When I became involved in supporting a 12 year old victim of a rape gang, I still had a career in academia. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue of the industrial rape and trafficking of white children, with my feminists colleagues. I naively assumed they would be as enraged as I was and we could start bringing the issue to wider attention. However, the silence was deafening. Poor white working class girls just don’t register on their pyramid of oppression. They’ll cry for the women of Gaza or Afghanistan but couldn’t give tuppence for the white 12 year old being trafficked to a brothel in Leeds (as was happening to the child I acted as ‘appropriate adult’ for). They just don’t see them.
The case I became involved with occurred in 2011, two years’ before the Rotherham scandal went mainstream in 2013. None of it was ‘breaking news’ to many of us in South Yorkshire. Everyone knew this was happening but police and authorities looked the other way to protect their pet project of multiculturalism.
I received nothing but disinterest and outright obstruction from feminist colleagues, when I tried to carry out research into the issue. Initially, my academic colleagues at Oxford University refused to believe me that there was an active rape gang in their lofty city of learning. I guess they never left the comfort of the Colleges to go to the bad parts of Oxford. I carried out my own independent research into the gangs at the time. I write of my experiences in my recent Substack article https://open.substack.com/pub/ladyofshalott2/p/grooming-gangs-my-personal-experience?r=18oo7k&utm_medium=ios
I no longer work in academia. Long story but I managed to self-sabotage my career by not shutting up about this stuff. At least I don’t have to share the same air as these bold feminists anymore.
Totally agree. What horrified me was their basic lack of human compassion for what were - and are, the rape gangs are still operating - children. Vulnerable children, often from very difficult home backgrounds, often already at odds with authority, sometimes with SEN (special education needs). It’s an entirely class-based crime - these were not the children of lawyers or doctors being raped. I thought the left cared about class? Not anymore I suppose.
I found my former colleagues and many of the leftists I’ve encountered in my life to have real cult-like thinking when it comes to multiculturalism . All must be sacrificed to the god of multiculturalism. Many of the girls I met doing my research are women in their late 20s now and they’ve generally had poor life outcomes as a result of what happened to them. You’ll come across the occasional one like Dr Ella Hill https://youtu.be/etpAtC2S0uQ?si=xHZqjC1-S1-Hakrk here talking to Triggernometry. Or Samantha Smith (who often speaks on GB News) or the brave Sammy Woodhouse, who’ve somehow been able to thrive. But many just slip into living a half-life of prostitution, children being taken into care, addiction, seeking out violent and harmful partners. Never becoming the people they should have been.
It is heartbreaking. After all these years, I was stunned and amazed when Musk started talking about this issue. Whether or not he has his own motivations in doing so, I just don’t care. I’m hugely grateful. He’s the world’s richest man and people listen to him.
I figured it was a class thing right away. Predators usually don’t prey on kids from strong and moneyed families. They look for the kids who have cracks in their homes. I don’t say that to blame any of the victims or families. A close friend is a pediatrician and says most kids are molested by someone the mother brings into their lives.
These types of feminists care about certain women and others are throwaways. Like the kids trafficked here in the states through the boarder. No feminist outcry for those kids. They don’t exist.
So, so true. The North and Midlands of England where most, but by no means all, of the grooming gangs operate was once the industrial heartland of England. But once the ship building, textile and coal mining industries went, the whole area fell into economic and social decline.
Throw into the mix the huge influx of immigration from the Mirpur region of Pakistan from the late 1960s onwards, and it was a recipe for disaster. I write a bit about Mirpuri culture and the tribal element to the rape gangs in my Substack. My dear friend Dogmatic Slumbers also wrote an article about the historical context to the Mirpur rape gangs https://open.substack.com/pub/mat6fd/p/the-spoils-of-division?r=18oo7k&utm_medium=ios
All the perpetrators I met, or read statements from, had Mirpur heritage. Some could trace their families back to the same remote village. They were often related via cousin marriage which is very prevalent in their culture. The Pakistani Muslim rape gangs are tribal in thinking and predatory in how they select victims. The girls are all poor, sometimes already at odds with authority (so less likely to be believed), very vulnerable (sometimes with learning difficulties) and always very, very young (so susceptible to coercion). The gangs are generally finished with them by the time they’re 16.
Thanks for the links. I'd like to really understand how young girls could be so twisted as to recruit other girls. It's so much like vampirism to me.
Perhaps a subject for Taylor Swift to put into song, considering her fan base. I'd base such a song on Oxford and use use Arnold's line, "that sweet city with its dreaming spires" to add poignancy, or as a focus for healing.
Absolutely, it's class based. They can look down on white girls from working class backgrounds. It makes their day. Plus, they can preen, condescend AND get well paid for doing so, without having to contribute anything to society in return.
I knew young girls can be extremely impressionable only from reading "Irreversible Damage". but the depth of depravity in how these girls have their minds twisted is at another level.
Maybe Pol Pot was onto something when he decided to eliminate academia in Cambodia back in the 70s. His methods were clearly wrong, but maybe he saw something of the threat it would become.
I supported a girl that had been gang-raped at 13 years old, when I worked for a leaving care team in Kent, back in 2005. It still haunts me, and the fact that it was all just brushed under the carpet by Social Services and the Police. She then had her own children taken into care of the local authority.
Re victimised over and over by the system and the perpetrators.
I’m glad you spoke out about it, even if it does feel like screaming into the void.
So, so sad to read this and can empathise completely. I ended up acting as appropriate adult for the child I refer to, as I was parent governor at her school. Her own mum had substance abuse issues and her father was absent. There was literally no one else to speak for her. I’d go to liaison meetings and be told by South Yorkshire Police that these girls had made a ‘lifestyle choice’. I don’t know any 12 year olds that chose to be put in a cage (one of those dog crates), urinated on and trafficked up the M1 to a brothel in Leeds
This 2008 alleged communication from the Home Office to all police authorities, instructing them not to pursue grooming gang allegations as they were ‘lifestyle choices’ has been the subject of wide speculation. Nazir Afzal, the then Chief Prosecutor for NW England has changed his story on this communication repeatedly. I asked SY Police and made two requests under the Freedom of Information laws, yet I’ve never see it. As you rightly say, these crimes against vulnerable children have been hidden or brushed aside with obfuscation, cover-up and plain lies.
As you say, this never leaves you. I was stunned to see the grooming gang issue pushed to the forefront by Musk. My own children were very young when I was involved with the case. They don’t remember much beyond ‘mum always going to meetings and coming home upset’. In the intervening years, I had to push much of that experience to the back of my mind so I could function as a human being. It was probably the beginning of the end of my old life looking back. Thanks so much for sharing your experience, God bless.
“Lifestyle choice” was exactly the language used by social workers and police to describe these young girls in their care.
Absolutely disgusting - they are children, being groomed, abused, violated, hurt, shamed, humiliated and enslaved, yet like you say, the feminist social workers were calling it “lifestyle choices”.
It baffled me back then and it baffles me still.
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
And yes, as mothers, we have to push it to the back of our minds because it can drive you insane trying to understand how anyone could be so evil, let alone defend such perverted depravity.
One of the horrific things to me is that all this detailed information was known way back in 2017. I know this because it was shared in briefings from the Home Office that were done for people in the NHS who had some responsibilities in "safeguarding". At the time the HO estimated 10,000 victims from the then known 25 towns and boroughs where there had been known investigations and prosecutions. What was most shocking was that at least half were either in the care of the "state" ( in the UK this means Borough councils) or on Safeguarding Lists (formerly and more accurately "Child Protection registers). This was all very "hush hush" and it was odd that the same information wasn't made so available to Local Authorities. I know this because my job was a joint commissioning role where I worked for the NHS and a City Council in the same capacity for both. As you say it is remarkable the efforts gone ever since to obfuscate and mislead about information that was clearly in the possession of national government nearly a decade ago.
They really are. Child rape victims, millions starved to death in a man made Holodomor - it’s all the same to them. All just collateral damage. I’ve met a few people like this along the road of my life, and they all have cult-like thinking.
Transgender is not real. When someone is bulimic, we need to intervene with the truth to save their lives from their body dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the same, but the pharmaceutical industries make a lot of money.
As the major drug patents were going off-patent, the money makers were MRNA injections and hormone-warping chemicals. A soldier has his junk blown off; he is still a man; he is just disfigured. Suicide rates are 65% in gender dysphoria people; mutilating their bodies does not help the mental disorder.
The truth helps us, not to live in a fantasy and force society to participate in illusion.
I am compassionate and do not mistreat mentally unstable people, but that is my choice; no one is going to force me to comply with falsehood.
I think you are right. I also think that it goes deeper; if one identifies as a person, and not a man or a woman, then they are automatically giving away their God-given sovereignty, and handing over their authority to the "authorities".
https://youtu.be/JJ58WG3hd2g?si=JAcsYLLaOPwFe10p Have you seen this. To me it is extraordinary that we don't have such data in the UK given that public bodies are required by the Equality Act to collect data on the equality strands under the Equality Duty provisions of the act. The data must exist and the supposed absence is a lie?
I'm a member of NCF. All their Heresies videos are excellent. Also their series "The West" by Marc Sidwell. Sidwell has also a short book for free download, "The Long March".
Is it not already exposed that Feminism was created by class privileged white women? A narrative based on a selfish desire for more power and less responsibility.
If it were only that, it would be somewhat less bizarre. All groups want more power and less responsibility. Feminists want something more, I believe: the actual destruction of their societies, and possibly their own actual immiseration.
Do you think the destruction of society is an intended goal or merely a consequence they cannot see due to their zealotry? Always a thrill when you reply to one of my comments - thank you.
But the reality that feminism is driven by upper class and upper-middle class women is radioactively unpopular. Even conservative and Christian men will not accept this truth about females and their collective power.
Completely. There would have been endless handwringing and opining about the evils of patriarchy, how the battle of for women’s rights had not yet been won and so on. But because the perpetrators came from a protected group there were literally tumbleweeds. National and local government, local authorities riddled with incompetence and couldn’t give a fuckery, a police force (in the case of South Yorkshire Police) with an established culture of cover-up all conspired to protect their pet project of multiculturalism. I don’t think any of them saw the girls as human beings. I guess that’s what happens when individuals and organisations are captured by ideology.
Quite. The areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan where most of the perpetrators come from are precisely those that conform most closely to the idea of a "patriarchy". Indeed today there was yet another feminist article about how terrible the "Taliban" are in preventing Girls from accessing secondary and tertiary education (interestingly the first time I realized that girls do in fact get educated in primary education schools). You would think that the Grooming Gangs scandal was made for feminists to trumpet about the evils of "patriarchy". As what has happened is that the patriarchal society of these borderlands far from the more "sophisticated" and urbanised regions of Pakistan, has simply been imported to many areas of Britain. Just as feminists are keen to trumpet the "injustices" in Afghanistan and other parts of the Indian Sub-continent (usually as supporting their demands for female CEOs of FTSE Companies etc.) you would think they'd be making propaganda hay with this. Yet many who have pointed to these crimes, right from Ann Cryer, with concerns about the exploitation of young females by gangs of older men have been not just "cancelled" but vilified by those I'm sure they would have thought were "sistas" in the fight against patriarchy. Jess Phillips really exemplified this. A vocal and vociferous feminist, scoffing at IMD debates in Parliament, making an annual ritual of reading the names of women murdered and an advocate of ending the right to a jury trial for defendants in rape and sexual assault cases. She simply ignored a request from Oldham for an enquiry there. And then when stung into action by the Musk intervention came up with an "offer" (mouthed through Mrs. Ed Balls) to fund local enquiries. Knowing full well that the Oldham request came because local enquiries have no powers to compel the Police, CPS and Courts to give evidence. Even worse because in her own constituency she relies on that community too deliver votes for her own election! his latter point is also a clear hypocrisy because this form of vote farming, where clan leaders, men, harvest the votes of their extended families especially their women folk.. This practice being the main reason that suddenly we have to have photo identification to vote in person and more stringent checks are made for postal and proxy voting! Again simply ignoring women's right to vote secretly and for whom they choose!
I find it hard to believe there are people stupid enough to think Muslims were a “protected class” during the post-9/11 War on Terror, which is when the alleged gang-rapes took place. But if you AREN’T stupid, you must be a liar who thinks everyone ELSE is stupid enough to believe it. Either way, what the hell is wrong with y’all?
So here’s where you insist that there really ARE Muslim Rape Gangs deliberately ignored by the police through an unprecedented policy of “reverse racial profiling.” If that were really how woke works, arrests should be way down for American minorities too... but they’re not.
Which brings us to a question no one is asking: if police turned a blind eye to Muslims who gang-rape little girls because they didn't want to be perceived as racist/islamophobic, wouldn’t they have turned an even BLINDER eye to Muslims who shoplift, run red lights, spray graffiti, commit homicide, etc.? In other words, in every town alleged to harbor Muslim Rape Gangs, we OUGHT to expect the effective decriminalization of ALL crime perpetrated by Muslims. We should expect the same in London, too, which has by far the highest percentage of Muslims in the UK AND whose law enforcement is surely more woke-by-fiat than any coppers from Northshitfacedshire.
Yet not only do we NOT see a steep drop in arrests and prosecution of Muslims for ALL categories of crime, we have ZERO reports of Muslim Rape Gangs operating in London, where 38% of the nation’s Muslims reside. Curious, innit?
Well the first point of course is that it's not all Muslims but a very specific ethnic group within that broad group. The second is that the point about the lack of action on these gangs is actually public record here in the UK in the Telford, Oldham, Rotherham, Manchester, Rochdale and Cass inquiries. The point being that it isn't a question of this having been the case, but that no one is held accountable for the period before the hundreds of cases still clogging our prisons. And your point about London is well made. As there have been such gangs found and prosecuted in Towns as far and wide as Swansea and Barrow Newcastle and Aylesbury. It is indeed curious the Met. has only prosecuted a couple in their area. I cannot comment on the USA but the facts are well known in the UK and the issue is are those in authority who did nothing for a couple of decades to be held accountable. As I write there are cases of such gangs going through tte courts locally.
"I don’t think any of them saw the girls as human beings. I guess that’s what happens when individuals and organisations are captured by ideology."
No, it's what happens when young girls behave like feral animals. It becomes difficult to see them as human. We experience a feeling of moral disgust, which has evolved in humans for a reason: "moral disgust motivates avoidance of social relationships with norm-violating individuals" because those relationships threaten group cohesion. That's why men find sluts so disgusting, we know instinctively they will destroy group cohesion, and ultimately society itself, which is what's happening now in the West.
David Starkey has recently done an interview with the Daily Sceptic on "The Noble Lie of Multiculturalism". He presents new ways to look at this old evil.
A prominent early example of this type of person was Emmaline Pankhurst, a woman of class and wealth. She supported terrorist acts of violence against the general public and was really only interested in votes for Upper Class women (which they already had to some degree). She only sided with the common class women because she needed their numbers for her campaigns. Her daughter was even worse.
The 1848 Seneca Falls conference that began institutional feminism in America was initiated by rogue Quaker women of fat means and time on their hands . . . like chief conference organizer Elizabeth Stanton. Quakerism involved belief in equal 'rights' for both sexes and was much closer to Gnosticism than Christianity.
Stanton arose from great wealth and privilege, her family top dog in Johnstown, N.Y. Daddy was one of the wealthiest landowners in the state. Ahem.
Lucretia Mott was another rogue Quaker, upper middle class, having set herself up as a 'minister' though Scripture clearly prohibits female clergy or spiritual leadership. Mott, a chief national Abolitionist voice, birthed the bond between feminism and blacks/minorities constituting the modern Democratic Party and its ideology/religion of Progressivism.
Paulina Wright Davis was of the financial elite and lived in luxury all her life.
It goes on like that. Even from its beginnings, feminism was an elite project, not a grassroots movement as they love to claim.
She was concerned that giving the vote to all men was a recipe for disaster as she was a firm believer in the property qualification to vote. In fact she was a candidate for the Conservative party at the time of her death. She supported the white feather movement, Male conscription (a complete novelty in the UK at the time). It was her daughter Sylvia who was the socialist firebrand. Emmaline and her daughter Christabel were in many respects solidly middle class. Their house still exist in the local area, now surrounded by a huge Hospital Complex.
"Even conservative and Christian men will not accept this truth about females and their collective power."
This makes sense given that both feminists and conservative/ Christian men both require men to be all powerful, invulnerable, super human beings in charge of society, and for women to be weak, helpless, vulnerable damsels in need of men's protections.
"He for she" / "Women and children first"
It's the same essential demand, the same transaction and it creates the same male identity (paternalistic attitude to women, self sacrifice etc).
Feminism uses scorn and humiliation to shame men to self-sacrifice for women. Traditionalism uses pride and honour to motivate men to self-sacrifice for women. One is stick, the other is carrot.
Traditionalist women are submissive and demure, which forces men to take the lead and be self sacrificing. Feminists are aggressive and hostile, but they also deny all responsibility for the state of the world, which they claim is 100% men's doing. Denying their own agency in this way is the ultimate act of submission to men (and the state). Far more extreme than even the most tradcon wife.
A lot of men (traditionalists and male feminists) cannot cope with the idea that they don't actually have that much social power compared to women. Their whole identity is structured around the idea that they must save/ protect/ rescue women... and that women have no obligation to reciprocate (no matter how many homeless men there are or suicides or genital mutilations or false accusations or war wounded or fathers with no access...).
I think now that western society is generally safe from wolves, famines, harsh winters, failed harvests etc the male desire to rescue/ protect women has nothing left to focus on ..... except other men. This turns even the most conservative, traditionalist man into a potential feminist enabler.
'A lot of men (traditionalists and male feminists) cannot cope with the idea that they don't actually have that much social power compared to women.'
Yes, I think this insight gets at the root of it. These Righty men see themselves as heroic, or want to be heroic . . . but the reality -- with which they cannot cope -- is that the females they're trying to heroically save have far more power in culture and law than they do. These men are trying to save their societal superiors, so although they are of one voice, united in false chivalry, they're clowns. It's like slaves trying to save their masters. Null computation.
So these men pedestalize and angelicize females, and pretend that society doesn't bend over backwards for women and girls, to retain the self-image of their courageousness. They are the Good Guys, so there must be Bad Guys, and that only leaves other men as targets.
Added to this are the powerful incentives that the gynocracy dangles before the dads of daughters. Little wonder America has few kids and mommies, but endless hordes of empowered, credentialed career women.
I think the real reason is that men often have genuine altruism for women in their lives, like their mothers or sisters, and this is weaponized.
I don't think the reason has anything to do with men wanting to feel powerful. I think their empathy is just weaponized in an emotionally abusive fashion.
As you say in the real world boys and girls are heavily reliant on their mothers and generally their lives are full of women in their formative years in family, care and education. It is hardly surprising they have strong positive feelings for mothers, nannies, and carers. Even if their experiences were not that good. In truth I suspect even those abused want to find in women the affection they either received or craved from their mothers, grannies, aunts etc.
BINGO BINGO BINGO! BRILLIANT! I'm disappointed with TRUMP. He's more obsessed with rescuing a fringe element of hermaphroditic fe-MALE athletes then a whole generation of boys & men whose spaces were eliminated by these same w0e-MEN. Trump is best buds with fish face Nancy Mace who sued her way into the Citadel 153 year ALL MALE military college. She looks like a BELL HOP in her uniform. If Trump were serious about getting rid of DEI he would disown her. PHUCK Riley Gaines. She looks like a frat DUDE with a bad wig.
Trump is not very interested in the dark side of female nature or the way that men's own strengths and weaknesses in regard to women are used against them by feminist laws and policies.
I agree with you that it is very frustrating that his main interest in Title IX is to keep women's sports pristine. Title IX has been weaponized for decades to destroy men's college sports, and nobody gives a damn.
It's interesting that you mention Nancy Mace. Have you seen what she's been up to recently? She is now claiming to have uncovered a criminal conspiracy by her ex-fiance and 3 of his business associates to drug, rape, and sexually exploit underage girls and women. She spoke for an hour on the floor of the House, damning these men. I didn't know she had sued her way into a male military college. It figures! She is the type of woman who uses sex appeal and feminist policies/laws for her own purposes, unscrupulously. I am thinking of writing about her next. Thanks for the information.
Well as we can see. as you have just demonstrated "All of you people on this comment section are some really twisted individuals with a definite agenda." You have nothing to contribute other then the same old feminist generalisations.
BINGO! Trump is a prime offender. I would also say right wing FAKE/Christian trad/CON w0e-MEN like Riley Gaines do indeed try to shame MEN into servitude.
One of the horrific things to me is that all this detailed information was known way back in 2017. I know this because it was shared in briefings from the Home Office that were done for people in the NHS who had some responsibilities in "safeguarding". At the time the HO estimated 10,000 victims from the then known 25 towns and boroughs where there had been known investigations and prosecutions. What was most shocking was that at least half were either in the care of the "state" ( in the UK this means Borough councils) or on Safeguarding Lists (formerly and more accurately "Child Protection registers). This was all very "hush hush" and it was odd that the same information wasn't made so available to Local Authorities. I know this because my job was a joint commissioning role where I worked for the NHS and a City Council in the same capacity for both. As you say it is remarkable the efforts gone ever since to obfuscate and mislead about information that was clearly in the possession of national government nearly a decade ago.
Interesting, thanks, Nigel. I read Peter McCullough's book *Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam, and Child Sex Slavery* (2014). He argues that police officers and social workers knew what was going on as far back as 1988 or earlier. He mentions, for example, that the city of Bradford had services to help the victims of grooming gangs by 1995, but that none of the materials would mention the ethnicity of the men involved. Andrew Norfolk, Times journalist, found dozens of internal police and other reports that were never made public in which it was admitted that thousands of grooming crimes were being committed each year in specific counties.
Yes as I say the details were well known enough that briefing sessions were held about the profile of the gangs, their modes of opperation and tell tale indicators. This information from the Home Office Ministry of justice. As well as the then prosecuted cases giving information we have a system of "Serious Case Review" for cases of children and young people (under 19) where the safeguarding of children in care or child protection registers die or are victims of crimes or breakdowns. These also were sources for the MoJ on the way in which such gangs targetted and drew in their victims. At the time I had "Safeguarding" responsibilities for vulnerable adults and so was included in briefings and circulations of this information. Although there appears to have developed some lack of collection of data,.Since at the time we were given data showing the cases, each including an average of 9 defendants, then resulting in convictions were putting considerable pressure on the prison service. Hence I am sceptical of the more recent assertions that the services don't have data on ethnicity. Nearly a decade later there have been literally 100s of such prosecutions across the country (in the last 6 months in my region there have been 6 such "historical" cases and there are two more on trial as I write. The issue isn't that this isnt being tackled now. It is. It is that for such a long time it wasn't and no one has been held accountable for this breakdown in our child protection system for a start. And of course this creates the suspicion that there are places still concealing this, As xxywise comments it is indeed "curious" that there have been so few(there have in fact been two gangs prosecuted in a London borough) cases in the Greater London area.
The Pankhursts, being local, I've always taken an interest in their history. Including the largely forgotten Mr. Pankhurst the "red doctor" ( Barrister ,much older than his wife, who was the originator of an organization for female voting nationally and founding member of the Labour Party. Emmaline was a Tory candidate for election at the time of her death and with one of her daughters very active in the White Feather movement and demanded men stand up and "do their duty" by fighting for their families and country. Apart from Sylvia who became an ardent socialist and supporter of revolution Emmaline and Christabel generally seemed to expect men to "man up" and continue to be chivalrous, to the fairer sex. Though there was a brother, born when Emmaline was 25 and her husband 49, he lived only two years. Had he lived maybe his mother might have been less cavalier with men's lives. Who knows?
This is one reason why society should be patriarchal. Feminism cut the balls off of men and now the barbarians are sullying their daughters.
Thankfully, the US just blasted back into the men-in-charge zone. Imagine weeping over ridding the country of vile South American gangs. I was with someone yesterday, who was doing that. I asked, Do you know what MS13 is? Nope. Well let me tell you....
"I don't care! Our country is supposed to be HELPING people!"
Note: BLM, and declawing the police? Women at the helm of that idiocy, too. While that was going on, it got me thinking that feminism run amok will necessitate a reinstatement of patriarchal rule, because crime will be so rampant, women will be begging to 'feel safe' again.
This is not the primary reason society should be patriarchal.
The actual reason society should be patriarchal is because women are intensively hyper aggressive human beings, and their social aggression turns men into victims, hurts men children and even women (they are irrational so their aggression isn't even in their own interests) and patriarchy is the only way to get rid of that.
If it were white men instead of Pakis doing the grooming etc., the entire Academy of England would have crushed the rings in a week. Most of the Academy being fembots by this point.
But if the perps are fellow-travelers in the war of white women against white men -- like the multi-culti Pakis -- this must be ignored. Of-colors are allies in the degradation and disenfranchisement of white men and boys. One does not attack one's allies.
Totally agree. Because the perpetrators came from a protected group, it was literally tumbleweeds from the feminists. I think they just don’t see the girls at all. The victims are white. working class and over here. Had they been in another part of the world, the feminists might have connected with them. But their total lack of in-group preference and general worldview seems to blind them to the reality of what is occurring right under their nose.
As Janice Fiamengo so rightly highlights, they were hysterical about Trump and Gaetz. Their so-called ‘victims’ matter. Other victims don’t.
Funny, Janice’s article makes clear that Pakistanis were disproportionately, overwhelmingly the ones arrested and charged with these crimes. So which is it?
Actually, it doesn't make that case. It makes the case that police and social services identified grooming gang members, especially in internal reports, as overwhelmingly Pakistani Muslim. In many instances, these men were never arrested, charged, or prosecuted.
How can the Paki mohammedans be disproportionately charged and arrested when they were about 98% of those who committed the crimes? Unless you're alluding to the lack of action against police, social workers and councillors who turned a blind eye.
The latter is the point in the UK. In particular the issue is about the girls young women and boys who were in the care of the local authorities or on child protection registers. All such youngsters are by definition deemed at risk and in need of care or oversight by statutary services. The numbers over decades make this the most widespread and longest lasting mass failure of our child protection system. Such a huge failure requires close examination because clearly something went horribly wrong and may still be doing so. Only a national enquiry with "teeth" can give assurance that this appalling failure is in our past and won't continue. It is remarkable how few feminists have put themselves behind this ask, and the vilification of those few by their "sistas" speaks volumes.
The same thing can be said of feminists who scream defiantly against those who argue (with good reason) that transgenderism is unfair to girls and women at best and dangerous to girls and women at worst.
The leftists love Islam because they are a collectivist ally against Christianity. Islam is religious communism. They both must destroy Christianity to gain global control.
What we are dealing with here are sociopathic radical activists. Their show of feelings is basically only for show, as compassion is never on their radar unless it is required for effect. That is why some get the compassion and others do not. They are, as an activist group, all about power, wealth and political positioning. Only their methods and groups they support are different, otherwise they are just like Himmler and Stalin in the way that they think and operate and would be just as wicked as them if they thought they could get away with it.
Pathocracy is a word to look up. And the book Without Conscience by Robert Hare is worth a read to get a good basic working knowledge of what you're up against when it comes to sociopathic radical activists
A dismal tale, Janice. I had just read Dominic Green's essay, "The United Kingdom's Grooming Gangs" (Washington Examiner, Jan. 15, 2025, 19-22). When Nazir Afzal took over as Crown Prosecutor in 2011, he secured rape convictions for eight Pakistanis and one Afghan. According to Green, Afzal commented that "white professionals' oversensitivity to political correctness and fear of appearing racist may well have contributed to justice being stalled." Stalled it is. PM Keir Starmer opposes a full inquiry. He headed up Crown Prosecutions 2008-15 and no doubt does not want his sad record in this business examined. Let's hope it catches up with him.
Wow, that was powerful. This is what smashing the patriarchy looks like. You demoralize and castrate your own men at home to remove the dangers of male aggression ... but you only end up removing the last line of defense for most women and children from barbarians at the gates.
The British feminists, multiculturalists and other "ists" have been smashing what they claim is a Christian patriarchy, while enabling the patriarchy of Islam to run rampant.
Isn't that odd? Islamic patriarchy is practically the instantiation of the oppressive, tyrannical patriarchy which feminists decry and yet they don't seem to see it.
Quite. Because in fact they are generally white, middle class and don't live near the enclaves of medieval clans from which this cancer creeps. And yet they are quick to point at Afghanistan and rural Pakistan; usually as a reason for women CEOs or time off work for the menopause (!?). Proof that their agenda has everything to do with leveraging their privileges rather than doing anything at all for women and girls who clearly needed actual help. Malala Yousafzai is lauded and is an inspiration yet the young women raped here, repeatedly, are told to be quiet. Though originally this was because these women might disturb "community cohesion" but these days it looks like its just that it exposed the hypocritical actions of so many feminists, particularly those now in Government. "believe women" ? Well not if they come from the poorer parts of town and want to tell you about decades of criminal abuse. Shhhhhh.... Simply; it easy to pontificate on things 1000s of miles away, for pontificate is all you need to do.
One consistent trait of feminists is cowardice. They love to gang up and appear strong with heavy condemnations and rhetoric when they have the upper hand like at Universities. But when the opposition appears strong, as Muslims generally do, they go silent.
Bari Weiss did a whole vlog I believe on her puzzlement over why feminists were silent after the Oct 6 attacks which included some of the most horrific rape-murders imaginable. Crickets. It's also why while pornography has gotten worse, feminists no longer condemn it and just pretend it isn't there. Pornographers seem powerful and dangerous is the answer. Best to not piss them off by proposing to ban their product.
In reality feminists successes have come where they tap into the "white knight" of men in power. Their constant, and very effective demand, is that women be "safe" from anything that makes them "feel unsafe". And men generally jump to it. Which is why the "grooming gangs" are such an outlier. As one may expect the strongest "voices" and action comes from men, but feminists haven't mobilized this to their agenda. Even stranger given feminists here constantly highlight Afghanistan as somewhere "we" (aka. Soldiers) do something. I suppose the latter has the virtue of distance and the reality no in seriously expects to send troops there again, even the expendable males.
I think what is also rarely talked about is the the Sikh Awareness Society and streets and lane project both organically arose to combat the issue in Birmingham.
to this day not a single arrest has been made in Birmingham.
Except they didn't want to "to remove the dangers of male aggression".
They wanted to enact pretty overt female supremacism.
And the pakistanis have a tribal culture that wherein outsiders are deserving of violence, it's not "male aggression" specifically that causes them to do this. It's tribal attitudes, which I suppose might result in more rape from the men specifically, but it's not like it's a biologically engrained thing. It might seem like i'm splitting hairs, but pakistani men are aggressive insofar as their aggression is considered good by everyone in their tribe.
If male aggression was a real thing, feminists would have been taken back to the kitchen and raped into submission in the west.
Male aggression didn't exist in any real fashion in the west and hearing about it in this general term makes me roll my eyes because it's so nonexistent in a world where it would be so helpful.
Pakistani male aggression might be more appropriate. Generalized male aggression not so much since we don't see it.
A sobering read. Thank you Janice. It is hard to believe that this sort of thing has been ignored. Pull the father from the home and bad things happen. Really bad things. I wish we could hold feminists accountable. Looks like a good deal of stockholm syndrome on the part of the victims who are unable to hold their perps accountable. What a mess.
I loved this sentence:
"Feminism is primarily a subversive and revolutionary ideology. It respects and at times promotes violence, including violence against girls and women, in the name of utopian cultural transformation and the overthrow of traditional norms and structures."
From what is known at least half the victims of these gangs were, and still are, in Council care or on a Child Protection Register. Which means they are either cared for as looked after children or are known to be at risk of some form of harm. Many of the other half are known to be "minors" (under 18). So both children and very likely at the bottom of society. In short very unlikely indeed to feel "empowered" to hold anyone to account. Particularly as those who did were routinely ignored or even punished by those in authority.
"approximately 2,300 possible offenders, but approximately 1,100 were excluded from analysis due to a lack of basic information. In the remaining 1,200 cases, ethnicity data was unknown for 38% of them. Where data was available 30% of offenders were White, while 28% were Asian. "
So that means that if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 1556 offenders without ethnic data were white that Asians (of which almost all were Pakistanis) would still have constituted 9% of the offenders (so 4+ times their actual percentage of the citizenry) and the whites would have been 77% so still less than their ethnic share. And, as noted, the ethnicity was almost certainly frequently not recorded BECAUSE they were Pakistani (Asian is very unfair as I expect VERY few were Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese etc). So likely that out of the 2300 that more than 28% were Pakistani.
Basically Britain has a big problem but to make it even worse our Elites (and very much the legal system) will neither defend the Whites/Brits nor punish the offenders, almost all of whom should be being deported after serving their sentence and certainly not getting very minor sentences because, for example, they were the only parent who could calm their child, or who did not speak English or....
Instead the Brits get punished for wondering on social media if yet another mass murderer is Islamic or an immigrant!
To be fair in common usage "Asian" here has tended to mean the whole Indian subcontinent and the people from it. Understandably Sikhs, Hindus and Christians as well as Muslims from southern Pakistan, Bangladesh and India (Republic of) have been keen to point out the very specific areas of the Afghan/ Pakistan border regions these clans come from.
The point is to hide Muslims in that group. The only problem group is Muslims. They are religious communists who have no moral compass. This aligns with the communist's goals. Kill Christianity and take over the world.
Collectivism is a cult.
Left is collectivist and they do not want you to see them clearly, so they can manipulate you and your ignorance.
The real political spectrum is this:
Left is total government control;
right is no government control.
The spectrum is degrees between those two points.
The communists have distorted the language to indicate a narrow band of possible reality, the left is a communist government and the right is a fascist government ( both are big government control of the individual). By using this scale, you always pre-posed their government's bureaucratic control. University has become a communist indoctrination mill, churning out leftist cult members who go into government, banking and media et al.. The communists themselves called this the long march through the institutions. They claim Nazis were on the right, but they were socialists, which is next to communism in the actual spectrum.
There's plenty of evidence, often from police files, of precisely that: police officers and police chiefs talking about the racial sensitivities involved, indicating a reluctance to do anything to inflame community relations:
Quite. The point is that the growing avalanche of arrests and cases after about 2015 were often "historical" in that the victimisation dates from the 1990s or even before. As one judge observed "the perpetrators believed they were untouchable, because for many years they were". One of the current cases locally involves someone who was groomed at 12 in 1996.
You discover that Pakistanis were disproportionately arrested for these crimes, despite having heard that Muslim Rape Gangs operated with impunity, knowing that police were too afraid of being called racist to arrest them. Except when they did—disproportionately, no less!
One would think this would give you pause: if police were afraid to arrest Pakistanis, how come the records show that police were in fact arresting Pakistanis disproportionately? How exactly does a Pakistani criminal enterprise operate with impunity when the police are disproportionately likely to arrest its members precisely because they are Pakistani?
But cognitive dissonance hurts, so you have come up with the ultimate brainwashed cult excuse: there must be even MORE Pakistani criminals who WEREN’T arrested! Of course, this would have been down to sheer dumb luck, which would make “operating with impunity” bizarrely risky behavior.
You didn't read my essay carefully or you didn't understand it. Ella Cockbain quotes from a 2020 Home Office report, which is quoting from non-police child-protection agencies that collected information about alleged grooming gang members. This information is distinct from the records of those actually arrested, charged, and prosecuted by police.
But you're making a fuss about nothing. It is quite possible for a group to be over-represented in arrests (in relation to their percentage of the population) while at the same time being under-represented in relation to their actual offending.
Quite. The crux of the issue here is that it took so long for police forces to be stung into action, the suspicion that this is only in those forces forced into the spotlight by public scandals (Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale, Oldham, Manchester ) that are taking action. The tendency for it to be dismissed as "northern towns" when now we have 50 towns known to have prosecuted such gangs, suggesting it is not just about a few northern places. And most of all the fact that so many of the victims of the cases prosecuted and known to local authorities were supposed to be being looked after either literally in childrens homes or foster homes or being monitored as vulnerable ant at risk by childrens services. Basically children so vulnerable the state was supposed to be protecting them!
Except Janice has for some reason decided to privilege the rape-fantasies-by-proxy of the only ACTUAL man-hating feminist in this story, “political lesbian” Julie Bindel (you know, the one who wrote “Why I Hate Men”).
It's a pity, because Janice is a much-needed voice against misandry in North American universities and beyond. But check out Cockbain's profile here: https://profiles.ucl.ac.uk/28318-ella-cockbain
Search the page for the words woman, women, feminist, feminism, female, equity, and equality, and you will get zero hits. The closest you'll find is a mention of “gender and crime” among her scholarly interests.
Perhaps I'm missing something, I thought, so I googled Ella Cockbain + feminist. The top hits all point to her grooming gangs article, which does use the word "feminist." But so does her 2019 article with Kate Bowers, "Human trafficking for sex, labour and domestic servitude: how do key trafficking types compare and what are their predictors?" So I clicked on that abstract and found this:
“Most of the attention to date has been on sex trafficking of women and girls, leaving male victims and other trafficking types comparatively overlooked.”
Great fucking work, Janice! You signal-boosted a racist urban legend and the crazed femcel who has been its only “credible” (read: not patently racist) proponent, while dismissing the work of an actual expert in human trafficking and child sexual exploitation on the apparent premise that disproportionate minority arrest rates are proof of cultural criminality.
I’m usually such a fan that I wish I were wrong about this, Janice. But I cannot find any reason to suggest that Ella Cockbain hates men or, far worse, that she excuses child rape when Muslims do it. Child trafficking and sexual abuse is literally her academic specialty, after all, for which she is quite well regarded and awarded.
Somewhere along the line, it seems, you were persuaded to fear and loathe Muslims, so much so your usual intellectual rigor has been compromised and, dare I say, perverted. Rather than side with Ella Cockbain, internationally acclaimed subject-matter expert and DEFENDER OF FORGOTTEN MALE VICTIMS, you side with know-nothing misandrist Julie Bindel, whose reporting you only criticize as being insufficiently Islamophobic.
So far, you’ve responded to me only with empty snark. But mark my words, Janice: you will look back on this article—and your utterly unfair treatment of Ella Cockbain—with great embarrassment. Really, you already should.
You have provided zero evidence to support your claim that Pakistani Muslim rape gangs are an Islamophobic lie. I, on the other hand, have responded in good faith to your often crude and insulting comments.
Occasionally, just occasionally but very rarely, I think there might be. Do you remember the witless female 'comedian' who was mocking vaccine sceptics and boasting of the jabs she'd had. Much laughter from the audience until she said 'Jesus loves me' and promptly collapsed on stage. That was one of those moments for me.
O yes I remember that incident very well, Ian. These types of public interventions don't occur often, because free will, but also because convincing people by miracles has been tried. But public interventions do occur, if one has eyes to see.
Please keep your eyes and mind open to such interventions, and also to the notion that God (the Biblical God) is taking a personal interest in directing your life. Why else would you be talking to me? :O)
I didn't start reading Scripture until my mid-forties. First, I wanted to see clear evidence in the world of the existence of God, and of the spiritual authenticity of the Bible. I did witness such things, in my life and the world extant, and only then started investigating Scripture carefully, to see if it integrated with my experience of this world.
Bad news, guys: not only is Janice unlikely to fuck you no matter how hard you simp, but Ella Cockbain is actually an advocate for male rape victims:
“Most of the attention to date has been on sex trafficking of women and girls, leaving male victims and other trafficking types comparatively overlooked.” —Ella Cockbain
Apparently, propagating lazy Islamophobic lies is more of a priority for Janice (and disturbingly many of her followers) than showing respect for female professors who actually help increase awareness of sexism against men.
Prior to around 1970, the Civil Rights revolution, people in all groups talked shit about other groups. Just grousing, complaints, ethnic slurs, racial slurs, sexist venting, etc. Not great, but it turns out that was better than what we have now, because when throwing around toxic labels was acceptable and *everybody* could do it without getting their life destroyed, it focused all the attention on behavior. Bad behavior. The worst behavior got called out the most.
Enduring, rarely, a racial slur is actually not that bad. I'm Jewish and if somebody called me a k***, I shrugged it off.
Feminism changed everything by creating its hierarchy of victimhood categories, and making various victim categories untouchable, above any criticism. The idea that brown Muslim child sex traffickers could not be called out, same as white men doing the same, is one horrific consequence out of a whole panoply of terrible consequences of the new order.
Archie Bunker ran his mouth and was a bigot, but that TV show ultimately showed (in his moments of cognitive dissonance so brilliantly scripted), that Archie Bunker was actually more compassionate and decent than the typical feminist. There are words and then there are deeds. Feminism turns a blind eye to and sometimes even promotes terrible deeds.
It's pretty astounding how people just pretend that feminism is not pyschopathic, abusive, ostracizing, and systematic.
The public perception of feminism as covert, or passive aggressive, or girly and innocent, or well-meaning but poorly executed. Is so radically at odds with reality that one is left thinking that peope are just purposefully willfully ignorant or just genuinely fucking stupid.
Someone sent me a video the other day that has Betsy De Vos, Trump's former Education secretary, talking about Title IX at colleges. The video is titled "When a Good Law Goes Bad," or words to that effect. Well, it never was a good law! The "well meaning but poorly executed" attitude never ceases to amaze me.
It was always remarkable to me that the USA seemed to have laws that mandated direct discrimination. Given their Constitution. The problem we often have in the UK is that all sorts of discrimination is practiced based on US practice not our actual laws. Unfortunately far too few men have the means to mount expensive cases, but when they do they frequently win because in fact the practices that discriminate against them are not lawful here. Our problem is the widespread application of discriminatory action by our public services which simply aren't mandated by law.
No argument here. Daily on social media I am alone trying to inject sanity into feminist bogus victimhood meme discussions. I suppose partly why very few will speak the truth is fear of getting mobbed but mostly people are just imbeciles highly subject to groupthink.
I point out that in the USA if they all have never, ever worked for an employer that had one pay scale for men and another for women, then logically and statistically it's impossible the 20 cent pay gap averaged across the whole economy. Blank stares. Too dumb to put 2 and 2 together. Who is one guy saying the pay gap is false when millions of feminists say it is truth?
I think one factor is the women are wonderful effect. A study shows that both women and men have more favorable views of women, but women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger than those of men.
Definitely. But it's not just nature. Toxic feminism is this massive collective consciousness that nurtures the women-are-wonderful. It does it the ugly way mostly, by claiming that men are awful.
You'd have to explain how patriarchy ever existed in the past, and how male leadership was ever esablished. I don't think this is really the main factor, I think feminists just engage in orwellian brainwashing through media.
I, too, am a Jew. And I, too, could shrug off the occasional "kike" when I was growing up, although I hardly ever had to do that in the 1950s. But the anti-Zionist--and usually anti-Semitic--taunts that now prevail are different, because they're accompanied by institutional indifference and even physical intimidation. I don't know that feminism, per se, changed all that (although feminists went along for the ride). The big change (at least in America), I think, came with the transition from Civil Rights to Black Power. The latter led directly to the transition from egalitarian feminism to ideological feminism. The inevitable result was identity politics, which led directly to wokism--that is, in academic parlance, to critical race theory and critical gender theory.
Glad you brought up the "institutional indifference," quite a puzzling thing in these days when the dominant "woke" culture presumes to try to stamp out merely hurt feelings.
I'm reminded of the absurdity of the Harvard controversy, when the college's leadership refused to disband or even condemn students marching in favor of the genocide of Jews!
Of course those same academics would never tolerate for a second a group of students calling for harming a single hair on the head of black students or gay students.
Instead of promoting equality the whole feminist/SJW/woke 40 year experiment has created a horrible inequality by dicing and slicing us all into race/gender categories and the SJWs themselves have perpetrated a terrible inequality based on their stupid hierarchy of those categories.
Anti Israel protests at colleges have called for violence against Jews (any Jews apparently as radicals tend to be too stupid to make distinctions). Charlottesville rally where there was a deliberate vehicular murder they bizarrely were chanting "Jews will not replace us."
There are lots of implied threats and sometimes explicit. When I was a boy the synagogue doors were open even when nobody was around like many churches. I suppose they locked them at 9pm or something. Locked doors are pretty standard now. I've read some have metal detectors and some question people before entering now since Pittsburgh.
The internet has pockets roiling with antisemitic hate and it boils over occasionally in some incident.
"Misogynist" is the most recklessly overused toxic word there is. Much more potent than the N word.
When a feminist is logically or factually cornered, she bares her fangs, the M word comes out, and it's all over, you must shut up or your reputation and livelihood could be at stake.
Since I'm self employed and there is no HR to report on me should I not be 100% successful at, say, averting my eyes from your cleavage, or if I don't cow to your claim of ubiquitous "rape culture" but care to argue the point, I'm rare in that I can let toxic feminism and the M word bounce off me.
Last year at neighborhood pub I had frequented for many years, a couple of the women I never talk to merely OVERHEARD my opinions. One time. They got the bar to ban me permanently for "opinions" that made these snowflake women "uncomfortable." I was just a calm, soft spoken guy who never got drunk and never caused a problem.
They lied and said one opinion was I claimed there was zero sexual assault/harassment in the US Army. What I really said was zero tolerance policy! I also said zero complaints that I was aware of, over 27 years, but that was for my unit not the whole Army.
Archie Bunker was a saint next to these people. The worst man television could come up with is vastly better than these SJWs.
A truly horrifying article...but not in the least surprising. The Woke Virus and Feminism are parts of the same toxic brew to destroy Western civilization. The irony is that if they succeed...women could well end up as virtual slaves under sharia law. Given how so many seem to be willing to participate in feminist abuses or to whore themselves out for sexual satisfaction and attention...perhaps they will get the social justice they keep talking about.
Every non Western nation in the WORLD defends it's own cultural morès. Who taught White Men to hate their own masculinity? Their historic cultural affirmation? The most poisonous group in the entire world did, White Liberal Females. Who taught them at University? White, non Christian men 👃I smell a rat. Wow. This article punched me in the gut.
Islamophobic rolls off the tongue a lot easier than does Christianityophobic!
But seriously ... in the bigger picture the mass migration seems to be a part of what some call 'the great replacement', whereby the 90% (supposedly) of the world's population who are 'non-white' and who were formerly colonised are being imported into western countries as replacement consumers for the now (supposedly) exhausted 'white' market. If there's any truth to that, it's easy to see why certain groups may feel more entitled after being 'educated' about their ancestors' oppression. An element of revenge maybe?
The feminists are too chicken shit to say anything bad about the Muslims, it goes hand in hand with their bizarre obsession with Islamophobia. As Tommy Robinson noted, if you mess with one, you mess with the whole group.
On top of that, I think it was you Janice that wrote an article where you mentioned the unnatural fixation of feminists with Fifty Shades of Grey, rape, and oppression of women.
I believe that the feminists are suffering from two things, namely:
1) They have successfully "castrated" men in the west off of any masculinity and ability to defend themselves. I think this because women have a natural disinterest in men, end up sabotaging a lot of their own relationships, and as per usual, then blame it on men.
This develops into hatred, which we see in society today. They believe apparently that men from other cultures don't deserve this hate, and this is because the feminists are unbelievably ignorant. I do think that the men from other cultures have not been castrated and neutered as much, and are in the eyes of the feminists more of a "man". They will not admit this in public of course.
Women, feminists included, as much as they might say otherwise, are actually (sexually) attracted to men acting like men. Not saying that grooming and pimping 12-year old's out is what I call acting like a man, but the men from other cultures are not apologizing for anything and are not letting women dominate them or tell them what to do.
2) The feminists are keen to fight for a society where they are identical in privileges of the 1950's women, without her dependence on the man. And more then that, men are work horses that should be put in a concentration camp to fund all of these ridiculous programs to "help" women.
As women have gone down this path, and chased paperwork from high social status educational institutes, money, attention and validation from other women on social media, they have basically check-mated themselves. Hypergamy is not working in their favor because of this and sure enough it is men that are to blame.
I suspect that white women (behind closed doors) actually envy Muslim women as they have a culture where relationships matter and there is an actual family structure, the very thing they destroyed in the west.
As messed up as it sounds, I am glad that there are now an unprecedented amount of rape cases, that grooming gangs can go their way freely, and that white women are the recipient of the bad choices they made by voting on politicians that let them in.
No need to blame to politicians btw, as they are a reflection of the people that vote on them.
Good article Janice and I'm curious if during my lifetime we can see people in the west wake up and make better choices.
'Not saying that grooming and pimping 12-year old's out is what I call acting like a man, but the men from other cultures are not apologizing for anything and are not letting women dominate them or tell them what to do.'
Exactly. Females -- yes even 12 y.o. females -- respond to the strong hand. Now, you can hate that, you can like it, or you can not care. But it is reality and you ain't changing it.
Because white women have emasculated men in many Western nations, neither women nor girls now experience strong, confident masculinity in their lives. They thirst for this but of course cannot admit to this, that'd be DISEMPOWERING and VULNERABLE doncha know! Females only see potent masculinity on tv, in movies, and amongst foreign men of non-feminist, or anti-feminist, nations.
The blame for these crimes falls as much at the feet of Western -- especially anglo -- women, as it does on Pakis and gelded white men. More on anglo women, really. They are the mechanism and the constituency that keeps Woke Diktat in power.
Yes, feminist women are extremely masculine and far outside of their feminine, and I think that is why they secretly want what is basically a dysfunctional and abusive relationship, because they still want to be "conquered" by strong (subjective term) men that "deserve" or have worked to earn the "privilege" (very strong quotation marks, these women are not worth having!!!!) to be with them. And in the eyes of these dysfunctional women, the extremely aggressive and abusive men, are more masculine then them, satisfying a need and desire that we were plenty capable of satisfying in the past, without the dysfunction. Women, despite what they think and say, still want to be- and feel like women. A major contributor in my opinion to this horrendous mess that we have in the west. Bottom line as always, don't ever listen to women. Watch what they do.
The blame for these crimes falls as much at the feet of Western -- especially anglo -- women, as it does on Pakis and gelded white men. More on anglo women, really.
COMMENT: Naughty Janice Fiamengo! As an English speaking white woman --- almost ghostly/hauntingly white --- this is all her fault! For shame.
1. Women don't have a natural disinterest in men. In a group of teen boys and teen girls the teen girls talk about their sexual relationships far more than the teen boys. Women yearn for the attention of men, hence the "me or playstation 5". They are purely socialized to castrate and hate men. It's just female typical mass hysteria.
2. The reason feminists don't hate brown men is because they are socialized not too.
3. The feminists are keen to fight for a society where they have enacted female supremacism, and are privileged in literally every aspect of society.
Without being disrespectful to victims of these henious crimes, I would say that we do not “more funding for vital victim support services”. I would rather say that we need more funding for the prevention of these crimes and the apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrators and "customers" so that increase of "victim support services" was not needed
Quite. In fact so much is known about this, and the target group is remarkably small in number (being from specific parts of Pakistan and in specific occupations) it should be relatively easy to Police. But of course this would mean "targeted" policing which is an anathema to our elites who have to pretend its about all men from all cultures. The same is true of the epidemic of knife crime in the country. Glasgow fell from being the "knife crime capital of the UK" to almost eradicating it. By targeting "stop and search and taking knives away. Fortunately Glasgow (like Scotland in general) is very white so there was no "racial" element to this. Because our Capital is far more "diverse" no such policing is done because it will target diverse people, and so it carries on!
NO! Religious persecution has been used as justification in all major conflicts from time immemorial to justify hate "of the other" ~ I do not want to see my sons sacrificed on the alter of religious ignorance that you are championing
1) religious tolerance and forbid bad actions no matter if justified by a credo
2) religion public suppression (as USSR) but apply it to ANY form of religion or cult
The second is against freedom, so we should focus on punish bad behaviors no matter the reason. The point is not how much we repress offense, for example, but it is apply to anyone.
If we put in jail someone for saying in a post "arabs" are violent (that of course is offensive and also not true) is ok ONLY if we do the same to everybody saying "jews" are evil, trumpists are all ingorant, women are morally superior.
Or we condemn EVERY generalization as offensive, or we allow generalization as free speech and condemn only violent acts. Fine both. (Uk Vs USA)
But in any case a society could avoid civil conflits and turmoil if whatever rule we agree on, we do not apply it to everybody.
Thank you for this - very painful reading. As a man I feel ashamed of my countries "leaders" treatment of young girls. The more I hear about our "establishment" the more I despise them. Feminism is truly toxic. Do these feminist academics really hate women as much as they appear to?
I don't know that feminist academics "hate" women, but I do suspect that wokers (including many feminists) are indifferent to women, let alone to men. That's because feminism no longer exists as an independent movement, certainly not an egalitarian one. And that's because wokism has absorbed it. Woke feminists care mainly about the destruction of Western (white, bourgeois, patriarchal, cis-gendered) civilization but don't care about who pays the price for this "transformative revolution." Like every ideology, however, feminists have long believed that the utopian end can justify the dystopian means.
In general, yes, but occasionally they support laws and policies that objectively harm women, seeming to reveal that they hate what they hate (in this case, I think, white men and white societies) more than they love what they love (female power).
Who was it who said there was a special place in hell for women who didn't vote for Hilary Clinton? Sums it up really, feminists probably most hate women who disagree with them. I have a feeling their deepest hatred is for happy grandmothers who enjoy big family get togethers doing all the silly things families do. As "perpetual adolescents" as described by Melanie Phillip's over 20 years ago they must eventually really hate the happily married adult women who have seen their children grow and dote on grandchildren and all the news and hubbub of an ordinary life. A few years ago there was a programme following Germaine Greer as she cleared out parts of her house as she prepared to move to a smaller home she could manage. It was melancholic as she was really alone and her huge body of work was now just stuff she had to throw out or put in storage. Perhaps she was happy with her walks and the quiet life. At one point there was a young man, gardener odd job, and she showed all the delight that older women (my contemporaries) often show with young men. I wonder if the excitement of a life as perpetual radical student had finally fizzled out to leave .... well very little really.
Just one small request. Please don't use the phrase 'grooming gangs.' The British media have adopted the term out of timidity, frightened to call a spade a spade. They do not groom, they rape. They are rape gangs and should be called by name.
After reading as much as I could about the victims and their experiences, I came to believe that 'grooming' is actually the correct term, horrible as it is. Some of these girls were drugged, raped, threatened, and beaten. But some participated willingly in their own exploitation, as far as I could tell, becoming alienated from their families and recruiting other girls into the life. These were very young girls, many as young as 12, 13, and 14, so statutory rape laws apply to what was done to them, but their degree of willingness is part of the story, and is part of what feminism has wrought.
"becoming alienated from their families and recruiting other girls into the life."
Yes, once isolated from their families, they develop their own primitive social order instead, and recruit other girls into the tribe. Just like the boys in Lord of the Flies. It's worth considering the role of children's homes in this process. Psychiatrist Ruth Eissler described this group behaviour in her 1949 work Observations in a Home for Delinquent Girls.
"During the three years of my work as consulting psychiatrist to a Home for delinquent girls, I had opportunity to observe certain typical reactions on the part of the individual and the group. The majority of these girls were white Protestants, ranging in age from 12-18 years, whose delinquency consisted in the main of sexual promiscuity, petty larceny, and running away from home. Most of them came from families of the lowest income groups, many from broken homes or completely deteriorated backgrounds. Scarcely any child came from a stable family background. Even though every girl showed her own individual reaction pattern, based on her life history, nevertheless, there were certain reactions, typical of all of them, which under certain specific conditions were predictable. Thus, for instance, if a girl had not had sexual intercourse prior to her commitment, it was predictable that she would run away some time later in order to obtain this experience. No bars were too thick, no doors too well protected to prevent her breaking out. By the time she had returned, which she generally did, she had invariably had the necessary experience. I say necessary, because this experience actually was a necessity for her status in the group."
Reportedly most grooming gang "victims" are from children's homes, so perhaps these are breeding grounds for "victims", who then recruit from the broader community.
Of course, the root cause is destruction of the traditional family, which is a cornerstone of the feminist project.
Except some social media platforms 'shadow ban', delete or otherwise penalise posts that use the word I shall therefore spell r@ pe, so if you want posts on the subject to be read, 'grooming' gangs is a safer term to use. YouTube even seem to demonetise videos that refer to death or killing (unattractive words to advertisers, or something), so at least one YouTube channel always uses the word 'unalived' rather than killed, and another refers to 'grape' when they mean serious sex crimes, as in 'grape and pillage'.
When I became involved in supporting a 12 year old victim of a rape gang, I still had a career in academia. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue of the industrial rape and trafficking of white children, with my feminists colleagues. I naively assumed they would be as enraged as I was and we could start bringing the issue to wider attention. However, the silence was deafening. Poor white working class girls just don’t register on their pyramid of oppression. They’ll cry for the women of Gaza or Afghanistan but couldn’t give tuppence for the white 12 year old being trafficked to a brothel in Leeds (as was happening to the child I acted as ‘appropriate adult’ for). They just don’t see them.
The case I became involved with occurred in 2011, two years’ before the Rotherham scandal went mainstream in 2013. None of it was ‘breaking news’ to many of us in South Yorkshire. Everyone knew this was happening but police and authorities looked the other way to protect their pet project of multiculturalism.
I received nothing but disinterest and outright obstruction from feminist colleagues, when I tried to carry out research into the issue. Initially, my academic colleagues at Oxford University refused to believe me that there was an active rape gang in their lofty city of learning. I guess they never left the comfort of the Colleges to go to the bad parts of Oxford. I carried out my own independent research into the gangs at the time. I write of my experiences in my recent Substack article https://open.substack.com/pub/ladyofshalott2/p/grooming-gangs-my-personal-experience?r=18oo7k&utm_medium=ios
I no longer work in academia. Long story but I managed to self-sabotage my career by not shutting up about this stuff. At least I don’t have to share the same air as these bold feminists anymore.
The world needs to be done with these academics who do nothing but push the culture into a hellhole that devours young girls.
Totally agree. What horrified me was their basic lack of human compassion for what were - and are, the rape gangs are still operating - children. Vulnerable children, often from very difficult home backgrounds, often already at odds with authority, sometimes with SEN (special education needs). It’s an entirely class-based crime - these were not the children of lawyers or doctors being raped. I thought the left cared about class? Not anymore I suppose.
I found my former colleagues and many of the leftists I’ve encountered in my life to have real cult-like thinking when it comes to multiculturalism . All must be sacrificed to the god of multiculturalism. Many of the girls I met doing my research are women in their late 20s now and they’ve generally had poor life outcomes as a result of what happened to them. You’ll come across the occasional one like Dr Ella Hill https://youtu.be/etpAtC2S0uQ?si=xHZqjC1-S1-Hakrk here talking to Triggernometry. Or Samantha Smith (who often speaks on GB News) or the brave Sammy Woodhouse, who’ve somehow been able to thrive. But many just slip into living a half-life of prostitution, children being taken into care, addiction, seeking out violent and harmful partners. Never becoming the people they should have been.
It is heartbreaking. After all these years, I was stunned and amazed when Musk started talking about this issue. Whether or not he has his own motivations in doing so, I just don’t care. I’m hugely grateful. He’s the world’s richest man and people listen to him.
I figured it was a class thing right away. Predators usually don’t prey on kids from strong and moneyed families. They look for the kids who have cracks in their homes. I don’t say that to blame any of the victims or families. A close friend is a pediatrician and says most kids are molested by someone the mother brings into their lives.
These types of feminists care about certain women and others are throwaways. Like the kids trafficked here in the states through the boarder. No feminist outcry for those kids. They don’t exist.
So, so true. The North and Midlands of England where most, but by no means all, of the grooming gangs operate was once the industrial heartland of England. But once the ship building, textile and coal mining industries went, the whole area fell into economic and social decline.
Throw into the mix the huge influx of immigration from the Mirpur region of Pakistan from the late 1960s onwards, and it was a recipe for disaster. I write a bit about Mirpuri culture and the tribal element to the rape gangs in my Substack. My dear friend Dogmatic Slumbers also wrote an article about the historical context to the Mirpur rape gangs https://open.substack.com/pub/mat6fd/p/the-spoils-of-division?r=18oo7k&utm_medium=ios
All the perpetrators I met, or read statements from, had Mirpur heritage. Some could trace their families back to the same remote village. They were often related via cousin marriage which is very prevalent in their culture. The Pakistani Muslim rape gangs are tribal in thinking and predatory in how they select victims. The girls are all poor, sometimes already at odds with authority (so less likely to be believed), very vulnerable (sometimes with learning difficulties) and always very, very young (so susceptible to coercion). The gangs are generally finished with them by the time they’re 16.
Thanks for the links. I'd like to really understand how young girls could be so twisted as to recruit other girls. It's so much like vampirism to me.
Perhaps a subject for Taylor Swift to put into song, considering her fan base. I'd base such a song on Oxford and use use Arnold's line, "that sweet city with its dreaming spires" to add poignancy, or as a focus for healing.
You are right, this is so weird... I also don't know how to explain it.
Absolutely, it's class based. They can look down on white girls from working class backgrounds. It makes their day. Plus, they can preen, condescend AND get well paid for doing so, without having to contribute anything to society in return.
I knew young girls can be extremely impressionable only from reading "Irreversible Damage". but the depth of depravity in how these girls have their minds twisted is at another level.
Apparently, British girls are so out to lunch that they can’t even tell when they are being gang-raped. 🙄
Read up on how much abuse cult members will take
They weren’t cult members. They weren’t kidnapped, either, in case you were about to mention Stockholm syndrome.
It sounds like you get off on the thought of the abuse.
Maybe Pol Pot was onto something when he decided to eliminate academia in Cambodia back in the 70s. His methods were clearly wrong, but maybe he saw something of the threat it would become.
Pol Pot was an academic --- a Marxist academic. He was simply getting rid of non-Marxist academics which has become a modern "western" tradition..
I like the idea of sending them to farms to shovel shit and pull turnips.
You, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao all like that idea. With "friends" like you Fiamengo doesn't need enemies.
It's tongue-in-cheek, Kevin.
Nudge nudge; Wink, wink; Say no more!
Our duty is to try to help others...but many will choose the road to hell instead. My career is similar for standing up to feminist criminality.
So true. For some people, it is all about managing their career. I remember well how key figures in Rotherham local authorities just turned a blind eye to the abuse of children, until the proverbial hit the fan after the publication of the Jay Report in 2014. Many fled, some as far away as Australia - https://archive.md/2025.01.10-135413/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/how-rotherham-bosses-have-reinvented-themselves-since-grooming-scandal-6rl0gpd3m
I live in Australia. I'd like to know who they are, where they are.
I supported a girl that had been gang-raped at 13 years old, when I worked for a leaving care team in Kent, back in 2005. It still haunts me, and the fact that it was all just brushed under the carpet by Social Services and the Police. She then had her own children taken into care of the local authority.
Re victimised over and over by the system and the perpetrators.
I’m glad you spoke out about it, even if it does feel like screaming into the void.
So, so sad to read this and can empathise completely. I ended up acting as appropriate adult for the child I refer to, as I was parent governor at her school. Her own mum had substance abuse issues and her father was absent. There was literally no one else to speak for her. I’d go to liaison meetings and be told by South Yorkshire Police that these girls had made a ‘lifestyle choice’. I don’t know any 12 year olds that chose to be put in a cage (one of those dog crates), urinated on and trafficked up the M1 to a brothel in Leeds
This 2008 alleged communication from the Home Office to all police authorities, instructing them not to pursue grooming gang allegations as they were ‘lifestyle choices’ has been the subject of wide speculation. Nazir Afzal, the then Chief Prosecutor for NW England has changed his story on this communication repeatedly. I asked SY Police and made two requests under the Freedom of Information laws, yet I’ve never see it. As you rightly say, these crimes against vulnerable children have been hidden or brushed aside with obfuscation, cover-up and plain lies.
As you say, this never leaves you. I was stunned to see the grooming gang issue pushed to the forefront by Musk. My own children were very young when I was involved with the case. They don’t remember much beyond ‘mum always going to meetings and coming home upset’. In the intervening years, I had to push much of that experience to the back of my mind so I could function as a human being. It was probably the beginning of the end of my old life looking back. Thanks so much for sharing your experience, God bless.
Oh God, it brings it all back.
It makes me sick to my stomach.
“Lifestyle choice” was exactly the language used by social workers and police to describe these young girls in their care.
Absolutely disgusting - they are children, being groomed, abused, violated, hurt, shamed, humiliated and enslaved, yet like you say, the feminist social workers were calling it “lifestyle choices”.
It baffled me back then and it baffles me still.
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
And yes, as mothers, we have to push it to the back of our minds because it can drive you insane trying to understand how anyone could be so evil, let alone defend such perverted depravity.
One of the horrific things to me is that all this detailed information was known way back in 2017. I know this because it was shared in briefings from the Home Office that were done for people in the NHS who had some responsibilities in "safeguarding". At the time the HO estimated 10,000 victims from the then known 25 towns and boroughs where there had been known investigations and prosecutions. What was most shocking was that at least half were either in the care of the "state" ( in the UK this means Borough councils) or on Safeguarding Lists (formerly and more accurately "Child Protection registers). This was all very "hush hush" and it was odd that the same information wasn't made so available to Local Authorities. I know this because my job was a joint commissioning role where I worked for the NHS and a City Council in the same capacity for both. As you say it is remarkable the efforts gone ever since to obfuscate and mislead about information that was clearly in the possession of national government nearly a decade ago.
The victims of rape gangs are collateral damage in the long march of communism through the institutions. They are evil.
They really are. Child rape victims, millions starved to death in a man made Holodomor - it’s all the same to them. All just collateral damage. I’ve met a few people like this along the road of my life, and they all have cult-like thinking.
The children are also collateral damage.
Transgender is not real. When someone is bulimic, we need to intervene with the truth to save their lives from their body dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the same, but the pharmaceutical industries make a lot of money.
As the major drug patents were going off-patent, the money makers were MRNA injections and hormone-warping chemicals. A soldier has his junk blown off; he is still a man; he is just disfigured. Suicide rates are 65% in gender dysphoria people; mutilating their bodies does not help the mental disorder.
The truth helps us, not to live in a fantasy and force society to participate in illusion.
I am compassionate and do not mistreat mentally unstable people, but that is my choice; no one is going to force me to comply with falsehood.
I think you are right. I also think that it goes deeper; if one identifies as a person, and not a man or a woman, then they are automatically giving away their God-given sovereignty, and handing over their authority to the "authorities".
They self-identify as legal fiction. A person is a legal fiction , i.e. a known lie agreed upon by the powerful. This violates natural law.
The kids duped into trans thinking are Janissaries, not just collateral damage.
They are recruited into a death cult.
https://youtu.be/JJ58WG3hd2g?si=JAcsYLLaOPwFe10p Have you seen this. To me it is extraordinary that we don't have such data in the UK given that public bodies are required by the Equality Act to collect data on the equality strands under the Equality Duty provisions of the act. The data must exist and the supposed absence is a lie?
I'm a member of NCF. All their Heresies videos are excellent. Also their series "The West" by Marc Sidwell. Sidwell has also a short book for free download, "The Long March".
Is it not already exposed that Feminism was created by class privileged white women? A narrative based on a selfish desire for more power and less responsibility.
If it were only that, it would be somewhat less bizarre. All groups want more power and less responsibility. Feminists want something more, I believe: the actual destruction of their societies, and possibly their own actual immiseration.
Do you think the destruction of society is an intended goal or merely a consequence they cannot see due to their zealotry? Always a thrill when you reply to one of my comments - thank you.
It is already exposed. Many times over.
But the reality that feminism is driven by upper class and upper-middle class women is radioactively unpopular. Even conservative and Christian men will not accept this truth about females and their collective power.
Completely. There would have been endless handwringing and opining about the evils of patriarchy, how the battle of for women’s rights had not yet been won and so on. But because the perpetrators came from a protected group there were literally tumbleweeds. National and local government, local authorities riddled with incompetence and couldn’t give a fuckery, a police force (in the case of South Yorkshire Police) with an established culture of cover-up all conspired to protect their pet project of multiculturalism. I don’t think any of them saw the girls as human beings. I guess that’s what happens when individuals and organisations are captured by ideology.
Quite. The areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan where most of the perpetrators come from are precisely those that conform most closely to the idea of a "patriarchy". Indeed today there was yet another feminist article about how terrible the "Taliban" are in preventing Girls from accessing secondary and tertiary education (interestingly the first time I realized that girls do in fact get educated in primary education schools). You would think that the Grooming Gangs scandal was made for feminists to trumpet about the evils of "patriarchy". As what has happened is that the patriarchal society of these borderlands far from the more "sophisticated" and urbanised regions of Pakistan, has simply been imported to many areas of Britain. Just as feminists are keen to trumpet the "injustices" in Afghanistan and other parts of the Indian Sub-continent (usually as supporting their demands for female CEOs of FTSE Companies etc.) you would think they'd be making propaganda hay with this. Yet many who have pointed to these crimes, right from Ann Cryer, with concerns about the exploitation of young females by gangs of older men have been not just "cancelled" but vilified by those I'm sure they would have thought were "sistas" in the fight against patriarchy. Jess Phillips really exemplified this. A vocal and vociferous feminist, scoffing at IMD debates in Parliament, making an annual ritual of reading the names of women murdered and an advocate of ending the right to a jury trial for defendants in rape and sexual assault cases. She simply ignored a request from Oldham for an enquiry there. And then when stung into action by the Musk intervention came up with an "offer" (mouthed through Mrs. Ed Balls) to fund local enquiries. Knowing full well that the Oldham request came because local enquiries have no powers to compel the Police, CPS and Courts to give evidence. Even worse because in her own constituency she relies on that community too deliver votes for her own election! his latter point is also a clear hypocrisy because this form of vote farming, where clan leaders, men, harvest the votes of their extended families especially their women folk.. This practice being the main reason that suddenly we have to have photo identification to vote in person and more stringent checks are made for postal and proxy voting! Again simply ignoring women's right to vote secretly and for whom they choose!
I find it hard to believe there are people stupid enough to think Muslims were a “protected class” during the post-9/11 War on Terror, which is when the alleged gang-rapes took place. But if you AREN’T stupid, you must be a liar who thinks everyone ELSE is stupid enough to believe it. Either way, what the hell is wrong with y’all?
So here’s where you insist that there really ARE Muslim Rape Gangs deliberately ignored by the police through an unprecedented policy of “reverse racial profiling.” If that were really how woke works, arrests should be way down for American minorities too... but they’re not.
Which brings us to a question no one is asking: if police turned a blind eye to Muslims who gang-rape little girls because they didn't want to be perceived as racist/islamophobic, wouldn’t they have turned an even BLINDER eye to Muslims who shoplift, run red lights, spray graffiti, commit homicide, etc.? In other words, in every town alleged to harbor Muslim Rape Gangs, we OUGHT to expect the effective decriminalization of ALL crime perpetrated by Muslims. We should expect the same in London, too, which has by far the highest percentage of Muslims in the UK AND whose law enforcement is surely more woke-by-fiat than any coppers from Northshitfacedshire.
Yet not only do we NOT see a steep drop in arrests and prosecution of Muslims for ALL categories of crime, we have ZERO reports of Muslim Rape Gangs operating in London, where 38% of the nation’s Muslims reside. Curious, innit?
Well the first point of course is that it's not all Muslims but a very specific ethnic group within that broad group. The second is that the point about the lack of action on these gangs is actually public record here in the UK in the Telford, Oldham, Rotherham, Manchester, Rochdale and Cass inquiries. The point being that it isn't a question of this having been the case, but that no one is held accountable for the period before the hundreds of cases still clogging our prisons. And your point about London is well made. As there have been such gangs found and prosecuted in Towns as far and wide as Swansea and Barrow Newcastle and Aylesbury. It is indeed curious the Met. has only prosecuted a couple in their area. I cannot comment on the USA but the facts are well known in the UK and the issue is are those in authority who did nothing for a couple of decades to be held accountable. As I write there are cases of such gangs going through tte courts locally.
"I don’t think any of them saw the girls as human beings. I guess that’s what happens when individuals and organisations are captured by ideology."
No, it's what happens when young girls behave like feral animals. It becomes difficult to see them as human. We experience a feeling of moral disgust, which has evolved in humans for a reason: "moral disgust motivates avoidance of social relationships with norm-violating individuals" because those relationships threaten group cohesion. That's why men find sluts so disgusting, we know instinctively they will destroy group cohesion, and ultimately society itself, which is what's happening now in the West.
David Starkey has recently done an interview with the Daily Sceptic on "The Noble Lie of Multiculturalism". He presents new ways to look at this old evil.
A prominent early example of this type of person was Emmaline Pankhurst, a woman of class and wealth. She supported terrorist acts of violence against the general public and was really only interested in votes for Upper Class women (which they already had to some degree). She only sided with the common class women because she needed their numbers for her campaigns. Her daughter was even worse.
The 1848 Seneca Falls conference that began institutional feminism in America was initiated by rogue Quaker women of fat means and time on their hands . . . like chief conference organizer Elizabeth Stanton. Quakerism involved belief in equal 'rights' for both sexes and was much closer to Gnosticism than Christianity.
Stanton arose from great wealth and privilege, her family top dog in Johnstown, N.Y. Daddy was one of the wealthiest landowners in the state. Ahem.
Lucretia Mott was another rogue Quaker, upper middle class, having set herself up as a 'minister' though Scripture clearly prohibits female clergy or spiritual leadership. Mott, a chief national Abolitionist voice, birthed the bond between feminism and blacks/minorities constituting the modern Democratic Party and its ideology/religion of Progressivism.
Paulina Wright Davis was of the financial elite and lived in luxury all her life.
It goes on like that. Even from its beginnings, feminism was an elite project, not a grassroots movement as they love to claim.
All mass movements come from the middle classes and above though. Feminism is not an outlier on this
The British abolition movement was headed by a Quaker. So they do some very good things; but also seem to be radical progressive snobs on the whole.
She was concerned that giving the vote to all men was a recipe for disaster as she was a firm believer in the property qualification to vote. In fact she was a candidate for the Conservative party at the time of her death. She supported the white feather movement, Male conscription (a complete novelty in the UK at the time). It was her daughter Sylvia who was the socialist firebrand. Emmaline and her daughter Christabel were in many respects solidly middle class. Their house still exist in the local area, now surrounded by a huge Hospital Complex.
"Even conservative and Christian men will not accept this truth about females and their collective power."
This makes sense given that both feminists and conservative/ Christian men both require men to be all powerful, invulnerable, super human beings in charge of society, and for women to be weak, helpless, vulnerable damsels in need of men's protections.
"He for she" / "Women and children first"
It's the same essential demand, the same transaction and it creates the same male identity (paternalistic attitude to women, self sacrifice etc).
Feminism uses scorn and humiliation to shame men to self-sacrifice for women. Traditionalism uses pride and honour to motivate men to self-sacrifice for women. One is stick, the other is carrot.
Traditionalist women are submissive and demure, which forces men to take the lead and be self sacrificing. Feminists are aggressive and hostile, but they also deny all responsibility for the state of the world, which they claim is 100% men's doing. Denying their own agency in this way is the ultimate act of submission to men (and the state). Far more extreme than even the most tradcon wife.
A lot of men (traditionalists and male feminists) cannot cope with the idea that they don't actually have that much social power compared to women. Their whole identity is structured around the idea that they must save/ protect/ rescue women... and that women have no obligation to reciprocate (no matter how many homeless men there are or suicides or genital mutilations or false accusations or war wounded or fathers with no access...).
I think now that western society is generally safe from wolves, famines, harsh winters, failed harvests etc the male desire to rescue/ protect women has nothing left to focus on ..... except other men. This turns even the most conservative, traditionalist man into a potential feminist enabler.
'A lot of men (traditionalists and male feminists) cannot cope with the idea that they don't actually have that much social power compared to women.'
Yes, I think this insight gets at the root of it. These Righty men see themselves as heroic, or want to be heroic . . . but the reality -- with which they cannot cope -- is that the females they're trying to heroically save have far more power in culture and law than they do. These men are trying to save their societal superiors, so although they are of one voice, united in false chivalry, they're clowns. It's like slaves trying to save their masters. Null computation.
So these men pedestalize and angelicize females, and pretend that society doesn't bend over backwards for women and girls, to retain the self-image of their courageousness. They are the Good Guys, so there must be Bad Guys, and that only leaves other men as targets.
Added to this are the powerful incentives that the gynocracy dangles before the dads of daughters. Little wonder America has few kids and mommies, but endless hordes of empowered, credentialed career women.
I think the real reason is that men often have genuine altruism for women in their lives, like their mothers or sisters, and this is weaponized.
I don't think the reason has anything to do with men wanting to feel powerful. I think their empathy is just weaponized in an emotionally abusive fashion.
As you say in the real world boys and girls are heavily reliant on their mothers and generally their lives are full of women in their formative years in family, care and education. It is hardly surprising they have strong positive feelings for mothers, nannies, and carers. Even if their experiences were not that good. In truth I suspect even those abused want to find in women the affection they either received or craved from their mothers, grannies, aunts etc.
BINGO BINGO BINGO! BRILLIANT! I'm disappointed with TRUMP. He's more obsessed with rescuing a fringe element of hermaphroditic fe-MALE athletes then a whole generation of boys & men whose spaces were eliminated by these same w0e-MEN. Trump is best buds with fish face Nancy Mace who sued her way into the Citadel 153 year ALL MALE military college. She looks like a BELL HOP in her uniform. If Trump were serious about getting rid of DEI he would disown her. PHUCK Riley Gaines. She looks like a frat DUDE with a bad wig.
Trump is not very interested in the dark side of female nature or the way that men's own strengths and weaknesses in regard to women are used against them by feminist laws and policies.
I agree with you that it is very frustrating that his main interest in Title IX is to keep women's sports pristine. Title IX has been weaponized for decades to destroy men's college sports, and nobody gives a damn.
It's interesting that you mention Nancy Mace. Have you seen what she's been up to recently? She is now claiming to have uncovered a criminal conspiracy by her ex-fiance and 3 of his business associates to drug, rape, and sexually exploit underage girls and women. She spoke for an hour on the floor of the House, damning these men. I didn't know she had sued her way into a male military college. It figures! She is the type of woman who uses sex appeal and feminist policies/laws for her own purposes, unscrupulously. I am thinking of writing about her next. Thanks for the information.
This one in response to yours
All of you people on this comment section are some really twisted individuals with a definite agenda.
As usual nothing but ad hominem from the leftie. Not even a pretence of argument. So predictable.
You promote Bill Kristols the Bulwark!!! OLLOLOLOLO!!! holy shit some women ARE lost....
Well as we can see. as you have just demonstrated "All of you people on this comment section are some really twisted individuals with a definite agenda." You have nothing to contribute other then the same old feminist generalisations.
My response to you is the one/.
BINGO! Trump is a prime offender. I would also say right wing FAKE/Christian trad/CON w0e-MEN like Riley Gaines do indeed try to shame MEN into servitude.
One of the horrific things to me is that all this detailed information was known way back in 2017. I know this because it was shared in briefings from the Home Office that were done for people in the NHS who had some responsibilities in "safeguarding". At the time the HO estimated 10,000 victims from the then known 25 towns and boroughs where there had been known investigations and prosecutions. What was most shocking was that at least half were either in the care of the "state" ( in the UK this means Borough councils) or on Safeguarding Lists (formerly and more accurately "Child Protection registers). This was all very "hush hush" and it was odd that the same information wasn't made so available to Local Authorities. I know this because my job was a joint commissioning role where I worked for the NHS and a City Council in the same capacity for both. As you say it is remarkable the efforts gone ever since to obfuscate and mislead about information that was clearly in the possession of national government nearly a decade ago.
Interesting, thanks, Nigel. I read Peter McCullough's book *Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam, and Child Sex Slavery* (2014). He argues that police officers and social workers knew what was going on as far back as 1988 or earlier. He mentions, for example, that the city of Bradford had services to help the victims of grooming gangs by 1995, but that none of the materials would mention the ethnicity of the men involved. Andrew Norfolk, Times journalist, found dozens of internal police and other reports that were never made public in which it was admitted that thousands of grooming crimes were being committed each year in specific counties.
Yes as I say the details were well known enough that briefing sessions were held about the profile of the gangs, their modes of opperation and tell tale indicators. This information from the Home Office Ministry of justice. As well as the then prosecuted cases giving information we have a system of "Serious Case Review" for cases of children and young people (under 19) where the safeguarding of children in care or child protection registers die or are victims of crimes or breakdowns. These also were sources for the MoJ on the way in which such gangs targetted and drew in their victims. At the time I had "Safeguarding" responsibilities for vulnerable adults and so was included in briefings and circulations of this information. Although there appears to have developed some lack of collection of data,.Since at the time we were given data showing the cases, each including an average of 9 defendants, then resulting in convictions were putting considerable pressure on the prison service. Hence I am sceptical of the more recent assertions that the services don't have data on ethnicity. Nearly a decade later there have been literally 100s of such prosecutions across the country (in the last 6 months in my region there have been 6 such "historical" cases and there are two more on trial as I write. The issue isn't that this isnt being tackled now. It is. It is that for such a long time it wasn't and no one has been held accountable for this breakdown in our child protection system for a start. And of course this creates the suspicion that there are places still concealing this, As xxywise comments it is indeed "curious" that there have been so few(there have in fact been two gangs prosecuted in a London borough) cases in the Greater London area.
AGREED. Michael, please see my post.
Sure. Which one did you want me to look at Joseph?
Very much so. The original Suffragettes were all upper class women. Obsessed with doing away with chivalry and so forth.
The Pankhursts, being local, I've always taken an interest in their history. Including the largely forgotten Mr. Pankhurst the "red doctor" ( Barrister ,much older than his wife, who was the originator of an organization for female voting nationally and founding member of the Labour Party. Emmaline was a Tory candidate for election at the time of her death and with one of her daughters very active in the White Feather movement and demanded men stand up and "do their duty" by fighting for their families and country. Apart from Sylvia who became an ardent socialist and supporter of revolution Emmaline and Christabel generally seemed to expect men to "man up" and continue to be chivalrous, to the fairer sex. Though there was a brother, born when Emmaline was 25 and her husband 49, he lived only two years. Had he lived maybe his mother might have been less cavalier with men's lives. Who knows?
Yes. I also addressed this issue elsewhere on the thread.
This is one reason why society should be patriarchal. Feminism cut the balls off of men and now the barbarians are sullying their daughters.
Thankfully, the US just blasted back into the men-in-charge zone. Imagine weeping over ridding the country of vile South American gangs. I was with someone yesterday, who was doing that. I asked, Do you know what MS13 is? Nope. Well let me tell you....
"I don't care! Our country is supposed to be HELPING people!"
Note: BLM, and declawing the police? Women at the helm of that idiocy, too. While that was going on, it got me thinking that feminism run amok will necessitate a reinstatement of patriarchal rule, because crime will be so rampant, women will be begging to 'feel safe' again.
This is not the primary reason society should be patriarchal.
The actual reason society should be patriarchal is because women are intensively hyper aggressive human beings, and their social aggression turns men into victims, hurts men children and even women (they are irrational so their aggression isn't even in their own interests) and patriarchy is the only way to get rid of that.
You're not the only one who has self-sabotaged by not shutting up lol ...
For sure. I guess it comes down to what we can live with.
If it were white men instead of Pakis doing the grooming etc., the entire Academy of England would have crushed the rings in a week. Most of the Academy being fembots by this point.
But if the perps are fellow-travelers in the war of white women against white men -- like the multi-culti Pakis -- this must be ignored. Of-colors are allies in the degradation and disenfranchisement of white men and boys. One does not attack one's allies.
Totally agree. Because the perpetrators came from a protected group, it was literally tumbleweeds from the feminists. I think they just don’t see the girls at all. The victims are white. working class and over here. Had they been in another part of the world, the feminists might have connected with them. But their total lack of in-group preference and general worldview seems to blind them to the reality of what is occurring right under their nose.
As Janice Fiamengo so rightly highlights, they were hysterical about Trump and Gaetz. Their so-called ‘victims’ matter. Other victims don’t.
Those girls are just not useful for the feminist power play, not even as pawns. They are perhaps merely squares on which the pawns are placed..
Funny, Janice’s article makes clear that Pakistanis were disproportionately, overwhelmingly the ones arrested and charged with these crimes. So which is it?
Actually, it doesn't make that case. It makes the case that police and social services identified grooming gang members, especially in internal reports, as overwhelmingly Pakistani Muslim. In many instances, these men were never arrested, charged, or prosecuted.
How can the Paki mohammedans be disproportionately charged and arrested when they were about 98% of those who committed the crimes? Unless you're alluding to the lack of action against police, social workers and councillors who turned a blind eye.
The latter is the point in the UK. In particular the issue is about the girls young women and boys who were in the care of the local authorities or on child protection registers. All such youngsters are by definition deemed at risk and in need of care or oversight by statutary services. The numbers over decades make this the most widespread and longest lasting mass failure of our child protection system. Such a huge failure requires close examination because clearly something went horribly wrong and may still be doing so. Only a national enquiry with "teeth" can give assurance that this appalling failure is in our past and won't continue. It is remarkable how few feminists have put themselves behind this ask, and the vilification of those few by their "sistas" speaks volumes.
The same thing can be said of feminists who scream defiantly against those who argue (with good reason) that transgenderism is unfair to girls and women at best and dangerous to girls and women at worst.
Bravo LadyofShalotte Well played.
The leftists love Islam because they are a collectivist ally against Christianity. Islam is religious communism. They both must destroy Christianity to gain global control.
See Kohlberg's stages of morality 🥸.
What we are dealing with here are sociopathic radical activists. Their show of feelings is basically only for show, as compassion is never on their radar unless it is required for effect. That is why some get the compassion and others do not. They are, as an activist group, all about power, wealth and political positioning. Only their methods and groups they support are different, otherwise they are just like Himmler and Stalin in the way that they think and operate and would be just as wicked as them if they thought they could get away with it.
Pathocracy is a word to look up. And the book Without Conscience by Robert Hare is worth a read to get a good basic working knowledge of what you're up against when it comes to sociopathic radical activists
A dismal tale, Janice. I had just read Dominic Green's essay, "The United Kingdom's Grooming Gangs" (Washington Examiner, Jan. 15, 2025, 19-22). When Nazir Afzal took over as Crown Prosecutor in 2011, he secured rape convictions for eight Pakistanis and one Afghan. According to Green, Afzal commented that "white professionals' oversensitivity to political correctness and fear of appearing racist may well have contributed to justice being stalled." Stalled it is. PM Keir Starmer opposes a full inquiry. He headed up Crown Prosecutions 2008-15 and no doubt does not want his sad record in this business examined. Let's hope it catches up with him.
Good point - we must not forget Starmer’s CV here - it is most relevant.
I hope so.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/keir-starmer-british-politician-and?utm_source=publication-search
Wow, that was powerful. This is what smashing the patriarchy looks like. You demoralize and castrate your own men at home to remove the dangers of male aggression ... but you only end up removing the last line of defense for most women and children from barbarians at the gates.
The British feminists, multiculturalists and other "ists" have been smashing what they claim is a Christian patriarchy, while enabling the patriarchy of Islam to run rampant.
They also have a soft spot for the patriarchy of indigenous groups.
Isn't that odd? Islamic patriarchy is practically the instantiation of the oppressive, tyrannical patriarchy which feminists decry and yet they don't seem to see it.
Quite. Because in fact they are generally white, middle class and don't live near the enclaves of medieval clans from which this cancer creeps. And yet they are quick to point at Afghanistan and rural Pakistan; usually as a reason for women CEOs or time off work for the menopause (!?). Proof that their agenda has everything to do with leveraging their privileges rather than doing anything at all for women and girls who clearly needed actual help. Malala Yousafzai is lauded and is an inspiration yet the young women raped here, repeatedly, are told to be quiet. Though originally this was because these women might disturb "community cohesion" but these days it looks like its just that it exposed the hypocritical actions of so many feminists, particularly those now in Government. "believe women" ? Well not if they come from the poorer parts of town and want to tell you about decades of criminal abuse. Shhhhhh.... Simply; it easy to pontificate on things 1000s of miles away, for pontificate is all you need to do.
One consistent trait of feminists is cowardice. They love to gang up and appear strong with heavy condemnations and rhetoric when they have the upper hand like at Universities. But when the opposition appears strong, as Muslims generally do, they go silent.
Bari Weiss did a whole vlog I believe on her puzzlement over why feminists were silent after the Oct 6 attacks which included some of the most horrific rape-murders imaginable. Crickets. It's also why while pornography has gotten worse, feminists no longer condemn it and just pretend it isn't there. Pornographers seem powerful and dangerous is the answer. Best to not piss them off by proposing to ban their product.
In reality feminists successes have come where they tap into the "white knight" of men in power. Their constant, and very effective demand, is that women be "safe" from anything that makes them "feel unsafe". And men generally jump to it. Which is why the "grooming gangs" are such an outlier. As one may expect the strongest "voices" and action comes from men, but feminists haven't mobilized this to their agenda. Even stranger given feminists here constantly highlight Afghanistan as somewhere "we" (aka. Soldiers) do something. I suppose the latter has the virtue of distance and the reality no in seriously expects to send troops there again, even the expendable males.
For communists, Christianity is their target and destroying men is the means to an end.
You're out of your fucking mind.
Which part? I am open to considering your suggestions.
An interesting point. Although it gets little coverage one of the most active groups in combatting this is a Sikh organization. Because of the conflict back in northern Pakistan/India Sikh girls (and boys) were also victimized and consequently that community has been very active in protecting their own. https://swarajyamag.com/insta/pakistani-grooming-gangs-have-been-targeting-sikh-girls-in-uk-for-over-50-years-says-report
I think what is also rarely talked about is the the Sikh Awareness Society and streets and lane project both organically arose to combat the issue in Birmingham.
to this day not a single arrest has been made in Birmingham.
This is a weaponized population replacement. Until you realize the government is not your government, this will not make much logical sense.
Except they didn't want to "to remove the dangers of male aggression".
They wanted to enact pretty overt female supremacism.
And the pakistanis have a tribal culture that wherein outsiders are deserving of violence, it's not "male aggression" specifically that causes them to do this. It's tribal attitudes, which I suppose might result in more rape from the men specifically, but it's not like it's a biologically engrained thing. It might seem like i'm splitting hairs, but pakistani men are aggressive insofar as their aggression is considered good by everyone in their tribe.
If male aggression was a real thing, feminists would have been taken back to the kitchen and raped into submission in the west.
Male aggression didn't exist in any real fashion in the west and hearing about it in this general term makes me roll my eyes because it's so nonexistent in a world where it would be so helpful.
Pakistani male aggression might be more appropriate. Generalized male aggression not so much since we don't see it.
Pakistani men aren’t any more aggressive than the rest of us.
Not biologically no.
A sobering read. Thank you Janice. It is hard to believe that this sort of thing has been ignored. Pull the father from the home and bad things happen. Really bad things. I wish we could hold feminists accountable. Looks like a good deal of stockholm syndrome on the part of the victims who are unable to hold their perps accountable. What a mess.
I loved this sentence:
"Feminism is primarily a subversive and revolutionary ideology. It respects and at times promotes violence, including violence against girls and women, in the name of utopian cultural transformation and the overthrow of traditional norms and structures."
So well said Janice.
From what is known at least half the victims of these gangs were, and still are, in Council care or on a Child Protection Register. Which means they are either cared for as looked after children or are known to be at risk of some form of harm. Many of the other half are known to be "minors" (under 18). So both children and very likely at the bottom of society. In short very unlikely indeed to feel "empowered" to hold anyone to account. Particularly as those who did were routinely ignored or even punished by those in authority.
"approximately 2,300 possible offenders, but approximately 1,100 were excluded from analysis due to a lack of basic information. In the remaining 1,200 cases, ethnicity data was unknown for 38% of them. Where data was available 30% of offenders were White, while 28% were Asian. "
So that means that if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 1556 offenders without ethnic data were white that Asians (of which almost all were Pakistanis) would still have constituted 9% of the offenders (so 4+ times their actual percentage of the citizenry) and the whites would have been 77% so still less than their ethnic share. And, as noted, the ethnicity was almost certainly frequently not recorded BECAUSE they were Pakistani (Asian is very unfair as I expect VERY few were Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese etc). So likely that out of the 2300 that more than 28% were Pakistani.
Basically Britain has a big problem but to make it even worse our Elites (and very much the legal system) will neither defend the Whites/Brits nor punish the offenders, almost all of whom should be being deported after serving their sentence and certainly not getting very minor sentences because, for example, they were the only parent who could calm their child, or who did not speak English or....
Instead the Brits get punished for wondering on social media if yet another mass murderer is Islamic or an immigrant!
Asian is code word for Muslim.
To be fair in common usage "Asian" here has tended to mean the whole Indian subcontinent and the people from it. Understandably Sikhs, Hindus and Christians as well as Muslims from southern Pakistan, Bangladesh and India (Republic of) have been keen to point out the very specific areas of the Afghan/ Pakistan border regions these clans come from.
The point is to hide Muslims in that group. The only problem group is Muslims. They are religious communists who have no moral compass. This aligns with the communist's goals. Kill Christianity and take over the world.
Collectivism is a cult.
Left is collectivist and they do not want you to see them clearly, so they can manipulate you and your ignorance.
The real political spectrum is this:
Left is total government control;
right is no government control.
The spectrum is degrees between those two points.
The communists have distorted the language to indicate a narrow band of possible reality, the left is a communist government and the right is a fascist government ( both are big government control of the individual). By using this scale, you always pre-posed their government's bureaucratic control. University has become a communist indoctrination mill, churning out leftist cult members who go into government, banking and media et al.. The communists themselves called this the long march through the institutions. They claim Nazis were on the right, but they were socialists, which is next to communism in the actual spectrum.
See the trick.
There is no evidence that cops refuse to arrest Pakistanis.
There's plenty of evidence, often from police files, of precisely that: police officers and police chiefs talking about the racial sensitivities involved, indicating a reluctance to do anything to inflame community relations:
https://orwellfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/rotherham.pdf
Quite. The point is that the growing avalanche of arrests and cases after about 2015 were often "historical" in that the victimisation dates from the 1990s or even before. As one judge observed "the perpetrators believed they were untouchable, because for many years they were". One of the current cases locally involves someone who was groomed at 12 in 1996.
Why are you here? It because you want to make a fool of yourself?
Wow, way to avoid critical thinking.
You discover that Pakistanis were disproportionately arrested for these crimes, despite having heard that Muslim Rape Gangs operated with impunity, knowing that police were too afraid of being called racist to arrest them. Except when they did—disproportionately, no less!
One would think this would give you pause: if police were afraid to arrest Pakistanis, how come the records show that police were in fact arresting Pakistanis disproportionately? How exactly does a Pakistani criminal enterprise operate with impunity when the police are disproportionately likely to arrest its members precisely because they are Pakistani?
But cognitive dissonance hurts, so you have come up with the ultimate brainwashed cult excuse: there must be even MORE Pakistani criminals who WEREN’T arrested! Of course, this would have been down to sheer dumb luck, which would make “operating with impunity” bizarrely risky behavior.
You didn't read my essay carefully or you didn't understand it. Ella Cockbain quotes from a 2020 Home Office report, which is quoting from non-police child-protection agencies that collected information about alleged grooming gang members. This information is distinct from the records of those actually arrested, charged, and prosecuted by police.
But you're making a fuss about nothing. It is quite possible for a group to be over-represented in arrests (in relation to their percentage of the population) while at the same time being under-represented in relation to their actual offending.
Quite. The crux of the issue here is that it took so long for police forces to be stung into action, the suspicion that this is only in those forces forced into the spotlight by public scandals (Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale, Oldham, Manchester ) that are taking action. The tendency for it to be dismissed as "northern towns" when now we have 50 towns known to have prosecuted such gangs, suggesting it is not just about a few northern places. And most of all the fact that so many of the victims of the cases prosecuted and known to local authorities were supposed to be being looked after either literally in childrens homes or foster homes or being monitored as vulnerable ant at risk by childrens services. Basically children so vulnerable the state was supposed to be protecting them!
Child trafficking in the British Vietnamese community is significant.
A radical man hating feminist named 'Cockbain'? You couldn't make that up and be believed.
Haha, Ian.
Except Janice has for some reason decided to privilege the rape-fantasies-by-proxy of the only ACTUAL man-hating feminist in this story, “political lesbian” Julie Bindel (you know, the one who wrote “Why I Hate Men”).
It's a pity, because Janice is a much-needed voice against misandry in North American universities and beyond. But check out Cockbain's profile here: https://profiles.ucl.ac.uk/28318-ella-cockbain
Search the page for the words woman, women, feminist, feminism, female, equity, and equality, and you will get zero hits. The closest you'll find is a mention of “gender and crime” among her scholarly interests.
Perhaps I'm missing something, I thought, so I googled Ella Cockbain + feminist. The top hits all point to her grooming gangs article, which does use the word "feminist." But so does her 2019 article with Kate Bowers, "Human trafficking for sex, labour and domestic servitude: how do key trafficking types compare and what are their predictors?" So I clicked on that abstract and found this:
“Most of the attention to date has been on sex trafficking of women and girls, leaving male victims and other trafficking types comparatively overlooked.”
Great fucking work, Janice! You signal-boosted a racist urban legend and the crazed femcel who has been its only “credible” (read: not patently racist) proponent, while dismissing the work of an actual expert in human trafficking and child sexual exploitation on the apparent premise that disproportionate minority arrest rates are proof of cultural criminality.
I’m usually such a fan that I wish I were wrong about this, Janice. But I cannot find any reason to suggest that Ella Cockbain hates men or, far worse, that she excuses child rape when Muslims do it. Child trafficking and sexual abuse is literally her academic specialty, after all, for which she is quite well regarded and awarded.
Somewhere along the line, it seems, you were persuaded to fear and loathe Muslims, so much so your usual intellectual rigor has been compromised and, dare I say, perverted. Rather than side with Ella Cockbain, internationally acclaimed subject-matter expert and DEFENDER OF FORGOTTEN MALE VICTIMS, you side with know-nothing misandrist Julie Bindel, whose reporting you only criticize as being insufficiently Islamophobic.
So far, you’ve responded to me only with empty snark. But mark my words, Janice: you will look back on this article—and your utterly unfair treatment of Ella Cockbain—with great embarrassment. Really, you already should.
You have provided zero evidence to support your claim that Pakistani Muslim rape gangs are an Islamophobic lie. I, on the other hand, have responded in good faith to your often crude and insulting comments.
There is a God.
Occasionally, just occasionally but very rarely, I think there might be. Do you remember the witless female 'comedian' who was mocking vaccine sceptics and boasting of the jabs she'd had. Much laughter from the audience until she said 'Jesus loves me' and promptly collapsed on stage. That was one of those moments for me.
O yes I remember that incident very well, Ian. These types of public interventions don't occur often, because free will, but also because convincing people by miracles has been tried. But public interventions do occur, if one has eyes to see.
Please keep your eyes and mind open to such interventions, and also to the notion that God (the Biblical God) is taking a personal interest in directing your life. Why else would you be talking to me? :O)
I didn't start reading Scripture until my mid-forties. First, I wanted to see clear evidence in the world of the existence of God, and of the spiritual authenticity of the Bible. I did witness such things, in my life and the world extant, and only then started investigating Scripture carefully, to see if it integrated with my experience of this world.
There are no gods.
It is very apt. Ella Cockbain will anagram to 'a cock bane ill'. Alternatively there is this:
- Able nail cock
Ouch!
Janice is bane of Cockbain, disabling the nail cock.
Bad news, guys: not only is Janice unlikely to fuck you no matter how hard you simp, but Ella Cockbain is actually an advocate for male rape victims:
“Most of the attention to date has been on sex trafficking of women and girls, leaving male victims and other trafficking types comparatively overlooked.” —Ella Cockbain
Apparently, propagating lazy Islamophobic lies is more of a priority for Janice (and disturbingly many of her followers) than showing respect for female professors who actually help increase awareness of sexism against men.
“But her last name has cock in it, derp derp.”
Thanks for bringing that up. Pakistani rape gangs also targeted boys. Nothing to do with Islam, of course.
Prior to around 1970, the Civil Rights revolution, people in all groups talked shit about other groups. Just grousing, complaints, ethnic slurs, racial slurs, sexist venting, etc. Not great, but it turns out that was better than what we have now, because when throwing around toxic labels was acceptable and *everybody* could do it without getting their life destroyed, it focused all the attention on behavior. Bad behavior. The worst behavior got called out the most.
Enduring, rarely, a racial slur is actually not that bad. I'm Jewish and if somebody called me a k***, I shrugged it off.
Feminism changed everything by creating its hierarchy of victimhood categories, and making various victim categories untouchable, above any criticism. The idea that brown Muslim child sex traffickers could not be called out, same as white men doing the same, is one horrific consequence out of a whole panoply of terrible consequences of the new order.
Archie Bunker ran his mouth and was a bigot, but that TV show ultimately showed (in his moments of cognitive dissonance so brilliantly scripted), that Archie Bunker was actually more compassionate and decent than the typical feminist. There are words and then there are deeds. Feminism turns a blind eye to and sometimes even promotes terrible deeds.
It's pretty astounding how people just pretend that feminism is not pyschopathic, abusive, ostracizing, and systematic.
The public perception of feminism as covert, or passive aggressive, or girly and innocent, or well-meaning but poorly executed. Is so radically at odds with reality that one is left thinking that peope are just purposefully willfully ignorant or just genuinely fucking stupid.
Someone sent me a video the other day that has Betsy De Vos, Trump's former Education secretary, talking about Title IX at colleges. The video is titled "When a Good Law Goes Bad," or words to that effect. Well, it never was a good law! The "well meaning but poorly executed" attitude never ceases to amaze me.
It was always remarkable to me that the USA seemed to have laws that mandated direct discrimination. Given their Constitution. The problem we often have in the UK is that all sorts of discrimination is practiced based on US practice not our actual laws. Unfortunately far too few men have the means to mount expensive cases, but when they do they frequently win because in fact the practices that discriminate against them are not lawful here. Our problem is the widespread application of discriminatory action by our public services which simply aren't mandated by law.
No argument here. Daily on social media I am alone trying to inject sanity into feminist bogus victimhood meme discussions. I suppose partly why very few will speak the truth is fear of getting mobbed but mostly people are just imbeciles highly subject to groupthink.
I point out that in the USA if they all have never, ever worked for an employer that had one pay scale for men and another for women, then logically and statistically it's impossible the 20 cent pay gap averaged across the whole economy. Blank stares. Too dumb to put 2 and 2 together. Who is one guy saying the pay gap is false when millions of feminists say it is truth?
I think one factor is the women are wonderful effect. A study shows that both women and men have more favorable views of women, but women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger than those of men.
Definitely. But it's not just nature. Toxic feminism is this massive collective consciousness that nurtures the women-are-wonderful. It does it the ugly way mostly, by claiming that men are awful.
You'd have to explain how patriarchy ever existed in the past, and how male leadership was ever esablished. I don't think this is really the main factor, I think feminists just engage in orwellian brainwashing through media.
I, too, am a Jew. And I, too, could shrug off the occasional "kike" when I was growing up, although I hardly ever had to do that in the 1950s. But the anti-Zionist--and usually anti-Semitic--taunts that now prevail are different, because they're accompanied by institutional indifference and even physical intimidation. I don't know that feminism, per se, changed all that (although feminists went along for the ride). The big change (at least in America), I think, came with the transition from Civil Rights to Black Power. The latter led directly to the transition from egalitarian feminism to ideological feminism. The inevitable result was identity politics, which led directly to wokism--that is, in academic parlance, to critical race theory and critical gender theory.
Glad you brought up the "institutional indifference," quite a puzzling thing in these days when the dominant "woke" culture presumes to try to stamp out merely hurt feelings.
I'm reminded of the absurdity of the Harvard controversy, when the college's leadership refused to disband or even condemn students marching in favor of the genocide of Jews!
Of course those same academics would never tolerate for a second a group of students calling for harming a single hair on the head of black students or gay students.
Instead of promoting equality the whole feminist/SJW/woke 40 year experiment has created a horrible inequality by dicing and slicing us all into race/gender categories and the SJWs themselves have perpetrated a terrible inequality based on their stupid hierarchy of those categories.
What physical intimidation accompanies today's anti-Zionism?
Anti Israel protests at colleges have called for violence against Jews (any Jews apparently as radicals tend to be too stupid to make distinctions). Charlottesville rally where there was a deliberate vehicular murder they bizarrely were chanting "Jews will not replace us."
There are lots of implied threats and sometimes explicit. When I was a boy the synagogue doors were open even when nobody was around like many churches. I suppose they locked them at 9pm or something. Locked doors are pretty standard now. I've read some have metal detectors and some question people before entering now since Pittsburgh.
The internet has pockets roiling with antisemitic hate and it boils over occasionally in some incident.
How about fire-bombing or gun shots at Jewish schools and synagogues? We've had several of those right here where I live.
But....
Feminism has horrific words. Words that are significantly worse than anything, literally anything, that archie bunker has ever said.
"Misogynist" is the most recklessly overused toxic word there is. Much more potent than the N word.
When a feminist is logically or factually cornered, she bares her fangs, the M word comes out, and it's all over, you must shut up or your reputation and livelihood could be at stake.
Since I'm self employed and there is no HR to report on me should I not be 100% successful at, say, averting my eyes from your cleavage, or if I don't cow to your claim of ubiquitous "rape culture" but care to argue the point, I'm rare in that I can let toxic feminism and the M word bounce off me.
Last year at neighborhood pub I had frequented for many years, a couple of the women I never talk to merely OVERHEARD my opinions. One time. They got the bar to ban me permanently for "opinions" that made these snowflake women "uncomfortable." I was just a calm, soft spoken guy who never got drunk and never caused a problem.
They lied and said one opinion was I claimed there was zero sexual assault/harassment in the US Army. What I really said was zero tolerance policy! I also said zero complaints that I was aware of, over 27 years, but that was for my unit not the whole Army.
Archie Bunker was a saint next to these people. The worst man television could come up with is vastly better than these SJWs.
A truly horrifying article...but not in the least surprising. The Woke Virus and Feminism are parts of the same toxic brew to destroy Western civilization. The irony is that if they succeed...women could well end up as virtual slaves under sharia law. Given how so many seem to be willing to participate in feminist abuses or to whore themselves out for sexual satisfaction and attention...perhaps they will get the social justice they keep talking about.
Every non Western nation in the WORLD defends it's own cultural morès. Who taught White Men to hate their own masculinity? Their historic cultural affirmation? The most poisonous group in the entire world did, White Liberal Females. Who taught them at University? White, non Christian men 👃I smell a rat. Wow. This article punched me in the gut.
Watch or read on the subject of Oikophobia
Oikophibia = Fear of Oiks?
It never ceases to amaze me how twisted intellectual rationalisations by academics can be.
Islamophobic rolls off the tongue a lot easier than does Christianityophobic!
But seriously ... in the bigger picture the mass migration seems to be a part of what some call 'the great replacement', whereby the 90% (supposedly) of the world's population who are 'non-white' and who were formerly colonised are being imported into western countries as replacement consumers for the now (supposedly) exhausted 'white' market. If there's any truth to that, it's easy to see why certain groups may feel more entitled after being 'educated' about their ancestors' oppression. An element of revenge maybe?
Islam deserves to be feared. It teaches many horrible ideas and practices.
The feminists are too chicken shit to say anything bad about the Muslims, it goes hand in hand with their bizarre obsession with Islamophobia. As Tommy Robinson noted, if you mess with one, you mess with the whole group.
On top of that, I think it was you Janice that wrote an article where you mentioned the unnatural fixation of feminists with Fifty Shades of Grey, rape, and oppression of women.
I believe that the feminists are suffering from two things, namely:
1) They have successfully "castrated" men in the west off of any masculinity and ability to defend themselves. I think this because women have a natural disinterest in men, end up sabotaging a lot of their own relationships, and as per usual, then blame it on men.
This develops into hatred, which we see in society today. They believe apparently that men from other cultures don't deserve this hate, and this is because the feminists are unbelievably ignorant. I do think that the men from other cultures have not been castrated and neutered as much, and are in the eyes of the feminists more of a "man". They will not admit this in public of course.
Women, feminists included, as much as they might say otherwise, are actually (sexually) attracted to men acting like men. Not saying that grooming and pimping 12-year old's out is what I call acting like a man, but the men from other cultures are not apologizing for anything and are not letting women dominate them or tell them what to do.
2) The feminists are keen to fight for a society where they are identical in privileges of the 1950's women, without her dependence on the man. And more then that, men are work horses that should be put in a concentration camp to fund all of these ridiculous programs to "help" women.
As women have gone down this path, and chased paperwork from high social status educational institutes, money, attention and validation from other women on social media, they have basically check-mated themselves. Hypergamy is not working in their favor because of this and sure enough it is men that are to blame.
I suspect that white women (behind closed doors) actually envy Muslim women as they have a culture where relationships matter and there is an actual family structure, the very thing they destroyed in the west.
As messed up as it sounds, I am glad that there are now an unprecedented amount of rape cases, that grooming gangs can go their way freely, and that white women are the recipient of the bad choices they made by voting on politicians that let them in.
No need to blame to politicians btw, as they are a reflection of the people that vote on them.
Good article Janice and I'm curious if during my lifetime we can see people in the west wake up and make better choices.
'Not saying that grooming and pimping 12-year old's out is what I call acting like a man, but the men from other cultures are not apologizing for anything and are not letting women dominate them or tell them what to do.'
Exactly. Females -- yes even 12 y.o. females -- respond to the strong hand. Now, you can hate that, you can like it, or you can not care. But it is reality and you ain't changing it.
Because white women have emasculated men in many Western nations, neither women nor girls now experience strong, confident masculinity in their lives. They thirst for this but of course cannot admit to this, that'd be DISEMPOWERING and VULNERABLE doncha know! Females only see potent masculinity on tv, in movies, and amongst foreign men of non-feminist, or anti-feminist, nations.
The blame for these crimes falls as much at the feet of Western -- especially anglo -- women, as it does on Pakis and gelded white men. More on anglo women, really. They are the mechanism and the constituency that keeps Woke Diktat in power.
Yes, feminist women are extremely masculine and far outside of their feminine, and I think that is why they secretly want what is basically a dysfunctional and abusive relationship, because they still want to be "conquered" by strong (subjective term) men that "deserve" or have worked to earn the "privilege" (very strong quotation marks, these women are not worth having!!!!) to be with them. And in the eyes of these dysfunctional women, the extremely aggressive and abusive men, are more masculine then them, satisfying a need and desire that we were plenty capable of satisfying in the past, without the dysfunction. Women, despite what they think and say, still want to be- and feel like women. A major contributor in my opinion to this horrendous mess that we have in the west. Bottom line as always, don't ever listen to women. Watch what they do.
AUTHOR:
The blame for these crimes falls as much at the feet of Western -- especially anglo -- women, as it does on Pakis and gelded white men. More on anglo women, really.
COMMENT: Naughty Janice Fiamengo! As an English speaking white woman --- almost ghostly/hauntingly white --- this is all her fault! For shame.
1. Women don't have a natural disinterest in men. In a group of teen boys and teen girls the teen girls talk about their sexual relationships far more than the teen boys. Women yearn for the attention of men, hence the "me or playstation 5". They are purely socialized to castrate and hate men. It's just female typical mass hysteria.
2. The reason feminists don't hate brown men is because they are socialized not too.
3. The feminists are keen to fight for a society where they have enacted female supremacism, and are privileged in literally every aspect of society.
Without being disrespectful to victims of these henious crimes, I would say that we do not “more funding for vital victim support services”. I would rather say that we need more funding for the prevention of these crimes and the apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrators and "customers" so that increase of "victim support services" was not needed
Quite. In fact so much is known about this, and the target group is remarkably small in number (being from specific parts of Pakistan and in specific occupations) it should be relatively easy to Police. But of course this would mean "targeted" policing which is an anathema to our elites who have to pretend its about all men from all cultures. The same is true of the epidemic of knife crime in the country. Glasgow fell from being the "knife crime capital of the UK" to almost eradicating it. By targeting "stop and search and taking knives away. Fortunately Glasgow (like Scotland in general) is very white so there was no "racial" element to this. Because our Capital is far more "diverse" no such policing is done because it will target diverse people, and so it carries on!
Closing all the mosques and bringing back the old beard tax would help.
NO! Religious persecution has been used as justification in all major conflicts from time immemorial to justify hate "of the other" ~ I do not want to see my sons sacrificed on the alter of religious ignorance that you are championing
I agree with you.
I think that the only way are:
1) religious tolerance and forbid bad actions no matter if justified by a credo
2) religion public suppression (as USSR) but apply it to ANY form of religion or cult
The second is against freedom, so we should focus on punish bad behaviors no matter the reason. The point is not how much we repress offense, for example, but it is apply to anyone.
If we put in jail someone for saying in a post "arabs" are violent (that of course is offensive and also not true) is ok ONLY if we do the same to everybody saying "jews" are evil, trumpists are all ingorant, women are morally superior.
Or we condemn EVERY generalization as offensive, or we allow generalization as free speech and condemn only violent acts. Fine both. (Uk Vs USA)
But in any case a society could avoid civil conflits and turmoil if whatever rule we agree on, we do not apply it to everybody.
What do you think?
Thank you for this - very painful reading. As a man I feel ashamed of my countries "leaders" treatment of young girls. The more I hear about our "establishment" the more I despise them. Feminism is truly toxic. Do these feminist academics really hate women as much as they appear to?
I don't know that feminist academics "hate" women, but I do suspect that wokers (including many feminists) are indifferent to women, let alone to men. That's because feminism no longer exists as an independent movement, certainly not an egalitarian one. And that's because wokism has absorbed it. Woke feminists care mainly about the destruction of Western (white, bourgeois, patriarchal, cis-gendered) civilization but don't care about who pays the price for this "transformative revolution." Like every ideology, however, feminists have long believed that the utopian end can justify the dystopian means.
Feminist are communist pretending to be something else to achieve their goals.
No. They are a female supremacist movement, but they are also marxist, and sometimes they run up against each other.
Feminists do not hate women, who they actively attempt to establish a female supremacist state for.
In general, yes, but occasionally they support laws and policies that objectively harm women, seeming to reveal that they hate what they hate (in this case, I think, white men and white societies) more than they love what they love (female power).
Who was it who said there was a special place in hell for women who didn't vote for Hilary Clinton? Sums it up really, feminists probably most hate women who disagree with them. I have a feeling their deepest hatred is for happy grandmothers who enjoy big family get togethers doing all the silly things families do. As "perpetual adolescents" as described by Melanie Phillip's over 20 years ago they must eventually really hate the happily married adult women who have seen their children grow and dote on grandchildren and all the news and hubbub of an ordinary life. A few years ago there was a programme following Germaine Greer as she cleared out parts of her house as she prepared to move to a smaller home she could manage. It was melancholic as she was really alone and her huge body of work was now just stuff she had to throw out or put in storage. Perhaps she was happy with her walks and the quiet life. At one point there was a young man, gardener odd job, and she showed all the delight that older women (my contemporaries) often show with young men. I wonder if the excitement of a life as perpetual radical student had finally fizzled out to leave .... well very little really.
Just one small request. Please don't use the phrase 'grooming gangs.' The British media have adopted the term out of timidity, frightened to call a spade a spade. They do not groom, they rape. They are rape gangs and should be called by name.
After reading as much as I could about the victims and their experiences, I came to believe that 'grooming' is actually the correct term, horrible as it is. Some of these girls were drugged, raped, threatened, and beaten. But some participated willingly in their own exploitation, as far as I could tell, becoming alienated from their families and recruiting other girls into the life. These were very young girls, many as young as 12, 13, and 14, so statutory rape laws apply to what was done to them, but their degree of willingness is part of the story, and is part of what feminism has wrought.
"becoming alienated from their families and recruiting other girls into the life."
Yes, once isolated from their families, they develop their own primitive social order instead, and recruit other girls into the tribe. Just like the boys in Lord of the Flies. It's worth considering the role of children's homes in this process. Psychiatrist Ruth Eissler described this group behaviour in her 1949 work Observations in a Home for Delinquent Girls.
"During the three years of my work as consulting psychiatrist to a Home for delinquent girls, I had opportunity to observe certain typical reactions on the part of the individual and the group. The majority of these girls were white Protestants, ranging in age from 12-18 years, whose delinquency consisted in the main of sexual promiscuity, petty larceny, and running away from home. Most of them came from families of the lowest income groups, many from broken homes or completely deteriorated backgrounds. Scarcely any child came from a stable family background. Even though every girl showed her own individual reaction pattern, based on her life history, nevertheless, there were certain reactions, typical of all of them, which under certain specific conditions were predictable. Thus, for instance, if a girl had not had sexual intercourse prior to her commitment, it was predictable that she would run away some time later in order to obtain this experience. No bars were too thick, no doors too well protected to prevent her breaking out. By the time she had returned, which she generally did, she had invariably had the necessary experience. I say necessary, because this experience actually was a necessity for her status in the group."
Reportedly most grooming gang "victims" are from children's homes, so perhaps these are breeding grounds for "victims", who then recruit from the broader community.
Of course, the root cause is destruction of the traditional family, which is a cornerstone of the feminist project.
Except some social media platforms 'shadow ban', delete or otherwise penalise posts that use the word I shall therefore spell r@ pe, so if you want posts on the subject to be read, 'grooming' gangs is a safer term to use. YouTube even seem to demonetise videos that refer to death or killing (unattractive words to advertisers, or something), so at least one YouTube channel always uses the word 'unalived' rather than killed, and another refers to 'grape' when they mean serious sex crimes, as in 'grape and pillage'.
Like a typical gender narcissist, Cockbain acts to perpetuate self-deceptive mirroring in defiance of self-evident truths.