"No one identifies it as ideological or biased in any way"? I've been doing exactly that for 20 years & been blacklisted by women on the left and right because of it.
Feminism is now the status quo in many key areas of society.
Talk about "male privilege" is now ludicrous since so many feminists in business and government have far more status, privilege and power than many men.
Much of their talk about the manosphere is intended only to stifle opposing points of view that are a threat to feminist power and privilege.
Agree. The vilification of the manosphere is a solid indicator of their one sided self centeredness. It is telling that so many are in on it, from the media, researchers, to the feminists, everyone is clutching their pearls over the manosphere. All the while toxic masculinity is perfectly fine to print or speak.
The extent to which feminist values have penetrated from the lowest to the highest levels of education, mass media, government, and business is very sad. In many ways the Feminists have won, and to a very large extent they are in the driver's seat.
They talk about the patriarchy and male domination in the same way Hitler talked about Jewish domination and the world Jewish conspiracy - driven by a totally false ideology and worldview which justifies their grasping for power and stifling of "enemies" who disagree with them.
There is a profoundly fascistic demand for uniformity in the feminist ideology.
"This is what we have had for the last 50 years. A slow gynocentric building of a new reality. And what has been the result? Women have been inflated and men have been equally deflated. Ask just about any woman about the last 50 years and she will tell you it is progress."
That is the core of the problem - that large numbers of women support the deflation of men. That fact has black-pilled large numbers of men. The fact that Lindsay Clancy, the mother that admitted to murdering her three children, has raised a million dollars in donations, will only deepen the black-pilling.
This may interest you https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/08/30/the-era-of-mythical-misogyny/ As it becomes increasingly obvious the feminist establishment is shot through with inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy. As outlined in "Sex Change Society" by Melanie Phillips (1999) the journey you describe really moved from "Oxbridge" through culture, policy and the Law. As such really wasn't a mass movement. The first sign of the wheels coming off was probably the spread of "Gender Studies" to the proliferation of Universities (from former Colleges and Polytechnics} as the result of The Tony Blair target of increasing university education. One fruit of this was and remains a younger generation imbued with the Feminist analysis of gender being performative and therefore a choice. Initially an idea to promote women into occupations that require strength etc. It also changed the idea of "sex change" as about performing feminine or masculine, as a choice to be lauded irrespective of sex differences. Which of course horrifies the older Feminists because it was never meant to be applied to both sexes equally. Suddenly arguments that women can be Firefighters, Footsoldiers, Police look weak if simultaneously even castrated men full of female hormones are a threat because even in that physical state women can't compete in sports! The other issue here is the feminists not only being silent on grooming gangs but actually turning on the few of their number who have talked about the truth. Calling "misogyny" and "rape culture" about "unwanted compliments" etc. looks pretty ridiculous. But I suspect the real "own goal" will be the programme in schools. Which in a way takes the ideology out of the elite Universities and cultural/political elite. And exposes it to the general population of young people. Who are more likely to interpret the idea of equality simply and observe the obvious inconsistencies and privileges. With little time for the convoluted sophistries that are the stuff of "Feminist Theory".
One recent example, from Norway, is that a Gov. economic policy document included the simple fact that there over the course of a life women on average consumed 5 times the public expenditure than men! Not a surprise to MRAs (it is similar in the UK ). But it turns out really causing a political furor in Norway. With few really impressed with the Gov.s attempts to explain this away. Not least because Norway is supposedly way up there in "Gender Equality" with few women as stay at home mothers, few children anyway (a big issue in most European countries) women in highly paid professions etc. The expenditures are on health, welfare and special supports etc. All exposed by a published document, and a fact that will have been known for decades in Academy and Civil Service but never exposed in such a way to a wider public.
x5! I had heard some numbers out of Australia or New Zealand, I can't remember, but the numbers from the US are difficult to obtain. I would guess we would see similar numbers. That might wake some folks up.
"“An average man costs the state and municipalities 3.1 million kroner over the course of his life, while women cost an average of 15.6 million kroner.
This was revealed in the outlook report that the government presented before the weekend. This creates challenges for the economy in the long term.
What most people have noticed is the enormous difference between women and men:”
The report referred to is for the Government and projects forwards the challenges for the country. These are common to European Countries, low birthrates, ageing population profiles, expected dramatic falls in population overall. Ballooning public spending (Norway is unusual that this isn't funded by massive debt. Because of their huge Oil and Gas reserves and a massive sovereign wealth fund however the revenues and reserves are projected to fall). So it is full of data. However the sheer size of the difference between expenditures on men and women became the stand out talking point. The difference being due to much higher expenditures at on health, welfare and elderly care. Of course the huge public sector is, in common with most in Europe, staffed by females and has both a high proportion of part time jobs as well as counting as full/time 30 hours a week (as opposed to 36 hours in the private sector (of course mainly male workforces). So the male taxpayers are not only paying for services to women but also paying the wages of the women who constitute the majority of the workforce working in the public services!
Thanks, that’s a brilliant spiked article that needs to be widely read.
The distinction between “mythical misogyny” and “material misogyny” is precise, useful and starkly challenging. There is nowhere to hide after reading that.
I am one of those defectors from feminism (mainly as an English grad student and I read a lot of books etc) and I can tell you that the idea that men might organize has always struck terror into the dark hearts of political feminists. I encountered this firsthand during the #metoo psychological operation in 2018.
Political feminists express that fear as derision, ridicule and accusataion of MRAs being the equivalent of "white rights" and the KKK. But one "special interest" cannot point to another and say they have no basis for existence. That's for us to decide.
The good news is that feminism is poisoning its own well and many women who are not political types are realizing that they were sold a lot of lies. I meet or perhaps attract an increasing number of women who see through the deception of feminism.
Exactly Greg. We saw this panic during the mythopoetic movement when all the king's horses started shaming men for things they weren't doing in order to disable the coming togegther of men as men. Very sad.
Thanks Eric, so true that there is a fear of men organizing and supporting each other. Also true they are poisoning their own well, but how much poison will it take to kill the movement? Celebrating a child killer? Damn.
Yeah, it surprises me to how so many people today are not aware of how large and dominant feminism is in our society's institutions and culture. I guess it's hard to see it from the inside, especially if it's all you've ever known.
The following has been called "Proof by Citation" [Prof Murray Strauss]...
"Here’s the tricky part. Each of these groups starts to quote the other groups as proof to the veracity of the original idea. Journalists cite the academics and advocates cite the journalists. Politicians cite both. Then the researchers come along and “study” the reality that has just been created out of thin air and prove it. Then the public hears from these many sources and voila, what started as a theory becomes an accepted reality. Advocacy becomes fact. The public nods unknowingly in agreement."
I found exactly this when I checked a few MSM articles on DV. I won't call them "feminist" because they were just presented as a current issue. Where there were citations, they just went to other articles which said the same thing, until the trail was going in circles.
After whatever issue of male-perfidy and female-victimhood has been established through proof-by-citation, it is then established through "Proof by Public Knowledge", eg. "Everyone knows that..." domestic violence is common; a woman is paid less than a man for the same job; a woman couldn't get a bank account in her own name until 1974, etc..etc..etc.. This "public knowledge" is as irrefutable as, say, that earth orbits the sun, slavery once existed in the US, Paris has an Eiffel Tower, and so on.
Once something is established through "Proof by Public Knowledge" it cannot be questioned. To even question it demonstrates both stupidity and ill-will.
I have personally experienced this accusation of stupidity and ill-will several times when I've contested feminist accusations with the accusers, male and female, in my own family, until I quickly learned to not raise may head above the parapet.
In just recent days we've seen it in Australia with the electoral success of the rising third party, One Nation, which is the only party with any advocacy for men. After they won a seat in a bi-election, our PM warned the country that they are a "danger to the nation", including the accusation that "they think that domestic violence is SOMETIMES (sic) the woman's fault", to rousing jeers of "SHAME!!!" from his audience. So, One Nation are a danger because "Everyone knows that domestic violence is serious, it's common, and it's ALWAYS AND ONLY perpetrated by men against female victims". During the same short address, the PM also accused One Nation of "misinformation and disinformation", ie. stupidity and ill-will.
it is interesting how there is such power in shaming those who dare to disagree with THE narrative. This will not be short easy fight. Great to hear of One Nation!
Its very noticeable how quickly a feminist concept moves very quickly from country to country .
For example take the "Grand Final Domestic Violence" concept first started with the USA and quickly spread to other countries.
The other is once attention was drawn to sports men suffering from CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) that can only be diagnosed on autopsy. The feminist domestic violence advocates very quickly started claiming that women who were allegedly victims of DV also had a high incidence of CTE.
The latest is associated with the concept of alleged female victims of DV being driven to commit suicide and the call for more research into the issue, while ignoring research into men who experience DV having a higher incidence of suicide.
It doesn't always spread from country to country so much as you might think. Feminism is a top-down global operation. The three main international feminist bodies coordinate - these days through the feminist United Nations - and evolve strategy. This is then disseminated through hundreds of seminars a year around the globe, publications sent directly to national feminist bodies, and directly into governments as UN determinations.
For the big things, like DV notably, the entire scare was driven from the top, taking the worst examples from around the world (even then, cherry-picked samples) and spreading it as a global occurrence.
One example I traced on the early 2000s was of a small country where a woman had been brutally tied up and left to starve (yes this happens to men but they don't care about that). This is a statistic, for that small nation, that one woman in 350,000 was starved to death by her husband. That became, without reference, an annual statistic. That became a discussion at a UN minor conference of how it is not recorded by countries how many women are starved to death by their husbands (perfectly true, as far as I could tell: it's not a statistic that any government collected, just like they don't collect statistics on anything else that rarely happens). That ended, in that same conference, as an assumption that one in half a million women, or one in something like 184,000 married women, *around the world* is starved to death every year by uncaring men. Last I looked, that was still the quoted figure for that one little statistic.
The problem is, it takes a moment to invent these lies but it took me a solid month's effort to unravel that one. And still, nobody in power cares about what I say rather than accept that lies as one of a column of statistics making up the 'fact' that one in three women (or whatever it's grown into lately) suffer DV every year.
I digressed. The point is, these are internationally coordinated campaigns, highly funded, highly spread throughout academia and the political classes. That is the main reason you see the same kind of thing in all 194 countries of the UN.
That is just one example, Tom. I have done other deep dives, such as into refugee camps (I came away from one UN meeting literally crying because of what I heard of the way they segregated and excluded men, it is so cruel), and into the 'proof' that circumcision cuts AIDS (it doesn't, not to any meaningful degree) which is driving the mutilation of millions of men in Africa and causing thousands of male deaths and many more severe issues every year.
I'm sure there are some people working in the UN who are doing good work but they are hard to find. It's a foul, autocratic authoritarian regime that has failed massively in its primary objective of preventing war and causes horrendous suffering, especially of men and children, while corrupting any concept of true national democractic control.
Lets be honest here. Its spread is very much a function of the dominance of the post WW2 USA. As a Brit. I'm resistant to the truth that English is the international language of the elites, not because of Shakespeare or its virtues per se, but because the USA dominates the globe in so many ways. In my younger years some "feminist" notions were very much in the Communist/Socialist mode following Engels. Certainly in European countries. However in the last three decades one has seen repeatedly concepts and programmes adopted here a few years after they emerge in the USA. Particularly those with a psychological/therapeutic individual focus. One can see the attraction, taking that line means a wealthy, fashion obsessed, self absorbed woman can claim "oppression", micro aggressions etc. In a way that would be inconceivable in the more Marxist "class conflict" era here. Where feminists were desperate to hide their privileged background and pretend to be "working class". Of course the English speaking countries are particularly susceptible to taking on concepts. An example of when it doesn't work is the "rape culture" and kangaroo courts in US (and later Australian) Universities. Eventually the wheels fell of this here because the actual powers and role of Universities here are different to the US. Put simply the Universities can't police and punish here and made this clear. Another is "Affirmative Action" where even Police forces and the RAF have taken on practices from the US. Which are illegal here in fact as court cases have made clear.
As an amusing aside on the differences outside the Anglosphere when the French Government was analysing the effect on Company Boards of a legal requirement to have 40% female board members. They included Wives, Girlfriends, female relatives and ...... "mistresses". I'm pretty certain no such official categorisation would appear in a UK Government analysis. As I recall just over 10% of appointed female board members in the research period were mistresses of a Board member. Vive la difference.
One consequence: Feminist women are having way too few babies to replace themselves. For example, Democrats have a fertility rate of about 1.2 children per couple, compared to the needed 2.1 to replace themselves every generation.
we live in a matriarchy comprised of sexist double standard, spoiled female chauvinist pigs, obsessed with destroying men's rights, they don't want equality because they are a hate movement.
Great commentary Tom. As you so righly say, once you see the pervasive gynocentrism roiling society you cannot ignore it. The concepts you present are much more coherent with the data then the often contradictory claims of feminist theory.
Reality will eventually overcome falsehoods but it's the damage inflicted along the way that concerns me.
I can roll my eyes all day long at the feminist rhetoric.
Unfortunately they've changed laws that have impacted justice being equal and fair.
At what point does that get reversed. We now have a situation in Australia where men routinely ignored for asking for help. Even when they are victims of attempted murder.
Since instantiating feminist assumptions leads directly to the sterilisation of birth rates, the problem is self-correcting, although the correction will be a historical tragedy.
"No one identifies it as ideological or biased in any way"? I've been doing exactly that for 20 years & been blacklisted by women on the left and right because of it.
Excellent. We need more like you! Well done.
Feminism is now the status quo in many key areas of society.
Talk about "male privilege" is now ludicrous since so many feminists in business and government have far more status, privilege and power than many men.
Much of their talk about the manosphere is intended only to stifle opposing points of view that are a threat to feminist power and privilege.
Agree. The vilification of the manosphere is a solid indicator of their one sided self centeredness. It is telling that so many are in on it, from the media, researchers, to the feminists, everyone is clutching their pearls over the manosphere. All the while toxic masculinity is perfectly fine to print or speak.
The extent to which feminist values have penetrated from the lowest to the highest levels of education, mass media, government, and business is very sad. In many ways the Feminists have won, and to a very large extent they are in the driver's seat.
They talk about the patriarchy and male domination in the same way Hitler talked about Jewish domination and the world Jewish conspiracy - driven by a totally false ideology and worldview which justifies their grasping for power and stifling of "enemies" who disagree with them.
There is a profoundly fascistic demand for uniformity in the feminist ideology.
"This is what we have had for the last 50 years. A slow gynocentric building of a new reality. And what has been the result? Women have been inflated and men have been equally deflated. Ask just about any woman about the last 50 years and she will tell you it is progress."
That is the core of the problem - that large numbers of women support the deflation of men. That fact has black-pilled large numbers of men. The fact that Lindsay Clancy, the mother that admitted to murdering her three children, has raised a million dollars in donations, will only deepen the black-pilling.
Exactly.
This may interest you https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/08/30/the-era-of-mythical-misogyny/ As it becomes increasingly obvious the feminist establishment is shot through with inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy. As outlined in "Sex Change Society" by Melanie Phillips (1999) the journey you describe really moved from "Oxbridge" through culture, policy and the Law. As such really wasn't a mass movement. The first sign of the wheels coming off was probably the spread of "Gender Studies" to the proliferation of Universities (from former Colleges and Polytechnics} as the result of The Tony Blair target of increasing university education. One fruit of this was and remains a younger generation imbued with the Feminist analysis of gender being performative and therefore a choice. Initially an idea to promote women into occupations that require strength etc. It also changed the idea of "sex change" as about performing feminine or masculine, as a choice to be lauded irrespective of sex differences. Which of course horrifies the older Feminists because it was never meant to be applied to both sexes equally. Suddenly arguments that women can be Firefighters, Footsoldiers, Police look weak if simultaneously even castrated men full of female hormones are a threat because even in that physical state women can't compete in sports! The other issue here is the feminists not only being silent on grooming gangs but actually turning on the few of their number who have talked about the truth. Calling "misogyny" and "rape culture" about "unwanted compliments" etc. looks pretty ridiculous. But I suspect the real "own goal" will be the programme in schools. Which in a way takes the ideology out of the elite Universities and cultural/political elite. And exposes it to the general population of young people. Who are more likely to interpret the idea of equality simply and observe the obvious inconsistencies and privileges. With little time for the convoluted sophistries that are the stuff of "Feminist Theory".
One recent example, from Norway, is that a Gov. economic policy document included the simple fact that there over the course of a life women on average consumed 5 times the public expenditure than men! Not a surprise to MRAs (it is similar in the UK ). But it turns out really causing a political furor in Norway. With few really impressed with the Gov.s attempts to explain this away. Not least because Norway is supposedly way up there in "Gender Equality" with few women as stay at home mothers, few children anyway (a big issue in most European countries) women in highly paid professions etc. The expenditures are on health, welfare and special supports etc. All exposed by a published document, and a fact that will have been known for decades in Academy and Civil Service but never exposed in such a way to a wider public.
x5! I had heard some numbers out of Australia or New Zealand, I can't remember, but the numbers from the US are difficult to obtain. I would guess we would see similar numbers. That might wake some folks up.
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/hver-kvinne-koster-15-6-millioner-ingen-grunn-til-at-det-skal-tolkes-stigmatiserende-for-kvinner/s/12-95-3424089287 Is a rather desperate attempt to explain the huge difference. Translated
"“An average man costs the state and municipalities 3.1 million kroner over the course of his life, while women cost an average of 15.6 million kroner.
This was revealed in the outlook report that the government presented before the weekend. This creates challenges for the economy in the long term.
What most people have noticed is the enormous difference between women and men:”
The report referred to is for the Government and projects forwards the challenges for the country. These are common to European Countries, low birthrates, ageing population profiles, expected dramatic falls in population overall. Ballooning public spending (Norway is unusual that this isn't funded by massive debt. Because of their huge Oil and Gas reserves and a massive sovereign wealth fund however the revenues and reserves are projected to fall). So it is full of data. However the sheer size of the difference between expenditures on men and women became the stand out talking point. The difference being due to much higher expenditures at on health, welfare and elderly care. Of course the huge public sector is, in common with most in Europe, staffed by females and has both a high proportion of part time jobs as well as counting as full/time 30 hours a week (as opposed to 36 hours in the private sector (of course mainly male workforces). So the male taxpayers are not only paying for services to women but also paying the wages of the women who constitute the majority of the workforce working in the public services!
One can see how Feminists and their white knights might not want such an analysis to hit the Newsstands. https://www-nettavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/regjeringens-sjokkrapport-i-bilder-hver-kvinne-koster-staten-15-6-millioner-kroner/s/12-95-3424087904?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Thanks, that’s a brilliant spiked article that needs to be widely read.
The distinction between “mythical misogyny” and “material misogyny” is precise, useful and starkly challenging. There is nowhere to hide after reading that.
Thank you David.
Good morning Tom
I am one of those defectors from feminism (mainly as an English grad student and I read a lot of books etc) and I can tell you that the idea that men might organize has always struck terror into the dark hearts of political feminists. I encountered this firsthand during the #metoo psychological operation in 2018.
Political feminists express that fear as derision, ridicule and accusataion of MRAs being the equivalent of "white rights" and the KKK. But one "special interest" cannot point to another and say they have no basis for existence. That's for us to decide.
The good news is that feminism is poisoning its own well and many women who are not political types are realizing that they were sold a lot of lies. I meet or perhaps attract an increasing number of women who see through the deception of feminism.
Here is my appeaance on this channel:
https://menaregood.substack.com/p/made-for-reddit-what-happened-when
Here is a little bio for you so you can get a sense of my relatinship to the issues:
https://medium.com/@planetwavesfm/hey-wikipedia-about-your-biographical-guidelines-c1c167561ab1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFxgYY87D_I
"I can tell you that the idea that men might organize has always struck terror into the dark hearts of political feminists"
Current evidence indicates a great deal of projection on their part.
Exactly Greg. We saw this panic during the mythopoetic movement when all the king's horses started shaming men for things they weren't doing in order to disable the coming togegther of men as men. Very sad.
Thanks Eric, so true that there is a fear of men organizing and supporting each other. Also true they are poisoning their own well, but how much poison will it take to kill the movement? Celebrating a child killer? Damn.
Yeah, it surprises me to how so many people today are not aware of how large and dominant feminism is in our society's institutions and culture. I guess it's hard to see it from the inside, especially if it's all you've ever known.
The gynosphere is indeed a threat to civilization!
The following has been called "Proof by Citation" [Prof Murray Strauss]...
"Here’s the tricky part. Each of these groups starts to quote the other groups as proof to the veracity of the original idea. Journalists cite the academics and advocates cite the journalists. Politicians cite both. Then the researchers come along and “study” the reality that has just been created out of thin air and prove it. Then the public hears from these many sources and voila, what started as a theory becomes an accepted reality. Advocacy becomes fact. The public nods unknowingly in agreement."
I found exactly this when I checked a few MSM articles on DV. I won't call them "feminist" because they were just presented as a current issue. Where there were citations, they just went to other articles which said the same thing, until the trail was going in circles.
After whatever issue of male-perfidy and female-victimhood has been established through proof-by-citation, it is then established through "Proof by Public Knowledge", eg. "Everyone knows that..." domestic violence is common; a woman is paid less than a man for the same job; a woman couldn't get a bank account in her own name until 1974, etc..etc..etc.. This "public knowledge" is as irrefutable as, say, that earth orbits the sun, slavery once existed in the US, Paris has an Eiffel Tower, and so on.
Once something is established through "Proof by Public Knowledge" it cannot be questioned. To even question it demonstrates both stupidity and ill-will.
I have personally experienced this accusation of stupidity and ill-will several times when I've contested feminist accusations with the accusers, male and female, in my own family, until I quickly learned to not raise may head above the parapet.
In just recent days we've seen it in Australia with the electoral success of the rising third party, One Nation, which is the only party with any advocacy for men. After they won a seat in a bi-election, our PM warned the country that they are a "danger to the nation", including the accusation that "they think that domestic violence is SOMETIMES (sic) the woman's fault", to rousing jeers of "SHAME!!!" from his audience. So, One Nation are a danger because "Everyone knows that domestic violence is serious, it's common, and it's ALWAYS AND ONLY perpetrated by men against female victims". During the same short address, the PM also accused One Nation of "misinformation and disinformation", ie. stupidity and ill-will.
it is interesting how there is such power in shaming those who dare to disagree with THE narrative. This will not be short easy fight. Great to hear of One Nation!
Murray Strauss was a highly respected domestic violence researcher. He was hounded and harassed repeatedly by feminists for his honesty.
Here is a link to his paper exposing the lies and distortions of feminist scholarship:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225766205_Processes_Explaining_the_Concealment_and_Distortion_of_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence
You can find a quick summary of Strauss’s points at Stephen Bond’s substack:
https://stephenbond.substack.com/p/feminist-lies-how-feminists-lie-about
Here is an even quicker summary of Strauss’s main points of how feminists lie and distort about domestic violence:
Methods Used to Conceal and Distort Evidence on Symmetry in Partner Violence
Method 1. Suppress Evidence
Method 2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
Method 5. Create “Evidence” by Citation
Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV
Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs
It's nagging wrapping up
Psychopathologies (external locus of control, splitting etc)
Fallacies
Sins
These amount to witchcraft.
Its very noticeable how quickly a feminist concept moves very quickly from country to country .
For example take the "Grand Final Domestic Violence" concept first started with the USA and quickly spread to other countries.
The other is once attention was drawn to sports men suffering from CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) that can only be diagnosed on autopsy. The feminist domestic violence advocates very quickly started claiming that women who were allegedly victims of DV also had a high incidence of CTE.
The latest is associated with the concept of alleged female victims of DV being driven to commit suicide and the call for more research into the issue, while ignoring research into men who experience DV having a higher incidence of suicide.
It doesn't always spread from country to country so much as you might think. Feminism is a top-down global operation. The three main international feminist bodies coordinate - these days through the feminist United Nations - and evolve strategy. This is then disseminated through hundreds of seminars a year around the globe, publications sent directly to national feminist bodies, and directly into governments as UN determinations.
For the big things, like DV notably, the entire scare was driven from the top, taking the worst examples from around the world (even then, cherry-picked samples) and spreading it as a global occurrence.
One example I traced on the early 2000s was of a small country where a woman had been brutally tied up and left to starve (yes this happens to men but they don't care about that). This is a statistic, for that small nation, that one woman in 350,000 was starved to death by her husband. That became, without reference, an annual statistic. That became a discussion at a UN minor conference of how it is not recorded by countries how many women are starved to death by their husbands (perfectly true, as far as I could tell: it's not a statistic that any government collected, just like they don't collect statistics on anything else that rarely happens). That ended, in that same conference, as an assumption that one in half a million women, or one in something like 184,000 married women, *around the world* is starved to death every year by uncaring men. Last I looked, that was still the quoted figure for that one little statistic.
The problem is, it takes a moment to invent these lies but it took me a solid month's effort to unravel that one. And still, nobody in power cares about what I say rather than accept that lies as one of a column of statistics making up the 'fact' that one in three women (or whatever it's grown into lately) suffer DV every year.
I digressed. The point is, these are internationally coordinated campaigns, highly funded, highly spread throughout academia and the political classes. That is the main reason you see the same kind of thing in all 194 countries of the UN.
Yes, great point about UN Women being an international funnel. Crazy stuff with the starving!
That is just one example, Tom. I have done other deep dives, such as into refugee camps (I came away from one UN meeting literally crying because of what I heard of the way they segregated and excluded men, it is so cruel), and into the 'proof' that circumcision cuts AIDS (it doesn't, not to any meaningful degree) which is driving the mutilation of millions of men in Africa and causing thousands of male deaths and many more severe issues every year.
I'm sure there are some people working in the UN who are doing good work but they are hard to find. It's a foul, autocratic authoritarian regime that has failed massively in its primary objective of preventing war and causes horrendous suffering, especially of men and children, while corrupting any concept of true national democractic control.
Good point. It is amazing how the gynocracy is worldwide and spreads so quickly. They make their fantasy of patriarchy look like a rookie!
Lets be honest here. Its spread is very much a function of the dominance of the post WW2 USA. As a Brit. I'm resistant to the truth that English is the international language of the elites, not because of Shakespeare or its virtues per se, but because the USA dominates the globe in so many ways. In my younger years some "feminist" notions were very much in the Communist/Socialist mode following Engels. Certainly in European countries. However in the last three decades one has seen repeatedly concepts and programmes adopted here a few years after they emerge in the USA. Particularly those with a psychological/therapeutic individual focus. One can see the attraction, taking that line means a wealthy, fashion obsessed, self absorbed woman can claim "oppression", micro aggressions etc. In a way that would be inconceivable in the more Marxist "class conflict" era here. Where feminists were desperate to hide their privileged background and pretend to be "working class". Of course the English speaking countries are particularly susceptible to taking on concepts. An example of when it doesn't work is the "rape culture" and kangaroo courts in US (and later Australian) Universities. Eventually the wheels fell of this here because the actual powers and role of Universities here are different to the US. Put simply the Universities can't police and punish here and made this clear. Another is "Affirmative Action" where even Police forces and the RAF have taken on practices from the US. Which are illegal here in fact as court cases have made clear.
As an amusing aside on the differences outside the Anglosphere when the French Government was analysing the effect on Company Boards of a legal requirement to have 40% female board members. They included Wives, Girlfriends, female relatives and ...... "mistresses". I'm pretty certain no such official categorisation would appear in a UK Government analysis. As I recall just over 10% of appointed female board members in the research period were mistresses of a Board member. Vive la difference.
One consequence: Feminist women are having way too few babies to replace themselves. For example, Democrats have a fertility rate of about 1.2 children per couple, compared to the needed 2.1 to replace themselves every generation.
indeed! Good point.
we live in a matriarchy comprised of sexist double standard, spoiled female chauvinist pigs, obsessed with destroying men's rights, they don't want equality because they are a hate movement.
isn't it amazing how they have literally created an exact replica of what they said they hated?
They are incapable of seeing their own double standard sexism, whatever happens its all men's fault.
Great commentary Tom. As you so righly say, once you see the pervasive gynocentrism roiling society you cannot ignore it. The concepts you present are much more coherent with the data then the often contradictory claims of feminist theory.
Reality will eventually overcome falsehoods but it's the damage inflicted along the way that concerns me.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you Alan. Yes, it is painful along the way....let's hope things shift.
I can roll my eyes all day long at the feminist rhetoric.
Unfortunately they've changed laws that have impacted justice being equal and fair.
At what point does that get reversed. We now have a situation in Australia where men routinely ignored for asking for help. Even when they are victims of attempted murder.
Indeed. What does it take to change a highly misandrist law? it's gonna take a while....ugh
Since instantiating feminist assumptions leads directly to the sterilisation of birth rates, the problem is self-correcting, although the correction will be a historical tragedy.
In her book "Heterophobia" Daphne Patai drew on the work of Joel Best to demonstrate how the claim makers get their claim accepted by society.
Heterophobia is quite a book. I need to read that one again!