Independent and Irresponsible


——————————————————-

24 January 2007

Why is it NEVER a woman’s fault?

PDF

The author of this article does make the silly assumption that feminism has turned into an anti-male movement, when in fact it always has been just that. Also she mentions a lot of cases of babies being killed by mummy’s new thug-lover, but fails to add that, whilst this is indeed increasingly commonplace, it is women who are more likely to abuse and kill children. Plus she’s still under the impression that women are equal to men.

Otherwise, it’s a fairly good piece. Nice to see some people in the mainstream media are noticing women gained all their rights and privileges without the responsibilities.

When the prison doors clanged shut behind her, Hayley Kenny began her four-year sentence this month with plenty to think about.

She could think, for instance, about the long weeks during which her violent boyfriend, Craig Pearce, had abused her two-year-old son Kieran – while she stood back and did nothing.

She could think about the day she came home from work to find that Pearce, now serving 18 years, had punched the child so brutally in the abdomen that it was evident to a plank of wood he was dying – but she stood back and did nothing.

She could think, too, of the judge’s words: that if she had only lifted a telephone to call an ambulance, Kieran might have been alive today.

For her dereliction of the most basic motherly instinct, 23-year-old Hayley is now the first woman ever to be convicted of the new charge of familial homicide, or allowing the death of a child.

And hurrah for that: frankly, if it were left to me, I’d throw away the key.

For years, scarcely has a month gone by without some hideous story coming to light about a child being physically assaulted, sexually abused and even murdered by his father or, more usually, his stepfather (aka ‘Mummy’s new partner’).

Yet instead of asking, as we sensibly should, where Mummy was while all this was going on, the popular judicial line has been that obviously she was so cowed by the bad guy – and make no mistake, he is a bad guy – that she couldn’t possibly have been expected to do anything about it.

No, not even intervene to save her own child’s life.

The question now is this: do we celebrate Kenny’s punishment as a turn for the better and the start of a new trend? Or do we expect her case to be an isolated blip without any suggestion that we hold our breath for the next one? I hope it’s the former.

But the way things are, I fear it might just be the latter.

It is a pernicious corruption of the once progressive principles of feminism that today women are responsible for nothing and therefore guilty of nothing. Blame it all on the boys, no matter what the wickedness. ‘The girl can’t help it,’ has become the anthem of our times.

Within hours of Hayley Kenny’s well-deserved incarceration, Woman’s Hour’s hot topic of the day was a new report claiming that one in five men suffers from domestic violence.

To illustrate the point, some bullying thug of a woman came on to explain herself. But instead of dripping remorse, she managed the same self-pitying victim-whine that routinely stalks the programme: ‘Nuffin’ to be proud of, fair enough,’ but she ‘couldn’t express ‘erself’ and what she really needed was ”elp’.

If she needed help, what about her wretched punchbags? At which point a male guest, himself a sufferer at the hands of such a thug, congratulated her, expressed his admiration for her seeking the ”elp’, while the interviewer didn’t so much as hint a criticism of the woman’s ferocious rages.

Can you imagine any programme, let alone Woman’s Hour, affording the same soft ride to a man who had regularly beaten women? They wouldn’t give him air-time, let alone applause; he’d be held to be entirely responsible for his brutishness with no excuses considered.

But when the he is a she, well, give her a break, the girl can’t help it.

On this basis, some women quite literally get away with murder. The woman who lies in wait for a louse of a husband who has battered her for years, then stabs him through his heart, is hailed as a heroine by today’s appalling apology for a women’s movement.

Nobody is allowed to ask why she didn’t try to escape: his behaviour had broken her spirit; her broken spirit, in turn, was her reasonable provocation.

Fine. And, yes, entirely possible under some circumstances. But, again, imagine a man, his body bruised from 20 years of bites and kicks and hurled implements, his mind numbed by 20 years of ridicule and humiliation and abuse, killing his wife.

He would never escape a murder charge with a claim of provocation. In fact, should he even try to claim ‘I woz provoked’, he would guarantee himself hordes of outraged sisters waving banners outside the courtroom – it was his fault, and his alone, that his dear wife was dead.

As it happens, I am uneasy about invoking provocation in cases of any and all killings.

But I am still less easy that we appear able to accept it for women and not for men, supporting as this does the view that men are able to take responsibility for what they do, whereas women are not; that women are less capable, less clever, less moral and less able to make decisions and live with the results.

Yet another example of this differentiation thrust itself into our faces this week on the knotty issue of gambling.

For centuries there have been people who cannot resist the instant riches that they just know are riding on the next horse, card or throw of dice, to which end they bet their food and even their homes, in the process driving their families to exasperation, desperation and the poor-house.

Our response to them, at least while most of them were men, has included anger, scorn, contempt and – from the exceedingly generous – a measure of pity.

But it’s all changed now that newly released figures show that the fastestgrowing group of people hooked on this dangerous sport are women.

Indeed, the British Medical Association is suddenly demanding that their indulgence should be promoted to a proper illness (for which read: it’s not their fault, the girls can’t help it) and that the NHS should spend serious money, that is to say yours and mine, ‘treating’ them.

Actually, it is their fault. Addiction to gambling is a matter of choice, in that you don’t catch it in one go. I played poker once, two years ago, in some so-called celebrity tournament and won it, to the tune of four figures for my favourite charity.

You cannot imagine the excitement. In fact, so acute was the heart-thumping that then and there I recognised it for the seduction it was and haven’t looked at a playing card since.

But if I had, and consequently succumbed to destructive temptation, then according to the BMA you should now feel not cross but sorry for me – just as if I had blamelessly acquired, say, osteoporosis.

No doubt the BMA’s decision to weigh in is supposed to look caring for women. But what I think it says is that women really are the weaker sex.

Progress? The message is clear: whisper support, offer encouragement, but never, ever, tell a woman she should just say no. No woman is supposed to buck up, square her shoulders, stand up for herself or – least of all – pull herself together.

A sexually ridiculous jibe from a male colleague at work, one which a generation ago we would have destroyed with derision? Not now.

Bring on the smelling salts, the industrial tribunal and the counsellors to diagnose ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’.

Never mind that this makes the woman more publicly pathetic than the twit who offended in the first place – or that the inevitable conclusion must be: modern woman, soppy bint, falls to bits under pressure.

Send us out on a date with a chap and look what happens. You’re drunk, he’s matched you drink for drink so he’s equally drunk. Oh yes, he is!

The grisly fantasy of the drug rapist has been utterly discredited; British bars are not replete with soberly calculating lounge lizards, slipping deadly powders into the nearest cocktail and then waiting for their moment of unconscious conquest (no matter how handy such an image has been to counter hungover morning regret).

The reality is far more likely to be silly pairs of inebriates who foolishly agree to sex – which at least one of them (and good money says both) often later wishes they had refused.

Yet once more the inequality is obvious. Although they both agreed to the sex at the time, the man’s agreement is something he is expected to live with when sobered up, but if recent government initiatives are to win the day, the woman’s agreement is not.

It is pleasing to hear reports this week that some judges are opposing radical moves to boost rape convictions.

The Council of Circuit Judges is said to be unhappy with plans to overhaul rape laws, calling them ‘overcomplicated’.

I’ll say. Especially those that ask courts to accept that a man’s ‘consent’ stands, while the woman’s ‘consent’ may be deemed to be invalid because it was given while she was as drunk as he was.

He is, therefore, sufficiently competent to be a rapist and she is sufficiently incompetent to be a victim; silly, stupid, little dolly her.

This might result, as is planned, in more men being flung in jail and therefore in a victory for women’s groups who desire nothing more or less.

We know that many – or should that be most? – of these groups which set themselves up as anti-rape and antiviolence are led by militant feminists, whose real agenda is anti-men.

But if they really think that their anti-men propaganda is the same thing as pro-women politics, they are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Everything they achieve, they do so at the cost of women; at the cost of acknowledging the strength of a woman’s determination – and at the cost of allowing a woman the ultimate equality, without which all else will fail: an equal right to make mistakes.

Women make mistakes for all manner of reasons. Because they risked a bet, because they fell for the wrong man, because they took on a job too far – or a job too mindless.

Sometimes we crumple because of pressures others pile upon us; sometimes because we get it wrong and pile pressures upon ourselves.

The point is that they are our mistakes and, in any sane world, ours to answer for – not ours to wriggle out of with the pitiful old lament that the girl can’t help it.

She can help it. And when her mistake, like that of Hayley Kenny, is so grotesque that she puts her boyfriend before the safety – and ultimately the life – of her child, there are and should be no excuses.

Bang her up, I say. Not just for her; not just for justice. Bang her up because none of us will ever get equality worth the word unless, when we go dreadfully wrong, we learn to take our punishment like a man.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:04 PM

——————————————————-

At 7:01 PM, Field Marshall Watkins said…

Good article, saying it how it is. The link is broken though. Maybe they removed it, I bloody hope not because that’s a pretty decent article.

——————————————————-

At 7:02 PM, The Phantom said…

The Link doesn’t work. The webpage just says: “Article:430948 Not Found”.

Is there some problem with the web address, or has the article just been removed?

——————————————————-

At 7:04 PM, other said…

Oh dear. Looks like the original article has been taken down.

——————————————————-

At 7:31 PM, Peregrine John said…

“I think of a man, and then I remove all reason and accountability.”

——————————————————-

At 7:44 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

The article’s address changed for some reason, but I’ve fixed the link now.

——————————————————-

At 8:57 PM, Anonymous said…

Duncan Idaho said… “The article’s address changed for some reason”

Ta Duncan. And there was me thinking it was the sinister matriarchal conspiracy at work again.

What with this piece and the Erin Pizzey article yesterday the Daily Mail does seem to be on an anti-victimhood industry roll at the moment. Bout time too.

——————————————————-

At 9:43 PM, Lisa said…

Boy if that article doesn’t hit the nail on the head in many ways. Another example that truly makes me ill is when female teachers are found to me molesting male students. Many are escaping prison time or receiving terms of incarceration that are laughable. The problem lies in 2 areas. Believing the women have committed these acts because of misplaced LOVE not as a predator. Also the belief that the young male victims aren’t damaged to the degree a young female victim may be by a male teacher. Though I understand first hand unwanted penetration is violent and traumatic, there is no doubt these young boys have been equally traumatized. Oddly enough, many of the young boys parents are refusing to press charges or actually asking the judge for a light sentence towards their child’s female assailant. Unbelievable. The mother of the 13 year old boy victimized by Mary Kay Letourneau had sex with while she was 34 asked for mercy since she truly believed Mary Kay was sorry and indeed loved her son. Then she went out and victimized the boy again. Sure, she served time, but it was still light and she has never shown remorse. Now, of course, they are married. Blech.

——————————————————-

At 10:17 PM, byrdeye said…

Wow, I’m really lovin’ the Daily Mail!!! They have great articles every-fookin’-day on the feminist reality today!

Let’s send these writers some fan mail!

——————————————————-

At 10:50 PM, mfsob said…

I’d be willing to say, Hooray, but … you can’t trust women because their “feelings” vacillate so wildly from one moment to the next so … just more bullshit.

——————————————————-

At 11:48 PM, Mr. Misogynist said…

Odd, but you think I’d be happy to see Lisa posting. Actually, I don’t trust her as far as I could throw her. I recognize the value and necessity of using women to further the men’s rights movement, but I would caution you gentlemen in this area.

Allow women to get off their butts and take on their share of the battle against feminism. After all, feminism would never have gotten off the ground in the first place if ALL women weren’t either actively working against men, or at best, sitting by the sidelines laughing at our predicament. Now that men are indeed retreating from women romantically, a few women are coming to our defense. Make no mistake; it’s not because any of them care one bit about men. They simply see the well drying up.

So, use those few women who work in our favor, but never trust them. Ever. Always remember one bit of wisdom that has been true from the beginning of recorded history: A woman is always a man’s worst enemy, and she will always hate you passionately.

Mr. Misogynist

——————————————————-

At 4:26 AM, Anonymous said…

I wonder what would happen if a man wrote this article, or some of these others we’ve seen recently.
It’s sad, but it really chaps my ass we have to wait around for some woman to copy down what has been written on the bloody fecking wall for years. So now, all the damn hens can cluck, “eh, you know she’s right?” and congratulate themselves for being so fair, honest and progressive, not one of those bad sorts at all. Cows.

——————————————————-

At 10:25 AM, Anonymous said…

Wow, I’m really lovin’ the Daily Mail!!!

Don’t grin too widely, they still had a plethora of female related healthcare issues (cervical cancer etc) the same day to ensure they didn’t alienate too many princesses with the nasty ol truth. But alas, it is uplifting to see, especially when it was preceded by the Pizzey article.

Encore!

——————————————————-

At 1:22 PM, Thunderchild said…

Still doesn’t mention the “infanticide” figures which are excluded from child murder stats – again “mummy” is main culprit.

——————————————————-

At 3:21 PM, am i a bodyfascist? said…

just another nice example how some women with feminist views actually are into equal (not special) rights for both sexes, even when females being at the receiving end of having to part with unjust privileges. (and btw many of them also getting plenty of flak from the less open minded ‘special rights’ fractions for saying so, you can bet.)

though am afraid won’t hinder most so called mra’s from blanket blaming and lumping all’feminists’ together just anyway, regardless of what the real world looks like.

still say if you’re serious about righting the wrongs e.g. re: unjust laws, better realise you won’t achieve it without a little help e.g. from decent feminists.

duncan, this article you quoted being about both sexes being entitled to equal rights incl. equal duties and responsibilities, then what you mean by stating women should not equal to men? get the impression you’re mixing up different things here. as we all know, equality in the sense of equal rights and responsibilities works both ways or not at all, and in case you’re not into that yourself, then what’s all the complaining about?

——————————————————-

At 2:44 AM, Anonymous said…

All through this article the woman states her true reasons for writing what she has. It’s “an insult to women”. That’s right folks, not because of the affects on men not because its unfair, not for any reason of noble standing, Just because its an insult to strong independent women.

when are guy’s going to get a clue? we are not going to get anything back from women that we do not take!

——————————————————-

At 9:15 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…

just another nice example how some women with feminist views actually are into equal (not special) rights for both sexes, even when females being at the receiving end of having to part with unjust privileges.

Parting with unjust (temporary) privileges are not magnanimous feats that prove women genuinely want equal rights for men. To me, it’s rather a fine illustration that, women who have somewhat more foresight than the rest, have trotted onto the self-preservation bandwagon. Only a small percentage of women are principled enough to exercise professed convictions that interfere with their own selfish interests.

though am afraid won’t hinder most so called mra’s from blanket blaming and lumping all’feminists’ together just anyway, regardless of what the real world looks like.

Why would (so called?) MRAs be swayed by such minuscule amounts of women merely verbally espousing men’s rights? It’s also merely your interpretation that women who reverberate self-evident injustices do so selflessly. What do you propose the real world looks like?

still say if you’re serious about righting the wrongs e.g. re: unjust laws, better realise you won’t achieve it without a little help e.g. from decent feminists.

No, I disagree. The unjust laws must be corrected by average women when the marriage strike grows to the necessary level. I actually want women to taste the fruit of their feminism for a good while. Women need to take the first vital step toward equality and assume responsibility for their own actions. And if women are wise enough, they’ll get around to changing the unjust laws, which they created, sooner rather than later.

——————————————————-

At 11:13 PM, Anonymous said…

All women claim they’re “different” and “not like” the feminists, yet all women benefit from this, and virtually no women get around to actually performing any sort of action that can show that they are being genuine. In fact, quite the opposite is true, they’ll talk on and on about equality and being different and such, but when they get a chance to take advantage of men or these advantages in general, they quickly take this advantage, and usually the effect is even worse than when the woman makes it obvious what she is. Men are very stupid and trusting, and for some maddening reason are absolutely incapable of seeing through a woman’s deception. The pattern keeps repeating even on this blog, a woman comes by, gains trust and staunch defenders, then after awhile makes her true thoughts and intentions clear, then disappears. Meanwhile, the men that were alienated for urging caution or for catching on right away have already been driven away, and probably won’t bother coming back.

This is why the MRA movement will go absolutely nowhere. Even on the internet it is repeatedly defeated by solo women, in real life women band together and have much more power to begin with. I hope Duncan can continue posting this blog and never give up for it being in the end a dead end. It’s great support for those of us that just refuse to deal with women and MGTOW, but it won’t convince anyone, and it really can’t ever grow as a movement. It’s more of a support for men that have already made the decision.

——————————————————-

At 8:49 PM, am i a bodyfascist? said…

Misogynic_Gent:
Only a small percentage of women are principled enough to exercise professed convictions that interfere with their own selfish interests.

am afraid kinda doubt amongst men the percentage’d be more flattering

(so called?) MRAs
no offence, but imho men’s rights and misogyny per definition are 2 different things excluding each other (same as women’s lib and misandry), cause one person’s/gende’r/group’s rights/liberty ends where the other one’s begins, sauce for goose n gander blabla etc. so either you stick by your moniker OR you’re serious about men’s rights, but you can’t have it both ways — at least not without doing just exactly what you’re accusing ‘feminists’ of, and so from my p.o.v. lose any credibility.

It’s also merely your interpretation that women who reverberate self-evident injustices do so selflessly.

don’t know much bout the writer of the article concerned here, but taking the article for what it’s worth i’d say innocent till proven guilty.
re: reverberate, in case she’s reverberating anybody, it’s probably women like e.g. esther vilar or erin pizzey who as far as i know predate mra’s by more than a decade (and took and still take a lot of flak from the ‘special rights’ faction btw). actually many times it’s rather mra’s reverberating such women, and many mra sites even explicitly quoting and crediting them, than the other way round.
re: impression of selflessness, don’t really know about other people’s motivations, but e.g. re: the above mentioned women, yeah, my impression is they’re not sticking with it in order to ‘please males’ or anybody else, but cause they have the ovaries to act up to what they consider as real and fair, which in my book translates to ‘massive respect’.

re: your last paragraph, again no offence, but to me sounds a bit like e.g. ‘i want you to hurt like i do’, ‘an eye for an eye’ (a.k.a. makes the whole world blind), ‘you killed me first’ etc., i.e. not very constructive and re: sooner or later translating to ‘rather later (if ever at all)’
plus as far as i know, e.g. unjust u.s. alimony laws were rather created by probly male politicians and bureaucrats in order to cut social budgets than by ‘average women’

——————————————————-

At 4:14 PM, Masculist Man said…

no offence, but imho men’s rights and misogyny per definition are 2 different things excluding each other (same as women’s lib and misandry)

Actually the first feminists at Seneca Falls,New York in 1848 were very misandric as misandry was one of the things feminism spread.

but to me sounds a bit like e.g. ‘i want you to hurt like i do’, ‘an eye for an eye’

Yep,that is pretty much what I would like to do to those who wronged me.

——————————————————-

At 9:10 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…

am afraid kinda doubt amongst men the percentage’d be more flattering

That’s a nice and cozy moderate position but it isn’t necessarily true. For instance, we know two- thirds of divorces in the US are initiated by women. That tells us that more women are willing to breech their vows (for whatever excuse) than men. I realize that the average man is somewhat of an unethical weakling, but I’ve never seen a critter more narcissistic, unscrupulous, erratic and hedonistic than western women!

(so called?) MRAs

no offence, but imho men’s rights and myisogyny per definition are 2 different things excluding each other (same as women’s lib and misandry), cause one person’s/gende’r/group’s rights/liberty ends where the other one’s begins, sauce for goose n gander blabla etc. so either you stick by your moniker OR you’re serious about men’s rights, but you can’t have it both ways — at least not without doing just exactly what you’re accusing ‘feminists’ of, and so from my p.o.v. lose any credibility.

No offense taken. Hate and mistrust are also two different things. If someone breaches your trust, you wouldn’t necessarily hate them for it. Agreed?

With that distinction in mind, I stick by my nick, which means that I’m a gent with a deep-seated mistrust of women. My position is wise (will debate) and I don’t hate random women simply because they’re women. Still, I’ll discuss the statement you made about doing exactly what you’re accusing feminists of. Careful there.

Straw man projected for golden mean’s sake?

For logic’s sake, let’s pretend that I do hate women yet advocate men’s rights. Now If all I accuse feminists of is misandry and advocating women’s rights simultaneously, then you’d be correct. However, if I accuse feminists of promoting infanticide, among other things, your statement loses all validity, because I cannot be accused of the same.

After all, it was many a feminist’s hero, Bill Clinton (who elected that politician?) who vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion, but let’s not get sidetracked on that. What’s important is that you see at which point your straw man falls off a cliff. The moderate path isn’t necessarily the correct one and can be just as blinding as extreme left or right. Let’s call it the extreme center.

I would also argue that the woman’s movement in this day and age (in the west) is not only unnecessary but harmful. Since the women’s movement is needless, it is incomparable to the men’s movement, which really fights for basic human rights. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, tell me in what aspect(s) women still lack rights and we’ll review the facts.

don’t know much bout the writer of the article concerned here, but taking the article for what it’s worth i’d say innocent till proven guilty.

I don’t know much about the writer either, yet my point still stands. I didn’t accuse the author of anything terrible. I simply suggested that her motives may not be as you had assumed. But on that note, you might consider extending the innocent till proven guilty concept to some of those so-called MRAs.

re: reverberate, in case she’s reverberating anybody, it’s probably women like e.g. esther vilar or erin pizzey who as far as I know predate mra’s by more than a decade

Since it’s my argument that she’s reverberating what is self-evident, this statement of yours only stands to strengthen my point.

and took and still take a lot of flak from the ‘special rights’ faction btw).

Perhaps we should award her the EB medal of honor. Please. . .

actually many times it’s rather mra’s reverberating such women, and many mra sites even explicitly quoting and crediting them, than the other way round.

What? Let’s not take what I said too much out of context. I don’t have a problem with MRAs reverberating such women. My point was that what’s being restated are self-evident injustices that’ve consequently been known for quite some time now. It was related to the general point you originally made, nothing else.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m also glad to see articles like this written by women, although I still stand by what I initially said.

re: impression of selflessness, don’t really know about other people’s motivations, but e.g. re: the above mentioned women, yeah, my impression is they’re not sticking with it in order to ‘please males’ or anybody else, but cause they have the ovaries to act up to what they consider as real and fair, which in my book translates to ‘massive respect’.

What about assuming the motives of MRAs? I’d be interested to know how you discern if someone is a misogynist or not. Albeit the “misogynist” nicks seem like a given, you might ask if they hate all women or just a certain type.

At any rate, I think your impression is probably wrong. And since you acknowledge that you don’t know her motives, your original statements concerning this are subjective, which is this point.

I’ll take the article as a nice gesture or whatever but remain skeptical. Let’s just say I’m not about to hand out awards or grant massive respect. . .

re: your last paragraph, again no offence, but to me sounds a bit like e.g. ‘I want you to hurt like I do’, ‘an eye for an eye’ (a.k.a. makes the whole world blind), ‘you killed me first’ etc., i.e. not very constructive and re: sooner or later translating to ‘rather later (if ever at all)’

No, that’s nonsense. Since I believe women and the weak men they rule are responsible, it would be safe to assume that I want them to fix the problem. I don’t have the power to change things anyhow.

I haven’t been foolish enough to get hurt by women, if that’s what you’re implying. I try to learn from the mistakes of others. In addition, asking women to man up to their own consequences isn’t equivalent to “an eye for an eye” mentality. I can relate to those who live by “an eye for an eye” but it isn’t my philosophy.

My theory is that this may sort out as the marriage rate declines. Thus, to do my part I should inform lads as to the dangers of marriage, divorce, STDs etc. . . What do you think would be more constructive?

plus as far as I know, e.g. unjust u.s. alimony laws were rather created by probably male politicians and bureaucrats in order to cut social budgets than by ‘average women’

Whom do you think elected those male puppet politicians? It was average women and their “yes men” sheep. I know I didn’t vote those corrupt bums into power.

Besides, by whom the laws were created is less significant than the fact that they’re permitted to remain. Alimony and such may have been arguably necessary at one time but should be obsolete since women entered the workforce.

Finally, I hope you realize that it’s logically fallacious to assume that because you’ve taken the center ground, it must be the correct path.

Most of the “evenhanded” fembots I’ve seen here haven’t figured that out yet. They probably think of themselves as “progressive” for taking the moderate ground. But I trust you’re different and after reconsidering the facts (in archives) you will find the middle a bit hazier.

Let’s review what we learned:

I. My nick implies mistrust not hate and perhaps (for consistency) you should ask others exactly what they mean before labeling them as misogynists.

II. Mr. straw man doesn’t fly. I.e., He doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny.

III. It’s merely your interpretation that women who reverberate self-evident injustices do so selflessly. That said, there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with reverberating anything, unless it’s idiotic. The focus was on the implications of your translation not on reverberations. And in this respect, we will have to agree to disagree. However, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t prevent MRAs from lumping feminists, cause they may disagree with your translation. Let’s also not forget that women such as this are a minority.

IV. It’s logically fallacious to take the middle ground for the sake of being moderate. Your reasoning can be extremely restricted if the middle position MUST be maintained. I hope to kind of nudge you in the right direction. If you already knew this then perhaps you needed a reminder.

V. I don’t advocate the “eye for an eye” adage. Nonetheless, women who spend their youth fornicating with thuggish brutes can propose to one (after another) and live happily ever after in a sty for all I care. Again, if women want to be equal to men, they need to man up and put more time into contemplating their actions. Women seem to expect representation without taxation these days.

I’m not obligated to break my back reconciling for the self-destructive, shorted-sighted policies of western imbeciles. I’m not responsible for the actions of others. To be frank, I’d rather exert my energy developing a new society than to attempt a recovery on the unsalvageable west. Who’s with me?

Anyway the life of a bachelor practicing abstinence is even more difficult (as I have the drive of an athlete) but I’m not miserable. I’ve pretty well already adjusted to the realization that I may never get married and have kids. My “animosity,” if you want to call it that, stems from experience, observation and recognition of facts and statistics. It doesn’t derive from rejection, getting dumped or being hurt by western jezebels.

I hope that throughly clarifies everything.

-John

——————————————————-

At 3:58 PM, am i a bodyfascist? said…

masculist man:
whithout knowing the details re: seneca falls 1848, just because surely there are feminists that obviously are misandrists (and supremacists etc.), still doesn’t mean it’s the same as being serious about women’s rights

and while i can understand the urge to get even, still doesn’t make it constructive either (a.k.a. makes the whole world blind). however, in my book the more important difference is whether you direct your anger towards individual persons for really valid reasons or indiscriminately against groups like e.g. all males, females, caucasians, non-whites or whichever.
noticing the only interest you’re listing in your profile being ‘Kicking a bitch in the cunt’, well, as you can surely guess i’m rather doubting your sense of discrimination …

——————————————————-

At 6:09 AM, Anonymous said…

Hey! Why ARE women enabled to be whiny, self-pitying victims? Why are they NOT encouraged to “square their shoulders and face responsibility”. I submit the reason lies in the fact that certain MEN stand to profit from and to RULE women with no backbone. Who might these MEN be? Maybe we could start by looking at the police, who can plead for a budget increase on the basis of their incompetence.
Then there is the abuse industry of social workers,counselers,therapists and the like . They can collect a decent salary for effectively doing nothing but ensure their “clients” understand they themselves are to blame.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: