To be alarmed at the number of women who are throwing support behind causes that are clearly anti-woman?

[DorothyGaleFromKansas]

With the recent threads about flags/immigrants and Charlie Kirk etc, there seem to be a bewildering number of women supporting causes that directly go against their own interests, and it’s baffling and frankly a bit disturbing.

Reform have voted against tougher laws on stalking, sexual harassment and upskirting, against clamping down on revenge porn, and against further protections in the workplace. Farage cited Andrew Tate as “an important voice for men”.

Then you have Trump, who was found to have committed rape, forced himself into changing rooms where teenagers were undressing, made sexual comments about his own daughter, not to mention 34 other felonies, and that’s before we even get to the Epstein files.

Charlie Kirk said that women should only vote if they were voting for the candidate chosen by their husband, that women shouldn’t go on to higher education unless it was to find a husband, that women should have to submit to their husbands, and that little girls as young as 9 or 10 including his own daughters should be forced to give birth to babies conceived as a result of rape.

What has happened to us that there are so many women willing to endorse attitudes like this? And how do we fix it?! How have we sunk so low that there are women who think this is what we all deserve? It’s terrifying.

The bekind lobby are often anything but @ThatBlackCat- don’t take any of it personally

Well OP.

To answer your question, there was this book, and an apple, and allegedly a talking snake, and unfortunately it gained alot of political traction before there was politics, and people of both sexes are now confused, fearful and as humans can't appear to sort anything out, they're casting about for answers from "higher powers".

Unfortunately "higher powers" are actually humans who want what they want, and the ends justify the means.

While some may truly "believe", others will manipulate and capitalise on the "beliefs" for their desired outcome, usually money and power.

We're mired in actually wars, rumours of wars, and largely manufactured wars, and everyone wants to be on the winning side, and if we have to "compromise" along the way, the "collateral damage" is totes worth it for the material gains and the kudos.... and the clicks.

Couple of other observations - historically there are swings between "excess" and "puritanism" throughout most of civilised history. Attempts to stabilise things are always hampered by perceived and often engineered inequality.

Then we have disaster capitalism, and the basic principle of capitalism which is to sell solutions to problems, and when they run out, invent new problems.

We have sex wars, "gender wars", race wars, religious wars and resource wars all being ramped up with the added toxicity bred by the possibilities afforded by the Internet to propagandise every aspect of life, and then capitalise on it.

And there's also alot of paradoxical shit going down too. The Ourobouros is a symbol for a reason.

No, I have no answers. It's just me, my cats and withdrawal, until they actually start witch burning again. Which is how regressive I fear we are becoming.

Sometimes I think I might pop down to the Winchester until it all blows over......

Please realise that people can read your posts. You said she wasn’t well. My suggestion is that you lay off the personal slurs.

Honestly this is just noise. I’m not going to engage with you further as it’s obviously detrimental to you, and what you are saying has no basis in reality. I genuinely think you should take a break from threads like this. These sort of exchanges just show how toxic extreme beliefs can be, and the effect they can have on vulnerable people.

Thank you. It's hard not to at times. But I just remind myself that their lack of humanity is what they have to live with. It must be really hard living in their skin.

That’s not a ‘slur’. It’s an observation which I stand by.

It doesn't even have to be a man in a dress. It could be any man.

Once you open up women's safe spaces to one group of men, you cannot police that. How are any of us supposed to know if the man in the ladies 'identifies as a transwomen' or not? It just runs a coach and horses through any safeguarding.

It’s not an “observation”. It’s a personal slur on her mental health.

Do you really think women standing up for their legally protected single sex spaces is an 'extreme belief'?

Seriously?

It is.

As I have an audience, I'll continue...I also think feminism has been unfairly discredited in the popular mind.

Many feminists thought that if (Western) women had a better role in "public" life - as workers, MPs, leaders, opinion-makers - this would benefit women and help make society more equal. It really hasn't - in most cases, women don't get further in the workplace but still have all the work and stress of managing the home. A lot of this is because women stepped up and men didn't. But the blame fell on feminism for not fixing everything.

In much media nowadays, feminist solutions are not presented as the way forwards.

How is saying it’s not a trans problem but a male problem, an ‘extreme belief’?!

The “extreme belief” is the idea that a group of men should be classed as women.

Agree. One of the anecdotes most misrepresented was the comment about black pilots. The OP contends that he said he wouldn’t get on a plane with a black pilot. What he actually said was that if the pilot was black he would wonder if he was properly qualified or had been part of the DEI appointments. He said very clearly that he himself hadn’t questioned the qualification of black pilots up until the the policies of the left forced people to consider it. He also said that the underlying assumption of DEI was that black people somehow needed a lesser standard - a free pass - and that that was racist in itself. Not the same thing as ‘I wouldn’t get on a plane with a black pilot’ at all.

There’s lots of these sound bites all over social media - the Guardian printed a lot of his quotes with no context at all, and the list was quoted somewhere upthread. Context is everything, and misquoting to support your own agenda isn’t helpful. It just gives his supporters a platform to refute.

I don’t agree with the vast majority of what Kirk said, but if you care to look, the evidence for misquoting is everywhere. One liners taken out of context, or with no context provided. It doesn’t help the arguments against his opinions and gives his supporters a platform.

One of the obvious ways we can demonstrate that it’s a male issue and not an issue with someone identifying as transgender, is trans men. Who are, clearly, biological women. GC women in general have no problem sharing single sex spaces with other biological women, however they identify. Especially as the majority of trans men in the UK are vulnerable girls and young women.

So, when we talk about women’s rights, we mean women. All of them, all the female humans however they identify. We don’t recoil in horror at someone expressing “transness”, we recognise their biological sex and react accordingly. Trans women are biological men and as the SC confirmed, that means they are not permitted to use single sex facilities and services. GC women are still having to stand up and fight to get organisations to actually comply with the law.

Labour has taken away choice for SEN families by the addition of the 20% VAT on private schools as the small school option that provided answered the problem for a large number of families for whom the 20% additional fee makes it unaffordable.

My understanding was that the VAT exemption applying to goods and services directly benefiting disabled people would be applied to private schooling where appropriate.

Because it doesn’t suit everyone’s agenda - including that of the OP. You can cut and paste one liners from many sites to support whatever agenda you have, but in many cases, when you provide the proper context it changes the meaning of the quote and no longer supports what you’re saying.

OP has said several times over several threads that Kirk said he would force his ten year old daughter to have the baby if she became pregnant by rape. What actually happened was that he admitted he was thrown off by the question but his reply was ‘That’s awfully graphic, but the answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.’ He later clarified that protecting his family as a good father also meant upholding the philosophy and values they live by, even when circumstances significantly challenge them. His point was that you practice what you preach to others and you don’t abandon your principles because they are challenged by difficult personal circumstances. I don’t agree with him in this particular circumstance but the general principle is valid.

Agree.

The more that the self-righteous Left continue with this attitude of “I can’t believe those that disagree with us are so stupid”, the more they will lose influence and popularity.

I think the reason so many women align with the Right now is that, despite the freedoms won by women in the West over recent decades, many women are fundamentally unhappy with life, as evidenced by the mental health crisis amongst young women, and what liberal society has delivered for them (debt, loneliness, stress, lack of culture/community etc), all with the expectation they should be grateful for it!

They hate the expectation that they must be strong, independent “boss” women who should prioritise their career over caring for a family, all whilst having the culture and community that supported their mothers and grandmothers - which gave vital meaning and purpose - denigrated and undermined in the name of progress and atoning for our imperial past.

You can pick holes in the above all you like… say women who think like this are wrong, stupid, ungrateful… but you won’t win the argument that way, you’ll just accelerate the rise of conservativism in our society. Perhaps try some empathy, and maybe the “baby won’t be thrown out with the bath water!”

There’s another thread full of rhetoric like this. I’ve never seen so many posts where people are talking about throwing themselves to the wolves because of ‘the left.’ Honestly, part of me is at the point of ‘go on then, have fun.’

Financially - I’m probably better off with a right leaning government but because I’m not a total twat I actually care about other people. But fuck me, as I’ve just seen said, you lead a horse to water…

And yet you just double-down with the refusal to acknowledge the issues by dismissing women who lean right as effectively crazies intent on self-harming… and bizarrely with your “go on, have fun” quip you don’t seem to appreciate that any right-wing government we do get won’t just impact those women who vote for it!

Then to add insult to injury you imply that anyone who votes for a right-leaning Government is a “total twat”.

And you wonder why the “Left” is losing the battle for hearts and minds? However, I honesty don’t actually think many on the Left care though, as long as they can feel smug wallowing in their own virtue, the world around them can go to hell.

I’m a little confused here @Plastictreees i thought this was a thread to discuss women who support misogynistic people/ideologies. What can be more misogynistic than men telling women who or what is a woman?

No, no, no Nelly. Not that misogynistic ideology. You're supposed to support that one. Because reasons. Do keep up.

You first. Why is the 0.05% that fits your agenda more important than the 99.95% that doesn’t?