Take three or four reasons why this can’t be allowed to rest – choose from, say, misogyny, hatred of all women, that there is rampant State/feminist prejudice at this time or at the sheer injustice and wilful blindness on the part of many women today.
Which is the reason?
Of course it’s the latter – it’s the constant declarations of injustice against them by the vocal harpies, with that being backed with taxpayer money, our money, plus State approval and at the same time, an utter failure to see that they are the ones doing all the prejudice, all the discrimination, all the hatred – the payback, in their eyes. These harpies accuse men of outrageous behaviour, e.g. the Twitter comments to Mensch, without once really stopping to think why.
And their auto-defence is to cry Misogyny to anyone who speaks up. Well, to hell with that.
Misogyny is too simple, too pat, too easy for these harpies to get off the hook with. It’s they who have had the State institute prejudice against one half of society and women have gone right along with it, this misandry … and therein lies my beef.
It’s not so much the misandry itself but the utter failure of women to acknowledge it for what it is, the failure to accept that it’s happening and the subsequent failure to speak up, with a dozen or so honourable exceptions, which gets up my nose.
Now that’s not hatred for women in the least – if it had been blue-eyed people or those living south of the north/south line, I’d have been just as vocal.
My vehement opposition to the Mensch illogic is political, not personal and always has been. I couldn’t give a monkey’s about her idiotic “chick lit” in itself – a euphemism, by the way, for unprosecuted prejudice and discrimination [and she and all who write it should be behind bars on the basis of their own laws they've brought in] – but the sheer hypocrisy of the way she and those like her carry on. There’s the rub.
The media are culpable too – guilty as hell. When did you last see anything, anything at all beyond opinion columns decrying the rampant misandry sweeping the nation and the world?
Silence. Heads turned away, just as they were in 30s Germany with the Jews.
And now I get to the most culpable group of all. Wildlife does what it does, women do what they do, men do what they do – that’s just life. However, the harpies would not have had any influence in bringing in all this legislation if it wasn’t for the complicity of both Them up top and all the soft metro men who’ve gone along with it.
When I write something like this, it’s not the occasional woman writing a riposte who is the problem – that’s par for the course – but all the Cyrils and Brians and Rogers who storm in to “defend women” so they think, without once stopping and thinking through what it is they’re actually supporting. Because what they fail to see is that this is not against women, it’s against a political injustice perpetrated by the State, ostensibly on behalf of women.
It took a woman to write about it long ago – Minette Marrin, when she wrote in the Sunday Time on Nov 24th, 2002, in Hatred of things male has led to the rape of justice. Though it was about rape and not Twittering, the attitudes are the same and so I reproduce this in full. She’s a good writer and it’s worth it:
‘All men are rapists” was one feminist battle cry of the 1970s. Not many people actually thought so, even at the time, but it did express an animosity towards men that was widely shared and has taken a firm hold in mass culture.
What the gender warriors probably meant is that all rapists are men. Not only do men have a monopoly on rape, they also have a near-monopoly on mugging, grievous bodily harm, warmongering, torture and crimes against humanity. Illogical people might therefore be led, by the same upside-down syllogism, to think that all men are awful and the root of all evil. Many do, and increasingly.
Even little children sense this prevailing orthodoxy in the playground. I will never forget the moment my nine-year-old daughter told my four-year-old son that men do all the bad and cruel things in the world and are wicked. But not girls. The poor little fellow looked at her in shame and horror. Since then he has been growing up in a climate of increasing misandry, the opposite of misogyny.
We hear endless complaints about misogyny, but actually misandry rules. Or if not exactly misandry, a profound misunderstanding of masculinity: Boys and men are increasingly blamed and belittled. Girls meanwhile have been doing better and better at school and university, making the most of positive discrimination; whereas boys have begun to underperform in most things, except in breaking the law.
The stereotypes of the co-operative, hardworking and sociable girl compared with the disaffected, lazy and antisocial boy truly exist across society. Testosterone has become a vulgar term of abuse. The reasons are legion but the result is the same; this is a bad time to he a boy.
An absolutely typical example of this uncritical misandry was to be found last week in the home secretary’s new white paper on sex offences. It is true that many laws on sex crimes badly need revision and David Blunkett has proposed many very sensible and welcome changes.
But so great has been his determination to convict more date rapists, presumably to please our powerful feminist lobby, that he is prepared to violate two of the most sacred principles of English criminal law: the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. So powerful is our public obsession with rape and date rape that most critics have said very little about Blunkett’s rape of justice.
Under current law if a man accused of rape can convince a jury that he honestly believed his alleged victim had given consent; no matter how unreasonable his belief might have been, he will be acquitted. It is therefore very hard to convict in such cases, and, according to the white paper, that explains why conviction rates for rape are indeed very low – only 7% of reported cases. That is why Blunkett proposes to move the goalposts of justice.
The two central principles of criminal justice in this country have been the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. The burden of proof, in every way, is upon the prosecution. Traditionally, as everyone knows, it has been felt that it is far better that the guilty should go free than that the innocent should be convicted – doubt should go in favour of the accused.
With rape this belief and these principles seem to be losing their ancient power. The white paper, in its attempts to get more convictions for date rape or acquaintance rape, is undermining the assumption of innocence and suggesting a new test of “reasonableness”
The white paper proposes that if the prosecution can show there is a reasonable doubt that an alleged victim did consent to sex, and that the alleged rapist did not take reasonable steps to make sure he had obtained consent, he’ s guilty of rape.
The law will list circumstances in which it would be presumed that there could not have been consent, such as when a woman was frightened, or unconscious through drink, drugs or sleep.
So, though the prosecution will have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that sex took place, in some of these listed circumstances, the defendant would then have to prove his innocence by persuading the jury, on the balance of probabilities, that the victim did indeed consent. So he will be presumed guilty, it seems to me, until he can prove himself innocent, and under the most imponderable of circumstances.
It is true that rape is a particularly horrible offence, second only in its most flagrant forms to murder. But there are degrees of rape, and it is sometimes genuinely difficult to distinguish between them. For many years now there has been a strange sort of hysteria about it.
I was woken up to this by a women’s magazine investigation of rape about 20 years ago, following a big survey of readers. The writer pointed out with furious indignation that a great many unhappy women had written in, after reading the series, to say that they hadn’t realised until then that they had been raped. Call me conventional, but I think rape is the kind of thing you would notice, at least if you were awake.
I was shocked by another, more recent case of two students who got very drunk and collapsed into his bed in his room. “Penetration took place,” as the men in wigs say, and the next morning the girl was friendly not only to him but to some of his friends who turned up, and she stayed around cheerfully for a couple of hours.
Only much later, after conversations with others, did she cry rape. The boy was convicted. So was poor notorious Angus Diggle; who went to jail for a four-minute fumble with a girl who took off her clothes in front of him, having come to his room to spend the night after a dance. Although he stopped touching her almost as soon as she protested, he was found guilty of attempted rape.
Guilty only of attempted consensual sex, I should say, and foolishness and bad manners; her presence and her behaviour suggested consent, and when she protested he stopped almost at once.
Sex is full of ambiguities. Human relationships are full of vengefulness and lies, as well as love and tenderness. Some people are blinded by silly political agendas, or the bad advice of foolish friends.
On the wilder shores of sex, among the S&M and bondage “community”, some people love precisely that “force or, fear of force” that Blunkett would make a presumption of guilt (or at least a `presumption of lack of consent?”) in the courts.
Hasn’t Blunkett listened to Mozart’s famous seduction scene in Don Giovanni, when the woman sings “vorrei e non vorrei” or “yes and no all at once”? Why should men always be blamed for these ambiguities of human nature?”
Rape is a dreadful violation, date rape may sometimes hardly deserve the name and there is a spectrum of crimes in between. But no crime is bad enough, and men simply are not nasty enough, to justify undermining the most important principles of criminal law.
New laws like this will only increase the misunderstanding between the sexes, and the growing resentment men feel against women.
How could men disagree with that? It’s digressing from the theme of this post but it does encapsulate the attitudes of the players.
Minette Marrin convinces me that there are good women out there, unswayed by this claptrap going on and these are the women I can do business with. And you know what my reaction is to her and others like her? To support her, to listen to her genuine grievances on this or that and to do what can be done to accommodate them.
And what of Greer and her kind? Simple – a stone wall, non-cooperation, taking every opportunity to stymie her at every turn, to block her and all who carry on like her. To wind her up with outrageous statements about women, to tell misogynist jokes, even though I don’t believe n them, to do anything necessary to upset a feminazi today. To stonewall, with that word used in the correct context for once.
It’s not about women v men, is it? It’s about one type v another type we can’t stand.
It was Greer who said that women have no idea just how much men hate them. Correction, Ms Harpy – just how much men detest your type, as distinct from women as a whole. Greer is the enemy, not only of men but of of women too because she fails to incorporate one vital political principle – taking men along with her.
She can’t do that because of her own abject hatred, which she projects back on Men, riding roughshod over the very delicate, gossamer-like threads of understanding and appreciation linking men and women. She’s a destroyer of gossamer thread bridges, if you like.
She and all like her are very sad cases but I bet these would be exactly the words forming in their mouths about this post, should it have been read by them. So I put it to the Greers and Mensches of this world – just why do you think some men have come out and done this tweeting against you?
Well, it’s many things – a sense of dispossession which sees the State come in and bludgeon any male who speaks against women for whatever reason and no matter what behaviour, perhaps a lack of education, perhaps being the product of the new socialized, infantilized, stagnant, socialist dystopia we’re in which suppresses free comment – could be many reasons.
Hell, I’ve been called far worse than that but she and the female journos who’ve shrilly got onto this and written in the MSM how dastardly, how terrible this prejudice against women is, should stop just once, as mentioned above, and think through why.
Things don’t happen out of the blue – there’s always a reason and it’s often a concrete reason.
How come I can get on perfectly well with women outside of blogging, how come many of the commenters at my place are women, how come these men who Twittered Mensch really hate her? Why do I not join them? Why don’t you?
What we all need to do, IMHO, is ignore Westminster, Washington, any council officer, anyone pushing this PC garbage and let’s just get back, sans the plethora of legislation designed to keep the unsustainable sustainable, to where we were before – with some sanity governing our actions. Let’s just live our own lives and find our own level with the opposite sex, sans State interference.
But first we have to overcome the sucked-in, soft-left Cyrils and Brians and Rogers who are allowing the PTB to continue these injustices. I’d suggest they’re the ones we need to tackle first, before we even get to the harpies but often, they’re the most prejudiced of the lot, putting soft constructions on the unjust, according to the narrative, desperately trying to out-PC the PCists themselves and ingratiate themselves with women in this PC dystopia.
Women don’t want your sucking up, guys, they want you to stand up and be men.