Yes. Despite the support for women's votes and so on, and the huge expansion in what's called 'education', the number of serious women revisionists is almost zero. The leading people in all the following fields: crime statistics evaluation/ Shakespeare authorship/ World War 2 and 'Holocaust' work/ NASA frauds/ 9-11/ insecticides and poisoning/ investigators of mistakes in biological science/ weaponry and war crimes/ mistakes in educational practices/ population problems/ Jews and paper money/ honest criticisms of religion/ anti-war activity/ truth about Islam/ global warming-climate change/ Norway killings/ Darwin as plagiarist of Wallace etc etc etc and of course nuclear matters are virtually all male. Disappointingly, there seems no realistic chance that women in any numbers will have significant effects on genuine and important ideas.
As for 'useful idiots', what follows is a book review of a recent book by someone called Bibi van der Zee, The Protestor's Handbook, mostly legally relevant to Britain. I don't vouch that this Dutch-sounding person actually exists - she may be named on the principle that 'Haagen Dazs' sounds clean and Scandinavian, but was made up by PR people. Anyway, she has only one page on nuclear matters, describing someone who was in CND (Campaign for [British unilateral] Nuclear Disarmament) who went on to the dizzy heights of teaching 'conflict resolution' which, judging by the state of the world, hasn't been a dazzling success.
Why do women only protest on conventionalised lines? It may be a combination of
. (1) Lack of interest in technical matters, or subservience to men, without development of critical ability; both deter getting to the bottom of subjects. In nuclear issues, this is an absolutely crucial omission.
. (2) Desire to do something which may be useful; there's no choice therefore but to accept someone else's view. For example, the book reviewed below takes it for granted that 'climate change' is the most important issue for the future - and obviously this must simply be an imposed view, since it's not arrived at by careful consideration of possibilities. Her handlers avoid 9/11, and many other important topics.
. (3) Presumably also absence of a serious career - something for which I have great sympathy.
. (4) Note quite a few women copy male ideas, often very damaging ones - see e.g. Barbara Lerner Spectre. This latter type are 'useful idiots' in a full-blown sense.
Anyway, I've highlit a few comments---
The Protestor's Handbook, Guardian Books 2008, retitled and reprinted unchanged 2010
Guardian Books seems to be an imprint of the Guardian newspaper. In the most hypocritical manner possible, the Guardian is owned by or connected with the Scott Trust, or Scott Trust Limited, which does everything in a purely profit-making and tax-avoiding basis.
The authoress of this book appears to be purely journalistic; there are sections contributed by four lawyers, on subjects related to activism and protest, but her contributions are mainly interviews, with a few accounts of visits (e.g. to south America). It's not clear whether the interviews were hers, or the result of raiding Guardian files. Some may have been telephone interviews. Much of the material is biographical - a few random examples are: a Palestine Solidarity Group, protected by police, at a 'crucial' football match with Israel; Jon Trickett, a (then?) Labour MP who lobbied for a clause 'to include in their annual review anything that might harm profits because it endangers the company's reputation'; Sue who wanted to throw eggs at Tony Blair's car; Ralph Nader; Dave Currey, a wildlife trafficking investigator.
Some of the material is historical flashbacks over the last few centuries - sometimes at unnecessary length - there's quite a bit on Gandhi, Tolstoy, M L King - she doesn't seem to know Indian partition resulted in massive deaths, Tolstoy's Russia was swept away by Jews, M L King failed in his aims. She also for, presumably, traditional reasons includes Marx, and groups liable to suspicion, such as the British Nutrition Foundation. She does not extend her scepticism to other funded groups which she approves of.
The material is arranged in chapters, but these don't really reflect their contents properly - I think the book, including the bibliography, was put together from fragments. There are 17 chapters, including e.g. Fundraising, Boycotts, Lobbying parliament, unions, Going into politics, and Legal action.
How useful is this book? Well - the legal sections could be valuable: there are sections - which are indexed, but a bit hard to find - on e.g. defamation (watch what you write), demonstrations (arrange beforehand etc), Freedom of Information (only three pages on this). In common with all popular presentations I've ever seen on law, it's not made clear what happens if things go wrong. A friend of mine makes FoI requests to his council, but they break the law by ignoring them. So what can he do?
An aspect the book is the DIY side - get people together, hold meetings, arrange strategies, and lo and behold, things may get done. Bibi van der Zee recommends an outfit called Seeds of Change to help set up organisations with the help of 'facilitators'; its website reads rather like Common Purpose transposed into 'green' imagery. There's a section on forming your own political party (she doesn't recommend it). There's nothing on websites.
Is this book in fact useful? I made a list of possible issues: What action could be taken to bolster free speech in universities, when it comes under attack by thugs? Is there some way to make the authorities take action on 'grooming' of underage girls? Can action be taken when lies are shown up retrospectively - for example when Kraft closed Cadbury's after promising to keep it open? What can be done about racial groups, which are encouraged when white/English groups are prohibited? What about fluoridation? What about PFI ('Private Finance Initiative') and huge debts? What about paper money and the Rothschilds? What about the RSPCA doing nothing about ritual slaughter? --- It's perfectly clear from this book that only a small subset of issues troubles van der Zee. She thinks climate change is the most important world issue.
This leads to the question of information. She says (p 98) with agonising naivete 'Most of the time the facts are readily available.' Chapter 10 'Getting the facts' make sit clear she has no idea about in-depth research, praising people like Woodward and Bernstein, and recounting 19th century muckrakers. Incidentally there is one mention (only) of 9/11 (p. 180) - it's obvious she hasn't a clue.
Who is the book aimed at? I think the clue is in her introduction, when she quotes Charlotte Despard - "For me... militant suffrage was the very salt of life. ... like a draught of fresh air ... that sense of being some use.." Van der Zee says 'Trade union activists don't have time to find girlfriends, and they're always very thin and handsome and intense and sex mad..' I remember a friend of mine telling me about an Amnesty International meeting in Guildford, England; a man announced he worked for the BBC, and 'an erotic thrill went round the room.' Some time later, the BBC man dropped out of the group and could not be contacted. It was found he'd slept with 'the more attractive women'. Page 165 has an amusing account of the early days of Greenpeace and 'beautiful, intelligent, liberated.. etc females'. Lesbians are not left out, of course. The psychology seems similar to women who convert to Islam, or have mixed race children, or shag people like Assange.
Let's not forget the career element, though. Dave Webb (p. 69) joined CND, and now teaches 'a peace and conflict resolution MA'. Billy Bragg was interviewed - a fairly obscure singer, notorious as promoting immigration, but living in a big house, which was in some magazine - House Beautiful? - in Dorset. A few professional lobbyists are described. Van der Zee seems to have understandably drawn the line at professional managers of charities (which, she fails to point out, are immune from the FoI Act) and civil servants who supposedly dispense foreign aid. She also says nothing about infiltrators - the police amuse themselves as actors entering these groups; recently one was revealed to have fathered a child, presumably on a gullible activist, before disappearing. No wonder some people call them 'the filth'!
This is a book for people who aren't well informed, or particularly intelligent, but are, or want to appear passionate. There's security in numbers, up to a point; so there you are. Van der Zee does have a few passages which actually examine whether protest works. Of course these are mostly in the 'west' where it's less likely you'll be shot or kidnapped. She concludes violence sometimes works (without quoting the IRA). But such passages are rare. Most of the book resembles Samuel Smiles - a lot of stories which may shame people into action, at least for a time. I wonder how many abandoned and failed groups there are out there. Sigh.
Keywords: women, protestors, women's groups, women protestors, activists, selective activism, funded activism, pseudo-activists, directed activism, useful idiots, chauvinists, male chauvinist pigs