DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
|
DISCLAIMER: This post is taken directly from my daily blog.
The Fourth Reich
By Michael The Libertarian
Emily Lindin. What a wonderfully anti-American person she must be, based upon a recent tweets of hers. I'm not sure about the order in which they originally appeared, but here they are (transcribed by your humble author):
“Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”
And:
“The benefit of all of us getting to finally tell the truth + the impact on victims FAR outweigh the loss of any one man’s reputation. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
Well, there's a lot to digest, there. There's nothing I can really defend. I try to do that, as often as I can, but I'm not seeing it. Let's take that first one: She's not concerned (AT ALL) about innocent men losing their jobs or reputations over false allegations.
How could any American with two brain cells to rub together defend that? Then, there's: If some innocent men's reputations take a hit ... that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.
Well, isn't that magnanimous of her? She's willing to pay that price. Of course, the glaring fault in her logic is that it wouldn't be her – or any other woman – paying any “price”, but let's stay with the women, shall we?
What about the mothers, wives, daughters and grand-daughters of those innocent men? Is there any chance those ladies might be affected?
Let's dig a bit further than that, shall we? It has long been a tenet of American criminal law that it is better that ten guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly convicted.
Did you see what I did there? I slipped into the legal realm. Let's stick with reputations and the non-legal realm.
She's okay with damaged reputations, lost jobs, families possibly becoming destitute … All for what she considers “undoing the patriarchy”. I'll save the low-down on wage inequality for another day (when I'm really bored and willing to do other peoples' research for them), but let's talk about her particular brand of feminism.
Unfortunately, it has become the main-stream brand of feminism. The movement is no longer interested in equality. They're interested in deposing the “abusers” and becoming the new abusers. It's not about fairness and equality. It's about reversing roles and continuing the abuse, just with a different target.
Of course, that assumes that men are a different target. They've been targets (at least the fat, old, white ones) for many years, now. The “allowable” butt of most jokes, and targets of political insults that are thoroughly excoriated and unprotected, by the defenders of “equality”. This is what the movement has become; misandry.
When I was very young (five-years-old or so), my baby-sitter (Debbie W., if she's out there!) used to take me to N.O.W. rallies. I doubt that I was indoctrinated, but maybe so. Be that as it may, when I was older (about 12), I agreed with some of their positions. I believed that there was some work to be done. I believed that women held very few positions of power, but I also believe that we've changed in a very negative way to try to change those things.
When I was growing up in New York, there was a rule that NYPD officers had to be 5' 10” tall. There was a reason for that. It was so they would present a somewhat intimidating figure and reduce the need to go to the billy club or (God forbid!) the gun.
Eventually, that standard was erased and ladies now serve as police officers. They don't quite cut the same figure as the 5' 10” officers did. My belief is it has been to the detriment of the NYPD. I have no figures since it would be impossible to believe the dirt bags, even if they did say they were “cowed” by the arresting (female) officer. Somehow, I just doubt it.
In the military, women rarely served outside of clerical, medical or legal capacities. I remember President Carter, ordering the military to expand the role of women in the military. Almost immediately, the question went out about women in combat. The very first group to denounce that idea was … drum roll, please … N.O.W. That's right, those champions of equality argued against it, back in 1976!
Through the years, that opinion has been eroded to the point where women now serve in combat positions and that's a good thing. However, the way it's been accomplished is by lowering the physical standards for women in the military. Later, the standards were also reduced for males, in an attempt to promote parity. That is not good vís-à-vís combat ability and troop readiness.
Here's the real nail in the coffin for the misandrists, currently “leading” the equality movement, which I believe is a misnomer, obviously. It's why I refer to women like Ms. Lindin as “Feminazi.”:
Why is it that eighteen-year-old males are required to sign up for Selective Service (“The Draft” for those of you in Poughkeepsie), but eighteen-year-old females aren't? That seems awfully incongruous to me.
Duplicity? Well, by my definition, yes, but it has become the new standard for most “main stream” feminists.
Where's the equality?
An interesting side note: as I was typing this, the words “misandry” and “misandrist” came up as misspelled words on this word processing program. The program didn't recognize them as even being words, almost as if those people/conditions don't exist.
I detest repeating myself, but I will: Where's the equality? You'd better believe “misogyny” is recognized (I checked).
- Michael
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe
Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?
"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|
The Fourth Reich - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread