Almost every day, there is a man’s sneering, hovering head sitting on top of a few hundred words of what is really the sort of existential hysteria of an animal whose cosy ecosystem has been disturbed.’

Carl Sargeant was yet to be buried but the Guardian didn’t waste time in resuming the Sexual Inquisition. The tragic death of the Welsh Assembly minister, after his sacking and suspension from the Labour Party for allegations he was not allowed to see, should have been a turning point in the current hysteria. But no, a father’s death is mere collateral damage in the militant feminist campaign against ‘toxic masculinity’. As with all other Guardian articles on sexual harassment, the writer of the piece I have quoted, Nesrine Malik, was exempted from below-the-line comments, which would have allowed a public corrective to this insensitively timed misandry.

The tactics – for witch-hunts are not simply an emotional outrage – are framed in the notion of power. According to Michel Foucault, all social relations are bound by power structures and relationships. It would be a mistake to think that long-dead deconstructionists from the Cold War era took their theories to the grave. Insipidly, Marx, Gramsci and fellow prophets of the revolutionary Left have taken over the establishment, as relativist notions of inequality justify an overhaul of society.

Today, identity politics is all the rage. As nobody in authority dares to confront the stridently subversive demands of transgenderism, for example, agitators gain ground by stealth. Social conservative politicians (i.e. backbenchers) find that reasoned argument by Judeo-Christian, Platonic or Kantian principles is ineffective. ‘Whataboutery’ and complaints of mental gymnastics hold little weight. The Left has it sewn up. A black person cannot be racist, and a woman cannot be sexist, because of a simple dialectic: one has power; the other is disempowered.

The general acceptance of power relations as a rationale for government policy is a major success of cultural Marxism. The middle-class graduate class has taken to Leftist dogma, because the arc of social justice can be bent to its own ends. Graced with intellect and social status, feminists of privileged background are exploiting the simplistic gender power dichotomy to advance their careers. They show little concern for the genuinely powerless, such as the girls raped by mainly Pakistani grooming gangs, or the homeless men they pass outside their office block.

ITV news anchorman Tom Bradby, writing on the pros and cons of social media in the Evening Standard, glibly stated: ‘From the lecherous MPs of Westminster to the world of those who hide their money away in offshore tax havens, there is no hiding place any more for those who abuse their power.’ But what if someone was falsely accused? Or if the alleged misdemeanour was simply an overfriendly remark blown out of proportion? Mr Bradby should consider how he would feel if placed in the line of fire himself. Malicious allegations could be made and organisations, particularly since the Weinstein scandal, automatically suspend the accused. Would one, in that situation, be enjoying one’s sense of power?

The BBC and broadsheet newspapers have become as bad as online gossip in sensationalising and condemning the growing number of men whose names have been brought before the public jury. The female accuser is presumed to speak truth; the male culprit deserves his downfall. Political activist and journalist Kate Maltby was described as ‘brave’ for going public with insinuations about deputy prime minister Damian Green. But the likes of Maltby and Jane Merrick are not weak women. They are using a platform denied to women and girls who have suffered from real abuse, hidden in patriarchal communities or ignored by politically correct authorities more worried about Islamophobia than child safety.

Where are the institutional checks and balances to this witch-hunt? Head of Met Police, Cressida Dick is a leading figure of the establishment. This woman in power says she would be ‘delighted’ to investigate Damian Green, a senior government minister who has not been accused of crime. Meanwhile Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders receives bucketloads of criticism, but she is not threatened by the Inquisition. Indeed, some would perceive her as inquisitor-in-chief, with her strategy to skew prosecution of sex crime cases so that all defendants face a legal system that wants them to be guilty.

Where is the responsibility? Kelvin Hopkins was suspended by the Labour Party, and we must wait to know whether claims of sexual misconduct are true. But fellow Labour MP Kerry McCarthy is too impatient for due process. Like Hopkins, McCarthy has served on the Labour front bench. She released letters Hopkins sent to her over a period of some years, complaining that this was overfriendly and unwanted attention. McCarthy’s action has caused Hopkins ‘immense personal hurt and utter dismay’, and he asks ‘why a parliamentarian of such experience and standing, who is also a long-term friend, would not have told me that she was unhappy with any aspect of our relationship, rather than going straight to the national press?’ Some might see McCarthy as courageous, but I guess most people will roll their eyes.

Some of this tide of denunciation has hints of nastiness. Thank goodness for female commentators who raise their heads above the parapet to call for a halt to this 21st century Salem atmosphere. Sensible writers such as Ella Whelan and Joanna Williams on Spiked, Jennifer Selway in the Daily Express, Sarah Vine and Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail, and our scribes on The Conservative Woman, see the damage that this unedifying spectacle is causing to society and to womankind. Such writers realise that feminism, in its present self-serving expression of middle-class entitlement, is not representative of women. Hopefully they will inspire more of their sex to rise against the po-faced destroyers of humour and erstwhile norms of sexual liberty.

The liberal-Left intelligentsia, our virtue-signalling politicians and emancipatory activists claim to pursue a fairer society. But we have seen more than a glimpse of radical feminist justice – and it isn’t pretty. By abusing the concept of power, they are abusing power itself.


  1. Merrick and Maltby will find this episode damages both their careers.
    Nobody likes a complainer who vastly exaggerates their issue.
    Do you remember the name of the female lawyer who was ‘outraged by the comments of senior male lawyer on Linkedin? or the name of the aspiring ‘actress’ who kicked up a huge fuss because she was told to wear heals at her temp job?
    The women of Britain raised their eyes and muttered ‘for gods sake’

    • Worse things happened in Rotherham.

      But those girls were not members of our disgusting corrupt elite.
      They are forgotten , this stupidity will linger on.

  2. The current feminist wave cut its teeth years ago using fellow women for target practice. Refusing to join the pack hunting aggressors often left us subjected to the same bullying, victimisation & isolation intended for the initial victim. Current events feel uncomfortably familiar.

  3. The problem now for the UK is the clueless May and her band of greed ridden henchmen & women. There’s only a couple of policies coming out of Downing Street now, copy Labour policies from Corbyn when they might be damaging or popular, and attack the most vulnerable if they can’t fight back – the disabled and the pensioners (although they fought back at the ballot box).

    In Margaret Thatcher we saw a PM who wasn’t afraid to attack the Labour party, who have now moved to Fascism, but when Labour Feminazis began to moan instead of fighting back, May rolled over and joined in with them.

    She really is the worst PM this country has had since Lord North and that’s saying something. If she is still leading the Tories at the next election I will vote for Corbyn just to get rid of her, she’s that bad !

    • Beyond the pale to suggest voting for Corbyn, but you are right. Who on earth will vote for May & Blue Labour?

      • You’re right. The only way things will change is if people stop voting for the three main parties.

        I’m afraid I don’t hold much hope for that happening though, the general public seem determined to continue electing these treacherous people.

    • Vote for Corbyn? Steady on old chap! In this game of pin the tail to the least-bad donkey Corbyn is still a total disaster in waiting. He’s surrounded by like-minded extremists. May is at least steadied by a core bunch of “awkward bastards” keeping her feet to the Brexit fire.

      • May is unelectable, she lost the last election and is only in power because Ruth Davidson pulled of an amazing success in Scotland plus a coalition.
        She is already trailing Corbyn by 3 points in the polls, and she shows no signs of performing any better in a subsequent election.
        If a Corbyn government were to be elected then there’s every chance it would fail within the first two years anyway.

        Just in case you were wondering about the hopeless corruption amongst our MPs consider this:

        “Keith Vaz has been handed a House of Commons job preparing laws to tackle corruption and money laundering, it was reported last night.

        The apparent offer comes as police investigate the Labour politician over allegations that he volunteered to pay for drugs for a male escort.”

        That was just last year under May, it beggars belief yet maybe not given the moral bankruptcy amongst our MPs.

        • Here I agree with you on every count. May has been and continues to be a disaster. My only support for her and her government is that I’m still expecting her to deliver Brexit, and with Gove and Boris etc stiffening her resolve, with the minimum of giveaways to Brussels (I’m personally very happy with a maximum-freedom-no-deal). Corbyn and his band of idealogues would sign us up to any number of commitments to the EU – we’d be bound to abide by the ECJ and EU regulation but incapable of influence because we’re formally out: the very worst result for Brexit. Their government may well collapse, but the damage will be done.
          So in this world of least-bad options I’m praying May can limp across the Brexit line before all is lost. After that I’ll worry about who governs my country, happy in the knowledge that it is no longer the EU.

  4. If we don’t stand up to it. and let it happen. you may find the backlash won’t be a right-wing party but a sudden increase in Islamic converts.
    Guess what happens next…….

    • The so calked “right wing extremism” in the UK simply does not exist.
      Labour is a muslim loving, Jew hating, national socialist party, just like
      the original in Germany. That makes it extreme right wing
      Is there any more “right wing” state than Saudi Arabia or Iran ?
      Yet persons resisting islamisation are branded “extreme right wing”.
      The Europhiles are supporters of international hyper capitalism – though many
      are miseducated on this point. Economically, is there a more extreme form
      of right wingers ? Trump is a leftist by these standards, since he claims to
      be standing up for America’s disadvantaged against globalisation.
      Corbyn & Momentum are straightforward communists of the Trotskyite brand
      and should be constantly identified as such.
      Right/Left as general terms are redundant.

  5. Liberal Fascism describes these people well. Intolerant and totalitarian. They are moving to the very dangerous – it’s only a short distance to imprisonment without trial, they would favour it. The police are corrupted already, as is the CPS so there is help from one and no impediment from the other.

  6. The fact that the Guardian wouldn’t allow comments on Miss Malik’s article – in fact never does on any subject that would be contested by those who don’t share the paper’s worldview – tells you all you need to know about its defensibility. The Guardian would say it doesn’t want to waste time fending off an avalanche of abuse and sadly, this is true; a lot of people don’t know how to make a reasoned argument. But an article which shields itself from challenge is in itself a kind of heckle with the writer ensuring he (I use the pronoun generically) wins. I suppose there must be nuggets of wisdom even in the Guardian’s barricaded opinion pages but I’ll never know because I don’t read what I can’t comment on unless I already know the writer is a grown up.

    • Interesting tactics. I’m guessing that the editorial board thinks that feminists, Muslims or black activists deserve protection, and that having nobody answering back somehow gives the message more impact. Otherwise, they will quite happily have click-bait articles to increase their advertising income.

    • And most of the many “sneering, hovering heads” that sit on top of hysterical articles in the Guardian are those of women.

  7. I wish I knew what form this male “power” is supposed to take; because I have always found it elusive to the point of invisibility. If it is supposed to exist in physical strength, then that can be dismissed easily. There is a huge overlap in strength between people of all types; there are millions of women in this country who are physically stronger than millions of men. In any case, using physical force on others is illegal, and any victim has the entire weight of the state on their side.

    So if it is not physical strength, what else? There is no power given to men in law that is not also available to women. Females outlive men by quite a margin, so they inevitably also outvote them. So legal and political power lies with women rather more than with men.

    Anything else? Enlightenment please – anyone?

    • This is why the assumption (and abuse) of the power paradigm should be challenged. It is too readily accepted by the establishment, partly because the professional class in the establishment is exploiting it for their own ends. .

      • You give me hope. Careening in from the “left” I am constantly dismayed at the apparent ignorance of the theoretical underpinnings of the “left”. Of course many ,probably most, of those engaging in such witch hunts etc. don’t think of themselves as being part of a bigger plan. So as you say in a burst of middle class female entitlement we have the sex scandal with no sex and a crisis without anything having been investigated let alone proved. On the back of which some new regulation in Parliament and clamour for a “law”. All it seems on the surface in an effort to rescue frail damsels from rapacious men who might touch knees or send “over friendly ” thank you notes.
        But of course the whole point is to undermine relationships, in a way it doesn’t matter how, the point is that the traditional kinship relationships have to be undermined to create the conditions for “revolution”. One has to admire the intellects behind it, for harnessing the baser more selfish emotions of humanity has worked in so many ways to undermine the very things most people aspire to. Even more impressive is the ease with which Conservatives are as likely to aid the deconstruction as those on the left. Signal support for marriage and family formation?…No no what of individual liberty? Pour money into left wing feminist organisations that campaign for more women on company boards but ignored 20,000 victims of grooming gangs? …of course we must be nice to ladies! The list of own goals goes on.
        So Niall you give me hope that more conservatives will wake up to exactly why the slide into some sort of anarchy appears so inexorable, and why so often it turns out conservatives have aided the slide.

  8. Top marks to TCW writers once again. I come here for my little doses of sanity in an asylum where the lunatics are truly in charge.
    Now where did I leave my meds…?

  9. Ah yes, Commissar – sorry, Commissioner – Cressida D**k: “If the Metropolitan Police or I myself can assist a Cabinet Office inquiry we would want to do so and we would seek to do so.” What generosity, offering not just the service of the Met’s officers – constantly at loose end due to London now being a tranquil paradise – but the availability of the head honcho herself, and all to check whether Damian Green is in breach of the ministerial code.

    It was bad enough that Kate Maltby’s pathetic complaint put Green under investigation – and urged to stand down by such as the ever-helpful Anna Soubry – but the Commissioner brazenly advertising the Met’s willingness to dig for dirt on a government minister, even though Green is accused of no crime, ought to have caused national outrage.

    If Cressida D**k is taking an interest in his conduct, Damian Green might be wise to steer clear of Stockwell Station.

  10. As I suspected all along,the law is becoming weighted in favour of women – and women (some at least) wonder why domestic violence still occurs, to say nothing of rape, sexual assault .. the uncomfortable truth, but there it is.

  11. What do those letters say? At what point do women have the responsibility to be reasonable? Why would a front bench MP not feel able to say anything?

  12. “A
    high percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female
    relative became perpetrators. Having been a victim was a strong
    predictor of becoming a perpetrator, as was an index of parental loss in
    childhood.” Cycle of Child Sexual Abuse, Glasser et al, The British
    Journal of Psychiatry, 2001.

  13. Female PM
    Female Scots Tory leader
    Female SNP leader and Scottish first minister
    Female Scots labour leader
    Female DPS
    Female Chief of Met Police
    Female Home Secretary

  14. Not so long ago I was told by a lovely female creature that I “Only got where I am because I am a male and like all men (insert sneer) I was told from birth that I was entitled to everything”

    Just for reference I was told as a child many times that in life you get what you work for and that it was up to me to acheive as no-one was going to just give me things. Which is exactly what happened. So the fact that everything I have I have worked for – bloody hard in fact – having suffered (as most people do) many knockbacks and disapointments and rejections and loses over the years but keep trying until you succeed was completely of no importance to this lady.

    Yet having absolutely no knowledge of my life she was utterly adamant that my entire lifes’ achievements (building a successful business from scratch and employing a reasonble number of people) were simply because I was man. And a White one at that. And therefore evil incarnate.

    Which gave me an interesting insight into the psyche of the Screaming Feminist: There is no logic, no truth, no actual reality and certainly no argument that will swerve them from their ideology. They are the “true believers”.

    • Maybe not describing women as female creatures would be a start?
      The problem with privilege is when you have it, you really don’t know it’s there til someone points it out. Instead of responding defensively and making the women small and inferior by calling her a creature , listen, she was right.

  15. It’s interesting and completely normal, how uncomfortable the shift of power is making white, heterosexual males. But it’s ok. It’s interesting how words like ‘witch-hunt’ and ‘spectacle’ are still used to try and diminish women’s words and to keep women small and in their place. I don’t think it’s going to work this time however. Social media allows a new connection between women, LGBT, non-white people all over the world. It’s time for change. We’re all ready. But it’s ok that you’re finding it hard.

    • What shift of power? The overwhelming majority of men have never had any kind of power worth the name. For 100 years, women have had the majority of votes, which means they have had the power to institute whatever government they choose. Which is why we have had increasingly gynocentric government for all that time. The only change I see is an even tighter turning of the ratchet against men, courtesy of the pervasive feminist influence that has power – yes,real power – way in excess of its merits and way in excess of what ordinary men can even dream of.

      • Good to get opposing views on this site. But Sue has simply characterised the point of my article – a blunt, ideological subversion of the concept of power.

        • Do you really see it like that? Truly, honestly? Or do you understand why women are standing together? Do you get it a bit? Clearly, from what I wrote, I disagree with you, but you see that’s the interesting bit of politics and life, in my opinion – the discussion, the listening of each other’s opinions. The problem is the way you write here doesn’t feel respectful. As a women who has lived here and abroad, it’s a massive issue, one that we have just had to get used to living with. I can think of occasions from the ages of 13 onwards. The serious sexual abuse is abhorrent but the general low level behaviours of some men, make women feel insecure in their own environments. This is the definition of privilege – many men just have no idea that women live with this as an acquiesced part of their lives; they have lived without considering it. Suddenly everyone is being honest about this stuff and it so liberating but I get, really hard for you guys to hear. As women, we are finally starting to feel heard and seen, which has to be a good thing, surely.
          I read the articles on this site as I have voted conservative over the last few elections. Some of what is written on here is not in line with my beliefs as a human and that’s ok, it’s good to read. However, don’t alienate me with disrespectful narrative. This issue is serious. I read Laura Perrin’s article, which despite a controversial title, made a really good point. I just am not sure yours does, other than to point out how silly people are saying that they’re not ok with putting up with stuff anymore and how it is all getting out of hand. It’s not, but there is a release of anger energy from women who have just held this inside as a part of who they are, and have been forever. Anger and pain passed on from generation to generation. Yep women might not be great at showing anger, but that has come from years of being ‘good girls’ and staying quiet, so it can be a bit messy right now, but it’s real. This is a shift, a balancing of power, so that every human can feel safe.

      • I honestly don’t understand what you mean by this. I’m not being rude. Please can you explain the pervasive feminist influence so I can understand.

        • In reply, briefly: We live in a liberal democracy in which women outperform men at school, outnumber them at university, are given special incentives to progress in every profession and encouraged to do everything other than bear children. This is the result of a pervasive feminist influence.Clearly from what you say, it has not made feminists happy. It is hard to see what will.

    • This is so patronising and pc it is funny! Men finding it hard the poor unreconstructed dears… you just confirm Niall’s analysis – this is about power not, sadly, about respect at all.

      • I don’t really see it as patronising, mocking perhaps? Just as in the style of the article, I thought.
        It’s weird how two women can read that article as see and feel something completely different, fascinating really. Women have been holding back anger from generations of mistreatment. It comes out messily at times as we haven’t been used to using our voices. All this is new and it’s ok that it doesn’t sit well with everyone. It will balance out against and the best thing is our kids will grow up in a world when bad behaviour won’t be the norm.

        • When women, the LGBT community and all the non-whites of this world finally take power, how do think the non-white section will treat the female and LGBT sections? One assumes you are aware of the realities around this issue?

Comments are closed.