The Future is Female – And This Is What It Looks Like

‘I was a feminist when feminism was about equality. Now it’s about demonising men’ (Bettina Ardnt, 2026).

A lot of women would agree with Bettina’s comment, including me, and I grew into feminism by being taught that ‘the squeaky wheel gets most oil’ (i.e. speak up for what you need and want – thank you to my parents) and ‘empty vessels make most sound' (thank you, Socrates and Shakespeare and again my parents who taught me to at least think I had something sensible to say before opening my mouth).

Many women appear to have absorbed the former with no reference to the latter.

Since I was a child in the 1950’s women’s place in the world has changed out of all recognition, arguably not for the better. Once campaigning for equality and opportunity based on merit, not gender, women now appear to campaign for special treatment and opportunity based on gender, to the extent that some men will ‘identify as women’ openly in society. On the other hand, Norah Vincent, a young woman, lived as a man for a little over year to experience life as a male and found it, although accepted and treated well by men, a negatively life changing experience overall, given the prejudices and expectations men are subjected to, and she ended up with mental health issues and dying by suicide in 2022.

Women accept trans-women in women’s spaces (see Steph Richards, a transwoman was the CEO of the women’s charity Endometriosis South Coast), refuse transgirls entry to the Girl Guide movement and object to transwomen in retail changing rooms (see the ongoing issues for M&S), but insist that a transwoman doctor, Beth Upton, is allowed access to the female nurses changing room and bully the nurse, Sandy Peggie, who formally objected. To say that the issue is muddled and confused is an understatement. The question ‘what do women want?’ was never more relevant and society as a whole is left grappling with the consequences.

Equality and fairness go hand in hand, but current ‘squeaky wheel’ topics make no reference to either. No-one in the country can reasonably claim to be unaware that resources for domestic abuse victims fall heavily – one might say almost exclusively – on the side of women. Women’s charities frequently talk of the ‘need’ for more funding to the exclusion of men, who are affected in almost equal numbers, but the latest ‘squeaks’ are beyond the pale.

Not content with all the funding, more is being demanded as there are two current discussions in the UK parliament.

Firstly, there is the argument for free transcripts of trials for ‘victims’, for ‘closure’, and extension of the already free sentencing remarks.

Note of course that this demand refers to ‘victims’ of sexual crime, regardless of the verdict, and no other victim of crime or even defendants. Not content with instant belief, no requirement to provide digital evidence, support throughout the process, screening at court, a whole Victim Support system before and after trial, demands for SHPOs, even for acquitted accused, Victims Commissioners, in spite of their title, advocate little for anyone but females who claim to be victims of sexual crime, they want to go yet further on the descent into the madness of bias. Since when was the Justice System ‘therapy’?

Had they argued for transcripts for complainants and defendants alike, there might have been some sympathy, but equality and fairness is not in their remit and rarely is it more blatant than here.

David Davis MP, that rare politician with a modicum of common sense and an understanding of the job that MPs are SUPPOSED to do but few do do, has pointed out in the House of Commons that transcripts should be free on request in the interests of transparent justice. Moreover, as FASO, the organisation that supports the falsely accused has identified, false accuser’s lies and exaggerations are often in plain sight in these transcripts and hiding them is tantamount to encouraging miscarriages of justice. Maybe that is why the women arguing so vehemently for special treatment are so silent on the subjects of fairness and transparency. (No inference is meant towards any particular woman here; it is a general observation. Women’s organisations as a whole are not as blind to the topic of false allegations as they would like the general public to believe.)

Transcripts are not just a ‘nice bit of therapy’; for the wrongly convicted, they are essential to their appeal. Those who try to appeal without one are castigated by judges and appellants can be quoted up to £100,000 for the cost. Using Brian Buckle’s fight for compensation after his wrongful conviction as an example, he has been required to provide THREE further copies if he wishes to proceed. Does he not have at least as much of a right to free copies as any victim? Comments have been made on social media how, in this age of digital ease, they should be easily obtainable but people report ‘strategic inaudibility’ and refusal to provide and reports have been made of ‘strategic inaudibility’. Will ‘victims’ face these barriers? Defendants NEED them if they are to have any hope of overturning wrongful convictions and too many are excluded on grounds of cost. Prisons have far too many individuals contained within their walls who would appeal their convictions if they only had the funds. Why should complainants get the transcript and not defendants when there are, essentially, victims of the state? Why should some have to rely on limited pro bono resources? Why should only the relatively wealthy have any hope of having a wrongful conviction overturned without additional struggles that risk ruining their mental health further. The fact that no-one is asking these questions, least of all the campaigning women, demonstrates their selfishness and the myopia of the campaigners and politicians alike.

Interestingly, it has been reported that Labour MPs are being instructed to block the amendment for free transcripts on grounds of cost. The argument isn’t that complainants shouldn’t have them, only that it cannot be afforded, a regular political whine, and no mention of the concepts of fairness or equality.  It’s not the job of parliament to find ways to wriggle out of any and all population demands, they should be looking at why the amendment is reasonable or unreasonable and commenting on that too, as per David Davies MP. Otherwise the inference is that they agree with the amendment and would meet the cost if they could. I imagine, though, that is too much to ask of any modern parliament. ‘Sympathy for victims’ doesn’t translate to ‘sympathy for victims of wrongful convictions’ or anything in the way of practical help for them. The ‘it’s too expensive’ excuse is just that, just an excuse, with nothing concrete to back it up or explore the issue in full.

Secondly, there is the call for the government to ‘recognise reproductive coercion in law and for powerful men to stop using the courts to gaslight women’.  Again, an issue that affects both women and men has been gendered, with no thought or mention of issues such as paternity fraud or paternity enforcement, issues that affect men at a disturbing rate. So too, is issue of, a few weeks after beginning dating, a woman pressuring her chosen target to make her pregnant, kicking him to the kerb when either she gets pregnant or doesn’t get pregnant quickly enough. She gets the child SHE wants, child support and often fully furnished accommodation too. (Add false allegations to get legal aid into the mix and the gas-lighting reaches new heights.) That’s reproductive coercion, as is telling a man you’re on the pill when you’re not, or not on the pill when you are, as is expecting child support when the man was forced to penetrate, the female version of sexual assault/rape, or coercion took place. No one is denying that men commit crimes against women, but it’s actually much easier for a woman to exercise reproductive coercion than it is for a man, and there are more varied ways to do it. A call for the un-gendered recognition of reproductive coercion in law would have been equitable and fair, and perhaps as with the issue of free transcripts garnered more sympathy, but as has been said many times, women in general and feminists in particular aren’t interested in equitable treatment or fairness, they want special treatment and privilege, no matter how much they need to demonise men in the process See Mankind's "Male Victims of Coercive Control: Experiences and Impact"). Even the BMJ focuses solely on women as victims, making no reference to men.

The argument that ‘if men want these things they can ask for them’ makes no sense. Why gender something and do it twice when once will do? The short-sightedness and selfishness is staggering and just confirms the gynocentrism.

Our future has become, far from men gas-lighting women in the way that’s suggested, but women gas-lighting men to think that women are the only important people and that their every whim must be pandered to and granted, to the detriment of men. No prosecutions for 10 years for reproductive coercion is clearly a lack that must be remedied and the sooner there are some men knocking at the prison gates the better.

All the while, of course, there are calls for no women to be imprisoned whatsoever for anything, and young women, (not young men), to not be placed in YOI’s, as if young men are never vulnerable or susceptible to self-harm.

Of course, the men I call ‘Misguided Knights in Shining Armour’ are just as culpable for all this, often politicians and executives with careers to build, though men are becoming more and more sidelined as women take up more and more space in the public domain. With great power comes great responsibility. Women are claiming great power, but failing to meet any of the responsibilities and failing in all the areas where they claim men failed. Their claims leave much to be desired, but they are making no effort to be ‘better’ than the men they castigate. They wanted men to advocate for women, which they did in many ways that women refuse to see.

It’s time more women and, crucially more powerful women, started advocating for men in the ways they claim were missing. Otherwise, they will create a society that implodes on itself. Reframing a need that applies to all the population, transcripts of trials in the one case and application of the law in the other as a need for women and women alone, is, arguably, a Human Rights violation and an affront to justice, a complete moral failure on both counts. Women have already argued successfully for transcripts in Scotland and there has been a 2yr trial.

Anyone else is expected to pay £100 per hour or £1.68 per minute for transcription, with suggestions that they be specific about what they need to reduce the cost – as if such identification is easy, straight forward, or even possible.

As for the fact that it helps with closure, I know personally of a victim who on reading her transcript, fell into a severe depression requiring medical treatment, despite being relatively mentally healthy during and after the trial.  So much for ‘closure’, and I very much doubt this is an isolated incident. We don’t always know what we need, why we need it or if it’s good for us. England and Wales is in danger of following suit, if not now, in the (near) future, and could, I venture, actually end up causing harm. But women want what they want.

In addition to all that, the Scottish government is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling from November 2025 that spoke to the fairness of Scottish trials and potential Human Rights violations.

How much worse can it get?

Men never argued for a future that was completely male – to claim a future that is completely female, catering only to women’s wants no matter how unreasonable, is misguided at best, societal suicide at worst, and impossible to come back from when the scales of justice have tipped too far.

By Felicity Stryjak

Director, Falsely Accused Database (FAD)