Roger Dunsdon argues that the Left is trying to destroy womanhood.

No women here

Today, in the Western world, it seems that women are increasingly being marginalized, air-brushed out of discourse – and even seen as an inconvenience that can no longer be tolerated. The hugely adverse impacts of the so-called ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s, emerging alongside flower power, narcotics explosion and ever-widening rejection of western Judeo-Christian norms, have been disproportionately borne by women (and their children).

The triumph of Cultural Marxism (‘CM’ – explored by e.g. Steve Maltz in his two excellent books “Into the Lion’s Den”, which reviews this phenomenon from a specifically Christian perspective, and “Noise” which looks at CM from a ‘secular’ standpoint, has placed women not only on the defensive, but arguably it has sought to destroy womanhood. (See links at foot of this article to Maltz’s books).

Political Marxism sought to undermine the nuclear family in the 1920s, a subject reviewed in Peter Sammons’ useful short book “One Flesh” (freely available here:, and see chapter 6 in particular). It was an early objective of the Communists to overturn bourgeois society which was, as the Communists saw it, founded on the nuclear family. In the previous century, the French Revolution also sought to destroy the nuclear family.

Both the French Revolutionaries and Political Marxists promoted co-habitation coupled with community and State control of children. What this meant in practice was that men had their wicked way and women were left holding the baby. Both The French and later the Communists were compelled to roll back on this profound social experimentation when huge social problems erupted. Each revolution then belatedly sought to ring-fence marriage and the nuclear family. Today we seem to be embarking, once again, on the same crazy social experiment, and we must assume the outcome will mirror what the past has demonstrated. (“The lesson of history is that people never learn the lessons of history”).

The biggest practical tool of the political Left in its so-called ‘sexual revolution’ was abortion. It has tended to be Left-wing parties that have championed abortion, and elevated it today to a semi-religion. This article is not the place to explore the moral or ethical implications of abortion. We will simply observe that it is women that come under pressure to ‘abort’ (and that means to kill) their baby. Men have their wicked way; women suffer the physical and psychological trauma associated with abortion. If there are medical downsides, again it is the women who suffer.And yet, bizarrely, many women give their lives over to the ‘cause’ of abortion! Is abortion a ‘liberation’, or a mark of enslavement?


The political Left has also been at the forefront of redefining ‘marriage’. Again, this article is not the place to explore these things. Suffice to say that in the main manifestations of ‘marriage’ in this world, apart from the traditional Judeo-Christian formulation, in such variations as polygamy, sologamy, open-marriage, serial monogamy (AKA shacking-up or cohabitation), and group marriage, it is disproportionately women that suffer – and usually wind up holding the baby. The political Right is hardly innocent in these developments, but it has been the Left that has been the primary political driver and cheerleader.

The rapid and profound promotion of homo-sex relationships in the past 50 years has also, and bizarrely, adversely impacted women. It is a surprising phenomenon that women often openly fawn over men who identify as homo-sex in their orientation. Why might this be?

Homo-sex identifying males often display strong feminine leanings, but this can only be part of the answer. Women often like to ‘mother’ such men (to a certain extent – this is a general observation – and plainly not all women display such maternal instincts) and ‘gay’ men welcome this attention. That, at least is my practical observation! Such men are also perceived not a sexual ‘threat’ to women, and for some women the building of a friendship with a non-hetero male can appear to be a ‘safe’ way to enjoy male company. And yet within the ‘sexual orientation’ paradigm sits a profound disadvantage to women of which most are totally unaware, and yet from a female perspective is perhaps the most serious of all.

Women are often vociferous in their support for people expressing their personal chosen ‘orientation’. This support may, again, be seen as expressing some ‘mothering’, or a ‘maternal’, instinct. And the women’s men-folk usually go along with this expression of support for ‘orientation’ without demur.

Yet women too easily forget that most men are ‘oriented’ towards the pursuit of younger, prettier, women. It is their fundamental orientation! To men nothing could be more natural! Their women-folk have sent to them a powerful signal that (1) orientation is all-important and (2) women support the expression of sexual desires fully in accordance with a person’s ‘orientation’. In so doing, women have sent a distinct subliminal message to their men that indeed ‘orientation’ is to be honoured above all. Men are (sadly, and too often) not slow to take advantage of such liberal thinking. Men go off with ‘a younger model’, because they are, they claim, so oriented. Their wives/partners suffer, yet often they have powerfully signaled that ‘orientation’ is the pinnacle of human expression. Why should their men ignore this ‘green light’ so freely given?

Incidentally, when the political Left redefined marriage, did they in reality succeed in destroying marriage? And was that always their intent? By the same token, in seeking to redefine womanhood, is the Left actually seeking to destroy womanhood?

Transitioning to a different future

Again it has been largely the political Left that has created the present bandwagon around ‘Trans’. Trans is a ‘progressive’ extension of the homo-sex revolution and again the new phenomenon takes us further from existential Creational realities.

At time of writing it appears that the (extreme left-wing) UK politician Nicola Sturgeon has become the first British casualty of a long overdue reality check on whether men can ‘become’ women, and what is the true nature of the ‘woman’ that he has become.

Sturgeon was effectively forced out of office through her failure adequately to classify a particular man (a convicted rapist) who had reoriented as a woman so as to be able to transfer to a women’s prison. In Scotland (where Sturgeon represented the Scottish breakaway party, the SNP), Sturgeon at a number of press conferences become tongue-tied as she tried to respond to simple and direct questions about the rapist, and whether he could be considered to be a woman. Sturgeon tried to defend the ‘reality’ (as she sees it) that he is now a woman but should not be placed in a women’s prison. This is, proverbially, to have one’s cake and eat it! It is mental gymnastics of a singular kind! (We featured a sideways look at Nicola Sturgeon in January –see the link below “Heroine or Harridan”. Ironic that Sturgeon has now joined her bête noire Liz Truss as an ex-leader).

Also in the UK, Labour party leader Kier Keir Starmer cannot state with clarity that a man cannot become a woman, or even that a man can become a woman! He seems to know or understand nothing of XX and XY chromosomes and is unwilling to follow the science on this particular question. Fortunately for Starmer the UK ‘mainstream’ media, which is also heavily left-leaning, refuses to ask him ‘hard questions’ on any subject, but especially on these problematic ‘progressive’ issues. For the time being Starmer has dodged the questions that brought Sturgeon down. But for how much longer? Tragic though it seems, a key question for voters at the next British general election bids fair to be “can a woman have a penis?” It shows just how low progressive politics has taken us. Not very edifying, to be sure, but very indicative of the state of mind of the Left, and the thoroughly debased state of British political discourse.

Meantime women are having their places of safety removed and their ability to compete in sport destroyed. As women have politely pointed out, an identifying ‘female’ sports-person who possesses an excess of Y chromosomes is physically bigger, stronger and tends to win the big sports events. Sometimes ‘she’ will reveal male genitalia in ‘locker rooms’. ( ). Never mind, women can yet be satisfied with being runners-up in sports, and will just have to avert their eyes in the locker room.

In Britain (again) via its annual pop-music awards, called The BRIT Awards, the BPI decided in 2021 to do away with gender-based awards (e.g. the female category). In 2023 there were no female nominees accepted for the BPI’s non-binary ‘inclusive’ awards, so women cannot even be satisfied with runner-up status! They have been effectively excised from the 2023 UK pop awards, despite there being female artists who had been a ‘dead-cert’ for career enhancing recognition.

Whilst these questions are beyond the straight left-right divide, it is the political Left that has been absent without leave in defending women’s rights. Is this another case of political-Left misogyny? If so, just what will it take to mobilize women (who make up approximately half the world’s population) to recognize this attack and defend their own fundamental rights?

Suffer not the children

Again it has been largely the political Left that has created a band waggon around gender dysphoria. Humankind existed and largely, if slowly, progressed for the past 5,000 years without any ‘need’ for a separate categorization of what may, in fact, be a “fad” or a phase for a relatively few young people. Not that you would believe this if you listen to today’s left-leaning western MSM which has made ‘Trans’ a key favoured ‘cause’ in the past ten years. Yet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria estimates that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth (that is, roughly one in 10,000) and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth (that is, two or three in every 100,000) are diagnosable with genuine gender dysphoria. The very term gender dysphoria was not even invented until 1973. How on earth did the world cope before this?!

The UK’s oddly titled Gender Identity Development ‘Service’ (or GIDS) was founded in 1989. Wholly funded by the ever-expanding NHS it is one of the world’s earliest purported ‘services’ for ‘gender diverse children’. Domenico Di Ceglie founded the GIDS clinic, but he has proved to be a controversial figure:

Whilst it is children that are suffering in what are increasingly being recognized as highly questionable ‘treatments’, once again it is disproportionately girls that are suffering, as this chart indicates:

The GIDS experiment has undoubtedly disadvantaged girls as it is girls that tend to identify as boys rather than vice versa. A recent UK study noted that, of children being referred to the now disgraced Tavistock Clinic, 2/3 are girls. And these children are being given life-changing drugs to bend their natural development.

Tragically, many children questioning their gender seem to be ones already suffering mental health issues. Despite the percentage of children suffering acknowledged gender dysphoria (the DSM-5 diagnostic) being well less than 1%, by recent studies the children presenting as gender dysphoric are much more likely to suffer autism where the rate is 5%:

UK’s Labour Party – and women

In terms of young people and mental health, rates of probable mental disorders have increased since 2017 in the UK; in 6 to 16 year olds from one in nine (11.6%) to one in six (17.4%), and in 17 to 19 year olds from one in ten (10.1%) to one in six (17.4%). There is a mental health crisis amongst Britain’s young people. To what extent this crisis is linked to gender dysphoria is something that has simply not been properly explored, yet the link seems blindingly obvious.

So, girls are suffering, yet the supposedly ‘feminist’ political Left is not only deafeningly silent on the matter, but it is the cheer leader for ‘Trans’ philosophy. Again we observe, the Left hates women, yet this has not (yet) translated into corresponding female electoral pressure. However it may do soon, as Labour party leader Keir Starmer remains unable to define what a woman is. All this would be hugely funny if it did not signal perhaps the burial of the West and the evisceration of womanhood:

On Youtube:

On Facebook:

We now have the profoundly embarrassing situation where the Labour leader cannot answer a simple and existential question, namely, what is a woman? Perhaps he should ask his wife! In the meantime, Starmer will not be asked this complicated question by the MSM, and Starmer refuses to be interviewed by a broader spectrum of media. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, perhaps he is “frit”, and with one eye on Nicola Sturgeon, perhaps he has some reason to be! We remember that Gordon Brown was caught out in 2010 when he described a Labour-voting woman who happened to ask a simple and guileless question about inwards migration as “a bigot”. Brown was forced to apologize in quick order. We wonder today whether the guileless question “can a woman have a penis” will similarly be labeled as ‘bigoted’. What has our nation come to? What has political discourse descended to? And will this become a key doorstep question throughout the western world as the political Left seek to airbrush women from history?

This po-faced article from the left-leaning “The Guardian” outlines the potential PR repercussions that women-haters now face: . If Labour does wake up to the current political risks, its spin-doctors are likely to use the same approach adopted towards Labour’s inbred anti-semitism, namely “we are a nice party, really; we are not racist, and we are not anti-semitic. We are a feminist party and promote women of all hues.” But Labour still has a semitism ‘problem’, and it still has a woman problem. The leopard and spots metaphor comes to mind …..


As was noted on this site in January, Christianity is the most ‘diverse’ and welcoming community the world has ever known.

Whilst it is true that in Christ there is neither male nor female, this does not imply they are the same or that women can, in any sense, be considered as second class humans or of less value. As God created us ‘male and female’ and as all God’s creation is “good” (see Genesis chapter 1) we conclude that the attempt to destroy women is quite simply of the Devil. Women are more vulnerable than men and our spiritual enemy will always seek to bully the weak.

The Right of politics does not come out of this ‘squeaky clean’, by any means. But we are entitled to ask, ‘why then does the political Left hate women so much?’ It would probably take a complete book to explore this at a fundamental level, but there is something here about (rather too many) men wanting to exploit women. That is a common frailty across Left and Right, and across all cultures.

What the political Left adds to this unholy mix is its desire to fundamentally refashion society in its ordering. (As someone once said in the UK, the Labour party today is no longer the party of Keir Hardie – the early Labour movement did not wish to destroy women). Keir Starmer, yes – Keir Hardie, no! We repeat, what the Left adds to this unholy mix is that it desires fundamentally to refashion society in its ordering. Left-leaning people are not called ‘Socialists’ for nothing! It is fundamentally society as a whole they wish to reengineer in what they perceive as their ‘progressive ways’. Women, as home-makers, are not typically people who want to re-fashion everything. They simply want to get on with their busy lives. Women, then, are seen by the political Left as being socially ‘conservative’, home making (rather than home-wrecking), and guardians and upholders of the nuclear family.

Steve Maltz’s book “Into the Lion’s Den” explores Cultural Marxism, and from a Christian perspective is an excellent starting point to understand the Left’s historic struggle against the family in its Judeo-Christian form. Another brilliant study is David Lambourn’s “Babel Versus Bible” where in one chapter he explores “The Gender Agenda” and how devilish influences (and this devilism is coded throughout Scripture as ‘Babylon’) seek to destroy humankind’s reflection of our Creator God.

Where are the men?

The Left represents ‘revolution’. Women represent stability, family and continuation. On that basis, I believe, the Left hates women and is determined ultimately to undermine (or even destroy) them as a people-group. Is this in fact a form of ‘genocide’ against women? What about the men? Are we going to leave it to the women to defend themselves, or will we rally to their cause?

Have your questions ready when the next UK election comes around, as early as next year. Don’t trust women candidates because they are women (think Nicola Sturgeon). Be prepared to cast your vote against those who are trying to destroy womanhood. This could just be a political revolution in the making!


Steve Maltz – Into the Lion’s Den

Steve Maltz – Noise

David Lambourn – Babel Versus Bible

(reviewed here: )

Heroine or Harridan? Sturgeon compared to Truss


FOOTNOTE TO ARTICLE: From a biblical and theological perspective we should note that the God of Israel established, according to Genesis 3:16 after The Fall, a hierarchical social structure with authority flowing from God to the Husband/Father, thence to the Wife/Mother and then to the Children. Rejection and up-ending of this Patriarchical structure is an effective tool for dismantling traditional society AND for rejecting the Judeo-Christian worldview, at a stroke. This perspective is another one that is being cancelled by ‘secularists’.