It isn't sex education at all, what is being delivered to young children and teenagers is not informing them, it is exploiting them, and it is very likely that girls are going to be most negatively affected. They are effectively being encouraged to compromise what little agency they have. Parents and people in general are going to need to risk being described as any kind of phobic, there is far too much to lose. It is hard to believe that things have got this far and the situation seems to be constantly deteriorating.
Given the premises of queer sex "education" I wonder how this is supposed to meet even the lowest possible threshold for any sex ed, i. e. at least make kids aware of how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
And yes, this is a shamefully low bar I am using here, and like you or Julie I think sex ed should do a lot more, i.e. teach children and teenagers how to responsibly handle their sexuality. But it really puzzles me how any program that insists that people can change sex can inform boys and girls how children are made and how to avoid that until one is ready to have any (if ever).
My Daughter's male friend at school was abused by his mother's lesbian partner. It was awful. His mother had left his Dad because of abuse and fell into a relationship with another abuser.
Yes some women are abusive but on the grand scale it's men who abuse on a massive scale. That's a fact.
"Yes some women are abusive but on the grand scale it's men who abuse on a massive scale. That's a fact."
It's NOT a fact, it's just one of countless egregious feminist LIES which plays to women's narcissism and (unjustified) sense of moral superiority. I refer you to my response to Radhwa Evans-Clare below in relation to the issue of Intimate Personal Violence, including the findings of the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (2013).
Let's talk about "the grand scale", shall we? What greater abuse can there be than killing the innocent and unprotected? According to the WHO, women have 75+ million of their unborn children killed every year, feminists call this relentless slaughter of innocents "women's healthcare". Shame on them.
How is it a lie when males are responsible for around 90% of all violent crimes in general as well as for 99%(!) of all sexual crimes in particular?
I can assure you there are no "feminist lies", quite the contrary.
I know of no other social & civil rights movement where so much basic discourse happens, as well as the heavy reliance on real, scientific data.
You seem to be - sadly - projecting hard here and arguing from a pure emotional point of view.
And for your last paragraph:
Yes, abortion is healthcare.
25% of pregnancies get miscarriaged naturally, by themselves (not many people know this).
Already from just these cases alone - as an example - many women need additional medical intervention to make sure they don't get a sepsis. And these procedures count as abortions, just so you know.
Then there are stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies, rape cases.
Also, most abortions are "just" a pill in the very early stages. They make up the vast majority.
There is no real, independent life at this point.
Even the idea of the heartbeat:
When the heart gets developed and starts functioning, there is still no developed brain and spinalcord. Also still no separate life. No feelings, no reflexes.
And for your language - do you really think women who sadly have to do this find it somehow "funny"?! Or that they "take it easy"?
Why do you think so many women are in supportgroups to deal with it?
Just because you see on TV some over-the-top banner about abortion in a protest or something similar doesn't mean you know anything about the truth and the real situation.
Also, did it never cross your mind that these few(!) people act like that because they got silenced and threatend (look how they act - there's nothing "pro-life" about it, not at all) all the time when they tried to talk "normal"? Not that I personally find that a good way to react; some paroles that you see are really not quite tastefull. But still.
Sorry for this long paragraph, but seeing people spewing such misinformation, lies and blatant hatred for women has to be called out.
If you just look to rage against transgender ideology while at the same being a traditional gender ideologist yourself, you're definitely wrong here.
Miiju86, I really don't know where to begin with that rant. However, I'll try. Firstly, your simplistic assumption that men commit 90% of all violent crimes. Could you provide a source for that (other than from a feminist website please) ? Did you know that domestic violence is reciprocal in most cases, and that proxy violence by women has never been quantified.
Secondly, "men commit 99% of all sexual crimes". Wrong !! Men appear to commit ALL sexual crimes, simply because women are never held accountable for their actions. Good examples are the copious number of cases of female school teachers having sex with 14 and 15 year old pupils. These are simply dismissed as "lucky lad" in most cases. Another example are the number of female prison officers working in men's prisons who commit improprieties. Many more examples of drunkard female behaviour at office parties, where yet again, are not considered serious, despite overt embarrassment to others.
Finally abortion. The crushing of a skull and the pulling out of a limbs of a baby with a brain, beating heart and even finger nails is an act of murder. You can rhyme, jangle, rationalise and spin all you like. No IFs, no BUTS, it is an act of murder. Shame on you, Miiju86 !
Ironic that your first link was from the United Nations. An organisation whose official term for "boy soldiers" is "child soldiers", and yet has a mandate to end violence against women and girls. No mandate to end violence against men and boys, despite making up the majority of victims.
I did ask in my last comment if you could provide sources, other than feminist websites . Here's one result that you could find if you really wanted to.
First of all - that was ONE, only one link of a few; and if you were genuinely interested, you could look up even more for yourself.
Then secondly - why do you stop by this one source & ignore all the others? And that also not by a real argument but through some dubious semantic plays?
Also - if you want to imply the UN has somehow a "anti-male" sentiment, you're as wrong as can be.
Look up what really goes on and you'll see.
If there is any real sentiment, it's NOT against males.
But how it looks you're anyways not at all interested in any of these topics.
Just like it is with every single one of these MRA groups and similar people; they just are looking for ways to somehow justify what they clearly know us wrong - all just to gain a little bit of imagined feelings of superiority.
Imagine being FOR a system of sex based social hierarchy, FOR dehumanization & exploitation of around 50% of the world's population, being FOR a system that reflects just that in every aspect of life - be it economy, education, health, justice and so on....
They NEVER DO ANYTHING.
The only thing they do is to try to oppress women & girls once more to the point where they can freely exploit and abuse them; just to be able to hold up their hierarchic system.
An example: Do you see MRAs building shelters and other resources for men?
NO.
But YOU DO SEE THEM trying to tear down the women's ones.
That's all. Over and over again.
At the same time though, you see feminists supporting youth programms for boys too, you're seeing them fighting against circumcision of minor boys too, you're seeing them giving shelter, advice and other resources as well aseducation for men too.
BECAUSE WE CARE.
I don't even know what you want from me - we're writing here back and forth for hours and you didn't said ONCE something of substance.
Sorry not sorry - if I would recognize such tendencies in myself; if I would register that I can only "feel myself" when I have someone to lookdown upon.... I would just bang my head into the next wall; immediately.
Having no backbone, no integrity, no character, no honesty, no respect, only some weird rambling smokescreening, straight up lying, deflecting, "what-about-ism", gish galopping and many other logical fallacies.... all that just to hold up an imaginary idea of an ego, or what?!! Why?
Why do you need this?!
What is your goal here; why are you even on a feminists substack? (Noting you apparently hate feminism and the thought of anything but a system founded on imaginary male supremacy, gendered class hierarchy, entitlement, science denial, exploitation, oppression and more)
How many times have I answerd to you now? And still got NOT ONE REAL ANSWER.
Thank you for raising the important issue of when human life begins. An American woman answered the question convincingly in a video lasting just 80 seconds:
Where would you personally set the maximum term limit for elective abortions? The current 24 weeks limit in the UK is clearly OUTRAGEOUS (many foetuses are 100% viable by that stage). We covered the issue of abortion in our last manifesto, pp.23-7:
We also covered the issue of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (pp. 28-30), the leading cause of avoidable mental health incapacitation in the developed world, yet women are not punished for inflicting this GBH on their babies.
Good morning. I couldn't get past your first four sentences, all of them absurd (and demonstrably untrue) in their own ways:
"How is it a lie when males are responsible for around 90% of all violent crimes in general as well as for 99%(!) of all sexual crimes in particular?
I can assure you there are no "feminist lies", quite the contrary.
I know of no other social & civil rights movement where so much basic discourse happens, as well as the heavy reliance on real, scientific data.
You seem to be - sadly - projecting hard here and arguing from a pure emotional point of view."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Feminists are certifiably insane. Some e.g. Kate Millett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Millett WERE certified insane. That includes Tracey Emin, a talentless pain in the Arts:
So..... you couldn't answer one single thing - especially about the sadly very true statistics - AND you are not able to differentiate between feminism as a civil rights movement & a social/political philosophy and two(!) individuals and their personal lives and actions.... got it (which is even more funny because you want to make it a men vs. women thing - don't you know I could in seconds pull up thousands upon thousands of equivalent men who are hundert times worse? What are you thinking to gain with such a pathetic attempt of false equivalency and deflection?).
Guess it was a waste of time to even confront you.
This is like having an exchange with someone fromn the Flat Earth Society. You write:
"... don't you know I could in seconds pull up thousands upon thousands of equivalent men who are hundert (sic) times worse?"
I did NOT know that. Please do so, I look forward to seeing what you manage to "pull up" in seconds.
Your "statistics" are utterly absurd, even by feminist standards. The most authoritative book on men's and women's issues is William Collins's "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019). The ebook is only £4.32 on Amazon, if you don't have a KIndle you can read it on other e-readers or your PC, phone, tablet with free-to-download software:
Happy to continue this exchange after you educate yourself about the FACTS rather than just spout feminist BS.
One area Collins doesn't cover is the disastrous impact of feminising professions (obvious examples include education, medicine, the police...), and in senior management positions. In 2012 I provided evidence to a House of Commons inquiry about the causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards and corporate financial DECLINE. My blog post has links to the longitudinal studies in question (scroll down):
Thank you Julie. 😊. In the 60s we had slides of a woman's anatomy and about periods. That was it. No education about saying NO. No education about self protection and really meaning it. It was bad enough then, but with the advent of the Internet that all changed. Women and girls and boys btw are in danger. No longer is it videos and books from Holland. I despair. Thanks for doing what you do and being who you are. We are in more danger than ever.
Julie, why do you campaign against male violence against women and children, when most violence against children is done by women? Do you really despise men that much ?
Your final question is the very definition of a rhetorical question haha!
On a more serious note, William Collins reports on p.266 (section 9.2.7, "Domestic Homicides") of his book "The Empathy Gap" (2019 ) that in 12 countries for which there was the relevant data, mothers committed 71.7% of parental homicides of children under one year old. They are very rarely prosecuted, and are likely to receive a suspended sentence (i.e. no punishment) if charged and convicted.
Julie, you lose credibility with your opening words:
"As a feminist campaigner against male violence towards women and children..."
Why not omit the word "male"? Do you not care about women who are abused and assaulted by women?
It's long been known that women are more likely to be abused in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships. Our recent blog piece on the matter, with links to official statistics demonstrating that reality:
In the UK 3 women in a million end up in jail for sexual violence. 400 men in a million end up in jail for sexual violence. 2000 men in a million who identify as women end up in jail for sexual violence. YOU men are the ones we women are overwhelmingly at risk from, not other women.
Don't have a nice day. Do some self reflection on your vile misogyny and then feel heartily ashamed of yourself, Mike Buchanen.
Hi Lilith, still looking forward to the links to the stats you cited.
Do you care more about women who are abused by men than women who are abused by women, and if so, why? Maybe because the latter are in a minority? If so, following the same logic, you should care more about white women who are abused than about BAME women in the UK, because the latter are in the minority.
The fact that feminists have nothing honest to say about female abusers simply reinforces the point that they're anti-male before they're pro-female. And of course feminists are the only group in the world deliberately stoking up fear and anxiety in women. So many feminist jobs rely on lies (wild exaggerations, most commonly of the "one in three women" variety) about sexual violence and domestic violence, lies which lead to state and private individuals funding of their feminist industries.
Thank you Lilith. Can you please send me a link to those stats?
So, you too don't give a damn about women abused by other women? The only reason that more women are abused by men than by women is that more women partner with men than with women. Do you refute the official stats I linked to earlier on this matter, showing women are more likely to be abused by female partners than male partners? And if so, on what grounds? A question it would be good to have Julie Bindel address, given that she refuted the stats recently in an interview with Philip Davies MP on GB News.
A few words on the relative numbers of men women committing sexual violence, and being prosecuted and convicted for it. Even if we exclude the common and egregious crime of paternity fraud (for which the state NEVER prosecutes women) we know from surveys that women are FAR more likely to commit sexual violence against both adults and children than is popularly believed (male victims of it are very unlikely to seek legal redress). We covered the issue in the longest section of our last election manifesto, pp.51-7:
Vile misogyny, eh? What a lazy accusation, and manifestly untrue. Would I have appointed the amazing Elizabeth Hobson https://j4mb.org.uk/elizabeth-hobson-2-2/ party leader of http://j4mb.org.uk in May 2020 if I were a misogynist? Anticipating the usual attack on her as having "internalised misogyny", I can tell you she has many friends, both men and women. In common with every anti-feminist woman I've ever met, she's extraordinary. One of the best-known examples is Professor Janice Fiamengo, her SubStack account here:
Julie is describing what she has spent many years doing. She has been considering and investigating male violence and abuse towards women and girls. It's quite a big deal, particularly as it is primarily men who control the sex trade and prostitution, for instance, where victims are overwhelmingly female.
As for women who are in violent relationships with other women, I don't believe this is comparable to the prevelence or the severity that occurs in female and male relationships. I don't have any figures, but there are far fewer women killed by their female partners or former partners. Whereas every week, several women are killed by male partners. You are comparing two very different sets of circumstances and outcomes.
Thank you. You don't have any figures, but you 'believe'... #IDontBelieve
I think we can safely assume Julie Bindel never covered this story, "Lesbian is jailed for life after she DELIBERATELY helped starve girlfriend's children aged six and four to death after plotting the scheme to cause maximum suffering":
Hmm, it doesn't accord with relentless feminist narratives, does it?
On the subject of the sex trade, feminist narratives are again deeply flawed. I recommend a video interview (by Elizabeth Hobson https://j4mb.org.uk/elizabeth-hobson-2-2/ when she was leader of our political party, and myself), of "Miss Matthews", titled, "My 25 Wonderful Years as a Sex Worker":
The number of women killed by male partners and ex-partners is very small in absolute terms and in comparison with the number of men who commit suicide following divorce, particularly those denied access to their children as a result of unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by female ex-partners. The male suicide rate more than triples following divorce.
You will hopefully be aware (and observe) that the overwhelming majority of street homeless people are men, often there following false accusations by partners. Street homelessness is another major driver of male suicide (the male suicide rate is 3.5x the female suicide rate). Imagine the billions of pounds the government would invest in suicide prevention if the female suicide rate were 3.5x the male suicide rate.
Similarly with national cancer screening programmes. More men die of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer. Longstanding national screening programme for the latter (and for the comparitively less common cervical cancer) but no programme for the former.
Honestly, it's almost as if the patriarchy didn't exist....
Yes, I believe that what I wrote is correct. I didn't suggest that women can't be abusive to female or male partners or children, their own or other people's. Cruelty and aggression is not a trait of some men but not women. Though anyone believing the proportions are similar is mistaken. I used to work for a domestic violence charity that provided free time limited therapy for women who were experiencing or had experienced some form of abuse, emotional as well as physical. Most of the women were abused by male partners, but not all, some were or had been in same sex relationships.
You referred to a case of appalling abuse that resulted in the deaths of two children, something that should never be minimised because the guilty parties were female, but, fortunately, these are exceptional cases. Unfortunately, male abuse of women and minors, resulting in serious injury or death, isn't as exceptional by rather a long way.
I was talking about abuse, not male psychological problems that lead to breakdown, possibly leading to homelessness, self harm and suicide. These are different issues, and, in the nature of my work, all are important and in need of being addressed more effectively. The statistics on male sexual, emotional and physical abuse is an entirely separate issue to incidences of men dying from prostate cancer. I'm not sure why you would mention it. Frequently, or even mostly, women have had to organise themselves in order to deal with things that primarily or exclusively affect them.
A couple of years ago, India Willoughby questioned who he would approach if he was in an abusive relationship, if he wasn't made welcome in a women's refuge. Who does he imagine started the first women's refuges? It was women, and they did it independently and at their own cost, in time and money. Then surely, given the prominence of the trans agenda, he could establish an equivalent service for men identifying as women. His years of male privilege has lead him to conclude that he can not only appropriate a female identity, he can potentially take the space of a woman who is in need of protection and support.
I'm fairly confident in the existence of the patriarchy, as a woman, and specifically as a Muslim woman. Check it out. It might not be the world you're part of, but it's a very real one and it damages numerous women and girls, just as the world you are part of does.
Hi Radhwa. You write, "Cruelty and aggression is not a trait of some men but not women. Though anyone believing the proportions are similar is mistaken."
On the contrary, anyone believing that is CORRECT, and researchers have known for DECADES that domestic violence isn;t a gendered phenomenon. Obviously you're not going to get a balanced picture in a woman's shelter! I refer you to the most comprehensive survey of the research on Interpersonal Violence ever carried out, The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK13) https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/. Its headline finding was that:
"Men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable levels, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons."
A key numerical finding from the PASK review was that:
"Among large population samples, 57.9% of inter-partner violence (IPV) reported was bi-directional, 42.1% uni-directional; 13.8% of the uni-directional violence was male to female, 28.3% female to male."
This bears repeating. With respect to uni-directional heterosexual partner violence, women are perpetrators twice as frequently as men, while men are victims twice as frequently as women.
I can recommend William Collins's 700+ page book, "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019) - the ebook edition costs under £5.00. Our last election manifesto https://j4mb.org.uk/2015-general-election-manifesto/ (scroll down) covered 20 areas in which the human rights of men and boys are assaulted, usually by the actions and inactions of the state, usually to privilege women and girls.
You're 'fairly' confident in the existence of the patriarchy. I invite you to point me to any evidence you have for its existence e.g. areas in the UK today where the human rights of women and girls SPECIFICALLY are assaulted. The patriarchy is a product of feminists' fevered imaginations. You write:
"I was talking about abuse, not male psychological problems that lead to breakdown, possibly leading to homelessness, self harm and suicide."
So you've transformed the consequences of men being abused by woman through a feminist lens into "male psychological problems". Wow.
Many men have tried and failed to start shelters for men battered by their female partners. Almost all have failed (in one famous case, committing suicide after losing all hope of funding) because of (a) the feminist stranglehold on funding, and/or (b) the empathy gap. Both women and men have this empathy gap towards males.
For some years I campaigned at Speakers' Corner on a number of issues including Male Genital Mutilation which is implicitly illegal, being ABH or probably GBH, under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, but it's only boys' genitals which are being mutilated, so nobody cares, amirite? Our playlist with 112 videos on MGM:
Whenever I raised at Speakers' Corner that the feminist narrative is that Muslim women in the UK are oppressed by men, the response - from Muslim men and women alike - was invariably the same, laughter.
I'm not familiar with the research you refer to. Incidentally, I didn't work at a women's shelter. I am a psychotherapist who worked for a charitable organisation that offered therapy to women who had or were experiencing a form of domestic abuse. Primarily perpetrated by men, but not exclusively.
Men and women experience similar kinds of motivational emotional responses. So, both have feelings anger, rage, aggression, sadism, etc. Nevertheless, men have been able to respond differently. For example, women are more likely to internalise their sense of alienation and rage, and externalise relatively or very little. Men are more likely to do both. I'm stressing this is more likely, not inevitably, but based on the statistics of male against female violence, I might legitimately suggest the latter. Some men might feel beleaguered, you clearly do, which I assume is why you're pursuing this particular line of thought.
As for men who want to establish shelters that are there for their protection, they can do so on the same basis women initially did. There was no external help. As for "a feminist stranglehold on funding", have you not considered that this is based on the need for provision? And now we have reached the stage when this provision is open to being decided by men. Mridul Wadhwa is the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. A man who lied about his status in order to be given a role he should never have been considered for. Even when his deception was uncovered, he didn't lose his position. Such is his confidence that he was able to portray women who have accessed the service as bigots because they didn't want to be in an environment where men were present. Oh wow! Victims of male rape don't want to share what is supposed to be a safe space for them with people who might turn out to be men.
Look at the conviction statistics that refer to male on female rape. Women are the disadvantaged group. It's unfeasible that I'm having to say any of this. Or that I have to point to the distinction between what you describe as male genital mutilation and FGM. The latter is potentially unimaginably damaging and can lead to repeated life long infection and death. It exists to achieve what is effectively the desexualisation of women. Male circumcision, whilst it is not without risk, is not done for the same reason and is not associated with the same complication rate. Do you really see both of these procedures as on a par with one another? The main shared feature is that consent is not required for either.
I wonder why Muslim men and women laughed at the suggestion that Muslim women are oppressed by men in the UK. Perhaps it's because men simply didn't care whether their wives, mothes, sisters, etc felt oppressed. And women didn't believe this question was even up for consideration. Laughter, perhaps, but not the same laughter.
Thanks Radhwa. I'd like to pick up on a number of your comments:
"I'm not familiar with the research you refer to." (on Intimate Personal Violence). I accept that, but it's, "The world's largest domestic violence research data base, 2,657 pages,
with summaries of 1700 peer-reviewed studies." It blows feminist claims that IPV is a gendered phenomenon out of the water. I've never known a feminist challenge it, for obvious reasons.
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense in the light of the findings of PASK13. You write:
"Some men might feel beleaguered, you clearly do, which I assume is why you're pursuing this particular line of thought."
I don't personally "feel beleagured", I'm just trying to put before you the evidence base on IPV, to show you how feminists LIE about this issues, and so many others.
"As for men who want to establish shelters that are there for their protection, they can do so on the same basis women initially did."
You seem not to understand the basic point about the empathy gap, which explains why men can NOT do this (many have tried, almost all failed). Erin Pizzey launched the world's first shelter for women and children in Chiswick in the 1970s, and reported that the majority of women there were at least as violent as their partners. She got turfed out by feminists who went on to launch the feminist IPV industry, still highly profitable after 50 years. Her benefactors for her shelters were a small number of rich men. She went to them pointing out that many of the women were violent (as we would expect from PASK13, of course), asking for donations for a shelter for men and their children, and collectively they gave her NOT A PENNY.
Successive Home Secretaries (mostly women, as today) have poured vast sums into the women's shelter industry and virtually nothing to help battered men. I remind you of one finding of PASK13, that in the c. 40% of violent heterosexual couples where the violence is uni-directional, the perpeatrator is twice as likely to be the woman as the man.
I have yet to find a feminist willing to take any time to understand the differences between MGM and FGM, so will limit myself to pointing out that very few FGM procedures are of the extreme form which feminists present as the norm, and all MGM is very harmful. MRAs would like both MGM and FGM to be consigned to the dustbin of history, but I have yet to encounter a feminist who gives a flying f*** about MGM. You write of FGM:
"It exists to achieve what is effectively the desexualisation of women."
Another feminist myth. It's carried out almost invariably by women at the behest of women, just as MGM is carried out almost invariably by men at the behest of men. The difference in the West is that huge resources have been expended (and legislation introduced) over 40+ years to eliminate FGM, but not MGM. The government even takes income taxes off the criminal butchers carrying it out. THAT is the empathy gap.
"I wonder why Muslim men and women laughed at the suggestion that Muslim women are oppressed by men in the UK." Their explanations were always the same - that Muslim women are all-powerful in the home.
More than a decade ago I covered s seemingly innocent campaign by "concerned parents" against relatively up to date sex education in Austrian primary and middle schools. They, it turned out, were well connected Catholic fundamentalists, the sister of the campaign's mastermind also had vested business interests in this whole thing: She ran a NGO offering very conserative to outright reactionary sex ed to schools.
Now we see another attempt by essentially religious fundamentalists to take over sex ed, many of whom have a financial stake in this. This is what Queer "Theory" essentially is: A religion. Mind overcomes matter, wishing makes it so, a magic essence is more important than physical reality, and what have you.
I did not try and make the public aware of the goings on back then in order to approve of the essentially same thing happening today, and with a lot more at stake here than back then.
Overtly religious fundamentalists are dangerous, but they are relatively small and isolated groups in most central and Western European countries. One can easily identify them and limit the damage they do. Covertly religious fundamentalists such as Queer "theorists" successfully pose as progressives and their influence is a lot harder to contain.
So, thank you, thank you and thank you again for pointing them out and exposing their strategies. This is immensely important.
It isn't sex education at all, what is being delivered to young children and teenagers is not informing them, it is exploiting them, and it is very likely that girls are going to be most negatively affected. They are effectively being encouraged to compromise what little agency they have. Parents and people in general are going to need to risk being described as any kind of phobic, there is far too much to lose. It is hard to believe that things have got this far and the situation seems to be constantly deteriorating.
Given the premises of queer sex "education" I wonder how this is supposed to meet even the lowest possible threshold for any sex ed, i. e. at least make kids aware of how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
And yes, this is a shamefully low bar I am using here, and like you or Julie I think sex ed should do a lot more, i.e. teach children and teenagers how to responsibly handle their sexuality. But it really puzzles me how any program that insists that people can change sex can inform boys and girls how children are made and how to avoid that until one is ready to have any (if ever).
Thank you JB, for using your talents and reach to fight this very real threat to girls and women - we are still right behind you!
Keep writing & we'll keep sharing!
Makes you wonder what they're trying to hide.
My Daughter's male friend at school was abused by his mother's lesbian partner. It was awful. His mother had left his Dad because of abuse and fell into a relationship with another abuser.
Yes some women are abusive but on the grand scale it's men who abuse on a massive scale. That's a fact.
Jacqueline, you write:
"Yes some women are abusive but on the grand scale it's men who abuse on a massive scale. That's a fact."
It's NOT a fact, it's just one of countless egregious feminist LIES which plays to women's narcissism and (unjustified) sense of moral superiority. I refer you to my response to Radhwa Evans-Clare below in relation to the issue of Intimate Personal Violence, including the findings of the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (2013).
Let's talk about "the grand scale", shall we? What greater abuse can there be than killing the innocent and unprotected? According to the WHO, women have 75+ million of their unborn children killed every year, feminists call this relentless slaughter of innocents "women's healthcare". Shame on them.
How is it a lie when males are responsible for around 90% of all violent crimes in general as well as for 99%(!) of all sexual crimes in particular?
I can assure you there are no "feminist lies", quite the contrary.
I know of no other social & civil rights movement where so much basic discourse happens, as well as the heavy reliance on real, scientific data.
You seem to be - sadly - projecting hard here and arguing from a pure emotional point of view.
And for your last paragraph:
Yes, abortion is healthcare.
25% of pregnancies get miscarriaged naturally, by themselves (not many people know this).
Already from just these cases alone - as an example - many women need additional medical intervention to make sure they don't get a sepsis. And these procedures count as abortions, just so you know.
Then there are stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies, rape cases.
Also, most abortions are "just" a pill in the very early stages. They make up the vast majority.
There is no real, independent life at this point.
Even the idea of the heartbeat:
When the heart gets developed and starts functioning, there is still no developed brain and spinalcord. Also still no separate life. No feelings, no reflexes.
And for your language - do you really think women who sadly have to do this find it somehow "funny"?! Or that they "take it easy"?
Why do you think so many women are in supportgroups to deal with it?
Just because you see on TV some over-the-top banner about abortion in a protest or something similar doesn't mean you know anything about the truth and the real situation.
Also, did it never cross your mind that these few(!) people act like that because they got silenced and threatend (look how they act - there's nothing "pro-life" about it, not at all) all the time when they tried to talk "normal"? Not that I personally find that a good way to react; some paroles that you see are really not quite tastefull. But still.
Sorry for this long paragraph, but seeing people spewing such misinformation, lies and blatant hatred for women has to be called out.
If you just look to rage against transgender ideology while at the same being a traditional gender ideologist yourself, you're definitely wrong here.
Miiju86, I really don't know where to begin with that rant. However, I'll try. Firstly, your simplistic assumption that men commit 90% of all violent crimes. Could you provide a source for that (other than from a feminist website please) ? Did you know that domestic violence is reciprocal in most cases, and that proxy violence by women has never been quantified.
Secondly, "men commit 99% of all sexual crimes". Wrong !! Men appear to commit ALL sexual crimes, simply because women are never held accountable for their actions. Good examples are the copious number of cases of female school teachers having sex with 14 and 15 year old pupils. These are simply dismissed as "lucky lad" in most cases. Another example are the number of female prison officers working in men's prisons who commit improprieties. Many more examples of drunkard female behaviour at office parties, where yet again, are not considered serious, despite overt embarrassment to others.
Finally abortion. The crushing of a skull and the pulling out of a limbs of a baby with a brain, beating heart and even finger nails is an act of murder. You can rhyme, jangle, rationalise and spin all you like. No IFs, no BUTS, it is an act of murder. Shame on you, Miiju86 !
Just a few results you could easily find if you really wanted to.
But I guess you're more interested in some MRA guys playing around with statistics to make it seem less worse than it actually is....
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=1&selYrs=2020&rdoGroups=2&rdoData=c
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/no-women-arent-as-likely-to-commit-violence-as-men-20141118-3km9x.html
https://supportingsurvivors.humboldt.edu/statistics
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/97-of-women-in-the-uk/105940/
Ironic that your first link was from the United Nations. An organisation whose official term for "boy soldiers" is "child soldiers", and yet has a mandate to end violence against women and girls. No mandate to end violence against men and boys, despite making up the majority of victims.
I did ask in my last comment if you could provide sources, other than feminist websites . Here's one result that you could find if you really wanted to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLRibsjAdA&t=56s
First of all - that was ONE, only one link of a few; and if you were genuinely interested, you could look up even more for yourself.
Then secondly - why do you stop by this one source & ignore all the others? And that also not by a real argument but through some dubious semantic plays?
Also - if you want to imply the UN has somehow a "anti-male" sentiment, you're as wrong as can be.
Look up what really goes on and you'll see.
If there is any real sentiment, it's NOT against males.
But how it looks you're anyways not at all interested in any of these topics.
Just like it is with every single one of these MRA groups and similar people; they just are looking for ways to somehow justify what they clearly know us wrong - all just to gain a little bit of imagined feelings of superiority.
Imagine being FOR a system of sex based social hierarchy, FOR dehumanization & exploitation of around 50% of the world's population, being FOR a system that reflects just that in every aspect of life - be it economy, education, health, justice and so on....
They NEVER DO ANYTHING.
The only thing they do is to try to oppress women & girls once more to the point where they can freely exploit and abuse them; just to be able to hold up their hierarchic system.
An example: Do you see MRAs building shelters and other resources for men?
NO.
But YOU DO SEE THEM trying to tear down the women's ones.
That's all. Over and over again.
At the same time though, you see feminists supporting youth programms for boys too, you're seeing them fighting against circumcision of minor boys too, you're seeing them giving shelter, advice and other resources as well aseducation for men too.
BECAUSE WE CARE.
I don't even know what you want from me - we're writing here back and forth for hours and you didn't said ONCE something of substance.
Sorry not sorry - if I would recognize such tendencies in myself; if I would register that I can only "feel myself" when I have someone to lookdown upon.... I would just bang my head into the next wall; immediately.
Having no backbone, no integrity, no character, no honesty, no respect, only some weird rambling smokescreening, straight up lying, deflecting, "what-about-ism", gish galopping and many other logical fallacies.... all that just to hold up an imaginary idea of an ego, or what?!! Why?
Why do you need this?!
What is your goal here; why are you even on a feminists substack? (Noting you apparently hate feminism and the thought of anything but a system founded on imaginary male supremacy, gendered class hierarchy, entitlement, science denial, exploitation, oppression and more)
How many times have I answerd to you now? And still got NOT ONE REAL ANSWER.
Seriously.
Maybe just go back to your flat earth.
If you have nothing real to say, just leave it.
Ya'll are suddenly so quiet....
... I wonder why. Well, not really.
Thank you for raising the important issue of when human life begins. An American woman answered the question convincingly in a video lasting just 80 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNgwsT295G8
Where would you personally set the maximum term limit for elective abortions? The current 24 weeks limit in the UK is clearly OUTRAGEOUS (many foetuses are 100% viable by that stage). We covered the issue of abortion in our last manifesto, pp.23-7:
https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/221128-J4MB-manifesto-3.pdf
We also covered the issue of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (pp. 28-30), the leading cause of avoidable mental health incapacitation in the developed world, yet women are not punished for inflicting this GBH on their babies.
OK, I've read the rest of your comments. At times your sentences are unfathomable e.g.:
"some paroles that you see are really not quite tastefull (sic)."
Can you please translate that into English? Thanks.
Mike Buchanan
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
Good morning. I couldn't get past your first four sentences, all of them absurd (and demonstrably untrue) in their own ways:
"How is it a lie when males are responsible for around 90% of all violent crimes in general as well as for 99%(!) of all sexual crimes in particular?
I can assure you there are no "feminist lies", quite the contrary.
I know of no other social & civil rights movement where so much basic discourse happens, as well as the heavy reliance on real, scientific data.
You seem to be - sadly - projecting hard here and arguing from a pure emotional point of view."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Feminists are certifiably insane. Some e.g. Kate Millett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Millett WERE certified insane. That includes Tracey Emin, a talentless pain in the Arts:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2013/08/26/are-some-feminists-e-g-tracey-emin-a-pain-in-the-arts/
Mike Buchanan
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
So..... you couldn't answer one single thing - especially about the sadly very true statistics - AND you are not able to differentiate between feminism as a civil rights movement & a social/political philosophy and two(!) individuals and their personal lives and actions.... got it (which is even more funny because you want to make it a men vs. women thing - don't you know I could in seconds pull up thousands upon thousands of equivalent men who are hundert times worse? What are you thinking to gain with such a pathetic attempt of false equivalency and deflection?).
Guess it was a waste of time to even confront you.
Liars gonna lie.
This is like having an exchange with someone fromn the Flat Earth Society. You write:
"... don't you know I could in seconds pull up thousands upon thousands of equivalent men who are hundert (sic) times worse?"
I did NOT know that. Please do so, I look forward to seeing what you manage to "pull up" in seconds.
Your "statistics" are utterly absurd, even by feminist standards. The most authoritative book on men's and women's issues is William Collins's "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019). The ebook is only £4.32 on Amazon, if you don't have a KIndle you can read it on other e-readers or your PC, phone, tablet with free-to-download software:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empathy-Gap-Disadvantages-Mechanisms-Neglect-ebook/dp/B0998VC9RY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=38OKV6U7KVC33&keywords=The+Empathy+Gap&qid=1688292780&s=digital-text&sprefix=the+empathy+gap%2Cdigital-text%2C70&sr=1-1
Happy to continue this exchange after you educate yourself about the FACTS rather than just spout feminist BS.
One area Collins doesn't cover is the disastrous impact of feminising professions (obvious examples include education, medicine, the police...), and in senior management positions. In 2012 I provided evidence to a House of Commons inquiry about the causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards and corporate financial DECLINE. My blog post has links to the longitudinal studies in question (scroll down):
https://c4mb.uk/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/
Mike Buchanan
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.uk
It is indeed like talking to a flat earther - but it certsinly isn't me.
Go look up crime stats.
What you're doing here is called "gish gallopping".
You don't address anything asked, you're just trying to throw one point after another to feel like you're "winning" while debating nothing.
Also - do you know WHY these effects happen, what REALLY is the root-cause of them?
Just coming on with "changes are a bit hard, so we shouldn't even try" is not the "gotcha" you think it is.
I recommend the research of Caroline Criado Perez as well as of Maya Dusenberg, Dale Spender, Mary Daly and many others.
Thank you Julie. 😊. In the 60s we had slides of a woman's anatomy and about periods. That was it. No education about saying NO. No education about self protection and really meaning it. It was bad enough then, but with the advent of the Internet that all changed. Women and girls and boys btw are in danger. No longer is it videos and books from Holland. I despair. Thanks for doing what you do and being who you are. We are in more danger than ever.
Julie, why do you campaign against male violence against women and children, when most violence against children is done by women? Do you really despise men that much ?
Your final question is the very definition of a rhetorical question haha!
On a more serious note, William Collins reports on p.266 (section 9.2.7, "Domestic Homicides") of his book "The Empathy Gap" (2019 ) that in 12 countries for which there was the relevant data, mothers committed 71.7% of parental homicides of children under one year old. They are very rarely prosecuted, and are likely to receive a suspended sentence (i.e. no punishment) if charged and convicted.
Julie, you lose credibility with your opening words:
"As a feminist campaigner against male violence towards women and children..."
Why not omit the word "male"? Do you not care about women who are abused and assaulted by women?
It's long been known that women are more likely to be abused in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships. Our recent blog piece on the matter, with links to official statistics demonstrating that reality:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2022/12/09/are-women-more-likely-to-be-abused-in-lesbian-or-heterosexual-relationships/
Have a nice day.
Mike Buchanan
Leader
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
In the UK 3 women in a million end up in jail for sexual violence. 400 men in a million end up in jail for sexual violence. 2000 men in a million who identify as women end up in jail for sexual violence. YOU men are the ones we women are overwhelmingly at risk from, not other women.
Don't have a nice day. Do some self reflection on your vile misogyny and then feel heartily ashamed of yourself, Mike Buchanen.
Hi Lilith, still looking forward to the links to the stats you cited.
Do you care more about women who are abused by men than women who are abused by women, and if so, why? Maybe because the latter are in a minority? If so, following the same logic, you should care more about white women who are abused than about BAME women in the UK, because the latter are in the minority.
The fact that feminists have nothing honest to say about female abusers simply reinforces the point that they're anti-male before they're pro-female. And of course feminists are the only group in the world deliberately stoking up fear and anxiety in women. So many feminist jobs rely on lies (wild exaggerations, most commonly of the "one in three women" variety) about sexual violence and domestic violence, lies which lead to state and private individuals funding of their feminist industries.
Thank you Lilith. Can you please send me a link to those stats?
So, you too don't give a damn about women abused by other women? The only reason that more women are abused by men than by women is that more women partner with men than with women. Do you refute the official stats I linked to earlier on this matter, showing women are more likely to be abused by female partners than male partners? And if so, on what grounds? A question it would be good to have Julie Bindel address, given that she refuted the stats recently in an interview with Philip Davies MP on GB News.
A few words on the relative numbers of men women committing sexual violence, and being prosecuted and convicted for it. Even if we exclude the common and egregious crime of paternity fraud (for which the state NEVER prosecutes women) we know from surveys that women are FAR more likely to commit sexual violence against both adults and children than is popularly believed (male victims of it are very unlikely to seek legal redress). We covered the issue in the longest section of our last election manifesto, pp.51-7:
https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/221128-J4MB-manifesto-3.pdf
Vile misogyny, eh? What a lazy accusation, and manifestly untrue. Would I have appointed the amazing Elizabeth Hobson https://j4mb.org.uk/elizabeth-hobson-2-2/ party leader of http://j4mb.org.uk in May 2020 if I were a misogynist? Anticipating the usual attack on her as having "internalised misogyny", I can tell you she has many friends, both men and women. In common with every anti-feminist woman I've ever met, she's extraordinary. One of the best-known examples is Professor Janice Fiamengo, her SubStack account here:
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/
Janice will be the key speaker at an event I'll be hosting, the 2014 International Conference on Men's Issues, in Budapest.
Do some self reflection on your vile misandry and then feel heartily ashamed of yourself, Lilith.
Julie is describing what she has spent many years doing. She has been considering and investigating male violence and abuse towards women and girls. It's quite a big deal, particularly as it is primarily men who control the sex trade and prostitution, for instance, where victims are overwhelmingly female.
As for women who are in violent relationships with other women, I don't believe this is comparable to the prevelence or the severity that occurs in female and male relationships. I don't have any figures, but there are far fewer women killed by their female partners or former partners. Whereas every week, several women are killed by male partners. You are comparing two very different sets of circumstances and outcomes.
Thank you. You don't have any figures, but you 'believe'... #IDontBelieve
I think we can safely assume Julie Bindel never covered this story, "Lesbian is jailed for life after she DELIBERATELY helped starve girlfriend's children aged six and four to death after plotting the scheme to cause maximum suffering":
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11662545/Pennsylvania-lesbian-jailed-life-helped-DELIBERATELY-starved-girlfriends-children.html
Hmm, it doesn't accord with relentless feminist narratives, does it?
On the subject of the sex trade, feminist narratives are again deeply flawed. I recommend a video interview (by Elizabeth Hobson https://j4mb.org.uk/elizabeth-hobson-2-2/ when she was leader of our political party, and myself), of "Miss Matthews", titled, "My 25 Wonderful Years as a Sex Worker":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmXcA9pxQR0
The number of women killed by male partners and ex-partners is very small in absolute terms and in comparison with the number of men who commit suicide following divorce, particularly those denied access to their children as a result of unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by female ex-partners. The male suicide rate more than triples following divorce.
You will hopefully be aware (and observe) that the overwhelming majority of street homeless people are men, often there following false accusations by partners. Street homelessness is another major driver of male suicide (the male suicide rate is 3.5x the female suicide rate). Imagine the billions of pounds the government would invest in suicide prevention if the female suicide rate were 3.5x the male suicide rate.
Similarly with national cancer screening programmes. More men die of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer. Longstanding national screening programme for the latter (and for the comparitively less common cervical cancer) but no programme for the former.
Honestly, it's almost as if the patriarchy didn't exist....
Yes, I believe that what I wrote is correct. I didn't suggest that women can't be abusive to female or male partners or children, their own or other people's. Cruelty and aggression is not a trait of some men but not women. Though anyone believing the proportions are similar is mistaken. I used to work for a domestic violence charity that provided free time limited therapy for women who were experiencing or had experienced some form of abuse, emotional as well as physical. Most of the women were abused by male partners, but not all, some were or had been in same sex relationships.
You referred to a case of appalling abuse that resulted in the deaths of two children, something that should never be minimised because the guilty parties were female, but, fortunately, these are exceptional cases. Unfortunately, male abuse of women and minors, resulting in serious injury or death, isn't as exceptional by rather a long way.
I was talking about abuse, not male psychological problems that lead to breakdown, possibly leading to homelessness, self harm and suicide. These are different issues, and, in the nature of my work, all are important and in need of being addressed more effectively. The statistics on male sexual, emotional and physical abuse is an entirely separate issue to incidences of men dying from prostate cancer. I'm not sure why you would mention it. Frequently, or even mostly, women have had to organise themselves in order to deal with things that primarily or exclusively affect them.
A couple of years ago, India Willoughby questioned who he would approach if he was in an abusive relationship, if he wasn't made welcome in a women's refuge. Who does he imagine started the first women's refuges? It was women, and they did it independently and at their own cost, in time and money. Then surely, given the prominence of the trans agenda, he could establish an equivalent service for men identifying as women. His years of male privilege has lead him to conclude that he can not only appropriate a female identity, he can potentially take the space of a woman who is in need of protection and support.
I'm fairly confident in the existence of the patriarchy, as a woman, and specifically as a Muslim woman. Check it out. It might not be the world you're part of, but it's a very real one and it damages numerous women and girls, just as the world you are part of does.
Hi Radhwa. You write, "Cruelty and aggression is not a trait of some men but not women. Though anyone believing the proportions are similar is mistaken."
On the contrary, anyone believing that is CORRECT, and researchers have known for DECADES that domestic violence isn;t a gendered phenomenon. Obviously you're not going to get a balanced picture in a woman's shelter! I refer you to the most comprehensive survey of the research on Interpersonal Violence ever carried out, The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK13) https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/. Its headline finding was that:
"Men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable levels, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons."
A key numerical finding from the PASK review was that:
"Among large population samples, 57.9% of inter-partner violence (IPV) reported was bi-directional, 42.1% uni-directional; 13.8% of the uni-directional violence was male to female, 28.3% female to male."
This bears repeating. With respect to uni-directional heterosexual partner violence, women are perpetrators twice as frequently as men, while men are victims twice as frequently as women.
I can recommend William Collins's 700+ page book, "The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect" (2019) - the ebook edition costs under £5.00. Our last election manifesto https://j4mb.org.uk/2015-general-election-manifesto/ (scroll down) covered 20 areas in which the human rights of men and boys are assaulted, usually by the actions and inactions of the state, usually to privilege women and girls.
You're 'fairly' confident in the existence of the patriarchy. I invite you to point me to any evidence you have for its existence e.g. areas in the UK today where the human rights of women and girls SPECIFICALLY are assaulted. The patriarchy is a product of feminists' fevered imaginations. You write:
"I was talking about abuse, not male psychological problems that lead to breakdown, possibly leading to homelessness, self harm and suicide."
So you've transformed the consequences of men being abused by woman through a feminist lens into "male psychological problems". Wow.
Many men have tried and failed to start shelters for men battered by their female partners. Almost all have failed (in one famous case, committing suicide after losing all hope of funding) because of (a) the feminist stranglehold on funding, and/or (b) the empathy gap. Both women and men have this empathy gap towards males.
For some years I campaigned at Speakers' Corner on a number of issues including Male Genital Mutilation which is implicitly illegal, being ABH or probably GBH, under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, but it's only boys' genitals which are being mutilated, so nobody cares, amirite? Our playlist with 112 videos on MGM:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMscr0TpRqgDT--hnKe3XOKXypbM_R2K
Whenever I raised at Speakers' Corner that the feminist narrative is that Muslim women in the UK are oppressed by men, the response - from Muslim men and women alike - was invariably the same, laughter.
I'm not familiar with the research you refer to. Incidentally, I didn't work at a women's shelter. I am a psychotherapist who worked for a charitable organisation that offered therapy to women who had or were experiencing a form of domestic abuse. Primarily perpetrated by men, but not exclusively.
Men and women experience similar kinds of motivational emotional responses. So, both have feelings anger, rage, aggression, sadism, etc. Nevertheless, men have been able to respond differently. For example, women are more likely to internalise their sense of alienation and rage, and externalise relatively or very little. Men are more likely to do both. I'm stressing this is more likely, not inevitably, but based on the statistics of male against female violence, I might legitimately suggest the latter. Some men might feel beleaguered, you clearly do, which I assume is why you're pursuing this particular line of thought.
As for men who want to establish shelters that are there for their protection, they can do so on the same basis women initially did. There was no external help. As for "a feminist stranglehold on funding", have you not considered that this is based on the need for provision? And now we have reached the stage when this provision is open to being decided by men. Mridul Wadhwa is the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. A man who lied about his status in order to be given a role he should never have been considered for. Even when his deception was uncovered, he didn't lose his position. Such is his confidence that he was able to portray women who have accessed the service as bigots because they didn't want to be in an environment where men were present. Oh wow! Victims of male rape don't want to share what is supposed to be a safe space for them with people who might turn out to be men.
Look at the conviction statistics that refer to male on female rape. Women are the disadvantaged group. It's unfeasible that I'm having to say any of this. Or that I have to point to the distinction between what you describe as male genital mutilation and FGM. The latter is potentially unimaginably damaging and can lead to repeated life long infection and death. It exists to achieve what is effectively the desexualisation of women. Male circumcision, whilst it is not without risk, is not done for the same reason and is not associated with the same complication rate. Do you really see both of these procedures as on a par with one another? The main shared feature is that consent is not required for either.
I wonder why Muslim men and women laughed at the suggestion that Muslim women are oppressed by men in the UK. Perhaps it's because men simply didn't care whether their wives, mothes, sisters, etc felt oppressed. And women didn't believe this question was even up for consideration. Laughter, perhaps, but not the same laughter.
Thanks Radhwa. I'd like to pick up on a number of your comments:
"I'm not familiar with the research you refer to." (on Intimate Personal Violence). I accept that, but it's, "The world's largest domestic violence research data base, 2,657 pages,
with summaries of 1700 peer-reviewed studies." It blows feminist claims that IPV is a gendered phenomenon out of the water. I've never known a feminist challenge it, for obvious reasons.
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense in the light of the findings of PASK13. You write:
"Some men might feel beleaguered, you clearly do, which I assume is why you're pursuing this particular line of thought."
I don't personally "feel beleagured", I'm just trying to put before you the evidence base on IPV, to show you how feminists LIE about this issues, and so many others.
"As for men who want to establish shelters that are there for their protection, they can do so on the same basis women initially did."
You seem not to understand the basic point about the empathy gap, which explains why men can NOT do this (many have tried, almost all failed). Erin Pizzey launched the world's first shelter for women and children in Chiswick in the 1970s, and reported that the majority of women there were at least as violent as their partners. She got turfed out by feminists who went on to launch the feminist IPV industry, still highly profitable after 50 years. Her benefactors for her shelters were a small number of rich men. She went to them pointing out that many of the women were violent (as we would expect from PASK13, of course), asking for donations for a shelter for men and their children, and collectively they gave her NOT A PENNY.
Successive Home Secretaries (mostly women, as today) have poured vast sums into the women's shelter industry and virtually nothing to help battered men. I remind you of one finding of PASK13, that in the c. 40% of violent heterosexual couples where the violence is uni-directional, the perpeatrator is twice as likely to be the woman as the man.
I have yet to find a feminist willing to take any time to understand the differences between MGM and FGM, so will limit myself to pointing out that very few FGM procedures are of the extreme form which feminists present as the norm, and all MGM is very harmful. MRAs would like both MGM and FGM to be consigned to the dustbin of history, but I have yet to encounter a feminist who gives a flying f*** about MGM. You write of FGM:
"It exists to achieve what is effectively the desexualisation of women."
Another feminist myth. It's carried out almost invariably by women at the behest of women, just as MGM is carried out almost invariably by men at the behest of men. The difference in the West is that huge resources have been expended (and legislation introduced) over 40+ years to eliminate FGM, but not MGM. The government even takes income taxes off the criminal butchers carrying it out. THAT is the empathy gap.
"I wonder why Muslim men and women laughed at the suggestion that Muslim women are oppressed by men in the UK." Their explanations were always the same - that Muslim women are all-powerful in the home.
More than a decade ago I covered s seemingly innocent campaign by "concerned parents" against relatively up to date sex education in Austrian primary and middle schools. They, it turned out, were well connected Catholic fundamentalists, the sister of the campaign's mastermind also had vested business interests in this whole thing: She ran a NGO offering very conserative to outright reactionary sex ed to schools.
Now we see another attempt by essentially religious fundamentalists to take over sex ed, many of whom have a financial stake in this. This is what Queer "Theory" essentially is: A religion. Mind overcomes matter, wishing makes it so, a magic essence is more important than physical reality, and what have you.
I did not try and make the public aware of the goings on back then in order to approve of the essentially same thing happening today, and with a lot more at stake here than back then.
Overtly religious fundamentalists are dangerous, but they are relatively small and isolated groups in most central and Western European countries. One can easily identify them and limit the damage they do. Covertly religious fundamentalists such as Queer "theorists" successfully pose as progressives and their influence is a lot harder to contain.
So, thank you, thank you and thank you again for pointing them out and exposing their strategies. This is immensely important.
There is no concept of age-appropriate anymore, at least not among Leftists.