Kathleen Stock does that pesky feminist thing of noticing politicians who try to draw a polite veil over religions that see women as dangerous whores.

First we were told there couldn’t be a national public inquiry into grooming gangs, because there were going to be at least five local ones. This week, considerable confusion emerged about whether there would even be any of those. Buried within a statement about tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation generally, Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, announced with smooth customer-service rhetoric that “following feedback from local authorities”, instead of local inquiries, there might be “more bespoke work”. 

I bet we can guess what that “feedback” was feeding back.

To many eyes, this was a cowardly reversal to avoid offending core Labour voters — not least, perhaps, ones in Phillips’s Birmingham Yardley constituency. Some of these tend to get defensive when attention turns to facts about the predominant ethnic heritage (Pakistani) and religion (Muslim) of the men who have been conducting the systematic rape and abuse of white working-class girls in British cities for years. Sikh girls have also been targeted by groups of Muslim men.

Religions have consequences. Religions are forms of group idennniny, and when idenniny enters the picture people get very cautious. This does not apply, of course, when the idennniny is female. Religious idenniny is massively important and valuable; female idenniny is a tragic mistake.

In the ensuing fallout, a familiar, frustratingly counterproductive approach from political leaders has been taken, which I call the “zoom-out” protocol. The unspoken rule seems to be: whenever there’s a negative social issue mainly involving members of a non-white ethnic or religious minority, zoom out as if you were operating a wide-angle lens and talk about the problem as a general one, rooted only in human nature. If, on the other hand, you are talking about a negative issue involving mostly white people, relax about any unflattering angles; feel free to zoom in with as high definition as your camera provides.

When the negative social issue is to do with male people predating on female people then even non-white female people lose out, no doubt because their male relatives don’t allow them to riot.

But not every mention of ethnic minorities involves an invidious general comparison. Sometimes we just need to better understand criminal offences in a relatively circumscribed cultural context, particularly where it is a matter of accountability and learning lessons. This should include examining any aggravating factors related to ethnicity and religion — for instance, the silencing effects of tight-knit kinship structures, or the hostile targeting of victims perceived as sinful non-believers.

Or a Holy Book that is riddled with misogynist rage.

Here’s the thing: the holy books were written by men, because men were the ones with the power to write holy books. Men left to their own devices have two burning grudges against women: they won’t spread their legs on command, and they’re whores. Naturally their god agrees with them, and so humanity ends up with sacred books that reinforce hatred of women.