for idiots

   - Home
   - Liberalism
   - For half-wits
   - Woman's secret
   - Applied science
   - Paradigm shift


This page of my website was originally created at a time when all men were on the defensive with respect to feminism. Of course, nothing that men ever said or did in their defense ever assuaged their guilt, because feminists (men and women) always considered all men guilty as charged. No negotiation was ever entered into.

For many of us, this situation provided a source of irritation, because we've always regarded women as equally complicit with men in all that was good and bad in society, even before we ever heard of feminism. Indeed, for those of us used to thinking systemically, feminism never was about women versus men, but about men and women consolidating traditional power bases - feminism has never been anything other than old-fashioned chivalry in marxist garb. For example, affirmative action... Where before we used to open car doors for the li'l ladies, presumably because they were unable to open car doors themselves, today we let them in front of us in the job queue, presumably because they cannot compete on their own merits. But we digress.

We needed to get in feminists' faces to make it clear that we never owed them an explanation. My excerpts on this page are from that era. I like to think that I may have had a hand in the evolving cultural zeitgeist that now understands that we do not owe feminist sexists an explanation.

Let us revisit some of my earlier writings, to remind ourselves of what we were up against. The Beast may have been subdued, but it still breathes, and we need to remind ourselves that we can still get in its ugly face if we have to.

Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.

- from a saying on my desktop calendar

Typical liberal comment. We know what he means. He means that people are never right, they're only deluding themselves that they're right. And it is he alone who sees the truth of their delusions.

Well, I don't know whether the author was a liberal. But this is precisely the sort of comment that we can expect a modern-day liberal to make. In the liberal's world view, the only person that's right is the liberal. In their self-obsessed sanctimony, they fail to see their own arrogance.

I dedicate this page to forthright statements of righteousness made by those who have no doubt whatsoever that they are right. And may liberals refute Truth with their own brand of uniquely western group-think. Only who, other than liberals, will care?


Bettina Arndt is a psychologist and media writer for such newspapers as the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers. After discussing the difficulties facing boys in schools, she received the predictable barrage of responses, among them claiming that, after millenia of oppression by men, now it is women's turn (to dominate). The Australian newspaper similarly ran a features article on the topic, with reference to Bettina Arndt. I penned the following Letter-to-the-editor, which promptly vanished into cyber-space.... only to reappear here:

I refer to the anonymous letter by ďMothers of daughtersĒ to Bettina Arndt (Features, The Australian, 29 October 2002): ďThey [girls] need compensation for two thousand years of being repressed, mutilated, enslaved, raped and treated as inferior. In the twenty-third century, after they have had their turn at controlling the world, there could possibly be talk of equality.Ē

What kind of hat do people pull this unsubstantiated, unverifiable speculation from? This chestnut, on its own, deserves to be laughed into oblivion. However, as it is based in a chivalrous belief so widespread, and as it is impossible to laugh an entire western, feminized world into oblivion, perhaps more than a passing comment is warranted.

Men need compensation for two million years of providing for women, for doing womenís dirty-work, for being treated as draft-horses, walking wallets, cannon fodder, personal handyman, personal mechanic, personal body-guard, etc. And maybe herein lies a clue as to the reasons for menís historical dominance in employment and career. Habit. Now the following bit of patriarchal reasoning might be a little deep for some. So listen up.

The gender that habituates being provided for will have difficulty competing with the gender that habituates providing. Have I lost anyone? Spelling it out more explicitly for those even less giftedÖ the habituation of survival, competition and effort versus the habituation of being protected, pampered and provided for. There. That wasnít so hard, was it? Clearly, if one is shielded from lifeís challenges, one will have considerable difficulty competing with others not so shielded, whether in the board-room or the laboratory, at the helm or the controls (not that the majority of men are in positions of power or leadership - but since the majority of men are invisible to women, let's focus on the types of men that feminists notice).

And can we really expect that the world would be a more peaceable place at the hands of women? FGM (female genital mutilation) is performed exclusively by adult women on female children during sacred womenís rituals. Munchausenís syndrome by proxy is almost exclusively perpetrated by women. Infanticide throughout the world is almost exclusively perpetrated by women (including infanticide against female children in India and China, because girls donít make good providers). The primary abusers of children are women. In the persecution of witches throughout history, the primary ďwitnessesĒ and accusers were women and girls. Gossip is the favoured weapon of choice among women in destroying the lives of others, without ever having to get their hands dirty - they get a man to do the dirty part for them.

The only reason that feminists get away with peddling the self-indulgent myth that women are the gentler sex is that womenís victims are most often those least able to speak up or to defend themselvesÖ. They are our children. Now, how might this relate to the poor performance of boys in schools?


The results are in. It is now official. After 40 years of affirmative action in order to facilitate women's entry into the workforce, it is now clear that women don't want to work. These statistics will prove what we have always known all along. Women are 52% of the adult population. Yet, women comprise:

  • 28.5% of the Cabinet...
  • 13% of the US Senate...
  • 13.8% of the US House...
  • 22% of the US Supreme Court...
  • 20.6% of Federal Judges...
  • 10% of state Governors...
  • 19.9% of state Senators
  • 23.3% of state Representatives...
  • 9% of state Judges...
  • 20.8% of big city mayors
Isn't it time that women chipped in and pulled their own weight?


From their lofty moral high ground, feminists have applied womenís superior ways of knowing to gently remind us male heathens that we just donít ďget itĒ. I would like to return the favour. Here are some things that feminists just canít seem to wrap their brains around.

Feminists complain about the under-representation of women in the workplace. They want to enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They donít get it that for men, work is not a hobby. They donít get it that for men, work is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you, something you do to while away the hours. For the vast majority of men, not working is not an option. Men do not have the freedom to stay at home to rear the children if they like, or to do nothing particular if their fancy takes them, or to do the shopping if theyíre bored, or to get a part-time job to make friends, or to watch the soapies to have something to talk about.

Feminists donít get it that higher paying jobs arenít generously bestowed on men out of the goodness of their bossesí hearts, just because they are men. They donít get it that if women were as efficient as men and as profitable as men to employ, then there would have to be something seriously, gravely wrong with any organisation choosing men over women, just because they are men. Feminists just donít seem to understand that organisations function according to the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, and make those recruitment decisions most likely to benefit the bottom line. To do otherwise is to deserve to fail.

They donít get it that if a majority of women donít want to do certain types of work, then perhaps it might be a little difficult balancing the numbers. Feminists donít get it that focusing on equal outcome instead of equal opportunity is not equality but bias. If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in government or in coal mines, what do you do if a majority of women prefer not to work, or if they prefer not to expend the same effort and commitment to their careers as what men are required to do? If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in parliament, what do you do if you canít find women who want the job badly enough? Recruit check-out chicks? Or bored housewives?

Feminists donít get it that mowing the lawn, or repairing the car, or painting the bedroom, is domestic work. They think that men do these things to get out of doing the dishes.

The statistics from the feminist website, Gender Gap in Government, will shock you. WOMEN ARE 52% of the adult population, yet even after over 3 decades of affirmative action, women have barely dented the ranks of politicians. Are women really be this lazy?

Feminists donít get it that women's failure to participate is not due to oppression. Instead of blaming others for their own laziness, they should look inwards. Feminists' cherished statistics prove conclusively that even today, with all the affirmative action policies that have been enshrined in law, with everything that has been done to facilitate womenís access to menís jobs without their having to earn them, women are still not pulling their weight. Feminists donít understand that they have now provided us with proof of what we have known all along - that women are bone lazy, and that they never actually wanted to work.

Feminists donít get it that when women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom, they are more likely to pull out of the career paths that might otherwise lead to higher salaries. Stay-at-home moms are less likely to have the sort of career experience that pays well. The presence of the stay-at-home escape-hatch profoundly influences the choices that women make.

They donít understand that only men fight wars, pollute environments and generally, do the dirty-work also of women, because women are too comfortable in the security provided by men to be bothered to do it themselves.

They donít get it that the reason that the majority of people over 60 who are now living in poverty are women is that they are more likely to have been married to providers who are now dead.

Feminists donít get it that when a woman dresses to be looked at, sheís going to beÖÖ looked at. They donít get it that when a woman dresses to lure, sheís going to beÖÖ approached. Perhaps it's a bit too deep for them. It is a rather difficult notion well beyond feministsí grasp, as it is founded in abstract, rational principles (rationality) foisted on everyone by The Patriarchy.

They donít get it that womenís fantasies about being raped reveal a secret about womenís sexuality. They donít get it that rape scenes in novels written by women for women derive their appeal from tapping into this private side of feminine nature. They donít understand the connection between their thoughts and their longings or the duality that exists between being protected and being violated. Sure, feminists reassure us, rape is terrible and just because a woman fantasises about being raped, does not mean that she wants to be raped. What they donít get is that womenís unspoken secrets can influence and justify (in their minds) the choices that women make, in fashion and in men. They donít understand that the thrill of dressing to lure, to be desired, to be dominated and to be taken, can come at a price and so, has its responsibilities.

They donít get it that when women choose wallets without character, they might finish up with characters who wonít share their wallets.

Feminists donít get it that, when a man cheats on his wife, there is usually a woman who cheats with him. And no, itís not because of something he put in her drink.

They donít get it that when women say no and then give in to the types of jerks least likely to take no for an answer, other men are going to have a hard time believing that no means no.

Feminists just canít seem to wrap their brains around the fact that, the women that enforce, supervise and participate in the tribal African custom of female genital mutilation are not, actually, men dressed in drag. And no, the fact that men generally do not participate in sacred womenís rituals (such as FGM) does not mean that innocent mothers, grand-mothers and aunties have had their drinking-water drugged by scheming patriarchs.

They donít get it that when women wear fashions and apply lipstick and makeup in order to deceive men, they are not helpless victims of a Beauty Myth, but active participants, motivating companies to give them more of what they demand

Feminists donít get it that blaming men for the oppression of women is like blaming mothers for the oppression of little boys. And little boys become men. They donít understand that what goes around comes around.

They donít get it that feminism is the princess syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. They donít understand that feminism cannot exist without chivalry, without Patriarchyís Galahads who have traditionally always done womenís dirty-work.

There is so much that feminists donít get, one can be forgiven for wondering whether there is something inherent in the nature of femininity that precludes women from understanding the most basic, simple logic. With womenís silence and complicity while the injustices rage against men, we might forgive those who regard feminism as proof that women are less able than men in almost every sphere of life. You will have to be patient with them. You will have to remind them that feminism is not about women, but about chivalry, and feminist women demanding and extracting privileges from men. If feminist women are nincompoops, what does that make the men that so readily comply with their demands?


Marriage is prostitution. That's why men ought to kick their whores out of the house and get them to get a real job. Swanning around shopping malls between doing the ironing, watching soapies on tv, gossiping with girl-friends and the like, is not a real job.


Are you confused about your sexuality? Is there something about women of the feminist era that is holding you back, something that puts you off? Could you be gay?

Feminism has ushered in the most fabulously liberated sexuality the world has ever seen. In every other culture, in every other time, over thousands of millenia since the beginning of human history, women have felt the constraints of those silly notions of morality, where concerns about being seen as tarts made things difficult for the sorts of men that are, in today's free and enlightened society, able to enjoy regular, random sex. Within the space of only forty years, the miracle of feminism has transformed the world in ways never before dreamt of. This is the 21st Century! We should be rejoicing in feminism's contribution to an egalitarian, indiscriminate sexuality in women that does not unfairly disadvantage even rapists or child-molesters.

Man-hopping is a feminist woman's way of establishing meaningful relationships with sensitive, caring men, without needing to take responsibility for the choices that she makes (these gals are permitted to make mistakes). It allows a woman the sexual freedom to experiment with as many different types of men as possible, without actually being called a slut.

Of course now, with the new standards set by feminism, you can't afford to be too picky. You cannot allow a woman's sexual history to dampen your enthusiasm. You cannot afford to hesitate, otherwise opportunities will pass you by.

So get in touch with your Neanderthal side. Nurture it. Know that whether you are a pimple-faced, drooling adolescent or a rolling, alcoholic lush, women are more available to you now than ever before in human history. Know that if it were not for feminism, rapists and child-molestors would be dateless and desperate. Know that when a feminist complains that 'all men are bastards', she reveals not a penetrating truth about all men, but a part of herself, her history, and the choices she's made.


Any culture where it is a man's duty to provide for women, to protect women, to deliver women from the necessity of ever having to get an education or to develop a career, can be understood to be, from a very real perspective, a matriarchal culture. Such cultures exist the world over, from Islamic to Christian, from Buddhist to Hindu.

Now what was all this talk about "Patriarchy"? Do feminists even have a sliver of a clue as to what a "Patriarchy" might be?


The most important message of Systems Theory is that what goes around comes around. How we treat our children impacts directly on how our cultures evolve.

From the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect (a website maintained by Caliber Associates, Inc.), we know that:

Slightly more than 60 percent of perpetrators were female and they were typically younger than male perpetrators. Neglect and medical neglect were most often attributed to female perpetrators, while male perpetrators were more likely to be physically and sexually abusive.
The Administration for Children and Families (US Department of Health and Human Services) details a pie chart indicating that, as a rough, back-of-hand estimate, just under twice as many mothers as fathers are involved in the fatalities of their children.

The same agency provides a breakdown of Type of Maltreatment by Sex of Perpetrator and is consistent with the findings of the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, indicating that slightly more than 60% of perpetrators of child maltreatment were female, and slightly under 40% were male.

The usual excuse by feminists is that women are the primary caretakers of children, they spend the most time with children, and so of course women are more likely to abuse children. Therefore we can excuse them. But this excuse is ignorant of systems theory. A systems theory perspective should realize that little boys grow up to be men. What goes around comes around.

A systemic perspective would recognize that a mother raising a child is in a power relationship that is culturally sanctioned. Women are the primary nurturers of children. They are more exposed to the opportunity to abuse children. But nurturing her children is a mother's responsibility, it's her job. She can either act responsibly, or she can abuse her power. What goes around comes around. When mothers abuse children, with the predisposition to abuse boys more, then they play their part in creating the abusers that come around to abuse another day. This is Systems Theory, a theory that connects the abuses that go around with the culture that comes around to impact on all our lives.

And if we really want to clear up any ambiguity regarding murdering moms, the Gendercide Watch website provides some insights, namely:

"Infanticide is a crime overwhelmingly committed by women, both in the Third and First Worlds"
On this same page, the message is that it is women who murder their female infants. Why? Economic reasons. That's Jargonese for Woman's preoccupation with her cherished security. As every responsible infanticidist knows, you can never expect little girls to grow up to become good providers, to provide for their gentle mothers in old age. But you can, however, shunt little boys out into paddy fields so that they can earn their keep.

Is this patriarchy at work? Or is it matriarchy? Woman giveth life and Woman taketh away. What can be more matriarchal than that?

More systems theory. Women choose the types of men that they would like their sons to be. Think about it.

With all this violence being perpetrated against children by mothers, why do sanctimonius, hypocritical, misandrist agencies focus on protecting women? Simple. Children don't form lobby groups to lobby senators. Children don't know how to seek protection in dv shelters. Children don't write to newspapers to voice outrage at injustices perpetrated against them. Children don't go on marches to take back the night. Abused children must bear their pain in silence, because when they no longer have their parents to protect them, they have no way of being heard. It is sensible of us to ask:

To what extent are mothers getting away with murder?


From I found the following telling remark by Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor:

"...Harvard is the first school to put in writing that the word of a woman [in relation to sexual assault] is not good enough"

Feminists pidgeon-hole men as brutish, violent, arrogant thugs, and women as naturally nicer, gentler and more socially aware. By implication, men are more likely to be truthful in their insensitivity, while women are more likely to be deceptive in their diplomacy. Does it not therefore follow that we have no reason whatsoever to attribute to women a greater proclivity to tell the truth? Indeed, would not the opposite be more likely to hold? The gender predisposed to deceiving must surely be the gender more likely to lie. So why is it that, for every other crime or misdemeanour, reasonable standards of corroboration and verification should hold, but not for violence against women?


Another chestnut from The Australian newspaper.

On the 15th of January of 2001, I stumbled upon a piece of blatant sexism by Susan Mitchell in The Australian newspaper, titled, "Let's face it: women are decidedly brighter". She begins with, "It is perhaps time to admit something that has been staring us in the face. No one has been game enough to spell it out. Let's tell the truth and admit that women are more intelligent than men." She continued with the predictable references to women's maturity, better behavior and superior performance at school. Whilst, from one perspective, my first impulse was to want to agree with her - after all, the gullible men of today are letting feminists get away with this sort of nonsense - my commonsense prevailed, and I penned the following reply for the "Letters to the editor" section. Again another masterpiece vanishing into cyberspace, only to reappear here for your reading pleasure:


Susan Mitchell's recent contribution (The Australian, 15 January) raises questions about the nature of intelligence. Girls do indeed do better than boys in today's namby-pamby, touchy-feely curricula that discourage competition, to emphasize "facilitation" and cooperation. This is hardly a sign of intelligence. Indeed, one could argue that having a prefrontal lobotomy might be more conducive to the mind-numbing conformity required of what passes for curricula these days.

Conformity is not the same thing as intelligence.

And how does "maturity" relate to intelligence? If, by girls maturing earlier than boys we mean that girls are more inclined to conform to socially acceptable norms of behavior, well, once again, we would do well to ask what on earth proper behavior has to do with intelligence. People shielded from the expectations of saying or doing much of anything have little to be responsible for. Privileged, protected and provided for, they do not have to put themselves on the line, to risk revealing their more vulnerable sides. Without ever having to confront anything more challenging than having to decide between brands of hairspray, of course one is less likely to make mistakes and, ipso facto, appear more "mature". In this context, we might regard sheep as being more mature than either men or women.

Locking oneself out of hotel rooms? Again, similar argument - well-behaved conformists reveling in detail are less likely to lock themselves out of rooms, while absent-minded geniuses are more likely to do so. Far be it for me to suggest that managers are anything on a par with geniuses. But I'm sure we get the point.

Chivalrists have long succeeded in conning everyone as to the superiority of men over women, all the while protecting and providing for women at every turn (does anyone else see the contradiction?). Now it's feminists' turn. But as feminism is just chivalry demanded by feminists (rather than chivalry bestowed by men), it is similarly sexist, and it is now feminists who are trying to pull the same stunt. But instead of running to protect men and to provide for men, feminists are treating men rather more differently. On this point alone, I agree with Mitchell - for surely, is not men's willing complicity in their own oppression, as perpetrated by feminists, an indication of their own stupidity and gullibility?


Feminism is just the Princess Syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. Only instead of chivalrous men bestowing it upon women out of the goodness of their misguided hearts, it is now the little ladies demanding it of men.

Last updated January 2005
Stephen Springette
To contact me, replace contrasp with tramont to counter spm: