It is almost half-a-century since women’s liberationists first took to the streets chanting ‘Women demand equality’, and ‘I’m a second-class citizen’, and the feminist narrative of the historically victimised woman needing to strive heroically for her rights in a male-dominated society is a theme that has been burnt into our social consciousness.
The entire paradigm is so politically charged – so politically correct – that no politician of any hue would dare have an all-male cabinet, any more than a large company would contemplate having an all-male board of directors, and this is causing women to be pushed, promoted, and inserted into every walk of life, simply because they are women.
Moral panics about rape and violence against women and girls are rife, and a plethora of women’s help agencies exists to meet the perceived demand for women’s aid. Many of them are funded by central government, with ring-fenced budgets, and they feed a constant stream of propaganda about men as potential rapists or wife beaters to the press. Mostly it is patently untrue, but, like all propaganda, it is effective in embedding these false social narratives, which, in a feedback loop, justifies the existence of these agencies and secures their funding.
Our universities are now hotbeds of gender politics where free speech is all but closed down, not least because of the strident demand of millennial women students that they must not have their feelings hurt, or be made to feel unsafe. In response, many universities are providing ‘safe spaces’ for women students free from their male counterparts such is the degree to which this hysteria is gripping our campuses.
An alleged pay gap is constantly being promoted by feminist-dominated ‘think tanks’, politicians, and even heads of state such as Barack Obama, who couches his message in terms of women only earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Others say women are being forced to work effectively for nothing from 9th November until the end of the year.
This is always portrayed as discrimination, despite the fact that an average woman in her lifetime will undoubtedly earn less than an average man simply because she is likely to have children, and that causes her to take career breaks and then make work-life balance decisions. However, feminist campaigners will not allow these explanations, insisting that women are being actively discriminated against.
Even inadvertent slips of the tongue about women, are instantly met with a storm of hysterical protest from female MPs, women’s advocacy groups and women in the media, who allege sexism and misogyny with an alacrity that seems to know no bounds of reasonable behaviour. Character assassination and premature career termination – even of highly eminent people – await anyone foolhardy enough to speak truth to the power in the land that feminism has now become, and this has created such a climate of fear that it has closed down rational social discourse about women’s changing role in society as effectively as any totalitarian regime has achieved in the past.
As Kevin Alfred Strom once said, ‘To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.’
However, I am doing just that. I want to try to bring clarity and truth to what is happening to our society under this deeply divisive totalitarian ideology, which, like a wrecking ball, is tearing us apart and dividing us along a fault-line of ‘gender’.
My principal thesis is that despite feminism claiming as its credentials the liberal Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality of opportunity, it is a masquerade beneath which lies a much darker agenda: one that is being worked out by an ideologically driven elite, and which is anathema to everything Western democracies stand for.
In 1970, Germaine Greer said this:
Women’s revolution is necessarily situationist: we cannot argue that all will be well when the socialists have succeeded in abolishing private property and restoring public ownership of the means of production. We cannot wait that long. Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true, willy nilly, so let’s get on with it.
Influenced by academics such as Greer, who have colonised our campuses turning them into madrassas of radical feminist theory, a small but influential cadre of highly politically motivated former Women’s Liberationists has succeeded, to a remarkable degree, in implementing what she was expressing.
For more than 40 years, through politics, the media, and other key social institutions, these ideologically-driven women (and, it has to be said, men of the same persuasion) have been at work – behind the scenes – gaining control of the levers of social and political power, and inexorably changing social policy, the law, and ordinary people’s lives to conform us to their dogma.
Greer unequivocally located feminism in the Marxist milieu, and it is a fact that most of the early women’s liberation movers and shakers embedded their theories there too. In the 1848 Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) – in rhetoric dripping with mocking sarcasm – openly stated that the aim of the communists was to abolish the ‘bourgeois’ institution of the family:
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians…The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
They also declared war on marriage – also ‘bourgeois’, according to them – mockingly mimicking the alleged bourgeois, saying:
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus… nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial… at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women…
And their approach to children and parenting must not go unremarked:
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social… The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
So, this is what our society looks like after forty-five years of feminism:
- Marriage, once the committed union for life of a man and a woman, and the key institution that guaranteed social stability, has been de-constructed, re-defined, and all but destroyed
- Almost half of all marriages will end in divorce – typically after only 11.4 years
- Three times as many women as men initiate divorce
- Marriage has been replaced by a legally uncommitted union of two ‘equal partners’ – just like in the communists’ proletariat – in which technically illegitimate children are being born wholesale, and which has an even worse prognosis of lasting than marriage
- The social role of the mother has been changed. Once the bearer and nurturer of young children until their emerging viability as ’teens, women – cajoled into being able to ‘have it all’, and to ‘lean in’ – now combine career with child-bearing and upbringing, attempting to reconcile an impossible set of roles, and often unable to give their best to any of them –least of all to their children
- The ready provision of maternity leave and the increasing provision of child care allowances from state funding is manoeuvring mothers into leaving their children’s upbringing – in their most crucial formative years – to strangers
- Politically correct child-minders, operating in what amount to state-funded nurseries, are taking over the role of shaping and forming our future generations according to broader societal values, rather than the values of their own families. This is what totalitarian states do
- Under successive interventions from governments of all political hues, women have been co-opted into the means of economic production. They have been turned into wage-slaves, just like men have always been, and they emulate precisely the women in socialist-communist states
- In fact, women are now working harder for less, as figures released by the ONS show. Although they are roughly half the workforce, they still only contribute about 28% of all income tax, compared to men’s 72%. Women en masse are being used as working drones, most of them earning pittances, while their privileged sisters argue about the glass ceiling, the pay gap, and women’s representation in the boardroom
- Elite feminists, with their social agendas, have even reworked the idea of what constitutes a normal family. For example, Harriet Harman, as far back as 1990, in a report which she co-authored with Patricia Hewitt, another prominent Labour feminist, said, ‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion’. Excuse me? This is utter nonsense, but it is now widely accepted dogma amongst the political classes.
You see, the process is simple: if you remove the inter-dependence of men and women you will destroy the institution of lifelong marriage as ‘one flesh’. If you destroy that then the fall of the patriarchal family will automatically follow. Then the way is clear for a new social order to be constructed –in this case, cultural communism –and that is precisely what the Women’s Liberationists and their fellow travellers and acolytes, now called ‘third wave feminists’, continue to seek in what is undoubtedly a sustained campaign to bring about permanent social change.
There is more, however: Marx argued that the very essence of the relationship between men and women was between the strong and the weak, and that the natural dichotomy between the sexes was the same as the dichotomy between the bourgeois and the proletarian and, therefore, part of the class struggle. This is the true nature of the fight between women and men that is rampaging through our society today – from parliament to the breakfast table.
The openly legalised community of women has come about. People might think that it is a good thing – whatever – it is undoubtedly one of the core principles of communism. We see it in action to this day in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea – and in our own societies, through feminism.
Friedrich Engels argued (without a shred of evidence; incidentally) that women had been a separate social group from time immemorial, claiming that in early hunter-gatherer societies they only shared possessions, resources, responsibilities, work, income and decision-making with men on a non-hierarchical, loosely bonded, sexually uncommitted basis, and that the children they bore were the responsibility of the community, not their biological parents.
Does this resonate with you perhaps about our current society? Even if what Engels said was true, does that not tell us we have regressed, not progressed? Do we want to be a hunter-gatherer society?
This precocious, morally corrupt, unmarried, and very wealthy young man – ‘the frock-coated communist’ as Engels has been called – a cotton mill owner by inheritance and still in his twenties, declared marriage to be a morally corrupt, singularly bourgeois institution that subjugated women. He called it, ‘…a conjugal partnership of leaden boredom, known as domestic bliss’, and all of this returned in the 1950s in Betty Friedan’s seminal book, The Feminine Mystique, which is required reading on university gender studies courses across the world.
According to a list published by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County – in the US alone there are 777 out of an estimated 2,600 colleges and universities (30 per cent) offering every level of study in gender or women’s issues, from university certificates to full doctorates. In the UK, there are 34 universities and higher education institutions out of an estimated 280 (36 per cent), doing the same. Interestingly, of the 333 universities and Grand Écoles in France, only five offer a gender studies course (0.3 per cent), and one of those is the American University in Paris. You know, maybe the French have a far better understanding of égalité than the rest of us?
More crucially, in his later book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels said:
The overthrow of mother right was the world historic defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children… In order to make certain of the wife’s fidelity and therefore the paternity of his children, she is delivered over unconditionally into the power of the husband; if he kills her, he is only exercising his rights.
Have we heard this before? In the feminist driven domestic violence agenda perhaps?
Engels advocated what he called ‘sex love’ – ‘… a virtuous model of sexual relations between men and women’, arguing that there was no point in marriage without love, and that men and women should only marry for mutual affection not for social security, property, or social betterment – yet all of these have been for centuries – and remain if the truth be known – the underpinning rationale of marriage – both ways, incidentally!
He also said that if ‘sex love’ was to die or become ‘supplanted by a new passionate love… separation is a benefit for both partners as well as society,’ and the contract should able to be terminated painlessly without the couple having to ‘wade through the useless mire of divorce proceedings’. At least he got that last point right!
These were outlandish ideas in the mid-nineteenth century, but they found their resonance after the second World War, in the so-called ‘Swinging Sixties’, when ‘no-fault’ divorce was introduced both in Britain and the US – in our case enacted by a Marxist Labour government under Harold Wilson – and it ripped up the traditional social contract between men and women, unleashing a tidal wave of divorce.
Combined with other factors, not least the pill, abortion virtually on demand, and an abrupt end to prosperity due to a seismic shift in our economy from a manufacturing base to a service one, a perfect storm was created in which the Marxist revolution that was Women’s Liberation seized its moment to foment the gender class war in which we are all now embroiled. I know, because I was there. I lived through it all. I am an eye-witness. It was my generation that was in the vanguard.
What is the most effective way to bring about a revolution? Perform a coup d’etat: you take out the head of state. And what is the best way to revolutionise the family? Do the same to its head – the father. That is the true meaning of the feminists’ attack on what they call ‘patriarchy’, which literally means the ‘rule or authority of the father’.
Feminists hate patriarchy. Everything they do is designed to overthrow it. And why? Well, Germaine Greer spelled it out: to destroy the family – ‘the necessary substructure of the authoritarian state’. She was just echoing what many of the movers and shakers in the early Women’s Liberation movement were also saying. And there is another reason. A surprising number of them had relationship issues with their fathers, or with men, and they ‘made the personal political’.
Thus, patriarchy as the rule of the father, morphs into the social power of men, which justifies the feminists’ obsession with it today.
It is also the case that a surprising proportion of them were lesbians. That is not a judgement on them; it is a simple statement of fact. They didn’t like men or maleness, especially when they saw it standing in social authority over them. That is why Marxism was the perfect ideological basis for their uprising.
What these women wanted was to wrest overarching social power from men. They wanted a return to Engels’ ‘mother right’ – a matriarchate – one in which inheritance passes down the mother’s line, not the father’s. One in which women effectively rule everything, and around whom everything revolves, and that is what we see unfolding before us today.
Feminists in power are now overseeing the systematic removal of fatherhood from our society, not least through the power of family courts in which feminist ideology, disguised as political correctness, works like a virus in its operating system.
Every day in Britain and the developed nations across the world, draconian decisions about fathers’ access to their children are being made, that serve only to eliminate fathers from their children’s lives, replacing them with a ‘new dad’, or, more likely, ‘no dad’.
In the weasel-worded rhetoric of ‘doing what is best for the child’, children are being cut off from their fathers, and their father’s families – often for good – their natural inheritance through their father’s line dispensed with by a state apparatus that stands all too ready to step in and fulfil the role of the father whenever it becomes necessary.
The damage that all this is doing to children is before us – hidden in plain sight:
- According to Sir Paul Coleridge, retired senior judge of the Family Courts Division, a third of all British children are currently caught up in the family justice system. This amounts to approximately 3.8 million, a figure that is uncomfortably close to the 3.2 million children who are judged to be living in poverty, as estimated by the United Kingdom Department for Work and Pensions. This is the outworking of the new one-parent matriarchies
- Children are being passed like parcels, often between often warring ex-spouses, both of whom are pursuing their individual careers; their care and upbringing being parcelled out to whomever has the time or the inclination to care for them
- Mothers, who are invariably granted custody of children, are routinely flaunting access granted to fathers, and judges turn blind eyes to it, sitting on their hands when it comes to enforcing their own orders
- Hundreds of thousands of children now live in so-called ‘blended families’, often thrust against their wills into a jumble of step-parents, half-brothers and sisters and assorted non-blood relatives; and all too often permanently deprived of their natural kin on their father’s side
But here’s the kicker:
Approximately one-fifth of children caught up in this mess will lose all contact with their fathers for good, according to Nat. Cen., the research group funded by the government’s Economic and Social Research Council, and that figure has been put at around a third by Mischon de Reya, a leading family law specialist. This represents between 130,000 and 213,000 fathers at any given time
None of us should be in any doubt that a human tragedy of gigantic proportions is being worked out before our very eyes because of our acceptance of feminism and our obsession with so-called women’s rights. And neither should we be in any doubt about what is behind it.
When the nuclear family ceases to be the primary unit of society; when marriage between heterosexual couples ceases to have any meaning; when men are excised from their rightful place as head of the nuclear family; when women are not committed to one man, or to his support for his children; when home life becomes redefined to a broader, boundary-less concept; when women rely on the state as their support; when child-care is subsidised by the state; when people are hired to do the job of childcare whilst mothers work; when the legal legitimacy of children has no meaning; when the right of the child to have access to its natural father (or even know his identity) is dispensed with, then the ideas of Marx and Engels have found their social expression – and so too have the ideas of Greer, and Millett, and Firestone, and Dworkin, and Solanas, and a hundred other Women’s Liberation agitators – as well as those of Harman, Hewitt and their fellow travellers in government today.
When these things happen, a different form of society comes into being: one where the state becomes society, and Socialism (or even Tony Blair’s variant: social-ism) becomes its dominant ethos.
This is precisely what Margaret Thatcher warned us against when she said:
There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour…
Mrs Thatcher adamantly resisted the extension of state funding for child care after having visited the USSR and having been desperately saddened to see little children being dropped off at nurseries by their mothers who were being forced to go out to work. She froze child benefit as part of her war against the welfare state, and criticised working mothers for raising a ‘crèche generation’. Yet, all these things are now a reality in Britain, just three years after her death.
She also said, ‘The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.’ She well knew what they were up to, and she held the line for over a decade, but feminism finally burst upon Britain under Tony Blair who raised it to be the ‘ism above all ‘isms.
Feminists lie about rape, they lie about the pay gap, they lie about domestic violence, they lie about families, and they lie about fathers. They lie about history, and they bully, threaten and hound anyone who speaks against their lies.
Across the entire political spectrum they have altered our politics, and our law. They have commandeered our criminal justice system, conforming it to their political correctness so that it enforces their laws, and they now have unreasonable power in our land. This alien ideology, driven by ideologues in government and the institutions, is selling us a pup under the guise of fairness and equality for women.
Even conservative politicians declare themselves to be followers of this deeply divisive creed. Theresa May, for example, the current British Home Secretary – a conservative – and very probably the next British Prime Minister, is not ashamed to be photographed wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘this is what a feminist looks like’. Now all we need is Hillary in the White House in November, and we’ll have the full set!
Be in no doubt, the old battle between conservatism and socialism – with some liberalism thrown into the mix – is now passé. We are witnessing a shift to a new gender-based politics whose driving ideology is socialist feminism. It is cutting across the old political alliances and it is undoubtedly the new deal here in Britain, as it is in the Scandinavian countries of Europe, in Canada, and the battle is raging in Australia. It will become so in the US, if Clinton isn’t stopped by Trump, and it is beginning to stir in India and many other countries around the world, as witness the diversity of delegates here today.
Feminism has nothing to do with equality, and it is not about fairness. It cannot possibly be about equality because it seeks a one-sided solution to a concocted problem that takes no account of the other half of society – men. Neither is it egalitarianism. Nor is it born of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.
Feminism is a parasite that is sapping the strength – men’s strength – from our societies, and we must wake up to what it is doing to our fathers, sons, husbands, brothers – and, yes, if the truth be known – to our mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters too. Under the pretence of fairness and equality, feminists and their fellow travellers present a clear and present danger to us all.
Feminists are not interested in equality of opportunity through merit and ability, free from limitations of race, colour, creed, or sex. Theirs is the communist-utopian definition of equality – sameness, parity of numbers disconnected from achievement and divorced from skills and attributes – and, like in the dystopian communities communism created in the twentieth century, powerful feminists are building a gigantic gravy train upon which only they have a ticket to ride. They are positioning themselves to be a powerful ruling elite that runs society for its own benefit, by subjugating men (and women too).
We in the West live at a crucial moment in our history and we must ask ourselves, are we prepared to allow this wanton onslaught on our way of life to continue? Are we going to allow the fabric of our civilised, democratic nations to be torn apart because an upstart ideology has incited one sex to rise up in defiance of the other? Do we really want men and women’s relationships to become a permanent pitched battle – a war of attrition, which no one can win? Are we going to allow our lives to be reduced to an endless, grotesque, politicised struggle between men and women – for jobs, for power, for wealth, for social spaces – for children?
Do we want gender apartheid, where each sex engages in its own separate development? Or travels in separate railway carriages? I say no – not in my name!
I say to everyone here today that each of us is jointly and severally responsible for the society we create. We all carry the responsibility for what feminists are doing to our way of life – and especially to our children. Men and women are not a separate species, and women must not allow themselves to become locked in sisterly solidarity against men. We must not be divided like this – it is not the way to a better future.
Wherever you look in the developed world, you will see the bitter fruit of feminism at work. Societies are being divided by gender in a classic divide and rule strategy. Women – especially young women – are locked into a struggle for social power with men. They really believe in an evil patriarchy. They really see themselves as sleeping with the enemy. Girls are being unfairly advantaged over boys. The birth rate is plummeting because young women are abrogating their biological responsibility to bear the next generation in favour of their own self-fulfilment and independence.
Men are being disadvantaged. They are being harried, and their social spaces are being wantonly invaded for no real reason, other than that women can do it. Boys are being deprived of men’s input into their lives. Their education and their futures are being jeopardised. And they are coming under ever more pressure to accept feminism as the new orthodoxy and their pattern for living. And all of this will have consequences. Be in no doubt about it.
We can bleat on as much as we like about women’s rights, but society doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is a dynamic system in which one person’s rights end where another’s begin, and if the basic human rights of one section of society are invaded, curtailed – or smashed-and-grabbed – then that section will kick back and reassert its rights. Like a seesaw, it will swing back, and when it does, that swing could be violent if we don’t say, ‘enough is enough’.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927 – 2003), four-term U.S. Senator, ambassador, administration official, and academic, said:
A community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder – most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure – that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.
Some of us are drawing a line in the sand. This conference is as clear an example of that as you could get. But let me give this focus.
I call for a total rejection of all that feminism represents: its dogmas and its false form of equality; and for right-minded people to take a stand against it wherever they encounter it so that we can all begin the process of repairing the damage those who are pushing it are wreaking upon us.
I call for the restoration of relationships between men and women, based on mutual respect and understanding – free from the stridency and competitiveness that feminists are falsely fostering in women.
I call for a return to a healed society: one in which the divisions that feminists have deliberately opened up are bridged, and then closed for good.
I call for a return to a society where the real family, based on stable marriage between a man and a woman ‘for the procreation of children to be brought up’ as the traditional marriage service puts it, to become the norm again; and for that to be not only encouraged but supported by the state, and by the law and social opinion, so that people are not only enabled but encouraged to see to it that future generations are brought up to be fully equipped, fully competent, socially-engaged citizens.
Especially – and borrowing an exquisite verse from the Old Testament – I call for the hearts of the fathers to be restored to the children, and the hearts of the children to be restored to the fathers, ‘lest our land be cursed’.
In my book, I open by quoting Bob Dylan’s song The Times They Are a Changin’ to describe how turbulent were those times when Women’s Liberation first reared its gorgon-like head in the 1960s, and I end it with this verse – the last – because it shows how revolutions can come full circle:
The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast, the slow one now will later be fast.
As the present now will later be past, the order is rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a-changin’.
The curse of feminism has been cast, and the line now needs to be drawn. This is my contribution to that necessary and noble cause.