One thought on “Belinda Brown: Vengeful harridans can kick an innocent young man out of university”

1. Thinking of Mark Latham’s presentation and past comments by J4M&B’s Mike Buchanan such “exposure” of the generally rather shadowy thinking of feminists and gender theorists is hugely valuable. The move to compulsory “consent” classes appears to have rattled at least some. Like most young people my offspring in their twenties are “left leaning” and are quite convinced about “equality”. But its interesting how this plays out. In a conversation about a story about “gender definition” you know “32 Genders” they ridiculed the idea, observed that apparently Facebook has 44 and generally concluded it was silly and entirely impractical to life. It struck a cord with Latham’s contention that people would see through the all men are privileged mantra, simply at first observing that some men aren’t and then pointing out many women are. The great success of the feminist (cultural Marxist) project has been that so much has been within institutions, often like family courts actually “secret”. The no plat forming, no debate approach has been successful in a sympathetic media. However there are so many new outlets now. Philip Davies has said for many years he happily believed the assertions that women were treated unfairly in the Criminal Justice System, until he asked the House of Parliament Library to assemble the facts for him.
   As with my offspring equality is widely presumed to be right but interpreted in a practical way. As Latham says the convoluted contradictory nature of identity politics including feminism in many of the “monologues” (as debate is avoided) often slips into its own parody. As someone said feminism, as with other isms, can be “mugged by reality”. Its just that one can’t presume people know the reality, as in the case of the good Mr Davies the counter to the theory is not debate about the esoteric notions of feminism but the simple observation that the facts didn’t fit. From the facts Mr. Davies said he learned the reality, but also reasoned that the facts must have been known to some of those asserting the reverse , they were lying he reasoned and if that were so what else had they been lying about? red Pill.
   It all supports Latham’s view that the job is to relentlessly find ways of pushing information in whatever way. This includes the “obvious” for it isn’t obvious. I’ll be honest without info from J4M&B I would have been ignorant of the extent and ways MGM is done in this country simply because I gave it no thought. The protests, start of legal cases and media stories looks set to “surface” this to a much wider public, and again I’ve been interested in conversations with colleagues that have been thus prompted. Ignorant as I had been, but often presuming “the authorities” were already doing something about this because of the stuff about FGM, again it seems people erroneously think the same approach will be applied even if news items had been about females.
   I realise its frustrating and wearing but I think Latham is right, and the current MGM stance of J4M&B is an example. The case has merit on its own to save boys from unnecessary pain and risk, It is both an example of not being “privileged” and rather a contrast with campaigns about “manspreading” and other such trivia. Might call into question exactly why infant males have to be “girls” in the VAWG Strategy that is the Government response to such abuses. And of course the public mood is markedly less likely to privilege “culture” or “religion” above safety and protection from abuse now. To misquote feminists the secret and hidden needs to be made “political”.

   LikeLike

   Reply