Punishment for a misogynist, perchance?

 

Today I was going to write about a piece by Dominic Cummings where he makes some truly scary proposals. I’ve refrained from mentioned the case against the murderer of Ms Everard by that police man. However, the articles and comment pieces in today’s papers were sufficient to make me question the sanity of those advocating for what seems to be the crime of the millennium: ‘misogyny’.

Taking it from the top, we read that the PM was questioning the Met Commissioner, Cressida Dick, about the ‘low rate of rape prosecutions’ (link). The times writes:

“The police’s failure to take violence against women and girls seriously enough is “infuriating”, Boris Johnson has said in the wake of Sarah Everard’s murder. In an interview with The Times, Johnson said that the public are right to feel the police are failing women and girls who are subjected to violence and sexual abuse.” (link, paywalled)

Yes, well, some of us remember that it was ‘only’ ten years ago whenthe first reports on the Rotherham ‘grooming gang’, the rape of under-age girls on an industrial scale, was first published. We remember that these cases went back to the beginning of the millennium, that the local police and social services did nothing because: ‘Community Coherence!’ and because the perpetrators were of that certain, ‘protected’ community while the girls were depicted as ‘just white trash’.

No outcries about ‘institutional misogyny’ then, certainly not from our permanently enraged feminists in the metropolis! Moving on we next read that Ms Patel, the Home Secretary, told the DT that:

“Police must “raise the bar” by taking harassment and flashing of women more seriously, Priti Patel said on Friday in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard. […] The Home Secretary dismissed suggestions that harassment in the street and verbal or physical abuse of women were “low level”. Her comments came after the jailing of police officer Wayne Couzens for the rape and murder of Miss Everard led to allegations of “institutional misogyny” against police and calls for Dame Cressida Dick to resign as the Met Police commissioner.” (link, paywalled)

A bit of a dilemma there, isn’t it: how best to blame the Police Chief Commissioner for misogyny when she’s a woman, when she’s been ‘in the job at the top’ for four years already. What is infuriating though is that the first male Chief Commissioners are already falling over themselves to make misogyny into the latest ‘hate crime’ (my emphasis):

“A majority of chief constables have indicated their support for recording misogyny as a hate crime, although Scotland Yard is sceptical. […] The Metropolitan Police are understood to be unsure about recording misogyny, with some senior officers believing present legislation is adequate. […] Chief constables have been waiting for Home Office guidance to outline specifically how it would be recorded and what offences would be applied.” (link, paywalled)

I note that the police forces are clearly as incapable of doing anything without ‘guidance’ as are other institutions, from NHS hospitals to schools to HGV lobby groups. It is also noteworthy that at least some senior officers believe that current legislation is sufficient. However, ‘campaigners’ obviously don’t think it is enough, ‘misogyny’ must be made into the crime of the millennium, into a ‘super-hate crime’. They seem to think this is even worse than racism. 

We learn furthermore that the government, in typical, knee-jerk Johnson fashion, announced recording misogyny as hate crime as ‘key reform for all police forces’ in March this year, after the murder of Ms Everard.

What to say about the mindset of this government, of chief police officers, of the MSM and of ‘campaigners’ who all seem to think that one word from ‘up top’ will change everything instantly, as if government must be like the commercial way of life where everybody can get delivered what they want, at the click of a button, 24/7, as if there’s no WFH, lockdowns, holidays where most civil serpents were away, as presumably those campaigners themselves were!

There is however something far more sinister going on. So far, those campaigners seem to think that changing the hate crime legislation to make misogyny into the most heinous of hate crimes is ‘a good thing’ because it would: 

“encourage women to report public harassment because they could have more confidence that it would be treated as a serious crime. They believe it would also help to change the culture of police forces so that officers take violence against women more seriously.” (link, paywalled)

Yes, well – theft and robbery are of no concern when compared to ‘misogyny’! However, even this is apparently not sufficient. The Times has an opinion piece today by one of their wimmin writers. Under the headline “We see police now as just men with handcuffs” (are there no female police officers with handcuffs?) she doubles down, calling the police “a profession that is rotten through with misogyny” (link, paywalled).

‘Tis odd though: aren’t we being admonished not to judge a certain religion because of ‘one bad apple, i.e. a terrorist’? Now it’s ok to do so when it’s about males generally? I just wonder, in passing, if police officers who belong to a certain religion would be able to check the misogyny permeating that religion – but nah, even thinking that would be deeply racist, sorry.

There’s more – it’s remarkable that the national situation in March actually gets mentioned:

“The North Yorkshire police commissioner Philip Allott said that Sarah Everard “should never have submitted to arrest”. But women are raised to comply. It’s drummed into us: be good, be kind. Sarah got into Wayne Couzens’s car because, in visiting her friend, she knew she’d broken lockdown rules.” (link, paywalled)

Lockdown rules are actually mentioned – but rather than questioning how the police forces everywhere were enforcing those with severity (I’m cautious here!) we get the ‘women are compliant’ excuse. We’re also informed that ‘flashing’ ought to have been a sign of murderous intent – funny how all those reports on ‘new guests’ flashing in public transport haven’t led to calls for arrests because ‘misogynist hate crime’!

This writer has noticed though that police officers treat people differently, depending on the situation, remarking that they “respect protesters for lying on the M25. They are political: women are collateral.” (link, paywalled). Ah – but aren’t those ‘political M25 wimmin’ of the same class as Ms Everard, protesting for a ‘good cause’? Female demonstrators on anti-lockdown demos weren’t treated ‘respectfully’, as far as I can remember. 

The Times writer joins the campaigners in calling for the police to treat female complaints ‘seriously’, closing with this astonishing sentence: “And police are just men, but with handcuffs and warrant cards”, insinuating that perhaps wimmin ought not to obey police officers because they’re all misogynist. Perhaps wimmin ought to insist on being arrested by female police officers only? 

There’s a furious piece in SpikedOnline by Brendan O’Neill which is worth reading in full. He demolishes the reports by all those female writers in the MSM, saying that they’ve shamelessly diminished this crime, that “there is no event so horrific that it cannot be marshalled by the media class to tell a story about me, me, me.” (link), that they’re attempting to create a ‘spectrum’ on which every male can be placed, where wolf-whistling can lead to murder.

Here’s the sinister consequence, given that ‘campaigners’ are generally found on the left of the political spectrum:

“Now, some radical leftists are turning the Everard horror into a launchpad for their police-bashing, for their thoroughly bourgeois political project of ‘defund the police’.” (link)

Brendan O’Neill’s article is indeed worth reading in full. It is written with hot fury. In the cold light of morning I’d like to add that we are being driven by ‘campaigners’ into a mental state where ‘wimmin’ should not trust any male, especially not a police officer.

Are we now on the way back to Victorian times where wimmin fainted when the word ‘trousers’ was used? Or are we on the way back to a society segregated according to gender, where male and female better not mix in order to ‘stay safe’? 

I tell you what this latest, male-hating campaign might well lead to: a society of gender segregation reminiscent of sharia law where males can roam the streets while females cower at home. If white middle class feminists believe that wimmin can roam the streets while males cower at home then they live in cloud-cuckoo land.

Ask yourselves if the males in our ‘diverse communities’ would change their ways and submit to this white, middle-class demand to institutionalise misandry in our society! Ask yourselves if those modern-day, white middle class feminists actually want this modern-day, western version of Sharia Law, applicable to all women – all because of the ‘me-me-me’ attitude prevalent in the Westminster meejah …

KBO

 

Photo by MadMup

Print Friendly, PDF & Email