The Backlash to the War Against Boys
When elites try to impose feminism on ordinary people, do they become more or less receptive to it?
In a 2022 paper, Brian Wheaton of UCLA found that they become much less receptive. He studied “Equal Rights Amendments”—changes to US state constitutions that explicitly mandate gender equality. Comparing changes in gender attitudes in states that did and didn’t pass such amendments, he found that Americans became less supportive of gender equality when such amendments were passed.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I am surprised by those figures. I am not sure that people are answering the same question I would be answering. I absolutely think that the answer to both those questions is an unequivocal yes*. Surely you pay people according to what they produce and what they are worth to you, and you employ people according to whether you think they can do the job? What you absolutely will not get is equal outcomes, which is I suspect the question that people were thinking about when answering. But I might be wrong.
*What I am less sure about is the extent to which this should be mandated in law, as I tend these days to think employers should be free to employ people or not on a whim. Employers that do this instead of employing the best people will probably not do that well. But I am slightly unsure on this. I think it’s pretty dumb to have blanket discrimination, on the other hand trying to mandate this kind of stuff leads us to the awful position we are in now.
I think it’s entirely pointless to mandate this in law. One can never really tell why someone made a certain decision and didn’t make another decision. Eliminating discrimination by paper decree is simply impossible and hence, it shouldn’t be tried. We shouldn’t have feelgood laws whose sole purpose is to make people feel good about them (or themselves for introducing them). The world is complicated enough already. It shouldn’t be made even more complicated for no real purpose.
Men and women should be regarded as equals in front of the law, ie, have the same rights and responsibilites. That’s IMHO the best which can realistically achieved.
I tend to agree
Agreed. There really is no need to over think or over complicate the issue. It should always be equal rights, equal opportunities and equal value for all, regardless of one’s protected characteristics. And as I’ve said numerous times now, this should be based on one set entry criteria necessary for a specific job or course application, which would always mean you get the best person for the job and nobody gets to complain about being discriminated against. Human nature and our own preferences and abilities take care of the rest. People should just be left well alone to do what we’ve always done, with zero manipulation ( e.g DEI targets ) or outside interference.
If you are safely ensconced in sheltered employment and you think that you can see employees being underpaid, the only response is to start up your own business and employ them at a higher rate. 🙂
I am reminded of the recent pay increases to the public sector, handed out for being so virtuous rather than being more productive, by the current government.
Eventually the result of these policies is resentment. And resentment is an extremely powerful force: arguably Cain killed Abel out of resentment.
On the basis that “from their fruits you will know them”, which can also be translated to “if you want to know people’s true motives, look at the results of their actions “, I wonder if the covert force behind all the modern grievance is just resentment and a desire for destruction.
Because if feminism had truly worked, all the girls and women in western societies would by now be happy, we’ll adjusted, healthy individuals. Instead we have an epidemic of mental illness.
Likewise, if racial equality policies had really worked, nobody would care about people’s skin colour. Instead we suspect hidden racism in the most innocent phases (blackout).
If multiculturalism had worked, our cities would not increasingly resemble battle zones with no-go areas for certain sections of society.
And I could go on. But yes, ultimately, look at the fruits of all these progressive policies and ask yourself: what has happened to Britain? Are we happier, safer, more content or not? What has any of these policies achieved? What hidden forces drive them?
I think it just demonstrates that the ‘elites’, or however you wish to refer to those all-powerful social engineers ( in plain sight and behind the ‘curtain’ ) that mold and run society ( ‘Lefty woketards’? ), are succeeding in their mission to cause division, ”divide and conquer” being a strategy as old as time. And isn’t modern feminism very much a Leftist ideology now, as it’s morphed into something quite different to what it started out as? So clearly this will alienate many: men, for obvious reasons, and women that don’t identify with what this hostile agenda stands for. All agendas being pushed by the Leftards are intended to sow division, social unrest and bad feeling, though. Unity and solidarity really are the kryptonite equivalent for these treacherous people who demonstrably are not operating with our best interests at heart. And it *always* begins within the education system because kids are the ultimate soft targets.
“All agendas being pushed by the Leftards are intended to sow division, social unrest and bad feeling, though.”
Exactly.
We need to recognize that their real aim is the polar opposite of their advertised aim.
When they say “diversity”, it means ideological uniformity and conformity.
“Equality” means discrimination against white people and men.
” Inclusion” means exclusion of certain groups of people.
In other words, they lie.
Orwell saw this very clearly: in 1984 all the government institutions act in exact opposite of their names: the ministry of peace keeps the country in permanent war, the ministry of truth creates proposals, the ministry of love tortures people, etc.
They even change the definition of ‘democracy’ ( see Germany for a prime example ) because in topsy-turvy Clown World, if facts or reality don’t support your agenda then just change ‘reality’, which is effectively what they’re doing. As you say, it’s all about opposites. Men can be women, so redefine the word ‘woman’. Lunacy! The scamdemic provided further examples of this, where ‘TPTB’ sneakily changed the definition of ‘pandemic’ and ‘immunity’, for instance.
They clearly want us at odds and warring with each other because this serves their purposes like nothing else. Obviously I’m not expecting world peace but just the return of rationality would suffice.
Good point.
In Germany, democracy now means that the population are only allowed to vote for the approved parties.
In order to protect “democracy”, any party deviating from the prescribed narrative must be banned, especially if they enjoy popular support.
In Germany, democracy now means that the population are only allowed to vote for the approved parties.
Nothing new here. The respective clauses have been part of the German Fundamental Law since its conception in 1949 and it’s very likely that the allied military commanders who ruled Germany at that time insisted on such provisions. That’s the definition of ‘democracy’ deemed appropriate for Germans by those who conquered their state.
The country is only going back to the decades before 1990, in the Eastern sector of the country.
Probably not known by people who don’t follow German news: The AfD filed a lawsuit¹ against the BfV and the Verfassungschutz immediately ‘temporarily’ withdrew the assuredly right-wing extremist classification to avoid an injunction ordering it to do so. That’s another strong hint that this was mainly a political stunt of the former SPD home secretary.
¹ To be expected, as the party has many good lawyers in its ranks and the justification was beyond flimsy. But this still means the procedure is fundamentally fubared: The victim could as well have been a person or organisation who/ which couldn’t have accessed legal redress that easily.
Thanks for this info
I wonder is the WOKE, Trans, DEI programmes have been deliberately designed to have the opposite effect, to turn Men against Women, to turn White against Black.We must know by now that we are in a world infiltrated by Misogynists and Misanthropes who especially despise the West and its indigenous people. Instead of using Bullets and bombs they have taken control of our institutions and used them to spread their poison.
This evidenced by the shift in support of young men and teens (all races) in the US to Donald Trump in his recent election campaign and now that the US military has ditched its DEI nonsense a surge in male recruits.
1) “a woman should have the same job opportunities as a man” 2) “men and women should be paid the same money if they do the same work” There are flaws in these statement because they are dreamt up by people who have never run a business or apparently never seen a man or a woman, but do like to make choices for others. 1) Women have wombs and therefore have children, look after families. For this reason alone they cannot have the same job opportunities as men. Women typically drop in and out of work so do not build the same skill and experience levels as men – or indeed other women who do not raise families. Additionally women are psychologically/emotioally/physically different from men. 95% of nurses are women, only 5% of engineers are women. Women dominate primary teaching, they don’t dominate working on bin lorries or working on oil rigs. Women don’t necessarily want the same job opportunities. 2) There are some jobs, low skill which are not worth high wages. These jobs typically do not attract men because of the pay level, but do attract women who are not primary wage earners in the household, prefer part-time,… Read more »
Well you have interpreted the questions differently to me. I suspect your interpretation is the one that was in most people’s minds when they answered the survey question to give the results shown.
I think pretty much everything you say I agree with, but I didn’t read the question like that. I just took the plain meaning of “opportunity” and “equal pay for equal work”. I see nothing to object to in either of those regards. Best person for the job based on their qualities not their sex, pay people for what they produce regardless of sex.
Nothing causes confusion and unrest more than sloppy questions.
Yes, and one odd thing that feminists never mention when they’re loudly proclaiming that they “don’t need men” is that it is the MEN, not the women, who determine the sex of the child.
As you know, all the eggs of human females contain only the female X chromosome. All.
It is the human male sperm that determines the sex of the child, by contributing either another X chromosome to produce a girl, or a Y chromosome to produce a boy.
Two lesbians can never claim to have produced a male child, regardless of one pretending to be male. Just as two blond parents can never produce anything but blond children.
People didn’t know this centuries ago, as when Henry VIII blamed and murdered his wife Anne Boleyn for “not giving him a boy”. It was Henry who didn’t give her a boy.
Considering that I have a sister and a brother but certainly only one father, this seems too simplistic
WHAT ???!!! How can you imply such an idiotic thing, you numbskull !
OF COURSE all men can father male and female children !!!
It’s just a matter of which sperm, X or Y, manages to fertilize the FEMALE X EGG first.
If the father’s X sperm gets in first, then the child is a Female with XX chromosomes. If the father’s Y sperm gets in first, then the child is a Male with XY chromosomes.
It is the FATHER that determines the sex of the child.
The mother CANNOT.
Take time out from reading about the Peloponnesian War to brush up on basic biology, will you? 🙁