Saturday, 27 August 2016

Above the Parapet: What Happens to Men who challenge Anglosphere Gender-Relations




British MP Phillip Davies speaking at MRA Conference

Recently, a serious attempt to challenge the rampant gynocentrism that rules the UK justice system has been made by a British politician. The hysterical response only demonstrates the futility of MRA ‘activism’ in Anglo-American nations; however, it also suggests the correct male response to the misandry currently dominating the Anglosphere:


A Tory (Republican) MP has spoken at a men’s rights conference hosted by an anti-feminism party, telling the audience that feminist zealots really do want women to have their cake and eat it”.

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, delivered a 45-minute speech at the International Conference on Men’s Issues, organised by the Justice for Men and Boys party (J4MB). Davies, who sits on the Commons justice committee, told the conference at the ExCel centre in London that Britain’s justice system was skewed in favour of women and discriminated against men. 

J4MB is led and was founded by Mike Buchanan, a former business consultant who retired at 52 and launched campaigns such as the Anti-Feminism League and the Campaign for Merit in Business, which actively fights against initiatives to improve gender diversity in the boardroom (i.e over-promote female buffoons in order to satisfy arbitrary gender quotients - RK). After thanking Buchanan at the conference, Davies delivered a speech on “the justice gender gap”, arguing that the justice system in Britain actively favoured women and discriminated against men.  

“In this day and age the feminist zealots really do want women to have their cake and eat it,” he told the conference. “They fight for their version of equality on all the things that suit women – but are very quick to point out that women need special protections and treatment on other things.” 

J4MB issues awards for “lying feminist of the month”, “toxic feminist of the month” and “whiny feminist of the month”, and promotes inflammatory articles on its website including a piece titled ‘13 reasons women lie about being raped’. The party pushes for a greater number of male teachers in schools because they claim female teachers habitually award lower grades to boys than to girls. 

Its 80-page 2015 election manifesto suggested women should stop being appointed as senior company directors, that the Equality Act 2010 should be scrapped and that men should claim their pensions before women because they work harder and die younger. 

Davies told the conference: “I don’t believe there’s an issue between men and women. The problem is being stirred up by those who can be described as militant feminists and the politically correct males who pander to this nonsense. 

“It seems to me that this has led to an ‘equality but only when it suits’ agenda that applies to women. The drive for women to have so-called equality on all the things that suit the politically correct agenda but not other things that don’t is of increasing concern to me. For example, we hear plenty about increasing the numbers of women on company boards and female representation in parliament; however, there’s a deafening silence when it comes to increasing the number of men who have custody of their children or who have careers as midwives. In fact, generally there seems to be a deafening silence on all the benefits women have compared to men.” 

Davies raises the issue of prison uniforms being compulsory for men but not for women, a policy he has raised in parliament in the past. “Men and women are different, it’s a fact,” he said. “Yet this is not allowed to be a reason to prevent equality in the fields where men are better on the whole – for example, when it comes to jobs that require great strength. Ah no, that would be sexist. A woman must have equality and do whatever she wants, except, when it comes to wearing a prison uniform, obviously. 

In one section of his speech, which was delivered in July and appeared on Buchanan’s YouTube page two weeks ago, he suggested women were treated more favourably in the family courts, which often deal with child custody.

SOURCE: UK Guardian, 2016

...or maybe because they are cake-eating hypocrites?

Despite the veracity of his claims, Davies was showered with mindless invective in the British media. There were calls for him to be suspended, calls for his resignation, even the usual shaming language about his penis size – all for telling the truth. Yet Davies quoted detailed government statistics proving that when men and women are arrested for the same crime, and they have similar criminal histories, then British women are favoured at every step in the legal system:

Women are less likely than men to be charged after being arrested
Women are more likely to be bailed after being charged
Women do not have to wear prison uniform
Women are less likely to be convicted than men
Women are less likely than men to be given a jail sentence if convicted
Women are given sentences approximately 40% shorter than men, on average
Women serve 5% less of their jail sentences before being released than men do
Women are often allowed to leave prison and return home for weekends, a privilege denied to men

Yet citing these inarguable facts had no effect at all – the Anglo feminist narrative prevailed, as usual. What does this tell us about the state of ‘men’s rights’ in the Anglosphere?

Above all, it demonstrates that men are still viewed as third class citizens by the mainstream media and the authorities at large. Simply put – and I have been saying this for years  – WASP culture, being essentially puritanical, automatically exalts women and denigrates men. Tradcon MRAs in Anglosphere nations like to think institutional misandry is exclusively the product of leftist, revolutionary agendas. In reality, they are expressions of ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon culture. This is why electoral politics never changes anything for men – at least, not for the better. Socialist or ‘conservative’, all governments in Anglosphere nations preside over societies where the legal, healthcarewelfare and education systems actively discriminate against men. A Republican vote, for example, will not eliminate the residual misandry that presently dominates American education, politics and law. Nor will a Democrat vote, for that matter.

AngloCunt with cake...

Secondly, the case shows there is no point in men trying to change things by ‘activism’.  Again, I have been saying this for years. Since the default position of WASP culture is puritanical misandry, the statistics and rational arguments presented by MRAs have zero transformational effect. Simply put, opposing misandrist feminism in Anglosphere nations is like striving to drown an ocean – after all, misandrist feminism is the prevailing ideology, and always has been. It is far smarter for men to withdraw consent from the social order than pursue a programme of ‘change’ that is doomed to fail before it even begins.

How should an enlightened man proceed with this lifestyle project of deliberate social withdrawal? The Red Piller or MGHOW, Sovereign Man or PUA: all are different forms of the Mercenary Male concept I developed several years ago. Simply put, the Mercenary Male is a man who exists in a given society without truly ‘belonging’ to it. Like a Hittite mercenary in ancient Israel, he obeys the necessary laws and makes his living without believing in the mores, customs and religion that surround him. His conformity is outward only; the wild enthusiasm of his host society for its institutions and festivals fails to move him. His first instinct is to protect himself and his own well-being at all costs; all other factors are insignificant. He has no interest in perpetuating the host society; his world dies with him. Knowing himself an unwelcome guest among potential hostiles, he hides his true values at all times. He cultivates friends in distant lands, knowing national fervour to be a relative (and largely puerile) phenomenon. Money is his only god, for the power and freedom it brings: freedom from want, freedom from sexual disenfranchisement, freedom from dependence, freedom from despair. The Mercenary Male is a thespian, playing a part; his detachment never wavers. He tastes, but does not swallow. Unbound and uncommitted, his freedom is absolute; little wonder White Knights and feminists envy, fear and detest him.


The correct response to feminist perfidy?