Do not write about women’s bodies or their sexuality until you’ve been writing and reading feminism long enough to understand that women will never care what you have to say in this area, apart from drawing their attention to the informed writings on this subject by other women. So said Garland Grey, one of the many people who called my old blog out. For those of you who are unaware, I ran a ‘male feminism’ blog for a period of about a year. Now I have come to tell you not only that I am not a male feminist, but that no one is. That’s right I said it, from the mouth of the former Lighthouse himself: there is no such thing as a male feminist. When I learnt about patriarchy, and my complicity in its continuation, I wanted to help solve it. I hated it so much I took on the voice of oppressed genders, deciding that my frustration at the injustice mattered equally to theirs. Perhaps most tellingly, I felt this was my struggle. I thought our struggle was the same, because everything that angered feminists angered me too. But it was not and is not my struggle. To struggle is to be on the defensive against an onslaught of heartfelt oppression. One of my privileges as a man is the ability to step back and stop thinking about it, because oppression isn’t my daily routine. I am not constantly reminded of unavoidable characteristics that hold me back in this terrible society. In the words of this Michael Kimmel quote, I am invisible. Perhaps the most important post on this subject is “can we stop using the term ally?” by Radical Masculinity’s Gauge. Much of my objections to the term Male Feminism are contained therein. The point I seek to make is that Male Feminism builds an identity on the oppression of others. Rather than being a reaction to experienced oppression, it is a decision to cease oppressing others. In essence, it is based upon the supposedly praiseworthy quality of being a decent human being. I continue to be involved in the movement. I was even elected Campaigns Officer of my university’s Gender Equality Society for next year. The difference between my former identification as a male feminist and my current activism is that now I am merely helping feminists out. Our president will be a woman, as will almost all of the committee. The society is led by women, run by women, and controlled by women. I bring only my enthusiasm, knowledge and IT skills to the job. Oppressed experience I do not. I am just a man helping the feminists achieve their righteous goals. Though I agree wholeheartedly with everything they do, and though my thoughts and ideals may be considered feminist, this is not my identity. My identity is as a privileged person who seeks desperately to mitigate that privilege, and sometimes that means refusing to take credit for the hard work of others. I am no special snowflake, I am no shining beacon, and I am no male feminist. Listen to the genders I oppress, read that essential post about allies, and see that though my realisation of the horrors of patriarchy can be considered useful, it is not in itself worthy of any support or reward. Two UK women are killed every week by a former or current partner. Now tell me who you think should be centred in this discussion.
View Separately

Do not write about women’s bodies or their sexuality until you’ve been writing and reading feminism long enough to understand that women will never care what you have to say in this area, apart from drawing their attention to the informed writings on this subject by other women.

So said Garland Grey, one of the many people who called my old blog out. For those of you who are unaware, I ran a ‘male feminism’ blog for a period of about a year. Now I have come to tell you not only that I am not a male feminist, but that no one is. That’s right I said it, from the mouth of the former Lighthouse himself: there is no such thing as a male feminist.

When I learnt about patriarchy, and my complicity in its continuation, I wanted to help solve it. I hated it so much I took on the voice of oppressed genders, deciding that my frustration at the injustice mattered equally to theirs. Perhaps most tellingly, I felt this was my struggle. I thought our struggle was the same, because everything that angered feminists angered me too.

But it was not and is not my struggle. To struggle is to be on the defensive against an onslaught of heartfelt oppression. One of my privileges as a man is the ability to step back and stop thinking about it, because oppression isn’t my daily routine. I am not constantly reminded of unavoidable characteristics that hold me back in this terrible society. In the words of this Michael Kimmel quote, I am invisible.

Perhaps the most important post on this subject is “can we stop using the term ally?” by Radical Masculinity’s Gauge. Much of my objections to the term Male Feminism are contained therein. The point I seek to make is that Male Feminism builds an identity on the oppression of others. Rather than being a reaction to experienced oppression, it is a decision to cease oppressing others.

In essence, it is based upon the supposedly praiseworthy quality of being a decent human being.

I continue to be involved in the movement. I was even elected Campaigns Officer of my university’s Gender Equality Society for next year. The difference between my former identification as a male feminist and my current activism is that now I am merely helping feminists out. Our president will be a woman, as will almost all of the committee. The society is led by women, run by women, and controlled by women. I bring only my enthusiasm, knowledge and IT skills to the job.

Oppressed experience I do not.

I am just a man helping the feminists achieve their righteous goals. Though I agree wholeheartedly with everything they do, and though my thoughts and ideals may be considered feminist, this is not my identity. My identity is as a privileged person who seeks desperately to mitigate that privilege, and sometimes that means refusing to take credit for the hard work of others. I am no special snowflake, I am no shining beacon, and I am no male feminist.

Listen to the genders I oppress, read that essential post about allies, and see that though my realisation of the horrors of patriarchy can be considered useful, it is not in itself worthy of any support or reward.

Two UK women are killed every week by a former or current partner.

Now tell me who you think should be centred in this discussion.

thedaysarenotfullenough:

Never underestimate sisterhood (NUS WOMENS CONFERENCE 11) (by htredrose)

SO CONFERENCE WAS SUPER PRODUCTIVE

WE CAME UP WITH THE NEW NUS WOMEN’S THEME TUNE AND EVERYTHING

Just saw this on Facebook and was going to ask if I could post it. Several of these legends are from my University.

SERIOUSLY.

AMAZING.

(via loveintheshadowsistheonlykind)

  • 40 Plays
  • Chants and Songs!Exeter Reclaim the Night

Here are my recordings from Exeter Reclaim the Night, the women’s safety march against rape culture. There’ll be a photo spam when images become available but until then, enjoy some radical, righteous ambience :)

TRANSCRIPT:

Chant: “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”

Andy: I hope they don’t interview me.

Me: They shouldn’t interview us, they should interview Caitlin. Caitlin knows everything. I’m writing an article about this [for the University paper].

Chant: “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”

Chant: “Hey (hey) Mister (mister) get your hands off my sister!”

Chant: “2-4-6-8 stop the violence, stop the rape!”

Chant: “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”

Chant: “Say it once! Say it again! No excuse for violent men!”

Chant: “Hey (hey) Ho (ho) sexual violence got to go!”

Song to the tune of When the Saints Go Marching in:

“Oh when we fight
Oh when we fight
Oh when we fight for women’s rights
We’re gonna start a revolution
Oh when we fight for women’s rights”

Me: We’re so incapable of going slowly, we just either stop or go fast…

Song outside strip club: “2-4-6-8, can’t you get a proper date?”

Megaphone: Turn around!

Lindsay: We get to do it again!

One of the reasons I didn’t chant much was that it needed to be women’s voices chanting, something which was also a success.

Well done to everyone involved in Reclaim the Night which, if you were there, was blatantly a massive success. Special thanks to Caitlin and the Reclaim the Night organising crew!

Feminism expects a man to be ethical, emotionally present, and accountable to his values in his actions with women — as well as with other men. Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so. -Michael S. Kimmel Men generally don’t identify as feminists. It isn’t cool to think about the patriarchy, to realise our male privilege, or to admit that women are nowhere near the liberation they set out to attain. Lads’ holidays are not the place to talk about the empowerment of women, the cruelty they suffer as the result of sexual harassment, or the stereotypes that holds them back in politics, the workplace and the home. There is no feminist news update on Page 3 of The Sun. In fact, Page 3 makes a joke of women’s intelligence. There is no defence of women’s issues by men in the media. In fact, journalists like Michael Buerk argue that feminism has gone to the point of oppressing men. Women’s rights are suspiciously absent from lad’s mags FHM, Nuts and Zoo. In fact, these magazines are often openly misogynistic. It isn’t a surprise, then, that men generally don’t identify as feminists. Despite apathy to the concept of feminism, many men believe in equality. They believe that women deserve equal rights to men, even when they’re unaware how much has been achieved so far. In our ignorance however, it is easy for us to speak without thinking, to think without listening, to listen without hearing. It is our habit to assume equality has been reached because we have not looked analytically at our society, considered the statistics that confirm feminist theory, or heard the experiences and injustices faced by women. And analysis is exactly what we should do. The feminist Andrea Dworkin once said “feminism is hated because women are hated.” Think about this for a moment. If inequality exists, but benefits the privileged party, would it not be said party’s ultimate corruption to cover up the inequality? To vilify feminism as something only for ‘man-hating lesbians’ is exactly what injustice needs: to turn us all away from the philosophy that can save us, bring us together, and ultimately connect us with our identities and passions. I have blogged on the topic for over a year now, and I am certainly far from understanding all the ways the genders need to be redefined. However, I confirmed that Feminism is Still Relevant in a video animation, I confirmed that Patriarchy is Not Behind Us in an infographic, and I continue to unearth the disastrous injustices through reading books such as Kat Banyard’s “The Equality Illusion” and Cordelia Fine’s “Delusions of Gender.” Stop accepting the status quo and start questioning yourself. What are your attitudes toward others? Have you ever experienced discrimination on the basis of gender? How do your male friends talk about gender? Do they recognise that patriarchy has always existed, and therefore see the present as the time to act against it? Or do they believe that inequality no longer exists, despite the evidence? I will always be here to support male feminists. I will always be here for the unconvinced, the skeptical and the plain ignorant. Everyone has to start somewhere, and as George Bernard Shaw once said, the one thing more dangerous than ignorance is false knowledge. Don’t fill your heads with the lies of feminism as an extremist group designed to create matriarchal rule, to ‘feminize’ men, or to steal away their children. That’s what the patriarchy WANTS YOU TO THINK. THINK FOR YOURSELVES. QUESTION PATRIARCHY. And to quote the feminist Gloria Steinem: “The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.” Click for more Lighthouse Feminism posts.
Pop-upView Separately
Feminism expects a man to be ethical, emotionally present, and accountable to his values in his actions with women — as well as with other men. Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so.

-Michael S. Kimmel

Men generally don’t identify as feminists. It isn’t cool to think about the patriarchy, to realise our male privilege, or to admit that women are nowhere near the liberation they set out to attain. Lads’ holidays are not the place to talk about the empowerment of women, the cruelty they suffer as the result of sexual harassment, or the stereotypes that holds them back in politics, the workplace and the home.

There is no feminist news update on Page 3 of The Sun. In fact, Page 3 makes a joke of women’s intelligence. There is no defence of women’s issues by men in the media. In fact, journalists like Michael Buerk argue that feminism has gone to the point of oppressing men. Women’s rights are suspiciously absent from lad’s mags FHM, Nuts and Zoo. In fact, these magazines are often openly misogynistic.

It isn’t a surprise, then, that men generally don’t identify as feminists.

Despite apathy to the concept of feminism, many men believe in equality. They believe that women deserve equal rights to men, even when they’re unaware how much has been achieved so far. In our ignorance however, it is easy for us to speak without thinking, to think without listening, to listen without hearing. It is our habit to assume equality has been reached because we have not looked analytically at our society, considered the statistics that confirm feminist theory, or heard the experiences and injustices faced by women.

And analysis is exactly what we should do.

The feminist Andrea Dworkin once said “feminism is hated because women are hated.” Think about this for a moment. If inequality exists, but benefits the privileged party, would it not be said party’s ultimate corruption to cover up the inequality? To vilify feminism as something only for ‘man-hating lesbians’ is exactly what injustice needs: to turn us all away from the philosophy that can save us, bring us together, and ultimately connect us with our identities and passions.

I have blogged on the topic for over a year now, and I am certainly far from understanding all the ways the genders need to be redefined. However, I confirmed that Feminism is Still Relevant in a video animation, I confirmed that Patriarchy is Not Behind Us in an infographic, and I continue to unearth the disastrous injustices through reading books such as Kat Banyard’s “The Equality Illusion” and Cordelia Fine’s “Delusions of Gender.”

Stop accepting the status quo and start questioning yourself. What are your attitudes toward others? Have you ever experienced discrimination on the basis of gender? How do your male friends talk about gender? Do they recognise that patriarchy has always existed, and therefore see the present as the time to act against it? Or do they believe that inequality no longer exists, despite the evidence?

I will always be here to support male feminists. I will always be here for the unconvinced, the skeptical and the plain ignorant. Everyone has to start somewhere, and as George Bernard Shaw once said, the one thing more dangerous than ignorance is false knowledge. Don’t fill your heads with the lies of feminism as an extremist group designed to create matriarchal rule, to ‘feminize’ men, or to steal away their children. That’s what the patriarchy WANTS YOU TO THINK.

THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

QUESTION PATRIARCHY.

And to quote the feminist Gloria Steinem:

“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”

Click for more Lighthouse Feminism posts.

Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does. This definition, which is taken from this article, is a fairly succinct view of the term ‘mainsplaining’. The article goes on to cite four ways in which the reader could be a mansplainer, including derailing, privilege-denying, othering and accusing others of misandry. The mansplainer is always right about women. Their disagreement with him is proof of their delusion, their hyper-sensitivity to sexism, and their inability to grasp the facts. It is possible for anyone to be ignorant and bigoted, of course. I have met women on the internet that genuinely despise the aims of feminism, and believe that it is harming men rather than creating an equal society. My reaction, perhaps wrongly, has been to try and educate them on their own experience, and why their experience is not one of individual choice but one of an overall culture of female passivity and subjugation. But only men can put their ignorance forward as fact in such a way that derails the oppression of women. What I should have done is to introduce them to the women who know. I have been guilty of all these things in the past. As I learn about male privilege, I learn that my approach in the past may have been mansplaining at times, often misunderstanding the significance of that privilege. Checking myself is an important task, but it cannot be done alone. I need to be called up, I need to be corrected, and most important of all, I need to listen. The worst mansplainery I have come across is that of friends who are not feminists. “My problem with feminism,” they say, “is that I believe in choice.” Of course, feminism is not about restricting what women do, forcing them to abandon conventional beauty and become androgynous and hairy. True mansplaining, it seems, is the act of telling women and feminists what feminism is about and why it is wrong. Ignorance about the nature of patriarchy is not something I wish to possess. I will continue to learn as much as I can, and pass that knowledge on in what I write. However, I will not claim to be an absolute source of knowledge. After all, I do not speak for women. I cannot claim to represent women. I represent only myself, my experiences are only my own, and I will continue to receive criticism with better knowledge of its source. I will also produce a manifesto to ensure that what I’m achieving here does not silence the voices of women, while helping to deconstruct patriarchy from my own perspective and experiences. I do not want to mansplain the issues women face, I do not want to derail the experiences of real oppressed people, and I want to be constantly reminded of the privilege I hold and how it prevents me from understanding the way it affects others. Click for more Lighthouse Feminism posts.
Pop-upView Separately

Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.

This definition, which is taken from this article, is a fairly succinct view of the term ‘mainsplaining’. The article goes on to cite four ways in which the reader could be a mansplainer, including derailing, privilege-denying, othering and accusing others of misandry. The mansplainer is always right about women. Their disagreement with him is proof of their delusion, their hyper-sensitivity to sexism, and their inability to grasp the facts.

It is possible for anyone to be ignorant and bigoted, of course. I have met women on the internet that genuinely despise the aims of feminism, and believe that it is harming men rather than creating an equal society. My reaction, perhaps wrongly, has been to try and educate them on their own experience, and why their experience is not one of individual choice but one of an overall culture of female passivity and subjugation. But only men can put their ignorance forward as fact in such a way that derails the oppression of women.

What I should have done is to introduce them to the women who know.

I have been guilty of all these things in the past. As I learn about male privilege, I learn that my approach in the past may have been mansplaining at times, often misunderstanding the significance of that privilege. Checking myself is an important task, but it cannot be done alone. I need to be called up, I need to be corrected, and most important of all, I need to listen.

The worst mansplainery I have come across is that of friends who are not feminists. “My problem with feminism,” they say, “is that I believe in choice.” Of course, feminism is not about restricting what women do, forcing them to abandon conventional beauty and become androgynous and hairy. True mansplaining, it seems, is the act of telling women and feminists what feminism is about and why it is wrong.

Ignorance about the nature of patriarchy is not something I wish to possess.

I will continue to learn as much as I can, and pass that knowledge on in what I write. However, I will not claim to be an absolute source of knowledge. After all, I do not speak for women. I cannot claim to represent women. I represent only myself, my experiences are only my own, and I will continue to receive criticism with better knowledge of its source.

I will also produce a manifesto to ensure that what I’m achieving here does not silence the voices of women, while helping to deconstruct patriarchy from my own perspective and experiences. I do not want to mansplain the issues women face, I do not want to derail the experiences of real oppressed people, and I want to be constantly reminded of the privilege I hold and how it prevents me from understanding the way it affects others.

Click for more Lighthouse Feminism posts.

Michael Buerk - What are Men For?

(Youtube title: Living in a Feminist, Man-Hating Matriarchy)

Part 5 of 5

Gender essentialism is the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that gender must possess. Therefore all things can be precisely defined or described. In this view, it follows that terms or words should have a single definition and meaning.

This part makes possibly the most gender essentialist claims about physiology as the controlling feature of behaviour.

Buerk: Where does this leave other traditional male virtues like reticience, like stoicism, like competition and aggression I spose…

Interviewee: I think it’s very good for us because men have been forced to subdue these very instinctive natural emotions. I mean it’s very difficult to predict what will happen in 100 years. I cannot believe that it’s normal to remove one completely natural instinct in a man. And I can’t believe that it would be good for society, good for the family, good for business, good for company, good for anything! I think we shouldn’t meddle with nature.

Buerk: Do you think that’s what we’re doing?

Interviewee: Yeah, definitely.

Now if you’ve heard my views on gender essentialism, and indeed the facts on which these views are based, you’ll know that I don’t agree with any of these arguments. What is being confused is traditional male roles and innate male behaviours. In actuality, anyone of any birth sex can go on to behave in any way, regardless of their chromosomes.

A very important point made by Cordelia Fine’s ground-breaking work “Delusions of Gender” is that there is a confusion of what is natural and what is traditional. After all, Buerk describes traditional male characteristics, and his interviewee talks about ‘completely natural instincts’. As Cordelia Fine says, how convenient it is that we believe that women are instinctively less interested in education (especially science and maths) and more interested in social interactions and housework.

How convenient that their natural instincts line up with their traditionally unequal roles! Fine also makes the analogy that it is like a boy in the playground, telling everyone girls don’t want to play with his toys. Assuming unequal gender roles are innate is indeed very flawed logic.

For all of human history it’s been a man’s world. Well here, and now, it isn’t. Men are going to have to be less like men and more like women, and even that may not be enough. Our fate may be that of male bees, drones in the hive, tolerated if we’re lucky, but marginalised, despised, good for only one thing and then disposed of.

Again, there is no such thing as acting like men. The idea that men are no longer acting as social roles dictate is not a bad thing, it allows for a greater spectrum of expression. Then there is a clip from Newsnight, and the founder of Fathers 4 Justice began by saying feminism has been largely a force for good. But then he says:

Are we talking about equality, which is what feminism was originally about, or are we talking about superiority… or are we talking about walking side by side as equals, as partners, and respecting, the differences between the genders.

Oh dear, here is another nail in the coffin of men’s rights activism. The founder of a leading men’s rights organisation is saying we need to respect gender differences. This is ironic, considering that gender roles are exactly what causes the problems he fights against. The idea that women are mothers, who nurture and care for their children, is the reason they are more likely to gain custody of their children.

The ‘differences between the genders’ is the exact reason fathers are ‘4 Justice’ in the first place. They want fatherhood to be respected, to be possible as the sole parent of a child. How do we do that? BY RESPECTING THE FACT THAT MEN CAN BE NURTURING, MEN CAN BE PARENTS, MEN CAN BE WORTHY OF SINGLE PARENTHOOD.

Quite in line with this quote from Delusions, actually.

My commentary of this documentary is now complete!

Click to see the entire commentary for the Buerk documentary.

Michael Buerk - What are Men For?

(Youtube title: Living in a Feminist, Man-Hating Matriarchy)

Part 4 of 5

We start with describing hygiene, fragrances and skincare products as feminine. Caring about your appearance is feminine. Men who use products normally marketed to women, even in lower numbers than women do, are no longer a ‘lad’. Then dating becomes a women’s game, where women are now ‘the hunters’ and men are now ‘the prey’. What he’s talking about, of course, is women showing agency, and how disastrous this is.

The women should be waiting around to be chosen by a man!

Women’s growing representation in the media is also seen as negative. ‘Emotion takes precedent over rationality’ in newspapers, good reporting is cast aside in favour of inane lifestyle columns the likes of which only women would like. Of course, media aimed at women are not new. When the Daily Mirror was launched in 1903, it was launched as a newspaper for women run by women.

It was a disaster because women were not educated and largely did not read newspapers.

Now this is not the case, and newspapers are simply taking advantage of a growing market. This is not feminisation, this is equalisation. Buerk’s outrage is at women having ANY stake in mainstream culture, the media, the workplace or the home. What he is afraid of is women being able to compete with men in ‘masculine’ fields, where competition is necessary, and where discrimination is a forgotten memory.

Click to see previous parts of the Buerk documentary.

Michael Buerk - What are Men For?

(Youtube title: Living in a Feminist, Man-Hating Matriarchy)

Part 3 of 5

In this feminised society, men who act like women are clearly preferred to men who act like men.

IS THAT REALLY THE CASE. What about the homophobia that men experience as soon as they deviate from established norms of masculinity? What about their gender being questioned when they act out of character? What does men acting like women constitute? Being superficial, being gay or embracing equality? This statement is utterly ridiculous and quite in line with the rest of the programme.

Then we start saying that women ‘lured men’ to become vulnerable and express their emotions, only to find they were no longer attractive when they did this. This is all backed up by statistics of course, 99% of men openly show vulnerability by weeping, which correlates with a 62.4% attractiveness coefficient decrease. SARCASM OBV, WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT.

THE ENGLISH CUP OF TEA HAS BEEN DISCARDED IN FAVOUR OF CONTINENTAL WHAT

Let’s interview a 30-something lad’s mag journalist. He certainly isn’t sexist, he’s just concerned about society! The fact that he says women aren’t interested in anything vaguely technical, competitive, or useful to progress isn’t misogyny. It’s gender differences! We’re all different and we all have different strengths.

Genders have no essential traits. Gender expression does not give you skills or attributes, other than the attribution of that gender. You cannot make assumptions based on social groups precisely because social groups are made up of individuals. Can you imagine if this man was generalising about what black people wanted from life?

This documentary is making me increasingly sarcastic, just because the barbaric foolishness of its unsubstantiated claims seem to exist for my amusement. The only thing stopping me from laughing is that these are real people who think feminism is destroying society, who seek to oppose the increasing rights of women in order to hold onto their privilege as the dominant group.

It’s just getting sad now, really.

Click to see previous parts of the Buerk documentary.

Michael Buerk - What are Men For?

(Youtube title: Living in a Feminist, Man-Hating Matriarchy)

Part 2 of 5

Here for your delight is the documentary of the clearly ignorant fool that is Michael Buerk. Let’s have some fun shall we?

So it seems it’s only a matter of time before the feminisation of the workplace is completed, and the male boss of old is in every sense redundant.

The only thing that’s redundant is the guarantee the boss will be a man. I fail to see how this is in anyway troubling to society. Buerk has not yet specified how a workplace can be completely ‘feminised’. Does this mean all men will stay at home? Or just pink lampshades?

Interviewee: “I haven’t yet found a terrier that can use a hoover!”

Oh excellent, we’ve found one of the last real men (‘in outlook as well as physical construction’), and his views on women are traditional! PRAISE BE THE FEMINISATION HASN’T GOT TO HIM YET. The statement above, praised by Buerk, is obviously misogynistic garbage, and indicative of just how damaging and sexist the ‘good old days’ were.

It sounds like you’ve got the relationship right from the start!

WHAT BUERK, YOU DIDN’T JUST AGREE WITH HIM DID YOU

This man is happy for his wife to work (WOW) but on condition that he doesn’t cook or sweep because she knows what he’s like: HE DON’T WANNA! Women, of course, often don’t have such a choice. Oh look, political correctness is being discussed, I wonder when this would come out. “Is Tony Blair feminising society?” “Well you only have to look at him and the answer is yes!”

WHAT!

But basically, men have lost their role, and for the first time in history, women are on top.

Cite the statistics that prove women are on top you blithering fool.

I think a child needs two parents: a male reference point, as well as a female one. I would of course! I’m a man!

Buerk’s homophobia comes out a second time. Despite studies showing children of same-sex couples excel in their education and are happy and balanced individuals, Buerk thinks parents need to be heterosexual. He is of course an expert. Not.

When I originally watched this video I found it amusing that he listened to the life coach’s happiness with her situation while shaking his head. YOU HAVEN’T FOLLOWED THE BUERK RULES!

“But wouldn’t you prefer to be in a single long-lasting relationship with a man who was father to all three?”

“Mmmm, no I don’t think so!”

“Seriously?”

“Seriously.”

*DISAPPOINTED BUERK FACE*

Council estates are effectively matriarchies. Council estates are effectively matriarchies. Council estates are effectively matriarchies. Council estates are effectively matriarchies. Council estates are effectively matriarchies.

Men are indeed an optional extra to the family. When divorce was illegal, men stayed with their wives, or else went elsewhere and became polygamists. Nowadays, when the relationship is no longer working, couples are not contractually obliged to stay together. They can separate, and single parent families can flourish. It is not necessary for a family to have any distinct setup, other than stability and support for the children.

Crime and poverty exist together, and are not created by feminism.

But I guess this was already obvious.

Click to see previous parts of the Buerk documentary.

Enhanced by Zemanta