At last, it’s fatted calf time. Let’s dance. The arrival of Kathleen Parker’s book marks one of those sensational moments of seismic cultural shift that seem unthinkable, unimaginable.

It is wonderful, miraculous, to see a woman arguing such an incendiary case against the hidebound feminist orthodoxy of our age and to read reviews that praise her book as “fierce, fearless and courageous”. But I must admit that it is slightly trying when some commentators (women, of course) have said “only a woman could make such a plea for men”. My experience shows that only a woman could write such a book and collect honours, fame and royalties: a man would be ruined. As I was.

Exactly 20 years ago, I began to write a series of newspaper and magazine articles – culminating in my 1992 book No More Sex War – which made most of the points in Parker’s book and also advanced a far more radical prospectus. Like her, I argued that change for women in the past 200 years had been initiated, encouraged and supported by men. The idea that women had been required to fight a war of liberation to claim equality is obviously a pernicious fiction. Ask yourself, for instance, how many women MPs were sitting in the Commons in 1918 when parliament voted to extend the franchise to women? Why – if patriarchal men feared and opposed the liberation of women – did those MPs vote in favour? She says: “Incrementally, government fills the void once occupied by parents.” I said: “The state makes a poor mother and a mean father.” She says – as I did – that boys need men as models whom they can admire if they are to become responsible, balanced, women-loving men, fathers and husbands. I would now say that the fatherless hoodie gang-banger with the 6in blade in his waistband is Germaine Greer’s bastard offspring.

The response to my work was a torrent of abuse. I lost all my work and income and was bankrupted. The derision was even echoed in the Scottish courts where I was contesting the custody of my young son.

After this surreal sojourn in hell, I realised that only a woman could succeed in criticising feminism; and that only women now have the power to establish equality between the sexes. It is now incumbent upon women to rise up from their privileged position and repair the inequalities of men. With few honourable exceptions, men are too cowed, too meek, too pussy-whipped to raise their own voices on their own behalf.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article4448418.ece

It does seem as if the pendulum is swinging back some. I'm grateful for that as I have 2 young sons. In the US, part of the reason the homeschooling movement is growing exponentially is that our public schools are tragically biased against males. We're just trying to raise boys to be men.

Robin, Raleigh, NC, USA

Empowered women are ruthless on the whole (much more so than men) is my observation. The other problem with us girls (as a rule), is most don't let facts get in the way of winning an argument! I for one would welcome a male revolution sooner rather than later. For the sake of my children.

Lucy, coventry, England

Men do have champions,the trouble is other men laugh at their efforts and have done for years,grow up,stop being so apathetic
and join a group just as you would have a union years ago.
We need a whole new party and representatives must be found.
If we don't ,we can kiss any freedom left goodbye.

michael savell, eastbourne, UK

The fact that men are reliant on a woman to argue their case is in its way a perverse indication that the feminists have won, and won totally.

paul, Durham, UK

Nina; feminisim is transparently a 1-sided agenda. 'Equality' is the only word you need - if that's all you really want.
Men have been pointing out feminist dble standards 4 years & their inability to accept facts from men (which they can only accept from women) continues 2 show their hypocrisy

PF, Lon,

So Nina, should we now categorise feminists into either 'radical' (anti-men) or 'moderate' (equalists)? Why not simply call a spade a spade and say you are either a feminist or you believe in equality? It's really quite basic.
Quibbling about who defines feminism as what, will continue to confuse

PK, UK,

I wish that the writer could have defined 'feminism' before criticising it - for there is really no one definition of the term - his rejection, for example, of Germaine Greer is one that many 'feminists' would agree with. Arguably she has done more harm than good to the central cause of equality.

Nina, London,

With the likes of Harriet Harman in our govenment it is not right to have such a feminist minister in charge of the murder bill giving leaniancy to woman commiting such crimes. Equality is one thing till some in society become more equal then others! Equality in law, work & even parenting is right!

Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England

I don't really care about discrimination against men,we're big enough to take it. What worries me is the discrimination against boys. We're demeaning all of our children, but half of that isnt acknowledged/doesn't matter because that half of the children are male. Only females can be victims today.

dken, London,

"Hidebound feminist orthodoxy"? Read the Daily Mail lately? Or even The Times?!
And btw, the reason women were granted the vote in 1918 is because hordes of them had been doing so-called 'men's jobs' during the war. And at first only married women over 30 were allowed to vote.

Stella, London,

The fact that everyone is too afraid of upsetting the "feminist block" indicates where the real power lies. To all those (women) who say it is still not equal enough, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Carlos, Basel, CH

Until men "get the message" and start becoming an active and effective political power block ala gender feminists, there will be no change. Politics is the field upon which men have been beaten and expecting women to come to their rescue is unrealistic, even as we can appreciate those women who do.

K, Los Angeles,