Just how much sway does Angie have? Stefan Rousseau - Pool/Getty Images)
I’ve never known a time when so many women were so fed up with Labour. In the aftermath of last Thursday’s election, Left-leaning women up and down the country have talked about the grim choice they faced last week: vote for a Labour candidate who’s on board with gender ideology, spoil their ballot paper, or stay away from the polling station for the first time ever. Increasingly, they are even saying they don’t feel safe with Labour.
Many took to social media, using the hashtag #LabourLosingWomen. “I’ve voted @UKLabourfor 35 years – until today. I feel bereft, but I just can’t vote for a party that treats women with such contempt,” wrote one on Twitter. “If you keep telling people they
are bigots and you don’t want their votes, then you have only yourself to blame. When will you start listening?” asked another.
And what has Keir Starmer done to put his party in order? A hamfisted reshuffle which has allowed Angela Rayner, one of the party’s strongest advocates of gender ideology, to gain more influence within the party.
During the leadership contest last year, Rayner signed a pledge to expel members with “transphobic” views – otherwise known as feminists who stand up for women’s rights – from the party. She said she was “absolutely petrified” by the idea that some members “do not think [trans people] are valid”, casually distorting the arguments of those of us who believe there’s a conflict between the demands of trans extremists and women’s rights. She was also quick to condemn Tony Blair when he sensibly suggested that the party should be wary of starting a “culture war”.
Rayner is far from being alone in the party. She is the most recognisable face in an influential lobby that includes the former shadow minister Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who had to apologise for a baseless attack on the author J K Rowling last year, and the shadow minister for tourism and heritage, Alex Sobel, who opposes single-sex spaces for women in hospitals, schools, refuges and prisons. “And that is why so many women no longer vote Labour – enjoy being in long-term opposition,” one woman told Sobel in an exchange on Twitter.
I wrote to Starmer three months ago, politely asking him to get a grip on the nastiness that’s spreading through the party like wildfire. I’d heard that he doesn’t answer emails so I resorted to the charmingly old-fashioned method of putting a letter in the post, but it made no difference. I didn’t even get an acknowledgement, an experience shared by other women who’ve tried to contact him about this issue.
The continuing prominence of figures such as Rayner and increasing prominence of shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy, who signed the same unpleasant pledge last year, doesn’t suggest that the leadership has had a change of heart.
Yet violence against women is a major issue for many — if not all of us. All the more so after a recent succession of particularly vicious murders – Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman in London, and Julia James in Kent to name the most high-profile ones. But it hardly featured in the election campaign. Rape convictions have fallen to a historic low, domestic violence is rife, sexual harassment is an everyday experience for girls and women and confidence in the criminal justice system has collapsed.
Leading figures in the party, however, seem more interested in ticking off fellow MPs and activists who “like” social media posts from feminist organisations than meeting any of the women’s groups expressing concern.
At the end of last week, the Labour MP and former frontbencher Khalid Mahmood homed in on identity politics as one of the causes of Labour’s poor showing, arguing that the party has been captured by “brigades of woke social media warriors”. But he’s a rare voice of sanity in a party that seems to have surrendered to a form of magical thinking. I wonder what Labour voters would make of the kinds of discussions that take place in local party meetings. In the midst of a pandemic and worsening economic crisis, members have been proposing motions declaring that “transwomen are women” and chastising anyone who objects to being described as “cis”.
Labour used to be described as a broad church, in which different factions more or less co-existed – not happily, to be sure, but dissent was permitted. Not any more. I know Labour councillors who are terrified to say openly that they are gender-critical, fearing the vitriol they will face. I’ve been told by party insiders that some MPs feel the same but they dare not speak out while the party is led by people who so vociferously support an extreme version of trans rights.
When Labour MP Rosie Duffield was the victim of a pile on by trans-activists last summer after liking a tweet suggesting that only women have a cervix, she might have expected sympathy from the most senior woman in the party; instead, Rayner told Duffield she should ‘reflect’ on her views about trans people.
It isn’t a Left-Right split within the party, it’s wholesale capture. The surrender to gender ideology began under Jeremy Corbyn, when transwomen were allowed to stand for positions as women’s officers and admitted to women-only shortlists. It has continued under Starmer, ensuring that women across the party now feel betrayed and angry.
It’s not only Labour that’s gone down this rabbit-hole, of course. Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recently made a campaign video announcing that her pronouns are ‘she’ and ‘her’, clearing up a longstanding source of confusion. The Greens and Lib Dems, too, without appearing to be punished electorally, although the former leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood (‘she/her’), lost her seat in the Senedd last week. But both these parties have always tended to be a broader coalition than Labour, embracing people who would never identify as socialist or align with feminism.
Last year, when Starmer had been leader for six months, I suggested he had a woman problem. He still does, and recent events have only made it worse. I don’t know whether he genuinely doesn’t care about losing women’s votes; or whether he’s too frightened of Angela Rayner and the rest of Labour’s gender warriors to do anything about it. But a witch-hunt of uppity women is being carried out in the party, and someone in charge needs to take notice. Even witches can vote – and our loyalty is being stretched to the limit.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAngela Rayner is going to be the gift that keeps on giving to the Tories.
Not only is she as ignorant as she is gobby, not only is she gormless sink-estate riffraff who left school at 16 pregnant with no qualifications and then became a grandmother at 36, not only does she have the most appalling views imaginable – she is the absolute personification of Labour’s quota mediocracy. She’s a feature, not a bug. She is exactly what all-women shortlist and sexist bias are designed to produce. And she repulses women, not least because she denies they objectively exist. Her every TV appearance must cost Labour 3 or 4 more seats.
Boris must punch the air, and Starmer put his head in his hands, every time they remember that Rayner is “the most senior woman in the party”.
A woman who at approximately 36 years of age becomes an MP and at approx 40 years of age becomes deputy leader of the labour party. Starting with NO real family connections in the party. And some people think she is gormless!
If she really is not clueless, as you appear to be implying, where is she hiding her charm, charisma or political acumen? It is completely invisible to most of us.
I suspect you dislike labour politics though may be wrong. But I maintain that Angela Rayner must have some political intelligence, charm and gumption to get where she is today from where she started. And please note Keir Starmer picked a fight with her and has come off bruised.
Your comments remind me that a number of labour MPs in the 1970s thought Margaret Thatchers appointment a leader of the conservatives was a god send.
The proposition was more whether her rise is due to quota mediocrity rather than intelligence, charm, and gumption. But as you hint, she may turn out to be a massive vote winner in the way that Thatcher was. The current performance of the Labour party suggests an alternative outcome.
“Not only is she as ignorant as she is gobby, not only is she gormless sink-estate riffraff who left school at 16 pregnant with no qualifications and then became a grandmother at 36, not only does she have the most appalling views imaginable – she is the absolute personification of Labour’s quota mediocracy.”
That quote from the original post is highly insulting to her and shows huge disdain for groups of people who have a poor start in life.
You’re right that the quote from the original post could be insulting to many. But in this community you’re unlikely to gain credit from offence-taking. The issue is whether she rose to the position of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party through being the right kind of person to promote the image of the party or whether she rose through her own abilities and hard work.
Having a poor start in life ? Getting pregnant at 16 and getting zero GCSE’s is a life style choice not a poor start. The state laid on the facilities.
The fact is the stance she clings to -like gender issues- are huge vote losers. If every Guardian reader voted Labour it wouldnt be enough to win a county council.
The art of politics is winning votes- not infighting within your own party.
Thank you William, excellent point.
fred1, you are righteous in that soppy modern way, but oh so deluded.
Absolutely agree and don’t give a toss about how many downvotes I get. If Unherd continues to allow personal attacks as distasteful as Redman’s I won’t be renewing my membership.
we won t miss you.
I dislike her, although I also don’t like her politics. Starmer is having to manage a basket case of conflicting problems.
But if Rayner truly is the pinnacle of top talent, Labour is in deep trouble.
Rayner clearly must have some political infighting ability to have got so far, yes.
Oh she’s got talents alright, she’s been demonstrating them since she was 16 apparently.
To rise through the unions requires street fighting skills, Prescott is a good example. Having a politicians who understands the changes in trade and technology over the next 20 years will get far more working class people into well paid and secure work.
don t think so.it s just that she ticks all their pathetic little boxes.
Thanks for confirming that family connections and being born into advantage remain important in the Labour Party. Rayner has an advantage that offsets these, however, which is that she’s a quota woman.
You are right, and thus exposing the Rabble Party for what it is – baseless, unscrupulous, gormless, valueless.
‘crayons’ rayner is certainly not gormless , she knows which side her bread is buttered & that is with identity politics.She’ll probably become the first woman head of the Labour Party.
Unless someone like Andy Burnham beats her to it.
Does Andy Burnham identify as a woman? That would give him the edge
His eyelashes do
That’l probably leave Labour on a parr with the Liberals and Screaming Lord Sutch. Tho’ he is a laugh.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is queen
I wouldn’t call her gormless, she has some fight in her, but she is as thick as mince. Her ascent is more an indictment of the Labour Party than an endorsement of her qualities. She is a union clone who has been the happy beneficiary of the unions’ control of Labour’s selection process.
She was an unusual choice as Shadow Education Secretary. I wasn’t been mean about her lack of formal education-my own father left school at 12 but he continued to educate himself throughout life , wheras with Ms Rayner it just seems that she can’t be ‘bovvered’
I’m surprised fred1’s comment has gotten such short shrift. This apparently entirely unattractive politician, with views even much of her own party must find unpalatable, has not only got so far already, but an attempt to get rid of her after the Hartlepool debacle just resulted in her emerging even stronger less than a week later. Think what you like (and I think she’s ghastly) but at least in terms of internal party politics she must be a seriously shrewd operator.
The most worrying thing in all that is what it says about the organisation in which she has progressed to such an extent. I doubt shrewd comes into it, gobby aggressive females are in vogue in the party and she is one of the best in that department, her background far from being detrimental is an asset and the lisp a bonus. Clearly the many do not find her views unpalatable quite the opposite, at least among those of influence, and has sufficient support to prevent the leader removing her from a position where she is likely to further damage the party’s electoral prospects.
I thought you thought it was Labour who hated the white working class?
They do. She isn’t working class, she is the underclass personified.
Like Owen Jones, you probably don’t know the difference.
I’m critiquing her fitness to be a politician, not her fitness to vote.
You are criticising her because of your perception of what a politician should be. Ie. Not from a sink estate, not riffraff, not a mother at 16 or a grandmother at 36. She is the personification of what is wrong with Labour. It comes across as nasty, self righteous snobbery.
Nonsense. Her manifest shortcomings all speak to her being a quota appointment with no merits, which makes her totally unfit to serve in any office unless maybe cleaning it.
Her absence of GCSEs shows education was wasted on her, so she’s unfit to pontificate on it. She is untruthful, ignorant and disingenuous (passim in her car crash performance with Andrew Neill) and her default setting is to shout down anyone who disagrees with her. She exhibits no sign of wit, intelligence, fluency, flair, command of detail, humour, candour, tolerance, thoughtfulness, or pragmatism. She is a bullying, slogan-shouting, ranting fishwife. She is Diane Abbott without the intellect, humility or easy charm.
Not impressed by her then, Jon?
I needed a good laugh
Thank you for making me laugh
It is worrying that our expectations of people in public life have sunk so low that someone here compared her to Mrs T – who went to Oxford, trained as a scientist and as a barrister, and displayed throughout her political career that not only was she always on top of her brief, but was always on top of her Cabinet ministers’ briefs as well – before they were. A formidably trained mind and a seriously hard worker who put her talents to the service of her country. Angela Rayner is no Margaret Thatcher and it is not snobbish to say so.
If someone from that background had been able to succeed by creating her own business or even rise through the ranks of the Tory party, most likely she’d be praised, because then the success would be rather more objective.
The moment such a woman “succeeds” in an organisation that has quotas for how many women succeed, it nullifies the success completely because the organization became committed to pretending unqualified people were the most qualified (if they weren’t doing this, they wouldn’t feel a need for quotas to begin with). Hence Rayner, a woman who is very obviously unqualified to hold per position. Do you think being a cabinet member benefits at all from a high school education? Most would say yes, running the country probably could use at least a firm grip on maths and English. Yet there has been in the past and could soon be again the very real possibility that women who cannot handle numbers at all end up running large parts of the government – thanks to the feminist ideology the author espouses! It’s highly relevant to point out this terrible consequence.
A pithier summary of Rayner and her impact I have not seen.
To have promoted her from Shadow Secretary of State for Education is beyond parody.
As Douglas Murray notably put it recently (though it was in the context of the Sussexes) “Some jokes simply write themselves”.
No. To have appointed her Shadow Secretary of State for Education is beyond parody
Indeed. Both are. But the implication of her promotion is that she actually did a great job in education.
That’s usually how it works in meritocracy. If it actually is such.
………..and Gavin Williamson (aka Private Pike, Frank Spencer) is actual Secretary of State for Education!
Good summary of a creature without any redeeming features but a slew of toxic traits. She is the perfect portrayal of everything rancid and rotten about the Rabble Party so yes, let her carry on as ‘the senior woman in the party’ (does she have a cervix?) to guarantee the continuing unelectability of that mob.
What does this say about the Welsh who have managed to have a Labour Assembly ruining the little country for the last 20 years?
Golly! no one can accuse Unherd of suppressing freedom of speech, can they?
White working class girls in Rotherham, Oldham and many, many other places definitely don’t feel safe with labour
Agreed, sadly I dont think the Tories did enough either here to right things in this respect.
Granted but let’s see
Labour run councils
Labour police and crime commissioner
Labour social workers, because social workers are not Tory
Labour leader who was dpp in charge of the CPS
And finally naz Shah
Those abused girls in Rotherham should shut up for the sake of diversity.
In the grand scheme of things it was not the torys
Don’t forget when Maggie was in power she got savile knighted, had a paedophile as her PPS and cyril smith (whose activities were in the public domain) was knighted.
To be fair at the time nobody really realised what a revolting pervert Saville was.
As for the grotesque Smith that was far more reprehensible. He was known as a “spanker”* and it was politically expedient to conceal the fact.
A total & utter disgrace to our whole political system.
(* Due to his gargantuan size, had he sodomised the little blighters as he no doubt wished to, he would probably have killed them).
You’ll note the author barely touches on that. Wonder why.
Sadly it seems to be a common theme of omission in Unherd articles. If you mention it someone on here is likely to accuse you of whataboutary.
Well, if your only defence is to engage in whataboutary your likely to get accused of it….
Rayner indeed!
Dont forget labour female MP Naz Shah who enthusiastically believes “Girls should shut up for the sake of diversity” on the subject of the Grooming Gangs.
Only certain girls.
R*pe convictions have fallen to a historic low because feminists argued for years that conviction rates were too low and had to be increased. This was not true and came about because of the deliberate use of attrition rates instead of conviction rates. As the conviction rate was no lower than it was for other crimes the CPS had to find a way of artificially increasing it. They did this by dropping lots of borderline cases so that only the most rock solid ones passed through the courts. This raised the conviction rate but lowered the overall number of convictions. Low and behold, feminists now complain about the overall number of convictions rather than the conviction rate.
Most men think it is pointless trying to have conversations with women about this as whatever we say will see us screamed at by one feminist faction or another. The result is that most men walk away from women’s issues now as that is the safest option. This results in women complaining that now one cares about their problems and men aren’t supporting them.
It’s part of the same phenomenon whereby women denigrate male competence, strength and success by claiming it is all toxic. In the next breath they are asking where have all of the good men gone.
A huge amount of identity politics has come from feminism and the tactics they use. Everything becomes overly emotional and we are all implored to care more for people who claim they are disadvantaged. When this gets turned on feminists they don’t like it. They don’t like it that trans people are now seen as bigger victims than women. They also don’t like it when people become scared of speaking up against trans ideology due to the emotional sh*tstorm that will be thrown at them if they do.
Well feminists, you made your bed so now you can lie in it.
Unfortunately, it’s not just feminists who will lie in that particular bed now. All women, regardless of their beliefs, will be faced with the results that this extreme woke-ism brings.
As I pointed out at the weekend, the Labour Party of the last 50 years or so has been a giant Jenga of bad ideas. Every time a bad idea comes along they add it to their rotten edifice and it had to collapse eventually.
The latest bad idea – up there with Iraq, the abolition of grammar schools, the tacit support of grooming gangs, and Dawn Butler – is the adoptions of this extreme trans rights ideology. It leads to the presence of biological man in women’s jails and the potential destruction of girl’s/women’s sports. (Although I am of the opinion that it might make some of those sports more entertaining).
As for Rayner, she is probably too dumb to even understand these issues. One never knows with Labour MPs, and sometimes those of other parties, whether their words and actions arise from stupidity or mendacity. With most Labour MPs I suspect it is the former.
I will address the question in your last paragraph. You (Fraser) see yourself as a thinker, somebody who tries to add to his knowledge by reading, you have ideas. Judging by many posts on UnHerd, by many people especially in regard to lockdowns, the huge majority of people out there in the British world don’t think – they are the Herd and they do as they are told. Hence the 70+ % who continued to back lockdowns when all of UnHerd were saying they were stupid.
Imagine that you continue to be a thinker but your ideas are different. You have a great belief that the world is wrong, that white people have dominated for too long, that women are downtrodden, that non-British cultures are better than British. You know that the Herd will follow anything so they don’t count. You pursue your ideas whatever anyone else thinks. You are woke.
So what is the difference between the two of you? Apart from the different theories, of course. And theories is what they are.
For what it’s worth, I spent hours last night finishing Tara Westover’s Educated, an incredible story of a young woman breaking away from a tyrannical family and belief system to succeed in the world. It is one of the most inspiring and extraordinary books I have ever read.
I have always worked in a sector where almost all my bosses are women, and I am very happy with that. (They have to deal with all the nonsense while I just do the work). I only wish that the women in the Labour Party were as intelligent and useful as my female bosses.
As for British culture, outside the City and politics (which are awful everywhere) I would suggest that it is among the best cultures in the world. That is why half the world wants to live here.
In these enlightened times Girls Sports could be saved by following the example of the Ancient Greeks.
The Olympic Games and the three other Panhellenic Games* were held ‘Gymnos’ – naked, but off course only males participated.
The female equivalent, the Games of Hera, also performed at Olympia, was performed it what might be termed as a revealing nightdress. However Spartan women wrestled naked at other festivals.
To be completely egalitarian, the next Olympics should held ‘Gymnos’ for all participants. Not only would it literally expose these trans gender frauds, but it would also eliminate those ‘testosterone enriched’ Gorgons who used to compete for the former German Democratic Republic (DDR), the Soviet Union and possibly even China.
.(* Prohibited by the advent of Christianity in 393).
It’s a fun idea, Charles, but woke orthodoxy has it that it’s transphobic to assert that only someone who menstruates can be a woman. A man is a woman if he asserts that he is. He need have no physical female characteristics at all.
As Labour puts it, they have “an inclusive definition of ‘woman'”. It includes men.
Thank you so much.Time for a cup of tea or something stronger perhaps.
I don’t think Labour feminists can complain too much, since it was they who provided the Trojan Horse for identity politics by supporting women only shortlists.
Feminists were all in favour of identity politics when it was to their advantage, but now trans activists are using the same mendacious arguments against them, they suddenly seem to have noticed there are problems when political value is not determined by the objective strength of a proposition but by the subjective identification of the proponent.
Labour long ago threw white working class men under the race ideology bus, so why be surprised that feminists are being similarly treated by the trans ideologues.
As to Angela Rayner, she is a symptom not a cause of tokenism. Just like John Prescott was indulged by the middle class Blairites because he played up to their idea of a working class northern man, so Rayner, perhaps Catherine Tate’s finest creation, is for the North London wokeratti their ideal of a ‘gobby’, northern working class woman. And just as ‘Two Jabs John’ spent his political career proving why he failed his 11-Plus, ‘Big Ange’ will similarly continue to remind us as to why she left school without any academic qualifications. Rayner is a product of Labour’s own making.
If feminists sincerely want to address crimes against women, then they need to accept that violence must be treated as a policing and criminal justice question rather than as just a social problem, and seek effective provisions of public policy that will be preventive, provide proper investigative procedures, and administer suitably retributive justice for perpetrators, none of which will happen in a Labour Party that prioritises ideology and identity over practical and efficient policing and criminal law enforcement.
A very good reply David
Angela Rayner, Diane Abbott & Naz Shah, what greater gifts could the Gods possibly bestow on Boris?
Don’t forget Dawn Butler, who may well be the dimmest of the lot!
And Emily Thornberry. She’s another gem.
You know Labour’s got a woman problem when they think Yvette Cooper is a heavyweight.
Well Thornberry is not stupid per se. Not relative to some of the others. Cooper sometimes appears to be coherent, but then you remember that she couldn’t even get that HIPS thing through, which was nothing more significant than a change to the way in which we buy and sell property.
She was stupid in the sense of being tone deaf and supercilious towards her target voters. She also went on Question Time to say that Labour would renegotiate a better Brexit deal, which they would then campaign against. I don’t see how you can adopt that view unless you are either genuinely stupid, or you think that although it’s stupid others are so stupid they’ll believe it, which is stupid in itself.
Edit: the HIPS thing was an utter farce – the supposition was that homebuying could be speeded up and made cheaper if eg the seller had one survey done rather than each buyer having their own. Of course, it’s mainly the mortgage lender who wants the survey, they want it from someone with a duty of care to themselves, and they want it from, you know, a surveyor.
So nothing a seller produced in these HIPs was in any way useful. Sellers were forced to pay about £700 for these, and anecdotally, I understand that most buyers didn’t even ask to see them because they contained nothing useful. I don’t know how much of that was Cooper’s fault as opposed to the whole idea being stupid, but it’s the only thing I remember about her ministerial career except for her house-flipping.
Fair point. I guess Thornberry veneers her stupidity by virtue of the fact that she is rather more articulate than, for instance, Dawn Butler and Diana Abbot.
Agreed, but the bar is set extremely low with Butler and Abbott.
You have be stupid to claim to be from an underprivileged background when you father was a United Nations Assistant Secretary-General.
Is Harriet harmen still around? She was a voter repellant extraordinaire, have they got her locked in a cupboard somewhere?
Are blundering Bradley, failed Grayling etc still around?
Perhaps they’re in the same cupboard as Harriet? I’d forgotten they existed…
Probably about to be catapulted into the House of Lords.
Presumably she&Tone will be rubbing their hands with glee at the implosion of Labour..preparing for
‘New’ New Labour.
Unfortunately this nonsense is starting to creep into the mainstream. I received an email at work yesterday signed Andrew (he/him). I’ve known Andrew for years, and he always seemed like a normal bloke (I know, not a word we’re supposed to use now), so the fact that he felt it worth adding this to his email signature was telling. On the other hand, it’s interesting to discover that wee Jimmy kranky is a she/her, as I’ve had doubts about this and thought she might be an it/its . Nice of she/her to clear things up.
It’s been storming the mainstream for some years in the US. Prepare for things to get a lot worse here.
I’ve noticed this practice of late also, but with an admittedly low uptake of (he/him). I suppose putting ‘Mr.’ before your name hasn’t occurred to anyone.
Labour and its chasing down the “identity” voter feels a lot like a drowning animal trying to grasp at anything to save itself from going under. They’d have been far better off not putting a knife through the rubber boat that was their voter base in the first place.
A previous notable incident was allowing the scandal-ridden husband of the then Deputy Leader of the Labour Party to enter Parliament via an all-women shortlist, something he and his wife had hypocritically campaigned for (for thee but not for me).
Well I suppose allowing a man to become a Labour MP while on an all-women shortlist was an early example of the trans lark.
s a man I find it extremely disturbing that Unherd will publish an article with the underlying assumption that women are always the victims when it comes to violence as this is simply incorrect.
Don’t be ridiculous, there is no comparison.
Quite right, there is no comparison. Male rates are far higher. U.K Death rates by violence:
Males 1.58 per 100,000
Females 0.86 per 100,000
Source: World Life Expectancy
(Note that the article is not confined to domestic violence)
I’ve said for a long time that we’ll only have true equality when we have all-women shortlists for dirty and dangerous jobs, and when 52% rather than 3% of those killed at work are women.
.
What I find disturbing is that although male on male violence is higher than male on female violence, female on male and female on female violence is generally lower throughout the world. Men should stop their violence overall, but especially towards women as we are physically weaker and less able to defend ourselves. You should also stop quoting incomplete stats to try and skew the narrative.
“What I find disturbing is that although male on male violence is higher than male on female violence, female on male and female on female violence is generally lower throughout the world”
In the UK domestic violence is instigated approx 40% of the time by women. And you know who have the highest rates of intimate partner violence? Lesbians.
I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your ideology.
“In the UK domestic violence is instigated approx 40% of the time by women”
And how much of that violence results in someone’s death?
You seem to have omitted to suggest that “violent men should stop their violence against “weaker men” as they are physically weaker.
Is that too gender non-binary” to be discussed ?
Perpetrators 98% men
The main thrust of the article isn’t about domestic violence, and whilst it would, of course, be incorrect to say that women are *always* the victims, it is indisputable fact that they are the vast, if not overwhelming, majority. It’s a good thing for women to be factoring this into their voting choices, and a good thing for politicians to be sitting up and taking notice.
“ it is indisputable fact that they are the vast, if not overwhelming, majority” figures from the ONS show women instigate violence towards their partner 40% of the time.
Those pesky facts eh?
Who says that they instigate the violence, though? Is it the sort of instigation of not having the tea ready, or answering back or having an inconvenient headache?
Who decides who started it?
So you’re not prepared to take official figures as valid then?
Men are universally the primary victims of both male violence and female violence.
So the grim choice facing many Left-Leaning Women (strange image) didn’t include voting for another party. The assumption that the homogeneous blob ‘women’ has a natural home in Labour is no different from Biden’s ‘if you don’t vote Democrat you aint …’.
Mind you, it’s comforting to know that many took to social media.
She is well placed to take batton from Abbott. The majority in our office think Abbott is on Conservative Central Office payroll…surely no one could be so tin eared – the shoes, the police funding maths, the kids at public school, the kid on a speed and coke run going mental, the recent insistence on a return to full fat Corbynism etc etc
Just been told that Abbott Jnr battered 9 people on his drug induced rampage, three of whom were women. So they certainly weren’t safe near the Labour Party let alone in it. Perhaps if there were members they’d be obliged to “take one for diversity” – no one will see their bruises in a niqab. Srsly Labour needs to be dismantled and those involved in race, gender or Jew baiting or violence jailed. There is a big vote for a moderate leftist party in UK BUT they must be normal. Medievil attitudes to women are as much a turn off to voters as supporting terrorism or anti-semiticism. If there are enough Labour members left who agree they need to start changing now – they would need to purge a lot of members. In the rich white flight enclaves like Canterbury or Bath they probably need to purge all of them.
The media was pretty quiet on the subject of Abbott’s son. Funny, that.
Yes, Lisa Nandy lost my support when I found out she had backed this pledge.
The fact is that women have always had to fight to protect themselves from the various incarnations of toxic masculinity, and the trans extremists are simply another manifestation of toxic masculinity.
The fact that nearly all the noise is made by male to female transgender people is itself evidence that this transition is purely superficial.
Not once have I heard female to male transgender people demand that they be allowed to use the gents. Or compete in male only athletic events.
Toxic masculinity, you see. That’s what it is.
“If you keep telling people they are bigots and you don’t want their votes, then you have only yourself to blame.” I know what you mean…. speaking as a so-called “toxic” white male.
Lets be honest who wouldn’t be frightened of Angela Raynor
I get the impression that the majority of left-wing Gen X and younger women are on board with Trans ideology, unless perhaps it has affected them directly – in sport, prison etc. I think it’s mostly older women, whose lives don’t revolve around Twitter, who are repulsed.
Join the Conservatives and reform from within.
New Toryism is committed to a sustainable, resilient and sufficient future for Britain which includes protecting vulnerable single sex spaces from trans predation and trans chauvinism.
When belief, masquerading as purity, replaces practicality, splintering [of organizations] inevitably occurs when it can no longer be held together by threats or force. Case in point: Christianity didn’t splinter into a thousand different denominations for lack of trying on the part of leadership. Different beliefs went their own way, and, not always peacefully. The same will happen to political parties that embrace illogical belief.
Thank you for this. It’s one of the key issues why support for Labour is dwindling and will continue to dwindle. There are so many reasons why I would love to re-join the Labour Party but I just cannot. This issue is a red line. You are not the party of equality if you cannot stand up for sex-based rights. Angela Rayner’s ‘back story’ and competence is irrelevant to me (unlike some contributors to this discussion.) The truth is that Rayner’s more savvy than her detractors suggest because she knows that aligning with the more extreme position in this debate is possibly the only way to propel yourself upwards in the Labour Party. That is how bad things are now. This IS mainstream Labour. So, as far as I can see it’s over. None of them ‘get’ it and Starmer hasn’t the stomach for a fight. Tony Blair was right to warn against starting this ‘culture war’. Perhaps he is also right that Labour needs dismantling and something new and rebuilding from scratch.
Well said
‘our loyalty is being stretched to the limit.’ Really Joan? Or will blind loyalty lead you over the cliff with all the other lemmings?
It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people cannot see the Labour party for the useless pile of &”% it really is. Most people have worked out whether they are male or female by the age of four. Not so apparently for Her Majesty’s Opposition. We are witnessing (hopefully) a definite split on the Left which is forty years overdue.
The very name Labour is hopelessly anachronistic. In a classic ‘third-way’ Blair tried diluting the brand by putting New in front of it. But something more fundamental is required.
The SDP breach which took place 40 years ago needs to be formalised and made explicit. Moderates should join en-masse and leave the loonies and the hard left in the Labour dingy where they can bob about in the ocean singing The Red Flag free of compromise and dreaming their dreams of socialist gender-free utopia.
they have so little self awareness that they can t see what damage someone like rayner can do to the party.it s as if labour is run only for their own members and a few london luvvies.they are blind to the needs of the electorate and until they admit their problem they ll get nowhere.
Starmer’s reshuffle was a ‘kneeler-jerk’ reaction. Ba-ba-boom.
So you’re supporting muslim Khalid Mahmood’s views on sexuality and gender? Really? And you complain when labelled a bigot?
The lady who wrote this article looks pretty miserable even when she is smiling for a publicity photo… typical hard core feminist then. I feel no sorrow for such people… they are reaping what their nonsensical sexist ideology has sown.
In my experience it has been those preaching feminism that are now preaching trans rights.
Most women I know would feel a lot safer with Labour or anywhere than with the people posting women-hating misogyny in this BTL thread.
Care to provide us with some examples?
There hasn’t been one example of women-hating misogyny in this thread. Just factual statements concerning rates of violence.
It’s not much of a choice,,is it? The chaps here who are convinced that women start the rows which end with them in hospital , or dead, and the other side , who don’t think women exist at all as a discrete category.
“ The chaps here who are convinced that women start the rows which end with them in hospital , or dead,” – which chaps? Name some names.
Niobe loads of men, including me, most definitely end up in hospital at the hands of women. The women lie about it. No one challenges it. I’m happy to comment about it, but life is far, far, far too short to report it or start a campaign group over it (FFS).
Men suffer the overhelming number of “accidents” in the home in terms of the stats. Don’t they.
Make friends with an orthopedic surgeon and you’ll find many serious injuries to men are rather poorly explained. Because the men and their families lie about them. People who have been mistreated by their families lie, and in the case of men no one is telling them to do otherwise. You certainly aren’t. You’re busy blaming them for your own problems, which may have rather less to do with gender than you imagine.
“I just fell”.
I’ve said those exact words. I heard them coming out of my mouth.
It’s not what anyone ‘thinks’. The 40% figure is an ONS stat. It’s just a fact that women commit domestic violence too. Roughly 15% of DV murder victims are male.
Your description of people who do not agree with feminist religion/ideology as “Women hating misogyny” reminds of those trans activists who describe those who are concerned about giving puberty blockers to children or fairness in women’s sports or women feeling safe in toilets and changing rooms as “Transphobic”