X Close

The new snobbery towards feminist activism Rape victims are the Medusas of the modern age

The latest battle in feminism's civil war. (Gari Garaialde/Getty Images)

The latest battle in feminism's civil war. (Gari Garaialde/Getty Images)


August 14, 2023   6 mins

In 2017, Gina Martin was the victim of a sexual offence that was not, at the time, a sexual offence. Martin was attending a festival when a stranger took a photograph up her skirt without her consent. For her, this was the moment when “politics became personal”; when she decided, with no prior experience of feminist activism, to start campaigning to change the law. It was “the most difficult work I have done, or will ever do”, she recently wrote in the Guardian. She was ultimately successful: in April 2019, “upskirting” was listed as a criminal offence under the Voyeurism Act, with perpetrators facing up to two years’ imprisonment and a place on the sex offenders register.

What Martin achieved in such a short space of time is remarkable. Like the criminalisation of marital rape, it is a change that forces us to reconsider social norms. When it comes to the body — particularly the female body — what is and is not illegal matters. It shapes how we understand both ourselves and how we expect to be treated by others. Following the law change, guidance on upskirting was added to the Department of Education’s Keeping Children Safe in Education booklet. This has not led to the imprisonment of multiple snap-happy teenage boys; its punitive impact is minimal. But as my partner, a teacher, tells me, there’s now an awareness in schools that it is unacceptable to dismiss upskirting on the basis that “boys will be boys”.

So, Martin deserves to feel proud of her activism. Yet in both her recent Guardian piece and her new book, No Offence, But, one gets the impression that she now feels torn. Partly, this is because she is now defined as “the upskirting girl”, her activism reduced to what was, for her, an experience of violation. But Martin also seems to be subtly distancing herself from what she actually achieved. “I’m proud that my political activism has had a lasting positive impact,” she writes, “but I also have a complex relationship with it.”

This complex relationship is very obvious throughout No Offence, But. Billed as a progressive handbook offering “a space to explore the problematic, distracting or lazy comments we so often encounter”, its chapters each focus on a particular phrase: “Not all men”, “I see no colour”, “I don’t do politics”. Some are written by Martin, others by guest contributors. The tone is one of preaching to the converted. In her own sections, Martin is keen to emphasise her growth, but she also seems unduly embarrassed by her former self. Both her furious feminist awakening and the visible, measurable achievements that ensued are suddenly positioned as somewhat immature, unsophisticated and, worst of all, privileged.

There’s a certain strand of social justice activism that is not always kind to feminists who get their hands dirty. Ten years ago, when Caroline Criado Perez fought a successful battle to have Jane Austen appear on the new £10 note, her detractors were keen to denounce hers as “banknote feminism”. Criado Perez’s campaign had stressed the importance of female visibility and heritage; her critics zeroed in on the fact that Austen’s image would be appearing on money, something that marginalised women sorely lacked. A straightforward achievement was belittled because it was associated with the Bank of England.

In a similar fashion, feminists who work with, or to change, the criminal justice system can find themselves denounced as “carceral feminists”. “The thrust of the accusation,” writes Julie Bindel in Feminism For Women, “is that those of us that want consequences for men who rape and otherwise abuse women are unconcerned with the fact that the prison system is a problem in general.” The accusers tend to ignore the fact that many feminist organisations, such as Bindel’s own Justice for Women, state that they would prefer it if prisons were not necessary, accepting them only as a last resort, given that no one has come up with anything more effective. As Bindel argues: “It should be possible to challenge the race and class hierarchies upheld by the criminal justice system” without putting women at risk by junking it completely.

Indeed, it is possible. But if one does not wish to bear the taint of complicity, it is uncomfortable. Unfortunately for Martin, she seems to have realised this only after she succeeded in making the world a safer place for women.

Alison Phipps, a sociologist at Newcastle University, has made herself a leading voice against so-called carceral feminists. In her 2021 book Me, Not You, she includes Martin’s upskirting law in a list of things that should be opposed on the basis that they “move us away from our ultimate goals”. (She comments, disdainfully, that the new law was announced “to loud applause from mainstream feminists”, because if there’s one thing worse than being practical, it’s being practical and mainstream.) There’s a perfect world out there, and by making it illegal for a man to stick a camera between your legs and take a photo of your crotch, Martin has apparently made it that much harder for us to find it.

Me, Not You is a difficult book to read, because it is so staggeringly misogynistic. Women who seek legal solutions to sexual violence are routinely compared to racists and fascists, their desire for justice dismissed as an unhealthy reaction to trauma. “Being raped,” writes Phipps, “often involves a visceral fear of death, whether the rape is physically violent or not — it is what makes us freeze, instead of fighting back… And if we freeze, perhaps we need our ‘kill’ after the experience is over. Unlike Arya Stark, we do not do our own killing. Instead, we ask the ‘Angry Dad’ or ‘White Knight’ of the state or institution to do it for us.”

I won’t quote the rest of that paragraph, but suffice it to say that Phipps uses the fact that accusations of rape by white women have been used to justify violence against black men to argue that “allegations of sexual violence” — by which she means real ones, as well as false — are “tools of oppression”.

Rape victims have long been demonised, the narrative being that their violation has left them damaged, vengeful and morally suspect. Think, for instance, of Medusa, known not for what was done to her, but for the literal monster it made of her. Centuries later, these myths are still with us. In Down Girl, Kate Manne describes how the rape victim who goes to court “is envisaged not as playing her difficult part in a criminal proceeding, but rather as seeking personal vengeance and moral retribution”. Contrary to Phipps’s claims, imputing vengeful urges to rape victims is not intersectional feminism — or any form of feminism — but the same old patriarchy.

Then again, in the non-carceral world that Phipps envisages, there would be no rape anyway: “There would be no national borders. There would be no prisons. There would be accountability, but not vengeance. … There would not be powerful groups dominating more marginalised ones through violence.”

One has to admire the chutzpah of a middle-class white woman writing a book that dismisses feminists who engage with the criminal justice system as “bourgeois white women” before offering up John Lennon’s Imagine as a radical solution to injustice. Then again, what is a feminism that retreats from engagement with tainted institutions left with, other than imagination?

In her chapter critiquing the phrase “the police are here to protect us”, Martin indulges in a similar form of straw-manning, only using her younger self, rather than other feminists, as the target: “I believed the police force to be a heroic institution that worked tirelessly to make society safer. They found the murderers and locked them up, they stopped violence before it got out of hand.” Did Martin really have such an idealised vision of the world? Or is it just necessary for her to pretend she did, in order to justify her earlier work? Has she heard the other feminists whispering behind her back, and decided to redeem herself, by rejecting carceral complicity?

I find it hard to believe that someone who went on to achieve so much was ever as naïve as she now implies. And I find it hard to read her undermining her activism. “It wasn’t until I was in my mid-twenties that I started to be more of a critical thinker,” she writes — meaning “someone who recognises cultural, social and geographical contexts and applies theories”, as opposed to someone whose analysis is “determined mostly by their automatic emotional response, their personal context and existing opinions”. Of course, Martin’s anger at being upskirted was an “automatic emotional response”; her highly successful legal campaign was rooted in her “personal context and existing opinions”. But now, it seems, she knows better than to let her feelings get the better of her.

How is this anything other than a step backwards? Society has long taught women to consider our emotional responses unreliable, to view ourselves as less rational than men, less capable of seeing things objectively. The feminist claim that “the personal is political” is turned against us, as though somehow, anything that is too informed by what has happened in our own lives cannot be truly relevant to anyone else.

In this feminism designed for utopia, theory is always more attractive than flesh-and-blood human beings, especially the female body, which is too messy, too unsophisticated, too implicated. It is not a coincidence, I think, that anti-carceral feminism finds common cause with trans activism, both movements raging against the inconvenient women who continue to assert the boundaries of their bodies and the validity of their trauma.

This version of feminism is, in the end, not a turn away from complicity with power, but a turn away from women. It tells us to stay quiet in the aftermath of violation, for the greater good; it tells us to bear the costs of doing nothing, so that we may be pure enough for an imagined utopia. It tells us to behave as if we don’t have bodies, as if we can exist somewhere beyond the world as it is. Imagine there’s no upskirting. Imagine there’s no rape. Imagine there are no women. It isn’t hard to do, for some.


Victoria Smith is a writer and creator of the Glosswitch newsletter.

glosswitch

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

176 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
9 months ago

This piece just highlights feminism is the female component of those who identify with the left and is not about women’s rights. Julie Bindel questions whether feminists should ally themselves with the right in the fight against the over reach of trans ideology. I knew the woman who unveiled the plaque in London which commemorated the women’s war effort. She was the head of a department of the civil service during and after the war. She would have preferred to have married, had children and been a housewife but never had the opportunity. There was a shortage of men after the war. She supported men earning more than women on the basis they had a family to support and she didn’t. In the same way the trans ideologues hi jacked the movement for trans rights, feminists have hi jacked the women’s rights movement. I notice that Posy Parker does not call herself a feminist but says she is fighting for women’s rights, she used to be on the left but grew up/ woke up/ saw the light. She is subject to death threats and physical attack. In New Zealand she was in police protection after being attacked and her name had to be kept secret as she was a target for some of the New Zealand police. And Julie Bindel (paid by Unherd) has the gall to debate whether TERFs (trans exclusionary feminists) should collaborate with the right. As Black Lives Matter and the Democrats dictate what black people should think and Stonewall dictates what we all should think about gays, bis, trans etc, feminism now dictates what women should think. Feminism, like all ideological movements eventually do, is in the process of committing suicide.

Last edited 9 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago

Feminism should consider the (necessary) campaign for equality in the West already won and focus on major injustices in the Islamic world. Instead of ignoring the blatant bigotry and women-hatred of Islamic countries and fixating on contrived micro-aggressions in the West.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Yes, AND we need to lobby for much more arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of men (including “marginalized” men) who commit sexual and domestic violence. Lock the bastards up!

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

We should be wondering why when it comes to prosecuting crimes that it is only the crimes AGAINST WOMEN that we are told that we should consider not prosecuting the criminals and predators, but instead give them second chances and sympathy like was given to Brian Golsby et al.

Last edited 8 months ago by Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

We should be wondering why when it comes to prosecuting crimes that it is only the crimes AGAINST WOMEN that we are told that we should consider not prosecuting the criminals and predators, but instead give them second chances and sympathy like was given to Brian Golsby et al.

Last edited 8 months ago by Betsy Warrior
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

The fact that feminism considers equality to be a “campaign” to be “won” explains a lot about the movement. For instance, why they don’t seem very bothered about the lack of equality when it comes to dying in Ukraine or family courts. Because it’s about “winning”.

I have a young daughter. Of course, some teenage brat harassing her, when she grows up, would piss me off. But far more of a concern would be teenage pregnancy or drugs, or as you point out, the prospect of a grooming gang nearby (though hopefully I can afford to stay in an area that’s not “culturally enriched”).
But none of those valid, much more serious issues would constitute “winning” against some mythical male conspiracy. So, no interest. It’s making laws about some young jerk taking offensive pics that matters.

And incidentally, I see a lot of young girls going to the nearby school as if it’s a disco. Very short skirts, etc.
And just like I expect boys at her school to behave respectfully, I would expect my daughter to dress properly for a place where it’s about learning, because equality also means not wearing sexually provocative provocative clothing around teenage, hormonal boys, and focusing on studying. Doesn’t mean she has to “cover up” or excuse bad behaviour from any boy, of course.

But then , that wouldn’t be “equality” because it implies my daughter has agency and responsibilities. And a lot of feminists would find it offensive to suggest that a girl shouldn’t dress like a tart at school or office – while defending headscarves and hijabs in muslims.
Because, equality, somehow.

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Excellent comment. Thank you Unherd for your courage allowing these comments to be seen.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

But it does precisely mean she has to cover up for a boy because your worry there was not that she dress in a manner that connotes she’s there to study but to avoid inciting hormonal boys. I’m not sure why feminism is supposed to feel one way or another about recreational drugs and teenagers. That’s kinda an off the wall attack. But it definitely has a stance on teenage pregnancy which as a rule, let’s avoid it. It fights it on forced marriage. It fights it adult men and younger women (a big cause of teen pregnancy). It fights it on lack of knowledge for kids. It fights it on accessibility of birth control by cost, kind and procurement. It fights it on how adoption works and birth mother rights. And with one exception fights by the right of choice, including the ability to go to a judge to get an abortion if parents are difficult. It only makes an exception if the teenager in question really wants to keep it.
So when you say they don’t care, you just don’t know what you are talking about. Family courts, at least in the US, only deal with custody when parents can’t agree. In that situation, they tend to favor the parent who did the most caregiving (which tends to be women) but they give giant latitude toward non-custodial parents. You don’t have to pay much of your child support to get to see your kid.Courts have even forced kids to visit their non-custodial parent in jail. They often force the custodial parent to say within the same state, even county. Feminism did that.
It also fought for women to not just in the military but in combat. It has been trench warfare the entire way, and it is hardly universal. If men want both sexes to be drafted, then they can a little of the work, instead of complaining women haven’t done it for them. We’ve done all the heavy lifting, no thanks to you.
As a parent of a now college age daughter, I will tell you sir that your priorities are messed up. Boys harassing your daughter should be more on your mind more than teenage pregnancy. The latter can be prevented largely by honest communication and being sure she knows to use birth control if she has sex as a teenager (the having sex at that age isn’t something I recommend as I told my kids). The harassing boys however start early. They’ve plagued my daughter since at least 6th grade. In 11th and 12th grade she was harassed by boys younger than her, which meant she had to be restrained on top of it all. Sometimes, the school makes a token attempt of stopping it but they are far more likely to tolerate a certain level. As for “going scantily clad”, yeah maybe that happens in warmer states, but where we live most of the year everyone lives in layers—except teenage boys who persist on wearing shorts all winter.
So let’s be real here. The reason you complain about feminism’s campaign trying to “win” is because you are looking at this only as a man. As a man you don’t want the idea of women being equal to be the new normal. You assume it won’t be as comfortable for you. Look at this as the loving father I’ve no doubt you are. Do you want your daughter going about life thinking she is and being treated as an inferior person? Someone whose needs and wants must always come second to any anonymous males in her vicinity?

Hmm, I didn’t think so. That is what is at stake.

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

What!? Very short skirts!

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Excellent comment. Thank you Unherd for your courage allowing these comments to be seen.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

But it does precisely mean she has to cover up for a boy because your worry there was not that she dress in a manner that connotes she’s there to study but to avoid inciting hormonal boys. I’m not sure why feminism is supposed to feel one way or another about recreational drugs and teenagers. That’s kinda an off the wall attack. But it definitely has a stance on teenage pregnancy which as a rule, let’s avoid it. It fights it on forced marriage. It fights it adult men and younger women (a big cause of teen pregnancy). It fights it on lack of knowledge for kids. It fights it on accessibility of birth control by cost, kind and procurement. It fights it on how adoption works and birth mother rights. And with one exception fights by the right of choice, including the ability to go to a judge to get an abortion if parents are difficult. It only makes an exception if the teenager in question really wants to keep it.
So when you say they don’t care, you just don’t know what you are talking about. Family courts, at least in the US, only deal with custody when parents can’t agree. In that situation, they tend to favor the parent who did the most caregiving (which tends to be women) but they give giant latitude toward non-custodial parents. You don’t have to pay much of your child support to get to see your kid.Courts have even forced kids to visit their non-custodial parent in jail. They often force the custodial parent to say within the same state, even county. Feminism did that.
It also fought for women to not just in the military but in combat. It has been trench warfare the entire way, and it is hardly universal. If men want both sexes to be drafted, then they can a little of the work, instead of complaining women haven’t done it for them. We’ve done all the heavy lifting, no thanks to you.
As a parent of a now college age daughter, I will tell you sir that your priorities are messed up. Boys harassing your daughter should be more on your mind more than teenage pregnancy. The latter can be prevented largely by honest communication and being sure she knows to use birth control if she has sex as a teenager (the having sex at that age isn’t something I recommend as I told my kids). The harassing boys however start early. They’ve plagued my daughter since at least 6th grade. In 11th and 12th grade she was harassed by boys younger than her, which meant she had to be restrained on top of it all. Sometimes, the school makes a token attempt of stopping it but they are far more likely to tolerate a certain level. As for “going scantily clad”, yeah maybe that happens in warmer states, but where we live most of the year everyone lives in layers—except teenage boys who persist on wearing shorts all winter.
So let’s be real here. The reason you complain about feminism’s campaign trying to “win” is because you are looking at this only as a man. As a man you don’t want the idea of women being equal to be the new normal. You assume it won’t be as comfortable for you. Look at this as the loving father I’ve no doubt you are. Do you want your daughter going about life thinking she is and being treated as an inferior person? Someone whose needs and wants must always come second to any anonymous males in her vicinity?

Hmm, I didn’t think so. That is what is at stake.

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

What!? Very short skirts!

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Well, firstly it isn’t won. As can be observed in every board room, government body, most western religions, what is portrayed in Hollywood, the rape statistics, the domestic violence/murder stats, and the the lives of women in the west overall.
But secondly, western feminists can’t fight middle eastern feminists fight, for reasons that should be obvious. It is not as if feminism is corporation that is choosing to allocate its resources in certain departments. And even before the internet women elsewhere had heard of it. But one of the biggest arguments used against women in other places is that it is an import from the west. So according to those who want to continue mistreating women not valid culturally.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

Well said,

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago

One thing that continues to depress me is the complete absence of fellow-feeling demonstrated by Muslim women for those in Iran. I was really hoping there’d be a ‘drop the hijab day’ by British Muslim women, to demonstrate the fact that they are free to choose while those living in Iran’s ghastly theocracy aren’t. But – nope. Not so much as a glimmer.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

Well said,

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago

One thing that continues to depress me is the complete absence of fellow-feeling demonstrated by Muslim women for those in Iran. I was really hoping there’d be a ‘drop the hijab day’ by British Muslim women, to demonstrate the fact that they are free to choose while those living in Iran’s ghastly theocracy aren’t. But – nope. Not so much as a glimmer.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

They also ignore the blatant bigotry and women-hatred of trans ‘women’ and their supporters.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I feel so disheartened when I see a woman wearing a hijab.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Me too. I’ve seen it become a fad in my own lifetime as a source of ‘identity’. Back in 1991 I spent three months in Malaysia, researching the adult education of women. Who, it turned out, were watching their rights go backwards – having to fight the political push for women and girls to ‘cover’ – wear the hijab. And they were losing. It’s still an ongoing battle.
And now? Now in my own UK city, I regularly see women in burqas for God’s sake – the whole ghastly bin-liner set-up. So, wholly obscuring your public presence as an individual is a source of ‘identity’. I’m not offended – I’m bl00dy outraged. To me it’s the ultimate insult. It makes me so angry and frustrated to see this warped misogyny tolerated as a ‘cultural norm’. It’s a gross cultural deformity about as positive as foot-binding and should be outlawed.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

I share your passion it’s good to know you feel the same way.
There’s a young British news anchor on CNN who reports from London and wears a Hijab. She reports on women’s oppression in Iran and her hypocisy makes me so pissed off I have to turn the channel. I presume CNN wants her to wear it to appease Muslims and to be “inclusive” but I have complained. I think it sends a message of appeasement and we’re always having to appease them.
Female journalists cover their heads when reporting from the Middle East out of respect, but I never see that respect reciprocated. Men still wear all their head gear when they come to the US.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Good for you for complaining. And yes watching our own citizens grovelling to this dismal convention is he pits.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Good for you for complaining. And yes watching our own citizens grovelling to this dismal convention is he pits.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

I share your passion it’s good to know you feel the same way.
There’s a young British news anchor on CNN who reports from London and wears a Hijab. She reports on women’s oppression in Iran and her hypocisy makes me so pissed off I have to turn the channel. I presume CNN wants her to wear it to appease Muslims and to be “inclusive” but I have complained. I think it sends a message of appeasement and we’re always having to appease them.
Female journalists cover their heads when reporting from the Middle East out of respect, but I never see that respect reciprocated. Men still wear all their head gear when they come to the US.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Me too. I’ve seen it become a fad in my own lifetime as a source of ‘identity’. Back in 1991 I spent three months in Malaysia, researching the adult education of women. Who, it turned out, were watching their rights go backwards – having to fight the political push for women and girls to ‘cover’ – wear the hijab. And they were losing. It’s still an ongoing battle.
And now? Now in my own UK city, I regularly see women in burqas for God’s sake – the whole ghastly bin-liner set-up. So, wholly obscuring your public presence as an individual is a source of ‘identity’. I’m not offended – I’m bl00dy outraged. To me it’s the ultimate insult. It makes me so angry and frustrated to see this warped misogyny tolerated as a ‘cultural norm’. It’s a gross cultural deformity about as positive as foot-binding and should be outlawed.

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

You might think the work of feminism is superfluous Only if you believe that the murder of four thousand women every year, a woman raped every three minutes, and a domestic violence attack on a female every 18 seconds in the USA according to government statistics are merely “contrived micro-aggressions.” Then we could forget about the Channon Christians, Renee Godwins, Jessica Chambers, Toyin Salaus and thousands of other women who die at the hands of misogynists like Douglas Donna Perry because there’s more open, blatant hatred of women in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, UAE, Mali, India, Israel, Kuwait, S. Africa, etc?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Betsy Warrior

Well said.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Betsy Warrior

Well said.

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

The work of feminists is superfluous only if you consider “contrived micro-aggressions” to be the murder of four thousand women every year, a rape every three minutes and a “domestic violence” attack on a woman every 18 seconds (according to USA government statistics). If you believe the killing of Renee Godwin, Linda Fricky, Toyin Salau, Jessica Chambers, Channon Christian, the victims of Douglas Donna Perry, Harvey Weinstein or Marcel Harvey and countless other women are just “contrived micro-aggressions” then obviously you believe women’s lives are of micro- concern. Just because the hatred of women is more open and blatant in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, UAE, India, Israel, Mali or S. Africa et al doesn’t mean that the lives of women destroyed by male violence in other Western countries is of no importance. Feminism arises organically, as well as by cross-pollination, in other countries where local women deal with the geographical variations of male supremacist violence as they best see fit. While we learn from each other to further our goals of ending the exploitation of and violence against women we feminists respect the variations of male supremacy in each culture.

Last edited 8 months ago by Betsy Warrior
Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Yes, AND we need to lobby for much more arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of men (including “marginalized” men) who commit sexual and domestic violence. Lock the bastards up!

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

The fact that feminism considers equality to be a “campaign” to be “won” explains a lot about the movement. For instance, why they don’t seem very bothered about the lack of equality when it comes to dying in Ukraine or family courts. Because it’s about “winning”.

I have a young daughter. Of course, some teenage brat harassing her, when she grows up, would piss me off. But far more of a concern would be teenage pregnancy or drugs, or as you point out, the prospect of a grooming gang nearby (though hopefully I can afford to stay in an area that’s not “culturally enriched”).
But none of those valid, much more serious issues would constitute “winning” against some mythical male conspiracy. So, no interest. It’s making laws about some young jerk taking offensive pics that matters.

And incidentally, I see a lot of young girls going to the nearby school as if it’s a disco. Very short skirts, etc.
And just like I expect boys at her school to behave respectfully, I would expect my daughter to dress properly for a place where it’s about learning, because equality also means not wearing sexually provocative provocative clothing around teenage, hormonal boys, and focusing on studying. Doesn’t mean she has to “cover up” or excuse bad behaviour from any boy, of course.

But then , that wouldn’t be “equality” because it implies my daughter has agency and responsibilities. And a lot of feminists would find it offensive to suggest that a girl shouldn’t dress like a tart at school or office – while defending headscarves and hijabs in muslims.
Because, equality, somehow.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Well, firstly it isn’t won. As can be observed in every board room, government body, most western religions, what is portrayed in Hollywood, the rape statistics, the domestic violence/murder stats, and the the lives of women in the west overall.
But secondly, western feminists can’t fight middle eastern feminists fight, for reasons that should be obvious. It is not as if feminism is corporation that is choosing to allocate its resources in certain departments. And even before the internet women elsewhere had heard of it. But one of the biggest arguments used against women in other places is that it is an import from the west. So according to those who want to continue mistreating women not valid culturally.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

They also ignore the blatant bigotry and women-hatred of trans ‘women’ and their supporters.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I feel so disheartened when I see a woman wearing a hijab.

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

You might think the work of feminism is superfluous Only if you believe that the murder of four thousand women every year, a woman raped every three minutes, and a domestic violence attack on a female every 18 seconds in the USA according to government statistics are merely “contrived micro-aggressions.” Then we could forget about the Channon Christians, Renee Godwins, Jessica Chambers, Toyin Salaus and thousands of other women who die at the hands of misogynists like Douglas Donna Perry because there’s more open, blatant hatred of women in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, UAE, Mali, India, Israel, Kuwait, S. Africa, etc?

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
8 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

The work of feminists is superfluous only if you consider “contrived micro-aggressions” to be the murder of four thousand women every year, a rape every three minutes and a “domestic violence” attack on a woman every 18 seconds (according to USA government statistics). If you believe the killing of Renee Godwin, Linda Fricky, Toyin Salau, Jessica Chambers, Channon Christian, the victims of Douglas Donna Perry, Harvey Weinstein or Marcel Harvey and countless other women are just “contrived micro-aggressions” then obviously you believe women’s lives are of micro- concern. Just because the hatred of women is more open and blatant in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, UAE, India, Israel, Mali or S. Africa et al doesn’t mean that the lives of women destroyed by male violence in other Western countries is of no importance. Feminism arises organically, as well as by cross-pollination, in other countries where local women deal with the geographical variations of male supremacist violence as they best see fit. While we learn from each other to further our goals of ending the exploitation of and violence against women we feminists respect the variations of male supremacy in each culture.

Last edited 8 months ago by Betsy Warrior
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago

Standing ovation!

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago

Yeah, this isn’t true at all. And I think if you read any number of feminists you’ll read they critique men of the left as well as the right. Men on the left often think they are in the clear because they are on the left but that’s hardly feminists problem. Now, it is true that the right at this point actively opposes women’s rights and feminism, in most though not all countries. This is largely because the right is allied with conservative religious organizations conservative religious institutions won’t let go of the idea of women as inferior. Some have updated how they present it but it still leaves men in charge and women adjuncts to those lives.
I’d note your point that “Black Lives Matters” and Democrats dictate what Black people should think is as wildly misinformed as it is offensive. BLM did not become a world phenomena because it was a contrived issue. It became a world movement because it is something that Black people have been worried about for quite a long time. It is only the presence of phones in which the rest of the world believes them but I heard these same stories when I was young and it was issues with the police that triggered the Detroit riots. Like America’s founding fathers, the citizens of East Germany and many others Black people don’t like to live in a police state.
As for the Democratic party telling them what to think. Hardly. Most Black people are dissatisfied with what it offers and wish it addressed their needs better and with a greater senes of urgency. However, at least it addresses them at all. The republicans offer only life is fine as it is and stoking the racist fears of white people. So they are stuck with the Dems. So are feminists to bring the convo back to its point.
We can’t really ally ourselves with an organization who not only brags about grabbing them by the p***y but whose proposed legislation reflects that attitude.We can’t align ourselves with an organization that has aligned itself with evangelical christians, a theology that holds the view that women may never be in a position of power over men (See the Southern Baptists recent conclave).

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
9 months ago

Interesting points – thank you.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
9 months ago

Stupid woke racist moron capitalising “black” while not capitalising “White”. Begone.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
9 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Sounds like you are the moron Richard? What a thoroughly unpleasant comment! ‘Begone’

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

There is no need for a question mark after Richard being a moron.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

There is no need for a question mark after Richard being a moron.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Relying on insult rather than argument really doesn’t help to prove your point.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Last edited 8 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
9 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Sounds like you are the moron Richard? What a thoroughly unpleasant comment! ‘Begone’

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Relying on insult rather than argument really doesn’t help to prove your point.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Last edited 8 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Terry Raby
Terry Raby
9 months ago

BLM is a contrived issue. Black criminality in the USA is the cause of police attention which is proportionate to crime rates. Black culture is a cause of black criminality. The contrivance lies in externalising internal problems. Democrats are directly responsible for black immiseration, starting in poorly run progressive schools, removing the agency of black kids.

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
Reply to  Terry Raby

Thank you for your courage Terry.
Excellent points that explain a lot of the worsening misery of Australia’s Aborigines also.
Unherd published a great article on the macabre circus of “The Voice” referendum going into some detail:
https://unherd.com/2023/08/australias-divisive-race-referendum/

Last edited 9 months ago by Katalin Kish
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Katalin Kish

Rubbish.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Katalin Kish

The courage to be racist?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Katalin Kish

Rubbish.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Katalin Kish

The courage to be racist?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Terry Raby

Rubbish

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
Reply to  Terry Raby

Thank you for your courage Terry.
Excellent points that explain a lot of the worsening misery of Australia’s Aborigines also.
Unherd published a great article on the macabre circus of “The Voice” referendum going into some detail:
https://unherd.com/2023/08/australias-divisive-race-referendum/

Last edited 9 months ago by Katalin Kish
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Terry Raby

Rubbish

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
9 months ago

You are confusing feminism with the women’s rights movement. The two are not identical. Many women have contributed to the successful movement for women’s rights without being feminists. Particularly those who just demonstrated they could do the work without making a fuss. I have cited one such example. BLM became a world wide phenomenon because white people are terrified of being accused of racism. White people, particularly white men, have become humanity’s scapegoat, plus the tendency to virtue signal from certain sections of society. I have heard both Muslim women and Hindu women say they do not want their daughters mixing with white girls because of the risk of a teenage pregnancy. To a certain extent, I can understand their point of view. They do not perceive western culture as being superior to their own.

Last edited 9 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

“White men have become humanity’s scapegoat”. Yikes! what planet do you live on? John Lennon said women are the n****** of the world.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Too bl00dy right.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Too bl00dy right.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago

Gosh of course not, a culture where a father beats his daughter with an iron bar for wearing make-up is obviously superior.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
9 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

You don’t think that happens to white girls?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago

Do please reference a recent court case where a white man beat his daughter with an iron bar for wearing makeup.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
8 months ago

Do please reference a recent court case where a white man beat his daughter with an iron bar for wearing makeup.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
9 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

You don’t think that happens to white girls?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

“White men have become humanity’s scapegoat”. Yikes! what planet do you live on? John Lennon said women are the n****** of the world.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago

Gosh of course not, a culture where a father beats his daughter with an iron bar for wearing make-up is obviously superior.

SIMON WOLF
SIMON WOLF
9 months ago

Suspect most ethnic conservatives would consider you a ‘racist’.because they would regard BLM as a ‘contrived movement’ of the political left trying to identify blacks as ‘victims’ when ethnic conservatives do not see themselves as ‘victims’ or wish their children brought up to see themselves as ‘victims’ and ethnic conservatives will suspect you consider them ‘mad bad or stupid ‘ for not supporting BLM.
In multi-cultural western societies the police try their best not to act in a racist way.Of course callous individual police officers will slip through the net but the idea that even those ‘bad eggs’ would beat up a law abiding ethnic citizen who treats a police officer with respect defies belief . Unfortunately for many brave honourable police officers black victims of wrong white police officer behaviour has become a form of pornography for the left.
In Britain there are a thousand plus white females who were raped by ethnic grooming gangs.And yet in the 10 years since the shocking news became public the leftish media have given those raped females less publicity than an Eddie Floyd gets in a month. .The reason why is because the Eddie Floyds are pornographic material for the political left whereas the left privately wish that all those raped white females would disappear because the rapists were ethnics and that does not fit the political left agenda.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  SIMON WOLF

What are “Ethnic conservatives? Who is Eddie Floyd? Do you mean George Floyd?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  SIMON WOLF

What are “Ethnic conservatives? Who is Eddie Floyd? Do you mean George Floyd?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
9 months ago

The problems you mention appear greater in the USA; Britain has had three women and Hindu man, all Conservatives, as Prime Ministers and British men and women socialised with African American Soldiers in WW2
Heroes Among Us: Incident at Bamber Bridge – YouTube
Manners maketh man or woman- 1380 William de Wykeham. The manner in which one portrays oneselfs to he world is the manner in which is one judged. G Orwell noticed in the 1940s the African American soldiers were the only one with manners, not the white Americans
Compare Motown of late 1960s say Ross and Warwick with present day rap singers. Motown records had a lady who taught etiquette.
Dr M L King said judge me on my character.
Look at how swearing has become more common and more coarse.
The Swiss are heavily armed yet manage to refrain from killing each other with firearms.
Americans appear to be in the forefront of undermining self discipline, self control, modesty and manners; is it a lack of sense of responsibility and emotional maturity ?

R E P
R E P
9 months ago

Blacks vote 90% for the Democrat Party. In Chicago each weekend around ten people are killed – no media interest – similar in other big cities. BLM was a brilliant grifting organisation that raised $89m most of which has disappeared. Over $2bn in destruction – often in minority neighborhoods – and around 40 people killed. They were Marxists which aimed at the destruction of the family (the patriarchy as Engels called it.) No one in the UK knows this as the BBC branded it “mostly peaceful protests.” Most were but typical media, factual but not truthful.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
9 months ago
Reply to  R E P

Well put.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
9 months ago
Reply to  R E P

Well put.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
9 months ago

But why then align yourself with an organization that actively promotes the institutional mutilation of children, particularly of young girls?

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
9 months ago

Interesting points – thank you.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
9 months ago

Stupid woke racist moron capitalising “black” while not capitalising “White”. Begone.

Terry Raby
Terry Raby
9 months ago

BLM is a contrived issue. Black criminality in the USA is the cause of police attention which is proportionate to crime rates. Black culture is a cause of black criminality. The contrivance lies in externalising internal problems. Democrats are directly responsible for black immiseration, starting in poorly run progressive schools, removing the agency of black kids.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
9 months ago

You are confusing feminism with the women’s rights movement. The two are not identical. Many women have contributed to the successful movement for women’s rights without being feminists. Particularly those who just demonstrated they could do the work without making a fuss. I have cited one such example. BLM became a world wide phenomenon because white people are terrified of being accused of racism. White people, particularly white men, have become humanity’s scapegoat, plus the tendency to virtue signal from certain sections of society. I have heard both Muslim women and Hindu women say they do not want their daughters mixing with white girls because of the risk of a teenage pregnancy. To a certain extent, I can understand their point of view. They do not perceive western culture as being superior to their own.

Last edited 9 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
SIMON WOLF
SIMON WOLF
9 months ago

Suspect most ethnic conservatives would consider you a ‘racist’.because they would regard BLM as a ‘contrived movement’ of the political left trying to identify blacks as ‘victims’ when ethnic conservatives do not see themselves as ‘victims’ or wish their children brought up to see themselves as ‘victims’ and ethnic conservatives will suspect you consider them ‘mad bad or stupid ‘ for not supporting BLM.
In multi-cultural western societies the police try their best not to act in a racist way.Of course callous individual police officers will slip through the net but the idea that even those ‘bad eggs’ would beat up a law abiding ethnic citizen who treats a police officer with respect defies belief . Unfortunately for many brave honourable police officers black victims of wrong white police officer behaviour has become a form of pornography for the left.
In Britain there are a thousand plus white females who were raped by ethnic grooming gangs.And yet in the 10 years since the shocking news became public the leftish media have given those raped females less publicity than an Eddie Floyd gets in a month. .The reason why is because the Eddie Floyds are pornographic material for the political left whereas the left privately wish that all those raped white females would disappear because the rapists were ethnics and that does not fit the political left agenda.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
9 months ago

The problems you mention appear greater in the USA; Britain has had three women and Hindu man, all Conservatives, as Prime Ministers and British men and women socialised with African American Soldiers in WW2
Heroes Among Us: Incident at Bamber Bridge – YouTube
Manners maketh man or woman- 1380 William de Wykeham. The manner in which one portrays oneselfs to he world is the manner in which is one judged. G Orwell noticed in the 1940s the African American soldiers were the only one with manners, not the white Americans
Compare Motown of late 1960s say Ross and Warwick with present day rap singers. Motown records had a lady who taught etiquette.
Dr M L King said judge me on my character.
Look at how swearing has become more common and more coarse.
The Swiss are heavily armed yet manage to refrain from killing each other with firearms.
Americans appear to be in the forefront of undermining self discipline, self control, modesty and manners; is it a lack of sense of responsibility and emotional maturity ?

R E P
R E P
9 months ago

Blacks vote 90% for the Democrat Party. In Chicago each weekend around ten people are killed – no media interest – similar in other big cities. BLM was a brilliant grifting organisation that raised $89m most of which has disappeared. Over $2bn in destruction – often in minority neighborhoods – and around 40 people killed. They were Marxists which aimed at the destruction of the family (the patriarchy as Engels called it.) No one in the UK knows this as the BBC branded it “mostly peaceful protests.” Most were but typical media, factual but not truthful.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
9 months ago

But why then align yourself with an organization that actively promotes the institutional mutilation of children, particularly of young girls?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago

Feminism should consider the (necessary) campaign for equality in the West already won and focus on major injustices in the Islamic world. Instead of ignoring the blatant bigotry and women-hatred of Islamic countries and fixating on contrived micro-aggressions in the West.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago

Standing ovation!

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago

Yeah, this isn’t true at all. And I think if you read any number of feminists you’ll read they critique men of the left as well as the right. Men on the left often think they are in the clear because they are on the left but that’s hardly feminists problem. Now, it is true that the right at this point actively opposes women’s rights and feminism, in most though not all countries. This is largely because the right is allied with conservative religious organizations conservative religious institutions won’t let go of the idea of women as inferior. Some have updated how they present it but it still leaves men in charge and women adjuncts to those lives.
I’d note your point that “Black Lives Matters” and Democrats dictate what Black people should think is as wildly misinformed as it is offensive. BLM did not become a world phenomena because it was a contrived issue. It became a world movement because it is something that Black people have been worried about for quite a long time. It is only the presence of phones in which the rest of the world believes them but I heard these same stories when I was young and it was issues with the police that triggered the Detroit riots. Like America’s founding fathers, the citizens of East Germany and many others Black people don’t like to live in a police state.
As for the Democratic party telling them what to think. Hardly. Most Black people are dissatisfied with what it offers and wish it addressed their needs better and with a greater senes of urgency. However, at least it addresses them at all. The republicans offer only life is fine as it is and stoking the racist fears of white people. So they are stuck with the Dems. So are feminists to bring the convo back to its point.
We can’t really ally ourselves with an organization who not only brags about grabbing them by the p***y but whose proposed legislation reflects that attitude.We can’t align ourselves with an organization that has aligned itself with evangelical christians, a theology that holds the view that women may never be in a position of power over men (See the Southern Baptists recent conclave).

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
9 months ago

This piece just highlights feminism is the female component of those who identify with the left and is not about women’s rights. Julie Bindel questions whether feminists should ally themselves with the right in the fight against the over reach of trans ideology. I knew the woman who unveiled the plaque in London which commemorated the women’s war effort. She was the head of a department of the civil service during and after the war. She would have preferred to have married, had children and been a housewife but never had the opportunity. There was a shortage of men after the war. She supported men earning more than women on the basis they had a family to support and she didn’t. In the same way the trans ideologues hi jacked the movement for trans rights, feminists have hi jacked the women’s rights movement. I notice that Posy Parker does not call herself a feminist but says she is fighting for women’s rights, she used to be on the left but grew up/ woke up/ saw the light. She is subject to death threats and physical attack. In New Zealand she was in police protection after being attacked and her name had to be kept secret as she was a target for some of the New Zealand police. And Julie Bindel (paid by Unherd) has the gall to debate whether TERFs (trans exclusionary feminists) should collaborate with the right. As Black Lives Matter and the Democrats dictate what black people should think and Stonewall dictates what we all should think about gays, bis, trans etc, feminism now dictates what women should think. Feminism, like all ideological movements eventually do, is in the process of committing suicide.

Last edited 9 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago

“it is a change that forces us to reconsider social norms.” 
Since when was treating a woman with such a lack of respect, the social norm? If I had behaved in that way my mother, a straightforward woman, would not have engaged in earnest discussion about the need for yet another law, she would have gone apeshit. She understood that 90% of our behaviour is restrained, not by formal legal restrictions, but by custom, the rule book that we have internalised. When you throw away custom, law won’t save you.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

“Since when was treating a woman with such a lack of respect”
Ironically, since feminism took off.
Beating a woman, harassing a young girl by taking indecent pics, getting someone pregnant and not caring about the child, sleeping around with girls as if they were objects….
All of these would be considered horrible behaviour by typical patriarchal western societies till a few decades back.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Newsflash: Beating a woman is still considered horrible behaviour.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

When the state is most corrupt then laws are most multiplied. – Tacitus

You’re missing the point. As customs, manners, and traditions are rolled back because they are seen as inherently oppressive, cultural transmission between generations effectively vanish, to be replaced by laws that can easily be changed or distorted to suit the tastes of the day. It’s how we get to ridiculous situations like this:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight

and this:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/posie-parker-protest-activist-pleads-guilty-to-punching-elderly-woman-at-heated-auckland-trans-rights-protest/A5RG2HY2TJFLFKAP4OT7JLGIGU/

Just ten years ago this would have been seen as bizarre and vile behavior, now it’s becoming mainstreamed because men in drag have become grouped in with oppressed classes. Looking at the cases above, the first one occurred because it became politically incorrect to say that women are physically weaker than men and men wearing female garb does not actually make them women. In the second case, a woman spoke out for women’s rights and against men invading private female spaces. And she was punched for it, tragically proving her point.
Yes, we can make laws to combat these kinds of behaviors, but the problem there lies in the fact that laws themselves don’t stop bad behavior, they merely punish it. Little by little we have taught parents and teachers that disciplining children and teaching them right from wrong is oppressive and hopelessly antiquated. Now we are at the point where the state is acting in loco parentis. As we see here in the US the government seems hell-bent on doing away with the ‘traditional family structure’.

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/six-states-have-now-passed-lgbtq-inclusive-curriculum-legislationeach-with-a-different-definition-of-inclusion/

Could this be the reason why queer curricula are being pushed on to children even as young as kindergarten? It seems that the government is doing all it can to disassociate children from their families in order to turn them into yet another victim group that needs yet more laws and Big Government to protect their special rights.

Last edited 9 months ago by Julian Farrows
Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

I so hope Julian that your wisdom is shining through in physical space as well as through you comments on online articles. Views like these need to be heard far and wide. Thank you.

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

I so hope Julian that your wisdom is shining through in physical space as well as through you comments on online articles. Views like these need to be heard far and wide. Thank you.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

“Beating a woman is still considered horrible behaviour”
Give it time. All you need is a generation of boys being brought up by women, ironically.

And, if you look at domestic violence rates amongst aborigines or native Americans, sexual crime rates among American blacks, average attitudes towards women amongst muslims, not much has changed. And, there is a lot of pressure to consider such behaviour as “acceptable” from these communities, even in West Europe or US.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Rubbish.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Ugh. There is so much to unpack in this and your need to make non-white people violent, all while dismissing your own sexist views.
So let’s take just this main idea that everyone keeps insisting on that among white, middle class society it was considered socially unacceptable to beat your wife. Yeah, maybe sort of, if you squint real hard. But here’s the thing, society solved that by never believing a woman who said she was beaten. By ignoring it. By refusing to “get involved in marital squabbles”, by saying he was just drunk and by saying she provoked him and “needed to be beaten” and etc. Also by making divorce immoral. (In the 80’s a Church of Christ minister in the town I lived in got defrocked for helping at a battered women’s shelter because those women should have stayed with their husbands) So ok it was officially unacceptable but that only meant that respectable people were never accused of doing it.
Then feminists got involved and made it something we had to look at. I’m sure to the ostrich who no longer can hide his head this seems like it is happening more.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Rubbish.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Ugh. There is so much to unpack in this and your need to make non-white people violent, all while dismissing your own sexist views.
So let’s take just this main idea that everyone keeps insisting on that among white, middle class society it was considered socially unacceptable to beat your wife. Yeah, maybe sort of, if you squint real hard. But here’s the thing, society solved that by never believing a woman who said she was beaten. By ignoring it. By refusing to “get involved in marital squabbles”, by saying he was just drunk and by saying she provoked him and “needed to be beaten” and etc. Also by making divorce immoral. (In the 80’s a Church of Christ minister in the town I lived in got defrocked for helping at a battered women’s shelter because those women should have stayed with their husbands) So ok it was officially unacceptable but that only meant that respectable people were never accused of doing it.
Then feminists got involved and made it something we had to look at. I’m sure to the ostrich who no longer can hide his head this seems like it is happening more.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

But it doesn’t stop.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Not by gangsta rappers.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

When the state is most corrupt then laws are most multiplied. – Tacitus

You’re missing the point. As customs, manners, and traditions are rolled back because they are seen as inherently oppressive, cultural transmission between generations effectively vanish, to be replaced by laws that can easily be changed or distorted to suit the tastes of the day. It’s how we get to ridiculous situations like this:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight

and this:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/posie-parker-protest-activist-pleads-guilty-to-punching-elderly-woman-at-heated-auckland-trans-rights-protest/A5RG2HY2TJFLFKAP4OT7JLGIGU/

Just ten years ago this would have been seen as bizarre and vile behavior, now it’s becoming mainstreamed because men in drag have become grouped in with oppressed classes. Looking at the cases above, the first one occurred because it became politically incorrect to say that women are physically weaker than men and men wearing female garb does not actually make them women. In the second case, a woman spoke out for women’s rights and against men invading private female spaces. And she was punched for it, tragically proving her point.
Yes, we can make laws to combat these kinds of behaviors, but the problem there lies in the fact that laws themselves don’t stop bad behavior, they merely punish it. Little by little we have taught parents and teachers that disciplining children and teaching them right from wrong is oppressive and hopelessly antiquated. Now we are at the point where the state is acting in loco parentis. As we see here in the US the government seems hell-bent on doing away with the ‘traditional family structure’.

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/six-states-have-now-passed-lgbtq-inclusive-curriculum-legislationeach-with-a-different-definition-of-inclusion/

Could this be the reason why queer curricula are being pushed on to children even as young as kindergarten? It seems that the government is doing all it can to disassociate children from their families in order to turn them into yet another victim group that needs yet more laws and Big Government to protect their special rights.

Last edited 9 months ago by Julian Farrows
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

“Beating a woman is still considered horrible behaviour”
Give it time. All you need is a generation of boys being brought up by women, ironically.

And, if you look at domestic violence rates amongst aborigines or native Americans, sexual crime rates among American blacks, average attitudes towards women amongst muslims, not much has changed. And, there is a lot of pressure to consider such behaviour as “acceptable” from these communities, even in West Europe or US.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

But it doesn’t stop.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Not by gangsta rappers.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Yeah that actually happened before feminism. A lot. It was considered the girls’ fault and she was sent away. In 1791 the police estimated 50,000 prostitutes, at least half were simply unmarried women living with a partner. In England in 1851 there were 42000 illegitimate children. Foundling hospitals abounded (that’s what happened to children their parents couldn’t care for, including children whose fathers made no provision) And I can say as a 56 year old woman, that respect was not the name of the game for women. It has absolutely gotten better as feminists have won more battles both in law and of mind.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago

You touched upon a couple of aspect of society then, which is the disdain for “illegitimate” children and how society frowned upon “living in sin”.

Everything is a tradeoff. Today, it’s great for a women who might want to sleep with someone or live together without being married, and can have multiple children with multiple partners while actually being supported by the state.

Whether that constitutes more “respect” for women, and leaves them better off, is another question altogether. It does have implications for how men in general look at women, as well, and young men today are far more likely to see women as someone to just sleep with and dump rather than a life partner.

And while you are absolutely right that a child born out of wedlock and possibly not even knowing the father, is better off today than in say 1600, that also means that there is disincentive for such to happen. And so the improvement in conditions for an individual child in that situation, is rather offset by the massive increase in such children, which isn’t exactly ideal for them or society.

42,000 illegitimate children in 1861, when this was discouraged, versus millions today living off welfare and with a single parent. Incentives work, I guess.

Last edited 9 months ago by Samir Iker
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

And conservatives are anti-abortion, hence more unwanted children are born to single parents. These children end up pregnant themselves and or drug addicted or in jail, if they’re black males.

Guy Pigache
Guy Pigache
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Conservatives are not anti abortion in the UK. And your causal link from “conservatives” to” black men in jail” is overly simplistic.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Guy Pigache

No it’s not. I just don’t have the energy to enlarge on it.

Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Guy Pigache

No it’s not. I just don’t have the energy to enlarge on it.

Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Even in most conservative states, not just the US but in Europe or Asian countries, abortion IS allowed until 10 odd weeks. Which is rather enough time for a woman to decide whether to abort. Even if you ignore all the other alternatives, pill, condom, morning after, or plain old fashioned not sleeping around, no excuse for “unwanted children”.

What liberals mean by “pro abortion” is the right to abort a baby even in the 3rd trimester, and there are good reasons for that to be opposed.

Blacks in NYC have more abortions than actual births. That ease of extermination of unwanted babies doesn’t seem to help blacks there in terms of drug addiction or incarceration.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Well, firstly not true. You should read up. Secondly, since it is women won’t find out until they are 4 weeks pregnant earliest that leaves them 6 weeks to decide (which might involve the partner) find the money, find the venue and get there. If you are in any number of states, that’s not easy, even less so if you don’t have health insurance since even pills have required a doctor’s visit.
But some women won’t find out until 6 weeks or even 8 because they are too irregular. And if you are screening for developmental issues including Tay-Sacks, that doesn’t happen until 15 weeks at the earliest. It takes 2 weeks to get those results. That’s tends to be what second trimester abortions are about. (Also teenagers for a variety of reasons)
Issues that go wrong in pregnancy like hydroencephelitius, failures to develop etc.are often not caught until much later and that is when abortion in the last trimester is needed.
In the US, this was all covered under Roe. Elective until around 15-20 weeks then medical issues kicked in. It was perfectly reasonable, a compromise between the state’s interest in the fetus and the woman’s in her bodily integrity and left doctor’s the ability to make medical decisions based on medical considerations.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

They’re not “babies” they’re fetuses that you can’t see with the naked eye. And anyway but the f**k does it have to do with you. Mind your own business. How would you feel if the government told you couldn’t get a a vascetomy and I agreed with them and kept telling you I agreed with them.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Well, firstly not true. You should read up. Secondly, since it is women won’t find out until they are 4 weeks pregnant earliest that leaves them 6 weeks to decide (which might involve the partner) find the money, find the venue and get there. If you are in any number of states, that’s not easy, even less so if you don’t have health insurance since even pills have required a doctor’s visit.
But some women won’t find out until 6 weeks or even 8 because they are too irregular. And if you are screening for developmental issues including Tay-Sacks, that doesn’t happen until 15 weeks at the earliest. It takes 2 weeks to get those results. That’s tends to be what second trimester abortions are about. (Also teenagers for a variety of reasons)
Issues that go wrong in pregnancy like hydroencephelitius, failures to develop etc.are often not caught until much later and that is when abortion in the last trimester is needed.
In the US, this was all covered under Roe. Elective until around 15-20 weeks then medical issues kicked in. It was perfectly reasonable, a compromise between the state’s interest in the fetus and the woman’s in her bodily integrity and left doctor’s the ability to make medical decisions based on medical considerations.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

They’re not “babies” they’re fetuses that you can’t see with the naked eye. And anyway but the f**k does it have to do with you. Mind your own business. How would you feel if the government told you couldn’t get a a vascetomy and I agreed with them and kept telling you I agreed with them.

Guy Pigache
Guy Pigache
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Conservatives are not anti abortion in the UK. And your causal link from “conservatives” to” black men in jail” is overly simplistic.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Even in most conservative states, not just the US but in Europe or Asian countries, abortion IS allowed until 10 odd weeks. Which is rather enough time for a woman to decide whether to abort. Even if you ignore all the other alternatives, pill, condom, morning after, or plain old fashioned not sleeping around, no excuse for “unwanted children”.

What liberals mean by “pro abortion” is the right to abort a baby even in the 3rd trimester, and there are good reasons for that to be opposed.

Blacks in NYC have more abortions than actual births. That ease of extermination of unwanted babies doesn’t seem to help blacks there in terms of drug addiction or incarceration.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

You seem not to notice we have a lot more people than back in 1600. But yes, I’m going to say unequivocally that it is better now than then for women and men respect women more now than then. You only got the kind of respect you are talking about from men if you were a virgin and if you were of equal or superior social class. If you were a servant girl, your employer was not expected to make you his life partner. And if in raping you, or coercing sex your virginity was lost, then you no longer had the same value or had the same “respect”. Even being a widow meant a man might see your use for a temporary rather than a lifetime relationship.
Compare that to now when women marry men who they had sexual relations with prior to marriage. They do this even if they had sex with many men prior to marriage instead as back then having to go into sex work as a profession or starve. It is much better. I say this as one of these women, married 25 years to a man, I not only had sex with him before marriage but lived with too. He was not my first lover either.
You claim it would have been better the other way but I would not have met my husband then. So not better from my perspective. Indeed, why would I or any woman want a man who can only see me as a life partner because society leaves him no other choice? If a man just wants sex, (and I chose to have sex with him) Not matter what hopes I had for a relationship with a romantic partner, if that partner leaves the moment he gets sex, then good riddance. He’s spared me months of my life dithering with someone who would never be a suitable partner. My god I might have married the useless twit. My children might have had him as a father. Instead they have the good, decent wonderful father they do.
So yeah again, better. Much better.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

And conservatives are anti-abortion, hence more unwanted children are born to single parents. These children end up pregnant themselves and or drug addicted or in jail, if they’re black males.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

You seem not to notice we have a lot more people than back in 1600. But yes, I’m going to say unequivocally that it is better now than then for women and men respect women more now than then. You only got the kind of respect you are talking about from men if you were a virgin and if you were of equal or superior social class. If you were a servant girl, your employer was not expected to make you his life partner. And if in raping you, or coercing sex your virginity was lost, then you no longer had the same value or had the same “respect”. Even being a widow meant a man might see your use for a temporary rather than a lifetime relationship.
Compare that to now when women marry men who they had sexual relations with prior to marriage. They do this even if they had sex with many men prior to marriage instead as back then having to go into sex work as a profession or starve. It is much better. I say this as one of these women, married 25 years to a man, I not only had sex with him before marriage but lived with too. He was not my first lover either.
You claim it would have been better the other way but I would not have met my husband then. So not better from my perspective. Indeed, why would I or any woman want a man who can only see me as a life partner because society leaves him no other choice? If a man just wants sex, (and I chose to have sex with him) Not matter what hopes I had for a relationship with a romantic partner, if that partner leaves the moment he gets sex, then good riddance. He’s spared me months of my life dithering with someone who would never be a suitable partner. My god I might have married the useless twit. My children might have had him as a father. Instead they have the good, decent wonderful father they do.
So yeah again, better. Much better.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
9 months ago

The issue you talk of were due to rapid industrialisation during the Napoleonic Wars resulting in massive overcrowding. Bradford, the worst slum in Britain went from 6,000 in 1800 to 120,000 in 1850. Four families living ina damp room smelling of sewage.
Women in British countryside of pre 1800 had a better quality of life in Bradford of 1850s. .

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

And your point is………..?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

And your point is………..?

David Morley
David Morley
9 months ago

It has absolutely gotten better as feminists have won more battles both in law and of mind.

Of course it has, though not solely as a result of feminist action.

So why do so many feminists talk as if it’s never been worse?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

Exactly, well said.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago

You touched upon a couple of aspect of society then, which is the disdain for “illegitimate” children and how society frowned upon “living in sin”.

Everything is a tradeoff. Today, it’s great for a women who might want to sleep with someone or live together without being married, and can have multiple children with multiple partners while actually being supported by the state.

Whether that constitutes more “respect” for women, and leaves them better off, is another question altogether. It does have implications for how men in general look at women, as well, and young men today are far more likely to see women as someone to just sleep with and dump rather than a life partner.

And while you are absolutely right that a child born out of wedlock and possibly not even knowing the father, is better off today than in say 1600, that also means that there is disincentive for such to happen. And so the improvement in conditions for an individual child in that situation, is rather offset by the massive increase in such children, which isn’t exactly ideal for them or society.

42,000 illegitimate children in 1861, when this was discouraged, versus millions today living off welfare and with a single parent. Incentives work, I guess.

Last edited 9 months ago by Samir Iker
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
9 months ago

The issue you talk of were due to rapid industrialisation during the Napoleonic Wars resulting in massive overcrowding. Bradford, the worst slum in Britain went from 6,000 in 1800 to 120,000 in 1850. Four families living ina damp room smelling of sewage.
Women in British countryside of pre 1800 had a better quality of life in Bradford of 1850s. .

David Morley
David Morley
9 months ago

It has absolutely gotten better as feminists have won more battles both in law and of mind.

Of course it has, though not solely as a result of feminist action.

So why do so many feminists talk as if it’s never been worse?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

Exactly, well said.

J Dunne
J Dunne
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Exactly. I’m convinced that the wider mentality surrounding the me too movement and campaigns to criminalise things like upskirting or wolf whistling is feminists’ way of trying to return to an age of male chivalry and female sexual modesty – without admitting that they were the ones who got rid of it in the first place.

David Morley
David Morley
9 months ago
Reply to  J Dunne

Enforced male chivalry, but female sexual modesty decidedly optional.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  J Dunne

I think it’s called respect.

David Morley
David Morley
9 months ago
Reply to  J Dunne

Enforced male chivalry, but female sexual modesty decidedly optional.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  J Dunne

I think it’s called respect.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Rubbish.

Guy Pigache
Guy Pigache
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Rubbish 7 Consided responses 0

Guy Pigache
Guy Pigache
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Rubbish 7 Consided responses 0

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Life is a lot better for women than it used to be and this is because of women’s rights and feminism – both. I cannot think of the people behind the 19 likes!

Jenny Caneen
Jenny Caneen
8 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Except for the pictures, this HAS been done to women. For millennia. Do you REALLY think prostitutes in past centuries ended up in that “profession “ by choice? A man could abandon his pregnant wife/wife to be (btw having sex before formal marriage was winked at once the bands were announced) with no consequences, and as women were denied entry into decent wage work, their few options meant prostitution was one way they could still look after their child. Until just a few decades ago a husband beating his wife was considered a private family matter. Please have a conversation with a woman over 60 to get a sense of how much has – and hasn’t – changed.

Last edited 8 months ago by Jenny Caneen
harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Newsflash: Beating a woman is still considered horrible behaviour.

Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Yeah that actually happened before feminism. A lot. It was considered the girls’ fault and she was sent away. In 1791 the police estimated 50,000 prostitutes, at least half were simply unmarried women living with a partner. In England in 1851 there were 42000 illegitimate children. Foundling hospitals abounded (that’s what happened to children their parents couldn’t care for, including children whose fathers made no provision) And I can say as a 56 year old woman, that respect was not the name of the game for women. It has absolutely gotten better as feminists have won more battles both in law and of mind.

J Dunne
J Dunne
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Exactly. I’m convinced that the wider mentality surrounding the me too movement and campaigns to criminalise things like upskirting or wolf whistling is feminists’ way of trying to return to an age of male chivalry and female sexual modesty – without admitting that they were the ones who got rid of it in the first place.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Rubbish.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Life is a lot better for women than it used to be and this is because of women’s rights and feminism – both. I cannot think of the people behind the 19 likes!

Jenny Caneen
Jenny Caneen
8 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Except for the pictures, this HAS been done to women. For millennia. Do you REALLY think prostitutes in past centuries ended up in that “profession “ by choice? A man could abandon his pregnant wife/wife to be (btw having sex before formal marriage was winked at once the bands were announced) with no consequences, and as women were denied entry into decent wage work, their few options meant prostitution was one way they could still look after their child. Until just a few decades ago a husband beating his wife was considered a private family matter. Please have a conversation with a woman over 60 to get a sense of how much has – and hasn’t – changed.

Last edited 8 months ago by Jenny Caneen
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

“Since when was treating a woman with such a lack of respect”
Ironically, since feminism took off.
Beating a woman, harassing a young girl by taking indecent pics, getting someone pregnant and not caring about the child, sleeping around with girls as if they were objects….
All of these would be considered horrible behaviour by typical patriarchal western societies till a few decades back.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago

“it is a change that forces us to reconsider social norms.” 
Since when was treating a woman with such a lack of respect, the social norm? If I had behaved in that way my mother, a straightforward woman, would not have engaged in earnest discussion about the need for yet another law, she would have gone apeshit. She understood that 90% of our behaviour is restrained, not by formal legal restrictions, but by custom, the rule book that we have internalised. When you throw away custom, law won’t save you.

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
9 months ago

“And I find it hard to read her undermining her activism. “It wasn’t until I was in my mid-twenties that I started to be more of a critical thinker,” she writes — meaning “someone who recognises cultural, social and geographical contexts and applies theories”, as opposed to someone whose analysis is “determined mostly by their automatic emotional response, their personal context and existing opinions”. Of course, Martin’s anger at being upskirted was an “automatic emotional response”; her highly successful legal campaign was rooted in her “personal context and existing opinions”. But now, it seems, she knows better than to let her feelings get the better of her.”

Of course her original instinct was correct.
Why on earth would anyone in their right mind shy away from justice because one didn’t want to be regarded as ‘privileged’?

Sorry, middle-class liberal ladies – your must-fit-in-with élite opinion attitude does you no favours at all.

Last edited 9 months ago by Derek Smith
Aw Zk
Aw Zk
9 months ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

I have no problem with the fact that the law against upskirting which Gina Martin campaigned for was passed. I have more of a problem with the circumstances in which this law was passed.

The MP who brought forward this legislation in Parliament and worked with Gina Martin was Wera Hobhouse who has been the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath since 2017. Gina Martin appears to have no connection with Bath. MPs are supposed to represent their constituents and if someone outside their constituency contacts them they are within their rights to ignore them or ask the person who contacted them to contact their own MP.

Before she became MP for Bath Wera Hobhouse was a councillor in Rochdale. She was first elected as a Conservative in 2004 before defecting to the Liberal Democrats in 2005 and in 2007 the Liberal Democrats took control of Rochdale Council. Between 2009 and 2010 Wera Hobhouse chaired the council’s health scrutiny committee. In 2010 Wera Hobhouse stood for Parliament in the Heywood and Middleton constituency but did not win and the Liberal Democrats also lost control of Rochdale Council in that year. In 2014 Wera Hobhouse retired from Rochdale Council and moved to Bath and stood in a series of elections in that area before entering Parliament in 2017.

From 2004 to 2014 Sara Rowbotham worked for the NHS in Rochdale as a sexual health worker. During that time she made 181 referrals to the police and social services in which she informed the authorities that underage girls in the town were being sexually abused by gangs of men. The girls were failed for years (which also prompted the resignation of the GMP police officer Margaret Oliver) but when the new regional CPS prosecutor Nazir Afzal overturned a decision not to prosecute suspects the authorities took the allegations made by the girls and Sara Rowbotham seriously which has resulted in the conviction of dozens of men.

Greater Manchester Police, the CPS and Rochdale Council have all apologised for failing the victims. I have no evidence that Wera Hobhouse, a councillor in Rochdale and the chair of the health scrutiny committee at the time those girls in Rochdale were being failed, has said anything about the systematic sexual abuse of girls in Rochdale, never mind apologised for being a member of the council that failed them. However, when a young woman was upskirted Wera Hobhouse was willing to speak and act on her behalf and has been hailed as a feminist heroine for doing so.

When women like Gina Martin or Laura Bates or Soma Sara call out sexism, misogyny or rape culture feminist activists are eager to support them, MPs are eager to help them and newspapers and book publishers are eager to offer them money for write for them. However, when thousands of underage girls are repeatedly raped by gangs of Muslim men under the noses of Guardian-reading public servants who have a legal duty to protect those girls almost no-one cares and the people who do are smeared as racists. That’s the real snobbery in feminist activism, politics and journalism.

Last edited 9 months ago by Aw Zk
Derek Smith
Derek Smith
9 months ago
Reply to  Aw Zk

Some excellent points there.

Last edited 9 months ago by Derek Smith
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
9 months ago
Reply to  Aw Zk

This is why we need to rehabilitate and use phrases like “Muslim paedophile rape gangs.”

Geraldine Kelley
Geraldine Kelley
9 months ago
Reply to  Aw Zk

Thank you for this.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Aw Zk

Brilliant analysis, which deserves to be read more widely.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months ago
Reply to  Aw Zk

The reason is that fighting against cultures that are genuinely hostile to women, or treat women badly, is difficult. Because a) they are more likely to be unashamed about it (which is why those cultures are s**t to begin with) and, unlike with white men, berating a muslim man in Rochdale isn’t going to end well.
And b) there cultures are likely to be non white (whereas our brave feminists like to focus on white males) and find it easier to use “racism” accusations as a defense mechanism.

Last edited 9 months ago by Samir Iker
Narcissa Smith-Harris
Narcissa Smith-Harris
9 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

So berating white men has been so effective against the culture of the Catholic church which still insists on keeping women from being priests and which investigated their nuns for signs of feminism. It proved really effective for the Southern Baptists who lost their s**t at the thought of women preachers who are not being directly supervised by a man, even reconsidering letting them teach Sunday school.It is so effective in Israel where the Ultra-Orthodox are trying (and succeeding) at sex segregated busses.
Meanwhile feminists have gotten nowhere in the Middle East where women are literally risking their lives by taking off the veil–and are joined in that protest by men.
C’mon dude, your racism is showing. So is your sexism.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

Religions are so oppressive to women.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
9 months ago

Middle and upper class women had much freedom up to 1973 as demonstrated by those seen wearing mini skirts on newsreels.
The rise in influence of the Muslim Brotherhood post 1973 Yom Kippur War; over throw of the Shah by Khomeini in 1979: Saudi financial support of Salaafis/ Wahabis, from 1979; Zia ul Haq coming to power in Pakistan in 1978 and USSR invasion of Afghanistan led to reduction in freedom for women.
Arab and muslim women had more freedom in early 1973 than in 2023 and amongst the Beduin women of Arabia in the 1940s. In early 1980s, in Malaysia only mullahs wives wore headscarves, now most l Muslim women do.
Abdul Haq who led the Pushtun Mujahideen warned about the threat of Islamic extremism as early as 1985.
A major reason for the support of more restrictions on Muslim women is a reaction towards the sexual emancipation of women in the West. Suicide bombers ar happy to use mobile telephones to set off bombs so they are not against Western Technology, only the sexua lfreedom of western women.
The bombing of the Ariadne Concert which was attended by large numbers of girls and women was a direct attack on the sexual emanipation of women.
Manchester Arena bombing – Wikipedia
Extremist Muslims do not accept that women have the freedom to chose with whom they have sexual relations and are prepared to commit murder to impose their will.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago

Religions are so oppressive to women.