What is the Anglobitch Thesis?
Simple: the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as 'liberator' of women. This derives from a distinct component in Anglo-Saxon culture, namely Puritanism. This puritanical undercurrent gives women an intrinsic sense of entitlement and privilege as 'owners' of sex in a cultural context where sex is a scarce commodity (we call this sense of entitlement 'The Pedestal Syndrome'). Because of this, the advance of women's 'rights' across the Anglosphere has not been accompanied by a corresponding reduction of their traditional privileges - indeed, those privileges have only broadened in scope and impact, leaving men only with obligations and women aglow with rights plus privileges. This has been accompanied by an obsessive vilification of men in the Anglo-American media, and across the Anglosphere generally.
The Anglobitch Thesis differs from conventional men's studies, in that it considers the present debased condition of Anglo-American men not to be the product of recent agendas in politics and culture, but the ultimate expression of a centuries-old anti-male animus hardwired in traditional Anglo-Saxon culture. Our contention is that the present-day Anglosphere is in fact a matriarchy, in all but name. However, in the modern context the fall-out from Anglo-American matriarchy has precipitated serious social crises that threaten not just the Anglosphere, but the whole of the West. Anglo-American feminism is in a transitory state where women retain the best of all conditions, men the worst of all conditions, and which women will not change without external compunction as the whole thing favors them too much, right now.
From the late Sixties, Anglo-American women were given the right to study, work and improve themselves. The problems began when they were allowed to retain the privileges they enjoyed before emancipation. This has led to absurd double standards like women wanting access to male organizations/occupations like military academies or the fire service, while continuing to exclude men from their own at every opportunity. Consider also divorce, which retains an archaic view of the male as an evil ogre, while assuming the female to be a penniless damsel. Sooner or later women are going to have to choose either rights or privileges before male alienation from contemporary arrangements renders western societies irredeemably dysfunctional (a process already well-advanced).
What is to be done? I suppose it relates to how we want to take practical action against the issues that oppress us. There are two core approaches to attacking any problem - the velvet glove or the iron fist. The glove may be good for manipulating our opponents as we wish, but ultimately it cannot really bite deep into the problem with sufficient force. The iron fist can seem ridiculous if one has a meagre power base (as we do), and the titanic energies it engages can soon dissipate if not released with decisive intent. The best strategy is a combination of glove and fist, using both as appropriate until an opportunity arises for a decisive strike.
That said, withdrawing consent from the existing order is a potent technique of passive resistance. Men should withdraw their consent from whatever Western society they live in, refusing to marry, have children, pay tax or even reside there until the issue of female privileges is forcefully addressed. This is especially potent when functioning members of the middle class adopt it en masse. Cut the supply of tacit goodwill, guys. But then, considering the Marriage Strike, this is already happening.
The following article must illustrate that valid part of the anglo-bitch theory showing the anglo-institutions perpetuation of the puritanical meme of pedestal females'. A false puritanical meme of imagined female infallibiliy and imagined female virtue, beneath which all others must scrape and crawl in humilliation, unworthiness and sub-humanity.
The misandric anglo-court is shown here placing an ordinary and common fool, because she is female, above reproach or responsibility, in a failed scheme of her very own design.
For good measure we also are shown the pussy whipped anglo-male being made a beggardly, prostrated and punish-worthy dupe. That is, a scape-goat for his wretched minded wifes inadequacey and failure.But does the man and millions of other exploited men of the male genderclass in the western anglosphere not agree to this ill treatment and this corrupt social model ? That is, by accepting the underlying sentiment of femaleist genderism and its nescessary double standards for the sexes?
Are those men whom refuse to follow this voluntary debasement as a culture not civillised enough to appreciate its benefits ?
Millionaire facing eviction from his ancestral home for 'making his wife depressed'
A millionaire landowner is facing eviction from his ancestral home after his wife claimed his 'domineering' behaviour had made her depressed.
Anthony Arbuthnot Watkins Grubb, 59, whose family has owned the Mayes Estate in West Sussex for several generations, has been ordered to move out by a family court judge who granted his wife Jennifer a divorce.
Mrs Grubb, 53, claims her husband is an 'emotional bully' who imposed 'extremely prescriptive household rules and regulations' on her and their five children.
Mr Grubb was given 28 days to move out of the 18th century farmhouse near East Grinstead when the decree nisi was granted in July. He was also issued with a non-molestation order forbidding him to pester or harass his wife.
Mrs Grubb had told the hearing: 'I feel like I am being shredded. I am absolutely torn down the middle by it all.' Mr Grubb denies the allegations and has taken his case to the Appeal Court in a bid to have the orders overturned. He has been given permission to remain at the family home until a ruling is made.
Today, his barrister Nicholas Cusworth QC described the decision to order him out of his ancestral home as 'draconian'. He told the court that Mrs Grubb had no reason to fear her husband and that the atmosphere in the house was no different than in many other homes where couples were going through a divorce
He added that the seven bedroom home was large enough to be divided so that both parties could live amicably under the same roof. The couple, whose five children are aged 13 to 23, got married in 1983.
Mayes House - which is set in several hundred acres of farmland - was occupied by Mr Grubb's father until he died in 1996. The property was then rented to friends until 2003 when Mr and Mrs Grubb and their children moved in.
James Turner QC, acting on behalf of Mrs Grubb, told the court that she had been diagnosed with a 'moderately severe depressive disorder'. He said: 'As a result of her husband's behaviour her health has suffered and will continue to suffer while he remains under the same roof.' Mr Turner added: 'It was the case of Mrs Grubb that her husband was an emotional bully who had been obsessively and inappropriately controlling of her and the five children. 'He was simply unable to accept the self-evident fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and found it impossible to restrain himself from pestering her while they remained under the same roof.'
Mr Turner claimed that Mr Grubb had made 'constant unjustified criticisms' of his wife and had pestered her to enter into post-nuptial agreements once he saw the marriage was in trouble.
He also claimed that Mr Grubb had sometimes verbally abused his wife, could be 'domineering and controlling' and had tried to impose 'extremely prescriptive household rules and regulations' on his family.
Mr Grubb is now awaiting a decision from Lord Justice Wilson on whether he will be allowed to appeal against the decision made by the judge in the earlier divorce hearing.
Speaking at the family home today, Mr Grubb said he 'categorically' denied being an emotional bully and claimed he had done all he could to save his marriage.
He said: 'I have never pestered or harassed her or bullied her. Everything has been twisted and exaggerated by the lawyers. 'We've got so much to be proud of and I would very much like for us to stay married.'I still love her, she's still the person that I married and I believe she still has some love for me despite everything.'
Friends blamed the financial pressures of sending five children to top boarding schools for the marriage breakdown.They said the situation was made worse when Mrs Grubb's children's clothing business failed, costing them £60,000.
One friend said: 'She was running the mail order business from home but it collapsed and they lost a lot of money. It was a struggle for them to keep paying the school fees and they were both under a lot of pressure.'
Mr Grubb described the atmosphere at home as 'tense'. He said: 'We live in the same house but we barely speak. I'm not allowed to say anything to her that could be interpreted as pestering or harassing her. The threshold for this is so low I can ask her if she wants a cup of tea but not much else.
'I haven't always been reasonable but I haven't behaved in any way that a normal husband wouldn't behave. It's all been exaggerated and taken out of context.
'I haven't bullied her and I'm not domineering or controlling. I'm just a normal family man who's been very committed to his marriage.'Our children have not been affected by this, they are all doing very well academically and are very happy. They have had a wonderful upbringing. They have all been to top boarding schools and had skiing holidays in the best resorts.'Mrs Grubb was not at home today as she was visiting relatives and was not available to comment.
ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda
Nothing as dramatic as a misandrist agenda, Just simple spoiled children. If you give a child everything it asks for it becomes a spoiled child.
Exactly what we have done with western women.