[iptba]

http://empathygap.uk/?p=3108

Feminism.

Feminism is just about equality of the sexes.

Feminism really is just about equality – as long as you understand that the word “equality” no longer means what it used to mean.

To those not well versed in the manner in which policy narratives have changed in the last dozen years, prepare yourselves for the radical revision of the meaning of the word “equality” which is now politically and judicially established.

My first encounter with the brave new world of “equality” was in The Corston Report, Ref.1, on women in prison. I quote,

“Equality does not mean treating everyone the same”

I thought this was an interesting and well-researched blog post. It was presented at a International Men's Day event.

Here are some more extracts:

The Government’s Guide to the 2010 Equality Act, Ref.2, specifically cautions against treating everyone the same. The advice on the interpretation of the Act is, I quote,

“The Equality Duty does not require public bodies to treat everyone the same”

“Complying with the Equality Duty may involve treating some people better”

When women were the legal responsibility of males, this caused some problems for some males:

Since the man was the manifest legal entity he became responsible for crimes – or torts – committed by his wife. The most common example of this were the Victorian debtors’ prisons. Some 10,000 people, 98% of them men, were imprisoned yearly for debt in the Victorian era. But it is reasonable to suppose that women were responsible for incurring at least 50% of debts. Even if the debt were incurred by the wife it was the husband who went to prison. It doesn’t sound much like male privilege to me.

The beneficial aspects of coverture for wives did not apply only whilst the marriage lasted. The law of “necessaries” extended even to separated wives – and in some cases also to common law wives. An estranged wife could continue to run up debts with which to burden her husband. This was commonly used as a tactic to force the husband to agree to divorce terms favourable to the wife. Such estranged wives could, and did, push the strategy as far as having the husband imprisoned by running up unmanageable debts until he gave them what they wanted.

The law of coverture effectively placed a legal obligation upon husbands to ensure their wives obeyed the law. A particularly egregious example of this is the Skimmington Ride. It is still the case today that society has a hard time accepting that some men may be the victims of partner abuse, rather than the perpetrator. In historical times things were no better. A man who allowed himself to be abused by his wife would be punished for it by his community. A husband was expected to control his wife. If she beat him, then this was regarded as a failing on his part. The punishment was the Skimmington Ride, in which the man was obliged to ride a donkey through the town facing backwards, and thus looking ridiculous, whilst the populace would bang pots and pans and jeer and mock him by calling out insults. The modern equivalent, I suppose, is the male victim of partner violence who phones the police only to find that he is the one they arrest.

About a proposed Domestic Violence Bill in the UK (this is from 2019):

The Bill will further strengthen existing powers to constrain, restraint and criminalise those accused of domestic abuse. The escalating sequence of protection notices, protection orders and non-molestation orders can see a man ejected from his home with immediate effect and kept out of it without limit. The new Bill will make breaching the terms of a protection notice or protection order a criminal offence. These arrangements mean that a man may be formally branded a criminal, with a criminal record, and imprisoned, without ever facing trial or any other meaningful test of the accusations against him.

[klaz]

The Bill will further strengthen existing powers to constrain, restraint and criminalise those accused of domestic abuse. The escalating sequence of protection notices, protection orders and non-molestation orders can see a man ejected from his home with immediate effect and kept out of it without limit. The new Bill will make breaching the terms of a protection notice or protection order a criminal offence. These arrangements mean that a man may be formally branded a criminal, with a criminal record, and imprisoned, without ever facing trial or any other meaningful test of the accusations against him.

That's insane.

[iptba]

A boy’s eye view of our feminist English lessons

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/...glish-lessons/

This is about A-levels in the UK. I did hear it mentioned that toxic masculinity is now being discussed with regard to say MacBeth (the king) in Ireland, which wasn't the case when I studied it a long time back; at the same time the idea that Lady MacBeth displayed toxic femininity was dismissed in the same class.

[Buttonftw]

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/...d-masculinity/

Just look at the title and take a wild guess if it was written by a man or a woman.

[iptba]

Fintan O’Toole: How does defence of trans rights become search for women to blame?
Subscriber only
Trans people’s enemy is patriarchy, not feminism

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...lame-1.4423596

I'm generally sceptical of most uses of the term patriarchy, but occasionally if it's defined, it may possibly have the odd piece of relevance for very specific cases.

However, this is the case of a general "patriarchy" which is as useful as referring to ghosts to explain phenomena I think here.

Biological women want to have spaces where only biological women are allowed in; trans-women and many supporters believe trans-women should also be able to access such spaces. I don't know why this clash should be blamed on patriarchy.

Here are some comments underneath:

Well isn't this such fun, the trans and feminists clawing at each others eyes with their well manicured nails. And caught between them, not knowing where to turn, is poor old Fintan, still an old lefty after all these years. But, not to despair, there is always the straw man available, yes yes let's blame him , the patriarchy. Now being Irish with all those 800 years of oppression in my back pocket maybe I could claim a pass on that one but no these days I am a western white male, the source of all sin. To quote good old Basil Faulty, "oh its my fault, there I was thinking it was your fault but it was my fault all the time, I'm a naughty boy". So Fintan, well done you have escaped this time, but beware the Twitter mob, like the Terminator, cannot be stopped they will get you eventually.

"Trans people’s enemy is patriarchy, not feminism". I suppose it is the patriarchy then, that hounded Suzanne Moore out of The Guardian?

Fintan "show me the bandwagon, let me jump on it" Oh Tool, once again employing his favourite social media marketing technique of "If you see a crowd forming, run to the front and try to lead it."
Trans rights, feminism, patriarchy - hitting all the Twitter buttons just in time for the Christmas book market.

[iptba]

Foetal Death and Domestic Violence

http://empathygap.uk/?p=2841

In Conclusion

The claims made by Safelives, by Nottinghamshire Women’s Aid, by the London Safeguarding Children Board and by the Royal College of Midwives, that domestic violence is a leading cause – or the leading cause – of foetal death, are unsupported by evidence and almost certainly false. Available information appears to indicate that the annual number of foetal deaths in the UK attributable to domestic violence is unlikely to be much above single digits. This compares with a total of around 4,000 stillbirths/foetal deaths per year in the UK. Domestic violence appears to be the cause of less than 0.5% of foetal deaths (perhaps 0.25%) and is thus very far from being a leading cause.

The claim made by the above organisations is a woozle of the worst kind. In the case of the Royal College of Midwives this is particularly reprehensible as the matter is within their professional area of expertise.

Why do these feminist organisations promulgate these untruths? The domestic violence industry (Safelives, Women’s Aid and the Safeguarding authorities) do it because they profit from a narrative which talks-up domestic violence and reinforces the need for their services. All feminist organisations, including the Royal College of Midwives, partake of the incessant vilifying of men to bolster their preferred focus of attention. The spectre of men as an ever present danger to women and children is a well trodden path to the realisation of the principal feminist objective of ejecting men from the family via the leverage it provides in the family courts.

They do it because they can, because it furthers their agenda, and because our society permits even professional bodies to lie with impunity, without any social disapprobation and without any recognition that their narratives are socially corrosive.