Monday morning in the countdown to Christmas and I have been thinking through some of the barriers to improving support to separated families in this country. One of the biggest barriers in my experience being the manufactured gender war that is perpetuated by the women’s rights/single parent lobby. This ‘war’, which is exemplified by the constant negative stereotyping of men as fathers and the persistent assertions that women and children in separated families are stigmatised if anyone dares to say that children need both parents, forces men into a position of having to fight back to establish any kind of status in their children’s lives. This creates a permanent state of conflict between the two sides representing mothers and fathers, which in turn mirrors the way in which the separating couple move into adversarial positions. In reality, this is a manufactured state of war, which is created and perpetuated by feminist falsehoods, some of which are breathtaking in their arrogance and some of which are quite simply just silly.
Nevertheless, it is these nonsensical fabrications, which infect the already indoctrinated, that ooze through into the policies and practice surrounding our separated families. In short, the gender war, is nothing but a made up game of smoke and mirrors, created to gain control over family policy and maintained to keep control over funding. Anyone wanting a quick rinse through how this happens should take a look at episode five of Borgen shown on Saturday night. It is a beautifully crafted showcase of exactly how feminist control over policies and practice is maintained through bullying, lying and downright manipulation of the truth. Have a look. I promise you, if you really believe that feminism is about equality, you are in for a surprise.
Another example of the way in which feminist fabrications infect our consciousness popped up this week in the New Statesman. This particularly nasty little article drew some excellent challenges in its commentary section but I thought I would share some of it with you to illustrate just how much those feminists engender conflict with men. For those who believe that men do not need their own representation because feminists are doing the equality thing for them, you might just want to take note of what this author has to say.
This horrible piece of rhetoric was peppered with both the derogation of men and their right to work together for their own well being and the kind of hysteria that only the feminist movement can whip up. In this case, the issue at hand was Movember and the growing, by men, of moustaches, in support of men’s health, prostate and other male cancers. Looking at the origins of Movember on Wikipedia the movement is described thus:
Movember is an annual, month-long event involving the growing of moustaches during the month of November to raise awareness of men’s health issues, such as prostate and other male cancers; and associated charities.
By encouraging men (which the charity refers to as “Mo Bros”) to get involved, Movember aims to increase early cancer detection, diagnosis and effective treatments, and ultimately reduce the number of preventable deaths. Besides getting an annual check-up, the Movember Foundation encourages men to be aware of any family history of cancer, and to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
Movember then is the male equivalent of the feminist inspired Moonwalks and other such initiatives that women are encouraged to take part in to raise money for and awareness of treatments for breast cancer. As such it is a campaign which utilises feminist strategies of encouraging people to take part in their own health awareness and treatment. Not in the eyes of Arianne Shahvis, the author of the New Statesmen article it isn’t. In her eyes, Movember is ‘divisive, gender normative, racist and ineffective against some very real health issues.’ Oh and its also imperialist too, which of course makes it anti feminist, anti women and anti everything else you can just about think of. In case you were thinking your Mo was a sign of solidarity with your brothers chaps, best shave it off quick before the feminist police have you down as just another ‘oppressive but you don’t know it’, MAN.
This madness, this utter utter madness, is part of the feminist movement that I left behind. It is part of the hysterical, conspiracy theory loving, warped analysis that is utilised by women who want to keep women as well as men in their place. Watching Saturday’s episode of Borgen, in which feminists use skewed statistics and shaming to ensure that their agenda – and no-one else’s – is carried through, I was reminded of the way in which seemingly endless new myths were cooked up in my days as a feminist to keep us convinced that the ‘Patriarchy’ was watching and always about to rise again if we were not looking carefully enough. The New Statesmen exemplifies this so well by trying to convince us that Movember is just another effort by the ‘Patriarchy’ to rob women (and minority groups of men) of their right to difference. Those men who are concerned about men’s health and equalities and who believe that using feminist approaches to raising awareness of this is the way forward should read these words and weep because it doesn’t matter what you do chaps, the feminists won’t let you a) use their strategies and b) have the right to determine your own path without a darned big fight.
The inclusivity of Movember deserves examination. For one, only men (and even then, only some men) can grow a moustache. The decision to focus on the moustache to raise awareness of men’s health issues might seem like an apposite one (though there’s no obvious relationship between moustaches and cancers), but it reinforcesthe regressive idea that masculinity is about body chemistry rather than gender identity, and marginalises groups of men who may struggle to grow facial hair, such as trans-men. Ironically, Movember also excludes the very men it is supposed to uplift; many men who have undergone radiotherapy or surgery to treat testicular cancer are rendered “hypogonadal” and are therefore unable to grow facial hair.
Only men can grow a moustache? And there’s little old regressive me thinking about Frida Kahlo who sported a fine one in her day! This argument, that one cannot do anything that everyone can do otherwise one is somehow oppressing the already oppressed, is part of the madness that upholds the feminist mythology that until we only ever start from the position of upholding the rights of the weakest in our society first, we will not achieve equality. This ‘tyranny of the weak’ which I have written about elsewhere on this blog, is merely, in my view, an excuse that enables feminist women to dominate the men they tell us are dominating them. This drive to dominate emerges in this article when, not content with her analysis of the way in which these Mo Bro’s re-enact their imperialistic history, our author continues, sneering…
As the month of sacrificial hirsutism draws to a close, mo-bros may convene at their nearest “gala party”. These events showcase the worst of what the Movember “movement” is really about: white young men ridiculing minorities, and playing up to the lad culture within which the charitable practice has become embedded. Across nine cities in the UK, participants dress up in costumes that mock and trivialise racial minorities (“turbanator” Indians, fez-topped Arabs with day-hire camels, Mexicans in sombreros and bandoliers) and the LGBT community (parodies of the Village People), celebrate war and imperialism (gun-toting cowboys, colonial generals in pith helmets, and cavalrymen in slouch hats), and emulate racist fictional characters and sexist stereotypes (such as ‘Dictator’ Aladeen with a harem of female bodyguards, Hulk Hogan lookalikes, hard-hatted builders).
And there’s you thinking you were growing a moustache to raise money and awareness for men’s health and treatment when in ‘reality’ you are revealing just how oppressive you really are.
Another piece on men which is related to the way in which feminism manufactures gender war, caught my eye this week. This time a report from the advertising company Saatchi and Saatchi who tell us that men are ‘so conditioned to being told they’re wrong, they’ve developed gender issue laryngitis‘. M&C Saatchi in Australia spent 8 months undertaking in depth interviews with 140 men and has come to the conclusion that men have been rendered voiceless by the media, by big brands and by feminism. I wonder why?
Finally the author of the New Statesman piece reveals her own inner workings in a finger wagging polemic on what Movember should really be about (like most feminists the urge to tell everyone how things should be is never far away)
If there is to be a male-focused health campaign, shouldn’t it be centred on tackling the root causes of this gender disparity? Shouldn’t the campaign instead be focused on deconstructing the strict gender norms that keep so many men suffering silently? Shouldn’t it be built around teaching men to self-examine for lumps, challenging taboos surrounding psychiatric illness, and encouraging men to minimise drinking, smoking and red meat consumption, all of which have been associated with increased risk of heart disease and cancer?
Again, silly old regressive me for thinking that the men’s health movement, with well known straplines such as check em lads was all about checking for lumps and men encouraging and supporting other men to help themselves. Clearly my imperialistic, gender normative, racist and oppressive brothers have me fooled. Perhaps what they are really doing is comparing the size of what makes them masculine whilst portraying to the rest of us that they are bothered about their collective health.
This war. This stupid, childish silly war, which is manufactured to keep the feminist movement in charge of what reality is allowed to look like is, a dangerous and all pervasive cult. To those of you who still believe that feminism is about equality and not women’s rights first and everyone else’s behind that, take a look at recent research on the issue of domestic violence. Described as:
The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, as well as engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, or PASK, whose final installment was just published in the journal Partner Abuse, is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research.
This study concludes that women like men can be coercive, that family violence is mutual in most cases and it upholds what Erin Pizzey has been telling us for years. Unless we find ways of tackling the reality of violence that happens in the home and not the falsehoods and fabrications which are perpetuated by the women’s rights controlled domestic violence industry, men and children and many women too will fail to get the help and support that they need and repeated cycles of violence will continue.
But as someone famously said:
Refuges for women are struggling to survive, and if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding. – Sandra Horley, director  of Chiswick Family Refuge. (quoted by Isabel Wolff in Domestic violence: the other side, The Spectator, 28 November 1992, p 24)
The war between us is built upon feminist falsehoods and fabrications. Now, is there anyone out there who STILL believes it’s about equality?