Jenni Murray: ‘Disturbing rise of the women child sex predators: What’s behind it? And would they be punished so leniently if they were men?’

Interesting. Jenni Murray is the radical feminist broadcaster whose Wikipedia page mentions the existence of neither of her two sons, nor her husband. One of Julie Bindel’s gal pals. The woman who (before she married) described marriage as legalised prostitution. The doyenne of misandrous ball-busting Woman Sour presenters.  Extracts from her article:

We’ve struggled for years to help [translation: indoctrinate] boys understand that becoming a man doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the old stereotype of the cold, distant, insensitive pater familias who expects a woman to pander to his every need.

Yet if we ignore the harm done by the exploitation or sexualisation of boys and set aside their emotional feelings, we doom ourselves to yet another generation of males with little respect for women. [translation: we don’t give a flying f*** about the boys who are being sexually abused by women, but there’s a risk that as a consequence of that abuse, they might not develop into the slaves we want.]

What is the significance of the piece, the publication of which would have been unimaginable just a year or two ago? We appear to be in uncharted waters, but we can be sure of one thing. The publication of this article is a testament to feminists being conscious they’re losing control of the cultural narrative, and desperately trying to recover it. Do they see the tsunami heading their way? Probably not.

I’m fairly sure Jenni Murray will never speak out about gender inequality with respect to prison sentencing – or many other areas, of course, where women are advantaged over men. As William Collins explained – here – if men were sentenced as leniently as women with respect to prison sentencing, five out of six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there. Why wouldn’t Jenni Murray be in favour of a gender equality initiative which would solve the prison overcrowding crisis? Yes, another rhetorical question…

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Women are engaging in sexual activities with minors,even children,because they see that the precedent is to go easy on female perpetrators. That is obviously because in our western culture,we have been taught to more or less believe that women are above the law,’sacrosanct’.
    This is obviously pure baloney and the reason women are not treated in the same firm fashion as men is because our ethical norms tell us that we should treat women gently,because they are ladies.
    In the end,all of these misguided beliefs,traditions and norms end up with the kind of anti-men ,or should I say pro-women society we live in today. Our justice system has de facto two versions,one super lenient for women and the other,firm one for men. It has also been affected by feminist propaganda and now punishes men for many types of behaviour that should be legal.
    Do you, men, feel that this is the type of society that is fair and just for you to live in ? if you do not,then you need to re-examine the established norms,traditions and ethics, prevalent in your country. Only after challenging them, can any real change materialize.
    Women are only doing what they feel they can get away with,under this privndileged treatment they are accorded in our societies. And we,men are responsible for it by believing it is all right for women to be treated better than men. if you want justice,you have to demand you be treated as leniently as women are,or that women are treated as firmly as men. One ,or the other.Anything less will result in today’s situation.

    • William Gruff

      In the end,all of these misguided beliefs,traditions and norms end up with the kind of anti-men ,or should I say pro-women society we live in today.

      I don’t think it matters one way or the other what you say because being ‘pro-women’ is necessarily to be anti men. It is not possible to favour the former without creating a position of disadvantage for the latter. ‘Equality’ as it is currently being passed off is ‘a zero sum game’. Women are increasingly winning only because men are increasingly being prevented from winning.

      The only way to reverse the present situation is for men to start thinking tribally and stop putting ‘women and children’ first. Those who object that women are more numerous than men forget, or ignore, the consideration that many women, women who are wives, mothers and sisters of men, would happily support measures to redress and reverse the destructive effects of radical feminisation.

      • William Gruff

        PS: I might more accurately have written ‘men are increasingly being prevented not just from winning but even from actually competing’.

  • daddybones45

    Disturbing RISE? I think she means that the insane paedo-panic that has exposed a few men (but falsely convicted more than at any time in history) is now exposing women as well. Expect the anti-male machine to run faster to hide this and absolve the women that will be exposed.

    Not quite uncharted waters. No no no. Crimes behind closed doors are mostly committed by women. If people commonly believe it’s men that commit these crimes almost entirely, you’ll find that women actually commit them most. Except hands-on murder. Women no longer do that so much as the state does that for them, and sometimes pays them for it.

  • While maintaining my charitable view that all 100% proven paedophiles, male and female, should be gently hanged, respectfully drawn and lovingly quartered (possibly on live television)…

    In the case of sentencing I wonder if there is not some ambitious and hungry ambulance-chaser out there, a no-win no-fee solicitor who might see a £market£ in reviewing individual male sentencing – taking sentences on men back to court on the basis of a direct comparison with the sentencing of women in near-identical circumstances? It wouldn’t take too many reviewed cases winning high amounts of compensation to bring the disparity in sentencing into the light.

    Perhaps Charlotte Bailye might be able to recommend someone suitable from her LinkedIn contacts?

    The end result would of course be a change in the law preventing men from seeking such compensation, but at least the matter would have been briefly highlighted and the overall discrimination made even more untenable.

    • William Gruff

      Perhaps Charlotte Bailye … ‘

      By coincidence, Jenni Murray’s maiden name was Bailey.

  • So Jenni Murray, President of the Fawcett Society which campaigns for the abolition of women’s prisons, is decrying lenient sentencing for women.
    Oh Dear! It seems that the grotesque old trout is a little confused
    I notice too that she couldn’t resist making the unfounded and hateful insinuation that men are to blame, because relations with them are so unsatisfying and unpleasant that it is leading women to seek sexual satisfaction with children.
    What a sick, twisted little world she must inhabit.

  • William Gruff

    Mrs Murray’s article suggests a number of questions and shows, I think, that some of the less irrational feminists, those who present themselves as ‘thinkers’, however shallow, and whose public credibility is essential to their continued employment in a ratings dependent public sphere, are having to face the fact that little girls are not actually made of sugar and spice and all things nice and can no longer continue to assert the contrary.

    All literary work is subject to the perception of the reader. My perception is that Mrs Murray has suddenly woken up to find one of her sacred bubbles has been well and truly burst by her own kind. She faces at least two personal intellectual crises. The first is that she has been forced to accept the delusion shattering reality of females as rather more than very rare perpetrators with males as rather more than very rare victims. That she is intellectually and emotionally incapable of accepting the truth is demonstrated by her traditionally female responses: “I / she didn’t do it” (unavailable to Mrs Murray because guilt has been proven); (when guilt has been proven) “it was not my / her fault” (unavailable to Mrs Murray because guilt has been proven); “I / she couldn’t help it”, which the sad old feminist uses to excuse the women’s crimes. Read on to learn that the immediacy of social media and men are the problem:

    There are a number of theories for this apparent rise in female sexual abuse. Many believe social media and the proliferation of text messaging and sexy selfies have begun to erode traditional moral boundaries.

    A passing fancy that might once have simply flitted through the mind, but never been pursued, for example, can now be only too easily written down and ‘sent’ at the click of a button.

    Or could this corruption of women (let’s not forget that as little as two decades ago, the idea of a grown woman having sex with a child would have caused a huge moral outcry) be borne out of the fact that a growing number of females are deeply disappointed with their relationships with adult males?

    All too often we hear that the internet is enabling men, to pursue affairs for which they might otherwise have had no opportunity.

    The rise of internet porn has made some men assume extreme and brutal sexual practices are normal and theirs to enjoy by right.

    Could it be that sex with a boy makes women who have fallen foul of such men feel they have regained the upper hand?

    All pure, unadulterated gynocentric tripe. Particularly objectionable is the line ‘A passing fancy that might once have simply flitted through the mind, but never been pursued, for example, can now be only too easily written down and ‘sent’ at the click of a button.‘ Can any man imagine a similar ‘passing fancy’ – a ‘passing fancy’ that should not be ‘flitting’ through his mind under any circumstances – being excused because it can ‘now be only too easily written down and ‘sent’ at the click of a button.‘? Note also that the ‘corruption of women’ may be due to ‘the fact (sic) that a growing number of females are deeply disappointed with their relationships with adult males‘. Can any man imagine a similar offence being mitigated because he is ‘deeply disappointed with [his] relationships with adult [fe]males’? Ultimately, it’s all the men’s fault, and the technology, never the women’s.

    The second intellectual crisis stems from the inconvenient fact that almost all of the women she cites have grown up during her twenty eight year tenure of the Woman’s Hour presenter’s chair, during which she has constantly wittered on about a woman’s right to have everything she wants, women’s nicer side than men, their inability to do wrong and women’s special circumstances deserving complete absolution from responsibility when, very rarely and through no fault of their own, women do actually do wrong. It may just have dawned on the idiotic Mrs Murray that she may, in part, bear some responsibility for the ‘disturbing rise of the women child sex predators’.

    All that aside, if the ‘staggering leniency’ shown to the disgusting perverts she cites really has ‘depressed and disappointed [her] more than anything that [she’s] read for a very long time’ she should have a chat with that other great tax payer funded feminist guardian of women’s privileges, Alison Saunders.

  • Pingback: William Gruff’s response to Jenni Murray’s article | Justice for Men & Boys()

  • rahsoft2015

    Perhaps Jenni Murray would like to re broadcast her radio 4 program from jan 2013 in which she stated( and supported by the abduction charity- reunite) that women are the greatest majority of child abductors( 70%) and the explaination being because that society puts such women on a pedestal as being incapable of doing no harm.

    I think dropped my cup of tea when i heard that !

    But as usual she has turned into an apologist for the feminists