02 January 2006
Crossing To Kill, by Simon Whitechapel, is a true-crime paperback I picked up a few years ago. It details the murders in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico of over 370 women since the early 1990s.
One interesting chapter details the attempts by feminists to exploit the killings for their own interests, to make it all out to be the fault of the Evil Patriarchy. Whitechapel quotes a whining feminist from Mexico, Esther Chávez, who claims to have found evidence of the Evil Patriarchy at work in the fact that the majority of victims have been workers at the many factories in the town;
Women are occupying the space of men in a culture of absolute dominance of men over women. This has to provoke misogyny.
So, according to this foaming nutter, men are furious that women are doing factory jobs so they are going around killing them…ignoring, of course, the total lack of evidence for this. In fact, although the majority of slayings have not been formally solved, police did arrest and convict an Egyptian man named Abdul Sharif for one of the murders, and police blame Sharif for both the earlier killings and for arranging to pay men to carry out many of the further killings after his arrest to divert suspicion from himself. Far from being some violent peasant upset at losing a job to a women, Latif was an affluent chemist who, in any case, had previous convictions for rape back in the US and his home country of Egypt. Hardly someone who would be furious just because some women have factory jobs. Also, it turned out that Sharif was sexually abused as a child, and whilst that obviously doesn’t justify raping and killing people, it certainly stands as a more logical reason as to why he turned out to be a twisted psychopathic killer than just some abstract rubbish about him wanting to scare women into getting back into the kitchen!
This doesn’t stop feminist organizations from trying to make it out to be a vast conspiracy to keep women down, and neither does the fact that more men have been killed in Ciudad Juárez since the early 1990s (and, indeed, it is impossible to find a town, state or nation where murder rates for men are lower than for women over any extended period of time.) Yet, still, feminists lobby for more money, more restrictions on men and demonize the male population over incidents like this.
Simon Whitechapel digresses from talk of unsolved murders at one point to make an excellent observation regarding feminist demands that women abandon the home and go into the workplace:
Feminism seems to have been a vast attempt to coerce all women into behaving in a way in which only a few women [feminists] behave, and like many organised movements before it, seems to have acquired aims seperate from, and even antagonistic to, those that it publicly professes
This can clearly be seen in feminist’s claims of wanting equality but clearly wanting privilege for women, their insistence that they have children’s interests at heart yet do their best to break up families and have children spend all their time in daycare, both of which are generally harmful to children, their boasting of how they want to end sexism yet express an utter hatred and murderous contempt for all males, even little boys…and a million other contradictions between their repulsive movement and their original rose-scented claims of just wanting equality.
Whitechapel continues the point of how feminists exploited the Ciudad Juárez killings, and do so regularly with crimes of violence against women:
If feminism gains public capital from violence against women, it has in some sense an incentive to encourage violence against women. If it succeeds in this, feminism as a movement gains while individual women lose. Feminist campaigners like Esther Chávez will therefore be anxious to emphasize the extent of male violence against women even at the expense of logic and objective fact and even when some of the cases they produce as examples do not fit the ideology they wish to apply to them.
This point about feminists wanting to encourage – or at least exaggerate violence against women – can be seen in countless examples of feminist reports, ‘studies’ and general ranting. The definition of rape was widened to include a woman consenting to sex but regretting it a week later, men who criticize their wives are now classed as ‘abusive’, and in the case of the Ciudad Juárez slayings some murders of women by other women have been lumped somehow with the murders of women by men into the evidence of a grand conspiracy of Patriarchal Oppression. Then, of course, there is the way violence against men is ignored, and violence against children is highlighted only when it is by men and ignored or excused when (as it is in the majority of cases) it is by women.
Why feminists inflate (or just outrightly invent) statistics of male violence/abuse of women is obvious; they want to demonize men, to back up their claims that we desire to rape and beat women as soon as we hit puberty, and most importantly it’s about money and power. Feminists want more unelected jobs in government for themselves to orchestrate their ideology, they want more cash to open women’s refuges to recruit more women into their movement, more control over the media to further demonize men, and they want more and more exciting ways to have the government steal money from men in the form of child-support, alimony and the “man tax” (as suggested by a number of feminists have suggested, including those crazy bitches in Sweden’s imploding feminists party) and have it handed to women. Claiming that men are all violent Neanderthals and that women are the eternal victims is the only way they can do this, and they will damn well do it even if it means exploiting the tragic victims of serial killers.
Money and power. That’s what feminists want. However, they can’t earn either themselves, so they have to have to wait for men to earn money and power then have them stolen by Daddy Government and handed to them on a plate.
Fortunately, more and more men are beginning to see through their lies and absurd claims, on which their whole hateful ideology and schemes reside.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:59 PM