Lobby groups in Australia want to do something similar, expanding the definition of terrorism to include anti-feminist behavior. Because anti-feminist behavior in Australia would be the most prevalent form of violence. Anti-feminist behavior doesn’t have to be physical, it can also be verbal or written.
Britain has gone mad and Australia isn’t far behind.
"Anti-feminist behavior doesn’t have to be physical, it can also be verbal or written." Indeed. Sites like this substack or other MRM-related sites could be labeled "terroristic" and the operators/authors prosecuted under such new laws or policies. I'm really glad at least here in the US we have the Bill of Rights that protects us from the gov't prosecuting nearly all forms of speech or expression. What does the UK have to protect them, I wonder? Anything?
This was in The Australian about a month ago, I also not that I made a mistake in my initial comment mentioning terrorism, it was actually violent extremism that was mentioned in the report and news article below. In any case I think the situation is similar.
A new report has warned that anti-feminist beliefs are a strong predictor of violent extremism, with 20 per cent of Australian men surveyed believing feminism is dangerous to society and should be fought with violence if necessary.
According to the survey of 1020 men and women, 30 per cent of all respondents agreed or slightly agreed with hostile sexist attitudes and 19.4 per cent of the men believed it is legitimate to resist feminism using force.
Some of the statements put to the respondents include that feminism has ruined modern relationships and feminists are trying to get more power than men.
The research found hostile sexist attitudes and attitudes permissive of violence against women are strongly associated with most forms of violent extremism, including extremism motivated by religion, ethnicity and incel ideologies.
The Misogyny, Racism and Violent Extremism report said addressing the role of racial and gendered biases as underlying drivers of violent extremism and terrorism is significant but an "overlooked" security concern.
Report author Dr Sara Meger, who teaches international security and gender in international relations at the University of Melbourne, said she sent her research to commonwealth agencies in the hope it will help the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation redefine what is recognised as violent extremism.
"The biggest shortcomings we had this year with the Bondi Junction attack is that the current acting definition of terrorism can't grasp how someone is motivated for a hatred of woman or anti-feminist ideology," Dr Meger told The Australian.
"We were motivated to do this research because... we thought we needed some empirical data to corroborate the growing recognition that there is some sort of element of gender ideology driving violent extremism."
The report also found that if policy were to define violent anti-feminist beliefs as a form of extremism, it would be the most prevalent form in the country.
It said that young people and boys are more likely to support violent extremism in all forms and those in the 18-39 age bracket are more likely to agree with restricting a woman's right to choose her sexual partners compared to older respondents.
Dr Meger said "online echo chambers" are the biggest influence on younger generations preferencing these views over older people.
"These young men for whatever reason who are struggling socially, financially, emotionally, they're looking for answers in these online forums. They find an easy one and blame feminism. Some forums might say feminism is the reason your life isn't as good," Dr Meger said.
She said it would take a whole-of-society approach and more online content regulation to prevent young Australians from adopting harmful views.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult issue as there's such mistrust with authority figures that goes along with this radicalism and polarisation," she said.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult issue as there's such mistrust with authority figures that goes along with this radicalism and polarisation," she said.
The report said terrorist attacks and incidents of mass violence in Australia were found to have gendered and racialised determinants, and pointed to the Lindt Cafe siege terrorist who had a domestic violence intervention order against him at the time of the attack, and the Bondi Junction killer who was described by his father as frustrated by his lack of dating success.
I would also like to add that I don’t condone violence against women, but I also don’t believe that feminism is a benign ideology. It may have started out with good intentions, but it has now become something different and looks more like a man haters club than anything else.
When it comes to men being aggressive or violent against women, I don’t think the solution is to make it easier to throw more men into prison. At some point we need to sit down and talk about these people and their lives, how were they brought up, what were their experiences, were they exposed to drugs and violence as a child, were they bullied and belittled etc.
My big thing that I am working through myself is dealing with past traumas. Trauma itself is a very big topic and something that I am continually trying to understand. My best resource on trauma has been “The body keeps the score” by Bessel Van Der Kolk, this book has been an eye opener and I wish more people would read it. Unless we actually start talking to people and help them process their trauma, then this problem of violence against women and violence in general isn’t going to go away.
Yes, excellent book. The body will tell you the story.
What is never talked about with the violence against women issue is the factors that brought out the violence. Violence generally does not combust on its own. Not to excuse anyone but if we are to get anywhere with understanding violence all factors need to be addressed.
Not mad. This is simply another step in their process of criminalizing masculinity. Raise your voice in your own kitchen when arguing with a female and you can be arrested in Australia if the person you yelled at for sleeping with your best mate or spending much needed money on a pedicure decides to call the cops and say they felt threatened by your emotional abuse or coercive behaviour.
My nephew was recently handcuffed for standing in the doorway of his apartment after his fiancée said she wanted to leave and live with her mum. He simply wanted to know why. She was held up for two minutes before he asked if she would like him to walk her to her mum's who lived down the same street. It was late at night. She agreed. He walked her to her mum's then returned to their apartment.
The following morning as he was packing his things ( the apartment belonged to his fiancée's mum) cops arrived at the door and told him he was under arrest for false imprisonment. His life is in tatters. He never raised a hand in anger. He cared for her when she was sick with cancer. If she wanted to end the relationship, why not end it and walk away? Why the vindictive abuse?
He has had an intervention order placed on him and the court has ordered him to attend a "re-education course" for abusive men. When he told the male court psychologist, he had never touched a woman in anger in his life the psychologist said, "We men often deflect, minimize and defend our abuse."
When my nephew was asked why he had his fiancee's phone password and replied that she had his too. He was told to stop deflecting from his controlling behavior. It is a nightmare. We are living in an Orwellian nightmare.
It's surreal, Tom. In the court, the feminist judge asked my nephew if he would like to attend the re-education course. He told he didn't see any need for it as he had done nothing wrong.
He didn't understand that he had no choice even though she made it appear he did. That is when he was told he must step into another room and sit down for a chat with the court appointed psychologist who would decide whether my nephew seemed a likely candidate for the course.
Forty minutes later he was told he had to attend 20 sessions.
My family has recently been destroyed by women using the courts to ruin their lives.
My brother has been a lawyer for decades. He was a partner in one of Australia's biggest law firms for a while before deciding to place his kids and health ahead of money.
His second wife had her own expensive apartment and high paying job yet my very stupid brother paid for everything. The fancy house, the bills and everything other than he personal desires which she paid for out of her account.
She had multiple affairs and finally left him. Her home and property was kept in her mum's name by the way.
She then proceeded to take him for everything he had. He struggled to find a cheap unit not far from my place.
My son is also being screwed over by his partner who is now sleeping with and moving in with a work associate. It has all come in a rush these past few months.
I have spent twenty years writing articles for AVFM but had never been personally affected by the poison of feminism. I wrote on behalf of men in general. Now it is on my doorstep.
I feel the world is going to hell, Tom. And feminism is at the root of all of it. Look at Britain's new laws -criminalizing masculinity. Australia will soon follow suite.
If Harris/Walz win, I would not be surprised at all to see that here. In addition to all the demonization of men the government has already done, anyway.
But what I wonder is "extreme misogyny"? Say a woman gets stood up on a date and posts a 2-word comment online somewhere reading: "Men suck". She is of course frustrated at being stood up and is blowing off steam. But if the same thing happens to a man and he posts "Women suck", do the new anti-misogyny police call that "extreme misogyny" and go looking for that man? My guess is, eventually, yes. It's easier to arrest and prosecute ordinary men than it is to track down and arrest Islamists plotting to do bad things, or actually doing them. Of course by expanding the scope of what's called "terrorist" creates arguments for increased budgets, expanded bureaucracy, and fewer liberties. This is how you get "1984".
I have been asking that question for a long time and have actually been in the middle of writing up an article on why men won't fight back. There are lots of reasons. Hopefully I will have it finished by the end of this week or early next week. Will look forward to hearing what you think of it.
I typed out three times a reply of why I don't get off my arse.. then at the end I knew that I had to give the SRF Swiss News some feedback about an article where they talk about the Taliban taking back power three years ago and how they show this 'power' now whilst denying women education and rights but not once mention the separate words of 'men or boys'. I stated and asked, don't men suffer under this Regime also? Do you think men want to live there also and last but not least there is a Swiss movie that shows an Afghan man who fled the country and was scared of being sent back there.. obviously he was educated and therefore exempt from the brutality that the women received!!!! [tongue in cheek here].
I found the courage to post my thoughts. I typed it, re read it, adjusted, tried to give a good opinion and shared some feedback about a female colleague punching a female manager in the face because our female manager lied to her.. So part of my feedback was 'why should I believe that ALL women are ALWAYS repressed by men!
Cooper's accession to the Home Secretary post immediately sent shivers down my spine - not least because I recalled her involvement in the Reclaim The Internet fiasco, along with Stella Creasey and Jess Phillips (among others), both of whom also hold ministerial positions in the new Labour government.
This typically excellent analysis from The Glass Blind Spot from fully six years ago details how the gears were already grinding among these Fabian feminist authoritarians and exposes the fallacies and subterfuge employed in promoting their agenda. Brian has virtually removed his channel from YouTube but thankfully mirrored everything to Odysee, enabling me to fish it out and remind myself of the deeply gendered roots of their totalitarian agenda. Well worth a watch.
Yes, TGBS was, along with Janice, the Honey Badgers and yourself, always one of my MRA YouTube A-listers, and clearly my favourite this side of the pond! I hope he's doing well.
The UK's immigration policies have created a country that, as Christopher Rufo reported after his recent visit to London, has little resemblance to the England many of us remember. It is acceptable to target men with the new regulations, but not diversity. However, the new policies will create some problems where these categories--dare I say it?--intersect. Thanks for the post, Tom, valuable as always.
This is what happens when you make a prosecutor your Prime Minister. And more of this will happen if a prosecutrix becomes President. Americans are already ruled by prosecutors and prosecutrices in Congress, the governors, mayors, etc. And it is not only lefties like Harris but also those posing as righties like Josh Hawley. Like democracy, Coca-Cola, obesity, and single motherhood, this is an American export.
I meant to add that this trend of prosecutors taking control of our politics should be of special interest to men. Guess where most prosecutors begin their careers and cut their teeth? Prosecuting child-support cases. See the articles and my new book.
It could turn out to be a good move (always the optimist!). For years those wishing to free society from feminism have accepted feminism's framing of the genders as equal, and proceeded to engage in hard debate to vindicate men from feminism's demented accusations (patriarchy etc). But this always results in offence, pear clutching* and further division with both sides speaking at cross purposes (logic and facts vs emotions and power games).
By outlawing 'misogyny' it forces everyone to focus on one single issue: what is harmful to women. This could be an own goal because nothing is more harmful to women than feminism. Critics of feminism (including MRAs) are now being directed by politicians to focus on feminism's greatest weak spot: the immense harm feminism causes to women psychologically, emotionally and even spiritually. These are things that everyone cares about. These are the only criticisms of feminism that might actually make people stop and think.
The gender debate has always been set up in terms of facts vs feelings. Objectivity vs subjectivity. The masculine vs the feminine. A 'factual / logical win' on the anti-feminist side always equates to 'offense' being taken on the feminist side, which is then framed as 'an attack on women' which is then framed as 'misogyny' which is then framed as 'proof of patriarchy' and evidence of the need for MOAR FEMINISM! This is why 'masculine' arguments always lose to the 'feminine' response and feminists outrage and righteousness grows and grows.
I am not sure our current level of civilisation (we seem to be at a low point) is even capable of viewing men as human, and men's issues as issues at all. It is wholly focused on women, and it is true that women are in crisis too. Perhaps it is a more profound crisis than men currently face? And perhaps it really does need addressing first? ('women and children first').
Even before this ridiculous legislation I have often thought the only criticism of feminism which has a chance of registering with the mainstream population is how it degrades, belittles, objectifies and generally harms women.
Maybe nature demands we rescue women from feminism in order to get to a place where we can also begin to address men's issues. Perhaps men's issues will address themselves naturally as women break the spell of feminism and give up trying to outcompete men by assuming the role of children.
That is why 'making misogyny illegal' could be feminism's undoing.
I hope critics of feminism do not fight against this, but instead think of it as an INVITATION to expose the inherent misogyny of feminism and demand feminists be removed from politics, education and any other area where they can harm women. As with all issues today, the only thing which matters is taking the moral high ground. If critics of feminism can articulate all the ways feminism harms (and hates) women, femininity and womanhood than this will be a victory for both sexes... and a loss for 'the system'.
Would love to agree Plato that there is an upside to this but given what we have seen for the last 40 years I think it is simply going from bad to worse. Now it seems possible they will be putting men in jail for what they THINK. Not good.
Sorry, Plato, but this makes no sense either pragmatically or morally.
I appreciate your attempt to find some silver lining in feminism, but, as the old saying goes, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Did the Nazi fixation with anti-Semitism end up doing anything good for Jews? Would it have done so if Nazi Germany had won the war? Would it have disappeared after years of mass murder and left behind a better society? Not likely in my opinion. Besides, I see no evidence that promoting or tolerating gynocentrism (what you call "women and children first") has turned women against feminism. What does turn some women against feminism is loving the men in their own lives--including their sons--and worrying about their future in a society that has no room for them.
At the heart of what's destroying our society is not hatred of this or that group, moreover, but hatred itself (in its many forms) and the idea that (presumably good) ends can justify (obviously evil) means. The only cure for misogyny and, but also for misandry and all other forms of ideologically generated hatred, is moral maturity: teaching young children that hatred is inherently evil and that the reverse is inherently good. This simple but profound truth about the human condition is what Jews and Christians call "the Golden Rule." Under countless names, though, this is the moral insight on which every society has relied, both historically and cross-culturally. We dare not put off the priority of restoring its primacy.
Lobby groups in Australia want to do something similar, expanding the definition of terrorism to include anti-feminist behavior. Because anti-feminist behavior in Australia would be the most prevalent form of violence. Anti-feminist behavior doesn’t have to be physical, it can also be verbal or written.
Britain has gone mad and Australia isn’t far behind.
"Anti-feminist behavior doesn’t have to be physical, it can also be verbal or written." Indeed. Sites like this substack or other MRM-related sites could be labeled "terroristic" and the operators/authors prosecuted under such new laws or policies. I'm really glad at least here in the US we have the Bill of Rights that protects us from the gov't prosecuting nearly all forms of speech or expression. What does the UK have to protect them, I wonder? Anything?
I fear that is eroding here in the US.
Thanks Daniel, I didn't know that was the case. Seems like this idea is in multiple spots. ugh.
This was in The Australian about a month ago, I also not that I made a mistake in my initial comment mentioning terrorism, it was actually violent extremism that was mentioned in the report and news article below. In any case I think the situation is similar.
https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/9c386698-5d92-4667-8bbb-4060ed59f42b
A new report has warned that anti-feminist beliefs are a strong predictor of violent extremism, with 20 per cent of Australian men surveyed believing feminism is dangerous to society and should be fought with violence if necessary.
According to the survey of 1020 men and women, 30 per cent of all respondents agreed or slightly agreed with hostile sexist attitudes and 19.4 per cent of the men believed it is legitimate to resist feminism using force.
Some of the statements put to the respondents include that feminism has ruined modern relationships and feminists are trying to get more power than men.
The research found hostile sexist attitudes and attitudes permissive of violence against women are strongly associated with most forms of violent extremism, including extremism motivated by religion, ethnicity and incel ideologies.
The Misogyny, Racism and Violent Extremism report said addressing the role of racial and gendered biases as underlying drivers of violent extremism and terrorism is significant but an "overlooked" security concern.
Report author Dr Sara Meger, who teaches international security and gender in international relations at the University of Melbourne, said she sent her research to commonwealth agencies in the hope it will help the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation redefine what is recognised as violent extremism.
"The biggest shortcomings we had this year with the Bondi Junction attack is that the current acting definition of terrorism can't grasp how someone is motivated for a hatred of woman or anti-feminist ideology," Dr Meger told The Australian.
"We were motivated to do this research because... we thought we needed some empirical data to corroborate the growing recognition that there is some sort of element of gender ideology driving violent extremism."
The report also found that if policy were to define violent anti-feminist beliefs as a form of extremism, it would be the most prevalent form in the country.
It said that young people and boys are more likely to support violent extremism in all forms and those in the 18-39 age bracket are more likely to agree with restricting a woman's right to choose her sexual partners compared to older respondents.
Dr Meger said "online echo chambers" are the biggest influence on younger generations preferencing these views over older people.
"These young men for whatever reason who are struggling socially, financially, emotionally, they're looking for answers in these online forums. They find an easy one and blame feminism. Some forums might say feminism is the reason your life isn't as good," Dr Meger said.
She said it would take a whole-of-society approach and more online content regulation to prevent young Australians from adopting harmful views.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult issue as there's such mistrust with authority figures that goes along with this radicalism and polarisation," she said.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult issue as there's such mistrust with authority figures that goes along with this radicalism and polarisation," she said.
The report said terrorist attacks and incidents of mass violence in Australia were found to have gendered and racialised determinants, and pointed to the Lindt Cafe siege terrorist who had a domestic violence intervention order against him at the time of the attack, and the Bondi Junction killer who was described by his father as frustrated by his lack of dating success.
It is impressive the feminist ability to construct questions tht will give them just the answers they seek! Clever! And openly anti-male.
I would also like to add that I don’t condone violence against women, but I also don’t believe that feminism is a benign ideology. It may have started out with good intentions, but it has now become something different and looks more like a man haters club than anything else.
When it comes to men being aggressive or violent against women, I don’t think the solution is to make it easier to throw more men into prison. At some point we need to sit down and talk about these people and their lives, how were they brought up, what were their experiences, were they exposed to drugs and violence as a child, were they bullied and belittled etc.
My big thing that I am working through myself is dealing with past traumas. Trauma itself is a very big topic and something that I am continually trying to understand. My best resource on trauma has been “The body keeps the score” by Bessel Van Der Kolk, this book has been an eye opener and I wish more people would read it. Unless we actually start talking to people and help them process their trauma, then this problem of violence against women and violence in general isn’t going to go away.
Yes, excellent book. The body will tell you the story.
What is never talked about with the violence against women issue is the factors that brought out the violence. Violence generally does not combust on its own. Not to excuse anyone but if we are to get anywhere with understanding violence all factors need to be addressed.
Feminism never started out with good intentions.
as I have learned from Tom and after watching nearly all of Janices videos, here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGFFi6pRCnCcL5RUhTkIClr-g43wCDf1P
and here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGFFi6pRCnCdQTe1iG3Tw4Td9jvhY2w74
Thanks. I love Janice!
Bessel van der Kolk is one of the best.
Not mad. This is simply another step in their process of criminalizing masculinity. Raise your voice in your own kitchen when arguing with a female and you can be arrested in Australia if the person you yelled at for sleeping with your best mate or spending much needed money on a pedicure decides to call the cops and say they felt threatened by your emotional abuse or coercive behaviour.
My nephew was recently handcuffed for standing in the doorway of his apartment after his fiancée said she wanted to leave and live with her mum. He simply wanted to know why. She was held up for two minutes before he asked if she would like him to walk her to her mum's who lived down the same street. It was late at night. She agreed. He walked her to her mum's then returned to their apartment.
The following morning as he was packing his things ( the apartment belonged to his fiancée's mum) cops arrived at the door and told him he was under arrest for false imprisonment. His life is in tatters. He never raised a hand in anger. He cared for her when she was sick with cancer. If she wanted to end the relationship, why not end it and walk away? Why the vindictive abuse?
He has had an intervention order placed on him and the court has ordered him to attend a "re-education course" for abusive men. When he told the male court psychologist, he had never touched a woman in anger in his life the psychologist said, "We men often deflect, minimize and defend our abuse."
When my nephew was asked why he had his fiancee's phone password and replied that she had his too. He was told to stop deflecting from his controlling behavior. It is a nightmare. We are living in an Orwellian nightmare.
"We men often deflect, minimize and defend our abuse."
this is indeed what they say. They will not let you pass the course unless you admit you are an abuser. It is sick.
It's surreal, Tom. In the court, the feminist judge asked my nephew if he would like to attend the re-education course. He told he didn't see any need for it as he had done nothing wrong.
He didn't understand that he had no choice even though she made it appear he did. That is when he was told he must step into another room and sit down for a chat with the court appointed psychologist who would decide whether my nephew seemed a likely candidate for the course.
Forty minutes later he was told he had to attend 20 sessions.
My family has recently been destroyed by women using the courts to ruin their lives.
My brother has been a lawyer for decades. He was a partner in one of Australia's biggest law firms for a while before deciding to place his kids and health ahead of money.
His second wife had her own expensive apartment and high paying job yet my very stupid brother paid for everything. The fancy house, the bills and everything other than he personal desires which she paid for out of her account.
She had multiple affairs and finally left him. Her home and property was kept in her mum's name by the way.
She then proceeded to take him for everything he had. He struggled to find a cheap unit not far from my place.
My son is also being screwed over by his partner who is now sleeping with and moving in with a work associate. It has all come in a rush these past few months.
I have spent twenty years writing articles for AVFM but had never been personally affected by the poison of feminism. I wrote on behalf of men in general. Now it is on my doorstep.
I feel the world is going to hell, Tom. And feminism is at the root of all of it. Look at Britain's new laws -criminalizing masculinity. Australia will soon follow suite.
I feel sick to my stomach.
I tell men: do not live with a woman. It's a bad idea on so many levels.
If Harris/Walz win, I would not be surprised at all to see that here. In addition to all the demonization of men the government has already done, anyway.
I assume these laws will only apply to white males.
Great Britain goes mad on a regular basis.
But what I wonder is "extreme misogyny"? Say a woman gets stood up on a date and posts a 2-word comment online somewhere reading: "Men suck". She is of course frustrated at being stood up and is blowing off steam. But if the same thing happens to a man and he posts "Women suck", do the new anti-misogyny police call that "extreme misogyny" and go looking for that man? My guess is, eventually, yes. It's easier to arrest and prosecute ordinary men than it is to track down and arrest Islamists plotting to do bad things, or actually doing them. Of course by expanding the scope of what's called "terrorist" creates arguments for increased budgets, expanded bureaucracy, and fewer liberties. This is how you get "1984".
Yes, that is the big question and I am sure it will turn out to be whatever they want it to be....
Tom, why can’t we get any men to GET THEIR ASS OFF THE COUCH AND STOP THIS INSANITY?!???
After all, “There are no victims, only volunteers” -Paul Elam AVFM.
Men are actually allowing this!
I have been asking that question for a long time and have actually been in the middle of writing up an article on why men won't fight back. There are lots of reasons. Hopefully I will have it finished by the end of this week or early next week. Will look forward to hearing what you think of it.
I bet GYNOCENTRISM is at least a part of it. So much for ‘male privilege’ I say!
Women’s power lies in their ability of deceiving men that they have no power!
Yup.
Women are liars, turns out-
It is a good question.
Thank you for your post.
I typed out three times a reply of why I don't get off my arse.. then at the end I knew that I had to give the SRF Swiss News some feedback about an article where they talk about the Taliban taking back power three years ago and how they show this 'power' now whilst denying women education and rights but not once mention the separate words of 'men or boys'. I stated and asked, don't men suffer under this Regime also? Do you think men want to live there also and last but not least there is a Swiss movie that shows an Afghan man who fled the country and was scared of being sent back there.. obviously he was educated and therefore exempt from the brutality that the women received!!!! [tongue in cheek here].
I found the courage to post my thoughts. I typed it, re read it, adjusted, tried to give a good opinion and shared some feedback about a female colleague punching a female manager in the face because our female manager lied to her.. So part of my feedback was 'why should I believe that ALL women are ALWAYS repressed by men!
I wait for their answer..
I feel like I can breath again...
Sounds like good work Jamie. We all need to speak out when we can. Good job.
Cooper's accession to the Home Secretary post immediately sent shivers down my spine - not least because I recalled her involvement in the Reclaim The Internet fiasco, along with Stella Creasey and Jess Phillips (among others), both of whom also hold ministerial positions in the new Labour government.
This typically excellent analysis from The Glass Blind Spot from fully six years ago details how the gears were already grinding among these Fabian feminist authoritarians and exposes the fallacies and subterfuge employed in promoting their agenda. Brian has virtually removed his channel from YouTube but thankfully mirrored everything to Odysee, enabling me to fish it out and remind myself of the deeply gendered roots of their totalitarian agenda. Well worth a watch.
https://odysee.com/@TheGlassBlindSpot:c/encore-upload-reclaim-the-internet-who%27s:0?r=2ixKWqTocpVp5GnmnQu4Ks52rwopPP9W
Excellent catch! Thanks for posting this. I remember his channel and loved his work. Great that you have found it!
Yes, TGBS was, along with Janice, the Honey Badgers and yourself, always one of my MRA YouTube A-listers, and clearly my favourite this side of the pond! I hope he's doing well.
Meanwhile rapist and kidnappers immigrant gangs are not an issue in UK, even being the REAL and most significant source of violence against woman.
It is amazing isn't it?
The UK's immigration policies have created a country that, as Christopher Rufo reported after his recent visit to London, has little resemblance to the England many of us remember. It is acceptable to target men with the new regulations, but not diversity. However, the new policies will create some problems where these categories--dare I say it?--intersect. Thanks for the post, Tom, valuable as always.
When I first started my journey learning that I was a second class citizens, I came across an EU article that lists anti-feminism as a possible crime.
The whole idea makes me want to vomit!
This is what happens when you make a prosecutor your Prime Minister. And more of this will happen if a prosecutrix becomes President. Americans are already ruled by prosecutors and prosecutrices in Congress, the governors, mayors, etc. And it is not only lefties like Harris but also those posing as righties like Josh Hawley. Like democracy, Coca-Cola, obesity, and single motherhood, this is an American export.
https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/p/keir-and-kamala-cut-from-the-same
https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/p/josh-hawley-scolds-us
I meant to add that this trend of prosecutors taking control of our politics should be of special interest to men. Guess where most prosecutors begin their careers and cut their teeth? Prosecuting child-support cases. See the articles and my new book.
So true Stephen and very few people see it.
Wait until they legally define saying things Muslims do not like as a crime "rooted in racism."
It could turn out to be a good move (always the optimist!). For years those wishing to free society from feminism have accepted feminism's framing of the genders as equal, and proceeded to engage in hard debate to vindicate men from feminism's demented accusations (patriarchy etc). But this always results in offence, pear clutching* and further division with both sides speaking at cross purposes (logic and facts vs emotions and power games).
By outlawing 'misogyny' it forces everyone to focus on one single issue: what is harmful to women. This could be an own goal because nothing is more harmful to women than feminism. Critics of feminism (including MRAs) are now being directed by politicians to focus on feminism's greatest weak spot: the immense harm feminism causes to women psychologically, emotionally and even spiritually. These are things that everyone cares about. These are the only criticisms of feminism that might actually make people stop and think.
The gender debate has always been set up in terms of facts vs feelings. Objectivity vs subjectivity. The masculine vs the feminine. A 'factual / logical win' on the anti-feminist side always equates to 'offense' being taken on the feminist side, which is then framed as 'an attack on women' which is then framed as 'misogyny' which is then framed as 'proof of patriarchy' and evidence of the need for MOAR FEMINISM! This is why 'masculine' arguments always lose to the 'feminine' response and feminists outrage and righteousness grows and grows.
I am not sure our current level of civilisation (we seem to be at a low point) is even capable of viewing men as human, and men's issues as issues at all. It is wholly focused on women, and it is true that women are in crisis too. Perhaps it is a more profound crisis than men currently face? And perhaps it really does need addressing first? ('women and children first').
Even before this ridiculous legislation I have often thought the only criticism of feminism which has a chance of registering with the mainstream population is how it degrades, belittles, objectifies and generally harms women.
Maybe nature demands we rescue women from feminism in order to get to a place where we can also begin to address men's issues. Perhaps men's issues will address themselves naturally as women break the spell of feminism and give up trying to outcompete men by assuming the role of children.
That is why 'making misogyny illegal' could be feminism's undoing.
I hope critics of feminism do not fight against this, but instead think of it as an INVITATION to expose the inherent misogyny of feminism and demand feminists be removed from politics, education and any other area where they can harm women. As with all issues today, the only thing which matters is taking the moral high ground. If critics of feminism can articulate all the ways feminism harms (and hates) women, femininity and womanhood than this will be a victory for both sexes... and a loss for 'the system'.
*edit: 'pear' was a typo but I'm leaving it in!
Would love to agree Plato that there is an upside to this but given what we have seen for the last 40 years I think it is simply going from bad to worse. Now it seems possible they will be putting men in jail for what they THINK. Not good.
Sorry, Plato, but this makes no sense either pragmatically or morally.
I appreciate your attempt to find some silver lining in feminism, but, as the old saying goes, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Did the Nazi fixation with anti-Semitism end up doing anything good for Jews? Would it have done so if Nazi Germany had won the war? Would it have disappeared after years of mass murder and left behind a better society? Not likely in my opinion. Besides, I see no evidence that promoting or tolerating gynocentrism (what you call "women and children first") has turned women against feminism. What does turn some women against feminism is loving the men in their own lives--including their sons--and worrying about their future in a society that has no room for them.
At the heart of what's destroying our society is not hatred of this or that group, moreover, but hatred itself (in its many forms) and the idea that (presumably good) ends can justify (obviously evil) means. The only cure for misogyny and, but also for misandry and all other forms of ideologically generated hatred, is moral maturity: teaching young children that hatred is inherently evil and that the reverse is inherently good. This simple but profound truth about the human condition is what Jews and Christians call "the Golden Rule." Under countless names, though, this is the moral insight on which every society has relied, both historically and cross-culturally. We dare not put off the priority of restoring its primacy.
Sadly agree Paul. The basis is morality and that is exactly what they have been dismantling. Not a simple thing to bring back.
Absurd.