‘Misogyny’ defined as hate crime in North Yorkshire

News|May 16th 2017

North Yorkshire has become the second county to officially recognise ‘misogynistic’ behavior as a hate crime.

Following the lead set by Nottinghamshire last year, England’s largest county has declared that a range of actions directed towards woman and girls by some men and boys will fall within this new category of offence. In addition to clear physical or sexual assault, ‘misogyny’ will also include:

*Abusive or sexually explicit language.

*The use of mobile phones to send unwanted messages or take unwanted pictures.

*Unwanted physical contact.

And even:

*Unwanted verbal contact (i.e. being spoken to).

*Unwanted sexual advances.

North Yorkshire Police worked alongside York St John University on the new category of offence,  producing a short film in which women discuss discuss their experiences of ‘misogynistic’ behaviour:

Deputy Chief Constable Lisa Winward explained:

“Hate in all its forms is wrong and North Yorkshire Police will take all the necessary steps to protect our communities and ensure the women and girls of our region feel safe to go about their daily business, without fear of being targeted simply because they are a woman. I encourage all victims of all types of hate crime to come forward and report it.”

Police and Crime Commissioner Julia Mulligan added:

“I do understand that some people may think this is an example of ‘political correctness gone mad’. However, I’d ask them to pause and think about the impact on the people bearing the brunt of such behaviour. It can’t be right that women and girls feel they have to change the way they dress, the routes that they walk and other day-to-day tasks that should be carried out without fear, worry or intimidation.”

Commenters have suggested that the new category of offence is likely to lead to few if any real world arrests but will instead be used to compile statistics on the reported prevalence of these behaviours.

Share This Post...


  1. spinner says:

    Currently there is an epidemic of paedophile street gangs operating in Yorkshire and many other towns in the UK which the police seem unable or unwilling to deal with and the problem is only getting worse.
    So it’s kind of difficult to take the police seriously if they are wanting to prioritise men whistling at women in the street over paedophiles gang raping children as in I would urge them to focus on very little else until they have resolved the child gang raping problem.

  2. Paul Apreda says:

    This is deeply worrying but entirely predictable. I attended the All Party Parliamentary Group on DV a month or two ago. There was a presentation by the Chief Constable of Notts and others about how they first identified the problem of misogyny. One young woman told of the harrowing experience of walking past a building site from her house to the corner shop and one of the workers shouting ‘Cor – you’re lovely!’ at her. She spoe eloquently about the devastating impact this had on her. The 20 minutes she stood near the shop thinking about the torment of having to walk back home past the site again. Later she called the police to complain of the trauma and harassment she’d experienced. The Police responded – went to the buidling site – spoke with the manager who was horrified at the experince this woman had endured and made sure that everyone attended special training to ensure they appreciated this woman’s experience. The Chief Constable was very candid about how their ‘pioneering work’ would pan out. She spoke of half a dozen police forces that she’d personally lobbied to bring them on-side with the new misogyny hate crime. She spoke of her discussions with the Home Office who said that if this was a national initiative it would have to be called ‘gender-based hate crime’. Questions were asked. Would this mean that men would be coming forward to complain about misandry?! The Chief Constable was sure that they would but the members of the APPG neednt worry because they knew that it might be called ‘gender based hate crime’ but the reality was that this was a problem faced by women not men.
    I went away absolutely reassured that if you are a woman in Notts the police will be certain to help, protect and uphold your rights and dignities. If you are a man – well, surely you can look after yourself you pathetic wimp…..!!

  3. Stitchedup says:

    I assume misandry will also be considered a hate crime?? The police, courts and justice system as whole is of course totally gender neutral, no gender bias whatsoever.. I know this because John Bolch has said so.

  4. Paul says:

    Wow. Unbeleivable. So women now have the power to criminalise a man for any behaviour they don’t like as a hate crime. That mans breathing. Don’t like the way he looked at me better phone the police.
    Wow this is unbeleivable. As a person who was falsely an maliciously accused of ‘harassment’ and over turned this at crown court. I have to say I 100% unequivicably oppose this ruling with every fibre of my soul xXx
    Where do you send complaints ?? How do you over turn this nonsense ???
    The world has gone mad.
    Femanazis are taking over.
    I hope my Son is gay. If not he is in for a dogs life !!
    Wheres the equality in that ??? This is the opposite of equality…. Its utter madness..
    Sickening… truely sickening !!!
    How many men do you want in jail ???
    Wheee is the legislation against women ???
    When do they face the consiquences of their actions ???
    (*Edited by the moderators)

  5. Paul says:

    The irony is this is really starting to make me hate women.
    This is so backwards !!!

  6. D says:

    “I do understand that some people may think this is an example of ‘political correctness gone mad’. However, I’d ask them to pause and think about the impact on the people bearing the brunt of such behaviour”

    I’ve thought.

    It’s very backwards. Make laws, define crime in a neutral way.. target resources with … um statistics.. yes.. by definition they’re not recording, say misandry or other types, so they’ll never know whether there’s a problem or not in those categories. Of course there’s not, evidently.

  7. D says:

    In short it completely discredits future statistics because there’s an immediate bias introduced before collection and then through every step subsequently.

    You can’t then say there’s a disproportionate number of crimes against girls and women because they are solely collecting those events, by definition ignoring counting against the other non-definitions.

  8. Stitcheduo says:


    Ironic that over the past few days we’ve discussed the case of a man having his intellect and physical size count against him and be denied contact with his children. A,woman stabs a man in a drug and alcohol fuelled frenzie and her intellect earns her a get out of jail card. You couldn’t make it up!!

  9. Paul says:

    Worth mentioning that the police can no longer cope with drugs. So the cheif of police is in support of legalising canabis. The police say they don’t have the resources to lock people up for downloading child porn because they are too many offenders. Currently less than 8% of burgalries are solved and result in a conviction. But hey. Lets target our resources against men who wolf wistle at women in the street. Why do we employ the police at all ? – they can’t deal with organised gangs. They won’t even think anout going on a traveler site. As far as I can see the police offer us very very little protection from real crime. Yet they seem to have time to criminalise fathers and stop the seeing their kids. Talk about getting your prioritys wrong.

  10. D says:

    that reminds me of the student swimmer spared the full force of sentencing for rape because of the risk of damaging a promising career.
    Wonder whether it will receive the same amount of media coverage and intensity of protest?

  11. Michelle says:

    This is deeply worrying and I feel as though I have to apologize, being a woman, for this horrifically vile act of sexism.

    This is wrong.

    Feminism at its core was only supposed to afford EQUAL rights to men, not this..
    Nottinghamshire and now Yorkshire should be ashamed of themselves. Equality can never be attained by pandering to sexist views and driving a wedge between genders.
    Appalling, utterly and completely appalling.

    • someotherguy says:

      No it was always meant to do this, and a lot worse. It is primarily though a tool used for political manipulation. You like a lot of people fall for the lies of feminists and feminism. For starters the western world, modern version has actually been here since 1800s. Almost all of its success are not its successes but co-opted efforts of multiple groups and peoples, and then lauded about as though no one else was involved.

  12. Paul says:

    If a man wolf wistles at a woman or compliments them on their apparence. I don’t really understand why this constitutes mysogyny anyway? Its the exact opposite.
    Gay men actively approach each other and wolf wistle at each other. So you can’t argue that this occurs just because they are women. Thats not true at all.
    If they are complimenting a woman they are simply stating they find them attractive. With a view to getting there number probably and instigating a relationship. This is not done simply because the person is a ‘Woman’. It is done because the person is attracted to the person as an individual and it is deffinatly not done because the person has hostile feelings or hatred towards the woman.
    To say a man that does that is a mysogynist is totally miss repressenting the mans intentions and feelings.
    Mysogyny is a crime of intent. In order to become a crime of Mysogyny surely there motivation for doing what they do or intent has to be because they fundimentally ‘hate women’.
    Can you have a hate crime without proving the person ‘hates’ the victim. Find it hard to imagine you could prove a man hated a woman because he has wolf wistled at her.
    Seems like utter nonsense to me.

  13. Stitchedup says:

    The whole thing is so absurd the chief constable and PCC of each area should be dismissed on the spot, they’ve clearly lost their marbles and are unfit to hold such posts.

  14. Paul says:

    Looked at the deffinition on google an the term ‘sexual objectification’ is lumped in with mysogeny. Think this is where I have a problem with it.
    Sexual objectivication is not done out of hatred. Its not the same thing.
    If you sexually objectify women that makes you ‘hetrosexual’ (possibly lesbian homosexual who objectifys). It does not make you a ‘woman hater’ or ‘Mysogynist’
    I know thousands of men who sexually objectify women (id say 80% of men I know myself included). I don’t know any who openly hate women. Infact id argue they are so driven by sexual urges they probably like women far too much.
    I would say ‘sexual objectification’ is an issue an can be a problem in a world saturated with online porn ect.
    But I would argue this is very differnt than the crime of ‘hating women’ or ‘mysogyny’ I would say.
    I think lumping ‘sexual objectification’ and ‘Mysogeny’ into one problem is wrong. Its an imperfect deffinition.
    Thats not to say that a mysogenist could not also be guilty of objectification. Im sure at times these problems come in one parcel.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy