Employment is another aspect of society where feminists are very active in their campaigning, but once again the equality they seek is very selective and self serving. The majority of working women are employed in the public sector and private retail sector, accounting for two thirds of all positions. The retail industry has expanded so much that it now accounts for 75% of the UK’s economy. This changing job market from secondary industry (manufacturing, mining, dock work, industry) to predominantly retail has helped women considerably, giving them a great advantage in the jobs market, while causing great suffering and unemployment for working class men in particular. The majority of public sector jobs previously held by men have all but disappeared, including dock work, car manufacturing, railways, mining, fishing. Millions of working class men were employed in these sectors, but now they provide little employment opportunities due to government policy (especially under Thatcher), changes in demand, trade, advancements in technology (automation), and the rise of overseas manufacturing super-powers producing cheaper products. It’s these working class men who have suffered the greatest hardship over the past 50 years, and the government needs to focus its attention on this section of society. Working class men have been left in limbo, and suicide rates have increased as a result of being overlooked by consecutive governments. Men are three times more likely to committ suicide than women in the UK, reflecting the hardships men are facing in society, particulary regarding employment, yet feminists still maintain women are ill-treated. Over 70% of homeless people in the UK are men which also reflects the struggles men face in modern Britain. Unemployed men are also labelled as useless by women who judge them on their careers and not their principles and morality. This can also contribute to mental health problems and suicide. Visit any job-centre and you see a disproportionately high number of working class men ‘signing on’, a process which is demeaning and embarrassing. UK society is particularly well suited to working women with many employment opportunities compatible with their needs and skills, but this clearly isn’t the opinion of many selfish, narrow-minded feminists who believe that women are at a great disadvantage, prevented from attaining top jobs because of their gender. Some feminists want the government to introduce gender quotas, positive discrimination to create equality in powerful, decision-making jobs claiming that businesses operate better when there’s gender balance. They want quotas in top ‘white collar’ jobs but they don’t seek similar quotas in tough manual jobs like refuse collection, sewage maintenance, litter picking, construction, industry, army. They don’t want greater gender balance in tough, labour intensive, dirty jobs. They clearly want men to do all these jobs, creating a two tier jobs market based on gender. You just can’t pick and choose where you want equality. It’s all or nothing. How would women feel if gender quotas were introduced in the public and retail sectors? Many women would unfairly lose their jobs as a result of greater gender balance. Teachers, nurses, librarians, shop workers would be unfairly replaced by men. If you start introducing gender quotas, what precedent would that create? Would it lead to ethnic quotas? Disability quotas? Where would it end? This process would open Pandora’s box. You simply cannot positively discriminate in favour of one social group without negatively discriminating against another. The concept is completely absurd and contradictory. There would be too much pressure and scrutiny on the favoured individuals anyway. Many positions of power many women now hold in politics is the result of ‘positive discrimination’ to ensure that political parties gain a larger percentage of the female vote. The positions are rarely earned, it’s all political to engage the electorate. Many of these female politicians appear capable, but when they discuss issues relating to gender, their capacity for balance and objectivity becomes eroded, and their rationale compromised.

You hear feminists claim that men are unhappy because women are taking men’s jobs but this is completely untrue. There are more women in employment now not because they have taken men’s jobs but because there are more traditional women’s jobs in society and less traditional men’s jobs. Women have always worked in these sectors, they have just grown as a result of our changing economy. Despite this favourable economic climate, women are still being encouraged to exploit men for money, power and material assets, even in some girl’s schools. Some feminist groups also stage women-only networking events, another example of women helping each other while disregarding equal opportunities and anti-discrimination laws. There have always been far better career opportunities for middle class women than working class men. The top positions are usually held by the privileged few, public school educated Oxbridge graduates. Social mobility and class discrimination is more of a pressing issue than gender discrimination. The cards are often stacked against young men in modern society. Well paid service sector employment is dependent on academic qualifications, yet women develop earlier than men and this gives them an unfair advantage at school and therefore in the workplace. School exams should be taken 1-2 years later to help bridge this inequality. This is one of the reasons why boys are less successful than girls at this stage in their academic life. A lack of male teachers also fails to engage boys, as does the decline in sciences, where boys traditionally perform well. There is a desperate need for more male teachers in schools. The most charismatic and influential teachers are male, but men have been forced out of children’s early education as a result of hysteria surrounding paedophilia. Schools have become too feminised and more gender balance is necessary. Currently one third more women apply to university in the UK than men. An example of how the education system is failing boys and young men. Women have enjoyed great favouritism in the employment market, not least enjoying an earlier retirement age. There’s great inequality, with men required to work for 5 years longer than women before being eligible for a state pension, this despite having a lower life expectancy.

Power brings great responsibility, and only fair-minded people can be trusted to be in a position where important decision-making is undertaken, as these decisions impact on the whole of society. Many women however, especially feminists are too self absorbed and too narrow-minded to be trusted with any power. Women who are only interested in helping themselves and other women simply do not make the grade. It was disappointing to say the least when Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, remarked that if the Lehman Brothers was called the Lehman sisters, the global economic recession would not have occurred. This comment was completely sexist and irresponsible, and if a man had said it he would have been compelled to resign. Women are often guilty of the very things they campaign against. Her remarks were not in jest. There is too much gender bias and controlling behaviour among many women. If they are as controlling in the workplace as they are in domestic situations then great problems will occur. The increasing number of women in employment and in positions of power is changing the entire fabric of society, with many negative effects. Career objectives and family life are often conflicting, with far-reaching consequences. An absurd situation has been created where working women are spending much of their income on childcare, as the parent has little time to care for their child. For the first five years of a child’s life they should be taught one-to-one at home by a parent, not dumped at a nursery where there is no discipline or personal teaching. You cannot expect nursery staff to raise your child for you. The role of the stay-at-home mum for the first 4/5 years of a child’s life is the world’s most important job, yet this role is constantly undermined and devalued by feminism. Are stressed, busy, working women in a healthy position to care for a child? As women work more, acquiring more power and responsibility, they’ll experience greater stress and become more aggressive in their behaviour, dedicating less of their time to family matters. Many are turning to alcohol and are suffering health problems. This will have a devastating effect on family life and on society as a whole. This will shatter many feminist myths regarding the behaviour of men and women. Women now realising that full-time work doesn’t necessarily set you free, it brings great responsibility and stress. Feminism is destroying UK society, with too much emphasis on work and power, and less on family life. As a consequence, children are being neglected and poorly raised, which leads to under-achievement and social problems. Feminism is teaching women to put their own selfish needs before those of children.

Feminism is also harming the human gene pool. The most capable, hard-working, disciplined women are embarking on serious careers which consume much of their time, and are bearing fewer children as a result. The least capable, less industrious women, many of whom are living the welfare culture are having more children, often for financial reasons and to avoid work. This will create a less economically productive, less talented, literate, articulate, disciplined society as a whole. The welfare culture is an easy op-out for many women who seek to avoid employment. Women are certainly more likely to receive help from the welfare state generally. They are less inclined to slip through the safety net which welfare is intended to provide. There is a far higher proportion of homeless men when compared with women, and the highest suicide rate is among men too, which completely contradicts many feminist arguments regarding the most vulnerable and neglected people in society. Their selfish, well organised campaigning and lobbying means provision is often wrongly targeted. Breast cancer campaigning is another good example. Less attention and resources are afforded to other forms of cancer due to women’s selfish obsession with this particular form of the disease. Male decision makers in general have offered strong protection for women, while men are often left to fend for themselves. I doubt if we lived in a women led society, men would be afforded this same level of protection. Despite this greater protection women are still selfishly creating charities which refuse to help men. It’s a scandal. As a result of this neglect, many working class men are forced into criminal activity as a means of survival, reinforcing the stereotype that men have a greater tendency towards crime and violence.

Many women claim to suffer from age discrimination in the workplace, especially in the visual media, where many argue that when they reach a certain age they are no longer wanted because they are less physically attractive. As a result, many broadcasters are afraid to replace older presenters for fear of legal reprisals. Many of these women were chosen because of their physical appearance and speaking skills, so when these attributes diminish, naturally they will be replaced. They seem to criticise the reasons why they were employed in first place. Why was Ulrika Johnson employed as weather girl instead of a qualified meteorologist? Didn’t she think that a man or less attractive/older woman lost out to her youthful beauty? She replaced someone older right? If you’re chosen for shallow reasons, don’t be surprised if you’re dropped for shallow reasons. These women never criticise the selection policy when they’re hired, only when they’re replaced. Men have more charisma and humour, that’s why they enjoy greater longevity in television than women. Feminists also campaign against the pay gap between men and women. It’s clear that workers should be paid equally for performing the same task, and this pay discrepancy is rightly narrowing, but what of the equal pay controversy surrounding high profile sporting events like Wimbledon? Women receive considerably higher financial rewards in relation to time spent performing. This is not equal treatment. Women don’t run half marathons at the Olympics or use half a football pitch, so why are they playing shorter matches? Are they incapable, or physically inferior? Why should sports-women receive equal pay when they’re not as good as men? Your earnings should reflect the revenue that is generated, and women clearly have an inferior product. It’s apparent that women are often guilty of exhibiting behaviour they so vociferously campaign against.

Conclusion

As you can see, feminism by its very nature is a sexist, selfish, narrow-minded, and outmoded concept. It’s a culture which involves observing the world from a purely women’s perspective, hijacking causes, baring little consideration for the needs and viewpoints of men, while selfishly placing their own rights before those of others in society. These women only see gender, turning every issue into a fight between men and women, using sinister, manipulative tactics to exploit young women and reinforce the gender divide. Their lack of humour is matched only by their arrogance and obstinacy. A society has been created where it is considered unacceptable to criticise women, it’s political suicide to even think of it. Feminists hold political parties to ransom by mobilising their supporters online and lobbying hard for their own causes. These feminists have held decent fair-minded women back, and have not helped to progress their cause. They are deluded if they believe they have. Many men are forced away from supporting women’s causes because of these feminists, intent on preserving the gender war. Their motivation in life appears to revolve around this. Creating a common enemy is an effective method of uniting these feminist misanthropists, and that’s why feminism will always exist regardless of how women are treated. Their attitude is as harmful to women as it is to men. If the most vocal flag-bearers of woman-kind are narrow-minded, biased, hateful, aggressive, irrational, selfish, discriminating bigots, why would women be given more power and influence? Why should men trust them with more political power? These women are too emotionally self-absorbed to understand, or even care about the needs of men in society. These contemporary women are using history as an excuse for attacking contemporary men, and this is quite simply unacceptable bordering on persecution. It’s clearly not acceptable to attack and seek revenge on Germans for what their ancestors did, yet feminism often amounts to the same. These feminists are clearly too self absorbed to realise when they’re being hypocritical and irrational and this will create problems if they have significant power and responsibility. These women want to create a society where they can behave as they please, while men are restricted and controlled. They have a persecution complex, but it is they who are persecuting men. They are oblivious to their own sexist behaviour because they’ve never been compelled to question themselves in the same way men have. A society is being created where the needs of working class men in particular are being over-looked at the expense of women, resulting in considerably higher suicide rates and homelessness for men. The statistics on suicide and homelessness completely contradict many feminist arguments that women are more vulnerable in society. There are feminist sites and organisations which should be viewed in the same light a religious extremism, and many of these websites should be closed down as the content is harming young women’s perception of men, which in turn causes family and relationship problems, and problems for society as a whole. These women are treated far too leniently. Men who disagree with feminists are considered unable to cope emotionally with women having more power. This is not about protecting or reinforcing men’s dominance, while denying women equal power, but preserving men’s equality, and changing the mindset of women so that power in their hands does not lead to corruption and discrimination based on gender favouritism. Women are susceptible to this. There are clearly aspects in society where men are far from equal. It is therefore imperative that a new breed of man is born, one that has the courage to stand up to the tyranny and fascism of neo-feminism before society becomes an unbearable place for men. If women want more power in this world then changes are needed in their psychological approach to gender, and they must stop hijacking issues. Campaigning should be centred on need, not gender. There are no ‘women’s issues’, only issues which have been high jacked, and they need to realise this. Everybody is affected by all aspects of society, so in the interests of equality in society it is time these feminist campaigners are consigned to history forever, and a society is created where men are just as free to criticise and talk openly about women, as women are about men. Only then will true equality be achieved.