Tales from the gender war
Four years and four months prison for a woman falling in love with a girl student of 16, otherwise of age, because she was a PE teacher. The girl wasn't in her class. The journalists sensationalise the story and praise the outcome.
I feel moral horror. I am no longer able to believe the details of stories about sex crimes. Someone once said that by restricting any particular form of love, you cut the tree of love out by its root. That's certainly true about all those people involved in this prosecution.
Kelly Jay Keen (aka Posie Parker) is on a world Terf tour called 'Let Women Speak'. She was, apparently, attacked in New Zealand and her Dublin event was cancelled as there weren't enough police. Like Rowling she seems utterly oblivious to the women academics behind trans-ideology. I got a good overview from Janice Fiamengo's videos and essays. Trans-ideology is the product of women's voices. Gender studies features in nearly every university. The faculty and students are almost exclusively women. We are letting women speak.
As for Rowling's other gripes that society is worse for women than it's ever been...
Porn? Women watch porn. As to do gays and lesbians. Google released search data that showed the 56% of searches for aggressive porn were made by women (I'm guessing the data pool was Google and gmail registered users). And how many women are being demeaned in porn movies made by lesbians, featuring lesbians for a lesbian audience?
Incels? She highlighting a group of people who must make up 0.0001% of men. And even at that they keep themselves to themselves and their social intrusion is limited to online complaining.
How can someone who has so much to be grateful for still be hanging on to old resentments. Age hasn't made her more circumspect or contemplative at all, has it? Things have never been worse for women says billionaire woman.
Men have never had a platform in which to discuss the obstacles they must overcome as men or the issues which are negatively impacting our lives. Never. The lazy rubbish you hear about more men in Parliament and in the media is pathetic. This means nothing when all of those men place the needs and wants of women ahead of the often far more dire needs of males.
All governments prioritize women and girls at the expense of men and always have. The media is completely dominated by women's voices and they are whining endlessly about women's struggles in a society which meets their every whim and literally glorifies them for simply being female,
Yet men remain mute whenever women raise these tired transparent arguments in an attempt to frame our society as a male dominated oppressive patriarchy. Even the ridiculous- 95% of men are CEO's is a vacuous observation. How the hell does the fact that a tiny number of men occupy these leadership roles in companies in any way benefit men? It benefits the CEO's wives and children.
As I write this I hear the news in the other room saying "Women to benefit from government financially". Colour me shocked.
Why this comment, I don't get it, please explain. This is in reply to my article on the same date.
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Eleanor Roosevelt, 1901.
No surprise that JK Rowling is a rad feminist given her obvious Celtic ancestry, the “Celtic women” see themselves as goddesses that we should all worship . Their past is very dark decending from pagan times with witchcraft and superstition , sacrifice etc. Christianity lifted them into civilisation to some extent and was the basis of the hated patriarchy since religion was run by men.
But the decendants of the old witches are still here and they’re madder than ever, vowing revenge against all men. The feminists movement is full of women from the British Isles, Scandinavia and Northern Europe or whose ancestors were.
Women in other parts of the globe are much less fanatical and don’t blame their men for everything.
"Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.” - JK Rowling.
That reminds me of an article solemnly shared by one of my feminists relatives which began "Women are always being told to be more like men, but...", to much applause from her feminist friends - all well-educated, pushy, professional women like herself.
Imagine if any public figure had actually said something like "Women should more like men, in x y or z...".. LOL! All I've ever seen women being told is "You can be whoever you want, and do whatever you want".
The cognitive dissonance is astonishing! (Giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's not outright lying).
ps. "or else" what? Sounds like the old male fist in the dv propaganda.
So pleased you mentioned Rowling - the original #metoo grifter. I’ve been following her confected “abuse” lies for decades. She was the original Amber Heard, from which an entire industry of lying feminist maggots as crawled from.
Yet again, classic cult language and behaviour. The astounding level of cognitive dissonance is also typical of cult devotees.
Everything, no matter how important or trivial, is twisted to fit into their narrative. Again, it's what cults do and the other devotees (useful idiots) hang off every uttered word whilst the more sane simply wonder how the hell did they come to those conclusions with that statement or scenario.
Feminism of the radical kind is just another twisted and deluded cult. As everyone else looks on wondering what on earth their statements even mean, they are in the corridors of power looking to dominate there. After all, once you peel back all the layers of the cult onion you will find that it is what their agenda is really all about... Power and domination by the subjugation of their "enemy".
Sex Differences and Evolution and Violence towards women:
Men have higher sex drives than women. That's just evolution. And online stats today, say 80% of singly younger women are showing sexual interest in only the top 20% of men. Jordan Peterson was talking about that, in his chat with Chris Williamson. That's female hyper-gamy, which is women sending out the social signal of rejection to 80% of young men. Understanding the basics of human mating and evolution is key to figuring this out, lessening the problem of sexual violence.
There are short cuts other cultures have found, for how men and women best get along. Best practices.
I think the biology and anthropology is clear: men and women work best, to pair off, when young. Why? Unlimited sexual freedom for women has never worked in the past, doesn't work in the present, won't work in the future.
However: restraining female sexual freedom? That's the solution pushed by all past cultures, but not our feminist culture, which is I think, the problem. Feminism pushed for unlimited sexual freedom for women. Big mistake. That won't work culturally, and I think that's the reason, for the anthropological evidence of early mating, dividing up genders when young, into their respective roles and expectations. Early pair bonding provides a part of the solution to regulating sex in human, controlling sexual behavior. It's the same in all cultures, all religions, for all of history. Tens of thousands of examples. Humans basically came up with the same solution to controlling and regulating sex: If a woman has pair bonded, has children to look after, and social rules are set up to encourage that role, that helps regulate sex. Restraining female sexual freedom with rules, is the only thing that has ever partly worked. That's why all cultures do it. It has to do with who actually controls sex: women. Feminism is the problem, because it believes in unlimited female sexual freedom. That will never work. Feminism doesn't understand human biology.
Past societies solved these problems partly, by gender separation. Why is gender separation and clear rules of gender roles important, to protect women and the sexes to get along? Because of how men and women are wired, sexually: Females can get sex pretty much any time they want, in their lives, since men are much more driven by sex, women far less so, since women can get sex anytime, they want it. Men can't.
Men don't have that option, that females do, of unlimited access to sex. It's really about Sexual Economics: Most men live in a permanent sex shortage; most women live in a permanent sex surplus. Most women don't understand this about men, because it's not their problem.
What's the root of this sexual access imbalance? Evolution. Men are influenced by their biology, to be more sexually competitive and aggressive in their 20s than women. Why? Those are the genes that survive. Men want sex more than women.... a lot more. Why? Because men evolved under conditions of females being far fussier about picking out men for sex, than the other way around. Not a downshout, to women. That's because women get pregnant, men don't.
Men evolved as sexually aggressive, because those were the men, that women chose in our past. Sexual aggression in men was a trait picked out, by women, since female mammals make most of the breeding choices in nature. Pretending the problem is just men, which feminists do, shows complete lack of understanding of how biology works. Women and men don't exist in unentangled opposites, with women having no impact on men or the other way around. Most feminists, due to their lack of any grasp of biology, lives in a feminist fantasy land, where men are the problem, women the completely innocent ones. It's a fairy tale, feminists push. Not even a good one.
There are norms in biology, around human aggression. Men are more likely to be aggressive. That's just evolution. Especially men are more likely to be aggressive, at the extreme high end of sexual aggression. It's the same reason 99% of people in jails are men. Society is not discriminating against men, by locking up millions of men, but not women. Most men are not bound for prison, because they are not that aggressive. Only the most aggressive men end up in prison. But almost all the super-aggressive people, are men. Not women. Almost never women. Why not? That's just evolution. If you line up 100 men and 100 women and you choose, who are the 2 most aggressive people out of those 200, the answer will be 2 men, almost all the time. Almost never 2 women. Same with the sexually aggressive. That's a clue, to our evolutionary wiring.
Feminists can't think statistically, just emotionally.
A few women are very sexually aggressive, but not many. They are rare enough; we invented a word for them. We call them nymphos. Notice we don't have to make up a word for men. We just call them: men. So, feminists are expecting men to behave like women do. That's a sexist, gynocentric view of reality, just as offensive and uninformed as misogyny. It's misandry. A very stupid Rex Harrison once sang, if only a woman could be like a man. Today we sing, if only men could be like a woman.
However, there are rare exceptions to the feminist's lack of biology knowledge. I was listening once to Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers chat with Camille Paglia at the on The Absence of Biology in Gender Studies. (American Enterprise Institute...you tube) How much biology is there, in Gender Studies? There is none. That's the root of the problem. Most extremely bright and educated women are completely clueless about evolved human biology and mathematical reasoning. Gender Hysteria has taken over.
So, feminists believe a fairy tale about sexual violence, believe in sexual patterns that don't work, don't fit the evidence of common sense, biology or anthropology. Then feminists do damage socially, by spreading their misperceptions about sexual reality, onto naïve young women, who look up to them. This does unintentional damage to the very people they are trying to help. We can of course and we should, restrain aggressive male sexual behavior.
I was listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson talk about restraining male towards women, with Naomi Wolf. Dr. Peterson is a world class expert on the effects of alcohol on loosening inhibitions. He pointed out that 50% of sexual assaults take place, with alcohol. I can't say Naomi exactly jumped right out to accept, the obvious best suggestion to restrain sexual aggression towards women, with the responsible control of drinking alcohol, by women. That could cut the problem in half, very quickly. That is by far the easiest, most reliable and effective way to get a hold of the problem. Instead of jumping on a great suggestion, Naomi jumped right to, campus authorities let the men get away with it, etc. A complete lack of personal responsibility, right after a misunderstanding of the topic of sexual aggression. Naomi immediately veered away from encouraging female responsible behavior, right to, the people in authority must do something about it. No wonder the universities are a mess and men are fleeing them, running for the exits. Feminism is the problem. Not the solution.
Hey Naomi, once men all leave university, then who are the women going to marry?
Feeling Bettina love!
I am taking a break from the days grind and skimmed through the article and comments again, my mind wandering to many areas of society that exhibit Rowling behavior. Rowling's duplicitous behavior doesn't stop with the institute of matrimony but extend into the various denominations and branches of Christianity. Many women of the evangelical conservative persuasion, preach the Gospel, the sinfulness of humans, forgiveness, love of all mankind, and unity in Christ, yet the moment a man is perceived to display leadership, traditional churchman roles, and masculinity, many women become victims and the man is disowned and castigated. Guilty or not, there is no forgiveness, compassion, understanding, restitution, or anything constructive. It's heads on the plater. Rage. Such hypocrisy.
Winston Churchill once said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". Substitute "her" for "his" and you have a perfect description of feminists.
I remember when i had twitter and the lgb folks were WHINGING about jk rowling lol
I gota say the headline alone is what sold me LOL
A fascinating analysis of the vast discrepancy between Rowling the artist and Rowling the self-pitying feminist ideologue. "Monstrous arrogance" indeed. I wonder if she ever slapped her ex-husband? To deprive a father of the opportunity to know his daughter, and vice versa, is far worse than a slap, but as you note, it doesn't even register with her legions of supporters. Thanks for the heads up about your friend Kate's interesting book.
The hate in society is boundless, with much of it built on falsehoods.