Tuesday, 19 November 2013

International Men's Day

It is not without its absurd side. That could be said of all of them, though of few to a greater extent than this.

Yet it can and ought to be defined as a day against the erosion of the stockades of male employment, and in favour of their restoration.

As a day against the foreign policies that send men, especially young men, to be harvested to no good purpose.

As a day, therefore, in defence of the family, which is devastated both by such anti-male economics and by such anti-male geopolitics.

Feminists tell us that women can be misogynists. Not that that comes as news to any of us. Why, then, cannot anti-male policies, as such, be devised and implemented by men?

And while women are far more prevalently victims of domestic violence, that does not mean that men never are.

The sexual abuse of teenage boys by women, often in positions of authority, is still treated as a joke rather than as a very serious problem, the scale of which, although anecdotally large and growing, remains unknown because almost entirely unresearched.

Internet pornography, and the pornogrification of culture generally, is also the systematic abuse of adolescent male sexuality, and thus of teenage boys themselves.

In Afghanistan, we have spent a dozen years fighting for perhaps the most pederastic culture on earth, as well as for the heroin trade, against the sworn enemies of both. One side there does not let girls go to school. The other rapes boys morning, noon and night. We used to aid one. We now fight actively for the other. We must be mad. Quite, quite mad. And very, very, very bad.

The genital mutilation of boys is endemic the world over. As with sexual abuse of boys by women, we insist that there is no problem. This is neither an anti-Jewish nor an anti-Muslim point. Most of those involved in the horrific practices associated with the itself-horrific practice of circumcision as an adolescent rite of passage in Africa would identify very strongly as Christians, as would many, and perhaps still most, of those involved in the near-universal circumcision of male infants in the United States. But that latter remains as popular as ever as America secularises rapidly and dramatically, just as it does among even the most ardently secular ethnic Jews throughout the West and in Israel.

And so on, around the world. Even to something as localised as the Lost Boys of Utah, one among thousands of possible examples.

But the main points remain the first three, from which all others follow, one way or another: the stand against the erosion of the stockades of male employment, and in favour of their restoration; the stand against the foreign policies that send men, especially young men, to be harvested to no good purpose; and the stand, therefore, in defence of the family, which is devastated both by such anti-male economics and by such anti-male geopolitics.

17 comments:

  1. There is little that could be more unmanly than an "International Mens Day".

    What remains of our chivalry forbids us to begrudge women their "Women's Days" but we, by our nature, are not meant to whine and whinge and demand special recognition in the calendar, like some feeble, self-pitying endangered species.

    It seems to me that societies that have fathers and working husbands don't have "Mens Days".

    In the same way that, (as Ed West once said of modern left-wing Britain)-"cohesive societies don't tend to employ "Community Cohesion Officers"".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Further to my last comment.

    On Afghanistan, you are dead right. Brilliantly put.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But our society is not like that. For which its most powerful woman at least since Queen Victoria, and possibly ever, is to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "our society is not like that".

    That's what I meant.

    There is no one person who is solely to blame-the architects of the 1975 Child Benefit Bill (that replaced fathers with state welfare cheques) and the architects of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act, after which divorce sky-rocketed all bear their share of the blame.

    As do those who've undermined the Christian religion for over 50 years in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It was John Major who made divorce legally easier than release from a car hire contract.

    And anyone who wants to abolish Child Benefit is simply not pro-family at all.

    This wretched Government's withdrawal of it from some families, initially, illustrates how extremely anti-family it is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Apologies if I posted this twice, I'm not sure if it posted correctly.

    Further to that comment.

    If your interested in who is "pro-family",pioneering research by Libertard Gonzales has confirmed that states which do not award generous child benefits to unmarried mothers have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy and single motherhood in Europe.

    Wealthy states, like ours, with very generous child benefit systems (that fail to make a moral distinction between married and unmarried recipients) have historically very high levels of teen pregnancy and single motherhood.

    In our case, ever since 1975.

    If you pay for men to run away from their responsibilities and for women to have children outside marriage, then that's exactly what they'll do.

    How can we blame young women for behaving irresponsibly (and having kids outside wedlock) if we pay them to behave irresponsibly?

    ReplyDelete
  7. For entirely other reasons.

    What are you going to post next, a Laffer Curve?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No-for entirely that reason.

    It is the Netherlands extremely harsh child benefits system-and not its fabled "sex-ed classes"-that are the real reason for its very low teen pregnancy.

    Our rates of single motherhood have soared ever since we replaced fathers with welfare cheques.

    For reasons even a two-year-old could work out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Only a two-year-old could believe, more like it.

    I know the real reason in the Netherlands; it is neither of those which you mention. But there seems very little point in telling you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why are you not in Parliament? Why?

    How long is it now, 10 years, since they gave that district nomination to some wannabe Premiership footballer/boy band member who lost that seat and the Chair of Chairs' seat for good measure?

    He was supposed to succeed Hilary Armstrong but the national party imposed the women only short list to stop him, it was that desperate. They would not have done that to you.

    Several times a week you show us with posts like this one what not only this constituency, the whole country is missing and it is all that stupid pretty boy's fault. He is a national disgrace, a traitor to Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Excellent post. Although in relation to the last comment, whilst I can see its unhelpful, its difficult to see how one failed selection completely derails a future parliamentary career!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Further to that.

    What do you think of Peter Hitchens idea-recently supported by Ed West-of offering a 9-month period of notice that all future benefits to future unnmarried mothers will stop?

    It leaves existing benefits for fatherless homes in place-but stops creating any new ones.

    What's not to like?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's indiscriminate child benefits, not child benefit itself, that we wish to abolish.

    The Labour Government's abolition of the Widows Pension was part of the same revolution that began in 1975 with the abolition of any distinction in welfare between widowed or deserted wives, and those who deliberately chose to have children outside wedlock.

    If you knew anything about this subject, you'd know the purpose of Castle's 1975 Child Benefit Bill was to blur this important distinction and bypass fathers and marriage by paying benefits directly to unmarried single mothers.

    Transforming means-tested 'need' into the only criteria upon which benefit claims are assessed, abolishes any distinction between "deserving" and "undeserving" claimants.

    In the case of child benefit, it was part of a broader campaign to abolish social stigma around extramarital relations (and illegitimate births) and abolish personal responsibility, which also included the replacement of the term 'unmarried mother' with the catch-all term 'single parent'.

    Peter Hitchens has a brilliant, nay, perfect solution; all existing child benefits should remain in place, with the proviso that all future benefits for new unmarried mothers will cease, exactly nine months hence, with due warning given in advance.

    This policy does not punish existing victims of our welfare policy, but simply refuses to create any more of them.

    What's not to like?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Labour Government's abolition of the Widows Pension

    I stopped reading there, as everyone else will also have done.

    That is being considered now, though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am doubtful that if the party hate him that much that they would have appointed him Regional Director of the party. Unless they are paying him £50K a year to not be an MP (unlikely).

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't know who you are taking about, and I assume that you are on the wrong thread. But that kind of arrangement is really quite common. You know nothing whatever of the internal workings of any major party if you did not already know that.

    ReplyDelete