Slaughtering women & girls is *not* terrorism, according to the police

@MaidOfAle A depressing thought. Not sure any of us will live long enough to see abusive men turned around y their flying monkeys.

1. A woman can't change a man, so this is doomed to fail.
2. The Disney telling of BatB doesn't actually show Belle changing the Beast, it shows the Beast's servants helping him to change himself to become a man worthy of Belle's love.

In developed countries this is heavily enabled by largely privileged women play acting beauty and the beast, where their loving understanding and enabling of a difficult and different man who ill treats everybody will give them lovely feelz while angelically transforming said men into....

well. Not raping, battering, sexually harassing, exposing themselves to, removing the resources of, excluding and destroying the sports of other women.

It's not working. They're not turning into grateful shining knights either.

The damsel in distress saved by the brave knight is a very old trope.
Within less developed societies, this extends to a Rapunzel complex with females (not women, as the hero is needed to enable the female to fully develop) locked away until a worthy man can 'rescue' her.
It is terrorism to try to make women feel unsafe and drive them out of public places. Increases in the academic performance of women, their becoming the majority in university, medical schools and professions makes the options for socially awkward adolescents and men narrower and increasingly precarious.
I very much hope that the Paris Olympics becomes a turning point as men beating women is now an IOC approved Olympic sport as biologically male boxers - banned from other forms of the sport - are fighting women.
The fight must be for penis-free public places, without the presumption that women must always accommodate the wishes of a loud and aggressive minority.

The 2015 election manifesto, as pdf, for that party I linked in my previous post. https://web.archive.org/web/20170910125441/https%3A//j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2017/09/141228-V10-General-election-manifesto-RGB.pdf

You wanted a political party with a manifesto that takes away women's rights? Here you go: https://archive.ph/BIPf9

Archived because I don't want to drive traffic to the original site.

My sister left her husband because he started looking at manosphere stuff and, as she put it, "he was looking at me like the enemy" and his entitled behaviour started ramping up.

This is obviously horrible, and so glad your sister recognised what was happening.

But they didn't convert him. He took the decision to find these men.

They just provided an online space where he felt able to openly express what he already felt.

Obviously if the "manosphere" is shown to have a manifesto that wants to over through the Government, repeal all rights for women, and no longer prosecute men for violence against women, etc., that would be different.

Because it is society that is producing these violent men. They aren't recruited by manifestos online or in person. They exists because society forms them.

Except that, online, some are recruited on websites for incels and "red-pilled" men and "men going their own way" (mgtow).

These new online gathering spaces are empowering men to ramp up the misogyny from what you describe, which has always been there, to new heights. My sister left her husband because he started looking at manosphere stuff and, as she put it, "he was looking at me like the enemy" and his entitled behaviour started ramping up.

They encourage each other online.

Terrorism is about threats to "national security" and no way in the current culture would anyone think that women are important enough to have the elevated status of violence against them being an issue of national security.

Hate crimes are about where an act of violence is aggravated because the motive for that action is about "hate" prejudice against a protected characteristic.

And as we know society doesn't think women are as important to be protected as other characteristics (except also disability).

Sometimes it can seem that male violence against women in closer to genocide - please see definition of genocide:

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

But in terms of connotations, and the need to make it clear that this is about women as the target group, I think femicide is the best word.

Because it makes it absolutely clear it is about women. And for those still niggling on about TW, femicide would be covered by the SSE.

After all there would be no way of knowing if a TW was targetted whether it was because of presumed sex or gender re-assignment.

But all of these words mean nothing because what is being illustrated is that despite decades of campaigning about violence against women, society doesn't care.

Because it is society that is producing these violent men. They aren't recruited by manifestos online or in person. They exists because society forms them.

And not in any way want to diminish the sheer horror of what happened in that dance class, this is relatively rare, compared to DV.

For instance the recent murder of 3 adult women didn't lead to threads about VAW as being terrorism.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/07/10/uk-manhunt-launched-after-3-women-killed-with-a-crossbow_6680291_4.html

If an attack is proven to be an organized effort by an incel group, then yes, it's terrorism.

Usually incel attacks on women are made by one asshole and are not an organized effort. Like Elliot Rodger, for example.

SO if you can show some incels are actually trying to influence public policy wwith these atatcks, sure.

Would Eliott Rodger's manifesto suffice for this? It's easily searchable, I refuse to link it.

Remember that most terrorist groups have an associated "reasonable-seeming" lobby group or political party attached, e.g. the various political parties in Northern Ireland during The Troubles each having terrorist paramilitary groups attached.

Incels are the angry hot-head terrorists of a broader "manosphere" that seeks to remove women's rights. Look up the likes of A Voice For Men and Fathers4Justice as the "reasonable-seeming" lobby groups.

I don't think radicalization necessarily equates with/leads to terrorism. I think in some cases what scemes like this are looking at is group behaviours that lead to movements that may be political or just have similar means of trying to influence people in socially dangerous ways. So it's a slightly wider scope intended to nip potential problems in the bud.

There is a good reason to have certain laws that deal with terrorism on a strict definition. In part, such laws exist to differentiate terrorists from standing armies or insurgencies. Of course sometimes the latter in particular is in the eye of the beholder, but it can make a difference, for example, to whether people are subject to law of war, or domestic laws, etc.

I don't think that's clear. It's not their political opinions that make it terrorism, it's the purpose of the action.

A person can want certain political things, like for example, racial segregation, or an Islamic court, etc

Now, that person could launch an organized violent attack of some kind with the intent to create political pressure. That would be terrorism.

But that same person might attack people of a different race, or whatever, simply because he didn't like them, or even because he has a short temper and gets so worked up about the issue he loses his bottle at normal interactions, or because he is a psycho and thinks its ok to treat those individuals as he please. Or he could even attack the same person for reasons completely unrelated to any of it, like a sexual or money issue.

SO if you can show some incels are actually trying to influence public policy wwith these atatcks, sure. But a protest or just hatred or whatever isn't terrorism no matter what his political opinions.

Men/males Claiming to be Women.
Men/males who Claim to be Women.

What does MCW stand for please?

Perfectly summed up.

Unfortunately because

a) men don't like women having boundaries that are inconvenient to them and they're the ones who make the laws and have the power

and

b) the court system and police wouldn't have time to pursue it all or do anything else.

and

c) whenever this is considered, it's immediately commandeered by gender ideological political lobbies whose main aim is to create a misogyny law in such a way that it mainly would work as yet another weapon for men with gender identities to beat women with.

Agreed

Terrorism is not only about national security. What a farce.

This was done to intimidate the public (not speculation).
And with ideological purpose (my speculation is that this is "male superiority belief")

Definitely terrorism if this is the case.

They are just so, so bloody predictable.

Who are carrying out attacks? Men. Who are turning up to riot 'in protest'? Men.

I don't give a shit what we call it. The problem is pretty clear.

And yes, online incel recruitment is definitely treated as radicalisation and is referred to Prevent. See here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/individuals-referred-to-and-supported-through-the-prevent-programme-april-2021-to-march-2022/individuals-referred-to-and-supported-through-the-prevent-programme-april-2021-to-march-2022

There were only 77 referrals in the report above specifically for incel radicalisation, however I suspect a large proportion of the 1300+ referred for far right radicalisation would also have a strong element of incel/MRA - the two seem to go hand in hand.

VAWG by incel/MRA types would be considered terrorism in certain circumstances (outlined above), just as any ideologically-driven violence would be. Incel online behaviours are one of the leading causes for Prevent referrals. If the suspect in this case is found to have carried out an ideologically-driven attack (whatever that ideology happens to be) he will likely be charged with terrorism offences in addition to murder and attempted murder.

In other words you are allowing male ideology to minimise what you want to do.

In giving up in this way you are colluding with the problem with society which is what men say, goes.

To allow the definition of woman to include men who claim to be women is agreeing that what men say, goes. Because you would be agreeing that men can be women if they say so and also that they should be included in a law to protect women and girls.

I'm opposing it because including MCW as women is a way to further embed in law the idea that a man can be a woman. Not least because it would include self-ID "women" and not just males with a GRC. I thought that you, like me, abhorred the concept of legal sex, so why would you want to extend its scope?

And whilst TW claiming they have experienced misogyny and not doubt gets lots of headlines, I can live with that because compared to the many, many more instances of murder of women and girls by men as femicide, fueled by misogyny being reported, is of far greated signifigance.

It's not about headlines. Going by what has happened in other jurisdictions where such laws are in force, MCW will benefit at the expense of, and to the detriment of, women. Women will not benefit at all, because the misogynistic soup we swim in will still be there - women at risk will still be fobbed off, while the police will jump to investigate ribbons and stickering. A law which included MCW as women would make it easy for the police to say they were taking misogyny seriously, while still pandering to men and ignoring the dangers and risks to women.

Thirdly, in the current climate, it's highly likely that hurty words would be included in the definition of violence and we all know where that leads. Calling a man a man would be a crime. Calling an actual woman a man is not misogyny, but for some reason it is when the "woman" actually is a man. It's a weapon to force women to accept men as women. There is no interest in protecting women - that's not what such a laws are really for.

If a sensible law was passed, MCW would be protected in the same way as all men would be - ie if they were targeted because the attacker thought they were female. Not because they themselves thought they were female.

A misogyny law passed by this government in this climate would be a disaster for women and would have far-reaching effects. Much better to put pressure on the government to take women's lives more seriously. That part of your post I do agree with, although I profoundly disagree that passing a law to make misogyny a hate crime would have the right effect.