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, devoid of integrity, insensitive and lacking in compassion.
Cameron did it because he could. Today anything can be said about men, or done to men, and nobody protests. Men are the whipping boys, they are an easy target. Modern Britain hates men.
Cited sources
1 Social Trends 31 (2001) and Social Trends 32 (2002), Office for National Statistics, London: The Stationery Office. Reported in Rebecca O’Neill, ‘Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family’, Civitas (2002).
2 For example: ‘Fractured Families’ (2006) and ‘Breakthrough Britain: Ending the Cost of Social Breakdown’ (2007), The Social Policy Justice Group, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, ‘Broken Hearts: Family Decline and the Consequences for Society’, Centre for Policy Studies (2002).
3 ‘Farewell the Family? Public Policy and Family Breakdown in Britain and the USA’, Patricia Morgan, IEA Health and Welfare Unit (1999).
4 Daily Mail 26 February 2010.
5 ‘Breakthrough Britain’.
5| HOW FEMINISTS VIEW THE WORLD: WELCOME TO THE GRIM WORLD OF DUALISM
Four legs good, two legs bad.
George Orwell 1903-50 English novelist: Animal Farm (1945)
Feminism springs from the same intellectual tradition as Marxism, both sharing a core belief in dualism. There’s an oppressing class (the bourgeoisie, in the case of Marxism, and men, in the case of feminism) which is by definition always in the wrong, and is to be overthrown; and there’s an oppressed class (the proletariat and women respectively) which is by definition always in the right, and must overthrow its oppressors. Adherents are taught and encouraged to see the world through the lens of this dualism, and of course it’s possible to make some sense of the world in this way. Carefully selected examples could be found to prop up any creed based on dualism.
But why, you have to ask yourself, might anyone want to think in this way? In the case of feminists the answer is obvious: misandry. They hate men. Feminists are angry so they wish to bring men down, which requires less effort than beating men on the grounds of merit. Any strategy or tactic is permissible, indeed laudable. Adverse consequences are acceptable even if it’s women in general who suffer (as it often is).
I’ve all but given up trying to debate with feminists. They have well-prepared scripts they stick to through thick and thin, and seldom engage their brains. On occasion I’ve said to a feminist (or written in an email), ‘You really believe this crap, don’t you?’ The line always goes down well, I find.
The sequence of events when one tries to engage with feminists is invariably the same, and differs only in how far along the road you manage to travel. The most common response is no response at all; as I was to discover, even invoking the law in the form of The Freedom of Information Act to obtain the prospectuses and reading lists of Women’s Studies and Gender Studies courses generally produced no response.
The few feminists who respond to people challenging them will almost invariably be rude and condemn them as sexist, misogynistic, blah, blah, blah. They fly into rages when you calmly try to engage them in any sort of nuanced arguments. My theory is that many feminists are profoundly stupid as well as hateful, a theory which could readily be tested by arresting a number of them and forcing them – with the threat of denying them access to chocolate – to undertake IQ tests. My suspicions on the matter are only reinforced by the lengthy terms with which feminists pepper their conversations. Normal women don’t employ terms such as ‘epistemological advantage’ or ‘patriarchal hegemony’, do they?
Perhaps the most curious feminists are feminist academics, which is ironic because they’re so incurious. They’ve built their castles in the air, and are busily adding to them. Not one of the feminist academics I contacted had the slightest interest in engaging in an exchanges of views. They appeared to me to be propagandists of the worst sort.
Feminists often refer to the process of indoctrinating people with their creed as ‘raising their consciousness’. Dualism has an immediate appeal for people seeking a simple explanation of the world’s ills, at least for people unable or unwilling to accept that nuances exist and are inevitable in a complex world: broadly speaking, in the case of feminism, that explanation is,
