Above a photograph of the actress Vanessa Hudgens heading to the annual Met Gala at the Metropolitan Museum Of Art in New York City yesterday afternoon.
Firstly, to reduce the length of the post, herewith two excellent Wikipedia articles on the subject of the title:
GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating
Today’s post refers to (amongst other things) the actions and behaviour of the Right Honourable
Angela Rayner , PC, Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Shadow First Secretary of State and the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
Again, to reduce the length of the post I would refer the BG’s readers to the URL below:
And now a message to Ms Rayner herself:
Madam, you are a Privy Councillor. That elevates you to a very high position in this country’s affairs and society. There is a well known phrase that “….rank has it’s privileges.” There is also a well known phrase that “….rank has it’s responsibilities.”
I would remind you that as a Privy Councillor you may very well on occasion be presented to Her Majesty herself. You should bear in mind that despite her age, HM keeps herself very well abreast of current affairs and it is probably the case that if she has not perused the URL below, she will have perused similar with the same information.
Now, you will know of the apocryphal phrase, “We [Queen Victoria] are not amused.” It is apocryphal as there is no evidence whatsoever that her late Majesty ever said this. However, you Madam can bet your bottom $ that HM will NOT be amused of the recent goings on involving yourself!
I make specific mention of HM as she – unlike me – is a woman and it is my experience in life that women will often take other women to task far more ably and assertively than we men!
So, Madam, if you are subsequently “in a private moment” with HM, I would merely comment, “Good luck!”
OK, Ms Rayner’s rollicking over, let’s move on.
The above brouhaha reported by the London Economic (a digital newspaper founded in 2013 by Jack Peat and Joe Mellor) illustrates the fact that public school and university educated white middle class heterosexual men are in effect “Public Enemy Number One” insofar as the feminist members of the Wokery are concerned! We other heterosexual males who did not attend public school, university, or are not middle class but are still nevertheless heterosexual are still up there with our higher status brethren as “Public Enemies!”
What recently happened to those men drawing attention to certain matters was a classic example of scapegoating.
Scapegoating is not new! I had been carried out since ancient times!
Now, amongst the brouhaha there have been calls that a specific criminal offence of “Misogyny” be created. A British Transport Police officer recently quoted an example of where this new legislation might apply. This was in a hypothetical case of a woman being stared out by a male passenger on public transport. Now, clearly we can all imagine such a hypothetical case of a man threatening a woman in this way. There is however no need to legislate for it as legislation already exists! A man behaving in this way is committing an offence. That of threatening behaviour. What is needed is evidence! It is here that technology can come to the citizen’s aid. Many BG readers criticise the number of CCTV cameras in the UK and the surveillance that ensues. Furthermore police officers now routinely carry “body cameras” which along with recording a visual feed, have an audio feed as well. This in the BG’s opinion, a Good Thing!
You see, the BIG problem in so many cases is lack of evidence!
The problem we have with the feminist woke brigade is this: A specific offence of misogyny will have the police not only going after real criminals such as the hypothetical assailant of the hypothetical woman in the hypothetical bus or train, but ordinary heterosexual men who when presented with such as Ms Hudgens dressed in her nightwear – will smile and stare in appreciation of Ms Hudgens’s ample and publicly displayed charms will gain the attention of the police. Doubtless such instances will be listed as “non crime misogynistic incidents”!
There is however a deeper aspect to all this.
I myself will be taken to task by the members of the feminist woke brigade living locally (there are quite a number, most being what are called “incomers” mostly well to do persons from the Home Counties) for featuring the image of Ms Hudgens above. They will – again – denounce me as an appalling sexist and misogynist!
However, I have some news for them.
Ms Hudgens was fully aware of her actions and it’s effects. She will also be aware that the image will promote her in the various product and services endorsements from which she will gain a substantial income. What my critics will NOT be aware of however is that the market for the products and services Ms Hudgens will endorse and support is women! Not men!
These women are NOT – for the most part – lesbians, but normal heterosexual women mostly married (or in a relationship) with being mothers.
Again, to further reduce the length of this post, please visit the URL below: