Education, Emasculation and Equality: A letter to Yvette Cooper

Dear Yvette,

It was with a heavy heart that I read your article in the Independent this week. Writing about abuse in schools, you headline your piece ‘why we must educate our sons to save our daughters‘ and continue it with the most flagrant disregard for the truth that I think I have recently encountered.

You write of the hurling of insults and the way in which teachers are concerned for the well being of girls and you use as your evidence this –

According to the Children’s Commissioner there is clear evidence that violence in young relationships is growing. The British Crime Survey shows girls aged between 16-19, are most at risk of domestic violence – over 10 per cent had been experienced violence or abuse in a relationship.

Examining the evidence that you seek to rely on to convince us of this, however, it is clear that far from  violence against girls being the only issue that we should be concerned about,  violence in the world at large, in the family, in the home and at school, is almost equally likely to affect boys as well as girls, the real fact we should be worried about. In fact men are more likely than women to experience violence per se and almost as likely to experience domestic violence.  Don’t believe me?  Here is the evidence from the source you quote, the British Crime Survey.

The CSEW showed that young men were most likely to be the victims of violence. The profile of victims of violent and sexual violence varied according to the type of offence. In 2011/12, as in previous years, more than two-thirds of homicide victims (68%) were male. In contrast, women Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2011/12 | 07 February 2013 Office for National Statistics | 2 were more likely to be a victim of domestic abuse. Some 7% of women and 5% of men were estimated to have experienced domestic abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.2 million female and 800,000 male victims. 

Whilst you can of course point to the 2% difference in the rate of experience of domestic violence as being evidence that more women than men suffer, it seems to me to be utterly disengenous to simply dismiss 800,000 incidents of domestic violence against men as being either of no consequence or no proof that violence is something that is suffered by men AND women and enacted by men AND women. And yet in your speech this week you consistently and deliberately maintained the illusion that only women and girls suffer violence and only men and boys are to blame.

It is simply untrue.  Violence, in the home and in the world around is not a gender issue. Though it is the fervent goal of feminism to convince us that it is.

Our failure to understand this and our belief in what feminists tell us, leads us to witness the creeping emasculation of our boys which, if you have your way, will enter their consciousness in the early days of their education, in the form of your proposal to turn boys into ‘confident feminists.’

I don’t think I can properly express how I feel about your proposals, to bring in new laws to safeguard women and girls, which are based upon lies, stereotypes and the self interested proclamations of young women who consider themselves to be ‘oppressed.’  In your piece you quote the organisations who you feel should be supported by your party and the way in which these are leading the way to freedom for women and girls. You end your list of these with the movement 1 billion rising, the brain child of Eve Ensler, the author of the Vagina Monologues and the infamous scribe of the scene in which a young girl of 13 is raped by an older woman, ended with the words ‘if that was rape, it was a good rape.‘ And you proclaim that these are the inspiration behind your proposals that boys are educated out of their inherent masculinity.’ I could not feel more sickened.

In my view, the Labour party and all of its supporters should know  the truth of the matter which is that feminism is a political doctrine which teaches not equality, but that the rights of women must come first, last and always.  As part of that process, the emasculation of men and boys is seen as a desirable outcome.  Making boys into girls starts early in their childhood these days, with primary education being more likely to be taught by women and good behaviour in children being seen as that which is displayed by girls, whilst dysfunctional behaviour is more likely to be viewed in boys. The notion that boys and girls are different but equal in their value, in their learning capacity, in their behaviour and in their general demeanor appears to have simply been erased by the idea that, in the words of Glen Poole from Equality4Men, girls HAVE problems and boys ARE problems. This narrative, which is evident in your behaviour Yvette Cooper, is shaped by women who have control over family policy and and who see the needs and rights of children as being indivisible from those of their mothers.

But the rights and needs of children are NOT indivisible from those of their mothers. The rights of boys are equal to those of girls and it is not for feminists to determine what makes a ‘good boy’ or a ‘good girl’ either for that matter.  Feminism is not synonymous with equality, much as the feminists would have us believe that it is so and it does not and cannot solve the problems of the world in which we are raising our children and grandchildren.

A world in which the following is true (Taken from the Equality4Men website)

Men and boys in 99% of countries are more likely to kill themselves than women and girls
Men and boys account for 4 out of 5 violent deaths in the world ever year
Girls in nearly 100 of the world’s leading economies are more likely to get a better education and go to university than boys
Fathers all over the globe are less involved in raising their children than mothers for all sorts of personal, cultural and political reasons

which is  just a snapshot of the reality that we face in terms of helping boys to grow to be healthy and happy people.  How does your proposal, to turn boys into ‘confident feminists’ offer us any kind of road map for the health and wellbeing of boys as well as girls?  Put simply it doesn’t. What it does is lie to the electorate about the reality facing our children and prey upon the anxieties whipped up by half hysterical women who believe that dancing around the world proclaiming their oppression is somehow about equality. Pity our boys, because what is being done to them prevents their ability to believe in their own inherent sense of self, prevents their ability to trust themselves and others in the world around them and inculcates shame at the earliest age about what it means to be not a girl.

The facts speak for themselves. Your closing words speak only for you and those like you –

For years we have talked about the importance of empowering our daughters, giving them the confidence to challenge abuse and bringing them up as feminists. If we are going to achieve a real-step change in tackling violence against women, we need our sons growing up as confident feminists too.

Women like you have created a world in which educating boys to be ashamed of their masculinity is seen as desirable instead of cruel and about equality instead of what it is, an oppressive, discriminatory reality.

As parents and grandparents, practitioners and ordinary people, we will hold  you to account for your crimes against our children and our grandchildren.  I hope I stay alive long enough to see the day.


Karen Woodall



      1. she is at it again-Yvette cooper is repeatedly claiming their is a anti-female conspiracy against her right now to prevent her becoming the leader of the labour party. no men are exempt from her accusations and insults and lies-not even the reasonable and moderate colleagues of coopers-ie burnham and corbyn .
        most of the replies to your letter rightfully thank you -especially as men are prevented from voicing any counter opinion to feminist evil-so I also thank you .
        the other replies to your letter seem to miss the main point entirely-which is that there are victims today and they are growing in number and scope. boys and men everywhere and especially in the uk are vicims and caused by monsters like cooper.
        when women and girls are vicims of men and boysi sympathise and feel some responsibility but feminists cause men and boys to be vicims in every possible way and yet they cause this and never even pretend to take responsibility-infact the whole issue is invisible – only a woman can question or criticise or apportion blame to feminists-so we need you so very much.
        why don’t feminists ever highlight the treatment of females by muslims and islam ? I have never heard them raise this issue let alone campaign on it-yet it is beyond an English mans imagination or worst nightmare to become aware of how cruel and evil muslim men are per se towards females .


  1. Reblogged this on ExInjuria and commented:
    Just as former smokers make the most evangelical campaigners against smoking, so it takes a former feminist to warn against the dangers of feminism, as Yvette Cooper plans to turn the education system into a machine of mass ideological indoctrination.


    1. Knowing what it did to me all those years makes me so afraid for our children, I won’t rest until more and more people know what how dangerous a doctrine it really is Nick.


      1. Is there anything specific you are afraid of for your children in regards to feminism? Is it the possibility that they fall prey to this hateful religious believe system?


      1. Thank you, Karen. You’ll never know how much it means to have a woman write with such passion and anger about the lies and abuse perpetrated by Yvette Cooper and her tribe. Your courage is uplifting and deeply touching! Thanks again.


  2. Education Act 1996

    Section 406 Political indoctrination.
    (1) The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid—
    (b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

    Section 407 Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.
    (1) The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are—
    (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or
    (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school,
    they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.


  3. Thank you and Well said Karen,
    As a parent of a son and 2 daughters,as a grandma whose only grandson is alienated and denied contact with his father and all paternal relatives and as a former teacher I am also sickened by Yvette Cooper’s article .


    1. Me too Granmani and the reason why your grandson is alienated is because of women like her and the attitudes towards fathers she promotes, sending you my support. K


  4. Sickened to read the Independent article, but relieved to ready the majority of comments below, and your blog about it – heck this is one crazy world we live in – and I shall experience a little more of that when I re-enter the even crazier world of the Family Court in about 7 hours time!


  5. Always good to hear such sense from a woman about the madness of gender feminism. Thank you. I was slightly surprised that Yvette Cooper confident enough to write like that, but it shows how one sided the public discourse has become. It feels like a call-to-arms to be honest.


      1. But that narrow Audience is the current elite. I have long admired the work you do and so pleased that you find the strength to carry on the face of such ignorance.


      2. It isn’t actually difficult to carry on now that I am primarily working with families directly. making the decision to leave the government and voluntary sector was a very important one for me because it meant that I could finally work how I wanted to (and how families want us to) as well as speak about the way in which the dissonance between what Westminster is told about men and women and the reality for men and women. Some say that being on the outside is ineffective and they do not like our approach of highlighting what needs to be done to create change. Having been onthe inside and witnessed the way in which the feminist doctrine rules every inch of Westminster, I can honestly say that if we chose to try and change that, I would likely be dead and things would still be the same.

        Outside, where we are working directly with families across all of the socio-economic spectrum, we are simply able to give what is needed to help families through the worst and to give children the chance of hanging on to their parents. Outside, I can also speak freely about the blocks and barriers that cause the problems that governmen tell us they are solving when in reality they are doing nothing of the sort.

        And I can sleep again at night.



  6. Brilliant piece Karen..well received by our Forum. I hope Yvette gets a copy??? And they are talking about her becoming a future PM_ God help all men!! Anthony


  7. Yvette Cooper proclaims;

    “For years we have talked about the importance of empowering our daughters, giving them the confidence to challenge abuse and bringing them up as feminists. If we are going to achieve a real-step change in tackling violence against women, we need our sons growing up as confident feminists too”.

    I fully understand why politicians favour divisive arguments. Dividing and ruling is an ancient and well-tested strategy. But, so is indoctrination. The Jesuit maxim, “give me the child before he is seven and I will give you the man”, does not seem to have been lost on Yvette Cooper either.

    Most reasonable people are horrified at the suggestion that anyone would want to emotionally abuse vulnerable children and pollute or manipulate precious, fragile, impressionable and malliable minds with any pet doctrine.

    Karen’s letter demonstrates beautifully how, in order to subscribe to this or any other –ism, it is necessary to suspend logical inquiry, ones powers of reason and indulge oneself in a degree of self-deception.

    I thought it was the duty of parents and schools to lovingly nurture our children to think critically for themselves, to evaluate evidence, to discuss, to listen to other points of view, to debate and where necessary to question and disagree.

    Ms. Cooper appears to have enjoyed these fundamental rights yet she is, somewhat hypocritically, prescribing radically different medicine for others.

    Many of these particular pages are dedicated to the way in which some parents pollute the trusting minds of their offspring. It is abusive and wrong; yet, Ms. Cooper would appear to be advocating that the state creates a new generation of abusers by dictating, louder than words through its actions, that this type of abhorrent behavior is actually fine and OK.

    Depriving children of the ability to think for themselves and inculcating fanatical idealism is NOT, confidence building, empowering and liberating however it’s dressed up. It is in fact manipulative, disabling, controlling, stultifying and abusive.


    1. She is advocating exactly what you describe padrestevie, she is one of the architechts of the horrors facing men and children in my view.


  8. Important piece Karen. It’s always amazing to hear state employees knowingly lie through their teeth about issues like this. If you are lucky, they might acknowledge your letter by printing out some already made reply and having a secretary sign it. But as we know, letters like yours are meant not for the addressed but for the broader public. Any chance of getting your letter into one of the mainstream newspapers? Won’t hold my breath.


  9. Yvette Cooper has weighed into this social issue with little understanding. However the overwhelming pressure on her as a female politician at this point in the parliamentary life cycle is to say things that will be perceived to help ensure the women’s vote next year. Her husband, Ed Balls, has been prepared to step aside for her to take a more senior role as necessary – “for the good of the party”.

    A lot of women will obviously have sons themselves – but it will generally be someone else’s son who will be considered to be the problem, rather than their own…so they won’t feel the impact of what is being said about boys/men in general. Therefore it will be calculated that in this she will succeed in boosting the party overall, despite the numerous highly relevant objections presented in response to the article.

    I think we also have a problem here. The aim has been to present feminism as cultish ideology…but is that working? With a Labour politician as even a POTENTIAL female PM – I don’t think so.

    Yvette Cooper is expressing the rising tide that I reported on following the WOW and BAM Events – of encouraging men to take up the feminist cause – whatever that is. It certainly sounds great to be on the “side of equality” doesn’t it? That seeming “equality” is actually a con…but the men aren’t to know that – unless it is spelled out. There have been some high profile guys going over.

    The problem is that if we are are anti-feminist…then what are we FOR? Are we reactionaries…are we patriarchs…it just is not clear at all. We may be egalitarians…but how is that to be expressed in political terms?

    I believe that we are digging our own graves by all this anti-feminist rhetoric. Feminism, for most of its life – has been a profoundly egalitarian movement exemplifying the desire for the best possible gender relations. Even the current version of it that we are all so angry about presents itself this way…but of course it is not – it is about female dominance…female supremacy.

    That’s not feminism – it’s the OPPOSITE of feminism!

    It’s very easy for us to call the current “feminism” out…challenge it’s legitimacy…but ONLY when we ourselves identify AS feminists…not as anti-feminists – simply because we have to have a clear vision as to what kind of society we DO want. Without that in place…we are legless, toothless, or whatever other metaphor you want to use.

    To me there are are three choices. Patriarchy, Matriarchy – or Feminism.

    Please, please tell me what other options there are…?

    Then we can ask Yvette, Harriet, Jude etc etc etc…which THEY really are…and insist on VERY precise policies to match. At the moment they can get away with anything – in the vague mishmash of the two.

    Obviously they aren’t going to be the former – so it boils down to a razor sharp focus and distinction between Matriarchy and Feminism. That’s simply never happened before.

    THEN…I think, we can start to get somewhere.


    1. We are not anti feminist we are simply non feminist, you don’t have to be one or the other you can just be not a feminist, doesn’t mean you are not for equality or working in gender politics, feminist does not have the only truth when it comes to those things.


      1. Because of it’s extremely sound reputation and historical background…feminism carries the moral high ground…it’s descent, over the last 50 years into matriarchy, notwithstanding.

        That’s how powerful a concept feminism is.

        The “truth” that I’m sure you’re describing – is not actually feminist truth (although it carries that name) but “matriarchal truth”. The key figures of the 2nd wave of feminism that you inherited weren’t striving for a feminist society – they wished for a gynocratic society. That necessarily entails hating men. It’s not an individual hatred – it’s the collective one necessary to achieve a world run entirely for the benefit of women through the exploitation of men.

        It might be argued that this phenomenon is an extension of something that has often been the case under the surface anyway – and that it is the frustration with this – that has often been the cause of violence against women. For example, I have a friend who has a son who is slightly older than those mentioned who has a group of friends who do indulge in the kind of name-calling abuse referred to by Yvette Cooper. But why do they do this? Because actually they really DESIRE those women – but realistically have no little or opportunity to engage with them. It is better to put down what you have no prospect of attaining. In this case it is just words – but obviously it could be more.

        Is being a NON-something (is what you really mean non-matriarch?) going to be enough to counter this? Is that something that is going to bring these young people together in a meaningful way?

        Simply saying that one is “for equality” or “working in gender politics” – is that going to capture the popular imagination enough to turn things around?

        It’s a very British thing to resist domination. When it is women doing the domineering that is admittedly a lot harder to address…but it is that resistance to oppression which can be/has to be the rallying point.

        Identifying the demarcation line between matriarchy and feminism has to be the first step.


      2. No it is non feminist, non matriarch just simply non woodman. There is no such thing as the binary world and everything doesn’t have to relate to feminism, feminism is not a universal truth, it is just a belief system. I am in a good mood today so if you want to debate that we can 🙂


      3. Hi Karen…I”m watching Tracy Beaker with my daughter after which she has promised to read the I’m Cross But Don’t Know Why Dandlebear story.

        Had to be firmly negotiated…but very much looking forward to that!

        I don’t quite know how to debate such a non position when she goes back home.

        OK…does matriarchy exist? Just as you debated patriarchy back in the day – can we sit around and discuss the concept of matriarchy? How this impacts on our daily lives. I just had to explain to Them why her mother got me arrested on Sunday for sending her a nice text.

        That will do for starters, perhaps?


      4. And just to give you an idea of why you don’t need feminism to be for equalities work, have received more interest, more emails and tweets and more visits on this piece than on any other before, all supportive and all thanking me for articulating what people think 🙂


    2. The tide of persuaded men has been rising for years Woodman it is nothing new, they are just ressurectin what was done in the eighties to young men, shaming them into believing that the only good man is a feminised man, we had young men in the eighties proclaiming a dislike of penetrative sex because feminists had made then beieve that heterosexual sex was rape and wrong…here we have a woman who wants to go further and implant shaming into young children…wrong on so many levels


  10. It’s completely right for you to be so supported, but it’s also good to develop the debate too, if possible.

    I’ve just been able to read T her first Dandlebear Bear story and she’s drifted off to sleep beside me. Maybe we’ll have a chance to discuss it another week. She would love to be the girl in your story who can have a bedroom at her Dad’s – but it just isn’t possible for her.


    1. Prior to the story I’d had to explain to T that her mother had had me arrested on Sunday – for sending her a congratulatory text.

      Perhaps for T – and all the other children in such a situation we could have a discussion about matriarchy…just the way you used to sit down and talk about “patriarchy”?

      For T and so many like her this short time she has with me is a brief respite from that world…and so I’m not going to wake her for a while yet.


      1. Let me know her thoughts on Dandlebear Woodman and happy to discuss matriarchy if you want to k


      2. Schools are on strike today – so just about to pick T up…peculiar – how even after getting me arrested…she still expects me to be available just like that. Hmm…yes…let’s talk matriarchy, folks – I’d like to hear some other comments! It’s the elephant in the room.


      3. Woodman, I am not allowing your last cmment through an dif you don’t like that then there is nothing I can or am willing to do about it. This is a blog, it is my blog, it is my thoughts and your comments. It is not a place where I am willing to allow you to play out some kind of silliness dressed up as you being wise. Your arguments about feminist, gender/equity or otherwise are simply not welcome here. I am not prepared to waste my time listening to you endlessly recycle the same argument without any evidence whatsoever and I am not going to allow you to begin personal attacks on me just because you think it is somehow the right thing to do. i do not allow personal attacks on other people and I findyour latest comment offensive.

        To be clear. I do not write this blog for anyone other than ME. If other people find what I write helpful I am pleased but my day job is not this blog it is working with alienated children and their families, I have no need to write this blog for any other reason than it is an outlet for the pressures that I face in doing what I do. it also allows me to give as much information as I can about alienation free of charge.

        Your comments about the people who follow this blog and who comment and share their thoughts are also offensive and not welcome here. Those people who write here help me to understand the workd I work in better and they also help me to understand what is important to them. Many of them are interested in the world outside of the feminist paradigm. It is utterly offensive to continue your one man crusade to force your beliefs upon others on these pages in the belief that this is somehow, secretly, what everyone wants to hear.

        When you write with respect for myself and the other people on these pages you are welcome. When you don’t you are not.


      4. Karen – I’m about to meet my 17 year old daughter who has been effectively alienated from me for the last 5 years – for the first time for us to have some time together visiting her grandparents. I’m in a great mood – we got over the expected last minute tantrum on the phone this morning (with my wife as an audience) and now I’m hopeful of us having a fantastic time.

        I was insistent to you that I didn’t want to embarrass you – but was simply being honest, in what I felt was as important way. I’m absolutely fine that you didn’t want to publish it – but the Woodman is never any of the other things you said I was – all your readers should know that.

        I am challenging, yes – because although this is your own personal blog, it just so happens that it also functions as a unique hub for issues of absolutely national importance.

        The issue is simply one of defining our opponent…i.e. those that would wish to alienate our children from us, and to understand why they are doing it.

        It is surely critical to identify whether our adversary has been ‘the entirety of the women’s movement from its inception’, or whether the problem has been ‘something which has developed within it’?

        Which of the two it is – consists of an issue of huge tactical importance. Which of the two positions is going to enable us to gather together more of an impetus with all the various people who have the power to change things?

        As long as you wish it to be the former, then I would have to insist that you are also being misandrist (that’s a strong word, but I think justified) towards all the men (maybe there’s not so many of us yet – but that’s not really the point) who have come to see that the woman’s liberation movement was also about human liberation – in forming the beginnings of the gender transition movement (meaning we are no longer locked into rigid gender roles on the basis of our biology) identified by Warren Farrell…but are instead becoming freer to enter our full human potential as individuals.

        The last 50 years has been a very difficult period in that regard – with forces pulling in both directions – but to indiscriminately write the entire effort off into the ‘dustbin of history’ – isn’t going to help us, in my opinion – identify precisely where the problems have been, or how best to deal with them…in our common goal of ending alienation.


      5. You can claim I am misandrist, mysogynist, misanthropic if you like Woodman but if you want to have your discussions about who your enemy is I suggest you go and have them elsewhere with other people who also want to discuss those kinds of things in the manner that you propose.

        I, and I suspect a few others on here, might be more inclinded to discuss these things with you if you had any evidence to back up your claims. So far you have produced Jude Kelly who has not shown a jot of interest in the argument and warren farrell who you tell me I should be listening to because he is your authority on these matters.

        I am just bored with the endless recyling of the world being ever so good if only feminism could be reclaimed. Let’s not reclaim it, let’s just let it go and move on to a place infinitely more interesting where men and women discuss together the things that can be done differently outside of the gender war.

        Integral theory perhaps, which is a world in which feminism is neither dismissed nor proclaimed as the ‘truth’ but just seen as one of the ways that equality can be achieved.


  11. Hear, hear, Karen!

    Forgive me for appearing cynical, but it does seem that Yvette Cooper is attempting to garner the support of those female swing voters that may make all the difference at the next election. Will we see more of this type of blatant politicising and men-bashing in the months leading up to the election in order to win their vote?

    On reading the article and the many comments criticising Ms Cooper, I noticed that only around 25% of people (around 90) have clicked on the ‘agree’ button, whereas 75% of people (over 270) have clicked on the ‘strongly disagree’ button. At least the majority of people can see what is going on here.

    The continuing campaign of feminisation of our sons and young men is a truly worrying phenomenon and it is even more worrying that a well-known and respected(?) politician like Yvette Cooper writes, “If we are going to achieve a real-step change in tackling violence against women, we need our sons growing up as confident feminists too”. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I want my two daughters and my son to grow up in a country and world where interdependency between the sexes is at the heart of everything they do and love and respect for all people is their lodestar. Surely that will be how we deal with violence against men and women, not by promoting the misguided idea that only women are victims of violence and only men are perpetrators of violence as Ms Cooper clearly is doing in her article.


    1. I agree with all you say Chris, I want a world in which the war between men and women is not falsely created by this kind of nonsense, a world inw hich respect for each other comes first be us man or woman.


  12. Why are you explaining to your daughter that her mother had you arrested? Your daughter does not want to know that.

    You are only perpetuating the battle that you have with your ex. as a burden which your daughter must carry……………………… Your daughter needs her needs met. The better tasting toothpaste, the right size pyjamas, a trip to the park, help with her project, a confidante helping with her problems.

    If you are banned from sending text messages to your ex. then don’t do it. This is an adult problem.

    Kind regards


    1. I don’t know about yours, but in our family (as far as I’m concerned, anyway) we talk about everything that happens. We’re not Victorians…nothing is hush hush.

      My wife is there to be judged on her behaviour – praised where it is good…and condemned where it isn’t.

      What happens is then down to her.

      I’ve noticed a highly patronizing streak in your posts where you liberally hand out advice…and now prescriptions – where they have not been asked for.

      You have a lot to offer but perhaps go and join a counseling course where you will learn that this is the most important thing NOT to do.

      The most offensive remark so far was the one about boundaries. WHAT! This suggests that this woman (in fact any woman) is a weaker, fragile, vulnerable victim sex that has to be protected from us invasive abusive perpetrator males. Speak for yourself!

      The reality is the other way around. The woman concerned is a highly abusive predatory female who is cunning and manipulative to the most extraordinary degree I have ever encountered…although she manages to look very innocent and childlike. Be warned – appearances can be deceptive!

      If anyone should be putting down and enforcing boundaries…it is me…not her. But the putting down of boundaries and enforcing them has been tried and found to be largely have been counterproductive in this case…it has been more important to stay flexible and make moment by moment decisions on how to respond.

      The texting issue is a case of a completely unjust and oppressive measure that completely contradicts the overwhelmingly need of the children – for the highest level of communication – that I have spoken about. It needed to be defied.

      I may have to pay a severe price for that…but at the same time it has opened up avenues for me to explain this crisis and the issues involved to key people…including a DC who has worked in the “Community Safety Unit” – and now hopefully, the Police Borough Commander. How are you possibly going to know all the issues involved? How dare you presume to tell me what to do!

      I give liberally of my time to this forum but refuse to answer any more such tendentious comments from someone who cannot even be bothered to identify themselves in any way.


      1. I think the style of anonymous belies at times the good intentions meant Woodman.

        Perhaps anonymous will de-anonymise and you might not feel so attacked then.

        It might also be useful not to share with each other the intimate details of relationships with the other parent unless willing to accept other people’s comments.

        I agree that comments should be constructive and helpful and offered in a way that is supportive even where behavioural change is being encouraged.

        Though I have to say that from your perspective your wife might be there to be judged on her behaviour but your children, in my humble opinion, should not be receiving that judgement of her from you but I am assuming thatis not what you meant.


      2. Anonymous can be dubbed “good intentions” for now – but I really don’t think that anything other than personal one to one situations (or other settings where people are specifically going for personal development) is appropriate to promote behavioural change.

        I’m sure that most readers appreciate that the personal examples are given purely to illustrate wider social and political realities in a vivid way.

        Everyone will be puzzled as to why on earth I married such a person (and no, it wasn’t particularly for the sex…that would be the normal assumption) but my wife is not a feminist, she is not an anti-feminist, she is not a non-feminist – she is a traditionalist…so she says. There are some further contradictions here – but essentially, in her world men and women should inhabit different spheres. Basically women should control the internal world of home and children and men that of the external world of work. When men relax they should also do so away from the home, largely…with sport and in the pub with their male companions.

        The traditionalist male role – in her eyes – is to be obsessed with providing for her and her family, and simply have no other concern in life. He’s supposed to pander to her every changing whim, constantly be redecorating the house to her ever-changing requirements etc. He’s supposed to be a fount of all knowledge so that she doesn’t have to look up anything for herself – which includes being able to read her mind so that she doesn’t even have to articulate what it is that she wants, much of the time.

        Although often taking formal positions of responsibility and authority, he’s supposed to be sacrificing his life for hers – to the point of death, if need be…at which point she will simply find another man to continue this process as necessary.

        My wife is an migrant from Africa and there will are now thousands of similarly-minded individuals over here in Europe now. Of course there are many variations, but this traditionalist type of outlook exists as perhaps a majority perspective, despite the fact that many African women are also very much in the workplace now, too.

        This perspective has then taken full advantage of the West’s policy of promoting women’s interests. Her position is:

        “It’s our turn to rule now”.

        Every single action taken – is to reinforce that of “she who must be obeyed”….as she aims to pursue an ever-increasing empire of influence and power.

        Now please tell me…where is the equality in this…where is the feminism?

        This is blatant MATRIARCHY!

        This abusive, exploitative rule has been COMPLETELY supported by the so-called “feminist” establishment in every aspect of our family life – school, NHS, Social Work and Police and now Court involvement…AGAINST someone who is a true feminist…i.e. who believes in true equality.

        It is a huge battle between FEMINISM & MATRIARCHY.

        One side has all the tremendous power and resources at it’s disposal…the other only has a PC and a loving heart.

        Which will triumph…which do you support? Which approach cares about the children? Is this a situation of two equally loving parents who simply have some kind of personality clash? Come off it! This is no less than a battle between total tyranny or democracy – which Dandlebear has entered.


      3. Sounds like a woman living off the spoils of feminism to me Woodman and a traditionalist at that, makes me wonder what the family narratives on both sides are as it also sounds like tribal warfare. K


      4. Yes, a woman living off what has been CALLED feminism, but is actually only about woman’s dominance. What I wanted you to see here is how there is this complete conjunction between traditional ideas of the separation between men’s and women’s worlds – and this contemporary phenomenon we are all struggling with.

        Please explain to me which part of any of this is feminism proper, in the sense of equality?

        In traditional societies there can be considerable tensions between male and female roles – but they do tend to have a certain balance. Over here in the West the balancing factors have been stripped away from the male side…leaving the field wide open for women to take over.

        Feminism proper – i.e. the integration of male of female roles…i.e. allowing each to take on aspects of the other, while retaining their distinct characteristics (this is quite rightly a repeated theme of yours)…is a tough call – but absolutely what we need to be aiming at…for a progressive society.

        Traditionalists, conservatives…whatever you wish to call them (like my wife) – resist this.

        What the hell was she doing marrying a progressive – like me, then?

        Apart from sheer opportunism (that MIGHT be the complete explanation) there may also be a part of her that wants to break away from the past. There may be part of her that wants some healing from the considerable hurts that resulted out of this traditionalist past. There may be some part of her that would only find fulfillment in a more progressive future.

        Will any of those things happen? Who knows how the story will end?

        I think that you’ll find that the family narratives on both sides are about material acquisition. When this becomes the priority and all other values are cast aside then the stage is set, sooner or later, for emotional disaster. It doesn’t matter what culture it is – it makes little difference.

        I think my wife’s catch phrase would be… “money talks”.

        I don’t have that luxury – I can only talk for real.


      5. Feminism IS about women’s dominance Woodman, I don’t know why you continue to hang on to the idea that it ia not, it is NOT about equality it is about women’s rights first dressed up as equality.


  13. You know Karen, one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had was an experience that I didn’t realise the significance of until much later in life.

    I need to to take you back to 2002; I had an application in the family courts to see my 1 month old baby. I was being denied access by my ex partner who’d decided to move in with another man she had met.

    After expressing my feelings, my anxieties and my frustration to the CAFCASS officer assigned to my case (doesn’t that say so much in itself; the NEED to have an ex-probation officer probe into my wish to be a father without impediment?) I tuned up at court in the naive expectation that my heartache and my vulnerabilities would be represented to produce a balanced and compassionate outcome: namely to NOT be expunged from my own flesh and blood’s life.

    Fair enough thought I. Incidentally, there were no DV accusations, no child welfare, or safety issues raised by anyone at any point. I was simply not “desirable” in my ex’s eyes.

    What unfolded in Derby Magistrates Court on December 2nd 2002 (the very day F4J enacted their first protest at The Lord Chancellors Dept. in London, coincidentally enough) sucked the marrow out of my soul and laid down the gauntlet for what became my life’s struggles until this very day.

    My feelings of hurt, frustration, anger, misery, depression, sadness, heartache and pure bewilderment at what had happened to me and my fatherhood, were represented thus (taken verbatim from the 2002 Cafcass report):

    “Mr Westell is clearly a dangerous and potentially violent man, who expresses clearly his anger and in his words ‘sorrow and depression’ (like this is a CONTROVERSIAL statement on one’s feelings?!) in the most robust terms. His ex partner expresses genuine concern over his self righteous and crusading demeanour that he proclaims stem from his ‘heartache’ and fear of losing his child” (isn’t bigotry and prejudice most pithily found in the tone of a remark, on the edge of a comment; snuggly and cowardly inserted into euphemistic and vague language?)

    Those comments resulted in a ‘no contact’ order for 12 months while the court process worked to uncover the ‘real’ man who stood before them. Interestingly, mum’s new man had no such interrogations and was free to live with my child with complete unfettered access, presumably ’cause mum raised no oppositions? How apposite, how illustrative.

    My ex was presented in the same report in a considerably kinder light:

    “Miss Clarke is frightened and upset at Mr Westell’s continual pressure in this situation (they expected me to walk away? Might as well have asked me to stop breathing) and feels harassed and scared during their interchanges, especially during hand overs at the contact centre, and feels that she cannot allow her son to be exposed to this type of manipulative and intimidating behaviour.” (isn’t bigotry and prejudice most pithily found in the tone of a remark, on the edge of a comment; snuggly and cowardly inserted into euphemistic and vague language)

    “She says she often cries at the thought of contact and feels, with justification, that her son may be emotionally damaged by seeing his mother in such a state.”

    So began the wretched and humiliating experience of only being permitted to see, hold, touch my son in a contact centre in the damp and miserable basement of the church hall. We gathered, the pale and broken parents (that they were all fathers was a strange comfort to me) in the outside lobby of the centre, on the pavement, spilling onto the road like illegitimate workers at a road side labour station.

    We were then asked to descend into the darkness and shame that we all deserved. Like prisoners being led down from the dock; (I’ve also had this experience after my protests with F4J, and I can tell you that I felt no shame in the latter, and was treated considerably better, and was treated with far more dignity and respect in the dungeons of Southwalk Crown Court) out of sight of the world above where parents played football in the sunshine or slurped milkshakes in the park together. Ours was a love that was forbidden and dangerous. Our exes and the ‘family’ court processes said so. It must be true.

    During the pitiful hour that followed, like a prisoner having his visitation once a month, we we’re watched by plump and stern ladies with clipboards. I once had the temerity to put my son on my back and pretend to be a horse, ( he was then 2) like my own father used to do with me, usually making me burst with laughter; this caused my ‘minder’ to scribble furiously on her little note page. I’ve no idea what it said, although a report filed later described my as not “understanding child focussed play” WTF?

    I understand now why it unfolded that way. It unfolded that way because a man who expressed his emotional vulnerabilities and allowed his inner feelings to be externalised were pounced on by the CAFCASS officer (I’ll never forgive or forget one Maureen Hodgkinson at the Derby Cafcass offices in 2002) and used to justify the removal of his son.

    Why? Because men are dangerous and unhinged and likely to hit out and do dangerous and deranged things to hurt, manipulate and control their ex partners and their kids.

    We are not sensitive, we are angry.

    We are not vulnerable, we are manipulative.

    We are not caring and devoted, we are controlling and potentially violent.

    I understand now.

    My ex? She was, is still, and always will be the ‘victim’. Society tells me so.

    My son has a lot to contend with in his manhood, and I fear for his future in this wretched, prejudiced country.


    1. An extraordinarily powerful and moving account of matriarchal power in action, Walter. But they will continue to get away with this until we identify them as such – and goodness sake stop calling this feminism.


      1. For goodness sake stop calling it matriarchy…feminism is NOT about equality it is about women’s rights over everyone else.


      2. Yes…but since publicly they are adamant that it IS – why don’t we hold them to account?

        From the main pulpit – sorry, platform, under the full glare of the media spotlight – Jude Kelly, cultural icon of the Southbank – is absolutely insistent that feminism is a movement that wishes to establish absolute equality of opportunity with men in every way.

        Behind the scenes…when pressed – an older feminist leader insists, as you say – that feminism is nothing to do with equality at all – but is simply about the “destruction of patriarchy”.

        Jude Kelly, is however – fully aware of this when she insists that feminism “is not a hate movement, and does not hate men” – and seeks to prove this by gathering around her a group of attractive and sophisticated males.

        So what is going on Karen…what is the explanation here?

        It is a historical reality that for most of its life – stretching way back now…the 1st wave of feminism WAS probably the most egalitarian movement that has ever existed. The second wave…the one you got caught up in – simply took this battle for the recognition of women too far – into one of dominance. As Betty Steele described…from Patriarchy to Matriarchy.

        So what Jude is doing is parading the aims of 1st wave of feminism…whilst denying the aims of 2nd wave matriarchy.

        (I’m not saying that there weren’t always a few who believed in the inherent SUPERIORITY of women – there were…but these were a tiny minority)

        All this tells us – is that genuine equality is very hard to achieve…a lot harder than it might seem.

        The Canada experience shows us, I would suggest, how it has been easier for men to collapse into acquiescence – rather than learn how to collaborate…to accept being ruled…rather than work as a team together with women (because they were simply not prepared for this).


      3. Oh the first wave was very egalitarian Woodman, so much so that they only wanted a certain class of women to have the vote and spent their time giving conscientious objectors white feathera, very egalitarian indeed.

        Fourth wave feminism, which is what we are now into, has followed the same route as all the rest only now it has a much greater grip on the societies we live in it can ramp itself up to claim dominance over all spheres of existence, including primary schooling.


      4. As I understand it, the “white feather” campaign was set up by the British Army in order to help solve the problem of getting men to volunteer to fight in WW1. Women from across society got involved…far more of these would have been “traditional” or “conservative” than “feminist”. None of them could go and fight but at least they could persuade the men to go and fight on their behalf…calling on the traditional motif of man as hero (although a lot of the time the suspicion was it was a convenient way for a woman to get rid of a man she didn’t want).

        Women telling men what to do…hmm…does that sound more feminist or more matriarchal to you?

        A feminist approach…as put forward by Warren Farrell, would be to say…hey…men’s lives are equal to women’s lives, right…so how about we send women into battle (on the front line, as well) till as many of them have been killed as men…then we can send both forward to be killed in equal numbers?

        Actually, Warren is very much anti-war…he’s just making the point of how we men are considered entirely unequally to women (we are disposable, while they are protected) and that in the grand scheme of things we are relatively powerless, rather than powerful. This is an equity feminist argument. Warren wants both genders to be in a position of equal power…and obviously, to work at a situation where we don’t have to go to war at all.

        This will never be achievable until all societies start to resolve the gender war which has actually always been in place, in its various forms. We’ve not yet achieved a feministic society where the tensions between men’s and women’s roles have been satisfactorily resolved. This remains the primary challenge for the human race, In my opinion all the others will be so much easier to make progress on – if we can only sort this one out.

        The solution is NOT in harking back to any era in the past – the solution has to be something that hasn’t happened before. We here have any opportunity like no other – to work on that.


      5. Jeepers woodman it sounds like feminism to me however you dress it up and whoever you tell me supports it – warren farrell can say and do what he likes, he is not my guru….the only one harking back is you and the gender war is manufactured, it is not real, it was never real. I am not a feminist, not a gender, equity, liberal, anarchic, anything feminist, I am not, my arguments are not. Feminism is just an ism a way of describing the world a political doctrine, it is NOT a universal truth.


      6. Hi Karen..please…I hope you can have some relaxation time.

        While you do…can you think about this? You WERE a gender feminist. You were a gender feminist, because as you say, it was the only feminism really active and available at that time.

        You are now an ex – gender feminist.

        Gender feminists are of course breathtakingly arrogant about and despising/dismissive of all other forms of feminism…

        …as, unfortunately, you still are.

        Don’t beat yourself up about it – as a therapist yourself it doesn’t makes sense that someone could make such a TOTAL transformation of a particular mindset overnight, does it?

        Elements of the past are obviously still needed within the psyche for some time.. You keep on about me ‘letting go’…but there’s nothing for me to let go of…I’m standing on solid rock – I’m not ‘holding on’ to anything at all.

        So when you’re preaching to me – isn’t it really to yourself?

        Time to practice what YOU preach and start to have some more openness towards and empathy for and willingness to reference such colossal contributions to this wonderful field of gender work as have been mentioned.


      7. Jeepers Woodman you don’t do things by halves do you?

        When I identified as a feminist I was just a feminist full stop. I didn’t identify as gender, liberal, equity or anything and it’s not useful to tell me that I did because it only irritates me and stops me listening to what you have got to say.

        As for preaching to you, how am I preaching to you? I am simply telling you what I think, if you interpret that as preaching that’s your perogative, if you are referring to my writing on this blog, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.

        I haven’t witnessed myself telling you to let anything go, I have simply heard myself say that I do not want to talk about feminism.

        As for being breathtakingly anything, if I am then you will just have to roll with it brother because guess what, I write this blog because I like writing about how I think about the world and it being my blog means my rules all the way…(you could always write your own blog and that way you get to do what you want to do 🙂 )

        As a therapist I fully expect people to make total transformations in each and every minute they are alive. Anything and everything is possible, to believe anything else about humanity is placing your own self defeating beliefs upon others.

        Woodman I do wonder sometimes how you arrive at some of your thinking but in case I am not spelling it out clearly enough to you.

        Feminism is not interesting to me anymore. Matriarchy I thought we might have a chat about but it seems clear to me that that is only possible in your dichotomised world of feminism and so it doesn’t seem possible. I don’t reference everything back to feminism, I have explained how the world works outside of feminism and I have written at length about how it is possible to work with children and families without being governed by feminism. What more do you want?

        I spent a lifetime being open to the field of gender work, now I am not because I understand that that is only one road to equalities, there are so many others that I am enjoying finding out about and working with.



  14. “This, from Karen Woodall is a keeper. One to be copied and spread.”
    “…Karen does a better job of expressing my feelings on the matter than I manage”
    Thank you, Karen.


  15. Karen, I recently returned from speaking at the first international conference on men’s issues, in Detroit, and I’m still catching up on my emails. One was from a supporter pointing me to your tremendous letter to Yvette Cooper, and we’ve posted a link to it. Coincidentally, the same Independent piece led to us giving Ms Cooper this month’s ‘Gormless Feminist of the Month’ award just an hour or two before I read your open letter to her:

    Keep up the great work!

    Best wishes,

    Mike Buchanan

    (and the women who love them)


    1. I am not sure I would call Yvette Gormless, somewhat representative of her group perhaps but not gormless. Whatever the wrongs of feminism, it has carefully orchestrated a situation in which it controls family policy in this country and it has done this in separated family policy by ensuring that all roads lead to women being in control. The scale of the feminist stitch up is astounding, it infiltrates all corners of the process of separation and ensures that women, by and large have complete control, from money to children, women, if they are quick to make use of the feminist doctrine, can truly take it all. Unfortunately however, the feminist design of separated family policy has also created a situation in which some women fall victim to the very policies set up to give them power. Under the regime set by feminists in the seventies and eighties, men were supposed to succumb to women and allow them control, where they don’t and they either act fast and first or use monetary power to control or worse, get to the kids first, the woman can become the one who is ostracised. Not many men take this route as they have been schooled to give way to the woman, but when they do, they win big style, just as women do. Now, my big problem about this is NOT that women win or that men win, I am neither a women’s rights OR men’s rights activist, I see no purpose in dropping feminism only to go over to the other aide and start arguing the same but from the perspective of men. My big problem is that the ones who lose in this winner takes all feminist designed system are CHILDREN who lose either their father OR their mother, neither of which benefits them in the long run. So for me, feminists are not gormless, they are absolute architechts of a faulty system which has thrown out the babies, the children and the bathwater and that is where they and I part company. I do fear the world they are trying to create but I don’t think they are gormless, far from it, I think they are probably the cleverest people on the planet. Strategy wise they saw the problems, wrote the policies, made everyone believe it was about equality and ensured that funding in the millions was made available to pay for it. The few women who don’t benefit are just collatoral damage. Gormless – no. Deadly – definitely.


      1. I have no idea woodman, I am talking about feminism, I don’t believe in patriarchy so I am not going to start believing in matriarchy!


      2. Of course, as I was able to ascertain directly ‘from the horses mouth’ earlier this year – the movement that we are discussing…is absolutely “NOT about equality” but is about the “destruction of patriarchy”. Agreed.

        But what is it to be replaced with, Karen?

        Never mind what it is CALLED (for the time, perhaps) but what are its characteristics?

        Is it a revolutionary movement, where one day we wake up and the whole world is different…or is it an evolutionary movement that operates by stealth so subtly that we are hardly aware that anything has changed – picking us off piecemeal one by one so that effective resistance is never able to be mobilized?


      3. How about it is just an awakening to the reality that we are each as valuable as the other, that our existence creates a dance between us without which life would not exist (and I make that point specifically because equality is often described as being our support for gay marriage and gay parentage. My view is that our support for both may well be a sign of our enlightenment that being gay is a part of the rich tapestry of our sexuality, but until life can be created by two eggs or two sperms it is still the dance of man and woman which creates the vehicle for life to incarnate or grow (depending upon your spiritual beliefs).

        Without going down the route of discussing gay parentage, if that dance is valued and recognised and not dismissed as being of no consequence, then we are truly accepting of the paradox of living, that we cannot each embodiy the whole of humanity but only our half of it and we cannot devalue anyone else’s experience, nor seek to impose our values or our beliefs about each other upon each other.

        I don’t want to start a party, a revolution or invent a new word, I just want to discuss the world outside of the feminist paradigm, in which men and women are both good AND bad, strong AND weak, bold AND scared. And most of all, I want to discuss the world that we create for our children and their children which I would dearly like to see more equal and safe for both girls AND boys.


      4. Karen – what you describe so eloquently is EQUITY feminism…which, since its serves everyone, without being at all prejudiced against gay relationships in any way, is predominantly heterosexual in its focus.

        I’ve recently been watching some of the videos of David Deida on YouTube. I would still want to know more about someone who is so bravely developing this territory but this would definitely seem to be equity feminism in action. I’m not trying to wind you up, Karen…in putting this forward I am just explaining the work of others…so please don’t shoot the messenger!

        David Deida does tend to talk in terms of spirituality as the language just seems to be useful but actually you wouldn’t need to be a believer in any kind of transcendent Being to get what he’s saying about male/female relationships.

        Equity feminism is against male dominance (which might be described as patriarchy) and female dominance (which should therefore be described as matriarchy). We’re not coming up with any new words – we just need to articulate the kind of world that we want, and to provide something everyone can unite behind. It is ethically necessary, when doing this – to give credit to those who have already set down those ideas…isn’t it? Then we can build our own contribution on top.

        As I’ve tried to outline before, what you’ve thankfully stepped out of is specifically the ‘Gender Feminist’ paradigm – a strand of militant feminism which took over in the 80’s, but is not actually feminism at all because it does not believe in equality…but in the inherent superiority of one gender…the female one.

        Tending to share the stage with ‘gender feminists’ you will find men who also agree (at some level) that women are the superior sex…i.e. that men are the cause of wars etc. and that it is necessary for women to be put in charge.

        Equity feminism and gender feminism are polar opposites…but many women are secretly attracted to both perspectives and cannot make up their mind which to be. They are trying to live in both camps.

        I know you wish to live outside ANY feminist paradigm altogether…but this is simply philosophically impossible. Erin should be able to understand what I’m talking about perfectly – please talk it through with her, Karen. Equity feminists don’t go overboard on patriarchy theory…honestly – there’s nothing to worry about. At the same time…many women, both historically, and currently in the developing world, have had to cope, or are coping – with men who are brutes…for whatever reasons…and this is a reality that has to be faced squarely too – as much as we hate what is being done to us men by women in the West more generally at the moment.


      5. Hi Woodman. I’m personally getting pretty tired of the dichotomy between ‘good’ equity feminists (e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers) and ‘bad’ gender feminists (e.g. Harriet Harman MP). For me the important point is that the only strand of feminism of the slightest consequence for 30+ years in the UK and much of the developed world (certainly including the US and Canada, as Erin will attest) has been gender (radical / militant) feminism, a female supremacy movement driven by misandry. What on earth have equity feminists got left to fight for? In our election manifesto we’ll be pointing to 20 areas where British men and/or boys are disadvantaged by the actions and inactions of the state, generally to advantage women and/or girls. No feminist has been able to point me to an area where British women and girls are disadvantaged by the state. It’s time for the term ‘equity feminist’ to be consigned to the dustbin of history, so we can turn the spotlight on the hate-driven harridans and their male poodles (e.g. David Cameron, Vince Cable, a third of FTSE100 chairmen…) who hand power to these women on a plate, regardless of the consequences.

        It would be a disaster for gender feminists if women represented a high proportion of people in key positions, because people would then more easily ‘join up the dots’.

        I’ll go and have a lie-down in a dark room now…


      6. Oh me too Mike, I would just love for once to have a conversation about what life is like outside of the feminist paradigm.

        The reality for example that when one works with men and women they are each able to understand their own responsibility for making life easier for their kids – until the feminists jump in and tell the woman that she is doing it wrong – or the way in which two people can accept responsibility for their mutual violence as their relationship ends and then CAFCASS bullldoze their way in and decide that HE should go on a DVPP. Or the way in which one gets to the crux of a difficult issue in therapeutic terms between two people and then she decides that to win the fight she is going to bring in a women’s aid worker. Outside of the feminist paradigm, which pits man against woman, the world looks very different and potential for resolution is always present. Inside the feminist paradigm there is only one possible outcome, victory for the woman who gets absolute control and as a result is seen as a strong and courageous survivor and defeat for the man who must lose if he is to prove himself not dangerous to his children. I am tired of that, tired of the cognitive dissonance that brings and tired of the way in which it fails children over and over and over again.


      7. Karen, thank you. I take your points, but perhaps you should know such awards represent a tiny element in what I do. I publicly challenge prominent feminists when they’ve demonstrably lied in the media and elsewhere – Julie Bindel, Caroline Criado-Perez, Laurie Penny and Kat Banyard come to mind – and I think humour has its place in the war against these ghastly women. After all, what’s been known about (say) DV for decades hasn’t had the slightest bearing on the relentlessly pitiful level of state support for male victims. It was one of the themes of my speech in Detroit – rational arguments simply don’t work against governments in thrall to radical feminists, hence why I’m trying a political approach, with the aim of challenging MPs in marginal seats.

        Only just before the conference I learned of a US study (2009) which concluded that if you add DV-provoked suicides to DV-related murders, more men than women die as a consequence of DV. Let me know if you’d like me to put a link to the study here.


      8. Hi Mike, thanks for the reply. For me the issue of violence in the family is not whether more men than women suffer it or whether more women than men suffer it, it is the fact that violence in the home affects children and children are more likely to grow up with violence in their behaviour patterns if they suffer it at the hands of their mothers or fathers or both. That is the real problem in my eyes that making violence a gender issue, as feminists do, removes our ability to look at it generationally and therapeutically. Talking with Erin recently, we were discussing the ways in which the feminist narrative about violence has forced men into the position of using gender symmetry as a strategy and how that overlooks the reality of violence as a behaviour pattern being a generational problem AND a neuroscientific problem in that rage behaviour is a direct result of a missing part of neurological development – the part which enables the primitive rage feelings to be articulated instead of acted out. If a child is brought up in a rage filled home, in which either mother or father is unable to regulate their own rage and unable to assist the child to develop that ability too, then what we have is a generationally transmitted trauma pattern which is simply punished by feminists in men but overlooked and at times welcomed (you go girl) in women. That is what I am interested in, how we help the next generation of children. That is why I am so afraid of what Yvette Cooper is saying, because I know that if feminism is taught to little boys and they are not helped to be able to develop the part of their brain which regulates rage, then all we will do is condemn them to being punished for not being little girls (who more readily conform to our feminised expectations of children).

        I do think that male victims are massively under served and I do think that in terms of equality the way in which we approach violence in the home is wrong, but I am not interested in the argument from the other side of the feminist fence per se, but in how we intervene using equalities based strategies and therapeutic support to bring about a healthier world for our children. K


      9. Thanks Karen, much appreciated. I agree heartily with your sentiments. It was a great pleasure meeting Erin in Detroit. She received a very well-deserved Lifetime Achievement Award, which will be named after her in future.


      10. Oh no, here we go again trying to confuse everybody by pretending there really is more than one kind of feminism and that one type of feminism is really egalitarianism.

        Egalitarianism is egalitarianism. Nothing else is. There is no reason why an egalitarian would call themselves anything else.

        Feminism at best looks out for women only regardless of what needs men and children have. No feminist organisation exists which does any better than that. Feminism at worst — the feminism that must be stopped because it is wrecking havoc on our societies — is supremacy by a few, or is political undermining of society by any means possible.

        If some people don’t like the vitriol that is deservedly poured onto feminist ideology, they would do best to separate themselves from the name, to have nothing to do with the ideology and to fight against feminism along with all other anti-feminists, instead of trying to weaken the efforts to fight it by claiming that ‘their’ brand of feminism isn’t really harmful.

        Further reading:


      11. I would really rather not be talking about feminism good and feminism bad. I would really rather be talking about the world outside of feminism, I am not interested in women’s rights or men’s rights I am really only interested in how children can be supported to develop their full potential in the cradle of human relationships with all of the important people in their lives without the influence of political doctrines. Anyone for that topic?

        Liked by 1 person

      12. So – you are not interested in women having rights…not interested in women having rights…but children presumably ARE to have rights?

        How ridiculous can one get???

        I wrote an article back in 2012 entitled – “Whatever Happened To The Right Of Our Children To Be Loved?”.

        Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that children’s welfare entirely depends on the balance of power between the parents.

        I’m sorry – but there’s NOTHING more political than that.

        If we are going to promote children’s welfare we have to determine which existing ideologies support egalitarian child rearing, and which don’t.

        Any attempt to dismiss the past as meaningless in this regard is completely puerile. We have to honestly recognize the achievements of others in this regard and to build on them.


      13. steady on Woodman, I think YOU need to relax a little bit.

        You can recognise whoever you want, I will do the same, I don’t think there is any call for thundering around demanding that we do this or that.

        As I said, if you don’t like what I have to say, you can always write your own blog and discuss your own views with whoever reads it, this is not a forum it is a blog where I write what I feel and other people comment on it. I am all for discussion but draw the line when it comes to people demanding this that or the other. 🙂


      14. I have read your article on feminism at anti-misandry. It is a shame that you haven’t been able to see past the fact that gender feminism (which has largely taken over what feminism means) cannot qualify as feminism at all.

        Equity feminism, as proposed by Christina Hoff-Sommers (and as she identifies, it has a long history) is all about anti-misandry, as much as it is about anti-misogyny.

        It is certainly NOT about putting women’s interests first.

        Feminism in these terms celebrates the masculine as much as the feminine.

        Are we men going to be so childish…simply because the letters m & a…are not in the title?

        Elsewhere on this forum I have written in more detail of how male and female are not fundamental opposites…but essentially one and the same – but given this exciting dance of variation.

        I’m sorry, but as much as I am an egalitarian…the word doesn’t begin to convey the excitement to dynamic human relations in the way that feminism does.

        Our job is to wrest the meaning of the word away from those who have trashed it into something abhorrent…and back to the dignity that it deserves. We can only do that by acting as men and women together.

        Feminism is the one word which can unite us all better than any other.

        We can turn it from it’s current connotation as “man-hater” – to “man-lover”…and some women are busy trying to do that, in fact. They need some help along the way…but they are trying, and need to be supported.

        With you are in a key position to do that. Returning hate with hate isn’t going to get us anywhere, either. It’s about making friends…and having a broader understanding of what feminism is – would help to make us a lot…wouldn’t it?


      15. steady now Woodman I don’t want world war three breaking out on here. Folk have the right to say what they please and write it too without being attacked for it. I am happy to have discussions and for your view of feminism to be heard but other people also have the right to say what they feel about feminism. For me feminism is just an ism word, like marxism or socialism or racism even. It is a political doctrine, it is NOT a universal truth however much you try to ram that down our throats. Feminism not something benign which has been overtaken by matriarchy, it is not something which once was loving and kind and now it is not. It is a frame of mind, a philosophy, a political stand point in which the rights and needs of women come first and those of men and children are seen as secondary. I am not into anti misandry or anti mysogyny for that matter, I am not anti anything, I am not just not anything other than me. Some folk are anti this or that, it doesn’t make them any better or worse than you.


      16. I’m off to college now – so you can have some peace today…but please, anyone…explain to me how the woman’s supremacy movement that we are all against…deserves or qualifies to be called ANY kind of feminism…when the most generally universally understood dictionary meaning of feminism…is equality with men?

        It’s not a question of what is good or BAD feminism…rather, it’s an honest question of what is or ISN’T feminism.

        If the woman’s supremacy movement isn’t feminism (it so clearly ISN’T) – then what IS it?

        I gave so many openings to discuss what matriarchy might be…none of them have been taken up as yet.

        Why is everyone so afraid of the “m” word?


      17. “… I am really only interested in how children can be supported to develop their full potential in the cradle of human relationships with all of the important people in their lives without the influence of political doctrines. Anyone for that topic?”

        I have found time and again that looking out for children’s interests, like men’s rights, means coming up against feminist organisations and lobbying. That said, I apologise if I have in any way digressed your blog from your purpose.

        The big news this morning is of a report from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) which contains talk of Britain’s disposable dads culture. Apart from the well-known statistical harm done to children raised in one-parent families (often countered by anecdotes of individual cases, as though they change the large-scale empirical data), the CSJ report reveals that over one million children have lost contact with their grandparents as a result of parental alienation. My own children benefited greatly from the extended families: as did we as parents. Not every child can have the benefit of both parents at home, nor of having living and loving grandparents available, but to deliberately induce extra stress on parents and remove a source of support and guidance for children seems both stupid and cruel. Perhaps you could write on the CSJ report when you have the time.


      18. Hi Douglas, yes I have just done so this morning and of course, I cannot write that without referencing feminism. My husband worked on the CSJ panel and for me the elements within it which are truly revolutionary are those which propose that we move from the feminist paradigm of lone parent support towards a collaborative and whole family model. It already seems ridiculous to me that our post separation family policy still allows for the automatic exclusion of men, it seems so far in the past that I do not understand why others do not see it. Perhaps when the Westminster world is opened up to scrutiny we will begin to see how family policy, which has been controlled by feminism for so long, has damaged our children not helped them and created generation after generation of vulnerable families where children are more likely to have smartphone than a dad at home. K


      19. My course is film-making…learning how to tell stories visually – which obviously I hope to do.

        While the majority of interest moves on to the next post…perhaps I can just tack this response on to this current one – although it is entirely and completely relevant to the latest one, too.

        My frustration with this blog is off the scale…before you tell me not to read it then – let me explain why.

        In my perception, you are both 100% right, AND 100% wrong!

        How are we to understand such a strange paradox?

        If you were to carefully prefix (ref comments on a response to your latest article) your use of the word “feminisim” or “feminist” wherever you do so – with the word “gender” – then you would not hear a peep out of me! You would be 100% correct, if not 110% so! I certainly would not be able to agree with you more.

        However, by NOT carefully qualifying this loaded term in this way – you become 100% wrong in many, many ways.

        Now as any schoolchild search will reveal (I recall my daughter having to do one a while back) there have been many variations of feminism…often in conflict with each other in one way or another. Feminism certainly is not, and never has been – a homogenous phenomenon, even at any one point in time, let alone over time.

        These variations of feminism are NOT linked by feeling that men are overwhelmingly oppressive to women – they are linked by the feeling that women should be valued equally to men – except for ONE “type” of “feminism”…known, as we can see, as ‘gender feminism’. This, and ONLY this type of “feminiism” – does NOT believe in equality…but rather that the female gender is superior to the male gender – and should rule over it.

        Very unfortunately…this type of feminism…because of its obsessively aggressive nature (feminism in general is not like this) has caused massive confusion in the general population – as to what feminism is.

        For many, it is as if the word feminist – is simply a shortened form of the term “female supremacist”, and feminism, short for “female supremacism”.

        The concepts of female supremacy…and feminism – are clearly antithetical, irreconcilable opposites…even if, at times, in the emotive course of daily life…there can be some muddying of the waters which goes on.

        It is the constant separation of the two – of the clear water of feminism and of the ‘mud’, so to speak, of gender bigotry (of either kind, male or female) which is the ever-present responsibility of those who work within the gender arena.

        That essential process – simply is not happening at the moment. Rather, confusion is being piled onto confusion by the indiscriminate use of the word feminism to denote its very opposite…falling directly into the very trap set by the (extremely clever) architects of this misandric movement known as ‘gender feminism’.

        The strange irony is, that the fury that should quite rightly be directed against GENDER feminism, is applied to feminism in GENERAL – to then followed be writing which outlines a “post-feminist” society…which to the letter…expresses the sentiments of true feminism in the first place!

        It simply is not possible, for example, to work “outside of the feminist paradigm” – when it is exactly a feminist paradigm which is being articulated! However it certainly IS possible (and entirely essential) to work outside the “gender feminist paradigm”.

        Why has it been so hard to distinguish between these two total philosophical opposites…even when they share a common word? As suggested, it certainly has been a complete sleight of hand on the part of gender feminism to disguise itself in this way – the devil with the cloak of it’s angelic rival.

        It has been so powerful, also – because it has presented itself as a maternalistic movement.

        What has happened, increasingly, in the last 50 years, is that men have steadily increased their level of involvement with children, and shown that they can often cover that nurturing side of things extremely well, and sometimes better than the women (just as women can perform as well or better than men as providers).

        The ‘gender’ feminism movement represents a backlash to that – of women feeling threatened by this invasion into their traditional territory…and insisting in female primacy in this fundamentally important aspect of life in particular – and so wishing to ruthlessly drive us males out of the family environment – in the way that they have.

        I hope that this helps to delineate the extremely sharp difference between gender feminism, which has therefore been predominant in the last 50 years, and feminism proper, which can be designated Equity Feminism, as Christina Hoff-Sommers suggested. It’s actually really got very little to do with “patriarchy” at all – but rather…is everything to do with matriarchy – about women feeling that they are the ones that need to dictate what goes on in the home especially…as well as the wider world.

        Please – be as angry as you like about ‘gender feminism’ and the damage it has done to the millions of children whose lives it has damaged – but please don’t confuse this with the egalitarian movement that is and always will be – Equity Feminism.

        All of us on this forum appear to be equity feminists…we all want to have an equal opportunity to be both providers and nurturers in our children’s lives – that’s all equity feminism is and ever was and ever will be!


      20. Crikey Woodman will you stop speaking for everyone on this forum and speak for yourself. YOU are an equity feminist, I am not and neither are many of the contributors. Feminism is feminism as far as I am concerned, it is about women’s rights first that for me is all I need to help me decide I don’t want to think about my work within a feminist paradigm.

        I will give you an example of feminism in action shall I? Anyone who is schooled in ANY kind of feminism will recognise this analysis straight away.

        A man and a woman have a punch up at the end of their marriage. Things haven’t been great, he has another woman and she is wounded, hurt and angry because of that. Things are said, punches are thrown along with bottles of wine in the heat of the moment, he ends up with a black eye, she ends up with her best trousers ruined from the wine she chucked at him and he deflected so that he didn’t get more hurt by the bottle flying through the air.

        He goes to hospital with the gash to his forehead which is patched up and he is sent home without anyone even asking him what happened (not that he would have told them, he was too ashamed of himself by then).

        The following day she smashes his glasses in a fit of temper and tells him she will punish him forever for what he has done.

        Three mnths later she has an injunction out on him, his kids are nowhere to be seen and she is going all out to ruin him financially.

        Service delivery around the family starts where?

        From the feminist perspective it starts with her narrative of his betrayal of the marriage.

        And moves on to the violence that he is said to have perpetrated upon her.

        And moves to his responsibility to pay maintenance.

        Then he is subjected to –

        Assessment by CAFCASS during which time his contact with his kids simply stops.

        Eventually he is told to go ona DVPP so that he can recognise his own violence and impact.

        He tries to tell his story but everyone says he is in denial because his ex wife must be believed and anyway he was having an affair.

        He must be a really bad person to be having an affair, he must be guilty of all she says.

        He manages some supervised contact in a contact centre, the kids are so happy to see him.

        She decides that he is not being punished enough however and before he can move on to unsupervised, she makes a fresh set of allegations.

        Contact stops.

        Meanwhile the CSA have taken a large portion of his savings right out of his bank account ….

        The feminists say…

        Children must not be left to live in poverty…

        He must have done something really bad…

        men are dangerous and must prove they are not before they can be left alone with children…

        He is a violent man…he must never see his children again….

        Women never tell lies….

        The non feminist says…

        Tell me what happened to the man….

        tell me what happened to the woman…

        Violence is damaging to both of you, how can you each ensure that violent behaviour is not going to erupt between you again….

        How are you going to make arrangements to care for your children?

        How are you going to share he responsibility for providing for your children?

        Still determined we are all feminists Woodman? The paradox is that feminism, whilst proclaiming itself to be about equality is actually about women’s rights, not yours. When you understand that you will stop wondering how it came to this. X


      21. 100% agree with you…IF…you put ‘gender’ in front of the first feminist…

        and equity…in front of the second.

        That’s it.

        Then, I will be very, very happy!



      22. No Woodman, you are just saying it for the sake of saying it now, it is an argument for arguments sake and that is not worth wasting time on. Gender/equity, they are all the same, especially when it comes to family services where women’s rights come first and are not even largely disguised as feminism pretending to be equality. It just gets offensive and a bit boring to have this same old circular argument about feminism, especially when life outside of the feminist paradigm is so much more interesting.


      23. Call a spade a trowel, call a spade a shovel, call a spade an unmechanized digging implement .. it is still a spade.

        Just because one person wants to convince themselves that their brand of feminism is the same as egalitarianism, doesn’t make it so. It does not change the record of feminism, to which they consider their beliefs a variant of, nor does it alter the history of organisations that carry the same label.

        Nor does it alter Yvette Cooper’s clear bias against males and the damage apparent in her proposal to indoctrinate young schoolchildren with lies and harmful attitudes.


  16. The most regrettable thing about this is the environment in which it is intended – schools.

    Among female perpetrators of child sexual abuse nearly one in ten are teachers. Among male perpetrators fewer than one percent are teachers. It is quite likely that there are about three times as many female teachers who molest students as there are male. The most likely victim of an adult abuser in a school is a boy and by an even greater margin. Contrarily the protective strategies in our schools focus almost exclusively on females as victims and males as perpetrators.

    Thus the intent is to teach those most at risk in the environment to respect those in that environment who are most likely to harm them.

    The shaming of boys – particularly prepubescent boys – over matters surrounding their sexuality is a spiteful and cynical act of cruelty. Shame is a very potent force in the psychological dislocation experienced by victims of sexual assault. This is particularly true of male victims. It is inevitable that some of the boys treated to these feminist driven programs will experience the same symptoms exhibited by actual victims.

    Very regrettable proposals driven by a blinkered and selfish ideology.


  17. Sorry Woodman. You certainly didn’t ask for my advice and I don’t mean to condemn you. I have been separated for seven years now and I thought I saw some parallels between your situation and mine. You don’t need to take any notice of what I say. My main reason for being on this blog is because I think I have found somewhere where my feelings, in this sordid ordeal are being understood and my better behaviours are being nurtured, which gives me and my family the prospect of a better solution. This is what I am trying to share with you.

    I hear your rage and your restlessness, but I want nothing but peace and happiness for your whole family. I don’t want to repeat my earlier comments because that would be futile, so I will just wish you well and hope that with delicate hands and soft voice you go forward with forgiveness in your heart and bountiful empathy in your mind.

    Kind regards


    1. Good intentions, you don’t have to give your real name, but it really helps if you give us an identifier – I’m a very gentle guy and don’t really want to use this one!

      There may well be parallels between our two situations, but for each one of us present on this forum this is a complex mix of differing dynamics in which we have to find our own individual solutions – if any are to be found…which in many of them seem near impossible, and may in fact, sometimes be impossible to resolve.

      In the community music group I run there is a group of men in their seventies stuck with such intractable marital conflicts and declining health, where the “children” concerned are now adults…and still caught up in the conflict…and it’s basically a competition to see who stands last. Women generally have the advantage there.

      You’re still giving advice, though – when you’re insisting that the solution is through “delicate hands and soft voice you go forward with forgiveness in your heart and bountiful empathy in your mind”. We’re in a war, if you hadn’t noticed, personally, and politically – and that approach may well be essential – but it’s also necessary to be angry…very angry…sometimes – in order to turn things around. Gil Scott-Heron – we have to “Fight for peace”.

      Forgiveness…yes there’s a place for it, if it’s wanted. At the moment I want to try and help some children in their 40’s & 50’s forgive their Dad (now in his late 90’s) for knocking about and neglecting their Mum about a decade ago…when he’s now becoming extremely vulnerable and needing their care. He certainly hasn’t done everything wrong by his wife – was an excellent provider etc – but the feminism I espouse recognizes us all as imperfect beings who can never stop learning to relate to each other better…learning to admit we need help when we do…and asking for it, etc.

      I have had one hell of a two year battle with a matriarchal female neighbour who wishes to abuse the old man by infantilizing him (and more, of course – that’s just a means to an end) and who has been given every possible assistance in so doing by most of the institutions involved so far. Thankfully, recently – one lone independent voice of understanding has come from a woman working in Victim Support.

      Yesterday, waiting in my Ward Councillor surgery, some older women were expressing distress at what the younger generation of women were doing. So as we’ve seen on this blog – they are there…but we need a way for these women to be encouraged, to come together, and to have a more of a collective voice.


  18. are more than a breath of fresh air..thank God for a woman like you. You are indeed our generations Erin Pizzey. So courageous and so articulate! I can see you views are reaching a wide audience. I hope Yvette read it?! Aren’t they talking about her as a possible PM? God help us all!


  19. Pingback: The EHRC | mra-uk
  20. Yvette Cooper is still up to her damaging ideology. Her latest concept is “take back the internet”: a campaign to stealthily censor non-feminist views while totally ignoring female online abusers and male online victims.


    1. It would seem to me that a lot of the inspiration for this is coming from “socialist” Spain. It would seem there has been a conflation of socialism & radical feminism there with very drastic results, to put it mildly…and there are certainly many here who think they should push things that way here too. As a life-long socialist myself this hijacking and poisoning of socialism by a radical “victim” feminism is of tremendous concern.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s