Violence


There’s been a ton of violence against anyone right of Marxism since President Trump won. No one in the media has cared about the constant riots, the taking over of schools, the attempted murders, the actual murders and the killing of police. Now that people vaguely around “centre” politically are protesting being beaten and potentially murdered, well that just won’t do, will it? What good is a victim that fights back when one is an anemic frail pale bourgeois college student? Be a good victim and take your beating. It amuses me that they speak about the oppressed, and money, and how they’re part of the workers revolt; yet they’re the bourgeoise they detest so much. They’re blind to their privilege, being able to go to schools most people couldn’t afford in multiple lifetimes.

And now people are sick of it and refusing to submit. The act of defence is now violence.

When a schizophrenic commits violence it condemns everyone who doesn’t want to be beaten by the left and submit to their insanity.  When the left commits violence it’s met with silence, media blackout, or actually applauded as justified. Twitter lights up with congratulations, and demands for more death. This is fine by standards of the North American media and Canadian politics. Why is this fine? Frankly it’s not fine. Not at all.

I think that there is one very simple litmus test for if you are on the right side of history.

Is your political affiliation killing babies?

Not only will you kill for personal, political, material and fianancial gain, but you are willing to kill your own flesh and blood, the weak and dependent, the most innocent if it means you can potentially advance. How can anyone trust a person who will butcher their own children for personal gain?

And how can anyone hope to survive more than a generation if they are the last generation?  They and their comrades slaughtered their offspring and brought their glorious revolution to a screeching, screaming, bloody dead end.

Advertisements

Viability

Is there a graduating scale of how alive someone is?  Can we say the injured adult on life support for massive trauma is less human?  They are not viable outside of the hospital bed, or self-sufficient.  Under normal means, many people at any given time can be incapable of independent living.  In the future they will hypothetically be capable of living on their own again.  For this reason they are artificially supported.  It could be a major trauma with a positive post-surgery prognosis or a debilitating disease undergoing treatment.  The individual is factually incapable of living without support in the immediate; it is understood however they will at some definite point be able to function normally.  It is a matter of time, not their present state, that determines the viability of a human.

viable
/ˈvaɪəbəl/
adjective
1.
capable of becoming actual, useful, etc; practicable: a viable proposition
2.
(of seeds, eggs, etc) capable of normal growth and development
3.
(of a fetus) having reached a stage of development at which further development can occur independently of the mother

There is a problem here.  For a child, it is simply a matter of time, as with an adult, before they are independently able to develop.  It can be tracked with relative exactness, more so than an injured adult waiting to achieve viability yet again.  Is the worth of an adult life measured in the immediate?  Is the use of medication or ventilators presently determining a lack of viability, thus a non-human status?  We await the day a person heals and returns to normal.  We await the day when a child takes its first steps.  Eats with a spoon for the first time.  Walks to school alone; was the child less human before each measure of independence from Mother?

This larger problem of independence looms.  What stage of development is considered independent existence from their parents?  Can anyone with a child actually claim they develop independently?  A preterm baby, in a ventilator and receiving treatment as the trauma patient does, develops further.  They follow the same route every baby does no matter their supported location or placement in time. A child still in the womb, at the same level of development, is just as capable of surviving the external treatment other children their age undergo.  Is a baby post due date more, or less, viable?  Are the considered “alive” but in the wrong location?  They were considered “alive” and “viable” if they had been born on the due date.  Is a preterm baby alive but non-viable?  They are outside the womb, but not independent of support.  Is a trauma patient alive but non-viable because of the same support?  Does the location alone form the determining factor?  Are children born in the “wrong” nation less human or less viable, because of locale?

There are milk banks, for women to donate breastmilk, for premature infants, some in the 20th week.  Preterm babies do better when fed breastmilk.  (Their own mothers won’t lactate for many weeks, given the circumstances).  Studies show premature babies – even extremely fragile early ones – grow healthier and better when put skin to skin with parents or volunteers, and carried upright as part of routine treatment.  These simple developmental facts of nurturing demonstrate their humanity. The children are not independent of support, even if considered alive and viable.

A newborn is certainly considered viable.  If one, however, chooses to ignore their viable (and according to the definition, “further development can occur independently of the mother”) newborn and have them develop independently, they will find the opposite result of the definition of viable.  The newborn will quickly die of a few factors.  Failure to thrive and starvation being two immediate ones.  A mother who does not rear her offspring kills it with neglect.  How is this possibly independent growth?  If anything, a born baby is less viable than a baby in the womb.  A gestating baby has everything provided and done for it, the mother does nothing but exist.  A born baby needs constant care and feeding.  We also continually push back the age at which a baby will survive early labour.  Even 18-week babies surviving, while rare, is not unheard of.

In the Victorian Era, there was a wasting disease of babies, called “failure to thrive”.  The babies could be taken care of materially, but they would still die off.  Orphanages had a 100% mortality rate at times.  Anecdotal discoveries made some doctors instruct their nurses to hold each baby for a short session each day.  The failure to thrive deaths drastically reduced.  Children need human contact to be healthy and even to survive.

Failure to Thrive, Livestrong

Failure to Thrive, Wiki, Harry Harlow

Failure to Thrive, Sharecare

Failure to Thrive, NIH, pubmed

Failure to Thrive, ehow

Failure to Thrive, Scientific American

The direct translation of “fetus” (Latin) to English, is “offspring”.  When is the fetus capable of growth and development independent of the mother?  A baby’s world is the mother, whether in or out of the womb.  A newborn needs physical contact to be healthy, has to be fed and needs to be cleaned when soiled, as well as protected from harsh climates (it is winter here in Ontario, necessitating shelter and warmth) and predators.  An infant is no more capable of survival than a newborn, and a toddler may eventually be potty trained and go through the fridge, but cleanliness and nutrition are far out of reach.  A child cannot outrun predators or fight back, but cannot care for and sustain itself alone.  While most teenagers may actually get through singular survival out of sheer rebellion and foolhardiness, college and university students seem to be in regression.  They apparently cannot emotionally handle mean words, they throw fits, smash things and scream when they don’t get what they want/their own way, and can’t cook Kraft dinner: making them about as capable as the toddlers.

So what is viability?  What is humanity?  If we found DNA floating in the atmosphere of Jupiter, it would be alien life, from Jupiter.  When we find human DNA in a woman’s womb, we question what it is.  That DNA is the same at conception that it is when born, that it is when an adult, and still the same hundreds of years after death extracted from the pulp of a tooth.  That “mass of cells” is always going to be born from a woman, either naturally through the birth canal or via c-section.  That “mass of cells” will always be a baby at birth.  It is not a guessing game or mystery box.  We never ask a woman “is it human”, but “boy or girl”, with the presupposition that she has a baby inside her.

A “mass of cells” at 7 weeks looks like a little peanut, with a visible head and body, and more importantly, with an evident beating heart, pulsing like a strobe light.  That is not a mass of cells, that is a definable human being, with a brain.  At 19 weeks, when the average ultrasound takes place, a woman can see her baby’s skeleton, the features of the skull, its actual brain and inspect the lobes herself; one can see the baby kicking, sucking its thumb and watch its heart beat and the different sections of the heart work.

Anywhere else in the world but inside a human mother we would say that baby is a human.  The very place that baby is intended to be somehow negates its humanity and makes it a “mass of cells”.

No child is viable, by the definition of viability, for no child can live without their mother or a comparable surrogate.  A newborn and infant surly cannot develop independent of their parents; warmth, safety, sustenance and even the need for touch are dependent absolutely on the mother (and includes the father).  In what way is this dependence “independent development occurring”?  The baby’s brain is still growing, the skull has a soft spot and the plates have to shift into place and eventually knit, it has no practical immune system, the liver doesn’t function for weeks and the digestive tract is incapable of processing normal food if the toothless gums could even manage anything; these are growth and development.  There is huge visual and verbal development in the first weeks (compare the cries days after birth to the babbling and laughter-squeals at two months, or how long before the baby follows sounds with its eyes) post birth.  Language and walking don’t come for nearly a year.  Those are developments and growth, and language is dependent on the mother/father or family-clan-social group.

If we can kill children for a lack of viability, we have two solutions: there’s no killing of humans (especially for the decisions other individuals make), OR we can kill people for convenience or monetary reasons, up until they are able to work and provide for themselves.  All a fetus needs is a place to live safely and a source of nutrition and contact with another human.  Isn’t that the definition of survival and viability for all humans?

annabelle_35_645_327
8 weeks, 5 days; not a mass of cells but visually human.

Diverse Sameness

There is an interview from a Patricia Hajdu, Canada’s “Status of Women Minister” (I didn’t know that was a thing either, but I am so pleased the food from my child’s mouth is taken from me in the form of taxes to pay for such needed roles in government). It took a bit of searching, but there are a few sources. It could all be the exact same article spread over Canadian news sites.

Winnipeg Patricia Hajdu | Medicine Hat Patricia Hajdu | Flamborough Patricia Hajdu

The government wants to hear diverse, and opposing views and opinions.

But Hajdu’s enthusiasm for funding opposing voices only goes so far

That’s right. The government will only accept opposing views that agree with their opinions. Let this sink in. The only opposition our government will listen to is the opposition that agrees with how they feel, what they think and their personal paradigms. We have the right to their opinion, and we can dissent, so long as we get permission and only disagree with things they disagree with.

“The work still has to happen within values and evidence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so what we want at Status of Women is to empower women and to ensure the protection of women’s right to choose,” she said.

“So, it would have to still fall within the realm of feminism.”

I have my grandfathers old criminal code books and the Canadian Charter from when I took law; he was a retired police officer and had them on his shelf. My brother has the Charter as a poster and new criminal law books, from when he did police schooling. In all this, I have never seen “abortion” or “feminism” anywhere in the Charter. There is no clause that states “protection for a woman’s right to choose”. Nor is “empower women” there.

R v. Morgentaler decriminalized abortion in the legal system twenty years after the Charter was written. The Supreme Court also unanimously found the state has an invested interest in protecting the fetus/unborn child. There were two items not decided on in their ruling: whether women have a Charter right to abortion, and whether fetuses/unborn children are included in “everyone” in section 7 and entitled to the same rights. Abortion is a legalistic limbo in Canadian law, not something that is actually protected; it is not even mentioned or defended. Law directly contradicts Hajdu. 

Shouldn’t someone who lives a cushy nice life on my tax dollar, who claims to be speaking for all women, in an official capacity in the government, know the simple basics of Canadian Law? No, your claims are not enshrined in the Charter. Fact: the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you, Patricia! The Supreme Court specifically said no to a Charter defence of abortion, contrary to your claim. Also, the law does not actually cater to feminism. Then I have to ask, what about all the women the “Status of Women Minister” disagrees with? Are they protected as women and allowed to have their own opinions? Or do they only have representation if they fall in line, do what they are told, obey, and disagree on things with which they’re allowed to disagree? We need diverse opinions, so long as the government consents to the opinions. Is the Status of Women Minister working for all Canadian women, or just the ones she likes?

A lot of Canadian women are against abortion. The number of pro baby young girls is growing. None of these voices are accepted by the Canadian government. A woman’s voice is of worth if she toes the line and does what the government says and follows the government policies already laid out. Canadian government feminism defends women saying things they like; they will not represent, aid, protect, or even listen to any women who have their own opinions. What about women who work hard jobs and don’t want to be made to work while raising a family? The glamour jobs of career women exists for almost no actual women. Yet every woman is being ideologically shoehorned into the model of high paying, upper level glass ceiling jobs, which are reality for nearly no one. Every woman is treated as though she is privileged for being able to work and raise a family at the same time. What if a woman want to raise her kids, but can’t – or simply does not want to – do a hard labour or factory job? Because the government bases its policies on feminism, and women fitting in their pre-established  archetypes and delusions of utopia, these women will not be heard.

 Is this pro feminist picture for or against women? If one does not fit into a certain protected group, feminists feel free to personally attack other women. My dresses are mostly recycled saris, nearly everything I have is second hand, my head is not empty but my wall sized bookshelf is full, sometimes three books deep, and we are a working class couple with our first baby coming soon. There is, however, no reason to be frumpy and one can be clean and pleasant, even attractive, while poor. Is the first woman, even if she worked really hard and lives in a tiny apartment, so she could save and afford that Chanel and Prada, to be excluded by the Canadian government for not fitting their stereotypes? Is the second woman actually doing something of value, is she even a good writer, or does she lack the skill and is resentful and bitter, blaming men for her own failings? Will she get government grants and job placements because she fits what the government deems a good feminist woman, worthy of their time and Canadian taxes?
Well behaved men rarely make history. There have been how many billions of people on the earth? How many serfs do we know, merchants and traders, knights and militia, monks and priests? We know of very few people who have lived. How delinquent and selfish do women have to be, that a lack of infamy is a mark of oppression? Why does anyone need to make history? These feminists should go to a graveyard and see all the names of forgotten people, male and female, who also never made history. Their own families don’t even know they are there. The entire idea is a non sequitur. 

The other issue is that there are plenty of women who have made history. Also, without women, many of the men in history would never have made it. Not everyone has a starring role. Every play has support actors, without whom there is no play. Is the role of a wife and mother, sisters and cousins, aunts and in-law, who directly contribute to a man’s success, to be so tossed aside by feminism? If they aren’t the star of the show, their role doesn’t matter? That is true oppression. Expecting every woman to be reckless and overbearing and a star. Most people never achieve this.

What about the women who are famous? There are women who did make history. We have Hatshepsut, a queen who stole her step son’s throne and became a pharaoh. Nefertiti, a legendary beauty and integral to the Amun cult of Akhenaten. Nefertari was Ramesses II’s favourite wife and well known enough that we still know her name. Ankhsenamun was the wife of King Tut, his half sister, and mother to two very human looking embalmed unborn (miscarried) children. These are just women off the top of my head from 5000 years ago.

In the bible we have Sarah and Hagar (there’s the feminists precious infamy), Judith who beheaded a king, Naomi who kept her gentile daughter-in-law in her family and faith, even after her own son’s death. Without the goyim Ruth, there would be no kings David and Solomon, and thus no Christ. What about Magdelene, sisters Mary and Martha, Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist; or that the first to see the risen Christ were women and not men. For the atheists: taken as just a story, contemplate the importance of the first people to see God alive after execution, and that they were women. Have these women not also been enshrined in history?

We have an abundance of famous, great Saints who are women. St Clothilde, wife of Clovis, who in converting him changed the course of history for Europe. St Joan d’Arc, ending the Hundred Years’ War. St Teresa of Avila, one of the greatest spiritual writers, and St Hildegard Von Bingen, regarded as a genius. St Helen, mother of Constantine, who found Calvary. St Bernadette, a simple peasant girl from France, loved to this day. St Catharine of Sienna, who told off a Pope, righteously. There are dozens more.

Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Tudor, Queens Elizabeth I and II. Queen Isabel of Spain, who drove out the moorish invasion of hundreds of years. Catherine the Great. Hanna Reitsch who was a female Luftwaffe pilot. Are these not women of history? Then of course, the most beloved, venerated, adored human to have ever existed, Holy Mary, mother of God. In what way have any of these women not made history? They were all either well behaved or fulfilling their duties, which is in fact being well behaved. Even if we have salacious and mostly fictional or out of context stories today, the same happened to famous men. Most were good and duty driven, we only think differently because of legend and fabrications.

Feminist Denials of Reality 2/3

Apparently a desperate glutton for punishment, on we go….

7. Female disadvantage is being blamed for a mistake made by two people.

Merriam-Webster defines mistake thus:

Simple Definition of mistake

: to understand (something or someone) incorrectly

: to make a wrong judgment about (something)

: to identify (someone or something) incorrectly

I assume by “mistake” we are in fact speaking of “unique human life complete with unique DNA (which is the same from conception until well beyond death) created by a male and a female, engaging in copulation.” This is grossly confusing as it is usually the left and feminists who howl for comprehensive “sex education”. In what way is conceiving a child a mistake? Did these feminists skip those sex Ed classes they are making mandatory on everyone else’s children? How can someone, who has likely been educated both formally and personally in fornication, be oblivious to the fact that sex makes babies?

Performing an act, knowing full well what the outcome a) can likely be and b) is purposed towards, is the exact opposite of a mistake. The other question is, do women truly get all the blame? Men can have their lives completely ruined by the women who lure them into fornication. Women are absolutely not innocent victims; what “liberated” woman isn’t aware of the [im]moral state of our society? She is either counting on that when she goes out, or is aware of “what pigs men are” (because apparently being willing to get naked and sleep around with men is the man’s fault).

Besides being able to take men to court and have their wages turned over, besides having the threat of jail time for non payment to women, besides having wages garnished by the government in payment for babies they often didn’t know existed, besides having the men folk in a family hunt them down for a usually violent confrontation, besides a shotgun wedding, the feminists are completely right and men get no blame.

Women however, get the blame, as I’m sorry ladies, but we do carry and nurture our babies. A baby without a daddy, a family without a husband, is one statistically headed for teenage pregnancy, higher crime rates, lack of education, gang activity and a descent into poverty. If you were honest in your anger against being blamed, you would actually care about these things and prevent these things from happening. The anger, however, is purely self centred. It is completely about not wanting to take responsibility for what you have done.

The other issue is responsibility: “my body my choice” is rhetoric feminists do not realize cuts both ways. Women have taken the entirety of procreation onto themselves. Apparently the children they conceive are their bodies. And men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Men have been almost entirely shut out of procreation – except when a cheque is needed. He has no say on whether his child lives or dies at the hands of his or her mother. As women have taken the rights of children and made it about their bodies, and made it about whether they get to kill or not, and made it entirely their own decision: yes you get the blame. You get all the “choices”. You get all the blame for them, too.

8. Female disadvantage is being told she’s less than a man. Female disadvantage is being seen as weaker than a man intellectually and that she’ll never be half as capable as a man.

Weren’t you the one complaining that chivalry was dead? Why should men do anything for women if women are just different looking men who are completely identical in every other way? To be fair, I don’t know of any situation in civilized society where women are told they are less than men. In today’s society, it’s the opposite and male bashing is celebrated, but women are protected by laws. As for intellect, aren’t women bragging about how they multitask better than men and are intuitive and have “women’s intuition”? Why is it okay for these things to be true, if they are, and for women to celebrate it? Aren’t you oppressing men and pointing out their disadvantages compared to women?

Men on average are 5 IQ points higher than equivalent women. Men have more geniuses. Men also have far more autistics and retards. Women tend more towards averages. We have fewer high achievers but we also have far fewer failures. Men and women have brains that function differently and for different reasons. Why this is so wrong, I will never figure out.

Half as capable in what way? This is rhetoric and not an actual point. Half as physically capable? Weren’t you the one crying about being afraid of rape? In one point you complain about being weaker (or else rape wouldn’t be such a threat) because you’re a woman and the danger it puts you in; and in another you complain that people think men and women aren’t identical?  

Half as mentally capable? If we go by the past 100 years, then it’s true, sweetheart. Women fought for the right to vote and instead of a beautiful utopia, we got: mini skirts, slut walks, women bleating for the right to go topless in public, abortion on demand up until being in active labour, astronomical taxation mostly for woman-based services (in Ontario about 75% of our money ends up funnelled into taxes), rampant pornography, garbage art and architecture, a nanny state in which thoughts and men are criminals, the criminalizing of established differences between men and women, etc. How many women willingly take courses outside of women’s studies, humanities, or child care? Very few. This is not to say all women behave this way or that some were not great achievers; but that I have to disclaimer this shows how next to no women make the list.

Evil men gave us nearly everything we have. From art and architecture on the grandest scales, to music and beautiful fashions, language and literature.  The washing machine, vacuum and the dishwasher were invented by evil men so their wives could have even more free time, while their husbands continued to work like dogs with no change to their lives.

In sports, professional women’s leagues often lose to high school and college boys. Just saying.

9. Female disadvantage is BEING THE ONE WHO IS RAPED. Statistically, women are raped more so than men are (though this is not to discredit the men who are also victims.) Female disadvantage is being told rape is your fault because of how you dressed or acted.

I’m sorry, but in a binary system, there are only two options. Either you are complaining that not enough men are being raped, or women aren’t striving hard enough to be rapists, or … I have no idea what, to be honest. As I stated, humans are binary: if men were the ones mostly raped, they would likely be the weaker of the two. That would in fact make them women. We cannot escape the binary. Shockingly, however, most men are not rapists. Yes women are more likely than men to be raped: knowing this, instead of crying, be defensive.  

Women are also more likely to be defended by men and beat up more by other women. Men are more likely to die of violence than women are, to die from crime, from war and far more likely to die on the job than women. It seems a bit insane that women wail about being so disadvantaged at an astronomical chance of possibly being raped, when many men very realistically may not come home. I don’t hear them complain.

We lock our bikes up, we lock our cars, and we lock our homes. Not because it is our fault that something bad happens, but because we are taking precautions to stop bad people from doing bad things to us. The reality is, bad people will take advantage of easy targets: whether it’s an unlocked car or a half naked woman. Just because someone shouldn’t do something, absolutely does not mean they won’t. Expecting honour is expecting virtue and morals. Something women have brutally beaten and castigated out of society. If one is actually afraid of being molested and raped out in public, or dragged off, then why would they put themselves in situations that would allow for this? It’s the same as a mugging, or having your car jacked. None of these feminists would ever purposefully allow for those to happen. Yet when it comes to their own bodies, they don’t even care and make their bodies (their choice) suddenly everyone else’s responsibility.

10. Female disadvantage is society telling her it’s her duty to get married and have children while men are encouraged to “play the field” because being a bachelor is glorified and embraced.

Who are you marrying, out of curiosity? I think these feminists are mixing up “old fashioned” views with the modern era, to create controversy and make themselves professional victims. Women are, today, encouraged to wait as long as possible to marry (if they ever do) and to hold off kids. The priority is college, career, fight to the top, cheer that you’re a man when you hit the top, then cry that you’re forty and all the good men have already married and you can’t have kids anymore anyway because you wasted your fertile years being a slave to a corporation.

Once again, I’m sorry to break in with reality but a woman is best served marrying young and having children young. It is how our bodies work. Being young mothers has advantages: more energy to keep up with the kids and life, with the energy to still study if one wishes. Children aren’t in the house all the time either, so early marriage and children mean by age thirty one can find time to actually pursue studies and a career if one still wishes. Why not have a career when older? Why does it have to be only during ones fertile stage?  

Back to women marrying vs men “playing”. Again who are the women marrying, and then who are the men sleeping with if the women are waiting to be married? Women who do look for marriage are far less likely to be used, dumped and have a child out of wedlock. Pursuing relationships for the ends of marriage and family protects women from all those men “who don’t get the blame” (point 7). How can women complain about being saddled with blame and then complain about women avoiding that whole situation?

Being a bachelor is only glorified to a certain point. Like age twenty five. Men do start getting antsy, but as the women around them don’t want marriage, prefer careers, and are behaving like other men, what do you expect them to do? Men, more often than not, are looking for women who embrace marriage and children. Also, Ms feminist, do you actually want that bachelor lifestyle? Then don’t complain about chivalry being dead or being blamed for your own actions.

11. Female disadvantage is being abused by a husband and not having the physical strength to stop him unless she can work up the strength to contact the police. And still, in today’s society, there is a chance the police will not take her seriously because “she’s being an overdramatic woman trying to get revenge on her husband.”

I thought men and women were equal. Wasn’t “being seen as lesser and less capable” the disadvantage of point 8? Are you being seen as less capable, or as feminists point out here are you factually less capable? Yes abuse is awful, I’m not going to argue. Statistically men are abused twice as much as women are. Lesbians statistically have the highest abuse rates of all relationships. Gays are the next abusive. Wife on husband abuse is next and then dead last is husband on wife abuse. Not to downplay some horrid abuse cases, but honestly women, get your crap together. Some women live through absolute terror. These cases are rare.

In today’s society, it’s the exact opposite of the feminist claim. The police will even tell women to just say he hit her, so they can “legally” remove him. Women do make many false claims. Most are done for some sort of gain, certainly when it comes to divorce. Even when police arrive to find women wailing away on the husband, he is the one often taken away and charged. If a husband simply stops his wife from hitting him, “he grabbed her”, which is assault. When it comes to rape, a rape claim in Canada – this is just a woman saying she was raped, nothing else – is enough to put a man in jail until his court date. Men are automatically arrested and booked. There is no investigation before arrest, and they are lucky if there is ever one. I know personally of two cases of this, so I am absolutely not making it up.  

12. Female disadvantage is being seen in a negative light if you do not portray stereotypical female traits such as empathy.

This is completely subjective and opinion based. Women are seen negatively for being emotional. Women are seen negatively for not being emotional. No matter what, feminists will find something to complain about and be oppressed by. I can’t think of any case where this is true. I have never seen or heard of someone accosted for not emoting enough. Aren’t women usually whining that they are accused to being too emotional? Feminists can’t even get their rhetoric straight!

Feminist Denials of Reality 1/3

There was a link in Facebook, which was apparently anti feminist.  The article had been removed because it was “hateful and abusive” by the “community” on the site hosting said article.  By this, it likely meant that it hurt someone’s feelings, some people disagreed, others personally didn’t like it; and importantly it probably hit upon too much truth or issues of contention.

There is another article, which is a mirror opposite, and it is still up.  I began reading it and desperately wanted to share a grown up perspective of a woman who escaped fantasy land years ago and has been a grown up living in the real world for some time.  If you like face palming, here is the feminist link http://thoughtcatalog.com/isla-sofia/2014/04/18-reasons-why-the-concept-of-female-privilege-is-insane/

1. Female disadvantage is walking down the street at night, having to worry about being attacked or raped. Female disadvantage is having to carry mace everywhere you go, even though the chances of it actually protecting you are slim.

Is this really a disadvantage?  Does that mean a man’s capacity to rape is an advantage?  In my experience, men are vehemently – often violently – opposed to rape.  I know of a case (I was not involved, I only know of it second hand, which is hersay) where a cabbie ran over an attempted rapist so he couldn’t escape before the police arrived.  He did the right thing, but that could still being serious trouble on him.  Fathers and brothers go to the point of killing assailants.  That female “disadvantage” affects everyone and communities, which is part of why it’s a serious crime.  Serious crimes against humanity and the law are not “female disadvantages”.  Sorry sweetheart, but it is a fact that evil men prey on vulnerable women.  Not on night streets either; in daylight on trains and busses, online, luring through dating, and yes using women as bait to get rape victims.  I suppose if the OP wasn’t so liberal, they would live where they can carry a gun.  If they are truly worried about this as an active danger they would carry a weapon regardless.

2. Female disadvantage is being approached by men who think they have a right to your body. And when you turns said man down, you are called a bitch, or a prude, or stuck up, or whore — or even all of those and more. Female disadvantage is being told you should be thankful a man even looked your way.

I’m going to take a shot in the dark (brightly lit room with a flashing bullseye) and guess this approaching happens when one is “looking their best” and the one who approaches isn’t appealing.  If the men were models or movie stars, these girls would happily let them have a right to their bodies.  They only get angry when the men don’t live up to their expectations.  Men are usually afraid of approaching women and the only time I’ve seen this happen or be spoken of as an issue, is when the guys “weren’t hot”.  When you are putting yourself out there you should be happy men took notice, as that was the whole ego-inflating, self satisfying, point.  The only “female disadvantage” here is the men didn’t live up to fantasy.  The men who hit on you weren’t the specific ones you wanted, ergo men think they have a right to you”.  (The insults usually come for luring men on, or actually being those things, or dealing with immature college boys.  Honestly, if you were really big strong, able women who were at least equal to men, why are you so wounded?  Why aren’t you just rolling your eyes and walking away?)

3. Female disadvantage is being taken advantage of when you’re drunk and being told it’s your own fault for drinking and putting yourself in that situation.

Did someone force you to get drunk?  It actually is your own fault for getting that drunk.  You aren’t claiming drugging, just that you were an idiot while drunk.  For all you know, the guy is as disgusted by you are you are by him.  Men own up to their stupid drunk “decisions”.  Women cry that it’s a crime.  Not very empowering.  You made a choice, while wasted.  Just because you regret it later, or wouldn’t have made that decision while sober, doesn’t mean you were taken advantage of.  You still made your choice.  Men get taken advantage of, too.  You obviously know getting drunk and having random sex with guys is a problem, yet you whine that you have to take responsibility for your actions (like a big girl).  You even know far ahead of time that it’s a possible problem, yet here is the OP crying about being forced to own up to her mistakes – before even making them.  Maybe one should make different choices?  You already know this choice gets you in trouble.  Goodness you’re a dumb child.

4. Female disadvantage is turning on the TV and seeing beautiful women portrayed as air-headed, vain, stupid, and sexually promiscuous while women that are in position of power are seen as pushy, bossy, less desirable, and often less attractive.

Tell me about all those amazing husbands and fathers one sees on TV?  Oh wait, they’re all fat idiots who need their wives to explain life to them and why they can’t always do stupid things without dying.  They usually make lousy fathers too, and their kids run roughshod over them, or are partners in crime in immature escapades.  The other option is the smart kids and smart wife have to teach “dad” together.  Or a la Disney, the amazing children have to teach both parents but mostly idiot dad, about the facts of life and how everything the kid wants is right and how unreasonable and oppressive the parents are.

I do have to say most shaming of beautiful women, I see from feminists.  (The most whoring, or desire to sleep around, is also from feminists: so why the complaint on that one?). The television is about the worst litmus test of actual living men and women.  Also, feminism promoted the whole idea of that vapid, free loving silly girl who is just too cute and innocent and does whatever she pleases.  Welcome to your own ideology biting you in the butt.  The female boss thing isn’t usually true, in most shows and movies the boss or leader or great hero soldier is a woman.  In some shows, yes, they stereotype a very real thing.  I’ve had male and female bosses.  Female bosses usually fall into the bossy angry sometimes unattractive (more so by nasty behaviour) category.  Real life experience.

5. Female disadvantage is the fact that chivalry and morality are dying to the point where men argue about having to put those less able to protect themselves first.

Are you kidding?  Seriously this is a disadvantage?  Women killed chivalry, feminism destroys any man who tries – just look at what women say about men who open doors or pay for dinner.  Or what they do to them.  The problem with chivalry is that it requires ladies for men to be chivalrous towards. Chivalry takes into account the inherent inequalities of men and women.  Chivalry relies on women being women, and men being men.  Everything in this article is complaining about women being women, and sometimes women being forced to be basic humans with normal human considerations, so it’s no wonder chivalry is dead.

The moral part sort of sickens me.  Morality is oppression according to feminism.  In one point we have women screaming about being taken advantage of while they behave like men and demand equality, in the next we have women demanding morality which is again based on the inherent differences between men and women and our different roles in life.  Morality also often requires the submission of ourselves and desires to a greater good.  Morality often requires sacrifice, and while women refuse to participate, they expect men to, for the sake of women.  While giving nothing back in return. Women desire morality from men yet desire immorality for themselves.  Yes they want to sleep around and have men hitting on them (if they are attractive enough) but they don’t want the men to be using them for sex.  This is the logic of feminism.

6. Female disadvantage is being told a woman shouldn’t be allowed to get an abortion, that she’s not a true member of the church if she’s taking birth control, and having old men who cannot and have never had to worry about getting pregnant fight over her reproductive rights. Female disadvantage is a man refusing to support his own child, leaving her to raise it on her own.

She shouldn’t be (allowed to kill babies).  And she isn’t (part of the church if she disobeys God – birth control is a huge sin: Onan was struck dead for it in the Bible).  Over half of females are pro life, and the vast majority (surprising number so) of young women, and even pre teen girls, are against abortion.  It’s mostly men who are for abortion.  They get all the sex they want, don’t even need to be responsible, and they can just rely on the women to kill his offspring.  He gets all the wins, while she gets all the risks, including fistulas, infertility and death.  The baby always loses.  I will add that those “evil old men” are the ones taking responsibility for their actions and will be the ones expecting to have to raise the offspring they produced and pay for them, and you.  Also, what about male reproductive rights?  Are men not involved too?  Do women simply asexually spawn children within their wombs?  Why is it only women who have reproductive rights (euphemism as we aren’t talking about the right to reproduce, but to stop reproduction or to kill the products of reproducing)?  Do men reproduce or not, and could it be they are trying to save their own reproductive rights?  Perhaps they are trying to save their sons and daughters from horrific deaths at the hands of the children’s mothers?

Why do women always want it both ways?  Here is my problem with this whole idea of child support. Is a man responsible or not? If a man is responsible for paying for his offspring, and helping the woman, than he has a say over his offspring. If it is a woman’s body, a man owns a woman nothing for her autonomy over her own body and her own choices. No man should have to pay women for their bodies and their choices. If aborting a child is a woman’s choice because it is her body, then having the baby is also her choice and her body. There is no male involvement here. Only when we admit that babies are also a man’s, that a baby is not a woman’s body, and that it is not a woman’s choice but a human being who is as much its father as its mother, can we talk about child support.


There’s 12 more points of selfish inanity to come!