Ramping up the feminist subjugation of men
BRUCE NEWSOME
JUST before Christmas the Government, in the form of Jess Phillips, whose remit is to ‘safeguard’ us, announced a new ‘Violence against Women and Girls Strategy’.
It is designed to prevent this assumed violence by ‘changing’ how boys ‘behave’ and think before they become men. A pre-education programme, you might call it, along with powers that, from Jess Phillips’s preview, seem likely to be weaponised against white males with dissenting views to the neglect of true ‘high-risk’ male demographics. To counter what she claims to be an ‘epidemic’ of male abuse and violence against women, she promises that ‘the full power of the state’ will be deployed across national and local government ‘to prevent boys and men from ever becoming abusers in the first place’, and to ‘bear down on perpetrators so that those who have offended do not do so again’.
How? You might well ask. Prompting alarming memories of Mao’s ‘re-education’ camps, teachers are to be trained to spot and tackle misogyny in boys, to select ‘high-risk’ boys for ‘behaviour change programmes’ and to challenge ‘deep-rooted misogynist influences’ in a programme that will be piloted in secondary schools (boys as young as 11 years) this year, to be extended to all secondary schools by 2029, and extended to primaries (boys as young as five) after 2029.
The government will be targeting boys for the pre-crime of ‘violence against women and girls’ (VAWG). This perverse initiative has Keir Starmer’s full support: ‘Too often, toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged. This government is stepping in sooner – backing teachers, calling out misogyny, and intervening when warning signs appear to stop harm before it starts.’
Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, said this will be ‘the largest crackdown to stop violence perpetrated against women and girls’ ever deployed. It will certainly be the most comprehensive programme of state indoctrination this country has experienced if it comes to fruition.
Despite this determination to stop violence before it starts, nowhere in Ms Phillips’s presentation did she mention the problem of immigrant and ethnically based violence. No re-education or indoctrination camps for immigrants. They are exempt despite the fact that asylum seekers and foreign nationals are over-represented in misogynistic crimes, including honour killings, female genital mutilation, and sex crimes.
In fact the Police National Computer suggests that 26 per cent of sexual assaults on women in 2024 were committed by foreign nationals, a proportion that is probably closer to 34 per cent, counting another 8 per cent whose nationality is categorised as ‘unknown’. Today foreigners make up 9 per cent of the population. In London, foreigners make up a quarter of the population and perpetrate 40 to 47 per cent of sexual assaults. In Dorset, asylum seekers living in asylum hotels were responsible for 44 per cent of alleged sex offences in the year to July 2025. (We know this only because of a freedom of information request. Most constabularies, including Dorset, are too woke to volunteer this information.)
In total, 87 nationalitiesin the UK have higher conviction rates for rape and other sexual offences than British nationals. Some of the multiples are staggering: Afghan and Eritrean immigrants are 20 times more likely than Britons to be convicted of sex crimes, North Africans nearly seven times, Middle Easterners nearly four times, and Sub-Saharan Africans nearly three times. On average, foreign nationals are 1.7 times more likely than Britons to be convicted for sex crimes.
This is the real epidemic.
Furthermore the nationalities most ‘represented’ are from mostly Muslim countries, an uncomfortable fact which officials have spent decades covering up and are still ignoring in their VAWG strategy.
Louise Casey’s recent review of child rape gangs, which tracked back over 30 years, found a ‘significant proportion’ were foreign nationals whose crimes were racially and religiously aggravated. Almost all the rapists were immigrants or the children of immigrants from Pakistan, and Muslim. Almost all the victims were white girls.
British courts have heard a legal defence that a Muslim second-generation immigrant was seduced into rape and did not know it was illegal. Given Jess Phillips’s desire to support victims ‘so that they get justice when they seek it and the closure that they deserve’, will she address this ‘education need’? Does it bother her that judges issue longer jail sentences to those who tweet about the foreignness, ethnicity or religion of rapists, than to the rapists themselves? Starmer, while Director of Public Prosecutions, initiated the development of guidance to be lenient on convicts from minorities. Although his government backtracked this year, the Prime Minister has given his full support to the pernicious feminist theory of innate ‘male toxicity’, praising the TV drama Adolescence (in which a white boy is arrested for the misogynist murder of a girl) describing the documentary as if evidence for ‘a problem with boys and young men.’ Critics cast the programme as another assault on the already demonised white male.
Whiteness aside, why target only boys? Muslim females have defended their men and blamed the victims of the rape gangs, evidence of a genuinely misogynistic sub-culture, while the Government invents a national culture of misogyny, irrespective of religion or ethnicity. Phillips categorises male-on-female misogyny as a ‘national emergency’,as though all males are a risk to women, as justification to oppress all males.
For decades now, British institutions have pressed this message, even though the Ministry of Justice’s own data shows that domestic abuse is rare and that courts grant almost all petitions for a domestic abuse remedy order. Furthermore the same government that claims domestic abuse by men is out of control assumes that almost all claims by women are true. Family courts expect no more proof other than the woman’s word. The Ministry of Justice admits that almost all the men who answered a survey about family court said they were victims of false accusations. Data from Scottish courts suggest that 70 per cent of accusations are false.
The MoJ itself frames all abuse as male-on-female, even though one in three victims of domestic abuse is male, a figure which is likely to be an underestimate. Male-on-female abuse arguably is used or exploited as a not so ‘virtuous’ campaign to oppress men.
My concern about the new campaign is that the boys most likely to attract attention will be rebels against the rampant teaching of feminism, critics of the myths ‘patriarchy’ and ‘white supremacy’, even though teachers are 83 per cent female and female students are more likely to continue in education.
Schools, courts, and agencies signal that most-to-all males are inherently bad – white males particularly. Organisations such as UK Feminista and the British Council supply schools with free lesson plans that treat all problems as male.
The DoE and Ofsted routinely rebuff complaints about bigotry in teaching, unless the victims are female or non-white. The DoE’s latest guidance (released in July 2025, for implementation from September 2026) cuts most of the warnings against stigmatising males, and adds a woke warning against ‘gendered language’ – which supposedly encourages male-on-female misogyny but not the converse!
For some schools, the change-boy programme will standardise prior practice. For instance, head teacher Sukhjot Dhami told the BBC: ‘While we welcome any initiative that prioritises healthy relationships and consent education, it’s important to recognise that schools like Beacon Hill Academy in Dudley have been delivering this work effectively for years.’
Now Jess Phillips is locking it in – the final step in the feminist subjugation of men.
This article (Ramping up the feminist subjugation of men) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Bruce Newsome
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply