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 the grandparents, and the siblings and the teachers and the girls' best friends... Did I miss anyone else out?!

Sorry for centering the feelings of the mothers on a feminist forum, I'll try harder next time.

It's just a spiteful thing to say when these aren't theoretical children, they're real children. And yes you're still being pathetic about it.

I agree with every word of your post!

No, it means that men at a population level benefit, not necessarily at an individual level.

OP you have actually made me really question my understanding of the world....violence against women IS racism, with the police NOT classing this as racism is a real flipping problem. I really thought I was really understanding of the world, not well read (another thread) but this has floored me, how absolutely right you are, wow, thank you

It's usually only called terrorism when there's a Muslim doing it, I've noticed.

Men benefit in aggregate during their lives from the oppression of women and girls. Yes, when it's his daughter who is targeted, he loses out, but all the times it's an unrelated woman targeted, he gains. Evidence of this is how most men don't even think about how men sexually harass women until they have daughters, when suddenly they start to care a lot.

Like the fathers, the mothers of these girls have also lost their daughters. Unlike the fathers, the mothers lost their daughters without the lifelong benefits acrrued from not having to self-exclude and self-limit whilst 50% of the rest of the world gets out of their way.

I don't really understand the insistence of taking words for something quite specific, and claiming them for another use because it's seen as somehow giving them more gravitas.

Terrorism Is violence against civilians in order to pressure governments and states into certain political policies. Which is to say, the idea is that in order to stop the violence, the state adjusts it's policies, or the population pressures the state into that in some way. That's what it means.

Violence against women might be terrifying, that doesn't' make it terrorism. There's already been far too much pressure applied to the word in order to manipulate politics, there really is no need to screw around with it further.

My theory on this is that there are no punishments for hate crimes against women because they would have to charge every rapist and domestic abuser with a hate crime.
Hate crime cases are more complicated and take up more resources in the justice system.
It's easier and less costly to just give rapists and wife beaters a slap on the wrist as they always do.
Disgusting.

I tend to agree. The applicable term is hate crimes.

Laura Bates writes on this issue, and its worth a read even if i dont agree with every conclusion.
There is a definite reticence to label male violence against women as terrorism, even though (in my mind) it is targeted violence intended to change the behaviour of women and diminish our autonomy.
I have no idea why misogyny and VAWG doesnt fall under terrorism when there are so many mass killings

As has been said over and over again, terrorism is about acts of violence to in some way try and undermine Government and it policies.

It is about 2 sets of male ideology squaring up against each other.

And again has been said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter eg Mandela.

Violence against women is not about state politicies. It isn't about conflicting male politics. It is about ALL MEN. It is about the dominant sex group, men feeling entitled to be violent against women.

So there are no "good" men standing up against "bad" men (as in terrorism). It is about the fact that in all countries, male violence against women is treated as normal.

And this is evident, not because of what does or doesn't happen in courts, but because society, ie not just Governments, do not care enough to do anything about it.

Every man who has committed an act of violence against a woman is someone's son, someone's brother, someone's grandson, someone boyfriend, someone's husband. ie society is sheilding these men from facing consequences of their violence, because society does not make these men and boys feel shamed to have behavee like this.

ie society condones these men.

Terrorism is absolutely irrelevant.

The issue is when is society, ie people as a whole, going to make it impossible for any man to have a place in society because he is known to be violent against women.

Let's not forget a child rapist is being allowed to take part in the Olympics.

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public.

The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

The problem is that this is exactly the job the police don't do. The Home Office has been spinning a variety of lines badly - with terrible consequences.
The CPS want a case that will lead to conviction, they couldn't care less what charges, plea bargains and watered down charges in return for guilty pleas are part of the furniture.
Many possible explanations will not be allowed to be publicised to protect Yvete Cooper's political sensibilities.

Sing it, sista! Great post.

Exactly this. “Terrorism” isn’t a synonym for “the worst possible kind of violence”. Saying something isn’t terrorism isn’t to diminish it. Male violence against women is something different, something that needs to be properly understood if we are to find ways of stopping it.

The Collins dictionary defines terrorism as the use of violence to achieve political aims OR to force a government to do something.

So MVAWG could definitely be classed as terrorism. My caveat is that not all instances of the current epidemic of MVAWG are terrorism.

We know he is male.

Just as in the vast majority of cases.

That's (mostly) what this discussion is about.

Men are the problem. Race, religion, nationality, neurodivergency, mental health, are all distractions from the fact he is male.

The media does not like to analyse the universal problem of males, because it makes males look bad.

I get it now, terrorism is a threat to national security.

Yvette Cooper has been home secretary less than a month. The previous government are the ones that broke the police and justice system and didn't give a shit about women. HTH.

Incels want State-issued brothel vouchers and to decriminalise rape, amongst other things. They are absolutely pressuring Govts to remove women's rights through violence.

If incels aren't considered a terror group then are their recruiting methods treated as radicalisation?
IDK what it takes. They recruit disaffected men, they write manifestos, they want to make women utterly subordinate, they particularly hate feminists, and they support using violence to get what they want.

And also commit acts of mass murder, and glorify men who do these things.

Incels are terrorists. It's illuminating how uncomfortable describing them as such is for the authorities. Maybe because if you scratch the surface a lot of common or garden murderers hold or express similar views.

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.

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.