Smoke and Mirrors: the 'Woman Trap' of Anglo feminism

Anglo feminism is the creation of white middle class women who are wildly unrepresentative of most women. Many of the problems currently afflicting the whole Anglosphere - the emergence of a welfare-dependent underclass, male alienation, family disruption and much else besides - can be traced to this. Most women who work are in crappy, low paid jobs, they are not high powered lawyers or whatever. This is 'the Great Unsaid' concerning feminism, it applies the experiences of privileged minorities to disenfranchised groups like the underclass, with disastrous results.

We see this most of all in the issue of female employment. We always find that women extolling the wonders of work are privately educated, high paid and wildly unrepresentative of most women. The average woman earns very little, so little that there is no point her going out to work at all. Moreover, most of the work that women undertake is not economically productive - shop-work, routine pink-collar work or teaching pointless liberal arts subjects to future taxi drivers and waitresses. Of course, this large majority of underpaid, unhappy women have no voice in politics or the media, so their miserable lot is largely ignored. By contrast, prominent female politicians like Hilary Clinton (ughh) or Harriet Harman (double ughh) have their unrepresentative views and experiences inflated out of all proportion by the Anglo-American media.

In itself, this is problem enough, but the fallout from these delusions is socially catastrophic. While elite women can afford an army of professional childminders to accommodate their careers, underclass women (indeed, most women) cannot. This has fed the growth of a Welfare dependent underclass, where single women feel that pumping out child after child is economically preferable to work (which for them, it is). In this scenario, the male is increasingly marginalized as a luckless sperm-doner to be discarded like some poor mantis after his reproductive duties are discharged. As Daniel Amneus has shown, this has resulted in the Garbage Generation: our slack-minded, idle underclass. Children reared without fathers are far more prone to crime, mental illness and a host of other maladies, yet western governments persist in actively promoting such matriarchal families.

Of course, in an elite context, even the matriarchal family will avoid most of these problems. This is because affluence cocoons the growing child in liberal neo-Christianity, rationale, empathy and altruism. An elite child can deconstruct and contextualize the snarling anti-Semitism and misanthropy of rap music, for instance. However, a child without culture, wealth or prior contact with neo-Christian liberalism lacks this distancing facility; for them, such cultural artifacts form an immutable statement. There are many more examples of this: video games, violent movies, pornography and drug use. Ultimately, in all these cases it is absurd to assume that an underclass child will approach these cultural artifacts/experiences as would an elite child already imbued with humane values as part of its primary socialization. In short, the delusion that elite values can be effortlessly transplanted into an underclass context without serious social malfunction is at the root of our present social crisis. Unfortunately, this delusion is also at the root of Anglo-American feminism.

The article below raises questions about the glib elite assumption that all women yearn to work. My own analysis in the foregoing paragraphs explains the all-important class context underlying these issues.

Women do not want highpowered careers and find more fulfilment in motherhood than work, a prominent liberal commentator said yesterday. Millions have been left frustrated and miserable by Government policies that push them into jobs and their children into nurseries, Cristina Odone said.

She backed her argument with a poll that showed fewer than one in eight mothers want to work full-time and that only one in a hundred mothers in two-parent working families with young children think it is right for them to have a full-time job. The research found women feel bombarded by images of 'superwomen who manage everything, plus a high-profile career', when many just wanted to be stay-at-home mothers with their husbands taking the role of breadwinner.

The call for a reversal of the march of women into work came from a former deputy editor of the New Labour house magazine, the New Statesman, and editor-of the Catholic Herald. Miss Odone condemned her feminist colleagues in media and politics as a 'small, influential and unrepresentative coterie' who assume that women must achieve self-realisation through work.

She added: 'We need to break the stranglehold that the small coterie of women, who work full-time and buy into the macho way of life, enjoy on our public life. They have for years misrepresented real women who reject the masculine value system for one that rates caring above a career and interdependence above independence.

'Real women do not want to commit full-time to a job. The future belongs to the real woman, who points to a lifestyle embracing feminine values. Let's hope this government, or the next, is brave enough to heed her call.'

The attack, published by the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies in a pamphlet titled What Women Want, comes against a background of growing political pressure on mothers to go out to work and on companies to ensure women staff are offered flexible hours and better pay.

Ministers have redoubled efforts to persuade mothers to take jobs in the face of evidence that a big majority of the poorest families are two-parent families in which only the father works. Labour (British Democrats) leaders believe they can never hit their targets for reducing child poverty unless more mothers go out to work. Ministers have redoubled efforts to persuade mothers to take jobs in the face of evidence that a big majority of the poorest families are two-parent families in which only the father works.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the British NAACP), headed by Trevor Phillips, and equal pay pressure groups, say that mothers are often anxious to go back to work but are pressured into a caring role by lack of opportunities for flexible hours, lack of affordable daycare, and the reluctance of male partners to take over a share of the childcare.

As a riposte, yesterday's report produced a YouGov poll which showed that only 12 per cent of mothers wanted to work full-time and nearly a third, 31 per cent, did not want to work at all. In families where there were two children under five and the father worked, one per cent of mothers said it was right to work full-time and nearly half, 49 per cent, thought a mother should not work at all. Official figures show that 57 per cent of mothers of children under five work either full- or part-time.

The findings, taken from two separate YouGov polls taken in February and March among 2,270 and 2,420 adults, said disaffection with paid work was not confined to mothers.
They indicated that 19 per cent of all women, nearly one in five, said they wouldn't work if they didn't have to.

Miss Odone called for an end to state support for child daycare which has over the last ten years topped £21billion. Some of the money could be spent on marriage support services and pointing out to women the dangers of unmarried cohabitation. She said the tax and benefit system that treats single parents much more generously than couples with children should be reformed, and regulation and red tape should be cut to open up more part-time jobs of the kind most attractive to mothers. She called for a 'cultural shift' to 'stop forcing women into a mould'.

ChavShit: The Edlington Outrage, our Feral Underclass & the Rise of the Single Mother

Most of my readers are North Americans, and I welcome this. After all, the USA is the dominant country in the Anglosphere and educating Americans about the over-policed, politically correct, welfare-dependent, chav-infested nightmare that is contemporary Britain is thus an important task. The outrage outlined below is taken from The Times (London). Clearly, the rise of the dysfunctional single mother on long-term benefit dependence is directly implicated in incidents like these. The 36 year-old mother of the two vile Yahoos described below had only this to say of their sickening crimes: “It’s got nowt to do with me. They weren’t even in my care.”

Maybe they weren't, but they certainly were for most of their ragged lives. It is self-evident that Anglo-American feminism is directly responsible for outrages like this. Obviously, as Professor Daniel Amneus has shown, a father's absence from the family unit has a variety of negative effects on his children's well-being, including a heightened risk of delinquency. However, the fact that Anglo-Saxon culture sets women atop pedestals has allowed irresponsible sows like this to pump out child after dysfunctional child without censure or rebuke. Now, Britain is beset by a feral army of murderous parasites, stealing and leeching their way from cradle to grave. The popular international image of Britain as a land of gracious manners, social decorum and quaint, old-world charm is effectively meaningless - a fossilized perception from a lost age.

Sixties feminism began the slippery slide, a deranged Pickett's Charge towards mass delinquency and social dysfunction. When the feminist agenda of rights-without-responsibilities reached the broad female masses in the mid-Eighties, its impact cohered perfectly with the rise of long-term unemployment in British working class communities wasted by Thatcherite policies. This gave underclass women carte blanch to start families without fathers; indeed, they were rewarded for doing so. The more dysfunctional children they produced, the more benefits they received - so the more children they produced. By contrast, decent and industrious people were actively penalized for trying to live reasonably. Aside from the dysgenic effects of such a policy, it made lifetime welfare-dependence a normal aspiration among underclass females - a 'right' that can no longer be challenged. As ever, our hands are bound by Anglo-American feminism and its tired, destructive mantra: women can do no wrong, women can do no wrong...

It will be noted that her horde of brutalized children were born to a number of different fathers, as is now usual among the British underclass. At the time of the offence, the boys' father - 'a violent drunk' - was newly separated from his partner. None of these males was remotely capable of adopting normal paternal responsibilities. Of course, when female mate-choice is unfettered from the stabilizing hand of patriarchy, the Stone Age is never far away. Women by nature prefer polyandrous 'line marriages' to shiftless, sociopathic misfits; and if this trend is allowed to continue unabated, the West looks surely doomed.


On a steeply sloping stretch of abandoned wasteland near Edlington two brothers decided to torture two children to within an inch of their lives.

The brothers, aged 10 and 11, had played the same game the week before. They had kicked and punched an 11-year-old boy, stamped on his head and then, picking up a brick and pinning him against a tree, had asked if he wanted to die. The boy fled when the brothers were interrupted by a passer-by, but there was to be no lucky escape on Saturday, April 4.

That day the brothers chose a more isolated spot for their attack. To reach it they turned their backs on the South Yorkshire village and passed along a narrow track before hurdling a ditch to reach open land. They went downhill through the long grass, negotiating ferns, thistles and brambles en route to a winding, wooded stream. Far in the distance came the screams, yells and laughter of children at play on the recreation ground.

The victims were two children, best friends aged 9 and 11. They lured them to a flooded former quarry known as the Brick Pond with the promise of showing them a fox. When the boys got there, the attack began. The brothers beat them, sexually humiliated them, burnt them with cigarettes and hit them with bricks and sharpened sticks. They told them that they were going to kill them.

One brother was reported to have filmed parts of the attack on a mobile phone stolen from the younger victim. The brothers were also reported to have danced around at one stage chanting: “We’re going to prison! We’re going to prison!”

When they had finished torturing the boys, the brothers left to help their father to build a shed at local allotments. They were arrested there after the youngest boy was found wandering the streets, barefoot and dazed. The man who spotted him had thought initially that he had been covered in red paint. Only when he took a closer look did he see that the boy was saturated with blood.

As the man and his wife cared for the boy, their son went out to the Brick Pond to search for the boy’s friend. He found him unconscious in a small ravine where a rail line had once run, half-submerged in water and naked from the waist down. The boy had a deep wound in the back of his head, caused by a broken sink being smashed down upon him.

An air ambulance crew took more than an hour to stabilise the boy before he could be moved. Both boys were taken to hospital; the elder, in a critical condition, spent two days on a ventilator in intensive care.

The father of the 11-year-old victim said last night that if his son had been left for half an hour more it would have been too late. He said that his son had been strangled with barbed wire and looked like something out of a horror film. “He had holes all over his head, cuts and gashes to his throat — everywhere. He was cut from his head to his feet. At first, he could not see. He was blinded from where they had smashed him so much and stamping on his face.” He said that his son had been forced to eat glass and had told him: “I just couldn’t swallow it.”

Three days after the attack the brothers were charged with attempted murder. Usually caked in dirt and grime and wearing tattered clothing, the pair were washed and scrubbed for their appearance at a youth court in Doncaster. One wore a red England football shirt, the other a grey Umbro T-shirt. The younger boy was so small that he could barely see over the dock.

As the narrative proceeded, journalists who had covered vile criminal cases for decades stopped taking notes because their hands were shaking too much. A court usher started to cry. Others turned pale. No one had heard the like of it.

The brothers took their victims to a mound of timber, described as a den, which was hidden from public view and beat them. They then moved them to the foot of a 15ft ravine and inflicted hideous injuries on them. They robbed the boys of a mobile phone and £4, beat them with sticks and forced them to kiss each other, to commit sex acts on each other and then to urinate in each other’s mouths. They burnt the younger boy’s ears and eyelids with cigarettes and threw rocks and bricks at him. They forced him to eat nettles and stamped on his face and groin.

Afterwards one of the brothers broke a branch from a tree and drove the sharpened end into the boy’s arm, penetrating to the bone. A lit cigarette was then pushed into the open wound. Finally, the brothers announced that they were supposed to go to meet their father, but could not leave yet as they had not killed the boys, who would be able to identify them to the police. They told the younger boy that they would strangle him but then said that he should go away and kill himself. The boy picked up the sharpened stick that had been used to injure him and tried to ram it down his own throat.

He was the lucky one. His friend suffered much worse and pleaded to the brothers: “Leave me. I can’t see. Leave me to die.” At which the brothers picked up an abandoned sink and dropped it on the back of his head. He was left for dead, unconscious and with ligature marks around his neck. A noose was later recovered nearby.


Theirs was a tough, abusive childhood. They were from a dysfunctional family of seven brothers and stepbrothers aged from 8 to 19. Home was on a former council estate in a north Doncaster suburb. It was a family whose 36-year-old matriarch, approached after her sons’ arrest for attempted murder, felt able to yell through her letterbox: “It’s got nowt to do with me. They weren’t even in my care.”

The pair had been in her care, for what that was worth, throughout their lives until, 25 days before the attack, they were taken away by social services and placed with a foster family seven miles away in Edlington.

One former neighbour said that the mother’s life was so dominated by alcohol and cannabis that she “just doesn’t give a s***” about her children, while her partner was described as “a violent drunk”.

A neighbour said: “She never cooked a meal for them. They just scavenged for food or ate fish and chips and stuff.” A local teenager recalled: “Every day I saw them they were scruffier. Their fingernails were always black. Their shoes were too big for them. They used to scavenge trainers and tracky bottoms from skips. When it rained they’d go to a sports shop and steal umbrellas.”

By February this year the elder of the two had appeared before the courts on four separate occasions for violence, common assault and battery, for which he received a 12-month supervision order in January. The same month his brother was reprimanded for common assault and assault causing actual bodily harm. When the attack happened in April, he was already on bail for two assaults and a burglary.

The two victims appear to be making a remarkable recovery. Though traumatised by their ordeal, they can smile and laugh; they are playing outside again. To them and to their traumatised families, both South Yorkshire Police and Doncaster social services owe an explanation. Could and should they have intervened sooner to end the brothers’ lawless rampage?

And there were have it - the sterling results of Welfare-dependent underclass matriarchy. What music they make! But it behoves us to ask what lessons we can draw from the atrocity above.

The specific British problem is that it has a US-type economy, wherein elites reinforce their already entrenched privileges generation after generation. This creates a vast, alienated underclass with no hope of social mobility and little stake in mainstream society. However, because Britain retains a broadly European social outlook, it deals with these Americanized malcontents with a lax, European approach; and the feral underclass views this as a mark of weakness, not any kind of deterrent. Thus, caught between American economic policy and European social policy, the UK promotes the growth of its dangerous underclass like no other country on Earth. If things continue in this conflicted groove, Britain will soon be demographically dominated by a vast, indigenous underclass and a growing core of Islamic malcontents. After all, in Britain white middle class emigration is at an all time high (200 000 a year), an irreversible drain of brains and talent.

The die is cast; you must leave now, while you still can.

Chavs, Hogarth & Turbo-Capitalism: The Anglobitch Debate Considered

What are the broad findings of the preceding debate? How can it redefine the Anglobitch Thesis?

To sum up, Turbo capitalism and feminism have combined with certain traditional Anglo-Saxon values to produce an increasingly dysfunctional and unstable Anglosphere. The traditional Anglo features – repression, class distinction, subculturalism, chivalry, male exclusion – only became lethal when Anglo feminism and Turbo-capitalism arose (like the different chemicals comprising a lethal injection). The following list tries to unravel and expand these ramifications:

• Anglo cult of novelty and progress, eroding traditional wisdom and institutions for sociopathic ‘Me-Ism’ (see Coupland’s Generation X)
• Anglo cult of objectivity (pragmatism in the US, empiricism in the UK) leading to lack of self-awareness among the Anglo-American elites, an abridged sense of the ‘other’ and little will or capacity for remedial action
• The Internet – more damaging to Angloculture than most others due to limited social bonds, subcultural values and lack of common experience
• Imbalance of Anglo culture in favour of Reason (William Blake’s Urizen), to the neglect of emotional, spiritual and social factors
• Anglo puritanism and repression – creates sense of entitlement among Anglo-American women and adverserial gender-relations
• Being more recent than, say, Scandinavian feminism, Anglo feminism is still relatively undeveloped so Anglo women have acquired rights while retaining privileges
• Internationalist, internet-led ‘turbo-capitalism’ that weakens participative democracy, promotes unrealistic ‘celebrity standards’, creates a chav underclass, widens socio-economic divides and promotes mass immigration to do Gamma jobs indigents cannot afford to take
• The Anglo-Saxon class system, that values birth class more than secondary social factors, links class to gender relations and promotes social subcultures (Bourdieu’s ‘class fractions’)
• Anglo social inequality promotes alienation and self-exclusion among Beta and Gamma males, leading to higher crime rates, more risk-taking behaviour (the gangsta cult) and violence towards women.

One of the most interesting observations is that when men have no genetic stake in a given society (a mate and children, or reasonable hope of them) they simply have no reason to be pleasant (let alone chivalrous) towards women. I found a good example of this on my own YouTube channel; viewers had limited interest in my conceptual Anglobitch shows, great interest in a white girl being beaten to a pulp by a Hispanic (80% of the viewers prefer the beatdown). I doubt this would be the case even twenty years ago; now, there are far more single men viewing women through disinterested (or even hostile) eyes. Where this will end, I cannot guess.

Although the Anglosphere is beset by a wide variety of problems - social closure, economic 'Brazilification', political corruption and widespread alienation, it is obvious that most of these problems can be traced to worsening gender relations. For example, the burgeoning 'chav'/guido underclass is the product of single-mother led, Welfare-dependent post-feminist families. In addition, underclass males without prospects or resources will inevitably resort to crime and violence in order to attract a mate, since no other options are available to them. Male alienation, rising crime rates, dysgenic breeding habits and declining national IQs can all be traced to the rise of Anglobitch feminism and non-regulation of female sexual instincts. As Robert Wright of Harvard opines, a society with high percentages of single men will soon cease to be viable. Anglo-American feminists are single-handedly responsible for this far-reaching social crisis - no other culprit fits the bill so perfectly.

I, Rookh Kshatriya, have always assumed that the Anglosphere could be saved if Anglo-American feminism could be caged and its dysfunctional, atavistic impact reversed. I am now beginning to question that – perhaps the Anglosphere is doomed. Too many essential Anglo-American social mechanisms seem to be broken beyond repair.

Chavs and Anglobitches: Anglo Feminism and the Anglo-American Male Crisis

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent – Isaac Asimov

Aaron Kipnis shows how the United States has the highest rate of boys and young men incarcerated in juvenile halls, jails, boot camps, mental hospitals, recovery hospitals and adult prisons compared to any other nation (Kipnis, 2002). Unfortunately, Kipnis, a psychologist wastes large amounts of ink on a ‘psychological’ explanation. Not that there is anything amiss about the causes he lists: ineffectual and irrelevant education; father absence; sexual and emotional abuse, not least by women; poverty and economic exclusion; spiritual poverty; lack of positive role models; anti-male bias in the media; anti-boy bias in schools; the list is virtually endless.

But all of these ‘psychological’ factors only can be explained by cultural and social forces. In an open question to Dr Kipnis, we ask: why are you begging the question? The cause of these iniquities is easily identified: Anglo-Saxon culture! Why else would Anglo-Saxon countries find it hardest to integrate males? It must be that Anglo-Saxon culture embodies values that ostracise, damage and exclude men: for the only difference between Anglo-Saxon countries and the rest of the advanced world is culture itself.

A Brace of British Chavs:

The other Anglo Saxon countries, notably Britain, have similar problems with males: for instance, Britain incarcerates more young men than any European country (Riddell, 2006). Indeed, the public misbehaviour of feral 'chavs' (moronic underclass youths) is rapidly becoming a national crisis. Now, if England and America had a diet of peanut butter-and-jello sandwiches, and young males habitually ate such sandwiches, before long every half-baked ‘expert’ under the sun would be shouting: “Peanut butter-and-jello sandwiches are pushing our young men off the rails!” But, amazingly, the true distinguishing feature – namely a puritanical culture that ostracises men as sexualised beings – is never mentioned at all.

Isn't She Lovely? The New Breed of Anglobitch:

Again, why do women flourish in Anglo-American countries in a manner unthinkable anywhere else in the world? Why are there hundreds of courses in women’s studies in universities across England and America, and not a single comparable course in men’s studies? Again, the answer is simple: Anglo-Saxon culture. Because it is puritanical, it automatically places women on pedestals of existential supremacy, since they possess sex in a repressive social context. Consequently, Anglo-American media, politics and education reflexively lionise women, while offhandedly vilifying men as child abusers, morons and cannon fodder. And then the authorities querulously wonder why men are in revolt! Or why young Anglo-Saxon males are confused, hobbled with low self-esteem; or why they are increasingly a danger to themselves and others, suicidal or blowing away their teachers and classmates in high school. The answer is obvious, not elusive: culture, culture, culture!

The Fall-out from Anglobitch Feminism: