Apparently Kathy Gyngell was a bit taken aback at the less than positive reaction to her post “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind” so she posted another article in response to the………………….response(s).
Bear with me for a moment while I indulge in a wee rant.
For the love of all that’s good, would you drop the patronising, condescending “mother knows best” crap and GET this – feminism is merely the visible face of a toxic female mindset – GYNOCENTRISM –a toxic mindset that has morphed its way through several manifestations – each one becoming progressively more and more poisonous and spreading throughout and within ALL levels of society and culture – including ALL institutional, administrative and political structures.
There is no part of civil or political society that has not been corrupted, poisoned and tainted by this – INCLUDING marriage, family, education, the legal system, the media, and male/female relationships.
Slapping a smiley face on the CURRENT structures of civil and political society and going “there there, all fixed now” is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. Then expecting men to trot obediently back into the fold because a WOMAN now tells them that all is well, we can all go back to the way we were.
We can never go back – we must never go back – we need a new conversation – not ludicrous attempts to relaunch the same shoite that caused the problems in the first place – unbridled GYNOCENTRISM.
Okie dokie – now I’ve got that off my chest – lets delve into Ms. Gyngell’s latest offering.
“Kathy Gyngell: Sexodus anger needs to be channelled before it explodes” By Kathy Gyngell Posted 27th April 2015
Right out of the gate Gyngell assumes a “I’m shocked and hurt that you’re angry with me, when I was only trying to point you in the right direction” stance – coupled with a nicely subtle dash of condescension – note the use of the word “coo”
“‘Coo’ is pretty much my response on reading the 255 record number of comments on my blog urging men to stand up to feminists rather than turn their backs on women in general.
I now feel some sympathy for that P. G. Wodehouse character, the irritating Edwin, (Florence Craye’s younger brother in Joy in the Morning, for the non-Wodehouse fans among the readers). He is the boy scout hell bent on doing a daily act of kindness only to find it erupt in his face each time. ‘Coo’, he says, as the cottage burns down when he attempts to clean the chimney using gunpowder and paraffin. Mine was, unintentionally, a gunpowder and paraffin blog.
Talk about a fusillade of return fire. Coo indeed. If I had set out to annoy ‘sexodus’ men (which I didn’t, needless to say) I could not have succeeded better. There were two common themes to the comments, which can pretty much summed up as, ‘how dare you’ and too late. MGTOW (men are going their own way – and not coming back) so put that in your pipe and smoke it (that, at least, is my polite interpretation”
She also has deliberately chosen to minimise and devalue the legitimate Men Human Rights abuses prevailing and embedded into the very DNA of our cultures and societies by referring to and characterising ALL MRA/MHRA and MGTOW activism with one blanket word – “sexodus” men.
See – if you can dismiss and caricaturise Men’s Human Rights activism as a narrow and slightly silly “sexodus” then you don’t actually have to look too deeply into the myriad Human Rights issues affecting men and boys – all the while maintaining that you only “have good intentions”
The road to hell is paved with good intentions – and there is no better way to diffuse the importance of an issue and deflect attention away from it than to project a “I’m hurt that you are angry with me” stance and then deliberately misrepresent what that/those issues are.
She also takes a little swipe at some of the commenter’s and pours a little scorn on the anger expressed – in some cases quite vehemently by them, as she lauds herself by comparison for her “polite interpretation” in other words dismissing the legitimate anger of men by tut tutting over their lack of politeness. Gosh darn it – can you all not be nice!!!! Tut tut.
She quotes from some of the comments and acknowledges that:
“Anger and disgust is palpable in the stream. There are so many quotes it is impossible to chose. The same writer pretty much sums them up:”
Ah, but does she accept that male anger is legitimate, is justified, is a direct response to decades on ongoing vilification, demonization and rights stripping of men?
Yes and no – yes because she does acknowledge that “Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism.” There it is – BUT – the standard empty FEMALE type acknowledgment of a male statement of his anger – a la – “*yeah yeah, you have a point……………BUT”
Let’s just examine this a bit closer – what feminism has done is made the “traditional” paradigm of man/woman in blissful married happiness with 2.4 happy well-adjusted children – TOXIC.
Has made exactly the set-up that Kathy Gyngell is “urging” men to return to and commit to akin to putting your head into a lions mouth and hoping he’s already been fed.
Gyngell apparently wants men to accept at face value that women will now play nice! For the good of society no less! Because you can always trust a woman, any woman not to stab you in the back at the first opportunity! Because she says she won’t!
Oh well – that’s grand – women are going to play nice now – its aaaaaaaaaaaaalll sorted – everything is hunky dory now – lads start lining up and “give women the chance to see if they find them(you) attractive.”
Yeah right – that’ll work.
“My ‘coo’ response, however, is not altogether one of surprise – even at the vitriol and abuse we moderated out. Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism. Vive la difference! remember? If this is not apparent from our blogs (Laura Perrins, Belinda Brown, Kimberly Ross and Caroline Farrow all regularly expose its flaws and dangers as have I done too) please turn to our mission statement:”
First of all, the comments were directed at the opinions Kathy Gyngell expressed in her piece and the manner and form of THOSE opinions – ergo – what anybody else has or hasn’t written on this site is irrelevant – this is all about you Kathy.
Second – your phrase “it’s a bit rich” indicates that you seem to be getting on your high horse a bit, are a bit miffed that men, who have been deliberately and with malice aforethought cast into the role of the source of all evil in the world are now fighting back – with less than “polite” words, with anger, with a complete lack of gratitude at being told what “men should…..” now do to fix the problems within societies and cultures because women are now experiencing fallout from them – or rather from men unwilling to continue to be of service to women.
To paraphrase with an example of a female/male conversation – a sort of before and after thing.
Before the MHRM
Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.
Male: OMG – what can I do to make you happy – I’ll do anything you want.
After the MHRM
Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.
Male: bummer – not my problem, see ya – have a nice life – don’t forget to feed the cat 🙂
Yep – I did notice the use of the word “need” in the title – if I may interpret – men washing their hands of women, or as Gyngell misinterprets and caricaturises it the “sexodus” goes right to the heart of one of some (a lot of) women’s most basic “needs” – babies.
Babies that they and they alone get to make decisions about, babies that they and they alone are in charge of – in fact – OWN – and babies that are their ticket to access a man’s assets, wealth and property.
She does touch on this subject, albeit from a strictly narrow perspective – ignoring the actual realities for men if they do try to form “families” if they do have children.
“It is hard to disagree with him – except his last sentence. His deduction from this cost/risk analysis is a counsel of despair if there was one. What then of the future for children, family and society – or does he think a Brave New World of test-tube genderless babies is fine?”
This would be laughable if it wasn’t so obtuse – in particular her plea to men “What then of the future for children, family and society” does she seriously expect men to engage in the extremely risky action of getting married and having children with modern western women? In THIS society? In THIS culture?
Are you mad?
In a society that has over the last five decades relegated men and boys to sub-human status – in a society where the mere pointing of an accusatory finger at ANY man means his life is over – in a society where fathers are literally ordered out of their children’s lives on the word of a toxic spiteful woman?
Feminism may have been the driver behind the corruption of society but it is WOMEN who sustain it – women who perpetuate and enforce toxic gynocentrism, women who demand “special” treatment – just because they happen to have been born female.
Is there any point in repeating that the vast majority of women are NOT feminists – I believe the percentage has now dipped below 20%.
No woman actually needs to be a feminist to be a complete and total bitch – did you not know that Kathy?
In fact the vast majority of women are “I’m not a feminist BUT……”
Then she really puts her foot in her mouth with this;
“This is exactly why right minded men and women must fight the battle against feminism together. Men and women enacted the Equality Act, not just women – men have gone along with this agenda.”
“Men have gone along with this agenda”? Really?
Men have deliberately excluded themselves from consideration when it comes to “Equality” in the UK?
Like this you mean:
“We support and protect the rights of women by:
Helping women to reach their potential in the workplace and helping businesses get the full economic benefit of women’s skills, including through the work of the Women’s Business Council, Women on Boards and the Think, Act, Report programme, making sure that women’s interests are represented in government, by regularly meeting women’s groups and campaigners, and listening to women across the country, providing grants to people who want to set up childcare businesses”
From: Department for Education, Government Equalities Office , Office for Disability Issues, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, Edward Timpson, Mark Harper, Jo Swinson , Women’s Business Council and Ethnic Minority Employment Stakeholder Group others
First published: 4 November 2010
Last updated:27 March 2015
Needless to say there are no equivalent services or provisions for MEN.
She makes some final points, which again would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.
“…….if feminism is not challenged democratically, this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord. That would not be a good thing for male – female harmony, which is necessary both for children’s wellbeing and a happy, healthy society.”
While there are feminists infesting every single area of civil and political society – feminism is a state of mind – informed by a gynocentric worldwiew that women are extra special human beings – feminism is merely the label currently attached to a way of being female (oh God I cannot believe I had to use that phrase)
Anyhoo – one does not simply remove a toxic way of being by moving the political furniture about – most highly influential feminists are hidden away in the shadows, lurking in colleges and universities spewing out “studies” and “research” or writing toxic anti male hit pieces and peddling lies and myths on the MSM (main stream media) avidly swallowed by hordes of brain dead wimmin only delighted to have their “specialness” and perpetual victimhood confirmed.
Alongside a continuous propaganda campaign to demonise and vilify men and boys and pathologise maleness and eulogise femaleness.
Gygnell also rather strangely seems unaware that male anger (justified) has already manifested itself, is already simmering, is now unstoppable when she says “…this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord.”
But perhaps the thing that really pisses me off about this piece is this – Gyngell is trying to shift the blame, she is very cleverly pointing the finger at an idea, a “theory” a set of toxic beliefs – feminism – carefully sidestepping any hint that actual real female human beings are ACCOUNTABLE for the actual real life actions and behaviours that these persons CHOOSE.
Individually and collectively.
Or is she suggesting that the innumerable women who made and make false accusations against men, the innumerable women who excise fathers from their children’s lives, the innumerable women who strip every last asset from the man who unfortunately married them were all under some kind of feminist spell?
How about female teachers who rape their students? Deliberately treat little boys with contempt in schools, what about women who bite, kick, stab, burn, beat and abuse their male partners?
Let me guess – “feminism made me do it – wasn’t my fault – boo hoo”!
Am done with Kathy Gyngell.