The Anglobitch Thesis is unique among MRA theories in that, being cultural, it transcends the vagaries of politics. In our view, there is no difference between pan-Anglosphere conservatism or liberalism, at least on men's issues. Both political wings are inherently misandrist and matriarchal, because the Anglo-Saxon cultural architecture underlying both is misandrist and matriarchal.
Now we have thunderous confirmation of the Anglobitch Thesis in the British Conservative government's climbdown on the issue of male anonymity in rape cases. Predictably, the government crumbled before 'pressure' from 'feminist Labour MPs', despite Labour having been routed in a General Election this year. Ever and again we hear 'conservative' MRAs rambling on about 'Marxist-Feminism', wilfully refusing to acknowledge the rabid misandry that also characterizes pan-Anglosphere conservatism (consider the recent American calls for bans on porn and masturbation).
I am getting tired of repeating this - but I will do, anyway: men cannot look to Anglo-Saxon conservatism for help. Anglo-Saxon conservatives extol a sexless, repressive puritanism that reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings. Women, on the other hand, being sexually disinterested and manipulative, are reflexively set upon pedestals of deference and virtue whatever their conduct. While this misandrist agenda also characterizes Anglo-American left-liberalism, Anglo conservatives - being closer to the traditional puritan meme - fully embody these iniquities.
Anyway, here is the sorry tale:
Plans to give anonymity to men charged with rape were abandoned yesterday (12th November 2010). The decision marks a dramatic U-turn and abandons a key pledge in the Government’s coalition agreement.
Justice Minister Crispin Blunt announced the proposal would be ditched because there was not sufficient evidence to justify a change in the law. But at the same time he published a report which revealed that between eight and 11 per cent of rape claims are fabricated.
Just 36 per cent of rape trials result in a rape conviction and more than half result in no conviction at all, even for a lesser offence. That fuelled accusations last night that the Government had caved in to a chorus of protests from women’s groups and Labour (Democrat) MPs.
Women who accuse a man of rape will continue to receive anonymity, a legal right they have had for 35 years. Meanwhile more than 200 men every year who face false claims will continue to have their reputations damaged. Victims of false claims such as snooker player Quinten Hann, who was acquitted in 2002, have seen their lives derailed by false accusations.
The reverse is embarrassing for David Cameron, who endorsed plans to give men anonymity between arrest and charge at Prime Minister’s Question Time in June. But even that limited protection was ditched yesterday. In a ministerial statement yesterday, Mr Blunt said: ‘The Coalition Government made it clear from the outset that it would proceed with defendant anonymity in rape cases only if the evidence justifying it was clear and sound, and in the absence of any such finding it has reached the conclusion that the proposal does not stand on its merits.’
Mr Blunt said there was not enough evidence to overcome concerns that ‘the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light’.
Officials say Attorney General Dominic Grieve has been a supporter of the policy of anonymity for men. But one source said Mr Blunt and his boss, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, had taken ‘the path of least resistance’ by abandoning the plans.
The policy was included in the coalition agreement because the Tories (Republicans) believed it was formal Lib Dem policy before the election, but Nick Clegg’s party claimed to be surprised by the inclusion. The plan created a backlash in Westminster from feminist Labour MPs.
Shadow minister for women and equality Yvette Cooper said: ‘It was a deeply unfair plan to single out rape defendants to remain anonymous and would have sent a message to juries and to victims that uniquely in rape cases the victim should not be believed.’
But George McAulay, of the UK Men’s Movement pressure group, said: ‘I can’t say I’m surprised by this because the feminist lobby is extremely powerful.’
SOURCE: UK Daily Mail, November 13th 2010
To us, the climb-down comes as no surprise. Anglo-American misandry perennially sprouts across the Anglosphere, whatever the political weather. While it may be beaten back awhile, it always returns: for misandry is the default agenda of any puritanical culture.
Posts
You are wasting your life writing this rubbish.
ReplyDeleteAnon0801:
ReplyDeleteIt's a greater waste of a men's lives to sacrifice themselves for women who despise them. Thankfully there are blogs like this to show us how to avoid you predatory bitches.
Rookh:
ReplyDeleteGood article, especially, too, in light of the recent US elections. Hatred of men is so deeply entrenched in Anglo-American culture that it transcends party politics. The Conservatives tell us that women are superior to men and need to be worshipped; the Liberals tell us that men are inferior to women and need to be punished. It's only semantics that separate them.
Anon0801 is probably Thomas Fleming...
ReplyDelete"Women, on the other hand, being sexually disinterested and manipulative, are reflexively set upon pedestals of deference and virtue whatever their conduct."
ReplyDeleteNot sexually disinterested. Pretended to be.
This was obviously a smokescreen to dodge slut shaming.
But other than that I think your idea is spot on.
Are you familiar with this guy?
His thoughts seem to closely parallel your own.
When Cameron was elected in Britain, a lot of British MRAs were trumpting it as the end of feminism; the same thing is happening now in the US following the 2010 midterm elections.
ReplyDeleteRookh is right, the problem is sociological. It will never be solved at the ballot-box, it will take an organized effort of Anglo men simply rejecting the cultural standards set for them and opting for alternatives.
Rookh, every time a man (Mexican or foreigner) tells me the ‘Old Good Times’ I ask him what good those times were about. Our fathers and grandfathers lost their cherry in unsanitary brothels because they couldn't touch our mothers until the wedding night. They cheated our grandmothers and mothers on a regular basis because they couldn’t do ‘strange things’ with their wives, and for a conservative woman is more important to be a mother than her husband’s lover*. Besides, after a woman has delivered five children she’s no longer so attractive, and has no time to spend with her husband. So, I wonder what kind of picture the conservatives are looking at when they call for a comeback in time. Worse, I have read people calling for a sharia in the Western countries to counter feminism. Are they serious? I mean Islamic countries are patriarchal, but total repressive in every issue of social life. Is that what men want?
ReplyDelete*In Mexico it was a non written social rule that a married woman should not care if her husband begins cheating on her and has a permanent lover. Actually, it was a good thing for the marriage because in this way he can get sexual satisfaction while she can spend all her energies and soul for her children, so, she wouldn’t ask for a divorce and just look to the other side. I guess this is not the case in the UK.
Rookh, did you get my email?
Santiago:
ReplyDeleteI'm an American guy and I've spent a lot of time in Mexico---LOL, I heard a few legends about Pancho Villa's sexual exploits!
I should point out that, in America, conservatives in both the media and schools wildly romanticize the past. They project their own value-structures onto our ancestors routinely. 18th and 19th century American culture was pretty close to how you described old Mexico; and most conservatives today would be shocked by what really went on.
Having left wing and right wing governments, one after the other, seems to act as the gear and pawl of a ratchet on the long suffering public.
ReplyDeleteThe radicals introduce their 'utopian' fixes on society, moving things in one direction; whilst the conservatives act as the brake, to stop the old equilibrium from naturally reforming, the way people would choose, if they were free to.
If you stand back, and look at the political swings of the past decades, it's as though they are acting as a tag team; one punches you in the head, and the other makes your headache go away, by kicking you in the bollocks.
Either way, the public are conned in believing each round is for the better; but clearly they are having their basic rights squeezed out of them, until they become basic thralls of the political class, both left and right.
WOMEN, amirite?
ReplyDelete*I should point out that, in America, conservatives in both the media and schools wildly romanticize the past. They project their own value-structures onto our ancestors routinely. 18th and 19th century American culture was pretty close to how you described old Mexico; and most conservatives today would be shocked by what really went on.*
ReplyDeleteThere is some truth in that in an English context, also. Prior to the Victorian era, with its wash of sickly puritan hypocrisy, English people were apparently not as stiff or repressed as they later became. The eighteenth century produced such ribald masterpieces as Fielding's Tom Jones (the first-rate novel, not the second-rate crooner), bursting with erotic fervor and quite unrelated to stilted, post-Victorian English literature. Prior to the rise of English puritanism in the seventeenth century, writers like Shakespeare viewed sex quite casually, without a trace of the puritanical 'woman veneration' that later came to characterize Anglo-American culture.
Of course, puritanism has been a cultural reflex present in Anglo-American civilization since the seventeenth century; but its current expression undoubtedly derives from the Victorian era, with its deranged hypocrisy, matriarchal cant, latent homosexuality and sickly repression. Most contemporary feminist preoccupations - and the alignment of feminism with such faux 'radical' movements as repressive Christian socialism - begin there.
*Either way, the public are conned in believing each round is for the better; but clearly they are having their basic rights squeezed out of them, until they become basic thralls of the political class, both left and right.*
ReplyDeleteExactly. One problem inherent in democracy is the lack of long term continuity it promotes. While societies run overtly by elites have many faults, their great advantage is their ability to address long-standing problems with long-standing solutions. Ethical questions aside, it is most unlikely that Russia would enjoy its present stature were it not for Stalin's autocratic rule, or that Germany would have recovered so swiftly from defeat in World War One without Hitler. The Anglosphere is presently dominated by two conflicting agendas: 'Long Sixties' progressive liberalism embodied by Obama/Milliband, and paternalist conservatism embodied by Cameron (and formerly, Bush). From the MRA perspective, however, both wings offer nothing but tribulation, since:
...the Conservatives tell us that women are superior to men and need to be worshipped; the Liberals tell us that men are inferior to women and need to be punished. It's only semantics that separate them.
Indeed, on 'Women's Issues' both wings coordinate their efforts, as in this case. The Conservatives (Republicans) mysteriously 'responded' to the tune of their supposed ideological opponents (left-wing feminists), leaving falsely-accused men in precisely the same, abject position as before. One can only deduce that this is the overarching cultural dynamic of matriarchal Anglo puritanism at work, obviating all rhetorical ideological distinctions with its pedestal misandry.
*Actually, it was a good thing for the marriage because in this way he can get sexual satisfaction while she can spend all her energies and soul for her children, so, she wouldn’t ask for a divorce and just look to the other side. I guess this is not the case in the UK.*
ReplyDeleteSure, the Disneyland conception of marriage fostered by the Anglo-American mass media actually puts enormous PRESSURE on that institution, by infusing it with unrealistic expectations. This relates to the romantic, 'companionate' conception of marriage that prevails in puritanical cultures (the economist Posner's term), which refuses to acknowledge the many innate differences between men and women. The US and the UK have among the worst divorce rates in the world, devastating proof that their fanciful, neutered conception of relationships is absurdly dysfunctional.
*Rookh, did you get my email?*
No, for some reason. Try again:
cathodoxy@hotmail.co.uk
Rookh;
ReplyDelete"Prior to the Victorian Era, English people were not as stiff as they later became".
Sociologist Karl Mannheim and others have pointed out that social upheavals generally have no immediate transformative effect on the culture at large. With the Puritan revolutions of the 15th and 16th centuries, a 'cultural lag' no doubt existed for several generations, with the old values gradually giving way to the new.
Personally, I tend to believe that the early Puritans probably never intended to impose a dysfunctional culture in the Anglosphere, but after a passage of time, its inherent flaws began to manifest themselves.
The Victorians were a bunch of massive perverts; they just didn't talk about it. Sort of like your average modern Western politician.
ReplyDelete