Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Monday, 13 May 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Liz Hodgkinson is right. The culprit is usually chivalry to "weak" women. Feminists should of course fight this. One simple answer common abroad is to only include assets built up during the time of the marriage/ partnership. "Ancillary relief" is a gold diggers charter in this country as so much is left to the discretion of the court judge.


Emily's peice does show how a common public concern about "sexualisation" is being coopted by feminists as their issue. As you say the real issue is the falling proportions of all forms of further education including apprenticeships taken by young men. As a parent of course I'm concerned about the distorted nature of sexualised media. Yet I see it in magazines aimed at my daughter as much as to my sons. I certainly don't want this issue so taken over. After all the " slut walks" show that the disasters of "free love" so de riguer befor AIDs are still core beliefs of feminism along with the other isms.


Oh dear, they really can't help themselves can they? Any discussion of modern masculinity ALWAYS has to take the form of demonisation and put-downs.

Diane Abbott at it again today:

"A must-have culture of buying expensive gadgets, clothes and jewellery is fuelling ‘hypermasculinity’, she suggests.

‘At its worst, it's a celebration of heartlessness; a lack of respect for women's autonomy; and the normalisation of homophobia. I fear it's often crude individualism dressed up as modern manhood,’ she will say."

Oh honestly Diane just f*ck-off, why don't you, you silly cow. My apologies for getting all Anglo-Saxon, but boy does she deserve it.


Groan the slut walks are a total mass of contradictions. On the one hand the walkers dont want to be viewed in a sexualised way. On they other they want precisely to dress provocatively and not get judged for it. I often think that Femen and Object should get together , that would be a laugh.


But interestingly Indiagnado28uk in an rambling article it seems Labour are trying to make some policy offers to men. Old wines in new bottles of course but a bit new to even consider an "offer" to men.
Indeed Prometheus contradictions abound in the whole "women are equal" BUT "they need lots of extra help" school of feminism.

Nice to see Suzamme Moore use the appaling recent cases of group abuse for another "all men are rapists" polemic. Does it ever occur to her and others that often the investigators (and those who turned a blind eye) are both male and female?? Afterall one of the chief blocks to the proper investigation was disquiet within agencies about appearing to be "racist".Rather than any male conspiracy.



Thank you Dave. An very cogently argued piece in the UKIP blog. The logic of a libertarian party challenging policy is clear however some of the views of their MEPs in the past are suffused with" chivalry" and White knightery. I really do hope UKIP can stick to libertarian principles andchallenge social engineering. As yet they are too narrowly focussed on sovereignty issues.


I don't suppose we will see the rest of the media or Angelina Jolie saying much about him or other men soon?


Dear Barry

I am unable to email you as you do not post by using an email address so I am leaving a message here that your IP has been blocked.

Sorry, but your comments are both offensive and your relentless personal attacks on an individual(s) have no place on this site.

As I have said to others in the past, do not use this site as a platform to attack others in the men's rights/equality movement. If you want to do that - set up your own site.


Is it really? Oh okay, thanks for making that up.

What you don't like is someone questioning your little gravy train you and the cronies are building up.

I'll remind myself of the IP ban later shall I? P.S I don't accept e-mails from people who hide their ID either...Skimmington.


Over a thousand years ago Adoman abbot of Iona got the Christian lords in the British isles to sign up to "Law of the innocents". Perhaps the origins of the women and children first impulse codified later by the Victorians. AlL Proof of the long history of protection afforded by chritianity.And of course completely refuting feminist contentions that violence or harassment has been condoned by "patriarchal" society.

paul parmenter

The DM article by Liz Hodgkinson is an exercise in deceit, and a classic test for all men as to whether we are gullible enough to be hoodwinked by the lies of the feminist, or whether we are capable of seeing beneath the mask to recognise the latent misandry.

On the surface, the article appears to be a model of fairness and belief in equality between the sexes: divorced women should not sponge off their ex-husbands. We can all give three cheers to that concept. But look a little closer, and understand the real motive that lies behind Hodgkinson's words.

My decades of experience of being on the receiving end of the feminist onslaught against my sex has taught me that these particular enemies have three fundamental characteristics:

1. They believe in and promote female supremacy

2. They have no concern for the wellbeing of men and boys

3. They tell lots and lots of lies.

The third characteristic is of course most valuable to them, because it allows them to disguise the first two. If they had to tell the truth, they would never have gained the traction they have.

You can see these characteristics in Hodgkinson's article. They are all there, if you just read and understand her message. She wants to stop the post-divorce gold-diggers in their tracks. But why, exactly? Because their actions are unfair on men? Oh no, that's not the reason at all. That just happens to be an incidental side-effect. She is a self-proclaimed feminist, so we can be sure that any concern for the well-being of the male sex or equality of treatment is the last thing on her mind. No, she tells us quite clearly exactly why she resents the actions of all those greedy parasitical ex-wives, and it has nothing to do with fairness or gender equality. It is because such women are blowing the myth of the strong, independent woman, completely out of the water. That is her true concern: that these scabby sisters are letting the side down, and proving that the feminist ideology of the ball-busting I-don't-need-any-man superheroine is just a big pile of poo. It is the maintenance of this false image, and the removal of any threat to it, that is Hodgkinson's real objective. It's all there in the article.

Which proves those three characteristics are all very much at work here. Those women who demonstrate they are incapable of freeing themselves of dependency on a man's earnings, must be attacked because they are undermining the great feminist shibboleth that women are strong and are above all men. And lies are deployed to hide that reason; she has to pretend that she is concerned for the welfare of her male friends. It's her sneaky way of trying to garner support from the very people she despises in order to advance her ideology.


I am more determined to monitor and dig now than ever.

Deleting comment's just makes you look an even bigger dick with something to hide as well as your identity. I mock your efforts to censor...what people need to realise is that another bunch of manipulators and career types selling books in our movement, is as bad as the same on the other side we are fighting against.

I mock your efforts to silence questions about it, especially when they help to avoid them being answered...;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List