to the industrial revolution as a process which alienated both men and women from their domestic environment – simply by removing them from it for most of their waking hours. For men, this would not be easy to reverse because it is not only factories which remove men from their homes but almost all work done by working class men.

Harrington writes,

When conservatives call for a return to ‘traditional’ family life, but mean by this a return to some variant of ‘separate spheres’…this misses the fact that such forms of family life are not ‘traditional’ at all, but distinctively modern.”

I suppose Harrington would class me as conservative, though I regard myself as a radical. However, this is not news to me. It is feminists who, condescendingly, refer to men as unable to adjust to the loss of their “traditional jobs in factories and heavy industry”. Excuse me, Mary, why do you burden me with this silliness? I refer you to my 26 part series Centuries of Oppression which depicts both the medieval agrarian and domestic trade eras. I know very well that the era of working in factories has been but an historical blip.

In critiquing Friedan and Greer, Harrington notes that they both envisage “a world where some unspecified other does all the dull, sticky drudgery that keeps the world of freedom and selfhood turning”. Unfortunately, under “dull, sticky drudgery” Harrington refers only to the mothering of children. It is staggering the extent to which work which is not merely dull and sticky, but laborious, dirty and dangerous, is invisible to her because it is done almost exclusively by men. Moreover, such work is crucial to sustaining both the world of “freedom and selfhood” and the world of caring mothers. No one gives men any choice, nor, it seems, any recognition. Worse, our contribution is rebranded as economic oppression.

Quoting an historian, she writes that some jobs “became ‘women’s work’ precisely because they were compatible with keeping an eye on small children. Textile production, for example, was a largely female occupation for some 20,000 years, until the Industrial revolution”. Well, that may be true for most of those 20,000 years (do we know?), but it was certainly untrue in the era of the handloom to which Harrington goes on to allude.

It is worth making a lengthy digression here because it illustrates the broader issues about the historical sex-segregation of paid work.

Handloom weavers were of both sexes, but men predominated – not women, as Harrington implies. From the medieval period to the first decades of the nineteenth century, skilled handloom weaving was the province of men due to the Craft and Trade Guilds creating a de facto closed shop requiring would-be handloom weavers to serve an apprenticeship. These proto-unions helped secure a living wage from the trade, sufficient for a man to keep a family – which was the functional definition of “men’s work”. The “putting-out” system, to which Harrington refers, predominantly involved male handloom weavers.

Once the steam-driven mills opened, with their power looms, the business of weaving ceased to be so skilled, and fewer weavers were required due to the vastly greater productivity of the power looms. Hence – responding to the iron law of labour supply and demand – wages in the mills fell. Men follow the money. They have to if they have a family to support. The mills became full of women on low wages. Do note: the wages were not low because the workers were women; the workers were women because the wages were low. (Either way, it was, of course, exploitation by the new mill owners and the resulting relationship with the Chartist movement and with Marx and Engels I will pass over).

The prices available to the remaining handloom weavers therefore fell also, and handloom weaving became a byword for poverty – whereas previously it had been a profitable trade. (Silas Marner, in George Elliott’s novel, was a handloom weaver – deliberately to be redolent of poverty to a Victorian readership). Consequently, the proportion of women in the (now dying) handloom trade increased. Yet even by 1838 the majority were still men, just. Actual numbers of hand loom weavers, disaggregated by sex, in 1838 Norwich can be found here. Contrary to Harrington’s implication, women did not cease to be the majority of weavers when the industrial revolution introduced the mills. Quite the reverse: it was men who ceased to be the majority of weavers then, whilst women became the majority then, but in the mills.

As a Lancastrian, this has resonance with my own family history. My wife’s grandmother – the last of 12 children (all with rickets) – was born in the Victorian era. She started in the mill in Atherton, Lancashire, at age 12, receiving no pay for the first year. These matters are not ancient history but were the actual lives of people I knew as a young man.

There is such a thing as progress, Mary. Having children free of rickets (vitamin D deficiency) is one.  Denying this is both cynical and demonstrably false. It’s just that your perspective on “progress” is hopelessly restricted.

The displaced men, the former handloom weavers, followed the money and moved into mining and digging tens of thousands of miles of canal and railroad by hand; tougher work but better pay.

One of the many jibes directed at men in the feminist era has been the claim that men find it hard to adjust to new employment environments – generally justifying the claim by reference to the loss of their “traditional” jobs in factories. Utter nonsense, of course. Because men have always been obliged to follow the money, due to family commitments, it follows that men must always be ready to move into new work areas as old ones become less economically attractive.

To call factory work “traditional” is staggeringly myopic. The era of domestic trades (of which weaving was just one of many trades, all dominated by men) was longer by far, growing rapidly as serfdom died out around the time of the Black Death. And the periods of industry and domestic trades together constitute a mere blip in history compared with the 10,000 years in which economic activity was massively dominated by agriculture and its ancillary functions of food production. And that, I suppose I must add, was but a recent innovation compared to the evolutionary period of hundreds of thousands of years of Homo sapiens’ hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

However…Harrington is perfectly correct to point the finger at the industrial revolution as a catastrophe for family life. It was every bit as catastrophic for men as for women – and ultimately more so. The advantage of the era of domestic trades was that there was no distinction between home and workplace. And this was just as true for the men involved as the women. The Master Craftsman was the head of a small business, which not only brought the wife and children into active participation, but would also include apprentices, journeymen and female domestic help. The Master’s wife was, typically, the undisputed Second-in-Command. In fact, so fearsome were many such that, in practice, they ruled entirely. Running the household budget, and hence rations, was a powerful position. Many apprentices’ Articles explicitly required obedience to the Master’s wife, by name, not just the Master himself. Consequently, in this period, there was a mingling of the economic and domestic activities. Much the same goes for agriculture, at least for those married, where the place of work was usually on their doorstep. The exceptions were the itinerant, seasonal, male labourers, usually unmarried.

Are Men Human?

In discussing Dorothy Sayer’s essay “Are Women Human”, Harrington writes that women sought to “become human on the same terms as men”. This was being asserted, I believe, in the very limited context of employment – as if one’s job defines one’s humanity. More broadly, women would not be pleased if their humanity was as circumscribed as men’s. I have already noted in Part 1 that, in this very book, men’s humanity is notable by its absence. I recall, many years ago, a poster campaign in Canada in which the posters asserted “men’s rights are human rights”. All the posters were defaced and the word “wrong” scrawled across them. To complete the syllogism, then, we conclude that men are not human.

Harrington identifies the feminist rejection of the caring role as being their attempt to assert their “humanity”, or personhood. Predictably, criticism is then levelled at men for being unwilling to pick up their share of the caring. My own experience of attempting to do so was not a happy one. My wife made it very clear that, whilst I was indeed expected to contribute to nappy changing, baby minding and getting up in the middle of the night, on no account should I entertain any independent notions of what needed doing or when. I was to be only the under-nursery maid…with an unacknowledged side-line in providing all the family’s income.

This fierce policing of the childcare role by mothers, to ensure it remains their monopolistic domain, is noted by Harrington in another context: “In one 1985 essay, Ruth Wallsgrove describes her experience as a childless feminist woman doing her best to support mothers with childcare, but frustrated that such women ‘want support, on their terms’ but at no cost to the bond they have with their children: ‘they don’t want to share’”. I suspect it is common for fathers to meet with this resistance – though that will not stop the mothers later turning around to complain that their men do not do enough to help them. Fathers have to work out for themselves how to fit their fathering into the interstices left by the mother. This may, I suspect, be ultimately for the good as it forces upon fathers a truly complementary role which is actually crucial.

Patriarchy as Theatre

The term “patriarchy” is used by feminists in two distinct ways: to indicate a man being the head of the household, and to indicate that men are dominant in the world of business, politics and other external affairs. Here I am concerned with the first usage: the individual patriarch in the family setting.

The feminist conception of marriage as being an arrangement to facilitate a man’s desire to dominate (oppress) his female partner arises, I think, from a profound failure to understand male psychology – coupled with a remarkable blindness to the real nature of family dynamics. Men have an innate drive to protect and provide resources for women. Hence, marriage is an altruistic action for men. But respect is also very important for men, and being in a position of servitude does not fit well with that requirement. This conflict is resolved by patriarchy – when properly understood. For patriarchy is essentially a piece of theatre. It is a means of providing status to the role of protector and resource provider. By assigning status to the role, men are encouraged to fulfil it. But that formal status does not negate the underlying reality that, in truth, a woman is the power in her own home. The human pair bond crucially involves the man ceding moral authority to his female partner. By this means her requirements become his duty to fulfil; this is part of the mechanism of resource provision. The late sociologist Geoff Dench expressed it thus,

The frog (Dench’s metaphor for the unattached man), knowing no dependents, is largely self-sufficient in his pool, and can find little reason to abandon freedom and precious playing time just to become a domestic help. To be tempted from the pleasures of the forest, men need to be flattered by an important sounding title, and by the hint – which becomes absurd as soon as it is examined closely – that all of this business of child rearing and reproducing society is in some way being done for them and takes place under their indispensable management. Want to be my helper? Well, maybe; I’ll let you know. How about head of household, domestic monarch? Now that’s more like it!

Patriarchal exaggeration of men’s importance obscures the deeper power of women, and behind the theatre of male dominion the palace holds many secrets.”

The patriarchy that feminism has been so busy smashing was created as a device to encourage men into commitment to a role which is essentially altruistic. In other words, patriarchy is to the benefit of women. Here’s Dench again,

Patriarchy is a system that may well have been largely devised and promoted by primordial matriarchs in order to even out the burden on their children.”

In that context we can interpret Harrington’s suggestion that we should return to a traditional type of marriage arrangement as a rediscovery of what feminist women had forgotten, but what their ancient forebears had previously brought about – for their benefit.

Harrington writes, “It’s some time now in the West since we abandoned actual ‘patriarchy’efforts to ‘smash’ this nebulous thing appear only to have moved the goalposts in terms of where and how it manifests. And this is because most of what flies under the ‘patriarchy’ banner in the 21st century is simply those ineradicable sex differences that return, like zombie caricatures of themselves, in a hyper-liquid market society”. She hits the target, but nowhere near the bullseye. She has not yet grasped, or will not concede, that the theatre of patriarchy was always for women’s benefit, and also of women’s construction. Moreover, the “patriarchy banner” was only ever a label applied by feminists, not the rest of us.

Male Dissident Opinion

Feminists seeking to critique the “manosphere” (whatever that is) are generally keen to hang around on forums for Incels or PUAs or MGTOW. They seem less keen to engage with the serious – and often highly academic – milieu of the main men’s movement itself. The latter includes people who are content to be regarded as men’s rights activists, or advocates, plus many people who are less happy with that label but broadly sympathetic to the calls for the male disadvantages to receive greater acknowledgement. Harrington’s book joins the list of feminist writings which implicitly dismiss the morally and intellectually valid men’s movement by critiquing only Incels, PUA and MGTOW – the latter being peripheral to the larger movement and the former two being no part of it at all. The only mention of “men’s rights activism” in the book is this,

The siren call of atomisation comes from everywhere, and legitimises itself in many ways: girl-power self-actualisation and embittered men’s rights activism, for example, are mirroring ideologies driving the same decline into loneliness and mutual hostility. For both these perspectives, marriage is tantamount to prostitution: a fake contract that enables exploitation of one sex by the other.”

I am an MRA. Who are you, Mary Harrington, to harangue me in this way, with your new-found evangelism? I am an MRA who is in the same – and only – relationship which has now lasted 48 years, married for nearly 40 of them. I am the living embodiment of the lifestyle your recent conversion now lauds as society’s salvation (rightly). You, on the other hand, Mary, with your self-confessed degenerate history and neophyte “reaction” should be a little more humble. You also need to be more cautious about your tendency to project, another perennial failing of the feminist.

The best interpretation I can put on this is ignorance: you failed to do your homework, Mary. You either know nothing of the men’s movement – in which case you should not speak of it – or you have deliberately misrepresented it.

But as for the attitude towards marriage of many who call themselves MRAs, that requires a separate discussion which exposes exactly what that institution is, was and needs to be.

The Destruction of Marriage

The great weakness in Harrington’s proposed resurgence of “real marriage” (my term) is how it can be brought into existence.

Harrington has nothing to say about the systematic dismantling of real marriage by feminist activism over many decades, and its embedding in primary and secondary legislation by an overwhelmingly feminist establishment.

It is easy to smash – be it the patriarchy or anything else. It is not so easy to rebuild. Harrington needs to understand that the depowering of men through their being rendered unnecessary to the family was very easily accomplished precisely because such changes worked with the grain of the establishment’s natural tendency to aggregate power to itself. We will not find it so easy to work against the authoritarian establishment’s resistance to reinstate meaningful marriage.

There is an unacknowledged assumption in Harringtons’ strategy which originates in her failure to appreciate the male perspective. She assumes that men will continue to want to marry. Frankly, under existing conditions, they would be mad – or very badly informed – to want to do so. Harrington should note that this opinion comes from a man who has been in the same relationship for 48 years and married for nearly 40 of them. But my relationship started in different times, among people with a different perspective on life, and when marriage was a different institution. If I were a young man in our society as it now is, with our legislation as it now is, and knowing what I do, I would not marry or cohabit or father children. What you are up against, Mary, is not mere emotionally based reluctance. You are espousing the benefits of an arrangement which has been systematically legislated out of existence.

No one has a map of the road back. But it will clearly be long.

Men’s increasing reluctance in respect of family life is because it is now far too precarious to be a sensible choice. That is simply a correct evaluation as things stand.

Add to this the great difficulty that men (or boys) now have in achieving any relationship with a female and the disastrous scenario is complete. When a man (or a boy) can be vilified even for the most polite attempt to introduce himself to a female, and when a man (or a boy) can be placed on the sex offenders register for touching a female on the shoulder, any chance of relationship is dead in the water for most men. Why should one even take the risk? What’s in it for us?

And then there’s the economic ascendancy of women and their natural hypergamy and choosiness which ensures that 20% of men on dating apps get all the attention – to the point of creating a sexual glut for that minority of men. Women thereby create commitment-phobic men whilst simultaneously creating the lack of “good men” by the simple expediency of ignoring them – and then pouring opprobrium upon their heads if they have the temerity to speak up in the “manosphere” (a term which is itself derogatory).

The TERF Tendency

One concern I have with Harrington’s “conversion” is that too large a part of it is motivated by the second-wave, so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), reaction to trans. The TERFs (or “gender critical feminists” as Harrington prefers) have found themselves suddenly with out-group status, not something to which they are accustomed. (I will admit to a spot of schadenfreude here). Harrington does, at least, acknowledge that the trans monster is a creation of feminism (about which TERFs are in denial), although even Harrington attempts to quarantine the blame by confining it to the “freedom feminism” from which she now finds it convenient to distance herself. Her lingering allegiance with this axis may be evident in, for example, this advice in respect of activism,

“The approach taken by gender-critical feminists should serve as a template for reactionary feminist politics across the board.”

I doubt that she means being beaten up like Posie Parker – or perhaps she does?

A puissant mechanism for bringing about a change in the nature of marriage alone the lines we both desire might be a resurgence in men’s power in the matter. One means by which this might come about is via a cheap, readily available, reliable, convenient and easily reversible male contraceptive – and one whose side effects were sufficiently minor not to detract from its widespread use. Such a power of men over women’s fertility could be a game-changer. Under these conditions, men could make viable sperm available only upon their terms – and those terms should include security of involvement in a child’s life.

Trans and Feminism

Harrington is rather good at describing the likely origins of the sudden, and huge, increase in trans. Her anecdotes, whilst not constituting a scientific study, confirm what I suspected  but had never researched. Male-to-female trans, Steven, “found puberty distressing”. He testified that, “As a white man, I was directly responsible for all of the oppression  experienced by women and people of colour. I was fourteen years old and had never been in a fight in my life or said a racist or misogynistic word to anyone, but I believed that the circumstances of my birth made me a monster”. Are the TERF-types listening? You created the trans debacle, not MRAs as you preposterously claim. That’s as clear a statement of “third wave intersectional feminism drove me trans” as you could wish for.

The same conclusion applies to female-to-male trans, Helena. Being raised in the “hyper-sexualised and pornified” world of sex-positive “freedom feminism” terrified her. She concluded “I must not have really been meant to be a girl, because if I was, this wouldn’t all be so scary and confusing”. Tragic, isn’t it?

Both Steven and Helena were made unable to handle what was happening to them in puberty, as a direct result of the appalling postmodern-Critical narrative in which they had been marinated by school and media and politics. Both ended up hating their bodies as the apparent source of their monstrousness. Steven was terrified of what testosterone was doing to him, and also terrified that he was turning into an example of the toxic masculinity he had always been taught to despise.

The trans monster was created by feminism. Feminism created the theoretical possibility of trans by severing sex from gender – and, in fact, creating the word “gender” in its modern usage. But worse, feminism also provided the impetus behind individual boys and girls wanting to transition.

Girls, under feminism, have been raised to believe they live in a rape culture in which every male is a predator, just waiting to pounce on them given the ghost of a chance. On the other hand, girls have also been raised to believe boys have it easy, drifting through life without a care in the world. No wonder so many girls want to ditch a life of constant danger for one it which (as they believe) they will be powerful and privileged and without fear. Helena thought that “transition would transform her into ‘this outgoing male jock archetype’ who would be ‘handsome, have lots of friends, and love life’”. Such a misconstruing of life as a male under feminism would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Boys, in contrast to what girls imagine, have actually been raised to believe that, when puberty strikes, they will turn into the monsters that they have persistently been told all men truly are. Not surprisingly, then, given the cataclysmic power of pubescent hormones, some boys think that is exactly what is happening to them. Male puberty, Harrington tells us, is now viewed as hostile and poisonous to enough boys that there is a tee-shirt slogan “I survived testosterone poisoning”.

And yet, despite the extent of the devastation that feminism has wrought across the whole of society, still it is held to be reprehensible to declare oneself against feminism – and virtually obligatory for politicians to declare their allegiance to an ideology long since proved to be terminally corrosive. Humans, eh?

Harrington writes,

“The principal advocates for this movement, wittingly or not, are those progressive knowledge-class women who are still net beneficiaries of the war on embodiment. But while feminism has provided much of the moral cover for this dystopian possible future, I am not saying this is all women’s fault. The technological and cultural shifts that got us here happened slowly, and every step made sense on its own terms.”

Hmm. I’m not impressed by that evasion. The moral smokescreen provided by feminism was (in true moral usurpation style) the key driver which gave advances in technology the direction of travel as regards its social implications.


I repeat my conclusions from Part 1.

Reaction to the book provokes one to clarify what the men’s movement is trying to achieve.

My position is, and always has been, that we do not want to return to a traditionalist world. The men’s movement is not merely conservative (though many of its adherents happen to be). The men’s movement is actually radical. This is not appreciated by any feminists, nor by the public at large. The radical element lies in the movement’s opposition to gynocentrism. This immediately rules out the traditional world, which was as gynocentric as our present world.

However, there is common ground with Harrington: sufficient upon which to build an alliance. But a deal breaker must be the priority given to re-establishing fathers’ security of meaningful paternity. Without that it all collapses into hot air.

The second, and closely related, condition must be the acknowledgement of the reality of gynocentric bias (by whatever name) which skews concern to women and girls and responsibility to men and boys. Unless this is replaced by empirically sound balance, men will – and should – continue to walk away.

The third condition must be the recognition that women, even women in traditional domestic caring roles, are not, and never have been, powerless. The influence of female moral, and hence social, power must be explicitly recognised. The importance of this lies in this moral power being the true foundation of feminism. If it continues unrecognised, the excesses of feminism and all that it brings with it will re-emerge.

To say that success in implementing these changes will not be easy is a massive understatement. Harrington notes that it will not be straightforward politically for it’s likely to come at some cost to those women who benefit from the “progressive” agenda, that is the elite women: “This class may need to lose some measure of the benefits that such ‘equality’ and ‘progress’ has afforded them. Suggesting they do so is likely to provoke, to put it mildly, a defensive reaction. And this class of women currently has the mic.”

Harrington’s fighting talk about wresting the (feminist) movement from the “sterilised steel claws of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” is a joy to read, but we have yet to forge a force capable of defeating the transnational Woke Industrial Complex.

11 thoughts on “Feminism Against Progress, Part 2

  1. Spinflight

    The most gynocentric society I have every experienced was undoubtedly Afghanistan. They all happily build 3 foot thick walls to protect their women from invaders, usually those living just over the next hill, but won’t build roads as it enables the invaders. Not a Western idea of gynocentric, but still the same theme.

    Maybe gynocentric is the wrong word, a neologism might be useful. One of the few things that science and religion agree on is what makes us human. Sexual selection and marriage basically. Apex predators tend to mate for life. So are those incapable of such quite as human? Might seem to be a harsh thought but knowing that many of those in power have never had children is something that somewhat terrifies me. Is the latter irrational? If so it’s only a reflection on how much having children changed me. Is a fish that changes sex due to the hormones in the water quite as fishy as a happier example?

    I suspect that our modern ideas about commitment, no matter how noble or traditional, rather pale in comparison to the past. The prospect of lots of mouths to feed these days is relatively trivial, doubt it was during the feudal system. Then again that was possibly one of the few freedoms they had, maybe they were freer than us in that respect.

    Wishing for the return of proper marriage got me thinking. Where did Christian marriage actually come from? If the feminists have destroyed marriage in 60 years then how has it changed previously and over what timescales? How long did it as an institution take to shape? Marriage is mentioned in the Bible but they would be Jewish marriages. Very little seems to be known about the early Church. A while back I did some research on this and couldn’t find any actual physical Churches from the first century so presumably no Christian marriages either. Later I found a chap who claims to own a Church in Wales dating from 36AD, which also seems to be backed up by Vatican records, he isn’t exactly what you’d call an establishment figure though. By the 4th Century it’s pretty clear to me that Constantine saw Christian marriage as a silver bullet for Rome’s social problems, think they had three different forms of marriage prior. It’s no doubt great having loads of Gods but when Venus / Aphrodite is one of them we can guess whose temple was the most popular.

    What of plebby marriages in the UK, as opposed to Kings and whatnot? I’d presume the idea of common law wife has actual historical precedent but have no idea about the history. We don’t, for instance, seem to know anything about Pagan marriages bar what some hippies probably made up in the 60s and maybe some cave paintings in bloody france of all places.

    Chap I know who just finished a theology degree hadn’t even considered the idea that marriage was the single most important part of his religion and knew nothing about it’s history. His professors were more interested in transgender bathrooms no doubt, or how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

    There doesn’t seem to be any lack of material online about this, though you quickly get the strong whiff of feminist academics disparaging it.

    I doubt MRAs are alone in seeing the dangers here though politics is the wrong realm. Marriage and sexual mores are the job of the Church, or would be if the Pope was a Catholic and the CofE’s wee chappie wasn’t a right cuck.

    This by extension makes feminism a religion, amongst other reasons, a point I’ve been labouring for years. At least David Starkey is now calling it a Christian Heresy, the odd vague mention of gnostic this and that from other commentators, but generally very little.

    If you can beat, or revive, a religion with logic or political activism then I’m somewhat empty handed with examples. If you can do so in reasonably rapid by religion timescales then I doubt they are in my lifetime. And if history is anything to go by then things will get an awful lot worse before we see any change.

    On a positive note however, it makes us Paladins. 🙂

  2. Family Coalition

    Brock Chisolm — his Wiki page is worth a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Chisholm — as first Director General of the World Health Organisation, said “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.”

    From Point A (agrarian) to Point B (truckarian , our modern society relies upon complex, modern supply chains for food) has as you state been a series of small steps akin to the boiling frog analogy to reuse the frog analogy (why is it always a frog?) over centuries.

    Feminism is just one step of many that used useful idiots to get us to this point contravening parents and children constitutionally protected liberty interest in companionship and society with each other –
    “California Pushes Ahead w/ ‘State-Sanctioned Kidnapping Bill’ Allowing Therapists to Take Children as Young as 12-Years-Old From Their Parents Without Notice
    “In the world of transgenderism, that means that a child who goes to a school counselor and says that they are transgender and that their parents won’t support them, that child can be whisked off to a LGBTQ community facility and not come home from school that day.” ”

    At least we have reached the stage where folks are awakening and seeing the Empress has no clothes – https://www.mom-army.com

    When the declining SNP attempted to legislate for GIRFEC the Named Person Scheme to insert a third person into the family as overlord the rebuttle came from Baroness Hale, Senior Supreme Court Judge. “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”

    The MotherWEFers have always wanted to get to the children, using feminism to sabotage the family from within served as just one mechanism on the slippery slope in achieving it.

    Buckminster Fuller was correct in observing it’s better to forget about attempting to repair a broken system and start afresh. The examples are out there.

  3. Patrick

    A woman well known to me related the story of one of her employees in her Thai massage business. The woman is Thai and was brought to Australia by her Aussie boyfriend, a young, good looking boy, in full employment though slightly autistic. He sponsored her for eventual permanent residency in Australia and made sure she had a good job to satisfy immigration requirements. After 3 months, she sacked him and upgraded to a non-autistic bloke (presumably with a bigger salary)! Job done. This woman has learned quickly that Australian men, compliments of the Family Law cartel, will give her what she wants, via the lure of the pussy, and that the cartel will ensure that the males who do the shovel work are disposable.

  4. Nigel

    I’m interested that you hail from Lancs. As you say even as late as the 70s (where i bumped into feminism at Uni. ) the County did not conform to this fictitious world where women didn’t work. In my prosperous working class suburb of its biggest city, everyone worked (until the collapse of the early 1980s) apart from the wife of the local Doctor and a few women with small children. For even those with small children had ” a little job”. As you say the women often managed the household budget and it was common for men to hand over the wage and have “spends” . The family and community web involved a lot of “aunties” and “uncles” who were not relatives at all (a situation confusing to my wife, particularly planning the guest list for our wedding). As you mention there were a wide variety of jobs in my branches of family tree,:Astley pit, the Ship canal, Steel, Ford Motors, stevedore. And at 64 i’m the longest lived male from those branches as even now the gender lifespan gap is still ten years in the area as the long shadow of heavy industries still shortens men’s lives. The gap being proportionately much greater in the 1970s. Being one of the beneficiaries of Wilson’s expansion of Universities I have always remembered doing a Sociology subsidiary topic and having a lightbulb moment that the people that we were studying, as if some exotic anthropology “the working class”, were in fact me and my mates and family! Even then I bridled at the sweeping generalisations and mistakes as academics “researched” what they could have observed just down the road. as you rightly point out there was a huge range of occupations in prospect. And a hierarchy with white collar and good trades the top and dustbin man as the warning if we didn’t work at our CSEs. I recall our redoubtable “domestic Science” teacher drilling us in hygiene and “good wholesome cooking” warning us that many of us would be working away from home a lot and would need to “fend for yourself” and anyway she wasn’t going to let our future wives “find you can’t decent meal “. All useful stuff as many did go on to work away a lot while others worked shifts (shift work seems still to be completely forgotten).
    The world wasn’t, and isn’t, in the image of the feminist fantasy. As you say men sought “good” jobs and few could afford a completely “economically inactivve” spouse.

    1. Greg Allan

      “In my prosperous working class suburb of its biggest city, everyone worked (until the collapse of the early 1980s) apart from the wife of the local Doctor and a few women with small children. For even those with small children had ” a little job”.”

      Both my parents have put together extensive family trees dating back centuries. With one exception – paternal GM – ALL my female ancestors worked. In addition I’m the first in both parents’ male lineages who worked their life in an office.

      1. Nigel

        I haven’t gone very far back but my ancestors are mainly from the celtic fringes lured to the industrial cities of Lancashire. Large families with with quite a few infant mortalities, I am at 64 one of only two males to have lived beyond 60 in that tree. The litany of early deaths include my maternal great grandfather drowned in a freak storm that took down 5 fishing vessels in ’29, the suicide of my paternal grandfather, having to work away from home when Ford moved their factory from Trafford Park to Dagenham in the depression, at the same time a maternal great uncle also comitted suicide in similar circumstances while another died in a “minor” pit accident. The rest seen off by infectious diseases or cancers.

  5. Groan

    Bravo! Thank goodness for Mary Harrington’s book, because it has stimulated this from you. The two parts so succinctly set out an analysis and agenda. The observation about a male “pill” is perceptive. For much of the history of the “religions of the book” it was presumed males planted a seed in a fertile woman. Though hypothesised in the late seventeenth century it wasn’t really until the second half of the 19th Century that the existence of the female “eggs” was proved and became widely understood. I wonder if this didn’t have an influence on the shifts the late 19th and on into the 20th century. Being able to manipulate these eggs with the Pill was a game changer. It would seem likely something similar may happen. It is interesting the immense resistance to DNA testing and the social and in some jurisdictions legal position, that men unrelated to “their” children should still fulfil the father role. As you say the other notable thing is the marked reluctance to even speculate, let alone ask what men may want from relationships. In the rare surveys that have asked both sexes, in fact the answers are much the same as women. To form stable family structures to nurture the next generation in a supportive family and social structure. It is perhaps an achievement that the very most wealthy, healthy and materially abundant societies that have existed in all human history turn out to be pretty rubbish at achieving these modest goals.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *