Women not only have a selective approach to equality, but a selective approach towards compassion based on emotional perception and circumstance. This is true of all humans to some degree but is more apparent with women. Many women claim to be more compassionate than men because they are child-bearing, and constantly imply that the world would be a better, less cruel place if women had more power. How can women possibly say they have more compassion because they are child-bearing when there are around 200,000 abortions in the UK every year? These child-baring mothers are destroying the very symbol of their compassion. How can a compassionate child-baring mother have their own unborn child destroyed? Yet abortion has somehow become a metaphor for female empowerment, endorsed and aggressively promoted by feminists. I find this contradiction quite astonishing. It’s also strange that people opposed to abortion are labelled as right-wing haters by women’s rights campaigners. They view abortion as a matter for women only, while the rights of the unborn child and of the father are completely disregarded. Abortion is a human rights issue, not just women’s rights. Feminists claim that women have the right to control their own fertility through abortion, but any woman who reaches this stage has already lost control of her fertility. I’ve also encountered many female animal rights campaigners who are pro-abortion, yet are vehemently opposed to the slaughter of new born chicks and calves in the egg and dairy industry. This sort of contradiction is rife with feminism. If women are so compassionate because they are child-bearing, why do they smoke, and drink during pregnancy? If you can harm your own child then surely there no limits to your destructive capabilities. Men create war and invent weapons of mass destruction, while women create life. That’s what we hear from the feminists, yet there have been many powerful women in society just as susceptible to the destructive forces of corruption and controlling behaviour which power brings. Cristina Fernandez De Kirchner, the president of Argentina, is a good example, stirring up nationalist fervour during the anniversary of the Falkland’s conflict. This amounted to nothing short of war mongering and provocation. Her intentions are clearly not peaceful but nationalistic and xenophobic. She reminds me of Margaret Thatcher in that regard. It’s also strange how these feminists never mention Marie Curie, inventor of the most destructive substance know to ‘man’! They like to keep that one quiet, if they have any knowledge of her that is. Another example of a woman corrupted by power is the former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks. She is a woman who dumbed down the News of The World newspaper she presided over, introducing more celebrity culture, while intruding into people’s private lives in a callous, remorseless way, even authorising the hacking of private phones. A woman with a hate list of all the people she intended to target negatively in her newspaper because they refuse to adhere to her rules of engagement or had differing political viewpoints. A perfect example of how women can be just as controlling and domineering in the workplace as they are in the home. Many feminists however, celebrate powerful women, even if they have a profoundly negative effect on society. Margaret Thatcher is a good example, a ruthless woman who cared little for people and their lives, who acted completely without sympathy and emotion. She made brutal, sweeping changes to industry, in contrast to the slow pace of change she promised prior to her election win in 1979. Many feminists claim that Thatcher did women a dis-service by enforcing the notion that women had to lead in a masculine way, with no feminine ‘virtues’. This is both insulting to men, and overtly sexist. Feminists even blame men for Thatcherism! A man has never led Britain in such a remorseless, brutal way. She ‘reigned’ like a tyranical queen, demonstrating all the ‘virtues’ of womankind in the process. She was domineering, bullying, manipulative, controlling, and couldn’t bare criticism. Her tenure destroyed all the tenuous pre-conceptions held by feminists that compassion and community would have greater emphasis in society if women were in positions of power. Where did it all go wrong? She didn’t even believe in the concept of society. The worst characteristics of ‘humanity’ surfaced and flourished under Thatcher. She revelled in the politics game, seemingly without a care for human ‘pawns’. Thatcher was motivated by winning battles, and improving Britain’s international status, not helping people, or improving society. She had no time for the weak and vulnerable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the world would be a more compassionate place if women had more power. It’s about having the right people in power. Men are certainly more compassionate and more protective of women than vice versa. They are far less inclined to help an man in need than a woman, hence the high number of women’s charities. Many women do not extend their compassion to men, and clearly this is of great concern given the increasing number of women in positions of power.

I first encountered feminists when I began contributing to internet sites dedicated to promoting a better understanding and protection of non-human species, or animal rights campaigning as some people label it. Campaigning against cruelty to ‘animals’ is something I’m deeply passionate about and I spend a lot of time rescuing seabirds where I live. It wasn’t long before I noticed a more sinister agenda lurking behind some of the comments on these sites. Some women were using animal rights as a platform to express their hatred/fear of men in general, making thinly veiled references implying that men are cruel by nature and women are compassionate and are alone in trying to solve the world’s problems. Other comments were considerably less thinly veiled and overtly sexist and discriminatory. Feminism and animal rights campaigning are irrevocably linked and some women don’t appreciate it when men become involved in the movement. It’s a sinister cover for feminism, giving them the perfect excuse to express their hate and to reinforce the gender divide. This malicious sexism forces many men away from these organisations which is detrimental to the cause. These feminists feel threatened by compassionate men, it undermines their primary function in society, destroying their narrow-minded stereotypes. I’ve read comments like “mother nature is being raped by man”. Women who write things like that know exactly what they’re doing, turning issues into a gender war in the traditional feminist style. They alternate between the words ‘human’ and ‘man’ when it suits them too. Women have contributed to half the current destruction and exploitation of planet earth whether they like it or not, and are only kind to species if they’re aesthetically attractive or appear docile. Everyone to some degree has selective compassion, based on the emotional perception of a particular species or person, but this is especially noticeable with females. This emotional perception is usually based on physical appearance or sound. They love dogs, cats, ducks, garden birds, anything cute, but many dislike seagulls, pigeons, mice, bees, reptiles, wasps, spiders, anything that may look ugly or appears slightly menacing, even if it’s less harmful than more attractive species. This totally irrational behaviour applies to female animal rights campaigners too. There’s little campaigning for the protection of less attractive species. Fear also has a significant bearing on compassion, and it’s disturbing how cruel women and girls can be when they fear a species. Fears destroy compassion, and many women pass these fears down to their children. Females are only compassionate towards species which reward them aesthetically. Fears make people selfish and cruel. Many women fear men too, and this has a bearing on their attitude and behaviour towards them, leading to apathy and discompassion. Men’s welfare does not concern them, which is a problem if these women obtain positions of power in society. Women have an inherent form of wickedness completely unique to themselves. Many women seem to think testosterone is the cause of world’s problems. They believe that wars, aggression, discompassion, fighting, and cruelty is caused by testosterone. This is another feminist myth based on complete ignorance. Many women have violent desires and tendencies but manipulate men into carrying out this violence, escaping prosecution in the process. Many ‘pest’ controllers operate on women’s behalf, killing for no other reason than fear and ignorance. So much trouble in society is manipulated and orchestrated by the psychology of women.