Showing posts with label misandry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misandry. Show all posts

Friday, 17 April 2026

Sure They Will...!


Reader, they couldn't find or rather keep a man, but they are going to find the solution!
Do I worry that as a single mum I’m more likely to raise a toxic boy? It’s complicated. I am of course terrified of my son – who does not yet own a phone – getting online and being fed the sort of misogynistic poison shown on Louis Theroux’s important, but flawed, Inside The Manosphere, which is still going great guns on Netflix. But does being a single mother actually increase that risk?

Probably, it increases all sorts of risks, which is why it was once something to avoid… 

Surprise, surprise: an opportunity to blame women, some of society’s hardest working at that, for the behaviour of men.
The toxic figures platformed in Theroux’s documentary, and the boys and young men being radicalised online, have not turned out this way because they were raised by single mothers.

No, it’s because of money, or rather, lack of it:

Reaching, yet again, for tired statistics – often drawn from outdated studies – about boys in single-parent homes (while ignoring the underlying economic factors) completely misses the point.Conversations like this only compound society’s suspicion of single mothers, reinforcing a narrative that positions them as part of the problem rather than recognising toxic masculinity as the real issue.
Forty-three per cent of children in lone-parent households live in poverty, compared to 26 per cent in two-parent families. It is economically difficult, and often impossible, for single-income households to meet the basic costs of family life.

That's one of the reasons why, for thousand of years, it's been discouraged. But you yhought you knew better, didn't you?

Children from the lowest-income households face stark inequalities: lower GCSE attainment, higher rates of emotional difficulties, and a significantly increased likelihood of experiencing poverty in adulthood. Yes, there is a correlation between these outcomes and single parenthood, but for obvious economic reasons.

Economic reasons that dictate that the ideal set up is a TWO parent houshold! The answer's staring you in the face!  But none so blind, and all that...

Friday, 28 November 2025

Letting The Side Down, Ladies...

A women's rights campaigner has rejected calls for female-only Tube carriages and said it should be men who are segregated in order to drive down harassment and sexual assault on the network.

 If that name sounds familiar, Reader, it should....

Patsy Stevenson, who was arrested by the Met Police at the Sarah Everard vigil, said a men-only carriage would be a better solution than segregating victims, because they constitute the 'majority' of offenders.

And - if such a thing was even possible on the overcrowded and unmonitored Tube - a men only carriage would result in...what, if not all the others being 'women only carriages'? 

Didn't think this through did you, airhead!  

It comes after the launch of a petition by UCL student Camille Brown, who called for women-only carriages on the Tube and for Sadiq Khan and TfL to 'do more to protect women'.
Ms Brown's petition, which has more than 13,000 signatures, asked for at least one dedicated women-only carriage on every Tube line in an attempt to curb gender-based harassment.

13,000 and I wonder how many of those were regular London Tube commuters. Because I am. and I know full well this idea is a total impossibility. As TfL (under the Muslim  Mayor of London, always happy to consider barmy virtue signalling insanity) know:

 The proposal has also been rebuffed by Transport for London (TfL) bosses who say they will not be considering women-only carriages.

Why does anyone entertain this nonsense? One interviewer wasn't happy to, and that's when the mask dropped: 

When challenged by presenter Wilfred Frost, who said that surely the problem 'could not be the majority of men', Ms Stevenson said: 'That would be lovely if it was a small minority, unfortunately it's definitely not. '

Good grief!