Bollocks of the Day

This pile of arse wibble.

Making misandry a hate crime will embolden abusive men

Actually, I agree, misandry should not enter the statute books, but then, nor should misogyny. And all those hate crimes currently on the books should be repealed. If someone is assaulted or murdered, does it make any difference what sex they are? What their sexuality is or how much melanin is in their skin? Dead is dead and the perpetrator when caught should face the full wrath of the law. The victim – nor the perpetrator – should not be treated differently because of some absurd protected status. This is just the usual leftist PC identity politics and should be crushed underfoot.

However… As the writer is observing, two can play that game and I’m all for giving these charlatans a hard time and playing them at their own game is one way of doing it.

While misogyny has centuries of research, evidence, statistics, law and legislation, oppression, death and suffering behind it, misandry is harder to pinpoint. Some people even ask the question: “Does misandry exist?”

Try reading a Bidisha or Burchill column sometime.

This is not because we believe that men are not harmed, that men cannot be abused or that men cannot be oppressed – but because misandry seems to be thrown around (generally at women) for some pretty tenuous things that definitely are not hatred or hostility to men.

Well, yes, so does misogyny – usually to silence awkward opinions the femmis don’t like  (again, Bidisha and Burchill). Your point?

Some of the stuff highlighted in the article is, indeed, an absurd use of the term misandry – but, I repeat, misogyny is abused in exactly the same way, so this isn’t helpful at all. What would be helpful would be a massive repeal act getting rid of all these nasty hate laws and go back to basics – assault, ABH, GBH, murder et al along with suitably harsh sentencing.

The point is, when we talk about misogyny, we are talking about the global societal issue of the life-threatening prejudice, hatred, harm, oppression, rape, marginalisation and harassment of women and girls purely based on their gender – millions of women and girls being mutilated, sold, objectified, dehumanised and even murdered for being female.

Yup. And these thing are appalling. However, murder is already a crime. Adding the hate bit isn’t going to alter anything.

Misandry, on the other hand, seems to be anything a woman says or does that any man doesn’t like.

At the risk of repeating myself, much like the term misogyny as used by Guardian columnists.

The concept of misandry is dangerously vague in comparison to the reality of misogyny.

No it’s not. You’ve used whataboutery to describe one while using violent crimes to describe the other. Apples and oranges. This is a highly disingenuous argument.

27 Comments

  1. I’m quite looking forward to the time when some snowflake/millennial calls me a “nasty old man”, and I can file a hate crime complaint…

  2. The concept of a ‘hate crime’ is ridiculous. An action either is, or is not, a crime. What the motivation was behind it is immaterial.

    • Its worse than that, Pcar, in that a hate crime is one which is perceived as being hateful [based upon victim group] by someone, whether the victim or not, and whether a witness or not.

      Our Doreen told me that Shazza told her that when they was in the pub, Gav was talking to his mate about Leroy, who’s on holiday in Lanzarote, and called him the Nigger word.

  3. The point is, when we talk about misogyny, we are talking about the global societal issue of the life-threatening prejudice, hatred, harm, oppression, rape, marginalisation and harassment of women and girls purely based on their gender – millions of women and girls being mutilated, sold, objectified, dehumanised and even murdered for being female.

    This is the sort of misogyny tolerated by many feminists because it is perpetrated to a large extent by Muslims and in the victim hood version of Top Trumps, the Muslim card beats all comers.

    • Britain’s Liberal Elite Still in Denial About Muslim Rape Gangs

      Another gang of mostly Muslim Pakistani thugs in the north of England (Huddersfield, this time) has been jailed for raping hundreds of mostly underage white girls. But that’s only half the story.

      What’s almost worse is the fact that even after all the widespread evidence that similar groups have been perpetrating these barbaric practices all over Britain for decades, the left-liberal establishment is still determinedly trying to hide the truth of what is happening.

      Let me show you some examples.

      But Javid is being culpably dishonest too. He is using the cant word “Asian” because he dare not use the more politically contentious terms “Muslim” or “Pakistani”. This euphemism doesn’t let him off the hook: it is a grave insult to all those Asian communities – from Chinese to Sikhs – who are perfectly well integrated in Britain and don’t go around gang-raping little girls. Really, we should expect better from a senior member of a supposedly Conservative government

      BBC’s Casciani must surely know – it is his job, after all – “the ringleader of this massive abuse ring” did NOT come “from a Sikh background.”

      Amere Singh Dhaliwal – whose behaviour was described by the judge as “inhuman” – was born a Muslim and has a Muslim wife (and children). As the Mail reports he converted to Sikhism five years ago – largely, it is rumoured, as a ruse to make himself appear more trustworthy to the girls on whom he preyed.

      To say that the gang’s vile, predatory ring-leader comes “from a Sikh background”, then, is a horrible insult to true Sikhs – many of whom have had their daughters too preyed upon by these Muslim gangs…

      Delers spot on with fact based article again.

      • Send them home to their “land of pure”. Basically, this is our country and good riddance to bad rubbish.

  4. I’m not so sure. Characteristics should at the least be taken as an aggravating factor. If you give someone a crack round the head and call them a nigger or an autistic retard, should the motivation not a clear factor at court?

    • Why is that worse than giving someone a crack round the head because they looked at you funny or you were drunk?

      • Different circumstances. I can’t help being autistic. It really is hatred of autists, whereas the other two are random attacks.

          • But a premeditated hate attack is different from someone slapping you over a daft argument in the pub. You might be mates with the guy that slapped you in a few weeks after you have settled your differences; a hate attack is from someone that hates the person in question BECAUSE of whatever they have.

          • But it affects the person differently. That’s the obvious point that you are deliberately missing. Saying that it’s just an assault is being deliberately and obtusely simplistic. What you term just an assault could lead to years of depression in one case because of what happened before and after and because of the victim; in the other case, it could well just be that the person is pissed off for a couple of days and eventually comes round. An assault combined with minutes of abuse before and after (which you term free speech) is a lot different from two old drunks getting into it in the pub.

            It’s the type of assault that matters, and the circumstances around that assault. It’s like murder – there are differing types of murder. From the simple lethal injection to unbelievably horrific torture lasting for days.

            Essentially, LR, you’re being daft. I normally value your opinion a lot but you’ve gone very wrong here.

            I could make it about deaf people, or blind people, or about any disability. The point really remains though.

          • The other point is, of course, is that a lot of the drunks know what they’re getting into. A disabled person won’t have a clue what is going on and will most probably have psychologically shut down after the assault.

          • I’m not wrong here. The law cannot measure things such as depression. The random victim may also suffer depression and fear going out as a consequence of an assault. That is outwith the remit of the law.

            An assault combined with minutes of abuse before and after (which you term free speech) is a lot different from two old drunks getting into it in the pub.

            You do realise that you’ve just constructed a strawman here?

            It’s the type of assault that matters, and the circumstances around that assault. It’s like murder – there are differing types of murder. From the simple lethal injection to unbelievably horrific torture lasting for days.

            The perpetrator is still charged with murder and tried for murder. The only difference being whether there was premeditation or not, in which case is a charge of manslaughter more appropriate.

            You are making a series of assumptions with this argument. That the random victim of an assault is merely one of two drunks. Yet there are all sorts of reasons that assault can occur – from that to robbery. Sometimes the motive is little more than gratification and the victim is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can you assume that the victim will be any less traumatised than someone who is disabled following such an assault? But worse, much worse, what makes you think that this victim should be treated less favourably by the law?

            The law should treat all equally. No special status. Next week, I’ll have been writing this blog for fourteen years. Nothing I have written in that time contradicts what I am saying here – everyone regardless of status is equal before the law. That is most certainly not daft, nor is it wrong.

          • OK, I’ll be a tattooed bruiser and punch a permanently disabled woman in a wheelchair who has mental retardation in the face and I’ll get the same as the two drunks outside the pub.

            The law should treat the same equally. No special dispensations.

          • Nope. You’ve still missed the point and you are still using specious argument. The judge will consider the circumstances of the case when sentencing. No need for any change in the law and no need for special status.

          • That was exactly what I was getting at. Essentially, the assault on the MR lass would get a far more severe sentence than the two drunken yobs outside the King’s Head.

            Therefore, special dispensations do indeed exist and the law does not treat every case ‘equally’. Each case its tested on its merits (or lack of). Thus, special exceptions, mitigations and aggravations will apply.

            If you want to argue, get yourself over to r/ukpolitics or r/unitedkingdom. But be sharp.

          • My point all along has been that we do not need special laws for special victim groups. The process is the same as so it should be. It is only at sentencing following a conviction where aggravating or mitigating circumstances are considered. Given that this is and always has been available to the judge, no hate laws are necessary.

          • We agree then. What I was getting at is that someone having been heavily provoked punching someone about their size and shape shouldn’t be given the same sentencing as a yob punching a defenceless mentally retarded person.

            Hopefully, post-Brexit, the police will be real. And the courts too.

      • Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

        • heh…yet another thing we agree on. Having been a bouncer for a number of years being attacked is something I have a great deal of knowledge on and I know for absolute certainty that when someone is on the floor getting their head stamped on they really are not thinking, “I’m so glad he/she is not hurting me because of my skin colour/sexuality/any other distinguishing factor.”

          • But my point is that being attacked on a drunken night out when both parties are notrmally able to handle themselves is different from a daytime assault on a defenceless person – whether through age or disability – from a tattooed thug. Therefore, they should not be punished the same.

            I might go out to my local at night, and my local micro in the late afternoon, but other than that I cannot be bothered with pubs to be honest with you.

Comments are closed.