Germaine Greer Says Women Have Never Had it Worse, I Kind of Agree……..

I often find myself wondering in life just exactly how other people see and perceive the world. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to the minds and perceptions of the Social Justice Warriors. There’s a certain inherent detachment from reality that I find hard to comprehend and I can’t help but wonder if they truly believe the things that they say or if they are simply unwilling, due to some flaw in their makeup, to comprehend the world the way the rest of us do.
In other words you can’t tell if they’re liars or idiots. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say that outright?
Anyways this brings us to feminist “academic” ( a word that I amazed you can use with a straight face) Germaine Greer. Ms. Greer was recently featured in an article in the dailymail where she told the experience of women and the horrors they are subjected to online.
This is going to be one of those days, isn’t it?
“Germaine Greer has claimed  that women are worse off than ever because of the proliferation of  online pornography and the torrent of abuse they have to endure on social media such as Twitter.”
……………………………..
……………………………..
……………………………..Do you want to handle this?
Sure, why not.
So women are more worse off than ever, you say? You mean they are worse off than in the Middle East? Worse off than in the past where, at least you claim, women were treated as property and rape was considered normal? At a time when women receive much lighter prison sentences, do better in school, have more life options, live longer, almost never die or get injured on the job, etc., women are more worse off than ever? Pray tell, what great evil causes this and endangers all things woman?
Pornography and Twitter.
I really wish I could make this stuff up.
“The Australian academic delivers her damning verdict in a BBC TV documentary – Blurred Lines: The New Battle Of The Sexes – which looks at the threats of rape and violence directed towards women online as well as the ‘objectification’ of women in violent computer games and sexually explicit pop videos.”
Rape and sex. It always has to be about rape and sex.
The obsession is very strange. It’s almost Catholic in how much they obsess over sexual matters.
Hey, while we’re on the subject, isn’t this the same feminist who wrote an entire book on why women should be sexually objectifying young boys?
Yes.Yes she is.
“In 2003, The Beautiful Boy was published, an art history book about the beauty of teenage boys, which is illustrated with 200 photographs of what The Guardian called “succulent teenage male beauty”.[40] Greer described the book as an attempt to address modern women’s apparent indifference to the teenage boy as a sexual object and to “advance women’s reclamation of their capacity for, and right to, visual pleasure” (Greer 2003). The photograph on the cover was of 15-year old Björn Andrésen in his character of Tadzio in the film Death in Venice (1971). The actor has been quoted by journalists as complaining about the picture’s use.[41][42]”
Soooooo, just to be clear, she wrote a book about women getting off to images of young boys. Put a half-naked fifteen year old on the cover, apparently against his wishes, and is complaining about the sexual objectification of women?
Essentially, yes.
I think I just felt a brain cell die screaming.
Then I probably shouldn’t mention to you about the time when she was on the progam ‘J’accuse’ – youthism’ in 1992 and tried to proposition schoolboys in order to  show them an appreciation for older women?
No……no…..no you should not. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go and plunge my skull into anti-matter right now.
Huh,looks like I finally won one.

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, And they’re like It’s better than yours, Damn right it’s better than yours, I can teach you, But I have to charge

“Men are now more aware of women because women keep pushing themselves in.‘Nowadays women expect to share men’s lives, they want to do the same work, they want to play the same games, they want to have the same social life, and I think it’s driving men nuts. And the result would seem to me  to be that men are even  less tolerant of women than they were before.”

Yes, Ms. Greer, you’re correct. Just not in the way that you think you are. You see, it’s not that women expect to share men’s lives. It’s that feminist women expect women to share men’s lives. If women wanted to do the same work as men they would do it, as some do. If they wanted to play the same games they would do it, as some do. If they wanted to have the same social life they would do it, as some do. However the general majority of them don’t want that. Which is evidenced by the fact that they don’t make those choices. They choose to do different jobs. They choose to play different games. They choose to organize their social lives differently. It is not that men are becoming less tolerant of women. It is that they are becoming less tolerant of women like you. The ones who go to the work spaces, gaming networks, social clubs etc, that men (and again some women) have been utilizing for a long time and then demand that everything be changed to accommodate the needs of some theoretical woman who never before used those spaces, and likely never will.

Women are only pushing in because you and those like you are standing behind them shoving. Which is why you get the backlash you get from both sexes. It’s why there are so many women who refuse to identify themselves as feminists, because they understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to use them to gain more power and influence for yourselves and your group, and in the same instance you are hurting their fathers, their brothers, their children, their husbands, their lovers, with this toxic ideology. For example:

“Now if men have always needed women to be in a subservient, filial, ancillary position, when they [women] stand up and call attention to themselves, it produces reactions which are difficult to manage.”

This constant attempt to try and portray men as holding them in some sort of bondage, as though men cannot even countenance the presence of a women who isn’t a virtual slave to his every desire. Women, by and large, understand how demeaning this is. Not just demeaning to men, but people like you demean women too. All in the name of creating your victim narrative. Because let’s be honest, if women weren’t victims, then feminism would have to stop.
“Several high-profile women have suffered abuse at the hands of online ‘trolls’.”
This is essentially the “point” of the whole article it seems. Women are supposedly harassed all the time online. I can’t really respond much to the rest of this as nothing is ever really specified. It simply relates the story of two women who voiced controversial opinions, then supposedly received massive hate mail and backlash. And somehow these two anecdotal cases with no support of any kind are supposed to show that women experience terrible harassment online because……………women? I really don’t know.
She may as well go all the way and claim that she got PTSD from Twitter (oh and don’t worry, I’m going to get to that at some point, I promise you).
So women have to suffer the horror of online trolls. Which, I remind you, is the worst thing women have ever had to face in history according to Miss Bang-a-Boy here. I wonder how many of you ladies were aware of that? That nothing you’ve had to deal with in your life is as horrible as the feminists like her who have to deal with online trolls have experienced. Feeling empowered yet?

Before I get to my point, let’s take a look at trolls and hate mail from a male perspective. Professor Dawkins, will you take the stand and testify please?

Hmmm, so Richard Dawkins gets lots of hate mail and trolling. Including people wishing for him to suffer eternal torment. Yet here he is laughing it off and making fun of it and mourning at how pathetic the lives of those people are and how he feels sorry for them.
Ok, time for our next testimony. Mr.Amazing Atheist, will you take the stand and tell us your story please.
Huh.Same as Dawkins, interesting. So we have two men in the public sphere who say controversial things and receive a great deal of hate mail…..yet they don’t seem to care. It’s almost as though they just suck it up and deal with it rather than trying to play the victim to everybody. You also might want to google “Obama hate” or “Bill Maher hate”  or any other controversial figure that exists. Hell you should look at some of the stuff that I get. Which is fine, if I wasn’t getting hate mail from people I wouldn’t be doing my job. Which I understand because I’m not a child. And yes,I know that this is anecdotal as well, but it’s still a lot more evidence and context than they provided. But surprise, surprise, when you say things in public that other people vehemently disagree with they are going to get pissed off. You are going to get trolls and harassment whether you’re a man or woman it’s almost like, oh what’s that word? Oh yeah, equality. Congratulations Miss Bang-a-Boy, you finally have to deal with all the same crap that guys do. Now you just have to learn to deal with it like guys do and we’ll be all set.
But that’s not what you want is it? Your idea of equality means standing up declaring that you’re just as tough as men and deserve all the swag, then ducking your head low and crying about how you’re a put upon and victimized woman when the shit starts getting flung. Kind of like how you want to go on a BBC special and say things like this:
““Any woman of taste would have a boy for a lover rather than a man. He’s easier to manage. His sperm flows like tap water, which happens to be a biological fact. And quicker recovery time and all that kind of thing. More rewarding in all sorts of ways. Conversation might be a bit lacking, but then, who does it for conversation?
And not expect anyone to bat an eyelash for fear of being accused of stifling womens sexuality or some other feminist fuckism. Yet if I wrote this:
“Any man of taste would have a girl for a lover rather than a woman. She’s easier to manage. Her body is always ripe and willing for sex, which happens to be a biological fact. And quicker recovery time and all that kind of thing. More rewarding in all sorts of ways. Conversation might be a bit lacking, but then, who does it for conversation?”
You would label me a creep and a sex offender.
I’m just saying, I think I see something of a double standard here.
“Prof Beard is worried, though,  that such campaigns may deter other women from entering ‘the public sphere’.She said: ‘I have decided I am going to face the music. But there must be loads of women who think, that is not what I want. ‘I don’t want that kind of rubbish and it’s vile. It really is vile. Why would anyone bother to do this unless they were incredibly determined? It is very bad for women’s participation in the public sphere.”
Funny story. Back in the old days when it was asked about why women shouldn’t be allowed in male places, or in politics, or the public sphere in general, one of the main reasons given was because women were too emotionally fragile and delicate to cope with the harsh words and vitriol that comes about in the public sphere when people discuss important matters of politics and culture. Rather than proving such sentiments false, Ms. Greer and the rest of feminism seem determined to vindicate such ideas.
The truth of the matter however, is both far more sinister and far sadder. The simple fact is that feminists have a deep symbiotic nature with the people who troll them. Trolls troll them, make fun of them, pick on them, all for their own vicarious amusement. Meanwhile feminists use this as a safe means of allowing them to perpetuate their necessary victim narrative. None of those threats are real, they know that very well. Which is why they don’t actually do anything about it. Such as say, just not read those messages.  It’s the perfect arrangement for them. Melody Hensley is able to claim PTSD from Twitter and then get right back onto her Iphone and Tweet about her morning dose of sexism precisely because she knows that there is nothing to the threats that she experiences. However it gets her sympathy from the gullible and the unintelligent who then step in to defend her because she’s a woman and can only be a victim. Meanwhile she gets to have her own ego stroked and feel vindicated in her beliefs and tell herself that she’s strong and courageous for standing up to these imaginary threats, when really she’s the very picture of a trembling and disgusting coward.
Killed people in a war? Watched your best friend get blown in half by a mine? Spent three years in a concentration camp? Turned to alcohol and drug use to cope? Wife left you adn took the kids? Thinking of suicide? I totally get your pain. Someone once called me "Smellody" on Twitter.

Killed people in a war? Watched your best friend get blown in half by a mine? Spent three years in a concentration camp? Turned to alcohol and drug use to cope? Wife left you and took the kids? Thinking of suicide?
I totally get your pain. Someone once called me “Smellody” on Twitter.

Ms.Greer has said that women are now more worse off than ever, and I think I have to agree with her on this. While women are certainly more advantaged in terms of rights and privileges I will say that women have never been portrayed or depicted as badly in history than they have under feminism. Under feminism women went from being portrayed as virtuous, moral, and nurturing to self-centered, hypocritical, and childish. You really couldn’t manage to paint a worse picture of women than feminists do if you tried. And I really have to ask the women, are you truly all right with this? Are you truly all right with people like this claiming to represent you to the world. To the men in your lives, or that you want in your lives? Because feminism may be telling them that you’re an equal partner and a valuable person, but it certainly isn’t showing you as that. It is depicting you as a horrible example (borderling sociopathic) of a human being that anyone would be nuts to want to have around.
Feeling empowered yet?

Accountability, Ideological Kryptonite

One thing that we have noticed in our life about ideologies is that the first thing any of them do is remove all accountability from their members. Now, please don’t get us wrong, we realize that we’ve been harping on about this quite a lot recently. However this truly is a legitimate and imminent problem from our perspective and as of yet we’ve only really sort of side-stepped around the issue of accountability rather than actually confronted it directly.
The idea of taking responsibility for ones own actions and opinions is one of the core tenets of the values that we hold. It is also one of the things that we most respect. To us it’s less important that your ideas match with ours as it is that your ideas are intellectually consistent and that you accept the logical consequences for them. For instance if one is going to make the claim that women are as equally capable and as strong as a man, then you cannot take positions like  Miss LonelyHearts and claim that it’s the duty of all men to act in ways to make women feel safe, or to not talk to women because it might upset them. Or take positions like Lara’s that if you’re catcalled or groped everyone must immediately jump to your aid.
Or, alternately, you must also apply those same standards to men as well. Which means that we should expect that Miss Lonely Hearts would act in such a way so as to adjust her behaviour to make the men around her feel comfortable and safe. Or that Lara would jump to the aid of a man being touched or sexually harassed by a woman. Does anyone actually think they would do those things though? Somehow I rather doubt that. Though I have no question that they truly believe this to be equality.
Because life is so much easier when you don’t have to deal with reality, intelligent thought, or logic.
In the tradition of the Hebrew Bible it was described that on the tenth day of the seventh month a goat would be cast into the desert. This goat would have the sins of the Israelites confessed to and placed upon its head before Yahweh. After which the Azazel, or scapegoat as it is called in english, was cast into the desert and took the sins away from the Isrealite people never to be seen again. Thus the tribes sins were paid for.
“And Aaron shall lean both of his hands [forcefully] upon the live he goat’s head and confess upon it all the willful transgressions of the children of Israel, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins, and he shall place them on the he goat’s head, and send it off to the desert with a timely man.”- Leviticus 16:21
For feminists it’s society and it’s omni-present, yet strangely intangible “patriarchy”. Which is characterized by male-dominated society conferring leadership and power roles onto men as they are held to be the ones naturally suited for such things due to traditional gender roles. Thus meaning that women are held back into roles of subvervience and subjugation or are considered to be less capable or weaker than men because society and those roles tell them they must be so. Such as in Victorian times when the tendency for males in society to be taught to protect young women from the unwanted advancements or attentions of males was seen as treating women like children who were too weak to look after themselves. Thus reinforcing the traditional gender role of women being dependant upon men and being valuable objects that need protection. Or in the more modern examples of feminists like the aforementioned Lara who say that the fact that men don’t step in to help protect women from the unwanted advancements or attentions of males is seen as society’s tolerance and normalizing of degrading and harsh treatment of women. Thus reinforcing the traditional gender role of women being sex objects for use by men.
…………….wait what?
Don’t try to think about it too hard.
As for Christianity,well, as the poem goes “let me count the fucking ways” (paraphrased).
God creates us initially flawed. Then the proto-humans are convinced by an outside force into committing a great sin that damns everyone who comes after them regardless of what they do. God then hands down a series of rules of behaviour that we must obey while his sulphur-smelling lackey goes around tricking and forcing people into breaking his arbitrary rules that we have no control over. God then gives us a messiah by birthing himself through a human and sacrificing himself whether we want it or not. Which forces a debt upon on us which we must pay through obedience to his words and commands. The relationship between Christianity and responsibility for ones actions is like the relationship between Bai Ling and her brother in Gene Generation (look it up damnit).
I could go on with other ideologies or more examples from these ones, but I think you can see the common denominator here. Whether it’s a mighty god who tells us how we must behave, a devil lurking in the shadows whispering at us to tell him to sod off, or society and gender roles telling us to play with dolls instead of hot wheels there must always be a way to avoid personal accountability for ones actions or ideas. Because otherwise they would be open to criticism, and no ideology can survive that.
The website A Voice For Men lists as one of its facts about mens rights that “Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.” According to Lousie Pennington this is, of course, the result of patriarchy.
“It is men who voted against extended paternity leave and men who assume that childcare is the preserve of women. That is the reason women get main residency in cases of divorce: they do the vast majority of the childcare before.”
Which is interesting, and by “interesting” I mean factually false, because prior to feminism it was the father who was awarded custody of the children in the vast result of cases. It was not until feminist Caroline Norton helped to put through the Tender Years Doctrine that it became customary for the woman to be considered the main childcare provider. Mrs. Norton argued in her pamphlet “The Separation of Mother and Child” that to separate a child from it’s own mother was not just an injury to the child, but a literal violation of the laws of nature. She argued that it was simply not possible for a father to ever provide sufficient love and care for their child.
“Does nature say that the woman, who endures for nearly a year a tedious suffering, ending in an agony which perils her life, has no claim to the children she bears ? Does nature say that the woman, who after that year of suffering is over, provides from her own bosom the nourishment which preserves the very existence of her offspring, has no claim to the children she has nursed ? Does nature say that the woman who has watched patiently through the very many feverish and anxious nights which occur even in the healthiest infancy, has no claim to the children she has tended ? And that the whole and sole claim rests with him, who has slept while she watched ; whose knowledge of her suffering is confined to the intelligence that he is a father ; and whose love is at best hut a reflected shadow of that which fills her heart ? No ! the voice of nature cries out against the inhuman cruelty of such a separation. “
 Or, alternately.
“It pronounces the protection of the father insufficient, — it pronounces the estrangement from the mother dangerous and unnatural and such as must be immediately supplied by female guidance of some sort or other.Does not this, of itself, demonstrate the harsh and unjust tenor of the law? Why should the father, whose utmost care is insufficient for the care of his infant children, have power to divide them from the mother, whose care is sufficient ? “
Or really the whole of the eighty-plus pages pamphlet. The entire feminist argument was that only a woman could properly care for her child and that men were incapable of being sufficiently nurturing. Yet when criticized for the results of this sort of thinking modern feminists lay the blame at the feet of “patriarchy” and not the armies of their feminist precursors who stood up in front of the courts and forgers of law and told them exactly that. Take this excerpt from the blog TheRadicalIdea on how “patriarchy” hurts men too.
Fathers During Custody Hearings are less likely to acquire custody of their children.  Courts presume that the mother is the more suitable caretaker because the Patriarchy perpetuates the gender binary in such a way that masculinity becomes divorced from the concepts of care and nurture, while femininity becomes inherently tied to this.  This also harms male children who may be better off with their father than their mother but are given to their mother based on this rigid gender divide.”
Yes, I can’t for the life of me imagine where they got that idea.
That was unusually snarky, vicious, and sarcastic. I might be rubbing off on you. I kind of like that.
Your approval fills me with shame.
I won’t go more into religious or Christian lack of accountability because we already did it twice with the Pope recently. So really, go read those two articles if you want to know what we’re talking about there.
Having an ideological Boogie-man to remove accountability means never having to admit to your critics that you might be at fault. Whether it’s god’s will, the devil’s handiwork, patriarchy, scapegoating, etc, there is always something else to blame. Something else to put the faults of yourself, your tribe, or your society upon so that you never have to accept your own choices as yours (unless it works out good for you, of course).
In order to maintain this though, in the face of growing criticism from rational people or the inevitable effects of increased scientific knowledge and understanding, they must then start to jump through ever-increasingly twisted hoops in order to maintain their views. They’ll say that you can’t really know the mind of god, even though they just spent the last ten nug-humping minutes telling you how great and loving (but not in a creepy abusive boyfriend way) he is. Then it’s a metaphor, though how they know the difference remains a mystery. There’s a scientific conspiracy to suppress teaching the controversy. A conspiracy by mostly-male scientists to prevent womens perspectives from being taught, which is why “strong objectivity” is better than that normal objectivity that everybody else has always used. Because all perceptions are equally valid. And if the critics don’t stop and keep on coming? Well then they’re “misoginists”, “militant atheists”, “rape enablers”, “hate god”, “need to educate themselves”, “show respect and tolerance for others religions” or whatever else they possibly come up with to keep them from actually having to answer to the facts and reason leveled against them.
In other words everyone is right and wrong at the same time. Truth, evidence, facts, reality, are meaningless concepts that we don’t have to take into account because the only thing that fucking matters is that some random asshole wants to believe that it’s true. I can’t even begin to communicate to you how much I can’t stand these people.
Here’s the thing.
A person on reddit once said to me that reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. To disagree with reality is to simply be wrong. Ideologues do not just disagree with reality, they think they can change it’s very nature by creative thinking and redefinition.
But accountability is the beginning of morality, and I am not referring to accountability in the face of some mythical higher power. I am referring to being accountable to reality, and to the logic and reasoning of the positions you take. The worst of humanity always shines through when you convince them that they hold no responsibility for their actions. It is a very frightening thing to watch a religious person take a religious code that advocates killing others for not being bound to it and truly believe it to be a religion of peace. It means that there is nothing that they can not and will not do to justify their actions or beliefs in their own eyes. Even when faced with all of the evidence in the world that their ideas are wrong they will still cling to the belief that they are right and do anything to make it seem the case. It isn’t the belief that’s bad, the devil made them do it, that’s all. A few prayers, some confession and it’ll all be good.
However how can one truly understand morals if one cannot even countenance the idea that their position can, in fact, be immoral itself?