August 9, 2023 - 10:00am
Does the SNP approve of abusing women? Opponents of the party’s extreme views on transgender rights have long highlighted the poor quality of debate in Scotland, but remarks by a leading SNP politician provide dramatic evidence of a hostile climate towards outspoken women. Mhairi Black, Deputy Leader of the party at Westminster, has dismissed women who disagree with her views on transgender rights as “50-year-old Karens”.
Speaking at the Edinburgh Fringe, she compared feminists who oppose gender ideology to “white supremacists”, also repeating the slur that opposition to the demands of trans activists is financed by the religious Right. “When you start tracing it back, the money always links back to fundamental Christian groups in America, Baptist groups, anti-abortion organisations,” she claimed.
This is a smear, and one which exposes the degradation of political discourse in Scotland, where the SNP’s rage at being frustrated in its attempt to pass controversial legislation allowing self-ID appears to have driven some members of the party beyond rational thought.
With honourable exceptions such as Black’s Westminster colleague Joanna Cherry, the SNP’s behaviour has come to resemble that of a religious sect. Either you agree that human beings can change sex, and should be allowed to do so legally even if they have been charged with rape, or you are beyond the pale — a “bad actor”, to quote Black.
A belief in biological sex is now heresy in nationalist circles. Black made one concession, acknowledging that people should be allowed to hold different views from herself, but only as long as they don’t express them. Asked whether someone with a different philosophical position on gender could be “thoroughly decent”, she said to applause, “if you keep it to yourself, aye”.
Black’s remarks were apparently delivered without irony, even though she has blamed a “toxic” culture at Westminster for damaging her mental and physical health. She is standing down as an MP at the next general election after being elected at the age of 20 in 2015. Now 28, she is evidently one of those people who think the name “Karen” is an insult — and that reaching 50 is a poor lifestyle choice.
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.
SubscribeThe invocation of misogyny to explain the ideology and behaviour of these simple minded dolts is a distracting intellectual dead end.
Mhairi Black and her flat-Earther ilk aren’t attacking women who hold rational, objective beliefs, because they are women – they will just as readily attack any man who says the same. They attack rational women because these gender ideologues are fundamentally just stupid people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand that they are caught up in bizarre cult touting nonsensical ideas. And if they are not stupid, they are usually just naive kids who don’t know anything except what they have been indoctrinated in to by our leftist education system.
Black hasn’t studied the details and historical development of trans ideology and carefully weighed up its merits against the scientific binary conception of sex. She’s just repeating the guff she’s been told because it’s supposedly progressive and right-wing people object to it. Not a brain cell has been engaged in forming her opinions. As I said – she’s just thick.
It could be pointed out that adherents to this nonsense are very well qualified doctors, psychiatrists and academics – so how can they be said to lack intellect? Watching the mental breakdown of the supposed intellectual “elites” in response to the vote to leave the EU and the election of Trump, it is self-evident that academic intellect and behaving like hysterical, irrational fools are not mutually exclusive.
It is dispiriting to read the thoughts of certain feminists, who can’t look at anything except through the prism of “the Patriarchy”. Some laughably attribute the emergence of the trans movement to a secret plan by “the Patriarchy” to allow men to invade women’s spaces are social roles. Men and misogyny strike again. Such foolishness simply alienates the great number of men who are vehemently opposed to the rise of this dangerous trans cult. The invocation of “misogyny” and “the Patriarchy to explain the trans movement are not only factually incorrect, in alienating men it is self-defeating for the cause of ending this trans madness.
I was listening to a woman who grew up in China in the 60s and now lives in America. She makes strong parallels between China’s communism and the woke west. It may be becoming a truism but she makes some great comments and is well worth listening to; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSHM_COkg1Q
I knew nothing about all that gender or race critical stuff, or the patriarchy. Some of us non academic left-leaning women have no truck with those weird feminists. They’re traitors to their sex.
The direct parallels with what happened during Mao’s cultural revolution and what is now happening in the West are frightening
I’ve long suspected that the decline of organised traditional religion in the West has been a factor in the mass irrationality we see everywhere nowadays.
Many ordinary folk have an innate religiosity which regulates them rather more than reason ever does.
Once deprived of a conventional outlet (such as regular churches), the hoi polloi’s innate predilection for irrationality will find an outlet in some other area, such as identity politics. Pretty much all of the identity politics manifestations, from critical race theory through trans rights to metoo, have all the hallmarks of cults, rather than anything rational.
In broad terms, I think you’re right. However, it is wrong to claim that people in the west are being ‘deprived of a conventional outlet (such as regular churches)’. They are choosing not to belong to them, which is a very different thing.
Plausible conjecture.
It is indeed plausible, but that does not mean we should start going back to church! (I’m not suggesting that was what you, or Frank, intended.)
It is indeed plausible, but that does not mean we should start going back to church! (I’m not suggesting that was what you, or Frank, intended.)
Take that, Dawkins! (It is precisely religion which keeps us from becoming even more irrational?) But the Church at its best did insist on basic decent standards for treating others. That’s not nothing.
Many of the Church’s staff were not “its best” – because they were too busy raping children – while instructing others to behave otherwise.
I’m assuming you have been told to dislike Richard Dawkins work – without ever questioning the validly of that view – or reading his books yourself.
Feel free to (accurately) quote something Richard Dawkins has said – and produce a counter argument.
I read his book and my reaction was that it was the best case for the existence of God ever put forward by man
I read his book and my reaction was that it was the best case for the existence of God ever put forward by man
Many of the Church’s staff were not “its best” – because they were too busy raping children – while instructing others to behave otherwise.
I’m assuming you have been told to dislike Richard Dawkins work – without ever questioning the validly of that view – or reading his books yourself.
Feel free to (accurately) quote something Richard Dawkins has said – and produce a counter argument.
…the great G. K. Chesterton had it right “it is not that when men stop believing in God that they believe in nothing…but that they will start to believe anything (however demented)” My brackets!
I disagree. I believe it was Orwell who commented that it requires an intellectual to believe the dumbest things (said in more articulate terms). You speak to the human condition, not to some disparaged hoi polloi.
I think you are substantially right. One of my relatives went from an activist member of the God squad at university to being a rabid feminist/leftist some years later.
One episode does not establish anything either way but I have noticed that most if not all of the ideologically certain teuchters with whom I cross paths are primarily filling an internal void
In broad terms, I think you’re right. However, it is wrong to claim that people in the west are being ‘deprived of a conventional outlet (such as regular churches)’. They are choosing not to belong to them, which is a very different thing.
Plausible conjecture.
Take that, Dawkins! (It is precisely religion which keeps us from becoming even more irrational?) But the Church at its best did insist on basic decent standards for treating others. That’s not nothing.
…the great G. K. Chesterton had it right “it is not that when men stop believing in God that they believe in nothing…but that they will start to believe anything (however demented)” My brackets!
I disagree. I believe it was Orwell who commented that it requires an intellectual to believe the dumbest things (said in more articulate terms). You speak to the human condition, not to some disparaged hoi polloi.
I think you are substantially right. One of my relatives went from an activist member of the God squad at university to being a rabid feminist/leftist some years later.
One episode does not establish anything either way but I have noticed that most if not all of the ideologically certain teuchters with whom I cross paths are primarily filling an internal void
Somewhat relatedly, my name for Greenpeace is the Vert Rouge.
What, they self-contradict?
Watermelons.
What, they self-contradict?
Watermelons.
Serve the People.
I’ve long suspected that the decline of organised traditional religion in the West has been a factor in the mass irrationality we see everywhere nowadays.
Many ordinary folk have an innate religiosity which regulates them rather more than reason ever does.
Once deprived of a conventional outlet (such as regular churches), the hoi polloi’s innate predilection for irrationality will find an outlet in some other area, such as identity politics. Pretty much all of the identity politics manifestations, from critical race theory through trans rights to metoo, have all the hallmarks of cults, rather than anything rational.
Somewhat relatedly, my name for Greenpeace is the Vert Rouge.
Serve the People.
The direct parallels with what happened during Mao’s cultural revolution and what is now happening in the West are frightening
wonderful! The philologists above are mistaken – though a woman may be a woman hater. Misogyny to me is an anti-male cuss word pretty much devoid of content. Ironically, the trans cult is a female cult; dependant on misplaced (toxic) empathy.
You are absolutely right, but there is one aspect you missed.
A lot of the buzz words – misogyny, patriarchy, white supremacist – are precisely aimed to protect irrational beliefs held by certain groups (upper class women, blacks, etc) against any “rational, objective” analysis and to spew hatred against, say, white men. .
And so, this isn’t about “women who hold rational, objective beliefs”. Those same women will turn on you, screeching with rage, if you suggest there is no gender pay gap, structural racism, islamophobia…or that women are physically weaker than men (which they should logically agree with, as that’s the rationale for not allowing trans into women’s spaces).
It’s a civil war between two sets of bigoted victimhood based groups full of hatred towards men. And that’s why your “rational, objective” women can’t help invoke patriarchy and misogyny, blaming men is all they know, and their beliefs are exactly the same as the women supporting the trans lobby.
Very well summarised. It is a pity both sides can’t lose
Very well summarised. It is a pity both sides can’t lose
…quite right. The last thing anyone who could be considered a representative of “The Patriarchy” would do is support these autogynephiliac degenerate loons…we would much prefer to flog them round the town at the cart’s tail!
Yes that’s the point I keep trying to make. Any so-called Patriarchy would put the ban-hammer down on this stuff very quickly!
Yes that’s the point I keep trying to make. Any so-called Patriarchy would put the ban-hammer down on this stuff very quickly!
Which is a particularly stupid explanation because actual patriarchal societies tend to be very much in favour of having separate spaces and social roles for women. You don’t see the genders mixing freely in Saudi Arabia et al.
She followed her fallen leader Sturgeon who cast slurs at any criticism of the gender ideology, calling anyone doing it either transphobic, racist or very probably racist bigots… Ms Black is just a follower of a collapsed party but doesn’t realise it yet, parroting spells that no longer have any power.
I was listening to a woman who grew up in China in the 60s and now lives in America. She makes strong parallels between China’s communism and the woke west. It may be becoming a truism but she makes some great comments and is well worth listening to; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSHM_COkg1Q
I knew nothing about all that gender or race critical stuff, or the patriarchy. Some of us non academic left-leaning women have no truck with those weird feminists. They’re traitors to their sex.
wonderful! The philologists above are mistaken – though a woman may be a woman hater. Misogyny to me is an anti-male cuss word pretty much devoid of content. Ironically, the trans cult is a female cult; dependant on misplaced (toxic) empathy.
You are absolutely right, but there is one aspect you missed.
A lot of the buzz words – misogyny, patriarchy, white supremacist – are precisely aimed to protect irrational beliefs held by certain groups (upper class women, blacks, etc) against any “rational, objective” analysis and to spew hatred against, say, white men. .
And so, this isn’t about “women who hold rational, objective beliefs”. Those same women will turn on you, screeching with rage, if you suggest there is no gender pay gap, structural racism, islamophobia…or that women are physically weaker than men (which they should logically agree with, as that’s the rationale for not allowing trans into women’s spaces).
It’s a civil war between two sets of bigoted victimhood based groups full of hatred towards men. And that’s why your “rational, objective” women can’t help invoke patriarchy and misogyny, blaming men is all they know, and their beliefs are exactly the same as the women supporting the trans lobby.
…quite right. The last thing anyone who could be considered a representative of “The Patriarchy” would do is support these autogynephiliac degenerate loons…we would much prefer to flog them round the town at the cart’s tail!
Which is a particularly stupid explanation because actual patriarchal societies tend to be very much in favour of having separate spaces and social roles for women. You don’t see the genders mixing freely in Saudi Arabia et al.
She followed her fallen leader Sturgeon who cast slurs at any criticism of the gender ideology, calling anyone doing it either transphobic, racist or very probably racist bigots… Ms Black is just a follower of a collapsed party but doesn’t realise it yet, parroting spells that no longer have any power.
The invocation of misogyny to explain the ideology and behaviour of these simple minded dolts is a distracting intellectual dead end.
Mhairi Black and her flat-Earther ilk aren’t attacking women who hold rational, objective beliefs, because they are women – they will just as readily attack any man who says the same. They attack rational women because these gender ideologues are fundamentally just stupid people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand that they are caught up in bizarre cult touting nonsensical ideas. And if they are not stupid, they are usually just naive kids who don’t know anything except what they have been indoctrinated in to by our leftist education system.
Black hasn’t studied the details and historical development of trans ideology and carefully weighed up its merits against the scientific binary conception of sex. She’s just repeating the guff she’s been told because it’s supposedly progressive and right-wing people object to it. Not a brain cell has been engaged in forming her opinions. As I said – she’s just thick.
It could be pointed out that adherents to this nonsense are very well qualified doctors, psychiatrists and academics – so how can they be said to lack intellect? Watching the mental breakdown of the supposed intellectual “elites” in response to the vote to leave the EU and the election of Trump, it is self-evident that academic intellect and behaving like hysterical, irrational fools are not mutually exclusive.
It is dispiriting to read the thoughts of certain feminists, who can’t look at anything except through the prism of “the Patriarchy”. Some laughably attribute the emergence of the trans movement to a secret plan by “the Patriarchy” to allow men to invade women’s spaces are social roles. Men and misogyny strike again. Such foolishness simply alienates the great number of men who are vehemently opposed to the rise of this dangerous trans cult. The invocation of “misogyny” and “the Patriarchy to explain the trans movement are not only factually incorrect, in alienating men it is self-defeating for the cause of ending this trans madness.
The SNP’s official policy is “if some bloke says he thinks he’s a woman, then he’s a woman”. Ms Black’s defence of that policy is not as bad as Nicola Sturgeon’s. Nicola said that anyone who opposed the policy must be transphobic, homophobic, mysogynist and racist. (I wonder if Nicola toyed with the idea of appending “Islamophobic” to her list, for good measure.)
I don’t doubt that Ms Black’s rhetorical skills went down a storm in the Students’ Union debates in Glasgow. But outside of that rarified atmosphere, they fall a bit flat.
The SNP’s official policy is “if some bloke says he thinks he’s a woman, then he’s a woman”. Ms Black’s defence of that policy is not as bad as Nicola Sturgeon’s. Nicola said that anyone who opposed the policy must be transphobic, homophobic, mysogynist and racist. (I wonder if Nicola toyed with the idea of appending “Islamophobic” to her list, for good measure.)
I don’t doubt that Ms Black’s rhetorical skills went down a storm in the Students’ Union debates in Glasgow. But outside of that rarified atmosphere, they fall a bit flat.
Absolutely disgusting and misogynistic views – astonishing that they were publicly expressed, and shared by the current deputy leader of a polititcal party!!
How is it not a crime? She should be held accountable for spreading such a hateful rhetoric, and inciting dangerous behaviour towards women – the fella in trafalgar square was!! Thank you Joan – spot on as usual!
That Mhari Black claims to be standing down at the next general election on account of the “toxic” Commons environment is almost beyond irony. There are few who have done more to bolster and perpetuate its toxicity than she.
Yes – best thing she could do, after a public apology of course. She was embarrassed in parliament, toxic is such a cop out! We don’t need shameless cloutchasers anywhere near our policies, especially now. She’ll come unstuck though, as they all will.
In the meantime, I’d love to see any one of these politicians – that proudly fly the trans flag, actually give the public what they want – an interview with Beth Rigby.
Yes – best thing she could do, after a public apology of course. She was embarrassed in parliament, toxic is such a cop out! We don’t need shameless cloutchasers anywhere near our policies, especially now. She’ll come unstuck though, as they all will.
In the meantime, I’d love to see any one of these politicians – that proudly fly the trans flag, actually give the public what they want – an interview with Beth Rigby.
That Mhari Black claims to be standing down at the next general election on account of the “toxic” Commons environment is almost beyond irony. There are few who have done more to bolster and perpetuate its toxicity than she.
Absolutely disgusting and misogynistic views – astonishing that they were publicly expressed, and shared by the current deputy leader of a polititcal party!!
How is it not a crime? She should be held accountable for spreading such a hateful rhetoric, and inciting dangerous behaviour towards women – the fella in trafalgar square was!! Thank you Joan – spot on as usual!
“Mhairi Black, Deputy Leader of the party at Westminster, has dismissed women who disagree with her views on transgender rights as “50-year-old Karens”.”
“Karen” is an anti-white pejorative. The SNP’s Deputy Leader at Westminster is a racist.
“Mhairi Black, Deputy Leader of the party at Westminster, has dismissed women who disagree with her views on transgender rights as “50-year-old Karens”.”
“Karen” is an anti-white pejorative. The SNP’s Deputy Leader at Westminster is a racist.
Is abuse, aimed at women, by women, that ‘probably’ the vast majority’ of men profoundly disagree with really misogyny ?
Yes. Women can be misogynistic.
Apparently, everyone can be a misogynist.
Apparently, everyone can be a misogynist.
Could be – self-hating of one’s own person or group is not uncommon.
Yes, normally, I would expect to see ‘inverted misogyny’ as this is a dislike of women by women.
I also agree that the vast majority of men do disagree with misogyny.
The word ‘misogyny’ (literally misunderstanding women) refers to attitude & language that smears, debases, insults & oppresses women. Who or where it comes from is not the point. It’s the sentiment, not the source, that is relevant.
Exactly! Worrying that people get muddled up about such a basic point.
Yep.
Misogyny is literally hatred of women, rather than misunderstanding.
But what the word means in the imaginations of those who currently fling it around so liberally, I couldn’t say.
I think the problem here is women tend to use it as a term aimed at blaming men, or “society”, whereas if you go by the definition you yourself wrote down, it’s primarily women who are responsible.
It’s amazing really, when I look back at my career, multiple jobs, India and UK, and invariably the managers responsible for belittling or tormenting young females in the company are women (often those who have used the girl card themselves to gain fast track promotions or quotas).
Ditto personal life (me and friends I know), mother / sister in laws will commonly do their best to make life hell for the wife, sometimes bordering on utter hate. Father in law’s, far less so.
As you say, it’s not uncommon for successful females to see other females as competition.
By all accounts, men are far more likely to compliment or promote a women.
Many women say they don’t want to work for a woman.
It is ironic, it was me, a complete anti feminist, who stuck his neck out to support a couple of young female grads in our group, though I hated the fact that they were essentially waved in for “diversity” – bit still, not their fault.
But both the feminists and the senior male managers who touted “equity and diversity” – had utter contempt for those young girls, couldn’t care less if they crashed and burned due to the hostility and indifference they faced.
Rather different from where I worked for many years.
Young women, one or two years out of university, were placed on the “accelerated management track” where they managed several men with 10 to 20 years of experience. They were taught to “manage by consensus,” which meant to listen to what the male underlings advised and then do what they said.
Initially, these young women were gung-ho and “leaning in.” But after a while they realised that their position was not justified and several were sincerely embarrassed to have been boosted beyond their capabilities.
The company held “girl-boss” meetings for them, which they usually wanted to avoid.
It was all a joke and they knew it. Quotas and “affirmative action” don’t instill self respect in anyone.
Rather different from where I worked for many years.
Young women, one or two years out of university, were placed on the “accelerated management track” where they managed several men with 10 to 20 years of experience. They were taught to “manage by consensus,” which meant to listen to what the male underlings advised and then do what they said.
Initially, these young women were gung-ho and “leaning in.” But after a while they realised that their position was not justified and several were sincerely embarrassed to have been boosted beyond their capabilities.
The company held “girl-boss” meetings for them, which they usually wanted to avoid.
It was all a joke and they knew it. Quotas and “affirmative action” don’t instill self respect in anyone.
It is ironic, it was me, a complete anti feminist, who stuck his neck out to support a couple of young female grads in our group, though I hated the fact that they were essentially waved in for “diversity” – bit still, not their fault.
But both the feminists and the senior male managers who touted “equity and diversity” – had utter contempt for those young girls, couldn’t care less if they crashed and burned due to the hostility and indifference they faced.
“Queen Bee syndrome.”
As you say, it’s not uncommon for successful females to see other females as competition.
By all accounts, men are far more likely to compliment or promote a women.
Many women say they don’t want to work for a woman.
“Queen Bee syndrome.”
… and the word “misandry” is rarely mentioned – despite it being policy for most of Labour’s front bench.
Exactly! Worrying that people get muddled up about such a basic point.
Yep.
Misogyny is literally hatred of women, rather than misunderstanding.
But what the word means in the imaginations of those who currently fling it around so liberally, I couldn’t say.
I think the problem here is women tend to use it as a term aimed at blaming men, or “society”, whereas if you go by the definition you yourself wrote down, it’s primarily women who are responsible.
It’s amazing really, when I look back at my career, multiple jobs, India and UK, and invariably the managers responsible for belittling or tormenting young females in the company are women (often those who have used the girl card themselves to gain fast track promotions or quotas).
Ditto personal life (me and friends I know), mother / sister in laws will commonly do their best to make life hell for the wife, sometimes bordering on utter hate. Father in law’s, far less so.
… and the word “misandry” is rarely mentioned – despite it being policy for most of Labour’s front bench.
Thanks.
Misogyny is not simply “dislike.”
Misogyny is “hate.”
The term “misogyny” is derived from the Ancient Greek word “mīsoguníā” which means hatred towards women.
If it is only dislike, there is nothing wrong with that.
People are allowed to dislike anything they want.
The word ‘misogyny’ (literally misunderstanding women) refers to attitude & language that smears, debases, insults & oppresses women. Who or where it comes from is not the point. It’s the sentiment, not the source, that is relevant.
Thanks.
Misogyny is not simply “dislike.”
Misogyny is “hate.”
The term “misogyny” is derived from the Ancient Greek word “mīsoguníā” which means hatred towards women.
If it is only dislike, there is nothing wrong with that.
People are allowed to dislike anything they want.
Well, obviously, yes – just as white or black people can be (and frequently are) prejudiced about other white or black people. The bigotry is defined by the target, not by the sex or race of the bigot.
People either don’t know what the word misogyny means or they’ve redefined it.
A misogynist now seems to be anyone who disagrees with a woman or says something a woman doesn’t want to hear.
Read the post, there is no disagreement. Just a politician publicly hating women.
I did read the post.
The word “hate” doesn’t appear anywhere.
I did read the post.
The word “hate” doesn’t appear anywhere.
Read the post, there is no disagreement. Just a politician publicly hating women.
Yes. Women are vicious to other women under the guise of kindness. There was a cabal of ‘mean girls’ behind the persecution of Maya Forstater by the CGD & Allison Bailey at Garden Court Chambers. Women have always been the worst witch-hunters.
It’s a strange business this. Women will happily tell you about the viciousness of other women, no woman is ever surprised by how nasty women can be (men in contrast are often blindsided), all-female teams often seem to struggle with cohesion – and yet research claims to show that women are more empathetic, more cooperative and communicate better.
Whats going on?
A whole host of replies there, and I can’t really disagree with any of them. If I were to make one critique though, as I see it, probably erroneously, is that the women ‘attacking’ other women are not doing because they are women (misogyny) but because of the specific views of these women (not to mention the probable vast, vast majority of people with half a brain, which I suspect might actually help) not specifically their sex. I’m not sure that the bile directed at them is so much that they are women, and maybe seen as ‘vulnerable’, but that they are possibly seen as sell out’s or traitors to the cause, particularly if they had a high profile prior to. Why was that saying about ‘A woman scorned’, I suspect for a certain clique of women activist ( I’m not sure I can call them feminists) that applies, with cherries on top.
It’s complicated. But one thing’s for sure; the patriarchy is bad, but the matriarchy would be an absolute nightmare.
A whole host of replies there, and I can’t really disagree with any of them. If I were to make one critique though, as I see it, probably erroneously, is that the women ‘attacking’ other women are not doing because they are women (misogyny) but because of the specific views of these women (not to mention the probable vast, vast majority of people with half a brain, which I suspect might actually help) not specifically their sex. I’m not sure that the bile directed at them is so much that they are women, and maybe seen as ‘vulnerable’, but that they are possibly seen as sell out’s or traitors to the cause, particularly if they had a high profile prior to. Why was that saying about ‘A woman scorned’, I suspect for a certain clique of women activist ( I’m not sure I can call them feminists) that applies, with cherries on top.
It’s complicated. But one thing’s for sure; the patriarchy is bad, but the matriarchy would be an absolute nightmare.
It’s a strange business this. Women will happily tell you about the viciousness of other women, no woman is ever surprised by how nasty women can be (men in contrast are often blindsided), all-female teams often seem to struggle with cohesion – and yet research claims to show that women are more empathetic, more cooperative and communicate better.
Whats going on?
Yes. Women can be misogynistic.
Could be – self-hating of one’s own person or group is not uncommon.
Yes, normally, I would expect to see ‘inverted misogyny’ as this is a dislike of women by women.
I also agree that the vast majority of men do disagree with misogyny.
Well, obviously, yes – just as white or black people can be (and frequently are) prejudiced about other white or black people. The bigotry is defined by the target, not by the sex or race of the bigot.
People either don’t know what the word misogyny means or they’ve redefined it.
A misogynist now seems to be anyone who disagrees with a woman or says something a woman doesn’t want to hear.
Yes. Women are vicious to other women under the guise of kindness. There was a cabal of ‘mean girls’ behind the persecution of Maya Forstater by the CGD & Allison Bailey at Garden Court Chambers. Women have always been the worst witch-hunters.
Is abuse, aimed at women, by women, that ‘probably’ the vast majority’ of men profoundly disagree with really misogyny ?
“This is pure misogyny, expressed in language designed to silence and shame women who hold perfectly rational views.”
*This is pure misogyny, expressed in language designed to silence and shame women who hold obviously true views.
“This is pure misogyny, expressed in language designed to silence and shame women who hold perfectly rational views.”
*This is pure misogyny, expressed in language designed to silence and shame women who hold obviously true views.
She sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant bigot, yet she was lionised at Westminster as the “baby of the House” and they all nodded sympathetically at her complaints at how difficult the life of an MP now is. This “one of us” mentality at the HofC gives some very nasty people a free pass.
She sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant bigot, yet she was lionised at Westminster as the “baby of the House” and they all nodded sympathetically at her complaints at how difficult the life of an MP now is. This “one of us” mentality at the HofC gives some very nasty people a free pass.
Why? Because she’s a fcukwit.
Brevity, accuracy and clarity. Nicely done.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Brevity, accuracy and clarity. Nicely done.
Why? Because she’s a fcukwit.
She’s grim, but she’s pretty typical of a “true-believer type” who embraces gender ideology in all its cult-like weirdness, aggression and irrationality. So high on their own righteousness that they feel justified in being vile to anyone whom they view as heretical.
She’s grim, but she’s pretty typical of a “true-believer type” who embraces gender ideology in all its cult-like weirdness, aggression and irrationality. So high on their own righteousness that they feel justified in being vile to anyone whom they view as heretical.
But those self-same feminists were like white supremacists themselves, back in the day. Thinking about 1990s campus politics.
If you were a male, you could do no right. You shouldn’t speak ever, unless they allocated you a few seconds sometime in 2018 when all others had spoken their bit, and it was then your turn, for 8.3 seconds, according to their sliding scale of virtue.
So if the Robespierre Machine now demands their being ushered toward its whirring, thrashing blades, even by someone as silly as this M’hairy, should they really complain?
The feminists and their dogma that there are no fundamental differences between women and men, and that any differences were the result of the culture set up by “the Patriarchy”, laid the foundations for the trans ideologues they are now fighting.
Once it is asserted that men and women are products of culture rather than biology, it was only a small intellectual jump to the assertion that behaviour and feelings can be determinative of whether an individual is a man or women, irrespective of biological sex.
Exactly right, and, if what I’ve read about this ghastly pink film that my young daughters are clamouring to see is correct, that same nonsense re “interchangeable men and women” underpins much of that anti-family film.
Didn’t know Oppenheimer was **that** bad, but I can believe it.
Didn’t know Oppenheimer was **that** bad, but I can believe it.
You make a very good point.
Agreed. Crafting this narrative amounted to bringing the collapsing wall down on your own head.
Exactly right, and, if what I’ve read about this ghastly pink film that my young daughters are clamouring to see is correct, that same nonsense re “interchangeable men and women” underpins much of that anti-family film.
You make a very good point.
Agreed. Crafting this narrative amounted to bringing the collapsing wall down on your own head.
Some of us women have never gone to university (including JK Rowling), and have not time for GC subjects, but we won’t have some insane trans perverts use our toilets.
J.K. Rowling has a degree in French from Exeter University, according to Wikipedia.
Quite right.
J.K. Rowling has a degree in French from Exeter University, according to Wikipedia.
Quite right.
This sounds like a revenge scenario. I get that some men feel that they were hard done by when women were finding their voice & trying to participate in the world as equal humans.
But passing forward trauma is exactly how resentments & inequalities of all kinds – social, familial, political, global – are perpetuated. Women are seeing all their hard won sex-based rights going down the pan & all you can say is “Serves you right”?
Well thanks for that.
It’s not exactly a move towards greater understanding is it?
Well said.
I guess some men were. Principally in the US. Many more blokes, esp in rural farming communities, already worked side-by-side with tough women, whom we adored. Real sexism is in towns.
‘Real sexism is in towns.’
Good grief. You are every bit as deluded as those revolutionary socialists who claim there is no racism among the working class.
‘Real sexism is in towns.’
Good grief. You are every bit as deluded as those revolutionary socialists who claim there is no racism among the working class.
this is a cat fight – evidenced by Katherine Stock’s colleagues. Males are foolish to get within a mile of it.
No. Autogynophilia, & to a lesser extent paedophilia, male sex drives, are at the heart of this. And only good males can police bad males.
No. Autogynophilia, & to a lesser extent paedophilia, male sex drives, are at the heart of this. And only good males can police bad males.
Unherd comments are frequently littered with such “serve-you-rightism” as you’ve called out. It’s just pathetic.
It’s because while some of the tradcons on here seem to think that feminists have come over to their side, others of us are suspicious. And we would like to see a taking of responsibility for this silly mess by those who laid the groundwork for it.
Should the anti trans feminists and their new found allies successfully see off the trans threat, then some of us suspect it will be back to the anti male business as usual.
It’s because while some of the tradcons on here seem to think that feminists have come over to their side, others of us are suspicious. And we would like to see a taking of responsibility for this silly mess by those who laid the groundwork for it.
Should the anti trans feminists and their new found allies successfully see off the trans threat, then some of us suspect it will be back to the anti male business as usual.
I get that some women feel that they are hard done by now trans people are finding their voice & trying to participate in the world as equal humans
Did you see what I did there.
Well, that’s if you assume it had an effect on me, one that might require a revenge ?
I cared for the jargon little enough to bother to make an argument back to them – it seemed too trivial to be engaging with.
Sometimes you know instinctively that something is a bit shit.
And if I was in their sights as a malfeasor, then it was obviously kinda misconceived and hopeless. An eighteen year old homosexual male is the villain here?
If I’d have wanted to, I could have cut a slice of Grievance Pie myself! I mean it was the AIDS era, and gay sex was illegal.
But who would lower themselves? It’s just better not to play.
This was not the kind of stuff I went to university for. It was the language of the drop-in centre, not the academy.
Well said.
I guess some men were. Principally in the US. Many more blokes, esp in rural farming communities, already worked side-by-side with tough women, whom we adored. Real sexism is in towns.
this is a cat fight – evidenced by Katherine Stock’s colleagues. Males are foolish to get within a mile of it.
Unherd comments are frequently littered with such “serve-you-rightism” as you’ve called out. It’s just pathetic.
I get that some women feel that they are hard done by now trans people are finding their voice & trying to participate in the world as equal humans
Did you see what I did there.
Well, that’s if you assume it had an effect on me, one that might require a revenge ?
I cared for the jargon little enough to bother to make an argument back to them – it seemed too trivial to be engaging with.
Sometimes you know instinctively that something is a bit shit.
And if I was in their sights as a malfeasor, then it was obviously kinda misconceived and hopeless. An eighteen year old homosexual male is the villain here?
If I’d have wanted to, I could have cut a slice of Grievance Pie myself! I mean it was the AIDS era, and gay sex was illegal.
But who would lower themselves? It’s just better not to play.
This was not the kind of stuff I went to university for. It was the language of the drop-in centre, not the academy.
Yes – I’ve got bored saying this, but it’s absolutely true. This whole way of doing politics is straight out of the feminist playbook.
The feminists and their dogma that there are no fundamental differences between women and men, and that any differences were the result of the culture set up by “the Patriarchy”, laid the foundations for the trans ideologues they are now fighting.
Once it is asserted that men and women are products of culture rather than biology, it was only a small intellectual jump to the assertion that behaviour and feelings can be determinative of whether an individual is a man or women, irrespective of biological sex.
Some of us women have never gone to university (including JK Rowling), and have not time for GC subjects, but we won’t have some insane trans perverts use our toilets.
This sounds like a revenge scenario. I get that some men feel that they were hard done by when women were finding their voice & trying to participate in the world as equal humans.
But passing forward trauma is exactly how resentments & inequalities of all kinds – social, familial, political, global – are perpetuated. Women are seeing all their hard won sex-based rights going down the pan & all you can say is “Serves you right”?
Well thanks for that.
It’s not exactly a move towards greater understanding is it?
Yes – I’ve got bored saying this, but it’s absolutely true. This whole way of doing politics is straight out of the feminist playbook.
But those self-same feminists were like white supremacists themselves, back in the day. Thinking about 1990s campus politics.
If you were a male, you could do no right. You shouldn’t speak ever, unless they allocated you a few seconds sometime in 2018 when all others had spoken their bit, and it was then your turn, for 8.3 seconds, according to their sliding scale of virtue.
So if the Robespierre Machine now demands their being ushered toward its whirring, thrashing blades, even by someone as silly as this M’hairy, should they really complain?
“First they came …”
“First they came …”
‘When you start tracing it back, the money always links back to fundamental Christian groups in America, Baptist groups, anti-abortion organisations,” ‘
J.K. Rowling is worth about a billion dollars. I think we should ask where that money came from.
Interestingly enough the American Christians were right about Rowling. She really is into gross occult stuff and injected it into books for children.
Which occult society does she belong to?
Presumably not yours – OTO by any chance? Is the “fascist” takeover complete? So mote it be! lol
Slytherin
Presumably not yours – OTO by any chance? Is the “fascist” takeover complete? So mote it be! lol
Slytherin
Have you read them? There is no actual magic formula, the books are about friendship and hard work to overcome any difficulties in your way.
All the ‘spells’ are fictitious.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-magic-that-inspired-jk-rowling-to-create-harry-potter
“a new exhibition at the British Library, reveals the extent to which J.K. Rowling relied on the real history of magic and alchemy to create her wizarding world.”
“the surprising lengths taken by Rowling to weave real history into the stories”
If someone asked you to write a children’s story about wizards would you research the occult and weave it into the story? Would you write about Cornelius Agrippa in a book for children? Rowling even had herself tattooed with the legend “Solve et Coagula”, known to every edgy occultist from Eliphas Lévi’s baphomet.
You mean they don’t actually work?!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-magic-that-inspired-jk-rowling-to-create-harry-potter
“a new exhibition at the British Library, reveals the extent to which J.K. Rowling relied on the real history of magic and alchemy to create her wizarding world.”
“the surprising lengths taken by Rowling to weave real history into the stories”
If someone asked you to write a children’s story about wizards would you research the occult and weave it into the story? Would you write about Cornelius Agrippa in a book for children? Rowling even had herself tattooed with the legend “Solve et Coagula”, known to every edgy occultist from Eliphas Lévi’s baphomet.
You mean they don’t actually work?!
So you know her well, do you?
Your heid’s awa, mon
Please stop drinking. The world doesn’t need any more puce-faced, drunken Irishmen.
Please stop drinking. The world doesn’t need any more puce-faced, drunken Irishmen.
Which occult society does she belong to?
Have you read them? There is no actual magic formula, the books are about friendship and hard work to overcome any difficulties in your way.
All the ‘spells’ are fictitious.
So you know her well, do you?
Your heid’s awa, mon
I’ve been waiting for my US right wing fundie cheque(check) for what feels like forever. It’s been almost a decade. The queue of we believers in material reality must be awfully long. I do hope they have deep pockets.
Book sales mostly.
I guess some of the cash came from the Pagan-Queer-Neurodivers-ariat that constituted her hardcore readers.
But apparently they started despising her not long after the last HP book, allegedly for ‘mishandling’ the series end. And killing off some character who lots of Tumblr-head girls apparently have sex with in their dreams.
Or so says Tara Isabella Burton, in her book ‘Strange Rites.’
The money comes from the books and film income. For years in fact, she herself used to donate to the Labour party, until that shower of perverts started denying biology. Christian groups have no time for JK Rowling’s books since the stories deal in magic.
The trans activists money comes from millionaires testing out the effects of various drugs on young and healthy bodies so they can pursue their immortality dreams, and from pharmaceutical companies who can make money by pathologising social contagion.
In fact much of the funding comes from a small group of American trans billionaires according to Helen Joyce, author of ‘Trans’. She devotes a chapter to it.
In fact much of the funding comes from a small group of American trans billionaires according to Helen Joyce, author of ‘Trans’. She devotes a chapter to it.
I’ll wager books and films.
Big Sorcery. Witches and wizards get a percentage of the profits from every single fortune cookie sold in this country.
The witches I know have resources consisting of:
1. one of those butterfly-wing dildos
2. bottle of blue hair dye
3. 5kg of cat litter (used)
The witches I know have resources consisting of:
1. one of those butterfly-wing dildos
2. bottle of blue hair dye
3. 5kg of cat litter (used)
Interestingly enough the American Christians were right about Rowling. She really is into gross occult stuff and injected it into books for children.
I’ve been waiting for my US right wing fundie cheque(check) for what feels like forever. It’s been almost a decade. The queue of we believers in material reality must be awfully long. I do hope they have deep pockets.
Book sales mostly.
I guess some of the cash came from the Pagan-Queer-Neurodivers-ariat that constituted her hardcore readers.
But apparently they started despising her not long after the last HP book, allegedly for ‘mishandling’ the series end. And killing off some character who lots of Tumblr-head girls apparently have sex with in their dreams.
Or so says Tara Isabella Burton, in her book ‘Strange Rites.’
The money comes from the books and film income. For years in fact, she herself used to donate to the Labour party, until that shower of perverts started denying biology. Christian groups have no time for JK Rowling’s books since the stories deal in magic.
The trans activists money comes from millionaires testing out the effects of various drugs on young and healthy bodies so they can pursue their immortality dreams, and from pharmaceutical companies who can make money by pathologising social contagion.
I’ll wager books and films.
Big Sorcery. Witches and wizards get a percentage of the profits from every single fortune cookie sold in this country.
‘When you start tracing it back, the money always links back to fundamental Christian groups in America, Baptist groups, anti-abortion organisations,” ‘
J.K. Rowling is worth about a billion dollars. I think we should ask where that money came from.
Barking mad
Barking mad
Crazy eyes.
Probably not the most informed measure of mental stability.
Probably not the most informed measure of mental stability.
Crazy eyes.
The discussions below about the nature of misogyny are interesting but rather miss the point, in my opinion. Labelling people with derogatory names is unhelpful at best and highly damaging in the main. It would be better to talk more about the issues than the assumed motivations of others in the discussion. In other words, show others the same degree of respect as you would hope to receive. Many on UnHerd (including some journalists) show courtesy and forbearance; others resort to offensiveness.
We are the offended. Maybe redirect your comment in the form of a tweet or email to the leader of the SNP party.
We are the offended. Maybe redirect your comment in the form of a tweet or email to the leader of the SNP party.
The discussions below about the nature of misogyny are interesting but rather miss the point, in my opinion. Labelling people with derogatory names is unhelpful at best and highly damaging in the main. It would be better to talk more about the issues than the assumed motivations of others in the discussion. In other words, show others the same degree of respect as you would hope to receive. Many on UnHerd (including some journalists) show courtesy and forbearance; others resort to offensiveness.
Ah modern chemicals acting like god and nature.
What is beyond meat ?
What does plastic do ?
How ’bout that new weight loss drug !
How odd: the writer lambastes guilt-by-association involving imaginary religious right money trails, then goes on to compare Black’s diatribe with witchcraft persecution?
How odd: the writer lambastes guilt-by-association involving imaginary religious right money trails, then goes on to compare Black’s diatribe with witchcraft persecution?