Our thanks to Nigel for pointing us to an insightful piece by Tom Chivers for UnHerd. Comments from “Julian Bonmottier”:
But we all know full well that behind all of this is a group of politically motivated (bitterly resentful) women, and their woke male allies, seeking to ‘disempower’ ‘men’ as part of their assault on an imaginary tyrannical patriarchy. The MSM is infested with them. That’s why such non-empirical data is accepted as good as fact, personified perceptions of reality never get tested, just accepted. It’s really, really boring now and utterly contrary to the truth of things, but those women with an axe to grind won’t stop. The fact that such a suggestion was even voiced in the House of Lords – and it was made in earnest mind, and then gradually ‘tongue in cheeked’ once the sheer abhorrent, lazy and casual sexism of the idea was exposed for what it is – just shows the desperate lengths certain women will go to to achieve power over men. Add into this Jess Phillips’ blatant lie in Parliament that the murders of women are considered ‘acceptable’ -it’s just ugly, barefaced, divisive lies -usually put forward by a patronising, out of touch, liberal elite who have found no way of making a more normal useful contribution to society.
Comments from Nigel, in his email to me (I’m sorry that we still haven’t managed to sort out the commenting problem):
In the context of Priti Patel’s virtue signalling I thought this from piece in “Unherd” is a good summary of why such things can never be “solved”.
Leaving aside the improbable assertion that men never feel they have to take precautions when out at night etc. (he is a remarkably brave or foolhardy man if his assertion is true of himself), it goes through the classic problem that people who are pre-disposed to be fearful will find reasons to be fearful. Way back at the beginning of the 80s I was a researcher on the “Family Care of the Elderly” project. And of course one inhibitor to elderly people going out and about is the growth in their sense of vulnerability and heightened perception of risk, completely at odds with the reality.
I have no doubt that we will get some sort of new law, though I doubt if in fact it will do anything other than mirror existing laws on sexual offences. Because the very broad and nebulous ideas of what could be a crime, being “creepy” or “staring” etc., will be pretty difficult to put in any legal form.
As the Unherd article points out, new legislation will do nothing to assuage the “fears” because these have no roots in any reality. Even more confusing is that the suggested actions men could take largely add up to a very traditional list of chivalry action points. Mind your language in front of ladies, make sure ladies aren’t exposed to the presence of drunk young men, make sure ladies get home safely and escort them, give them space and be mindful of not appearing to follow them. In fact all the things that my upbringing in a prosperous working class suburb equipped me to do, oddly enough even in my teens I knew shouting at women from a van window was not a good thing. Other things such as not waving your willy at ladies have been crimes for centuries.
So there will be more “shouting at me for things I haven’t done” which was what the partner of a feminist described feminism meaning to him. While the feminists grapple with the obvious implications of their “calls”, that women are generally more anxious and fearful and they want men to be chivalrous to lessen their anxiety. This is so evident in the frequent researches into what men and women look for in prospective partners. “Makes me feel safe” is consistently a high scorer for the women, yet men rarely report this as what they want from a female. Hardly looks like “girl power” does it?
So as the author sums up. Round and round in circles chasing an insoluble problem. But then that is the feminist tactic. How could you define “being creepy” “or gazing” and how exactly do you know the difference between simply walking the same route and “following with evil in mind”?
Our last general election manifesto is here.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.