Of men…and frogs!

The temperature goes up a few more degrees, but all is well in the world.

The bias in the laws of the United Kingdom, at a time of supposed sex equality, becomes more blatant by the day, but nobody seems to care. We see these laws affecting relationships, we see them affecting marriage, we see them affecting healthcare, we see them affecting almost everything else. It goes on. And will go on. It will go on forever…or, until one half of society has everything, and the other half has nothing. Or, until somebody steps up to the table and puts a stop to this constant appeasement. And stops governments giving in, and giving in, and giving in… In the name of God, go!  Where have we heard that before?

As someone has said, women have now been weaponized. Laws are biased in their favor to such an extent that being involved with them at all for men is now positively dangerous. One would expect this in laws that were effectively written by feminist activists, and which, moreover, seem not to have been given sufficient scrutiny before being passed – something for which a male MP was vilified for demanding a short while back. “Unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement…” How does a man know a verbal approach is going to be unwanted? “Considered to be by the subject, or observed by another party…” So, the subject might not wish to take matters further, but a feminist activist is free to punish the man on her behalf.

Marriage law has been gradually re-written over the past thirty years or so, to the point where only a wife has privileges and entitlements, and a husband only has obligations. If anything goes wrong, it is her comfort that comes first, even if it is she who has caused the breakdown. It is the husband who has to leave the home, even if he has paid for it. And the recent divorce law – brought in by a Conservative home secretary, of all people, and against public opinion – has given him even less time to find a new place. If a wife isn’t happy with the great power successive governments have given her, she can allege domestic abuse. There is no risk in it for her if she is found to have lied at a later date; nothing at all will be done to her. The husband, meanwhile, will be removed from the home immediately, and be charged with a criminal offense if he tries to return. And, whereas she has cut him loose, and wants nothing more to do with him, his financial obligations to her remain.

I shall never forget watching Jess Phillips tell Philip Davies that he could have his “men’s day” when women got equality in the house. It was good of her to admit it is she who decides what parliament allows, a fact borne out by the trembling male politicians in the room. They looked like Soviet apparatchiks at a Stalin speech day. At any moment, I expected one of them to clap. The problem with that was the others would have had to follow. And the problem with that would have been that none of them would have wanted to be seen to be the first to stop. So, it would have gone on for some time. Phillips, like her sisters, blames past male British cabinets for problems of the past. But previous British male cabinets did treat women rather well. They may have looked after their own landed interests first, but they didn’t put women far behind. Every law they introduced had clauses to ensure women were not disadvantaged by it. The group they treated least well was the other males of the realm. The law banning women from working down mines was not to protect men’s jobs but to prevent women from getting lung disease and being killed in roof falls. But we need coal! Okay, let men take the risk. And that is just one example of how most men came last.

British justice too has been eroded by a constant pandering by successive governments to feminist demands. The re-writing of the sex offenses act by Harman and her friends to ensure by any traditional definition of the word females cannot be charged with rape of males, is one such case. Next, was the removal of anonymity of males accused of rape. It is a potentially life-destroying allegation that can never be entirely lived down. But that was not enough. Next, the victim (actually accuser – this is an egregious example of feminist word-creep), was thought to find being seen in court so stressful that rules were changed to allow her to remain behind a screen. But that turned out to be too stressful too, so now it is planned to allow her to record her testimony. Will that be the end? No, of course, it won’t. Nor will whatever arrangement follows. Governments have simply not woken up.

The latest – at least I think it is the latest – of these feminist-inspired laws – they are coming thick and fast right now – will protect just one half of the population, it seems. The misogyny law will protect women victims only. As regarding demands that this law should be gender-neutral, and protect both sexes, the Law Commission said, “There was little evidence to suggest that criminal targeting against men based on hostility or prejudice towards their gender is prevalent or causes additional harm. I thought the call was “kill all men!” Not, “kill all women!” So, that’s it, is it? The Law Commission has spoken. (How do they know, by the way? Was there a survey? If there was, I missed it.) Which, of course, is the same as saying there is little evidence that male breast cancer is prevalent, and so we should ignore it, and, presumably, not treat it.  In any case, how would making this law gender-neutral and giving our men and boys the same protection as women and girls reduce the protection the Law Commission thinks the latter needs? It wouldn’t, of course. What it would do is give our men and boys equal rights with women and girls – not a feminist aim – and possibly put the occasional hateful feminist at risk of arrest. That won’t do, will it?

And how is the general male part of the population responding to this gradual erosion of their status, their safety and their rights? With equanimity, it seems. If it is aware of what is going on at all. Whilst only several hundred appear to be viewing the recent series of videos published by J4MB (The Justice for Men and Boys website), which cover the above issues at length, millions will pull up the sports results, and tens of thousands more will view the latest Drachinifels video, and engage in lengthy discussions about subjects of import such as the muzzle velocity of the Japanese eighteen-inch naval gun of World War Two.

The temperature of the water goes up, up, and up, and all is well in the world of frogs.