Government by and for feminists

This article needs a fisking:

Women and girls across the UK face “relentless” harassment on the street and not enough is being done to stop it, MPs say.

Of course.

The politicians making up the Women and Equalities Committee looked into the issue for nine months and found the amount of harassment meant it became “normalised” for girls growing up.

Similarly, anti-poverty campaigners think we live in a Dickensian dystopia, anti-racism campaigners think the KKK roam the streets looking for brown folk to lynch, and the modern temperance movement thinks we’re all alcoholics. If a committee was set up to manage unicorns, you can be sure we’d be reading reports on how many unicorns were hiding in the woods.

The MPs are now calling for the government to take action to tackle it.

The Home Office said the issue was a “key priority”.

Thankfully, immigration, terrorism, Brexit, public debt, knife crime, house prices, and every other major issue the electorate cites as priorities have been solved.

The committee heard evidence that street harassment was widespread, from being shouted at and cat-called through to sexual assaults.

In whose interests is it to lump sexual assaults together with being shouted at?

They also heard it took place in a number of public spaces – on transport, in bars and clubs, through online spaces, at universities, in parks and on the street.

So men vy for women’s attention everywhere. Who knew?

Committee chairwoman Maria Miller said: “It can make women and girls scared and stressed, avoid certain routes home at night or certain train carriages, wear headphones while out running.

With the exception of wearing headphones, this is no different to young men wishing to avoid getting into a fight. Do these idiots think men don’t avoid certain routes home at night, or certain train carriages? How many of those ending up in A&E with knife wounds are young men?

“Women feel the onus is put on them to avoid ‘risky’ situations – all of this keeps women and girls unequal.”

They feel the onus is on them, probably because they’re so wrapped up in their own victimhood they’ve not bothered to talk to any men about what it’s like for them.

The report concluded that social attitudes underpinned sexual harassment, and the normalisation of it contributed to a “wider negative cultural effect on society”.

Right, so we’re back to one of my pet topics. There was time when British men were, on the whole, rather gentlemanly and British women rather ladylike. Then feminists decided men and women were equal and women should adopt the behaviours of the worst men, and mocked the traditional, polite Englishman into extinction. Now he’s been replaced by a boorish oaf who has no respect for the women he sees around him.  So ask yourselves, feminists: who was it who demanded society should be tipped upside down and gender roles abandoned? It wasn’t men, was it?

And while the government has pledged to eliminate sexual harassment of women and girls by 2030, the committee said there was “no evidence of any programme to achieve this”.

Government programs are to feminists what Instagram likes are to teenage girls.

The report outlined seven key recommendations to tackle street harassment:

Force train and bus operators to take tougher action against sexual harassment and block the viewing of pornography on public transport

I haven’t tried viewing pornography on public transport, but I’ll assume it’s done through a phone’s 4G connection. How are they going to block that, then?

Ban all non-consensual sharing of intimate images

How are they going to enforce this? And what’s it got to do with street harassment?

Publish a new “Violence Against Women and Girls” strategy

This will certainly keep a lot of feminists employed at taxpayer expense, but I’m not convinced it will change much.

Create a public campaign to change attitudes

Because men aren’t feeling nagged enough by feminists as it is.

Take an evidence-based approach to addressing the harms of pornography, along the lines of road safety or anti-smoking campaigns

What are they going to do, put up billboards of blind teenage boys and post pictures of hairy palms in schools? It’s interesting how not so long ago progressives were preaching free love and sex, while stuffy old priests warned of the corrupting influence of pornography. Now we have gay priests talking about free love while feminists harrumph over porn.

Tougher laws to ensure pub landlords take action on sexual harassment – and make local authorities consult women’s groups before licensing strip clubs

Strip clubs? Is this really about street harassment? As someone pointed out, modern feminism is largely about maximising women’s sexual agency while eliminating that of men.

Make it a legal obligation for universities to have policies outlawing sexual harassment

Where the definition of sexual harassment will be so poorly defined men will soon learn to stay well clear of women at university, and stick to those they meet on Tinder.

Ms Miller said: “Sexual harassment in public places… is the most common form of violence against women and girls and the damage is far-reaching, and yet most of it goes unreported.

Hey girls! If you report non-violent acts as violent, people will take you seriously!

“The #MeToo movement shows that we must confront some deeply uncomfortable truths about our society and the attitudes some men hold.”

Twitter campaigns are an excellent basis for government legislation.

Hollaback! – an international movement tackling harassment – says there is no right or wrong way to respond.

But if you choose to speak directly to the assailant, it offers the following advice:

Be firm: Look them in the eye and denounce their behaviour with a strong, clear voice


Say what feels natural: The important thing is that you are not apologetic in your response

This contradicts what you just said.

Don’t engage: Harassers may try to argue with you or dismiss you through further conversation or by making fun of you. As tempting as it may be get into a verbal war with them, it is not recommended. The attention may feed their abusive behaviour

A second ago you said you should talk to them.

Keep moving: Once you’ve said your piece, keep moving. Harassers do not deserve the pleasure of your company

Ah yes. In the midst of being sexually harassed, an experience so traumatic the government must intervene with wide-reaching national legislation, you must never lose sight of who deserves you.

The Home Office said it had pledged £100m in funding until 2020 to help local services combat violence against women and girls.

More jobs for middle class feminists! Huzzah!

And it said it was working on an updated “Violence Against Women and Girls” strategy.

Will the new edition remove the section advising underage girls in Rotherham who are being gang-raped to shut up and embrace the diversity?

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “Unwelcome advances that intimidate, degrade or humiliate women and girls are an abuse of power and unlawful. Whether in the home, the workplace or in public, sexual harassment is unacceptable.

Presumably welcome advances are just fine, the difference being whether the guy is cute or not.

“The government has made protecting women and girls from all forms of violence, and supporting victims and survivors a key priority.”

Yes, we’ve seen your commitment to this in Rotherham, Huddersfield, and elsewhere.

It appears the government is increasingly run by middle class feminists for the primary benefit of middle class feminists. I suppose this makes a change from a government run by and for the landed gentry, but I’m not sure it’s an improvement.


22 thoughts on “Government by and for feminists

  1. Once you look past the moralism the identity politics industry is no different from any other professional or commercial activity; it has people invested in finding ways of perpetuating their living. The mission creep and the reinvention of the ’cause’ just happens to look a bit paradoxical because the only way to justify more funding is to constantly find more of whatever it is they supposedly don’t want to find. I’m sure a lot of SJW types start out with a genuine conviction, but once it’s something you do for a living you have to find ways of sustaining your reason for getting paid.

  2. Already put this on Tim Worstall’s blog. Tim covered the anti-porn angle but said nowt about this street harassment bollocks. I think my comment still applies.

    “Who are these fucking MPs?

    Do they have no work beyond sitting round on their fat arses endorsing every minute point of canting Marxist tyranny that the scum of the Senior Civil Service can put in front of them? In between coffee and cakes and boozy lunches of course.

    It seems not, because–like the projectile diarrhea that these MPs are–hardly have British freedoms been sprayed with one lot of dogmatic socialist filth than, sans even dripping time, the next wave of dictatorial foulness is airborne.

    I pray daily for the removal of the FFC. But that is only step 1. Fire and the sword must fall on all the scum wasting our time and money in the Chamber of Secrets(hite).”

  3. The latest figures I’ve seen say that last year 2.1% of men and 1.3% of women were victims of violent crime, and that 74% of homicide victims were male. Witch leads one to question just how evidence based this drive is.

  4. The mooted “evidence based approach”, if it real, will conclude that there is a difference between sexual harassment and sexual assault.

    Cue outrage from the usual source.

  5. This is wonderful: “the government has pledged to eliminate sexual harassment of women and girls by 2030”

    There has once been a government that pledged every Soviet family would “live in a separate apartment by the year 2000”. I hear, it is no more.

  6. Presumably it’s only harassment by white men that is the problem? Otherwise eradicating it is going to prove a bit difficult, isn’t it?

  7. I’m not giving them a click, but, based on your fisking it seems they’ve solved the problem of “street harassment” right there in the article when they offer suggestions on what to do when encountering it in the wild. Those suggestions seem sound enough and recognize the agency of women to navigate the world without a chaperone.


    Problem solved, y’all! Congrats to everyone involved! Beers?

  8. I haven’t tried viewing pornography on public transport, but I’ll assume it’s done through a phone’s 4G connection. How are they going to block that, then?

    I mentioned this the other day, but porn is already blocked by default if you’re on a Pay-as-you-Go connection. They ask for your passport or driving licence number as proof of age.

    The kids I’ve seen watching porn or snuff have videos saved on their phones, passed around via WhatsApp groups. Nigh impossible to impose a technical filter.

    All that said, making it illegal to watch porn on the bus seems fairly sensible to me. In fact I’d have thought it was already covered under indecency laws.

    Think of the loopholes though. You can make it illegal to watch porn, but you can’t easily ban kids from having a ringtone which mimics a girl moaning during sex (a shampoo advert used this trick before). Assuming that the lads’ intent is to intimidate girls, sound-only porn is just as effective as video.

  9. in all this victimhood and identity despair and bansturbation, one thing is always clear: no matter what is done (and by done we mean extra gub’mint edicts, moar counselling groups and general taxation increases) there will always be a crisis.

    If red apples were banned (and the trees burned to the ground) and only green apples allowed, then brown apples would be next targeted as offensive, yellow apples eventually banned and shades of green apples investigated for ‘wrong pigmentation.’

    Only when all apples are suspected and identified and labelled will there be the beginning of round two: the moaning about lack of choice and anyway it was all the orchard owners’ fault for allowing this to happen, so tax the bastards more.

    In the lefty world, nothing can ever be right.

  10. All that said, making it illegal to watch porn on the bus seems fairly sensible to me. In fact I’d have thought it was already covered under indecency laws.

    Well, yes. How they intend to enforce this is another matter, though. From some videos I’ve seen, they have difficulty stopping a Londoners using public transport as a toilet which is equally illegal.

  11. I’m afraid I’m reaching the point where I’m utterly f***ing sick of women.

    Their whining, their demands, their double-standards, the vindictiveness, the pettiness, the total lack of perspective, the selfishness, the utterly misplaced sense of entitlement, the takeover of politics and the workplace, the misandry, the sluttery and the screeching.

    Oh the screeching. You can’t turn on the telly these days without some woman who sounds like a werewolf in an industrial potato-peeler making her demands known.

    Utterly sick of it. I remain, at time of writing, to just about hang on to the idea that this is just a vocal minority of asspains, and that most women aren’t like that… but for how long?

  12. Al Jahon: ” I remain, at time of writing, to just about hang on to the idea that this is just a vocal minority of asspains, and that most women aren’t like that… but for how long?”

    Not for very long, if it’s perceived by enough of us that it’s a winning strategy. And since everyone in authority AND business seems keen to bend over backwards to make it so, what have they got to lose?

  13. There’s a term used in this piece that I see in various forms more and more these days:

    Take an evidence-based approach to addressing the harms of pornography

    Of course that won’t mean evidence as anyone of a rational mind would think of evidence.
    Rather it’ll be some made-up nonsense, created by some loony feminist professor, to ensure it’s suits the current narrative.

  14. You can bet your bottom dollar that it will be, much like AGW, “policy-based evidence making” rather than “evidence-based policy making”.

  15. The noted Canadian MRA Karen Straughan once wrote on a youtube comment, ‘Feminism is traditionalism dialled up to 11.’ That remark came from a series of insightful comments from her in a 2015 exchange, in which she also wrote:

    Traditionalism makes sense in that it says, “We demand more of men than women, so therefore we give men more authority.” Feminism says, “We demand more of men than women, so therefore we blame men for everything.”

    Traditionalism is honest in that it says, “We insist that men be the protectors and providers of women because women need that.” Feminism says, “We insist that men be the protectors and providers of women because men for the last 10,000 years oppressed and subjugated women for their own benefit because they’re sociopathic monsters, and now it’s payback time. Also, because treating women equally has resulted in some very unequal treatment of women, because reasons.”

    Traditionalism is consistent in that it says, “We demand that women be treated more gently than men because they’re less capable of dealing with adversity.” Feminism says, “Women are every bit as capable of dealing with adversity as men, but they have more adversity to deal with because men are horrible violent rapey b*****ds. Also, have you heard of HeForShe? It’s a revolutionary new thing that looks exactly like traditional masculinity, except that the men are default villains instead of default heroes.”

    Feminism has adopted and exploited all the most anti-male aspects of traditionalism, and has discarded all the pro-male aspects of it (and by pro-male, I don’t even mean that men are treated well—just that there is some reward for the sacrifice, even if it’s inadequate). Traditionalism said, “Hey men, you’re not all bad. If you do X, Y and Z, you’ll be a good man.” Feminism says, “Hey men, you’re pigs. Oh, and just go ahead and become male feminists because that’s the only way we’ll like you, except we won’t even then, so sit down and shut the f*** up you entitled b*****ds, how dare you expect one damn thing from the women you’ve devoted your lives to? A*sholes.”

    Most of her comments on that thread are worth reading, as indeed most of her comments are wherever they appear. As she makes clear in that exchange, she is an ‘egalitarian’ rather than a traditionalist; but she is practically minded enough to recognise that traditionalism is at least a better deal for men than the one-sided s***show we have now.

    If unfamiliar with Karen’s work, I strongly recommend her videos on YT, particularly her early ones and later talks she has given; also her occasional blog, and her comments and replies on social media (she’s quite active on the dreaded reddit) are worth ferreting out.

  16. That’s her. Amongst her videos I would recommend are ‘No one wants to talk about Anders Breivik…’ from 13 Nov 2012, and ‘Look out! It’s a Nice Guy! DESTROY HIM!!11!’ (29 Nov 2012) on her channel; ‘Are Men Obsolete? Karen Straughan Speaks at Ryerson University (19 Feb 2014) and ‘Are Men Obsolete? Q & A: Karen Straughan Speaks at Ryerson University’, both on the Canadian Association for Equality yt channel; ‘Karen Straughan – Toxic Masculinity & TOXIC FEMININITY’ (24 Nov 2015) also on the Canadian Association for Equality yt channel; ‘ICMI’17 Karen Straughan – Evolutionary Realities’ (25 Jun 2017) on the ‘An Ear for Men’ yt channel.

    She has been invited across the world to speak at one (modest) convention or another, e.g. addressing various American Libertarian Party conventions—which is a long way from addressing the Republican Party National Convention as Ann Coulter does, but it does show she’s more than some headbanger off youtube.

    She blogs at ‘Owning Your S**t’, and again the early writing is probably the most informative (well, how many times can anyone say the same things?).

Comments are closed.