Harriet Harman's Game Of Hate

Harriet Harman has managed to climb high in her career in much the same way that feminists the world over have managed to empower themselves over the past few decades; basically, by stirring up both a hatred towards men and a fear of men; in other words, by demonising men.

Throughout the whole of history those who have sought to become more powerful have demonised others in order to further their ambitions. The idea behind this is to make their own supporters - or potential supporters - feel under threat from some 'out-group' whilst also claiming that they can protect their supporters from this out-group, provided, of course, that they are given enough support; money, votes, status, muscle power, weaponry (legal or military) etc etc. Demonisation also results in an increasing state of disharmony between the in-group and the out-group and so further demonisation becomes much easier to achieve; as well as self-perpetuating.

The Catholics have demonised the Protestants and the Muslims. The Muslims have demonised the infidels and the Jews. The Nazis demonised the Jews, the gays, the blacks and the gypsies. The Americans demonised the Russians, the Arabs and the Vietnamese. The Romans demonised the Barbarians, the Gauls and the Anglo-Saxons. The Greeks demonised the Persians. The left-wing has demonised the right-wing. The religious have demonised the atheists.

And vice versa - in most cases.

On and on it goes.

they can empower themselves enormously by demonising their very own people

Well, what has happened over the past few decades is that many feminist-dominated western governments have discovered that they can empower themselves enormously by demonising their very own people - particularly their own men. In other words, they have discovered that they do not need to demonise an out-group. They can demonise an in-group instead.

And, to this end, they have used every means possible to portray their targeted group - in this case, men - as wicked 'abusers' of some sort. 

The idea behind this is to justify huge increases in their own powers by claiming that they will use them to protect women in some way.

Generally speaking, the feminist part of the trick goes something like this.

The world is full of misogynists conspiring to keep women 'in their place'.

Feminists like Harriet Harman and her left-wing cronies in government conjure up the completely spurious notion that women are being hard done by in some way. For example, they claim that women are being cheated out of fair pay in the workplace. They are being abused, assaulted and raped, here, there and everywhere. All sex-workers are abused victims - even if they get paid £300/hour. The most dangerous place for a woman is in her own home. Women are being discriminated against when it comes to their health and their education. The world is full of misogynists conspiring to keep women 'in their place'.

These are all lies and exaggerations - though often based on minor truths; to buttress their claims - but the idea is to stir up in women both a fear of, and a hatred towards, men, in order to justify huge bureaucratic empires of control allegedly designed to protect women from the various evil machinations of men.

Thus, for example, Harriet Harman will claim that women are not being paid the same as men for doing the same jobs. She is lying; but with support from her friends working in, for example, the Equal Opportunities Commission and in the media, the message will go out to women that they are all being cheated by their wicked men.

Harriet Harman  promotes the dissemination of lies via the Equal Opportunities Commission and her friends in the government and the media

Just like the lies concerning Saddam's WMD in order justify the Iraq war, Harriet Harman  promotes the dissemination of lies via the Equal Opportunities Commission and her friends in the government and the media concerning the gender pay gap in order justify her war on 'men'. 

'Women', of course, are outraged by this alleged pay gap. And so Harriet Harman proclaims hither and thither that she will do something about it and, for example, prosecute those employers who are not paying women the same as men - and so the women flock to vote for her.

But it is all a set up. A sham.

There is no gender pay gap due to discrimination.

The only sense in which there is a pay gap arises from the fact that women choose less often than men to do jobs that are worthy of greater pay. Indeed, survey after survey shows that millions of UK women would prefer to stay at home and bring up families while their partners got on with the job of funding them. This lesser desire - statistically speaking - of women to seek jobs which require too much in the way of effort will, on its own, lead to a pay gap. But this gap will not be due to discrimination. 

Another way of looking at the typical nonsense propounded by the likes of Harriet Harman can be seen in the annual Wimbledon Tennis Championships. The men and women winners have nowadays to receive the same reward money; but the women only have to play 60% of the sets that the men play, and they also pull in a smaller audience.

Thus, when it comes to Wimbledon, the amount of pay is no longer related to the amount of work or to the amount of profit that a player produces. The number of matches alone is all that counts.

Well, basically, the same sort of thing is happening in the workplace; with the feminists continually re-defining 'work' in all sorts of weird ways in order to continue producing phony gender pay gaps; which they can then continue to make a fuss about.

In a nutshell, the feminist tactic is this.

Enrage or worry 'women' over some phony issue, and then claim that you will do something about it.

Enrage or worry 'women' over some phony issue, and then claim that you will do something about it. And then watch the 'women' flock to support you in some way.

This is a tactic that has been used time and time again by the feminists in all matters relating to gender.

Now, simply in order to keep this piece short, I am not going to detail the evidence relating to all these different matters, but this evidence will be forthcoming on this website sometime soon. And so, for the moment, you will just have to bear with me as I outline below some of the ways in which feminists like Harriet Harman have deceived the public and have demonised men simply to profit themselves.

Domestic Violence 

Harriet Harman makes no mention at all of male victims.

Harriet Harman has spent much of her time in parliament and elsewhere stirring up hatred towards men by suggesting that women in the UK are subjected to appalling levels of domestic violence. And so, for example, she will tell us with monotonous regularity that "two women are killed every week" by their partners. This is, indeed, true; but when it comes to 'domestic' violence and murder, there is not much difference between the annual number of male victims (about 70) and female victims (about 100). But the male victims are very rarely mentioned. For example, see one of Harriet Harman's main speeches as Solicitor General to police chiefs, and/or one of her speeches for ethnic minorities to observe that Harriet Harman makes no mention at all of male victims.

There are no male victims according to Harriet Harman's rhetoric, and there are also no male victims when it comes to her government providing any real help to victims of domestic violence. 

men often behave violently precisely because the law is stacked entirely against them

Furthermore, while she is forever trying to give the impression to the public that domestic violence is, "a crime which is a throw-back to when men expected to be the boss and were entitled to control their wives and entitled to assault them," the truth is that men often behave violently precisely because the law is stacked entirely against them when it comes to relationship disputes. Without the law to help them, men will often resort to violence in order to try to "bring their partners around to their point of view".

In other words, men are very often reacting with violence as a result of all the demonisation and the consequent discrimination that they nowadays have to endure.

And women would do the same if the law happened to be heavily biased against them - particularly if they were likely to lose their homes and children during a relationship dispute.

 it is men, not women, who truly make up the majority of victims of domestic violence.

Furthermore, it is men, not women, who truly make up the majority of victims of domestic violence. But most of the public will remain unaware of this because one of the feminist tricks is to exclude from the category of 'domestic violence' many of those hostile acts that are typically perpetrated by women against men. 

For example, when a man shouts at his partner in a threatening manner, this can be categorised as 'domestic violence', whereas when a woman threatens to take away a man's children - which is a threat of the most enormous magnitude - this is not categorised as 'domestic violence'.

Furthermore, and for example again, false or exaggerated accusations of 'abuse' - of one kind or another - made to the police - or threats to do so - are, clearly, no less acts of 'domestic violence' than are many other forms of behaviour that do come under the official heading of 'domestic violence'. And yet women, in their tens of thousands, engage in such actions every year - but these actions do not count as 'domestic violence'. 

And here, for example again, is the current (August 2008) proclamation from the Home Office concerning domestic violence ...

What is meant by 'domestic violence'?

Domestic violence is any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between adults who are or have been in a relationship together, or between family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.

Whatever form it takes, domestic violence is rarely a one-off incident. More usually it's a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour through which the abuser seeks power over their victim.

Domestic violence occurs across society, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, wealth and geography. The figures show, however, that it consists mainly of violence by men against women. 

Notice how the last sentence above - which is designed to leave the reader with the distinct impression that 'domestic violence' across the country is mainly violence against women by men - somewhat contradicts all the previous definitions; e.g. 'threatening behaviour'. 

This is a typical feminist tactic. Firstly, define 'domestic violence' as incorporating a whole range of behaviours - so that the numbers soar - but then leave the reader with the distinct impression that all this 'domestic violence' mostly entails real 'violence'; which it does not. 

And then, when the Home Office reports that there were 500,000 calls made to the police concerning 'domestic violence' in any given year, the public is led (particularly by the feminists in the media) to believe that this number actually reflects 500,000 incidents of violence. 

But, of course, this is exactly what feminists like Harriet Harman want the public to believe. 

The truth, however, is that this large number mostly reflects domestic froth and bubble - with police officers forever complaining - in private - that they are mostly simply being used by members of the public to aggress on their behalf when they are having domestic problems; often when drunk.

Furthermore, if one accepts the purposely wooly definition of domestic violence provided by the Home Office - as per above - then there is no question in my mind that men, not women, make up the majority of victims; e.g. see, ...

Would You Sign This Contract?

Furthermore, the domestic violence industry always seeks to suggest to the public that its refuges are positively overflowing with women fleeing abusive partners. Well, here are some facts that you should know about. 

Many domestic violence shelters are filled with women immigrants

1. Many domestic violence shelters are filled with women immigrants who have nowhere to live. It suits the government and the feminists to sneak these women into domestic violence shelters. The government benefits because it hides the true scale of immigration and the feminists benefit by being able to claim that their domestic violence shelters are full up with 'abused' women. 

They are not. 

Without the influx of immigrant women, many would be virtually empty. 

2. Of those women who are residing in domestic violence shelters as a result of domestic violence problems, the evidence suggests that most of them are, in fact, the main perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims of it. 

Just about all the staff who work in domestic violence shelters are virulently anti-male.

3. Just about all the staff who work in domestic violence shelters are virulently anti-male. These shelters are political dens wherein the staff teach their inmates how to squeeze the maximum amount of legal mileage out of the conflicts that they are having with their partners. In essence, they collude together to crush the men against whom these women are very often aggressing. 

These men, however, are very much on their own.

No help. No comfort. No way out. And, probably, facing both arrest and arraignment as well as the loss of home and/or children.

(It is surely not surprising that so many men might behave violently in these situations - so helpless must they feel, so much could they lose and, hence, so mentally deranged must they be.) 

domestic violence against women is a relatively trivial problem

Well, I will not continue talking about this issue, except to point out that domestic violence against women is a relatively trivial problem in the UK compared to other major problems. For example, while some 100 women are killed every year as a result of 'domestic violence', 4,000 men will commit suicide, 1500 men will be killed in their workplaces, 220 children will die on our roads - with a further 2,000 being very seriously injured - some 20,000 people will die from hospital infections, 140,000 will die from cancer etc etc; but you will likely hear and see more about 'domestic violence' than about all these things put together. 

And yet a woman in the UK has a greater chance of winning the lottery than being killed by her partner.

But the issue of domestic violence (only against women) has remained at the top of the national agenda for so many years for one reason, and for one reason alone - it brings feminists like Harriet Harman a lot of support from women.

But domestic violence is a two-way street, and I have never seen any valid evidence which points to the conclusion that men are any worse than women when it comes to this issue. It only seems to the public that men are worse because of the careful deceptions by people like Harriet Harman.

(Also see some research summaries by Martin Fiebert and an outline of the recent USA research by the CDC - the body specifically tasked by the US government to be responsible for good research in this area.)

Rape and Sexual Assault 

 the official research in this area is almost unmitigated hogwash

Harriet Harman and her cronies at the Home Office have, over the years, gone to extraordinary lengths to demonise men over the issue of rape and sexual assault. However, the official research in this area is almost unmitigated hogwash - with the official estimation of the incidence of rape across the country being purposely inflated by somewhere around 2000%.

For example, the annual number of 'rapes' quoted by the Home Office and, hence, by the media, are not 'rape' figures at all. They are the number of allegations that are made. And some 95% of these will result in no convictions. The idea behind the purposeful amalgamation of the number of 'rapes' that have been perpetrated - as demonstrated in a courtroom - with the number of rapes that are alleged to have taken place is simply to keep the demonisation of men on the boil.

Furthermore, despite what Harriet Harman and the Home Office say to the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of these rape allegations are, in fact, false; and they are often made by women who are seeking some kind of revenge.

The Home Office, however, continues to state that its evidence shows that some 90% of all the allegations are true. There is no valid evidence for this at all. But the idea behind this phony figure is to make the public believe that even those men who are found 'not guilty' in a courtroom are, nevertheless, guilty. 

 'women never lie', do they?

After all, 'women never lie', do they?

Another example of the feminists and government officials exaggerating wildly the incidence of sexual assault can be seen in this piece by Brendan O'Neill entitled Trafficking: return of the ‘white slavery’ scare - where, for example, you will discover that government officials, such as the police, ...

EU documents revealed that five women, not 40,000, had been forced against their will

... claimed that 40,000 women from Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America would be trafficked to Germany during the World Cup tournament to service drunken or drug-fuelled horny football fans. A few months after the World Cup, EU documents revealed that five women, not 40,000, had been forced against their will to work as prostitutes in Germany

And then, of course, there was the grossly overblown claim by the police that women in large numbers were being given Rohypnol prior to being raped; e.g. see Women who claim to be victims of 'date-rape' drugs such as Rohypnol have in fact been rendered helpless by binge-drinking, says a study by doctors.

Indeed, when it comes to Home Office officials lying and fudging the figures, even a recent Home Office minister - John Reid - described it as 'unfit for purpose' so incensed was he by all the lies and the deceits; especially concerning the various statistics to do with immigration and prisoner releases.

 Professor Reece Walters has actually called for an academic boycott of Home Office 'research'

And at the Centre For Crime And Justice Studies, Professor Reece Walters has actually called for an academic boycott of Home Office 'research', while Professor Tim Hope has accused the Home Office of 'fixing' the research in order to meet 'political needs'.

...

Now, of course, we all know that rapes do occur. We all know that sexual assaults take place, and we all know that 'domestic violence' of some form or other occurs throughout the land.

But the point of this piece is not to deny that such things happen, but to point out to you that, firstly, we are not being told the truth about these things and, secondly, a huge amount of unwarranted and overblown hysteria is continually being purposely generated over them. 

And one major consequence of this is that men are forever being demonised - often in the most of horrible of ways.

By and large, it is feminists like Harriet Harman together with their willing accomplices working somewhere in government who are deceiving the public, lying, and generating hysteria over these matters.

But why do they not just tell us the truth?

And the answer to this question is that these people are lying and exaggerating because this empowers them in some way - as mentioned above, just as has been the case throughout the whole of history. 

By forever claiming over the years that women are suffering horrendously at the hands of men, these people have generated a truly massive amount of funding, built enormous empires and made good progress up their career ladders.

And, in the UK, Harriet Harman has been one of the major star players in this game of hate.

...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. 
-- H.L. Mencken