The Politics Of Feminism

As someone who grew up in the 80’s, in a family where my Mum was just as influential as my Dad on matters of the home and matters out of the home, I often ask what is it with this aggressive form of feminism now eating at every facet of society?

There was probably a healthy form of feminism  in the 1920’s. The Flappers of the 1920’s.

A sense of social liberation, having fun, partying, having to take the risks that come with going wild in a multi-gender society. They embraced the freedom of falling in love with the opposite sex without feeling that the act itself is shackling. Arguably men have been allowed to go wild to the envy of their female counterparts but we also consider that men also had the responsibility of defending the nation. In the First World War, 6 million men took part and over 700,000 were killed. It can be argued that the surge of feminism in the 1920’s was as a direct result of the ‘surplus women’ idea. There were 2 million more women than men by 1921. Whether this was the result of feminism in those days, is not what we are talking about, the reality is that women were becoming risk takers and acknowledging that life comes with risks in the absence of the male husband.

Today’s modern feminism is immature, centers itself by diminishing male importance in society and relies heavily on influencing state institutions to support this agenda. As Steve Biddulph points out in his amazing book, Manhood. 


That boys are being failed by schools and now solidly lag behind girls. Female teachers dominate schools and label over active boys as disruptive and quickly throw them into segregation rather than engage them. This modern feminism so perverse aims to demonize children that are innocent and full of raw human emotion. Today’s feminism redirects desire from male to female to female to female; a female starer is an admirer and a male starer is a pervert. The male gaze that was once welcomed is now reduced to simple perversion. While some mature strong female personalities don’t hold to these views, the vast majority of younger women are growing up with these ideas. See

21st century feminism has invaded our schools, institutions, government and homes. Divorces are the highest they have ever been, for the first time the institution of marriage is under threat and would likely not survive into the 22nd century. Men in marriages and relationships are considered “walking wallets“. In contrast to the feminism in the 1920’s, modern feminism attempts to completely eradicate inter gender crime and simply refuses to acknowledge crime is crime. A man attacks a woman for her purse, it has to be assault rather than a robbery. A woman attacks a man, he must have done something wrong. This is a viral youtube video of a beautiful lady assaulting strange men for comedy. I’ll let you decide if this is sexual harassment or not. Why are we not having this debate?

It is no wonder, the extremists in our midst are openly attacking women. Donald Trump as a high profile example. The immaturity of modern feminism continues to shape our basic interactions and continues to blur the lines of what is acceptable in interaction and not.


Women need to be more practical and accept that the world has moved on. Women in the western world can have the same jobs, today they make up 52% of the workforce. They can own property, even marry each other. It is time men are allowed to be men and boys are allowed to be boys.

This means men will admire women from afar and stare. Boys will want to play outside and shun the female styled classroom activity, classrooms need strong male role models beyond the PE teacher.

Sexual harassment should be a closely monitored word. Women who falsely accuse people of this act must suffer long jail sentences. The rules around child custody have to change, the initiation of divorce must be closely monitored and rules around dividing assets should not be just one way, women today can command a lot of wealth. It still matters what the circumstances of a divorce are. Men are also victims of entrapment.

Feminism should not be extended to institutions. Meritocratic ideas is the way forward.





Is Hinkley Point C The Right Choice?



It is handy to open with the thought of Fukushima and Chernobyl, both disasters. Chernobyl saw the fallout kill sheep in Cumbria. The point is Nuclear power is dangerous and in a disaster could cost lives as we have seen in the past and present. The disturbing thing for me is, the government is making long-term plans to keep the UK on nuclear power despite the obvious global push towards renewable energy, which is becoming more mainstream and cheaper than nuclear power. So the question remains, why is the government getting cosy with EDF and its Chinese backers?

Image result for fukushima

EDF runs 8 nuclear plants in the UK, 4 were shut down in 2014 as a result of safety and functional issues, in France EDF has major issues, from faulty reactor parts to outages. Full story

So this is a firm with a bad track record in managing nuclear power, in reality a troubled organisation. The May government clearly can’t see what is plain, the UK’s nuclear story is a disaster. The Chinese partners are looking to build new plants in Sizewell and Bradwell, investing in Hinkley just paves the way. No disrespect but do we really want China managing our nuclear power stations? I know what my answer is. Is it that we are so desperate to deal with China that sense has exited the building? First it was steel that cost 8,000 jobs, now nuclear power. While some will sight the upside of 20,000 new jobs created but EDF has a history of cutting new jobs created to save cost of managing, so I am doubtful of the long-term benefit. The EU has already sighted safety concerns for the continent and demanded they be consulted on future projects, which the UK government has agreed.

Let’s look at the cost to the tax payer. Power would be supplied at £92.50/MWh over 35 years, double the current wholesale price. There is also inadequate insurance liability, meaning the tax payer would likely cover the shortfall in the event of accidents that will occur not to mention the £10m loan guarantee. Hinkley is a bad deal, a desperate bid by EDF to boost its already tarnished image at the expense of the UK consumer.

So why is the UK not looking at renewable, seeing nuclear accounts for 10% of power supply? On-shore wind comes in incredibly cheaper than nuclear and there is a lot of innovation in renewable energy, it is unfair to commit the country to a very expensive deal that benefits only China and EDF for 35 years without us knowing the future. See article on renewable’s

Let’s face it, this could be the disaster of the 21st century, Hinkley has resumed development after delays based on court decisions in France against some of EDF’s failing plants amidst safety concerns. It is time we all asked the question… Do we want a Chernobyl?