Review of “The Rise of Female Violence” – the rise of BBC bias?

So I’ve just wasted an hour watching the entire broadcast of BBC Three’s “Rise of female violence” programme. To save other people the bother of making the same mistake and being disappointed by what could have been an excellent programme here’s a quick review. (Spoiler – it went pretty much as everyone predicted).

The programme was often unwatchable and unengaging at times which is a real shame as it’s a key subject repeatedly ignored by the likes of the BBC and some had hoped for so much more. There was real potential to look at attitudes to female violence and see its’ consequences, yet most of the focus and was on female perpetrators, and we had to see through what felt like hours of interviews with thoroughly unpleasant and extremely boring violent women. As you’d expect with the BBC, these criminals were all treated with sympathy and entirely the reverse of the way the broadcaster would feature their male counterparts.

Perhaps the main problem with the broadcast was that is constantly sought to excuse violence by such women and always sought to blame it on someone else as much as possible. So, while it occasionally acknowledged the double standards and extremely leniency of judges and the courts when it came to females, the broadcast actually continued to reinforce the very same problem it highlighted. For example, one of the key factors the BBC cited for the supposed increase in female violence was alcohol, even blaming bars for female violence simply because of the fact that they advertise special offers. Other factors the BBC blamed women’s’ behaviour for included testosterone, low elf esteem, birth control, sex abuse and pretty much anything they could think of other than the women themselves. This constant quest to blame others for women’s behaviour is not simply sexist against men, it also denies women any agency and infantilises them, therefore reinforcing attitudes them women are incapable of self-control and simply child-like, and the programme sometimes referred to grown women as “girls” too. Ultimately, the BBC really pushed the message that women are almost never responsible for their own actions and everything they do is someone else’s fault.

One of the more promising aspects of the programme was an experiment the BBC used two actors to engage in domestic violence in the street to see differing attitudes depending on whether it was a male or female who played the role of perpetrator. To be honest, the experiment is completely unoriginal, and I doubt there’s many people in the country who haven’t seen the brilliant viral version of this filmed by the Mankind initiative which was far, far better at capturing reactions and double standards, despite being filmed by an organisation with almost no budgets rather than one sitting on billions of pounds. A really half-assed attempt by the BBC which to me suggests their heart really wasn’t in this. Later in the programme we did get to see a real male victim of domestic violence who’d almost died after being stabbed by his wife. This segment was reasonable well handled, yet seeing just one male victim of female violence in an hour-long broadcast was way below what you’d have expected and completely insufficient.

One of the biggest let-down by BBC Three was their failure to actually use expert figures or key personalities on-screen to discuss the issues and given their insights. Countless well-known Telegraph writers and other journalists have repeatedly covered the issues raised, and many of the underlying points are key themes for organisations such as the Mankind Initiative and Justice for Men and Boys. The likes of Mike Buchanan and Erin Pizzey were nowhere to be seen on our screens once again, despite the later living on London and having studied female violence for a good 45 years now. Had the roles been reversed the BBC would have been falling over themselves to give airtime to their favourite feminist “activists” and politicians, as seen in earlier episodes in this series where they even had Jess Phillips feature on a broadcast (and not because of her notorious misandry). Furthermore, what typically gives real value to broadcasts such as this is where the BBC actually take it upon themselves to confront those responsible for institutionalised sexism. For any other broadcast about a government-linked sexism scandal there would have been an obligatory (and possibly  useful) interview with Theresa May or someone else from the Home Office, yet absolutely no politician from any party was interviewed about the problem

As discussed above, it was what was missing from the broadcast which was just as much an issue as some of the pointless content. It wasn’t just male victims and key personalities that were erased or marginalised, a further key factor was the biased language removed. To be honest I wasn’t fully paying attention throughout the entire programme  but I have to say I dont’ recall a single use of the term “misandry” or anyone ever even acknowledging the fact that it was sexist to assault men or fail to prosecute most female criminals simply because of their gender. The BBC happily screams sexism when women are the alleged victims, even where no such sexism exists, yet here we have irrefutable proof of institutionalism discrimination against men throughout the entire justice system and the BBC cannot bring itself to utter such a term.

A further key fault with the broadcast is the failure of the BBC to explore the underlying factors resulting in the massive double standard it discovered. While the programme happily blamed alcohol or birth control for the problems it uncovered, at no point was there any mention of the 43 year-long control of the domestic violence sector by radical feminists and their attitudes to male victims of violence and propaganda against them. This is a key factor not only for understanding conviction rates for women and the appalling treatment of male victims, it also actually illustrates further problems prevent us from dealing with women. For example, not only do racial feminist largely refuse to acknowledge let alone help male victims of abusive women, this same feminist ideology has also put us in the present situation whereby all female perpetrators are refused admittance into the plethora of feminist-run domestic violence perpetrator programmes and thus cannot ever get help to tackle their abusive behaviour. Of course the BBC would rather abandon the entire series ever criticise the feminist religion but that doesn’t’ make the point any less valid.

Thankfully, watching the hour-long broadcast wasn’t a total waste of time and the BBC did reveal one wonderful nugget of information, albeit inadvertently. Early on in the broadcast we were introduced to an extremely violent woman from Newcastle named Isabella Sorley. In addition to countless assaults she’d committed, Isobella also drunkenly sent threats to feminist Caroline Criado-Perez, who famously exploited these empty threats to help raise her profile in the media (much like Jess Phillips just last week and countless others too) . We’re informed that Sorley received 12 weeks in prison for the drunken tweets she sent tweets, and the programme details countless assaults she’d committed before and since, many against male police officers. Incredibly, not a single one of these assaults resulted in her spending a single day in prison and she was free to continue her spree of violence with significant repercussions! So, the real lesson to take from the programme is as follows: If you make drunken empty threats of assault on Twitter to feminists that you’ve never met who live hundreds of miles away, then you’ll got to prison, even if you’re female. However, if that very same person commits actual violence in the real world against real people, then that’s fine and there are next to no consequences, even if you have a lengthy record of such behaviour! So its’ now 100% official – words sent to high-profile feminists concerning violence, are quite literally worse than actual violence itself! And of all the media outlets out there who could have uncovered such a ridiculous state of affairs, it’s actually the feminist BBC who’ve accidentally let this slip.

3 thoughts on “Review of “The Rise of Female Violence” – the rise of BBC bias?

  1. It’s no bad thing to remember when dealing with this subject that the bbc is (and always was) the broadcasting arm of the civil service.
    That is to say it will always reflect the policies of the State of of the day (whatever they may be !).
    Thus one must expect it to always follow a fixed and predictable path. It is State policy that men are responsible for violence, and women are victims so that is what the bbc will of course say.
    If you’d like more evidence of this, compare State policy on, for example, man made ‘global warming’ (we have it and it’s bad), and ‘europe’, ( we want it and it’s good), on israel (boo!) and ‘ Palestine’ (hurrah!), with what the bbc say about these things – they are the same.
    Can I be sure?
    Yes I can
    I worked there for many years.

  2. Have you noticed how most leading feminists are unbelievably ugly? I think this must be because they have really ugly souls. Incidentally, I am not a misogynist and have lived very happily with my beloved wife for almost thirty years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s