Talking to an acquaintance down the west recently, we got to discussing the beauty and refinement of late 20th-century capitalism. For sheer order and consistency, for the manner in which it adapts to protect itself against every new twitch in the jungle around it, there are few things in nature to equal it.
The wealth-generating system which governs our societies is now, and has been for a long time, the self-declared most important aspect of human existence, and everything that threatens to reduce either its capacity or influence is treated as hostile. But what is even more fascinating is the manner in which the system is able to recruit to its defence even those elements which have previously shown a tendency to threaten it. In many cases, these become the system's most able protectors. Take feminism. Once upon a time, feminism threatened to redefine the nature of human ambition. In seeking to equalise opportunity for women and men, it was setting out, we fondly imagined, to break down the barriers which confined the genders to pre-ordained roles. As well as seeking to liberate women into the world of fulfilling paid employment, it demanded that we unblock also the channel in the opposite direction, which separated men from the intimate elements of raising their children.
What feminism seemed to hold out was a world utterly transformed in its priorities: men and women would share equally the burdens and joys of family life, and stand shoulder to shoulder in the workplace. The result would be previously undreamt of harmony and balance, not just as a consequence of the immediate readjustments between the genders, but also of the deep, long-term benefits which would accrue to future generations by virtue of the new enlightenment about the raising of children. Now, we find that feminists are arguing not for changes which would improve the lot of either gender, but for changes which would maximise the efficiency of the market. In the continuing debate about child-minding, for example, what is being called for by leading feminist voices is the creation of conditions in which not only will each family make available to the market the maximum number of operatives, but the maximum further economic activity will be generated in looking after children.
Previously, families tended to send forth one operative into the economy, generally the father. Now the market is demanding not only that the mother, too, be liberated to put nuts on Volvos, but that her place in the raising of her children be taken by an outsider, who will also be part of the economy. What the alleged spokespersons for women are demanding, therefore, is precisely what the market would ask for if it could speak. The extraordinary thing is that, in doing so, feminists have been seeking to suggest that they speak not merely on behalf of women but also of children. This is an awesome and pernicious arrogance. If women's groups, in seeking to liberate women into paid employment were simultaneously seeking to ensure that fathers were given the opportunity to take over those aspects of the parenting function rendered vacant by the absence of mothers, then there could be no quarrel. But the same interests who seek an equal place for women in the public sphere are also, strangely - or perhaps not - the same ones who seek to deny fathers the society of their own children.
WHAT has happened is that, having achieved some headway with one strand of its agenda, feminism has opted to settle for temporary powersharing, with a view to eventual supremacy. Having made significant inroads in improving the position of women in the workplace, feminists have changed tactics. It is now clear that creating a world in which men and women can achieve more fulfilled lives is no longer the agenda. Feminists have no ambitions for the lives of men, other that they be ground into the dust of history. I experienced this at first hand in recent times in seeking to draw attention to the situation of men banished from the society of their children. In the beginning, I rather naively thought that this issue would bring feminists to my aid. After all, what I was asking was that this somewhat overlooked dimension of their revolution be attended to. But what I found was that, far from getting support from feminists, the only significant resistance was coming from feminists and the political leaders who live in fear of them.
Talking to men of my generation in recent times I have made some rather startling discoveries about the commonality of our experience. We were the first generation of men which not only did not resist the emancipation of women but actively supported it. We took feminism at face value, imagining that it would liberate us also from some of the responsibility of providing and enable us to live more fulfilled lives in harmony with women and children. But now we find that, all the time we have been sawing off the branch on which we were sitting, while our cheerleading sisters urged us onwards to greater efforts. We discover, at a relatively late stage, that there is not, after all, any intention of implementing the second part of the feminist agenda. I was at first quite taken aback when, in highlighting the fatherhood issue, I was accused of attacking feminism. I was also, I quickly noticed, anxious to refute the allegation, as it seemed to me that attacking feminism might be seen as a reactionary activity. Now, I realise that, since actually existing feminism is perhaps the most reactionary force in our society, the proper course for anyone seeking to promote truly progressive ideas is to attack it without qualification.
The virus which once threatened to destroy the system has now merged with it and is strengthening its resistance to attack. What the system desires above all is that its interests, rather than the interests of human beings, continue to be the priority of civilisation. And because any move by men to find a place outside the system would still be deeply threatening to its interests, it is necessary for all those with the system's interests at heart to ensure that men do not find it easy to retreat to the bosom of their families.
This is why feminism is not interested in helping men to be better fathers and why it is now fundamentally a philosophy about the demonisation of men, creating gender rancour, and appropriating everyday social issues - like child abuse, domestic violence and even poverty - as primarily gender-based issues affecting only women. It is also why leading women's groups are to the fore in demanding repressive state action - invariably against men. Yet again, we see the quite perfect nature of George Orwell's fable, Animal Farm. The leading feminists of our age, while imagining that they are continuing to promote a radical and progressive agenda, are now the Squealers and the Napoleons of our society.