Leyonhjelm shows women lose in post-chivalry world

WHAT happened between Senators Leyonhjelm and Hanson-Young is about more than “slut-shaming”. It’s about a profound fraying of the relationship between the sexes, writes Miranda Devine.

I’M not going to defend David Leyonhjelm.

His slurs against Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young were uncouth, ungentlemanly, ungallant, unchivalrous and brutish.

But here’s the rub: they are a glimpse into an uncouth, ungentlemanly, ungallant, unchivalrous and brutish future for women if feminists keep demonising men.

Gallantry and chivalry were designed to protect women, to harness male instincts and place them in the service of the weaker sex. They are part of a finely balanced interpersonal choreography worked out over countless generations.

But now men are slapped in the face if they dare to step aside or open a door for a woman because chivalry has been rebranded as sexism.

What happens next time? The man shrugs his shoulders, dispenses with the courtesies and barges through the door. See how you like dem apples.

So what happened between Senators Leyonhjelm and Hanson-Young last week is about a whole lot more than “slut-shaming”, as Hanson-Young has been characterising it. It’s about a profound fraying of the relationship between the sexes.

You need to understand where it began, with the debate which blew up last month after the shocking rape and murder of 22-year-old Eurydice Dixon late one night in Melbourne.

Suddenly, police hunting a killer were being lambasted for warning people to exercise “situational awareness”. They were accused of sexist victim-blaming by a hysterical mob of fembots on social media.

Senator Leyonhjelm’s comments to Senator Hanson-Young represent the future for women if feminist nutjobs keep demonising men. (Pic: Kym Smith)

It is such an illogical, self-defeating argument it barely deserved acknowledging, but it reared its ugly head again in Parliament last week when crossbench Senator Fraser Anning put forward a well-meaning motion to relax import restrictions on pepper spray, mace and tasers.

“Access to a means of self-protection by women in particular would provide greatly increased security and confidence that they will not become just another assault, rape or murder statistic,” he told the Senate.

What a great idea. I’d love a can of mace in my handbag, for the next time I walk through a deserted carpark, heart thumping for fear of what might be lurking in the shadows.

But the Greens nastily slammed Anning’s gallant motion as “ill-conceived, blundering and harmful”.

“The last thing women in Australia need now is another man in power telling us that we are responsible for violence against us,” said Senator Janet Rice. “The priority must be to eradicate men’s violence.”

Blind ideology.

As Rice was trashing Anning’s chivalry, Hanson-Young was calling out. What she said is a matter of contention. Leyonhjelm claims he heard her say “men should stop raping women.” He later claimed she said “all men are rapists,” which she denies.

What is not in doubt is that he responded by saying “Stop shagging men” and told her to “F … k off” when she called him a “creep.”

On Sky’s “Outsiders” program on Sunday, Leyonhjelm doubled down, making some reprehensible comments about Hanson-Young.

Listen: Miranda Devine discusses the issues of the day on Miranda Live.

But it’s pointless trying to force Leyonhjelm to apologise. Yesterday he called the PM a “pussy.” He doesn’t care. He’s not a team player. That’s why he started his own party. He doesn’t believe in rules. That’s why he’s a libertarian. No one can bring him to heel, and it is ridiculous of Labor MP Catherine King to sit on the Q&A stage trying to pin responsibility on Cory Bernardi, who has his own party, and has as much power over Leyonhjelm as she does. Which is none.

Leyonhjelm benefits from the hysteria through the name recognition he needs to win the next election. And from his point of view surely it is worse to be accused of being a rapist than of “shagging men.”

There is festering fury across this country about the vilification of men and boys. Good men who do their best in the face of extreme provocation to act like gentleman have had it thrown in their face and this will be the result.

I don’t condone it. But the people who are creating that fury are not Leyonhjelm and the Outsiders. It’s Rice. It’s King. It’s Hanson-Young. It’s everyone who signed up to the feminist myth of “toxic masculinity.”

It is a twisted ideology which brands all men, even little boys, incipient wife-bashers and sexual predators. Terrible injustices are being done in its name.

If you care about women, the last thing you want is to create a backlash against us.

The people who are creating that fury are not Leyonhjelm. (Pic: Mick Tsikas)

That’s what Leyonhjelm demonstrated with his boorishness towards Hanson-Young. When the gloves are off, women can’t win. Take away the protections of gallantry and chivalry and it’s a jungle where only the strongest survive.

A friend’s daughter was jogging in her suburb one morning when a pervert jumped out of the bushes and grabbed her. Luckily, a passing couple heard her screams and came to her rescue. The husband chased the pervert and held him until police arrived.

She was saved by a good man. This is commonplace. Men die protecting women. We need the good guys to protect us against the bad guys. We should not tar both with the same brush just to pretend that masculinity is inherently toxic.

The enduring disgrace is that only five senators voted for Anning’s pro-woman motion last week.

Those 46 senators who voted against the motion voted to deny women self-defence. They threw women under the bus of their ideology.

Only if you live in an ivory tower protected by wealth and privilege can you pretend the world is a safe place. Only if you are chauffeured in Comcars from Chairman’s Lounge to Chairman’s Lounge.

It is utterly naive to pretend that we can create a nonviolent utopia. That just endangers every unsuspecting young woman who has to walk home alone, like poor Anita Cobby, or Eurydice Dixon.