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

[YellowAsteroid]

Well, what is it then, when women & girls are targeted because they are specifically girls & women ?

Just your common or garden slaughter?

I'm so so angry about the way in which the regular murder of girls & women because they are female is not seen as political, or a terrorist action.

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.

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.

They are just so, so bloody predictable.

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.

Agreed

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.

Perfectly summed up.

What does MCW stand for please?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

There are a number of other serious, violent crimes that do not fall under the specific definition of genocide. They include crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and mass killing. https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide

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

They encourage each other online.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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