Main Edition
US
FR
Why are we having to fight for women's spaces all over again? Credit: Alejandro Martinez Velez/Europa Press via Getty Images
The battle to set up domestic violence refuges for vulnerable women was long and hard. After years of campaigning, feminists finally won it in the early Seventies. A few years later, rape crisis centres followed. Now, more than four decades later, rape conviction rates are at an all-time low and reports of domestic violence are increasing. The need for female-only spaces is greater than ever. And yet, feminists are having to do battle all over again.
“Many women only feel comfortable talking about the intimate and devastating details of male violence in a safe environment. And a safe environment means a women-only one,” writes Karen Ingala Smith in a new book, Defending Women’s Spaces. This is her debut, but she is already hard at work on her second, about femicide. Ingala Smith has spent a total of 32 years working in women’s organisations that tackle men’s violence. As the CEO of the nia project, a service for women and girls who have been subjected to sexual and domestic abuse, and the founder of both Counting Dead Women and the UK Femicide Census (analysing cases of women and girls killed by men), no one is better-placed to comment on what female victims of male violence need.
However, the existence of Defending Women’s Spaces is deemed so dangerous that the ticketing giant Eventbrite deleted the link to the online launch a few weeks ago, and began issuing refunds. According to Eventbrite’s Trust and Safety team, the event was in danger of violating its policy on “hateful, dangerous or violent content”. Keeping women and girls safe from male violence, and enabling them to recover from it — the main topics of the book — are now seen as hateful activities, according to those that believe excluding trans-identified men is bigotry.
Feminists fought for the introduction of the 2010 Equality Act, which allows for the provision of separate or single-sex services in certain circumstances — for example, in toilets, changing rooms, refuges and hospital wards. So why do our hard-won rights still need defending?
In recent years, trans rights organisations such as Stonewall have been campaigning to end female-only provision. For example, in 2015, Stonewall’s submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality included demands for a review of the Equality Act to include “gender identity” rather than “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic. They also argued for removing any circumstances in which single-sex spaces were allowed.
The charity Gendered Intelligence have also made it clear they would do away with our right to single-sex provision by calling for “a comprehensive review of the legislation affecting trans people (and intersex people) with the aim of deleting the exceptions laid out [in the Equality Act]”. Both groups, along with political parties such as the Greens, Women’s Equality Party and some sections of Labour, are also in favour of self-ID, which would allow men to identify as women without the requirement of any medical intervention. Doing so would legally permit them to access women’s single-sex services.
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.
SubscribeAs a society we have gone beyond the pale when sick 6’5 men in wigs with their tackle intact are given access to vulnerable women and children. We must be mad.
We are not mad, just some of us – while the rest of us have insufficient time and motivation to oppose the mad and malignant ones.
The “rest” don’t lack the motivation or sufficient time. They lack the courage!
That too. The fact that civil dialogue was overridden by ideological attack dogs certainly did not help, but this is a feature of many areas where ideology is enforced by attack and cancellation in some form so that those with a limited time and motivation became shut out of decisions. Those with mad obsessions often have more time and energy and aggression to devote than those for whom the issue is peripheral to normal life. Most of us are not TERFs even though we agree with the points they make on this subject.
There’s no poissibility of civil dialogue with these foul narcissistic loons, woman-hating incels in wigs, and their neopuritan-nihilist backers in the State and Corporate priesthood.
The State and Corporate priesthood are not backers, they are simply spineless cowards.
In my opinion, it’s a mixture of both. Some are surely gutless, bum-covering bandwagon-jumpers, but there are certainly a good many who give every impression of being True Believers.
In my opinion, it’s a mixture of both. Some are surely gutless, bum-covering bandwagon-jumpers, but there are certainly a good many who give every impression of being True Believers.
The State and Corporate priesthood are not backers, they are simply spineless cowards.
There’s no poissibility of civil dialogue with these foul narcissistic loons, woman-hating incels in wigs, and their neopuritan-nihilist backers in the State and Corporate priesthood.
I think it is a result of deliberate demoralisation rather than cowardice. People are generally courageous in societies that celebrate or mandate courage; our society shames it. It’s also a result of also grooming, not just of children but adults too.
That too. The fact that civil dialogue was overridden by ideological attack dogs certainly did not help, but this is a feature of many areas where ideology is enforced by attack and cancellation in some form so that those with a limited time and motivation became shut out of decisions. Those with mad obsessions often have more time and energy and aggression to devote than those for whom the issue is peripheral to normal life. Most of us are not TERFs even though we agree with the points they make on this subject.
I think it is a result of deliberate demoralisation rather than cowardice. People are generally courageous in societies that celebrate or mandate courage; our society shames it. It’s also a result of also grooming, not just of children but adults too.
The “rest” don’t lack the motivation or sufficient time. They lack the courage!
Yeats described it perfectly “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
It truly is the most bizarre situation. Like some kind of mad dream. How did it get like this? Why do we countenance it? I am the mother of daughters – their safety is paramount. Why do the rights of men in frocks trump my daughters’ safety?
Well I’m not. But it seems that most Uni-washed women under 35, politicians, academics, HR-PR-Adland twits and Blob apparatchiks either are mad, or have so little backbone they dare not point out the brazenly obvious fact that any dog in the street can see, that THIS EMPEROR HAS GOT NO CLOTHES ON.
My own experience is when people are in presence of the facts they tend to find the idea of self-ID abhorrent.
Little wonder that self-ID promoters go out of their way to attack anybody who might challenge their POV.
We are not mad, just some of us – while the rest of us have insufficient time and motivation to oppose the mad and malignant ones.
Yeats described it perfectly “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
It truly is the most bizarre situation. Like some kind of mad dream. How did it get like this? Why do we countenance it? I am the mother of daughters – their safety is paramount. Why do the rights of men in frocks trump my daughters’ safety?
Well I’m not. But it seems that most Uni-washed women under 35, politicians, academics, HR-PR-Adland twits and Blob apparatchiks either are mad, or have so little backbone they dare not point out the brazenly obvious fact that any dog in the street can see, that THIS EMPEROR HAS GOT NO CLOTHES ON.
My own experience is when people are in presence of the facts they tend to find the idea of self-ID abhorrent.
Little wonder that self-ID promoters go out of their way to attack anybody who might challenge their POV.
As a society we have gone beyond the pale when sick 6’5 men in wigs with their tackle intact are given access to vulnerable women and children. We must be mad.
“However, the existence of Defending Women’s Spaces is deemed so dangerous that the ticketing giant Eventbrite deleted the link to the online launch a few weeks ago, and began issuing refunds. According to Eventbrite’s Trust and Safety team, the event was in danger of violating its policy on “hateful, dangerous or violent content”. Keeping women and girls safe from male violence, and enabling them to recover from it — the main topics of the book — are now seen as hateful activities, according to those that believe excluding trans-identified men is bigotry.”
This passage from the article again highlights the malign influence “woke” California originated organisations like PayPal and Eventbrite exercise over the public space in imposing censorship on what can be said and current proposed legislation still seeks to encourage such organisations to act as censors. It is essential that such untrammelled power should be curtailed rather than enhanced. Such organisations should never be permitted to ban content that is legal but “ harmful in some woke organisations view”. I am happy to avoid using both services on the grounds they abuse their power to suppress legal free speech.
The US government seemingly deferred power to Silicon Valley in an attempt to circumvent the 1st amendment. I suspect this was a largely a Democrat coup de grace.
The rest of the world is largely reaping the (un)intended consequences of this policy. However, I also suspect this is entirely to the liking of a vast majority in politics who would like to hide behind the same terms and conditions (as seen in yesterdays article regarding the Online Harms Bill).
This strategy was also played out by the government using the EU as a deflection against many unpopular policies. I’m not suggesting EU innocence, just that the relationship was extremely serendipitous.
It’s far more embedded in UK institutions than online agents:
”The campaign group Fair Play for Women claimed 41% of transgender women in prison are convicted sex offenders.”
“Such organisations should never be permitted to ban content that is legal but “ harmful”
Too late. The precedent for exactly the above was set over the past decades by precisely those groups – women and gays – who are now seeing the downside of their own tactics being used against them.
The US government seemingly deferred power to Silicon Valley in an attempt to circumvent the 1st amendment. I suspect this was a largely a Democrat coup de grace.
The rest of the world is largely reaping the (un)intended consequences of this policy. However, I also suspect this is entirely to the liking of a vast majority in politics who would like to hide behind the same terms and conditions (as seen in yesterdays article regarding the Online Harms Bill).
This strategy was also played out by the government using the EU as a deflection against many unpopular policies. I’m not suggesting EU innocence, just that the relationship was extremely serendipitous.
It’s far more embedded in UK institutions than online agents:
”The campaign group Fair Play for Women claimed 41% of transgender women in prison are convicted sex offenders.”
“Such organisations should never be permitted to ban content that is legal but “ harmful”
Too late. The precedent for exactly the above was set over the past decades by precisely those groups – women and gays – who are now seeing the downside of their own tactics being used against them.
“However, the existence of Defending Women’s Spaces is deemed so dangerous that the ticketing giant Eventbrite deleted the link to the online launch a few weeks ago, and began issuing refunds. According to Eventbrite’s Trust and Safety team, the event was in danger of violating its policy on “hateful, dangerous or violent content”. Keeping women and girls safe from male violence, and enabling them to recover from it — the main topics of the book — are now seen as hateful activities, according to those that believe excluding trans-identified men is bigotry.”
This passage from the article again highlights the malign influence “woke” California originated organisations like PayPal and Eventbrite exercise over the public space in imposing censorship on what can be said and current proposed legislation still seeks to encourage such organisations to act as censors. It is essential that such untrammelled power should be curtailed rather than enhanced. Such organisations should never be permitted to ban content that is legal but “ harmful in some woke organisations view”. I am happy to avoid using both services on the grounds they abuse their power to suppress legal free speech.
Are you really that naive? The purpose of transgender ideology has always been about creepy men gaining access to women’s and children’s ‘spaces’. Our increasingly psychopathic governments would like nothing more than to remove the special protections women used to enjoy under the guise of Equality for all. Unfortunately it was feminists like you that did all they could to ridicule and diminish the power of the kind of men who normally would have been able to safeguard society from the predations of these disturbed individuals. In killing off the guards you allowed the inmates of the lunatic asylum to go free.
If your argument is that male predation is the root cause of the problem, being dismissive of female agency by requiring them to have “guards” or guardians spectacularly misses the point.
Guards do not have to be physically present to do their job. It’s often sufficient to know they are available as a deterent force, ready to act/speak-out. Unfortunately some of the words/actions against those willing to act as that deterent by Julie et al has caused us to hold-off and let them get on with it.
The idea of “guards”, naturally, has been distorted so as to portray woman lacking agency only under the eye of men. What’s been forgotten is not that men actively protect women but that men manage other men according to their understanding of men, Men are not unaware of those that threaten the security and well-being of society. But the feminists wanted change. They broke up that understanding. They demanded new rules, a new understanding of how things should work. They were right to challenge some things, but they didn’t stop there. They demanded men change who they were, what they thought, how they operated. So the guards stepped back, silenced. In came the charlatans, the smooth talkers, the pretenders, those who moved around the edges like wolves, watching and waiting for an opportunity. The feminists didn’t even see them. They thought the enemy was the man who lived down the road with his wife and children, supporter of a patriarchal society, primitive, unsophisticated, a misogynist who ruled over his wife and children. Once no man would have tolerated the idea of trans men behaving as they do. So now the feminists have woken up. But too late.
The idea of “guards”, naturally, has been distorted so as to portray woman lacking agency only under the eye of men. What’s been forgotten is not that men actively protect women but that men manage other men according to their understanding of men, Men are not unaware of those that threaten the security and well-being of society. But the feminists wanted change. They broke up that understanding. They demanded new rules, a new understanding of how things should work. They were right to challenge some things, but they didn’t stop there. They demanded men change who they were, what they thought, how they operated. So the guards stepped back, silenced. In came the charlatans, the smooth talkers, the pretenders, those who moved around the edges like wolves, watching and waiting for an opportunity. The feminists didn’t even see them. They thought the enemy was the man who lived down the road with his wife and children, supporter of a patriarchal society, primitive, unsophisticated, a misogynist who ruled over his wife and children. Once no man would have tolerated the idea of trans men behaving as they do. So now the feminists have woken up. But too late.
Women’s safety has always been in the hands of men. Until women generate the same muscle-mass and propensity to violence as men this will always be the case. It’s gross naïveté to assume otherwise.
Of course, this is not a one-sided relationship – men traditionally receive benefits for protecting and nurturing women. Ideally the relationship between men and women is complementary, each making up in areas that the other lacks. Unfortunately, in our insane megalomaniacal push for total ‘sex-equality’ we are rapidly deconstructing what it means to be a man or a woman, reducing these to mere psychological identities that can be worn and cast off at will. While men can perhaps play-act being a woman, women are actually women with all the frailties and vulnerabilities that that entails. Because women are generally ‘weaker’ (and I don’t mean this in a derogatory way whatsoever) they’ve been able to successfully compete and win against men in spaces that were traditionally male. Up until now men have received zero social reward for outsmarting or physically competing against a woman. In fact they are made to look bad when they win because it’s assumed they used the ‘unfair’ advantage of their masculine strength.
That’s all changing now. Men are now allowed to enter women’s spaces and they are going to compete against women in every way possible, not only in how they look and dress, but also how they go after jobs and resources. Trans women are going to outsmart and dominate women in areas that were traditionally female, much like the feminists of yesteryear did with men in their spaces. Those who object to this takeover will be labelled transphobes and bigots, and will be no doubt fired, silenced, or bullied. And for some strange reason, it’s women themselves who seem to be bringing about and cheering on their own demise.
–Relying on male protectors is not a safe strategy for women, as history has shown.
–You are confusing muscle mass with training. Trained female guards are just as capable of defending the vulnerable as trained male guards. Those trained in the martial arts can even use an opponent’s greater physical strength against him.
–Women are perceived as more vulnerable to attack and thus are more likely to be attacked. Men, whether vulnerable or not, are less likely to be attacked. These “trans” people–mostly female hating men in disguise–are deliberately targeting women in situations where they perceive them to be vulnerable, like when dressing, urinating/defecating, or after being traumatized.
–Women are quite capable of aggression. They are just socialized not be be aggressive and not trained to defend themselves, even now. In situations that are socially sanctioned, like a Mother protecting a child, they can be quite fierce.
–“Trans” activism is really just a thinly disguised attack on women and their rights, which is why societal institutions, which mostly never entirely lost their misogyny are so quick to support it. It’s a convenient excuse.
–Thus, women may be forced to create our own security forces if we want to succeed in protecting ourselves from these new attacks on us instead of depending on unreliable police and other government forces to do it. If you want something done right, do it yourself.
Thanks for your post, Robin. I agree with you on almost every point. Just to make clear, I am not yearning for the days when men were considered ‘protectors’. My irascibility is a response to relentless media messaging in which men are considered less enlightened than women while being blamed as a homogenous group for instances of violence instigated against them. I believe this has created a wedge between men and women at a time when we really need each other the most.
‘–You are confusing muscle mass with training. Trained female guards are just as capable of defending the vulnerable as trained male guards. Those trained in the martial arts can even use an opponent’s greater physical strength against him.’
Ha ha ha. You may have seen a few Tarantino movies, but you’ve clearly never been in a fist fight.
Woman here voting Just no to all of that. Where have you got that lot from????
Thanks for your post, Robin. I agree with you on almost every point. Just to make clear, I am not yearning for the days when men were considered ‘protectors’. My irascibility is a response to relentless media messaging in which men are considered less enlightened than women while being blamed as a homogenous group for instances of violence instigated against them. I believe this has created a wedge between men and women at a time when we really need each other the most.
‘–You are confusing muscle mass with training. Trained female guards are just as capable of defending the vulnerable as trained male guards. Those trained in the martial arts can even use an opponent’s greater physical strength against him.’
Ha ha ha. You may have seen a few Tarantino movies, but you’ve clearly never been in a fist fight.
Woman here voting Just no to all of that. Where have you got that lot from????
–Relying on male protectors is not a safe strategy for women, as history has shown.
–You are confusing muscle mass with training. Trained female guards are just as capable of defending the vulnerable as trained male guards. Those trained in the martial arts can even use an opponent’s greater physical strength against him.
–Women are perceived as more vulnerable to attack and thus are more likely to be attacked. Men, whether vulnerable or not, are less likely to be attacked. These “trans” people–mostly female hating men in disguise–are deliberately targeting women in situations where they perceive them to be vulnerable, like when dressing, urinating/defecating, or after being traumatized.
–Women are quite capable of aggression. They are just socialized not be be aggressive and not trained to defend themselves, even now. In situations that are socially sanctioned, like a Mother protecting a child, they can be quite fierce.
–“Trans” activism is really just a thinly disguised attack on women and their rights, which is why societal institutions, which mostly never entirely lost their misogyny are so quick to support it. It’s a convenient excuse.
–Thus, women may be forced to create our own security forces if we want to succeed in protecting ourselves from these new attacks on us instead of depending on unreliable police and other government forces to do it. If you want something done right, do it yourself.
Guards do not have to be physically present to do their job. It’s often sufficient to know they are available as a deterent force, ready to act/speak-out. Unfortunately some of the words/actions against those willing to act as that deterent by Julie et al has caused us to hold-off and let them get on with it.
Women’s safety has always been in the hands of men. Until women generate the same muscle-mass and propensity to violence as men this will always be the case. It’s gross naïveté to assume otherwise.
Of course, this is not a one-sided relationship – men traditionally receive benefits for protecting and nurturing women. Ideally the relationship between men and women is complementary, each making up in areas that the other lacks. Unfortunately, in our insane megalomaniacal push for total ‘sex-equality’ we are rapidly deconstructing what it means to be a man or a woman, reducing these to mere psychological identities that can be worn and cast off at will. While men can perhaps play-act being a woman, women are actually women with all the frailties and vulnerabilities that that entails. Because women are generally ‘weaker’ (and I don’t mean this in a derogatory way whatsoever) they’ve been able to successfully compete and win against men in spaces that were traditionally male. Up until now men have received zero social reward for outsmarting or physically competing against a woman. In fact they are made to look bad when they win because it’s assumed they used the ‘unfair’ advantage of their masculine strength.
That’s all changing now. Men are now allowed to enter women’s spaces and they are going to compete against women in every way possible, not only in how they look and dress, but also how they go after jobs and resources. Trans women are going to outsmart and dominate women in areas that were traditionally female, much like the feminists of yesteryear did with men in their spaces. Those who object to this takeover will be labelled transphobes and bigots, and will be no doubt fired, silenced, or bullied. And for some strange reason, it’s women themselves who seem to be bringing about and cheering on their own demise.
“diminish the power of the kind of men who normally would have been able to safeguard society “
I see you’ve already received your first red mark. It’s unfashionable, in fact heresy, to make such remarks these days. But it’s worth thinking about. Because if such men do not exist, or if they never did, then who are the men around us today? Are they any better or less then those “guards”? And if they are better, or at least as good, then how have we reached the point where women not only feel unsafe but are being erased?
Women aren’t “being erased”, although there is an attempt to undermine the basis of biological sex, which is rather different. The reason women feel unsafe is also partly due to the far greater opportunites they now have to live the lives that their intellect and character allows them to, thus placing them in situations they hitherto wouldn’t have found themselves. What would you suggest? Should they be allowed to work, travel, holiday unaccompanied by a male guardian, or not?
What, in fact, is the alternative to female agency? For men to hanker after a bygone age when it made them feel good about themselves by acting as “protectors” simply diminishes them too. We shouldn’t need that trope to feel good about ourselves. Many, in fact, don’t need it.
They are ‘being erased’ as a separate group with a separate identity, and dissolved in a larger group with different membership criteria.
Think it is the other way round. They are being erased because a large number of smaller groups are being formed. Being a woman is not sufficiently different. You have to be a black woman or a ‘something’ woman to be different enough to form a group.
A larger group in which they are once again defined as inferior. “Trans” men plan to be the prime version of womanhood instead of actual biological women. The latest thing now is Jesus being identified as having a “trans” body, because a stab wound (depicted from the lance a Roman soldier attacked him with) and a vagina are considered to be the same by the “Trans”. They perceive a p***s as a weapon and a vagina as a wound.
I read about this too. It’s really sick. I think the reason transideology is being pushed upon us is that it breaks down what it means to be a man or a woman, allowing those with more power and influence to redefine us from the ground up. The amount of money being pumped into trans movements is ridiculous strongly suggesting that this is not a grass-roots movement, but an astroturf one.
Just no again. Retreat from the really weird corners of the internet.
I read about this too. It’s really sick. I think the reason transideology is being pushed upon us is that it breaks down what it means to be a man or a woman, allowing those with more power and influence to redefine us from the ground up. The amount of money being pumped into trans movements is ridiculous strongly suggesting that this is not a grass-roots movement, but an astroturf one.
Just no again. Retreat from the really weird corners of the internet.
Think it is the other way round. They are being erased because a large number of smaller groups are being formed. Being a woman is not sufficiently different. You have to be a black woman or a ‘something’ woman to be different enough to form a group.
A larger group in which they are once again defined as inferior. “Trans” men plan to be the prime version of womanhood instead of actual biological women. The latest thing now is Jesus being identified as having a “trans” body, because a stab wound (depicted from the lance a Roman soldier attacked him with) and a vagina are considered to be the same by the “Trans”. They perceive a p***s as a weapon and a vagina as a wound.
They are ‘being erased’ as a separate group with a separate identity, and dissolved in a larger group with different membership criteria.
Hello gentlemen, lady here, agree this is a good point worth considering about all this demonising men, I understand your frustration Julian, I was on a thread a few days ago where, what I like to refer to as a ‘nutter’, had posted that male dominated work places were encouraging ‘testosterone fuelled abuse’, then blokes go home and beat their women because of this. They also suggested making men stay at home to care for children so a woman could go to work.
Now I’m a mother, I’ve worked in construction for over 10 years in the UK, I had to point out to them that I have never, ever been abused, intimidated or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable, in fact I’ve very much enjoyed it, there’s nothing stopping women in the UK from doing these jobs already, frequently, where a trade is male dominated, its for a reason, I then invited them to go to a site and attempt the jobs some of these guys do and also experience the complete lack of abuse. Also pointed out I want to raise my child, mothers are important and biologically equipped to raise children in ways that men are not.
These narratives are damaging our society. Some are portraying men as evil wife beaters or weirdos that want to get in your changing room, mothers irrelevant, motherhood into something that should be sneered at in favour of a ‘career’, and mixing everything up in very insane and non logical ways. They also paint the picture of a world for girls that is full of danger from men, where being financially dependent on a man so a family can be raised traditionally is a bad thing men will use to abuse you. All this is very worrying really, I think traditional family structures are important. I do not feel unsafe, erased or otherwise shat upon by a ‘patriarchy’.
By and large the UK is a safe place for EVERYONE already, we can’t give people any more rights than they already have. I get your frustration, some of the feminist lot have become as insane as the trans lobby.
It’s not about demonizing men. It’s about protecting ourselves from men who hate and attack us for being females. Obviously, that’s not all men, but a large number of men aren’t all that interested in protesting violence against women, either.
I have never met a man that specifically makes it his SOLE mission to hate and attack women. There are nutters everywhere there always has been and we have a legal system for that. That is demonising men. Especially lots of them working an evil group that would justify raising a protest. When theres a man that’s attacked a woman they are locked up. That’s the law. How effective the legal system is is separate debate.
We’ve done all that, burnt the bras, we are liberated, we have laws protecting us, facilities to flee to, we haven’t armies of crazy men beating us into line, we’ve now had two lady prime ministers! What more do you want? What would such a protest hope to achieve? What about men protesting women committing violence against them? There was a guy killed recently https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/mans-harrowing-words-friend-before-25276734.amp
I would suggest taking your battle to Iran or the like, they do have problems, they might appreciate it.
I know domestic abuse is a problem but I don’t see it as a problem that stems from men specifically hating women, or the women hating men, these issues are far, far more complex when it comes to fights within a relationship. No amount of protest would make a difference to domestic violence, people fight over millions of issues, its how we’ve always been, I feel like you’re trying to fix something you have misunderstood with the wrong tools for the job.
Sorry 3 lady prime ministers, few edits 🙂
Well, as a man who was physically abused in his marriage…
My ex slapped, punched and even pulled a knife on me. This occurred many times.
Not once in 18 yrs did I lay a single hand on her, not even in retaliation. The whole “You do not hit girls” thing that was drilled into me as a boy. When I was 8 I hit my 7 yr old sister and got a beating I will never forget.
Sadly, it took my teenage daughter standing up to her over it that finally brought the abuse to an end.
Why did I not leave? Why did I not divorce her sooner?
Well, I brought it up to her about 6 yrs into the marriage when my daughter was 4. Her response was to tell me that I would never see my daughter again, that she “Knew what I had been doing to her.”. The threat was clear and losing my daughter or risking her being alone with her mother for any time was not a risk I was willing to take. Even at 4 yrs of age I had to protect her from her mother.
One day, my ex went after my daughter who was 16 at the time. Grabbed her by the throat and threw her against a wall. She started throwing punches at my daughter, so I stepped in. I literally stepped in between them and took the hits but never did anything more than keep myself between her and my daughter.
The next day the ex went down to the court and filed for a protective order. No hearing. No history of cops coming to the house. Nothing. But the courts gave it to her because she said the magic words, “I am afraid.”.
Long story short, cops showed up and gave me 3 minutes to leave the house and forbid me from talking to my daughter. My daughter ran away to live with friends.
In the end, after multiple hearings and my daughter testifying, the protective order was dismissed. It took 3 months and thousands of dollars to get there. In the meantime, while the order was in place, she tried to have me arrested 14 times. Had cops come to my work to see where I had been when she claimed the house had been broken into. Cops always told her that I was not doing anything to violate the order. Her answer to that was to go to the magistrate and claim I had violated it and have an arrest warrant issued for me. I was arrested, had a trial and was again found to not be in violation. Cost me a night in jail and thousands of dollars and a lot of explaining to my boss and neighbors.
I suited her for malicious prosecution. The local women’s groups filed a brief with the court asking that the case be dismissed before being heard as allowing that case to move forward would discourage other women from filing protective orders. Cannot tell you just how much that pissed me off and turned me off to any of the previous support I used to give to women’s shelters and abused women’s groups. In any case, I won my suit. The judge caught her in a lie, a substantial lie about sending a copy of the protective order to my employer with copies of her unpaid bills.
She ended up getting NOTHING in the divorce, no alimony, no child support, no assets. She is still enraged about that and lets me know it in texts and emails all the time. My daughter has not spoken to her in 5 yrs and she worries that my ex will show up and stab me one of these days. She has been caught keying my car and putting screws under the tires of my girlfriend.
I have a fairly elaborate security system with cameras around the house and I keep a gun by my bed.
So, to be honest, I get kinda sick and tired about hearing about men who abuse women. Read the papers. Any day of the weak you can see stories of women killing their children or stabbing their husbands or boyfriends or hiring someone to do so. Lots of men are abused by their wives and girlfriends. But nobody gives a crap.
I’m sorry for what you have gone through; of course it can happen to men as well as women.
However, papers don’t reflect the reality of what women have to deal with, they tend to report the exception. The vast majority of violent crime, sexual and domestic abuse is carried out by men. Not hating on men, but the numbers don’t lie; women are physically vulnerable to men and have to retain safe spaces.
Amy, what you say is correct based on the data we have.
However, I question the accuracy of the data for two reasons.
As in my situation, my ex reported herself to the court as being abused. So, although it was not true, she counts in the numbers. A good lawyer friend of mine told me that she sees a lot of cases where money will be involved, such as in a divorce or child support, where women report being abused to gain leverage. Apparently, family lawyers are doing a lot, just short of telling women to lie, to encourage them to take this path because it can get a settlement quickly. She told me that lawyers tell their clients or clients to be that they get a slam dunk if a court issues a protective order. They also coach them with the idea that he does not need to have actually hit them or even threatened them, only give them reason to have been afraid.
2.I am going to wager that the numbers of abused men are way way under-reported. Lot of reasons why. First, if they call the cops or make a report, then she is likely to as well, and in that case he is almost guaranteed to lose and be ordered out of the house. Ask any cop. They will tell you that even where they suspect that a woman is abusing a man and not the other way around, they are pushed to get the man out even when the law says that they should not. They do not want the liability and they do not want to be targets of local women’s groups. Second, men are naturally disinclined to admit or publish the fact that they are taking physical abuse. Its humiliating. The attitude of people, women included, is generally “How badly could she have hurt you?” or “What did you do to deserve it?”. There is an inherent bias in the system against men who would report abuse. Same female lawyer friend told me about cases she has had. One in particular stood out. An elderly man, almost bed ridden being beaten by his wife. Cops still wanted to boot him despite the fact he could barely stand.
I’m really tired of listening to women always go on about how they are the victims and martyrs. Women are just as capable of nasty, vicious behavior as any man. In fact, although I will admit, despite my qualms about the data, that men are more likely than women to engage in physical violence in a relationship, I think you would be hard pressed to argue that women are not far more likely to be emotionally and psychologically abusive. And…if we are going to count emotional and psychological abuse in the overall pool of domestic abuse, then I would not be hesitant to say that the numbers are probably about even.
Go back through your life and count the number of girls and women that you have known that you would never let your brother date, the ones that you knew were a bit nuts or nasty. I bet, if you really think about it, that there are a lot more than you might have thought and I bet if you ask yourself how many of them are capable of abusing men, the number will surprise you.
Now let me ask you a question.
Spouse A has horrendously emotionally and psychologically abused Spouse B. Engaged in humiliation and worked hard to make them feel unimportant, done everything they could to hurt Spouse B.
Spouse B finally loses their shit and whacks Spouse A in the face.
Is your reaction different based on the Spouse A and Spouse B’s gender?
Would you feel that Spouse B is justified or at least that the transgression is minimal if Spouse B is a woman?
What would your reaction be if Spouse B is male?
I am gonna guess that you are going to be a whole lot more upset if the retaliating spouse is male.
I understand your position but I don’t think like that at all, so you would be wrong.
I sympathise with the fact that you were abused by your ex wife but nothing you said in your comment, especially anecdotal evidence, guesses and wagers, goes anywhere near to changing the fact that women are, by a country mile, the world over, victimised and abused by men in far greater numbers than the other way around. It doesn’t make it right that women sometimes do it to men, doesn’t mean women should get a free pass if they decide to beat up their partners, but these are facts. As a woman, I don’t like this at all, but I don’t see it changing any time soon. I also have a daughter and it makes me very sad. The number of women killed by partners or expartners is heart breaking, are these ‘martyrs’ as you say? Though what cause they are dying for, I’m not sure.
I understand your position but I don’t think like that at all, so you would be wrong.
I sympathise with the fact that you were abused by your ex wife but nothing you said in your comment, especially anecdotal evidence, guesses and wagers, goes anywhere near to changing the fact that women are, by a country mile, the world over, victimised and abused by men in far greater numbers than the other way around. It doesn’t make it right that women sometimes do it to men, doesn’t mean women should get a free pass if they decide to beat up their partners, but these are facts. As a woman, I don’t like this at all, but I don’t see it changing any time soon. I also have a daughter and it makes me very sad. The number of women killed by partners or expartners is heart breaking, are these ‘martyrs’ as you say? Though what cause they are dying for, I’m not sure.
I totally agree we should retain safe spaces, but I don’t think there’s much room for any more feminism to make us more ‘equal’ in the UK. I think peoples time would be much better spent tackling the root causes of domestic violence, crime and abuse. More police, effective courts and prisons and rehabilitation, this is a massive problem in the UK our prisons are in a god awful state, our police are hopeless, schools underfunded and at maximum capacity, these are the issues I think need tackling in order to reduce all those things you talk about. I feel this would make a much bigger difference to improving everyone’s society. I honestly don’t see what we could do in the UK to make women more equal in law.
I agree that tackling the root causes would improve things immeasurably, in general. However, to go to my point, women are far and away the victims of male violence than vice versa, it’s no good for people to say they don’t like this narrative as though women are just whinging, it’s a fact that women are victimised by men. Not all men – not by a long chalk – but there you are; suggesting what we need to do to improve the stats doesn’t change them.
Actually suggesting how to improve the stats is surely the starting point, therefore could lead to a constructive movement to encourage the enforcement of those suggestions. Thereby improving the stats. And at the same time, by campaigning to improve education to standard we can get these lads into good jobs, we can help them to rehabilitate better, reduce crime, try and reimagine what we can do the people lost in the prison system, we would not only be reducing abuse, crime and violence towards women but improving the whole of society for women and children and men.
I’m genuinely curious as to what you suggest the solution is. Do you feel that there isn’t enough legislation protecting women? Or that we in fact are not treated equally as I feel we are? Do we need more laws or different laws? Violence against women in the UK is illegal, condemned wholeheartedly by the majority of both men and women in this country, we rightly have refuges, and places people can get help. Do you think these services are failing?
You seem to be ignorant of the misogynistic culture of the police etc etc. and so you will be if you don’t get into trouble and toe the line.
It’s the powerless we have to protect and they are being abused and manipulated.
Male sexual criminals can’t believe how stupid we are allowing them access to vulnerable women at their say so.
Well actually my sister had her house raided by the police, on account of her wayward man, they raided his work too, was quite a shock to say the least, my brother has had his scrapes, I have had to deal with them first hand on more than one occasion, have you? My family give the shameless series a run for its money mate there’s few services we haven’t dealt with. Fire brigade tick, have a friend that is a woman and served as firefighter locally. Enjoyed it.
The police men and ladies I’ve come across were actually very nice and reasonable. The ones that raided my sisters house, dealt with the situation actually very well, were very good to her.
I did not condone the opening of safe spaces. If you read back, that is glaringly obvious.
Who exactly are the ‘powerless’ you’re crusading for? What are you suggesting?
And:
‘so you will be if you don’t get into trouble and toe the line.’
Sorry what?
Well actually my sister had her house raided by the police, on account of her wayward man, they raided his work too, was quite a shock to say the least, my brother has had his scrapes, I have had to deal with them first hand on more than one occasion, have you? My family give the shameless series a run for its money mate there’s few services we haven’t dealt with. Fire brigade tick, have a friend that is a woman and served as firefighter locally. Enjoyed it.
The police men and ladies I’ve come across were actually very nice and reasonable. The ones that raided my sisters house, dealt with the situation actually very well, were very good to her.
I did not condone the opening of safe spaces. If you read back, that is glaringly obvious.
Who exactly are the ‘powerless’ you’re crusading for? What are you suggesting?
And:
‘so you will be if you don’t get into trouble and toe the line.’
Sorry what?
You seem to be ignorant of the misogynistic culture of the police etc etc. and so you will be if you don’t get into trouble and toe the line.
It’s the powerless we have to protect and they are being abused and manipulated.
Male sexual criminals can’t believe how stupid we are allowing them access to vulnerable women at their say so.
Actually suggesting how to improve the stats is surely the starting point, therefore could lead to a constructive movement to encourage the enforcement of those suggestions. Thereby improving the stats. And at the same time, by campaigning to improve education to standard we can get these lads into good jobs, we can help them to rehabilitate better, reduce crime, try and reimagine what we can do the people lost in the prison system, we would not only be reducing abuse, crime and violence towards women but improving the whole of society for women and children and men.
I’m genuinely curious as to what you suggest the solution is. Do you feel that there isn’t enough legislation protecting women? Or that we in fact are not treated equally as I feel we are? Do we need more laws or different laws? Violence against women in the UK is illegal, condemned wholeheartedly by the majority of both men and women in this country, we rightly have refuges, and places people can get help. Do you think these services are failing?
I agree that tackling the root causes would improve things immeasurably, in general. However, to go to my point, women are far and away the victims of male violence than vice versa, it’s no good for people to say they don’t like this narrative as though women are just whinging, it’s a fact that women are victimised by men. Not all men – not by a long chalk – but there you are; suggesting what we need to do to improve the stats doesn’t change them.
Amy, what you say is correct based on the data we have.
However, I question the accuracy of the data for two reasons.
As in my situation, my ex reported herself to the court as being abused. So, although it was not true, she counts in the numbers. A good lawyer friend of mine told me that she sees a lot of cases where money will be involved, such as in a divorce or child support, where women report being abused to gain leverage. Apparently, family lawyers are doing a lot, just short of telling women to lie, to encourage them to take this path because it can get a settlement quickly. She told me that lawyers tell their clients or clients to be that they get a slam dunk if a court issues a protective order. They also coach them with the idea that he does not need to have actually hit them or even threatened them, only give them reason to have been afraid.
2.I am going to wager that the numbers of abused men are way way under-reported. Lot of reasons why. First, if they call the cops or make a report, then she is likely to as well, and in that case he is almost guaranteed to lose and be ordered out of the house. Ask any cop. They will tell you that even where they suspect that a woman is abusing a man and not the other way around, they are pushed to get the man out even when the law says that they should not. They do not want the liability and they do not want to be targets of local women’s groups. Second, men are naturally disinclined to admit or publish the fact that they are taking physical abuse. Its humiliating. The attitude of people, women included, is generally “How badly could she have hurt you?” or “What did you do to deserve it?”. There is an inherent bias in the system against men who would report abuse. Same female lawyer friend told me about cases she has had. One in particular stood out. An elderly man, almost bed ridden being beaten by his wife. Cops still wanted to boot him despite the fact he could barely stand.
I’m really tired of listening to women always go on about how they are the victims and martyrs. Women are just as capable of nasty, vicious behavior as any man. In fact, although I will admit, despite my qualms about the data, that men are more likely than women to engage in physical violence in a relationship, I think you would be hard pressed to argue that women are not far more likely to be emotionally and psychologically abusive. And…if we are going to count emotional and psychological abuse in the overall pool of domestic abuse, then I would not be hesitant to say that the numbers are probably about even.
Go back through your life and count the number of girls and women that you have known that you would never let your brother date, the ones that you knew were a bit nuts or nasty. I bet, if you really think about it, that there are a lot more than you might have thought and I bet if you ask yourself how many of them are capable of abusing men, the number will surprise you.
Now let me ask you a question.
Spouse A has horrendously emotionally and psychologically abused Spouse B. Engaged in humiliation and worked hard to make them feel unimportant, done everything they could to hurt Spouse B.
Spouse B finally loses their shit and whacks Spouse A in the face.
Is your reaction different based on the Spouse A and Spouse B’s gender?
Would you feel that Spouse B is justified or at least that the transgression is minimal if Spouse B is a woman?
What would your reaction be if Spouse B is male?
I am gonna guess that you are going to be a whole lot more upset if the retaliating spouse is male.
I totally agree we should retain safe spaces, but I don’t think there’s much room for any more feminism to make us more ‘equal’ in the UK. I think peoples time would be much better spent tackling the root causes of domestic violence, crime and abuse. More police, effective courts and prisons and rehabilitation, this is a massive problem in the UK our prisons are in a god awful state, our police are hopeless, schools underfunded and at maximum capacity, these are the issues I think need tackling in order to reduce all those things you talk about. I feel this would make a much bigger difference to improving everyone’s society. I honestly don’t see what we could do in the UK to make women more equal in law.
I’m sorry for what you have gone through; of course it can happen to men as well as women.
However, papers don’t reflect the reality of what women have to deal with, they tend to report the exception. The vast majority of violent crime, sexual and domestic abuse is carried out by men. Not hating on men, but the numbers don’t lie; women are physically vulnerable to men and have to retain safe spaces.
I have never met a man that specifically makes it his SOLE mission to hate and attack women. There are nutters everywhere there always has been and we have a legal system for that. That is demonising men. Especially lots of them working an evil group that would justify raising a protest. When theres a man that’s attacked a woman they are locked up. That’s the law. How effective the legal system is is separate debate.
We’ve done all that, burnt the bras, we are liberated, we have laws protecting us, facilities to flee to, we haven’t armies of crazy men beating us into line, we’ve now had two lady prime ministers! What more do you want? What would such a protest hope to achieve? What about men protesting women committing violence against them? There was a guy killed recently https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/mans-harrowing-words-friend-before-25276734.amp
I would suggest taking your battle to Iran or the like, they do have problems, they might appreciate it.
I know domestic abuse is a problem but I don’t see it as a problem that stems from men specifically hating women, or the women hating men, these issues are far, far more complex when it comes to fights within a relationship. No amount of protest would make a difference to domestic violence, people fight over millions of issues, its how we’ve always been, I feel like you’re trying to fix something you have misunderstood with the wrong tools for the job.
Sorry 3 lady prime ministers, few edits 🙂
Well, as a man who was physically abused in his marriage…
My ex slapped, punched and even pulled a knife on me. This occurred many times.
Not once in 18 yrs did I lay a single hand on her, not even in retaliation. The whole “You do not hit girls” thing that was drilled into me as a boy. When I was 8 I hit my 7 yr old sister and got a beating I will never forget.
Sadly, it took my teenage daughter standing up to her over it that finally brought the abuse to an end.
Why did I not leave? Why did I not divorce her sooner?
Well, I brought it up to her about 6 yrs into the marriage when my daughter was 4. Her response was to tell me that I would never see my daughter again, that she “Knew what I had been doing to her.”. The threat was clear and losing my daughter or risking her being alone with her mother for any time was not a risk I was willing to take. Even at 4 yrs of age I had to protect her from her mother.
One day, my ex went after my daughter who was 16 at the time. Grabbed her by the throat and threw her against a wall. She started throwing punches at my daughter, so I stepped in. I literally stepped in between them and took the hits but never did anything more than keep myself between her and my daughter.
The next day the ex went down to the court and filed for a protective order. No hearing. No history of cops coming to the house. Nothing. But the courts gave it to her because she said the magic words, “I am afraid.”.
Long story short, cops showed up and gave me 3 minutes to leave the house and forbid me from talking to my daughter. My daughter ran away to live with friends.
In the end, after multiple hearings and my daughter testifying, the protective order was dismissed. It took 3 months and thousands of dollars to get there. In the meantime, while the order was in place, she tried to have me arrested 14 times. Had cops come to my work to see where I had been when she claimed the house had been broken into. Cops always told her that I was not doing anything to violate the order. Her answer to that was to go to the magistrate and claim I had violated it and have an arrest warrant issued for me. I was arrested, had a trial and was again found to not be in violation. Cost me a night in jail and thousands of dollars and a lot of explaining to my boss and neighbors.
I suited her for malicious prosecution. The local women’s groups filed a brief with the court asking that the case be dismissed before being heard as allowing that case to move forward would discourage other women from filing protective orders. Cannot tell you just how much that pissed me off and turned me off to any of the previous support I used to give to women’s shelters and abused women’s groups. In any case, I won my suit. The judge caught her in a lie, a substantial lie about sending a copy of the protective order to my employer with copies of her unpaid bills.
She ended up getting NOTHING in the divorce, no alimony, no child support, no assets. She is still enraged about that and lets me know it in texts and emails all the time. My daughter has not spoken to her in 5 yrs and she worries that my ex will show up and stab me one of these days. She has been caught keying my car and putting screws under the tires of my girlfriend.
I have a fairly elaborate security system with cameras around the house and I keep a gun by my bed.
So, to be honest, I get kinda sick and tired about hearing about men who abuse women. Read the papers. Any day of the weak you can see stories of women killing their children or stabbing their husbands or boyfriends or hiring someone to do so. Lots of men are abused by their wives and girlfriends. But nobody gives a crap.
It’s not about demonizing men. It’s about protecting ourselves from men who hate and attack us for being females. Obviously, that’s not all men, but a large number of men aren’t all that interested in protesting violence against women, either.
If any man intervened to stop a transwoman from doing something inappropriate he would put himself at great risk – he would be pilloried by the media – but also very likely to be overcharged by police, etc. This is very much due to the work of the activist class to legitimize behaviours that were discouraged or considered shameful in the past. So being a drug addict is OK, stealing if you are poor is OK, showing the world your sexual fetish is OK, blocking traffic for some (progressive) cause is OK, sexualizing younger and younger people is OK.
Women aren’t “being erased”, although there is an attempt to undermine the basis of biological sex, which is rather different. The reason women feel unsafe is also partly due to the far greater opportunites they now have to live the lives that their intellect and character allows them to, thus placing them in situations they hitherto wouldn’t have found themselves. What would you suggest? Should they be allowed to work, travel, holiday unaccompanied by a male guardian, or not?
What, in fact, is the alternative to female agency? For men to hanker after a bygone age when it made them feel good about themselves by acting as “protectors” simply diminishes them too. We shouldn’t need that trope to feel good about ourselves. Many, in fact, don’t need it.
Hello gentlemen, lady here, agree this is a good point worth considering about all this demonising men, I understand your frustration Julian, I was on a thread a few days ago where, what I like to refer to as a ‘nutter’, had posted that male dominated work places were encouraging ‘testosterone fuelled abuse’, then blokes go home and beat their women because of this. They also suggested making men stay at home to care for children so a woman could go to work.
Now I’m a mother, I’ve worked in construction for over 10 years in the UK, I had to point out to them that I have never, ever been abused, intimidated or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable, in fact I’ve very much enjoyed it, there’s nothing stopping women in the UK from doing these jobs already, frequently, where a trade is male dominated, its for a reason, I then invited them to go to a site and attempt the jobs some of these guys do and also experience the complete lack of abuse. Also pointed out I want to raise my child, mothers are important and biologically equipped to raise children in ways that men are not.
These narratives are damaging our society. Some are portraying men as evil wife beaters or weirdos that want to get in your changing room, mothers irrelevant, motherhood into something that should be sneered at in favour of a ‘career’, and mixing everything up in very insane and non logical ways. They also paint the picture of a world for girls that is full of danger from men, where being financially dependent on a man so a family can be raised traditionally is a bad thing men will use to abuse you. All this is very worrying really, I think traditional family structures are important. I do not feel unsafe, erased or otherwise shat upon by a ‘patriarchy’.
By and large the UK is a safe place for EVERYONE already, we can’t give people any more rights than they already have. I get your frustration, some of the feminist lot have become as insane as the trans lobby.
If any man intervened to stop a transwoman from doing something inappropriate he would put himself at great risk – he would be pilloried by the media – but also very likely to be overcharged by police, etc. This is very much due to the work of the activist class to legitimize behaviours that were discouraged or considered shameful in the past. So being a drug addict is OK, stealing if you are poor is OK, showing the world your sexual fetish is OK, blocking traffic for some (progressive) cause is OK, sexualizing younger and younger people is OK.
The missing term here is ‘autogynephile’. These are men that feel arousal and euphoria when mistaken for women, so being accepted into a refuge is the height of pleasure for them. It is not a one-off, but the crown jewel.
Good word. Think I’ll use it when I go shopping at the weekend.
Don’t blame RW if you get your face slapped (or worse!).
Don’t blame RW if you get your face slapped (or worse!).
Blanchard describes it as men getting aroused by identifying as the women they’d like to have sex with. He says 90% of trans women are autogynephiles.
That’s why the majority of trans-identified males keep their p***s, as there’s no arousal/ climax without it. And growing a pair of ‘breasts’ to play with, as well as having a p***s, well that’s even more fun. Jacking off in a womens toilet cubicle with real women close by, well, of course, society is fully enabling a fetish.
That’s why the majority of trans-identified males keep their p***s, as there’s no arousal/ climax without it. And growing a pair of ‘breasts’ to play with, as well as having a p***s, well that’s even more fun. Jacking off in a womens toilet cubicle with real women close by, well, of course, society is fully enabling a fetish.
Good word. Think I’ll use it when I go shopping at the weekend.
Blanchard describes it as men getting aroused by identifying as the women they’d like to have sex with. He says 90% of trans women are autogynephiles.
I never cease to be amazed at the cruelty of fundamentalists who think that because they believe in an ideology everyone must. I never cease to be horrified at the hatred and cruelty meted out by hateful and cruel people on the minds and bodies of others. I never cease to get angry when hearing of mankind’s inhumanity to mankind. I am always cheered by the positive attitude of those who suffer at the hands of fundamentalist, hateful, cruel, cruel and inhuman people. I remain optimistic.
If your argument is that male predation is the root cause of the problem, being dismissive of female agency by requiring them to have “guards” or guardians spectacularly misses the point.
“diminish the power of the kind of men who normally would have been able to safeguard society “
I see you’ve already received your first red mark. It’s unfashionable, in fact heresy, to make such remarks these days. But it’s worth thinking about. Because if such men do not exist, or if they never did, then who are the men around us today? Are they any better or less then those “guards”? And if they are better, or at least as good, then how have we reached the point where women not only feel unsafe but are being erased?
The missing term here is ‘autogynephile’. These are men that feel arousal and euphoria when mistaken for women, so being accepted into a refuge is the height of pleasure for them. It is not a one-off, but the crown jewel.
I never cease to be amazed at the cruelty of fundamentalists who think that because they believe in an ideology everyone must. I never cease to be horrified at the hatred and cruelty meted out by hateful and cruel people on the minds and bodies of others. I never cease to get angry when hearing of mankind’s inhumanity to mankind. I am always cheered by the positive attitude of those who suffer at the hands of fundamentalist, hateful, cruel, cruel and inhuman people. I remain optimistic.
Are you really that naive? The purpose of transgender ideology has always been about creepy men gaining access to women’s and children’s ‘spaces’. Our increasingly psychopathic governments would like nothing more than to remove the special protections women used to enjoy under the guise of Equality for all. Unfortunately it was feminists like you that did all they could to ridicule and diminish the power of the kind of men who normally would have been able to safeguard society from the predations of these disturbed individuals. In killing off the guards you allowed the inmates of the lunatic asylum to go free.
I’m going to offer a potentially risky opinion here…but what the hell.
Trans people, by definition, are mentally ill. Cuz there are only two options here.
If you are TRULY born with a female brain in a male body, then that is clearly a birth defect. Anything that requires massive amounts of surgery and drugs to align your body with your brain, is a birth defect. How anyone in such a situation could NOT have various forms of serious mental illness, depression, anxiety etc., is beyond me.
OR…..You are NOT truly born with a female brain in a male body but feel compelled to act as though you were, then there must exist some underlying pathology.
In either case, you are dealing with someone who is experiencing some form of mental crisis and is BY DEFINITION, experiencing some level of self loathing that drives a kind of rage. I think this is true for men that want to be women and for women that want to be men.
I will take a further risk….not that I really care all that much…but…
I blame liberal women for this disaster. It seems to me that women, liberal women and white liberal women in particular, have an overwhelming desire to attain some sort of social perfection where nobody is allowed to feel bad, everything is rainbows and cute puppies and nobody has to cry, except at Hallmark commercials when they have their period. This group is particularly good at getting themselves fired up and browbeating anyone who disagrees or appears to disagree with them. Generally, this group is very very conscious of being perceived as “good” and will go to the furthest extremes to prove their bonifides as victims and as being the most “compassionate”. They will push the boundaries of common sense to demonstrate social virtue. And….I am convinced that a lot of the guys that go along with them are doing so just to improve their chances of getting laid, avoid being lectured to and nagged and are kinda weak.
Trans people were just the next sad puppies that needed saving and fellow travelers on the victim-hood train. In their world view, anyone who makes the trans people feel bad is no better than the people who support hunting baby seals or advocates for fossil fuels.
Do not blame men for this, at least not the vast majority of us. Apart from the mentally ill ones that think they are not men, you do not see us out advocating and protesting for allowing biological men in locker rooms, bathrooms, or any women’s center where our wives and daughters are going. You do not see us advocating for biological men to be allowed to compete against women. NO….the people you see out doing so are largely women and largely white women.
As a straight, white, father of a daughter, I hate this stuff. Glad to vote to curb it. But this is a fight women have to have among themselves before there is anything that men can contribute. As long as there are women out there advocating for these things, calling us misogynists and neanderthals, privileged cys gendered whit men, among other things, for holding the views that we do, most of us are going to sit on the sidelines. Once women have a strong consensus among themselves about this, then I think we can jump in and be supportive. Until then, all we do is risk attacks on ourselves.
I am going to risk my status as a white cys gendered woman here, but I totally agree with you.
No offense, but don’t use the words the “trans” made up to stigmatize others. They invented the term ‘cys’ for heterosexuals. Controlling the language used is power.
No offense, but don’t use the words the “trans” made up to stigmatize others. They invented the term ‘cys’ for heterosexuals. Controlling the language used is power.
I am going to risk my status as a white cys gendered woman here, but I totally agree with you.
I’m going to offer a potentially risky opinion here…but what the hell.
Trans people, by definition, are mentally ill. Cuz there are only two options here.
If you are TRULY born with a female brain in a male body, then that is clearly a birth defect. Anything that requires massive amounts of surgery and drugs to align your body with your brain, is a birth defect. How anyone in such a situation could NOT have various forms of serious mental illness, depression, anxiety etc., is beyond me.
OR…..You are NOT truly born with a female brain in a male body but feel compelled to act as though you were, then there must exist some underlying pathology.
In either case, you are dealing with someone who is experiencing some form of mental crisis and is BY DEFINITION, experiencing some level of self loathing that drives a kind of rage. I think this is true for men that want to be women and for women that want to be men.
I will take a further risk….not that I really care all that much…but…
I blame liberal women for this disaster. It seems to me that women, liberal women and white liberal women in particular, have an overwhelming desire to attain some sort of social perfection where nobody is allowed to feel bad, everything is rainbows and cute puppies and nobody has to cry, except at Hallmark commercials when they have their period. This group is particularly good at getting themselves fired up and browbeating anyone who disagrees or appears to disagree with them. Generally, this group is very very conscious of being perceived as “good” and will go to the furthest extremes to prove their bonifides as victims and as being the most “compassionate”. They will push the boundaries of common sense to demonstrate social virtue. And….I am convinced that a lot of the guys that go along with them are doing so just to improve their chances of getting laid, avoid being lectured to and nagged and are kinda weak.
Trans people were just the next sad puppies that needed saving and fellow travelers on the victim-hood train. In their world view, anyone who makes the trans people feel bad is no better than the people who support hunting baby seals or advocates for fossil fuels.
Do not blame men for this, at least not the vast majority of us. Apart from the mentally ill ones that think they are not men, you do not see us out advocating and protesting for allowing biological men in locker rooms, bathrooms, or any women’s center where our wives and daughters are going. You do not see us advocating for biological men to be allowed to compete against women. NO….the people you see out doing so are largely women and largely white women.
As a straight, white, father of a daughter, I hate this stuff. Glad to vote to curb it. But this is a fight women have to have among themselves before there is anything that men can contribute. As long as there are women out there advocating for these things, calling us misogynists and neanderthals, privileged cys gendered whit men, among other things, for holding the views that we do, most of us are going to sit on the sidelines. Once women have a strong consensus among themselves about this, then I think we can jump in and be supportive. Until then, all we do is risk attacks on ourselves.
My Women’s Equality Party candidate in recent local elections was a man with a large beard. I have yet to ascertain his preferred pronouns …
Words fail me, sometimes.
It was an eye opener, that’s for sure. Not many voted for him.
It was an eye opener, that’s for sure. Not many voted for him.
Words fail me, sometimes.
My Women’s Equality Party candidate in recent local elections was a man with a large beard. I have yet to ascertain his preferred pronouns …
Thank goodness for the clarity offered by Julie Bindel – and Karen Ingala Smith. Sonia Sodha also contributed an interesting article in ‘The Observer’ recently: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-will-endanger-women-if-she-opens-single-sex-spaces-almost-everone
It’s the patriarchy that are oppressing women. That wicked Sturgeon man and his army of male right wing SNP acolytes.
I read the article that you linked to; the arrogance of the woman knows no bounds. I found particularly worrying Ms Sturgeon’s reported comment that the findings of an English paediatrician (i.e. the Cass report) has no connection with Scottish children; Scottish children must suffer because the paediatrician was English. How fortunate for Scottish people that Alexander Fleming was Scottish.
A stray thought on the importance of being Scottish to the SNP. After independence, will Adam Smith be found on Scottish banknotes?
I mean, he’s Scottish, and he “literally invented capitalism.”
A stray thought on the importance of being Scottish to the SNP. After independence, will Adam Smith be found on Scottish banknotes?
I mean, he’s Scottish, and he “literally invented capitalism.”
It’s the patriarchy that are oppressing women. That wicked Sturgeon man and his army of male right wing SNP acolytes.
I read the article that you linked to; the arrogance of the woman knows no bounds. I found particularly worrying Ms Sturgeon’s reported comment that the findings of an English paediatrician (i.e. the Cass report) has no connection with Scottish children; Scottish children must suffer because the paediatrician was English. How fortunate for Scottish people that Alexander Fleming was Scottish.
Thank goodness for the clarity offered by Julie Bindel – and Karen Ingala Smith. Sonia Sodha also contributed an interesting article in ‘The Observer’ recently: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-will-endanger-women-if-she-opens-single-sex-spaces-almost-everone
“Why do women’s spaces still need defending?”
REVENGE ! Have you considered, it might ‘just’ be revenge, Julie ?
Activists (female), have spent the last 50-60 years ‘actively’ destroying and denying ‘men only’ spaces, have you considered, it might just be men getting their own back ?
Less flippantly, it goes without saying, even in my addled ‘pale, stale, male’ misogynistic dotage, and I’m sure, in a ‘paternalistic’ (boo/hiss) way, most, the vast majority of (Western centric) men agree, women SHOULD have ‘SAFE SPACES’ (Yuk ! How I’ve come to loath that phrase).
Activists (female) are maybe, rather than the patriarchy, as much to blame, hitching, or allowing to be hitched, all sorts of fellow travellers (allies) to their cause, presumably “My enemies, enemy, is my friend”, and just like the Soviets after WW2, they don’t always stay that way (Feminists marching in support of Hamas, or BBC ‘Woman’s Hour’ promoting the Hijab as a form of female empowerment, spring to mind).
I could go on (cut off mid flow), it’s icy out and I need to take the kids to the school bus ( unfortunately Unheard doesn’t save ‘ramblings’ for more ‘considered’ contemplation,
Alternatively it may just be “Hell hath no fury like…………………..”
…a trans woman scorned.”
…a trans woman scorned.”
Alternatively it may just be “Hell hath no fury like…………………..”
“Why do women’s spaces still need defending?”
REVENGE ! Have you considered, it might ‘just’ be revenge, Julie ?
Activists (female), have spent the last 50-60 years ‘actively’ destroying and denying ‘men only’ spaces, have you considered, it might just be men getting their own back ?
Less flippantly, it goes without saying, even in my addled ‘pale, stale, male’ misogynistic dotage, and I’m sure, in a ‘paternalistic’ (boo/hiss) way, most, the vast majority of (Western centric) men agree, women SHOULD have ‘SAFE SPACES’ (Yuk ! How I’ve come to loath that phrase).
Activists (female) are maybe, rather than the patriarchy, as much to blame, hitching, or allowing to be hitched, all sorts of fellow travellers (allies) to their cause, presumably “My enemies, enemy, is my friend”, and just like the Soviets after WW2, they don’t always stay that way (Feminists marching in support of Hamas, or BBC ‘Woman’s Hour’ promoting the Hijab as a form of female empowerment, spring to mind).
I could go on (cut off mid flow), it’s icy out and I need to take the kids to the school bus ( unfortunately Unheard doesn’t save ‘ramblings’ for more ‘considered’ contemplation,
I would have far, far more sympathy for women having women only spaces if third-wave Feminists hadn’t spent two decades demanding that men be denied men only spaces.
.
I would have far, far more sympathy for women having women only spaces if third-wave Feminists hadn’t spent two decades demanding that men be denied men only spaces.
.
Less than ten years ago, Julie Bindel and her fellow Radfems wanted to do away with gender. Now their own radical tactics have been turned on them by an even more lunatic group, they don’t like being on the receiving end of the same medicine.”How do we dismantle gender? ““We have to get rid of it. There is no point looking at reforming it. It would be like saying we could reform the Tory party. We just need to abolish and obliterate it.”
“We need to stop talking about it like it’s a thing. We need to start laughing at those that pretend that it has somehow replaced biological sex, and stop being afraid of pointing out that the two are completely different and that one actually doesn’t exist outside of male dominance and women’s subordination. Because all gender is, is an imposition of subordination on women, and the opposite of that of course is the dominance of men, who get privilege by being born male, and we get the opposite. So I think we have to just start laughing at it, and not by wearing a tutu and workmen’s boots. But by actually by saying, this thing is actually not real.
“It is a bit like the Flat Earth theory. We will hopefully in years to come be laughing at the notion that we actually believed it was a tangible thing.”
Julie Bindel, 2015
http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel
The rest of this article is even more radical, but that’s the misandrist bit, so that’s OK, then. The point is that now the RadFems have their own radical tactics turned on them by an even more lunatic group, they don’t like being on the receiving end of the same medicine.Who would ever have guessed that Feminists have double standards?
Less than ten years ago, Julie Bindel and her fellow Radfems wanted to do away with gender. Now their own radical tactics have been turned on them by an even more lunatic group, they don’t like being on the receiving end of the same medicine.”How do we dismantle gender? ““We have to get rid of it. There is no point looking at reforming it. It would be like saying we could reform the Tory party. We just need to abolish and obliterate it.”
“We need to stop talking about it like it’s a thing. We need to start laughing at those that pretend that it has somehow replaced biological sex, and stop being afraid of pointing out that the two are completely different and that one actually doesn’t exist outside of male dominance and women’s subordination. Because all gender is, is an imposition of subordination on women, and the opposite of that of course is the dominance of men, who get privilege by being born male, and we get the opposite. So I think we have to just start laughing at it, and not by wearing a tutu and workmen’s boots. But by actually by saying, this thing is actually not real.
“It is a bit like the Flat Earth theory. We will hopefully in years to come be laughing at the notion that we actually believed it was a tangible thing.”
Julie Bindel, 2015
http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel
The rest of this article is even more radical, but that’s the misandrist bit, so that’s OK, then. The point is that now the RadFems have their own radical tactics turned on them by an even more lunatic group, they don’t like being on the receiving end of the same medicine.Who would ever have guessed that Feminists have double standards?
There are some angry men in these comments who are more than happy to point the finger at women while the house is burning down around them. Do you think these zealots will be happy once they’re allowed to wee all over our toilet seats, expose themselves in our changing rooms, rape us in jails and hospital beds, then give us no refuge after they have traumatised and broken us? The trans activists hate women so much they must destroy and replace us. What then? Will they be satisfied? They are already coming to mutilate and sterilise our children. Men, these are your children too. These are your daughters, your sons, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, your babies. How can you wash your hands of them and keep looking backwards to say ‘you did this to yourselves, women!’??
Nobody is saying that women did this to themselves. Most women had nothing whatsoever to do with this fiasco. The liability lies with feminists, not women.
And yes, men are angry about this – but for all the right reasons.
Nobody is saying that women did this to themselves. Most women had nothing whatsoever to do with this fiasco. The liability lies with feminists, not women.
And yes, men are angry about this – but for all the right reasons.
There are some angry men in these comments who are more than happy to point the finger at women while the house is burning down around them. Do you think these zealots will be happy once they’re allowed to wee all over our toilet seats, expose themselves in our changing rooms, rape us in jails and hospital beds, then give us no refuge after they have traumatised and broken us? The trans activists hate women so much they must destroy and replace us. What then? Will they be satisfied? They are already coming to mutilate and sterilise our children. Men, these are your children too. These are your daughters, your sons, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, your babies. How can you wash your hands of them and keep looking backwards to say ‘you did this to yourselves, women!’??
“Why do women’s spaces still need defending?”
The question contains a fallacy: there is no “still” involved. The need to defend women-only spaces has emerged lately: no defence of this concept has been required before now.
The answer to the question if we remove the fallacy is that women-only spaces, having been turned from a universally accepted social convention into a sex-based right by Progressive ideologues, are now subject to conditions imposed through intersectional claims. Or to put it another way, the cult of victimhood which is an essential component of feminist ideology created a gaping hole in the rights to women-only spaces that could be accessed by anyone possessing a trump card in the intersectional deck: ie transsexuals.
The lunacy of the situation – which all rational human beings can readily appreciate – is compounded by the fact that some of the people historically responsible for this mess are now acting as if they deserve a debt of gratitude for belatedly realising that the consequences are unacceptable.
Feminists, such as the author, should not be asking the question posed above: they should be answerable for it – and they are not answerable to themselves, but to everyone.
Even men, perish the thought.
“Why do women’s spaces still need defending?”
The question contains a fallacy: there is no “still” involved. The need to defend women-only spaces has emerged lately: no defence of this concept has been required before now.
The answer to the question if we remove the fallacy is that women-only spaces, having been turned from a universally accepted social convention into a sex-based right by Progressive ideologues, are now subject to conditions imposed through intersectional claims. Or to put it another way, the cult of victimhood which is an essential component of feminist ideology created a gaping hole in the rights to women-only spaces that could be accessed by anyone possessing a trump card in the intersectional deck: ie transsexuals.
The lunacy of the situation – which all rational human beings can readily appreciate – is compounded by the fact that some of the people historically responsible for this mess are now acting as if they deserve a debt of gratitude for belatedly realising that the consequences are unacceptable.
Feminists, such as the author, should not be asking the question posed above: they should be answerable for it – and they are not answerable to themselves, but to everyone.
Even men, perish the thought.
It’s a bit difficult to see what is going on here in the blizzard of activist groups and politicians and government programs and various colors of the LBGT+ rainbow. But one thing stands out.
Julie Bindel is a woman, and, I say:
“Women expect to be protected.”
But yeah, it gets a bit complicated when you have done your best over the last century to demolish the one institution that was devoted to the protection of women down the ages. I am talking about marriage.
Julie Bindel is a published writer. To me, that makes her one of the privileged. Now I am very interested the whys and wherefores of privileged women, and, I think, there is nothing quite like a Trollope novel for observing and dissecting and commenting on the ways of privileged women, from Mrs. Proudie to the Countess de Courcy.
I would say, as a profound sexist, that those Trollope women had a better deal than today’s educated woman. Everyone treated them with kid gloves, if they knew what was good for them.
Even sweetie pie Mary Thorne knew how to take care of herself. And as for Miss Dunstable!
You could say they were protected.
It’s a bit difficult to see what is going on here in the blizzard of activist groups and politicians and government programs and various colors of the LBGT+ rainbow. But one thing stands out.
Julie Bindel is a woman, and, I say:
“Women expect to be protected.”
But yeah, it gets a bit complicated when you have done your best over the last century to demolish the one institution that was devoted to the protection of women down the ages. I am talking about marriage.
Julie Bindel is a published writer. To me, that makes her one of the privileged. Now I am very interested the whys and wherefores of privileged women, and, I think, there is nothing quite like a Trollope novel for observing and dissecting and commenting on the ways of privileged women, from Mrs. Proudie to the Countess de Courcy.
I would say, as a profound sexist, that those Trollope women had a better deal than today’s educated woman. Everyone treated them with kid gloves, if they knew what was good for them.
Even sweetie pie Mary Thorne knew how to take care of herself. And as for Miss Dunstable!
You could say they were protected.
Men are much more frequently the victims of male violence than women. Perhaps Miss Bindel could remove her blinkers and join a wider movement seeking to prevent male violence against anyone.
Bindel is not wearing blinkers, she knows exactly what she is doing. As a preda tory lesbian, who seeks to persuade suggestible girls and young women that their natural heterosexuality puts them at risk, it’s in her interests to exaggerate the threat from men so that they are more receptive to her message, and attracted to her own sexuality. Her concern is entirely self-serving.
Anyone else notice this is a one way street . People with penises want to get into women spaces.
people with vaginas are not rushing to get into mens spaces.
Women have been campaigning to eradicate men’s spaces for years. Very few still exist. They don’t need to be “rushing to get into men’s spaces” because they already have access.
It’s also unnecessary for them to do so if they are looking for action. All they need to do is go to a bar or club and wait to be approached.
Really?
So how come men-only clubs were forced to admit women, whilst women-only clubs stayed women-only?
How come men-only colleges were forced to admit women, whilst women-only colleges remained women-only?
How come “The Boy Scouts” was forced to become “The Scouts”, and admit girls, whilst The Guides remained girls only?
Radfems have been rushing to get into any remaining men’s spaces for decades.
.
I think he s talking about the current trans space ‘invasion’ as opposed to the previous ‘invasion’ of men’s spaces by women.
Ah. You mean, selective amnesia and double-standards?
Ah. You mean, selective amnesia and double-standards?
I think he s talking about the current trans space ‘invasion’ as opposed to the previous ‘invasion’ of men’s spaces by women.
Well of course not. Male privilege is modern myth that survives on the mostly-inaccurate notion that men used to have more power and privilege than women. In fact back in the days when men were in charge, it was a tiny elite of men who had all the power and privilege, while the vast majority of men were too busy mining coal, farming, getting killed on the battlefield or simply dying of starvation to have any time for complaining about the arrangement. The notion that the patriarchy existed as an orchestrated system for the general hegemony of men as a sex is baseless.
The feminist historic claim of descent from the suffragettes is a case in point: in the popular imagining, the suffragettes bravely overturned centuries of denial of enfranchisement that until then had been the sole preserve of men. In fact this is nonsense: women of property had had the vote for centuries already, and men without property only acquired the vote a few years before the franchise was extended to women – men got the vote in 1918 as a universal suffrage right, women by 1928.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the gradual but continuous extension of the franchise that was already underway prior to suffragette activism would have led to universal female suffrage anyway.
Women have been campaigning to eradicate men’s spaces for years. Very few still exist. They don’t need to be “rushing to get into men’s spaces” because they already have access.
It’s also unnecessary for them to do so if they are looking for action. All they need to do is go to a bar or club and wait to be approached.
Really?
So how come men-only clubs were forced to admit women, whilst women-only clubs stayed women-only?
How come men-only colleges were forced to admit women, whilst women-only colleges remained women-only?
How come “The Boy Scouts” was forced to become “The Scouts”, and admit girls, whilst The Guides remained girls only?
Radfems have been rushing to get into any remaining men’s spaces for decades.
.
Well of course not. Male privilege is modern myth that survives on the mostly-inaccurate notion that men used to have more power and privilege than women. In fact back in the days when men were in charge, it was a tiny elite of men who had all the power and privilege, while the vast majority of men were too busy mining coal, farming, getting killed on the battlefield or simply dying of starvation to have any time for complaining about the arrangement. The notion that the patriarchy existed as an orchestrated system for the general hegemony of men as a sex is baseless.
The feminist historic claim of descent from the suffragettes is a case in point: in the popular imagining, the suffragettes bravely overturned centuries of denial of enfranchisement that until then had been the sole preserve of men. In fact this is nonsense: women of property had had the vote for centuries already, and men without property only acquired the vote a few years before the franchise was extended to women – men got the vote in 1918 as a universal suffrage right, women by 1928.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the gradual but continuous extension of the franchise that was already underway prior to suffragette activism would have led to universal female suffrage anyway.
As a man I don’t need protection from women against other men. Paternalism only operates (and should operate) in one direction.
Bindel is not wearing blinkers, she knows exactly what she is doing. As a preda tory lesbian, who seeks to persuade suggestible girls and young women that their natural heterosexuality puts them at risk, it’s in her interests to exaggerate the threat from men so that they are more receptive to her message, and attracted to her own sexuality. Her concern is entirely self-serving.
Anyone else notice this is a one way street . People with penises want to get into women spaces.
people with vaginas are not rushing to get into mens spaces.
As a man I don’t need protection from women against other men. Paternalism only operates (and should operate) in one direction.
Men are much more frequently the victims of male violence than women. Perhaps Miss Bindel could remove her blinkers and join a wider movement seeking to prevent male violence against anyone.
From reading this article my overwhelming impression is that this fight is between and among women. The fight may be over men / trans-women, but it’s pro and con women fighting it out… writing books and holding meetings.
The author also seems to make the implicit assumption that all trans-women are predators. Surely the majority are innocent and only a small percentage pose any danger.
A second assumption, implicit in the author’s writing, is that all women who come into contact with these trans-women are vulnerable. Again, surely not all women are vulnerable and incapable of defending themselves against trans-women.
Given these two factors the probability of a predatory trans-woman coming into contact with a vulnerable woman must be much smaller than the article suggests. Perhaps this is the reasoning behind the decision of the Women’s Equality Party.
As for abortion, the appropriate course of action that men should take on this issue is to do what feminists demand… stand back, don’t interfere and let women fight it out among themselves.
That is not how it works, unfortunately. You speak as if men and women were meeting at random, like atoms in a gas. In fact much the same could be made about paedophiles and vulnerable children. In reality predators will find and seek out opportunities to get access to vulnerable victims. If the door is open, the exact people you do not want will make sure they get through it.
And that is without even considering the insecurity and discomfort women, vulnerable or otherwise, might have from sharing their intimate spaces with a self-selecting group of, let us say, biological males.
I don’t equate adult women, who ostensibly possess agency, with children. Obviously the latter need and deserve protection.
Treating women as helpless children is demeaning
I think you are missing the point, it’s not even really about transwomen, it’s about leaving the door open for predators who would use these laws, such as self ID, to access victims easily. It’s a biological fact that women are physically weaker (and therefore vulnerable) to men, nothing to do with treating women ‘as helpless children’. Do you need to see the stats on rape, domestic abuse, violent crime, stalking, coercive control, femicide…? Or are those demeaning also?
And actually, I think most women, classed as ‘vulnerable’ or not, would struggle to defend themselves against a transwoman, since they are biologically male, wherein lies the problem.
I don’t equate adult women, who ostensibly possess agency, with children. Obviously the latter need and deserve protection.
Treating women as helpless children is demeaning
I think you are missing the point, it’s not even really about transwomen, it’s about leaving the door open for predators who would use these laws, such as self ID, to access victims easily. It’s a biological fact that women are physically weaker (and therefore vulnerable) to men, nothing to do with treating women ‘as helpless children’. Do you need to see the stats on rape, domestic abuse, violent crime, stalking, coercive control, femicide…? Or are those demeaning also?
And actually, I think most women, classed as ‘vulnerable’ or not, would struggle to defend themselves against a transwoman, since they are biologically male, wherein lies the problem.
That is not how it works, unfortunately. You speak as if men and women were meeting at random, like atoms in a gas. In fact much the same could be made about paedophiles and vulnerable children. In reality predators will find and seek out opportunities to get access to vulnerable victims. If the door is open, the exact people you do not want will make sure they get through it.
And that is without even considering the insecurity and discomfort women, vulnerable or otherwise, might have from sharing their intimate spaces with a self-selecting group of, let us say, biological males.
From reading this article my overwhelming impression is that this fight is between and among women. The fight may be over men / trans-women, but it’s pro and con women fighting it out… writing books and holding meetings.
The author also seems to make the implicit assumption that all trans-women are predators. Surely the majority are innocent and only a small percentage pose any danger.
A second assumption, implicit in the author’s writing, is that all women who come into contact with these trans-women are vulnerable. Again, surely not all women are vulnerable and incapable of defending themselves against trans-women.
Given these two factors the probability of a predatory trans-woman coming into contact with a vulnerable woman must be much smaller than the article suggests. Perhaps this is the reasoning behind the decision of the Women’s Equality Party.
As for abortion, the appropriate course of action that men should take on this issue is to do what feminists demand… stand back, don’t interfere and let women fight it out among themselves.
I personally know a woman who has four children from three different partners. She is constantly worried about violence. If she is in the house with her latest partner and a previous version calls to see his kids, there is always anger. She gets the blame from everybody.
Isn’t that right. She is to blame.
Nobody ever writes articles about women’s faults. It is always the evil men. The situation is as woke as you can get but woke is a feature of the right, not the left. The author is a journalist who is succesful. She is making money from articles which she can sell. If she wrote articles blaming women, she would no longer be successful.
If men are violent, yes, it’s always their fault. No excuses. What do you suggest? Women should only be allowed a single partner their whole lives so that men don’t feel the need to be violent?
Serial monogamy comes with disadvantages. Who knew?
Serial monogamy comes with disadvantages. Who knew?
I suggest that her only fault (well she could have other faults that you have not elucidated here) is bad judgement, but the penalty for that is not being subjected to physical violence.
I can’t be bothered to dig them up but I believe there is research out there, that a certain subset of women knowingly go after men that abuse them. I once dated a woman whose previous partner regularly beat her. She once criticized me for never beating her, claiming that my lack of violence toward her showed how little I actually cared about her. I think someone wrote a book about it called ‘The Five Love Languages’.
From what I recall of Erin Pizzey’s writings, she would agree with you.
From what I recall of Erin Pizzey’s writings, she would agree with you.
If men are violent, yes, it’s always their fault. No excuses. What do you suggest? Women should only be allowed a single partner their whole lives so that men don’t feel the need to be violent?
I suggest that her only fault (well she could have other faults that you have not elucidated here) is bad judgement, but the penalty for that is not being subjected to physical violence.
I can’t be bothered to dig them up but I believe there is research out there, that a certain subset of women knowingly go after men that abuse them. I once dated a woman whose previous partner regularly beat her. She once criticized me for never beating her, claiming that my lack of violence toward her showed how little I actually cared about her. I think someone wrote a book about it called ‘The Five Love Languages’.
I personally know a woman who has four children from three different partners. She is constantly worried about violence. If she is in the house with her latest partner and a previous version calls to see his kids, there is always anger. She gets the blame from everybody.
Isn’t that right. She is to blame.
Nobody ever writes articles about women’s faults. It is always the evil men. The situation is as woke as you can get but woke is a feature of the right, not the left. The author is a journalist who is succesful. She is making money from articles which she can sell. If she wrote articles blaming women, she would no longer be successful.