Читать книгу Feminism: The Ugly Truth - Mike J.D. Buchanan - Страница 5

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

Bertrand Russell 1872-1970 British philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, free trade champion, pacifist and social critic

On the evening of 15 September 2011 two women were being interviewed by Gavin Esler on the BBC’s flagship television news programme Newsnight. One was the dour feminist Labour politician Angela Eagle (née Eaglet). She’d obviously chewed on a thick slice of lemon before the interview, to set her customary expression. The other was Charlotte Vere, a businesswoman and former prospective Parliamentary candidate for the Conservative party for Brighton Pavilion at the 2010 general election. The seat was unfortunately won by a green MP, Caroline Lucas, presumably green for the reason outlined in a chapter of this book, ‘Why are fat women fat?’

I cheered Ms Vere upon hearing her state the following in a piece recorded to camera before the interview:

‘I think feminism is a toxic, battle-hardened and arrogant philosophy which has been manipulated by those at the extremes of politics. Feminism has had its day. We need women to stand up and shout, ‘Feminism? Not in my name!’ ’

At last, I thought, at long last… people are starting to get it!

A warm welcome to Feminism: The Ugly Truth. I should start with a few words about terminology. In her book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women (1994) Christina Hoff Sommers made a useful distinction between ‘equity’ feminists who campaign for equality of opportunities, and ‘gender’ feminists who seek special treatment for women with a view to gaining advantage over men. She herself is in the former camp.

In a sense, aren’t we all equity feminists now? Women have worked hard and achieved so much in the workplace and elsewhere that very few people in developed countries in the modern era wouldn’t support equality of opportunity. But I don’t know a single person (other than through email correspondence) who advocates equality of outcomes – in senior executive positions, say – regardless of the relative numbers of men and women able and willing to undertake those positions. Yet equality of outcomes remains a key feminist objective, and feminists are making relentless progress towards that goal.

This isn’t about gender equality, it’s about relentless special treatment for women. Feminists aren’t troubled when women enjoy superiority of outcomes, as they now do in a growing number of fields. How do a small number of feminists, in a modern democracy, manage to exert so much influence over legislative and public policy agendas? This book seeks to answer that question, along with many others.

For the avoidance of doubt the focus of this book is on gender feminism, often termed militant feminism or radical feminism. From this point onwards I shall use the word ‘feminism’ for the ideology, and the word ‘feminists’ for its adherents. It’s these feminists – who constitute a small but highly influential proportion of feminists – who are having such a dire impact in so many areas. Where I’m making a point about equity feminism I’ll make it clear I’m doing so.

Feminism has at its core five elements: misandry (hatred of men), fantasies, lies, delusions and myths. I believe the female mind is more naturally inclined to love than to hate, one of the many reasons women tend to be a civilising force in society. But when the female mind is persuaded to adopt hatred as a core value – a requirement of feminism – then the results can be ugly.

Feminism attracts little serious opposition in the developed world, which is extraordinary given that it’s systematically and progressively assaulting men, women, marriage, the family, government, the legal system, the media, academia, capitalism and much else. It’s killing men in large numbers through depriving them of employment. It’s killing women, albeit in lesser numbers, by forcing them to go against their natural instincts and rely on the world of work for their economic survival. It’s a leading cause of misery and mental health problems in both men and women, but mostly in women. It’s arguably the most dangerous ‘ism’ in the developed world today, following the widespread defeat of fascism and communism in the 20th century.

I’ll be using the term ‘Leftie’ as both a noun and an adjective. In the United Kingdom it’s become a term denoting ‘left-of-centre’ politically. The equivalent term in North America and elsewhere might be ‘Liberal’ but in the United Kingdom that word means something more nuanced, albeit still left-of-centre on most issues. The UK, in common with many countries in Europe, has had numerous Leftie administrations since the Second World War, but few as incompetent as the one in power over 1997-2010, led in its final three years by the ill-fated Gordon Brown, a man whose photograph I featured on the cover of Buchanan’s Dictionary of Quotations for right-minded people. For any non-British reader wishing to gain insights into Gordon Brown I recommend Vernon Coleman’s Gordon is a Moron. Brown was a firm supporter and personal friend of Harriet Harman, the militant feminist Labour MP.

What’s new in the United Kingdom, and highly unwelcome to Righties such as myself, is that David Cameron, the leader of the traditionally right-of-centre Conservative party for which I once worked – and currently the leader of a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats – is a Leftie. In the United States he’d be regarded as having political persuasions well to the left of those held by most Democrats.

Perhaps Cameron’s most shameful act in his first year of office, which started in May 2010, was the enactment of The Equality Bill just two months after taking office. The Bill was the brainchild of Harriet Harman, a militant feminist politician from the preceding Labour administration, and it was surely the crowning glory of a dismal career dedicated to a feminist agenda, none of which was to be found in her party’s election manifestos. In 2008 she passed legislation enabling political parties to force all-women prospective Parliamentary candidate (‘PPC’) shortlists onto their constituency parties for the ensuing 25 years. Cameron used that legislation some six months before the 2010 general election, and I resigned my party membership as a result. I was informed by a senior official in the party that I wasn’t alone in having done so.

In David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman? I argue that Cameron’s support for feminist agendas stems partly from his having a female-pattern brain. One of his most eminent predecessors as Conservative party leader was Margaret Thatcher. To many traditional Conservatives (including myself) she was the most impressive peacetime prime minister (of any party) in the 20th century, and clearly had a male-pattern brain. The chapter, ‘The different natures of men and women’ in this book covers the topic of gender-patterned brains. David and Goliatha is being withdrawn from sale and its content is contained in my later book The Glass Ceiling Delusion.

To people who ask why I chose the image of a female vampire for the cover of this book, I say that the image reflects two defining characteristics of feminism: anger and ugliness. Feminists’ anger is founded upon and fuelled by their misandry (hatred of men) and the book has a good deal to say on that topic. And to my mind any ideology based upon hatred of half the world’s population is emphatically ugly.

There is of course another meaning of the word ‘ugly’, that relating to physical appearance. It would be dishonest to deny the evidence before us – that feminists are generally less attractive than normal women – and the link between female attractiveness and feminism is covered in this book.

To the charge that my book makes feminists look ridiculous I happily plead guilty, but in my defence I point out that the group which has most successfully made feminists look ridiculous has been feminists themselves.

There are encouraging signs of growing consciousness among men – and women, for that matter – of the damage being wrought by feminists, and a backlash against the ideology is surely approaching. The question is not whether this backlash will take place, but rather what forms it will take.

I thought the reader might welcome some light relief after reading a lengthy book on the topic of feminism, and so it is that I end this book with a sample chapter from my travelogue Two Men in a Car. The book is set in a country – France – where feminism has only recently started to rear its ugly head.

Until the next time.

mike buchanan

bedford, old england

1 february 2012