Misogyny Hate Crime: How the Trick is Performed

Stella Creasy, MP

At what point do we draw the line?

And when that line is crossed, what next?

What is a “Consultation” for? For those who think it is to test public opinion so that said opinion may be used to steer Government policy, you really haven’t been paying attention. A Consultation is an announcement to the activists that the end-game of this particular play is near at hand. The Government, and in this case the Law Commission, put the Con in Consultation.

Does anyone think that when the Government, under Theresa May as Home Secretary, called in September 2014 for “Consultation” on the proposed criminalisation of Coercive Control that this was anything other than a charade? I didn’t, even at the time, despite making a 100+ page submission (under J4MB cover).  

Then there was the hilarious Consultation on the 2020 Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill. 80% to 83% of people who responded disagreed with the key proposals of the Bill, a fact that was raised by more than one member of the House of Lords during the Bill’s passage. What difference did it make? None.

These things are planned and prepared many years in advance. So it has been with the drive to make misogyny a crime within primary legislation. It has not suddenly popped up this year, or even since the 2018 Bracadale report. It probably first came to public notice in July 2016 when Sue Fish, after just three weeks in the job as Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, announced that, “Nottinghamshire Police, in partnership with Nottingham Women’s Centre, has become the first force in the country to recognise misogyny as a hate crime.

You may be puzzled. You should be. The police cannot simply create new crimes. That is the job of Parliament. Let me spell out how a pressure group can create new primary legislation from nothing.

You don’t start from now, you start from at least 6 years ago, probably much longer back than that. “You” in this case means Nottingham Women’s Centre. They started by woozling up a bit of advocacy “research” funded by Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

On the strength of that, Nottingham Women’s Centre inveigled Nottinghamshire Police into taking part in a series of Safer for Women Conferences where the coppers were regaled with suitably worrisome stories illustrating “the breadth of violence and intimidation that women experience on a daily basis” in the communities they police. This is Women’s Aid training the police. It is routine in the VAWG context. Nothing new here, move along.

But the real purpose of these training sessions is to “encourage more women to come forward and report offences”. They are not so foolish as to lobby immediately for primary legislation against misogyny. They prepare the ground first. The plan is to get data showing how huge is the problem of misogyny. But they, i.e., Women’s Aid, do not do this themselves; they get the police to do it. By this means it attains the aura of independence (no need to mention the police are merely Women’s Aid’s puppets). But even better, as police data, the “hate crime statistics” appear to be real crime data.

They are not, of course. Because the police cannot create new crimes. The term “hate crime” is used to conjure the impression of a statutory offence; it’s all part of the manipulation of perception and opinion. But the definition that Nottinghamshire Police adopted (and one can be certain where it came from), was,

A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.

You may recall that in the CPS VAWG reports, Violence does not mean violence, Women does not mean women, and Girls does not mean girls. Similarly, the definition of the phrase “Hate Crime” implies neither hate nor any crime. Hate, of course, would be the state of mind of the supposed villain. But that’s irrelevant. It is only the perception of the alleged “victim” – or, indeed, some bystander – which matters in classifying “any incident” as a Hate Crime.

You see how that works? The definition casts the net as wide as possible. The sole purpose is to maximise the number of “incidents” recorded by the police as hate crimes. And a key part of the police training is that they must ask about the potential for any incident they attend having been motivated by “prejudice or hatred”. Your house was burgled? Could it have been motivated by hate, madam? Well it wasn’t motivated by love, I suppose.

In short, just as research may be woozled, so also police statistics can be woozled so long as you can get at them for a spot of “training”. The end result is an alarming picture of rampant male vileness, oppressing women and making women fearful as a matter of everyday routine – and the police have hard statistical evidence to prove it.

Following Nottinghamshire Police recognising misogyny as a hate crime (even though it isn’t) in July 2016, it was inevitable that other forces would follow suit. North Yorkshire was next in May 2017, pushed in that direction by Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire, Julia Mulligan, and announced in March 2017 by Deputy Chief Constable for North Yorkshire, Lisa Winward.

Just as the Nottingham Women’s Centre was behind the move in that county, so in North Yorkshire there were also women’s organisations in the role of éminence grise, specifically the Sheffield Women’s Network and “women from York St John University“. Who the latter individuals might be I know not, but I note that, at the time, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of York St John University was Ann Margaret Green, CBE, and the Governor and Vice Chancellor of the University was Professor Karen Stanton.  

I trust you are noting the sex of all the parties involved in setting up this system of sexist jurisprudential manipulation.  

How did North Yorkshire define misogyny hate crime? By definition it can be committed only by a man or a boy, and the victim can only be a woman or a girl. The “offence” is any male person doing the following to any female person,

  • unwanted or uninvited sexual advances;
  • physical or verbal assault;
  • unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement;
  • sexually graphic and explicit obscene language;
  • use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent.

“Uninvited verbal contact” means a man is not permitted to speak to a woman until spoken to. As for uninvited electronic messages, that applies to virtually every email or text you ever receive.

Recall that this is a police invention, not a crime at all. Its purpose is to gather and record data to use to motivate later calls for primary legislation. Being an open invitation to regard anything as a hate crime is entirely deliberate.

Note also that, because it is an invention – essentially just some data gathering which the police choose to carry out – it is not subject to any equality restrictions. For this reason it can be done for just one sex, without any statistics on “misandry hate crimes” being gathered. (Not that men are socialised to recognise such things).

Seven of the 43 police forces in England and Wales now class misogyny as a hate crime.

And so to the present. Let’s take Scotland first as the Scottish Parliament currently has a Government-backed Hate Crime Bill progressing through its processes.

The background to this Bill was a review in 2018 by Lord Bracadale who was appointed by the Scottish Government to review hate crime legislation in Scotland and to consider whether existing laws represent the most effective approach for the justice system to deal with criminal conduct motivated by hatred, malice, ill-will or prejudice.  On 31 May 2018 he published his review report and recommendations which included consolidation of hate crime legislation and the addition of gender and age hostility aggravations. However, the Scottish Government later explained that,

While Lord Bracadale, in his review of hate crime legislation, recommended that gender should be added to hate crime law, leading women’s organisations were strongly opposed to this approach. They proposed a standalone offence on misogynistic harassment be developed, which the Scottish Government is committed to in principle. A working group will be established to take this forward and consider how the criminal justice system deals with misogyny, including whether there are gaps in the law that could be filled with a specific offence on misogynistic harassment.”

My understanding is that the Scottish Bill as it stands extends the hate crime legislation to cover hostility based on age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, and “variations in sex characteristics”, but does not, as yet, cover sex or gender. However, it contains the stipulation that “Scottish Ministers may by regulations add the characteristic of sex to the list of characteristics”. This is a strange way of proceeding as it appears to bypass their Parliament on this issue. Taken literally, this Ministerial power would be confined to adding “sex” as the characteristic, not specifically the female sex, though I suppose the Act may be a hostage to fortune as regards Ministers taking liberties with the interpretation.

Turning now to England & Wales. Firstly, there is a misogyny Bill – the Hate Crime (Misogyny) Bill 2019-21 – currently scheduled for its 2nd reading in the Commons on 13th November 2020. As a private members Bill (brought by Wera Hobhouse MP, Lib Dem, Bath) it is unlikely to go far, but given the subject matter, one never knows. It needs watching.

However I shall concentrate here upon the Hate Crime “Consultation Paper” issued by the Law Commission on 23rd September 2020 (see also the summary report). This is more likely to be the prelude to primary legislation.

A Consultation might be expected (by those innocents not versed in the arts of political manipulation) to simply pose neutral questions for respondents to address, without biasing the likely responses in one direction or another. The Law Commission’s “Consultation” is far from that. It actually presents the case for making misogyny a hate crime. It is a wildly partisan political position statement, with a Con-Con-Consultation tagged on.

The word “misogyny” appears in the Consultation Paper 73 times. The word “misandry” appears just once.

A report commissioned by our old friends the Nottingham Women’s Centre was cited six times in the Consultation Paper, they liked it so much (Professor Louise Mullany and Dr. Loretta Trickett, Misogyny Hate Crime Evaluation Report, July 2018).

But the Law Commission’s favourite author was Hannah Mason-Bish of the Department of Sociology, University of Sussex. She got 27 citations, for such belters as , “Some men deeply hate women, and express that hatred freely: Examining victims’ experiences and perceptions of gendered hate crime” (published this year in the International Review of Victimology). The Abstract starts,

Extensive debate about the place of gender within the hate-crime policy domain has been fuelled by national victimisation surveys indicating people’s experiences of ‘gender hate crime’ coupled with Nottinghamshire Police’s decision to begin categorising misogynistic street harassment as a form of hate crime.”

Bit of a common factor in evidence, isn’t there?

One of the repeatedly cited works of Hannah Mason-Bish was published in Feminist Criminology. I’m sure readers must be familiar with that august organ. Well, you certainly won’t be familiar with White Male Criminology.   

It is difficult to convey the tenor of the Consultation Paper without quoting a great deal of it, so I’m afraid I’m going to. Sorry for the length, but bear in mind this is still just a selection of the 73 instances of “misogyny”. It is not just the content of these extracts which is revealing, but also the language used, which clearly emanates from the feminist lexicon…

An oft-cited concern with the current approach to combatting hate crime is the lack of acknowledgment of the intersectional nature of victims’ characteristics. By “intersectional” we mean the fact that some people experience multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination and abuse – for example, lesbian women may experience both misogyny and homophobia, and sometimes both at the same time.

We spoke to many advocates for the recognition of “misogyny” in hate crime laws. (There is no indication that they spoke to anyone who thought that the hate crime laws should not be extended at all, or done away with altogether).

recognition of the nature of the problem, and the particular harms caused by hate, has led to police taking these incidents more seriously. This in turn often leads to better experiences for victims. The experiences of police recognising hate crime against sex workers in Merseyside, and more recently misogyny in Nottingham, were cited as particularly good examples of this….More broadly, as a result of recognition of hate crime, there is now a solid (if imperfect) data source from which trends can be monitored, and appropriate policy action taken. (This confirms their strategy: concentrate first on getting the police to collect data, then use this as ‘proof’ of a problem).

A number of organisations – notably Citizens UK and the Fawcett Society – as well as politicians such as Stella Creasy MP, have called for gender-based hate crime to be recognised in England and Wales. More specifically, their campaigns have advocated that “misogyny” – the hatred or dislike of women – be captured by hate crime laws. (Note how casually they slip in making dislike of women a crime).

Nottinghamshire Police Force was the first in the UK to record misogyny as a hate crime strand in 2016. Between April 2016 and March 2018, 174 women reported a wide range of misogyny hate crimes, from verbal abuse to sexual assault. 73 of these have been classified as hate crimes and 101 have been classified as hate incidents. (Oh dear, I expect they were hoping for a lot more than that in two years).

Discussing the street harassment that veiled Muslim women face, Irene Zempi and Hannah Mason-Bish emphasise its connection to misogyny (as well as Islamophobia). They cite Hawley Fogg-Davis, who observes that street harassment, like rape, is about “asserting male dominance over women in situations where women appear vulnerable” and that it indicates an imbalance of power, which is “connected to systems of patriarchy, racism and homophobia”.

Comments made by UK writer Danielle Dash, as part of Amnesty International’s online abuse research, noted that: the violence is at the intersection of everything that I am – for example – ‘I’m going to rape you, you black b*tch’. You have the misogyny, and you have the racism and you have the sexual violence all mixed up into one delicious stew of cesspit shit.

The Fawcett Society argued that all sexual and domestic abuse offences committed by men against women should be understood as inherently misogynistic.

The Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women argued that gender-based violence is rooted in factors “such as the ideology of men’s entitlement and privilege over women” and “the need to… assert male control or power”. However, the current test for hate crime – which focuses on hostility – does not capture wider prejudice. (In other words they want the misogyny crime law to be even more draconian).

Quoting E Renzetti, “Violent misogyny is a threat to half our population. We need to call it what it is: Terrorism” (November 2019): “For lay people, for law enforcement, they don’t really understand what ideology is. They don’t understand that patriarchy and misogyny are ideologies, are world views. They think they’re individual attitudes, and that’s very different.” (The irony of accusing others of being ideological is remarkable).

Under the heading “Question One: Should protection be limited to women only or be gender neutral?” we find the following paragraphs…

Current and former MPs including Stella Creasy, Dawn Butler, and Melanie Onn have called for the focus to be on women, either by using the word misogyny or other specific terms. Recently, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan stated that he would like to see “female gender” added to the list of protected characteristics. (I don’t expect readers are falling off their chairs in amazement).

Women’s Aid argued that “women” should be specifically recognised because a wider term such as “gender” fails to acknowledge that women are disproportionately the victims of abuse. Indeed, Women’s Aid suggested that the inclusion of a gender-neutral term in hate crime laws may be more harmful than helpful.

The Law Commission’s own view is expressed thus,

As we have outlined in detail above, there is one group, namely women, who clearly satisfy the first two criteria for hate crime recognition on the basis of sex or gender. Men do not – there was little evidence to suggest that criminal targeting against men based on hostility or prejudice towards their gender is prevalent or causes additional harm. This supports the view that women should be given specific gender-based hate crime protection. (Oh, yeah? For nearly 700 pages of institutionalised prejudice against men see The Empathy Gap).

We found that there is evidence that women are disproportionately targeted for certain crimes and found there was some evidence that this victimisation is based on prejudice, and hostility towards women. A notable part of this evidence was the abuse women face online. Nadim and Fladmoe recognise that women receive more specifically gendered online harassment compared to men. We highlighted that women are frequently the target of sexist and sexualised abuse on social media and noted this has been particularly prevalent among women in politics. They quote Guardian article “Diane Abbott more abused than any other MPs during election” (September 2017). This article is already too long to digress into that – I’ll just refer you to Glass Blind Spot.

But don’t worry, there is balance…there is that one mention of misandry, remember. It was taken from that very same Nottingham Women’s Centre Misogyny Hate Crime Evaluation Report. The quote reads,

‘A male respondent in the Nottinghamshire Evaluation suggested that gender-based hate crime reform would fail if it didn’t conform to formal equality: “I think it should include misandry as well. 100%. Absolutely… I don’t think it could ever succeed unless it was inclusive. It will absolutely fail if it only gives women protection and men not because that’s not equality before the law.”’

Do note how they mention that this was the opinion of a male respondent, as if to discredit it as an example of the very misogyny they battle against. There was no need to mention the sex of other contributors, such as those quoted above: all female.

And after the phrase “formal equality”, which the respondent did not actually use, they link to the 1966 paper in Ethics by D Lyons “The Weakness of Formal Equality”. For those not yet versed in the corruption of the concept of “equality” this is an allusion to the brave new view that “equality does not mean treating everyone the same”. It is now established in legal practice that equality may mean treating some people better, and our hapless male respondent is so behind the curve that he is unaware of this.

To sum up, the strategy to get misogyny made a crime in primary legislation consists of these steps,

  • Woozle up some limited ‘research’ to give a preliminary indication of a problem;
  • A local Women’s Aid group, or similar, trains the police;
  • The police gather data to the prescription provided by the feminist group / feminist academics;
  • Spread the above approach to other local areas, via feminist PCCs, Chief Constables, and local academics and Women’s Aid groups;
  • Feminists in parliaments start raising the “need” for the new law;
  • Governments commission reviews, with careful choice of reviewer (often under the auspices of a judicial body, e.g., the MOJ or the CPS)
  • The combination of lobbying inside and outside of parliaments plus the “hard police statistics” and the Government’s own authoritative review, motivate calls for a Consultation. [Note how, as emphasised initially, the Consultation comes near the end of the process].
  • Multiple feminist groups in the third sector, in academia and in parliaments, having been progressing this strategy for many years, are already very well prepared to respond to the Consultation which is dominated by their voice. Opposing voices are few, scattered, uncoordinated, unfunded, without friends in academia or politics or the mainstream media, and are unprepared when the Consulation is issued.
  • The Westminster parliament, and the devolved parliaments/assemblies, are all dominated by feminists, or those too fearful of them to object, and the same is true of virtually all Government agencies, especially the MOJ, the CPS and the Law Commission.

The outcome is inevitable.

Those people who imagine the goal here is to have misandry included in any Hate Crime legislation have lost the plot. Do not imagine that anything is gained by making the Act gender-neutral so that it criminalises so-called hate on grounds of sex – rather than one sex in particular. There are two reasons why that is a colossal error, one moral and one practical.

Hate crimes are thought crimes. Such legislation is a crime against freedom – freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. Hate crimes are anathema, whatever so-called protected characteristics are their target. The objective must be to have them all removed from the statute book.

The practical reason against wanting misandry included under a sex-based hate law is that it would make virtually no difference. The law against Coercive Control is gender-neutral. So what? These are the statistics on convictions for coercive control.

In 2018 in England and Wales 499 men were tried for a principal charge of coercive control in an intimate relationship compared with just 10 women. 305 men were convicted compared with just one woman. 202 men went to prison. The one woman who was found guilty was given a community sentence. 

Is this extreme gender-skew a genuine reflection of the rarity of coercive control of men by women? Anyone who thinks so must surely have been raised among a different species. Like virtually any subject you might care to name, the extreme gender-skew in coercive control prosecution/conviction data results from gynocentrism and prejudice, these psychosocial factors completely obliterating reality.

So they will again if a formally gender-neutral law is passed which defines a hate crime in terms of motivation by prejudice or hatred on grounds of sex. It will make little practical difference if the letter of the law is gender neutral. Actually, it might be better if it were explicitly a misogyny hate crime, because at least then the prejudice would be obvious.

Either way the result will be convictions of men under the new law, inevitably labelled as misogyny crimes, with negligible recognition of misandry – whether criminalised or not.

So, will this be a line crossed?

If so, what next?

27 thoughts on “Misogyny Hate Crime: How the Trick is Performed

  1. Wise Manner

    They are at it again in the latest rape directive!

    “Alleged False Allegations of Rape Between January 2011 and May 2012, the DPP required CPS areas to refer to him all cases involving an allegedly false allegation of rape and/or domestic violence. During that time, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape but only 35 for making false allegations of rape….”

    Reply
  2. Stephen Timmis

    This will become law, and the law will only be used against men. The only hope we have is that the use of the law will convince a few more men to withdraw from all contact with women. Our only hope is that the feminist legal mess becomes so top heavy that it will roll over and sink like the Mary Rose. There is no other hope against this.

    Reply
  3. DM

    A crime should never be proven unless the “mens rea” ie guilty mind is present. The lawmakers & law lords need to go back to law school

    Reply
  4. Michael Darby

    This article will doubtless be used sooner or later by feminists as the perfect example of a misogynistic hate crime. The third world war has already begun. It is a civil war and has probably already been won by the Marxist-feminists with their long march through the institutions, bringing about the end of our civilisation.

    Reply
    1. Steve Moxon

      It will become an actual civil war unless ‘identity politics’ as a whole is stopped in its tracks — and I mean totally destroyed. Nothing less will stop the trajectory to full blown armed conflict.
      We’re confronted with hate-mongering ideology of scope and depth never before seen. Before, elites have been hated, or some minority, but this is extreme hatred towards anyone male, anyone ‘white’, and anyone heterosexual. And it’s expanding in the categories and going exponential in its fervency.
      Its related cod-Marxist quasi-religions in Maoist China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia killed tens of millions, and this could end up similarly, or even x10. Nobody knows.
      It may be brought forward to first start in the USA over race. Ammunition sells out as soon as it’s put on the shelves across the USA these days, as everyone is preparing for if/when the BLM blackshirts try to trash their neighbourhoods and police are largely stood down.

      Reply
  5. Dennis

    Also you have the redefinition of words and phrases (a modern extreme-left favourite and again an indication they play the long game).

    Misandry from merriam-webster.com:

    “a hatred of men”

    Misogyny from merriam-webster.com:

    “hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women”

    At dictionary.com under the definition for misandry they actually tell you:

    “Misandry (meaning “hatred of men”) was originally considered the converse of its counterpart, misogyny (“hatred of women”). This is no longer the case. While misandry has retained its original meaning, misogyny has broadened in meaning to cover an additional sense involving sexism”

    Then there is the constant association of all men’s groups with hate e.g (all quotes that bastion of honest reporting The Guardian):

    “Men going their own way: the rise of a toxic male separatist movement”

    ‘Another speaker is Paul Elam, an American who leads a group called A Voice for Men. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which monitors extreme and far-right activity in the US, included Elam on a list of “male supremacists”’.

    ‘Meanwhile men’s rights activists, living in a parallel universe they deem “gynocentric”, believe “the efforts to enhance the rights of women have become toxic efforts to undermine the rights of men”.
    This kind of narrative has been around for more than 30 years. Starting with fathers angry about custody rights, it mutated into a rabid men’s rights movement with distinctive male supremacist characteristics. More recently it entered the mainstream, overlapping with white supremacists, incels and the far right, and embodied in the person of Jordan Peterson”’.

    I suspect the feminist preferred outcome will be the redefining of male advocacy groups as hate (or even terrorists) groups and their consequent banning.

    Maybe I’m just paranoid (although that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me).

    Reply
    1. William Collins Post author

      You are not paranoid. The Law Commission’s Consultation Paper also contains this,

      The Counter-Terrorism Division of the CPS told us of the rise in extreme misogynistic hate speech they have encountered, mainly perpetuated by incels.

      A footnote tells us,

      The Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS review the charges and prosecute every hate speech related case centrally.

      While we all may laugh at Laura Bates’s new book, the serious part of it is that she is advancing the case for all the groups she mentions being treated as terrorist groups. Given the above revelations it may be closer than we would like to believe. Blogs like this one may be closed down under the Prevent Programme.

      Reply
    2. Andy

      Child abuse trauma by women, means you have to then be, what, permanently jailed for aversion to women?

      Hahaha women deserve what follows. Protection. hahaha.

      Reply
  6. William Taylor

    Avery thought provoking article.

    We must be careful about what we define and later legislation as a ‘hate crime.’

    What society requires to function well, is for women AND men to enjoy the same legal rights and protections as laws enacted by Parliament allow for women.
    This demands impartial laws and equal rights and responsibilities for each sex. If we allow important societal assumptions to be based on falsehoods and the interests of lobby groups, the discrimination facing boys and men will only become more pronounced that the scenarios depicted in the piece above.

    Militant feminism, which is setting the political agenda even more now than at any time in over 50 years, must be confronted by demanding such false constructions engineered by feminists be called out for the hoaxes they are, and the justice system is not compromised by an agenda based on lies and misandry.

    Reply
  7. Steve Moxon

    This is going to lead to a watershed confrontation in judicial review.
    Submission to the bogus consultation should be to challenge the whole remit, noting especially that for all ‘hate crime’ categories the data is that only a minority of supposed victims are female, and this by a wide margin, showing that the prejudice revealed by ‘hate crime’ is against males who are in some respect ‘different’; that, specifically, being female actually protects against becoming a ‘victim’ of ‘hate crime’, and that, therefore, the basis of proposing the category ‘female gender’ — or simply ‘gender’, but on the ‘understanding’ that what is meant is ‘female’ — is deliberate misrepresentation of data for ideological ends.
    If and when this baseless, misandrous bigoted proposal becomes law I (joining others?) will be seeking crowd-funding for judicial review, and I will be going after the Law Commission for misconduct in public office.

    Reply
    1. Groan

      I suspect the same will happen as with the 2015 Domestic Abuse offense and the current Bill. The legislation will be “gender neutral” and it will be in the Statutary Guidance that the “gendered” definitions are used. I think the lobbyists are clever enough to know now that Gov. will promise this to avoid getting entangled in the argument about the convention of gender neutral wording legislation.

      Reply
  8. Tom Todd

    One cannot emphasise enough that this development is contrary to all enlightenment thinking which places the autonomous and thinking individual at the centre of human rights. These kinds of laws intervene in and interfere with the autonomy of the individual. Moreover it infantilises adults by the state adjudicating on matters essentially in the private domain where any infringement of a person’s rights was satisfactorily covered by hitherto existing legislation.
    And the criteria are totally arbitrary; in private affairs one can only apply criteria of agreement and common consent. How that is negotiated is not the business of law and the state.

    Reply
  9. David Eggins

    Right on the money again, William, and no doubt WA were also instrumental down the road in Northamptonshire with this strategy.
    Northants police from FOI information: An arrest “someone” came into effect 2006.
    Northants police call outs av 04/05/06 av 9/10/11.
    AV Male victims 04/5/6 and 9/10/11 4369 553
    AV Female victims 04/05/06 & 9/10/11 6402 2092
    Av Males arrested 9/10/11 1693
    Av females arrested 9/10/11 288
    A woman had about a 50% chance of being arrested. A man about an 81% chance.
    Men would quickly learn do not complain, you’ll get arrested.
    The effect of the practice was a very dramatic decrease in call outs by men to a female partner. And very probably the recognised consequences of the male “provider” being arrested impacted on family income and stability which will have tended to reduce female call-outs – and of course referrals to WA!
    Part of the result was for us to move away our services to abusers, both males and females to London. But in the reality of the situation we have started a National Helpline for female abusers and perpetrators – something which Respect and WA etc will not entertain.

    Reply
    1. Groan

      Some years ago in at least one juristiction in California following a “mandatory arrest” policy (which was popular in other states too) research found much the same. Of course it all came to a head when a young attractive “starlet” was arrested rather than her partner. It turned out that women were a larger proportion of those arrested and men were “getting away with it”. Of course they were not getting away with it but women thought more carefully about calling in the police to intervene in domestic disputes and police lost their previous “discretion” to let women “off” if they played the “poor me” card, in the same way they do speeding tickets.

      Reply
  10. Mike Bell

    I fear you have fallen into a ‘conspiracy theory’ trap.

    No doubt all these events happened. Your research is impeccable. However, you give the impression of a plan, some secret group which plans the steps, decides the effective order (as you describe) and then implements the plan without revealing the existence of the conspiracy group.

    Well, that’s one possible explanation.

    Another is that the events were not planned as a sequence. that individuals acted and one thing led to another. They tapped into our natural tendency to support the vulnerable. They use this neat trick again and again.

    The problem with the conspiracy theory analysis is that it creates the impression that it is near-invulnerable: that there is almost nothing that men’s-issues people can do about it. It adds to a victim-mentality among men.

    Reply
    1. William Collins Post author

      Well, all MRA-types are conspiracy theory nutjobs, haven’t you heard?

      The Nottingham Women’s Centre and its activities are not secret. Nor are the other feminist contributors. I give the impression of a plan, yes, but I have conjured no “secret group”. You have made that up yourself as a dishonest means of painting in a bad light the idea that the sequence of events was planned, because you don’t like it.

      Nor is “having a plan”, which generally consists of a sequence of steps, the same thing as positing a “conspiracy group”. That too is dishonest criticism. Nottingham Women’s Centre did not engage in training the police to collect data simply out of academic curiosity. Nor did they expect that what they were doing would be forever confined to Nottinghamshire. And if they were looking beyond the local collecting of data, what would that be?

      This lobby has operated previously in this manner, i.e., planning a campaign ahead several years. Examples include (a) the events leading to the 2014 Children and Families Act, (b) the events leading to Child First/19 Child Homicides & the redrafting of Practice Direction 12J,(c) the events leading to Coercive Control being incorporated into the Serious Crime Act.

      It is not a “conspiracy theory analysis” to look these truths squarely in the face. Nor does a determination to face reality mean that I regard the opponents as “near-invulnerable”. That, too, is your own interpretation, not mine. I merely ask “what next?”. And a good answer to that question must start with an accurate understanding of our true position.

      I fear you have fallen into a ‘wishful thinking’ trap.

      Reply
    2. Nigel

      The progress of Domestic Abuse offence in the 2015 Serious Crimes Act. Is another example. Initially, in accord with feminist lobbying, the offence was drafted to include emotional abuse. This raised considerable vocal Hope’s that this would pick up on the abuse by mothers of non resident fathers in particular. Fearing this result the feminists changed tack and the actual offense gives more prominence to threat of violence and fear of possible violence. Hence the continued feminist agitation because there are few cases, rather than the predicted “epidemic”. Realising that including the “wider” ideas of abuse actually gives the possibility that the traditional trope of the violent threatening man may be watered down by straying into the relationship manipulations people associate with women. In a sense the “misogyny” push is to try to bypass this fundamental problem, that having spread the definitions of “abuse” to things that women are commonly viewed as being able to do (overspend, belittle and insult, hide financial information, control social life etc.) Runs the risk, despite “guidance”, caselaw will establish women can be abusive in these ways. To be honest they have to go for the end game, that men have to be always “bad” even if there is no evidence of any realistic threat or danger.
      I can understand your reluctance to see a conspiracy. And it may not be such an organised conspiracy. Both the truth is that the key people in these processes are not many and come from a few “highly respected” organisations that the civil servants go to each time they are charged to “do something”. Remember our Civil Servants are “generalists” rarely forming any considerable expertise in specific areas of life. They rely heavily on key people from prominent organisations. This is as true for this issue as it is for many others. In my experience exactly the same process in social care and mental health. And it is why that the policy of ending institutional care of people with learning disability and autism following the “winterbourne” scandal, remains an ongoing failure years later.

      Reply
    3. Steve Moxon

      All development of Left backlash into feminism and wider ‘identity politics’ is simply lowest-common-denominator base human motivation and behaviour in ‘groupthink’. No conspiracy is required, and to suggest they employ it it would be crediting them with ability they don’t possess.

      Reply
  11. Michael McVeigh

    “The outcome is inevitable.”

    “If so, what next?”

    Will the pendulum start to swing the other way? I am heartened to see young men entering the fray & at some point, most in society should begin to see the damage being done to boys & men. It is taking a hell of a long time, though.

    Reply
    1. Logan

      “Will the pendulum start to swing the other way? I am heartened to see young men entering the fray & at some point, most in society should begin to see the damage being done to boys & men. It is taking a hell of a long time, though.”

      In a word – no. Men have a protective feeling towards women as a group that women generally, or perhaps I should say feminists specifically do not have towards men. In fact, I would argue feminism is often times openly malicious towards men. Most boys are being raised by women and will swallow the women-as-victims narrative they’re given while growing up, and then hit puberty and be desperate to please girls to get relationships, while those same girls are being raised to believe anything they do is fine and anything boys do – if they don’t like it – is sexism and part of a whole Patriarchal construct designed to keep them down. By the time boys wake up to the lies they will either be locked into relationships, have bailed on them, or about to be chewed up by the machine. Then if they criticise the way things are they will be labeled and shamed for being one of thousands of men treated unjustly by the system now effectively howling at the moon. Any men who try and organise to oppose things will be labelled ‘misogynists’ (yes, I foresee the misogyny laws being used against men who try and advocate for men – I also see criticism of feminism being treated as misogyny – feminists have wanted that for years and it’s coming).
      All the feminists in Academia will also take decades to replace, and they will actively prevent anyone who disagrees with them from taking their positions. Instead they will line up the next generation of ideological bigots to take over, so that’s a total non-starter. And the multi-billion pound women’s grievance industry will use its money and power base to oppose any and all attempts to take the spotlight away from ‘women and girls’.

      So no – nothing will change and nothing will get better – only worse.

      Reply
      1. Groan

        I agree with your analysis. But this is why I have some hope in the fact that there are also more women getting involved. For as you say there has to be a movement that cuts across our essentially “gynocentric” society. It has aided feminists no end that in complete reverse to what they claim men are far more likely to brush aside other men to protect women than the reverse. Any movement that can be labelled as men doing down women is doomed, but that is much harder if there are many female voices.

        Reply
        1. Logan

          I agree. If change is to come (and I hold out little hope that it will) it has to come from women challenging the feminist narrative and defending men. Some are, but so long as feminists control academia and can churn out new recruits every year (which isn’t that hard with teenage girls propensity to feel victimised generally), and so long as the female-oriented media push the same victim narrative, all the people speaking out can ever be are ‘snipers’ against an army. The opposition needs money – a lot of it. A power base – a solid one. And a lot more female support.

          Reply
      2. Steve Moxon

        It will implode at some point. Feminism in all its guises and all ‘identity politics’ has zero external validity and little internal consistency. No ’emperor’s new clothes’ scenario can survive indefinitely. Whether it collapses spectacularly or more gradually is impossible to predict. I think the whole of the great Left backlash, which is now almost 100 years in the development, is likely to go with a bang, and perhaps surprisingly soon. I don’t have mi crystal ball to hand, but I’d be amazed if the whole rotten caboodle isn’t a complete laughing stock and arousing incredulity in scholars well before I pop mi clogs — and I’m 65.

        Reply
  12. Andy in Germany

    This is pretyy much a Cultish system running, with several steps:

    1: You are a victim even if you don’t know it: Be afraid

    2: The only way that you can get away from this fear is by doing what we day: Be dependent on us.

    3: If you then try to leave this world-view, there will be consequences: you will be alone

    In fact, the people hurting women and taking their freedom away are actually the feminists and others pushing this agenda for their own goals: they are threatening women.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *