A blogger calling herself stavvers at Another Angry Woman has an interesting post up. It is a real ball of sociopathic self-justification and gendercide fantasy. She starts out:
“Well, well, well. It seems the latest thing feminism is fighting about is the phrase “kill all men”.
Because apparently there is some debate to be had on whether or not this is problematic formulation. And this article just goes on and keeps getting worse, staring out with the usual bogus disclaimers, “This is all just a completely harmless hypothetical that reveals nothing about our entrenched bigotry…” before launching into denialism and self-justification.
“So, before I launch into this defence, let me point out that nobody is actually planning to kill all men. Not even some men. It’s just a phrase, an expression of rage, a rejection of a system which is riddled with violence.”
Well then it’s a completely ignorant expression of rage, since men are overwhelmingly the victims of deadly violence, usually at the hands of men – this is usually the only time these killings are punished and recorded as crimes –and often at the behest of women. If it’s intended as a rejection of violence, one has to wonder why it is directed at the primary victims of that violence.
One has to wonder at this blind spot and what might be causing it. One does not have to wonder for long; it will become very clear.
“Kill all men” is a shorthand war cry, much the same as “ACAB” or “tremble hetero swine” or “die cis scum”. It represents a structural critique, presented in a provocative fashion.
The difference being, and the reason this is dishonest, is that women are hardly the relatively powerless minority that gay or trans people are, so there is no real equivalence between these battle cries. Women are the majority of voters, have complete control over child rearing and enculturation in society and control the majority of disposable income.
Exhibit A: Manipulation (Appeal to pity)
“Patriarchy harms men, it’s true, but it oppresses the fuck out of women, and there are few, if any men who are not complicit in this oppression. Most men are not rapists or abusers, but many are complicit in perpetuating this violence by spreading rape apologist myths, by failing to stand against violence against women and girls, and by simply not nailing their colours to the mast and acting as allies.”
Let’s look at this a piece at a time:
Patriarchy hurts men too. Such a deep insight. Patriarchy oppresses women with food and shelter and protection and modern medical care, but it KILLS men to make that all happen.
Now we get the Pure Vessel thing: “if any men who are not complicit in this oppression.” Apparently no women are complicit in any of this, not even women who kill or rape other women, or who send men off to die in war.
Rape apology? Oh we know about rape apology. How’s this for some rape apology – “B-b-b-but it’s not real rape because patriarchy and rape is a crime of gendered oppression, and besides it’s not systemic, just him individually and it’s always really, really rare and anyway it’s not as bad when it happens to a boy as it is when it happens to a girl and he’s the real rapist here anyway, he forced her to do all this – the fact that he was an infant doesn’t mean he doesn’t have male privilege. Oh, and he got lucky so he should be grateful.” You can every one of those points in feminsts spaces when male rape victims are mentioned (with some shining exceptions).
And the appeal to White Knights – “by failing to stand against violence against women and girls,” – apparently stavvers is unaware of the degree and scope of violence that men will visit on other men in the defense of women and girls. There are plenty of examples of this from recent news articles in her own country, but we have our share of this mentality here too– this is how these people have acted in the past when a man offended the sacred person of a white woman – or even was simply accused.
And finally, “and by simply not nailing their colours to the mast and acting as allies.” Apparently for stavvers the alliance is all one way, women owe men nothing in return in loyalty as allies, men exist for and their value depends protecting women and nailing their colors to women’s flagpole. This the form of objectification Martha Nussbaum calls “Instrumentality”.
She goes deeper into this:
Exhibit B: Denialism (Lying)
“And this is because misogynists completely fail to understand how power works. They miss the fact that in this society, violence against women and girls is rife,…”
Well for one thing, all misogynists grow up under the control, nurture and guidance of mothers, so they almost certainly know exactly power, absolute power over food and shelter and punishment, the power of life and death, works.
And for another, the scale of violence in stavvers’ society is probably the same as in mine – several times greater than against men and boys. That probably is not apparent to stavvers because those deaths are invisible to her, probably because they are of no importance to her. They simply don’t count. This the form of objectification Martha Nussbaum calls “Violability”. This lack of empathy is sociopathic.
Exhibit C: Gaslighting
“I suppose it is hardly surprising that utterances of killing all men draw such ire, even from feminists. Under patriarchy, violence is the domain of men.”
So apparently India is not patriarchal at all, and not just India. Apparently neither is China.
“Even from feminists”? The mind vomits. Is this how a feminist refers to feminists who happen to have some human decency?
“There is no serious threat of the women rising up and actually killing all men, all the while the hum of background noise of another women raped, murdered or beaten by a man. That this culture of violence is gendered, and the system is set up in favour of keeping things that way.”
Then she really doubles down on the sociopathy:
“Part of the power of SCUM is the effect it has on men. At my reading group, the men present were allies, and I remember vividly one saying “I don’t think she went far enough at the end, letting some of the men live and act as the Men’s Auxilliary”. All of the other men nodded along. They got that this idea is just fantasy, just a satire.
On the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to mention SCUM (or indeed just cry “kill all men”) without the misogynists crawling in, crying misandry.”
So she sees value in a gendercide fantasy because its sociopathic bigotry offends men, and then she passive-aggressively ties it up with a swipe about “crying misandry”. There’s probably a clinical name for this kind of behavior.
“So no, we’re not actually advocating killing all men, but what we need is for men to understand why we might. A secondary function of this powerful little phrase is to seek out allies. Some men simply cannot fathom that we might be this furious.”
Oh the irony, this coming from someone who cannot fathom why men might be furious, and who thinks she can dismiss it with her ….
“And of course, all men are not deserving of death. In fact, most of them aren’t. I can think of a fair few I do wish painful, violent death on, although this remains but a fantasy. Patriarchy would destroy me were I to ever touch a hair on their head. Patriarchy already tries to punish me for merely expressing these thoughts, because they are unbecoming of a woman.
And of course, all men are not deserving of death. In fact, most of them aren’t.”
Oh how very generously lenient of her.
Patriarchy would destroy her…? This is denialism taken to the point of delusion. Patriarchy protects women like her and finds all kinds of excuses to dismiss her violence. The Battered Woman syndrome scam comes to mind, but more systemically the female sentencing discount is well-documented for almost any crime of violence a woman can commit, if it even gets labeled a crime of violence at all.
And when any of us finds any of this troubling, ha ha, it’s all a joke, are we really so stupid as to take any of this seriously? Are we really so crass as call it what it is and try to rip the gaslighting veil away? Besides, where do we get off privileging our own preceptions, so tainted by male privilege, over her reassurances? This is the form of objectification Martha Nussbaum calls “Denial of subjectivity”.
The Sociopathic Subtext
This is the sociopathic subtext to this attempt to explain all this away – that this is no big deal, that men are supposed to be men and just shrug this off. And “men being men” means men being tough and just sucking it up – an appeal to machismo. And men are just so big and strong, so all powerful, that a woman could never, ever harm a man, and he’s just a pussy if he has the temerity to complain. I thought feminism called machismo “toxic masculinity”, I thought feminism opposed all that.
The sociopathic subtext to just trying to pass this off as some kind of harmless joke and not the reflection of deeply entrenched attitudes with real-word consequences is that men just don’t matter enough for any of this to matter. It’s perfectly alright to treat men as violable and as instruments of women’s welfare and to dismiss men’s own perceptions of thier situation, because hey, they’re just men. Objectification is the center of sociopathy and the lack of empathy we see in stavvers’ post.
Solidarity with sociopathy
So this is the quality of the thinking and the depth of the pathology at work in this article. I have seen a lot of pushback in feminist spaces on this article, but tellingly not one person goes the distance and just says “She’s not a feminist”. Simple as that.That’s all it would take to prove that feminists really don’t tolerate this kind of bigotry in their movement. They just have to denounce it as anti-feminist. That’s all. Then again maybe that silence is consent.
And they wonder why we distrust them and their motives and their explanations.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
“Patriarchy already tries to punish me for merely expressing these thoughts, because they are unbecoming of a woman.”
Ugh, I hate these types of comments so much. Admitting your disagreement is valid and demonizing your disagreement as sexism at the same time!
“And “men being men” means men being tough and just sucking it up – an appeal to machismo. ”
That’s what’s so amusing about all of this. If she was being treated like a man, this hatred towards the opposite sex would get a hell of a lot more pushback than someone just saying “it’s misogynistic”. Her ass would be on a “hate site” list faster than she could say SPLC and she might end up being shot through the neck by a drone.
People take it seriously when men say this shit. And she doesn’t make the connection that it’s a “patriarchy” for exactly the same reason people take men seriously when they say shit like this?
As for it being “unbecoming” for a woman to say these things… It’s practically illegal for a man to say them. And, yeah, most people turn their head in disgust when you open up your anus to defecate on a group of people.
I guess humans are just fucked up that way.
She is walking patriarchy and the stupid thing thinks she opposes it!
Ginko, do you have any thoughts on the alliance between feminists and gay men? Could there start to develop a rift and if so why? As far as I can see gay men have allied themselves strongly with feminists as feminists have fought for their rights to be gay. But as MEN feminists certainly don`t work for their interests but rather, mostly, against them. I noticed a gay man wrote a post at the Spearhead of all places complaining about this alliance and I have noticed gay men, and now also lesbians, showing up at the red pill redditt saying they notice the masculine feminine dynamics in their relationships and want to see if they can apply “red pill” solutions as well.
“Ginko, do you have any thoughts on the alliance between feminists and gay men? ”
Indeed I do. It’s misguided form the gay men’s end. It usually is a result of gay boys being marginalizesd socially in school and lfeeing to the waiting arms of girls who use them agaisnt the straight guys. Gay men tend to grow out ot if as they develop solid male relationships, so you see it in campus gays and 20-somethings and much less after 30.
“Could there start to develop a rift and if so why?”
Well as I said above, maturity helps a lot. Also as it becomes clear that gay men are wlecome in the MRM a lot of the appeal of feminsm as a refuge will fade. And also as people keep publicizing feminism’s actual history WRT gay men, the rift will widen to the point it can never be closed.
http://www.genderratic.com/p/912/misandry-feminist-gay-bashing-edited/
You know, I just got reading yet another article by an organized group that wants to ‘cure’ people like me of ever existing again. They are a recognized charity and they are soliciting donations. In light of that, perhaps I take this kind of threat more seriously than many people would.
That said, this is not okay. This is never okay. Honestly, I don’t really think those other examples are okay either, and I refuse to listen to or associate with any individual who uses them. I am certainly significantly less inclined to seriously regard anyone who can consent to belong to the same group as a hypocritical fly like this blogger.
Little point first: it’s MARTHA Nussbaum, not Barbara!
Big point second: the hashtag gets a mention in this vile article at The Guardian. Kira Cochrane, a features editor for the Graun, offers the following thought:
This week the hashtag “#Killallmen” started trending on Twitter – a rhetorical scream of rage that was quickly, unsurprisingly, criticised in the strongest terms. People are right to be wary of anything that promotes an “us and them” mentality, not just because most men clearly abhor male violence, and an enormous number fall victim to it, but because if there’s an us and them in this debate, it’s between those who support and speak up for victims and those who, tacitly and otherwise, support perpetrators.
I by-and-large agree with this. However, this would be easier to acknowledge if she wasn’t herself a person conspiring to tacitly support perpetrators of abuse:
That’s right. In the very same paragraph where she cites 99% of child sex offenders being male, she point to child abuse at a home in Wales where only 89% of the alleged offenders were male, and says that the figures ‘jibe’. Well, no, they don’t. This is precisely the opposite of jibing. That’s falsifying evidence where you’ve got in the region of 10 times as many female perpetrators as the British Crime Survey supposedly reports. Which is it? 1% or 11%? And what about the other evidence that puts it at closer to 20%? Are you simply not aware of this evidence? It was in your paper!
Now, as it happens, I just think Kira Cochrane is misguided rather than malicious. I don’t think it would be fair to say that she actually does support child abuse (from female perpetrators). It is fair to say that she tacitly enables it, however, by using her platform in an international newspaper to grossly misrepresent the facts about the existence of female abusers. By her own lights, she is on the wrong side. Not that that stops her from, once again, implying that it is men who have the problem:
OK, Kira, you will hear from at least one of them. I am appalled by all sexual violence and child abuse. That’s why I oppose people like you, because you insist on distorting the narrative to shoe-horn it into your pre-existing ‘men are bad, mmkay?’ agenda, an agenda that benefits no one, least of all the most vulnerable members of society that you purport to stand for.
Thanks – fixing now. It was right there in front of me. I don’t know what it is with that name. There’s another really fascinating researcher, Aleksandra Aikhenvald, who I make the same mistake with. Weird tropism on that name Barbara
“Now, as it happens, I just think Kira Cochrane is misguided rather than malicious”
She has been enculturated into this view and she is just unaware. There’s the misguidance. She perisists in it despite considerable effort to show her and people like her the error in that. There’s the malice.
Thi is all following the pattern white feminists have establsihed wth WOC feminists and wowmanists, of making some gross racist blunder, being calle don it by WOCs, then crying and eenying and demanding to know how anyone could think so ill of them, such high-minded crusaders for social justice (who are the ones who get to call people to account, not the other way around, dammit!)
This again is enculturation into traditional gender roles – the Moral Guardian as an aspect of toxic femininity – and a failure to renounce and transcend them.
What the fuck is a rape campaigner?!
Tamen, I know what that is supposed to mean, but it says more than it means to say. The way someof these peole act and speak, with positive dismay at drops in rapae statistics, they appear to really be rape campaigners.
@ femdelusion
“Which is it? 1% or 11%? And what about the other evidence that puts it at closer to 20%? Are you simply not aware of this evidence?”
And has she ever made herself aware that the rate of underreporting among male victims of _documented_ child sexual abuse is so low that all of these numbers should be deeply suspect as massive underreports of male victims of sexual abuse? Even in those circumstances where the people creating the study aren’t deliberately cooking the books to minimize the number of male victims of sexual violence?
We don’t know how many women sexually victimize men and boys. We don’t know this. We don’t know.
People in high places are trying their damnedest to make sure we never know. This is a horror show; right in line with the other massive horror shows of history.
I hope we fucking learn from it.
“What the fuck is a rape campaigner?!”
There certainly is a group of rape inflation campaigners, trying to make it look like far more women are raped than there actually are. And there also is a group of rape unawareness campaigners in the case of male victims, trying to define them out of existence and otherwise use language and direct our focus in ways that make us effectively unaware of the rape of men. Those who find themselves in onecategory tend to almost always also be in the other as well.
Cicero, hear, hear.
TB,
“People in high places are trying their damnedest to make sure we never know. This is a horror show; right in line with the other massive horror shows of history.”
And what makles this even worse is the moral preening and posturing of the people doing it.
Indeed I do. It’s misguided form the gay men’s end. It usually is a result of gay boys being marginalizesd socially in school and lfeeing to the waiting arms of girls who use them agaisnt the straight guys. Gay men tend to grow out ot if as they develop solid male relationships, so you see it in campus gays and 20-somethings and much less after 30.
“Could there start to develop a rift and if so why?”
Well as I said above, maturity helps a lot. Also as it becomes clear that gay men are wlecome in the MRM a lot of the appeal of feminsm as a refuge will fade. And also as people keep publicizing feminism’s actual history WRT gay men, the rift will widen to the point it can never be closed.
http://www.genderratic.com/p/912/misandry-feminist-gay-bashing-edited/
That is very interesting. I never thought of it that way. I find it interesting how, as so many other times, there is a connection between highly personal interests and alliances (at least perceived personal interests) and politics. I see something similar going on with many highly feminine and sensitive men and feminists. A selection of such men tend to idealize women and demonize masculine men (which they loose out to and perceive as bullying them, often rightly so probably) and think feminism can alter the world to their benefit by changing the “ideals” so that they become the ideal. They don`t seem to understand that while women will listen and empathize with such men they will still sleep with a very different type of men in stead. It`s an extreme “nice guy” dynamic that becomes politcal.
How do the women use the gay boys/men against straight men?
That post about feminism and gay men was awesome. I had no idea. I`m going to read the old article it linked to when I have time and archieve it for future use. Great resource!
I just came across a very interesting article. In Sweden and Norway there has been a huge uproar about threats made against women that voice opnionions publicly. Journalists and politicians for example. So swedish made a study, ceartain to document just how bad this is for women. Turns out men get more threats. Of 1300 journalists 35% of the men and 32% of the women have received threats in the last year. In terms of “nedsettende kommentarer”, which might be translated as condescending remarks or ridicule, men also have it worse with 81% men and 74% of the women receiving such commments. So it turns out women who “dare to have an opinion” don`t get shot down for doing so.
Unsurprisingly it turns out what the journalist writes about has huge implications for wether he or she receives threats. Those who write about crime receive about 6-7 times more threats than those who write about the environment for example.
So once again we have had a huge public uproar against how women are supposedly opressed and it turns out their not and the whole uproar was caused by nothing other than feminists being self centered and tied to their victim complex.
http://www.journalisten.se/nyheter/var-tredje-journalist-hotad-det-senaste-aret
@TB
Good point. I should probably have included that. I’m still quite a long way from really understanding the swathe of issues involved. The research appears so disjointed and patchy that it’s hard to get reliable information. Still, things do appear to be moving the right direction, and the issue is popping up on the radar more now.
Tamen, I have got an interesting debate going here with Heidi Nordby Lunde. She has a very good chance of being elected to parliament so persuading her with regards to numbers of male rape victims and female rapists would be a huge leap forward. Since you know these numbers in and out and can argue very well about this issue I am hoping you will contribute in the discussion. If we can persuade her that can mean her demanding different rape studies done in Norway, her changing the mind of other politicians in parliament, funds and changing the public debate forever.
http://vampus.blogspot.no/2013/05/kampen-om-voldtekt.html
Welcome, Tom!
I think you’ll find that if you can bring her around yoyu will start to see some changes because the men who makes these anti-male laws will listen to a woman and hear it from her like they never will from a man, because in their minds only a woman can make sure the proposal is not anti-woman.
“I think you’ll find that if you can bring her around yoyu will start to see some changes because the men who makes these anti-male laws will listen to a woman and hear it from her like they never will from a man, because in their minds only a woman can make sure the proposal is not anti-woman.”
You are right of course but I did not think of that when I wrote it. I just thought persuading member of parliament = winning the lottery. But yeah, female memeber of parliament = winning the US powerball (
http://www.powerball.com/pb_home.asp).
She is also quite hard hitting and has guts so if she is persuaded she could do a great job.
“She is also quite hard hitting and has guts so if she is persuaded she could do a great job.”
I hope so. The legislative process has a way of ripping the spine out of a lot of people. But I wish her and her constituents all the best.
The phenomenon of the “rape campaigner” is something I’ve called “rape farming”. I’ve written a couple of articles about it (a third is in the draft stage) for AVfM:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/rape-farming-the-next-generation/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/rape-farming-the-original-series/
It occurs to me that the fact that this fairly gross trend has only been met with what is basically grumbling about it on the internet is proof positive of the exact opposite of what these women are claiming about men.
If men really *were* the brutish women beating thugs like they’re saying we are, every woman who tweeted and retweeted that tag would be dead or at least beaten to a pulp. If patriarchy really were this all encompassing social truth, those women would never have been allowed to speak like that.
In actual oppressive regimes, are people allowed to speak ill of the elite? No. They disappear if they do.
The fact that all this has been met with is a handful of men basically going “gee, that’s not fair.” shows just how free women actually are in this country.
@Tom: I dropped a comment over there
Bibo, i am going over right away to have alook at those. I have one brewing called “Rape is a sacred cow”.
“@Tom: I dropped a comment over there”
Cool. I wrote a long reply that has not been published yet. If it does not show up soon I will write another one.
@Tom:
I posted a comment at VamPus (it’s waiting to be approved by the blogger) where I also referenced a Norwegian youth study done by Mossige et al which found that although boys report rape at about 1/10 of the rate as girl does, they report unwanted sex (oral,vaginal,anal) at about 1/3 of the rate girl does. And the boys report a female perpetrator about 50-60% of the time.
This would mean that if Amnesty and others are successful in their lobbying to remove the requirement for physical force from the Norwegian legal definition of rape then one will see a sharp increase in male victims and female perpetrators.
I am also currently reading Rannveig Svendbye’s Master Thesis where she interviews 13 male victims of sexual violence from both male and female perpetrators: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/16185/Fra_de_stummes_leir_Rannveig_Svendby.pdf?sequence=2 (sorry, only in Norwegian).
She notes that the male informants when they talk about female perpetrators uses words like “sex” and other value neutral or even positvely charged words to describe what amounts to sexual violence and sxual assault rather than words like rape and molestation. This can be seen as a sign of women’s immunity to the “perpetrator”-stamp and how that immunity even transcends the victim’s discomfort/disgust with the situation.
Sorry for going OT.
That is awesome Tamen! Exactly the type of stuff she needs to hear. I wrote a long reply to her that has not been published and it has been so long I think it won`t. THat might just be a computer problem because I did have some problems with the comment windows when posting. If it is not published soon I will write a new one when I have time.
I am aware of Svendbye. She has done some good work, though from what I remember still struggle a bit with really taking things in, for example with regards to domestic violence, as far as I remember from her blog. Still it speaks highly of her as a feminist to have done the work on male victims and female abuse she has done. She has this webpage now but you probably know that:
http://rannveigsvendby.com/
The systematic work you are doing is very valuable Tamen.
I recently came across this Norwegian MRA blog by a 16 year old boy. Pretty good for a 16 year old:
http://universalemenneskerettigheter.blogspot.no/
“Sorry for going OT.”
An expansion of the topic.
Speaking of “die cis scum,” here is activism at it’s finest: http://www.queerty.com/tn-couldnt-decide-whether-andrea-jones-is-male-or-female-so-they-arrested-her-20111116/ All of those femen couldn’t hold a candle to this individual.
@Tom:
My comment on VamPus hasn’t been published yet and by now I suspect it won’t. I suspect it’s because it didn’t addressed directly the book/opinion piece she addressed and because I suspect she got a lot of comments on that article and it became to large a job to sift through all comments in moderation.
When I submitted it I got a message saying that the comment was saved and was awaiting the approval of the blogger so I am pretty sure it isn’t a technical matter. The article still stands with 16 comments and no comments have been approved after the 12th of May.
@Dungone: Wow, that was a very to the point way of exposing the hypocrisy/incompetence/inconsistency of the different state agencies in this matter.
Kudos and applause to that brave woman.
I suspect you are right Tamen. That sucks.
Here is another one for you. It is another critique of the Reform report about antifeminism but he includes a wider critique of what feminism is starting to become and formulates himself in a rather balsy way. It is also significant that is is published at Minerva.no and by one of their regular writers as it means it probably has fairly solid backing amongst the other writers and it is a magazine connected to the conservative party:
http://www.minervanett.no/kjonnspolitisk-kumbaya/#comments
Reactions to phrases like “Kill all men,” do certainly separate the wheat from the chaff.
“On the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to mention SCUM (or indeed just cry “kill all men”) without the misogynists crawling in, crying misandry.”
If an actual satirist were saying/writing this, I’d take it as satire. But in corollary to Poe’s Law, mental illness can substitute for wit.
Poe’s Law indeed. You have to wonder sometimes if MRAs have hacked these blogs.
[…] may have come across the #killallmen hashtag that has made a slight trending appearance on Twitter. Ginkgo is giving Stavver’s recent blog post on it a critical examination at the moment, and […]
IogSotot on 2013-05-16 at 10:02 am said:
Reactions to phrases like “Kill all men,” do certainly separate the wheat from the chaff.
“On the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to mention SCUM (or indeed just cry “kill all men”) without the misogynists crawling in, crying misandry.”
If an actual satirist were saying/writing this, I’d take it as satire. But in corollary to Poe’s Law, mental illness can substitute for wit.
—————————————————-
Incredible… you’re really that delusional as to say the only people who would react negatively to the idea that all men should be killed are “misogynists” huh? So, since I’m male and a minority, if I went around saying “kill all women” I should casually dismiss that as “misandry” and not examine how disgusting such a notion is?
Most men don’t oppress women. Most people who are opposed to genocide are not misogynists. Men endure violence and are indoctrinated to endure violence from the minute they’re born in western culture and the doctor cuts pieces off their penis. From then on, it’s soldier toys, violent games, stories of chivalry and risk… Women get none of that – they are raised in a culture which both nurtures them and tells them they will be nurtured.
You wonder why many men grow to hate feminism? Maybe it’s because feminists really sit there and think it’s ok to say “lets kill all men.” That, somehow, because women had everything provided for them in the 50’s by their husbands, that all men in the contemporary era deserve violence…
Incredible.
Feminist Nonsense,
If I haven’t welcomed you before, welcome!
You get right at the nub of the problem. It is a form of culturally-induced sociopathy that forms women who so completeley objectify and dehumanize men that they turns them into disposable instruments, to be killed on a whim or when they “feel afwaid”, and then turns around and concocts a cover story of supposed oppression, a “sly inversion”. That is sociopathy, and it is cultural, not some kind of individual disorder. Plenty of women manage to resist this enculturation but it is in the air weall breathe. It is a constnat struggle.
“That’s falsifying evidence where you’ve got in the region of 10 times as many female perpetrators as the British Crime Survey supposedly reports.”
There is something strange about how we think of sexual abuse, in general. What is sexual abuse? Is it abuse involving genital organs? Abuse for the purposes of sexual arousal/satisfaction? What even is abuse, devoid of the sexual element? The fact we cannot clearly answer these questions in a way that makes sense is why men are demonized as sexual predators and women are not. As far as I am concerned, a woman that uses the power of the state to take custody and extract child support and/or alimony from her ex (assuming there isn’t a valid justification for it), is engaging in a brutal form of abuse. And I don’t think it would be unreasonable to claim it is form of sexual abuse. Or to claim it is a form of child sexual abuse.