Since the 1970s, encouraged by feminism, the liberal political establishment has been pursuing a covert campaign to demonise male heterosexuality. This has been gradualist and incremental, the objective being, through a relentless repetition of negative associations, to fix in the public mind that male heterosexual behaviour is by its very nature intrinsically predatory. Thus, it is argued, measures need to be taken for it to be curbed. The mindset and strategy of this agenda is outlined below.
This agenda has reached its current apogee with the decision of the Marxist inspired EU puppet regime in Scotland to carry out a pilot scheme to replace jury trials for rape with a single judge. So it is worth considering the background as to how such a controversial proposal has been allowed to enter the political mainstream. It would also be useful to examine whether there is any linkage between the gradualist attack on male heterosexual behaviour and increasing liberal political support for the homosexual lifestyle.
As outlined in this blogpost http://bit.ly/2woxAZd society, at the time when male homosexual activities were legalised, was openly hostile to what were widely regarded as clearly deviant sexual practices. MPs supporting decriminalisation were mainly concerned about the threat faced by homosexuals from blackmailers, and none of them endorsed homosexual activity as being in any way normal or acceptable. They would have considered it inconceivable that society would ever want to ‘celebrate’ homosexual behaviour as a matter of ‘pride’. So, at that time, it would have been impossible to mount a direct attack on male heterosexuality, but as support for the homosexual cause increased it had the insidious effect of undermining commonly practiced aspects of male heterosexual behaviour.
Until the rise in feminism the political left opposed harsh sentences for criminal offenders. They took the view that the disadvantaged background of many offenders played, at least in part, an explanation as to why they had turned to crime. Thus the left generally supported lenient sentences, in contrast to the right who wanted tougher sentences. This was also a time of increasing sexual liberation and the left took a tolerant and indulgent attitude towards sexual activity in general.
So it came as some surprise that left wing feminists started to demand action to curb the greater availability of pornography. By today’s standards this was less hard core and more restrictive than what is available today through the internet. Opposition to pornography had previously been a concern of the right, and the battle against it was one of the main planks of Mary Whitehouse’s crusade against permissiveness. Feminists argued that pornography 'objectified' women, encouraging the assumption that they were little more than the sexual playthings of men. They feared that exposure to pornography fostered an image of women that depicts them as mere 'sex objects' and that this puts them at greater risk from rape and sexual assault.
Campaigns by militant feminists became more vocal and extreme, seeking bans on anything they defined as pornographic, some going so far as branding all men as rapists. The suspicion arose that a militant lesbian man-hating nucleus within the feminist movement had a hugely disproportionate influence on feminist thinking. What is not in doubt is the manner in which obeisance to the feminist credo became a core value of the liberal political class.
Following the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between adult males over 21 it came as an unwelcome surprise to many, when homosexuals, or 'gays' as they now chose to describe themselves, quickly started to openly parade what many considered to be a deviant lifestyle and to claim further rights and 'equality'. Events moved at such a pace that that by the late 1970s appeasing the gay lobby became one of the main planks of the politically correct agenda. 'Gay Pride' marches, gay council committees and gay propaganda in schools were all introduced with relatively little resistance.
Feminists are aware that they form only a very small proportion of women, and many lament this fact. But because they are backed by the liberal establishment they have an influence far exceeding their numerical strength. One striking feature running through feminist thinking is the sense of insecurity such women feel about themselves. They seem to suffer form a collective persecution complex which they then blame on the 'patriarchal' society which supposedly oppresses them.
However, it would be a mistake to dismiss feminists concerns out of hand. Some make valid points about the behaviour of men, notably their predilection for aggression, belittling insults and even violence over relatively trivial issues, and their judging of women through the prism of their sexual appeal. It is to be hoped that this assessment does not cover the majority of men, but alas it is likely to include a sizeable minority. In this respect men do need to get their house in order and try to become more like true gentlemen, a concept that is in danger of becoming obsolete in our society's increasingly crude macho vision of masculinity. Women have to some extent themselves to blame by their poor choice of men. It is unfortunate that the more loutish men seem to have the least trouble in attracting women, too many of whom dismiss more considerate and sensitive men as wimps.
Over the past four decades or so we have moved from the criminalization of homosexuality to a position where the criticism of homosexuals can be deemed a 'hate' crime. The promotion of 'gay' rights has been a fundamental component of the cultural Marxist agenda to transform and subvert a once well ordered society.
One of the more enduring delusions subscribed to by many in society is that liberals are more understanding, open minded, progressive, caring, thoughtful, enlightened, sensitive and broad minded etc, than those nasty, reactionary, knuckle dragging right wingers. This belief is particularly strong amongst the younger generation yet to be mugged by reality. In practice liberals are totally opposed to any dissent from their orthodoxies and use many tried and tested methods to maintain control over society to achieve their ends. Sometimes they do it openly through legislation and regulation. This is at least an honest way of achieving their objectives but it does have one drawback in that it risks opponents repealing these measures in the event that they gain power. A much better method is to create a climate of hostility towards those they wish to marginalise or demonise.
One tactic used by feminists is to portray all men as potential sexual or violent predators. For some time now, since the early seventies, their main focus has been on exaggerating the numbers of rapes and domestic violence they have suffered at the hands of brutish males. Alas, some men do live up to this stereotype but the numbers are far smaller than the feminist agitators would have us believe. But in the past decade or so they have discovered a new stratagem which has much broader appeal than amongst the usual feminist/agitprop activists. This is to brand all men as possible paedophiles. By using this scare they can recruit a much wider support base embracing tabloid newspapers and the more neanderthal elements amongst the 'chav' population, which in this country is now a quite a sizeable category of persons.
Modern feminism has its roots in Marxist thinking and thus it has been uncritically accepted by the politically correct elite who control British institutions. Opposition has been minimal to this incremental agenda. Most men are cowed into silence and are reluctant to voice their concerns about what is going on. Only a relatively small minority of women are openly feminist and thus they are unrepresentative of the vast majority of women, most of whom take a common sense attitude towards the opposite sex. Nevertheless, because of the enormous influence wielded by feminists, their orthodoxies are regarded by the liberal establishment as near unchallengeable. Feminist distortions are repeated endlessly without serious examination or challenge, with the end result that the public are now beginning to accept them as truth. Men will need to find their voice if they are to avoid being branded as sex offenders in increasing numbers under this new puritan regime.
The decision in Scotland to abolish juries has a very clear aim. It is to increase the conviction rate of men charged with rape. Feminists have been concerned for some time that the conviction rate in rape cases has been significantly lower than for other offences. This is put down to juries believing so called ‘rape myths’. But the reality is that there is a wide gulf on what constitutes rape between the average member of the public and feminist agitators who peddle the ‘rape myths’ viewpoint.
The whole purpose of juries is that the criminal justice system should reflect the outlook of society generally, rather than being hijacked by a vocal influential minority in pursuit of an agenda. From the feminist perspective the problem with juries is that they cannot be manipulated. But this consideration does not apply to judges, who will come under enormous pressure to increase the number of convictions. Those failing to deliver this agenda will inevitably find themselves on the receiving end of feminist denunciation. Once the principle of juryless trials has been conceded there will be agitation to widen them to include all sexual offences, and for ‘crimes’ of political dissent known as ‘hate crimes’.
