As we thought

The concept of misandry is dangerously vague in comparison to the reality of misogyny. I predict that if misandry is taken forward as a hate crime, it will be used to curb discussions of male violence and female oppression. Again.

Misogyny should be a hate crime and misandry shouldn’t because reasons.

30 comments on “As we thought

  1. I did try asking the Guardianistas what “misogyny” actually means (people who genuinely hate women are exceedingly rare), but apparently it means I’m a troll, a bot, and a Russian.

  2. “When I read the news today, I thought about all the times I have been called a “misandrist” or accused of “misandry””

    I just keep waiting for the penny to drop but it doesn’t.

  3. ‘The point is, when we talk about misogyny, we are talking about the global societal issue of the life-threatening prejudice, hatred, harm, oppression, rape, marginalisation and harassment of women and girls purely based on their gender – millions of women and girls being mutilated, sold, objectified, dehumanised and even murdered for being female.’

    There are millions of people suffering this fate in the UK? I think she needs to stop snacking on those strange looking mushrooms she found foraging in the forest. You could not satirise this…

  4. No comments allowed on that one by the Graun, as far as I can see.

    Seems to me we’re in a race. Can they tighten their stranglehold on the law completely and irreversibly before ordinary people, including even some Guardian readers and general Labour voters, wake up and see what’s actually happening in front of their eyes? Can the sleepyheads on mumsnet who think catcalling should be a crime rouse themselves to imagine the open season there will eventually be on their sons, dads, brothers, husbands male friends etc – especially if white and middle class too?

    I don’t know, but the nuttier they get the better. I celebrate this kind of thing, because no-one bar a dishonest, self-serving power-grabber or a lunatic true-believer absolutely steeped in masters-level social justice warrorism can think this is fair or sensible.

    (Of course, the correct response – do away with all hate crime and focus on crime, with all equal under the law – won’t yet occur to many, but at least all being equal under the hate crime law would be a start.)

  5. No comments allowed on that one by the Graun, as far as I can see.

    All the comment action is going on over at the Guardian’s Facebook page, where they’re either a lot more liberal about free speech, or don’t have enough interns to police the conversation.

    Not that it’s much of a conversation. Guardian readers are depressingly stupid and have no inner monologue.

    I don’t know, but the nuttier they get the better

    This might actually be the only politically feasible (given who dominates our politics) way out of the madness. If everyone is a special snowflake victim, noone is.

    I still can’t bring myself to take “misandry” seriously though. It seems to be a fedora guy thing. Imagine caring that much about what feminists think.

    Otoh, as pathetic as “Men’s Rights Activists” often are (they look like they still get picked on by high school bullies), the insane rage feminists evince at the idea of men having rights is pretty funny.

  6. Steve, I think the problem is that feminists know somehow that men have a bundle of rights and privileges already but we don’t actually know what they are

  7. Interested.

    (Of course, the correct response – do away with all hate crime and focus on crime, with all equal under the law – won’t yet occur to many, but at least all being equal under the hate crime law would be a start.

    yes hatred is not aggravating element in its own regard it has to be based on a few protected characteristics. However when those characteristics potentially cover say 70% of the population, but not 30% i don’t see how it isn’t dice loading against that minority.

  8. Quite, VP, to the extent that such things happen in the UK, it is a particular group that is primarily responsible, a group that is given a free pass by most feminists because it is at the top of the victim hood pyramid. Most feminazis prefer to go after the evil misogynists who open doors for women, let them out of a lift first and glance at their chestal regions when ensconced in a skimpy bikini top.

  9. There was a fascinating court case in Vienna last week, which some may have spotted, that links in icely with this subject.

    Sigrid “Sigi” Maurer is a Green politician, she descies herself on her Instgram page as “Ex-Abgeordnete der Grünen, Feministin, tendenziell erbarmungslos.” So far so bad.

    In May of this yearhe was walking down a street in Vienna on her way to her office when she passed some men outside an off-licence ( actually Strozzigasse in the Josefstadt, I know it because it is on the route of the 13A bus) who wolf-whistled her.
    When she looked at her Facebook page later on, she had received a direct message from the off-licence’s FB account, which was pretty obscene and rather nasty.
    So in revenge she published the message on her Twitter account along with the name and address of the shop’s owner.
    Naturally enough he received threats, stuffed chucked at him, abuse etc etc. So he sued Ms Maurer for defamation and demanded 20,000 Eur to compensate for lost business.
    The Judge last week found in the shop-owner’s favour. Ms Maurer, he said, couldn’t prove that the chap actually wrote the message, as the PC was open to all visitors to the shop. She had failed to follow “basic journalistic standards” by giving his name in her tweet. The Judge said that the fellow was probably lying when he denied writing the message, but that was immaterial, because the onus was on her to prove the fact.
    She was fined 3,000 Eur and had to pay 4,000 plus costs to the shop owner. He complained that it was scant recompense as his reputation was ruined.

    I thought it a remarkably sensible judgement. Ha, try it here and he’d have been whisked off to work a plantation in the Barbadoes.

  10. If she writes one more piece as stupid as that one, I’m betting Sadiq Khan invites her to fill an brand new (and well paid) position with the Greater London Authority.

  11. Doesn’t the victim – the man – get to determine if it’s a hate crime?
    Or is that privilege restricted to favoured groups?

    In principle, I disagree that victims can decide the nature of the crime. Because it’s not objective. Crime is crime, the victims’ perception should be immaterial.

  12. Its wonderful, because they’ve created this ‘problem’ all by themselves. In their desperate drive to be top dog via becoming the biggest victim, the feminists have demanded misogyny become a hate crime, forgetting that hating someone because of their gender splits two ways and that misogyny has a mirror in misandry. And the biggest public proponents of hating groups of people because of their gender are……feminists of course. There’s more officially sanctioned and produced man-hate on any university ‘Womens studies’ course than anywhere else.

    So now they have to square the circle that they’re all for equality, but they can’t give men the same rights as women, because it would outlaw their own behaviour.

    Its wonderful because the mask is slipping big time. Just as the Left in the US at the mo can’t see that accusing a man of sexual misconduct 30 years ago without a single bit of evidence or claiming that being 1/1000th red indian entitles them to call themselves a ‘minority’ is not going to endear them to the electorate, this lot can’t see that all they’re doing is letting people see what the real game is.

  13. As Jim says, feminists don’t see where they are going.

    A bloke punching is wife in the face is clearly domestic violence. But there’s not nearly as much of that going on as feminists need for their crusade, so they extend the definition to ‘controlling behaviour’ and ‘stern looks’ and then jump through convoluted hoops to explain why when a woman does those things it isn’t the same (probably something to do with men’s stern looks being sterner).

    More than once I’ve heard it argued that it’s not as serious when a woman hits a man as she’s weaker, whereon I ask if it’d be OK for a bloke to hit a woman using only half his strength. Apparently not, again because reasons.

  14. “A bloke punching is wife in the face is clearly domestic violence. But there’s not nearly as much of that going on as feminists need for their crusade, so they extend the definition to ‘controlling behaviour’ and ‘stern looks’ and then jump through convoluted hoops to explain why when a woman does those things it isn’t the same (probably something to do with men’s stern looks being sterner).”

    But interestingly the law on domestic abuse that now incorporates controlling behaviour etc does not discriminate between the genders. And we know how much more likely women are to use emotional manipulation in relationships than men are. So they’ve again set themselves up, because they think their own sh*t doesn’t stink……they don’t think women could possibly be controlling over men so there’s no danger in outlawing such behaviour, it’ll only affect men.

    I suspect that won’t be the case – I think increasingly men will start to use this law, particularly in divorce cases. Men have for years been on the end of the malicious ‘He beat me’ claims in divorce proceedings, now men have a similar stick in their hands………..

  15. I predict that if misandry is taken forward as a hate crime the Guardian will have nothing to write about in their screech columns, sorry, opinion columns.

  16. Justin – truth in jest.

    Andrew C, Jim – the problem is who gets to decide what counts as a “hate crime”.

    On a day to day basis, that would be Plod, who are – if their experience on race hate is anything to go by – going to be “trained” by She-Ra Man-Haters to view that in line with SocJus theory.

    Case in point: the torture-murder of Scottish teenager Kriss Donald by a gang of grown Muslim men, one of whom later admitted “we just wanted to kill a white Scottish boy”.

    What was the very first thing the police did in briefing the press? They downplayed the possibility of it being a race-hate crime. The barest facts of the case suggested the exact opposite, and this was later borne out in court. But it was important to the cops to initially pretend they couldn’t see an obvious racial motive in the torture and murder of an innocent white boy by a group of Pakistanis.

    Why? Because they’re trained – formally, but also informally, due to political pressure – to define “racially motivated” as meaning white perpetrator and brown victim.

    Which is also why Dianne Abbott has never had her collar felt for making public remarks that would get a white fella nicked.

  17. Steve

    Guardian readers are depressingly stupid and have no inner monologue.

    Did you mean ‘inner dialogue’? I am sure they have a very repetitive inner monologue…

  18. Interestingly new tv show about a police rookie had a case where he suspected that on a domestic disturbance call it was the husband being abused, but did nothing, only to be called back later when the wife stabbed him. Usually media is so full of SJW crap I was surprised to see them take that approach. Wife was complaining about the Chramed reboot that she settled down to watch with the daughter being all about angry feminist lesbians, SJW stuff and forced political comments about Trump etc. said it had totally destroyed what used to be a fun light show, and then they wonder why people won’t watch

  19. It is the ultimate example of whataboutery – when a group of people cries, “But what about X?”, to distract attention from any legitimate discussion of Y.

    No awareness of symmetry there! Raising the matter of uranium mining would be whataboutery…

    misandry seems to be thrown around (generally at women) for some pretty tenuous things that definitely are not hatred or hostility to men.

    Manspreading? And many Guardian articles finding male oppression in everything – from barbecues to…{complete as applicable}

    we are talking about the global societal issue of the life-threatening prejudice, hatred, harm, oppression, rape, marginalisation and harassment of women and girls purely based on their gender – millions of women and girls being mutilated, sold, objectified, dehumanised and even murdered for being female.

    UK law already covers your concern, love. No need for more laws.

    The concept of misandry is dangerously vague…

    Just like misogyny, then. And feminism is simply an attitude, devoid of fixed content.

    Best drop this idea of hate crime altogether, so no need to bother your pretty little head about it!

  20. Quite recently Gina Miller (yes her) was on Question Time and put Theresa May’s troubles down to the ambitionsnof “these men” in her cabinet; their gender being central to their ambition and appalling behavioir.
    It struck me that (i) a man wouldn’t get away with talkng that way about women and (ii) women tlaking in these terms is really quite common.
    So perhaps the real objection to the criminalization of misandry is the frequency of the complaints to police we can expect.

  21. ‘It’s already too easy for men to cry foul every time a woman says or does anything they don’t like.’

    Wut?

  22. I’ve observed that while the unintelligent and/or immature have all the same human failings (hypocrisy, projection, inability to incorporate other worldviews, extreme bias confirmation etc) as everyone else they are simply unable to recognize them much less attempt to control or mitigate.

    So, when called upon to explain their horrid behavior or form a cogent argument they fall back on projection. Hard. Try yourself to spot how much SJW stupidassery is simple projection. My guess is around 90%, with pure bigotry making up the rest.

  23. @Jim, October 18, 2018 at 2:12 pm

    Re: ‘Womens studies’

    Hungary has revoked funding for greivance gender studies after the government cited concerns about employment opportunities for graduates

    Good move, hope we copy. Not holding breath.

  24. – “we are talking about the global societal issue of the life-threatening prejudice, hatred, harm, oppression, rape, marginalisation and harassment of women and girls purely based on their gender – millions of women and girls being mutilated, sold, objectified, dehumanised and even murdered for being female.”

    Sheer Islamophobia from The Guardian.

  25. Sam

    “…while the unintelligent and/or immature have all the same human failings…as everyone else they are simply unable to recognize them much less attempt to control or mitigate.”

    It’s a consequence of ‘educating’ vast numbers of proles beyond the level of their intelligence, boosting their ‘self-esteem’ and sense of entitlement, and allowing the availability of ‘social’ media.

    A selective education system in which the top 20% were isolated from the dross (ie the bottom 20%) would help in the long term, because selection tends to encourage independent thinking.

  26. @BniC

    Saw this show too (Mrs W can’t get enough of Nathan Fillion) and, like you, was surprised by the outcome of this particular storyline. Even more shocked when the recruit with the high melanin content was the one who cracked when the bullets started flying. Can’t be too long before a Twitterstorm results in the show’s cancellation.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.