Utmost twattery here

A Labour MP was applauded in the House of Commons after she listed the 120 women who had been killed in in Britain in the past year.

120 crimes and 120 tragedies. However:

In 2012/13, as in previous years, more than two-thirds of homicide victims (69%) were male.

Should we go and kill some more women in order to produce equality? Perhaps worry about the number of men being killed?

Or continue on this path of the utmost twattery where equality means only equality in nice things?

54 thoughts on “Utmost twattery here”

  1. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a larger proportion of those men “brought it upon themselves” by involvement with organised crime, whereas a greater proportion of the women were “innocent victims”, particularly innocent victims with a lethal choice in “hard” men.

    Given that young women rarely are involved in the streetfighting aspects of gang life, I’m surprised they have a murder rate so similar to men.

    Would be particularly interesting to see this broken down by age segment, anyone got the figures? Would expect men to be well ahead in the twenties, but by middle age wouldn’t be surprised if things have evened out.

  2. “…but a larger proportion of those men “brought it upon themselves” by involvement with organised crime, whereas a greater proportion of the women were “innocent victims””

    Yeah that’s probably true about domestic violence murders too. Most men who murder their innocent partners are evil, vicious killers whereas most women who murder their partners were probably acting in self-defence after years of unspeakable abuse by evil vicious men.

    Isn’t that the agenda?

    (Did you know if you’re aged under 10 the person most likely to murder you is your mother?)

  3. Given that young women rarely are involved in the streetfighting aspects of gang life, I’m surprised they have a murder rate so similar to men.

    The fact that many women are attracted to dangerous thugs is something rarely acknowledged by those who campaign against domestic violence against women. This lengthy article by Theodore Dalrymple on Tina Nash, the woman who had her eyes gouged out by her brutal, thuggish partner, is worth a read as it is one of the few that makes this point. When I read it, I did ask myself how many times this woman had seen her vicious thug of a boyfriend beat the shit out of some poor sod who’d crossed his path in a bar and she’d wet her knickers at the sight of it.

  4. @MBE

    How do you not (in some sense) ‘bring it upon yourself’ if you choose to shack up with tattooed thugs whom you know have beaten up all of their previous girlfriends, and who have a hair trrigger temper. no prospects and a drink problem?

    Lots of these girls love a bad boy – insofar as they think about the downside, they just hope that they’ll pass the parcel before the music stops.

  5. Tim N beat me to it. Facts are rarely acknowledged in these debates because it’s about the (untruthful) narrative and its contribution to remaking society in the way that a small number of evil or deluded, or evil and deluded, people wish it to be remade.

    We should fight them at every posisble opportunity, because if we don’t stop them then the world our children will inherit will be quite hellish. Give no quarter. Accept none of their false premises.

  6. In case people hadn’t noticed, the quote marks around anything resembling moral attribution were there for a reason.

    The thing that was of more interest to me was the risk profiles of men/women. I’m actually surprised it is so close between the two overall – like I said, would be interested to see it segmented by age.

    I suspect part of the reason the gap is relatively low is the better, and faster, care now available for urban people who have been stabbed (or, more rarely, shot). Even if gangland violence has become no less brutal or prevalent, this would have reduced the death rate among young (primarily male) gang members.

    @TimN

    Yes I saw that before – as I said, some people have a toxic taste in partner, and it can prove fatal. I’m not sure there is an easy solution to that.

  7. Yes I saw that before – as I said, some people have a toxic taste in partner, and it can prove fatal. I’m not sure there is an easy solution to that.

    I’m not sure a solution is required. Personal responsibility, and all that. But if there is one, it is for society to stop picking up the bill for women’s poor choices in partners.

  8. I saw some statistics a while ago, which showed something interesting; until the 1970s, males and females killed their partners in about equal numbers. Since then, the male on female murder rate has remained about the same, while the female on male rate has fallen significantly.

    The suggestion is that women have, since the 70s, gained a range of means of getting rid of unwanted men which are not available to men to get rid of women. Hence, men are more likely to escalate to murder.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “This lengthy article by Theodore Dalrymple on Tina Nash, the woman who had her eyes gouged out by her brutal, thuggish partner, is worth a read as it is one of the few that makes this point.”

    That is an unbelievable article. In a just world TD would have won every journalism award going. We do not live in a just world.

    “When I read it, I did ask myself how many times this woman had seen her vicious thug of a boyfriend beat the shit out of some poor sod who’d crossed his path in a bar and she’d wet her knickers at the sight of it.”

    In fairness, in her part of the world the choice is a boyfriend who beats the [email protected] out of others, or a boyfriend who is beaten by others. Which is safer for her? Better to be brutalised by one man than by all of them as they like.

    We have devalued men as husbands and fathers. Women need them like a fish need a bicycle and all that. Without the civilising effect of marriage, what are men like? What do women actually need if they do not need a decent man? Someone like this obviously.

  10. That is an unbelievable article. In a just world TD would have won every journalism award going. We do not live in a just world.

    Indeed. <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-childhood-12517.html"This one, on the murders of Jessica Wells and Holly Wells, is equally good.

    In fairness, in her part of the world the choice is a boyfriend who beats the [email protected] out of others, or a boyfriend who is beaten by others. Which is safer for her? Better to be brutalised by one man than by all of them as they like.

    True. Whereas in most functioning sections of a society the best choice would be for a man who could, if need be, kill a tiger with his bare hands but is also capable of controlling himself and being productive in other areas.

    We have devalued men as husbands and fathers. Women need them like a fish need a bicycle and all that. Without the civilising effect of marriage, what are men like? What do women actually need if they do not need a decent man? Someone like this obviously.

    Quite.

  11. I echo SMFS: that’s a powerful article. Assuming that the hand of the ghostwriter was a light one, it’s an interesting study in dependency and what makes some folk tick.

    I dispute the assertion that Nash is in any way typical: I’ve never been involved with a woman drawn to thugs, but some are: Nash herself is an outlier. Dalrymple’s view that the state enabled the outcome and that Nash isn’t to blame for any of her situation seems a bit limp though.

  12. Virtue Theatre.

    Remember, these people think they should be paid a salary equal to that which they could obtain in the Private Sector.

    What’s the going rate for Street Theatre these days? About sixty pence in loose change?

  13. Hmm: rare enough not to form shorthand for most/many women.

    On the devaluing of men though: I agree utterly with TN and SMFS and you others. Is a bad time to be one. Perhaps that explains Bruce Jenner.

  14. Tim N

    I hadn’t seen that Dalrymple piece on Soham before, hadn’t realised quite what Huntley’s “previous” was either – that’s terrible. But having spent time teaching in secondary and FE college, it isn’t uncommon for 15/16 year olds to move in with their boyfriend or his family, which seems to be thing that alarmed Dalrymple so much.

    Incidentally, Dalrymple mentions the the infamous anonymous pamphlet of 1701, “Hanging Not Punishment Enough.” For the interested, here it is:.

    https://ia902704.us.archive.org/2/items/hangingnotpunis00rgoog/hangingnotpunis00rgoog.pdf

  15. I think it quite interesting that people are predicating on the assumption that women (in this case) are drawn to personality types, when it is quite clear from the woman’s own testimony that she was drawn to his physical characteristics.

    Try working with the idea that the basis of attraction is not mental, but physical, (a point I have made time and again, to much condemnation) and you can begin to understand why so many people end up in relationships with “the wrong type of person”. And are often emotionally incapable of leaving such relationships despite their partner being awful on a personality level.

  16. Try working with the idea that the basis of attraction is not mental, but physical, (a point I have made time and again, to much condemnation)

    Eh, what? Women are attracted to the physical, and not abstract concepts such as status, power, and fame? Mick Jagger must have one hell of a body under that leopardskin suit.

  17. Ian B – I’ve seen too many ugly blokes with extremely attractive women hanging on their every word or deed too often to accept that ‘the basis of attraction is physical’, especially for women (though why anyone would condemn you for that I don’t know).

    Though I suppose it depends what I mean by ‘ugly’ and what you mean by ‘physical’.

    If you include in phsycial attributes (say) an air of confidence (which weedy blokes can project too) or the smell of a person [I apologise in advance if this makes any of you vomit, but my wife says that what ensnared her was the smell of my neck, and we’re not even chimps], maybe you’re right.

    If it’s just muscles or good looks, nah. Sure in a loud nightclub this is an advantage, and the stupider the women themselves are the more this probably continues to the world outside, but it’s a package with trade-offs. They also want intellect and sense of humour and kindness and sensitivity and all that bollocks. Lots of blokes can convincingly convey all that for a time, and maybe it all goes to shit when the women see through the act?

    @MBE – yep, sorry, I skim read you. Obvious now you point it out.

  18. Women are often attracted to social status yes. Which doesn’t much operate when none of the men available to you have any.

    I appreciate that Woman-As-Gold-digger is firmly entrenched as a belief at the moment, but we’re clever folks here that can think our way through these things.

    Bear in mind that until at least the Bronze Age, physical status and social status were pretty much the same thing. Because the bloke who can beat up everyone else gets to be Alpha. Once civilisation gets going, you get a fork between manly hunk and weedy social/economic alpha.

    So now we end up with the Manosphere and its Gold-digger model, and the Femosphere with their transcendent anti-physical female model. And no explanation for why a woman might choose a man with a great body and awful personality.

    Clue: there weren’t any elderly tycoons for supermodels to marry in the Neolithic.

  19. I remember reading that article a few years ago. Just awful. No other way to describe it really. Grim, awful and depressing.

  20. Plus, back to the thing that men who gouge out womens eyes really are an outlier. It’s always dangerous to draw lessons from extremes.

  21. ‘Women are often attracted to social status yes. Which doesn’t much operate when none of the men available to you have any.’

    What do you mean? Of course these blokes have social status. They wouldn’t have any in the officers’ mess at the HCR, or a trading floor, or in the Junior Common Room, but in their own milieu they have plenty, and it’s not all about physical strength or else we wouldn’t see weedy blokes with fit women. Which we do, infuriating as it can be.

    ‘Because the bloke who can beat up everyone else gets to be Alpha.’

    Not in human civilisation. People have always needed more than that, for the same reason that humans beat wild animals. It’s about more than brute force.

    ‘Clue: there weren’t any elderly tycoons for supermodels to marry in the Neolithic.’

    How do you know? I must confess I don’t, but I can see a situation where a wise old patriarchal chief with lots of cunning and a stash of X Y or Z does OK with the birds – perhaps by cooperating with other younger males who rely on him for his know how and experience in obtaining X Y or Z. Humans have always been social, to one degree or another.

    I wouldn’t disagree that the lower down the social and intellectual scale you go the greater the propensity for muscles and beating up, but it’s nowhere near the whole story.

    I speak as one who tends more to the beating people up end of the spectrum than the elderly tycoon, by the way.

  22. What do you mean? Of course these blokes have social status. They wouldn’t have any in the officers’ mess at the HCR, or a trading floor, or in the Junior Common Room, but in their own milieu they have plenty, and it’s not all about physical strength or else we wouldn’t see weedy blokes with fit women.

    This.

  23. Plus, back to the thing that men who gouge out womens eyes really are an outlier. It’s always dangerous to draw lessons from extremes.

    The end result is extreme, as Dalrymple himself points out. But the lead up to it was drearily, depressingly familiar. You’d meet either one of this couple on a Saturday night out in any given British city: both absolutely hammered, he quick with his fists, and her rewarding his thuggish violence with sex.

  24. Interested-

    Humans evolved to live in small hunter gatherer bands. There was very little wealth or social status to be accrued, other than being Big Man, the equivalent of Top Chimp or Silverback Gorilla. Socialists like to call this “egalitarian”, but of course that’s the wrong model. It’s just that there isn’t much to acquire when you’re pre-civilised.

    As with other apes, you get to be Big Cheese by being physically dominant. You’re the guy that can win the fights, which means lesser males mostly won’t even challenge you, or you can assert dominance just by aggressive display. But it’s a fundamentally physical thing. Bear in mind that for most of the period we are talking about, our ancestors were less intelligent than us. This is millions of years here, not the last few thousand before we invented oven chips.

    Hence, women are attracted to physically powerful specimens, and why men hoping to improve their chances go to the gym to put on muscle. (Women go there to lose flab, because the primary attractant in their armoury is the state of their adipose tissues, not muscle).

    This all comes back to my regular theme of our Protestant Christian society being very anti-physical and mind-body dualist. Since women are held to be superior morally, they are also held to be non-physical creatures of the spirit/mind. Males, being closer to the beasts are acknowledged to be physically orientated, although a good male is one who has educated himself to ignore his bestial physical impulses. Hence we get all kinds of theories about women not being physically sexually motivated, and if they are we think there is something wrong with them.

    And why we get the cliche of the hottie who marries the elderly tycoon, but for pleasure fucks her tennis instructor, in defiance of all the theory.

  25. And yes, the whole point is that when there is no other social status to be had, the paleolithic preferences become more clear; the “thug” is Alpha.

    Also worth noting that any read of ancient history will reveal all kinds of unhinged violence perpetrated by alpha males. I’m trying to remember which king had his usurper’s wife and children murdered in front of him before having his eyes gouged out, so that that would be the last thing he ever saw. Etc.

  26. Interested: “Fucking Tim Newman beats me again.”

    If Tim Newman keeps beating you, then you need to summon up the courage to leave him.

  27. Tim Newman: “True. Whereas in most functioning sections of a society the best choice would be for a man who could, if need be, kill a tiger with his bare hands but is also capable of controlling himself and being productive in other areas.”

    Sounds like a Heinlein doctrine: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.”

  28. Bear in mind that the Stone Age definition of “productive” is the ability to raid (plunder) neighbouring bands. Also a great way to acquire wives.

    European (and other non-African) societies are a poor guide. You can see something closer to human nature in African polygamy, which is a loose polygamy model; the husband does little provisioning of his multiple wives, who live in their own homes and produce food and raise and feed their children. The primary role in the marriage for the male is protecting his hoard of wives from other males. So you want a jolly good thug.

    You can also see this system running in various American ghettoes.

    I think it is worth at this point recognising that, as the Lefties say, gender (and other roles) are socially constructed. Europe’s great achievement was socially constructing some better roles than hitting each other with clubs and stealing stuff. But at heart, we’re still cave men and cave women, which is why we have to learn to control ourselves in the first place.

  29. @JuliaM: It was even more pithily summed up by JF Roxburgh, the first Headmaster of Stowe School, who wanted to produce men who would be “Acceptable at a dance and invaluable in a shipwreck”.

  30. The Guardian is confused here.

    It says she read out the names of the 120 women murdered last year.
    The it says she listed the women murdered by men.
    So every single one was murdered by a man? None by women? Seems unlikely.

  31. IanB

    You are making up evolutionary fairytales again. We don’t know how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. Your fairytales are just a guess and no more. Not a wholly irrational guess, but a guess nevertheless. And your guesses are no better than other guesses. As such, your guesses are not evidence for anything. They are simply your ex post facto rationalisations. And unverifiable.

  32. “Rob

    The Guardian is confused here.

    It says she read out the names of the 120 women murdered last year.
    The it says she listed the women murdered by men.
    So every single one was murdered by a man? None by women? Seems unlikely.”

    Rob, it’s you that’s confused. If a woman did murder a woman it would have been against her will and at the behest of an violent evil manipulative man. So the man was the real murderer and the woman who actually did the deed is in reality every bit a victim as the victim herself.

  33. IanB

    You’re starting to sound like a Creationist, Theo.

    There’s evolutionary science, and there are evolutionary fairytales. Your agenda-serving and unverifiable speculations fall into the latter category.

  34. And yet you have no answer Theo. And completely ignore the tribes studied by anthropologists in the modern era, and their social structures. Hmmm.

  35. IanB

    The anthropology of existing tribes is one thing: speculative pre-historical anthropology is quite another. You can find some anthropological evidence to suggest a variety of conclusions about pre-history, but much anthropological ‘evidence’ is uncertain — few people take Margaret Mead or Colin Turnbull’s studies at face value today.

    And what you are prone to do is make a statement, and then produce an ex post facto evolutionary narrative to justify it. You manufacture your own ‘evidence’ and present it as supporting your original fanciful statement. It’s hilariously self-deluding – and reminiscent of Richard Murphy.

  36. I normally agree with Ian B, but I have to say he’s a bit off beam here.

    Women are frequently attracted to physically imposing and/or powerful (in a muscular sense) men, but that isn’t the same thing as physically attractive in a classical sense. And they also have to be a related character type as well – that they are prepared to use violence to gain their ends, often for minor things. So we aren’t talking pretty boy six pack types who would look good on a catwalk, we are often talking squat bald men who support Millwall, have necks the same width as their heads and often beer guts to boot. But have forearms like Popeye and the burning desire to physically maim any man who (in their eyes) ‘disses’ them.

    You go into any ‘estate’ pub, and exactly the type I’ve described will be sat at the bar. And they will all have above average looking wives/GFs. All because they both already have, (and are capable of again) committing GBH.

  37. Perhaps Parliament will now codify how many male deaths it takes to equal one female death. Or, more likely, declare that male deaths don’t matter.

    “Some animals are more equal than others.”

  38. Ian, you may or may not be correct in your examples, but you certainly are giving “Just So” stories. They are not proof, they are rationalizations of a belief of how things would have been.

    And I’d add that there is indeed a form of social status among the part of society that Tina Nash moved in. Someone who was as large and brutal as her assailant/partner undoubtedly qualified as a local alpha male. She didn’t have access to any other group so she went for the alpha in her group, and that was the largest and most violent; the one that would give her status as his partner.His physical characteristics and his social status were here the same as the physical begat the social, as it were.

    There was undoubtedly physical attraction, but I don’t believe you can disentangle it from the social status. Gaining instant status from being associated with the local alpha (or one of the local alphas) is physically attractive on its own. I fear you are too wedded to your own “insights”.

  39. 120? That’s all? What, are we supposed to be shocked that 0.0004% of women are murdered?

    I’m so, so tired of this vacuous virtue signalling. I might have hated Mary Whitehouse, but at least the old bitch objected to something and had answers, however shitty they were. This, I just detest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *