How the Labour party just kicked domestic violence survivors in the teeth


Only two people know what happened on the night Sarah Champion and her then-husband Graham Hoyland were arrested and cautioned for domestic violence. It is likely that even those two people have very different memories and perceptions of events, and of the eight-year marriage which preceded them.

In the absence of hard facts, this weekend the shadow minister for preventing abuse and domestic violence and her ex-husband used rival tabloids to present their versions of historic events, and to deny the claims of the other. In the Mirror, Champion described the arrest as occurring in the midst of a bitter, acrimonious marriage breakdown, when she ‘felt very vulnerable’ after ‘months of tension spilled over.”

In the Mail meanwhile, Hoyland insisted that he was the victim on the night of the arrest, while his friends and current partner described Champion as ‘an abusive bully’ and suggested that the violent attack in 2007 was not an isolated incident. Hoyland, it is claimed, still has nightmares about their relationship.

While we have no perfect objective truth, and never will, we can comment on some of the statements made since the news broke. The first point is that it is highly inappropriate for anyone with an admitted history of domestic violence to attempt to explain it away with phrases such as “I lost control after being provoked for years.” This is profoundly different to a claim of self-defence – pointedly, at no point has Champion ever claimed she was defending herself when she hit Hoyland with a framed painting, causing actual bodily harm.

There is a clear red line in all domestic violence prevention work: Nothing excuses or justifies the escalation of a row into violence. When a perpetrator says “I accept I was in the wrong, but…” everything after the ‘but’ should be discounted.  Any attempts to explain or contextualise domestic violence have the inevitable effect of trivialising or even justifying it, which is incredibly dangerous. All of this is true irrespective of the genders of those involved.

The second deeply worrying aspect to the current row is the immediate reaction of Champion’s friends and colleagues, not to mention the leadership and conference of the Labour party. When news of the arrest broke on Saturday, Champion was instantly swaddled with sympathetic messages and unqualified support, all the way to the top of the party.

Male victims and survivors of domestic violence often talk of their reluctance to report the crimes or tell anyone about their experiences. They fear that they will not be believed, that if there is any ambiguity then authorities and society at large will always assume that the man is at fault, that he must have done something to deserve it or bring it upon himself. They believe that any injuries or trauma inflicted upon them, as men, will be ignored, trivialised or even mocked.

Over recent years there had been considerable progress made in persuading authorities and policy makers to at least recognise the existence and needs of male victims of domestic abuse. This is one reason why male victims have increasingly felt able to report crimes against them. Last year 5,641 women were convicted of assaulting their partners, a figure which has trebled over the past decade. The past 48 hours have been a terrible setback, confirming all male victims’ worst fears, at least as far as the Labour party is concerned. It will be perceived, if you will forgive the appropriately violent metaphor, as a kick in the teeth.

As shadow minister for preventing domestic violence and abuse, Sarah Champion’s responsibilities include many thousands of male victims of female abusers. Recent developments give rise to legitimate questions about her capacity to perform that role. She herself has stated that her experience helps her better understand “how living in a toxic ­atmosphere can cause emotional damage [and] how things can escalate out of control so quickly.” This may well be true but it does invite questions as to which lessons, precisely, she thinks she has learned.

Britain’s leading charity for male victims, the Mankind Initiative, tell me that they plan to write to the MP this week to request an urgent meeting to clarify her position and attitudes towards male victimisation. This seems to me more constructive response than kneejerk calls for resignation or dismissal, which would achieve nothing if the problematic attitudes displayed by the rest of her party remain in place.

Sarah Champion’s ability to represent all victims of domestic violence does not hinge upon what she did or did not do over nine years ago, but upon what she does next.

 

Comments

  1. says

    The first point is that it is highly inappropriate for anyone with an admitted history of domestic violence to attempt to explain it away with phrases such as “I lost control after being provoked for years.” This is profoundly different to a claim of self-defence – pointedly, at no point has Champion ever claimed she was defending herself when she hit Hoyland with a framed painting, causing actual bodily harm.

    “I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    “The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.“He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    That actually sounds a lot like self defence to me. Now this can totally be her downplaying the whole thing and attempts to justify herself, but to say she never used self defence as an explanation doesn’t hold up.

  2. Ally Fogg says

    OK, if we can just get this out of the way now, I think the order of events she describes there is deliberately vague.

    I think the giveaway is the phrase “The next thing I knew was…” That strikes me as an obfuscation

    Crucially, she doesn’t actually volunteer at what point she hit him with the picture.

    If I had to make a best guess, she is telling us that she grabbed the picture, he made a move to grab the picture back from her, and then she hit him with it. That would make a degree of sense of everything else that has emerged.

    I think it is very important that she admitted guilt in the assault (by accepting the caution), she did use the phrase “I accept I was in the wrong” and she never explicitly said she was defending herself.

    But AND THIS IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT BIT

    I don’t think it matters exactly who did what in what order. The reality is it was probably a really messy, angry row and no one really knows exactly who did what in what precise order. I am not for a moment suggesting that he was a completely innocent party and she was solely responsible. I don’t know, neither does anyone else.

    I am saying that WHATEVER happened on that precise occasion, it is NEVER acceptable to start saying “yeah but no but I was provoked” etc as an explanation for domestic violence. That remains true whatever the fine details of that precise incident.

  3. 123454321 says

    Well done to Jeremy who just outright proved that he doesn’t believe in true equality and wouldn’t know what it was even if it inserted itself firmly up his arse where his brain operates. I must be one amongst thousands more who wouldn’t vote for this clit head bigot in a million years. Well done, Jeremy, you just lost all your credibility and destroyed any faith that someone might have for your party and the buffoons who applauded your “warm” words of support towards a person who smashed a fucking piece of wood and glass over someone’s head. Way to go! And as for Sarah? Well I guess she proves the point that being female brings privileges men and boys can only dream of. What a logical, well-balanced and cool environment we have out there!

  4. That Guy says

    @1 Giliell

    Genuine question. At what point in this timeline does she hit him with the painting?

    One of the things that frustrates me about the reactions to this are the allowances that are made for Champion- you can find swathes of stories about men who are slapped or pushed by their partners who slap, pin or punch or whatever back, and then the partner phones the authorities.

    The point here is not that these men were correct in their (alleged) actions, but in most of the left-leaning right-thinking world, causing actual bodily harm to someone is OK, and these stories are treated (probably fairly!) as exactly as you described, ‘downplaying the whole thing and attempts to justify’ the end result.

    DV certainly possesses a gender dimension, but as Ally said, my main concern is the language around this whole affair is essentially “but I was driven to it!” which is deeply worrying and harmful for all victims.

  5. That Guy says

    two edits-

    Ally beat me to it with my first sentence

    *causing actual bodily harm is NOT OK

    I think my attempt to bold NOT disappeared it

  6. 123454321 says

    So what would Jeremy have done had the sexes been reversed, I wonder. Has there ever been a similar case where a male politician has been charged for domestic violence in the past?

  7. That Guy says

    @ 123454321

    Cheers, for not only the gendered slurs but the implication that you really want to brain people with paintings.

  8. Marduk says

    #2
    I was very struck with those parts of it as well. Of course, as you say, we don’t know what happened but I was quite surprised that a DV advocate would write like that at all, who knows if this shows verisimilitude or a lack of self-awareness. It was the classic abusers self-contradicting excuses: it just happened, yet I was provoked, it was senseless, yet it was in some ways justified by years of prior events.

    I wouldn’t want to ‘try the case’ by correspondence but overall it was very odd and you’d expect a DV advocate to steer clear of reasoning that they specifically object to and believe the male population should be educated is incorrect.

    That said, Bindel’s partner specialises in defending murderesses who claim they were provoked by men, the contradiction is never really hidden. This sort of thing has always been latent in feminist analysis of DV and I think more progress would be made by ditching the ideology (I don’t think I need bang on about this for the thousandth time but either certain types of conduct are wrong, or they aren’t).

  9. ajay says

    It has happened before for a male politician, except the offence was less serious, they were contrite afterwards and they had no responsibility for DV policy. Unlike Champion, of course the male politician was universely condemned and forced to resign. This is a classic example of the double standard where men are held to the highest possible standards and females excused almost anything.

    See
    https://hequal.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/domestic-violence-double-standards-male-mp-was-forced-to-stand-down-when-cautioned-for-assaulting-partner-yet-sarah-champion-receives-support-for-same-crime/

    Jeremey Corbyn seems a committed ideologue with no moral compass or real concern, both incompetent and dishonest, preferring ideology over reality. This is one example, the train incident another.

  10. Ally Fogg says

    [9] It is not quite the same, as the Ruffley offence and caution occurred while he was a sitting MP, whereas Champion’s arrest was 5 years before she became an MP and nearly 10 years before it got in the papers. I think it is reasonable that we expect exemplary behaviour from sitting politicians, but also reasonable that one offence committed in earlier life should not necessarily preclude someone for office for ever more.

    Although it is fair to ask how different reaction would be if it emerged it was a male MP who had been arrested many years before. I think it is safe to say reactions would be very different.

  11. ajay says

    OK RUffey was a sitting MP when it happened but at least he accepted he was in the wrong. She caused actual bodily harm not just assault, she is supposed to be responsible for domestic violence policy which he was not, and most importantly she does not accept what she did was wrong. She isr shockingly innapropriate for the role but it is no surprise at all. She is a women and violence by women against men does not matter, except to show how much trouble men cause by provoking women.

    An example I have not seen mentioned elsewhere is Vicky Pryce. She gave her husband a black eye and put him through a glass window, by any definition a serious assault, yet even after this was known supposedly progressive publications dedicated to equality and against domestic violence, continued to publish her without a murmer of criticism. It was simply ignored.

  12. says

    Ally

    I think it is very important that she admitted guilt in the assault (by accepting the caution), she did use the phrase “I accept I was in the wrong” and she never explicitly said she was defending herself.

    Tell me what she could actually say now that wouldn’t make her look bad?
    Let’s go with the most generous interpretation for her. This is pure speculation, though in the realm of possibility:
    They fight over money. She grabs the picture to (emotionally) hurt and provoke him. He lunges at her, pushes her into the wall, she hits him with the painting. He realises that unlike her he has marks to show and calls the police who arrest her.
    What can she say now that would satisfy you?

    That Guy

    Genuine question. At what point in this timeline does she hit him with the painting?

    I don’t know.
    Though really, saying “The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest” is “deliberately vague” and not something that is entirely reasonable in a situation that progresses rapidly is judging with the intent to paint everything she says as bad as possible.
    If I take her “vague words” as a halfway accurate description of the event then he attacked her first. Lunging at somebody and pushing them into a wall is violence.
    I also notice that in the “Mail” article he doesn’t offer a different version of events. His current partner and his “male friend” pull every trick from the “crazy ex” and “gold digger” register they can find.

    One of the things that frustrates me about the reactions to this are the allowances that are made for Champion- you can find swathes of stories about men who are slapped or pushed by their partners who slap, pin or punch or whatever back, and then the partner phones the authorities.

    If you’re pushed into a wall you’re allowed to use the force you need to get out of the situation. Regardless of gender there’s self defence and there’s retaliation.

  13. That Guy says

    @ Giliell 12

    I don’t know about anyone else, and while it might not be the most politically sensible thing to do, if I was in her position I’d avoid any reference to how terrible the relationship had been at that point, I’d deny that I’d done anything wrong, because in that case, you use what force you use to get out of that situation.

    My reasoning is that fine, cool, I had to attack someone to ensure my own safety in the heat of that moment, that’s morally justifiable, but to cast my actions against a backdrop of being ‘pushed to a breaking point’ is a) not relevant to that particular event b) provocation is not justification and c) way, way too close to the justifications that male perpetrators use to justify their abuse, which is something I should be aware of as my position as shadow minister.

    BUT I’m just one guy, other people have other opinions. I’m not trying to be obtuse, but do you mind trying the exercise in reverse? let’s say that Champion (or a hypothetical equivalent) is the instigator of abuse, and deceitful to boot, what’s your threshold for suspicious speech before you begin to think that she might be to blame (even partially).

    (I know that the reality is unknown, and likely messier than this, but this is just to help me out here)

    The reason I ask is that I am immediately suspicious of men that justify their violence, even when they cite self-defence, or ‘I was driven to it by incessant hen-pecking’ or whatever, and I can’t help but be uneasy letting it slide when a woman ends up on the ‘winning’ side. There’s probably so much gendered assumptions and garbage in there it’s difficult for me to sift through, but I try to be as even as possible.

  14. Marduk says

    1. “Lunge” is a weasel word, its like “swoop”.
    It can mean anything from an MMA move to someone getting up out of their chair in a hurried manner

    2. “If you’re pushed into a wall you’re allowed to use the force you need to get out of the situation.”
    You definitely aren’t.
    The reverse of this is a very common precursor event in domestic violence.
    Man tries to leave environment, woman blocks him. There is a tussle, he is an abuser. Its not an accepted defence.

    3. Why should we go with the most generous interpretation? Why should we give any weight to (emotional) actions? Nobody else does in any other circumstances.

  15. Ally Fogg says

    Gillell (12)

    They fight over money. She grabs the picture to (emotionally) hurt and provoke him. He lunges at her, pushes her into the wall, she hits him with the painting. He realises that unlike her he has marks to show and calls the police who arrest her.
    What can she say now that would satisfy you?

    Well it really isn’t about ‘satisfying’ me – but for the sake of hypotheticals, if she had stated specifically that he assaulted her first and then she hit him with the painting in response or in self defence, then we would not be having this discussion.

    However I have to say I am pretty strongly confident that if that HAD been the order of events, and this was what she told police had happened at the time, she never would have been cautioned – probably not even arrested – in the first place. I’m pretty sure she would also have been more specific in the description she gave to a journalist last week about the order of events.

    So while I’ll willingly concede that anything is possible, the order of events you suggest strikes me as much less likely.

    But really, I do not want to be judge and jury here. I’m not making any accusations against her, I’m not calling for her to be punished for what happened nearly a decade ago.

    I’m talking about the actual words she spoke last week and the actual, demonstrable actions of other people (who all know just as little as I do), and yet rushed to declare her the innocent victim and brand her ex-husband an abuser.

  16. WineEM says

    Holy cow, apparently Corbyn went even further.

    Breitbart UK quotes him as saying (and since this is quoted from the ‘Women’s Conference’, not just some ‘source’,
    there’s no reason to think this is inaccurate):-

    “As so often happens in domestic abuse, it is when a woman is pushed to breaking point and finally fights back that the police are called.”

    “It’s time for the media to start championing those who are supporting women and fighting abuse, not vilifying them.”

    So it would appear that it’s not just Ms Champion but any woman in principle who has carte blanche to behave however the
    hell she wants to.

    I’m interested as to what point Corbyn supporters feel they can no longer back this guy? Is it just like Trump – that there’s a cult of personality, whereby he can say whatever he wants, and it will not matter? ‘Hey there, just duff those hecklers up, and I’ll pay all the legal bills,’ that kind of thing. Because it sure the hell looks like Corbyn is writing a blank cheque in moral terms, and nobody in the MSM raises an eyebrow.

  17. Ally Fogg says

    No, Breitbart are lying as usual.

    That statement was put out by a random Twitter account called @Corbyn4PM and their profile says quite clearly in big letters: “We don’t speak for @JeremyCorbyn or @UKLabour”

  18. WineEM says

    @17 Ah ok, that’s remarkable – not even the Daily Mail feel they can just make up a quote supposedly made at a party conference. Mind you, the Jeremy4PM Facebook group should also stop these first person narratives, as to newcomers the immediate impression is that it’s coming from Corbyn’s own pen/mouth, which could cause all sorts of problems.

  19. Paul says

    Ally

    Sorry for being off topic but as you may know the funding for the Mankind Initiative’s helpline is running out in december of this year.

    Given the Guardian has carried a number of articles highlighting the fact that cuts are forcing services for female victims to close down would you be prepared to write an article about the financial pressures that are also threatening the existance of the sparse services available for male victims ?

    http://new.mankind.org.uk/statistics/

  20. Anton Mates says

    @Ally,

    Crucially, she doesn’t actually volunteer at what point she hit him with the picture.

    I think she does. When she says–

    “The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back. [He picks up the phone and calls the police, she’s terrified]. That was the sum total of what happened.”

    –so far as I can see, that’s the entirety of the physical contact according to her. He pushed her with the picture, she pushed him back with the picture. What you’re describing as “hitting” him is what Champion describes as “pushing back”.

    However, you’re quite right that she doesn’t label this as self-defense–and if she wanted to make the case that it was self-defense, I think that she a) would have said so explicitly and b) wouldn’t have said that she was sorry and she lost control and so forth. So far as I can see, her rationale is that after he pushed her and let go of the picture, she wasn’t in actual danger but was frightened and angry and so she “lost control” and “pushed back.”

    Which is to say, I think you’re broadly correct. This is an “I was in the wrong, but I was provoked” argument, and the Labour leadership should not be hurrying to endorse an admitted assaulter using that justification.

  21. Anton Mates says

    That said, Ally, in the past you’ve written:

    A large proportion of family violence (most research suggests as much as half) is to some extent reciprocal and mutual, with no easy answer as to who is starting it, who is escalating it, who is aggressing and who is acting in self defence. Asking who is the perpetrator and who is the victim is meaningless.

    By Champion’s account–but not Hoyland’s, so far as I can see–that was the case for their relationship.

    So I’m interested (genuinely, not rhetorically) to know how you reconcile the above position with:

    When a perpetrator says “I accept I was in the wrong, but…” everything after the ‘but’ should be discounted. Any attempts to explain or contextualise domestic violence have the inevitable effect of trivialising or even justifying it, which is incredibly dangerous.

    Are you saying that even though an abusive relationship may involve two perpetrators and may require a lot of context to really understand, it’s still important that each perpetrator admit fault for their share of the violence without hiding behind that context?

  22. says

    However I have to say I am pretty strongly confident that if that HAD been the order of events, and this was what she told police had happened at the time, she never would have been cautioned – probably not even arrested – in the first place.

    You are? You must live in a different world where I live.
    First, you surely realise that the account you have in the Mirror is an edited one. It may well be the case that she made more specific claims as to what she learned from this.
    Second, you cannot imagine that when the Police are called to a house where a calm but bleeding man calls the police and a completely upset woman is the one who caused the bleeding that they are going to arrest her? From what she describes she was so upset the Police considered her at risk of suicide.

    So while I’ll willingly concede that anything is possible, the order of events you suggest strikes me as much less likely.

    And which order of events do you suggest? Because her description is the one we’ve got. I’d like to point out that the Mail piece, while going through great lengths to smear her as the money grabbing crazy ex, does not contradict that order of events even though they are quoting her article.

    I’m talking about the actual words she spoke last week and the actual, demonstrable actions of other people (who all know just as little as I do), and yet rushed to declare her the innocent victim and brand her ex-husband an abuser.

    And you did the very same thing, just with the people switched.

  23. Ally Fogg says

    Anton –

    “Are you saying that even though an abusive relationship may involve two perpetrators and may require a lot of context to really understand, it’s still important that each perpetrator admit fault for their share of the violence without hiding behind that context?”

    Yes, pretty much exactly this.

    Gillell

    First, you surely realise that the account you have in the Mirror is an edited one. It may well be the case that she made more specific claims as to what she learned from this.

    I cannot make any assumptions as to what she might have said and which we were not told. I am basing any judgements only on what we do actually know. what she said, not what she didn’t say. If she has more to add she is welcome to add it.

    “Second, you cannot imagine that when the Police are called to a house where a calm but bleeding man calls the police and a completely upset woman is the one who caused the bleeding that they are going to arrest her? From what she describes she was so upset the Police considered her at risk of suicide.”

    No. I am suggesting that if she had said to the police at the time that she had a picture in her hand and then he grabbed her and pushed her against the wall at which point she hit him to defend herself, then she would not have been charged with anything. The police would have accepted that as a reasonable and likely course of events. The fact that she was charged and held overnight suggests to me that she was NOT claiming self-defence (then, or now).

    As for the suicide risk, sorry, but that made me laugh. Obviously neither you nor her has ever been arrested and kept in a cell before. I have They ALWAYS take your shoelaces, belt, any sharp objects etc off you. Less in case you try to commit suicide but more because they can be used to strangle a cop when he comes in.

    And you did the very same thing, just with the people switched.

    No, I have said literally nothing about his innocence. He was also cautioned (we don’t know what for), and I have said nothing to suggest that this wasn’t deserved, I don’t know.

    But the reason I am focusing on her, not him, is because she is the one who is now shadow minister for preventing domestic abuse, she’s the one who did the “I was in the wrong BUT….” routine, she’s the one that has had a whole political party and conference rushing to comfort her and declare her innocence.

  24. 123454321 says

    “But the reason I am focusing on her, not him, is because she is the one who is now shadow minister for preventing domestic abuse, she’s the one who did the “I was in the wrong BUT….” routine, she’s the one that has had a whole political party and conference rushing to comfort her and declare her innocence.”

    Exactly. Let’s cut to the chase, refrain from overcomplicating a matter that we can’t possibly scrutinise for lack of detail and risk of distorted untruths and instead focus on the the one fact that we do know i.e. clit head Corbyn has effectively condoned female perpetrators of DV (and/or male victims of DV) without a hint of remorse by effectively wishing her his warmest comfort and support. Well that’s what Mr and Mrs Average have made of the snippet of news that came their way at the weekend, and now they have processed the result subconsciously, they carry on with their usual daily business just that little more indoctrinated.
    No doubt, actually, that no one out there will even remember this snippet of news in a few weeks time. But I bet they can all remember those male presenters who lost their jobs for making “sexist” comments!

  25. Carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    “Obviously neither you nor her has ever been arrested and kept in a cell before. I have”

    What happened??

  26. 123454321 says

    Carny – now that you’ve entered the room and been a nosey fucker, would you also care to comment on Corbyn and his party’s “warm” support towards one of his MPs who has a history of DV?

  27. Ally Fogg says

    Haha…. OK, working backwards.

    2002. Political prisoner for all of about 5 hours, obstruction of a public highway while protesting against outbreak of Iraq war. Formal police caution.

    1995. Political prisoner for about 30 minutes. Arrested for aggravated trespass for sitting in a shopping trolley suspended between two trees on the proposed route of te M66 through Daisy Nook Country Park. Released without charge.

    Circa 1986, Dundee. Arrested for being a drunken gobby twat while my mate was arrested for criminal damage, aka being a drunken gobby twat. Released without charge. (Come to think of it, that time I never got as far as a cell, so I was allowed to keep my shoelaces. Guess that doesn’t count.)

    That’s it. My entire track record as a criminal mastermind, since you ask :-)

  28. That Guy says

    Arrested for aggravated trespass for sitting in a shopping trolley suspended between two trees

    That sounds like criminally good fun

  29. Ally Fogg says

    Well to be honest it was scary as fuck when the bailiff climbers were trying to unfasten me & lower me down, when they didn’t really have much motivation not to just let me drop, but on balance it was a lot less painful than getting your hand winched out of a lock-on.

    The BBC has got some film of it somewhere. Occasionally they use it when they need stock footage of daft anarchists being bellends in the 1990s. It even got me on Have I Got News For You once.

    Aaaah, the 90s. Happy days, happy days….

  30. Marduk says

    I think the issue here is not trying to work out what happened, its that Champion is using forms of argument about DV that are explicitly rejected by DV campaigners. Causing others to agree to the rejection of these arguments is also the explicitly the focus of education (e.g.,Duluth) and lobbying campaigns focused on the framing of laws (e.g., the homicide act of 1957) and the wider culture.

    What is surprising is that with it widely agreed that these ideas are wrong (and I don’t dissent from this either) that Champion makes an exception for herself and others make an exception for Champion instead of challenging her.

    What did or did not actually happen in a single historical incident is actually besides the point, its the arguments she is making about it that need to be challenged or even ‘called out’ (as again, in all other cases DV advocates would insist upon).

    This is only the same thing as “M&M theory” for example, that was the reverse of the present, a flawed and hateful piece of rhetoric that was welcomed when it was applied to #allmen and now the same people are denial now its applied to refugees. The Guardian has completely forgotten it used to be a proponent and apparently its always been a ‘racist meme’.

    Truth is it was always wrong, just like the “it just happened” “i was provoked” argument is always wrong whether its the doubtless fragrant Ms. Champion making it or Jack the Ripper and there are good reasons for this.

    We either have principles or we don’t, arguments are either valid or they aren’t.

  31. Paul says

    Sarah Champion has clearly benefitted from the double standard on domestic violence which favours women.For a man would have been treated more harshly and no way would he have been allowed to carry on as Minister for preventing domestic violence and abuse in the same circumstances.Although would any man have ever been given the position in the first place ?

    We know that male victims of dv at the hands of women are far less likely to contact the police than female victims who’re abused by men.And we know that even when a woman seriously injures a man he’s far less likely to view himself as being a victim than a woman who’s been seriously injured by a man.And we can only speculate as to why that is.

    In recent years feminists-who in my opinion have been allowed to largely control the narrative on dv-have consistantly tried to deflect attention from the extent to which men can either be victimised by women or where dv between a couple is mutural.And they’ve done this in two ways.Firstly by implying that many of the men either killed or seriously injured as a result of dv weree gay and therefore women weren’t involved.Or secondly by implying that a high proportion of the straight male victims were violent and the women were acting in self-defence.Not that i’m saying these scenarious don’t happen.However it’s very telling that we don’t know what proportion of women either killed or seriously injured were lesbians and therefore men weren’t involved.Or were violent women where the man might have been acting in self defence.Indeed we don’t know the extent to which dv between both straight and gay couples is mutual with one partner coming off worse.

    I’m with Whoopi Goldberg on the issue of dv and believe that it’s never acceptable for anyone of either sex to hit anyone of either sex under any circumstances.And that women in particular can’t assume that all men are chivalrous and that if they hit a man he may well them back.And to be honest it frustrates me that many more people don’t think like that.For if women are serious about equality between the sexes they must accept they don’t get a”get out of jail card free’ with regard to tthe problem of dv or violence of any kind .Just as i wouldn’t get a ”get out of jail card free’ if i were to hit a man who was significantly stronger than and he retaliated and i came off worse as a result.For in that scenario many people of both sexes would say it served me right.

  32. Paul says

    Seems our host doesn’t feel any post i submit to him directly is worthy of a reply.

    Fair enough Ally,i take the hint,i won’t post here again.

  33. 123454321 says

    Paul, Ally doesn’t have time to respond to individual posts but I’m certain that he takes everyone’s views into account, including yours. If you allow something like that to silence you then you’re not doing men and boys a just service!
    Back on track, I feel a little sorry for Sarah Champion as I’m sure she is now fully aware that, had she been a man, she would not be facing the warm support from her leader and fellow party members. She knows full well that she’s gotten through this relatively unscathed based purely on the ever ubiquitous female privilege that pervades our society. It seems that women can do no wrong. Had this been a male MP, for example, wouldn’t Theresa May have had something to say? Has she even commented on this issue? Probably just conveniently ignored it as it doesn’t fit the narrative!
    Just going off track for a moment…..I watched Mathew Wright this morning, he was tackling issues of male objectification and the fact that there are now millions of young boys and young men striving to obtain buffed up, ripped bodies in order to attain approval from their peers. These youngsters are seriously abusing steroids and this is linked to mental health issues and the same sort of anxiety and body image issues that affect women and girls. It appears that no one gives a shit. The only female guest excused the surge of male objectification as being ok because…..wait for it….”well, women have had to put up with it for decades!” Excuses were made for a female member of staff in the back office having a computer screen wallpaper of a male olympic diver she didn’t even know the name of (or what medals he won etc) despite the fact that she admitted she likes to look at his ripped body for her personal pleasure. Yet at the same time, she said she would be extremely uncomfortable with a male colleague having a similar wallpaper exhibiting a female olympic swimmer, which they all agreed would be pervy and sexist if a MAN were to do this!
    Guys – you are seriously being fucked over. The level of jealousy, control and tactical deviousness out there at the moment is extraordinarily shocking. You are being walked all over and the collective efforts of these women (and men) who support these sorts of double standards based on pathetic excuses like: “well, it’s different” or “well, look what we’ve had to put up with for years on end” is nothing short of fucking childish. Like I’ve said before, I have no issue with objectification as long as the rule applies to all. Likewise, the rules around DV should apply to ALL, not one rule for men and another for women FFS.
    My personal milestone for men and boys is when I see them fight back about male objectification, and win. Reason: because it’s such a widespread and deeply ingrained issue and literally everyone sees what’s going on in the media and once this issue is recognised in a similar way, alongside that of female objectification, it will openly demonstrate to everyone, in every corner, whatever their age or gender, that men and boys are on this Earth and playing in the same playing field and thus should be considered and respected as such. It’s not that far off (as male objectification is now becoming a comparator frequently talked about – I knew it would be) and when that day comes, my guess is that ALL other aspects affecting men and boys will also be talked about, and most likely finally start to get fixed. Summing up, what I’m saying is that while society thinks it’s ok to ogle a naked ripped torso of a man, but not a woman even with her clothes on, it probably also perceives it acceptable to ignore men and boys as being victims of domestic abuse. But when there is a massive, widespread enabler (like objectification) that changes the way people out there perceive the feelings of men as a group, it suddenly won’t be deemed ok to smack the shit out of a male and simply ignore it by refusing to accept that they can be victims of disrespect.
    You can disagree, attack, mock and sneer all you like but the world rocks along and works in weird and wonderful ways. I think you’ll find that objectification will be a major enabler and feature high up in the order of events by effectively telling society on every level that men need to be respected just as women are. I’ll just sit back and watch this all happen and I might even help to wipe some of the egg off of the faces of those whom think that male objectification is ‘different’, perfectly ok,and here to stay.

  34. Marduk says

    35.
    Looking at pictures of people isn’t objectification.

    This is where everyone gets it from and as originally described, has always made lots of sense to me. Crucially Berger compares two pictures by the same artist and explains why one is objectification and one isn’t which is the key thing to be able to do.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1GI8mNU5Sg

    The Guardian/Tumblr version is really just code for “I compare myself to a picture of an attractive person and it makes me feel uncomfortable” which has nothing to do with it.

  35. 123454321 says

    Seen that film before. It’s merely a case of “well look at what us women who like to look after ourselves and our image have to endure, and look at how concerned we are about those who judge us”. It supports the narrative that even when women take care of themselves and are admired for their beauty, they are still somehow victims of men. I could just as easily knock up a video with the sexes reversed. And while I was at it I could include how men are judged, not only for their looks (don’t deny it!), but also their wealth and potential usefulness to those woman judging him.
    Sorry, but it doesn’t cut it with me anymore (I’m normally a decade or two ahead of where society is going), and I can tell you it won’t cut it for much longer out there either – it’s all getting pretty childish tedious and boring, you know, this double standards lark, especially with objectification. I’m enjoying all the excuses, though – very entertaining. The sad part is it all boils down to insecurity, jealousy and deviously motivated control i.e. women HATE men looking at other women and women HATE other women who pose visual competition. That’s where your real hate crimes exist. All pretty basic stuff carved up and served on a plate of complexity that would confuse the fuck out of even Einstein.
    The backlash is coming……

  36. 123454321 says

    Still not commenting on clit head Corbyn’s remarks or the Champion behind how to dodge serious DV career ramifications then, Carny? That’s a boy xx

  37. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “(I’m normally a decade or two ahead of where society is going)”

    Interesting.

    What did you predict in 1996 and 2006? Brexit? Jimmy Saville? Leicester? The credit crunch? The Spice Girls forming? The Spice Girls splitting? Their respective career trajectories? Take That reforming?

    Are you a latter day Nostradamus?

  38. 123454321 says

    Brett? – Of course
    Jimmy Saville? – No
    The credit crunch? Of course
    The Spice Girls forming? No
    The Spice Girls splitting? Of course
    Their respective career trajectories? Didn’t care and still don’t
    Take That reforming? Of course

    I tell you what else I predict: that you won’t comment on clit head and his Champ. I’m not wrong am I. But happy to be proven wrong??

  39. That Guy says

    Why do these threads always fill up with unindented dull screeds?
    It’s going to be a long, long time before ‘Corbyn is a Bad Man’ becomes a viewpoint within a country mile of being fresh.

    Similarly if I see the words ‘Female privilege’ again I think my face will melt. Certain commenters here are exactly why people feel justified in dismissing male victimisation out of hand.

  40. 123454321 says

    That Guy

    Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege Female privilege. Face melted yet?

    So why else do you think Champ can get away unscathed for DV offences when compared with male presenters who lose their jobs for making ‘sexist’ comments?

    “Certain commenters here are exactly why people feel justified in dismissing male victimisation out of hand.”

    Oh come on, that’s bullshit and you know it. The reason why people feel justified dismissing males as victims has nothing to do with men speaking out and far more to do with the fact that men DON’T speak out. You’re as deluded as bubble bath Carny. Men will only begin to be treated with respect and dignity by society in general when a good proportion of them learn how to stand up for themselves, speak out and demand to be considered victims alongside their female counterparts. you just want to silence them all and hope that the Christmas Fairies and Easter Bunnies will save the day. Dream on….

  41. That Guy says

    @ 123454321

    I think you’ll find that the ideas of how bicycles balance, how people balance [on] bicycles and how people balance when they walk are all related. The action of steering right on a bicycle is almost mechanically identical to the action of stepping to the right when you’re walking. If you’re walking forward and someone on your left shoves you to the right, your next step is forward and to the right. You prevent falling to the right by stepping to the right. You have very good reflexes for that. When you step to the right, you’re moving that support point to the right. The act of balance is the same for walking and biking; you’re moving the support point back underneath the center of mass in the system.

    Then there’s this other thought: Maybe you don’t learn to walk, but your skeleton is a machine and can balance by itself. So you have this bicycle, which is sort of a bunch of sticks and hinges that balances itself. Then you have the skeleton, which is a bunch of sticks and hinges that balances itself. And so this new idea is that rather than thinking of a person on a bicycle as a person on a machine, think of the person and the bicycle connected together as a bunch of sticks and hinges. It’s a more complicated arrangement of sticks and hingessome of them are made out of metal, some of them are made out of calcium and fleshbut maybe you can write equations to show that [this] thing can balance by itself, too. With that idea, we’ve built some walking robots that balance themselves without computers.

  42. Marduk says

    38.
    Well there is an entire genre of art devoted to men demonstrating they had wealth and power that he talks about.

    You are missing the key point here, it also explains what isn’t objectification which is something you’ll almost never see explained elsewhere (e.g., Rembrandt’s Danae which is certainly a fairly erotic piece of work featuring a naked woman about to impregnated by Zeus). The importance is in the detail, this vs. Ley’s picture of Nell Gwynne. Both show a lover depicted in a pseudo-classical scene, both are naked, both are completely different. Objectification is an interesting idea. Describing anything involving nudity or attractive people as objectification isn’t.

  43. Marduk says

    43.

    “Certain commenters here are exactly why people feel justified in dismissing male victimisation out of hand.”

    The underlying and often internalised notion that men have to earn or demonstrate worthiness to get even the slightest bit of compassion or mercy is central to the whole issue.

  44. Holms says

    #47
    But That Guy’s point was that screeds such as at #35 are detrimental to the entire conversation.

  45. Carnation says

    @ Holms

    But comment #35 is part of the activism that will lead to the final MRA victory over the gynocracy and the evil feminist overladies.

    Can’t you see that?

  46. Marduk says

    48.
    It doesn’t matter.

    If you look at any social issue there is always behind it a mass of angry screeds, a mass of people’s whose support for the issue is a bad faith attempt to get something else, often historically even a history of violence if not actual terrorism.

    This doesn’t change what is right and what is wrong. I agree screeds and bad arguments are detrimental but you can’t, as I see repeatedly argued here, use that as a reason to deny people rights and reasonable aid (especially if they are citizens of a country that has rules about equality of right to aid itself). That is an exceptionally cruel game. Indeed, when politicians play that card its traditionally because they were paying the agents provocateur anyway. Politicians hate a rally, but they love a smashed window. You shouldn’t evaluate the arguments of a social movement based on its level of discipline or articulacy.

    Its like claiming women shouldn’t have the vote because you are an animal rights activist and you feel sorry for the King’s horse and want to send a message about cruelty to horses.

    But deeper than that, there is a strong societal view that ‘good men’ earn the right to be considered thinking, feeling and sometimes vulnerable human beings. This is crap. Just like prostitutes can be raped, unpleasant and even violent men can be abused. Your character has nothing to do with it, the quality of your arguments about it shouldn’t have anything to do with how you are served (a concern I increasingly have about victim statements but I digress). But these concepts are widely used to deny male prisoners their rights, the more we see of child abuse enquiries they were used to abandon “bad” boys to horrific situations and I believe in an internalized form its what is causing the suicide epidemic. How can you seek help if you aren’t worthy of it?

    Its wrong, its needs to change and I’m amazed HetPat users would even hint at it.
    Yes our friend writes a lot crap, no it isn’t very convincing, so what. Are you going to deny help to a rape victim because Julie Bindel exists? Surely we’re all better than that.

  47. That Guy says

    @50 Marduk

    nice straw man.

    This absolutely does matter. I have no exception with being angry. What I do have an exception with is polluting a valid conversation with falsehoods, bigotry and hatred to the point where any uninformed passerby cannot possibly be expected to extract the grain of validity from this mire.

    Yeah, it’s totally unfair and wrong, but who do you think is the demographic causing the problem?

  48. mostlymarvelous says

    Paul

    Firstly by implying that many of the men either killed or seriously injured as a result of dv were gay and therefore women weren’t involved.

    I think you’re a bit confused here. It _is_ true that men killed by family/domestic violence are likely as not killed by other men, but it’s not often about them being gay. It’s about fathers, sons, brothers, grandsons /fathers, uncles, cousins, in-laws killing each other. Or, in some cases, a bloke is killed by his wife or partner’s ex, or one or more of her family members.

    Just because a killing is domestic violence, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the victim and the perpetrator are in a sexual relationship – it’s any relationship.

  49. Marduk says

    53.
    Care is needed here. That definition of DV is the American one but they also have a subordinate category of Intimate Partner Violence in differentiation. Using your definition and applying it to the UK data, twice as many men die from domestic violence as compared with women so that can’t be what most people think they are talking about most of the time.

  50. mostlymarvelous says

    I’m Australian, not American. And we most definitely include IP within domestic violence statistics. Here’s a para on page 5 of a report on homicides in 2007-08.

    In general, most homicide incidents in 2007–08 were domestic homicides involving one or more victims who shared a family or domestic relationship with the offender. Intimate partner homicides comprised the largest proportion of domestic homicides (60%).

    http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr13/mr13.pdf

    As I understand it, the IP category was introduced to both bring in to the DV statistics assaults and deaths inflicted by ex-partners/spouses who no longer/never lived with the victim/s and to distinguish relationships within the DV category which did and didn’t involve sexual partners – parental, sibling, more distant.

    And the UK is similar …

    The new definition of domestic violence and abuse now states:
    ‘Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-definition-of-domestic-violence-and-abuse-to-include-16-and-17-year-olds

  51. WineEM says

    Just wondered, does anyone have any thoughts on this:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37601431

    As the definition of domestic violence (and violence generally) has been expanded to include all kinds of
    interpersonal action and behaviour, there are difficult judgement calls to be made on balancing the right to free speech and expression with upholding law and order. Can we trust Alison Saunders, especially, to get this right?

    What’s a bit worrying is that they’ve only just ‘updated’ these guidelines recently, and that interpretation was already pretty hardline.

  52. Marduk says

    #56
    Well, I don’t actually see what the cases described have to do with the new guidance, they were illegal hundreds of years ago and it is in those elements they are egregious.

    Its terrible because its all hedged in subjective terms and “could”, the chilling effect is worse than more obvious authoritarian decisions where people know exactly where they stand and effect democratic remedies. Saunders “something must be done” kneejerking seems increasingly out of control.

    “derogatory hashtags or doctored images”, “Inciting people to harass others online, known as virtual mobbing, could also result in court action”, “It also highlights those who post people’s personal information, such as bank details – known as doxxing”

    Hrm, so thats half of the Guardian’s commentariat in the dock then. But of course nothing will happen to them. I suspect this will be used mostly as a way of prosecuting political criminals. First they came for the people I fucking well hate anyway, and I did nothing, obviously.

  53. WineEM says

    Caroline Aherne’s former husband on breakfast news the other day. Have to say, he did sound very convincing indeed, but perhaps in the future people like him will be set upon by Alison Saunders & co. for even hinting that such a thing may have happened.

  54. 123454321 says

    Yeah, funny how it’s hard for people to conjure up an image of Caroline Aherne as being a man-beater while the media out there are quick to label and convince people that Donald Trump is a “sexual predator” just because 11 years ago he partook in some unfortunate “private man banter/bonding WORDS” that I’m sure many women in power have been guilty of too.

  55. That Guy says

    @59 123454321

    Boasting of sexual assault is not ‘banter’ nor is it ‘bonding’, and it’s fucking disgusting that you are attempting excuse it that way.

  56. 123454321 says

    Well I’m not excusing his behaviour but it’s hardly justifiable to call him a fucking sexual predator like Savile just because of some words, is it!!

  57. Ally Fogg says

    Hmmm. I kind of think that if the words someone uses are “I just kiss them, I don’t even wait. When you’re a star you can grab them by the pussy” then it’s not exactly unreasonable to describe them as a sexual predator.

    It’s a bit like if someone says “You know, when I’m feeling horny and I see a sheep around I just whop my dick out and make whoopie” then it wouldn’t be unreasonable to describe them as a sheepshagger.

    Just words man, just words.

  58. 123454321 says

    Even if his boasting turns out to be true (who knows?) where is the evidence to suggest that, even if he did “grab someone’s pussy”, the recipient wasn’t consenting? This is all fucking ridiculous! Still not excusing his behaviour as it was childish and stupid but it WAS supposedly private talk and if he HAD sexually assaulted someone then one would assume that he’d keep his gob shut even in private!. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds…..

  59. 123454321 says

    “Hmmm. I kind of think that if the words someone uses are “I just kiss them, I don’t even wait. When you’re a star you can grab them by the pussy” then it’s not exactly unreasonable to describe them as a sexual predator.”

    But at this moment in time you don’t know whether what he bragged about is even true. Lots of men (and women) brag about sexual encounters but much of the time they are entirely made up – you know that. Men in power might feel even more pressure amongst their peers. It’s wrong to assume based on what we’ve heard so far that Trump is actually a sexual predator.

    “It’s a bit like if someone says “You know, when I’m feeling horny and I see a sheep around I just whop my dick out and make whoopie” then it wouldn’t be unreasonable to describe them as a sheepshagger.
    Just words man, just words.”

    Yeah but what is the maximum penalty/consequence for some random, unknown sheepshagger compared with the potential damage against someone standing for Presidency as a result of what could turn out to be just childish bragging? Deformation, slander and libel and character assassination based on words. Really?

  60. WineEM says

    @60 To make the assumption that he’s talking about sexual assault is basically spin put on it by high-handed, unthinking eedjuts (actually, read – sorry – imbeciles) in the (ill)liberal commetariat.

    Fact is, as I’ve heard others point out elsewhere, that if you listen to the specific words on the tape, Trump says “and when you’re a star, they let you do it.” In other words, “when you’re a star, they (the women in question), let you do it.” Making a choice, to let, or allow somebody, to do something is a very literal expression of consent, so he was talking about consensual acts between two adults.

    Now the phrase that the lobotomised numpties brigade have seized upon was Trump saying “I don’t even wait” with regards to the act of kissing. But it’s not even a whole sentence. Wait for what? Wait before they’re engaged? Wait before they’re married? Wait before they’ve been on several dates? Wait before they’re back at the apartment? Not waiting for any of those things is not necessarily a transgression or against the law.
    What commentators are not able to do is simply fill in all the gaps with their own prejudice and imagination, and pretend that the words don’t even carry any sort of ambiguity at all.

  61. 123454321 says

    It doesn’t take BBC’s Woman’s Hour long to brand Trump a Sexual Predator, based on zero evidence. First minute introduction at 00:40. So now millions of listeners jump to the conclusion that he must be a sexual predator like Savile. Well done to the slanderers and character assassinators. Not that I’m a Trump fan; just that this is fucking ridiculous.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x19h4

  62. That Guy says

    This is beyond the pale-

    123454321- we’ve gone from “He just said words! zero evidence!” to “Even if he did say he did things, he totally just lied about it so it’s OK!” to “Zero Evidence!”

    Everything about this scenario screams “sex pest”, and I like how you keep bringing up Saville, like your bar for “unacceptable behaviour” seems to be “raped numerous children and/or corpses and animals with impunity”. That’s worrying. Also worrying is I’d wager a fair amount of money that if Saville was still alive to deny what he did, you’d be one of the first running to defend him from “feminazis” and “zero evidence accusations”.

    @WineEM 65

    This is absurd. you’d need to have a very warped understanding of social cues to interpret that in any way generously. Let’s engage our grey matter here.

    In our current permissive society, kissing before marriage, engagement or even dates proper is not considered abnormal. As such, it would not be something worth commenting on.
    Because we like to kid ourselves that we live in a society where we respect our fellow human beings, what is unusual is kissing before permission, or consent. I think it’s fair to assume that given Donald’s history he is not uncharacteristically chaste or sexually repressed, so it’s unlikely he’s remaking on how exceptional it is he does not ask a woman’s family for permission to bump his face hole against a willing participant’s.

    As for people ‘allowing’ their gropings to happen- What exactly do you expect women to do? Here you are, faced with a man who has incredible wealth and power at their disposal, who has just demonstrated he has no respect for you or your body- do you think that he will respond reasonably to your polite request to stop? Do you think he would not, on any sign of dissent expend whatever minimal energy required to shame, defame, break and isolate you to prevent you from being listened to if you complain to a third party?

    You are desperately trying to squeeze a positive interpretation of events into a space so slim it would make a fag paper feel chubby.

  63. 123454321 says

    we’ve gone from “He just said words! zero evidence!” to “Even if he did say he did things, he totally just lied about it so it’s OK!” to “Zero Evidence!”

    I don’t care what I’ve gone from and to where, it makes no difference to any of my statements: you can’t brand someone a sexual predator based on what we know so far. There is no evidence other than words and it’s absolutely plausible that he was just being a childish, boaster of porky pie tales and an egotistical twat while fraternising with his “mates”. You can’t judge someone as a sexual predator based on that!

    “Everything about this scenario screams “sex pest””

    In your head maybe, but not in a court of law. Talk about dishing out labels and jumping to potentially life-damaging conclusions! You might turn out to be right, who knows, but your ‘gut-instinct’ reaction at this stage is fucking appalling.

    “and I like how you keep bringing up Saville, like your bar for “unacceptable behaviour” seems to be “raped numerous children and/or corpses and animals with impunity”. That’s worrying.”

    That’s just fucking weird and completely absurd. Where did I say my bar for unacceptable behaviour was set at Savile level? Everyone can see you’re talking shit and that kind of exaggeration is really out of order.

    “Also worrying is I’d wager a fair amount of money that if Saville was still alive to deny what he did, you’d be one of the first running to defend him from “feminazis” and “zero evidence accusations”.”

    That Guy – you are talking complete and utter gutter level drivel and now actually making personal attacks in all sorts of random directions simply because your brain has concluded that Trump is a sex pest predator, and now, apparently, anyone who disagrees with your completely unfounded opinion must be a Savile apologist. Yeah, righto!

  64. Marduk says

    Its weird Savile and Aherne are coming up here because the two are fairly linked in my mind.

    This is in part because the story broke the morning after the Theroux documentary was screened, and for me at least there was a certain connection. Theroux was trying to explain how Savile got away with his crimes, how people were so obstinately unwilling to think ill of him (and in some cases still can’t) and how being a popular national figure protected him. Part of the problem in understanding this, and why Theroux was having to actually argue for events that happened in the lifetimes of everyone watching the show, is that in retrospect it seems completely unthinkable.

    And the next morning I woke up to read another popular figure had done some bad things she’d almost sort-of confessed to anyway (there were several interviews about ‘things she did that she regretted’ and so on) and people aggressively didn’t want to believe it and certain papers didn’t even want to report it, let alone discuss it.

    She did very different things, I don’t believe she hid deliberately behind stardom and I think the reasons for her doing bad things were arguably a bit less about evil and a bit more about mental health (although DV campaigners would generally argue against that distinction) but still.

    It was weird how people couldn’t put the two together but of course their failure to be able to do so ultimately proves Theroux correct. Because of course, at the time the well-loved figure is well-loved, they look nothing like those other people we know are despicable criminals and how dare you try to tar them with that brush. Caroline Aherne was lovely, all her Guardian guest columnist friends say so, she doesn’t sound like the person who’d do those things.

    Its very hard to learn the lesson except in retrospect unfortunately.

  65. ajay says

    It is at the very least plausible that this was empty boasting by Trump because lying in a narcissistic self absorbed way to make himself seem bigger and more successful seems to be typical behaviour. The remarks are unpleasant, the chances are that anyone selected at random would make a better president than him, but this recording is not evidence that he committed sexual assault. It is yet more evidence that he has innapropriate (for a president or leader) personality raits manifesting themselves in bombastic threats, lying in a childish self serving way, a fragile self esteem that results in vendettas against perceived enemies and critics.

    I am not at all convinced he is mysogynistic so much as totally selfish and self obsessed, devoid of empathy and with little no impulse and anger management. It gets reported as Misogyny because as a society we are much more sensitive to remarks made to and about women than men but he treats men and women very badly and with equal lack of consideration.

    I find the selection of HC depressing, that such a terribly mediocre politician obssesed with gender politics could become a presidential candidate simply through family connections but the choice of Trump and his relative popularity despite his manifest personality problems is quite scaring. The US political system is in deep trouble and where the US goes we usually follow.

  66. That Guy says

    So, in light of recent evidence, we now have the situation where-

    *Trump says he groped women

    *Women say they were groped by Trump

    Are you going to tell me that it was still probably just ‘boasting’ or do we need to wait for CCTV footage?

    Of course, you’ll say that was ‘doctored to inflate his ego’

  67. WineEM says

    Well I guess with new stuff coming out we do perhaps have to accept that Trump may very well do some of the things that have been suggested and that he might very well be like that. However, I would say to the haughty members of the liberal commetariat that if they are to be consistent then they will need to take the allegations re: predation about the Clintons equally seriously, and recognise that those things too may be ‘morally problematic.’ Am just glad I’m not an American having to choose between two wholly unacceptable evils. :)

  68. mostlymarvelous says

    123454321

    In your head maybe, but not in a court of law.

    As it happens, we’re not in a court of law.

    The Americans are in the final weeks of an election campaign. Even if a court was the appropriate arbiter of fact here, there’s no time for court proceedings to be held, let alone concluded.

    People have to make up their minds one way or another before November 8th. It’s entirely appropriate for news media to present all the facts they can lay their hands on for publication to the electorate. The NYT has certainly gone about it the right way. They’re publishing stories that are verified by people who can report that – at the time – the woman in question told them about what happened to her and helped her, in some cases, to make up her mind on what to do about it. Same thing goes for the story in People magazine. The reporter in question arranged to have herself removed from the rota where dealings with Trump were involved.

    I think they’re doing a reasonable job of it, by and large.

  69. 123454321 says

    “As it happens, we’re not in a court of law.”

    Well it appears that the press is trying to turn the whole world into a court of law. Just a reminder that at this stage we’re dealing with allegations, not facts. Unfortunately there is no right to anonymity despite the fact that literally anyone can make an exaggerated, or even false allegation, and the chances of that happening when someone is rich or in the limelight is vastly increased. My point is that for all those so-called professional media organisations out there branding Trump as a sexual predator without a sniff of credible evidence is not akin to proper journalism, but instead smacks of unprofessionality and political manipulation via a campaign based around character assassination.

    “It’s entirely appropriate for news media to present all the facts…”

    They’re not facts, though, are they, they’re allegations – allegations that ought to remain anonymous until the pros scrutinise and determine a ruling. How would YOU like it if someone made accusations against you (assuming they might be false) just as you were applying for a new job in your organisation. I mean, if they do turn out to be true then fair enough, but what if the accusers are dirty little scoundrels with ulterior motives?

    I’m not ruling Trump out as a Sexual predator, but I’m not participating in trying to bring someone down and pinning them with an early label based on several people out of MILLIONS coming forward since a PRIVATE conversation surfaced based on just words.

    It would be nice to know what Clinton may have said about men in private, I dunno, 20 or 30 years ago! My guess is that even if she said she’d like to chop someone’s dick and balls off, the press wouldn’t bat an eyelid! In fact they’s probably laugh like everyone did when Lorena Bobbitt was interviewed about her assault. hahahahehehe how funny!!!

  70. 123454321 says

    I said “branding Trump as a sexual predator without a sniff of credible evidence”. Sexual predator is a BIG statement to make based on what we had heard by the time the label had been applied. The media is doing nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon without knowing for sure what is credible and what is not. Immature, pathetic, politically motivated, headline-grabbing, bunch of money-grabbing sheep followers – and that’s even if Trump DOES turnout to be a sexual predator. Apparently he’s been into a female dressing room. Yikes, that’s terrible, I thought only women were allowed to go into men’s locker rooms, or at least that’s what I have seen on TV the majority of times.

  71. 123454321 says

    Oh, almost forgot, I wonder how many of you assumed Ched Evans was downright guilty of rape based on the “allegations” and associated media assassination campaign?

  72. Holms says

    I said “branding Trump as a sexual predator without a sniff of credible evidence”. Sexual predator is a BIG statement to make based on what we had heard by the time the label had been applied.

    Yes, people have arrived at the opinion that he is a sexual predator. Which is entirely reasonable given that that is what the record of his own words suggests.

  73. 123454321 says

    “arrived at the opinion”

    No, a number of professional, high profile channels (I cited Woman’s Hour as an example) said he WAS a sexual predator – that was their introduction and that is what they PLANTED in everyone’s minds.

    “Which is entirely reasonable given that that is what the record of his own words suggests.”

    Can you repeat here the EXACT words (word for word) from the transcript you have heard that led you to the opinion that Trump was a sexual predator?

  74. That Guy says

    Oh, now I see. 123454321, defender of rapists, rules-lawyer for predators, scourge of women and champion of inanity:

    You are indeed, deluded.

  75. 123454321 says

    And everything about the Ched Evans case stinks. He’s still being branded a “shamed footballer” by the media rather than an innocent man, not guilty of rape, which is what the court has determined. Some simple advice for men out there: stay away from drunk women! Having said that, in this particular case I believe she didn’t even report him for rape, but then again I suppose I read that from the media and I know by now they are full of shit so perhaps I’m wrong.

  76. 123454321 says

    “defender of rapists”

    No, you fuckwit, I actually despise and hate rapists – they are scum of the earth, just like those who ride on the back of false allegations and intentionally wreck someone’s life whilst they remain anonymous.

  77. 123454321 says

    ‘scourge of women”

    Well only when they have done wrong, and yes indeed, of course they should be held to the same accountability that men are held to. Why not? That’s equality! It’s you who’s deluded. Either that or you’re living in the dark ages. Probably a bit of both.

  78. Holms says

    Can you repeat here the EXACT words (word for word) from the transcript you have heard that led you to the opinion that Trump was a sexual predator?

    This, followed by a bunch of women coming forward saying that he has done exactly that with them. Oh and the fact that there was a court settlement over sexual harassment in his past.

    Oh, now I see. 123454321, defender of rapists, rules-lawyer for predators, scourge of women and champion of inanity:

    You are indeed, deluded.

    Yes, that is 1234 all over – hyperscepticism for any accusation of sexual aggression against a man, immediate denunciation of any woman making said accusation.

  79. Carnation says

    @123454321

    This article might help you understand your childish devotion to Trump’s “innocence” and the wider MRA cause;

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201609/the-psychology-behind-donald-trumps-unwavering-support

    “Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.”

    Let’s just repeat that – “Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.”

    Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.

    And, once more;

    Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.

    123454321, you’re angry, you live in an echo chamber, you see conspiracies everywhere, particularly when they involve accusations made against men.

    Re Ched Evans, presumably you accept the ruling of every court decision? Or, ;like your ideological hero, would you opt for allowing everyone accused of rape go free?

  80. 123454321 says

    “This, followed by a bunch of women coming forward saying that he has done exactly that with them.”

    No, Holmes, I asked That Guy for the EXACT words (word for word as they were said) from the transcript that led to the opinion that Trump was a sexual predator?

  81. 123454321 says

    Carny – thanks for the psychology pointer, sick cool, dude. Looks like David Dunning is doing a grand job of spinning out little stories and psychological reports using his “well-acknowledged” professional capacity in order to disrespectfully diss Trump voters and convince himself and his followers that his psychoanalysis of all those poor uneducated voters out there is spot on. I hope for his sake that Trump loses and David sells lots of books and services and I really hope people buy into his psychoanalysis technique and also that his work isn’t busted as suiting some kind of political agenda. Nice work, if that is the case. The corker of his statements are things like this (absolute classic):

    “Psychological research suggests…” hahaha I didn’t read much more…so unconvincing right from the start.

  82. 123454321 says

    “Re Ched Evans, presumably you accept the ruling of every court decision?”

    Nope.

    “Or, ;like your ideological hero”

    Wrong again. Ched Evans doesn’t impress me in the slightest.

    “would you opt for allowing everyone accused of rape go free?”

    No, of course not. Rapists convicted of rape by a court of law should be punished. However, I think they should remain anonymous until proven guilty, just as the accuser is given anonymity. If they are found guilty of rape then they should be exposed and punished. Conversely, if someone is found guilty of falsely accusing someone else of rape then they, too, should be exposed and punished as per any other crime that could effectively wreck someone else’s life. That seems fair and progressive to me because the current legal standing on this matter is inordinately unfair on men. Clearly, women are not encouraged to align, or are held to the same standards in terms of criminality and public exposure. I find it hard to believe that changing the law on anonymity would prevent or discourage women (or men) from reporting rape. If someone raped me, I’d be off to the police at the first opportunity regardless of what the law does or says at the time, I wouldn’t give a shit, it’s as simply as that and in my mind, they’re going down. The thing is, Carny, if women were on the other end of the countless false allegations out there in the big, wide world, you’d soon be campaigning for a turnaround in the law, and you know it! But you’re a feminist, so I understand your obstinately bigoted position on these matters and your blatant refusal to see life from outside the lathered up feminist bubble (which is about to burst, by the way). xx

  83. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “the lathered up feminist bubble (which is about to burst, by the way”

    When did you first a/ see a prediction of this type and b/ make a prediction of this type?

    What will this “bursting” look like? Who will it affect? In what way? Who will it benefit? Who will it cost?

    Thing is, 123454321, for all your bluster and emotive posturing, you say very little, and nothing sensible.

  84. That Guy says

    If someone raped me, I’d be off to the police at the first opportunity regardless of what the law does or says at the time,

    I hope for your sake that you never need to find out how wrong you are on this.

    @Carnation- I hadn’t thought about Trump as a political manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but that’s a handy shortcut! Cheers

  85. ajay says

    #86 “Re Ched Evans, presumably you accept the ruling of every court decision? Or, ;like your ideological hero, would you opt for allowing everyone accused of rape go free?”

    Ched Evans is a good example of the overwhelming bias in teh media and teh criminal justic esystem against men.

    The undisputed account of what the three people involved did including Ched Evans was extremely seedy and sordid. There was however strong evidence of consent and only week absense of evidence (failure to remember) against. The guilty verdict was therefore against the evidence and I strongly suspect a reaction to disgust with his behaviour than a consideration of the evidence and law. In other word he was ‘slut shamed but the consequence being the destruction of his career and 2.5 years in jail not just embarassment.

    Evidence later emerged which reinforced the two witnesses who said consent had been given and it emerged that the alleged victim had at least once before acted in a very similar way to that which the defendants testified and had a memory loss afterwards. She on teh other hand testified that she had never suffered a memory loss before. This type of evidence is normally excluded and needed special permision to include. The only reason the new evidence was revealed is because the man concerned recognised that the girl concerened was the one in the Ched Evans case.

    After a very high profile case in which a man is unjustly jailed for more than 2 years and has his career destroyed you would think that the media wuld be concerned about why the injustice occured and how to prevent reoccurrences but in fact all of the coverage has been about how the ordeal that the (non) victim suffered and how to close the loophole which allowed Ched Evans to prove his innocence. This is classic empathy gap. The man however much he siffered does not matter but the women does.

    Nowhere have I seen any analysis that hiding the name of the alleged victim impedes justice because it will tend to prevent witnesses who have pertinent information coming forward (as in this case was necessary). In cases of disputed consent around drink apart from the direct testimony of the parties concerned the most pertinent information to interpret that testimony is accounts of similar events or occurrences but that this information is not admissable in most trials. If we want justice we need as much information as possible and not to hide any information which might embarass the alleged victim or attacker. I therefore believe both parties should be named.

    I have also heard no discussion of the victims role in this specific miscarriage of justice. She testified that she had never had blackouts before. This is now known to be false. The gravity of the consequences mean that the police should investigate if in fact this was common place and that she knew this to be false. There will of course be no investigation of this or why such a weak case without a complaint was proscecuted in the first place.

    Overall we have laws around rape which are severely biased and misaligned with generally accepted principles for other offenses. The definition of rape is not simply sex without consent but includes penetration so men and more importantly boys who are the victim of women are excluded. The name of the alleged victim is hidden preventing witnesses who may have relevant information coming forward and the testimony most directly relevant in most cases is also excluded. The reason is the empathy gap. Women are victims and are sympathised with and supported, males are perpetrators even if proved innocent.

  86. mostlymarvelous says

    1234

    However, I think they should remain anonymous until proven guilty, just as the accuser is given anonymity.

    How often do we have to go through this! The ‘accuser’ is not the victim. The accuser is the Crown, the victim is just one witness among others.

    Think about a rape case where the evidence presented in court is entirely physical or other police or technical/expert evidence only. Serious injuries associated with the rape itself, DNA and every other kind of modern forensic whizz-bangery to prove who the assailant was. And the victim isn’t even there to give evidence. Either she was so severely injured that she cannot remember or she has had an entirely unrelated car/ workplace accident which has made her memory or her communication skills unreliable or she wasn’t only raped, she was also killed.

    If the ‘accuser’ was the victim rather than the Crown, then no offender would ever be convicted of rape in addition to an associated murder in the most serious cases – because murder victims don’t appear in court.

  87. Holms says

    #92 ajay
    Overall we have laws around rape which are severely biased and misaligned with generally accepted principles for other offenses. The definition of rape is not simply sex without consent but includes penetration so men and more importantly boys who are the victim of women are excluded.

    I’m skipping over the specific case you talk about because I know nothing about it, but this more general point you make about rape criminality is flatly wrong. Rape is any penetrative sex in which either participant is non-consenting. Meaning the man can be raped as well.

    Of course specific legal definitions are going to vary between nations and possibly even states; some for example class digital penetration as sex (and hence rape if it is non-consensual), anal penetration is sometimes treated differently to vaginal etc. etc. The point being that there are many specific differences between legal codes, so I am generalising a bit, but I am very doubtful the law of your location defines rape as being female-only.

    The name of the alleged victim is hidden preventing witnesses who may have relevant information coming forward and the testimony most directly relevant in most cases is also excluded.

    This is just bullshit. Hiding the name of the victim, in my location at least, is a protective measure for minors that may be involved in the alleged crime. It is not to hide keep potential witnesses coming forward!

  88. 123454321 says

    Hollms/That Guy. presumably (because you won’t answer directly) this is the part that bothers you re the pussy. So the video banner says:

    “Trump can ‘Grab women by the Vagina’. And it’s ok”

    which is typically incorrect because the extended version (which gives full context) of what he said was:

    “And when you’re a star they LET you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy.”

    So the fact that he said “they LET you do anything” means that there is consent involved, no forced approach, not necessarily sexual assault as you’d like to believe? Have you any idea how many women out there literally fling themselves at rich guys, pop stars, celebrities etc? That they actually DO encourage men to touch them, perhaps regretting it afterwards, who knows, maybe even bragging about it? You need to get out of the mindset that all women are victimised little snowflakes. Yes, I know there are sexual predators out there but you CAN’T justify calling trump a sexual predator (which is what the press did) based on the words he used on that tape, especially considering the situation he was in when he said them. Maybe Trump IS a sexual predator, I don’t know, but I’m proud to say that I was prepared to wait for proper evidence before jumping to ridiculous and potentially damaging conclusions and participating in vulture-like behaviour like some of you guys. Cliff Richard perfect example once again. How much longer is this world going to demonise and attack men without remorse? Ajay has it right. It’s the classic empathy gap. No one gives a shit about men. In actual fact the WANT to bring them down. They WANT to see them suffer.

    All while feminist campaigns try to ban men from complementing them or calling them names like “My Dear” or “Love” or “Sweet” or man spreading when they are just as guilty as taking up a space on a train with their bag. Oh, such important matters in comparison!!

  89. 123454321 says

    #94.

    Point taken. But in the context of false allegations (and we are talking outside the court of law here and not about the type of cases you just described) it’s not always clear who you are talking about if you use the word “witness”. If I were raped and I went to the police station, I’d probably say something like “I have been raped and I am accusing XYZ of raping me”. I wouldn’t go in and present myself as a witness. I get your point though, it makes sense.

  90. ajay says

    #95 Holms “I’m skipping over the specific case you talk about because I know nothing about it, but this more general point you make about rape criminality is flatly wrong. Rape is any penetrative sex in which either participant is non-consenting. Meaning the man can be raped as well.”

    Well I am meetig your doubtfulness with the actual test of the law in the sexual offences act 2003.
    ‘1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis
    (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. ‘

    Rape is only possible in Britain by a male. We were talking in the context of a UK blog with comments about a UK case.
    This is one of many exampes of very biased anti0male laws which becomes very apparent when you look at what happens to male and female school teachers who have sex with their pupils.

    “This is just bullshit. Hiding the name of the victim, in my location at least, is a protective measure for minors that may be involved in the alleged crime. It is not to hide keep potential witnesses coming forward!”

    Well I meet your claim of bullshit with the observation that in the UK the name of all alleged victims are hidden not just minors and that this specific case was one in which a man was freed from jail only because a witness recognised that he had information about the alleged victim whom he recognised despite her name being hidden. We do not know how many other cases there may be in which men would be revealed to be unjustly convicted of rape if similar information was made available but it is prevented by the hiding of the name.

    Principles of open justice should mean all names are published. This is the general rule. The man, and as shown above, in the UK it can only be a man accused of rape, is subject to much worse publicity than a women who claims to be a victim. There is (rightly) no stigma for a women who has been raped, although wrongly I think there is for a man.

  91. That Guy says

    @98 ajay

    Check your anglo-priveledge. Britain is not the UK, and the English and Welsh legal system differ significantly from the Scots legal system.

    Stop erasing my culture, racist.

    #indyref

  92. ajay says

    #99 That Guy say
    “Check your anglo-priveledge. Britain is not the UK, and the English and Welsh legal system differ significantly from the Scots legal system.”

    In this case scottish and english law are aligned from the sexual offences act (Scotland) 2009:
    ‘ Rape

    (1) If a person (“A”), with A’s penis—
    (a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and
    (b) without any reasonable belief that B consents,

    penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape.’

    “Stop erasing my culture, racist.”
    Am I with an accurate knowledge of Scots law erasing your culture, or are you with your ignorance of Scottish law?

    Am I being racist even if I had incorrectly conflated Scots and English law? It seems to me that your immediuate accusation of Racism based at worst on a mistake but in fact in your own ignorance suggest that you are more likely to be the racist, I do not like to insult other commentators but it seems to me your actions are of an unpleasant nationalistic bigot. If you do not want people to think of you in this way I suggets you change your behaviour.

  93. That Guy says

    @100 ajay

    Clearly you are lacking the understanding and insight of being an oppressed ethnic minority. Your assertions that English colonial culture should displace the proud and noble traditions of my so-called ‘savage people’ is one of the many grave injustices that your nation has inflicted upon the celtic peoples.

    Indeed, your assertion that the right to self-determination be associated with ‘nationalist bigots’ is colonialism by tone-trolling.

    In light of your crimes that range from cultural erasure, genocide and deliberate addiction of Scottish natives to a toxic diet (through your puppet corporations Tunnocks and Barrs) I am making the following list of demands- which on completion I will present as evidence that you are Not a Racist.

    1)Reperations from the English government to compensate the Working Class Scots so the financial ruin inflicted by English Prime Minister Thatcher (to be paid in euros)

    2)Restoration of one of Stuart Lineage to the Throne

    c)Repopulation of the Highlands that were stripped bare during the clearances

    iv)Liberation of Panama (henceforth referred to as it’s true name, Darien) and stewardship transferred to the independent Scottish Republic

    I await your response forthwith

  94. ajay says

    #101 That Guy says
    Your own comment is far more eloquent than I could be in revealing the nature and background of your comments.

    I will not respond further.

  95. 123454321 says

    “Clearly you are lacking the understanding and insight of being an oppressed ethnic minority”

    Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that most of the world’s population were black and asian, thus white is the minority? Not that I have a problem with that, far from it, because I’m not racist you see. Also, in terms of skin colour, in the western world, doesn’t everyone have access to the same equal opportunities these days? I’m parking history for a moment because we ought to be moving forward rather than dwelling on those whom have lived and died. Not that I don’t respect that aspect, but I really think we are where we are. Don’t you agree?

  96. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    Isn’t the forthcoming MRA victory and demolition of feminist fascism going to give men the chance that you are talking about?

  97. 123454321 says

    Ah, poor Carny, bless you. I said the demise of feminism, not a victory for MRA. Don’t think of it as a war; it’s just that superiority movements like feminism need knocking off of their perch, hopefully using the very pendulum they set swinging too far to their advantage without considering men, and that is already happening with the backlash we’re seeing out there on the internet right now. Bless x

  98. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    Read you stating this;

    “the backlash we’re seeing out there on the internet right now”

    Made me think of this: “Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.”

  99. Holms says

    #96
    You are being intentionally obtuse here. He quite clearly kicked off that conversation with the assertion that he ‘just starts kissing’ when he sees beautiful people.

    “I better use some tic tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss, I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”
    “Whatever you want.”
    “Grab them by the pussy.”

    You can see he then escalates to pussy grabbing in the next breath, having just stated that he doesn’t ‘wait.’ But of course you ignored this contextually relevant information, because it makes clear that Donald is a sexual pest and that would interfere with your quest to defend all men of every accusation from women.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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