The curious case of feminist journalist Mary Harper offers more proof, if it were needed, that feminism is about ideological purity rather than the wellbeing of any actual woman or man.
Such an interesting story, Janice. Women like Mary Harper so rarely are subject to proper scrutiny and it is very important their delusional thinking is exposed.
This is indeed an interesting story that I find very familiar. Let me offer 3 points here.
1. I am not surprised that Mary Harper embraces violent foreign men like those you indicate are affiliated with Al Shabaab. Harper's interest in these men is about virtue signaling, sexual prowess and power. First, modern gender feminists are far more concerned with their progressive credentials than with the health, safety and rights of actual women. It is more important be seen as an ally to oppressed black men from Somalia than with any Western societal values. So...she virtue signals. Second, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, gender feminists have an intense erotic attraction to the very men they say are horrible and hostile. These are the women who will complain about men generally and the rape culture specifically but will continue to date a hostile and violent man against all common sense and the advice of their friends and family because...he is so good in bed. Thirdly, feminists highest priority is their own personal power. By associating with violent dangerous men like these Al Shabaab terrorists who show concern for her, Harper is sending the message that her "boys" have her back and might just be asked to excercise her will on other should you cross her. Would Harper be offended if an Al Shabaab terrorist beat up or killed a white man for using the wrong pronoun or offending Harper or her values? Not at all. They are her personal brut squad, in her mind at least.
2. As a child of a Muslim immigrant father and Lutheran native born American, I have long been baffled by the manner in which feminist women who denounce the slightest microaggression, real or imagined, by a white European or American male, will bend over backwards to enable and defend far more egregious conduct by a man of color. My sister and I witnesses this when I was about 14 (sister 12). Our mother had finally left her abusive Muslim husband, returned home to her family and remarried a new man, this one of color, about 5 years later. Her racist Muslim ex husband was not about to allow HIS children to be raised in a household with a black man and petitioned the family court in New York state to have custody transferred to him. It should be mentioned that the ex husband had stolen all the family's assets including the home, was not paying child support (he even tried to get alimony FROM his wife), had a long history of physical abuse of his wife and others who crossed him (both men and women), adultery and had threatened to take his children back to his home country where women have no rights. The kidnapping threat was taken so seriously that the New York State Superior Court issued an order barring the removal of we children from New York State to protect us. One would think in such an instance that the Muslim Ex-husband's request for custody would be dead on arrival. No...unfortunately for our family, a staunch feminist/progressive activist social worker was assigned our case. After a 1 hour phone conversation with the Muslim ex-husband, the social worker was convinced that we children were being raised against the father because of his culture and that HIS rights were being violated. The social worker demanded private meetings with my mother and each of us children (14 and 12 in age) as she sought to find evidence to support her predetermined opinion. After these meetings, the social worker found that her opinion was supported. She stated that I was arrogant and hostile because I refused her narrative and insisted that the causes of the divorce were entirely relevant in determining our relationship with our father. She insisted that both parties to a divorce share responsibility and that the causes are irrelevant to the children or their relationship with either parent. (It should be noted that at age 9 I had to call the police because of the beating my mother was taking because the old rotary style phones are difficult to use when one is being beaten.) The social worker actually denounced our mother (the abused spouse who had lost everything after having had to flee with her children to her parents) in front of us and recommended to the court that the father, whom she had never met, be granted custody! Fortunately for us, when the matter actually got to court, a crusty traditional old Italian judge got to hear the case and he allowed our father to hang himself with a series of racist statements against our black step father than would have made a Klansman blush! The court rejected the social worker's recommendation and maintained the status quo. As this experience shows, there is no more vicious enemy to an abused women than a feminist woman defending her ideology.
3. About a decade after the court case described in 2, my father came to visit me while in graduate school. I was forced to leave him unsupervised for a few hours for a meeting with my advisor. Imagine a 60 year old man wearing a black trenchcoat and French beret walking around a New England college campus in the 1990's walking up to random women, chatting them up and then proposing marriage to them?! This man spent 3 hours doing this which I know from following the trail of secretaries and work study students along his path discussing their experience as I tried to track him down after the meeting. On a campus where a male student would be viciously denounced for daring to hold the door open for the woman behind them, this man proposing marriage to the 18-25 year-olds he encountered did not cause any denunciation, reports for harassment or calls to law enforcement. He was simply ignored because one would not want to be seen as bigoted toward a Muslim man.
Probably relevant was the case of Canadian Leftist Amanda Lindhout many years ago who along with her boyfriend was kidnapped by Muslims in Somalia and held hostage for 15 months during which she (and presumably he) was beaten, tortured, and raped repeatedly. After they ransomed her for half a million dollars, she returned to Canada, where she told an interviewer that she started an organization to help Somalians because of a Leftist epiphany she had while she was being sodomized:
"I had one specific moment... it was a moment where I had absolute clarity of understanding, that the boy who was abusing me was the product of his environment. And in that moment, what I felt for him, surprisingly -- surprisingly most to me -- was compassion for this boy who I understood in this moment was a product of his environment, who was shaped by the violence and the war around him and whose suffering was maybe bigger than mine..."
Fascinating article. I find the topic of white Western women being not so secretly attracted to violent migrants to be hardly surprising. It has become very trendy as of late, for young white girls to date strapping black or mixed race athletes (that is if they are lucky, otherwise they will just end up with some skinny wannabe rapper who stimulates his creativity by constantly smoking marijuana). It has gotten to a point where the more trashier of these "snow bunnies" as they are called, will even talk about how they prefer the aggressive masculinity and well endowed physique of blacks to the comparatively effete and wimpish nature of younger white men of their same age range. They will excuse all kinds of misogynistic grievances, as long as they are sexually attracted to the man in question. In some Tiktok videos, they actually joke about how "the feminist goes out of them" when they are faced with an attractive man, and that they will have no qualms about cooking and cleaning to keep him around. Of course, if the man is unattractive, their reaction will revert to the feminist attitude of offense and indignation. I don't even think that they are aware of these double standards oddly enough; it is probably so instinctual and deeply engrained in them, and when you are constantly told you are a goddess who can do mo wrong, well then you won't be likely to assess the probity of your stances.
Her convoluted rationalisation for protecting offenders is beyond my comprehension. On the logical side, It hurts my brain just trying to understand how she can justify her support for these people.
I am a very so so looking guy. Very average. But…I am reasonably successful. I am a real estate developer in a culture that has demonized RE developers for decades. My wife has an ultra commie friend. A Birkenstock wearing euro married academic socialist who hates business and business men. She stands 6” from me when we are in the same room and somehow manages to bump her boobies up against me about 3x a night if we are at the same social event. The love hate thing from feminists towards alphas is real. And comical.
I'm not surprised, really. Feminist disregard for rape survivors - male and female - has been one of its most constant moral failings. Alison Tieman (whose statements I was unable to verify) said that second wave feminists stopped psychologically intervention programs for men who were at risk of committing rape. Moreover, Mary P. Koss, the woman who popularized the 1-in-4 statistic, excluded men from the category of rape victim: "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." (206-207)
In the so-called manosphere, FWIW, and it's PUA subcommunity, there is the concept of the "shit test". That basically when dating, women will deliberately push a man's buttons, to test how he reacts. It could be as simple as making him wait 20 minutes before coming down from fixing their hair to go on a date. The idea is that, by consciously or even subconsciously creating adversity, they're able to probe and test a masculine quality of, is this the kind of guy that can bring home the bacon, out in the competitive dog-eat-dog world.
My only explanation for intersectional feminists' fascination with importing as many Muslims as possible into England and other countries, is as a kind of society-wide shit test for the men of England. One that by and large they are failing.
One can't help but conclude that there's something to the PUA claim that feminism was a sh*t test that Western men collectively failed.
In other words, feminists didn't actually want equal rights for women, they wanted men strong enough to say "no" to them. When Western men failed, they turned their attention elsewhere.
Excellent essay. This topic fascinates me. The active parallel can be found in promoting uncontrolled migration into the U.S., supported by a young white woman I spotted in a T-shirt that read something like "I'll trade white racists for immigrants any day.'
While Harper has two children (no mention of what happened to the father, and whether he is white or not), the trend of unintentionally childless women seems to foment favoring violent men of color over civil white men because the bad boys of color are their proxy CHILDREN. The children they never had.
I would argue that much of what's gone wrong in this matriarchal hell is caused, in part, by unintentionally childless white women's "nurturing" their poor, downtrodden, men of color babies. What mother doesn't unconditionally love her wayward sons? What mother doesn't harbor the belief that if only she loved them in just the right way, their bad boys will turn out fine?
And there's certainly something very sexy about the very masculinity that they find so "toxic" in white men. At the same time, just about every ad features a white woman with a black man. The status this confers is real.
On a similar note, most of the white people I know from grad school did not have their own biological children. They adopted brown children. This elevates their status in the matriarchy. What "good" people they are, so capable of loving those not their own! No dirty biology for them!
This has even spread to my working class sister-in-law. As it's looking like my nephew will marry a Nigerian woman, my sister-in-law is salivating at the prospect of having mixed-race grandchildren. How GOOD this will make her look! How OPEN-MINDED! How NOT RACIST! No plain white grandbabies for her!
For several years, as a side-gig I edited romance novels for a well-known publisher (now defunct). Although the more descriptive term is "mommy porn," men simply call this stuff "trash" and never read it, but the romance genre is immensely popular with women and provides a wide-open window to the Western female mind.
Ninety-five-plus percent of romance novels are written by women. The themes are nearly always the same - the beautiful-but-haughty young woman who meets a rugged, 6-foot-plus, muscular man who tames her - whether it's a no-nonsense cowboy who unceremoniously throws her across the saddle and applies the reins to her bare backside or the lusty pirate who has his way with her over and over until she realizes that she's in love with him and he's exactly what she craves in a man - and needs.
No, the Alan-Aldazation of the Western man - although the Very Thing Western women believed they wanted - defies every fundamental of evolution, where in times past a strong man's protection often ensured the survival of the weaker female and her offspring. The feminists' inner demons are no surprise, unless perhaps to them. Maybe at some point the pendulum will swing back toward the centre. It had better hurry; men have had more than enough.
Spot on, as usual. Feminists are indeed concerned only with their personal standing within their ideological community. They have no genuine concern for the victims they ostensibly champion. In as far as they have motivations beyond the selfish, it is the purely negative motivation of prejudice. Feminism is, as we know, profoundly anti-social via their explicit policy rejection of the two-parent, heterosexual family. But cases such as that discussed in the article illustrate how seriously contrary to the interests of society is the wider feminist psychological perspective. Personal ideological standing is everything to them, and so their impact on society at large plays no part in their thinking. The dominance of this type of thinking within the elites is the cause of the rising authoritarianism we now see across the whole Western and Anglophone world. The narrow obsession with their personal standing within their own elite circles blinds those in power to the catastrophic effects of ideological policies upon society at large, including national economies. Feminism has played a major role in creating the conditions for this trans-national authoritarianism, both directly and by being an exemplar and prototype. So claims such as “climate change is a feminist issue” are indeed true, but not in the sense these fools intended. And anyone voicing opposition is an ignorant deplorable – by definition because they announce themselves to be anti-elite. And so this is how the world ends: not with a bang or a whimper, but with the triumph of the snobs.
There was a once time that if a wealthy family had an 'unfortunate' child who wasn't the sharpest they would send them into the church for a career. All they had to do was recite cant from a book, act holy and the church would look after them and they'd come to no harm. These days they're sent into the media.
Someone save us, please, from the upper middle class simpleton do-gooders.
Reading this story I come away with the distinct impression Mary Harper has 'daddy issues'. Not to mention the screamingly obvious Freudian undercurrents. Nice work Janice.
Janice, thanks for another outstanding piece. I'd just like to pick up on this line:
"In fact, it is not unusual for women from a heavily feminized society like Britain to find themselves attracted to men who are hyper-masculine, even violently hyper-masculine."
As with so many public sector lines of work, the Prison Service is enthusiastically recruiting prison officers who are anything but white and male (their recruitment posters never include white men). This leads to stories like this one we posted a few months ago, "Britain’s raunchiest prison: Scandalous jail where an incredible 18 female staff were fired or quit after having affairs with inmates is suffering a ‘destabilising’ staffing crisis because of the sheer number of illicit hook-ups":
Furthermore, there has been an explosion of drug taking in prisons in recent years. Often female prison officers are found to have smuggled drugs (and more) into prisons, secreted... erm... in their nether regions.
Such an interesting story, Janice. Women like Mary Harper so rarely are subject to proper scrutiny and it is very important their delusional thinking is exposed.
This is indeed an interesting story that I find very familiar. Let me offer 3 points here.
1. I am not surprised that Mary Harper embraces violent foreign men like those you indicate are affiliated with Al Shabaab. Harper's interest in these men is about virtue signaling, sexual prowess and power. First, modern gender feminists are far more concerned with their progressive credentials than with the health, safety and rights of actual women. It is more important be seen as an ally to oppressed black men from Somalia than with any Western societal values. So...she virtue signals. Second, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, gender feminists have an intense erotic attraction to the very men they say are horrible and hostile. These are the women who will complain about men generally and the rape culture specifically but will continue to date a hostile and violent man against all common sense and the advice of their friends and family because...he is so good in bed. Thirdly, feminists highest priority is their own personal power. By associating with violent dangerous men like these Al Shabaab terrorists who show concern for her, Harper is sending the message that her "boys" have her back and might just be asked to excercise her will on other should you cross her. Would Harper be offended if an Al Shabaab terrorist beat up or killed a white man for using the wrong pronoun or offending Harper or her values? Not at all. They are her personal brut squad, in her mind at least.
2. As a child of a Muslim immigrant father and Lutheran native born American, I have long been baffled by the manner in which feminist women who denounce the slightest microaggression, real or imagined, by a white European or American male, will bend over backwards to enable and defend far more egregious conduct by a man of color. My sister and I witnesses this when I was about 14 (sister 12). Our mother had finally left her abusive Muslim husband, returned home to her family and remarried a new man, this one of color, about 5 years later. Her racist Muslim ex husband was not about to allow HIS children to be raised in a household with a black man and petitioned the family court in New York state to have custody transferred to him. It should be mentioned that the ex husband had stolen all the family's assets including the home, was not paying child support (he even tried to get alimony FROM his wife), had a long history of physical abuse of his wife and others who crossed him (both men and women), adultery and had threatened to take his children back to his home country where women have no rights. The kidnapping threat was taken so seriously that the New York State Superior Court issued an order barring the removal of we children from New York State to protect us. One would think in such an instance that the Muslim Ex-husband's request for custody would be dead on arrival. No...unfortunately for our family, a staunch feminist/progressive activist social worker was assigned our case. After a 1 hour phone conversation with the Muslim ex-husband, the social worker was convinced that we children were being raised against the father because of his culture and that HIS rights were being violated. The social worker demanded private meetings with my mother and each of us children (14 and 12 in age) as she sought to find evidence to support her predetermined opinion. After these meetings, the social worker found that her opinion was supported. She stated that I was arrogant and hostile because I refused her narrative and insisted that the causes of the divorce were entirely relevant in determining our relationship with our father. She insisted that both parties to a divorce share responsibility and that the causes are irrelevant to the children or their relationship with either parent. (It should be noted that at age 9 I had to call the police because of the beating my mother was taking because the old rotary style phones are difficult to use when one is being beaten.) The social worker actually denounced our mother (the abused spouse who had lost everything after having had to flee with her children to her parents) in front of us and recommended to the court that the father, whom she had never met, be granted custody! Fortunately for us, when the matter actually got to court, a crusty traditional old Italian judge got to hear the case and he allowed our father to hang himself with a series of racist statements against our black step father than would have made a Klansman blush! The court rejected the social worker's recommendation and maintained the status quo. As this experience shows, there is no more vicious enemy to an abused women than a feminist woman defending her ideology.
3. About a decade after the court case described in 2, my father came to visit me while in graduate school. I was forced to leave him unsupervised for a few hours for a meeting with my advisor. Imagine a 60 year old man wearing a black trenchcoat and French beret walking around a New England college campus in the 1990's walking up to random women, chatting them up and then proposing marriage to them?! This man spent 3 hours doing this which I know from following the trail of secretaries and work study students along his path discussing their experience as I tried to track him down after the meeting. On a campus where a male student would be viciously denounced for daring to hold the door open for the woman behind them, this man proposing marriage to the 18-25 year-olds he encountered did not cause any denunciation, reports for harassment or calls to law enforcement. He was simply ignored because one would not want to be seen as bigoted toward a Muslim man.
Thoughts?
Probably relevant was the case of Canadian Leftist Amanda Lindhout many years ago who along with her boyfriend was kidnapped by Muslims in Somalia and held hostage for 15 months during which she (and presumably he) was beaten, tortured, and raped repeatedly. After they ransomed her for half a million dollars, she returned to Canada, where she told an interviewer that she started an organization to help Somalians because of a Leftist epiphany she had while she was being sodomized:
"I had one specific moment... it was a moment where I had absolute clarity of understanding, that the boy who was abusing me was the product of his environment. And in that moment, what I felt for him, surprisingly -- surprisingly most to me -- was compassion for this boy who I understood in this moment was a product of his environment, who was shaped by the violence and the war around him and whose suffering was maybe bigger than mine..."
https://hesperado.blogspot.com/2014/01/wolves-among-sheep.html
Fascinating article. I find the topic of white Western women being not so secretly attracted to violent migrants to be hardly surprising. It has become very trendy as of late, for young white girls to date strapping black or mixed race athletes (that is if they are lucky, otherwise they will just end up with some skinny wannabe rapper who stimulates his creativity by constantly smoking marijuana). It has gotten to a point where the more trashier of these "snow bunnies" as they are called, will even talk about how they prefer the aggressive masculinity and well endowed physique of blacks to the comparatively effete and wimpish nature of younger white men of their same age range. They will excuse all kinds of misogynistic grievances, as long as they are sexually attracted to the man in question. In some Tiktok videos, they actually joke about how "the feminist goes out of them" when they are faced with an attractive man, and that they will have no qualms about cooking and cleaning to keep him around. Of course, if the man is unattractive, their reaction will revert to the feminist attitude of offense and indignation. I don't even think that they are aware of these double standards oddly enough; it is probably so instinctual and deeply engrained in them, and when you are constantly told you are a goddess who can do mo wrong, well then you won't be likely to assess the probity of your stances.
Her convoluted rationalisation for protecting offenders is beyond my comprehension. On the logical side, It hurts my brain just trying to understand how she can justify her support for these people.
I am a very so so looking guy. Very average. But…I am reasonably successful. I am a real estate developer in a culture that has demonized RE developers for decades. My wife has an ultra commie friend. A Birkenstock wearing euro married academic socialist who hates business and business men. She stands 6” from me when we are in the same room and somehow manages to bump her boobies up against me about 3x a night if we are at the same social event. The love hate thing from feminists towards alphas is real. And comical.
I'm not surprised, really. Feminist disregard for rape survivors - male and female - has been one of its most constant moral failings. Alison Tieman (whose statements I was unable to verify) said that second wave feminists stopped psychologically intervention programs for men who were at risk of committing rape. Moreover, Mary P. Koss, the woman who popularized the 1-in-4 statistic, excluded men from the category of rape victim: "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." (206-207)
Source: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%201993%20-%20Detecting%20the%20Scope%20of%20Rape%20-%20a%20review%20of%20prevalence%20research%20methods.pdf?token_hash=AAEFRT8VplwV5Xgc0Fxab0-YwewdVbDKZYSPAiCDkjjNcw&dl=1%0A
Feminists, for the most part, are haters period. They aren’t for women. They are against white men. And against capitalism.
In the so-called manosphere, FWIW, and it's PUA subcommunity, there is the concept of the "shit test". That basically when dating, women will deliberately push a man's buttons, to test how he reacts. It could be as simple as making him wait 20 minutes before coming down from fixing their hair to go on a date. The idea is that, by consciously or even subconsciously creating adversity, they're able to probe and test a masculine quality of, is this the kind of guy that can bring home the bacon, out in the competitive dog-eat-dog world.
My only explanation for intersectional feminists' fascination with importing as many Muslims as possible into England and other countries, is as a kind of society-wide shit test for the men of England. One that by and large they are failing.
One can't help but conclude that there's something to the PUA claim that feminism was a sh*t test that Western men collectively failed.
In other words, feminists didn't actually want equal rights for women, they wanted men strong enough to say "no" to them. When Western men failed, they turned their attention elsewhere.
Excellent essay. This topic fascinates me. The active parallel can be found in promoting uncontrolled migration into the U.S., supported by a young white woman I spotted in a T-shirt that read something like "I'll trade white racists for immigrants any day.'
While Harper has two children (no mention of what happened to the father, and whether he is white or not), the trend of unintentionally childless women seems to foment favoring violent men of color over civil white men because the bad boys of color are their proxy CHILDREN. The children they never had.
I would argue that much of what's gone wrong in this matriarchal hell is caused, in part, by unintentionally childless white women's "nurturing" their poor, downtrodden, men of color babies. What mother doesn't unconditionally love her wayward sons? What mother doesn't harbor the belief that if only she loved them in just the right way, their bad boys will turn out fine?
And there's certainly something very sexy about the very masculinity that they find so "toxic" in white men. At the same time, just about every ad features a white woman with a black man. The status this confers is real.
On a similar note, most of the white people I know from grad school did not have their own biological children. They adopted brown children. This elevates their status in the matriarchy. What "good" people they are, so capable of loving those not their own! No dirty biology for them!
This has even spread to my working class sister-in-law. As it's looking like my nephew will marry a Nigerian woman, my sister-in-law is salivating at the prospect of having mixed-race grandchildren. How GOOD this will make her look! How OPEN-MINDED! How NOT RACIST! No plain white grandbabies for her!
For several years, as a side-gig I edited romance novels for a well-known publisher (now defunct). Although the more descriptive term is "mommy porn," men simply call this stuff "trash" and never read it, but the romance genre is immensely popular with women and provides a wide-open window to the Western female mind.
Ninety-five-plus percent of romance novels are written by women. The themes are nearly always the same - the beautiful-but-haughty young woman who meets a rugged, 6-foot-plus, muscular man who tames her - whether it's a no-nonsense cowboy who unceremoniously throws her across the saddle and applies the reins to her bare backside or the lusty pirate who has his way with her over and over until she realizes that she's in love with him and he's exactly what she craves in a man - and needs.
No, the Alan-Aldazation of the Western man - although the Very Thing Western women believed they wanted - defies every fundamental of evolution, where in times past a strong man's protection often ensured the survival of the weaker female and her offspring. The feminists' inner demons are no surprise, unless perhaps to them. Maybe at some point the pendulum will swing back toward the centre. It had better hurry; men have had more than enough.
Spot on, as usual. Feminists are indeed concerned only with their personal standing within their ideological community. They have no genuine concern for the victims they ostensibly champion. In as far as they have motivations beyond the selfish, it is the purely negative motivation of prejudice. Feminism is, as we know, profoundly anti-social via their explicit policy rejection of the two-parent, heterosexual family. But cases such as that discussed in the article illustrate how seriously contrary to the interests of society is the wider feminist psychological perspective. Personal ideological standing is everything to them, and so their impact on society at large plays no part in their thinking. The dominance of this type of thinking within the elites is the cause of the rising authoritarianism we now see across the whole Western and Anglophone world. The narrow obsession with their personal standing within their own elite circles blinds those in power to the catastrophic effects of ideological policies upon society at large, including national economies. Feminism has played a major role in creating the conditions for this trans-national authoritarianism, both directly and by being an exemplar and prototype. So claims such as “climate change is a feminist issue” are indeed true, but not in the sense these fools intended. And anyone voicing opposition is an ignorant deplorable – by definition because they announce themselves to be anti-elite. And so this is how the world ends: not with a bang or a whimper, but with the triumph of the snobs.
There was a once time that if a wealthy family had an 'unfortunate' child who wasn't the sharpest they would send them into the church for a career. All they had to do was recite cant from a book, act holy and the church would look after them and they'd come to no harm. These days they're sent into the media.
Someone save us, please, from the upper middle class simpleton do-gooders.
Reading this story I come away with the distinct impression Mary Harper has 'daddy issues'. Not to mention the screamingly obvious Freudian undercurrents. Nice work Janice.
Janice, thanks for another outstanding piece. I'd just like to pick up on this line:
"In fact, it is not unusual for women from a heavily feminized society like Britain to find themselves attracted to men who are hyper-masculine, even violently hyper-masculine."
As with so many public sector lines of work, the Prison Service is enthusiastically recruiting prison officers who are anything but white and male (their recruitment posters never include white men). This leads to stories like this one we posted a few months ago, "Britain’s raunchiest prison: Scandalous jail where an incredible 18 female staff were fired or quit after having affairs with inmates is suffering a ‘destabilising’ staffing crisis because of the sheer number of illicit hook-ups":
https://j4mb.org.uk/2023/09/03/britains-raunchiest-prison-scandalous-jail-where-an-incredible-18-female-staff-were-fired-or-quit-after-having-affairs-with-inmates-is-suffering-a-destabilising-staffing-crisis-because-of-the-s/
Furthermore, there has been an explosion of drug taking in prisons in recent years. Often female prison officers are found to have smuggled drugs (and more) into prisons, secreted... erm... in their nether regions.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk