Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Masculinity’

The SlutWalk debate rages on, and everywhere I look, I see the same fundamental fallacy — or, to be blunt, the same fundamental stupidity — from gender feminists. For example, from the Trent Arthur, a front-runner in the Most Biased Reporting competition: “No means no, unless you’re a ‘slut,'” by Hazel Wheeler.

That was the message sent out on January 24, 2011, when the Toronto Police addressed community members at a safety forum at York University’s Osgoode Hall. The comment put forth by one of the officers, that women should “avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized,” has caused outrage throughout the Osgoode community and beyond, and has made national news headlines.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the police officer was actually pointing out that if you don’t dress in a manner designed to make men sexually aroused, it is less likely that you will attract the attention of a man whose arousal is greater than his respect for your rights plus his fear of the possible consequences of raping you (injury, prison, etc.).

I applaud this girl's choice of attire. However, it puts her at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted.

The fundamental stupidity is to misinterpret this as “if you are a slut, then you don’t have any rights, and your assailant should not suffer any consequences.” Where feminists get this idea is a mystery to me. Almost every man they’ve ever met wholeheartedly agrees that women have the rights they keep harping on about, and that rapists should be caught and punished — severely. (We also think they’re crazy for doubting us.)

But you should keep in mind that evil people do exist. You cannot reason with them. You cannot make them empathize. You can only try to avoid them.

Shark rape: As if we didn’t have enough to worry about

Think of them as sharks. You wouldn’t ask a shark to respect your right not to get eaten, would you? Don’t ask rapists to respect your right not to get raped. They don’t care. That’s what makes them rapists. Just stay away from them. Since feminists have proven to be childlike in their reading comprehension skills, I suppose I should emphasize that I wrote “rapists,” not “men in general.”

Dressing modestly probably helps avoid rape. It seems plausible. But it’s your choice. Nobody is trying to take away your right to dress like a slut or act like a slut or call yourself a big ol’ slut. No one has come remotely close to suggesting it. Feminists are all just being hysterical.

There are many myths surrounding sexual assault, one of them being that a woman’s clothing or behaviour may increase her chances of becoming a target.

Madness. Feminists expect us to believe that a woman’s behavior doesn’t increase her chance of becoming a target? So a young woman walking home alone, late at night, drunk, in a poor part of town, is just as likely to be raped as the same woman sitting at home with a couple of friends, at ten in the morning, in a rich neighborhood?

"Swimming increases your risk of being eaten by a shark? VIIIIIIICTIM BLAAAAAAAMING!"

Note: if your first instinct is to say “she could get raped too, here is an example of a woman who did everything right but got raped anyway,” then you don’t know the definition of “chance” or “likely.” Look them up. I’ll wait.

In a few words: she’s asking for it. This line of thinking, where a woman’s rape is at least partly her fault, has generally been widely discredited; the only person who is responsible for an assault is the perpetrator. Period.

Same fallacy. Same stupidity. No one said she’s asking for it — that’s a feminist delusion. They see sexism everywhere.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual line of thinking is: there are things you can do to make yourself safer. Fault and blame don’t enter into this thought. Again, almost every man you have ever met agrees that the perpetrator is responsible. They don’t like rapists any more than you do. They may not shriek about it all the time, but they do have girlfriends and wives and mothers and sisters and daughters and enough brain cells to make the necessary connections. On the other hand, the few exceptions to the male rule will not be convinced otherwise, by you or anyone else. Period.

Wheeler writes: “no one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.” The good news is, no one is. The bad news (for feminism) is, they are equating attracting sexual assault with attracting sexual assault.

Rape is about sex

The implications of these ideas are that men are mindless, sex-crazed animals, and that rape is born from a desire to have sex. If I were a man, I would take serious offense to the former, and to address the latter: rape is not about sex, but rather power and control.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual implication is that men are not one-dimensional beings. There is a great deal of variety among men: in height, weight, intelligence, sex drive, and even moral scruples. Acknowledge this variety and understand which end of which spectrum you need to be worried about, instead of screaming at the opposite end about sluts.

Much more important is acknowledging that rape is about sex. This is perhaps the most obviously true statement we can make about rape. Stephen Pinker, for one, has thoroughly debunked the feminist power-and-control myth in his book The Blank Slate, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Consider date rape, for instance: “Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?”

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you."

I will list some more of his (fairly obvious) reasons why rape is about sex, not power or control.

  1. Rapists “rarely inflict a serious or fatal injury, which would preclude conception and birth.” This is not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “rapists are violent, here is an example of a violent rapist,” then you don’t know what “rarely” means.

  2. Rapists are “overwhelmingly young men, the age of the most intense sexual competitiveness.” Also not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “old men commit rape too, here is one old rapist,” then you don’t know what “overwhelmingly” means.

  3. “Victims of rape are mostly in the peak reproductive years for women, between thirteen and thirty-five,” as if we needed to be told, “with a mean in most data sets of twenty-four. Though many rape victims are classified as children (under the age of sixteen), most of these are adolescents, with a median age of fourteen. The age distribution is very different from that of victims of other violent crimes, and is the opposite of what would happen if rape victims were picked for their physical vulnerability [younger or older] or by their likelihood of holding positions of power [older].”

    Note: if your first instinct is to say anything other than “I agree,” then you don’t know the meaning of “mostly,” “most,” “mean,” “median,” “distribution,” or “likelihood.”

  4. Although rape is found in all human societies, “[c]ountries with far more rigid [traditional] gender roles, such as Japan, have far lower rates of rape” than less patriarchal countries, including the United States of America. So much for the evils of patriarchy.

    Again: “rates.” Please consult your dictionary.

Feminist sanity

You don’t have to take my word for it, though. Let’s ask a feminist. An equity feminist, that is: Camille Paglia, to be precise. Twenty years ago she made exactly the same point I did yesterday. (A clear case of time-travel plagiarism — as if shark rape wasn’t bad enough.)

For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not sex.” This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class. …

These girls say, “Well, I should be able to get to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy’s room without anything happening.” And I say, “Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?” My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police — and I — have the right to say to you, “You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?”

You stupid idiots, what the hell are you thinking? Why are you doing this?

Why they are doing this, and what they are really doing

From the original article:

SlutWalk is not about hate, nor seeing the offending officer fired, but rather demanding accountability from the Toronto Police Force, since, in [SlutWalk co-founder Heather Jarvis’] view, “they allowed him to go out as a representative, so his actions speak to the lack of training in dealing with rape culture and these sorts of stereotypes.”

SlutWalk is about feminist lies and willful ignorance. It is only making Toronto less safe for women. Congratulations, Heather, you’ve taught the police not to be honest about rape risk factors. (Actually, they already knew that, but you’ve hammered the point home.) They know you will not abide reality, if reality says: “you may do as you please, but I will impose consequences on you.”

There is no cause for alarm. Feminists assure me, walking alone through this park at night cannot possibly increase your chances of being assaulted.

Bring it on home, Heather.

“This is something that people want and need. Yes, there is criticism, and there always will be, but hundreds of people are showing their support for this initiative, and I think that speaks strongly to something that people are sick and tired of and want to do something about.”

Sadly, they’re not doing anything to stop rape or to help rape victims. All they’re doing is suppressing information — information that might actually do some good — in order to advance their slut-positive, sex-worshiping, reality-denying, criminally irresponsible gender feminist ideology.

Read Full Post »

Hatred is Unamusement Park’s ongoing five-part documentary on the War on Hate, a war which — strangely enough — is being waged by the most hateful and malicious elements of our society. Last time we considered the strange case of John Derbyshire, whose thoughtful remarks on race differences in intelligence were interpreted as a “Racism 101” lecture delivered by a “white supremacist,” illustrating the stupidity — as well as the hatred and malice — of the so-called “anti”-racists, who are actually merely anti-white.

We also stuck our heads into the coma ward of race denialism to check for signs of brain activity in one or two patients. Alas, none were detected.

Fun times were had by all. Today, though… today is going to get ugly. Today, we’re hunting big game. Today, we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Today… another animal metaphor.

Today, we gird our loins for battle, because our loins is the first place that our next target is going to aim for. Today, our fearless documentary crew covers the most vicious, brutal, and ultimately pointless battlefield in the War on Hate.

It's a metaphorical Vietnam, with slightly less drug use. (All due respect to our veterans.)

Today… goddamn it, I’m so excited, I can’t even say it!

FEMINISM

Today we’re talking about girls. Don’t get too excited. For once it’s not gratuitous hot French girls.

"You... you don't want me anymore? I am so sad." :(

Of course we still want you, gratuitous hot French girl. In fact, we’ll desperately need a dose of your European femininity and general sexiness when we’re done here, because today we’re talking about feminist girls.

Since this my very first post wholly devoted to the dreadful subject, I’m going to treat it like spaghetti: throw a bunch of angry sex-conscious women at a wall and see if they stick. No, that’s not quite right. Let’s just say I’m going to strip down my rhetoric, whip out my toolbox of reactionary politics, and shoot my hateful ideas right in their faces.

There’s got to be a better metaphor for that…

Fuck tha Police (not literally)

Our doomed expedition begins at a curious post by feminist blogger iamcharli, entitled “FYI: My Clothes are Not an Invitation to Rape Me” (February 20 2011).

If you haven’t read it about it already, there was a cop from Toronto that recently spoke at a campus safety information session and said women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “a slut.”

Indeed he did. A law enforcement officer, whose job it is to protect women from being raped (among other things), pointed out that women may be able to avoid this by not dressing in a manner specifically designed to arouse men. After all, rape is about sex. It’s about a woman (usually) who doesn’t want sex, from a man (usually) who does and is sufficiently motivated to get it anyway; in other words, whose desire for sex with that woman is greater than his fear of injury or prison, and greater than whatever respect for her wishes he might have. So-called slutty dress does not reduce the man’s fears, but it does increase his desire, and very likely reduces his respect as well.

Not saying it should. Just saying it might.

I wonder if I have any images on my hard drive that could illustrate my point…

"I'm not increasing your arousal, am I? I am? Oh NO!" (pouts)

Why, then, are students and staff at Osgoode Hall Law School “demanding an apology and explanation from the Toronto Police Service”, according to the article in the Excalibur? Why are feminists now marching in the streets in a ridiculous protest they’re calling the Toronto SlutWalk?

“I’m appalled by the comment that the police officer has made saying that women should avoid dressing like sluts, and I think it goes to show the inherent misogyny and lack of education,” said Selvasivam, York Federation of Students (YFS) executive.

“I think the officer should be very seriously reprimanded for the comment.”

Misogyny? The word means “the hatred of women by men.” The officer was trying to help women avoid sexual assault. That was his whole reason for being at the campus safety information session. He even knew the risk — in our feminist-loving, hate-hating society — of giving out too much useful information: “I’ve been told I shouldn’t say this,” he said, right before he said it anyway. (Well played, sir.) Who could accuse this man of hating women? Who could be that irrational?

Feminists, that’s who.

As for the officer’s lack of education, he may not have a degree from the Osgoode Hall Law School, but I’m sure he’s familiar with the reality of rape in the city of Toronto. The police aren’t taking these complaints against one of their own seriously, are they?

Toronto police spokesperson Constable Wendy Drummond confirmed the incident has been brought to the attention of senior officials and is currently under investigation.

“[This is] definitely something that we take very seriously. This matter […] has been brought to the attention of our professional standards unit and is something we will be looking into,” she said. … “We are of the position that if these comments were made, it is definitely something that we will [act on],” she added.

Oh.

That slut deserved to get eaten by bears

Do not be alarmed! He is only here to illustrate a point. Not to rape anybody.

Ronda Bessner, Osgoode assistant dean of the Juris Doctor Program, was the information session attendee who contacted the police about the remark, asking for a written apology and an explanation. Perhaps she can explain why.

Bessner argued that such comments make it difficult for victims dealing with sexual assault because they make them feel uncomfortable going to the police for help.

“I think the problem with the constable’s conduct was that he was blaming the victim,” she said.

Blaming the victim? Curious. I suppose if he had told them they can avoid being eaten by bears if they stay out of forests, he would be blaming the victims of bear attacks.

There is a crucial difference between acknowledging a cause and blaming the victim. The officer was acknowledging a cause: women whose outfits are designed to turn men on, are at a higher risk of attracting a rapist; thus their choice of outfit is a partial cause of their rape. If he had wanted to blame some victims, he would have said something like this.

I’m supposed to tell you about how not to get raped or some shit, but I’m not gonna do that. You know why? ‘Cause if you get raped, it’s your own goddamn fault! You were asking for it, with your slutty clothes and your lip gloss and your hair all done up! You wanted it!

[stunned silence]

You all deserve to get raped!

"Slut! SLUT! Feel the wrath of my police-stick, slut!"

iamcharli elaborates on the horrors of victim blaming. “Dear Mr. Officer,” she writes, probably facetiously,

I don’t care if I’m wearing the sluttiest outfit or a skimpy top or if I’m totally naked. [Hot.] What I choose to wear does NOT, by ANY means, give anyone the right to sexually assault me. My clothing or how I act or what I’ve had to drink, doesn’t excuse a man from sexually assaulting me. My slutty outfit is NOT an open invitation for a man to rape me.

Curiouser and curiouser. I searched the article in vain for the part where the officer says “if you wear slutty clothes, you waive your legal right not to be raped.” I thought he was saying, “if you wear slutty clothes, you are more likely to be raped (because of how rapists choose their victims, in my experience as a police officer), and I might not be around to protect you, and all the legal rights in the world aren’t going to mean jack shit if he really, really wants to have sex with you.” Or words to that effect.

I should do one of these campus safety information sessions! I’m so good at informing women.

Consider a naked college girl

At this juncture, I pictured an attractive female college student walking around downtown Toronto naked. I did this for strictly scientific purposes, of course. I imagined her drinking fifteen Cosmos, then walking home alone. Now, I fully agree that her clothing (or lack thereof), how she acts, and what she drinks, don’t excuse any man from sexually assaulting her. Her hypothetical assailant is 100% responsible, legally and morally and ethically and theologically and whatever other ways you can be responsible, for his own actions. And she certainly didn’t send out invitations, open or otherwise, asking for interested rapists to ambush her as she stumbles her way home through various dark alleys and unlit parks.

Nevertheless, I can think of at least three things she did in this scenario that almost certainly increased her chances of being assaulted. I am not blaming the hypothetical naked drunk victim; I am simply acknowledging causes. She had three choices to make, and every time, she chose the one more likely to lead to her assault.

Of course — I think this goes without saying — anyone who assaults her should be punished exactly as if she had worn a snowsuit, drank nothing but vitamin water, and driven home in a tank with Batman riding shotgun and the 82nd Airborne Division as escort. Still, if she had made those choices, it wouldn’t be an issue, would it?

"Let's bring some democracy to these rapists — in the form of flaming-hot death from above." (Again, all due respect...)

Plus, she’d be going home with Batman. That’s got to count for something, right?

Rape: What’s it all about?

Bessner goes on.

“He’s also not making victims feel safe to go to the police. It’s quite astounding that in 2011 that you hear comments like that from a professional.”

Bessner stressed the importance of officers having proper knowledge about sexual assault cases.

“I think it’s really important that the police […] receive appropriate training on sexual assault, so that statements like this are never made and that they understand the dynamics of sexual assault.”

How low does your opinion of women have to be, that you think a police officer recommending modest clothing will scare them away from reporting rape to the police? I thought we were talking about law school students, not children. And the officer seems to understand the real “dynamics of sexual assault” quite well. He just doesn’t buy into the feminist slogans about rape and power.

iamcharli spells it out for us.

Someone needs to take the time to educate this cop about the facts and reasons behind rape. Rape is violent. Rape is not about sex it’s about control and power.

There it is: rape is not about sex, it’s about control and power. Hardly a novel concept: in 1993, the United Nations declared that “rape is an abuse of power and control in which the rapist seeks to humiliate, shame, embarrass, degrade, and terrify the victim.” Fucking an otherwise unobtainable woman? Never even occurred to him, officer! He was too busy with the terrifying and shaming and all that other stuff.

The power theory of rape originated in gender feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book, Against Our Will, in which she wrote that “[rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (emphasis in original). Well, that doesn’t sound crazy at all!

Of all the ludicrous left-wing postmodern blank-slate myths, this one is certainly the most dangerous for women, so it should be the first target of attack by feminists, not one of their core beliefs. Steven Pinker demolishes it, and many other myths about sex and gender, in Chapter 18 of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

Think about it. [Oh, if only they would!] First obvious fact: Men often want to have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them. They use every tactic that one human being uses to affect the behavior of another: wooing, seducing, flattering, deceiving, sulking, and paying. Second obvious fact: Some men use violence to get what they want, indifferent to the suffering they cause. …

A rapist always risks injury at the hands of the woman defending herself. In a traditional society, he risks torture, mutilation, and death at the hands of her relatives. In a modern society, he risks a long prison term. [Score one for traditional society.] Are rapists really assuming these risks as an altruistic sacrifice to benefit the billions of strangers that make up the male gender? … If [encouraging rape to consciously keep women down] were men’s tactic, why would they have made rape a crime in the first place?

He goes on — it wouldn’t be necessary in a sane world, of course, but Pinker knows we don’t live in one — to prove that rape is not, in fact, about power or control. It really is about sex. For one thing,

date rape is a particularly problematic case for the not-sex theory. Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you." Makes sense to me.

It’s difficult not to type out the whole damn chapter and list the many sources it cites, but that would make my own half-baked ideas unnecessary, and we can’t have that. Anyway, I highly recommend the book, and not just for feminists.

When I’m sexually aroused, I become an uncontrollable werewolf

Of all iamcharli’s baffling remarks, this is perhaps the most baffling of all. The bafflingest, if you will.

Rape is not about what I decide to wear. I’m not sure when we all starting thinking that if a man is sexually aroused he becomes this uncontrollable monster and can’t stop himself. Men are not animals. We should be able to hold them to a higher standard.

Let me spell it out for the feminist who couldn’t be bothered to think rationally about an issue which is hugely important to women. Arousal, fear, respect for women, and all the other things men feel, are not goddamn light switches. Nobody is claiming your slutty clothes are going to switch on his arousal, switch off his fear of injury or prison, and switch off his respect for you, making him “this uncontrollable monster.” They are going to increase his arousal, very likely decrease his respect, and do nothing to his fear of injury or prison — unless, of course, your slutty outfit features a hunting knife and barbed wire accessories, which is not a bad idea at all.

Not likely to be a victim of anything, anywhere, at any time.

Go ahead, hold men to any standard you want. The ancient subroutines in their reptilian hindbrains will whir and spin regardless, and if they hit the right — or rather wrong — combination of hormones and neurotransmitters and… whatever, they are going to attempt to assault you. Yes, I know, this means we don’t have free will. Live with it.

Instead of saying stupid shit like “he’s blaming the victim” and “rape is about power” and “what I choose to wear does not give you the right to sexually assault me,” and marching around town proclaiming how proud you are to be a slut and how you would never give up dressing slutty even if it means making yourself a target for rapists, instead of that, why don’t you try to understand the chain of events that leads to a sexual assault — a chain of events that depends very much on the victim’s appearance and behavior; a chain of events which the police officer whose life you’re destroying is quite familiar with. Then ask yourself how you can avoid it.

This image is not strictly relevant, but can I just say how pleased I am to be talking about this instead of black people?

Manning up

Oh, she’s not done yet. Darn. That would have been a good place to stop.

How can we be ok with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law has the audacity to say something as sexist and insulting as, women can help prevent their own sexual assault if they cover up more?

Sexist and insulting — good grief. These words, like misogyny, have lost all meaning. Let’s try her reasoning with other crimes and other designated victim groups.

  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as sexist and insulting as ‘women can help prevent the theft of their own property if they lock up the house when they leave more’?”
  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as homophobic and insulting as ‘gay men can help prevent their getting AIDS if they wrap up their dicks more’?”
  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as racist and insulting as ‘black men can help prevent their own murder if they don’t deal crack cocaine in the ghetto… more’?”

Robbers, rapists, rival crack dealers, and retroviruses: deep down, they’re all just manifestations of a biological imperative, acted out by soulless molecules.

This needs to stop. More men need to man up and be part of the fight to end sexual violence.

Well, I tried. Somehow I don’t think this is what she had in mind.

And now it’s time for me to bid you adieu.

"I noticed you are speaking French. Does zis mean you have forgiven me?" :)

Appendix: Rape statistics

“1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime,” iamcharli declares. Not this shit again, I silently groan.

There is a great deal of debate about rape statistics. As a rule, anytime someone says “one in three,” “one in five,” or (especially) “one in four,” they’re full of shit. There is no rape epidemic of these proportions. If there were, it would be a national emergency — real apocalyptic martial-law stuff. Those figures do not agree with reality.

I have no desire to discuss rape statistics; it is enough for my thesis that rape of women by men happen, and that it involve sex. Therefore I will merely point out that Heather Mac Donald addresses the myth of campus rape in her appropriately titled article “The Campus Rape Myth.”

Adieu!

Read Full Post »

Via Reuters (Feb. 15):

CBS correspondent Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the jubilation in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, the U.S. broadcasting network said on Tuesday.

Logan, a 39-year-old South Africa native and longtime war correspondent, has since flown back to the United States and is recovering in hospital. She was one of dozens of journalists attacked during the three weeks of protests throughout Egypt.

CBS News said in a statement Logan was covering the celebrations for CBS’s “60 Minutes” program on Feb. 11 when she and her team were surrounded by “a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.”

“In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers,” CBS said.

Not sure what this is doing in the article, though:

“Egypt’s old regime orchestrated a ferocious campaign to stop the news of this movement for change,” Paul Steiger, a member of the CPJ’s board and former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal said. . . . Steiger said attacks on Internet journalists, which often include cyberattacks [sic] and attacks on websites, must be closely monitored.

“The often invisible, sophisticated attacks constitute a new front in the fight for press freedom,” he said. “We need to pay close attention to Internet censorship.”

Yes, we certainly need to pay close attention to Internet censorship.

This is not “a ferocious campaign” by “Egypt’s old regime” we’re talking about here. This not a cyber attack. This is the completely predictable result of putting an attractive white woman in a crowd of hundreds of non-white rioters. (White people don’t riot or gang-rape anyone. We’re classy like that.) Steiger is just there to distract us from the real story, which CBS would rather cover up.

It doesn’t seem to be working.

Ferdinand Bardamu over at In Mala Fide can’t make up his mind whether Lara Logan is an idiot or a liar:

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. Am I the only one with the balls to point out these undeniable facts:

  1. Women are the weaker, frailer sex. The average man is physically stronger than the average woman, and absent physical protection (in the form of other men, be they police, military or family) women are COMPLETELY at the mercy of men.
  2. Egypt is a nation resistant to feminism. Egyptian men do not “respect” women, unlike the pale, porn-addicted, gelded fembois [sic] of America and Europe.
  3. A riot, by definition, is an event defined by its lack of law and order – meaning that the structures that protect women from the predations of men do NOT exist.
  4. Logan is a white foreigner, and is thus despised by the violent hordes who believe their government to be in thrall to hers.

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. . . . Did she really think that the teeming, America-hating, angry, sex-starved crowds of men she was surrounded by wouldn’t view her as a tasty treat? Is she THAT clueless about the non-Western world? Or did she truly think that her crew of yes-men could protect her every time she touched down in Surprise Sex Country?

dissention has similar questions:

Did she seriously expect to be not manhandled in an environment with tens of thousands of young non-pussy whipped men and no law enforcement?

In Iraq, she was ’embedded’ with US soldiers and things were under control. Did she really think that being around whipped soldiers is the same as standing in a crowd of young aggressive men?

Harsh. But fair? I wonder: who is ultimately to blame for Logan’s dangerously irresponsible behavior?

Yes, women are the weaker sex, so without male protectors, women are at the mercy of male aggressors—like the rioters she knew she would be covering. Hurray for patriarchy! Yes, foreign countries—like the one she knew she would be visiting—are full of these “violent hordes” who do not respect women, and hate and attack whites wherever they find them. Hurray for white people! So how could Logan possibly think this was a good idea?

Does it have something to do with living in a society of “pale, porn-addicted, gelded fembois”?

Logan is absolutely that clueless about the non-Western world. She’s one more victim of America’s sick masochistic fetish for anti-white, anti-male (in other words, anti-success) bigotry, including feminism, multiculturalism, anti-racism, and all the other symptoms of the cancer of our decadence. Logan is the natural, inevitable product of a civilization

We are well and truly fucked, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s because you’re not ladies and gentlemen: you’re sluts and players, feminists and faggots, shrieking harpies and supplicating eunuchs. You should have kept Lara Logan home—forcibly, if necessary. You should have taught her to respect the right men and fear the wrong ones. Hell, you should have just taught her right from wrong.

I hate you all.

Appendix A: false accusation?

Ferdinand Bardamu goes on:

Of course, this all assumes that Logan is even telling the truth. There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. It’s certainly a story that the white nationalist types would buy – innocent, virginal Nordic angel gets ravished and defiled by a gang of smelly, swarthy, sleazy sand-niggers. Remember, (White) Women Don’t Lie About Rape!

Well, it’s possible, but there’s a reason the story is plausible and garners attention and sympathy: it happens. A lot. Minus the “gang” element, it is in fact the typical rape.

Appendix B: white Americans—zookeepers of the world

At Gucci Little Piggy, we find an excellent analogy (emphasis mine) but no sympathy at all for Ms. Logan:

. . . I prefer to focus on the natural fallout of a person being in a dangerous situation rather than victim-blaming. Mainly, if I were to engage in victim-blaming I’d have to presume that Lara Logan is a victim. . . . The reason that there aren’t communities of highly-paid journalists who never leave their apartments is the same reason that Lara Logan immersed herself in a dangerous revolution. Since the job is not easy and since Logan is willing to take on the job—her safety becomes a function of multiple factors. In short, sexual assault has always been a danger for any reporter—especially one like Lara Logan—which puts her in the same class as a long-haul truck driver who runs the risk of skidding out on a highway and ending up dead or in ICU. Since Logan’s job is to report on the events of thousands of raucous protestors [sic] in the throes of revolution, physical harm is an occupational hazard; in short, Logan’s private parts lose a certain amount of their privacy. To make another trite analogy, zookeepers occasionally get mauled by their bestial captives.

Appendix C: sleeping Sunday morning update

Variously punctuated blogger hbd* chick thinks part of the problem is that Egyptians are really into cousin-fucking. Tim Wise would fit right in.

i’d like to throw out there one other reason why i think sexual harassment has been increasing in egypt lately. it’s prolly ’cause increasing numbers of women have been moving to urban areas (i.e. away from their homeplaces) for college or work or whatever. they’ve been moving to places where they are not very related to the men, unlike back at home. . . . in an inbred society, the more you are NOT related to your neighbors, the more you are likely to treat them harshly.

It makes more sense when she says it.

Read Full Post »

Now that Keith Olbermann is hanging up his pitchfork and torch, I have decided to pick up where he left off. Behold: the five worst things in the world—in descending order of worst-ness, as of January 2011. (Note that these are not necessarily the most dangerous things in the world, or even the problems most urgently in need of solution. These are just the five things that pack the most evil per pound, if you will, currently at work in the world.)

  1. Communism/Marxism/socialism—where else could I start, really?—which collectively (hah) are merely the worst form (i.e. culmination) of
  2. liberalism (post-1960s), which inevitably leads to two, necessarily lesser evils:
  3. feminism (post-1960s), which is going to destroy civilization (something which, on my better days, I actually care about), and
  4. the marginalization of whites/masculinity/traditional values, in favor of diversity/emasculation/alternative lifestyles, and all the attendant tragicomedy; all of which are worse than
  5. a bunch of crazies living in caves, sticking bombs in their underwear in between jerking off to 72 wide-eyed, non-menstruating virgins, i.e. radical Islam.

No, I will not justify this selection. I have decided that if the forces of “good”—which is to say, the radical left—can fling accusations at anyone they disagree with, then so can the forces of “evil”—which is to say, me.

Unrelated postscript: weak government influence is now considered shameful. Poor Idaho. (North Carolina and Indiana have nothing to be ashamed of either.)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: