Is he being unreasonable? "Women's rights were won at the expense of men"

[Rainbowshit]

twitter.com/billybragg/status/1462076809542094854?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdy

So says Billy Bragg. Is he being unreasonable? 🤬

He's completely right and not being unreasonable either.

Oh right, glad you popped by to put the silly wimins straight. No need to bother our fluffy heads by providing any evidence or reasoning, just tell us and that's that.

The calibre of our overlords is really quite depressing.

Typical left wing argument. Chop up the pie rather than making more pie.

He can do no other.

Don’t you think men said ‘what about our right to single sex spaces?’

That's the point he's making. Male only spaces and clubs were challenged

Men's single sex spaces did not exist for the purpose of protecting their physical safety from violence and rape. 95% of violent crime isn't committed by women. When that's the case, I'll absolutely stand up and protect single sex spaces for men.

The single sex spaces for men were not refuges, prisons, toilets where men were vulnerable. They were clubs and golf courses that they could use to further entrench disadvantage against women by excluding them from social settings often used to build business networks, and continue to engage in misogynistic "banter" without being subjected to the pesky challenges to this resulting from societal moves towards making such behaviour socially unacceptable.

Not remotely comparable.

My personal view is that if men like him hate women so much, we should ship them all off to an island where only men live, then they can live in their utopia. As long as it's understood it is a strictly one way ticket and that there is an absolute firewall between that island and the rest of the world so we no longer have to be subjected to their ignorant rants on the internet or by any other means.

It is true men lose rights over women as part of women gaining rights.

ah Billy and his white male privilege educating us women on the the facts as he sees them - total arsehole

Although men did lose the right to legally rape their wives - poor dears

Didn't they lose the right to rape their wives?those women, not wanting to be raped. How dare they.

He’s right in the same way that abolishing slavery removed some of the unfair ‘rights’ (actually privileges) held by slave-owners. I’m astonished that anyone has the cheek to demand such privilege now.

Humans are male or female; what is stolen from women is given to men. Males who claim a ‘right’ to remove women’s right to privacy are handing that right to all other males.

Trans ideology is male supremacism, pure and simple.

And men didn’t lose the right to rape their wives till the 1990s in the UK. Marital rape is still legal in some parts of the world. Obviously too, in many places women would not dare report a rapist husband to the police, so the law is unenforceable.

No wonder he was writing all those songs about how girls didn't want him. They smelt out a stone cold incel at first whiff. Men lost nothing they deserved or needed - so the right to own their wives' property rape them, and silence them, were indeed lost. But what kind of human being wants those rights?

Couldn’t have found a better gif

Because women excel often, whereas men used to get by being shoddy.

Exactly. Before women’s rights were improved, employers only had the male pool from which to draw employees, ergo mediocre men had a better chance of getting a job. Along came women and employers had a greater talent pool so could choose an able woman over a mediocre man.

The same happened with marriage. All the time it was the societal expectation that a woman would get married and be supported by a man, mediocre men could probably find a woman desperate enough to marry him. Now, thankfully, women can look at the available men, say “No, thanks” if none take her fancy and live an independent life.

Both of those scenarios lead to angry men feeling that they haven’t got what they “deserved” or had a “right” to. But it’s not the fault of women, it’s the fault of the mediocre men for being, well, mediocre.

What’s that old saying? Losing privilege feels like oppression if you have never known anything except privilege? 🤔

Words matter. And what you've said is wrong.

There was never any right for men to rape their wives in the UK - even prior to 1991. The case you are referring to was significant because it clarified what had long been accepted - that marriage was not a defence to the charge of spousal rape. It went to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords because after the defendant had been convicted, he chose to appeal his conviction - the first time this had ever happened. Part of his grounds for appeal was that he didn't actually rape his wife - he was convicted of attempted rape. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords upheld the conviction. Three levels of courts agreed that there wasn't, and never has been, a right of men to rape their wives.

Men were being convicted, and imprisoned, for raping their wives in the sixties, seventies and eighties - well before this case. The original quote, much cited, in which it was argued that conjugal rights provided an absolute defence against prosecution for rape goes back to the 1500s. And the context back then was all about whether denying conjugal rights annulled a marriage, and whether it was ecclesiastical courts or the state that had the power to annul a marriage. Remember Henry VIII? That's what the quote was actually a reference to. It was much cited and discussed as an oddity of the law, but it was never actually the law.

So in this instance, men didn't lose any rights, because this was never a right in the first place.

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

And it's so very true.

So in this instance, men didn't lose any rights, because this was never a right in the first place.

Except that - even if we accept your assessment of it - you admit that for thousands of years it was indeed considered a right. And that for just a few decades before a court - after much deliberation - deigned to clarify that it was indeed a crime, it was still an assumed right and never prosecuted or punished. How many men were sent to prison for raping their wives before that judgement?

These pathetic arguments will not wash. Men have subjugated women for thousands of years. They still do, to a great extent, even in the UK. Even more so elsewhere in the world. The idea that the poor men are being treated unfairly when the balance is redressed even slightly, when women's safety is protected just a little bit (although it does not stop men killing and abusing them, in a way that is incredibly rare for women to do to men), or that them having some rights which are often basically pretty much unenforceable to at least technically be able to have the same privileges as men in terms of careers etc, is somehow unfair to the poor men, is absolutely laughable. And no amount of whataboutery is going to convince anybody to get out the tiny violins for how sad it must be for you all to have to actually compete with women at work, to have to accept it when they say "no" and turn you down, to be expected to do your fair share of work in raising your own children, to not have women pander to your every need and view you as some sort of superior beings that we should aim to please and impress, to tell you that if you expect us to be interested in your opinions or company remotely then you'll have to treat us as equals, otherwise quite frankly you can fuck off to the other side of fuck.

Woe is me for not being allowed to treat half of the human race as inferior to you anymore, or an unwillingness to accept that STILL - despite the law - men are the largest danger to women that exists and men are responsible for this, and women will NOT feel guilty for pointing it out or demanding protections from that, and no it's not the same as wanting to be able to hang out with your male mates at a golf club without having to tolerate the presence of women so that you can behave in socially unacceptable ways in private. It will not wash. So just stop. Nobody is buying it. It's over.

How many men were sent to prison for raping their wives before that judgement?

For that matter, how many are now?

How many rapists are sent to prison, at all?

Your comments, @Mark19735 are disgusting, to put it politely.

From a position of privilege, equality looks like opression.

By rthe time all women got the vote ALL men had the vote.

To take your points, paragraph by paragraph, in order:

1. it is men who are invading women’s single-sex spaces. Some claim to believe they are women. But if they have the right to enter, all men will have that right.
2. Men lost the massive privilege of being the only humans who could vote. If you call that a right rather than a privilege, you would have to consider keeping slaves to be a right. Why would the ratio of male to female voters make any difference, except in matters of legitimate importance to women which were previously being wrongfully neglected?
3. I agree the current changes have a cost. But you’re not making the point you think you’re making. It is not women who want the removal of single-sex rights and services. These are being removed to allow male access. At great cost to women and children.
4. Women are not claiming that sex doesn’t matter. We are all aware that (a) women menstruate, get pregnant, lactate and go through menopause. These don’t necessarily cause problems, but sometimes make demands on us that we need to address. Men have nothing equivalent. (b) Far more important, women live in a world dominated by men, who are generally more physically powerful than us. Well over 90% of violent crime is committed by men, including about 97% of sexual assaults. Men sometimes sexually assault other men and boys, but women are overwhelmingly their main targets. THAT is why we need single-sex spaces. No decent man disagrees.

All of them, I believe.

I can't recall a single instance where a man has been convicted of rape by a UK court and not served time behind bars. At least not within the lifetimes of anyone posting on this thread.

Those who are accused of rape, but never prosecuted or aquitted, aren't rapists. That's the law. May not suit everyone's agenda, but having regard to evidence, data, and the rule of law are important foundations of a fair society.

And as to your previous post, I don't admit anything about the thousands of years or whatever guff you suggested. I made no comment about anything pre-Henry VIII. I said, quite clearly, that spousal rape has never been a right in the UK. I really can't imagine what you think you gain by arguing that it was, other than some weird vindication for fringe views that are full of misandry and not supported by any scientific or statistical evidence base.

Sometimes I think Mark is a secret double agent for feminism posting long winded tedious inaccurate posts purely so women can take the arguments apart piece by piece

@Ofcourseshecan - I do hope you aren't one of these posters who is so angry before they even start typing that they assume the post to which they are replying is hostile? That would be a shame, because I agree with almost everything you say.

Or maybe you share the characteristics of some others on here, who cannot look past the first four characters of my username without descending into a red-mist of man-hating rage that means they assume everything I post must be wrong. That too would be a shame, because I rather hope that you might agree with many of the things I've posted. There's some later posts I made, after the one you quoted, in which I make some similar points.

But to re-emphasise what I actually posted, here's your analysis with areas of mis/understanding corrected (on my part).

1. It is men who are invading women’s single-sex spaces. Not quite - it is some men, claiming to believe they are women, who are doing this. Those men are reviled by other men almost as much as they are by GC feminists. But if they have the right to enter, all men will have that right. That is indeed the risk, and why I agree with you - and also why I think that Billy Bragg is wrong to have framed the argument in the way he has. But the posters on pages 1 and 2 of this thread were misconstruing what his tweet actually said, and what it said wasn't technically wrong. Hating someone for their values or motives doesn't mean every point they make must be wrong.
2. Men lost the massive privilege of being the only humans who could vote. If you call that a right rather than a privilege, you would have to consider keeping slaves to be a right. I do indeed consider that the laws in force at the time of slavery were such that it gave slave owners legally enforceable rights. In fact, when slavery was abolished, slave owners were compensated for their 'losses'. Recognising that something is a right is not the same as saying it ought to be a right. The difference is nuanced ... something MN posters struggle with sometimes.
3. I agree the current changes have a cost. But you’re not making the point you think you’re making. This is exactly the point I was making, thank you. What's the opposite of mansplaining?
4. Women are not claiming that sex doesn’t matter ... THAT is why we need single-sex spaces. No decent man disagrees. I don't disagree either. My whole argument was that sex has always mattered. It's just taken the TRAs to reveal why to a generation of feminist men and women who have long argued that it didn't.

Why thank you.

Now that I've been outed, I better go hide for a bit. And anyway. it's nearly tea time ...

One thing we can all agree is that when certain groups do a crime they are highlighted and ramped up e.g. refugees. "All these refugees are rapists." When trans men do crime it is the time it is ramped up by the media. Why is the worry of refugees and trans so ramped up? Surely men of all colours and creeds do this but the media does not ramp it up as much.

I also think the debate becomes too extreme by either side. One side that denies gender and the other side acting as though every trans person is a danger. There has to be a middle ground were we should all strive to be. Trans people are normal people that just want to get on with their lives like any other group of people. There will always be bad people in every group, race etc..

Please provide references to cases in which men were imprisoned for having sexual intercourse with their wives against the women’s wishes, ie for rape rather than for physical violence.

In 1984, a report by the UK Criminal Law Revision Committee rejected a call for the offence of rape should be extended to protect women from their husbands:

"The majority of us ... believe that rape cannot be considered in the abstract as merely 'sexual intercourse without consent'. The circumstances of rape may be peculiarly grave. This feature is not present in the case of a husband and wife cohabiting with each other when an act of sexual intercourse occurs without the wife's consent. They may well have had sexual intercourse regularly before the act in question and, because a sexual relationship may involve a degree of compromise, she may sometimes have agreed only with some reluctance to such intercourse. Should he go further and force her to have sexual intercourse without her consent, this may evidence a failure of the marital relationship. But it is far from being the 'unique' and 'grave' offence described earlier. Where the husband goes so far as to cause injury, there are available a number of offences against the person with which he may be charged, but the gravamen of the husband's conduct is the injury he has caused not the sexual intercourse he has forced."

This ‘marital exemption’ to the law against rape was not removed until 1991.