6 thoughts on “Richard the Fourth: “Labour’s Plan to Criminalise Masculinity””

1. Yes Jess waffles and yes young men are likely to get fed up with being fed the establishment view, just as in the past young men revolted against the establishment in the past. But I think the video underestimates what is at stake here. The movement of non-feminist views from being simply supposedly atavistic sexism or old fashioned religious ideas to being a form of terrorism is part of the long term project of “making the personal political”. The objective is to make all the “personal” a matter for the state to intervene and control.

   The idea, borrowed from Marxism, is to ensure the state is able to manage all aspects of life that were considered “personal”. Far from an apparently daft notion of deciding such things are “terrorism” it is to continue to grow the role of the enlightened state to manage its people. We can see this in the way more and more aspects of life that were once considered the province of the family or morality from Churches and other religious institutions have become considered the business of the state and its agents. At the sharp end of this have been “rape” and “domestic abuse” long considered to be morally wrong but generally outside the sphere of marriage and family relationships, with the agents of the state reluctant to address such things within the “private” sphere. Over the years this then gets extended to more and more intervention and control and then what is considered to be included widens and widens to “Domestic Abuse”, “Dating Abuse” “coercive control” “rape culture” “sexism” and now “misogyny”. The practical effects are seen in complaints from the Police that they are expected to be “social workers” and “turn up to very dispute about who controls the TV remote” policing relationships rather than “catching the bad guys”.

   This latest move to further turn the private into political may look a bit silly, but it is more sinister than that because it is about following through on making the personal political, and being clear that contrary or private ideas are in fact terrorism, because they are a challenge to the state’s management of the individual and their relationships and their thoughts. In fact if you read the Istanbul Convention this is quite explicit. In that non- or anti-feminist views are “terrorism” and the state is to crush them.

   This isn’t a new thing, after all the DV industry had a go at getting “domestic terrorism” used to describe DV in the late ’90s, it didn’t stick probably because after “9/11” “terrorism” was very obviously political and ideological.

   So despite Jess’s disingenuousness the agenda is to further increase control over the personal through state intervention. It is part of the long-term project of making no part of life “private” nor leave any space for any ideas that are not approved by the state. On the assumption of course that the state follows the “correct” view. In eastern Europe before the Wall fell this was Leninist Marxism. In the current UK this is Feminism. And it’s perfectly logical, for if from the very dawn of time men have been appallingly evil oppressors, you do need to take complete control of them to prevent this millennia long evil from re asserting itself.

   Expect to see a proliferation of cases whereby boys are visited by police to deal with their “misogyny” when they don’t want to play with girls etc. Just as we have seen such interventions for “racism” (and a few for sexism).

   “Making the personal political” is not just a silly slogan, it is a real political project and its truth is masked by Jess’s waffle.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Thanks Nigel, excellent analysis, I’ll post a new blog piece now.

     LikeLike

     Reply

     • Thank you Mike, Though I do think laughing at feminists is a good idea, I do want to be clear that for all the apparent wooliness and do gooderish public pronouncements there is a very serious side to this. I have an elderly friend who married a Czech and lived for the last couple of decades of communism, in Prague. What is a startling part of the stories she tells is the details of life that were controlled by the state, even to the music played at a wedding and who lived in “your” flat. Every aspect of daily life was “political” and controlled, even giving away extra potatoes from your allotment (lest you get a payment for them). Feminism, specially that in our Academia, follows the same line and “making the personal political” is at its core. For in the same way getting a few pence for surplus veg. was an “economic crime” of nascent capitalism( even if amongst family or friends) so every aspect of the relationship between males and females is fair game for control so as to prevent the return of the “patriarchy”. In fact this is very clear in Engel’s work that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” means also dictatorship over the private, to prevent the “historic domination” of men over women. In a sense all feminism does is decide the “proletariat” is in fact female.In this context it makes perfect sense for them to push and push to eradicate the “private” sphere and constantly ensure that there is little that is considered outside the control of the state. Think in Scotland how the SNP tried to have a state officer overseeing every child, the huge power of family courts over families and children largely to remodel families as “mothers and their children” and as I say the experience of my two friends in the police, and my son’s friend in the force charting the shift in the job from “catching scrotes” (sorry that might be a localism) to ever more interventions in all sorts of “domestics” and “being a social worker”.Hence now our educational establishment believes that any part of education, most of all sex or relationships, is definitely not anything for parents to know about and certainly not for them to influence; and is definitely not “private” to the family.Just as the need to suppress human nature and prevent any notion of private enterprise, private property, private belief ever surfacing and undoing the communist revolution, involved control on a barely imaginable scale. So feminism is always afraid that their project will be fatally undermined by a return of traditional ideas and therefore has to aim for the same level of control, that it learned from the marxists. After all each time the Fawcett Society’s research finds most women aspire to family formation they demand girls and women are “educated” into the right belief!  Anyway rant over. I hope this find you well and in good spirits. Nigel

       LikeLike

2. I expect it will become “extremist” and even terrorism to observe to obvious about this story and pictures Olympics legacy ‘can’t just be measured in medals’, says Lisa Nandy | Evening Standard Doing the rounds in a few MSM outlets. I guess there weren’t any male medal winners at the Paris Olympics.

   LikeLike

   Reply

3. Beyond disgusting! What do you expect from a horrible, evil, vile man-hating misandrist like Jess. This sickening female is demonic!

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. She is indeed. But then Starmer has ‘form’ in relation to radical feminists. Julie Bindel wrote in a Daily Mail article in 2022 of having ‘worked alongside’ Starmer when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Our blog piece on the matter and link to the Mail article here.

   LikeLike

   Reply