Feminism: The Ugly Truth. Mike J.D. Buchanan
has been defined exclusively in terms of misogyny. So nobody is looking for ‘sexism’ against men, for misandry, and people don’t find what they’re not looking for. Have they even heard of the word or concept? Everyone would admit to noticing examples of men ‘perhaps losing out’ now and again, here or there, occasionally. But because Feminism has never been exposed to public debate, to questioning and analysis, people have failed to see the pattern, they fail to see the intended political strategy… because of this heavy censorship people have been deliberately denied the knowledge and the political insight to see Feminism for what it has become.
After decades of society’s and the state’s relentless searching and probing, exploring in every nook and cranny of society, culture, education, the law, the media, employment, politics, to seek out misogyny and sexism against women, it can be very difficult for individuals steeped in this conventional wisdom, conditioned in this monopolistic, blinkered search, to see the dangers of widespread man-hating.
Here is one reason why this book needed to be written. Part Four offers the reader the knowledge and the insights to see the pro-Feminist / anti-male pattern in sexual politics, to see how modern Britain expresses institutional misandry; to expose the Feminist fraud.
In the Preface we saw how Feminist students (already well entrenched in their own political groups) aggressively attempted to prevent male students at the Universities of Manchester and Oxford from forming even non-political, innocuous, Men’s Societies.
People have, so far, been unaware of how misandry has been employed as a major sexual political weapon in the Feminist armoury:
-in condemning and demonising men (and thereby legitimising the institutional ‘punishment’ of men via laws and policies, and by ignoring male-specific problems and issues)
-how it is used to ease and facilitate the implementation of the Feminist agenda
And neither are people aware of how Feminism’s Quiet Revolution is being cleverly orchestrated. Or they may purposely have chosen not to be aware of these aspects of misandry. Male Feminists are particularly deserving of opprobrium for their lack of concern for men, their obsequious refusal to address misandry, and their obdurate refusal to even acknowledge its existence. Male politicians, male trade union leaders and male academics should be particularly singled out for condemnation.
CAMERON: ABSENT DADS
AS BAD AS DRINK DRIVERS
(The Sunday Telegraph, 19 June, 2011)
David Cameron today launches a full-scale attack on fathers who abandon their families, calling for them to be ‘stigmatised’ by society in the same way as drink-drivers.
The Prime Minister’s intervention – in an article for The Sunday Telegraph to mark Father’s Day – is one of the most outspoken he has made in defence of traditional family life… He says, ‘It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink-drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they’re doing is wrong, that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn’t acceptable.’
He says fathers must make the decision to support ‘financially and emotionally’ their children even if they have separated from their mothers, spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and ‘taking an interest in their education’.
This is an attack on men, not just fathers. Cameron chose Father’s Day to make his words especially painful for those divorced men who are desperate to see their children but have been prevented from doing so, sometimes for many years, by vindictive ex-wives.
Four out of five divorces are petitioned for by wives;1 [Author’s note: the superscript ‘1’ – and the others in this chapter – reflects the source of cited materials in Why Britain Hates Men. The sources are provided at the end of this chapter]. It is fathers who are ditched and required to leave the family home. How can this fact possibly be construed as ‘runaway dads’? Such dishonesty could only be alchemised in the warped perspective of the Feminist and the Male Feminist. It isn’t fathers who are breaking up traditional families, but wives and mothers… but this dare not be openly admitted in our politically correct culture. So men are used as the scapegoats; in a misandric culture it is easier to demonise men than to face the wrath of Feminists by being truthful.
Or is Mr Cameron thinking of young men who irresponsibly impregnate girls and then refuse to commit? Well hang on, there are two sides to this story. Young women are just as culpable as young men with their sexual behaviour. For every male youth who impregnates a girl and then disappears from the scene there is an equal number (if not more) of young women who have had children by numerous fathers and who refuse to live with any of them because this would reduce their single-parent benefits, including jeopardising their state-provided flat or house. In addition, there is extensive and compelling evidence to show that young women actually choose to become single-parent mothers.2 Senior research fellow Patricia Morgan states:
‘Most unwed mothers conceive and deliver their babies deliberately, not accidentally.’3
Senior research fellow Geoff Dench:
‘The existence of state benefits as a source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners.’4
And Cameron’s own research team, a body specifically set up to investigate the breakdown of the traditional family, reached the same conclusion. Iain Duncan Smith speaks for the Social Justice policy group ‘Breakdown Britain’:
‘However, over the lifetime of this working group we have been concerned by the extent to which it appears that the current benefits system incentivises lone parenthood and acts as a driver towards family breakdown.’5
So young men don’t leave single mothers to fend for themselves. Today, single-parent motherhood is mostly driven by young women. It is not caused by ‘runaway dads’. By disregarding all the evidence and all the research, including his own, we can see that Cameron is bloody-minded in his determination to blame men, fathers, for the supposed ‘victimhood’, and the huge public cost, of the single-parent mother phenomenon.
Cameron goes on to say that divorced fathers should be involved with their children and have an emotional input. He suggests ‘spending time with the kids at weekends, taking them to football matches, going to the nativity play, taking an interest in their education.’
The man’s an idiot. He has no idea just how difficult it is for the majority of divorced fathers to even see their children, let alone be permitted to participate in their emotional care (this ostracism is also experienced by many unmarried fathers). These loving fathers spend £1000s desperately trying to have some sort of meaningful contact – against the combined might of their vindictive ex-wife (free legal-aided to keep him away from ‘her’ children), the Feminist-friendly Family Courts and successive Feminist-sympathetic governments (both the latter supporting and encouraging the cruelty of the ex-wife). Cameron offers not a word of comfort, in the form of father-friendly policy, for these seriously distressed and desperate men.
Cameron’s statement is virulently anti-male. It is not accidentally insensitive; he deliberately chose Father’s Day to inflict his cruelty on already-hurting divorced fathers. So not only is his attack on men delusional; it is despicable. And it encapsulates (and proves) the thesis of this book – that modern Britain hates men; and that this systemic misandry is not only cultural but institutional. Here we see man-hating from the very top.
Why did Cameron perpetrate this deliberate hurt, this planned misandry? Two reasons. By blaming and demonising men, by further hurting and tormenting divorced fathers, he appeased and pleased the Feminists. It is dangerous for a politician today to incur the wrath of the powerful Feminist lobby, sycophancy is a much easier policy to keep these influential ideologues ‘on side’. Secondly, by cuddling up to and flattering single-parent mothers he hopes to glean and secure the ‘women’s vote’. Cameron’s motives were political, dishonest,