Ill Eagle 1, may99

Editorial

The crisis Senator Anne Cools refers to in her address to the Canadian Senate (see page 4) identical in many countries - including England.

In this, the first issue of Mankind's new monthly newsletter, we see that feminist judges in the 'developed' world represent a Fifth Column. The illegality of the English family courts is duplicated around the world, giving rise, not only to the name of this newsletter, but to identically catastrophic social outcomes.

The ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children) has concerns identical to ours. In this bulletin, the political scientist Prof. S. Baskerville, says the US family courts are 'out of control'.

It is significant that ManKind is moving toward an assertion of Men's human and civil rights at a time when the same evolution is occurring in the US. This leads us in two directions; first, the international nature of the problem, and second, the uniform pathological outcomes produced as shown in the social statistics from so many countries.

Our opponents now have to answer why the same crisis has developed simultaneously; why the numbers of male suicide is still escalating amongst the young; why we have the same ratio of false accusations and charges of violence and sexual abuse; and why we continue with secret and unaccountable courts which continually break the law.

What we need is a Sen. Anne Cools, not just for the UK, but for Australia, New Zealand, and all the counties of Europe.

You can play your part in this. Our Chairman (Robert Whiston) called for 'volunteers' to help with this heavy workload in any way they can. My contribution is to take on the task of Editing our Newsletter. Please help me in this by telling me if you have access to equivalent or sympathetic organisations both here and abroad. Newsworthy items, letters and other contributions will be appreciated. Contact me at:-

(1). Suite 367, 2, Lansdowne Row,

London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, 121

Westfields, St. Albans AL3

4JR, England.

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

 

Ill Eagle 3 july/aug99

Editorial

Part 2 of Masculinity has to go into this issue because Part 1 went in the last issue. The fact that Part 2 is so good crept up on me, and it is impracticable for it to split off from Part 1, and migrate to its rightful place, Male View.

Another growing insight is into the behaviour of male rulers. Two sources, L and G, have independently told me that men divide into three groups; the rulers (5% to 10%), the wheeler-dealers, and the grovellers. We have to concentrate on the rulers, to try to understand why they are nonchalant about the current attack on the civil rights of young men, and actually assist in the attack.

The story goes as follows, and I shall embellish it later when I gain fuller understanding of it.

An important sub-class of our male rulers resemble psychopaths more closely than they resemble normal men. Whereas the unintelligent psychopath ends up in jail, the intelligent psychopath becomes a ruler.

Their characteristics are as follows. They are risk takers. They are indifferent to the effect of their actions on others. They are driven by power. Part of their concept of power is sexual, to have access to numerous women. They have a contempt for women. Extreme examples are Maxwell, Aitken, Goldenballs and so on. However, most of our current male rulers, including senior judges, are also in this class. They do not suffer from divorce as normal men do. The destruction of men by feminists and their agents gets rid of the competition, and so they welcome it and even collaborate.

This explains the partly feigned incomprehension shown by our male rulers, including our judges, when presented with the tragic impact of their policies on fathers and their children. They see children are trophies, not as human beings. (A female judge will screw you for sexist reasons, while a male judge will screw you and your children for pathological reasons.) They have to fail to comprehend, or it would be more difficult for them to connive in, or even engineer, their destruction of men in order to reduce the competition they face for positions of power.

Women do have empathy, but only for other women. When feminists drive for equality, equality is not the result. Rather, we end up with 90% women and 10% men. The few remaining men take the top positions. The power feminists, having driven out nearly all the men, need the small number of remaining powerful men to rule above them. For them, power is an aphrodisiac, so like the male rulers, their motivation is not only power (or empowerment, as they describe it,) but also sexual. The surprising result of radical feminist policy is not only polyandry lower down (=  a woman taking control of her sexuality), but the harem higher up.

The powerful man was brought to power by vested interests including the feminist lobby. He knows that, once in power, he will have to pay their price, which is to assist them in legislating against men.

Whereas L bemoans the stupidity of men in not defending themselves, G says that our children's main enemy is not the feminists, but powerful men.

Masculinity - are men in crisis or not ? Part 2 - concluding article.

by Robert Whiston

For Crick, "Virtu", that is to say what is proper to a man, has the following attributes; "Courage, fortitude, audacity, skill and civic spirit - in fact a whole classical and renaissance theory of man...." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary includes "valour" as essential.

Renaissance writers asked; "Does a state have 'virtu' among its citizens or not? Are there, in a word, citizens ?" [Citizen here means a Plebeian, male or female, with 'virtu' -Ed]. If a State had too few of these citizens, then it is doomed to a tyrannical personal rule; but if many, then a Republic can flourish, and will prove - the by now familiar argument - the stronger form of state." Crick (1970) then cites the Arabs and the Israelis - the Israelis dominate because the Arabs lack citizens with Virtu.

Of all the attributes 'civic spirit' is the least expected - it is not manly, nor sex related - but at the same time it is seen by all writers as an essentially male-only trait. To make more sense of "Civic spirit", one has to read in the Middle English used in the King James's Bible and Shakespeare. In the context of 20th century English one might say "for the common good", but that is a lack-lustre translation.

To test whether civic spirit is an aberrant component more befitting the Classical and Renaissance age and associated value systems, enquiries were recently made in the US, asking for definitions of masculinity. The response from young men was interesting. Despite their country's lack of classical or renaissance history, their replies make interesting reading;

".. tell them that men are altruistic, honourable, just, and fair-minded. That's the difference between us and them..."

".....I think that if the truth be known, men are honourable, generous, and fair people. (E.g., how many rich women do you know who have married a man who had no career or significant income ? Now reverse the genders and do the same tally)".

".... I think that women, especially feminists (male ones too) are less honest and altruistic, being more interested in themselves than in others."

"...... in the political arena, women seem to do what's best for themselves first, then come others, and then maybe, way down the list, they'll do what's right for men, as long as it also benefits them, or at the very least, doesn't hurt them".

".. as for Amneus, I think that while his ideas are sound and valid, his methods will not work in current American society. Women run things here, despite what feminists say, and his methods are too alienating to women for them to work. You have to allow women to save face (pride is another big issue) and his methods don't do that. Feminists may have shamed men into co-operating, but I also think that men are basically really fair and just people; I don't feel that women will act like men in this regard, so a different approach is needed, one that allows for excuses, copping out, and saving face. Unsavoury though that might be, it's the only way to get any co-operation from the (female) powers that be".

The above comments could come from any man in any country in the Western world. They are universal and archetypal.

If that is true, then one immediately sees why Angela Philips (who gave a keynote speech to a Home Office seminar) is so dreadfully wrong and dangerous in her approach to 'Macho'. Her idea that school boys should "talk about the hidden agenda of educational failure" cuts across all natural laws of masculine cultural norms. Her recipe for "bolstering boy's self-esteem" is to ensure boys are able "to shine" through "music, drama and dance". This proposed remedy can only be damaging to the male psyche which instinctively pushes in the opposite direction. Young men aspiring to attain 'virtu' in the Classical, Renaissance and Modern age can-not identify with "music, drama and dance" [or nursery education, see Burgess,] as their primary outlet.

'Macho' is an essential element of male identity. Even in the negative scenario of U.S. city gangs it contains all the ingredients politicians need to hold a nation-state together; honour, defence of turf, duty and loyalty. Macho implies knowingly taking risks and accepting those risks. Risk-taking makes boys into men. Ms. Phillips tells us that we should shy away from "macho attitudes" and reject "outmoded stereotypes of masculinity". But in the 1960's that Angela Phillips and other feminists refer to Macho was not a pejorative term. Spanish dictionaries show it in a positive and praiseworthy light. In contrast, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary of 1975 as well as the 1980 edition don't list macho or machismo.

Boys inevitably see themselves as young men, and younger men have always sought acceptance and approval by older men. Young men have thus always need a 'rite of passage' in some form. This is crucial if we are to attain a caring, balanced society.

Historically, jobs, apprenticeships and even wars served as rites of passage. The average age of our fighting 'men' (from Agincourt to D-Day to the Tet Offensive) has consistently been 19 years of age.

Today, with no wars and no jobs, what answers have the Social Engineers ? How are they going to 'create men' ?

For the past 15 years the situation has deteriorated and young men have been denied their basic human rights. Disenfranchised and de-constructed young men face the prospect of being created and moulded according to feminist dogma. New Gov't initiatives sees Society on the brink of launching itself into another 15 year term of social re-engineering. Engineering aimed at reducing lone mothers hood, teenage pregnancies and soaring young male suicides.

The question has to be asked as to whether after this second 15 years, we will have learnt enough about our mistakes to throw out the manuals and acknowledge human rights for both sexes, and return to men their confiscated Human Rights and Civil Liberties ?

 

Ill Eagle 4, sep99

Editorial. Sex Offences Review

Living Without Fear, June99, published by The Women's Unit, Cabinet Office, copy available from 0171 273 8880, said on p42; A steering group of officials, lawyers and advisers led by the Home Office is conducting the review. An external reference group of individuals and organisations concerned with women's issues, children's charities, gay and lesbian groups, and medical, ethical, legal and religious interests is advising them. Conferences .... will be held .... to seek a wider range of views. These will help to develop proposals that will form the basis of a consultation paper to be issued towards the end of 1999.

Ms Betty Moxon heads the Sexual Offences Review Group. On 2aug99 David Yarwood wrote to her objecting to the absence of men's groups from the list. Betty Moxon invited Robert Whiston and Ivor Catt from ManKind to attend her 10sep99 seminar in Leicester. ManKind member William Coulson also managed to fill in for a cancellation.

The UKMM report that after much effort by our Chairman, the Home Office have begun to dialogue and invite us to inter-departmental seminars. The Leicester seminar, attended by our chairman, and myself as editor of Ill Eagle, gives a great deal of food for thought and much to report, some of which I intend to do later.

There were men there, but they were poodle-men. None of the 50 attendees had the concept of a false allegation.

I completely missed the reason why those present wanted to excise charges of incest and replace them with charges of statutory rape, claiming that the stigma of incest was so much worse! Only next day did I realise that a statutory rape charge was better because it exonerated the offending female. Those present, including the poodle-men, only wanted to avoid attaching stigma to a female. (The 1993 Sexual Offences Act changed the law so that boys under the age of 14 could be charged with rape.)

They toyed with the idea of charging a step-father with incest. However, this foundered on the problem of who was a step-father. I remembered that when Jack Straw came to speak to the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group last year, I urged our Chairman, who was on the committee, to get Straw to define parent. Robert replied that he planned first to get him to define family, which however he failed to do. [Straw clothed in Teflon is very slippery. Remember when he ran away abroad and left Boateng holding baby?] The PC destruction of meaning of the word family undermined much of the discussion in Leicester. It meant that those at Leicester could not "get" the step-father on incest, since we have also lost the definition of step-father. This is the way in which the failure of radical feminists to work out the details of their Brave New World means that their machinations unravel.

From the Seminar Programme; "Would an offence of abuse of trust be a better way to catch looser family arrangements?" The discussion drifted towards the idea that one who was dependent on another could be sexually abused by him, whether or not there was consent. I countered by saying that that meant that a sixteen-year-old who married her mother's lover could not lawfully have sexual intercourse unless she went out to work! The institution of marriage was a real irritant in the discussions.

The marriage of my parents in 1932, when two became one flesh, which involved sexual intercourse and dependency and much else, did not exist within the conceptual framework of those present. They lived in a transactional world of thought (which is also a weakness in Amneus), implicit in the word empowerment, so their proposals for future legislation were bound to founder.

The next seminar we've been asked to attend is in Oct at the Home Office itself.

 

Ill Eagle 5, oct99

Editorial

For many years I have rated Norman Dennis a major player in the problem of family breakdown. He did primary research when he compared two nearby estates, and found that crime and other social breakdown occurred in the estate which lacked fathers, and not in the estate which merely suffered poverty. However, generally, in deference to feminist control of the media, I have only cited female experts, and so drew much less attention to Dennis and Amneus than to Barbara Amiel, Patricia Morgan and Melanie Phillips.

The importance of the dialogue which follows is that even though Norman Dennis was writing for the pro-family Institute of Economic Affairs, IEA, generally regarded as the premier right wing (which they deny) think-tank, he still avoided laying any blame on women for fear that he would not get published.

 

Ill Eagle 6, nov/dec99

Editorial

The Sex-Change Society. Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male - Melanie Phillips, pub. Social Market Foundation nov99. 12 from Sunday Times tel. 0870 165 8585.

Previous watersheds known to me were;

Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, pub. Primrose Press 1990

Neil Lyndon, No More Sex War, pub. Sinclair-Stevenson 1992

Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, pub. Fourth Estate 1993

Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family?, pub. IEA 1995

Of these, Amneus and Morgan still have to be read.

(I missed David Thomas, George Gilder and some others.)

Now comes Melanie with a comprehensive and understanding analysis of the crisis through which the family is going. She clearly shows that the new androgyny wave in the Home Office and elsewhere under Adrienne Burgess - "men must change" - will only compound the crisis and further increase the suicide rate among young men. The gender racists who control government will only allow androgynysts to have power and influence during the next decade or two. Only after that, with the crisis much more severe than today, will the complex analysis developed by Melanie, our chairman Robert Whiston and others be allowed to influence government social policy. Melanie's book alone will be a very good primer for someone wanting to get up and running quickly. Most of it will not be known to most members of ManKind.

 

Ill Eagle 7 Jan/Feb 2000

Editorial

The crisis in the family is many-faceted. I myself have been learning about it for more than ten years. Already, five years ago, I had written my book The Hook and the Sting, about the collapse of the legal system, which is available on my website,

www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

I remember being invited to a secret day-long combined meeting of members of the Vexatious Litigants Society and the Litigants in Person Society at a secret address some five years ago. RG, one of the most expert in family law, who helped me most with my book by pointing out Lord Denning's role in destroying our legal system by introducing uncertainty, (see Portia's Speech,) sat nonplussed as court junkies traded specialist knowledge about arcane details of English law and judicial misconduct. He knew that judges, particularly judges in our secret courts, would ignore legal niceties which were not to their liking. The junkies thought they had judges on the run. However, it was obvious that if a litigant became too skilled, judges would say "It's my game, and I'm not playing with you any more." (This had happened to a third of those present.) The skilled court junkie would be forthwith banned from any civil or criminal court for ever. One of the junkies present had been banned ten minutes after winning ten million pounds in damages, from a company in which perhaps the judge held a large holding in shares, or in which his brother was Chief Executive. He never collected his ten million. Some junkies were even discussing the legal niceties of Vexatious Litigant legislation, and how it was getting more draconian!

The reason why there are less vexatious litigants, banned forever from our decaying courts, than one would expect, is that judges have many more tricks up their sleeves, for instance Mary Bell, to get rid of those who threaten to force judges to obey and enforce the law and to keep to their own court procedures, laid down in the rule book.

This brings me to what I believe is a valid rift running through the campaign to restore basic civil rights to divorced men and their children. Those like myself believe that the situation is bound deteriorate for a further fifteen years because of the stranglehold of radfems, with further increase in the suicide rate among young men and an unavoidable drift into civil disorder twenty times worse than the Poll Tax riots. They tend to be the same people, for obvious reasons, as those who put greater effort over a longer period into analysing all aspects of the crisis. They are confronted by the Young Turks, usually younger and with less experience of the crisis, who either believe that the crisis will be resolved within only a few years, or who cannot or will not study the subject thoroughly. The Young Turks want rapid, explosive action to exploit their dynamism, or perhaps to camouflage their lack of application (or even their stupidity), depending on how you look at them.

Their is a similar division, possibly the same division, between those who want to parade in public drama, carrying banners up and down Whitehall, and those like myself who lurk in the shadows, putting particular government officials under the hammer, trying to force them to do their jobs properly.

We lost twenty-five years because FNF was neither one thing nor the other. It was controlled by the Old Guard, who however would not do their homework, but who all the same blocked the Young Turks. I believe, however, that we will be able to recognise a valid difference of emphasis, and compromise, rather than confront and block, as happened in FNF. It should be possible to make a fuss in Whitehall but at the same time gain expertise, with some of us only doing one or other. After all, I am not totally certain that the situation will not begin to turn round within three years or so, and I respect some of those who think it will, even when I think their judgement is clouded by their desperate desire to see and to protect their own children.

 

 

Ill Eagle 8 March 2000

Editorial

My last Editorial identified two types of member of ManKind. It omitted a third group, the subject of something that I wrote two years ago. I will alter the quotation from Patricia Morgan, elsewhere in this issue, to describe this group, who could make up a major part of our membership.

Large numbers of unattached males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for membership of ManKind.

They are subjected to discrimination in; education, health, employment, law, military, pension, marriage/divorce.

The Cheltenham Group is linked with ManKind. In their 1998 booklet Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men, page 45, we read; "One simple piece of advice is not to get married, and not to become a father." These men, denied the traditional dynastic progression through life, are our hoped for third group of members.

Dispatched

The horrific Dispatches programme last week [apr98] is the last straw for me. In prime time on a major TV channel, poisonous lying and man-bashing was allowed to continue for an hour or so. Such propaganda against any other segment of society would have led to prosecution. However, the climate is so hostile that I expect there will be no protest.

Whether the allegations are true or not, the conclusion is the same.

First, the allegations. Attacks on women - wives, mistresses and others - by men are pandemic. In your street, at least three women are assaulted on a regular basis, and their bruises are then covered by clothing in order for the victms to hide the victim's embarrassment. The police are indifferent. However, the bones broken during these assaults by men cannot be covered up, and our hospitals are overcrowded with women with broken limbs. Pregnant women are attacked, hit in the womb, leading to miscarriage. The programme's researchers found that the extent of battering of women is far greater than anybody had previously imagined.

Let us now look at the repercussions from this programme, and so many others nearly as extreme. First, let us assume that the programme's assertions are true. What should a young man do? The conclusions are obvious. No young man worth his salt should let himself become a member of a class (cohabiting men) who represent such a threat to society, and to other people. No man should associate with women, let alone cohabit or marry. Further, since men not only batter women but also sexually molest children, a young man should not father children. Further, since a father represents the greatest threat to a child, he should distance himself as far as possible from his children.

Now let us suppose that the allegations in the programme are false. I have to advise the young man that our courts always believe the false scenario, and act on it. Any woman can trade in her husband at any time, and expropriate his home, assets and children, all of which he will never see again. Again, no young man should become a member of such a vulnerable class.

Our past chairman John Campion summarised The Law Commission (1966) Reform of the Grounds of Divorce. The Field of Choice. Law Com No. 6. HMSO in this way; "The Law Commission feels .... that it is false allegations that provoke the hostility and that any attempts to defend himself or his children are the consequence of venting his anger in retaliation for such allegations. They find this 'paradoxical' since perjured evidence is merely a verbal device for obtaining the divorce."

We need to remember that in the past, divorce court officials more or less openly connived in the perjured story of the divorcing man spending a dirty night in Brighton in order to enable his wife to obtain a divorce. Thus, the divorce courts have a tradition of conniving in perjury, so the fact that judges today welcome perjury by wives is nothing new.

The idea that false allegations are an essential component in the smooth running of our secret family courts, and are merely a metaphor to validate the expropriation of fathers, is a crucial concept for those trying to understand the mechanics of our family courts, and the central role played by false allegations, and why perjury by mothers must not, and will not, be punished. It also explains why these courts are secret, and why they are more hostile to totally blameless divorcing fathers, who force court officials to connive in fabricating charges, which they do not enjoy doing. Even judges, barristers and solicitors, other things (i.e. their fees) being equal, prefer to be honest.

A barriater pointed out to me that if he used legal aid to defend a divorcing man against false allegations, he might never again get legal aid funding from a feminised Legal Aid Board, explains why your lawyers will betray you, and put on that blank look when you try to interest them in the horrendous, false allegations being made against you.

Today's young men live in a culture where control of the police, the judiciary and the media has fallen into the hands of a small group of dedicated, man-hating, family hating gender sectarians, who saturate the media with male bashing and family bashing propaganda. 'Ruler' Males (editorial, july/aug99) like Aitken, Fayed, Goldenballs and Maxwell are very happy to allow them to disempower the main body of respectable men, who are their traditional competition. Male supremacists have no fear of the feminazis. Thus, female supremacists are allowed, or even encouraged, by the dominant males, (who may have their own, probably illegal ways to control their own women,) to attack males in general.

 

 

 

Ill Eagle 9 June 2000

Editorial

The Hiatus

"When the Americans leave, then the civil was can begin." This is a quotation from a Vietnamese woman on the back cover of one of the key books published during the American phase in the Vietnamese war of liberation. The Americans used all their wealth and power, spending 4,000 per year per man, woman and Vietnamese child, to force the natives into conceding that they were trying lose their independence in a monolithic, world empire of godless communism, not trying to get rid of foreign domination. (It would have cost less to send every Vietnamese citizen to Harvard University.) Because the Vietnamese could not compromise over their independence, (there had been terrible famines with millions of deaths under French rule,) they were forced to break the American war machine, the most powerful in history, and also break the American economy. The U.S.A. went off the Gold Standard, and in ignominy left Indochina, leaving a wake of terrible, long term destruction.

My first two books, one available on my website, www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ show clearly that in 1970 we had major social questions which needed to be addressed, and if possible, solved. The lasting achievement of radfems was to suppress analysis and therefore progress in resolving major social problems for a third of a century. Everything had to be viewed through the distorted lens of the dogma of female oppression. Today, anything said in pursuit of social reform is interpreted through this dogma, very much as Marxists in their day could not listen to, or respond to, social issues in a competent way. That is why Erin Pizzey's assertion that radfems are Marxists who have jumped ship, is so instructive. Their blindness and aggressiveness is so similar, as is the falsification of statistics and suppression of opposition. In her 1989 book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, radfem Professor Catherine A. MacKinnon begins with an 80 page section; The Problem of Marxism and Fenminism. The failure of women to call a small minority of their kind, the radfems, to heel, will lead to the other lasting achievement of the radfems. Women continue to take short term advantage of a legal system which is controlled by radfems, expropriating men on a grand scale, cutting fathers off from their children, now leading to the jailing of men in ever greater numbers. This copies the U.S.A.'s attack on its black, fatherless youth, a significant, rising proportion of whom are now in jail, many on rape charges. Interestingly, most men in jail for rape are black. Thus, the radfem struggle to jail more men on rape charges is a racist attack by the sisterhood on the black brotherhood. In the same way as Gentiles failed to restrain Hitler, and all Germans finally paid a terrible price for it, so will generations of women pay for the indifference of this generation to the escalating crisis. The worldwide contempt for German Gentiles continued for two generations. The failure of women to check the excesses of radfem behaviour, including their distorted, corrupting dogma, leads to a growing contempt for women in general, so that the following article will be one of many. Thanks to their conniving with radfems, women are at the Last Chance Saloon in their quest to save parity of esteem, carefully constructed over centuries, now to be lost for a long time. One Melanie Phillips, one Erin Pizzey, one Senator Anne C. Cools and one Patricia Morgan cannot save the respect that women are losing.

A necessary part of the Dream which is love and marriage is respect for women. That is why the radfems are so corrosive.

The Radical Feminist

 

With no effective rituals of initiation, and no real way to know when our slow progress toward adulthood has reached its goal, young men in our culture go around in circles. - Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, 1996, p44.

 

Recently, the question; "Why are the radical feminists so bitter and so destructive? What is driving them?" was posed to me again.

I have been reading Margaret Mead, Male and Female, 1950/64 and at the same time discussing Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, 1990. While Amneus draws heavily on Mead to develop the idea that the weakest link into the family is that of the father, and that civilised society progresses by reinforcing that link, the present discussion is about something else.

Mead is valuable because she pre-dates the myth-making of radical feminism, and gives us some thinking untainted by it. She may have been "discredited" because she did not toe the later PC radical feminist line. However, for our purpose, even that question does not matter.

Mead cites two adult roles in a culture, the male and the female. Each role may have wide permissible variations, or it may be very restrictive. It is important to engineer a society where wide variation is allowed within each role. This is because a child, particularly a young man, may decide that he will fail to fulfil the required role. In that case he may take on the role of the female, and go off to weave mats with the women. Mead believes that virtually all homosexuality is a social construct, used by a child to evade his fear of failure to fulfil the appropriate adult role. This correlates with the observation that homosexuals are deeply disturbed people; the majority of members of Alcaholics Anonymous are homosexual, their suicide rate is very high, and so on. The massive bias in favour of promoting homosexual at the expense of heterosexual men to the Cabinet means we must give up the idea that discrimination against homosexuals leads to their alcoholism, suicide and so forth.

There is much concern in many cultures to ensure that a boy is properly inducted into the role of adult man. The aim of the initiation .... is imagined as a way to complete the development of the being from a neutral genderlessness to a state of genuine masculinity. - Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, 1996, p116. A number of activities are undertaken towards that end, some of which we would call rites of passage, something which is particularly lacking in our culture. Sport, possibly particularly team sport, probably served that purpose for most boys. It is instructive that the radical feminist opposes competition in sport, even team competition.

Only recently did I realise why a girl had less need of a rite of passage. Menstruation clearly tells her that now she is a woman. Such reassurance has to be artificially given to a boy by social construct(s).

Other events than rites of passage occur in tribal societies which serve the purpose of assuring a boy that he has made the difficult transition into manhood. These include all-male clubs and all-male ceremonial.

A study of radical feminists shows that they strongly attack each and every one of these cultural constructs, usually under cover of demands for equality. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Why?"

Recently, in our society, the enormous fear of appearing to be feminine evinced by boys has been remarked upon.

My first experience of a radical feminist was when her then husband drove me and my wife to Marge Piercy's home to be guests for the night. A week later, I found that on arrival my wife, as well as myself, had immediately feared that we would be thrown out into a very cold midwinter Cape Cod night, miles from anywhere. This is the only time in my life that such a fear has come over me, when a house guest. I am sure that it was also the only time my wife ever had such a fear.

Six months later I went to a lecture by Piercy in London. There were 25 women present plus myself. She rapidly got involved in talking about rape.

If, as is generally asserted, rape is a power syndrome, not sexual, then the urge to rape will not be restricted to males. A decade ago I concluded that the urge to rape existed in many radical feminists. They were bitter because they lacked the equipment. They hated men who raped, and had contempt for men who, having the equipment, did not. That is the only way I can explain their tremendous frustration; their fixation on rape, which is a minor social problem, with quite as many male victims as female. Radical feminists show no concern for the major problem of rape of males in prisons. Part of this indifference is to rename it as a minor offence. (Similarly, more young men are mugged, not old ladies.)

(An interesting dislocation in PC is that, whereas we are esked to extoll buggery as just another orientation from normal sexual intercourse, in the case of attacks on men we are asked to dismiss forced buggery as a minor crime.)

Now let us address the fact that radical feminists work to destroy all male rites of passage and all mechanisms for reassuring a boy of his newly found manhood.

The desire of radical feminists to rape is an extreme expression of their more general sexual confusion. Like the sensitive boy in the tribe, they fear that they will fail to fulfil their expected, female, adult role. They look with fondness and also with envy on another possible option for them, the role of man. This fear of alienation from the woman's role is fuelled if the radical feminist has been educated beyond the traditional woman's role. It is also fuelled by radical feminists' persistent denigration of a woman's traditional role.

Under cover of demands for equality of opportunity, radical feminists invade all aspects of male activity, even the least appropriate. A recent absurd example is that legislation in the USA now requires that the amount of government money spent on female soccer must equal that spent to encourage male soccer, although soccer has developed over a century as a sport tuned to the male physique, which women, with their different pelvises, are obviously unable to emulate. (The result is that the USA is near to top in the world female soccer stakes.) Further evidence that radical feminists are evincing the same confusion and fear as that evinced by the occasional boy in Mead's tribes, is that they make no effort whatsoever to induct boys or men into strictly female provinces. That is, androgyny, or equality, is a one-way road. There is no effort to encourage men into any of the many female provinces, for example the teaching of young children.

Generally, the attack on male virtues is by way of caricature. Male valour is vilified by calling it male violence. Every attack by radical feminists on an obviously anti-social activity is actually a coded attack on a very fine, somewhat similar male virtue. Thus does the radical feminist evince both a desire to enter the male sanctum, and also a desire to destroy the male sanctum.

It is instructive to look up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which predates the perversion of our language by radical feminism.

Macho and machismo do not exist in 1975 vintage English, although radical feminists claim that we have to erase the macho culture of that time.

Virtue is the most important word. It has been totally changed from 1973 to rid it of male characteristics, all of which are now denigrated under the newly imported boo-word macho. Virtue then included; Physical strength, force or energy; The possession or display of manly qualities; manly excellence, manliness, valour. In women, it cites Chastity, sexual purity, these also now denigrated by radical feminists.

Chivalry, another word indicating a boy's chance to grow into man, is also now denigrated. It included; disinterested bravery, honour, and courtesy. All of these are under attack from radical feminism. The social analyst Lipschutz claims that when in power, chivalry is a necessary virtue. He says that the failure of powerful women to show chivalry to weak men is why our society is out of control, out of balance. He says that powerful women, far from showing chivalry to weak men, despise them.

"There was also a need to ensure that the curriculum included areas which would allow children to find ways of shining which were not to do with being macho - music, drama, dance." - Angela Phillips, the keynote speaker at the 16nov98 Home Office conference entitled Boys, young men and fathers, from which men's organisations were excluded. Here we see the attempt to destroy every rite of passage for the boy, including sport, in a Home Office conference supposedly about the problem of the growing alienation of boys. As a boy at school, I retreated from music, drama and dance, although now, as a confident adult, I sing in one of the best choirs in London. (At school, drama meant A Midsummer Night's Dream, a nightmare for boys. Dance was worse.). Even while in the conference where she is supposed to be discussing alienated boys, Phillips, invited by a radical feminist Home Office, tries to destroy mechanisms for boys to stay engaged through to manhood. Her ignorant crocodile tears are destructive.

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR 2aug99

 

Ill Eagle 10 aug2000

Editorial

Pity the Judge

A circuit judge telephoned me and proceeded to 'cry on my shoulder' for an hour.

After ten years in the Family Courts, he was brought close to a nervous breakdown. Then, three years ago, just in time, he transferred to the criminal courts.

The key items from his astonishing story were as follows;

The family courts should not be held in secret. They are beyond reform. The system is a shambles from top to bottom. The Court Welfare Officers (CWO) should be open to cross-examination. The CWOs are ignorant and do not investigate their cases. He got some CWOs removed, but the problem continued. You will not begin to instigate reform because Civil Servants will scupper your attempts, burying them in minutiae. [CAFCASS please note.] He agonised over the damage being inflicted on children by the family courts, which is obviously what brought him close to breakdown.

 

His story is remarkably similar to my analysis in my book The Hook and the Sting, on my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

 

In particular, I urge you to address his assertion that the system is beyond reform, as I say in my book. Also, I believe that in its death throes, it will become more dangerous and destructive. Oliver Cyriax has caused a total revamp of the CWO 'system', via CAFCASS, but I think that does not go to the heart of a venal, corrupt, incompetent, deeply destructive and arrogant system.

 

My view is that the judge did not solve his problem, only ameliorate it, by jumping out of the Family Court frying pan into the Criminal Court fire. I am willing to concede that the criminal courts are less anti-social. However, in my view, the complete judicial system is beyond reform, not just the family courts. Twice, just before coming to power, I heard Vanity Blair say on TV; "The Criminal Justice system is on the point of collapse." - Ed

 

SMFs are wealthier, but still breed more criminals

Try to put yourself into the mindset of the anti-family radfem. She, and poodle-men like Martin Bright, must believe that, since poverty (not fatherlessness) is the cause of crime, then criminals must come from the lowest tenth of society in terms of income.

We know that criminality concentrates in children from Single Mother Families (SMF).

"Compared to children living with both biological parents in similar socioeconomic circumstances .... Overall, children of never-married mothers have behavioural problems that score nearly three times higher than children raised in comparable intact families." - Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means .... June 29, 1999 www.house.gov/ways_means/humres/106cong/6-29-99/6-29rect.htm

Thus, according to radfems, SMFs must be poor, their poverty causing their children to go off the rails.

Not so. Reading the back cover of the 1995 edition of Patricia Morgan's book Farewell to the Family? from hwu@iea.org.uk; At any given level of earnings, the lone parent will derive a higher income than a married man with the same number of children. As a result of the Child Care Allowance introduced in October 1994, a lone parent with two small children can work for 20 hours at 4.00 per hour and end up with a net income of 163.99 after rent and tax. A married father of two small children working for 40 hours at the same hourly rate would take home 130.95.

Thus, SMFs are wealthier than the poorest married couple families.

Now let us look at the critical point in society, where criminality is supposed to be bred; the poorest tenth. Only a small proportion of children in the poorest tenth are in SMFs. In 1995/6, in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, 2 times as many individuals (42%) were in two parent families compared with those in SMFs (17%). (Source: Dept. of Social Security, Households Below Average Income 1979-1995/6.)

Thus, in the face of economic pressure on all those poor married couples with children to produce criminal and otherwise antisocial children, they fail to do so. These criminals come from the more wealthy ranks of SMF households.

One source says that eight out of every nine rapists comes from a SMF.

I would emphasise that although the pool of the very poor contains only 17% of individuals from SMFs, they breed far more criminals and rapists than they should statistically. Or else, wealthy SMFs breed criminals. We have to conclude that father absence is much more destructive than we would have imagined.