The misogynist left

[catduckgoose]

I'm on the left and have been all my life, but I've been thinking a lot recently about the misogynist strand of leftist politics and how it is that their views cluster around so many women-hating beliefs, such as:

1. TWAW and gender ideology - seeing male desires as more important than the needs of women and girls.
2. Glorifying sex work - disregarding the physical and mental harm to women, in favour of what best supports male lechery.
3. Uncritical support of Islam - ignoring the inherent misogyny and violence of men against women, and using oppression narratives to excuse this.

The last one there has been a huge amount of in the past few days in context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I made the mistake of watching war footage of Hamas' brutality, particularly towards women (Shani Louk video is absolutely horrifying), and then I see people on the left, mostly men, defending all this as a just cause and crying 'Islamophobia' to anyone disagreeing.

The frustrating thing is those who promote these views don't even recognise their misogyny and sometimes even try to twist it to paint anyone criticising these views as misogynist!

Anyway I just wanted to open a conversation about this and was wondering if anyone else feels the same and has other examples of similar beliefs amongst the misogynist left.

Have you read any of Chesterton's political stuff, Realityfan? He talks about that quite a lot.

Not sure who that is. I realise I sound a bit Guido Fawkes/Breitbart here. My politics has softened in many ways since my ThatcherBoy libertarian phase in 80s and 90s, and my New Atheist mindset is currently on total reappraisal.

I was quite the anti Israel socialist as a teen, anti Jew as an atheist, not anti Semitic as such, just saw no future for humanity for religion to survive. To this day, I have bad feelings about religious schools (lived for two decades next to Stoke Newington, knew someone who worked in a Hacidic school), went thru my anti Catholic phase when the receipts on pedophile scandals were cashed, and then the growth of Muslim influence in the West, our cosying up to Wahabi Saudi and Qatar influence, the super Mosques in Europe, Muslim inspired gang violence in Sweden etc, our inability to quickly deport Abu Hamza a decade ago.

As these attitudes hardened, so came in the new "atheist" religion/caste of intersectionalism, luxury beliefs, trans rights at the head of the queue.

Now, I'm assaulted by established religions with real world consequences of failed multi culturalism (as opposed to individual cultures which all have credence)...and we can see how much support Hamas have from their Muslim communities over here (check out video from Israeli embassy in London)...and now our new values-free codified caste-based neo-religion, where the merest microagression casts you to Hell, but you can wear a BLM t-shirt with paragliders on it, and shout "Gas the Jews!" and your fellow travellers will laugh along.

...or be a prick as JKR has Tweeted to the, um, prick, who's been obstructing women's entry to FiLiA, and have progessives fawn over you.

My point is that Starmer has successfully quashed the anti Semitic element in his party, but they're allowed to threaten Rosie Duffield and the LWS women in Liverpool last week and FiLiA just now.

And so discussions on women's rights, migration, and even NetZero, are so politically correctly massaged into meaningless soundbyte drivel and management speak by all the parties, there's nothing to divide them.

And when you then see previous "combatants" like Ed Balls and George Osborne chummying it on air, you just know that politics is a compromise and there's only one direction of travel, fake quotas here with Labour, fake liberties there with Tories.

Draw distinctive policies on women's rights that align with the 51%? Not on your life from any of them.

Excellent points, @RealityFan .
Women's rights are at risk. As pp pointed out, if you are an Iranian women campaigning against the hijab, does that make you a fascist?

Well, not to you or me, or any normal person. But on the Luxury Beliefs-addled "progessive" Left, their cosmic Top Trumps game says they are fascists.

I think that is a consequence of our electoral system- that you have to appeal to so many people to get elected that you can't scare the horses. I think, if nothing else, at least Labour are talking about electoral and Lords reform. I know that is a minority concern among the electorate but just having a fairer voting system will shake up politics so much and have a bearing on everyone's lives. Especially if parties have to actually work together in coalition for the long term. Not like the Israrli system but something like the German dystrm which keeps out the extremes.

And look what the German system has produced? The worst energy policy in Europe, totally dependent on Russia, and the most ferociously anti women Self ID law.

I'll take our system anyday.

The alternative to PR though is what we have now. Two parties formed over 100 years ago, coalitions of groups of people who hate each other and have little in common using the other side to try and sneak into power and no hope of change. At least if you had a form of PR there would be a chance ofvsomethingvfifferent, and some long-term ism, instead of parties lurching from one term to another. The Germans may have made some stupid decisions but they have also made long term decisions that have taken their economy from the ashes and made them the most successful country in Europe.

I'm beginning to think the rule for MPs should be what the old joke used to be about social workers: anyone who actively wants to be one should automatically be disqualified from consideration from the job.

The political class and those reaching the top of the political parties are the problem. It's not that they do not have real and serious talent in the lower ranks; it's that only the chocolate tea pots high on pomo wankery are permitted to rise.

The problem with coalition governments that tend to arise with proportional representation is that nothing ever seems to get done - amidst interminable bickering - as is happening in Germany right now.

@RealityFan ”And look what the German system has produced? The worst energy policy in Europe, totally dependent on Russia, and the most ferociously anti women Self ID law.

I'll take our system anyday.”

Very wise. The Scottish Parliament is elected using same system of PR that’s used in Germany and it doesn’t have an unelected second chamber either, it’s been an absolute shit show. And to think some people people really want to see Labour do that to entire UK..,

I don’t think people get what they’re gunning for

It’s concerning how we’re getting to where we are

I'm genuinely surprised that the Scottish system is the same as the German system. I obviously didn't know as much about it as I thought.
I can't think of a way to change politics in this country without a shakeup of the party system or some way of getting new parties involved, or getting fairer representation in Parliament. We have crappy MP's and weak choices How on earth do we change that? I thought the answer was PR but I don't know now after reading some of your answers. I wasn't that bothered about coalitions as it shouldnt be beyond the wit of MP's to he able to work together but the situation in Scotland is not great, and hasn't, from the outside looking in led to a representative or even competent government.

I think that regardless of whether it's a good system, it should be put to the British people in a referendum.

Perhaps someone could say that Britain is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy.

But we haven't had a say on that part of our democratic system either.

It's kind of difficult to say that we have legitimate government, because people got elected, when we never had a say in the basic constitutional system in the first place.

I know we did get one referendum on the voting system because of the Lib Dem and Tory coalition, but the Lib Dems sold out for power and the Tory Party would only agree to let it be on something that no one even wanted.

I disagree that the Lib Dems sold out fir power. They are the most prominent PR party, and the only ones who could have formed a coalition with was the Tories. The numbers wouldn't have worked any other way. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have not gone into coalition when the result of their own policy would have been that every government would have to be a coalition. They kept the Tories in check. You could tell that Cameron was shitting himself when he got an overall majority because he knew he would have to do a referendum on Brexit. Everything has gone to shit since then. I do agree they capitulated on a rubbish system of PR though. I'm not sure how many people care enough to look into the different PR systems for axreferendum. Maybe we need to address voter apathy, especially amongst the young, but this has been an age old problem

@Angrycat2768 Yes Germany and Scotland both use AMS as their form of PR. But that’s not important. Think about what PR actually does, PR takes power away from the voters and gives it to the party leaders and you get run by an elite bubble.

All ruling governments with parliamentary majorities are coalitions. The Tory Party is a coalition. The Labour Party a coalition. These parties have their different factions and these factions agree a manifesto and the public return one or the other based on a manifesto that they are supposed to stick to.

Under PR these parties would break up, each large fraction would become a party and no one party would get a majority. So after every election the very first thing that would happen is each party would throw its manifesto in the bin and the party elites would negotiate with each other behind closed doors and see if they could find a majority amongst themselves for a program for government for the next five years.

Instead of getting a program for government based on a manifesto that the plurality voted for you would get a program for government that nobody voted for decided upon behind closed door by party elites immediately after each general election. And you really want that?

Scotland has had quite a shake up in recent years with Labour, which had weighed its votes for 70 years, being deposed and the SNP taking over.

The first Parliament did see some small minor parties elected. I do not have any flag to carry for the Lab/Lib coalition or the first Salmond government but people seemed to think they did a reasonable job.

The shitshow started when Sturgeon got into bed with the insane Greens.

PR is not the whole of the problem.

The shitshow started when Sturgeon got into bed with the insane Greens

It does seem in that set up the tail wags the dog and it becomes less democratic

Good points. I always felt that it would be better to have smaller parties who were honest about their manifestos, and then have a wider variety of opinions I Parliament, but yes, you could just have people imposing what they want after the fact. I know both parties have their trajan horses in them. Which is what I was uncomfortable with. But I suppose this way you don't have to listen to your lunatic fringe ( unless you are the Tories and beholden to the ERG)

@Angrycat2768 They could be as honest as they liked with their manifestos but that would be irrelevant because manifestos would be irrelevant because no program for government would ever be based upon a manifesto ever again. The U.K. last had a coalition in 2010-2015. Both parties binned their manifestos and governed according to a new document called the coalition agreement that they drew up themselves behind closed doors. The public didn’t get to vote for this document. In the document both parties agreed to bin pledges that were very important to their voters. The Lib Dem’s agreed to bin their policy on tuition fees and the tories agreed to no referendum on EU membership. Both these policies were key for many of the people who voted for those parties.

Imagine Labour put no self ID in their manifesto and came first place at the General Election with say, 42% of the vote. Under FPTP you would likely get a Labour government that would probably stick to that. Under PR they would need to do a deal with probably with the Lib Dem’s and/or the Greens who might not be willing to accept that. It wouldn’t be up to the voters anymore it would be up to the leaders of the Labour Party the Lib Dem’s and the Greens collectively to decide. What do you think the outcome would be and how might you feel about it if you voted Labour based on a manifesto commitment not to introduce self ID?

The possibility that they might make an elected HoL, or a PR system, would be enough to stop me voting for any party. I think it would be a disaster.

The point above about manifestos is significant, and I'd also point out that some of the elected representatives in they system are no longer responsible to any particular set of people nor do they represent any concrete region. They are people large;y chosen by the party elite and they serve the Party.

It's backwards that in order to reduce the power of political parties people want to institute a system that centralizes power within parties to an even greater degree, and dilutes the voting power of MPs that represent actual citizens, living in a specific place, with the shared interests of those real people who live in that place.

The broadness of having two major parties does tend to result in broad approaches to policy and it can be slow and sometimes lack real innovation or daring. But it also means those parties really have to integrate a fair number of viewpoints and avoid ideas that are fundamentally divisive.

Chesterton was an English writer, an Edwardian, Catholic, Distributist, among other things. He's the fellow that described what's commonly called "Chesterton's Fence."

He gives the typical member of the ruling parties the names Hudge and Gudge, and says of them:

"I WILL WHISPER in the reader’s ear a horrible suspicion that has sometimes haunted me: the suspicion that Hudge and Gudge are secretly in partnership. That the quarrel they keep up in public is very much of a put-up job, and that the way in which they perpetually play into each other’s hands is not an everlasting coincidence. Gudge, the plutocrat, wants an anarchic industrialism; Hudge, the idealist, provides him with lyric praises of anarchy. Gudge wants women-workers because they are cheaper; Hudge calls the woman’s work “freedom to live her own life.” Gudge wants steady and obedient workmen, Hudge preaches teetotalism — to workmen, not to Gudge. Gudge wants a tame and timid population who will never take arms against tyranny; Hudge proves from Tolstoi that nobody must take arms against anything. Gudge is naturally a healthy and well-washed gentleman; Hudge earnestly preaches the perfection of Gudge’s washing to people who can’t practice it. Above all, Gudge rules by a coarse and cruel system of sacking and sweating and bi-sexual toil which is totally inconsistent with the free family and which is bound to destroy it; therefore Hudge, stretching out his arms to the universe with a prophetic smile, tells us that the family is something that we shall soon gloriously outgrow.
"I do not know whether the partnership of Hudge and Gudge is conscious or unconscious. I only know that between them they still keep the common man homeless."

~GKC: 'What’s Wrong with the World.'

Sure, I have some basic awareness of Chesterton, but not my strong point.
I do think we're at an inflexion point where the parties will diverge. But the Tories will have to lose big fir that to happen.

I'll follow up on Chesterton, thanks.

One of the problems is social media worsening the tendency to see everything through the prism of America. Do BLM know about racism in the Middle East? I once had a man from Abu Dhabi tell me he would marry his daughter to a white Christian before he married her to a black Muslim. Slavery from Eastern Africa was endemic well into the twentieth century, and some would say slavery continues in all but name today. The abuse and exploitation of African and South-East Asian people working in agriculture, construction and domestic service is off the scale.

It's the knee-jerk support for people who would revile everything about you that gets me. The support for terrorists who would kill or enslave you if they ever got the chance.

In the States, we call Hudge and Gudge "the Uniparty". All-pro-war, all the time.

Except for that nasty, evil cohort of MAGA reps who just took down - for the first time in history - the Speaker of the House. Over giving more money to Ukraine without putting it to a vote.

Here's a sweet song from John Denver:

@MNHQ Why did you ban LongLizStrikesAgain??? her posts were AMAZING. They are the only posts I have ever saves to read again! What did she say that was wrong.

There is nothing more sickening than witnessing amazing intelligent women being deleted and silenced, who have written extensive interesting posts.