Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Humza Yousaf’s misogyny law is a threat to women (by Joan Smith)

 

It couldn’t be clearer, surely: misogyny is fear or hatred of women. The fact that it has been left out of legislation against hate crime, including Scotland’s new law which came into force this month, has been widely criticised. Why shouldn’t women be protected in the same way as all the other groups who can now complain about a new offence of “stirring up hatred”?

It seems obvious, until you realise that some of the most prominent people pushing for misogyny to become a hate crime have another agenda. Scotland’s First Minister, Humza Yousaf, let the cat out of the bag when he revealed yesterday the real intention behind the SNP’s proposal to bring in a standalone law on misogyny.

Yousaf claims that men can be victims of misogyny — and that they’re as or more likely to be targets than women. “Trans women will be protected as well, as they will often be the ones who suffer threats of rape or threats of disfigurement for example,” he said, offering no evidence for the assertion. This only confirms that the Scottish government’s capture by gender ideology remains unshaken by the publication of the Cass Report last week.

On the contrary, Yousaf doubled down, repeating one of the most cherished illusions of trans-identified males. “When a trans woman is walking down the street and a threat of rape is made against them, the man making the threat doesn’t know if they are a trans woman or a cis woman,” he claimed.

Very few men who have gone through male puberty are able to “pass” as women, a fact revealed by constant complaints from trans women about being “misgendered”. One of the first things we notice about another human being is their sex, and understandably so — because men are responsible for the vast majority of violence against women.

Now Scotland’s most powerful politician is telling us that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women. Not just that: he is arguing that a law against misogyny is needed to protect the very people who categorically cannot experience it. The novelist J.K. Rowling was quick to make the point, opening a new front in her ongoing war of words with the First Minister.

“Once again, Humza Yousaf makes his absolute contempt for women and their rights clear,” she declared on X. “Women were excluded from his nonsensical hate crime law, now he introduces a ‘misogyny law’ designed to also protect men.”

It’s even worse than that. A law against misogyny is a Trojan horse, as feminists have repeatedly warned. Trans women don’t need additional protection because they’re already covered by existing legislation. Yet politicians who call for misogyny to be made a hate crime, such as the Labour MP Stella Creasy, have always insisted that it would apply to trans-identified males.

It’s a backdoor way of getting the courts to recognise “gender identity”, creating another opportunity for men to be addressed as women in the criminal justice system. Misogyny is real and it affects every woman, but the law should not be misused to affirm men’s “inner feelings”. Do we really want to risk a ludicrous situation where a gender-critical woman finds herself in court, accused of misogyny by a man who claims to be a woman?


Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She has been Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board since 2013. Her book Homegrown: How Domestic Violence Turns Men Into Terrorists was published in 2019.

 Humza Yousaf's misogyny law is a threat to women - UnHerd


 


 

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 (by Stanley Kunitz)

 

I have walked through many lives,

some of them my own,

and I am not who I was,

though some principle of being

abides, from which I struggle

not to stray.

When I look behind,

as I am compelled to look

before I can gather strength

to proceed on my journey,

I see the milestones dwindling

toward the horizon

and the slow fires trailing

from the abandoned camp-sites,

over which scavenger angels

wheel on heavy wings.

 

Oh, I have made myself a tribe

out of my true affections,

and my tribe is scattered!

How shall the heart be reconciled

to its feast of losses?

 

In a rising wind

the manic dust of my friends,

those who fell along the way,

bitterly stings my face.

Yet I turn, I turn,

exulting somewhat,

with my will intact to go

wherever I need to go,

and every stone on the road

precious to me.

In my darkest night,

when the moon was covered

and I roamed through wreckage,

a nimbus-clouded voice

directed me:

"Live in the layers,

not on the litter."

 

Though I lack the art

to decipher it,

no doubt the next chapter

in my book of transformations

is already written.

I am not done with my changes.

 

(The Collected Poems, W. W. Norton, 2000)


Tuesday, April 9, 2024

Nihilism: The Biggest Challenge Facing Gen Z - Konstantin Kisin

 

How to spot the next mania Each new panic follows the same playbook (by Lionel Shriver)

In the late Eighties and Nineties, the psychiatric profession became infatuated with “recovered memory”, which was conceived in the US but also captivated Europe, including Britain. Practitioners claimed that patients sexually abused as children would naturally repress any recollection of their suffering as too painful, but therapists could employ specialised techniques to retrieve these terrible experiences and so heal the patients’ trauma. As a profusion of books, articles and documentaries cultivated a larger cultural fascination, the recovered memory juggernaut resulted in countless adults “remembering” early childhood abuse, usually by parents. Patients would exhume recollections of having been subject to parental rape or oral sex when they were babies. Accusations followed. Families were torn apart.

In hindsight, it’s now accepted that the therapists were frequently implanting these “memories” in their suggestible patients. Recovered memory was a social mania — a.k.a. a moral panic, social contagion, mass formation psychosis, or mass hysteria. In the throes of the popular delirium, many people found this exercise in psychic archaeology wholly convincing (and no little titillating). For a few years, recovered memories were even accepted as factual testimony in American courts. Only from a distance does the sordid psychological dowsing look barmy.

For me, since roughly 2012, what has therefore been more disturbing than the content of any given hysteria is our continuing susceptibility to collective derangement, which can spread and take hold with alarming rapidity in a digital era. To examine the unnerving phenomenon of the communal fever, often destructive but rarely contested at its height, in my most recent novel Mania I invented my own. Suddenly everyone accepts that all humans are equally intelligent, and “cognitive discrimination” is “the last great civil rights fight”. In other words, there’s no such thing as stupid. Because that assertion is itself stupid, my concocted mania seems apt.

Within the astonishingly short time frame of 10 years, I count four real-life collective crazes: transgenderism, #MeToo, Covid lockdowns (which spawned sub-crazes over masks and vaccines), and Black Lives Matter. I also worry we’re already in the grip of social mania number five.

Take trans. Gender-identity disorder was not that long ago an extraordinarily rare psychiatric diagnosis largely constrained to men. Abruptly circa 2012 — on the heels of such a successful crusade for gay rights and even gay marriage that homosexuality became passé — a profusion of television documentaries hit our screens about little boys who wore dresses and played with dolls. Fast-forward to the present, and the renamed diagnosis has exploded by thousands of percent across the West and now pertains abundantly to girls. Teachers tell toddlers that they have to decide whether they’re a girl or a boy or something in-between. We’re subjecting children to powerful, life-altering experimental drugs and surgically removing healthy breasts and genitals, even at the cost of permanent sexual dysfunction and infertility. “Some people are born in the wrong body” has become a truism, which sounds to me as medically credible as phrenology or bloodletting.

The social mania displays a few consistent characteristics. First and foremost, it never seems like a social mania at the time. In the thick of a widespread preoccupation, its precepts simply seem like the truth. Trans women are women; get over it. Or: masculinity is toxic; virtually all women have been subject to sexual torment and male abuse of power; regarding any accusations they make, no matter how far-fetched or petty, women must be believed. Or: Covid-19 is so lethal, and such a threat to our endurance as a species, that we’ve no choice but to shut down our whole economies and abdicate our every civil liberty to contain the disease. Or: all Western countries are “systemically racist”; all white people are genetically racist; the police are all racist (even if they’re black) and should be defunded or abolished; the only remedy for “structural racism” is anti-meritocratic, over-compensatory racial quotas in hiring and education.

While the seeds of a mania have often been planted earlier, for most ordinary people it comes out of nowhere. Transgenderism rocketed to a cultural fetish over a matter of  months. After one fully fledged creep was exposed as a serial sex abuser, #MeToo spread on Twitter like potato blight. Literally overnight, citizenries in March 2020 took it for granted that their “liberal democracies” could justifiably deny them freedom of movement, assembly, association, press and even speech, while many became eager enforcers of the chaotic, despotic, and sometimes positively silly new regime. It took only a few days for George Floyd’s death to trigger huge protest marches all over the world. This hyperbolic response to a single undeserved killing in a one mid-sized American city was partially fed by the pent-up frustrations of whole populations under house arrest during Covid. But for Koreans to troop down the streets of Seoul chanting, “Black lives matter!” when the country has hardly any black people was insensible. Likewise, Britons chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot!” when their constabulary is unarmed. Moreover, all these recent examples illustrate how moral panics have become more international in scope than ever before.

Manias are fuelled by emotion. The cult of trans has capitalised on our yearning to seem enlightened and compassionate.  It has been presented as the logical next step after gay rights, the movement plays on our craving to feel ultra-contemporary. #MeToo both fed off and promulgated resentment, self-pity, and vengeance; in standing up to abuse of power, it tempted some women to abuse their own power to ruin men’s lives. Covid lockdowns stirred primitive terror of death and contagion, until we came to view other people as mere vectors of disease. BLM stimulated the nascent Christian proclivities for guilt, repentance, and penitence even in the secular, while offering black people opportunity to vent frustration, self-righteous fury, and even hatred. All manias thrive on our desire to be included by our own herd and on our anxiety about being exiled — or, if you will, about being UnHerded.

Because a proper mania brooks no dissent. In its grip, everyone believes the same thing, says the same thing, and even uses the same language. A quasi-religious fervour makes anyone outside the bubble of shared obsession seem heretical, dangerous, insane or outright evil. Opponents of lockdowns were granny killers; the unvaccinated were pariahs who shouldn’t be allowed to fly, eat out or obtain healthcare, while some argued “anti-vaxxers” should be imprisoned or put to death. Their rhetoric and affect often violent, transactivists tar critics as murderers; not long ago, writing a single discouraging word about the mutilation of children would end your career. (Self-protectively, I kept my own journalistic mouth shut for a good four years; most journalists are still prudently bumping along on the trans bandwagon.) Women who expressed reservations about the indiscriminate sweep of #MeToo were traitors to their sex. In 2020, even tweeting “All lives matter” got you sacked.

Manias are prone to grow increasingly extreme, accumulating evermore casualties before collapsing from their contradictions. Stalin’s show trials, Cambodia’s killing fields, Mao’s cultural revolution, obviously Nazism; the eugenics movement in the West (which we like to forget), the rage for lobotomies, and the paranoia about Satanism in day-care centres and the contagion of multiple personality disorder of the Nineties — all these misguided infatuations got worse before they imploded.

Hula hoops were harmless, but most manias are malign. The trans movement has warped primary school education, demented our culture with confusion over biological reality, condemned thousands of children to painful surgery and pharmaceutical side-effects, encroached on women’s privacy, and corrupted female sports. #MeToo contaminated relations between the sexes with such mistrust that it may have alone lowered the Western birth rate, while destroying the careers of countless men whose sins were at most venial. Covid lockdowns ravaged our economies, fuelled inflation, and exploded sovereign debt, while damaging the prospects of a generation of school children. BLM has exacerbated racial animosity, demonised meritocracy, and fostered a wasteful, parasitical managerial class of DEI enforcers whom it will be laborious to get shed of.

Yet both the priests and disciples of moral panics are driven by good intentions. They genuinely believe they are doing God’s work. Aggressively virtuous, “wokeness” is one big bundle of mania.

Some hysterias die an easier death than others. Although the fragile, whiny accuser of a US Supreme Court nominee was once heralded as awesomely “courageous”, Christine Blasey Ford’s recent memoir has drawn weary disdain. Ergo, #MeToo is over. Nevertheless, a social frenzy seldom subsides because its agitators announce they were addled, just as the masses of ordinary people caught up in the derangement seldom acknowledge having been led astray. Everyone simply moves on, only to become consumed by something else.

There’s rarely an identifiable point at which a mania is debunked (barring a world war or counterrevolution). Few will recant, much less apologise to the victims of their excesses. A funny amnesia sets in, as forgetfulness is more palatable than shame; the Chinese have simply erased the cultural revolution from their history books. Occasionally, when folks outside the dogmatic bubble prosecute, the cheerleaders of utter tosh are called to account. We did have Nuremburg, and the belated Pol Pot trials in Cambodia. By contrast, the UK’s farcical Covid inquiry is conducted by the same establishment it’s investigating. The subsequent report may criticise single politicians for not having locked down sooner, but it can’t conclude that the lockdowns were a cataclysmic mistake, lest practically everyone at the top be implicated.

Once manias die down, most people pretend they never believed these things to begin with. Having contracted Covid five or six times post-vaccination, multiply boosted mRNA fanatics aren’t prone to advertise their vicious denunciation of the unvaccinated only two or three years ago — any more than recovered memory patients are inclined to advertise that they destroyed their relationship with their parents over an erroneous psychiatric fad. We like to think that we’re “modern” (and what peoples in the present have ever fancied themselves otherwise?) and that we base our beliefs on fact. But we’re just as prey to mass delusions as we ever were.

Accordingly, how’s this for mania number five. It isn’t a mania; it’s just the truth: check. It’s suddenly all anyone in the media seems to talk about, and they use all the same language: check. It’s powered by emotion: check. It brooks no dissent, refuses to acknowledge there’s even a debate to be had, and doghouses all sceptics as evil “deniers” who will bring about the end of world: check. It’s malign, getting increasingly extreme, and is driven by the very best of intentions: check, check, check. I’m not about to get into the argument here, but the escalating hysteria over climate change — or the climate “emergency”, climate “crisis”, or climate “collapse” — displays all the markers, does it not?


Lionel Shriver is an author, journalist and columnist for The Spectator. Her new book, Mania, is published by the Borough Press.

How to spot the next mania - UnHerd


 

Climate The Movie

 

65% of young British Muslims oppose Israel’s right to exist (by Archie Earle)

 

Two-thirds of young British Muslims believe Israel should not exist as a Jewish homeland, according to a major new poll.

Based on a survey of 1000 British Muslims, an astonishing 65% of the religious group aged 18-24 said they did not believe Israel has a right to exist. Within the 45-54 demographic, the percentage of those who agree with the statement is almost half that, at 34%. Across all age groups, the proportion who agreed with the statement is 49%.

The J.L. Partners survey also found that 80% of respondents in both the 18-24 and 25-34 brackets believe that Israel is a racist endeavour, compared to 67% in the 55+ age category, suggesting younger British Muslims have far stronger views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.


These results come six months after Hamas’s 7 October attack, where public opinion has gradually hardened against Israel since. As early as February of this year, more Brits sympathised with Palestinians than with each side equally for the first time since the beginning of the war. As of March, 28% of Brits sympathise with Palestine more than Israel, whilst 27% sympathise equally with both sides and only 15% sympathise more with Israel.

According to the JLP poll, more than a third of respondents aged 18-34 said that they view Hamas positively, and over a quarter said they have a favourable view of jihad.

The JLP poll also asked respondents about attitudes toward various social issues including homosexuality, Christianity in public life and the influence of Jewish people in society. The findings show that 36% of Muslims in the 18-24 age group believe that Jews have too much power in the media and financial sectors, while 44% think Jews have excessive influence over government policy.

These findings arrive at a fraught moment in British Muslim relations. Nearly three years on from the Batley Grammar School incident, Dame Sara Khan published a report on the threats to social cohesion in British public life. It found that there was “a climate of fear” being created at some schools as community faith leaders had aggressively interfered in school teaching, while schools had not been given sufficient support to combat the problem.

The JLP data suggests that a substantial number of British Muslims may show similar hardline views. Of Britain’s young Muslims, 59% believe it would be very or somewhat desirable to make showing a picture of the Prophet Mohammed illegal, with 33% saying that implementing Sharia law in the UK would be desirable.

According to the 2021 census, Britain’s Muslim population currently stands at 3.9 million, making up roughly 6.5% of all UK citizens. This was up from a population of 2.7 million in 2011, when the Muslim population made up 5% of British citizens.

After three British aid workers were killed in an airstrike that hit a World Central Kitchen convoy, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has come under increasing pressure to take a tougher line on Israel. He responded to the deaths by calling on Benjamin Netanyahu to look for a humanitarian pause which will lead to a “long-term sustainable ceasefire”.

On Sunday, Netanyahu responded to calls for a ceasefire by suggesting that Israel was “one step away from victory”, and that no truce would be achieved until Hamas has released all hostages.

65% of young British Muslims oppose Israel's right to exist - UnHerd