During the last week, I’ve been reading quite a lot of classic men’s rights literature, mostly from the 1990’s to the early 2000’s, including writers such as David Thomas (hence the recent post) and Neil Lyndon, author of ‘No More Sex War‘ (published in 1992).
In doing so, the explanation as to why feminist child sex abuse hysteria has come to be such a taboo subject in the MRM suddenly occured to me.
Paedohysteria and the feminist age of consent are no longer simply taboo subjects in the Men’s Rights Movement. Let’s not kid ourselves. These central feminist dogmas are now actively supported.
Less than two decades ago, and what strikes you isn’t just that men’s rights supporters were openly criticising child sex abuse hysteria, but that these men were speaking primarily from the persepective of FATHERS – including both Thomas and Lyndon (in the case of Thomas, in very strong terms). And if you read again the passage by Daivd Thomas I recently quoted, you will clearly see that it was understood by the author that any men’s rights supporter would be equally critical.
Fast forward to today, you have those who are indisputably the leading men’s rights activists ‘vehemently’ supporting the feminist Victorian age of consent, and it appears, the present hysteria that supports its ever more draconian application and justification. Laws which go some way to explaining the outrageous and shameful statistic that close to a million American men are now on the Sex Offenders Register, and increasingly de-humanized and as good as declared dead by the rest of society.
Yet, in this very week, two superb articles have appeared correctly deriding the suffragettes (who created the present age of consent) as violent terrorists and abusers of men and boys (for the white feather campaign).
And of course, most men’s rights activists would agree with the ‘official’ position on the age of consent and its surrounding issues.
How is this remarkable change within the men’s rights movement to be explained?
The answer, surely, cannot consist simply in the fact that paedo-hysteria is perhaps even worse now than it was 20 years ago.
Because, in the midst of the ‘satanic’ child abuse panics, I don’t think it was….at least not for the men’s rights authors who yet felt able and compelled to speak out against them.
And even in today’s hysteria, many figures from the mainstream media still feel able to speak out on these issues, from the Economist Magazine to academics such as Frank Furedi and even Richard Dawkins.
And when our fiercest critics have either themselves criticised paedohysteria (in articles they would rather we forget) or are even alleged actual child sex abusers, it is a downright lie to pretend that the ceaseless barrage of feminist laws that criminalise and target men are off-topic for a supposed genuine ‘men’s rights movement’ with any integrity and courage.
Paedohysteria hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. What has changed, and what might explain the change of attitude in the Men’s Rights Movement, is that the focus of paedohysteria and child sex abuse hysteria has changed.
Twenty years ago it was about father’s abusing their children, often in the most bizarre and hideously imagined context possible of ‘ritual satanic abuse’. This was primarily about radical feminists demonizing the family and the patriarchal father role.
Since then, the target of paedohysteria has switched, and the identity of the paedophile bogeyman been transformed..
Today, it is not so much about fathers sexually abusing their children, but rather hysteria over the internet ‘paedophile’ sex predator.
Instead of the patriarchal father being turned into a pervert, the feminists have moved on to demonising male sexuality in general.
Now it is the Jimmy Savile loner type figure who is once again the perverted devil and the threat to female innocence – the man who never marries, and who never has children, and who has never shown any interest into buying into the marriage contract upon which female sexual power depends.
And this explains the great men’s rights betrayal.
Fathers Rights Activists, who still constitute the greatest and most important demographic of the movement, are simply grateful that they are no longer the target of feminist inspired social hatred and sexual demonisation. Not only that, in the greatest betrayal, they actively support the spotlight being switched on to male sexuality in general – normal male sexual desire turned into a demonised representation through female sexual bitterness at the consequences of a secular free sexual market economy (an economy that these fathers typically are no longer competing in themselves). Men’s Rights fathers are thus free to focus on still ‘relevant’ (to them) issues such as domestic violence hysteria.
In this manner, the majority of men’s rights activists, who actively support patently absurd and irrelevant feminst sex laws that target men, are akin to the granny muggers and the drug dealers who beat and rape the lonely old park flashers in the prison showers in order to preserve their own self-esteem and ranking of social and moral (criminal) self-worth.
After all, nobody likes being at the very bottom of the dung heap – especially one created by feminists.