As if the whole anti-Philip Davies saga couldn’t get any better, it has. What started as a weak article in The Guardian has now spiralled into a cacophony of bullshit. Funny, isn’t it, how none of these journalists turned up for conference but are willing to circle-jerk each other to produce their shoddy content. Churnalism, I heard it’s called.
It all started with this pathetic Guardian article (archive here) which I won’t spend too much time discussing because I commented on it late last night in this article. The long and short of it is that they projected a load of their progressive horse-shit onto the conference, quoted Philip Davies MP a lot and didn’t bother discussing the very real issues mentioned in the quotes. Do they even try?
So, after I finished that post I popped off to bed, and this morning when I arose what did I find? My-oh-my had the mainstream media been busy! Let’s work through each of these articles one by one, shall we!?
First there’s this delightful narrative from Sophie Walker detailing how MPs such as Philip Davies make me proud to be a feminist zealot (archive here). Tell me Sophie, are these the sort of feminist zealots you identify with? She describes Philip’s speech as an outburst, not too sure how she came to that conclusion, and says that his awful comments shed light on what is happening right across British politics. Hmmm, you mean resisting feminism? I don’t see a problem with that. But the real icing on the cake, the real cherry on top of the real icing on the cake, the real candle next to the real cherry on top the real icing on the cake, came when she wrote this little chunk of garbage:
“He asserted that the UK justice system shows “clear discrimination against men” – a claim so staggering that it raises serious questions about his fitness to serve on the Commons justice committee.”
Oh what in tarnation, how very dare he discuss how men are 3.4 times more likely to be sent to prison than women (when crimes are similar), that they receive substantially longer sentences for the same category of crime and if they were to be treated the same way as women there would be some 70,000 less men in UK prisons!?!?!? She then refutes (I use that word very gingerly) the claim by giving two paragraphs of “facts” and only two citations. The rest are delivered on the basis that they are true because, well, because they just are. The first links to The Guardian’s Women’s Section (how’s that a source???) and the second to the research-page of Prison Reform Trust (archive here). Take a read of the body of text at the top of said research page:
The Prison Reform Trust has long called for a reduction in women’s imprisonment in the UK and a step change in how the criminal justice system responds to the needs of women…
You just can’t make this up. The ratio of 1 woman for every 21 men in prison is too much, we need to reduce the number of women in prison. Wow. The article then bullshits some more, all without backing evidence, of course, and finishes with its most damning ending. She calls for a ratification of the Istanbul convention, and if you want to know why that’s a bad thing, click either here or here or here. Essentially, it argues that men are the cause of sexism and women are the victims of it, men use violence against women as control and so violence against women must be made more illegal than violence against men. Criticising feminism would be made illegal and camps would be introduced to re-condition any young folk who fall out of line. The Istanbul Convention puts the “Nazi” into “Feminazi”.
Next on my list is this wonderful article from The Daily Mail (archive here) and the reason I say it is wonderful is because it seems to be somewhat unbiased. No joke, it gave a summary analysis of the “controversy” then gives an opposing view, Tim Farron (yes, I had to Google his name too) who said that the “need for feminism is self-evident. In the UK, on average two women a week are killed by a violent partner or ex-partner, the gender pay gap in full-time work stands at 24 per cent and women are under-represented in Parliament and on FTSE 100 boards… I am proud to call myself a feminist and Philip Davies’ remarks are truly ignorant.” I’ve discussed the two women a week statistic before, so I won’t discuss it here. I don’t know how these “statistics” refute what Philip Davies said, but oh well.
Let’s have a quick-fire round, as there’s too many articles to analyse.
Then there was another Daily Mail article (archive here) which did the same again, but pandered more to feminist input – involving more of their opinions and quotes. It also included The Fawcett Society’s response, who suggested that Davies should start working for Donald Trump. Again, they were incapable of refuting any of his points. I’m noticing a trend.
“Theresa May should withdraw the Tory whip from Davies and immediately suspend his membership whilst an investigation is carried out…
He has open contempt for women. His views are so out-dated they are prehistoric…
He should become a figure of fun and a rich source of material for every satirist in the country. However, he also endorses and legitimises the inflammatory and toxic rhetoric of groups who are misogynistic to their core. He should have no place in Theresa May’s Tory party…
There is no place for these views in modern Britain. He has a track record for misogyny having consistently voted against legislation that will make our society more gender equal.”
I wonder how long until the feminists start campaigning against him, sending email threats and harassing him and his family? I can only guess.
I guess the people are on board with what he has to say.
But now I wish to address the crux of this article, the whole “eating cake” backlash. Feminists really want to add to their weight, don’t they!? It’s as has been pointed out, feminism appeals to women who are *ahem* less than attractive. I can only assume that they’ve come to the conclusion that they might as well continue down that road.
Many feminists have decided that the best way they can respond to Davies’ comments about having their cake and eating it was to, well, eat cake.
The first I saw was this Cosmopolitan article (archive here) which features several women smugly eating cake, as if that is the best way to defeat the elusive Patriarchy. Their smug arrogance really is disgusting, to think that their response to the massive gender gap in prison sentencing is to mock it by eating cake. Shit like this, amongst other things, is why there’s so few people identifying with feminism here in the UK. #Dipshits.
Sorry ladies, but your admission of feminism by eating cake doth butter no parsnips, instead you only highlight your bigoted sexism. As was mentioned above 3.4 times as many men are sent to prison as women, men receive 64% longer sentences and on average serve 10% more of their sentence. If male offenders were treated like women there would be some 70,000 less men in prison. To add further “equality” back in 2010 judges were ordered to show more leniency when deciding sentences for female offenders. Apparently the 1 female to 21 male prison population ratio is not “equal” enough.
To back up this “equality” Baroness Hale DBE said in her 2005 Longford Trust Lecture:
“It is now well recognised that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted in some very unequal treatment for the women and girls who appear before the criminal justice system. Simply put, a male‐ordered world has applied to them its perceptions of the appropriate treatment for male offenders.”
Arguing that we should treat female criminals differently to male criminals is sexism, no matter how you brush it up, and the obvious victims of this mentality are men. “You commit the crime, you do the crime” as the saying goes. Yet, the same Baroness Hale DBE said in R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer, Prague Airport 2004:
“The individual should not be assumed to hold the characteristics which the supplier associates with the group, whether or not most members of the group do indeed have such characteristics, a process sometimes referred to as stereotyping. Even if, for example, most women are less strong than most men, it must not be assumed that the individual woman who has applied for the job does not have the strength to do it… If strength is a qualification, all applicants should be required to demonstrate that they qualify.”
If they are found guilty it is to be understood they possess the strength to not only have committed the crime for which they have been tried but they also possess the strength to do the time. We should, as she correctly argued, not discriminate based upon stereotypes. Evidence of a person’s criminality should be found not in their sex, gender or any other arbitrary trait but instead should be found in the nature of their crime. This however is not what is argued nor demonstrated in UK courts nor in the first quote.
The legal system only wants equality when it suits them – and by them, I obviously mean women.
I can go on, but for sake of brevity I shall not. If I am chastised in the comments section for not continuing, I guess I’ll add it in.
Ultimately the legal system is hopelessly skewed against men, feminists have had they’re cake and now they’re eating it. By doing so physically in your tweets only displays your staggering ignorance and misandry.
Tell me, how would you feel if the boot was on the other foot? Would you be celebrating if men were to eat sandwiches celebrating the brutal treatment women suffer at the hands of the Saudi legal system? Would you tolerate a #hashtag, would you retweet their pictures of BLT’s, Chicken Clubs, Peanut Butter and Jam? Hmm? Would bitchy hit-pieces in the mainstream media lauding men for making sandwiches mocking the women in the Middle East be considered respectable?
I doubt it, because as has been said before:
It’s sexism when it’s against women but equality when it’s for women.