Feminism: The Ugly Truth. Mike J.D. Buchanan
do men still swallow the myth that women are an oppressed gender? For a possible answer to this we turn to a remarkable book first published over 40 years ago, Esther Vilar’s The Manipulated Man (1971). In her new introduction to the second edition of the book in 2008 Vilar made the point that in the original edition of the book she underestimated men’s fear of re-evaluating their own position:
‘The more sovereignty they [men] are losing in their professional lives – the more automatic their work, the more controlled by computers they become, the more that increasing unemployment forces them to adopt obsequious behavior towards customers and superiors – then the more they have to be afraid of a recognition of their predicament. And the more essential it becomes to maintain their illusion that it is not they who are the slaves, but those on whose behalf they subject themselves to such an existence.
As absurd as it may sound: today’s men need feminists more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless, and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their animalistic instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without their arrogant accusations the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press didn’t stylize men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.’
14| FEMININITY
God gave women intuition and femininity. Used properly, the combination easily jumbles the brain of any man I’ve ever met.
Farrah Fawcett 1947-2009 American actress and artist
Feminists hate the very notion of femininity. They consider women taking advantage of their femininity as an expression of weakness; one of many dismal conclusions arising logically and inevitably from dualism. But femininity is arguably more an expression of strength rather than of weakness. Women can reliably expect from men a high return on their femininity. What would feminists recommend instead? That women compete 24/7/365 with men in the home, the workplace, in politics and elsewhere? That’s already adding much to the sum of human happiness, isn’t it?
If men enjoyed the returns from masculinity which women routinely enjoy from femininity, they’d have no reservation in exploiting it. However the option isn’t open to them, so they might reasonably be expected to complain about women exploiting femininity. But do they? No, of course they don’t.
15| FEMINIST THEORY: BUILDING CASTLES IN THE AIR
I, on the other hand, have a degree from the University of Life, a diploma from the School of Hard Knocks, and three gold stars from the Kindergarten of Getting the Shit Kicked Out of Me.
Captain Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson): Blackadder Goes Forth (1989)
Feminist academics have been busy building castles in the air, and they have little option but to work hard to stop us noticing how ludicrous those constructions are, mainly by inventing mind-numbingly long treatises which no normal person with a life would be prepared to read. You and I, dear reader, along with the other long-suffering taxpayers in the developed world, are financing those constructions. Most of the building work is undertaken by the feminists – generally but not invariably women – who design and teach Women’s Studies and Gender Studies courses, about which I shall have more to say. Let me just say at this point something which may not surprise you. Feminist ‘academics’ have minimal intellectual curiosity; they focus on developing and disseminating propaganda for the feminist movement.
In 1978 I was awarded a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry by one of the three most prestigious universities in the United Kingdom: Oxford, Cambridge, Reading. Exactly which one, need not detain us. I vividly recall the first lecture on the first day of the course, given by one of the four departmental professors. In those balmy far-off days (summers were warmer) professors were usually of advanced years, unlike the twenty-something professors of the modern era. The professor started his talk with something along the following lines:
‘Because you will be studying chemistry, a physical science, one that has a long and noble history, you probably believe that all you will learn over the next three years will be held to be equally valid in 30, 40, even 50 years’ time. This is a delusion commonly held by science undergraduates. Many of the theories I myself learned as an undergraduate have been discarded or refined, and this is how science progresses. I’ve been responsible myself for some of that discarding and refinement, I’m not too modest to say.
Political theory, however, does not progress in this way. This may explain why a depressingly high percentage of you are Lefties. With luck, most of you will in the fullness of time grow out of that dismal philosophy. My sole purpose in telling you this is to recommend that you be wary of believing theories asserted as facts by academics, including scientists, and to assume that anything uttered by a political theorist is the product of a deeply disturbed mind.
What’s the difference between an academic and a village idiot? The academic will calculate the speed at which an elephant needs to flap its ears in order to fly like a bird, and he will – as surely as night follows day – find support for his theory from some of his colleagues. The village idiot, meanwhile, knows elephants have never flown, they don’t now, and he will hazard a wild guess that they never will.’
Feminist theories will reflect the realities of the world we live in, and the realities of human nature, the day we have flocks of elephants soaring high above us. That’s just a personal opinion, however, so on your behalf I thought I’d research what’s currently taught on Women’s Studies and Gender Studies courses at universities in the United Kingdom.
I emailed five (female) leaders of Women’s Studies and Gender Studies departments in the UK, asking for details of course prospectuses and associated reading lists. I mentioned that my book The Glass Ceiling Delusion had recently been published, so I wasn’t trying to hide the perspective I have on feminist matters. Only one academic responded, and that was to refuse to supply the materials, ‘in the light of the probably anti-feminist nature of your next book.’
I then wrote letters to the five women, and still had no response. I emailed them again, invoking the Freedom of Information Act, requiring the materials to be supplied within 28 days. I had two responses. The first was polite, from a lady writing on behalf of Professor Stevi Jackson of York University, who we shall come to shortly.
The second was from Professor Marysia Zalewski, Director of the Centre for Gender Studies in the School of Social Science, University of Aberdeen. We had the following email exchange. Ms Zalewski isn’t one to exchange pleasantries with people like me, clearly. No ‘Best wishes’, no ‘Mr Buchanan’, nothing like that. The following email exchange is shown in chronological order:
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 11:40 AM
Subject: Women’s Studies / Gender Studies
Ms Zalewski, I hope this finds you well. Following the publication of my latest book The Glass Ceiling Delusion, which focused on men and women in the world of work, I am embarking on a wider critique of feminist thinking and campaigning in the modern era. I wish to give the book’s readers a real sense of what is currently taught in Women’s Studies / Gender Studies courses. Would it be possible to mail or email me (before the end of September, i.e. nine weeks off) details of your courses in these areas, and associated reading lists for people undertaking them? Also, could you please inform me of the gender balance among the people undertaking the courses in the last academic year? Thank you.
Best wishes,
Mike Buchanan
<contact details>
[Author’s note: in the absence of a response