To hear "feminists" tell it men are roaming the streets in paroxysm, foaming at the mouth, and sexually molesting fair maidens at their leisure without compunction. And as if that weren't bad enough there's now a large contingent of men, who've plainly never been in an actual relationship with a "real" woman, aiding and abetting this lunacy through a conspicuous belief that all women are forever virginal and incapable of doing wrong. Because any man who's ever been in an actual relationship with a woman would tell you that women are some of the most manipulative creatures on Earth. What they lack in physical strength, they make up for in psychological sadism.
As I've long said, since women typically can't abuse men physically, they rely on abusing them psychologically and emotionally. What they can't inflict upon flesh, they inflict upon feelings (systematically emasculating their mates), often with great efficacy. This is why abusive and manipulative women dislike it when a man is indifferent or emotionally aloof. It deprives them of their only leverage in the relationship and consistent means of abusing the male; it prevents them from using the male's emotional attachment as a weapon against him. Hell, women themselves will often inadvertently admit their malicious nature. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had women freely admit, in casual conversation, that they dislike the company of other women because they're so conniving and perfidious. They're so incessantly scheming and backstabbing, that many of them don't even want to associate with each other.
Any man who's ever been in relationships of any significance with a woman will notice a common character feature. They profess "equality" when being treated equally is in their interests, and then conversely profess to be the weaker sex when that's in their interests. Basically, they're just as capable as you and should be treated no differently than you, until they screw up or do something wrong, and then they become "just a girl" again and a victim in need of leniency and protection. It's an attribute I've witnessed to varying degrees in even the best of women over the course of my life. And a superb example of this (the manipulation part not the best of women part) is white trash Jenelle Evans, who was apparently catapulted to reality TV celebrity status, for nothing more than spreading her legs as a teenager out of wedlock (as if that's an accomplishment or takes any kind of effort or skill whatsoever).
First of all, as someone who was a commercial driver for years, let me begin by saying Jenelle is the worst kind of scum found on the roads of America. Jenelle had no idea why this guy was in a hurry. Maybe he had to be somewhere and was running late. Maybe he had diarrhea and was rushing home to relieve himself. Maybe he or someone he knew had experienced a medical emergency. As such, the intelligent and reasonable thing to do, was to just allow the guy to pass as soon as possible. But Jenelle is an idiot who takes tailgating, the universal sign someone wants to pass you, as a personal insult and therefore decided to make it a battle of wills and intentionally impede his progress out of spite.
Now, that being said, if you're not familiar with this incident allow me to explicate. Jenelle follows this guy to his house, because he allegedly tailgated her and then brake checked her (after she intentionally obstructed him for as long as she could), and then proceeds to hit and/or run over his mailbox. When the guy tries to block her vehicle with his own, to prevent her from leaving the scene after she damaged his property, she pulls a gun on him. Jenelle then flees the scene of a vehicular accident causing property damage (potentially a crime). Her husband (who is not the father of her child by the way) rightly chastises her for following someone home over a traffic quarrel. Janelle hangs up on him for "mansplaining." You know, cause "ain't no man" gonna tell her how to conduct herself or give her good advice. You never follow someone home, and you never point a firearm at someone, unless you're prepared to kill or be killed. NC is a stand your ground state. The moment Jenelle pointed her firearm at that guy, he had just cause to shoot Jenelle dead, potentially killing her child also inadvertently by proximity. But Jenelle is clearly not someone who gives much thought, any thought even, to the consequences of her actions; because being an attractive female she's likely never had to.
Jenelle is aggressive and confrontational throughout the entire incident involving the other driver. She followed him home. She threatened him with a weapon. And yet when the police officer (who sounds a lot like Dr. Phil) shows up, and Jenelle faces the prospect of suffering actual consequences for her actions, the waterworks begin and she's suddenly "just a girl" again in need of protection from the big bad scary man in a big bad scary truck.
Her recounting of events conveniently omits the whole running over his mailbox part, and the whole pulling a gun on him part. Apparently she later claimed she never pulled a gun on him at all, despite being clearly caught on camera doing so. (She even said to the guy at one point that there were three cameras in her vehicle that "caught everything.") To hear Jenelle tell it, he was basically trying to abduct her when she followed him to his house, and everything she did was acceptable in her own mind because she was just a "scared" girl.
Watch the two videos again, and this time I want you to focus on Jenelle's demeanor during the incident, as opposed to her demeanor once the officer reaches her window. Jenelle was calmly talking on the phone, and never shows any signs of fear until she's getting pulled over, and has the realization she might actually not just get away with it all. As soon as the officer begins questioning her she starts sobbing. Seconds later she instantly stops crying as quickly as she began, and then moments after that instantly starts crying yet again. She turns her tears on and off with all the mechanical efficiency of a water faucet. It's perhaps one of the most spectacular, and well documented, displays of abject feminine guile and duplicity I've ever seen. Jenelle's recounting of events is so profoundly subjective, one-sided, and inaccurate it's astounding. It is, by virtue of its self-serving omissions and outright fabrications (e.g., the son nearly hitting his head on the dashboard), not even remotely close to being a truthful answer to the officer's question; "What's going on?"
Jenelle gave no indication she was afraid of the "big big huge truck" (keep in mind she's talking about an F-150), when she defiantly declared "I will go slow the whole way," in retaliation to his perceived slight against her. There was not a single tear shed when Jenelle was following this guy home. There was not a single tear shed when she was yelling at him through the window and called him a "dumb ass." There was not a single tear shed when she ran over his mailbox. There was not a single tear shed when she unholstered the firearm and apparently pointed it at him. There was not a single tear shed when she fled the scene. But watching Jenelle cry once the officer arrives at her window, you'd almost forget completely that everything that transpired after the tailgating, is Jenelle's fault. You'd almost forget completely that she followed a man home, ran over his mailbox, and essentially threatened to kill him in his own driveway.
No, when the officer shows up she's the victim. Jenelle goes into full manipulation mode in a flagrant attempt to illicit his male penchant to assume the role of protector of women and children. She again claims that her son almost hit his head on the dashboard, which is impossible because he's wearing a seat belt (and which the video clearly refutes), for that little bit of extra manipulative efficacy. Jenelle clearly had no problem with her son being placed in harm's way, when she was the one doing it, by potentially instigating a completely avoidable shootout with him in the vehicle. But once the officer reaches her window suddenly Jenelle, who was a strong independent badass only moments ago (as conveyed by her "strong mom" tank top), is now a helpless and defenseless woman. Her son suddenly becomes a theatrical prop, a tool, she exploits to elicit pity. She was a completely different person to the officer, than she was to the guy on which she pulled a gun.
Gee, I wonder why her first marriage didn't pan out. I'm sure it was completely the guy's fault, and had nothing to do with the fact she's clearly a profoundly manipulative snake. And like most women of this sort, doesn't even seem to realize it. If the "feminists" have their way this is what will govern our society. Let that sink in for a moment.
It's because of incidents like this, much to the outrage of "feminists" and their beta male thralls, that I unapologetically state I never assume the woman is innocent. It's because of incidents like this that I always want to hear both sides of the story. Though I've never had a girl pull a gun on me, I've absolutely seen, and been subjected to precisely this type of behavior by women. So I'm not in the slightest bit surprised by it or skeptical of its authenticity. Nor am I oblivious to the fact the only thing that kept that guy from being successfully portrayed as the villain by Jenelle, was her misfortune of bearing a son far more honest than his mother (he told the cops what she left out), and the video evidence caught by that camera.
Apparently when Jenelle is not busy being a teenage slut, as if that weren't bad enough, she's busy being the world's worst ambassador for civilian gun owners. What a great role model for young women. Janelle seems the all too common young American female specimen, going through life exploiting and manipulating men without compunction or contrition, and perpetually getting away it. Because all she need do is play the victim card, and everyone pities the poor, scared, pretty girl, and attacks the evil man that "abused" her. And Jenelle's behavior is frankly on the more benign end of the spectrum of female manipulation.
So it's quite perplexing on a personal level how this mythos, that women are always the victim and never lie or misconstrue a situation to their benefit, persists when there are so many ostentatious examples to the contrary. It seems like everyone's forgotten the Duke Lacrosse incident. It seems like no one notices things like this happening on a rather regular basis.
Nikki Yovino is just another of many examples that illustrates that women not only lie, but will lie for reasons entirely personal and even frivolous. In this instance Nikki conducted herself like a whore, but didn't want to be perceived as one, and so sought to ruin the lives of two men instead. She did what women so often do, when faced with the consequences of their own actions, and postured herself as the victim. Because women are fully aware of society's inclination to see them as such by default, and many of them (like Nikki) exploit that circumstance to the fullest. As seen in the case of Gregory Counts and VanDyke Perry also.
I remember another incident in which a woman accused a black man of rape purely because she didn't want her landlord to know she was sleeping with a black man. That guy was also imprisoned for decades, to my recollection, before DNA evidence finally exonerated him.
There's more incidents of this nature than I could ever document here, and apparently "feminists" are perfectly okay with that.
Ruined male reputations and lives, men losing their jobs and going to prison for years for things they didn't do, are just collateral damage and a small price to pay for women getting what they want. That's what "feminists" consider "justice." How anyone can't see this for the naked, abject tyrannical movement it is, is beyond me. Emily's statement is the absolute embodiment of the "feminist" movement, being as utterly egocentric as it is nauseatingly stupid. Emily is all for paying a price when she is not the one actually paying it. It's not her reputation or life being ruined. And if it were we all know this halfwit would have a very different point of view. Imagine if I said, "If some innocent women get accused and/or arrested in the process of taking down a prostitution ring, that's a price I'm absolutely willing to pay to undo sex trafficking." What do you think Emily's position on that sentiment would be? Would she still flippantly refer to it as "taking a hit" as though a reputation is a frivolous thing of no significance? Would she still act as if no real harm was being done? I think we all know the answer to that.
Just as disturbing as the frequency with which men are falsely accused, is how infrequently the woman making the false accusations apparently suffers any consequences for such. Nikki Yovino being sentenced to jail seems to be an oddity, and I would surmise it's probably for perjury, rather than the false accusation itself. Though I'm not familiar with all the details of her sentencing and couldn't say.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. False accusations of rape should incur stiff legal penalties; i.e., prison time. Not only because it's a deliberate attempt to cause tangible harm to another person, as such accusations could result in their termination, the loss of their livelihoods, and a perennial social stigma that affects them for perhaps the rest of their lives, but because of the cynicism in which such embellishment and deceit results surrounding legitimate claims of rape. Words can do real damage to people, and pretend victims like Nikki Yovino serve only to stymie and enervate our system of justice, and diminish its ability to aid genuine victims.
But it's not just lying. It's not just false rape accusations. There's a disturbing number of men being murdered by women. Take Melissa Ann Shepard for example, who married men, poisoned them into stupors in order to cajole them into ceding all their assets to her, and then murdered them. She basically murdered men for a living, subsisting off the savings of her deceased husbands until funds began to dwindle, at which point she began the process all over again. And to hear Melissa tell it, she was the victim. When she ran over second husband Gordon Stewart with an automobile, twice, it was because he was abusive and somehow raped her despite having high levels of tranquilizers in his system.
And then there's Dalia Dippolito.
Dalia's exploitation of her gender to illicit sympathy undeniably far surpassed that of Jenelle's above. Dalia, who was caught on tape blithely planning her husband's murder, actually tried to coax him into aiding/funding her defense, in her trial for plotting to murder him. It's amazing to watch, and to see how even then, how even after he knew she tried to kill him, and saw the video of her planning it, was still inclined to help her because of his feelings for her.
There's also Jodi Arias who shot her boyfriend, stabbed him, and cut his throat nearly decapitating him.
Jodi denied any involvement in her boyfriend's death initially, but when she realized the evidence was overwhelming, changed her story. To what? You guessed it. Her boyfriend was physically abusive. She was the victim. Like Melissa she shot him in the head, stabbed him up to 29 times, and nearly cut his head off in self-defense.
You'll never hear "feminists" mention any of these women or incidents. Because it obviously contradicts the "women are always the victim" narrative they frame to advance their agenda.
It needs to be understood, that both Jenelle in the video above and Dailia in video of her interactions with police, are exhibiting the same behavior and employing the same manipulation. The only difference is how far each woman was willing to go, and how much each thought they could get away with. Most women are content to merely moderately vex the men in their lives. They're not really bad people, and they love their mates, they're just emotional creatures who often don't even realize what they're doing. And then there are women like Melissa and Dalia, who love no one, and employ their feminine wiles at maximum setting with complete cognizance.
The notion that men can't be victimized because of their superior physical strength is patently false. Men who actually care about their mates are extremely vulnerable to manipulative and malevolent women, and these men's fatal mistake was apparently genuinely caring about Melissa and Dalia. As described at the outset of this contribution, as abusive women are so inclined to do, both women used the affection of their mates as a weapon against them.
As stated in the past, it's a testament to the power the media and prominent political and entertainment figures have over the minds of American lemmings, that nonsense like #believewomen has any traction and is taken seriously in any capacity whatsoever.
The "believe women" mantra is, as with all other aspects of the "feminist" (i.e., Socialist) platform, completely incompatible with a society predicated upon any genuine sense of equity. I don't know what's more "privileged" than a right to be believed without question, which is what these women are demanding. It's a de facto exemption from scrutiny or consequences. According to "feminists" there is only ever one side of a story, their side, which is tantamount to claiming women are infallible. And to assert otherwise makes you a "misogynist," wife beating hatemonger.
Where this is all heading, and the ultimate goal that "feminists" seek, is quite blatantly conveyed in the comments of Barbra Schlifer Clinic's Amanda Dale.
Basically Amanda is saying, and quite candidly, that due process should be suspended for men accused of abusing women and that they should be treated like non-citizen, foreign born terrorists. When asked how that could be accomplished under a justice system predicated upon the presumption of innocence, she flat out says that system just isn't cutting it and should therefore be revised or scrapped. And she makes this argument under the same, trite, and farcically specious rationale used by leftists to advance numerous other liberty eroding legal precedents like gun control; i.e., it's worth it if it saves just one life. It's worth stripping men of fundamental freedoms, and assuming their guilt, if it saves just one life.
We see in Amanda's sentiment that sort of abject contradiction all too characteristic of leftists. Women are supposedly "equal" to men, yet need special protections by law, because they're more vulnerable than men. Both of these things can't be true. They're either equal or they're not. If they're equal to men they have no need of special protections by law. And if they need special protections by law then they're not equal to men. Once again illustrating that Amanda isn't seeking "equality," she's seeking privilege, through the establishment of laws that exclusively benefit women and elevate women above men. All leftist groups do this, from blacks, to "homosexuals," etc., and again it's the antithesis of what they ostensibly claim to seek. It benefitted Amanda and served her agenda for women to be the "weaker sex" during this interview, so the aggression and "equality" rhetoric that women so often display when demanding abortion rights or "equal pay" for example, is conspicuously absent during her exchange with the interviewer. Though most people probably won't recognize it, Amanda is employing the exact same manipulation tactic as Jenelle above, just far more subtly.
Something has to be done about these damnable fascist cows. They plainly want a system in which they wield absolutely despotic power. They plainly want a society in which they can have men crushed, and even jailed, with but a word. They plainly want a society in which they may at whim intimidate and coerce men who, knowing the social and legal consequences of defying a "feminist," will choose capitulation to ruination. And this isn't hyperbole or conjecture. It's apparently already happening in Israel where the "feminist" culture of false rape accusations is much worse.
In Israel the legal criteria for rape has been repeatedly revised, and made significantly less stringent, to benefit "feminists" and facilitate claims of false rape. Rape no longer requires actually physically forcing a woman to have sex with you, nor does she even have to express any aversion to having sex. She doesn't have to be forced. She doesn't even have to say no. She just has to feel bad about a sexual encounter, which is obviously a criteria so absurdly nebulous and subjective, it opens the door to all manner of chicanery. Oh, and by the way. The woman in the video above suffered no repercussions for falsely accusing that man of rape, and physically assaulting him for something so frivolous as not being allowed to smoke in his car. So she's free to continue making false accusations, being cognizant of the fact she's completely indemnified by law.
The sentiments of women like Emily and Amanda above openly illustrate they're seeking the same thing here. The "rights" that "feminists" are demanding are the right to slander and libel men (and through such to ruin their reputations and lives) without consequence, the right to deny men due process under law, etc. Basically, all the rights that autocrats, tyrants, despots, and dictators reserve for themselves. And through this we see that "feminists" are, like all leftists, the epitome of everything they claim to oppose and hate.
They are the hatemongers. "Feminism" and misandry are synonyms.
Seeing all this makes it abundantly clear that if women ever became a majority in the federal government, for example, that the most basic and fundamental of American liberties would vanish in an instant for large portions of the populace. These people have no interest in truth or equity. American women have, to a large degree, been completely co-opted by the Marxist left, and are now like American blacks dedicated to undermining and destroying everything traditionally American. "Feminists" are flagrantly ignorant of history, and even separated from reality, as evinced by the fact they assiduously construe those who gave them their rights, white men, as the biggest threat to such. In identical fashion to delusional black Marxists like Don Lemon.
As stated in the past, these groups behave the same way, practice the same double standards, and employ the same deranged sophistry, because they're both subsets of the same Marxist agenda. They both claim they should be judged on an individual basis, and ostensibly oppose "profiling," and yet consistently generalize men and white people, and judge them based upon exceptions as opposed to the standard. And the problem is both of these groups, unlike the illusory "white supremacist" movement to which they incessantly allude when fearmongering, wield substantial socio-political influence and power in the West. Blacks and women are protected, privileged classes, afforded preferential treatment under the law in numerous instances. An outrageous circumstance, with women in particular, as they bear virtually none of the responsibilities for maintaining the liberties they enjoy.
I've long said one of the most conspicuous indicators of the influence of "feminism" on modern American women, is how ostentatiously they want all the benefits of traditional gender roles, but none of the obligations. And the above video superbly illustrates this. "Feminists," like all leftists, are quite selective in the "equality" they seek. They demand "equality" with men yet exemption from the responsibilities and risks of preserving the rights of men. They seek equal benefits, but unequal responsibility. Because they're not seeking equality at all. They're seeking privilege. And for far too long they've gotten it.
As I've said for years I'm all for women's equality. Draft them. Put them on the front lines. Make them pay in blood as men have since time immemorial. Let them die gruesome deaths, that no one remembers, that others may live in security and peace. But they don't want that. They want to partake equally of the benefits, but the burdens and obligations of such, should fall exclusively on men.
These people are moronic commie scum. Nothing more. They are the same, ignorant scum, that put in power the people that mowed down our grandfathers on the beaches of France. "Feminists," just like every other proletarian group, consistently seek to achieve their goals through empowering the state, particularly at the federal level, beyond its Constitutional limitations. Their objectives consistently result in bigger and more authoritarian government. And that's no coincidence.
And that's why "feminism" is not a thing to be dismissed or taken lightly. These people seek to pull up American liberty at the roots, and have already made significant progress to that end, and are profoundly dangerous as such. And they're dangerous on a macro level. These people have done more damage, and are far more dangerous, than any wife beating male, or a drove of them, could ever be. And if they're not challenged, and not stopped, they will usher in an age of tyranny straight out of a George Orwell novel.
No comments:
Post a Comment