The Common Law ‘Schwerpunkt’: How Misandrist Feminism Acquires Institutional Backing

Common law is much harsher on men than civil law when it comes to mediating broken relationships

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.

All the major institutions of the Anglosphere are encoded with puritanical repression, which in turn nurtures misandrist Anglo-American feminism. Yet many other countries and cultural blocs share a repressive heritage, yet do not suffer equivalent levels of institutional misandry. Similarly, feminists have infiltrated the legal systems of many other countries; but nowhere else are divorced fathers (and men in general) persecuted to the same degree as they are in the Anglosphere.

Is there some deep structural distinction between the Anglosphere and the rest of the world which makes it especially pliant to misandrist feminism?

In a word, yes. One of the key institutional differences is the prevalence of Common Law in the Anglosphere countries. The countries of continental Europe and many other regions have only Civil law, with no Common Law component to their legal system. But what is Common Law and how does it strengthen the arm of misandrist Anglo feminism?

In brief, Civil Law is a scientific instrument designed to deal with any situation the legal profession might encounter. It is therefore not amenable to casual manipulation or reinterpretation; it is fixed and inviolable, almost a sacred entity. By contrast, Anglo-Saxon Common Law is an ongoing corpus of precedents, judgements and cases which grows and adapts in a fluid, ad hoc manner. Because of its imprecise nature, Anglo-American judges have far more personal leeway when judging a case than their non-Anglosphere counterparts. And this leeway means a Common Law legal system is far more open to manipulation by pressure groups, trial lawyers and other arbitrary forces in the wider culture. Since misandrist feminism now rules the Anglosphere, we can see how Anglo-American law – the cultural genotype – has been exploited to alter the cultural phenotype, resulting in ever more oppression for Anglo-American men.

In short, Common Law is the primary channel through which Anglo feminists have shaped society to their will. Anglo feminism is in itself more vehement and misandrist than other varieties; but without its Common Law leverage it would probably remain relatively toothless and marginalized. Armed with Common Law, however, its force is almost limitless. This partly explains why the best feminist minds (as such) are inexorably drawn to law as an occupation; they rightly see Anglo Common Law as the societal ‘schwerpunkt’ (pivot point, centre of gravity) through which they can realize their dreams and visions.

All the major universities in the Anglophone world contain prestigious law schools which in turn house militant feminist pressure groups. These groups often take existing cases and redefine them in feminist terms: in short, they specialize in manipulating Anglo-Saxon Common Law to advance their anti-male agendas. Since law affects all societal institutions – indeed, institutions are largely composed of laws – controlling Common Law gives these feminist academics the necessary leverage to shape society without reference to normal democratic processes. This is why Anglo-American society has transformed so dramatically in the past thirty years, without the populace explicitly voting for any such changes.

For example, Yale University possesses one of the world’s most prestigious law schools and is an ancient stronghold of the American WASP establishment. The Yale University link to its Journal of Law and Feminism demonstrates the close association between Anglo feminism and the law:

The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism is committed to publishing scholarship on gender, sexuality, and the law, especially insofar as the law structures, affects, or ignores the experiences of women and other marginalized peoples. We encourage the submission of articles, essays, and reviews concerning these intersections of law and feminism. As we promote feminist principles to our readers, we also practice those principles ourselves.

The logo, created by Jacqueline Coy Charlesworth in three variations depicting women of different ethnicities, was chosen to illustrate the front cover of the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism.

My more cynical interpretation considers the multi-ethnic logo to be an ideological smoke screen designed to hide WASP women’s complicity in historical crimes like the slave trade; and to foster a fake association between women with radically different interests. However, the gushing spiel continues:

Justicia–our icon of justice. She sits or stands above courthouses or in courtrooms, supposedly overseeing and inspiring choices between right and wrong…

It may be true, as many have observed, that the blindfold ensures Justice’s impartiality towards those with more power and influence than she. But at the same time, the blindfold ensures Justice’s impartiality towards those with less power than she, those who are, in some sense, disadvantaged. Unable to see whatever systemic disadvantages this latter group faces, unable to see her own membership in such a group and thereby possibly understand the nature of their plight, Justice can make her decisions based only on a limited set of facts before her. . . .

Yes, the facts of the case; facts denuded of any other factor – in other words, impartial Civil Law. But feminist jurisprudence wants other dynamics (such as gender or race) to cloud the facts of the case. In sum, it wants non-legal factors such as gender taken into account, factors which an ideologically impartial system of Civil Law would automatically dismiss. And the Anglo-American Common Law legal system is especially vulnerable to feminist agendas for this very reason.

The foregoing discussion explains why Anglo-American feminism enjoys unstinting support from major societal institutions in the Anglosphere. Of course, the Anglo-Saxon puritanical heritage plays a major part in this; for Anglo feminism is not a ‘revolutionary’ movement at all, as conservative MRAs often claim. To the contrary, it shares most of the same goals as the WASP establishment (for example, the legal suppression of male heterosexual choice and freedom). And let us not forget that the vast majority of Anglo feminists are themselves upper middle-class WASPs, their ‘oppression’ being largely imagined and rhetorical. However, the boundless institutional support they enjoy is greatly abetted by their unique control of Common Law, blind spot of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Since law defines all societal institutions, whoever controls the law ultimately controls society.

The most baffling thing about feminist legalists is why they still pretend that women are legally oppressed, when every impartial study proves that women enjoy enormous privilege in the Anglo-American legal system. In reality, feminism has already won the battle for the Anglosphere: its indirect but total control of Anglo-American Common Law has allowed it to redefine the social order with the full backing of the state and its various institutions. One has to have a certain admiration for the whole design; after all, they have won and we have lost. All that now remains for Anglo-American men is alienation and social exclusion, with expatriation the sole avenue of escape from divorce courts, penury and imprisonment.

Go figure.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.


  • A feminist in Canada also made it legal for women to receive oral intercourse from their pets. Technically, a feminist in Canada is allowed to show her nudity around children in public spaces, and to receive oral sex from their pets, but if a woman wants to sell her body to adult men for a fee, that is where a woman does not have rights.


  • Marie-Pier Dupont is a lawyer representing an Ontario woman who has filed a human rights complaint after being told by several hotels that she would not be permitted to swim topless in their pools. At least three hotels have already changed their policies. (Roger Dubois/CBC)

    But I’ve been hearing that Toronto Police raid licensed Body Rub massage parlors because of the way the MPAs are dressed, because a feminist complained that because the attendants are dressed in lingerie (not topless!), it implies sexual services are being offered (which is illegal to purchase in Canada, but not illegal to sell).


  • Feminists in Toronto pressured the tradcon Canadian government to re-criminalize prostitution after almost one year it was considered unconstitutional to criminalize prostitution. Tradcons in Canada re-criminalized prostitution, the purchase of sex, on the anniversary date of the Marc Lepine massacre of feminists on December 06, 1989. Feminists are still fighting a Gender War in Canada. The laughable part is that a few months later, tradcons were voted out to bring in Turdeau.


  • Feminists in Ontario, Canada have legalized female public nudity based on a 1996 Court Appeal by a feminist who was charged with public indecency for flashing her nudity in front of underage children who were playing at the front lawn. The feminist argued that her nudity is no different from a man bare-chested. Feminists won in Canada!


Join the Discussion | Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s