Coffee House

Women under 40 have won their battle. It’s the young men we now need to worry about

12 July 2013

I am taken to task by the Guardian’s Ally Fogg for my Telegraph column on the growing underachievement of boys. It’s a thoughtful and spunky piece, which I thought worth replying to here. The phenomenon of male underperformance causes much angst on the left, demanding a choice between feminism and equality. For anyone born after Perry Como was in the charts, women are no longer underperforming. When law and medicine graduates are 60pc female, and girls a third more likely to apply to university than boys, we’re not looking at equality. We’re looking at a new inequality being incubated, because male horizons are narrowing. The notions of feminism and equality are becoming detached, which is horribly disorientating for some on the left. So what to do?

Mr Fogg starts by alerting his readers to the nature of the beast.

“For a traditional British conservative take on men’s issues, you can’t get much more pure than the editor of the Spectator writing in the Telegraph in defence of his chum Boris Johnson… The London mayor made a crass, sexist joke this week about Malaysian girls going off to university to find husbands.

Not quite. Boris’s point – that Malaysia is in trouble if two-thirds of its graduates are women – was not about their finding husbands on campus. He simply said that this ratio was a problem because “they’ve got to find men to marry” – and he meant years in the future. His point, which he made at length in the Telegraph six years ago, is that a “basic human prejudice” means these women are unlikely to settle down with non-graduates. So they may be disappointed. It’s worth quoting Boris at length, as this is a thoughtful point.

As a result of the female desire to procreate with their intellectual equals, the huge increase in female university enrolments is leading to a rise in what the sociologists call assortative mating. A snappier word for it is homogamy. Nice female middle-class graduates seem on the whole to be turning up their nice graduate noses at male non-graduates. And when the nice middle-class graduate couples get together, they have the double income to buy the houses and push the prices up — and make life even tougher for the non-graduates.

Boris was flagging up not just a social problem, but an economic one – assortative mating, that basic human prejudice, will fuel inequality. If there was a similarly incisive piece in the Guardian in 2007 about the inegalitarian implications of female dominance of universities, I didn’t read  it. As so often, Boris was far more thoughtful, far-sighted and – yes – progressive than his enemies.

Anyway, back to the Guardian’s Mr Fogg. He faults me thus:-

Nelson discusses the gender trends in education, employment and relationships for young people up to the age of 30, while completely ignoring that the picture changes profoundly when people have children.


Really? According to the ONS the average hourly pay for women in their thirties (the decade when most have children) is just 0.7pc less than that for men. This is not statistically significant. That is to say that British women in their thirties, a childbearing decade, are earning as much as men. For the under-40s, the pay gap has vanished. And in their 20s, women earn marginally more than men as the effects of their superior education filters into the economy.

The market value for testosterone has never been lower. It’s true that there is a pay gap for women born before 1973. But the point of my piece is that things have not just equalised since but swung the other way. But Mr Fogg knows that. As he says:-

While noting that boys at the top are still doing just fine, Nelson never acknowledges that the problems are fundamentally economic and class-based.

I thought CoffeeHousers would like an example of how, in my Telegraph piece, I ‘never’ recognised the economic and class-base aspects to the gender split. I say:-

Gender equality is a very real concept among the rich, who now live in a world where young men and women do as well as each other. But among poor families, boys are falling further and further behind – and are 30 per cent less likely to apply for university than girls. Yes, office jobs may replace factory jobs, so the economy ticks over. But what about teenagers not cut out for university, who used to go straight into a trade? They struggle to find a role in society.

My whole point is that this affects the poor far more than the rich, so anyone concerned about equality should be concerned about the disproportionately high number of women sitting A-Levels, applying for university and then graduating. And that deindustrialisation has left those boys not cut out for university with pitifully few options. Mr Fogg paraphrases me thusly:-

The fundamental problem Nelson identifies is that our society no longer has a pressing need for the attributes of traditional working-class masculinity: brute strength, endurance and courage in the workplace; a provider’s role at home. There are two possible solutions to that. The first would be an economic project to revitalise British manufacturing industry, especially heavy industry, which has shrunk by two-thirds over the past 30 years… The right sacrificed the prospects of young working-class men when they abandoned a controlled economy to the whims of the global free market.  

Oh, these wicked Tories! In fact, the loss of British manufacturing jobs was far more aggressive under Labour. Mr Fogg says that helping manufacturing would be ‘anathema’ to us wicked right-wingers, presumably because our black hearts leap at the sight of closed factories. In fact, I’m all for an ‘economic project’ to revive industry. I’d call it ‘fracking for shale’ and it could bring as many jobs to the north as it has to the US rustbelt.

I shall not comment on his plans for a “a social project to reinvent masculinity and gender roles in keeping with the world we have built” – although I do love the idea of Ed Balls ended up as the Minister for Redefining Masculinity. Lasagne for everyone!

I agree with the rest of Mr Fogg’s piece: that David Lammy and Dianne Abbot ought to be congratulated for highlighting the issue. That “the spectacularly unequal outcomes for girls and boys in education are now beyond dispute.” He finishes with an anecdote which expresses the problem far better than I managed to:-

My elder son finishes primary school next week, and nervously prepares himself to enter the furnace of secondary education. Like all 11-year-olds, he has spent much of the last year being prodded and tested with Sats and other blunt tools like a white mouse in a lab. After one such experiment, he told me proudly of his success. “I scored highest of all the boys,” he proclaimed. After due expressions of support, I couldn’t resist asking about his other classmates. “Oh yes, lots of the girls scored more than me, but they always do. Girls are just cleverer than boys.” Before even leaving primary school he has absorbed a corrosive and pervasive myth about what should be expected from boys and girls. It’s my responsibility to correct him on that. It is our collective responsibility to work out where the myth has come from and what we can do to put it right.”

I do plead guilty to one of his charges: that I don’t have an easy solution. I’m just saying that we need to recognise the problem. My generation, the over-40s, were brought up equating feminism with equality. But now, the fight for equality means looking out for the young men. How you do this is a very open question. But that it needs to be done ought to be something on which left and right can agree.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • Kwang Pak

    Had to stop reading when he brings up the “wage gap”. Right there discredits the rest of his argument no matter the side he takes.

  • Teacher

    When I became a teacher in the late 1970’s I was a feminist because I saw that society was organised relentlessly in favour of men. Things have changed radically since then and I now see the great inequality that exists between men and women which Frazer Nelson here points out is now skewed against men. Frazer cites working class lads as the biggest losers but the rot attacks the middle classes too. I have a son and a daughter whho are both bright, grammar school educated graduates from reputable universities. My daughter has a permanent, highly paid position in a public body while my son has been taken on by a charity offering a three day week, rolling month-by-month ‘contract’ with poor pay and no job security. His friends, who have between them good degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, Royal Holloway, Berkeley and Durham, have but two temporary internships between them. I feel I lied to my son when I told him that hard work and good qualifications would secure his future. It used to be so but he now seems to be in the most unemployable group of all:- the educated youth.

  • Mos bos

    From personal experience in Banking Risk/MI area I can assure you that young and not so young men, especially of Chinese and Indian background are a very much dominating force.

    Young and very young women tend to dominate event organization, marketing and the like, however behind each you will find powerful man.

  • Toby Esterházy

    Feminazi claptrap. The rightful place for the young woman is the home.

  • george

    We’d better find a place for all that wretched testosterone, now that there are no longer any woolly mammoths to kill with it. What a sad thing the human is. Lots of brains but poor understanding; lots of cardiac capacity, and not enough heart. Especially in the male, who so often assumes that he is superior without considering what superiority might consist in.

  • Crumbs

    I don’t know whether this was general in the UK, but I have heard that it used to be the practice in Scotland to adjust exam figures so that girls were handicapped (in the sense of a golf handicap) to compensate for their maturing earlier. Possibly this was the 11 plus – sorry, I’m v vague about this, but perhaps others will remember more clearly.

  • David Prentice

    Good luck to those brainy women not having babies when the muslim demographic reaches tipping point and Sharia is forced on the UK. Shouldn’t be too long now. Those burkha-covered lovelies always seem to have buns in the oven.

  • TheEthicalMan

    If you could have only left your vitriol for protecting the environment out of it, Mr. Nelson, this would have been an excellent crossover piece.

  • Judi Sutherland

    If assortative mating is true, then why for the last 1000 years, have men who went to private schools and grammar schools been happy to “mate” with women who were hardly allowed any education?

    • bs76

      This may come as a shock, but men and women are different! Women date/marry up (hypergamy) whereas men select for hallmarkets of fertility.

  • thanksdellingpole

    What a load of BS, men still rule the roost. Me thinks some’s been watching the BBC too much!!

    • MGTOW 4Ever

      Yeah and women elected those tools. Women make up the majority of Voters in western nations. Women’s Hypergamy is to be blamed they look up to Alpha’s which are at the top of the political latter. So You are full of Crap.

  • C. Gee

    Take hope. Judging from the rising number of female to male gender reassignments (a six-year old girl has recently been allowed to be a boy), women will prove to be better males than men and will raise the male gender’s performance.

  • Ben Kelly

    Aaaah, the British education system, what a wonder it is! The root of much of the problems of our young boys. It is a complex collage this issue, that’s for sure. The great de-industrialisation, degradation of our education system, confused male roles in society, proliferation of fatherless families, welfare serfdom, lack of jobs, shattering of the institution of family, the weakening of all of the armed forces, the nihilism of modern life, the list of things that have contributed to this goes on and on really. No easy solutions either, but our current solution of doing literally nothing to analyse and solve the situation is rather pitiful!
    The continued aggressive war on masculinity by feminists finds itself facing no resistance because it is not politically correct to defend men, masculinity or the male role in society or the family. Hence why the issue is always male sexism (don’t most women think a lot of generalised things about men!? er… yes), there are so pitifully few male teachers in schools, the divorce courts automatically are biased to the woman and will seek to raid the man’s finances and leave him with minimal access to his kids with maximum maintenance, marriage is seen as ‘patriarchal’ tyranny, fathers are seen as unnecessary really, simply sperm donors, yep, because feminists don’t need men and they think there are no negative consequences to this way of thinking.

  • Tom Tom

    Best to humiliate and crush young men. Time to feminise them completely and degrade them publicly. They are total and absolute losers. Grind them into the dirt. If they have failed the Evolutionary Test they should become extinct. They are submissive and weak and chaotic and disordered. They are not roses in need of pruning and training along a fence; they are supposed to be masters of their destiny seizing opportunity and developing resilience. If they cannot they deserve to be eradicated and crushed. Serfs they can be, slaves even, but you will not make them good little girls with male appendages by cultural adjustment unless you breed them in a genetically-modified form. Then again with the amount of oestrogen-plasticiser used in modern food canning and bottles that has probably happened already.

    • allymax bruce

      International Marxism; break down the intrinsic, Natural, God-given mote between male, and female, then you have a homogenized drone; readily againle to vote how they are told to vote.

  • peterchar

    “Oh yes, lots of the girls scored more than me, but they always do. Girls are just cleverer than boys.”

    Actually the reverse is true. The highest IQ’s and the most creative, inventive and powerful human intellects are male. They always have been and always will be. For instance in the UK the majority of medical students have been female for a very long time indeed as a consequence of our twisted education system. But how many become consultant surgeons ? How many break new scientific ground and actually take the profession forward ? In the US. they shoe-horned women, using preferential treatment, into various science courses. Only to discover that, almost in exact inverse proportion, the number of Americans going on to do post graduate work and research diminished with their places in these fields being taken by foreign male students.

    I could go on and on. Feminism is both a moral and an intellectual crime against humanity. This will eventually be widely realised when the enormous costs to Western cultures are fully brought to bear. It is all very sad. And ironically feminism will actually damage the status of women in society in the long run. Powerful, damaging, extremism always creates and usually realises its own antithesis.

    • Osiris Fox

      A women has the ‘right’ to work, for a man, it’s an obligation. A woman can leave the work force at any time to pursue other things and not lose respect, the reverse is not true of course. A man’s sexual attractiveness is directly proportional to his ability to earn, a women is not under the same constraint.

    • Ashley

      right on brother!

  • The_greyhound

    But there is the matter of the Lehman Sisters.

    We have seen evidence right across the public sector of the catastrophic consequences of appointing women to management positions. Every time there is a major scandal in our immense and well-heeled public service, there’s a woman blinking at the interviewer evidently puzzled that they should be asking her. And nowhere more so than at CQC where the entire management team was female. Chaotic, dishonest, bullying, lying, conspiratorial and completely ineffectual, they were so useless that it would be difficult to think of any male team, anywhere, that put crosses in so many boxes. And last week it was the turn of the Personnel lady at the BBC (£320,000 p.a.) to be famous for fifteen minutes, blinking and wondering why everybody was asking her, when they already knew she was only there to make up the numbers.

    Before we get carried away with the success of opening up education and careers to women we need a reality check – we may just be lumbering society with another vast – unaffordable – equal opportunities cost.

    • Colonel Mustard

      A bold and provocative post. Far too bold and far too provocative a truth to be aired by the cowards who govern us. They prefer to reinforce and perpetuate failure, just to avoid ‘outrage’ from all the usual suspects.

    • telemachus

      I am a little sad to read this

      As incitement I suspect it is almost in breach of equal opportunities legislation

      Cynthia Bower came into an organisation needing to bring regulation and inspection into the modern era, very necessarily given emerging stories from Stafford, in an impossibly short time

      She was doing well but admits she fell down in some instances
      Jon Snow bullied her as a woman on his 7 o’clock news

      Your post is almost as reprehensible as his behaviour

      • The_greyhound

        You are a little sad.

        You are not angry at the abuse patients suffered at Stafford while Bower was chief Executive of the SHA.

        You are not angry for the patients at Winterbourne View whose mistreatment was reported to Bower, and ignored.

        You are not angry for the parents of the dead babies that Bower covered up and lied about.

        But you are a little sad that anyone should dare to criticize a member of the nomenklatura.

        Coming from someone with such a neglible moral sense, I regard “reprehensible” as an accolade.

    • Sarah_Howell

      “We have seen evidence right across the public sector of the catastrophic consequences of appointing women to management positions.”

      Can I rephrase this?:

      “We have seen evidence right across the private sector, particularly in financial institutions, of the catastrophic consequences of appointing men to management positions.”

      You then go on to label these women (as though describing all women) as:

      “Chaotic, dishonest, bullying, lying, conspiratorial and completely ineffectual”

      Have you ever seen the effect of a lot of testosterone on a trading floor or in any competitive environment? Of course not because that would puncture your disillusioned image of how perfect men are. Get real please! We are all human beings susceptible to fault. As a woman, I have strengths and weaknesses that differ to that of a man but my biological make-up does not make me superior or inferior to you and it is utterly deplorable that you believe otherwise. I am always deeply disappointed when individuals, whether male or female, show themselves to be incapable of engaging in intellectual debates, in a civilised manner, without resorting to childish mud slinging behaviour.

  • cafa

    oh right, when women want into politics and military u are like : if u are better than a man than u can enter it, but when women are acually better than man its also bad!

  • David

    In my opinion the most hated group in society these days is the working man, we dig the roads empty the bins build the the houses fix the plumbing, electricity dig the oil clean the windows sweep the streets but every newspaper tells us how stupid lazy and bigoted we are! Stuff university and telling my son to get a trade

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Amen, brother.

  • Marie Dean

    Same problem in America, where young women in the past several years earn more degrees than men. And, in the minorities, the gap is much greater. Latino girls are at the top of the graduate lists for years, while Latino boys of the same generation are at the bottom of the grids. This is also a reason why there are less marriages and less children in the States among the young, as the women do not want to marry men who are less educated and less employable. There is nothing wrong with women getting educated and having either good jobs or careers. That men have settled for less is something I began to notice in 1997 when teaching at the university and college levels. From 1997-2010, I could see the huge gap in the classrooms between men and women, the women being more competitive and keen. And, I taught at-risk-students, from minorities, and first generation in college. This trend has been caused by the anti-intellectualism of many men and their desire not to get married or have careers. I do not blame feminism for this, as men can decide for themselves whether they want to be successful, work hard, and be part of the larger community.

    If there is anything to blame, and this is controversial, it is the dependence of so many young men of all races on computer gaming, which isolates them and causes an anti-societal attitude. Ironically, however, I know two young people who met in a game on line and are now happily married. But, I do not want to be simplistic in stating what has caused men to drop out of career paths.

    One more point. We have a leadership crisis in general among men, both in Europe and America. There has to be a connection.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      If there is a “huge gender gap in the classroom” as you claim it’s because fluff academics have been illegitimately created for the purpose of creating that huge gap.

      Cut out that fluff, and watch that gap disappear. I graduated engineering many years ago, and I could count the number of women alongside me then on one hand, if I lopped off a couple fingers. I don’t need anybody to tell me that disparity is biological, anybody who’s lived long enough has empirical understanding of that biology and resultant disparity.

      We need engineers. We don’t need Queer Musicologists or Star Trek Ecologists or Feminist Aromatherapy. We also don’t need Art Historians. We also don’t need Organizational Communicators. However, it’s been my experience that some of the people “studying” the above likely need a Bum Wiping for Dummies tutorial.

      You’re right, there is a “leadership crisis”, but it isn’t for the reasons you’re implying.

      • Marie Dean

        Sorry, I did not teach fluff. How odd that you should come to that conclusion. I have taught at Notre Dame and Bristol University and some excellent local colleges with very high standards. I taught logic, Aristotelian writing, theology and other stuff, and those going on for mostly scientific degrees had to take my classes. In fact, most of those in my classes were going into law, engineering and technology, as well as medicine. The rot of the education system starts in the family, in my opinion. and fewer parents are capable of encouraging their young men to go the distance in the hard subjects. Why, I do not know, but the lack of discipline in the home allowing for sloppy habits and a lack of discipline in general are problems

        One of my brothers is a solid state physicist whose team created the safety covering for the Space Shuttle. He has PhD students and states the American men are the worst slackers, while the Asian students are a joy, because their families encourage discipline in academics.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          No, I didn’t come to any conclusions about you personally.

          But yes, academia today is flooded with fluff. As a part of a proper education, logic and philosophy can be useful as adjunct, but it isn’t favorable as a major course of study, and must be considered fluff. Your work isn’t at the heart, in other words. And though I might value it, and welcome it in that adjunct role, that distinction is important. As societal resources become scarce, your work must be placed down in the hierarchy. You are a humanities offering, to the lawyers, engineers et al. Sorry if that stings, but it must be so. Academia is swollen and costly and unproductive. It must be chopped, and at the program and administrative levels both.

          You can take heart that I’d value your work far above the above-mentioned degree programs.

          If your point is to discuss early education and national performance therein, that’s another topic, and I’m not interested in that right now, and neither is this discussion topic related to that.

          • Marie Dean

            One small comment-engineers must learn how to think, and too many of the purely technical courses do not do this-real maths do. So does logic.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              You couldn’t possibly know this, unless you’re capable of doing what engineers do. Are you?

              • Marie Dean

                The very best universities and colleges, with the students in the top 10% of the entire nation demand these types of critical thinking courses for engineers, doctors, etc. There are reasons for this which date back to the distinction between Bismarck’s gymnasium and the older academias of liberal arts, in his kulturkampf, which was meant to undermine a thinking populace and create a technological elite, without thinking skills, aka liberal (as in freedom) arts. His ruination of the education system led directly to the non-thinking sheep-like peoples who voted in Hitler. Dewey did the same thing in the States and the socialist, relativist, entitlement mind-set followed. As an engineer, perhaps liberal arts would have taught you some manners as well as the ability to understand that one does not have to be an expert in a field to appreciate the skills necessary.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I understand that humanities are a useful adjunct of a proper education, as I mentioned above. That’s not the purpose of this discussion. Focus. Stop dodging.

                  So the answer to my question is that you are not capable of doing what engineers do, and are not capable of understanding what engineers need and how they “think”. Got it. You may “appreciate” the skills necessary, but don’t translate that into understanding or knowledge of them. You don’t have that. You are adjunct academically and professionally to those.

                  On the other hand, we engineers are well capable of doing what you do. That’s why your pursuits should be lower on the hierarchical scale. As I say, that may sting, but it’s a necessary process, as we assign society’s resources.

                  Now amplify that hierarchical process, and delete all of the real fluff in academia today. That’s what’s being discussed here.

                  You are a prototypical academic nanny, I must say. It’s likely good that you stayed in the world of academia. That’s the root of the problem you mentioned in your first post, by the way. You in the academy can rarely fit in the real world.

                • Marie Dean

                  Sigh. The sciences are not higher than philosophy, theology, etc. However, I did not stay in academics, but had my own curriculum consulting business for awhile and my own Montessori school. Bye, end of discussion.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, in terms of society’s resources, the sciences are “higher”. They are required in greater volume. They require a set of skills and temperament that is unique to them, well beyond the simple rote of the humanities, and that must be given consideration as society’s resources are allocated.

                  Everybody can pass Logic 101 and Film Studies 51. Far fewer can pass Calc I, and yet that’s what society needs, in volume.

                  Accept this, and then we can move on to the real discussion, the feminist stronghold in academia, and its influence on all of this, and its massive costs. You haven’t even entered into the discussion, even as you run from it.

                • Marie Dean

                  Bismarck obviously won the kulturkampf. I am not a feminist, nor do I think feminism created the problems with boys and men. Men are to raise men and when men do not do so, we have a weakened society. Women want strong men as well, especially strong women.

                  You might find this interesting.


                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, I’m not going to click on that link, now that you’ve claimed to be running, while then returning. Sorry. I’m not interested in pursuing as you dodge.

                  Here’s what you can do. Give us a list of the academic fluff you’d want chopped. Give percentages and administrative titles of those to be chopped. Let’s settle on the boundaries of some of this, and see if that helps you understand the problem. You may have more experience in understanding this problem than you know. It’s by academia itself that this must be finally executed.

  • anyfool

    While education continues to be feminised or at least teaching is predicated around making learning more female friendly, males will continue to slide down the evermore worthless school tables.

    Most males outlooks are driven by rivalry, take that away and the whole world will stagnate intellectually, while at the same time invention and progress will halt.
    All progress made throughout history is a direct result of this and dumbing down the way people are educated to suit the female agenda will not help anyone

  • Paul Weston

    Mr Nelson, you may well have grown up equating feminism with equality, but I grew up associating feminism with a hard-left assault on the family, an institution the left considers to be an impediment to full State control. A cursory glance at the writings of Germaine Greer, Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan would confirm this.

    Feminist women appear to think they are above nature, but nature is about survival. Child Free and Loving It may sound progressive and right-on, but if every woman adopted this perverse attitude, the human race would effectively be destroyed.

    Leftists (which include many feminists) love the idea of the Welfare State, but without future tax-payers “wither” the Welfare State?

    Life is NOT fair. Women cannot have it all. They must make a choice between being oppressed by their husbands and children or being oppressed by their employer whilst remaining childless. There is no third way of family and career, save for those who can afford other female servants to look after their children, which rather defeats the purported ideals of feminism anyway.

    Full blown feminism has existed for about 50 years, and we see the resulting chaos all around us. Unhappy children turning to drink, drugs, immorality and illegality; a dwindling demographic unable to provide the money needed by a modern liberal democracy; the swamping of our culture by imported foreign people deemed necessary to make up for our demographic shortfall etc etc.

    Feminism has proven to be just another lethal, subversive, leftist assault on traditional Britain (and the West) which seeks to divide us into squabbling minorities to be utilised by the left. Where once it was the Bourgeoisie deemed the oppressor and the worker the oppressed (in order to bring about revolution) it is now a variety of groups who are labelled oppressor/oppressed – the white, Christian, Capitalist male sits at the pinnacle of “oppression” – or in other words, the very people who built the civilisation so detested by crypto-Communists.

    Give feminism another 50 years and I rather doubt Western civilisation will still be around.

    • Paul Weston

      Many people, no doubt, will think I am a raving lunatic equating feminism with Communist subversion, but the following are just a few brief quotes from Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch:

      “Now, ungenteel middle-class women are clamouring for revolution. For many of them the call for revolution came before the call for the liberation of women. The New Left has been the forcing house for most movements and for many of them liberation is dependent upon the coming classless society and the withering away of the state.”

      “The housewife who must wait for the success of world revolution for her liberty….which will follow when a better life is assured for all by the correct political means.”

      “The most telling criticisms will come from my sisters on the left; the Maoists, the Trots, the IS, the SDS, because of my fantasy that it might be possible to leap the stages of revolution and arrive somehow at liberty and Communism…”

      “Hopefully this book is subversive. Hopefully it will draw fire from all the articulate sections of the community. The conventional moralist will find much that is reprehensible in the denial of the Holy Family, in the denigration of sacred motherhood…”

      “The opponents of female suffrage lamented that woman’s emancipation would mean the end of marriage,morality and the state; their extremism was more clear sighted than that of the woolly benevolence of liberals and humanists, who thought that giving women a measure of freedom would not upset anything. When we reap the harvest which the unwitting suffragettes sowed, we shall see that the anti-feminists were after
      all right.”

      The following quote is from Friedrich Engels:

      “The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed slavery of the wife…within the family the husband is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat.”

    • allymax bruce

      Great comment, Paul.
      Very well said.

    • rubyduck

      Loving the rants, but the truth is that, since the 80s (if not earlier), women work because men’s jobs are not secure and there’s that mortgage to worry about. The supply of women workers tended to depress men’s wages (outside the public sector, natch) and when they weren’t depressed enough, they imported the world (and unfortunately his wife, various uncles etc) to finish the job.

      It’s only going to get worse.

  • monty61

    Maybe these Feminist types should start checking their privilege ….

  • Old Fox

    Why, for heaven’s sake, dance to the socialist tune of “equality” in the first place? If girls are doing well then the boys ought to emulate them; it’s a simple as that. And if clever women marry thoughtful men, good – they will produce the aristocracy of tomorrow – a naturally gifted elite rather than some bureaucratic pinko stitch up, prattling “equality” whilst reserving advantage for the apparatchiks. To recognise the variables of social development as “problems” is innately left wing. The answer lies in the hands of government only in so far as that government makes and executes plans to get out of the bloody way. Then it’s up to people – in this case, males – to get on with it.

    • allymax bruce

      I agree with your predilection to an elite class through elites inbreeding, and this leads to intra-class breeding; producing like. But this doesn’t necessarily determine an ‘aristocracy’, that definition is different. You say government should just get out of the way; again, yes, I agree. However, little Tristan, and his Eton pals Jeremy, Geoffrey, and Penelope all must get daddy to ‘clear the path’ into the best jobs for them; because, on merit, they are no more clever than working class kids. Hence, your natural selection intra-class inbreeding is not a Natural essence; rather, it becomes a manufactured class dichotomy. As for your degenerating description of Labour’s horrendous ‘equality’, I agree with you, equality is only a masquerading political tool to disenfranchise people from their God-given rights.

  • HookesLaw

    Typical of lefties to lie about the tories and tory values on the economy. They are the ones opposing fracking in the north. Heaven forbid that the socialist-serfs in their hovel ridden fiefdomes should get a chance at aspiration and ambition.

    What we see is an example of the closed mind, the prejudice of a socialist lefty nutjob.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      …sounds like you’re describing your boy Call Me Dave, lad.

      • Fergus Pickering

        It’s a broken record, this one. Or what used to be called a King Charles’s Head. Perhaps you should see someone about it.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …and Call Me Dave has his blindly supportive minions, obviously.

          • HookesLaw

            You are the one with a closed mind if there is anyone at home at all.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Perhaps you’d be more comfortable over with the above commenter, the grauniadista?

              That’s more your socialist style, isn’t it?

      • HookesLaw

        Sounds like your grasping at straws, not that you have the first clue about what you ever talk about.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          All the socialists coming out to play, apparently. 😉

    • RobertC

      Labour (Wilson Callaghan) closed more coal mines in the ’60’s than Mrs T.

      Manufacturing shrank more under Blair and Brown than under Mrs T and Major.

      But why let facts spoil a good story?

  • Alan Millard

    This depiction is a mere take off of “Rosy the Riviter” from WWII, not in any legitimate way to be associated with the feminist movement. There is no equality represented, but instead a superior identity attached to women over men. To have humanity harbor this nonsense reveals how much further we must go before ever achieving a level of intellect much above other primates.

  • Nick diPerna

    Human societies have always been gynocentric, putting women and children first. If you give women privileges at the expense of men, then it creates an even greater power disparity, and leaves poorer men with no active role in society other than being a worker drone. Very dehumanising.

    The few remaining men who are still considered a catch are vigorously pursued by many women – hardly empowering.

    • HookesLaw

      So the muslims have got it right then? And arranged marriages by the hindus?

      • Nick diPerna

        Not necessarily. Marriage allowed early civilisations to prosper and reach the level of technological advancement we have today.
        Where we go from here is the real challenge, but going backwards is not the answer.

  • allymax bruce

    Nelson, you pure sap, girls are more clever than boys. Men, however, are 3 times as clever than women.
    Psychology (Gardener), reckons girls are more clever in 4 of his 6 intelligences; but the 2 that men are better in are the ones that propel science reasoning, and logico-spatial abilities. Maths, geography, philosophy, critical thinking/problem-solving and parking cars; men are better. So what’s new !
    Girls do better from 7 to 17 but after that, men rule; overwhelmingly.
    Don’t fret about your boy; just make sure you’re not forced out of your family by the ‘class-system’. Where the under, working, middle-class fathers are used as fodder, to prop up kuntz like you!

    • Fergus Pickering

      I can’t understand any philosopher after David Hume and I can’t park a car for toffee nuts. I was a male last time I looked and people tell me I have fathered two daughters – clever young devils and the one that drives a car can park on a sixpence.

      • allymax bruce

        Yeh, the last time my wife parked my car, she parked it on a lampost !
        I’m pleased your daughters are clever. Hume is the original text book for 101 philosophy; you were supposed to use Hume to ‘found’ all other philosophies/philosophers you read there-after. The most enlightening thing for me, Fergus, was to learn, how to learn. To understand how to use this noggin God gave me. The first book I read was the KJV , and I now realise the Bible is the only book I needed to read.

    • rubyduck

      I’ll grant you the spatial bit (having buggered up cutting foil backed plasterboard a couple of years ago) but got a 1st in philosophy and beat the pants of most of the telecoms engineers I’ve worked with in critical thinking, problem solving, and (somewhat surprisingly since I didn’t do Maths to A level) a particular mathematically based course in performance engineering where I sat by a Maths PhD student and said “You do the sums, I’ll write the code” and found myself telling him what to do 4 hrs in.

      Women are cleverer than men. That’s why they should be tending to the children.

      • allymax bruce

        rubyduck, thanks for your reply. I luv women, because they are women; God’s beautiful creation, be-side man.
        I’ve always been amused by the fact a man will neglect his ‘Freudian’ death instinct, to marry the love of his life. Regardless of the instinctial knowing she’s gonna ruin him!

      • Dave

        Anecdotal evidence. Always the best type, peer reviewed journals are over-rated.

  • formonitoring

    oh ‘it’s a thoughtful and spunky piece’ is it Fraser? How jolly generous of you. These women, they can write sentences and everything. And they are so full of spirit! God almighty, we know you’re the last young fogey, but try not to make it too visible…

    • Jer

      What a shock for Ally Fogg when he learns he is a woman.

  • Magnolia

    My comment bounced to mods, I presume for daring to write ‘the ffemminnizzation of education’
    Says it all really….

  • Smithersjones2013

    I shall not comment on his plans for a “a social project to reinvent masculinity and gender roles in keeping with the world we have built”

    What makes those on the left so repugnant is that messiah complex within them that drives them to redefine everything in their own image. Why do they think so many people are rejecting mainstream politics? Its because they won’t leave people alone. Like deranged stalkers they keep trying to turn everybody else into brainless clones of themselves…..

  • Austin Barry

    I suspect that I’m befuddled by Laphroaig (the great malt that wounds) but I can’t make head nor tail of Fraser’s piece, perhaps similarly written while fighting the oily, peaty fumes of a dram or two of malt.

    However, the mention of Diane Abbott, surely Idi Amin’s love child, has caused me to imbibe even more of Skye’s hallucinogenic product.

    Surely, the Speccie should not be encouraging oblivion drinking?

    • Andy

      ‘mention of Diane Abbott, surely Idi Amin’s love child’

      Explains everything.

    • John Court

      Perhaps you were enjoying Talisker? Laphroaig is from Islay.

  • Ally Fogg

    Hi Fraser (if you don’t mind the informality. I may be 46 years old but every time someone calls me “Mr Fogg” I look over my shoulder for my dad)

    I’ll assume you’re calling Boris Johnson accurately here and everyone misunderstood him, his point is one that I profoundly disagree with. Suggesting that women won’t marry down because of “basic human prejudice” is a perfect example of what I mean by reforming our social values around gender and masculinity in particular, something you seem reluctant to consider, which rather underlines my point.

    It is also not true. There was a big international study recently that found that as employment opportunities and earnings equalise, so too does the gap within relationships – women in the developed west are much more likely to form relationships with men of the same or lower earnings than they were a couple of decades ago. The idea that hypergamy is some kind of inevitable, innate, evolved trait has been proved false.

    An interesting aside, I don’t know if it is true but someone told me on Twitter today that one thing David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have in common is that they all earn less than their wives.

    On a more minor matter, I didn’t want to get into the complexities of the gender wage gaps, but your 0.7% gap for women in their thirties rather misses the point. Those are hourly wages for full-time employment. What happens after children is that women are much more likely to either stop working for several years or go part time, which again is where the traditional gender role stuff comes in.

    Beyond that, I was obviously completely horrified to discover that we have some points of agreement, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, thanks.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      It is common in the West today for the political class to use their station to place their spouses (and other friends and family members) into well paid positions, my dear grauniadista. Please make a note of it, so you won’t be caught making foolish declarations about alleged social and cultural changes that are actually quite unremarkable and completely disconnected from the peculiar gender dogma you’re pushing here.

    • allymax bruce

      Nothing is ever ‘proved’ false, or otherwise. In science, there are ‘significances’.
      Nothing worse than a Guardian fakey pop-op, trying to make out as a scientist.

    • HookesLaw

      At a time when people are complaining, not least on the left about MPs pay its good of you to remind us that its not that hot.

      One wife is a EU apparatchik isn’t she? She makes her money out of the EU anyway
      One wife is some sort of leech like lawyer making money out of green politics
      One works 2 days a week using the rest to support her husband..

    • Curnonsky

      That line about “reforming our social values around gender and masculinity” reminds me of Orwell’s observation that socialist totalitarianism was supposed to breed a new race of granite-jawed, shiny-eyed supermen and women but instead the workers became grey, listless, shifty and drunken shadows of their ideal selves.

      That’s what the Left’s crusade to junk Western civilization and history has produced: instead of ideal Ikea-catalog couples raising their offspring in gender-neutral harmony we have divided into an army of aggressive tattooed hard-drinking women and lumpish porn-addled drunken unambitious men who hook up Saturday nights in the nearest alley.

      • Fergus Pickering

        The lumpish useless men we have had always with us. Also aggressive women though the tattoos may be new.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …yes, but you on the Left celebrate these, and plan for them, and accommodate them. That’s the point. That’s what’s new.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Good Lord. I am on the left. When did this happen? I must tell everybody who thinks I am Attila the Hun.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …and who would that be? They’d have to be card carrying bolsheviks.

    • telemachus

      “What happens after children is that women are much more likely to either stop working for several years or go part time, which again is where the traditional gender role stuff comes in. ”
      Ally, this is they key and main point missed by Fraser

    • Tracheal

      The new metrosexual man of the kind who is favored by feminist bigots. Informal, over-intimate, slippery, totalitarian and of course way too cute for his own good. What a mean spirited mockery of truly progressive liberal principles.

      Your poor dad. Were I him I’d be crying shamed tears. Any man (so called) who sells his brothers down the river wholesale to coddle favor from feminist bigots given the copious scholarship about the niggardly nature of said bigots is hardly worth the name.

      Perfect fit for the goons who run the totalitarian rag known as The Guardian though.

      • HookesLaw

        When you have to use invented claptrap like ‘metrosexual’ then you know you have no argument.

        • Tracheal

          You wish I had no arguments. Traitors like Mr. Fogg who depend on fog to cloak his pigheaded propaganda are the one’s who obviously have no argument. Sadly though feminism is recycled trash rather than invented good sense.

          • Tim Reed

            “feminism is recycled trash”

            Yep – Feminism is Socialism with panties :


            • Tracheal

              I’ll take ”socialism in panties’ over ‘recycled trash’ any day. Thanks for pulling this clip in.

        • Colonel Mustard

          “metrosexual” has been around since 1994 – nearly 20 years – and is well established in the urban dictionary, although the meaning has slightly evolved. Its use doesn’t undermine an argument any more than using any other recent catchphrases or euphemisms.

    • Colonel Mustard

      It’s nothing to do with marrying up or down. It’s been about the creation of a leftist elite class stuffed with chippy women and feminised men all earning lucrative salaries at the public teat and mainly engaged in the sanctimonious lecturing of their fellow man (especially man) or pursuing numerous zealous crusades to control or ban things. The kind of pseudo-intellectual, sociological twaddle and especially dodgy statistics taught to them as a genre by thousands of post-1968 left-leaning academics that seems to be accepted everywhere without sufficient challenge, probably because of the shouty, intimidatory way those people behave when faced with the slightest dissent. Ooooooh, I’m a bigot – hush my mouth!

      You can discuss with fellow bubble dwellers how many angels dance on the head of the gender pin thing but for the rest of us we look in through the well-licked windows and just see a new establishment class, gender free, largely taxpayer funded – politicians, public sector (including the quangocracy and Fake Charity Land) and sadly and increasingly the media. All pontificating about the bleedin’ obvious and discussing how the world they largely contributed to wrecking might be put back together. Nice work if you can get it.

    • Tim Reed

      “There was a big international study recently that found that as
      employment opportunities and earnings equalise, so too does the gap
      within relationships”

      That gap only narrows out of necessity, not by choice. As some women become more successful and wealthy, so the pool of men who are more successful and wealthy still becomes ever smaller. Thus the prevalence of articles by successful, professional women along the lines of ‘Where have all the good men gone?’. The ‘good men’ are still there, they’re just invisible if they happen to be lower down the wealth/status/career ladder.

      “Proved false”? The evidence for hypergamy is all around us.

    • The_greyhound

      “one thing David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have in common is that they all earn less than their wives.”

      Two things, then, in common.

      The other being their unfitness to hold office.

  • MaxSceptic

    Ally Fogg is an uber-Guardianista and worthy of nothing but contempt.

    • allymax bruce

      As are all Guardian trash.
      Scotsman trash.
      Herald trash.
      Times trash; looks like a pattern is forming. MSM are trash.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        BBC appears to be growing a backbone. That NSA wire-tapping story just gets bigger by the day. Not that you`d know it by reading this esteaming publication.
        Jack, the only Brit in the village.

  • David B

    The left don’t like any narrative that does not fit with their narratives. This is way outside that narrative of the inequality to woman

    • zeth006

      Not necessarily. I don’t know what it is with people attaching political labels where they don’t belong. I actually agree with the author for the most part and I’ve voted Democrat for the past few elections.

      • eff diskus

        lol amurican

  • Tracheal

    This is a very very classy challenge to ‘anti-patriarchal’ powers that be, but what you failed to mention is that mainstream feminism is a fascist hate movement. Gender feminism is an officially coddled but utterly bankrupt ideology intended to establish female supremacy in the name of ‘equality’. We need to get to the root of the problem before we will be able to address your very open question in any meaningful way.

    • Nick diPerna

      I don’t think it’s anything to do with ideology – even though certain advocacy groups will try to push things along.

      When nations reach high levels of success, the ruling class put on exaggerated displays of superior moral status that includes equal rights and tolerance etc.. They don’t care if the people at the bottom have to pay for it.

      • Tracheal

        Please read Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry or Sanctifying Misandry so you can see how the institutionalized feminist hatred of all things male springs directly from it’s fascist ideology. Have to agree about the rest of your comment though. Today’s Establishment game is one big Inside Job as the film shows so well.

        • Nick diPerna

          Culture precedes politics and biology precedes culture. If we have misandric policies it is because it’s part of our biology.

          It’s our biology that needs to be recognised and addressed, otherwise we keep going around in circles.

          Hostile cliques need other hostile cliques to keep them bound together. By opposing feminist nobodies, you’re helping to give them strength and purpose.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            The over represented numbers of feminists in academia matter, even if they’re all “nobodies” as you say. They are already bound together there, in that location, and use that bridgehead to expand into more strength and purpose elsewhere. It may be contra biology, but that’s the essence of leftist authoritarianism, isn’t it? To create the new (wo)man?

            Strip out a bunch of the useless academic fluff, and the skewed numbers there would likely rebalance.

            • Nick diPerna

              I don’t buy the general thesis. Chucking a billion at a bunch of screaming university babies is nothing in the eyes of the ruling classes (it’s not their money). There is no leftist conspiracy, like I said before, liberal ideas manifest when certain sections of society reach a level of relative comfort – people with material security start to impose their values on wider society. It’s a form of unconscious status posturing.

              The problem here is nonrecognition of the dominance hierarchy and unaccountable power.

              We all love a bogeyman, someone to point the finger at, but the bogeyman is often a way of externalising our own inherent nature.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                No bogeyman, lad. The cash spent and the numbers represented and the skewed nature of those numbers speaks for itself. There is no argument here, the data speaks for itself.

                And whatever the motivations, once the above is created, and becomes a power base, it will seek to sustain and expand itself. That is a certainty as well.

                You’d have to provide something more than opinion, to counter that which we can all lay our hands on and touch, today.

              • Colonel Mustard

                “There is no leftist conspiracy” he says, when all around us in so many ways is the tangible evidence of the deliberate leftist long march since 1968. It has created not just a matrix predicament of issues for humans, the answer to which, apparently, is yet more leftism, but has modified and constrained our language, deliberately, relentlessly.

                These “liberal” ideas did not “manifest” but have been formulated and deliberately applied in an orchestrated exploitative harmony, subverting and shredding the naive stability that went before and so tediously predictable that it can be recognised at once by everyone to whom its collective works are anathema. The deconstruction in this country alone has been immense, revolutionary and far too radical to be passed off as some semi-mysterious evolutionary passage.

                And there is no better proof of the conscious intent of the like-minded travellers pursuing this conspiracy than to read the smug, sanctimonious, self-serving, gloating, triumphalist, tendentious twaddle penned here day in and day out by the grotesque telemachus who has not a millimetre of room in his narrow, blinkered but determinedly red tinted brain for the slightest difference of opinion or dissent.

                Bogeyman? No, no bogeyman. No imaginary creature of the night haunting our subconscious but a real live flesh and blood collective pressing a “progressive” policy, planning to ban something or being “offended” in a council office near you.

          • Tracheal

            The reason feminist bigots gained were able to subjugate the whole Western civilization is because in the beginning, the targets of said bigotry never bothered to take em seriously as highly effective yet totally fraudulent fascists. Time to change or game or commit suicide because the misandrist policies are based on BOTH biology and C*nt (including male C@nt) culture. Thankfully men and decent women are beginning to become aware of how dangerous feminism is despite the silencing of scientific, anti-feminist, and MHR opposition to the officially coddled racket.

  • Mike Barnes

    Brilliant news, as a single, white, working class 20something male who went to a comprehensive school I must be the most oppressed person in the country. Get me a lawyer, I’m off to Strasbourg!

  • Ben

    Merely now waiting for Katie Hopkins to “rock in” to comment on this article!

    P.S. I agree (and partly due to the feminising workforce in education research and education itself). Although females aspire to objectivity (just like males); when it comes to the tougher choices between “Little Johnny” and “Little Jenny”: when that marginal place in “top set” is in the balance…).

    P.P.S. Do re-watch the opening scenes of the Two Ronnies “Worm that Turned” now that St Stephen’s Tower is Queen Elizabeth II tower and the Home Office is run by a woman:

  • Adrian Drummond

    The web’s ‘manosphere’ has been growing exponentially in recent years and reflects a backlash among young men against the pervasiveness of feminism and the damage it causes. To them, Ally Fogg would describe as a White Knight.

    Definition :A man in authority who enables Team Womyn in his legislative actions,
    judgments, or rulings, reflexively, emotionally-driven, without thought or even
    looking at what’s right.

    • allymax bruce

      Your tipping point has nothing to do with women, rather, it’s all to do with the male dominated upper class politics, that determine class education, that ensures only the ‘select’ upper class are propelled into the good jobs.
      The lower classes can struggle; I mean, what’s the point of having a class system, if there’s no class struggle!

      • HookesLaw


  • telemachus

    This is all of course written by someone whose wife has just embarked on maternity leave
    I have no doubt that he is a modern father and shares the household chores and does his share of nappies
    He no doubt looks to his wife resuming the upward trajectory of her career as he his
    What is forgotten is that, particularly after a second the world to a mother begins to look different
    The man goes out in the morning and continues to climb the ladder aiming for the top
    The mother begins to relish the role of the mother in developing her charge and competing with her peer mothers in this and the ladder looks certainly for a few crucial years not so important
    The momentum is lost
    This is the true discrimination
    This is why women, by force of biology are disadvantaged

    • gavbo

      Listen to how biased you are from the very start.

      Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you just want to swing the conversation back to women.


    • fantasy_island

      And as long as women give birth this will always be the case, as one would expect.

      • Tracheal

        No modern father should share the chores or changing the nappies unless the women shares equally in the dangerous, dirty and uncomfortable work that causes men to die 95-5 on the job.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Sorry, what jobs are these? Men on oil-rigs and soldiers. Can’t think of anything else. What about the cushy desk jobs that most of us actually do?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Of course you can’t think of anything else. You’re like that.

            • HookesLaw

              Neither can you by the sound of it.

              Mr Pickering’s assertion is sound. The construction industry is relatively dangerous and of course we don’t have much in the way of coal mines any more

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Yes, and you can’t think of anything else, as well. You’re like that.

          • Tracheal

            Coal miners, gas drillers, garbage men, taxi drives (who also suffer false rape charges) farmers, fishermen, manufacturing workers, and tons of other far higher stress office jobs too.

            • george

              Hey! Many jobs, if not most, cause stress. Teaching can be highly stressful: you try to instruct a number of distracted, rude, wi-fi-obsessed adolescents who are told they are awesome while their parents glare at you because not all of them are actually geniuses!

              Ever been a secretary? I have. For a number of people at one time. The pressure: I used to sweat in my chair with the exertion, even though it was office work. My god, they expect you to organize every aspect of their work existence and then wipe the kitchen counter down in your ‘spare’ moment. (I’ll never forget the look on a young executive’s face when he had the audacity to mention this to me. To judge by his expression and his immediate apology, my own look must have been withering.)

    • allymax bruce

      I admire your perserverativity.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Why is that disadvantaged, Tel? You are surely not saying that it is money that defines us/