Is being a man now dangerous?

 

Instead of more covid and more EU – important as these issues are – today’s column is about sex, sort of. It’s about the aftermath and fall-out from that Clapham vigil or demo, and how this influenced the debate in the MSM and HoC about new Laws. The one is meant to regulate police proceedings at demos, the other is about the clamour for new, stronger laws to regulate ‘male violence’ and misogyny. 

It might have passed you by, but allegedly our society is not only racist, it’s utterly misogynist. We’re apparently a nation of ‘women haters’. That’s why a Bill is wending its way through Parliament according to which the police forces in England and Wales should be made to record ‘where existing crimes had been motivated by someone’s sex or gender’. Ms Stella Creasy MP (Lab) said that it’s now time to call misogyny a hate crime. The DT’s opinion writer Ms Walden correctly asks: “how do they and we decide what qualifies as a hate crime in a society and climate that has conflated sexism and misogyny?” (paywalled link) and then explains that sexists aren’t always misogynists but misogynists are always sexist.

No, I haven’t a clue how this observation is going to help in the debate, especially not when Ms Walden next describes her horrible experiences with sexism, wailing that “I have sat next to men at dinner parties who didn’t once see fit to ask me what I did for a living.” (paywalled link). Never mind that ‘talking shop’ at dinner used to be frowned upon in ‘High Society’. I’m sure your heart bleeds for her – stop laughing, you irreverent lot!

So were these males simply sexist or also deeply misogynist? we’re not told, but Ms Walden provides a clue: sexism is ‘cultural indifference’, whatever that means, while misogyny is ‘deep-seated hostility and violent intent’ towards a female person. No, she doesn’t explain how this would apply to transgender people – too much of a conundrum, perhaps?

Therefore, if our society is ‘deeply’ misogynist’, it must clearly be heaving with men with violent intent against women. This leads to the next question: if misogyny becomes a hate crime, isn’t this akin to thought crime because ‘violent intent’ is presumed to exist in mens minds because they’re male? Is this the latest poisoned fruit of ‘all men are rapists’? Does ‘violent intent’ in the form of misandry not exist – or do we not care about that?

Those of us who can remember further back than the last weekend, recall the “MeToo” movement which took off in 2017. This “movement” is now also bearing fruit. they claim at that time was that a woman’s word about her experience is the truth, no factual evidence needed to be given. This extraordinary turn-around in regard to criminal justice and court cases is demonstrated by a rather sinister statistic which was presented by Dame Vera Baird QC who is ‘Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales’ (no, I had no idea such animal existed …). She warned of:

“decriminalisation of rape” and suggested that many women now “regard the streets as lawless when it comes to male behaviour”. Although police recorded 55,130 rapes in 2019-20, there were only 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions in England and Wales — less than 3 per cent. Baird fears that a clause in the crime bill, which gives additional powers to the police to download mobile phone data, may make matters worse by discouraging rape victims from pursuing cases for fear that their sexual history will be used to discredit them.” (link, paywalled)

Does she insinuate that over 50,000 ‘rape cases’ recorded by the police should have been prosecuted anyway? The observation that women won’t come forward because of worries that the police would get data from their smartphones again demonstrates that ‘women must be believed’ even when they’ve patently lied. Here are some nubemrs about convictions which bear keeping in mind:

“The conviction rate for rape in the 12 months to last July was 68.5 per cent, meaning that almost a third of defendants were acquitted. However, conviction rates have been improving: in 2015, the rate was about 57 per cent and in 2019 it was about 63.5 per cent.” (link, paywalled)

Horrible, isn’t it: a third of defendants were acquitted because the courts didn’t believe the wimmin! Here’s another crime statistic, reported in the Guardian, about ‘knife crime’. In the same period for which we have those rape case conviction numbers, there were 22,286 knife and offensive weapon offences, a 3% increase on the previous year, but see this:

“Nearly four in 10 (38%) knife and offensive weapon offences resulted in an immediate custodial sentence last year, compared with 23% in the year ending September 2009.” (link)

Compare and contrast the sentencing or conviction  numbers: 38% for violence against most male persons v 68.5% for rape. Why am I not surprised that there’s no general outcry, no hashtag ‘movement’? about this discrepancy? Surely not because the victims are overwhelmingly male! Shouldn’t we perhaps talk about a pervasive misandrist or ‘man-hating’ attitude in the police and indeed in our society?

I wonder why our peacocks and MSM ‘journalists’ are so blinded by this latest ‘anti-misogynist’ hashtag wave, why they’re so keen to signal their virtue, showing that they’re not women-haters. Don’t they see that introducing these laws will prevent police officers to protect all of us, irrespective of gender, from crimes against our persons? For example, see what is proposed:

“Police officers in plain clothes will be stationed undercover outside bars and clubs across the country in the coming months in a new scheme to keep women safe on the streets. New government funding amounting to £25 million has also been announced to improve lighting and put up CCTV cameras in neighborhoods that could see women at risk of attack.” (paywalled link)

More police officers needed – or less police time spent on other crimes since even police men only have 24 hours per day. I’ll just note that this scheme demonstrates that women must be kept ‘safe’ even if they drink themselves into oblivion. Women apparently don’t need to take responsibility for their behaviour – asking that they should do so would be misogynist. Do women really prefer to have Nanny State watch over them rather than rely on themselves?

Is it too harsh to think that somehow women seem to like living in a constant state of fear and trepidation? When it’s not covid which must be fought by lockdowns, it’s ‘fear of males’ who happen to be around who apparently all harbour ‘violent intent’ because they’re men. No wonder then that this scheme:

“will be rolled out as Covid-19 restrictions are eased in the coming months. Pubs and bars are allowed to reopen outside from mid-April, with clubs likely to return in late June.” (paywalled link)

Restricting our civil freedom because of covid isn’t sufficient – there must be more restrictions because women must be made to feel safe, without having to take responsibility for this themselves. Funny that no prominent female has called for more courses in self-defence! Regarding the clamour for harsher sentencing of ‘sex offenders’, a category hugely enlarged now, allegedly to include men who wolf-whistle – here’s an interesting and quite staggering intervention:

“David Lammy, the shadow justice secretary, wrote to Buckland last month expressing dismay that he had not published a full equalities impact assessment of the plans for longer sentences because they would have a “disproportionate” impact on black and ethnic minorities.” (link, paywalled)

Oh dear. I can’t help but wonder if this means that BAME defendants should be sentenced less harshly “because: ‘racism!”. Is this going to be the new criminal justice system according to which police and courts must find in favour of women, regardless, because doing otherwise means they’re misogynists while they also must be lenient to BAME defendants because doing otherwise would be racist?

This leaves one group right at the bottom of the heap: white males. That is neither racist nor misandrist, is it! This anti-male attitude has been growing for a long time. Concerns about white boys underachieving in schools to prostate cancer and the ever growing number of male suicides can only be mentioned in passing, it seems. 

Who can forget Jess Phillips MP sniggering at the suggestion that these male issues should be debated in Parliament on ‘International Men’s Day’! Well, it is forgotten now. After all, this happened in 2015, Even though the numbers on male suicide and cancer deaths given in the report in the DT (paywalled link) have become worse, clearly “we” must only be concerned about women.

Strangely enough, nobody asks what mothers of boys should do. A male Times columnists says they should teach them to ‘respect women’, before declaring that he’s stymied as to what to tell his sons when it’s easy to tell his daughters that the can do everything boys can do. Well – perhaps it’s time to teach our boys that they can do whatever the girls can do? After all, Nanny State will surely look after them as well as looking after girls, won’t it?

Perhaps this whole mess might ultimately be solved when all women have become lesbians and all men gay. No rapes, no misogyny – because males and females won’t need to have sex with each other. A thoroughly British solution … 

 

KBO!