UPDATE
Minutes after I posted this article, the ludicrous Jess Phillips published an article in the Guardian which could not have been better designed to prove my thesis. A number of people have posted comments on the Guardian article pointing this out, and they have all been immediately deleted by the Guardian. I just tried it myself and was also deleted. I should be grateful if readers could now also try posting comments there, in order to make a point about censorship on the Guardian.
Catching up on a fortnight’s news, I have spent five hours searching in vain for criticism of Simon Danczuk from prominent or even just declared feminists. The Guardian was the obvious place to start, but while they had two articles by feminist writers condemning Chris Gayle’s clumsy attempt to chat up a presenter, their legion of feminist columnists were entirely silent on Danczuk. The only opinion piece was strongly defending him.
This is very peculiar. The allegation against Danczuk which is under police investigation – of initiating sex with a sleeping woman – is identical to the worst interpretation of the worst accusation against Julian Assange. The Assange allegation brought literally hundreds, probably thousands of condemnatory articles from feminist writers across the entire range of the mainstream media. I have dug up 57 in the Guardian alone with a simple and far from exhaustive search. In the case of Danczuk I can find nothing, zilch, nada. Not a single feminist peep.
The Assange case is not isolated. Tommy Sheridan has been pursuing a lone legal battle against the Murdoch empire for a decade, some of it in prison when the judicial system decided his “perjury” was imprisonable but Andy Coulson’s admitted perjury on the Murdoch side in the same case was not. I personally witnessed in court in Edinburgh last month Tommy Sheridan, with no lawyer (he has no money) arguing against a seven man Murdoch legal team including three QCs, that a letter from the husband of Jackie Bird of BBC Scotland should be admitted in evidence. Bird was working for Murdoch and suggested in his letter that a witness should be “got out of the country” to avoid giving evidence. The bias exhibited by the leading judge I found astonishing beyond belief. I was the only media in the court.
Yet even though the Murdoch allegations against Sheridan were of consensual sexual conduct, Sheridan’s fight against Murdoch has been undermined from the start by the massive and concerted attack he has faced from the forces of feminism. Just as the vital messages WikiLeaks and Assange have put out about war crimes, corruption and the relentless state attack on civil liberties have been undermined by the concerted feminist campaign promoting the self-evidently ludicrous claims of sexual offence against Assange.
As soon as the radical left pose the slightest threat to the neo-con establishment, an army of feminists can be relied upon to run a concerted campaign to undermine any progress the left wing might make. The attack on Jeremy Corbyn over the makeup of his shadow cabinet was a classic example. It is the first ever gender equal shadow cabinet, but the entire media for a 96 hour period last September ran headline news that the lack of women in the “top” posts was anti-feminist. Every feminist commentator in the UK piled in.
Among the obvious dishonesties of this campaign was the fact that Defence, Chancellor, Foreign Affairs and Home Secretary have always been considered the “great offices of State” and the argument only could be made by simply ignoring Defence. The other great irony was the “feminist” attack was led by Blairites like Harman and Cooper, and failed to address the fact that Blair had NO women in any of these posts for a full ten years as Prime Minister.
But facts did not matter in deploying the organised feminist lobby against Corbyn.
Which is why it is an important test to see what the feminists, both inside and outside the Labour Party, would do when the leading anti-Corbyn rent-a-gob, Simon Danczuk, was alleged to have some attitudes to women that seem very dubious indeed, including forcing an ex-wife into non-consensual s&m and that rape allegation.
And the answer is …nothing. Feminists who criticised Assange, Sheridan and Corbyn in droves were utterly silent on the subject of Danczuk. Because the purpose of established and paid feminism is to undermine the left in the service of the neo-cons, not to attack neo-cons like Danczuk.
Identity politics has been used to shatter any attempt to campaign for broader social justice for everybody. Instead it becomes about the rights of particular groups, and that is soon morphed into the neo-con language of opportunity. What is needed, modern feminism argues, is not a reduction of the vast gap between rich and poor, but a chance for some women to become Michelle Mone or Ann Gloag. It is not about good conditions for all, but the removal of glass ceilings for high paid feminist journalists or political hacks.
Feminism has become the main attack tool in the neo-con ideological arsenal. I am sceptical the concept can be redeemed from this.
““Real rape” is sex without consent. This, for example, includes sex with a sleeping woman, regardless of previous sex with that woman. Any man who does this, whether his name is or isn’t Julian Assange, has had sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape.”
More nonsense.
It simply isn’t the case that “sex with a sleeping woman” is rape.
It may be, but it isn’t by definition.
Given that the woman involved didn’t think it rape when she awakened, then it’s not for others to judge it so.
The issue, as ever, is consent, but that doesn’t mean that you have to sit down and draw up a contract every time you have sex, as many idiots seem to think.
“Habby, more than just responding never offers vitriolic remarks”
Really.
Sixer
The woman involved has not alleged “rape”.
The only people alleging rape are those with other agendas.
Herbie
As I have said repeatedly, *in this discussion* I am not really interested in whether Assange is or is not guilty of rape. I don’t know enough detail to form an opinion. I’ve also said I’m happy to accept all the defences of political motivations and everything else…
… EXCEPT a definition of rape. Consent is specific. There is no such thing as “real rape”.
Here is a fairly clear video on consent, using tea as an analogy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-34656527.
I am only interested in challenging John’s assertion about “real rape”.
Unfortunately, Twitter isn’t the only medium in which Mensch exposes herself. In this, she appears not to realise that the statistical likelihood of a British Zionist being a member of the faith she evidently has the hots for is in the region of 99%…
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/143148/corbyn-supporters-post-vile-racism-and-he-says-nothing
Let’s face it. Mensch supporters post vile racism too. And, on that, she says …
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/louise-mensch-thinks-the-real-face-of-british-islam-is-a-man-of-sikh-heritage-9156788.html
Nice try, Lulu. But no nargile.
“No, John, penetrating a woman without wearing a condom when she has made it clear she consents only to sex with a condom is sex without consent. Sex without consent is rape. This is not up for debate. It is not a “second bite of the cherry”. It is the law.”
Sixer, if topics are not up for debate on a blog like this, I fail to see what you’re doing here.
Unfortunately men are the ones who normally have to initiate sexual advances and are very disadvantaged in that they are vulnerable to refusal, pride, ego hurt and all the other inferiority complexes caused by the power of feminists. Without going into too much shop-floor detail (PTs) let’s just say that some women lead men on just for the power-buzz it gives them. If you have never encountered that you must live on another planet. If a woman says no a man should comply. All women are not the same, as all men are not the same. I would much rather be in the company of a woman who believes in mutual respect than somebody, male or female, who thinks their view is the only right one.
Things should be up for debate, feminism in particular. What is the law varies from country to country. That too is up for debate. I am happy to discuss things with you but I am averse to people laying down the law as though there are no other views to be considered.
However, I am glad that you can see that there is a political aspect to this.
“Another thing that puzzles me about the knee-jerk false-flaggers – how are they prepared to believe all this guff about crisis actors, blank guns, fake explosions, pretend terrorists etc. etc., but the proposal that some screwball, religiously deluded freaks (after much provocation) have gone totally barking, blood-thirsty, and murderously insane is too much to accept?”
______________
Thanks for expounding, Glenn — spot on.
I shall try to train my brain to spot your TIC’s a little more readily. 😉
Herbie
13 Jan, 2016 – 1:18 pm
“Habby, more than just responding never offers vitriolic remarks”
Really.
________
Was there any reasoning or argument attached to Ms M’s vicious remarks at all?
John
Of course topics are up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is the legal definition of consent. Cos, y’know, it’s the law. You can argue for a change in the law if you want. Be my guest!
As for:
“Unfortunately men are the ones who normally have to initiate sexual advances and are very disadvantaged in that they are vulnerable to refusal, pride, ego hurt and all the other inferiority complexes caused by the power of feminists. Without going into too much shop-floor detail (PTs) let’s just say that some women lead men on just for the power-buzz it gives them.”
I don’t know what planet YOU live on but that’s just nonsense. I’ve initiated as much sex with my partners as they have initiated with me (and I don’t think it can be a generational thing as I’m 50). I have as much vulnerability to rejection as a man. Perhaps, if we’re descending into the ridiculous, due to the power of patriarchy?! The power of feminism. Deary me. Leading men on? Right. So the word no doesn’t always mean no? That, I am afraid, is as anti-feminist as it comes.
From Ba’al’s link:
” “When I think of British Muslims I think of @Mo_Farah @SayeedaWarsi @RaheemJKassam @SunnyHundal @YasminQureshiMP &c not these fools #LeeRigby”
Sunny Hundal was born to Sikh parents of Indian origin and despite having a beard, is not Muslim. He tweeted back at her “Erm, I’m not Muslim Louise. Parents are Sikh”.
After Twitter users criticised her for her mistake, Mensch argued: “I’ve thought he was Muslim for ages. Based on his politics, tweets.”
However this only served to spawn the hashtag #tweetlikeamuslim with users tweeting things like “Crikey that’s a nice minaret”, whilst others tweeted “I’m not Muslim Louise.”
Sunny Hundal told The Independent that he is not a Muslim. He also said he plans to tweet like a Sikh from now on.”
LOL, good one!
Seeing as rape laws are getting more and more prolific (effectively dimensioning the severity of the crime of rape) and at this rate even glancing at the direction of a woman is to be classified as rape, isn’t about time we invested heavily in artificial vagina technology and left women to be immune of any kind of male penetration? Or better still all to be come practitioners of homosexuality much to the delight of our dear and great leaders?
The notion that sex without the condom is rape, what if the darn condom split half way through? Are we to extend the misandry by diminishing the role of the male into a self-propelled Sabian? ie switching on and off at the will of the females concerned? Is this not a tad too far for the control freaks whom happen to be endowed with a vagina?
Fact that Sweden has so many laws concerning sexual conduct, beggars the question what about the damn social justice and the inequality of the incomes that apparently is getting to be as good as the very Satanisatn (London/New York axis) itself?
If the law is saying that explicit permission must be requested and obtained before every single act of sexual congress, and if the law is saying that the conditions appertaining to the congress must be clearly established and agreed before muffdiving occurs, then the law is an ass. The lizard brain understands this: the cerebral cortex so beloved of the chattering classes does not.
Mystic Ba’al foresees, in the very near future, an app. Persons contemplating rumpy will be able to register, and, using personal passwords, confirm to a central agency run by Germaine Greer, that they both consent to do it, and list the terms and conditions of the proposed event (eg, how many orifices? with or without toys?). This consent will be for one session only: should both decide to do it again in the morning, a new registration will be needed. No longer will it be enough to simply end a romantic evening in a state of horizontal undress, and god help you if your smartphone can’t get a signal: that will be no excuse.
Sixer: Herbie said, “Given that the woman involved didn’t think it rape when she awakened, then it’s not for others to judge it so.”
What do you think of that? She sent out texts bragging about who she’d been with _after_ this sexual act had taken place. It was only days later that she found herself persuaded into making allegations of rape.
Do you think it’s possible that some woman could actually be raped, be happy about it, brag about, but only discover much later that it was – in fact – one of the worst crimes known to mankind?
If (as a feminist) you’re prepared to say yes, absolutely, she could – then you are cheapening the devastating crime of rape into something a bit more akin to buyers’ remorse. (Naturally, it would be a totally different situation if she was drunk off her arse at the time.)
We see too much of this cheapening of genuine horrors, such as every time someone screeches “Anti-Semite!” because another has criticised Israeli foreign policy.
*
Hope you don’t think people are laying into you here, and it’s taken in the spirit of clarifying our thoughts on the subject.
Ba’al Zevul you may have a point there, a pre coital agreement that can be obtained from any of the post-offices/internet granting a licence one nooky license as per the prescribed terms and extreme care to avoid any of the proscribed activities entailed in the said licence, can be a revenue stream for the exchequer as well as an additional measure of control on we the people whom can be further controlled by granting or not granting the said licences based on the various parameters in the individual’s internal passport.
What if someone asks you if you want a biscuit and you say yes and you eat it and the next day you think that was wrong to give me that biscuit because I didn’t really want it –it’s ruined my diet.
“Hmmm…I’m a bit confused over why so many people on this forum feel that it would be a travesty if Julian Assange were to go to trial. Surely he needs to go to trial to prove either his innocence or guilt – just like many of you pointed out with regards to Greville Janner?”
______________________
Becky Cohen, you certainly are a bit confused as you say. If you’d been paying attention you’d have noticed the USA are desperate to get their grubby hands on Mr Assange over his Wikileaks posts, that have embarrassed their security agencies.
Sweden would undoubtedly turn Mr Assange over to the USA, after his trial, or Mr Assange would be snatched from the streets of Stockholm, just like Hassan Mustsfa Osama Nasr.
Mr Nasr was snatched from Milan Italy, taken to an Egyptian dungeon and tortured. Twenty-two CIA agents were convicted of his rendition though no CIA agent was present at the trial.
In other words no one went to prison, Mr Assange if snatched or handed over too the US agencies would most likely see his human rights impinged. And for what? For telling the truth.
Posts like this one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw
I doubt very much if Mr Assange would receive a fair trial anywhere, maybe in Venezuela, but he’d never reach the country.
…isn’t it about time we invested heavily in artificial vagina technology…?
Introducing customer satisfaction and quality control could very well kill off the traditional organic product…
Glenn_uk – 2:11 pm
I don’t feel piled upon. It’s finer than fine.
But I don’t know how many times I can say it. Not interested in the specifics of Assange.
In any circumstance, if the woman was happy with what occurred then it wasn’t rape because she consented. If she wasn’t happy with what occurred because consent was assumed but not requested, then it’s rape. If there is any doubt over consent, because a woman is asleep, for example, then a man (or a woman with an object, for that matter – see the recent rape-by-dildo case) should seek explicit consent or risk sex without consent. Which is rape.
It really isn’t hard. And I think virtually all men understand it perfectly well, aside from a few loud keyboard warriors. I just asked my husband: “Have you ever thought about waking me up by having sex with me? You know? Nice morning treat for the wife?” He said, “What are you on about? Absolutely NOT!” “Why not?” “You might not want to.” “Would that be marital rape then?” “Exactly.” See? Not. Bloody. Hard.
What if someone asks you if you want a biscuit and you say yes and you eat it and the next day you think that was wrong to give me that biscuit because I didn’t really want it –it’s ruined my diet.
Give in. What?
What if the person who gave you the biscuit is a Jammy Dodgers asset attempting to discredit you with your slimming group?
Meanwhile that stalwart, and shinning light of the banking and finance industry RBS, has given a restrained and measured report on the state of the finance industry RBS has said.
Sell everything and run for the hills, another 2008 crash is iminent. Dump the lot and bolt down the hatch, or words to that effect.
RBS added it’s all China’s fault that a stage of deflation is on the way, China’s economy has grown too fast too soon.
This is the bank that bought Abn Amro, on the strenght of a cd.
PC Principal Collects Consent Forms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1o_iY99eeA
South-Park “PC Principal Fights Eric Cartman”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZQED7bLhw
“Would that be marital rape then?” “Exactly.” See? Not. Bloody. Hard.
I see what you did there. Subliminal conditioning, eh?
I am so glad I was born before feminism, according to Aaron Russo, introduced by the Rockefellers (see page one of this thread). I agree with equal pay and equal rights but in some areas of feminism there has evolved a demanding woman who wants more than equality, and is hell-bent, it would appear, on making men suffer and squirm as much as possible under their terms. In my day, and my family, I am pleased to see women get what they want. But they don’t have to drag me kicking and screaming to a solicitor to get it. This is not in answer to anybody’s comment, just an observation that feminism has tipped the scales of the balance of justice.
Ba’al – you old devil. 🙂
‘I was just asked by my wife: “Have you ever thought about waking me up by having sex with me? You know? Nice morning treat for the wife?”’
.
I said “No”.
She said “Why not?”.
I said “Because your desire for a treat is not politically correct”
.
Assange has not been charged with anything which brings us back to why Mr Murray posted that feminism is a neo-con tool.
La Bindel does not come between me and my wife in bed.
Since we seem to skirting around the subject of genitalia, the World Anti-Doping Independent commission headed by Dick Pound (A top notch porn star handle if ever there was one). Has said that Lord Seb Coe faces a, strong possibility of being hounded out of the IAAF over doping and corruption allegations.
Lord Seb who I might add has not been implicated in anyway of any wrong doing so far, was vice-president to former disgraced president of the IAAF, Lamine Diack.
Ba’al Zevul 2:31 pm
Ha. No. We agree on most matters gender and most matters sex. And most matters generally. Except whether live football on TV should take precedence over recorded drama. Some things never change!
Interesting you assume I changed him rather than chose him, however. Perilously close to saying feminazi, mon cher!
PCR strikes a chord – RobG 8:40pm: –
Cross a questionable line and a UK citizen can be extradited to the U.S. using the one-sided UK-US Extradition Treaty that only requires reasonable suspicion rather than prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003
Interestingly President Obama in his final address to the nation confirmed that America no longer wants to be the world policeman. The power of intention from researchers and others is perhaps making inroads into a US foreign policy costing trillions of green-backs that is in the most part totally and utterly futile, impotent, worthless and unsuccessful.
Delivering the first blow and then rounding-up the willing around them while chanting ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us, has created an entangled hindrance to US foreign aims as cooperation and unity per se is either minimal or does not exist.
The imposing idea of a unipolar world has yielded more problems and obstacles than the bi-polar world that preceded it. The same scenario occurred in Iraq.. opening with the first illegal blow, the US/UK alliance summoned others to go in after them, denying mutual input, consultation and respect while making neutral and opposing countries feel ostracized, shunned and in fear of financial and other US sanctions.
This world unease, dread, terror, torture, horror, worry and suspicion is indeed inexorably past its sell by date and imo America demands to be circumvented in world affairs until the power of NSA/CIA and NeoCon control is rolled back and put back in the bottle.
So Lord Hall of the BBC has been making noises about a introducing a “Scottish Six” news programme ran from the propaganda house on the the clyde. Also known as the BBC in Scotland, Lord Hall told a Holyrood committee that Scotland should be handed greater control over budgets and decisions.
Of course we’ve heard this speel before back in 2006. When Mark Thompson was the Director-General of the BBC. A pilot was aired which proved just too good to be let loose in the hands of the restless Jocks.
Now a decade later Lord Hall has wheeled the dead corpse out again, to placate those restless Jocks. In order to keep them paying the enforced tax disguised as a tv licence.
I can’t really say what I think of the BBC, except they’re a bunch of…@%&^@#*@…..and then some.
Perilously close to saying feminazi, mon cher!
I didn’t. You did. Ma petite.
Sixer: ““Would that be marital rape then?” “Exactly.” See? Not. Bloody. Hard.”
Ok, so it’s a simple question. Slam-dunk and all that. So why should she have got this “Not. Bloody. Hard.” question so wrong the next day, but finally realised how right it was a few days later?
You seem to be ducking this very straightforward point with an “Oh – I’m not referring to the specifics of the Assange case.” That’s very convenient, but also makes your case extremely confused – because I don’t see how it’s possible for someone to go from bragging about the event, to concluding it was rape through persuasion days later, despite it being so obvious to you that you think anyone doubting it must be somewhere between a fool and deviant.