Russell-Moyle’s belief

Guardian columnist Catherine Bennett wrote a piece about misogynist men a few weeks ago.

The continued detention of the professional misogynist Andrew Tate deprives fans of a treasured role model. Even if Tate is soon free to resume his life’s work – essentially, telling women to “shut up, bitch” – it could be a while before Romanian police return the luxury cars that validate his alpha male status.

In what is increasingly acknowledged to be a golden era for misogyny, it’s still unusual to find anything approaching Tate’s strutting self-regard, his bragging, his contempt for women, especially mouthy or older ones. “I don’t even talk to old hoes,” he offers, in one video. As for working women who aspire, to Tate’s disgust, to “thoughts and opinions and a job”: “Sit at home,” he tells them, “be quiet, make coffee.” Rule one for “chicks” (which must be tricky to enforce from prison) goes: “No. You stay in the house, you don’t go nowhere. No restaurants, no clubs, nothing.”

Or as the Labour party’s director of communications, Matthew Doyle, was heard saying last week, after a woman MP started playing up, spend more time in your constituency rather than “hanging out with JK Rowling”. He was referring to the MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield, once a darling of the party, now feeling, as she written, “ostracised”, but in refusing to shut up, becoming the sort of problem Tate never faced.

She’s making a point here. Matthew Doyle’s insult is a slightly more refined version of Andrew Tate.

If Labour’s responses to its woman problem (as Duffield rightly calls it) can never compete with Tate’s videos, its progressive approach to misogyny is arguably more instructive for men who would like to shut women up but cannot afford a Romania-based chick compound. Men who study, for instance, the conduct of Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle may even conclude that the manosphere could have done more to nurture, as he does, male belief that bullying and insulting women is indicative of moral superiority. For Russell-Moyle, when he brought himself to apologise for insulting and intimidating Miriam Cates MP (having previously barracked Duffield in the debate about the government’s section 35 order blocking Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill), the aggression only confirmed the purity of his sentiments. His “tone”, he conceded, was a mistake, but he stood by his words: “Our job as MPs is to channel passion and anger into considered debate to win our arguments.”

When, that is, we’re talking down to women.

Russell-Moyle is channeling his passion and anger again:

He expects to be able to abuse his female colleagues with impunity.

3 Responses to “Russell-Moyle’s belief”

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting