The 28-year-old man awaiting trial over the Christchurch massacre wrote a self-justifying screed titled “The Great Replacement.” It begins: “It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates.” The 21-year-old American who allegedly killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas, left behind a four-page document outlining his motivations. Its most consistent theme is the danger of Hispanic “invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America.” The alleged shooter adds: “My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement.”
www.youtube.com › watch
U.K Family Breakdown Posted January 23rd 2021
Release date: April 18, 2011 PRESS RELEASE FROM THE CENTRE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE RELEASE TIME: Immediate Never in Britain’s history has family breakdown hit such heights – new report Britain’s levels of births outside marriage are at the highest point for at least 200 years, according to a major new study of the history of the family from a leading think-tank. Cohabitation levels have also soared from under 5% pre-1945 to 90% today.
The inquiry finds that births outside marriage were at low levels throughout the 19thCentury and stayed flat until the 1960s. But since then they have soared, from a long-standing baseline of 5 per cent to 45 per cent today. Research shows that children brought up by lone parents on average do much less well than those brought up by two parents. For instance, they are 75 per cent more likely to fail at school and 50 per cent more likely to have alcohol problems. Separate studies have also shown that cohabiting couples with children are far less stable than married couples with children. The latest report, published by the independent think-tank the Centre for Social Justice, refutes claims by some academics and campaigners that there is nothing new about contemporary levels of family breakdown.
They have insisted that the so-called permissive 1960s were not a break with long-established patterns of family life But the detailed examination of the evidence stretching back to the 18th Century by Professor Rebecca Probert of Warwick University and Dr Samantha Callan, the CSJ’s senior family researcher, confirms that the sexual revolution of the 1960s did indeed mark a decisive break with 200 years of conventional family structure. Their report amounts to a comprehensive refutation of Professor Pat Thane’s research published last year by the British Academy, Happy Families? History and Family Policy, which was widely reported in the media.
Their key findings culled from detailed historical documents are: •The percentage of births outside marriage in the England and Wales hovered around 5 per cent (except during the two world wars) before rising in the 1960s onwards. •By the late 1970s, this figure was above 10 per cent, by 1991 it was 30 per cent and today it is 45 per cent. •Levels of births outside marriage were the same in the 1950s as the 1750s at around 5 per cent. •Claims that cohabitation levels, as opposed to marriage, were “high” in the early part of the 20th Century are not borne out by the facts. The authors point to research suggesting that in the 1950s and 1960s, only 1-3 per cent of couples cohabited before marriage.
Other research puts the pre-1945 level of cohabitation at 4 per cent. Today, nearly 90 per cent of couples live together before getting married. •Records of unemployment claims from the 1920s point to minimal levels of cohabitation. Gavin Poole, Executive Director of the CSJ, says: “Current high levels of cohabitation are a key factor in the rise in family breakdown in our country and this paper shows that we have not been here before. The CSJ has consistently argued, from the evidence, that marriage and commitment tend to stabilise and strengthen families and cannot be ignored.”
Professor Probert and Dr Callan say in their report: “It is not our intention to suggest that all marriages in the past were happy and long-lasting, nor that there were no examples of successful and stable cohabiting relationships. “But the quality of family life should be distinguished from its form. “The fact that a number of marriages were brutal and fleeting should not obscure the centrality of marriage to family life in previous decades. “While many Victorian marriages were short-lived because of the untimely death of one of the spouses, this does not mean that the experiences of the survivors were in any way comparable to those undergoing a divorce today. “Similarly, while one can of course find examples from all historical periods of couples who lived together outside marriage, it does not follow that cohabitation was remotely as common in the past as it is today.”
1. Main points
- In 2019, there were 19.2 million families, an increase of 0.4% on the previous year, with a 6.8% increase over the decade from 2009 to 2019.
- The number of households grew by 0.9% since the previous year to 27.8 million in 2019, an increase of 6.8% over the last 10 years.
- Married or civil partner couples remain the most common family type in 2019, they represent two-thirds of families in the UK; Northern Ireland (72.6%) has the highest proportion of married or civil partner couples and the lowest proportion of cohabiting couples (9.4%).
- There were 2.9 million lone parent families in 2019, which is 14.9% of families in the UK; London has the highest proportion (19.1%), while the South West of England (10.9%) has the lowest.
- The number of people living alone has increased by a fifth over the last 20 years, driven mainly by increases in men aged 45 to 64 years living alone; Scotland has the highest proportion of one-person households at 35.0%, while London has the lowest (23.9%).
- Households containing multiple families (which represents 1.1% of all households) were the fastest growing type of household over the last two decades, having increased by three-quarters to 297,000 households in 2019.
2. Things you need to know about this release
The 2018 release of Families and Households in the UK was published on 7 August 2019. It was delayed as a result of the re-weighting of the Labour Force Survey back to 2012. This release adds the 2019 estimates to the previously published 1996 to 2018 dataset, bringing the publication back in line with the annual schedule. For additional analysis on the UK level, Families and households in the UK: 2018 can be referred to.
A family is a married, civil partnered or cohabiting couple with or without children, or a lone parent, with at least one child, who live at the same address. Children may be dependent or non-dependent.
Dependent children are those aged under 16 years living with at least one parent, or aged 16 to 18 years in full-time education, excluding all children who have a spouse, partner or child living in the household.
Non-dependent children are those living with their parent(s), and either aged 19 years or over, or aged 16 to 18 years who are not in full-time education or who have a spouse, partner or child living in the household. Non-dependent children are sometimes called adult children.
A household is one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household can consist of a single family, more than one family, or no families in the case of a group of unrelated people.
Families and household statistics explained provides further information on the complexities around the definitions and how these relate to situations people might be experiencing. There have recently been legislative changes to marriages and civil partnerships in the UK that will affect future statistics on families and households. Further details of these changes and when they come into effect are also provided in Families and household statistics explained.
If a change or a difference between estimates is described as “statistically significant”, it means that statistical tests have been carried out to reject the possibility that the change has occurred by chance. Therefore, statistically significant changes are very likely to reflect real changes in families and household structures.
Measures of quality (to show the levels of uncertainty associated with survey estimates) are presented in the datasets. Users are advised to consult the quality measures when interpreting the estimates.
This release contains analysis by UK country and English region for the first time. We encourage users to feed back on whether this additional analysis meets their needs by emailing email@example.com. The published region datasets can be found here.Back to table of contents
3. Northern Ireland had the highest proportion of married or civil partner couples and the lowest proportion of cohabiting couples in 2019
In 2019, there were 19.2 million families in the UK, a statistically significant increase of 6.8% over the last decade. The number of families has grown by 0.4% (81,100) since the previous year.
Married and civil partner couple families remained the most common family type in 2019, representing two-thirds of all families (12.8 million). Cohabiting couple families were the second-largest family type at 3.5 million (18.4%), followed by 2.9 million (14.9%) lone parent families.
In the UK over the last 10 years, the proportion of families containing a married or civil partnered couple decreased from 68.6% in 2009 to 66.8% in 2019. Conversely the proportion of families containing a cohabiting couple increased from 15.3% to 18.4%. This reflects the declining trend seen in the proportion of the population who are married and an increasing trend in the proportion cohabiting.
In 2019, the highest proportion of married or civil partner couple families were in Northern Ireland (72.6%) and the South East of England (72.2%). The average for the UK was 66.8% (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Married or civil partner couples were the most common family type in 2019
Percentage of families by family type in each region of England and UK constituent countries
Married or Civil partner couple familiesCohabiting couple familiesLone parent familiesNorthern IrelandSouth EastEastSouth WestScotlandUKEnglandWalesWest MidlandsEast MidlandsYorkshire and The HumberNorth EastLondonNorth West0102030405060708090100%
Source: Office for National Statistics – Labour Force Survey
- Married couple families include both opposite-sex and same-sex married couples.
- Cohabiting couple families include both opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting couples.
- Percentages may not sum to 100% because of rounding.
Comment Offical Reports and mainstream media never mention women’s faults and contributions to dysfunctional families, the cycle of these resultant one parent female headed families producing dysfunctional males, often with identity issues.
Child abuse is always blamed on males, never on women, and it is never noted that male abusers tend to be step fathers because replacement males chosen by women, who have already failed in family roles, choose a variety of unsuitable replacements and opportunists.
Root causes of Britain’s collapsing social fabric must not be honestly exposed because of sacred feminism and multi culture. The clamp down on reasoned rather than ideological comment gets stricter by the day, if not hour. The re programming process is relentless , the consequences almost laughable.
It is the education and media’s jobs to paper and varnish over the truth. Men must always be the scapegoats in expediently feminised mass Britain. So the process becomes self fulfilling and men get conveniently worse. Marriage is very one sided, with men having everything to lose , on the unquestioned words of women. No wonder fewer and fewer men wish to commit, many already from nightmare homes, turning to drink , drugs and crime for survival while women are forever excused and indulged. R.J Cook
Under The Bridge January 18th 2021
By Robert Cook
Under the bridge where the water flows past
Is a man in a bed who is free at last.
He lived in this place in his ragged clothes
When people went by they turned up their nose.
He had no TV or internet connection
He had no means to vote in the election.
Pictures in his head while he froze in the Cold
Wondering how he lived to be so old.
Down in the town he would beg for food
Eating scraps improved his mood.
His water came from the mouldering canal
This was his world, a private hell.
How did he get here, did he come by boat
How come his life just didn’t float.
It did for a while, he had a house
There he lived like a little mouse.
Lost his job at the stroke of a pen
Man in the office said he didn’t need men.
The world was changing, all re arranged
It helped you survive if you were deranged.
His wife went to work and he lost her approval
She called the police who sorted his removal.
She said he had started speaking out of turn
Not good enough now he couldn’t earn.
She had a job at the local bank
Then ran off with a very rich Yank.
She took him to court for his abuse
When truth be told he was no more use.
She copped the lot of his life time achievement
So off he walked with his bereavement
All squeezed into two battered cases,
He was just another loser in the human races.
Robert Cook January 18th 2021
Suicide January 22nd 2021
I became preoccupied with sucide after suffering years of physical and mental abuse. As a male, no one was going to believe me. Gender equality is a poisonous lie. Female egotism and self centredness is portrayed as liberation. Class is no longer an issue. All white men are allegedly priviliged , rape has been redefined as any form of contact with a female that she can decide as unwanted as many years later as she likes. Evidence is not required beyond a woman’s word.
The world of work, jutisce ( sic ) and politics has been feminised, but the super rich elite are still pulling the strings. Mainstream articles on suicide portray women attempting suicide ( they are less likely to succeed ) as a cry for help in a world of abusive men. Male suicide is portrayed as an outcome of guilt, failure or cowardice – sometimes all three. Here is one such patronising article below . It is time to dump this society’s fake and distorted view of highly politicised religion, cut out the pressure to worship a God and allow assisted sucicide if a person , like me , can prove that their life has been made an intolerable misery.
That won’t be allowed because the ruling elite cannot allow their fake demcoracies to appear guilty. So that’s why the many depressed and sucidal due to the politicised lockdown, must not be counted. The system must never be blamed because of public ( actually class ) interest. In reality no person kills themselve, life kills, hypocrisy kills, injutsice kills, fear kills.
Why more men than women die by suicide.
In countries around the world, women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression and to attempt suicide. So why is the male suicide rate still several times higher than female?S
Six years ago my brother took his own life. He was 28 years old.
Tragically, suicide is not as rare as one might think. In 2016, the last year global data is available from the World Health Organization (WHO), there were an estimated 793,000 suicide deaths worldwide.Most were men.
In the UK, the male suicide rate is its lowest since 1981 – 15.5 deaths per 100,000. But suicide is still the single biggest killer of men under the age of 45. And a marked gender split remains. For UK women, the rate is a third of men’s: 4.9 suicides per 100,000.
It’s the same in many other countries. Compared to women, men are three times more likely to die by suicide in Australia, 3.5 times more likely in the US and more than four times more likely in Russia and Argentina. WHO’s data show that nearly 40% of countries have more than 15 suicide deaths per 100,000 men; only 1.5% show a rate that high for women.
The trend goes back a long way. “As long as we’ve been recording it, we’ve seen this disparity,” says psychologist Jill Harkavy-Friedman, vice-president of research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, a health organisation that supports those affected by suicide.
Suicide is a hugely sensitive, complex issue with a tangled multitude of causes – and the very nature of a death by suicide means we can never fully know the reasons behind it.
Still, as mental health awareness has grown, there is greater public understanding about potential contributing factors. One of the questions that has persisted, though, regards this gender gap. It seems especially large given that women tend to have higher rates of depression diagnoses.
Women also are even more likely than men to attempt suicide. In the US for example, adult women in the US reported a suicide attempt 1.2 times as often as men. But male suicide methods are often more violent, making them more likely to be completed before anyone can intervene. Access to means is a big contributing factor: in the US for example, six-in-10 gun owners are men – and firearms account for more than half of suicides.
You might also like:
- How social media shapes my depression
- Can blue lights prevent suicides at train stations?
- The surprising benefits of electroconvulsive therapy
Men may also choose these methods because they’re more intent on completing the act. One study of more than 4,000 hospital patients who had engaged in self-harm found, for example, that the men had higher levels of suicidal intent than the women.
Why are men struggling – and what can be done about it?
One key element is communication. It’s too simplistic to say women are willing to share their problems and men tend to bottle them up. But it is true that, for generations, many societies have encouraged men to be “strong” and not admit they’re struggling.
It often starts in childhood. “We tell boys that ‘boys don’t cry’,” says Colman O’Driscoll, former executive director of operations and development at Lifeline, an Australian charity providing 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention services. “We condition boys from a very young age to not express emotion, because to express emotion is to be ‘weak’.”
Mara Grunau, executive director at the Centre for Suicide Prevention in Canada, points out it’s how we talk to our children and how we encourage them to communicate about themselves too: “Mothers talk way more to their girl children than their boy children… and they share and identify feelings” more, she says. “We almost expect women to be emotional.”
But men may be less likely to admit when they feel vulnerable, whether to themselves, friends, or a GP. They also can be more reticent than women to see a doctor. A UK British Medical Journal study found general primary care consultation rates were 32% lower in men than women. (Consultation rates for depression, assessed by whether patients received antidepressant prescriptions, were 8% lower in men than women).
“Men seek help for mental health less often,” Harkavy-Friedman says. “It’s not that men don’t have the same issues as women – but they’re a little less likely to know they have whatever stresses or mental health conditions that are putting them at greater risk for suicide.”
If a person is not even cognisant they have a condition causing their distress, then they’re less aware anything could be done to help them. Only a third of people who take their own lives are in mental healthcare treatment at the time, says Harkavy-Friedman.
Dangerously, rather than seeking help through established channels, some men may attempt to “self-medicate”.
“There tends to be more substance use and alcohol use among males, which may just reflect the distress they’re feeling – but we know it compounds the issue of suicide,” says Harkavy-Friedman.
Indeed, men are nearly twice as likely as women to meet criteria for alcohol dependence. But drinking can deepen depression and increase impulsive behaviours and alcoholism is a known risk factor for suicide.
Other risk factors can be related to family or work. When there’s an economic downturn that results in increased unemployment, for example, there tends to be an associated increase in suicide – typically 18-24 months after the downturn. One 2015 study found that for every 1% increase in unemployment there is a 0.79% increase in the suicide rate.
Having to worry more about finances or trying to find a job can exacerbate mental health issues for anyone. But there are elements of social pressure and identity crisis, too. “We’re brought up our entire lives to judge ourselves in comparison with our peers and to be economically successful,” says Simon Gunning, the CEO of Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm), a UK-based award-winning charity dedicated to preventing male suicide. “When there are economic factors we can’t control, it becomes very difficult.”
There can also be a spiralling effect. In the US, for example, health insurance often is linked to employment. If a person is being treated for depression or substance use, they may lose that care when they lose their job.
Another risk factor is a sense of isolation, as physician Thomas Joiner writes in his book Why people die by suicide. This can manifest itself in every walk of life. The outwardly successful professional who has prioritised career advancement to the detriment of all else, including social relationships, may find himself “at the top of the pyramid, alone,” says Grunau.
Of course, it is important to remember that while an external factor might precipitate suicidal behaviour in a person who’s already at risk, it’s never the sole cause.
“Millions of people lose their jobs, almost all of us have lost a relationship and we don’t end up dying by suicide,” says Harkavy-Friedman.
There are no straightforward fixes for an issue this complex. But a number of programmes, policies and nonprofits are making inroads.
In Australia, for example, mental health and suicide prevention groups are trying to shift the cultural paradigm. One initiative that has gained traction is RU OK? day, which encourages people to support those struggling with life by starting a conversation. Another approach is the “shoulder-to-shoulder principle” – encouraging men to talk while otherwise occupied, like watching football or going for a bike ride. Mates in Construction, a training and support programme, raises awareness of high suicide rates in the industry and shows construction workers how they can help be part of the solution.
Overall, there’s an emphasis on “making it okay for men to talk about how they’re feeling – and for that to be acknowledged as a sign of strength”, says O’Driscoll.
Technology is presenting new options too. Not everyone might want to unburden themselves to another person, even over a helpline. But artificial intelligence – such as chatbots – might allow a vulnerable person to communicate and get the help they need without fear of judgement.
Another strategy is to focus on the impact a suicide has on loved ones. Calm’s campaign Project 84 – so named to represent the 84 men who die weekly by suicide in the UK – stresses the devastation left behind. This can counteract the sense by some men that “it’s the ‘right’ thing to take themselves out of the equation”, Gunning says. He emphasises: “Staying is always an option.”
Other solutions have to do with simply making suicides more difficult to complete. After barriers were installed on the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, England, for example, one study found that deaths from jumping the bridge halved – and there was no evidence that suicides from jumping from other sites in the area increased in response.
Still, more work obviously has to be done.
O’Driscoll compares how there’s often more attention paid to reducing road fatalities than to suicide prevention, despite suicide taking more lives. In Australia, for example, the overall suicide rate in 2015 was 12.6 per 100,000 – the highest rate in more than a decade –compared to 4.7 per 100,000 for road deaths.
More research is needed too. “Clearly,” says Harkavy-Friedman, “there are differences between women and men in our biology, our hormonal structure and the way our brains develop and function.” But men and women are often studied together, and despite attempts to statistically control for the differences, it is not enough. She believes we need to study men and women separately.
But there are positive signs. Harkavy-Friedman notes a huge change on the professional side, recalling at the beginning of her career it was hard to get a paper accepted on suicide because it was thought that you couldn’t prevent suicide, she says. Now, we know that to be wrong.
She also points to more government involvement than ever before. On World Mental Health Day in 2018, the UK government announced its first suicide prevention minister. “The UK has been ahead of the game, every step along the way,” she says, adding that she believes there has been a decrease in the UK suicide rate because a national strategy has been implemented.
For Grunau too, the situation is unquestionably getting better. “We are seeing momentum we’ve never seen,” she says. “You can actually talk about suicide and people still flinch, but they’re more willing to have the conversation.”
That has had positive effects, as the decline in UK suicides shows. Still, it’s not enough. Any life lost to suicide – whether male or female – is a life too many.
If you or anyone you know is affected by this story, here are some resources that can help.
The International Association for Suicide Prevention has a list of global agencies that may also be able to provide immediate support.
In the UK and Ireland:
The Samaritans are open 24 hours a day. Call 116 123 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
In the US:
If you are in crisis, call 1-833-456-4566 (4357) or text 45645. For more information about suicide prevention, visit Centre for suicide prevention.
The Hidden Meaning of a Notorious Experiment Posted January 21st 2021
In Stanley Milgram’s studies of obedience, people believed they were giving shocks to others. But did their compliance say much about the Nazis?
Adolf Eichmann was both an angel of death and a conundrum, a top architect of the Holocaust and an ordinary-looking man who, at his trial in 1961, defended himself by saying that he was only following Hitler’s orders in organizing the Final Solution. That same year, psychologist Stanley Milgram began a series of experiments to see how far people would go in inflicting pain and suffering on fellow humans if given orders to do so.
The subjects were given a series of words to “teach” a person who sat behind a screen. If that person said the words in the wrong order, subjects would administer what they thought were increasingly painful shocks by flicking a switch on a box. It was a setup, and no shocks were really given, but the person behind the screen would protest, eventually to the point of screaming out. If the subject didn’t want to continue, they were simply told, “Please go on.”Underneath it all was a message about gender during the Cold War.
In a paper published in 1963, Milgram showed that most people would continue to a great extent, as long as the authority in the room instructed them to. He framed that publication as revealing truths about Nazi death camps, which caused a cultural sensation.
But the reason this bit of “theater” was so powerful, writes historian of psychology Ian Nicholson, wasn’t necessarily its “lesson” about authoritarianism. Underneath it all was a message about gender during the Cold War. Specifically, “part of the experiments’ power to captivate [society] lay in their capacity not only to showcase already existing masculine weakness but to demonstrate ‘scientifically’ that a new and altogether more barbaric level of male enfeeblement had taken root in the American male psyche.”
That “enfeeblement” consisted of the sapping of the willpower and self-direction it took to be a democratic citizen—and to be a man. In the politicized language of the Cold War, Nicholson explains, men were either “soft” or “hard.” (Yep, hard was better.) So naturally, of the 1,000 people Milgram recruited for his experiments, 960 were men. The “experimenter,” who ordered the “subjects” to keep upping the voltage, was recruited for the role because of his intimidating impassiveness. And the “learner,” who sat behind the screen and screamed at the fake shocks, was selected because he could sound weak.
In fact, Nicholson found archival evidence that Milgram’s initial conception of the experiment wasn’t really about the Nazis at all. In a 1961 grant application, filed before the Eichmann trial was in full swing, Milgram “proposed to study the conditions under which compliance with authority could be increased or decreased—knowledge that had obvious military and political applications.” He argued, for example, that the experiment would give a greater understanding of mind-control techniques on (male) U.S. POWs in the Korean War. It would help prevent the mindset of communism from spreading.
Comment It is important to point out that women have at least an equal capacity for sadism, cruelty and violence, easily leading men astray. It is the stereotypical baby looking make up , perfume and clothing that makes this so hard for the average male moron to believe.
Women were leading lights of the Nazi era with the I.R.A and at the Gulag. British women handed out white feathers to men who wouldn’t fight, from the Boer War to the Second World War – now feminists clamour for their sisters to have front line killing roles.
Researchers always find what they are looking for. R.J Cook
Baby face, the mask and the glitter of ‘innocence’ and truth, ( sic )
The Science of Cougar Sex: Why Older Women Lust
A new article suggests that women are more sexually active in their middle years. The evolutionary explanation for “cougars” Posted January 19th 2021
By John Cloud Friday, July 09, 2010
Men who cheat on their spouses have always enjoyed an expedient explanation: Evolution made me do it. Many articles (here is one , and here is another ), especially in recent years, have explored the theory that men sleep around because evolution has programmed them to seek fertile (and, conveniently, younger) wombs.
But what about women? If it’s really true that evolution can cause a man to risk his marriage, what effect does that have on women’s sexuality?
A new journal article suggests that evolutionary forces also push women to be more sexual, although in unexpected ways. University of Texas psychologist David Buss wrote the article, which appears in the July issue of Personality and Individual Differences , with the help of three graduate students, Judith Easton (who is listed as lead author), Jaime Confer and Cari Goetz. Buss, Easton and their colleagues found that women in their 30s and early 40s are significantly more sexual than younger women. Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies (and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26 but also having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words, despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is women in their middle years who are America’s most sexually industrious. (See the top 10 political sex scandals.)
By contrast, men’s sexual interest and output, usually measured by a reported number of orgasms per week, peaks in the teen years and then settles to a steady level (an average of three orgasms per week) for most of their lives. As I pointed out in March, most men remain sexually active into their 70s. According to the new study, as well as the study I wrote about in March , women’s sexual ardor declines precipitously after menopause.
Why would women be more sexually active in their middle years than in their teens and 20s? Buss and his students say evolution has encouraged women to be more sexually active as their fertility begins to decline and as menopause approaches.
Here’s how their theory works:
Our female ancestors grew accustomed to watching many of their children perhaps as many as half die of various diseases, starvation, warfare and so on before being able to have kids of their own. This trauma left a psychological imprint to bear as many children as possible. Becoming pregnant is much easier for women and girls in their teens and early 20s so much easier that they need not spend much time having sex. (See photos of the history of the cougar.)
However, after the mid-20s, the lizard-brain impulse to have more kids faces a stark reality: it’s harder and harder to get pregnant as a woman’s remaining eggs age. And so women in their middle years respond by seeking more and more sex.
To test this theory, Buss and his students asked 827 women to complete questionnaires about their sexual habits. And, indeed, they found that women who had passed their peak fertility years but not quite reached menopause were the most sexually active. This age group 27 through 45 reported having significantly more sex than the two other age groups in the study, 18 through 26 and 46 and up. Women in their middle years were also more likely than the younger women to fantasize about someone other than their current partner. The new findings are consistent with those of an earlier Buss paper , from 2002, which found that women in their early 30s feel more lustful and report less abstinence than women in other age groups. In both studies, these findings held true for both partnered and single women, meaning that married women in their 30s and early 40s tend to have more sex than married women in their early 20s; ditto for single women. Also, whether the women were mothers didn’t matter. Only age had a strong affect on women’s reported sexual interest and behavior. (Read about cougar cruises.)
And yet there are a few flaws with the data in the new paper. Chiefly: some three-quarters of the participants in the study were recruited on Craigslist, a website where many go to seek hookups, meaning there was a self-selection problem with the sample. (The other participants were students at the University of Texas in Austin.) The authors also note that there are some alternative explanations for why women in their 30s and early 40s might be more sexual. Many of them may simply be more comfortable with sex than women in their teens and early 20s. Still, that raises the question of why they are more comfortable: perhaps evolution programmed that comfort.
Buss is the author of The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating , now in its fourth edition, and has become associated with evolutionary explanations for sexual behavior. His theories help explain why men can be cads and why women can be cougars. See a story on the rising rates of STDs in middle age. See “Male Menopause: Myth or Malady?”
Paul Craig Roberts
Institute for Political Economy
The Displacement of the Straight White Male Posted January 17th 2021
Support Your Website or You Will Have To Rely on CNN, NPR, and the New York Times
The Displacement of the Straight White Male
Paul Craig Roberts
The Nasdaq stock exchange has told its listed companies that they must appoint to their boards a “self-identified” female and a lesbian or transgender or some other sexual deviant or be delisted from the stock exchange. https://www.rt.com/usa/508359-nasdaq-diversity-quotas-lgbt-women/
Think about this. A stock exchange has no right to structure the corporate boards of the companies listed on the exchange. That decision is for the boards and the shareholders of the companies. It is none of Nasdaq’s business. If a company’s shareholders and board think that having sexual deviants on their boards would improve the company’s performance, they can search out such people who might make a good board member. But it is none of Nasdaq’s business.
What Nasdaq is doing is imposing an ideology on corporations that normalizes sexual deviancy and that does so by forcing corporations to either waste shareholders’ money by expanding their boards or displacing a straight white male with a sexual deviant. In other words, Nasdaq sees a normal heterosexual white male as less valuable to a corporation than a sexual deviant.
If the SEC is silly enough to go along with Nasdaq, I suppose corporations could meet this requirement by having two males self-identify as women. As no one is permitted to challenge those who self-identify as the opposite sex, this is an easy way to respond to Nasdaq’s ridiculous assertion of power over corporations.
But there is a better solution. The corporations should just tell Nasdaq to go to Hell and form their own exchange or join some other exchange. Who really needs Nasdaq in the digital age?
But this would take men with more balls than they have.
We can enjoy a laugh about this, but what we are witnessing is the ongoing displacement of white males since Alfred W. Blumrosen, compliance chief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commisson (EEOC) violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which strictly prohibited racial quotas, and imposed racial quotas on America. Blumrosen reasoned that he could get away with it because courts defer to the regulatory authority. What Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal did was to turn legislation passed by Congress into an authorization bill for regulatory agencies to make the law. Blumrosen understood this and used it to deny the protection of the 14th Amendment to white males. I and Lawrence Stratton explain the history and misuse of the Civil Rights Act in The New Color Line (1995). The purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to enforce the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, but the result in practice was to deny equal protection to white males.
As a joke Rep. Howard W. “Judge” Smith, (D, Va) added to the Civil Rights Act an amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. Feminists jumped on this and got Smith’s joke passed as part of the bill. This gave Blumrosen two avenues for displacing white males in university admissions, employment and promotion. At the time the normalization of homosexuality and the concept of transgender were in the distant future, but Judge Smith’s joke also gives preference to homosexuals and transgendered over straight white males. The consequence today is that blacks, women, and sexual deviants have legally enforced preferences over straight white males. Nasdaq is simply doing today what Blumrosen did in the 1960s.
For more than a half century the position of American white males has been eroding. Today the husband often earns less than the wife and has less job security. This diminishes his importance in the family and his self-esteem. Identity Politics, the ideology of the Democrat Party and Nasdaq, further demeans him as a rascist misogynist victimizer. In America, and throughout the disintergrating Western World, the white male is portrayed as an obstacle to social justice.
Few people comprehend that the protector of Western civilization is being eliminated. New generations are being born into a time when the orchestrated descent of the straight white male is in progress. For them, the lowly position of the white male is normal. It is what they are born into. They know no different. They have no idea of the past or of the consequences of what is happening. Women and preferred minorities become more and more aggressive and straight white men become accustomed to their second class status. The young have never known any different. As white males are almost eliminated as heros in movies and novels, have no champions, and are no longer seen even in advertisements, they experience their discredited status as normal. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/01/erasing-the-white-male/
We now hear of young white males having identity problems and of rising suicide rates. The destruction of white male identity is what Alfred Blumrosen’s perversion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act achieved.
Comment There is a new put down for white men if they get into arguments with women or BAME. It has reached Britain from the U.S.A. It is called ‘Check your privilege.’ That says it all about an ordinary non elite white man’s place in the New World Order. Couple that with the ‘mansplaining’ put down and you have something very poisonous and nasty. The other feminist classic line is ‘I don’t like your tone. ‘ R.J Cook
Queen praises BBC Woman’s Hour as ‘friend to women everywhere’
Rebecca Taylor·Royal CorrespondentMon, 4 January, 2021, 10:05 am GMT·2-min read
The Queen has praised the radio programme Woman’s Hour as a friend to women everywhere as the show marks its 75th year.
Her Majesty sent a message in celebration of the show, which will be hosted by Emma Barnett after Jane Garvey stood down after 13 years as host.
The Queen sent her best wishes, and said: “As you celebrate your 75th year, it is with great pleasure that I send my best wishes to the listeners and all those associated with Woman’s Hour.
“During this time, you have witnessed and played a significant part in the evolving role of women across society, both here and around the world.
“In this notable anniversary year, I wish you continued success in your important work as a friend, guide and advocate to women everywhere.”
It’s not known if the Queen, 94, is a fan of the show.
Garvey hosted her last show on New Year’s Eve, admitting it had been a hard decision to step aside, but said it was the “best thing”.
Signing off she said: “It’s not just a radio programme. It’s one of ‘the’ radio programmes and I’ve had a chance to do it.
“The programme needs to move on and now it can.
“Our listeners are genuinely un-shockable. Very rarely do they complain about any of it.
“I’m leaving just as some of you are getting used to me! Listeners to Radio 4 are somewhat change resistant!”
Dame Jenni Murray also left the programme in 2020.
Barnett is moving from Radio 5Live to take over the programme. During lockdown, her 5Live show was delivered from Clarence House and edited by Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall.
Before starting, Barnett said: “I can’t wait to get to know the many listeners of Woman’s Hour a lot, lot better. What adventures we are going to have tog
Taking Flack January 2nd 2021
All the celebrities we have lost in 2020
- Neil Peart.
- Kobe Bryant. The former basketball superstar, 41, was killed alongside his 13-year-old daughter Gianna and seven others after their helicopter crashed in Calabasas, Southern California. …
- Nicholas Parsons. …
- Terry Jones. …
- Kirk Douglas. …
- Pop Smoke. …
- Caroline Flack. …
- Kenny Rogers.
The list above intrigues me because of Caroline Flack’s name being among names we are supposed to lament having passed on in 2021. There was clear evidence that she perpetrated serious domestic violence on her sleeping partner.
Flack was the ‘glamorous’ glittering host of a trashy sex orientated show called ‘Love Island’, the pinnacle of a career that started with Blue Peter. Her success was built on her looks, her show was banal but very much in tune with Britain’s dumbed down popular culture. She attacked her partner with a heavy table lamp, hitting him about the head, because she found his texts to a woman 20 years older than her. To some that justified her actions.
Meanwhile the highly talented actor Johnny Depp, without evidence, has been crucified by the Sun newspaper, sacked and airbrushed from film history for assaulting his ex wife, the very not talented Amber Heard, even though there is absolutely no evidence other than what she told her girl friends and the media. She had already won a $9 million divorce settlement when she went on to join the ‘Me Too’ movement.
- The Fight Against White Nationalism Is Different Mike Giglio
- A Reformed White Nationalist Says the Worst Is Yet to Come Yara Bayoumy Kathy Gilsinan
- Why Political Leaders Are Never to Blame Tom McTague
- The Fight Against White Nationalism Is Different Mike Giglio
- A Reformed White Nationalist Says the Worst Is Yet to Come Yara Bayoumy Kathy Gilsinan
- Why Political Leaders Are Never to Blame Tom McTague
|What Now for Trans Youth? It’s easy to feel defeated after the ruling earlier this month made access to care for trans youth even more of a challenge, but together we will continue to get young trans people the care they need. Real change is hard won and real change is precisely what we are fighting for.|
We must not accept a return to the sub-standard levels of care that were in place before the ruling, we want to see policies evolve, we want to see progress made towards a better standard. Every transgender individual, whatever their age, has the right to unprejudiced care.
We have created the following resources for anyone wishing to have a better understanding of the outcome of the case. Read here
Let’s join together in a restful break so we can recharge and make 2021 full of meaningful change for the future.
The GenderGP Team x GenderGP Launches Fund To Support Trans Youth To Receive Gender Affirming Healthcare In response to the news that trans youth in the UK will face even greater challenges in accessing the care they need on the NHS, we are proud to announce the launch of the GenderGP Fund. Find out more here Trans Youth – There is plenty of evidence for affirmative care In this article Dr Helen Webberley shares the evidence that exists to support transgender youth and specifically their access to gender-affirming hormones. Read blog A Question of Consent Anyone under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment, as long as they are able to show that they can understand the implications of that treatment. Here we explore the question of consent and how it impacts those affected by the ruling. Read blog GenderGP statement in response to the Kiera Bell V Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust Case The outcome of the judgement on the case brought against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust caused much confusion. In response GenderGP issued a clear message to patients and their loved ones: Read full statement Treating Trans Youth: Who does the recent verdict by the court apply to? In this article we look at how GenderGP differs in its approach to the treatment of trans youth and how we can continue to support this vulnerable cohort while GIDs has shuttered its services: Read blog Care for Trans Youth in the UK. What went wrong? The results of a recent judicial review, led to GIDS withdrawing care to hundreds of children and adolescents in the UK. Here we analyse what went wrong. Read blog The GenderGP Appraisal Pathway: Children and Adolescents GenderGP has always supported people of all ages. We believe that everyone has the right to quality healthcare, delivered in a timely manner and that age should not preclude them from being taken seriously. In this blog we provide an overview of how our services for younger people work. Read full post Puberty Blocking Medication on the Grey Market Parents of trans youth, terrified of the fallout from the ruling against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and how it will impact their loved ones, have been exploring the option of self medicating. Here we look at the dangers of taking this approach. Read blog The GenderGP Podcast This episode of the GenderGP podcast features a Live Q&A with Dr Helen Webberley and Lead therapist Marianne Oakes. Together the pair discuss what the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust ruling means for trans youth, how this will impact GenderGP service users, and how you can support young trans people. Listen here This episode is also available as a Facebook Live: Watch Facebook Live Accepting Your Trans Kid Marlo Mack, the creator of the How to Be a Girl podcast, joins Dr Helen and Marianne to share her personal experiences of life with her transgender daughter. Listen here Well it’s that time of year again when we reflect on the past twelve months and consider what may lie ahead and what we hope to experience and achieve. Marianne’s Christmas wish here Seasonal holidays, though they are a time for relaxation and fun with family and friends, aren’t always the easiest time of year for some people. Read Leo’s Christmas wish here For more stories like these, be sure to follow us on social media. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Youtube: @GenderGP
|About GenderGP At GenderGP we provide Health and Wellbeing services to trans people of all ages, and to those who support them. We are fierce advocates, campaigning for better healthcare for the trans community. We provide prescription medication, blood tests, advice, monitoring, education and support. If you, or someone close to you needs help, visit our website. www.GenderGP.com Copyright 2020 GenderGP, All rights reserved.|
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
GenderGPHarland InternationalOffice 7 35-37 Ludgate HillLondon, London EC4M 7JN United Kingdom
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
Paris mayor mocks ‘absurd’ fine for hiring too many women December 17th 2020
“Too feminist” – Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s mocking response after being told she had broken the law by naming too many women to senior posts.
Eleven women and five men had been promoted in 2018, breaching a national 2013 rule designed to bring about gender parity in employment.
The Paris authorities are being fined €90,000 ($109,000; £81,000) by the public service ministry.
“I am happy to announce we have been fined,” Ms Hidalgo said.
The 2013 rule meant no more than 60% of new appointments to management positions in public service should go to one sex. Ms Hidalgo’s recruitment drive saw 69% of the jobs go to women.
Addressing a council meeting, the Socialist mayor joked: “The management of the city hall has, all of a sudden, become far too feminist.”
- Feminine job titles get go-ahead in France
- Covid has ‘devastating’ impact on gender equality
- BBC 100 Women 2020: Who is on the list?
But she also highlighted a continuing lag in the promotion of women to senior positions in France and the need to accelerate progress towards parity by appointing more women than men.
“This fine is obviously absurd, unfair, irresponsible and dangerous,” she said.
France’s Public Service Minister Amélie de Montchalin responded on Twitter, pointing out that the law had been changed since 2018.
In 2019, fines were dropped for appointing too many women or too many men to new jobs, as long as the overall gender balance was not affected.
She invited Ms Hidalgo to discuss how to promote women in public service and said the fine would go towards “concrete actions”.
Comment I have no problem with this woman openly discriminating against men. The real inequality issue in politics is class. I am mocking the Western World’s hypocrisy that it is all about democracy. It is not. It is about wealth.
The wonderful thing about replacing posh men in power with women, is that women can be relied to fixate on themselves and politically correct causes -making stupidly arrogant and dangerous statements about all women being underdogs who must be raised up by the likes of the well dressed privileged woman pictured above and her kind.
However, her kind wanted the equality ( sic ) and diversity laws. So she and her kind should be fined if they are serious about equality. Trouble is that they are not. They are about supremacy.
The likes of George Soros love them because they keep lower class men, especially young whites, down and in their place. BLM have been financed and fired up to help the wealthy’s cause, guaranteeing years of racial conflict and a disingenuous patronising ‘liberal’ ‘ ( sic ) claim to moral superiority from the elite, minions and lackeys.
The inqualities of wealth are so extreme, the rich fear revolution. France has a little more space. However, in France, like Britain – where 90% of the population live crowded lives ( hence Covid infection spread ) on 10% of the land – there are too many run down multi ethnic confict ridden towns and city areas which have poverty and culturally driven flashpoints.
Having a bus load of female Macrons and male equivalents makes matters worse – which is why Macron has his new ‘security’ bill to protect bully boys and girl cops’ from scrutiny.
That bill is more about his class’s ‘insecurity’ than national security. As in all Europe, especially, France, Germany and Britain ( which will never really leave ) , when the elite mention national interest, they mean class interest.
As for women, they have to be on message which is why Le Pen had no chance with the moralising hypocritical lying western elite ganging up to beat and humiliate her – rather than face real issues. Women of Hidalgo’s sort can be relied upon to toe the politically correct line whilst appearing to be fighting for equality. The quality of her clothes, especially the coat, hairdo and make up tells me exactly who she really represents, also her income and financial clout. R.J Cook
Soldier Blue December 12th 2020
I sense there are still some signs of realism in the U.S army, but it is going the same way as the British. Feminism is the dominant ideology in Britain. As with Islam, the comfortable white middle class females are out to make them being criticised illegal. So the self confidence, sense of superiority and never being wrong is redolent across the board of work, play and family life. Nothing is ever a female’s fault.
The world would be a much better place if men got out of the way and let them run things – including the army and abolishing war. The fact that the rich elite are running the whole show, taking advantage of females, who as in the story below, know they are different, must be overlooked. That is why they say they need more laws to protect them, more freedoms, rights and safe spaces. So the following extract about a posh girl’s traumatic life as an army officer takes yet another biscuit, or is she taking the mickey ? :
“Growing up in a middle-class home in Surrey, my schoolgirl ambitions were sporting and musical. I captained the England under-18s lacrosse side and won a place to study sports science at Birmingham University, only to realise, three quarters of the way through my subsequent postgraduate teaching course, that it wasn’t for me.
I had a friend who’d joined the Army and, spurred on by the poster campaign at the time which showed soldiers skiing and jumping out of planes, I decided to join her.“
So she joined for a holiday and sports. I went through officer selection so know what it was like. Obviously the process has changed, I suspect very much for the purposes of recruiting females from posh upper middle class backgrounds. I have said it before and I will say it again. When I went for a military commission in the 1970s, I was asked if I could kill.
One wonders what she knew about the military and wars before seeing that beguiling poster. War is not a lacrosse game. Being prepared for one is a bit beyond a degree in ridiculous sports science. My athletics coach was an ex Royal Navy CPO PTI. His methods if used on kids today would probably get him arrested, but they were realistic, far removed from the likes of Woldingham Girls School and leafy Surrey, places I know well.
The fact that Gemma didn’t follow through on teaching, where her need to be and advertise emotions would not have been such a burden, though hardly a help, says it all about her. Clearly women like her want us all in cloud cuckoo land. War is war. There are no degrees of war. Good soldiers – women are only ever in support roles – have been hung out to dry for not killing in a politically correct way.
Men like Tony Blair ( sic ) start illegal wars but escape being tried as war criminals. His sort talk up the need for more female soldiers and the lie that they can hack the front line. There is another lie here. Male soldiers do feel emotion, many paying for their traumas with life long PTSD. Of course, when it comes to the officer class it is a different story. In my experience, they were all drawn from upper middle class backgrounds and above. They include some naturally unpleasant public school types. Historically, odd balls like SAS’s Colonel Paddy Mehan are only welcome when the fighting is dirty.
Women like to bury the truths of history, now reinvented as being all about slavery and BLM. They like to forget their ancestors who even gave my Uncle Arthur a white feather after he was invalided out of the army in 1944 and his brother was killed by a sniper.
Women excel at crocodile tears, self promotion and hypocrisy. To point out their lies and mistakes is now termed abuse. Men face ever bigger punishments for not toeing the line. They are fair game for the toxic label. The only time a female may be called toxic is when she refuses to toe the bullying feminist line. R.J Cook
Gemma Morgan: ‘I could be a good army officer… or a woman’
December 6, 2020
When Gemma Morgan joined the Army, she looked forward to serving her country with pride. But after struggling with a culture of ‘toxic masculinity’, she plummeted to rock bottom. She describes her battle back from the brink.
They found me by the roadside, soaking wet, delirious and choking on my own vomit, so out of it I barely knew who I was. It was 2007, I was 33 and, outwardly at least, a poster girl for female achievement. A happily married mother of two, I had notched up a stellar performance record as an Army officer, with six years of service, a foreign posting to Kosovo and a top-ranking officer award under my belt.
Yet behind this shiny surface I was a wreck. The Army had taught me I was capable of so much more than I believed – but my desperation to mould myself into the Army ideal had come at a huge cost.
Desperate to fit in, I had tried to crush my femininity. A slow dismantling of my identity which had been compounded by terrifying flashbacks and nightmares from the horrors I witnessed of the Balkan conflict.
Becoming a mother was like throwing a grenade into the mix. Instead of fulfilment, I felt lost and alienated. Haunted by what I saw as my failure to conform to society’s expectations both as a soldier and a mother, I turned to vodka, Valium and sleeping pills until, finally, I hit rock bottom – a rock bottom that led me to that desolate roadside.
I’m lucky that I was found, and that with the help of therapy and the love of my family I was able to rebuild my life. But it is only now, aged 47, that I have truly realised quite how much my Army years – a relatively short period of my life – have defined me. It’s taken me twice as long to make my peace with it, and to understand the extent to which I allowed the Army’s culture of toxic masculinity to permeate my life.
Growing up in a middle-class home in Surrey, my schoolgirl ambitions were sporting and musical. I captained the England under-18s lacrosse side and won a place to study sports science at Birmingham University, only to realise, three quarters of the way through my subsequent postgraduate teaching course, that it wasn’t for me.
I had a friend who’d joined the Army and, spurred on by the poster campaign at the time which showed soldiers skiing and jumping out of planes, I decided to join her.
There was no doubt I was physically able, and I was also drawn to the Army promise of belonging and service, along with its seductive message of female empowerment: when I joined Sandhurst in January 1996 at the age of 22, my intake was one of the first to do the same training as the men.
It was a steep learning curve, from the 5.30am starts – your bed already made with tight hospital corners – through to the brutal physical tests of endurance and strength. I quickly learned, too, that the reality of the Army’s quest for gender equality meant moulding yourself to very masculine ideals – quite literally. When it came to the uniform, back then they still didn’t make kit for women, which meant wearing men’s combat boots and shirts that made no allowance for breasts.
Our collective idea of what makes a good soldier, meanwhile, remained based on traditional norms of masculinity, power and strength – and I quickly understood that displays of emotion were seen as weakness. I stopped wearing make-up, and even my speech turned more assertive and direct.
Unlike the men, the female recruits had to think constantly about their words and actions, treading a difficult middle ground in which you held your own, without threatening your colleagues’ male pride. I remember finishing in the top rank in the Commandant’s Individual Fitness Test, only to watch the men behind me publicly chastised for losing out to a woman. When I was weakened with a viral infection, my company sergeant major taunted me in front of the entire parade ground, mockingly suggesting I was pregnant.
There were other, more sinister behaviours: it was not uncommon for those of us sleeping in the women’s accommodation to wake in the middle of the night to find a commissioned male officer standing over our beds, staring at us as we slept. He was reported, but no meaningful action was taken, reinforcing a message I had started to absorb from the earliest days, which was that such behaviour was part of the deal.
It meant that by the time I arrived at Dalton Barracks in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, for my first commissioned post as an officer in the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC), I had already accepted that uninvited groping and name-calling were considered a jovial part of Army life. But it didn’t stop there: not long after I arrived at Dalton, I was sexually assaulted after a Christmas drinks party. A senior soldier pushed me into a small closet and lunged at my body before I managed to shoulder him out of the way and run.
Even then I didn’t complain. Despite my disgust, I was also forced to look the other way when male officers would run scorecards with names of nightly conquests listed down the side and when soldiers would put hardcore pornography on their walls. Now, when I look back, I am amazed and horrified in equal measure at the extent I absorbed this as just something to be tolerated: like most of the other female officers, my tactic was to try to blithely ignore the sexist elements all around us.
That’s not to say that I didn’t thrive on the adrenaline and discipline. I was largely accepted as ‘one of the lads’, and physically I was always able to more than hold my own. But, often, it felt almost impossible to be a good Army officer and a woman at the same time – something that was brutally underlined by the regimental colonel when I arrived at Deepcut Barracks. On my arrival in December 1999 he told me I could no longer have the officer recruitment role that I’d been assigned. He had decided that he did not want a woman being the face of the corps. To use his words precisely – I was the best person for the job but not the right person. Looking back, it was the beginning of the end.
Before then, however, I was deployed to Kosovo as part of a multinational force tasked with verifying human rights violations and monitoring the agreed withdrawal of Serbian forces.
It was a transformative experience in which I witnessed the terrible unfolding of the unspeakable atrocities unleashed by this civil war – atrocities which quickly haunted my dreams. When I returned to base five months later, in March 1999, I was awarded the Carmen Sword, an award given to the best-achieving young RLC officer, but my surface pride was underpinned by an all-pervading horror at what I had left behind.
Yet in an environment where showing vulnerability was a weakness, I felt I had to conceal the flashbacks and nightmares that now unfolded daily. Numbly, I would go about my duties, then return to my room and lie curled up on my bed in the foetal position. When I wasn’t doing that I was indulging in self-destructive behaviours, drinking too much, driving too fast – anything to escape the feelings inside me.
One night, lying in my room, I took an overdose, a cry for help which quickly became public knowledge when my medical notes were shared with the chain of command and the wider troops – a betrayal of confidentiality that shattered my credibility overnight. I was given counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), although I was never officially diagnosed, something I now see as a deliberate avoidance of responsibility.
By then I had met my husband David, a fellow RLC officer – we married while still both serving officers in 2001 – and, although his presence had a stabilising effect, my mental health remained fragile, and never more so than following the birth of my daughter Beth in 2002. Fuelled by sleeplessness, with a newborn baby who wouldn’t stop crying, my anxiety soared. I was baffled that a role that seemed to bring so much happiness to others had left me feeling so empty.
I loved my baby daughter, but I felt strangely detached from my life. I had given so much of myself to an Army that had left me feeling alienated, angry and deeply betrayed. It became increasingly obvious that I could not reconcile my feelings with my ongoing duties, and I left in late 2002 at the end of my maternity leave.
At first there was a sense of relief, quickly replaced by an inability to adjust to civilian life. It was so different to everything I knew. Everything the Army had taught me now felt too assertive and too competitive for the world outside, and particularly for motherhood. At coffee mornings with fellow mums I would sit, blankly, going through the motions while around me everyone chattered away about their babies.
I learned not to talk much about my own life – everything I had experienced was so far removed from the lives of anyone there. How could I explain that I woke every night at 2am, haunted by the same vision of a dead-eyed boy? That I slept with a weapon next to my bed because it made me more comfortable, and that when I was pushing Beth in her pram around our suburban town, I would, hyper-vigilant, clock each parked car and each person around me?
Even my doctor didn’t understand, putting my issues down to postnatal depression and scrawling out a prescription for a stronger dose of antidepressants. It took until 2005 for me to receive a diagnosis of PTSD from a psychiatrist. But even then it made little difference, as most psychiatrists at the time had little knowledge of the specific trauma suffered by people who have left the military. My symptoms worsened, particularly after the birth of my son Tom in June 2006. By then I had long since stopped trying to fit in with the local mums, preferring instead to withdraw and self-medicate my way through the ongoing nightmares and flashbacks. After a Christmas where I barely slept and was unable to engage in even the most basic functions, David took the difficult decision to take me to a psychiatric unit. This would end up being a two-month stay, after which I was treated as an outpatient.
Even then my rock bottom was yet to come: struggling with their drug regime, which made me feel sick, and shaken by the fresh wave of trauma unleashed by their therapy, I arrived at the end of a bleak January day in despair. I had stopped wanting to try and all I wanted was to escape – the clinic, my feelings, my life. That moonless night in 2007 I fled, zigzagging round the property perimeter to avoid the security cameras before drinking myself into oblivion in the village pubs and wading into a nearby river.
The rest is a blur: I vaguely recall being scooped up from the roadside and put in an ambulance. I was lucky to be alive. It was a rock bottom which proved to be a turning point, a brush with death that forced me to confront the realisation that if I didn’t find a way to move forward, then my two beautiful young children would be left without a mother. Focusing on them gave me a purpose and slowly, with the help of a stabilised drug regime and therapy, my health improved and I was permitted to go home on weekend leave.
I remember the warm hugs and kisses from five-year-old Beth as she asked if Mummy would be home from work for longer this time, and the change that just a few weeks had rendered in my baby son, now seven months old.
Finally, after two months at the unit, I was able to return home for good. And four years later I was blessed with another son, James, now nine. He is one of so many blessings – not just my children, but my incredible husband, who has unwaveringly stood by me throughout. It has not been easy for either of us, and managing my mental health is a daily challenge. But finally, I am able to feel proud of my military service, and of serving alongside some remarkable women and men.
My greatest hope for those women who have come after me is that they have been able to find that same sense of pride without losing who they truly are.
Gemma Morgan is now a keynote speaker.
They Shoot Horses Don’t They December 12th 2020
There will be no further content added to my Sexy Me page. That page derived from an idea following my arrest based on the spurious absurd dishonest police allegations that I sent them and other significant parties documents revealing my self as a ‘gay escort.’ They have a big axe to grind with me. In February 2019, after watching my house for 6 months,my house was raided, computers, and mobile phones impounded, driver cards and debit cards stolen by them.
Readers of this site will know of the problems that the police have caused me over the last nearly 14 years, and how my nightmare continues.
In the process, I have learned much about the British Police’s weird obsession with matters of sex – along with their hypocrisy – among other unpleasant behaviours, they think nothing of luring innocent young female animal rights protesters to bed on pretext of crime fighting.
The police appear to use their own moronic version of Freud. They appear to believe that most if not all crimes have a sexual and or gender base – a variation on Freud’s libido theory. Throw in a bit of J.Edgar Hoover’s ‘Everyone has a sex secret and can be blackmailed’ and one has a summary of their training manual.
Psychiatrists play a key role in modern policing. In my view former army psychiatrist R.D Laing was quite correct to call those of his profession ‘society’s prostitutes. They start with a conclusion, then like the police , squeeze their victim into the frame.
These public servants are beyond reform because they serve class interest, not the truth. This is the age of the expert, which is why we have lockdown, which must continue on and off and at varying degrees for several years so we know vaccine works – by which time another virus will have come along by fair means or foul, so the cycle starts again.
Thatcher’s Tory Government created the circumstances in which the Tony Blair Government founded and developed the police state. Among other things, by destroying the Trade Unions’ power, she left them looking for a new cause. For years, under CND Worzel Gummage lookalike , the dotty Michael Foot – one foot that was never going to make a ruler- Labour wasted its time courting the anti Trident feminists and so called militant tendency.
Thatcher had sealed the decline of British education. Ironically this was to curb the teacher’s hard left unions. It meant more morons and unskilled school leavers. They just wanted quick money, not abstract ideas like banning the bomb.
By 1997, Labour had reinvented itself as ‘New.’ The leadership was strictly upper middle class, with Oxford Graduate and lawyer Tony Blair in charge. The new under dogs and captive New Labour voters would be aggrieved women. New Labour filled their ranks with ‘Blair’s Babes.’
It is a long forgotten fact that a Harley St doctor revealed that some of these New Labour females had been to him for testosterone injections to make them more aggressive when dealing with male MPs.
Testosterone is the key to sexual behaviour and human competition. It is why we have the absurdity of calls for total equality alongside complaints that male to female transsexuals are still really men and must not be allowed to compete with women in sport. If that difference is so significant as to apply in sport, it goes a long way to explaining why we have positive discrimination imposed upon us. It explains the fixation with banning harsh language and loud voices in Parliament.
Most people do not realise, because of poor and politically correct disjointed education, that both sexes combine testosterone with the main female hormone oestrogen. Male sex change patients take antii androgens at ever younger ages to block testosterone – chemical castration.
Females in conflict or competitive situations produce more testosterone, tending them toward more stereotypically male behaviour patterns. Nature tends to seek balance, meaning that male behaviour faced with aggressive women will either led to serious conflict. Possibly violence, or the male will drop testosterone production becoming more submissive and stereotypically female in behaviour.
Most people, especially women, do not want to face up to this particular ugly truth. Which is why, a couple of years ago, my draft book ‘The Woman Within’ was rejected by a major literary agent who had asked to read it.
In the current Western fake liberal social climate, women must not be judged and held responsible for anything. This is why , in the wake of T,V Celebrity Caroline Flack’s violent attack using a heavy table lamp, on her sleeping partner, has led to a campaign for leniency and non custodial sentences for female offenders.
So called experts, who have to endorse judgements of what is happening in the world, are never going to accept and promote the kind of opinion stated here. This sort of stuff you can hear down the pub, they will say. Of course they say that because they are getting paid a lot to prop up a very unnatural social world. They don’t need rational argument or evidence.
One outcome of all this is male testosterone levels are falling and so, therefore, is fertility. It is particularly a problem in the upper middle class led and agonising white culture.
Another outcome is the explosion of LGBTQI, which has a significant exhibitionist element. The male to female transsexual element is mst interesting because it mimics traditional female images , role and behaviour patterns. A convincing transsexual female has no problem attracting male interest – obviously there are those males already mentioned whose testosterone is rising and feel threatened by the people they disparage as ‘trannies’ and ‘poofs.’ It is what it is. Prissy bourgeoise self righteous moral judgements won’t alter things.
What this means for the new women is that they will increasingly get their wish of not being seen as sexually of interest. Marriage will continue to decline or end in divorce, outside of more robust traditional cultures like Islam and the British Upper Classes, where adultery and sex games are part of their culture.
This will mean more loneliness, alcoholism, suicide, one parent families, maladjusted children, drug addiction, homelessness and gang crime – among more general misery. This is because the truth is you cannot be whatever you want to be, especially when that aforementioned upper class minority has more wealth than the rest of the population put together. They call the tune and the stupid masses will go on dancing to it, like in the film ‘They Shoot Horses Don’t They ?’ R.J.Cook
Male suicide rate hits two-decade high in England and Wales Posted Dcember 11th 2020
Rate of 16.9 deaths per 100,000 in 2019 was highest since 2000, ONS data shows
The area with the highest rate in 2019 was Yorkshire and the Humber at 20.6 per 100,000.and agencyTue 1 Sep 2020 17.29 BST
First published on Tue 1 Sep 2020 13.17 BST
The suicide rate for men in England and Wales in 2019 was the highest for two decades, official figures show.
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), published on Tuesday, found there were 5,691 suicides registered, with an age-standardised rate of 11 deaths per 100,000 population.
The ONS said men accounted for about three-quarters of suicide deaths registered in 2019, 4,303 compared with 1,388 women.
The England and Wales male suicide rate of 16.9 deaths per 100,000 was the highest since 2000 but remained in the line with the 2018 rate. The rate for women was 5.3 deaths per 100,000, the highest since 2004.
Samaritans pointed to “worrying trends”, including men aged 45-49 remaining at the highest risk of suicide, and an increase in suicide rates among young people, especially women under 25. An increase in suicide rates among people aged 25 to 44 in recent years continued in 2019.
“With the impact of the pandemic this year taking a huge toll on people’s mental wellbeing, we should be even more concerned,” said the charity’s chief executive, Ruth Sutherland.
Although there was no guarantee the impact of Covid-19 would lead to higher suicide rates, Samaritans said its research, based on calls to its helpline, found the pandemic had exacerbated known risk factors for people already vulnerable.
“Volunteers are telling us that many callers have been worried about losing their job and/or business and their finances, with common themes around not being able to pay rent/mortgage, inability to support the family, and fear of homelessness.”
Vicki Nash, the head of policy and campaigns at the charity Mind, said: “Not all suicides are mental health-related but many are, and we know that a significant proportion of people who take their own lives have asked for support for their mental health within the last 12 months, which means that services are failing people when they need help the most.
“With more and more people seeking support for their mental health, it is absolutely crucial that services are equipped to meet the demand. No one in touch with services, asking for help, should reach the point of taking their own life.”
Among men, the area with the highest rate was Yorkshire and the Humber at 20.6 per 100,000, followed by the south-west at 19.4. London recorded the lowest rate with 11.8.
The area with the highest female suicide rate was also Yorkshire and the Humber at 7.3 per 100,000, while the north-east had the lowest rate among women at 4.1.
The male suicide rate in the south-east increased from 13.5 per 100,000 (526 deaths) in 2018 to 16.8 per 100,000 (657 deaths) in 2019.
The ONS said: “Higher rates of suicide among middle-aged men in recent years might be because this group is more likely to be affected by economic adversity, alcoholism and isolation. It could also be that this group is less inclined to seek help.”
Provisional data, also published by the ONS, showed there were 6.9 suicide deaths per 100,000 people in England between April and June, during the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. This was the equivalent of 845 registered deaths, the lowest of any quarter since 2001, the ONS added.
But the ONS said the low number of suicide deaths registered during this period was probably because inquests were delayed because of the Covid-19 outbreak.
“The lower number of deaths registered caused by suicide in quarter two of 2020 should be interpreted with caution; this likely reflects delays to inquests because of the impact of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic on the coroner’s service. All deaths caused by suicide in England are investigated by coroners,” it said.
“Given the length of time it takes to hold an inquest (around five months), we do not currently know the total number of suicides that occurred during the coronavirus pandemic.”Poorer middle-aged men most at risk from suicide in pandemic, say SamaritansRead more
Sutherland added: “Undoubtedly, the pandemic has affected everyone in society, but Samaritans is particularly worried about three groups: people with pre-existing mental health conditions, young people who self-harm, and less well-off middle-aged men.
“It is essential that these groups are given the support they need before people reach crisis point. Suicide prevention must be a priority right now, so we can save lives.”
In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org.
Male suicide rates at an all time high: why? Posted December 11th 2020
By Noah Keate Sep. 24, 2020Posted in Features TW: Suicide Male mental health needs far wider attention. The latest Office for National Statistics data showed the suicide rate in 2019 for men was 16.9 deaths per 100,000 in England and Wales. This is the highest level since 2000. Yorkshire and the Humber had the highest rate in 2019 of 20.6 per 100,000. Overall, 5,691 suicides were registered, with 4,303 male and 1,388 female. The female suicide rate of 5.3 deaths per 100,000 was also the highest since 2004.
What has led to these increased trends? Stereotypically, males often bottle up their emotions and feelings. Historical views of gender have regarded males as the providers, who don’t display any vulnerability or assistance when they require it. The Samaritans have stated that men aged 45-49 are at the highest risk of suicide. This could be linked to those males having many responsibilities – like children – that require support. Particularly during the pandemic, calls to the Samaritans have worried about their job security, fear of homelessness and inability to pay the mortgage. The report also shows how suicide rates are increasing among people aged 25-44.
Generationally, younger people have become more open to reducing the impact of gender stereotypes. Mental health organisations have campaigned for individuals, regardless of gender, to speak about their feelings and ask for help where necessary. The increase in people taking their own lives would suggest a huge amount of work remains to be done.
The rise in deaths could often be linked to people feeling like a burden. The ONS stated that middle aged men are more likely “to be affected by economic adversity, alcoholism and isolation”. This could suggest that, for years before an individual’s suicide, they have been relying on alcohol to manage their depression and suicidal thoughts that eventually led to their death. Economic problems could also suggest one’s depression is not simply down to individual difficulties but structural issues within society that prevent individuals from living fulfilled lives.
The economic security may be related to the amount of the connection individuals have within their local area. The statistics found the south west had the second highest suicide rate of 19.4 per 100,000 while London recorded the lowest rate of 11.8. Although there are multiple reasons, this could suggest males have more attachments in big urban cities like London. More services may be available, a greater network of individuals could provide support and more prospects could be on offer. By contrast, the regions with higher rates are far more rural. For example, in the south east, the male suicide rate increased from 13.5 in 2018 to 16.8 in 2019. Inevitably, the bonds fell to local areas and future prospects could be weakened.
he rise in suicides isn’t something that has simply happened overnight. The increase in deaths is a long standing trend. As the Samaritans report, death by suicide increased by 10.9% in the UK in 2018 with men being three times more likely to die of suicide. There is also a question of what is classed as a suicide by the coroner. If someone drives their car off the road, is that accidental death or suicide? The same question could be applied to a drug overdose. It is important that those recording suicides are as accurate as possible in their answers and that statistics can never reveal everything.
Death by suicide increased by 10.9% in the UK in 2018, with men being three times more likely to die of suicide The CALM website, which tackles the rise in male suicide, explores how individuals can feel panicked by events, which reduces their ability to consider their feelings and emotions. Specifically, individuals who are sensitive to failure, set impossible targets, struggle to cope with disappointment and can’t tell others how they are feeling are more likely to suffer from suicidal thoughts.
In particular, men and boys are more likely to feel they need to be winners, look strong and appear in control. What is most evident from their advice is the feeling most people don’t actually want to die, but simply want a difficult situation to go away. The most important thing is talking about one’s troubles with other people. The whole narrative of boys not crying has meant that individuals have been conditioned not to express emotion. According to the BBC, a recent UK Medical Journal study found general primary care consultation rates were 32% lower in men than women, with consultation rates for depression 8% lower in men.
This suggests women are more able to seek support about their mental health conditions and receive the attention they need. While people have been able to recognise the problems, finding the solutions is far from easy. What can help is raising awareness that the problem exists so that those who don’t have mental health issues themselves can empathise more. 10 September marked World Suicide Prevention Day, where the Samaritans try to build a world where fewer people commit suicide.
By recognising that suicide is preventable, the Samaritans have campaigned for governments to make suicide prevention a key priority. This is reliant on better mental health funding in general. According to them, mental health services have struggled with years of cutbacks before the pandemic. During coronavirus, referrals to mental health services fell by 30%, suggesting that vulnerable people were left without vital support in their time of need. The article suggests that the NHS Confederation believes that demand for mental health services could increase by 20% from pre-coronavirus levels. Individuals desperately need support and attention. During lockdown, referrals to mental health services fell by 30%, suggesting that vulnerable people were left without vital support in their time of need
While the government have invested an extra £2 billion in NHS mental health services, this must be matched by specific action on suicide awareness and the dangers it poses to people. Dealing with suicide is not easy. The trauma for any family in imagining what they could have done and whether their relatives could have been saved is one that will live with them forever. The problems can be caused by an absence of social connections, expectations that are far too high, an inability to express one’s emotions and economic insecurity. There is no one answer or solution for dealing with suicide.
The responses must be from government, local communities and the individual themselves. Governments must provide adequate investment and support in mental health services. Local areas should offer opportunities and prospects to the next generation. And individuals should recognise that the thoughts they experience are not a stigma and aren’t something to be ashamed of. Instead, prevention should be based on talking and conversation with others.
Communication won’t solve an individual’s suicidal thoughts, but it is the first rung on the ladder to a more fulfilled state of mind. If you, or anyone you know, is experiencing problems with their mental health, please don’t suffer alone – you can contact university support on 024 7657 5570, or, alternatively, Nightline on 02476522199 and the Samaritans on 116 123
No need to plead guilty Posted December 11th 2020
The fashionable doctrine of ‘white privilege’ is fatally undermined by the facts
The concept of “white privilege” is some-times credited to the African-American writer W.E.B. Du Bois, but the phrase didn’t enter the lexicon until it was used in a 1989 paper by the feminist academic Peggy McIntosh. “As a white person, I realised I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage,” she wrote in “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” With the American accent very firmly on “white” rather than “privilege” or any other aspect of class which British ears would so much more readily hear.
Not only is McIntosh white, she is, by any measure, astonishingly privileged. She grew up in an affluent suburb of New Jersey where the median income was four times the national average, and her father, who was a high-ranking scientist at Bell Laboratories, owned patents in several valuable electronic inventions.
After attending Radcliffe, UCL and Harvard, where she earned a PhD, Peggy married Dr Kenneth McIntosh, the son of a Columbia professor. According to William Ray, a Canadian journalist who wrote about her for the online magazine Quillette last year: “Peggy McIntosh was born into the very cream of America’s aristocratic elite, and has remained ensconced there ever since.”
But when McIntosh writes about her “privilege” she doesn’t mean in this conventional, upper-class sense. Rather, she is referring to the advantages she enjoys in virtue of being white and which, in her view, all white people share. The “knapsack” she unpacks isn’t a $1,000 Burberry backpack of the kind Peggy and Kenneth might take on a hike in the Adirondacks. No, it’s a bag full of useful things that all white people carry with them, regardless of how disadvantaged their upbringing.
Given the success of Indians across the Anglosphere, it would make more sense to talk about “brown privilege”
So what’s in the “invisible knapsack”? All told, Peggy finds 26 benefits she enjoys thanks to her ethnicity. True, some of these “privileges” can plausibly be ascribed to all white people. Number 15, for instance, is, “I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group,” although that’s exactly what she’s doing in this article. But others are laughably Peggy-specific, such as number eight: “If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.”
And some of them so clearly apply to members of her affluent peer group that they’re almost comically revealing — like number two: “If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.”
It seems pretty obvious that Peggy McIntosh has confused class privilege with racial privilege. That is, she has led such a pampered existence and had so little contact with people outside her Harvard-Radcliffe bubble that she assumes all whites enjoy the same advantages as her — and not just in the United States, but across the Western world. Which is pretty offensive if you’re a victim of America’s opioid epidemic known as the “white death” because it disproportionately affects white people in the American South. One wonders how many victims Dr McIntosh has known? A survey of white adults born after World War II showed that between 1980 and 2000, just 18.4 per cent of white Baptists and 21.8 per cent of Irish Protestants — the main white ethnic groups to settle in the South — managed to get college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1 per cent. Among those Americans of Chinese and Indian descent, the average was 61.9 per cent.
In England, working-class whites are doing equally badly when it comes to higher education. A 2015 report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that white British pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile are 10 per cent less likely to participate in higher education than any other ethnic group in that quintile. But it isn’t just whites from disadvantaged backgrounds who are struggling. According to the Department for Education, whites in general made less progress in England’s schools in 2018 than Asians, blacks or Chinese.
When it comes to income, whites are also lagging behind some other ethnic groups. In 2016, white Americans had a median household income of $67,865, lower than Indonesian Americans ($71,616), Pakistani Americans ($72,389), Malaysian Americans ($72,443), Sri Lankan Americans ($73,856), Filipino Americans ($84,620), Taiwanese Americans ($90,1221) and Indian Americans ($110,026).
The same picture is emerging in the UK, where 42 per cent of Indian households have a weekly income of £1,000 or above, compared to 26 per cent of white British households. If whites are born with a knapsack full of advantages over all non-whites, as Peggy McIntosh maintains, they appear to be squandering them on an epic scale. Is that what she means by “invisible”?
You’d think that would be an end to it. Surely even the most extreme racial activist could see through McIntosh’s exercise in narcissistic self-flagellation? But no. The reality of “white privilege” is now so widely accepted in the US that anyone who denies it risks being branded a racist.
The concept of “white privilege” was invented by Peggy McIntosh. She was born into America’s aristocratic elite, and has remained there ever since
It has become embedded in universities in the form of critical race theory and whiteness studies – a recent conference at Edinburgh University on “Resisting Whiteness” banned white people from speaking – and is the central pillar underpinning America’s $8 Billion-a-year “equity, diversity and inclusion” industry. Employees of public bureaucracies across the Anglosphere are forced to undergo regular “unconscious bias” training where they’re bombarded with a tsunami of gobbledygook, all revolving around the idea that white people have privileges no other ethnic group enjoys, sometimes at enormous expense to the taxpayer.
For instance, the schools chancellor of New York recently introduced mandatory “anti-bias and equity training” for the city’s 75,000 teachers at a cost of $23 million a year. To complement this initiative, top officials in New York’s Department of Education were taught that “the characteristics of white supremacy” include “perfectionism”, “worship of the written word”, “individualism” and “objectivity”. And it’s all thanks to a WASP princess with a Harvard PhD.
One of the main planks of the case for “white privilege” is the discrepancy in outcomes between whites and blacks. Logically, this is a bad argument because, as we’ve seen, whites trail behind many other ethnic groups, so even if they do fare better than blacks that doesn’t make them the most privileged group. Given the success of Indians across the Anglosphere, it would make more sense to talk about “brown privilege”. (Indian pupils are, on average, 14.2 months ahead of white pupils in England’s schools by the time they reach the age of 16.)
But even if we ignore the terrible reasoning here, is it true that whites are doing better than blacks? The answer is “yes” when it comes to some yardsticks, “no” when it comes to others. For instance, it’s true that African-Americans continue to face discrimination in the housing and labour markets, although never less so than today.
According to a recent report by the American Enterprise Institute, 57 per cent of black Americans now belong to the upper or middle class, compared to 38 per cent in 1960, and the share of black men in poverty fell from 41 per cent in 1960 to 18 per cent in 2016. But
if we look at education, African-Americans are beginning to outperform whites. Black women, for instance, have higher college-attendance rates than white men and, according to the New York Times, out-earn their white counterparts when they graduate.
Black Lives Matter activists point to the recent spate of shootings of unarmed black men as evidence of “white privilege”, such as the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in 2012 (although the shooter was a dual heritage Hispanic man). But according to the African-American Harvard Economist Roland Fryer, blacks and Hispanics are no more likely to be shot by police officers than whites (although they are more likely to experience the non-lethal use of force, even taking contextual factors into account). In fact, the odds of an unarmed black man being shot dead by a police officer are about the same as being struck by lightning.
What about the psychic wound of slavery? Surely this is a sin that all white people are guilty of? That’s the reasoning behind the demand for reparations made by the African-American intellectual Ta-Nehesi Coates and Elizabeth Warren, the frontrunner in the race to be the Democratic presidential candidate. The claim that all white people are uniquely privileged and have a moral obligation to renounce that privilege and atone for it is based in no small part on the role played by Britain and America in the North Atlantic slave trade. This is what accounts for the exceptionalism of whites — why they are uniquely privileged.
But hang on. The idea that whites as a race participated in the slave trade or benefitted from slavery is ridiculous. In 1860, less than five per cent of whites in the American South owned slaves and, according to the black historian John Hope Franklin, three-quarters of white Southerners had no economic interest in the maintenance of slavery. The percentage of the population of Great Britain and Ireland in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who were slaveowners or beneficiaries of the slave trade is even smaller. As Doug Stokes of Exeter University has pointed out, stigmatizing an entire ethnic group because of the sins of a small minority is a textbook example of racism.
The transatlantic slave trade is certainly a stain on the history of Britain and America, but they were hardly the only countries guilty of participating in this practice. Between the 16th Century and the middle of the 18th Century, over a million Europeans were bought and sold in the slave markets of the Barbary Coast of North Africa, encompassing Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. According to the African-American economist Thomas Sowell: “More whites were brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States or the 13 colonies from which it was formed.”
After publishing her seminal essay drawing attention to the injustice of whites’ elevated status, McIntosh didn’t then give up any of her privileges
The only exceptional thing about Britain and America when it comes to the obscenity of slavery is that both countries devoted considerable blood and treasure to ending it, whether it was the Royal Navy in the North Atlantic, or the Union Army in the American civil war.
So if “white privilege” is a myth, and a poisonously racist one at that, why do so many educated, intelligent, nice people believe in it? How did this idea become embedded in the consciousness of rich white liberals? And make no mistake, it’s a concept that enjoys much more currency among affluent whites than poor blacks. One of the most striking developments in American politics of the last 20 years is that white liberals are now to the left of black Democrats on the issue of discrimination.
According to a Pew survey in 2017, 79.2 per cent of white liberals agree that “racial discrimination is the main reason why black people can’t get ahead these days,” with only 18.8 per cent agreeing that “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition.” Among black Democrats, by contrast, 59.9 per cent agree with the first statement, compared to 32 per cent who agreed with the second.
What accounts for this degree of “allyship”, given that white liberals do not, on the face of it, stand to gain from dismantling “white privilege”? I don’t think it’s prompted by guilt, at least not entirely. After all, if powerful white liberals are genuinely consumed with guilt about their superior status — if they believe the exalted positions they occupy in institutions such as the New York Times and the BBC is morally indefensible — they could always check their privilege and resign. But they never do.
A case in point is Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, who told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last year that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. “There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and ‘telling you like it is,’” he said. “We all recognise the era of that has passed.” But having engaged in some ritual racial self-flagellation, Harrison, a middle-aged white male, didn’t renounce his £170,000 salary and resign in favour of a black successor. Like many white liberals, Harrison beat himself up for his un-earned privilege and then carried on as before, seemingly untroubled by conscience.
The same is true of Peggy McIntosh. After having penned her seminal essay drawing attention to the injustice of whites’ elevated status, she didn’t then give up any of her privileges. As William Ray wrote:
One is left to wonder why, given her stated conviction that she has unfairly benefited from her skin colour, there seems to be no record of her involvement in any charity or civil rights work. If she did take to the streets in support of some cause or other, she left no trace that I can see. Nor, as far as I can tell, has she spent any time teaching the underprivileged or working directly to better anyone’s condition but her own. Instead, she has contented herself with a generous six-figure salary, and has not shown any particular eagerness to hand her position over to a more deserving person of colour.
So if these exercises in racial self-flagellation are empty gestures, what’s the point of them? According to the journalist and author Reihan Salam, the purpose of the ritual is to let other highly-educated, well-paid whites know that you’re on the same rung of the status ladder as them. It’s the twenty-first-century equivalent of Thorstein Veblen’s conspicuous consumption, a way of communicating to the Brahmin left that you’re a member of the club:
It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites. Note that to be “upper” or “lower” isn’t just about class status, though of course that’s always hovering in the background. Rather, it is about the supposed nobility that flows from racial self-flagellation.
In other words, the reason Peggy McIntosh unpacked her ‘“invisible knapsack” — and the reason so many from the same social strata have followed in her footsteps — was to advertise her elevated social status. It’s not enough for rich liberals to live in beautiful homes, go on holiday in places like Tuscany and pilot their children through elite universities and graduate schools. No, to really underline just how much better they are than the rest of us, they must decry their “white privilege” too, thereby proving they are morally as well as socially superior. In effect, it was a $1,000 backpack after all, but one made from organic materials and bearing a “Fairtrade” kitemark.
The irony of all this coded status-signalling by limousine liberals is that it helps their political opponents. White working-class voters outside metropolitan areas, whether in Britain or America, understand perfectly what members of the identitarian left mean when they denounce “white privilege” — it’s an example of “upper-whites”, to use Salam’s term, expressing their contempt for “lower-whites”, i.e. them. This was succinctly put by a Trump voter in Indiana, interviewed by the Guardian in 2016. She explained that “the whole idea” of “white privilege” irritates whites outside the bicoastal elites “because they’ve never experienced it on a level that they understand. You hear privilege and you think money and opportunity and they don’t have it.” She continued: “And you’ve got people calling them stupid and deplorable. Well how long do you think you can call people stupid and deplorable before they get mad?”
As this voter made clear, if you’re a 45-year-old white person struggling to hold down two minimum-wage jobs so you can feed your partner and kids and keep a roof over their heads, nothing could be more guaranteed to make you vote for Donald Trump or the Brexit Party than being told you’re “privileged” by a privately-educated, upper-class socialist with a PhD in gender studies.
Which begs the question: Should we stop objecting to this idiocy? If you don’t want Jeremy Corbyn to be the next Prime Minister or Elizabeth Warren the next President, should you welcome this toxic identitarianism? That’s the view of Steve Bannon, who pointed out that when the left talks about “race-identity politics” it helps his side: “The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em … I want them to talk about race and identity … every day.”
Tempting though it is to just sit back and allow the left to self-harm, we shouldn’t do that. Racial politics is so ugly, and so fundamentally dangerous, as we know from the history of the twentieth century, that we have to expose concepts like “white privilege” for the toxic nonsense that they are. Those of us who live in Britain and America – among the least racist, most tolerant societies on earth – have a duty to stand up to this tsunami of gobbledygook before it sweeps us all away.
Hear the Eton lecture that dared question radical feminism: Video lesson about death of ‘chivalry and honour’ that got English teacher sacked and sparked freedom of speech row is posted on YouTube
- Will Knowland attacked radical feminism over its use of term ‘toxic masculinity’
- He argues in ‘The Patriarchy Paradox’ that the term erodes ‘chivalry and ‘honour’
- He has been sacked by the £42,500-a-year Berkshire school over the video
Published: 14:10, 29 November 2020 | Updated: 16:50, 29 November 2020
A video of the lecture made by an Eton College teacher at the centre of a freedom of speech row has been posted on Youtube.
Sacked English teacher Will Knowland hit out at radical feminism and the idea of ‘toxic masculinity’, which he said had been used to attack men and male qualities.
In the lecture, named ‘The Patriarchy Paradox’, he claimed the male role as a ‘protector’ benefits society as a whole – including women.
And he warned that ‘shaping men and women to be more similar actually exaggerates their differences’ – which he described as the Patriarchy Paradox.
He says that a world without men would be ‘awful’ for women and complains that chivalry and honour – which he labelled as good male qualities – are being driven down by terms such as ‘toxic masculinity’.+5
Will Knowland, who taught English at the £42,500-a-year school in Berkshire for nine years, said he was dismissed over a lesson titled ‘The Patriarchy Paradox’ Patriarchy Paradox: Will Knowland’s lecture on nature of masculinity
The virtual lecture, which was never actually shown to students at the £42,500-a-year- school in Berkshire, resulted in Mr Knowland being sacked from his job.
Hundreds of pupils and members of the wider Eton community have now accused the school of hypocrisy, cruelty and a ‘complete lack of backbone’, and asked if Eton was ‘protecting its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own’.
Mr Knowland’s lecture The Patriarchy Paradox explores the conflict between the concepts of sex and gender.
He argues that the ‘shaping of men and women to be more similar actually exaggerates their differences’.
- 800 Etonians revolt after teacher is sacked for questioning… Catholic boarding school at the centre of a child sex abuse…
Mr Knowland argues that the idea of patriarchy – a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership – could be equally grounded in biology, rather than something that is constructed socially.
And he says some women may actually chose the traditional gender roles because it benefits them.
Mr Knowland points out that male roles in the animal kingdom, including those of the lion, are primarily to provide protection.
As a result, he says men have traditionally been the sex to fight wars – pointing to the difference in the development of male and female bodies in adolescence.
He points to a cage-fighting match-up involving transgender fighter Fallon Fox, who broke the skull of female opponent Tamika Brent when the pair fought in the Octagon.
The lecture, created online because of the Covid crisis, was written for Eton’s Perspectives curriculum, introducing older boys to issues which are the subject of fierce public debate (file photo of Eton College)
Whatever happens, the aftermath is going to be tricky for headteacher Simon Henderson who was yesterday obliged to reassure parents about this ‘difficult and emotive issue’ (file photo)
He says: ‘If it is not fair to pit men and women in sports, then it is not fair to pit men against women on the battlefield.’
He says men’s lives are also more expendable because women are the ones who are able to give birth. However he says that a world without men would be ‘awful’ for women.
Mr Knowland adds that ‘women have always been spared the worst of work’ – pointing to the death of male slaves in the building of historical monuments such as the Pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China.
In a point to arguing the good that men have achieved, he also says that men have also invented ’90 per cent of inventions that have improved women’s life expectancy’.
Following Mr Knowland’s sacking, a petition has been launched supporting him – and has been signed by 800 people.
The petition says: ‘Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas… which necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion.’
Mr Knowland, they add, ‘is loved by all who have encountered him’ and the students ‘feel morally bound not to be bystanders in what appears to be an instance of institutional bullying’. +5
Eton’s headmaster Simon Henderson sacked Mr Knowland for gross misconduct amid the fallout from a lecture about the nature of masculinity
‘Eton has been here for almost 600 years,’ said one source close to the conflict.
‘And this is a battle for its very soul. Cancel culture has arrived with cult groupthink reaching right into the heart of the school. It’s meant to be a bastion of learning and free speech.
‘George Orwell went to Eton. What would he think? 1984 was meant to be satire, not a how-to manual.’
Mr Knowland has appealed his sacking. His appeal will be heard on Founder’s Day, December 8, by a panel chaired by former Cabinet Minister Lord Waldegrave, himself an Old Etonian.
Mr Knowland and his wife Rachel live in a grace-and-favour detached four-bedroom house owned by Eton. If he fails to win back his job on appeal next month, they will be homeless
Mr Knowland will have the support of the Free Speech Union, whose founder Toby Young said: ‘This is a landmark case.
‘Schools must be places where children are taught all sides of these big questions and allowed to make up their own minds, not indoctrinated with the latest political orthodoxy.’
Whatever happens, the aftermath is going to be tricky for Simon Henderson who was yesterday obliged to reassure parents about this ‘difficult and emotive issue’.
‘We are limited in what we can say at the moment, given that a disciplinary process is ongoing,’ he wrote in a message.
‘Mr Knowland has chosen to publicise his version of events in advance of the disciplinary panel to which he has appealed.
‘So as to be fair to all parties, the school cannot provide substantive comment before a final decision is reached.
‘I appreciate that a lack of information is frustrating and leads to increased speculation, however the school needs to respect the integrity of the process.’
Mr Knowland, meanwhile, is longing to return to Eton and doesn’t see why he can’t.
He writes: ‘Respect for Eton – its past present and future – means upholding its traditions of discussion, argument and persuasion and eschewing the culture of intolerance that has swept through other institutions.
‘As Hailz Osborne [the school’s head of inclusion education] has said, in promoting diversity, which includes intellectual diversity, ‘the challenge is to enable people to say uncomfortable things’.’
Freedom of Speech Ends Where Truth is . Posted November 30th 2020
Watching a ranting feminist talking about the Eton master’s sacking, she came out with the frightening statement that this schoolmaster had no right to post the lecture video. She sneered and shouted down a lawyer on the same RT slot. When asked where freedom of speech should stop. this harridan exclaimed ‘When it meets the truth.’ Exactly how the truth is defined, there was no discussion.
However it was implicit in her diatribe that feminists are the ones who define truth. So, as far as I can tell, this woman and her kind are totalitarians. Curiously, as the extracts below from another feminist, one should not question Islam.
To question Islam, the BAME massive population growth or feminism is to be far right. Men, she attests, have to stop acting as if freedom depends on their acts of violence. She makes no mention of her feminist ancestors who handed out white feathers and humiliated men who resisted going to war in the 1880s, 1914 and 1939. The contradictions between these bigoted feminists views, Islam and LGBTQI is never mentioned because multi culture is their bulldozer.
Feminists have many laws to protect them from harsh voices, mansplaining and contradiction. It is a fact that women lie at least as much as men, and in particular about retrospective sex attacks and other violence. Making allegations a safe distance from alleged events ensures convictions. Now we have feminist think tanks recommending, if not insisting, that women’s phone and text records may not be used in rape cases. Here we have just another example of the weird world of gender quality. Many leading feminsts are from very affluent backgrpunds, spoiled by daddies, just as many transsexual men are from fatherless families. The appalling decay of family life and the divide and fool tactics of the ruling elite are never mentioned.
The reality of nature and mass poverty are not bedfellows for the pseudo truth of feminism. Nature is a matter of balance and porlarity. Women tend to dislike transsexuals, men in their clothes trying to use their cultural weapons. But the same does not apply to them when they wear mannish clothes, utilitrain underwear, boots, cropping their hair, swearing, shouting and endlessly complaining about men – who they use, as women always have, to define their existence and identity, only now as victims rather than carers and homemakers.
It isn’t surprising so many women have mental health problems. No amount of money or quantity of pills will solve that. As for men being killers, well stop encouraging them to fight vile wars in the Middle East in the name of democracy, stop covering for female abusers like Caroline Flack, stop kicking them out of families when they have outlived their usefulness, cutting them off from their kids whose lives you are going to ruin. Women have their own sneaky ways of violence , provoking, condoning, excusing and committing it. Feminism should stop where truth begins, not just their version.
Men are the violent ones insists well paid feminist writer. She is a feminist so it must be true.
The 28-year-old man awaiting trial over the Christchurch massacre wrote a self-justifying screed titled “The Great Replacement.” It begins: “It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates.” The 21-year-old American who allegedly killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas, left behind a four-page document outlining his motivations. Its most consistent theme is the danger of Hispanic “invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America.” The alleged shooter adds: “My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement.”
Both men are referring to the right-wing conspiracy theory popularized by the French author Renaud Camus, which warns that nonwhites are having more children than whites, and that the resulting demographic change threatens European culture. This idea has been memefied by the online far right, with different groups painted as the usurpers: The neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, chanted “The Jews will not replace us”; for the Christchurch shooter, the threat came from Muslims; in El Paso, it was Hispanic immigrants.
Mattheis, who studied the Republican debates during the 2016 presidential election, saw similar “false rape” narratives gaining purchase there. Early in his campaign, Trump framed the need for immigration around the specter of Mexican rapists. These incidents were a somber reminder that what starts in the manosphere now has real political power. Mattheis’s research interests, which were once dismissed as a fringe preoccupation, are seen as more and more legitimate. Gender has always been a factor in mass shootings. Finally, now, we are beginning to ask why.
Helen Lewis is a London-based staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights. Connect Twitter
Why Women Are Never Satisfied Posted November 8th 2020
By Erika Patterson
It’s sometimes seems like a never ending roller coaster.
You bounce from desiring a boyfriend, to wanting an education. Then you decide you want a career and then a family and then a bigger home and then a better body and then a better job and then a better husband and then a better life. A woman could repeat this cycle many times and feel that something may be wrong with her when there isn’t.
Why can’t a woman ever be satisfied with the life she has? Well, the answer is two-fold. On one hand it is simply untrue that a woman can not be satisfied with her life yet I believe she reaches that point later in life.
Until then her waning and unquenchable desires are a result of the human yearning of desiring more than change, desiring new experiences. It is not that she is incapable of being content, it is more that she is curious about herself and the world and she wants to play in it as much as she can.
There is nothing wrong with that. Don’t try to shame her into sitting down and pretending to have ‘made it’.
If this reminds you of yourself you have permission to be flighty, be flaky, change your mind and explore until your heart’s content. You will ALWAYS have a desire for something new, that is what life is about, tasting the fullness of different experiences.
One day you will wake up and find that your present experience brings you so much joy that you don’t want to let it go. This is when you will rest in the beauty of the life you have created, that is, until life decides it has other plans for you and moves you right along on its own.
Nothing is permanent. Lead your life by following your desires, enjoy the temporary moments of bliss and then allow life to lead you sometimes.
You never get it wrong. You are always making the right choices. This is not a test. Life is not a trial run for something else. You are allowed to do what you want to do and live how you want to live.
So if this is you and you’re ready- take flight.
Comment Obviously if you have kids, they don’t matter.
He cheated, so she set his mom’s house on fire: ‘I hope your mom likes being burned alive’ Posted November 8th 2020
Kissy Denise Published on October 3, 2020
Some women actually are a woman of their words. They take action. Just not in the way you want them to.
Lansing, Michigan – A woman angry at her boyfriend texted him, “I hope your mom likes being burned alive,” before allegedly setting a house on fire and killing the man’s mother and two of his nephews. All because she suspected that he was cheating on her.
On the night of September 3, Abbieana Williams, 21, altered her life destiny when she sent a threatening text message to her boyfriend.
According to state court records obtained by the Lansing State Journal, Abbieana texted her boyfriend a threatening message to let him know that she was about to commit a murder, in order to punish him for cheating on her.
“I’m outside your mom’s house … I hope your mom likes being burned alive,” stated the text. Minutes later his mother’s house went up into flames.
Upon their arrival on the 1400 block of Elizabeth, firefighters found a small, one-story home, engulfed in flames, with fire spewing out of the front and side windows. Inside they found the body of three deceased victims: a 53-year-old woman and two little boys.
The victims were identified as Melissa Weston, 53, and her two grandsons, 8-year-old Aston Griffin and 4-year-old Jesse Kline IV.
Abbieana denied starting a fire and being at 1450 Elizabeth Street on the night of the fire.
However, a friend of Williams told police that he dropped her off near that address that night, shortly before 11:30pm.
The friend said that before getting out of the car, Williams told someone on the phone, “I hope your mama likes burning alive,” the affidavit states.
Williams was mad at her boyfriend because she thought he was cheating on her, and said she planned to throw a rock through the window, the friend said.
Westen’s home caught on fire about four minutes after neighbors saw a black woman pacing outside.
According to the affidavit, the woman asked to borrow a lighter from a neighbor and was seen heading toward Westen’s home.
And after the fire, Williams’ boyfriend was spotted holding the same lighter.
A neighbor’s surveillance video recorded a glass shattering sound at 11:24pm, and captured a woman a minute later walking around Elizabeth Street for 13 minutes.
When the Lansing Fire Department arrived just eight minutes later, the home was already engulfed in flames.
“This arson was a despicable act of violence and my heart goes out to the victims and their family,” Lansing Police Chief Daryl Green said.
“I’m comforted in knowing that LPD and LFD intentionally investigated this dynamic crime and that our public safety collaboration was able to quickly bring a very dangerous alleged suspect into custody.”
Abbieana Williams is charged with three counts of arson and three counts of murder.
Drique Blackmon, Williams’ mother, said her daughter has autism, “as well as some emotional impairment disorders,” but she isn’t violent.
“If you were to go at her, fighting her, she’s going to drop to the ground and curl up,’” said Blackmon, 37, of Lansing. “She’s not violent. She’s never been violent. She’d risk her life to save someone, and that includes animals.”
She took 3 lives in the process of throwing away her own. Black women must learn to love themselves like their life depends on it, because it does. Instead of choosing to love herself and move on, Abbieana Williams chose to sacrifice her own life in the process. She didn’t even have enough love for herself to walk away from the pain. Getting back at her boyfriend was more important than loving herself.
We definitely need to raise consciousness in this world, and educate people on controlling their emotions and the dynamics of human relationships. Some pain will come. It’s unavoidable. You are to learn the lesson and make better decisions. YOU ARE NOT TO BE REACTIVE TO YOUR EMOTIONS. Younger women tend to get outright enraged over the egregious emotional betrayals perpetuated against them by the men they love.
It’s hard for some not to want to take revenge and to show people that you aren’t one to be messed with. But murdering a man’s innocent mother is completely on a different level.
Abbieana’s mother needs to understand that rather her daughter has a mental handicap or not, she’s still a woman. Playing with a woman’s heart is a dangerous thing. Which is why the show SNAPPED was created. Women are highly emotional creatures, which is also why they need GOOD MEN to balance them out. When a man comes in violating her heart, it can push even the sweetest girl over the edge. Abbieana however was not sweet. Her act was pure evil.
I hope you share these blogs, to bring light to younger women, and help them to make better decisions.
If you would like to improve your relationships, and change the entire history of your life and the way you communicate and connect with the world, get the book below. It’s time for black women to experience HEALTHY, loving relationships, and to build generational wealth.
Counsellors’ experiences of working with male victims of female-perpetrated domestic abuse
Aim: To provide an understanding of counsellors’ experiences of working with male victims of female-perpetrated domestic abuse. This topic has been virtually unexplored within counselling literature. Method: A qualitative design was adopted to address the objective of this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six counsellors. Snowball sampling was used to identify suitable participants. Three were males and three females, and all had experience of working with male victims of female-perpetrated domestic abuse. Results were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Findings: Ten over-arching themes emerged from the transcripts, including a distinct lack of recognition of male victimisation, which was seen as hampering counsellors’ work with clients. Participants, particularly female counsellors, also drew on the significance of their gender. Furthermore, counsellors described changes in their perceptions of women within modern society. A central feature of participants’ accounts was a sense of privilege in sharing clients’ experiences. However, participants described the work as challenging, and employed both personal and professional strategies to help them cope with work-related difficulties. Discussion: Findings offer an initial understanding as to the experiences of counsellors that have worked with male victims. This may be helpful in leading to the development of more effective strategies employed by counsellors and counselling agencies in successfully working with male victims, whilst increasing awareness of male victimisation.
|Believe Her! The Woman Never Lies Myth Frank S. Zepezauer* ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male sexual misconduct. Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem. The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism.|
Male sexual misconduct — rape, incest, stalking, sexual harassment, child molestation, pornography trafficking — has, according to some observers, become a problem so big that it demands a big solution, not only the reform of our legal system but of our entire society. Yet the increasingly heated debate over this crisis has focused primarily on how these misbehaviors are defined and how often they occur. The estimated numbers keep mounting. We hear that perhaps 31 million women are suffering from some form of rape, 41 million from harassment, 58 million from child sexual abuse, and all 125 million of them — from toddlers to grandmothers — from a toxic “rape culture” that suffocates the feminine spirit. Much less discussed is how often an allegation of male sexual misconduct is false. The question seldom enters the debate because, presumably, it had long ago been settled. Pennsylvania State Law Professor Philip Jenkins (1993), in a review of the “feminist jurisprudence” which leads the sex crisis counterattack, reports that in response to the question its proponents have established an “unchallengeable orthodoxy.” It is that “women did not lie about such victimization, never lied, not out of personal malice, not from mental instability or derangement” (p.19). Jenkins is not the first to cite this will to believe. Wendy Kaminer (1993) reported that “it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don’t lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene” (p.67). Eight years earlier, in 1985, John O’Sullivan discovered a widespread defense of the belief that “no woman would fabricate a rape charge” (p.22). Feminists themselves admit as much. Law Professor Susan Estrich stated that “the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect” (Newsweek, 1985, p.61). Some feminists believe that even defending that premise is a sex crime. Alan Dershowitz (1993) reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations. Believing the self-proclaimed victim of sexual misconduct has thus evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some jurisdictions, into law. California now requires that jurors be explicitly told that a rape conviction can be based on the accuser’s testimony alone, without corroboration (Associated Press, 1992; Farrell, 1993). Canada is proposing that a man accused of rape must demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a sexual partner. These new rules rest on the assumption that women do not lie because they have no motive to lie. Consequently, as Jenkins (1993) states, the question of the “victim’s credibility” has now become “crucial.” Is that credibility warranted, particularly as feminist jurisprudence would want it established, as nearly automatic? Not if we consult recent history. And if we do, we will find that we do indeed face a sexual misconduct crisis, but not the one radical feminists now insist is ubiquitous in our society.
False Accusations of Rape Begin with evidence of false accusation of rape, the crime which has become not only the metaphor for all cases of sexual misconduct but for male sexuality itself. Alan Dershowitz (1991), for example, has further harassed his students by telling them that an annual F.B.I. survey of 1600 law enforcement agencies discovered that 8% of rape charges are completely unfounded. That figure, which has held steadily over the past decade, is moreover at least twice as high as for any other felony. Unfounded charges of assault, which like rape is often productive of conflicting testimony, comprise only 1.6% of the total compared to the 8.4% recorded for rape. Consult also a recent development, DNA testing, which is now becoming routine in rape investigations (Krajik, 1993). Also routine is the discovery that a third of the DNA scans produce non-matches. Consequently, a growing number of men are not only gaining acquittals but are also being released from prison. As with all rape statistics, these figures need careful scrutiny. Police investigators warn, for example, that a mismatch proves innocence only when the DNA could have come from no one but the assailant and its profile or makeup doesn’t match the suspect’s. Even so, the DNA tests, primarily a prosecutorial weapon, have now been added to the arsenal of defense attorneys, and more evidence of false allegation is appearing. Although useful, the F.B.I. and DNA data on sex crimes result from unstructured number gathering. More informative, therefore, are the results of a focused study of the false allegation question undertaken by a team headed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division. Its significance derives not only from its scholarly credentials but also its time of origin, 1984/85, a period during which rape had emerged as a major issue, but before its definition included almost any form of non-consensual sex. The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations. Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape. That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false. In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations. To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation. Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false. The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known. Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions. If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic. If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed. Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel. The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies. They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation. If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description. The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false. McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city. He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329). McDowell’s data have received qualified confirmation from other investigators. A survey of seven Washington, D.C. area jurisdictions in the 1991/2 period, for example, revealed that an average of 24% of rape charges were unfounded (Buckley, 1992). A recently completed study of a small midwestern city was reported by Eugene J. Kanin (1994) of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Purdue University. Kanin concluded that “false rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases reported during this period” (p.81). Kanin provides significant confirmation of McDowell’s findings in several ways. Kanin’s subject, for example, covered a nine-year period — 1978-87 — during which rape had become a highly-politicized issue. Members of the police department from which the data was taken were therefore sensitive to the kinds of misperceptions about which parties to the dispute had complained. The city offered a relatively useful model: free of the unrepresentative populations found in resort areas, remote from the extreme crime conditions plaguing large communities, small enough to allow careful investigation of suspicious allegations, but large enough to produce a useful sample of 109 cases. The investigators also separated “unfounded” from “false” rape allegations, a distinction sometimes blurred in other reports. Moreover, among the strict guidelines used to determine an allegation’s unreliability was McDowell’s requirement that only unambiguous recantations be used. Equally revealing were addenda following Kanin’s basic report. They reported studies in two large Midwestern state universities which covered a three-year period ending in 1988. The finding of the combined studies was that among a total of 64 reported rapes exactly 50% were false. Kanin found these results significant because the women in the main report tended to gather in the lower socioeconomic levels, thus raising questions about correlations of false allegation with income and educational status. After checking figures gathered from university police departments, he therefore reported that “quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge.” In addition, Kanin cited still another source (Jay, 1991) which supported findings of high frequency false allegations in the universities. On the basis of these studies, Kanin felt it reasonable to conclude that “false rape accusations are not uncommon” (p.90).
Sexual Harassment Alan Dershowitz’s experience with an esoteric definition of sexual harassment also raises questions about false allegations in this newly-defined but widely publicized crime. Skeptical checking has revealed that, as with rape, the percentage of unfounded accusations of sexual harassment may reach astonishingly high levels. That was the claim of Randy Daniels, whose confirmation for New York City’s Deputy Mayor was almost derailed by a sexual harassment charge he was able to refute. To see whether his experience was relatively rare, Daniels checked with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He found that in 1991, the EEOC investigated or mediated 2119 cases of sexual harassment and found that 59% were determined to have no cause (Daniels, 1993, p. 1). Since the Hill/Thomas affair they have gone up sharply — up 64% in one year — but so have false allegations, remaining steadily in the plus 50% range.
Child Sexual Abuse This rape and sexual harassment pattern — expanding definitions, rapidly increasing accusations, intensely politicized publicity campaigns, and significantly high percentages of false allegations — has also appeared in still another arena, the agencies which deal with the sexual molestation of children. With this kind of sexual misconduct the credibility of a third party, the child, becomes a factor, and we hear, in addition to appeals to “believe the woman” an appeal to “believe the child.” We are now learning that children can be manipulated into supplying dramatic testimony of sexual abuse and that in most cases the accusation originates not with the child but with the mother. Thus the question of credibility once again focuses on women. As one lawyer put it, “For a lot of these people ‘believe the child’ is just code. What they really mean is, ‘believe the woman, no questions asked”‘ (Stein, 1992, p. 160). To keep this issue in perspective, note three significant facts. The first is that of the 2,700,000 cases of child abuse reported every year less than 10% involve serious physical abuse and only 8% involve alleged sexual abuse (Schultz, 1989). The second is that, contrary to the male victimizer/female victim paradigm of feminist ideology, at least as many boys as girls are victimized by child abuse, if not more. The third is that the majority of child abusers are women, that the most dangerous environment for a child is a home formed by a single mother and her boyfriend, and the safest is formed by a married mother and a husband who is the child’s biological father.1 In many cases allegations of child sexual abuse occur in a nasty divorce made nastier by a custody fight. It is now so common that it has received scholarly attention and its own acronym, S.A.I.D. (Sexual Allegations in Divorce). The consensus is that in “S.A.I.D. syndrome” cases the number of such allegations increased so rapidly — up from 7 to 30% in the eighties — that one scholarly team called it an “explosion.” Others, noting how often the guilt of the accused was assumed, used the word “hysteria” and searched for analogies in the Salem and the McCarthy witch hunts (Stein, 1992). Another consensus is being reached: that the majority of these allegations are false. Melvin Guyer, Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, reports that “in highly contested custody cases where the allegation is made, a number of researchers have found the allegations to be false or unsubstantiated in anywhere from 60 to 80% of those cases ” (Felten, 1991). Another investigative team stated that of 200 cases they studied” about three-fourths have ultimately been adjudicated as no abuse” (Felten, 1991). Some studies have come in with a lower but still significant estimate. For example, a 1988 study by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts said that sexual molestation charges in divorces are probably false one-third of the time (Dvorchak, 1992). Allegations of child abuse, both divorce related and in general, are flying out so frequently that those who believe themselves victimized by false charges have organized a nationwide support group, VOCAL (Victims Of Child Abuse Laws), which now includes 80 local chapters. This group refers its members to both informal and professional counsel, sends out a newsletter, and offers access to a rapidly expanding data base. In 1989, its summary of relevant statistics cited 23 studies which reported findings on both sexual and non-sexual child abuse. Among these, the lowest assessment of false allegation was 35%, the highest 82%, averaging at 66%.
Recovered Memories Those joining VOCAL are finding that an even more dramatic form of child abuse allegation is now sweeping the country. It originates with a “recovered memory” of sexual atrocity, often involving incest or satanic ritual abuse, usually made by an adult daughter against her father, and almost always discovered in therapy. This form of allegation made the headlines when celebrities such as Roseanne Arnold, La Toya Jackson, and Suzanne Sommers declared they had suddenly remembered a long repressed victimization. It is also claiming celebrities among the accused, most notably Cardinal Bernardin of the Roman Catholic Church, which was however later recanted. In such cases the question of credibility applies not only to the accuser or accused but also to the therapist as well as the therapeutic technique and its supporting theory. Because cases of recovered memory of abuse have surfaced relatively recently, skeptical criticism is just now beginning to appear in the media although the underlying issues have been under debate for decades. One result has been the formation of an organization whose title already makes an assertion, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Thus to VOCAL we can add FMSF among the acronyms coined in response to the false allegation problem. It appears to be widespread. The FMSF reported that within two years of its founding in 1991, it had built a file of 12,000 families who believed themselves victimized by accusations prompted by false memories. Eleanor Goldstein (Goldstein & Farmer, 1992) estimates that the actual number of involved families reaches into the tens of thousands. She also cites data from the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse on the highly inflated estimates of victimization. Contrary to statements that one in four women have been abused prior to the age of 18, retrospective surveys reveal great variations, from 6 to 62%, which means, Goldstein says, “that we don’t have any valid statistics at all” (p.2). How many of those reports of remembered child abuse, whether in the high or low range, were false? Several sources suggest that they may match figures on false allegations in reports of rape and sexual harassment. The National Center for Child Abuse reported that false allegations, which were 35% of all claims in 1975, had by 1993 reached 60% (FMSF Newsletter, 1993). Other sources suggest that the kind of child abuse caused by satanic ritual cults is almost totally a myth. There may be a satan and he may have followers but, contrary to widely held belief in the mid-eighties, they did not surface all over middle America. Where accusations actually led to trials, as in Jordan, Minnesota and in Los Angeles in the McMartin Preschool Case, prosecutors suffered embarrassing defeats. An extensive New Yorker report of a Washington State case reveals that at least one conviction was indeed achieved. However, after a careful analysis of the facts, the writer concludes that it was a grievous miscarriage of justice, one more ghastly example of the recovered memory theory gone amok (Wright, 1993). With regard to recovered memory cases which do not involve satanism, other indications point to a high number of false allegations. A strong phalanx of professional opinion has raised significant doubts about the veracity of long repressed memories even within a carefully disciplined therapeutic context. For that reason emphatic warnings are now being issued against their being used in a courtroom — not to mention a press conference — without persuasive corroboration, which, it appears, is often missing. Some mental health experts make the point more pungently. Dr. Paul Fink, head of Psychiatry at Albert Einstein Medical Center said, “If a therapist says 70 to 80% of patients remember abuse, I say the therapist ought to be a shoemaker” (Sifford, 1992). Dr. Richard Ofshe, a member of the FMSF professional advisory board who exposed the proliferating fallacies in the Washington State case, stated that “the incidence of cases in which repressed memories correspond with facts about abuse is as common as Siamese twins joined at the head” (Brzustowicz & Csicsery, 1993, p.8).
Motivations of Accusers Even so, reasonable doubts about a woman’s veracity in all these often sensationalized sexual misconduct cases do not necessarily mean that she has deliberately lied. She may, for example, have suffered from confusion, a problem now proliferating as the definition for sex crimes becomes increasingly complicated and inclusive, leaving all parties struggling with questions about definition and propriety. Or she may have been affected by emotional instability or mental illness, which one study reported was a factor in 75% of false allegation in divorce cases (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990). In some cases a woman or her defenders might exaggerate a misdemeanor into a felony or, as happened in Washington state, translate bad parenting into sexual misconduct. In addition, there has been a tendency to emphasize what a victim felt rather than what happened. Thus, a woman can truthfully say she felt raped, abused or harassed by behavior which is actually non-criminal. Moreover, the woman’s feelings are often influenced by outside parties with whom she has confided — friends, family members, social workers, therapists, clergymen, rape counselors, lawyers, political activists — any of whom can interpret her emotion as a sign of felonious abuse. With regard to recovered memory, evidence published by the FMS Foundation suggests that the woman may be as much victimized by therapy or by recovery movement” enthusiasm as by a perpetrator hidden in her subconscious. Ericka Ingram, the primary accuser in the Washington State case, had come under the influence of both secular and religious counselors. Their intrusive encouragement helped to loosen a flood of wild charges she leveled against her father and mother as well as two of her father’s colleagues. These realizations have led to an increasing number of lawsuits now being filed by former patients against incompetent or overzealous therapists. By the same token, among the divorcing wives who file sexual molestation charges against their husbands are some who have been coached by self-serving lawyers. Columnist Barbara Amiel (1989) stated that “a lawyer is coming close to negligence if he does not advise a client that in child custody cases and property disputes, the mere mention of a child abuse allegation is a significant asset” (p.25). In The Morning After, Katie Roiphe (1993) reported still another cause of false allegations: political passions generated by activities such as the “Take Back the Night” marches. She tells about “Mindy” who so wanted to be a “part of this blanket warmth, this woman-centered nonhierarchical empowered notion” that she was “willing to lie” (pp. 40-41). A similar story was told by a Stanford University professor whose daughter was, he claimed, behind a conspiracy to murder him. He testified that he had had a good relationship with her until she attended an anti-rape rally. “She appeared to have gotten swept up … and was experiencing great emotional distress” (Wykes, 1993). These mitigating circumstances have often softened the judgment of authorities who confront women guilty of misrepresentation. In the Washington D.C. area, for example, police send women who lied about rape not to the court room but to a counseling center. The Princeton woman who accused a fellow student suffered no more than an obligation to write a public apology. Because of these sometimes compelling reasons for a departure from the truth, many officials hesitate to call a woman a liar. But it appears, some women with little or no evidence do not hesitate to call a man a rapist. It also appears that more than a few of them have in fact knowingly and willfully lied. Regardless of the influences working on Ericka Ingram, for example, there came a point when the evidence openly confounded her story, leaving her with the choice either to persist or recant. Because she not only persisted but further embellished her story, Richard Ofshe called her an “habitual liar” (Wright, 1993, p.69). Whether Anita Hill lied about Clarence Thomas still cannot be determined, but David Brock demonstrated that in several other matters she had indeed lied. And as Charles P. McDowell and other rape allegation researchers have discovered, at least one out of four women in their study population have openly admitted to having lied. Such disclosures should encourage skepticism toward the now widely held belief that, in accusations of sexual misconduct, women never lie. The same skepticism should be activated when we hear its supporting explanation: that filing such a charge is so painful that only a truthful woman would proceed. That belief, although equally strong, is equally suspect. The research that revealed how many sexual misconduct allegations are false has also revealed how often these unfounded accusations are strongly motivated. The clearest example of compelling motive can be found in the Sexual Allegation in Divorce (S.A.I.D.) syndrome. In such cases questionable allegations multiply because the accuser has far more to gain than to lose. Simply charging a divorcing spouse with child molestation — or wife battering or spousal rape — can turn a hot but evenly balanced custody battle into a rout. In many cases, the accused husband must vacate what had been the “family” home and submit to prolonged alienation from his children. He also finds himself ensnared by both the criminal justice and the social service bureaucracies whose conflicting rules of evidence can deny him the presumption of innocence. In a process that only a Kafka can describe, he must then devote his resources to defending himself rather than pursuing the original divorce litigation. Even then he may find himself in jail or in court ordered therapy while his accuser has won de facto custody not only of the children but of the house. Should he eventually win vindication, a process which can literally take years, he may enjoy at best a hollow victory which leaves him financially and emotionally drained, nursing a permanently injured reputation and functioning as an “absent” father with a sparse schedule of controlled visits. It is no wonder, then, that to express the reality commentators have sometimes used dramatic language, such as “the ultimate weapon” or the “atom bomb.” The impressive results that are so often easily achieved with false allegations in custody disputes suggest the kind of temptations women may feel in other situations. Among those found to have lied about rape or sexual harassment, for example, a number of motivations have been identified. The McDowell report listed those they uncovered in declining order of appearance. “Spite or revenge” and “to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame” accounted for 40% of such allegations (Farrell, 1993, p. 325). A small percentage were attributed to “mental/emotional disorder or attempted extortion.” In all cases, then, the falsely alleging woman had any of several strong motives to lie. But, as with the S.A.I.D. syndrome, the most common motive was anger, an emotion which prompts more than a few embattled women to reach for “the ultimate weapon. Although money gained through extortion ranked low among the motives for false rape allegations, it appears to rank higher when sexual harassment claims prove to be unfounded. A casual survey of some of the suits that have been filed suggests why. In the eighties, successful claims often brought damages in the $50,000 to $100,000 range. After the explosion ignited by the Hill/Thomas case, not only the number of claims but damage awards have skyrocketed. A clothing store cashier successfully sued her employer for $500,000. Employees of Stroh’s Brewery claimed that the company’s commercials, which showed the “Swedish Bikini Team,” constituted harassment and sued for damages ranging between $350,000 and $550,000. In the famous locker room harassment case, Lisa Olson was reported to have received a settlement ranging between $250,00 and $700,000. Damage claims — and awards — in the millions are becoming more common. In some cases which were later proved to be false, the financial stakes were particularly high. One lawyer was charged with coaching six of his clients to “embellish or lie” about some of the incidents on which they based a sexual harassment case. They had asked for $487,000 (Gonzales, 1993). Eleven women from the Miss Black America Pageant, after claiming that Mike Tyson had touched them on their rears, filed a $607 million lawsuit against him. Several of the contestants later admitted they had lied in the hope of getting publicity and cashing in on the award money which would have given them around $20 million each (Farrell, 1993, p.328). But where extortion does appear, the motivation may be political as well as monetary not only in particular cases but in the growth of the entire sexual misconduct crisis. Whether it is rape or sexual harassment or divorce-related child molestation or recovered incest memory, many of the investigators eventually mention the influence of ideological feminism. Katie Roiphe, for example, found feminist politics at work in the phony rape story invented by Mindy, the imaginative Princeton co-ed. Norman Podhoretz, who wrote about “Rape in Feminist Eyes,” attributes the current over-publicized obsession with rape to “the influence of man-hating elements within the (women’s) movement (which) has grown so powerful as to have swept all before it” (1992, p.29). As far back as 1985 John Sullivan attributed the overheated denial of false accusation to attempts to defend the “feminist theory of rape.” And Philip Jenkins (1993), who reported the trend toward automatically-assumed female credibility, stated that it was part of a larger campaign to establish “feminist jurisprudence.” Whatever their motivations in particular cases, there is little doubt that ideological feminists have achieved significant political gains from publicizing the sexual misconduct crisis. Lisa Olson’s feelings of harassment may for example have been genuine, but as the focus for a prolonged media event that established for female reporters an access to locker rooms it was as unpopular with the general public as it was with male athletes. The real Anita Hill may or may not have been lying, but the Hill/Thomas affair propelled sexual harassment into a hot issue that rapidly generated a subindustry of scholars, consultants, and bureaucrats, prompted a “Year of the Woman” campaign that helped several women into congress, and revived a flagging women’s movement. The same spectacular results may follow from the Tailhook Scandal, which, like Hill/Thomas, is raising serious questions about motive and credibility. Whether Paula Coughlin’s testimony will become as clouded as Anita Hill’s, her whistle-blowing has already scuttled the careers of a still growing number of naval officers, not to mention the Secretary of the Navy himself, intensified in-service anti-sexual harassment campaigns, reinforced an already strong feminist presence in the armed forces, and helped soften the military’s granitic opposition to women in combat. These incidents also helped to power a “Violence Against Women” bill through congress which will channel still more millions of government money into women’s programs, not to mention winning congressional validation of feminist jurisprudence. That’s a lot of political gain achieved by the words of a few women who suffered little more than an affront to their sensibilities.
Conclusions This growing gap — between the anguish suffered by the victims of traditionally-defined sex crimes and what is suffered by victims of ideologically-defined crimes — suggests that the crisis we face is not the result of a sexual misconduct epidemic but of the crisis mentality itself, an ever more hysterical vision of a “rape culture.” It has a foundation in reality. In what has become a ritual disclaimer, those who have exposed the surprising number of false allegations of sexual misconduct have also admitted the appalling number of genuine accusations. And those who have attacked the incompetence, self-interest, and zealotry that has denied the extent of false allegation have also recognized the courage and energy that has exposed the problem of honest allegation begging vainly for belief. They have therefore applauded the effort to seek for this long ignored injustice both social and legal remediation. But that effort, carried too far and exploited too often, has generated another gap: between our awareness of the now highly visible victims of sexual misconduct and the almost invisible victims of false allegation. The lesser known victims have their own stories to tell, enough to reveal another long ignored injustice that demands remediation. False allegations of sexual misconduct have deprived a rapidly growing number of men and women of their reputations, their fortunes, their children, their livelihood, and their freedom; have wasted the time and money of countless tax-supported agencies; have destroyed not only individuals but entire families and communities; and have left some so desperate that they have taken their lives. For that reason, in the current revision of our sexual misconduct code, we must retain as a guiding premise the realization that women can lie because we know that, for several reasons, more than a few women have lied, more often than researchers into false allegation had expected, far more often than “rape culture” ideologues have admitted … too often, in any event, to be ignored by our jurisprudence, feminist or otherwise.
Endnote 1. These assertions are themselves widely disputed. However, one of the most extensive studies on the subject, by Strauss and Gelles (1990) reports that for physical abuse, the rate is higher for mothers than for fathers: 17.7% for mothers vs. 10.1% for fathers. They found that preteen boys are slightly more likely to be abused than their sisters but that the pattern changes alter puberty. Strauss and Gelles, however, also refer to some contravening studies that show higher rates for fathers. Susan Steinmetz (1977/78) who has collaborated with Strauss and Gelles, reported independently that “mothers abused children 62% more often than fathers, and that male children were more than twice as likely to suffer physical injury” (p.499). David C. Morrow (1993) reports: “Drawing upon reports of the American Humane Association, the Association of Juvenile Courts, the National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse, and the FBI’s 1978 crime report, John Rossler of Equal Rights for Fathers of New York State estimated that mothers commit over two-thirds of all child abuse, 80% of it in sole custody and none in joint custody situations, while boyfriends and new husbands perpetrate most of the rest. A similar study conducted a few years earlier in Utah by Ken Pangborn showed abuse 37% higher among single mothers than the general population and 67% of all abuse in the doing of women of whom 80% are single mothers.” Diane Russell (1986) reports that of adult women in San Francisco who reported one or more experiences of incestuous abuse, overall 4.5% were abused by a father (biological, step, foster or adoptive). But the abuse was much more likely to occur with a stepfather. Russell reports that 17% of the women who were raised by a stepfather were abused by him compared to 2% of the women who were raised by a biological father. This indicates the greater risk to a girl of growing up in a household without her biological father. Thomas Fleming (1986) cites a Canadian study that concluded that preschoolers were 40 times as likely to be abused in broken and illegitimate families as compared to those in intact two-parent families. The consensus thus appears to support the assertion that child abuse is much more common in single parent families or families missing the biological father, that women are more often the abusers, and that male children are more often the victims. [Back]
References Amid, B. (1989, November 24). Feminism hits middle age. The National Review, p. 25. Associated Press (1992, May 8). Ruling favors victim’s word in rape cases. San Diego Union-Tribune. Brzustowicz, Jr., R. & Csicsery, G. P. (1993, January). The remembrance of crimes past. Heterodoxy, p.8. Buckley, S. (1992, June 27). Unfounded reports of rape confound area police investigators. The Washington Post, p. B-1. Daniels, R. (1993, May/June). Sexual harassment. Transitions (PO Box 129, Manhasset, New York, NY 11030, p. 1. Dershowitz, A. M. (1991, September). Justice. Penthouse, p. 52. Dershowitz, A. M. (1993, December). Sexual harassment. The Liberator, p. 22. Dvorchak, R. (1992, August 22). Sex abuse charge, “ultimate weapon” in custody cases. Houston Chronicle. Farrell, W. (1993). The Myth of Male Power ()()(). New York: Simon and Schuster. Felten, E. (1991, November 25). Divorce’s atom bomb: Child sex abuse. Insight, pp. 6-11, 34-36. Fleming, T. (1986). Uncommon properties. Chronicles. Reporting on Trend report, February. 1986, Rockford Institute, 934 N. Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103-7061. FMS Foundation Newsletter (1993, July 3). 3401 Market Street, Suite 130, Philadelphia. PA 19104. Goldstein, E., & Farmer, K. (1992). Confabulations (). Boca Raton, FL: Sirs Books. Gonzales, S. (1993, October 14). D.A.: Lawyer told sex-bias clients to lie. San Jose Mercury, p. 1B. Jay, D. R. (1991). Victimization on the college campus: A look at three high-profile cases. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 35-37. Jenkins. P. (1993, October). Hard cases and bad law. Chronicles, p. 19. Kaminer, W. (1993, October). Feminism’s identity crisis. The Atlantic Monthly, p. 67. Kanin, E. J. (1994). False rape allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(1), 81-92. Krajik, K. (1993, November 1). Genetics in the courtroom. Newsweek, p.64. McDowell, C. P., & Hibler, N. S. (1985). False allegations. Holland: Elsevier. Published for the Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. Morrow, D. C. (1993). Toward Gynology. Aladdin’s Window, Issue # 3, Afterglow Publications, P.O. Box 399, Shingletown, CA 96088. Newsweek (1985, May 20). Rape and the law. p. 61. O’Sullivan, J. (1985, August). Rape in the New Age. American Spectator, p. 22. Podhoretz, N. (1992, November). Rape in feminist eyes. Commentary, p. 29. Roiphe, K. (1993). The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism on Campus (). Boston: Little, Brown & Company. Russell, D. E. (1986). The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women (). New York: Basic Books, Inc. Sifford, D. (1992, March 15). A special tribute. Philadelphia Inquirer. Stein, H. (1992, June). Presumed guilty. Playboy, pp. 74-76, 160-165. Steinmetz, S. K. (1977/78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2, p. 89. Strauss, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families ()(). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Wakefield, H., & Underwager, IL (1990). Personality characteristics of parents making false accusations of sexual abuse in custody disputes. Issues In Child Abuse Accusations, 2(3), 121-l36. Wright, L. (1993, May 17 & 24). Remembering Satan: Part I & Part II. New Yorker, pp. 60-83, & 54-76. Wykes, S. L. (1992, December 9). “Plot” target says daughter changed. San Jose Mercury, p.1-B. * Frank S. Zepezauer is a teacher and writer at 1731 Wright Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94087. [Back] [Back to Volume 6, Number 2] [Other Articles by this Author]
Johnny Depp Axed From ‘Fantastic Beasts’ Franchise By Warner Bros After “Wife Beater” Verdict In UK; Film Delayed To 2022
Services to share this page.
Following a stinging loss in the UK courts over allegations of being a “wife beater,” Johnny Depp has been cut loose by Warner Bros from its Fantastic Beasts franchise. His character Grindelwald will be recast.
The threequel is also being pushed from its original November 12, 2021 release date to summer 2022.
“Johnny Depp will depart the Fantastic Beasts franchise,” the studio said in a statement Friday. “We thank Johnny for his work on the films to date. Fantastic Beasts 3 is currently in production, and the role of Gellert Grindelwald will be recast. The film will debut in theaters worldwide in the summer of 2022″.
Having stayed in the UK in recent weeks to film the David Yates-directed picture, Depp himself first made the exit news public earlier in the day via his Instagram page, saying he had been “asked to resign” by the studio.
Fantastic Beasts 3 has been shooting since September after a pandemic-related delay. Depp was expected to be in production on the movie in London from October to February 2021 and Deadline understands he had filmed scenes prior to the verdict.
After a spectacle of a trial in London over the summer, Justice Andrew Nicol decreed on November 2 that the claim in an article by the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Sun about his relationship with Amber Heard that Depp was a “wife beater” was “substantially true.”
The blow to Depp, who unsurprisingly said today he would appeal the verdict, put not only the litigious actor’s relationship with the AT&T-owned Warner Bros in the spotlight, but also his ongoing $50 million defamation suit against his ex-wife Heard on this side of the Atlantic.
Delayed numerous times, the legal battle is currently set to go to trial in Virginia on May 3, 2021. Depp is set to finally give a deposition in the matter for three days starting November 10.
In and out of the courts on various matters the past few years, Depp sued Aquaman star Heard in early 2019 over an op-ed the actress wrote about domestic violence for the Washington Post in December 2018. Depp believes the piece cost him a role in Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean reboot, though it never actually mentions him by name. Having failed repeatedly to get the case tossed, Heard countersued for $100 million earlier this summer.
Depp is scheduled to make an appearance at Poland’s Camerimage film festival later this month; the fest did not respond to requests for an update on whether the actor was still slated to attend.
Women’s Use of Intimate Partner Violence against Men: Prevalence, Implications, and Consequences
Evidence showing that women use intimate partner violence (IPV) against their male partners has existed since the 1970s when IPV was first systematically examined. This article discusses the various sources of prevalence rates of IPV by women against men, the dominant theoretical explanation for IPV in general, and its implications for female perpetrators and male victims in the social service and criminal justice systems, as well as the current evidence of the consequences of women’s use of IPV to the men who sustain it. Finally, we discuss directions for future research, including our own study focusing on men who sustain IPV.
2,462 Views 13 CrossRef citations to date 50 Altmetric
‘It’s deemed unmanly’: men’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV)
This study investigated male victims’ experiences of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV). Seven participants were interviewed and the data were analysed using Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Four essential themes were revealed. (1) Participants identified themselves as victims of abuse (experiencing physical and multiple forms of abuse). (2) They felt they were victims of controlling abuse (through the use of children and isolation). (3) Respondents experienced manipulation through gendered stereotypes of abuse. (4) They felt it was different because they were men. The participants within this study were often deeply affected by the abuse they had experienced. Previous research has found male abusers use societal structures and norms to enable their abuse. The participants in this study felt that their female abusers were equally adept doing this, although the mechanisms were different. Further research should look at the processes by which abusers of either gender control and abuse their victims.
Exploring the toxic world of “female privilege” Posted November 4th 2020
“In this heartland of incel rage and misogynist vitriol, ‘female privilege’ becomes the justification for declaring war on women.”
Words: Rachel Thompson
15th May 2019
It was early on Saturday morning when I crossed the threshold into a quarantined community. I was entering r/TheRedPill, a subreddit dedicated to radical misogyny. This breeding ground of anti-women invective and conspiracy theories is so brazenly hostile, it’s literally cordoned off like a health hazard. It was here that I hoped to trace the source of a term that is currently flooding the online forums devoted to male separatism and men’s rights activism.
That term is “female privilege”, and though it’s not one you’d likely hear in everyday conversation, it’s one that’s reverberating loudly through the corridors of the Manosphere — a constellation of anti-women, anti-feminist subcultures.
Since the 1990s, academics have identified “female privilege” as a central tenet of the men’s rights movement. In 1996, the term was used by philosopher Kenneth Clatterbaugh to describe the two schools of thought within the men’s rights movement: “those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation.” Two decades later and the latter school of thought has found its campus on Reddit, home to around 21,000 posts on the topic.
A quick Reddit search pulls up scores of colloquial definitions, theories, and lists to explain the concept in much more, erm, forceful language than Clatterbaugh’s. “Check your privilege, feminist shitlords!” reads a rallying cry of one Redditer who’d penned an exhaustive, 97-point explainer of the many privileges women enjoy over men. “If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working,” they explain. “I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex,” they add.
The means to produce “offspring” is cited as another advantage women have, which men do not. According to the post this grants females an “‘essential’ status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from…even in old age.” As this ridiculous point might imply, the list cites very few attribution links to items stated as facts.
Another lengthy post – authored by a “biological female” who says she speaks “against feminism” – declares that women have “no fear of getting rape accusations after a one-night-stand regrets her decision.” (Extensive fact-checking of this ‘false rape accusation’ narrative has found that men are actually more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape.)
There’s a pattern among Redditers posting about female privilege. Some will cherrypick an individual headline or news story to submit “proof” that, societally, the odds are stacked in favour of women. The distribution of free menstrual products – the point of which is to mitigate widespread period poverty – appears to also be a hot button topic, especially when local government is funding it.
r/TheRedPill is one of the biggest proponents of female privilege, describing itself as a space for “discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.” Its premise is directly derived from the 1999 movie The Matrix, in which protagonist Neo is presented with a choice between two pills: one red, one blue. If he takes the blue pill, he continues to live in an illusory world in a state of blissful ignorance. If he takes the red pill, however, he will shed this mantle of ignorance and the truth will be revealed to him.
In the Red Pill world, that “truth” is that the world in which we currently live now favours women over men. “Our culture has become a feminist culture,” reads the subreddit’s introduction page. “I am here to say, for better or for worse, the frame around public discourse is a feminist frame, and we’ve lost our identity because of it.”
In this “feminist culture,” women possess the ultimate privilege – sexual supremacy. “Feminism is a sexual strategy. It puts women into the best position they can find, to select mates, to determine when they want to switch mates, to locate the best DNA possible, and to garner the most resources they can individually achieve,” the intro page continues.
In this heartland of incel rage and misogynist vitriol, female privilege is a justification for declaring war on feminism. And in this war, women are both the enemy and the most coveted objects of all.
“We should not underestimate the disastrous consequences that could befall women at the hands of online armies of radical misogynists.”
It’s easy to dismiss female privilege as a silly idea dreamt up by crackpot conspiracists; after all it’s an empirical fact that men have vast systemic power over women and, because of that, “female privilege” over men does not exist. But the Red Pill community wields a huge amount of power. A recent study by Florida State University found that the Red Pill forum radicalised its subscribers during the 2016 presidential election, mobilising them to support Donald Trump. Far from being armchair activists with little effect, Trump’s “legion of supporters in alt-right digital spaces” are directly impacting today’s politics. It’s no secret that women’s bodily autonomy and reproductive rights are under threat right now. Last week, Georgia, US, passed a new law banning abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy. Yesterday, Alabama followed suit, restricting abortions in almost all cases.
Under the new laws foetuses are considered persons with full rights, women found guilty of aborting or attempting to abort pregnancies could face prison sentences, and miscarriages could be investigated as possible homicides. We should not underestimate the disastrous consequences that could befall women at the hands of online armies of radical misogynists.
It’s hard to know how people became so invested in the fallacy that women have power over men. In this age of evolving gender roles, these men likely fear that the privileges that have come hand in hand with their gender are under threat. As the famous quote goes: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
Having looked through thousands of posts about female privilege, I can also see that some of these believers occasionally identify instances where men face social inequalities – they’re just mislabelling them as female privilege, which doesn’t exist. What they’re actually posting about is something called “male non-privilege” – like the fact that more men die by suicide than women and the fact that traditional masculinity teaches men to stifle and suppress their emotions, causing psychlogical harm. These instances of male non-privilege often stem from toxic masculinity, which is a by-product of living in a patriarchy.
Experts who’ve studied the causes of online radicalisation say there’s no single route to being radicalised — there are a lot of contributing factors. J.M. Berger, an expert on terrorism and author of Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam, says that radicalisation can takes place when a person has issues in their personal life – like losing a loved one, or experiencing mental illness, or being exposed to violence. To vulnerable men who feel forgotten in the world, communities that unite angry men and fuel their rage might provide a false sense of belonging.
It’s easy to laugh at the absurdity of the views expressed by female privilege believers, but we should be alarmed. We’re already seeing the rights of women being eroded, but given the Red Pill’s instrumental role in getting Trump elected, there’s no telling where radical online misogyny may lead us next.
100 Women: ‘I transitioned and lost my male privilege’
100 Women: ‘I transitioned and lost my male privilege’
“Male privilege” is the concept that men have certain advantages within society for no other reason than the fact they are men.
Tech entrepreneur Dr Vivienne Ming, who is transgender, discovered this in her thirties when she transitioned.
In her role as chief scientist at a tech industry recruitment firm she has also calculated the value of this advantage.
Video journalist: Paul Ivan Harris; Producer: Sarah Buckley
BBC 100 Women names 100 influential and inspirational women around the world every year. In 2017, we’re challenging them to tackle four of the biggest problems facing women today – the glass ceiling, female illiteracy, harassment in public spaces and sexism in sport.
But with such media exposure, visibility and an awareness of trans issues came an – arguably inevitable – backlash.
For some-time, I’ve been dictated to and told what I am or rather what I’m not by others.
Nigerian novelist and feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie rocked the LGBTQ community when she commented, and then went on to re-clarify, why ‘trans women are trans women’ and not just ‘women’.
‘I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man with the privileges that the world accords to men and then sort of change gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning as a woman and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are’, she told Channel 4 News.
I appreciated her point of view, which didn’t completely dismiss me, but I couldn’t agree.
Chimamanda’s comments are the latest in a string of remarks that call into question the ‘realness’ of transgender women.
Recently Woman’s Hour presenter, Dame Jenni Murray accused women like me of not being ‘real’ in an article published in The Sunday Times Magazine. Starting her tirade with ‘I am not transphobic or anti-trans’ – which felt like a kick in the teeth. As I knew what was about to come.
Back in 2012, the author Julie Burchill wrote, ‘Trans women are big white blokes who cut their cocks off’ in an article originally published in The Observer.
A couple of years later Germaine Greer made headlines when she attacked the transgender community on Newsnight by telling the world that Trans women are ‘not women’ because we do not ‘look like, sound like or behave like women’.
I don’t know why I’m transgendered. I don’t know why I feel more comfortable in a female identity
By suggesting I’m not ‘real’ is implying that I’m fake. And I’m tired of this debate.
Why am I always being asked ‘What makes you a woman?’
I feel like I’m constantly having to explain myself, to justify my words and actions, to define and redefine who I am in the hope that others will accept me – so that my existence is in some way validated.
When I read Murray’s comments I immediately jumped onto Twitter to see what responses it evoked from my trans friends, many of who seemed to be rolling their eyes, as if to say ‘Here we go again, time to explain myself once more’.
Transgender journalist Paris Lees directly addressed Murray’s comments – tongue firmly in cheek. ‘Thank God someone has *finally* had the guts to tell trans women we’re not real women. Groundbreaking & completely necessary comments,’ she tweeted.
I don’t know why I’m transgendered. I don’t know why I feel more comfortable in a female identity. I don’t know why after 30 years of living as a man I knew I had to transition. I’ve explored all of these questions and have yet to come up with an answer. It just is. This content is imported from Instagram. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Why I’ve Never Believed in ‘Believe Women’
Imagine that a friend tells you they have been sexually assaulted. What do you do? Your first reaction would, I hope, be sympathy. You would not pepper them with questions: what were they wearing, what were they drinking, what were they thinking? You’d believe them.
Now imagine being a human-resources manager. In front of you is an employee making a claim of sexual harassment against a colleague. Your duty is to ensure the employee’s well-being—but also to decide whether to conduct a formal investigation. You might point them toward counseling resources, but also ask if there is evidence to back up their version of events.
Now you’re a journalist. A woman has just come to you alleging that she was sexually assaulted by a public figure. Your response here is the opposite of a friend’s reaction. You ask about corroboration: letters, answering-machine messages, witnesses, emails, photographs, dates, times. You look for the weaknesses in the story, the omissions, the contradictions. You remember the journalist’s maxim If your mother says she loves you, make her prove it. You do not simply “believe women.”
That’s because “Believe women” isn’t just a terrible slogan for the #MeToo movement; it is a trap. The mantra began as an attempt to redress the poor treatment of those who come forward over abuse, and the feminists who adopted it had good intentions, but its catchiness disguised its weakness: The phrase is too reductive, too essentialist, too open to misinterpretation. Defending its precise meaning has taken up energy better spent talking about the structural changes that would make it obsolete, and it has become a stick with which to beat activists and politicians who care about the subject. The case of Tara Reade, who has accused the presidential candidate Joe Biden of sexual assault, demonstrates the problem.
In the two and a half years since the first wave of #MeToo allegations, scores of famous and non-famous women (and fewer men) have come forward with experiences of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. There have been “cancellations,” job losses, and convictions. There have also been edge cases, uncomfortable gray areas, and men who have said their lives were ruined by nebulous allegations. “Believe women” was intended to capture an undeniable truth: Sexual harassment and sexual assault are so endemic in society that they make the coronavirus look like a rare tropical disease. False allegations do exist, but they are extremely uncommon. (Men are more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape.) When thousands of women tell us that there is a problem with sexual aggression in our society, we should believe them.
That broad truth, however, tells us nothing about the merits of any individual case. And as my colleague Megan Garber has written, “Believe women” has evolved into “Believe all women,” or “Automatically believe women.” This absolutism is wrong, unhelpful, and impossible to defend. The slogan should have been “Don’t dismiss women,” “Give women a fair hearing,” or even “Due process is great.” (Or, you know, something good. Sloganeering is not my forte.) Why did “Believe women” catch on? Possibly because it is almost precision-engineered to generate endless arguments about its meaning, and endless arguments are the fuel of the attention economy otherwise known as internet, newspaper, and television commentary.
As a rallying cry, “Believe women” groups cases together in a deeply unhelpful way. In a court of law, there are grades of offense, and sliding penalties. In the court of public opinion, we talk about rape and a hand on the knee in the same breath. A man who becomes “#MeToo accused”—but whose case is never publicly aired in full—carries a miasma of unspecified wrongdoing. And if there is no possibility of “serving your time,” all the incentives point toward denial rather than confession.
Each new case tends to be read through other, typically unilluminating, reference points. It is hard to find an opinion about Reade that is not also one about Christine Blasey Ford, who publicly accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape when he was nominated by Donald Trump to the United States Supreme Court. (Kavanaugh denied the offense, and he was confirmed.) “Believe women” lumps Reade and Blasey Ford together, demanding that politicians, the media, and observers treat their stories exactly the same. After all, they’re both women, aren’t they?
But the cases are not the same, neither in their details nor how they came to light. Laura McGann at Vox writes that she was one of several mainstream journalists approached by Reade in April last year, and tried hard to corroborate her original allegation—that Biden touched her on the neck and shoulders in a way that made her uncomfortable—but failed. Others did too. Those journalists did not “believe” or “disbelieve” Reade; they didn’t find enough evidence to publish anything close to a definitive account. “If I were an old friend of Reade’s and she told me this same story privately over the course of a year, I doubt I would question her account,” McGann notes. “But I’m not an old friend. I’m a journalist.” The New York Times’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, made a similar point in a spiky interview with his paper’s own media columnist. (Reade later found a hearing among journalists and outlets that have been critical of Biden, and broadened her allegations to include sexual assault. These claims have now been conscripted into the case for ditching Biden as the Democratic nominee in favor of Bernie Sanders.)
One of the hardest #MeToo arguments to make is that sometimes the role of journalists is not to publish, out of fairness to accused men as well as their accusers. It is cruel to expose complainants to the searchlight of publicity when their allegations are flimsy, or to write stories in which inconsistencies are not confronted. Doing so is asking for the accuser to be disbelieved, and that experience can be re-traumatizing.
“Believe women” therefore makes the job of journalists more difficult. It has made necessary skepticism look like hostility. Sources should know that reporters are only asking hard questions because everyone else will. Many interviewees, on any type of story, will offer a version of the past buffed up in numerous tiny ways to make them look better, unaware that they have done so. Being drunk or high doesn’t mean your allegation is not credible, for example, but if those facts are excluded from the initial story, only to be revealed later, your whole narrative will be considered “debunked.” The damage of publishing a story that unravels is huge, not just to the individuals involved, but to the issue of sexual assault as a whole. For instance, gang rape is a real and horrifying phenomenon, but for many people, the sole story they will have heard about it is Rolling Stone’s now-retracted report “A Rape on Campus.”
By and large, it is the liberal left that has adopted the “Believe women” mantra; and, like a gun kept in the house, a weapon of such power is most liable to injure its owner. It provides feminists with no way to rebut or question any particular story without being accused of hypocrisy, turning every marginal case into a “gotcha.” Female politicians get burned both ways: They face angry demands to disassociate themselves from accused men, and equally angry accusations of knee-jerk man-hating if they do. (The case of Senator Al Franken is a sorry tale of well-meaning people feeling the need to decry instantly rather than investigate fully.) As Moira Donegan has noted, female Democrats “have been tasked with cleaning up the mess” from Reade’s allegations. Biden has pledged to pick a woman as his running mate: Expect her to take as much heat on the subject as he does, if not more.
Why has #MeToo become fixated on questions of belief? Because in too many cases, belief is all we have. The worldwide outpouring of traumatic experiences has not led to the structural changes needed to arbitrate claims in anything close to an objective fashion. Instead, in the U.S. and elsewhere, cases are decided along partisan lines. It was painful to read the section of She Said, the book by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, which deals with the Blasey Ford allegations. Here was a woman who tried to do everything right. And then, faced with a Republican artillery barrage, she took refuge in the only place she could, relying on Democrats to champion her cause in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. There was never a neutral forum in which her story could be heard.
This is the final failure of “Believe women,” and demonstrates why it was a mistake to let the slogan take hold. In its needless, provocative overstatement, it derails the #MeToo conversation, and prevents it from moving to the question of how to change structures. If belief is fairy dust, we can simply sprinkle that on women and not worry about the institutions that are letting them down. HR departments too commonly exist to protect companies, not their employees. Serial predators go uncaught because untested rape kits lie piled up in warehouses. Complainants are subjected to a “digital strip search,” and cases are dropped if they won’t allow police to rifle through their data. It is impossible for women to expect justice from a system such as this.
In Britain, an outside lawyer was asked to produce a report on Parliament’s failure to deal with bullying and harassment by powerful politicians. Her recommendations included a confidential helpline, and an independent complaints procedure. This is a promising start: From famous actors to cleaners on short-term contracts, from political staffers to delivery drivers managed by an app, the world of work is more and more fragmented and casual, and new channels for complaints must be created. For criminal allegations to be pursued thoroughly, police forces need to look like the communities they represent, and they need to prosecute sexual offences with sensitivity and rigor. Rape cases are often mentally filed in the “too difficult” box: The attrition rate as they move through the police, prosecution, and the courts is high.
Yes, believe that sexual harassment and assault are far more widespread than we have ever been willing to acknowledge. Believe that “nice guys,” even self-identified feminists, are capable of treating the people around them like dirt. Believe your friends when they are asking for nothing more than your support.
But do not confuse any of that with an injunction to believe any single woman’s public allegation, without caveats, without questions. “Believe women” is a bad slogan, and it should be retired. We should not be expected to believe women. We should instead be able to believe in the system.
Helen Lewis is a London-based staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights.
Comment The ‘Me Too’ movement only works in one direction. It is favoured by the police to help convict accused men. They appeal for other women to come forward to persuade juries of a man’s guilt, on the basis of ‘balance of probabiity.’ This passes for evidence for the CPS, police and courts. In Britain, where Depp went to court to defend his reputation, it did him no good to have other lovers and partners vouch for him. The object is to convict as many men as possible. There is a view that women never lie- and that men need taming and emasculating. R.J Cook
Amber Heard was ‘abuser’ in Johnny Depp relationship, Pirates of the Caribbean’s ex-aide claims
- Monday 13 July 2020, 4:46pm
Amber Heard was the “abuser” in her relationship with Johnny Depp, the actor’s former personal assistant has claimed.
It was also revealed that Stephen Deuters had described Ms Heard as a “sociopathic show pony” and “Machiavellian overlord” in text messages.
A libel hearing was also told that Mr Depp learnt he had lost more than half a billion pounds shortly before his ex-wife’s 30th birthday party and that the actor contracted the superbug MRSA after his finger was severed in an incident in Australia.
As the case at the High Court entered its second week, Mr Depp’s former assistant Mr Deuters alleged that Ms Heard, 34, subjected the 57-year-old, to “years of abuse”, and said he was “extremely surprised and outraged” when it became public that she had filed for a temporary restraining order against the Hollywood star.
In his written witness statement, Mr Deuters, who is now European president of Mr Depp’s production company, Infinitum Nihil, said he was with the couple “very regularly” throughout their relationship, and did not see any injuries on Ms Heard, or hear her mention that she had been the victim of abuse.
Mr Deuters was giving evidence on Monday in his employer’s libel trial against The Sun newspaper’s published, News Group Newspapers (NGN) over an April 2018 article which labelled Mr Depp a “wife beater”.
Mr Depp is said to have attacked Ms Heard, 34, throughout their tempestuous relationship, which has been described as “a crime scene waiting to happen” and put her in fear for her life – claims he says are “a choreographed hoax”.
- Johnny Depp denies slapping Amber Heard over tattoo joke
- ‘Amber Turd’: Johnny Depp accused ex-wife of defecating in their bed, High Court hears
In his written statement, Mr Deuters said that, during the period in which Mr Depp is alleged to have been abusive, he saw Ms Heard “on many occasions”.
“At no point did Ms Heard ever mention any physical abuse and I never saw evidence of any injury to Ms Heard,” he claimed.
Mr Deuters went on to say: “In contrast, Mr Depp told me on multiple occasions that Ms Heard had attacked him or abused him physically and verbally.”
He alleged that the first time Ms Heard made an allegation of physical abuse against Mr Depp was when she filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in 2016.
He said: “In relation to the TRO, I, along with many others, was extremely surprised and outraged when this hit the press.
“I knew that Ms Heard was the abuser in the relationship and I was appalled that she would behave in this way.”
Mr Deuters claimed Ms Heard “had subjected Mr Depp to years of abuse”.
In his witness statement, Mr Deuters referred to a number of alleged incidents of domestic violence, all of which Mr Depp denies, which News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun, is relying on in its defence against the actor’s libel claim.
Mr Deuters said he was on a flight with the couple from Boston to Los Angeles in May 2014, when it is alleged Mr Depp was abusive towards Ms Heard.
Mr Deuters claimed that Ms Heard was “speaking at Mr Depp in an increasingly aggressive manner whilst he was focused on his notebooks, within which he often wrote or drew when flying”.
He said: “At this point, I had my headphones on so I could not hear the specifics of what she was saying but I could see her gesticulating and I could tell from her manner that her voice was raised.
“She continued to harangue Mr Depp, whereas he did not engage with the abuse he was receiving.”
Mr Deuters said that, at one point, Mr Depp “made a playful attempt to tap her (Ms Heard) on the bottom”, adding that he did not believe that Mr Depp made contact with her.
He said: “Ms Heard took great offence at what was clearly a harmless gesture and increased her abuse of Mr Depp in an extremely unpleasant manner.”
Mr Deuters went on to say that he, and Mr Depp’s former private security guard, Jerry Judge, “decided to intervene in order to attempt to calm down Ms Heard”, with Mr Judge taking her aside.
“I believe I spoke briefly to Mr Depp and he then retreated to the bathroom of the plane where he remained for the rest of the flight.
“This was a common theme on the multiple times when Mr Depp was abused by Ms Heard – he would take himself away from the situation, often to a bathroom, and lock himself out harm’s way.”
Mr Deuters said that the day after the flight, Mr Depp asked him to “mollify” Ms Heard and “to say whatever was needed to try and placate her”.
“Given Ms Heard’s extremely volatile nature, I thought it best to try to engage with her on her own terms and simply apologise for what she was alleging had happened; hence my use of the word ‘kicked’, which is the word which Ms Heard herself had used.
“As I have made clear, Mr Depp had not kicked Ms Heard.”
- Description of Johnny Depp as “wife beater” is accurate, newspaper lawyers say
- Depp praised Heard as “heroic” when she tried to get him clean, court hears
Mr Deuters also gave evidence on the couple’s trip to Australia in March 2015, during which it is alleged Mr Depp assaulted Ms Heard and “completely destroyed” a house in a drink- and drug-fuelled rage, which the actor denies.
Mr Depp’s finger was severed during the trip, and he alleges it was caused by Ms Heard throwing a vodka bottle at him, which she denies.
Last week, the court was told Mr Depp used his severed finger, dipped in paint, to scrawl graffiti in the house.
On Monday, Mr Deuters said he was not present when the injury occurred, and he saw Mr Depp when the actor was taken to a hotel by his security team.
He claimed that, the following day, Mr Depp told him and two others “he had sustained his injury when Ms Heard had thrown a bottle at him which smashed on his hand”.
Mr Deuters also said that Mr Depp “did not want to cause alarm by letting the true cause of his injuries be known” and they were “instructed to say that Mr Depp had caught his finger in a door.”
Mr Deuters was asked about how he felt when Mr Depp and Ms Heard finally split up, and he agreed that he would have been “relieved”.
The barrister then read out a text from Mr Deuters to Mr Depp’s friend Paul Bettany on May 26 2016, which read: “That moment when everything comes home to roost and all the shit compounds itself into one monstrous steaming pile of catastrophe.
“Just trying to keep him upright at the moment. But at least the bitch is gone. Yes, I do mean Amber – not the Mom.
“Poor Betty Sue (Mr Depp’s mother) has been on her way out for the last six months – it was a relief to all, most of all herself.”
The next message by Mr Deuters, apparently describing Ms Heard, read: “Sociopathic show pony. Machiavellian overlord.
“Talentless c***. Good riddance to bad shit. Yes, I do mean Amber not the Mom, even though she was a devil herself.”
According to Mr Deuters’ statement, he has worked for Mr Depp since 2004.
On Monday, Mr Depp’s barrister, David Sherborne asked the actor about an alleged incident in Los Angeles on March 23, 2015, when he is said to have grabbed Ms Heard by the hair with one hand and hit her “repeatedly in the head with the other”.
It is claimed the incident took place shortly after the couple visited Australia.
Mr Depp said: “I flew back from Australia to LA to have surgery on the finger and, at that time, they had put a pin in it, in the broken bone, the fractured bone, but to no avail.”
He added that he “ended up getting MRSA; it’s quite a painful disease”.
Mr Depp explained he was wearing a cast on his hand with a “little dinosaur” on it because he had decided if he was going to have to wear one he should have the children’s “wraparound” on it as it was “more fun”.
The actor confirmed he was wearing the cast at the time of the alleged incident in LA’s Eastern Columbia building.
Mr Sherborne asked: “And with that cast on, would you have been able to grab her hair with one hand and punch her repeatedly with the other?”
Mr Depp replied: “No sir.”
Earlier on Monday, Mr Sherborne also asked Mr Depp about an argument after Ms Heard’s 30th birthday party at the couple’s LA penthouse on April 21, 2016, which the actor attended after a “bad meeting” with his new business manager.
Mr Depp said: “I was in the early stage of learning from my recently acquired new business manager that the former business managers had (taken) quite a lot of my money. They had stolen my money.”
Mr Sherborne asked: “How much money had they taken from you?”
The actor replied: “It was put to me this way, because I had no idea about money or amounts of money.
“Since Pirates (Of The Caribbean) 2 and 3, I had – and this is ludicrous to have to state, it’s quite embarrassing – apparently I had made $650 million (£510 million) and when I sacked them, for the right reasons, I had not only lost $650 million, but I was $100 million in the hole because they (the previous business managers) had not paid the government my taxes for 17 years.”
Since Tuesday last week, Mr Depp has been questioned about 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence, as well as his Hollywood lifestyle, past relationships with Vanessa Paradis, Winona Ryder and Kate Moss, and his well-documented use of drink and drugs.
The actor is suing NGN and Mr Wootton over the publication of an article on April 27, 2018 with the headline: “Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?”
NGN is defending the article as true, and says Mr Depp was “controlling and verbally and physically abusive towards Ms Heard, particularly when he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs”.
Johnny Depp’s defeat in libel case hailed by domestic violence charities
The trial highlighted tactics used to silence and discredit victims, say campaigners
Last modified on Mon 2 Nov 2020 20.17 GMT
Johnny Depp’s defeat in the London libel courts has been hailed by domestic violence charities as a victory that should encourage other victims to come forward and seek justice.
The judgment on Monday by the high court that the Sun was justified in describing the Pirates of the Caribbean star as a “wife beater” was welcomed by lawyers and campaign groups who support those who have experienced domestic abuse.
The damage to the Hollywood actor’s reputation, following one of the most widely followed libel trials of the century, will be extensive. His lawyers said he was likely to appeal against the “perverse and bewildering decision”.Hollywood assumptions overturned by Johnny Depp’s court defeatRead more
The four-week trial exemplified tactics used to silence and discredit victims, according to domestic violence charities.
In the 129-page ruling, the judge, Mr Justice Nicol, concluded: “The claimant [Depp] has not succeeded in his action for libel … The defendants [the Sun and News Group Newspapers] have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true.
“I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard.”
The judge said he did not accept Depp’s characterisation of his ex-wife as a gold-digger. Nicol noted: “Her donation of … $7m to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger”.
In 12 out of the 14 incidents of assault reported by Heard, the judge said he found the allegations proved. “I do not regard [the Sun’s] inability to make good these allegations [in the other two incidents] as of importance in determining whether they have established the substantial truth of the words that they published.”Depp libel trial reveals problems of proof in domestic violence casesRead more
Depp, 57, sued the Sun’s publisher, News Group Newspapers (NGN), and its executive editor, Dan Wootton, over an article published in the Sun that originally carried the headline “Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?”
NGN relied on a defence of truth to the claim. The burden of proof was on the Sun to demonstrate that the story was substantially accurate on the balance of probabilities. This is the standard of proof in a civil case, whereas in a criminal case it relies on the matter being beyond reasonable doubt.Cocaine binges and $30,000 wine bills: Johnny Depp’s lifestyle laid bareRead more
Depp’s lawyers had argued that the gravity of the allegations meant that the civil standard of proof applied in defamation cases should be applied “flexibly”, so that the more serious the allegation “the stronger must be the evidence before a court”.
Immediately after the ruling, the publisher issued a statement saying: “The Sun has stood up and campaigned for the victims of domestic abuse for over 20 years. Domestic abuse victims must never be silenced, and we thank the judge for his careful consideration and thank Amber Heard for her courage in giving evidence to the court.”
The US lawyer representing Heard in her forthcoming defamation case on similar grounds in the US, Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, said: “For those of us present for the London high court trial, this decision and judgment are not a surprise.
“Very soon, we will be presenting even more voluminous evidence in the US. We are committed to obtaining justice for Amber Heard in the US court and defending Ms Heard’s right to free speech.”
Jenny Afia, the solicitor at the London law firm of Schillings, which represented Depp, said: “This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering. Most troubling is the judge’s reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point. All of this was overlooked.
“The judgment is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision.”
Although Depp’s lawyers have indicated he is likely to appeal, it may prove difficult for them to overturn what are findings of fact by the trial judge. The judge’s rulings on those points are effectively similar to a jury’s verdict in a crown court. Appeals are normally on points of law.
Commenting on the decision, Caroline Kean, a partner at the London law firm Wiggin LLP, said: “This is a heartening and just decision which serves as a reminder that British libel laws are not there to curtail free speech and the media’s right to publish on stories of global interest.
“This case was effectively a forum for two private individuals to slug it out and a clear misuse of taxpayers’ money, taking up court resources that could have been deployed for more worthy causes.”
Lisa King, from the domestic violence charity Refuge, said: “This is an important ruling and one which we hope sends a very powerful message: every single survivor of domestic abuse should be listened to and should be heard. No survivor should ever have her voice silenced.
“A common tactic used by perpetrators of domestic abuse is to repeatedly tell victims that no one will believe them – and to use power and control to try and silence them. What we have seen today is that power, fame and financial resources cannot be used to silence women. That is a welcome message for survivors of domestic abuse around the world.”
Harriet Wistrich, the founder of the Centre for Women’s Justice, said: “So many women who have tried to speak out or share their experiences are being threatened with libel actions. This is a really helpful judgment and will serve as a warning to men who think they can silence those who speak out about their abuse.”
Nicki Norman, acting chief executive at Women’s Aid, said: “The allegations of domestic abuse against Johnny Depp were extremely serious. Everyone who has experienced domestic abuse deserves to be listened to and believed. This also applies to survivors who do not fit the image of the ‘perfect’ victim – and regardless of the high profile of the alleged abuser. There is no excuse for domestic abuse.”
Sarah Harding, a partner specialising in family law at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: “It is hoped that this case will encourage other victims of domestic violence to come forward and seek the protection that they need. In addition to the Me Too movement and the domestic abuse bill … this case will highlight that the courts do listen, regardless of wealth or stature.”
Comment Men need to think very carefully about the risks and dangers of marriage. Women are on the one hand equal, on the other hand all vulnerable and always honest. Men must tread carefully and never raise voice or hand in self defence or danger. The tabloids, posh young bucks and feminists will finish a man off . It is no wonder we lack male role models and men leave teaching in droves. R.J Cook
Johnny Depp Loses libel case, a woman’s word is always taken as truth, no evidence of domestic violence but women don’t need evidence, only tears. They complain about lack of sex but can withdraw consent at any time. There is a dangerous myth that women are never violent unless a man provokes and deserves it, and that women never lie. So why do men bother with women any more ? Why do so many males queue up for sex change or go gay – or mad ? Comment by R.J Cook, report below. November 2nd 2020
Johnny Depp has lost his libel battle against NGN over an article published in The Sun which branded him a “wife beater”.
The Pirates of The Caribbean actor – who denied ever being violent towards his ex-wife Amber Heard – sued for libel over the story, which was published in 2018, and the trial took place at London’s High Court over the summer.
The judgement was handed down today.
The trial took place over 16 days in July and featured testimony from Depp himself as well as his ex-wife Heard.
The case rested on 14 alleged incidents of domestic abuse which lawyers for NGN argued demonstrated the article by The Sun was not libellous.
The claims included details of alleged bust-ups between the pair which were said to have occurred between 2013 and 2016.
The Pulse The Pulse
Incredible viral video shows baby in amniotic sac outside the womb
The incredible video has been viewed over 22 MILLION times. Wed Mar 2, 2016 – 4:15 pm EST
By Kristi Burton Brown
March 2, 2016 (LiveActionNews) — In roughly two weeks, a video of a baby born inside her amniotic sac has been viewed over 22 million times. This beautiful baby can be seen moving her arms, mouth open, inside her tight quarters as the doctor’s hand is on her. According to the Daily Mail, “the baby seems to respond to [the doctor’s] touch and can be seen moving inside the enclosed space.”
Then, when the doctor opens the sac so the baby can come out, she wails and breathes like any other newborn.
CNN reports that babies are born while still inside their amniotic very rarely – less than 1 in every 80,000 births. A baby boy, Silas Phillips, was born inside his sac about one year ago in the U.S., and a photo snapped by his doctor also went viral.
The amniotic sac is a baby’s safe place inside her mother’s womb. This baby’s amazing and highly unusual birth caused the Daily Mail to educate its readers about how babies live inside the amniotic sac during their time inside their mothers’ wombs. The Mail showed the photo below, an incredible photo of a baby early on in her first trimester, developing, growing, and living safely in her own amniotic sac.
Whether a baby has just begun her life inside the womb, or whether she has just been born outside, her humanity is evident and beautiful. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
The Endowment for Human Development, a scientific nonprofit that has worked with National Geographic to produce a video on prenatal development, explains that the purpose of the amniotic sac is to protect the preborn child until she emerges into the world:
By 4 weeks the clear amnion surrounds the embryo in a fluid-filled sac. This sterile liquid, called amniotic fluid, provides the embryo with protection from injury.
Comment Women need to be careful. This could make them redundant. I listened to a feminist BBC radio programme, back before Covid madness cost me my trucking job, I heard a whingeing feminist saying these sacs should be banned because if they catch on they will lose all their power.
These mordant young and old hags make much of the horrors of pregnancy. The whole business needs taking from their hands. Let them focus on their dreary sterile power mad careers. They need to stop messing up kids of both sexes with their weird ideas and politics of gender. R.J CookWomen need to
The ‘she-cession’: Why women are leaving the workforce Posted October 31st 2020
The ‘she-cession’: Why women are leaving the workforce
It’s time to end the myth that working mothers “opt out” of their careers to become stay-at-home moms, said Sarah Green Carmichael at Bloomberg. As the pandemic is making clear, “when women leave the workforce, they’re not exercising their options — they’ve run out of them.” In August and September, 865,000 women dropped out of the U.S. labor force — four times as many as men who did. “And it might get worse.” One in 4 working women, and 1 in 3 who are mothers, say they are considering quitting or cutting back their hours. As other surveys indicate, the demands of child care are a major factor. With many day-care centers closed and half of the nation’s K-12 students attending online-only classes, mothers often have little choice but to stay home. Bad public policy always plays a role in these decisions, but “policymakers are MIA, apparently expecting women to be the shock absorbers of the economy.”
The impact on women’s careers may last for years, said Andrea Hsu at NPR. Consider Joyce Chen, an associate professor of economics at Ohio State University. Early in 2020 she was working on several research projects with her eye on promotion to full professor. But when in-person classes ended for her children, the mother of three suddenly had to trim work back to teaching only, passing up grant and publishing opportunities. “That’s something that’s going to ripple out through your entire career,” she says. And Chen knows, because she has studied the “mom penalty” — a hit in pay for women who have children that is partly related to periods when they step back from their professions. But one disadvantage feeds another, because with their lower average wage, at all educational levels, women in a two-income household are more likely to drop out when child-care needs arise.
If women wind up deciding next week’s election, it’ll be only fair, said the New York Daily News in an editorial. “The COVID-19 pandemic may have erased a generation’s worth of hard-won progress in closing persistent gender disparities in pay,” and recent news has been particularly bad: In September, single men gained 1 million jobs while married women lost 1.2 million. The simple solution is an economic recovery plan that focuses on women’s challenges, said Gina Raimondo and Mary Kay Henry at The Washington Post. Two-thirds of the nation’s minimum-wage earners are women, and those wages aren’t enough to survive on. The U.S. remains the only industrialized nation that doesn’t guarantee paid family leave, and “investment in affordable child-care programs is critical.” Men will benefit, too, and so will business. “To build an equitable and resilient economy, let’s start with women.”
The deep roots of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party
During the Conservative Party leadership election last year, Sajid Javid put his fellow candidates on the spot: will you agree to an inquiry into Islamophobia within the party? Boris Johnson agreed, and after delays and prevarication, an inquiry was launched earlier this year.
Today, HOPE not hate is publishing our submission to the inquiry.
In recent years, HOPE not hate has tracked, highlighted and campaigned against the poison of hatred impacting individual political parties. None have been immune. For several years, there have been well-documented incidents of Conservative Party MPs, councillors and locally-elected representatives engaging in vile racism, particularly towards Muslims. Muslim members have reported a lack of action when they complained. Many have resigned from the party in protest.
Our submission covers:
- Exclusive new polling of Conservative members, conducted by YouGov and commissioned by HOPE not hate, showing the widespread nature of negative attitudes towards Muslims and other discriminatory views within the Conservatives’ grassroots
- Case studies of Conservative councillors, MPs and activists who have been subject to complaints but either faced no disciplinary action or were allowed back in after a short suspension
- An analysis of the Conservative Party’s disciplinary processes and how improvements to those would improve the procedural issue, and aid the attempts to fix the cultural issue of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice within the Conservative Party.
In June 2019, following media coverage of Islamophobic incidents within the Conservative Party, HOPE not hate commissioned YouGov to poll Tory Party members. We wanted to understand how they viewed British Muslims, Islam more generally, and the issues of Islamophobia within their party. The full results were alarming. To assist with our submission, we have commissioned new polling of party members, carried out by YouGov, whose polling of Conservative Party members is widely considered to be the gold standard and which has been cited, or praised for their accuracy, by The Times, The Telegraph and ConservativeHome.
The poll found that there continues to be widespread suspicion, prejudice and hostility towards Muslims amongst Conservative Party members. Amongst the poll’s The polling alarming, and depressing, findings:
- 57% of party members had a negative attitude towards Muslims, with 21% registering a very negative attitude. This is more than twice the number of those with negative attitudes towards Hindus and Jewish people, and the fifth of respondents with very negative attitudes compares with just 3% who felt the same about Jews, Hindus and Sikhs.
- Half of Conservative Party members (47%) believe that Islam is “a threat to the British way of life”, while 58% believed that “there are no go areas in Britain where Sharia law dominates and non-Muslims cannot enter”. This figure rose to 66% of those who backed Boris Johnson in the 2019 leadership election.
- Over a third of Tory members thought that Islamist terrorists reflect a widespread hostility to Britain amongst the Muslim community, compared to 53% who thought it was wrong to blame all Muslims for the actions of a violent minority. Opinion was evenly divided amongst Johnson supporters, with 44% believing the former statement and 46% the latter.
Conservative Party members hold significantly more negative attitudes towards Muslims than the general public. In a separate poll commissioned by HOPE not hate, YouGov asked the same questions in a national poll. Just under a third of the general public (30%) thought Islam was a threat to the British way of life (compared to 47% of Tory members), while 37% of the public thought that there were no go areas where non-Muslims could not enter (compared to 47% of Tory members). Conservative members were more than doubly as likely to think that Islamist terrorists reflect a widespread hostility to Britain amongst the Muslim community than in the national poll.
Distressingly, Conservative Party members refuse to believe that their party has a problem with Islamophobia:
- 79% believe that there is no problem, just 9% think there is. Among Johnson supporters this grew to 86% and fell to 4% respectively
- Only one in six party members (17%) felt that the Conservative Party should be doing more to combat Islamophobia and other racism within the party, compared to 74% who believed that the party was already doing all it reasonably can. Johnson supporters split 8% and 85% respectively
The polling represents a huge challenge to the party’s leadership, demonstrating that Islamophobia is a widely spread view within the party’s membership. This is underlined by the continued inaction, or tepid action, against members – some of whom are senior members – who engage is outright Islamophobic activity.
On 26 November 2019, the Prime Minister denied claims that the Conservative Party’s complaints process was ineffectual, saying “What we do in the Tory party is when anybody is guilty of any kind of prejudice or discrimination against another group then they’re out first bounce”. This unusual turn of phrase is somewhat open to interpretation, but it was widely taken as meaning that the Conservative Party would expel members who were guilty of prejudice or discrimination, and that a single instance of such behaviour would be enough to merit such an action. Yet there is considerable evidence to show that Mr Johnson was wrong in this claim, whether or not he was aware of it. For our submission to the Inquiry, we collated forty examples of cases where prejudiced and discriminatory actions by Conservative Party officials, activists and members have resulted in either short term suspensions or no action at all. It is important to stress that these case studies are far from an exhaustive list. Some high-profile cases were not highlighted because they have already received widespread media attention. We were only able to include such cases as were reported in the media or otherwise brought to our attention; it is impossible to know how many similar cases go unreported. What is clear from these case studies is that the Party’s complaints process is not working: it is not robust, it is under-resourced, it is arbitrary and open to political interference, and it is lacks the transparency required to build trust with those impacted by the actions of Islamophobic members.
In our submission, we offer to assist the Conservative Party in improving their process, and in strategising how to combat the high levels of Islamophobia within the party. We also recommend that:
- The Party create an independent complaints and disciplinary procedure for the Conservative Party
- The Party initiate an open and transparent system for suspending members subject to investigations, ensuring a due process and support and clarity for complainants
- A programme of training for members on Islamophobia, anti-Muslim prejudice and understanding British Muslims be set-up. This programme should include opportunities for all members to learn, compulsory training for MPs and other leaders and a system for requiring those disciplined to partake in it
- The leadership of the Conservative Party commit to making greater efforts to promote a more positive image of Muslims to members and the wider public and call out anti-Muslim prejudice wherever it is found.
Our polling and the case studies included in our submissions should send a wave of alarm through the party’s leadership. While the party’s leading figures have been keen to rightly call for Labour to do more to tackle antisemitism within its own ranks, with a few admirable exceptions, they have been less eager to call out racism within their own party. It is not good enough to only oppose racism when it is also politically expedient to do so. Whether the party – from it’s leader on down – is serious about tackling Islamophobia within the party will be measured not by warm words but by tangible actions, starting with an admission that the problem exists in the first place.
Why Understanding The UK Anti-Feminist Movement Is Vital To Countering The Far Right
Manosphere ideas have snowballed into an ideology that has taken on a life of its own, and for some it has served as a route into wider far-right politics.
“Feminists attack liberty, justice, equality and meritocracy. They attack men, women, and children, and relations between the sexes,” so declared British anti-feminist activists in a 2018 online statement.
Its signatories included key UK far-right vlogger Paul Joseph Watson, Breitbart London writer James Delingpole and Valerie Price, National Director of ACT! For Canada (which is tied to the major US anti-Muslim organisation, ACT! For America). The statement’s impact was nonetheless negligible; exemplifying the marginal nature of organised anti-feminist politics in the UK.
But the operative word there, however, is ‘organised’. Recent events and a glance across thecontemporary far-right landscape will find many voices who share this conspiratorial and hostile view of feminism. Whilst this is not new, HOPE not hate’s newly-released State of Hate report explores how the UK anti-feminist movement is trying to mobilise this support and the role of a particular online community in this.
Far-right movements have long held sexist, misogynist and anti-feminist views. Yet, in a pronounced way, for elements of the contemporary far right these ideas are not merely a result of their wider political outlook but rather a central pillar of their ideology (in some cases alongside disavowals of other bigotries).
A key influence here is the ‘manosphere’: a loose collection of websites, forums, blogs and vlogs concerned with men’s issues and masculinity, oriented around an opposition to feminism and, within parts, embrace of extreme misogyny and wider hatred.
The manosphere interprets feminism as an effort to promote misandry (contempt or prejudice of men), rather than gender equality. This perception is central to understanding this online world. While many of its interests and ideas are inherently sexist, anti-feminist and misogynistic, others – such as concerns about male suicide – are not themselves expressions of such. Rather, they are viewed in the manosphere through a lens which places the blame for such issues at the feet of women, feminism and progressive politics.
Manosphere ideas have snowballed into an ideology that has taken on a life of its own, and for some it has served as a route into wider far-right politics. For others who have kept their focus on gender, particularly for a subculture known as ‘incels’ (involuntary celibates), it has ledtomisogynisticviolence in some cases.
Whilst sexism, misogyny and anti-feminism remain endemic issues in the UK, organised political movements that are primarily focused on these ideas remain small and at the fringes.
Electorally, the sole group in the UK solely concerned with anti-feminism is the ‘Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them)’ Party (J4MB), founded in 2013.
J4MB is electorally marginal and in practice the party functions as a pressure group carrying out small demonstrations (to little attention). More effective has been the party’s ability to act as the central organiser of UK anti-feminist activity, and as a liaison to anti-feminists abroad.
In 2018, J4MB co-organised the annual International Conference on Men’s Issues (ICMI), the key international meetup for anti-feminist activists, which in this case saw roughly 150 attendees from Europe, America, India and Australia meeting in London.
Beyond J4MB, offline UK anti-feminist groups are few and similarly marginal, such as the disparate ‘Network4Men’ community which believes “Feminism is now the ruling ideology in Western society” and “Culture and law is being melded to conform with this anti-men and anti-family agenda”.
The manosphere community in the UK (and abroad) is found predominantly online. As our new report details, evidence suggests that after the US, the UK is one of the major sources of manosphere traffic.
Yet, despite this activity, the various subcultures of the manosphere tend to undermine their own political growth, often because they are focused on individual lifestyles or because they largely reject collective action.
Incels can pose a violent threat, though this is undermined at times by a deeply pessimistic outlook and lack of traditional organisation. At the same time, as sociologist Ross Haenfler has highlighted, this does not mean incel communities can’t play a role in catalysing seemingly lone actor attacks.
In contrast, anti-feminist ‘Men’s Right’s Activists’ (MRA) like J4MB have the clearest path to growth. This is because they employ a framework (however misguidedly) of human rights activism. MRA’s efforts aim at mobilising those who not only do not see themselves as feminists but who believe feminism to be inherently harmful.
To this end, MRAs follow the current far-right trend of presenting themselves as martyrs for free speech; censored for merely trying to speak the ‘truth’ about ‘dangerous’ progressive ideas.
By promoting the idea that feminism is an authoritarian, dangerous ideology, MRAs create room for sexism and misogyny to be legitimised through the undermining of feminist reform, and perpetuate ideas about gender that – contrary to MRA beliefs – harm men too.
Many feminist activists are doing brilliant, vital work countering the manosphere and HOPE not hate is determined to give greater attention to counteracting it too. Not only is it essential that we fight for the feminist cause for its own end, but as we are increasingly seeing, anti-feminism is acting as a prominent route into the wider far right for many, making it core to the mission of fighting hate and restoring hope in society more widely. Simon Murdoch