If you look closely at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, the leaders of the three traditional political parties in Britain (and supposedly representatives of three differing ideologies) you couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them. They are all men of the same age, the same social background – and all of them live and breathe feminism, with all its incontrovertibly Marxist credentials. Even for conservative David Cameron, feminism takes precedence over his party’s traditional political imperatives, which are inimical to Marxism and indeed all socialist political principles.
It is a powerful, natural, joy-filled, very human desire for a man to want to marry. The pride he feels walking out of a church or registry office with his new wife on his arm gives him a sense of completeness, of hope – of new beginnings. He is striking out in life, starting his own new family unit, taking on responsibility for his wife and their future children – the fruit of their union.
However, all that is now finished. It’s over. In the age of feminism, marriage is no longer the ‘honourable estate’ it once was.
In China in 2013, 125 boys were born for every 100 girls. By 2020, the predictions are that there will be 24 million men more than women. This is the result of a combination of historical communist state control over the number of children allowed to families, and the fact that mothers have been selectively aborting girls who, in the Chinese culture, traditionally have had lower economic value to their families than boys.
The social effect of this is fascinating in the context of what feminism is doing to our society in the west.
What is going on in the education of our boys is an abomination. Boys are failing in our schools because they are being failed by an education system that has become dominated by women, their thinking, and their ways: a system that reeks of a political ideology – feminism – that is outrageously favouring girls’ needs and learning styles, and in which boys’ natural boyish boisterousness is being routinely pathologised as deviant behaviour.
Boys in British schools today are being treated as ‘a problem’ because they are boys, and this is entirely due to the feminist anti-male doctrine that informs the entire education system.
Divorce is a bloody business. The couple are sucked into a gigantic legal machine that processes their assets (and them and their children), and spits them out raw and poorer, with mostly the man carrying the heaviest financial burden (as well as often deprived of any meaningful input into his children’s upbringing from that point on), and it is high time we kicked the judges and the lawyers out of the entire process.
When I heard that Malala Yousafzai had been named as co-recipient of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, I was filled with a deep sense of unease. I sensed that this young woman, terribly used and abused as she has been, and coming as she does from that crucible of international terrorism, the Swat valley in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border lands, has all the potential of becoming even more dangerous to world peace than Osama Bin Laden ever was in his time operating from that troubled region.
I constantly hear from women (and men) who declare themselves to be feminists, that feminism is a ‘broad church’ with many different aspects to it: that feminists can’t all be expected to see eye-to-eye with each other, and it all seems rather obvious to them. Their argument goes that people can disagree, and that’s alright.
But I’m afraid this selective hypocrisy simply doesn’t wash if you stack it up against reality.