Due to failure on the part of Douglas to show up (he was collaborating with the bourgeois in the most foul fashion possible by seeking a job) I didn’t bother to turn up for Friday’s sessions of Marxism until late in the day, instead opting to watch Alladin. Quite a good call, I thought.

The main event was based around a series of stalls, but sadly not as diverse a one as those I witnessed when I covered Love Music Hate Racism. No, this had SWP tents and Stop The War tents and Left List tent and a SWP table and…Well, basically all but three of the set-ups were SWP connected. The first seemed to be some climate change group which the SWP had possibly only let in due to being then impressed at the amount of protesters the Climate Camp and so on were able to mobilise. The other were selling subscriptions to an underground socialist video collection group named News Reel which I didn’t have any money to go along with. I told the man that my money was all going on groceries (the truth) and he told me he knew the feeling well.

The third group were the most interesting by far: Turkish socialists. These types are rather penned in on all sides; struggling alongside the moderate Islamists while repulsed by their neo-liberal policies and incapable of doing anything about the more conservative Islamist movement uprising, while having nothing but disdain for the secularist far-right nationalist movement which seems to have the backing of the anti-democratic Turk generals.

On top of this they suffer, as with almost everywhere, due to a fractured left. They, like the SWP, aspire towards a grouping similar to Die Linke in Germany, which has united the left successfully and enjoyed increasing electoral success. But it seems like they have a good deal of work ahead of them if they wish to manage that. Not, perhaps, as much as the British left…

Speaking of which I got to speak to more people from within Respect. This opportunity was presented to me when I stopped by at the Love Music Hate Racism tent and talked a bit about Bexley’s old school racist nationalism amongst other topics and it turned that (as Londoners) these SWPers were Respect activists. Interestingly one fellow (the second I’ve met who fulfills these credentials) actually was not a member of the SWP and never had been, due to filling the rather unpopular position (at Marxism, at least) of being a reformist socialist instead of a revolutionary. Apparently this is the source of constant arguments between him and his Socialist Worker friends, which I can well imagine but am glad has not prevented them getting along.

He still stated that Respect was now called Left List, but apparently the name “Left Alternative” is also being floated. I hope very strongly that this is not the one they run with as it is truly dire. If they haven’t gotten themselves into a position where they can call themselves “The Left Party” and be done with it then that should be their top priority. A party describing itself as the “Alternative” has never won anything.

In order to try and get my bearings of the place I headed to the entrance of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) where there was a large SWP tent. There I met a lovely middle aged woman who talked to me about the basic socialist stuff. She told me about the local level stuff the SWP get up to, I gave her a rough and weak outline of pragmatic socialism and she told me I should join. I find this an unnervingly frequent (not to mention predictable) occurrence with the SWP, but at least they make you feel wanted.

My response was perhaps not what she had anticipated: I told her that the now century old model of Democratic Centralism left me immensely wary, not only because organising a contemporary party along Leninist structures seemed to be more redolent of an exercise in historical recreationism rather than a serious political project; but also because I was less than keen on being bound in numerous ways by the majority will. She explained how as far as she could the democratic centralist structure was simply a means of getting things done but frankly I consider the continual failure of the SWP to achieve anything much is a testament to the ineffectualness of this argument. I didn’t tell her that, though.

On the upside: they did have free food. This was set up as a picnic in the green, where there was a concentrated crowd of Marxists sitting in circles and a pair of apparently illicit tents. Not a lot of it as I got there pretty late but enough to tide me over until I got home. My gratitude to the Bristol and Manchester SWP branches for the munchables. Much appreciated.

So I headed back through the area to pick up more perspectives. Another Socialist Worker seemed worth a chat so I asked him the time and then struck up conversation. As ever the gregariousness socialism demands of humanity was evident and regardless of their misdeeds as a body upon the left the SWP is characterised by a largely lovely membership. At least offline. This fellow was not from inside London but was the first from the SWP I found who admitted that there was opportunism “On both sides” concerning the Respect debacle. Indeed he went so far as to say that matters were far more complex than a “Left-Right split” and that trying to explain matters in such terms was far too simplistic.

It was now nearing 7 o’clock and I had a decision to make: Tariq Ali or Lenin. The latter was, of course, the blogger Richard Seymour, who was here under that name rather than his provocative nom de plume. The primary factor in my opting for the latter was my total lack of cash. No money to obtain tickets meant that opting for the room with spare seats was unquestionably preferable.

In the event Seymour’s room was pretty packed as well, but there was enough space for me not to be acting as a seat robber. I had a whole spiel planned involving mentioning that I was a victim of sub prime and still seeking employment in this crisis stricken economy (both true) but as it happens I turned up slightly late and the man on the door just waved me through.

Seymour was perhaps not how I’d imagined him but that was largely in the voice, which was a soft Irish one I probably should have anticipated more given he’s mentioned his origins on the blog. I was still expecting something a tad more harsh, firm, clipped and firebrand.

As for content, well it was concerning the pro-war left, who are his targets in “The Liberal Defence of Murder” (although interestingly three of his main subjects, Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and the especially despised Christopher Hitchens are all socialists or social democrats of some sort, although Hitchens seems to have shifted into not calling himself anything yet referencing Marx almost as much as before, if not more).

Both in person and in comments Lenin has described himself as “all over the place” structurally; but if this was truth instead of modesty it certainly didn’t show. There was clearly plenty he’d had planned but couldn’t get in, but this was seemingly because he’d done a vast amount of reading and research and it was to the degree that he couldn’t possibly cram it all in. He’d probably intended to say something about Yugoslavia, I suppose, but I never found that topic immensely interesting anyway so I’m rather glad he failed to. Likewise with Ol*ver K*mm.

As it was he managed to fill forty five minutes and then additional response time with a pleasingly fact dense speech that outlined the nature, power, motivations, methods and follies of the pro-war left. The talk traced how liberal interventionists of the contemporary era had directly borrowed from the colonial tradition (both of the far-right and of thinkers such as Mill and Tocqueville, not to mentioned the much-loathed Reformist Marxist Bernstein) and were now using rhetoric barely adapted from the times when you could get away with phrases such as “Adult race”.

Inbetween these two book-ends there was a discussion point where a surprisingly large number of audience members (including myself) were coaxed on stage to give views or ask questions. This felt pleasingly participative and it’s certainly a tradition I’m glad shows no signs of being abandoned.

Also in attendance was Naadir, former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and founder of Boris Watch, to which our own Gerry Fenby contributes. I had met him before at the Liberal Conspiracy “Summit” and he kindly bought me a pair of pints while we talked about everything ranging from historical materialism and its importance for Marxists to the Revolutionary Communist Party to Objectivism to the neo-liberal case for a global welfare state.

In all a very pleasing day and one I shall hopefully extend tomorrow by showing up before six o’clock. Given that I’m writing this at nearing half past twelve and haven’t had breakfast yet (let alone got dressed) I suppose that it will not be by all that much…

For those interested Marxism lasts until this Sunday and is held in a variety of venues close to the Goodge Street Nothern line Russell Square Piccadilly line stations. The official website is here.

Rowan Williams yesterday struck out at the break-away faction in terms that were certainly a lot more vigorous than he is known for. Desperate times call for desperate men.

In his piece on the matter last month Douglas argued that the schism was a cause for joy amongst athiests. This is of course untrue and instead appropriate for anti-clericists and anti-theists, a largely inter-locking pair of factions who the Anglican Church have perhaps done more than any other Christian denomination to consider the criticisms of. I can think of no mainstream Christian Church closer to harmless.

This Church being torn in two and half of it being now utterly unrestrained in its bigotry {which is rather formidable in places} is perhaps not the most pleasing state of affairs imaginable. We can but hope that the importance of all religion fades and that the division within the Church weakens its resources and causes both sects to die away. Rather like happened to failed political project, Respect. Not to mention a plethora of other political parties.

Sadly a protracted demise does not tend to happen to Churches for a while longer. Or at least has a far lengthier duration. At least mild amusement is resulting from this one. For instance not the phrase “Protestant sect” being used against the Conservatives, with a claim that this is all that they amount to. As opposed to the Anglican Church, which…?

Worth a read is Ali’s response, which is, as ever on these matters, so well informed and heavily considered I feel like an amateurish ignorant when approaching this issue by comparison. In it he opines that a split was “Inevitable”. I imagine so but articles such as this were doubtless unhelpful. Rational analyses of the institution of marriage were doubtless highly provocative, although not least because it left the conservative case entirely in shreds.

It also makes it pretty clear that considered thinkers such as Chane can not co-exist in a Church also including deranged reactionaries such as Akinola, especially not while both fill prominent positions. Of the two it would cause far more numerical damage to lose the latter, but intellectually I have little doubt as to which would be better to collaborate with.

So it was the position no leader of any organisation would want to place himself in: compromise quality and lose the masses or cede to fierceness and be forced to purge some of the finest thinkers the Church has? An unenviable position for any man, so perhaps for Williams, someone without a doubt a man with the air of the ditherer about him, the reactionary wing forcing his hand is something of a relief.

At any rate, we can only hope that the manner he has adopted in relation to this issue {if anything one too soft} is sustained. Whether I actually desire reconciliation between the two factions is somthing I am presently uncertain over.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of article that Nick Clegg should be writing.

Emphasising both the total collapse of the increasing failed New Labour project and the unacceptability of the primary alternative {albeit not to my satisfaction with the latter, but to be fair this wasn’t meant to be a rant} Clegg does his best to set out why the Liberal Democrats are the only viable party for the disenchanted leftists of which there are so many. And what language! “A home for progressives”, why, we clearly have here a man atuned to his audience. Homelessness is unquestionably the sensation overcoming British left-wingers who see their intuitive party of choice demanding six weeks of imprisonment for the potentially without a charge or trial. Who read of alarmingly blatant references to “coercion” in internal government documents. Who plunged us into a pointless war that left our forces mangled and fingers blood-drenched then refused to apologise or retreat. Who seemed to pluck the very worst of statism and harness none of the best.

And that fidgeting, incessant longing for change that wafts across the Atlantic, where it seems that earnest leftism of some sort has become unstoppable. While here that momentum is perversely ridden upon by an institution that bears the word Conservative in its very name. That seems delightful if listened to absently but upon closer inspection reveals itself to be almost as foul as it has always been. Just as reactionary, if not more so. Serving the affluent instead of those with any real needs not provided for by the family estates. Threatening to set about fining those that live in family arrangements which displease it. Eying what little good their opponents have done while fingering an ill-concealed blade.

Yes, Clegg has us pinned down far better than even Cameron and judging by this display his ability to make the correct noises is even more skilled at making the right noises to coax our ear. The extent to which he is actually saying anything different to the Conservatives is questionable (see especially the references to the “Top-down NHS” he wishes to reform and cries for further localism) but there is the advantage that Clegg actually seems to be a man in possession of an earnest bone and thus we can expect these to be his genuine views, rather than merely what is expedient.

However if the Tories talking like him can be forgiven, him talking like a Tory can not be. Any politician who uses the phrase “ordinary families” runs the immediate risk of me slapping down the paper in disgust. There is no such structure and has never been. To exacerbate matters he brings tax cuts into it and thus begins basing his economic policy upon fantasy. Hardly a novel criticism to level at the Liberal Democrats, I am well aware, but when considering them as a viable party of power such matters must come under consideration.

Worse still he has bought into the rather peculiar notion of “Choice” being what the state should aim for above all in public services, rather than doing its utmost to ensure that it offers that service well. For instance in the example Clegg uses of emphasising the parental role in deciding schooling the value of assigning further “choice” is surely highly limited: a parent will wish their child to achieve and to be happy. If educational establishments provided by the state allow for as much then there will be nothing to choose. It is only the failures of the system which parents will attempt to swerve around and unless it can be outlined exactly how this will help resolve them this is in no way a solution.

But besides these irksome raw notes {which are what you get when dealing with even the most charming of liberals} there is salvation: Clegg had this reader almost salivating at his utterly unexpected ressurection of the term “Ethical foreign policy”. I once was posted on a parlimentary placement with a member of the Labour Party who, when I questioned him upon the dissappearance of this promise, curtly replied “Robin Cook is dead.” But in Clegg, it seems, his spirit lives on. A glorious piece of knowledge to possess, if not something we can be certain would become manifest were he to take power.

The pledge alone, though, gives me hope and pleasure. I had imagined the concept lost in an ocean of Saudi oil and the cash-for-firearms dollars of a thousand tyrants.

Clegg described it in the print edition as

lost on the road to Mesopatania

but that he at least has found it gives me some spark of desire for once not entirely futile that Cook’s vision be realised.

Something, then, for everyone here. From the easing of the tax burden (as the cutters would have it) on certain families to the statistical ruminations upon the poor to please poverty warriors to the anti-central talk that pleasures localisers to the aforementioned glee it brought about in me concerning matters abroad. It seems that he has gathered the foundation stones for an electoral coalition, here. Certainly enough for a studier structure than the rapidly crumbling edifice of the Labour Party.

Let us see what he builds.

“Sky News revamps website”?

Oh excellent, I’ll- wait. Ah, I see. Oh well.

According to a source knowledgable concerning such matters the next few years shall be especially interesting ones for London media:

It would seem that Boris intends to ban the evening papers due to them generating too much mess and hassle. Exactly how likely this actually is to occur is uncertain owing to us not being certain whether it is actually his idea (seemingly those that aren’t get priority, perhaps that’s for the best) and how likely it is merely another “Release the River Fleet” is unclear.

Assuming, however, that he does do as much this would annoy Murdoch but relieve the Daily Mail group. This is because The London Paper runs at a mild loss while The London Lite runs at a major one. The former exists to establish itself as its own brand, however, while the latter exists only to serve as a challenger to ensure that the Paper can not, as well as a flimsy and rather poor grade advert to the slightly less low quality Evening Standard. To be honest this shows; the Lite is little more than an even more awful of the Standard and accordingly is truly dire.

However, if what has been claimed will come to pass does then it will have served its function. With The London Paper no longer in existence the Lite could be shut down quite happily, and would in fact save the DMG a good deal of cash. In short, mutual destruction suits them just find.

Less pleasing for them is the woe which The Evening Standard has encountered. Admittedely a fair proportion of this must be due to the free dailies but the newspaper being well to the right of the average Londoner {the only socialist writer they have is a neo-conservative chap so loathsome I won’t even honour with a naming} and also of very low content quality and production values.

{You may well note that it tried to suspend reality by claiming to be a “Quality newspaper”. I find this the height of irony as every newspaper possesses “Quality”, be it high/good quality or low/bad quality. It is rather akin to saying that a film “Contains language”, only more inane because they are trying to assert themselves as a valauble product while displaying that the editor is incapable of using the English language properly.}

But regardless of my view of the rag the numbers suggest that it will be gone in five years. I find this news pleasing but I’m not sure if I can wait that long. Of interest is that this will leave the DMG in control of a pair of outfits, one The Daily Fail and the other The Fail on Sunday. This will seemingly seriously curtail their influence, albeit after the 2012 election, where they will receive one last chance to offer hard-line support for the right.

There is a chance, of course, that this Boris ban turns out to be just another lie {see: amnesty for immigrants} and that the sales of the Evening Standard pick up {doubtful} but this certainly creates an interesting vision for the future. Not to mention a pleasing one; few of the downfalls would I regret. It would only be a pity to see the only paper Murdoch has failed in ruining outlawed.

Both Blogged or Otherwise, both in Theory and Application

I was planning a write-up of some kind (hideously late though it inarguably would have been) but it turns out that Penny Red beat me to the punch:

Fashionably late to the party, this week I went to a massively interesting liberal bloggers’ event at the Guardian. It was fantastic to finally meet people I’ve spent so long sparring with online; that awkward shuffling when a roomful of geeky people who know each other well but haven’t actually met and are trying, shyly, to match faces to cyberspace handles felt pleasingly zeitgeist as always. It was the second part of the evening, the panel on women’s blogs, feminist blogs and their interaction with the rest of the blogsphere, that really got my hackles raised.

Basically, that was it for me as well. Entirely. That was my evening. The only point at which our views diverge is upon the exact nature of the annoyance posed, which is a pretty ineluctable given that she’s a feminist and insofar as I can be classified along such lines I’m far more the post-. The consequences of the feminist movement and both its successes and failures have left a world far more complex and variable than that which preceded it and all that.

In short I found the second half of the discussion by far the weaker. I think the greatest error was people asking the Freudian “What to feminist bloggers want?” when such a question is as great an absurdity as asking “What do liberal blogger want?”, if not more so. There is a vast amount of diversity within that ideology and a vast amount of different people who have been pinned with the tag, so expecting to nail down what all of them, to a writer, desire is an obvious impossibility.

As far as I could tell the assembled views of the panel were simple and easily appreciable. They consisted of more credit, more attention, less abuse and more interaction.

Apparently the feminist blogosphere (I detest that term as much as Penny does yet can find no superior) despises men assuming that they will become their leaders. This appears to be a wide-spread concern but, as far as I can tell, has not actually been attempted. If evidence of as much is forthcoming then I shall revise my position but I’ve never met anyone expressing an interest in leading the feminists in any direction and struggle to see why anyone would.

The matter of abuse is something which we (that is to say, SES) have had some experience. Indeed the only commenteers we seemed able to attract in our early days were people delivering death threats, posting images of recently evacuated foecal carcass and so on. As one of the bloggers present at the Liberal Conspiracy who had “Lived online as a man” for a year had found this is in no way limited to female bloggers, it is simply a matter of the terms of abuse shifting as gender appropriate (although “Bitch”, to a degree, can cover either). As far as I am concerned the best form of moderation there is is minimal moderation. If the consequences hurt anyone’s feelings then I suggest that they read up on the Stoics. I assure Penny and anyone else concerned that if this leads them to deem me a “Typical man” then this displays more of their prejudices than of my character. As with most earnest insults.

So with that criticism of the myn dealt with I suppose I should respond in kind by making two points concerning feminist blogs in Britain, both of which are informed by some consideration of the state of affairs across the Atlantic, before a third which concludes matters:

Insularity

(Or, when referring to America, “Incestuousness”.)

This was something which concerned me immensely concerning British feminist blogs but we’ve had three feminist bloggers comment here this week and they seem to make up the considerable majority of commenteers here (at least for now). So really, I can’t complain. Not least because otherwise they might all leave, which would upset us all immensely.

But certainly I had heard little from the feminists prior to the aforementioned gathering. And the state across the pond is simply dire. There vast blogs can be found with thriving communities that consist seemingly entirely of feminist women. This is not terrible in itself but it seems that for the most part it seems that this results in views supporting the feminist ideology being provided and then getting a plethora of reactions (generally shocked or outraged or bitterly amused about something) from hundreds of feminists. All saying nearly the same thing and generally coming from much the same position.

Occasionally there is a moment of schism such as whenever someone mentions pornography and the distinction between Dworkin acolytes and contemporary thinkers becomes stark, or when the Male Rights types show up or somebody mentions male mutilation standard in America while the treatment of Egyptian girls is under discussion (the latter two often coincide, and fair play to the otherwise platform devoid chaps) but really, it’s mostly unproductive noise focused around ideological consensus and resulting rhetorical hegemony.

Which has its purpose, I suppose, but if their interest is smashing the patriarchy achieves roughly fuck all. The result is a group of people with a view points of considerable divergence but largely the same set of views agreeing on almost everything and occasionally breaking out into a furious flame-war. I suppose that most involved enjoy themselves, but upon their own terms it doesn’t really get anyone anywhere. For instance, it fails completely in getting any men involved besides the (very occasional) male feminist and the Men’s Rights who come there to get some attention from the only people who really respond (albeit by telling them to GTFO and stop bringing the males into a discussion not about them), or just to troll their enemies hard (male rights advocacy is something which warrants its own article, suffice it to say that they’re a diverse bunch).

This suits the sort of segregationist feminists who wish to divide from masculinity and males altogether and form their own gender seperatist lesbian colonies but these are perhaps the least desirable and (thankfully) amongst the smallest faction of feminists around (even Dworkin suggested remaining within the patriarchy, albeit only in order to “begin to tear male dominance to pieces, to pull it apart, to vandalize it, to destabilize it, to mess it up, to get in its way, to fuck it up.”) The rest of the ideology presumably desires some sort of interaction and if it happens elsewhere I’ve seen scanty evidence.

The phrase “Preaching to the choir” comes to mind and much though it is over-used it does seem apt.

So what can British bloggers do to evade this fate? What they’re doing already, for the most part (and I say that, of course, objectively and entirely apart from the desire to see our “Recent Comments” bar remain in motion) but also trying to get more men engaged at all costs. Sunny, our host at the Liberal Conspiracy do, has apparently described himself as a feminist; but is amongst very sparse company. The F Word has no male contributers and as far as I am aware neither does the Carnival of Feminists. Needless to say the same is true of Feministe, Feministing and all the other large collaborative American feminist blogs. This I find curious: men make up half the population yet are represented as 0% of the feminist writers on all of the mainstream feminist blogs. Bizarre. So much for “You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist” (always, I note, with that emphasis). It seems that this possibility is not a reality, or at least not to a great enough extent to merit inclusion of any instances. Perhaps the quality of these rarities is sub-standard? I find this curious too. Let us not forget that the work of any female feminist can be at least matched by Mill’s On Women.

If such establishments wish to encourage male feminism then simply offering them a platform would not be a bad place to start, as would simply not writing articles such as this which are both intimidating in length (as you can probably tell brevity is entirely my specialty) and also seemingly place the emphasis entirely upon what must be done by men (”Sarcasm and satire aren’t always easy to get across, so it’s probably safer not to start flinging around gendered insults” it is insisted, as if women are entirely incapable of telling when my calling them “moronic wenches” is in jest (always) or earnest (never) and should take no effort to improve their observational and interpersonal skills if they are not. No, the fault here lies purely with the men).

Instead they should simply let people turn up, refrain from treating anyone as if they don’t belong and for the sake of the stars turn off comment moderation. This blog has barely any comments as it is, prior to our current comments policy (don’t mention Oliv*r K*mm or H*rry’s Pl*ce and you can stay up unedited) and the removal of com-mod it was effectively dead. I am aware that many feminist websites already have thriving communities, but these doubtless could become expanded upon by reducing restrictions. A considerable number of people (myself unquestionably included) are so opinionated the prospect of having to await “Approval” for their views being plastered across a webpage is considerably irksome.

Finally there is the matter of linking to feminists and so on. This is not the sort of matter which I or any other blogger I know of (or can envision) does by quota. If something worthwhile is seen that seems to warrant distribution then that is exactly what is done. So far the only time that this has happened to my recollection with a feminist site was Penny Red’s, which both Douglas and I have linked to and I’ve commented on a fair few times. Now that we’re getting incomings and comments from blogs of that nature doubtless reciprocation will follow so that all seems to be in hand from this front. As far as I can tell this is the only way to proceed and really, it’s how all bloggers interact. Nothing ideological about it, purely social.

Ineffectuality

(There’s nothing like a word you’ve just invented to form the central foundation of a critique.)

Again, let us compare the state of our nation (how wary I am of that phrase) to that of those across the Atlantic Puddle in terms of this ideology and its accompanying movement. In America when women seemed threatened with abortion being restricted, limited or outlawed a few years ago feminists marched a million women on Washington.

Never mind the national news in America, that filled copious column inches here in Britain. It was a remarkable event and a sterling achievement, one that made apparent the often disregarded political clout of the pro-choice movement. This demonstration staged something of a reset upon the terms of debate, which had previously seemed to dangle the prospect of a move upon Roe versus Wade by some political authority or other, a goal overwhelmingly coveted by the substantial political force of the theologically inspired far-right, which at that time had thrown its support whole-heartedly behind the wholly dominant Republican Party. Afterwards the reactionary forces were forced into if not a retreat then at least a lull. Their hope for statist dominance over the female body faded, if not their desire.

Now let us be fair to British feminists. The population of America is far vaster than our own. Even including such conditions as inter-state travel we must accept that they had a far larger pool to fish activists from. But with that in mind surely it would be reasonable to set the point of comparison at a modest ten thousand women marching upon Westminster?

Well this year Nadine “Mad Nad” Dorries spearheaded efforts to reduce the number of weeks after which an abortion could legally occur. I was aware of her efforts since I read newspapers. I was aware of opposition because it was included within them. I knew that Nadine Dorries was a nut because of Ben Goldacre and his glorious blog and its numerous critiques of her output. I had seen her case demolished in Penny Red here where she matches each of the 24 “reasons” provided by Dorries with a far better one. I knew Goldacre from the Guardian and knew of Red through a mutual friend.

But there was no immense protest that I could not have helped but notice. There was nothing that demostrated widespread opposition in a fashion that was impossible to dispute. There was not five digits of feminists joining Brian Haw on the Westminster lawn of Parliament Square.

This is entirely inadequate. It is far from sufficient to offer information to those interested, attention must be seized. This can not be achieved through a few blog posts, but only through a campaign. This is not the sort of affair that British feminism appears to have achieved in this decade, and it shall almost certainly have to before the decade is out.

There was a great fuss made at the Liberal Conspiracy meet (and perhaps elsewhere, I haven’t been bothered to check) over who was and deserved to take “Credit” for the Commons rejection of the proposed increase of the limit. But as far as I’m concerned the British Public is owed the most as, above all else, the most important reason for the abortion laws remaining the same is that there are more Labour MPs than Conservative MPs. After the next election there will be more Conservative MPs than Labour MPs and the measure will be passed.

Is that as inevitable as I presented it? Not entirely, but given the current approach of the feminists (not to mention the Labour Party) of Britain I would suggest that, barring some unlikely shift of strategy, that is what shall occur. This is partially the consequence of the aforementioned insularity but partially the result of the weakness of British feminism. The reasons for this are numerous but I would argue that it is largely the consequence of it being less necessity for its existence here than elsewhere.

It is at this point that I can feel fists clenching but this view has been under consideration for some time.

Redundancy & Malaprop

It is often argued that Thatcher killed off British socialism. This incorrect, that was Callaghan. Thatcher killed British feminism. Once the reactionary party of Britain had been led by a woman, a woman unashamdly of the petty bourgeois, no less, and it was a woman who had kept them in power for well over a decade there was no longer any hope for the ideology which asserted that society was based around the oppression of one gender by another. Had it perhaps been the progressives of Labour or even the Liberals who had placed a PM into power then feminism in Britain would have stood a chance. It wasn’t. It was Thatcher. It was the Conservative Party. She thought that men were weak, she fought them, she won. As matters stand feminists are trying to forge a movement in a nation where loathsome organisations offer better insurance premiums to those in possession of a vagina; since apparently that renders them “Better drivers” (yes, all of them) and Polly Toynbee often digresses from her polite statist leftism to tell us how useless her husband is.

Amongst many, many others.

Yes, the malaise within British feminism is far from confined to their treatment of the internet. As far as solutions for this are concerned I have nothing to offer. This is because it is here that I consider the conventional feminist viewpoint to disintegrate: the patriarchy was a model in existence but has since seen partial collapse while the cultural lie of men and women being somehow innately distinct in ways that are utterly inherent has, largely remained strong. Requiring men to be perceived as inferior in certain ways as severely as women were and (in many ways) still are; although often less challenged. This is a state of affairs that has left both men and women treated injustly; but is a system so complex and convoluted that any understanding which begins from the premise of master and servant can not stand a fraction of a chance of hoping to depict the situation accurately. Any that hopes to stamp out misogyny and focuses on as much is forgetting misandry, and thus in reverse.

This differs in numerous, obvious ways with feminism; but perhaps not as greatly as may be assumed intuitively. There are a number of shared aims and intentions. I agree with much of the feminist agenda. I agree, above all else, with this:

After generations of struggle, we are still trying to build a better world, one where gender does not dictate behaviour and assumptions and opportunities.

but struggle to see how any collective following an ideology named “Feminism” can succeed in “laying the foundations” for as much. I’m willing to stage an attempt at such a venture with anyone willing to engage but I question the logic of approaching it using the exact same vehicle that tore through the Patriarchy. Especially when the consequences, indeed the tools, of that messy demolition included a surge of caustic misandry that presently coats our culture like some nauseating fume.

I further agree entirely with the rational feminist criticism of the prejudice based around what amounts to a different set of genitals. I oppose the idea of genders for much the same reason I do nations: they are cultural notions with merit but which cause problems in total disproportion to their value. They belong in the ever increasing pile of obsolete ideas generated by cultural progress throughout history. As ideas they are entirely within the power of humans to alter as appropriate or else completely dispose of. This may be a struggle but it is unquestionably a possibility. But this is not the sort of endeavour that can be undertaken by a movement which, from its name to its membership, is entirely suited more to one gender than the other. It requires engagement of both and mass support capable of overwhelming entirely existing social norms, neither of which has been achieved by feminism previously or seems to be a plausible aim for the future. What is required is that feminists live up to this talk of women being “Collaborative rather than competitive” in destroying the crux of all such preconceptions alongside their entirely required comrades. It seems that some have realised this; but with a mentality that sees man as the oppressor and woman his victim hamstringing their understanding of contemporary existence there is little hope of immense progress.

So the best offer I can make here is that the feminists stop being as much and start tearing down the gender roles alongside the partners that without they can never accomplish such an epic feat. Those currently designated as “men”.

Or at least get a few more feet on the streets and kick up a proper fuss.

From henceforth I’ve scrapped the pseudonym “R.E. Vamp”. Largely because I was sick of not having a proper first name that people could address me by.

According to Google Analytics somebody found us through a search for ‘were where the ergo clocks made’, ’sexy unrestricted sites for small boys’, ‘why was Sir Keith Park in the news lately’, ‘eat your own shit’ and, a personal favourite, ‘”work harder for” cock’.

I don’t know whether to be more worried about our readership or our site’s content. Regardless, welcome to the website. SES is a broad church.