Saturday, December 7, 2013
Misandric witchhunt led by Geraldo Rivera
Geraldo has stooped to a new low. He is trying to get Jameis Winston thrown in prison to satisfy his perverse sense of chivalry. He touched on it briefly on O'Reilly last night (see preceeding post) but on his show tonight he devoted 38 minutes to the topic. He interviewed Winston's attorney who not only presented the facts as outlined by the prosecutorial team that investigated the case but he also refuted the lies Geraldo was spewing. He even told Geraldo that he is not entitled to his own facts. But in Geraldo's world his opinions are facts. Next he had a panel discussion which featured a male defense attorney,whom Geraldo was very rude to. Feminist prosecutor Wendy Murphy,some airhead from Take Back The Night and an alledged rape victim. Geraldo and Murphy were the lead inquisitors in vehemetly making unfounded accusations against Winston. Both were very rude to this male defense attorney who is trying to make sense of this situation. Murphy comes off a self righteous cunt I would love to see her get locked up and see how she reacts. I'll bet she freaks out royally. Anti-male zealots are the reason that a lot of young men have their lives turned upside down,from Brian Banks to the Duke lacrosse boys. Asshats like Geraldo don't care if someone gets hurt because of them. All that matters is that they get ratings.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Prosecutors decide not to charge Jameis Winston with a rape charge
The prosecutors investigating the charges against Jameis Winston have decided not to go to trial. I was reading up on it here and like most he said/she said situations it is difficult to find out exactly what happened on the night in question. All the rest of us have is second hand information. The investigators did talk to witnesses at the party amongst others including the complaintant whom kept changing her story. To top it off we have asshat galore Geraldo Rivera shooting his mouth off on the O'Reilly Factor about how Winston is guilty and how evil he is. Let's not forget that Geraldo is the same assclown who sided with Jodie Arias when she murdered Travis Alexander. Apparently Geraldo is a self hater or he feels inadequate compared to other men that he feels glee by putting on the chivalry act by siding with women no matter how savage their crimes are. Of course when we take into consideration the stupidity of Rivera it is easy to see why he does the things he does:
Geraldo does have sons and if one of his sons were falsely accused of rape would Geraldo ease up on the chivalry crap or does his gallantry know no bounds? Most of all thank you to the State of Florida and Florida State University for having the integrity that Duke University and the County of Durham North Carolina lacked when the Duke lacrosse team was not only falsely accused but truly harassed even threatened by both students and faculty staff;had their play schedule cancelled even before they were arraigned in court. Perhaps we've reached that point where we realize that prosecutorial witchhunts accomplish nothing but destroyed lives and are now seeking justice instead.
Geraldo does have sons and if one of his sons were falsely accused of rape would Geraldo ease up on the chivalry crap or does his gallantry know no bounds? Most of all thank you to the State of Florida and Florida State University for having the integrity that Duke University and the County of Durham North Carolina lacked when the Duke lacrosse team was not only falsely accused but truly harassed even threatened by both students and faculty staff;had their play schedule cancelled even before they were arraigned in court. Perhaps we've reached that point where we realize that prosecutorial witchhunts accomplish nothing but destroyed lives and are now seeking justice instead.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
The truth about gender in Iran
The myth of patriarchal oppression in Iran
Middle East, November 24, 2013 By Ali Mehraspand —
From the second feminists started spawning their “patriarchy” baby, women’s issues in less-developed countries such as middle-eastern ones were presented as proof of “oppression of women as long as human beings have lived.” Western media and feminists in particular look at a society in a difficult condition and do not see people suffering; they see women suffering.
Western media and in fact eastern media’s handling of the state of affairs is one of adamantly illustrating women as slaves and cunningly displaying men as cruel slave owners. This of course has been only responded to, so far, by some people in these cultures who, in an effort to defend those cultures, usually come up with religious statements explaining the rights of women in Islam and Islamic philosophy, which causes some confusing problems. Among the more evident of the problems lies the question: What if somebody is not religious and does not choose to live with codes of Islamic philosophy?
Iran, for instance, seems to have the least religious people among middle-eastern countries. Rejection of long-ingrained religious doctrines invariably leads to less and less obligation. And for the many who dump religious doctrines, it seems like most are keen to consent to any criticism of the culture – even an unfair one. That is why, for many, the ridding of old cultural norms comes as a package deal with feminism. This is the perfect time for feminism to ride on a mind, repelled of the old restrictions.
However something is amiss here. Are those restrictions all on women? It is fascinating how from a nonreligious viewpoint, the western eyes have only been catching glimpses of some woman in misery while being completely indifferent to the large and ubiquitous pain of men. Feminists are quick to shout “patriarchy!” and others are quick to find faith in it and judge.
Today we pay a little visit to Iran, in hope of finding patriarchy in a highly misandric, feminist-infested culture. This view of Iranian women as oppressed by men, which has been the bread and butter of Western media and feminists, has been served to the public as a patriarchal feast.
Over the past few decades, eyes and ears were bombarded by the media about Iran’s patriarchy and the slavery of women. Unfortunately, that is a joke nobody is laughing at. Each feminist movie was rewarded by Western festivals and film awards up to a level where feminism is now an element of film-making for every director who is desperate for Western attention. Iranians were told billions of times about women’s issues, usually in a lying propagandist manner, and were fed the lies enough times that they actually started believing in them.
So, for any blue-pill readers out there, before your reflexive defensive outburst impairs your judgment and reduces you to a shrill screaming feminist or white knight, crying “women’s issues in Iran!”: let me clarify that I am the last person to discard some issues faced by some women in Iran. I do think some of those issues are legitimate causes about which something must be done. In fact, I wouldn’t discard the notion that any class of people might have some issues.
Having said that, if you bear several paragraphs and put aside the beliefs hammered into your head, you will see how the supposed “Patriarchy” has increased the Quality of Life of women much higher relative to that of most men. In fact, in this part of the world, infantilizing and spoiling women is done to a level possibly unmatched anywhere else. Bear in mind the fact that all the local media, operating under the guidance of their Western counterparts, along with Iranian feminism, are injecting a significant dose of misandry into this society.
We start by examining the basic rights of men and women in Iran, point out some forms of discrimination against both sexes–and then blow your mind about how the media is misrepresenting this whole matter. Although misandry can be easily spotted under the law, it can in no way express cultural norms and expectations of the gender roles which shoot this country right among the top misandric ones.
Keeping in mind that when moving one step away from the law and into the culture, misandry gets much more evident; this article only gives a fair examination of the laws and leaves the cultural misandry for other writings.
Some forms of discrimination against your average woman in Iran include the following.
•In case there is no will documented by a deceased person and no agreement on the part of the deceased’s family members, the sons will receive twice as much inheritance as daughters.
•Married women need their husband’s signature to get a passport.
•Women must wear rousari (veil) when appearing in public and no, it is nothing like what they showed you on TV (if this is what you saw):
oppressive iranian patriarchs
This is what they actually look like when you walk the streets:
Here are some forms of discrimination against men:
•Conscription. All males are mandated to do at least two years of service in the military or armed forces. The conscription is not a draft that one may not attend in case there are enough volunteers. The time to join the forces is as soon as males come of age (18 years old) and is allowed to be postponed to after graduation, if they manage to get accepted in Iran’s university entrance exam system within a 1 year period. Unless their full time in the military is served, no adult male is allowed to leave the country, buy or sell anything in their names, get a license to work, use their university degree, etc. The punishment for not enrolling on time, aside from being reduced to a person with no rights, is that the person is to be taken into the military by force wherever he is spotted, with added service time. The mandate of the service is lifted in case a boy is confirmed to have severe disabilities or he is an only son in a fatherless household where he claims to be the provider.The law forbids women from the service, which is a bit different from what it sounds because it is not necessarily about military training per se. Many of the very important, highly dangerous jobs are done by soldiers. Doing extreme specialized and physical work in 120 Fahrenheit degrees in islands with no supply of fresh water (and void of any women), or in -22 Fahrenheit degrees, is a part of service. This especially poses a big problem on athletes. They have to shun their athletic careers for two years at the peak of fitness in their early twenties. Omid Noruzi for instance, the gold medal winner of the 2012 Olympics, was forced to leave his career and not compete in the 2008 Olympics, despite being qualified as he was the world champion in 2007, in order to join the military – which made him suicidal.
•“Free” (paid by men) health insurance for women only. Should a single woman choose not to work, she will be covered under her parent’s medical insurance for life even after the death of her parents. Males are covered only up to the age of 21. Married women are automatically covered under their husband’s medical insurance plan (even after the death of the husband). Husbands, on the other hand, are not covered under the wife’s insurance plan if they find themselves out of job. This of course is in a country where medical costs are so unbelievably high that the government subsidizes insurance for medical care. Should an employed woman with her own insurance get fired or choose to leave her job; she will be covered automatically again under her live/deceased father/husband.
•Pensions for women. Should a husband die, his occupational insurance (his highest salary per day multiplied by the years he worked) will be monthly paid to his wife as a salary for life, regardless of her being employed or not. No such law for men. Just FYI: occupational insurance is mandatory for all jobs.
•Support for divorced women. Should a woman get divorced, in addition to what she gets out of her husband (called Mehrieh - this will be discussed in more detail in another article), her provider is considered to be her father and in case her father is dead, she will get from the government an equal share of her father’s occupational insurance as her salary for as long as she lives. This way, most divorced women do not have to work.
•No compensation for surviving husbands. There is insurance for housewives who choose not to work so that after a certain age they will be paid a salary. The husband who pays for the insurance is not compensated in case of the woman’s death, but the woman’s siblings and parents will receive the lion’s share of the money the husband paid for.
•Welfare for women. When it comes to the poor sectors of the society, any woman who claims not to have a providing father and husband and a state-paying job receives monthly paid wages from an association called Kommiteye Imdad that, aside from women of any age, only registers men who in addition to not having any sort of income are severely disabled or are aged.
•Inheritance after divorce. If a woman divorces an ill husband who dies as a result of that illness within a year from the date of the divorce, his ex-wife still inherits as if they were never divorced.
Iran’s other marriage and divorce laws, as well as misandry in education, are left for future articles.
Saddening is the fact that nobody even thinks about these issues – to which must be added some other conditions:
•There are currently 1.7 million children laboring (ages 5 to 15), 92% of whom are boys.
•95% of children living in the streets are boys.[1] (Curiously enough this statistic was very hard to find because almost none of the sources concerning child labor mentioned the disparity between the sexes.)
•Males make 85% of the homeless.[2] (Interestingly enough you will find that newspaper titles are: 15% of the homeless are women and address concerns regarding that, implying that the goal should be that 100% of the homeless are male. Also, numerous articles, investigations and organizations exist in regards to homeless women.)
•100% of battlefield deaths have been and will be men.
•100% of battlefield injuries are men.
•98.5% of workplace injuries in 2005 were men[3]. (In 2004, 2003 and 2002 respectively 98.5%, 98.7% and 98.7%)
•60% of rape victims are male[4] (excluding prison rapes).
•Males also make up 81.7% of suicides.[5] (Interestingly, it is a piece of cake to find many media outlets openly lying that women have higher rates of suicide.)
This might give you a general idea for starters as to the state of affairs in Iran. But these so far only deal with discrimination under the law and not cultural standards to which men and women are held. The same cultural inclinations that create a society wherein 67% of university students are female, but most will not have jobs. This is not because they are discriminated against, as feminists will tell you, but because the majority won’t even fill out one job application form during a lifetime. University and jobs are hobbies and ego-boosters to many Iranian women.
There is a joke going around the country about how women mostly go to universities to have a diploma in their dowry! Their husbands are held responsible and should they not get married, the father is responsible.
Before I end, here is a typical effort of media at representing Iran as truly proof of gynocentrism rather than patriarchy[6]. This is actually one of the least misandric pieces I have read which does not explicitly attack men, rather it solely concentrates on women. That is why this article you are reading is not tackling the extreme, but rather the typical world we are living in:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark.
In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend. If she gets pregnant, the state will look after her. If she commits a crime, the worst that can happen to her is imprisonment in a humanely run prison.
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public. She may not drink alcohol or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged. If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes. If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public. It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
Now let’s comment on this. Starting with the last sentence is nice to get the perspective of why to criticize:
“
It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
There goes your typical gynocentrism; one big prison for women, but for men it is nothing but blow jobs every second of every day. That way it is also implied that men are the prison guards. Getting back to the beginning:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark. In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend.
Except for the drink, a young woman does all of that in Iran.
“
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public.
Actually Iranian women are among the largest consumers of makeup in the world, along with Iran having the highest rate of nose jobs for women in the world, and being among the countries with highest rates of cosmetic surgery fr women. These exceedingly expensive nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries are – as you guessed it – almost always paid for by men. Even most women in the rather poor sectors of society force their men to pay for cosmetic surgeries usually by exercising guilt trips and shaming. This article provides some insight into this:
Beauty obsession in Iran
Quoting from the article:
…Iranian obsession with physical beauty. Far from focusing on internal spiritual values, young people – some aged 14 – are having cosmetic surgery in the hope of attaining “doll faces” to make them look like the actors they see in Hollywood films and satellite television programmes from the west.
Back to the gyno-minded article:
She may not drink alcohol…
Boys cannot drink alcohol either; it is illegal in Iran for anybody to drink. It is called prohibition, not oppression of women.
still more more oppressed iranian women
… or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged.
She cannot associate with boys? She will be flogged? Really? Pffffffffftt. Victim mentality and propaganda is one thing but this is a new low, even for feminists.
Ask yourself, what kind of a lunatic tells these kinds of lies? Or worse, why did these liars have everybody convinced that there is a heinous patriarchy in Iran ripping women apart? Or worse, why have people believed them? Male-domination, my patriarchal ass – I assure you, articles won’t stop until this whole pathetic charade comes to light.
She cannot associate with boys? Iranian girls don’t have boyfriends? Pffftt and pfffft. Perhaps they also think that Iranian boys all have girlfriends. It must be nice to have no logic and be given a platform to dance on the truth. Their key to success is to conflate religionism with sexism. Much more to be said on this later.
“
If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes.
This is an outright lie which is constantly repeated all over the western media; here is the truth:
If a girl has consensual vaginal sex outside marriage in Iran, she can sue the boy and force him to marry her and she will be legally paid Mehrieh, which for now think of it as 150,000 US$. Trust your eyes; you read it right. This will be discussed in another article. Do not miss the upcoming article about Iran’s marriage and divorce laws and again how the media is presenting it.
“
If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public.
The rest of that article is dedicated to the death penalties of women over the past several decades, but wait a second.
Yes, hanging criminals in public does happen in Iran but here are some facts for you:
In 2012, 580 people were sentenced to death – some of whom were hanged in public. 9 were women, 571 were men.[7]
Actually, it is highly unlikely that Iranian judges make this kind of sentence for women. 76% of the aforementioned hanged cases were sentenced due to drug trafficking – only 3 of whom were women. The bias is too obvious to need further explanation.
Media’s distorted representations can be traced everywhere:
So Hitchens says and I quote: “You insult your sisters in Tehran who are being beaten and raped every day when you say they have rights.” When exposing feminist lies and propaganda you just know that rape would come up. Come to think of it, as rape is considered to be a crime of patriarchy; let us study rape statistics in Iran:
900 cases of rape were handled by the police last year in Iran. 60% of victims of rape were men, 40% were women.[8] This shocking fact hides inside it some cultural difficulties that Iranian men and boys face. Also chances of being raped in Iran is pretty much lower than most countries. Suffice it for now to say that in this supposed patriarchy, the punishment for rape is being hanged in public. Same goes for child molestation and being a gay man. Yes, a gay man, not a lesbian.
To sum up, the (western) Mainstream Media is a mess of gynocentrism and feminism. Gynocentric in that you might find 100 articles in English about the extremely few female taxi drivers in Iran, but not one article in any language about the 2076 male taxi drivers only in Tehran who are aged 71 to 80 (also 234 male taxi drivers in Tehran who are over 81)[9] who still work to provide for their thirty-some year old single daughters – daughters who are confused whether they have yoga class or English class today, whether they tell their boyfriends to get out of work early so as to give them a ride home, or if they should go shopping after class. Go figure.
Source:click here
This is truly an eye opener and it highlights just what propagandists the western mainstream media is. As we can tell Iran is not the male paradise everyone thinks it is. It's time to stop the lies.
Middle East, November 24, 2013 By Ali Mehraspand —
From the second feminists started spawning their “patriarchy” baby, women’s issues in less-developed countries such as middle-eastern ones were presented as proof of “oppression of women as long as human beings have lived.” Western media and feminists in particular look at a society in a difficult condition and do not see people suffering; they see women suffering.
Western media and in fact eastern media’s handling of the state of affairs is one of adamantly illustrating women as slaves and cunningly displaying men as cruel slave owners. This of course has been only responded to, so far, by some people in these cultures who, in an effort to defend those cultures, usually come up with religious statements explaining the rights of women in Islam and Islamic philosophy, which causes some confusing problems. Among the more evident of the problems lies the question: What if somebody is not religious and does not choose to live with codes of Islamic philosophy?
Iran, for instance, seems to have the least religious people among middle-eastern countries. Rejection of long-ingrained religious doctrines invariably leads to less and less obligation. And for the many who dump religious doctrines, it seems like most are keen to consent to any criticism of the culture – even an unfair one. That is why, for many, the ridding of old cultural norms comes as a package deal with feminism. This is the perfect time for feminism to ride on a mind, repelled of the old restrictions.
However something is amiss here. Are those restrictions all on women? It is fascinating how from a nonreligious viewpoint, the western eyes have only been catching glimpses of some woman in misery while being completely indifferent to the large and ubiquitous pain of men. Feminists are quick to shout “patriarchy!” and others are quick to find faith in it and judge.
Today we pay a little visit to Iran, in hope of finding patriarchy in a highly misandric, feminist-infested culture. This view of Iranian women as oppressed by men, which has been the bread and butter of Western media and feminists, has been served to the public as a patriarchal feast.
Over the past few decades, eyes and ears were bombarded by the media about Iran’s patriarchy and the slavery of women. Unfortunately, that is a joke nobody is laughing at. Each feminist movie was rewarded by Western festivals and film awards up to a level where feminism is now an element of film-making for every director who is desperate for Western attention. Iranians were told billions of times about women’s issues, usually in a lying propagandist manner, and were fed the lies enough times that they actually started believing in them.
So, for any blue-pill readers out there, before your reflexive defensive outburst impairs your judgment and reduces you to a shrill screaming feminist or white knight, crying “women’s issues in Iran!”: let me clarify that I am the last person to discard some issues faced by some women in Iran. I do think some of those issues are legitimate causes about which something must be done. In fact, I wouldn’t discard the notion that any class of people might have some issues.
Having said that, if you bear several paragraphs and put aside the beliefs hammered into your head, you will see how the supposed “Patriarchy” has increased the Quality of Life of women much higher relative to that of most men. In fact, in this part of the world, infantilizing and spoiling women is done to a level possibly unmatched anywhere else. Bear in mind the fact that all the local media, operating under the guidance of their Western counterparts, along with Iranian feminism, are injecting a significant dose of misandry into this society.
We start by examining the basic rights of men and women in Iran, point out some forms of discrimination against both sexes–and then blow your mind about how the media is misrepresenting this whole matter. Although misandry can be easily spotted under the law, it can in no way express cultural norms and expectations of the gender roles which shoot this country right among the top misandric ones.
Keeping in mind that when moving one step away from the law and into the culture, misandry gets much more evident; this article only gives a fair examination of the laws and leaves the cultural misandry for other writings.
Some forms of discrimination against your average woman in Iran include the following.
•In case there is no will documented by a deceased person and no agreement on the part of the deceased’s family members, the sons will receive twice as much inheritance as daughters.
•Married women need their husband’s signature to get a passport.
•Women must wear rousari (veil) when appearing in public and no, it is nothing like what they showed you on TV (if this is what you saw):
oppressive iranian patriarchs
This is what they actually look like when you walk the streets:
Here are some forms of discrimination against men:
•Conscription. All males are mandated to do at least two years of service in the military or armed forces. The conscription is not a draft that one may not attend in case there are enough volunteers. The time to join the forces is as soon as males come of age (18 years old) and is allowed to be postponed to after graduation, if they manage to get accepted in Iran’s university entrance exam system within a 1 year period. Unless their full time in the military is served, no adult male is allowed to leave the country, buy or sell anything in their names, get a license to work, use their university degree, etc. The punishment for not enrolling on time, aside from being reduced to a person with no rights, is that the person is to be taken into the military by force wherever he is spotted, with added service time. The mandate of the service is lifted in case a boy is confirmed to have severe disabilities or he is an only son in a fatherless household where he claims to be the provider.The law forbids women from the service, which is a bit different from what it sounds because it is not necessarily about military training per se. Many of the very important, highly dangerous jobs are done by soldiers. Doing extreme specialized and physical work in 120 Fahrenheit degrees in islands with no supply of fresh water (and void of any women), or in -22 Fahrenheit degrees, is a part of service. This especially poses a big problem on athletes. They have to shun their athletic careers for two years at the peak of fitness in their early twenties. Omid Noruzi for instance, the gold medal winner of the 2012 Olympics, was forced to leave his career and not compete in the 2008 Olympics, despite being qualified as he was the world champion in 2007, in order to join the military – which made him suicidal.
•“Free” (paid by men) health insurance for women only. Should a single woman choose not to work, she will be covered under her parent’s medical insurance for life even after the death of her parents. Males are covered only up to the age of 21. Married women are automatically covered under their husband’s medical insurance plan (even after the death of the husband). Husbands, on the other hand, are not covered under the wife’s insurance plan if they find themselves out of job. This of course is in a country where medical costs are so unbelievably high that the government subsidizes insurance for medical care. Should an employed woman with her own insurance get fired or choose to leave her job; she will be covered automatically again under her live/deceased father/husband.
•Pensions for women. Should a husband die, his occupational insurance (his highest salary per day multiplied by the years he worked) will be monthly paid to his wife as a salary for life, regardless of her being employed or not. No such law for men. Just FYI: occupational insurance is mandatory for all jobs.
•Support for divorced women. Should a woman get divorced, in addition to what she gets out of her husband (called Mehrieh - this will be discussed in more detail in another article), her provider is considered to be her father and in case her father is dead, she will get from the government an equal share of her father’s occupational insurance as her salary for as long as she lives. This way, most divorced women do not have to work.
•No compensation for surviving husbands. There is insurance for housewives who choose not to work so that after a certain age they will be paid a salary. The husband who pays for the insurance is not compensated in case of the woman’s death, but the woman’s siblings and parents will receive the lion’s share of the money the husband paid for.
•Welfare for women. When it comes to the poor sectors of the society, any woman who claims not to have a providing father and husband and a state-paying job receives monthly paid wages from an association called Kommiteye Imdad that, aside from women of any age, only registers men who in addition to not having any sort of income are severely disabled or are aged.
•Inheritance after divorce. If a woman divorces an ill husband who dies as a result of that illness within a year from the date of the divorce, his ex-wife still inherits as if they were never divorced.
Iran’s other marriage and divorce laws, as well as misandry in education, are left for future articles.
Saddening is the fact that nobody even thinks about these issues – to which must be added some other conditions:
•There are currently 1.7 million children laboring (ages 5 to 15), 92% of whom are boys.
•95% of children living in the streets are boys.[1] (Curiously enough this statistic was very hard to find because almost none of the sources concerning child labor mentioned the disparity between the sexes.)
•Males make 85% of the homeless.[2] (Interestingly enough you will find that newspaper titles are: 15% of the homeless are women and address concerns regarding that, implying that the goal should be that 100% of the homeless are male. Also, numerous articles, investigations and organizations exist in regards to homeless women.)
•100% of battlefield deaths have been and will be men.
•100% of battlefield injuries are men.
•98.5% of workplace injuries in 2005 were men[3]. (In 2004, 2003 and 2002 respectively 98.5%, 98.7% and 98.7%)
•60% of rape victims are male[4] (excluding prison rapes).
•Males also make up 81.7% of suicides.[5] (Interestingly, it is a piece of cake to find many media outlets openly lying that women have higher rates of suicide.)
This might give you a general idea for starters as to the state of affairs in Iran. But these so far only deal with discrimination under the law and not cultural standards to which men and women are held. The same cultural inclinations that create a society wherein 67% of university students are female, but most will not have jobs. This is not because they are discriminated against, as feminists will tell you, but because the majority won’t even fill out one job application form during a lifetime. University and jobs are hobbies and ego-boosters to many Iranian women.
There is a joke going around the country about how women mostly go to universities to have a diploma in their dowry! Their husbands are held responsible and should they not get married, the father is responsible.
Before I end, here is a typical effort of media at representing Iran as truly proof of gynocentrism rather than patriarchy[6]. This is actually one of the least misandric pieces I have read which does not explicitly attack men, rather it solely concentrates on women. That is why this article you are reading is not tackling the extreme, but rather the typical world we are living in:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark.
In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend. If she gets pregnant, the state will look after her. If she commits a crime, the worst that can happen to her is imprisonment in a humanely run prison.
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public. She may not drink alcohol or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged. If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes. If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public. It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
Now let’s comment on this. Starting with the last sentence is nice to get the perspective of why to criticize:
“
It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
There goes your typical gynocentrism; one big prison for women, but for men it is nothing but blow jobs every second of every day. That way it is also implied that men are the prison guards. Getting back to the beginning:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark. In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend.
Except for the drink, a young woman does all of that in Iran.
“
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public.
Actually Iranian women are among the largest consumers of makeup in the world, along with Iran having the highest rate of nose jobs for women in the world, and being among the countries with highest rates of cosmetic surgery fr women. These exceedingly expensive nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries are – as you guessed it – almost always paid for by men. Even most women in the rather poor sectors of society force their men to pay for cosmetic surgeries usually by exercising guilt trips and shaming. This article provides some insight into this:
Beauty obsession in Iran
Quoting from the article:
…Iranian obsession with physical beauty. Far from focusing on internal spiritual values, young people – some aged 14 – are having cosmetic surgery in the hope of attaining “doll faces” to make them look like the actors they see in Hollywood films and satellite television programmes from the west.
Back to the gyno-minded article:
She may not drink alcohol…
Boys cannot drink alcohol either; it is illegal in Iran for anybody to drink. It is called prohibition, not oppression of women.
still more more oppressed iranian women
… or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged.
She cannot associate with boys? She will be flogged? Really? Pffffffffftt. Victim mentality and propaganda is one thing but this is a new low, even for feminists.
Ask yourself, what kind of a lunatic tells these kinds of lies? Or worse, why did these liars have everybody convinced that there is a heinous patriarchy in Iran ripping women apart? Or worse, why have people believed them? Male-domination, my patriarchal ass – I assure you, articles won’t stop until this whole pathetic charade comes to light.
She cannot associate with boys? Iranian girls don’t have boyfriends? Pffftt and pfffft. Perhaps they also think that Iranian boys all have girlfriends. It must be nice to have no logic and be given a platform to dance on the truth. Their key to success is to conflate religionism with sexism. Much more to be said on this later.
“
If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes.
This is an outright lie which is constantly repeated all over the western media; here is the truth:
If a girl has consensual vaginal sex outside marriage in Iran, she can sue the boy and force him to marry her and she will be legally paid Mehrieh, which for now think of it as 150,000 US$. Trust your eyes; you read it right. This will be discussed in another article. Do not miss the upcoming article about Iran’s marriage and divorce laws and again how the media is presenting it.
“
If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public.
The rest of that article is dedicated to the death penalties of women over the past several decades, but wait a second.
Yes, hanging criminals in public does happen in Iran but here are some facts for you:
In 2012, 580 people were sentenced to death – some of whom were hanged in public. 9 were women, 571 were men.[7]
Actually, it is highly unlikely that Iranian judges make this kind of sentence for women. 76% of the aforementioned hanged cases were sentenced due to drug trafficking – only 3 of whom were women. The bias is too obvious to need further explanation.
Media’s distorted representations can be traced everywhere:
So Hitchens says and I quote: “You insult your sisters in Tehran who are being beaten and raped every day when you say they have rights.” When exposing feminist lies and propaganda you just know that rape would come up. Come to think of it, as rape is considered to be a crime of patriarchy; let us study rape statistics in Iran:
900 cases of rape were handled by the police last year in Iran. 60% of victims of rape were men, 40% were women.[8] This shocking fact hides inside it some cultural difficulties that Iranian men and boys face. Also chances of being raped in Iran is pretty much lower than most countries. Suffice it for now to say that in this supposed patriarchy, the punishment for rape is being hanged in public. Same goes for child molestation and being a gay man. Yes, a gay man, not a lesbian.
To sum up, the (western) Mainstream Media is a mess of gynocentrism and feminism. Gynocentric in that you might find 100 articles in English about the extremely few female taxi drivers in Iran, but not one article in any language about the 2076 male taxi drivers only in Tehran who are aged 71 to 80 (also 234 male taxi drivers in Tehran who are over 81)[9] who still work to provide for their thirty-some year old single daughters – daughters who are confused whether they have yoga class or English class today, whether they tell their boyfriends to get out of work early so as to give them a ride home, or if they should go shopping after class. Go figure.
Source:click here
This is truly an eye opener and it highlights just what propagandists the western mainstream media is. As we can tell Iran is not the male paradise everyone thinks it is. It's time to stop the lies.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Let's go to Asia instead
Former heads of state urge EU to outlaw anti-feminism
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Anti-male article from Time magazine
One of the most pernicious biases in the media is the bias against men. Time today published a piece by Jeffrey Kluger titled: “Women Make Better Doctors Than Men.”
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
A Voice For Men at Queen's Park in Toranto
I'd like to turn this back on the feminists: We hear your here,we hear you're queer now how about you disappear.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Another perspective of femitheist
It all starts innocently by Lucian Valsan
Apparently, there’s a debate, a discussion if you prefer, within the AVFM’s inner circle and MRM circles in general regarding whether the outing of Krista Milburn (also known as Femitheist) was the right thing to do.
I must confess that I am still appalled that this discussion takes place to begin with. At the end of the day, there’s no difference between the Krista Milburn business and The Agent Orange files episode. In both cases, some particularly sick individuals advocating mass murder, child abuse, eugenics, genocide and other practices worthy of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were exposed for the whole world to see what they really think and talk about when they are under the protection of anonymity. So why is this particular case somehow different?
The words of two MRAs that I respect made me write this article. Had it not been for them, I would have dismissed the issue as non-relevant whilst sending a big thumbs up to JtO for his work.
One of the two MRAs that I respect told me that Krista Milburn poses no threat for men whatsoever. But is it really the case? At the moment of writing these words, Krista Milburn’s Youtube Channel has 11451 subscribers. By comparison, Paul Elam’s channel has 9206 subscribers. That’s right. The founder of this place, against whom an American national media venue is preparing a hit piece for alleged crimes of eating kittens has LESS influence and less subscribers than the piece of human vermin called Krista Milburn who, amongst other things, advocated the reduction of male population to negligible dimensions — a goal which she has never abandoned.
According to Krista Milburn, she supports a 90:10 female-male ratio and hopes to accomplish this through non-violent means but she does “not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone.”[1] According to her supporters (surprisingly some MRAs amongst them) this statement of hers is supposed to calm me so I no longer despise this piece of human vermin because cute little Krista doesn’t want to castrate or kill all men (or at least now she says she doesn’t want that anymore) – but just happens to hold the same views as other genocidal maniacs of the tormented history of Europe.
At the end of the day, Adolf Hitler didn’t always envision concentration camps and mass killings. In 1920, in Salzburg (Austria), the young, dashing and charismatic Adolf was talking only about the eradication of the “Jewish spirit”[2]. Nothing about mass murders that did happen at the end of the day.
In the same period, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was talking about “peace through socialism and classless society after taking down the bourgeois spirit”. Nothing about the Gulags, the NKVD (later on the KGB), the brainwashing through torture experiments like Pitești or Aiud conducted including on children[3]. But these things happened.
Also, more recently, Charles Manson created his own cult of deranged individuals – only this time it was not a Party but a Family – and his creation impressed numerous remarkable people who called this “the whole Charlie Manson package.”
What do Charles Manson, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler have in common? For starters, all three of them were egocentric maniacs. Second of all, none of them killed anybody. Thirdly, all of them are responsible for trying to “change the world” by force whilst practicing the doublespeak of non-violence in their early days. The rest is just a question of nuance and semantics. The tenets are identical.
Is it really far fetched to compare Krista Milburn with those three? Perhaps it is. But think of it this way: Nobody thought of Lenin in 1914, of Hitler in 1918 or of Manson in 1954 as individuals even remotely dangerous for the society – despite the fact that all three of them had already expressed utopian totalitarian views.
A better example than those three is Nicolae Ceaușescu. The ruthless Romanian dictator even served prison time in his early 20s for spreading Communist agitation and ideas that decades after were to become the tenets of his dictatorship, a dictatorship that was to become the most oppressive in the former Eastern Block which took a quarter of a century to overturn. Ceaușescu also advocated non-violent means to achieve the Socialist paradise. And even now there are some sick individuals who dare to defend him.
How were all these possible? Because as the old say goes, in order for the evil to prevail, it’s enough that good men do nothing. Very few (virtually nobody) did anything to stop these maniacs while it was still possible.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, a significant majority of people declared themselves outraged when very few good men decided to publish all the secret files about all the individuals. The pressure was immense in all the Eastern Block countries. However, good men disregarded the calls for ”compassion” and outed the former members of the repressive apparatus. Had it not been for all those good men, the history of the last 25 years in some of the European countries could’ve been entirely different.
And this brings us back to Krista Milburn – an egocentric utopian totalitarian maniac who under the guise of a neotenous face and claims of “non-violence” advocates for nothing less than yet another cleansing of the human population – this time along sex lines, as opposed to religious lines (Hitler), racial lines (Manson) or class lines (Lenin).
And here we are, with a lot of people, including some MRAs, calling us to tone down because “she’s not really a danger” or “she hasn’t done anything yet”. Or, some other people calling “free speech” on what she’s advocating – as if AVfM had demanded to shut her up. On the contrary – more free speech to Krista, please! And, if possible, with more audience, for the whole world to see the piece of human vermin she is.
Free speech, however, doesn’t mean free reign, nor does it mean that her right to free speech trumps the responsibilities that come with it. Just because she has a vagina and an arguably attractive face doesn’t mean she’s potentially any less dangerous than any other egocentric maniac.
If she really means what she’s saying (and I, for one, take her very seriously), then she, and her defenders, shouldn’t have any problem with her taking the responsibility for what she’s saying.
Let me be more clear: If this piece of human refuse were to be in my community – I’d love to know up front. If she were to be employed in a store from which I buy food, I’d like to know so I can stop buying food from that store until she’s either fired or the store goes bankrupt. If she were a teacher in the school where my kids or my nieces are going, I’d love to know that, so I can move them away as soon as possible. Because at the end of the day, not even her defenders would let their own sons to be educated by Krista. At least not as long as they are in their right minds.
Does what I say lack compassion for her? Yes, and I do. Call it my “intolerant nature” if you like. I tend to be highly intolerant with fascists, eugenic maniacs, former members of the Politburo, Communists and other totalitarian-oriented Utopian thinkers. If I had been more tolerant with these kinds of individuals, I’d still be living in hell – so no, thank you.
Another MRA that I respect tried to tell me that she is now redeeming herself and no longer advocates for mass killings. Well, I’ve seen former torturers in gulags claiming to now be advocating for democracy and/or freedom and at the first sign of trouble came back to their original ideas. So these kinds of attitudes coming from Krista should be treated at the very least with extreme skepticism if not outright dismissed.
Maybe I am too tired for this shit. Maybe I am too much of a grumpy Eastern European to get the nuances of this egocentric, nihilistic psychopath. Maybe. But, at the end of the day, I’ve seen this film before and each time nobody did anything about it before things went very wrong.
I wish I were wrong but for now it has been the case every single time that human beings learned one thing and one thing only from history: the fact that humans learn absolutely nothing from history.
Source:click here
I've had the same arguements with those white knights over there so I know how he feels. Lucian presents a strong arguement which supports what I've been saying: why grief over a fallen foe? Even if she never harms anyone herself she is still influencing others and they might turn her ideas into action. This is what I said.
Apparently, there’s a debate, a discussion if you prefer, within the AVFM’s inner circle and MRM circles in general regarding whether the outing of Krista Milburn (also known as Femitheist) was the right thing to do.
I must confess that I am still appalled that this discussion takes place to begin with. At the end of the day, there’s no difference between the Krista Milburn business and The Agent Orange files episode. In both cases, some particularly sick individuals advocating mass murder, child abuse, eugenics, genocide and other practices worthy of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were exposed for the whole world to see what they really think and talk about when they are under the protection of anonymity. So why is this particular case somehow different?
The words of two MRAs that I respect made me write this article. Had it not been for them, I would have dismissed the issue as non-relevant whilst sending a big thumbs up to JtO for his work.
One of the two MRAs that I respect told me that Krista Milburn poses no threat for men whatsoever. But is it really the case? At the moment of writing these words, Krista Milburn’s Youtube Channel has 11451 subscribers. By comparison, Paul Elam’s channel has 9206 subscribers. That’s right. The founder of this place, against whom an American national media venue is preparing a hit piece for alleged crimes of eating kittens has LESS influence and less subscribers than the piece of human vermin called Krista Milburn who, amongst other things, advocated the reduction of male population to negligible dimensions — a goal which she has never abandoned.
According to Krista Milburn, she supports a 90:10 female-male ratio and hopes to accomplish this through non-violent means but she does “not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone.”[1] According to her supporters (surprisingly some MRAs amongst them) this statement of hers is supposed to calm me so I no longer despise this piece of human vermin because cute little Krista doesn’t want to castrate or kill all men (or at least now she says she doesn’t want that anymore) – but just happens to hold the same views as other genocidal maniacs of the tormented history of Europe.
At the end of the day, Adolf Hitler didn’t always envision concentration camps and mass killings. In 1920, in Salzburg (Austria), the young, dashing and charismatic Adolf was talking only about the eradication of the “Jewish spirit”[2]. Nothing about mass murders that did happen at the end of the day.
In the same period, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was talking about “peace through socialism and classless society after taking down the bourgeois spirit”. Nothing about the Gulags, the NKVD (later on the KGB), the brainwashing through torture experiments like Pitești or Aiud conducted including on children[3]. But these things happened.
Also, more recently, Charles Manson created his own cult of deranged individuals – only this time it was not a Party but a Family – and his creation impressed numerous remarkable people who called this “the whole Charlie Manson package.”
What do Charles Manson, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler have in common? For starters, all three of them were egocentric maniacs. Second of all, none of them killed anybody. Thirdly, all of them are responsible for trying to “change the world” by force whilst practicing the doublespeak of non-violence in their early days. The rest is just a question of nuance and semantics. The tenets are identical.
Is it really far fetched to compare Krista Milburn with those three? Perhaps it is. But think of it this way: Nobody thought of Lenin in 1914, of Hitler in 1918 or of Manson in 1954 as individuals even remotely dangerous for the society – despite the fact that all three of them had already expressed utopian totalitarian views.
A better example than those three is Nicolae Ceaușescu. The ruthless Romanian dictator even served prison time in his early 20s for spreading Communist agitation and ideas that decades after were to become the tenets of his dictatorship, a dictatorship that was to become the most oppressive in the former Eastern Block which took a quarter of a century to overturn. Ceaușescu also advocated non-violent means to achieve the Socialist paradise. And even now there are some sick individuals who dare to defend him.
How were all these possible? Because as the old say goes, in order for the evil to prevail, it’s enough that good men do nothing. Very few (virtually nobody) did anything to stop these maniacs while it was still possible.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, a significant majority of people declared themselves outraged when very few good men decided to publish all the secret files about all the individuals. The pressure was immense in all the Eastern Block countries. However, good men disregarded the calls for ”compassion” and outed the former members of the repressive apparatus. Had it not been for all those good men, the history of the last 25 years in some of the European countries could’ve been entirely different.
And this brings us back to Krista Milburn – an egocentric utopian totalitarian maniac who under the guise of a neotenous face and claims of “non-violence” advocates for nothing less than yet another cleansing of the human population – this time along sex lines, as opposed to religious lines (Hitler), racial lines (Manson) or class lines (Lenin).
And here we are, with a lot of people, including some MRAs, calling us to tone down because “she’s not really a danger” or “she hasn’t done anything yet”. Or, some other people calling “free speech” on what she’s advocating – as if AVfM had demanded to shut her up. On the contrary – more free speech to Krista, please! And, if possible, with more audience, for the whole world to see the piece of human vermin she is.
Free speech, however, doesn’t mean free reign, nor does it mean that her right to free speech trumps the responsibilities that come with it. Just because she has a vagina and an arguably attractive face doesn’t mean she’s potentially any less dangerous than any other egocentric maniac.
If she really means what she’s saying (and I, for one, take her very seriously), then she, and her defenders, shouldn’t have any problem with her taking the responsibility for what she’s saying.
Let me be more clear: If this piece of human refuse were to be in my community – I’d love to know up front. If she were to be employed in a store from which I buy food, I’d like to know so I can stop buying food from that store until she’s either fired or the store goes bankrupt. If she were a teacher in the school where my kids or my nieces are going, I’d love to know that, so I can move them away as soon as possible. Because at the end of the day, not even her defenders would let their own sons to be educated by Krista. At least not as long as they are in their right minds.
Does what I say lack compassion for her? Yes, and I do. Call it my “intolerant nature” if you like. I tend to be highly intolerant with fascists, eugenic maniacs, former members of the Politburo, Communists and other totalitarian-oriented Utopian thinkers. If I had been more tolerant with these kinds of individuals, I’d still be living in hell – so no, thank you.
Another MRA that I respect tried to tell me that she is now redeeming herself and no longer advocates for mass killings. Well, I’ve seen former torturers in gulags claiming to now be advocating for democracy and/or freedom and at the first sign of trouble came back to their original ideas. So these kinds of attitudes coming from Krista should be treated at the very least with extreme skepticism if not outright dismissed.
Maybe I am too tired for this shit. Maybe I am too much of a grumpy Eastern European to get the nuances of this egocentric, nihilistic psychopath. Maybe. But, at the end of the day, I’ve seen this film before and each time nobody did anything about it before things went very wrong.
I wish I were wrong but for now it has been the case every single time that human beings learned one thing and one thing only from history: the fact that humans learn absolutely nothing from history.
Source:click here
I've had the same arguements with those white knights over there so I know how he feels. Lucian presents a strong arguement which supports what I've been saying: why grief over a fallen foe? Even if she never harms anyone herself she is still influencing others and they might turn her ideas into action. This is what I said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)