Everyday Sexism, Feminist Style

So, another boozy night after work in London. Work colleagues get hammered together. Work colleagues start going at it in public, thinking no one can see them. One is a big city lawyer, the other is a Queen’s Constable, probably the highest achievement of any lawyers’ career as there are only about 1,500 of them. Female QCs are even rarer: there are only about 200 of them.

They get caught by a member of the public and the police intervene.

Public decency has been violated, and the they get cautioned for it by the police.

But six weeks later, she claims she was sexually assaulted, and so, gets a lifetime of anonymity. She is now a victim. He is now being accused of criminal behaviour, by her.

He is named, photographed by the press and has his picture plastered around every newspaper and website. She, does not… and cannot be, by law. She is willing to throw him under the bus and destroy him… to save herself. And she is a high ranking lawyer… a purveyor of ‘justice.’

Another woman who cannot face responsibility for her actions, and can use the law to weasel out of it, while disposing of the man as if his reputation and life are worth not a damn.

Ahh male privilege. There ain’t nothing like it.

Rape and Anonymity: Unfair… and Fucking Dangerous Too


The widespread belief in feminist circles that ‘women don’t lie about rape’ is coming under serious challenge after a series of high profile cases in which accused men have been charged and brought to trial under highly dubious circumstances.

Because of these cases, the subject of rape and the ability to remain anonymous during rape trial proceedings has been elevated within the attention of the gender war/discussion recently, by several high profile cases that have found men innocent of the charges brought against them, after juries uncharacteristically deliberated for only a handful of hours before delivering acquittal.The feminist narrative that men are bad and should be punished while women are good and always to be believed is under threat.

The most noteworthy of these cases has been the trial of Mark Pearson, who suffered a year from hell from the accusation of sexual assault by a woman even though it was clear from video evidence that the man had done nothing. Allegedly Mr. Pearson committed a serious sexual assault while both of his hands were occupied, in the space of under .5 of a second.

Mr Pearson spent over a year under suspicion of sexually assaulting a semi-famous woman (whose identity has been plausibly revealed in the public domain of the internet) after she brought accusation against him which the Crown Prosecution Service considered worthy of pursuit. As a result, the CPS has appeared to be on an anti-male witch hunt, and a woman, whom we are told must be believed because she is a woman, has revealed herself to be a lying fantasist, with no regard for any man’s well being: a narcissist with no concern for the innocent person she accused, but only the relentless need to re-enforce her ‘victimhood’. A woman with no regard for whomsoever’s life she destroys. A woman of pure vindictiveness towards men at large .

Embedded within the recent flurry of news over this case (and others like Durham University student Louis Richardson) has been the suggestion that the anonymity of the men accused should be protected, exactly like those who have accused. This, however, is misguided. What is needed is the revealing of both identities, not the shielding of both.

In fact, the shielding of both parties used to be the case in the United Kingdom. But feminists got their hands on it in the late-1980s, saying that without anonymity, rape victims would be more reluctant to come forward. So (surprise) they were afforded special status. And that status has been seen to be increasingly abused. The problem, as ever, was that the veil of secrecy was never balanced against an equal demand for responsibility in the leveling accusations to begin with. The court system has said to women, “you can lie all you want, make up any story you like, and when it all comes out that you’ve lied, there will be, at most, a slap on the wrist for you.” Feel free to accuse at will. There is almost no chance of any repurcussions.

Removing female anonymity and imposing more serious sanction for false accusation would remove a good part of the problem. For the women afraid to come forward, they should realize, as difficult as it is, that they must withstand the glare of identification in order to achieve justice. There are no free rides through a system which operates as one of the most fundamental foundations of democracy. No one should get ‘special’ treatment.

If a man is assaulted or extorted by a member of a criminal gang and goes to court over it, he also will live with the fear of reprisal. He must decide which avenue he wishes to pursue. If he chooses the courts, he will be looking over his shoulder his entire life. If women want the equality they claim to so crave, the cases involving sexual assault and rape are one of the fundamental examples of the price they must pay for it. Justice and equality do not come free and those who aspire to it cannot demand it gratis. Feminists want a separate justice system all their own, through which identities can be hidden. It should not be allowed to continue.

But maybe women don’t really want justice. Maybe they want to be unquestionably believed. And maybe women don’t want to pay the price that comes with equality, they just want special treatment bestowed.

The ability to conduct judicial proceedings in private, away from media glare and the court of “public opinion” is a precarious one. We have already seen how the Crown Prosecution Service behaves. Do we now want to extend their charade to include proceedings conducted in total privacy? Without public oversight? How will we ever know when state prosecution has over-stepped the mark? If a case is brought in private, is the egregious stupidity and public danger of the prosecution’s behavior to be swept away within the confines of anonymity? First identities are kept secret, soon entire proceedings. Could it set a precedent for a raft of ‘other’ charges, to also be brought before the court system ‘in private’, where no one is publicly named, neither accuser or defendant?

Soon anonymity of one party will extend to anonymity of both. Perhaps, then, no trial transcript will be allowed to be released to the public. Soon the state will arrest whoever it wants, and since anonymity applies, no one but a select few can ever know what actual goes on in our judicial system.

It is telling that it is an MP (Nigel Evans) who was cleared of the charge of sexual assault that wants just that. But he’s a politician. He’s on the inside track, and as a public official will be able to see judicial proceedings in the light of the privileged access that only he, and the elite of politicians would hypothetically be allowed. The Crown Prosecution has shown prejudice, ineptitude, and downright misandry. Do we really want to further encourage them to hide their proceedings?

Let us name both sides, accused and accuser.

Habeus Corpus.

At the very least, the naming of the accuser should be mandatory upon acquittal.

Without that, as they say; behind a closed door, democracy dies.

With the current blood-lust for more and more cases to be brought to trial, prosecutions for rape and sexual assault are up, while convictions are down. That reveals that the state prosecution simply wishes to pile on cases… cases they have no hope of winning. That is what the case involving Mark Pearson reveals. The fact that the state prosecution said there was a case to answer should give everyone pause. The fact that they deliberately altered video evidence before handing it to the defense should make people’s blood run cold. Yet the prosecutions carry on, unhindered by their prejudicial nature, which in itself approaches criminality. (Is not the deliberate altering of primary evidence a crime?) Evidently not when you are the state’s prosecution. Remember, if you lie to the state it is a felony. If the state lies to you, it is merely politics (or ‘national security’).

Counter prosecutions against false accusers for false accusation or perverting the course of justice are essentially non-existent, at less than 1%. Even if the (honestly laughable) 2%-8% false accusation claim is believed, it still reveals a prejudice against men at the lower bound. Moreover, in the current sea of expanding prosecutions and declining convictions, the failure of the prosecution seems obvious: it is bringing cases it cannot win, simply to assuage feminist demands. And this suits the prosecutors fine. It does, after all, keep them gainfully employed and their pensions in tact, while the rest of society faces stagnating wages, disappearing jobs, and pensions that melt away when you come to claim them, after a lifetime of labour. But feminists don’t really have an interest in defending democracy.

In fact, feminism is doing exactly what it was always designed to do – destroy democracy. And it is aiding authority in that task, oh so perfectly. Because feminists, really, do not want democracy. They want privilege, and they don’t care who or what they destroy in that process. For the obtaining and sustaining of privilege they will happily flush democracy right down the toilet. And perhaps even more astounding to those espousing perpetual ‘victimhood’, feminists are roundly incapable of seeing that the deadly embrace they are locked into is with an authority structure which will eventually come after them as well. Their privilege is merely temporary, but they seem to be only capable of seeing into a very near-term future.

Judicial proceedings are supposed to be open to the public within a democracy… and maybe that’s exactly the problem. Women want protection from scrutiny, and not to be criticized for their sometimes deadly and life destroying folly of accusation. The maintenance of democracy is a second (at best) or third order consideration for them, and the forces of authoritarian politics know this well. It is why they have so strenuously pushed feminism to the forefront of political discussion. Feminists do the dirty work and hard lifting for them, paving the ground with righteousness, so that unmitigated political power can walk unimpeded, unchallenged and downright assured of its unassailability and with a mandate for continued, unimpeded expansion.

As is evident from recent cases, women want to be considered above the law, and to be intrinsically believed upon any claim that is made. If they prove themselves to be simple liars, or economical with the truth, they shall be excused, for a host of mitigating reasons which are never to be offered to man. The handling of infanticide by the judicial system alone should make democracies cringe.

Justice and democracy extracts a price for those societies that aspire to uphold it. Those who cannot or will not pay it, endanger its very existence. For the feminist world, it would appear, democracy is just another male political concoction created to oppress women.

That is where we are today.

The veil of anonymity for accuser needs to be dropped upon acquittal (at a minimum), not extended to the accused, however wrongfully accused they are. State prosecution needs a house cleaning, and needs to be free of the feminist politics that has engendered this whole charade: the charade of the need to be seen to be bringing more prosecutions against men, so that women will remain a politically captive audience. It is an audience who demands that its false howls of alleged historical oppression and injustice can continue to peal righteously through our political landscape… until every last vestige of democracy has been drowned and extinguished.

THAT is what a feminist looks like.

A Feminist Thought Experiment

… I know, I know… the title is an oxymoron. Nonetheless…


Feminists claim one of the biggest problems sexual assault victims face is in the actual reporting of the crime. There are a variety of reasons why they hesitate, and so justice is not served.

Men, it is now widely acknowledged, equally fail to properly report themselves as victims of Domestic Violence (DV) for a variety of reasons. Justice is also not being served.

Unlike women, however, men are in the position where an attempt to report a crime committed against them, (as victims of inter personal violenceregularly results in their own arrest and incarceration. They are effectively shut out of the judicial system when seeking redress, because even initiating a legal process can result in internment. The justice system is not to be accessed by men as prosecutors… only ever as defense. A man who tries to bring a prosecution gets thrown in jail. This is a judicial system on par with Apartheid South Africa.

If anybody should understand the plight of someone afraid to report themselves as a victim of a crime, it should be a woman, wouldn’t you think?

… but the feminists; those protectors of ‘equality’ and justice say nothing. Not a word.

Now, if that’s not misandry, then what is?

Their silence is complicity. They have no interest in the conduct of justice.

It is time for men to wake up and realise – they are under attack, and that is the real reason for their mass incarceration. 

…time for a strong cup of Joe, gentlemen.


Feminism Immigration and War

It should be clear now that Feminism created the political ‘bandwidth’ that fostered mass North African Immigration into mainland Europe. No one will easily be able to shake themselves free from the sight of groups of the politically correct along with assorted feminists and SJWs standing waving placards screaming “WELCOME”, only to be sexually assaulted by the same people just a few short weeks later. It is a defining image of our time. People, are rightfully outraged. But who are they outraged at?

For one thing, there seems to be very little mainstream press backlash against the feminist movement, which is now teetering on extinction in the mass mind (but not on the government ledger, heaven forbid!). Feminists, being the upstanding, take responsibility, own your shit type of people, have stood up and admitted they were wrong… right? Ummmm, no. Not right. Like a 13 year old in a huff, they have disappeared into the bathroom, and won’t come out, until everyone promises them that they won’t be mean to them, and that they are still the special little angel they’ve always been. They’ve hurt their own feelings by fucking up on the immigration issue… and that, of course, has to be someone else’s fault. They’re stewing… desperately trying to figure out how men, and specifically, white heterosexual men, are to blame for their fuck up.

That could be a long wait. Make no mistake, feminism got stomped in Cologne. Stomped by its own juvenile naivete. Cologne could even turn out to be fatal for feminism. But what everyone seems to be missing, is that while feminism has done what it does best and messed things up, it has also done exactly what it was supposed to do at this point and time.

First, feminism has been at the forefront of helping corporates to lower wages in the western world, through its support for mass, cheap labor importation. And with that task done, its unrestrained imbecility has now been used to perform a stunning volte face and help stir the public against that self-same multicultural world. Only in feminism, eh? But, that’s why its such a perfect, all purpose tool. Exactly because its such an ephemeral phenomenon…laced with terms like “equality” and “empowerment”, it does not matter how many self-contradictory gyrations it turns itself in… women will follow its whimsy as directed. Feminism is a fantastic political vehicle precisely because it defies all laws of nature, spinning one way and then another, and all the while claiming coherence.

It may be worth noting that during these recent years of mass immigration, the one that is threatening civil war within Europe, women have held several positions of high authority in matters concerning immigration. So when the standard feminist diatribe screams out, “Name one war! ONE WAR! That a woman has started,” you can safely reply, ‘the current war that we are in’; the burgeoning european civil war… and the name of the person who started it is Merkel. It might also be noticed that our present era of mass immigration has seen the top State Department (people who issue passports, and set immigration policy, ya know) job held by a woman (Clinton), and the similar role in the UK also held by a woman (Theresa May, Home Office). (please note: the UK foreign office doesn’t handle immigration, its the home office.) If this is the “patriarchy” making all these important decisions on mass immigration… it has sure got a lot of women in it.

Feminism, and its twisted sibling political correctness have exhibited a wild and open naivete. That was both the driving force behind the Cologne attacks, and also the critical component now rousing the mass mind in virile hatred against the entire Arab/Islamic world. Nobody in the west is going to parse the Arab world with any seriousness. Nobody is going to bother to discriminate a Syrian for a North African. The press tells us, regularly, that it is Syrian immigrants rampaging. People on the ground know its largely north Africans. But that crude fluidity should serve us well in the near future. WW III is about to kick off in the Middle East. Hezbollah is well established in Syria, and now Saudi Arabia, reeling from 30 dollar a barrel oil, has plans to send 150,000 troops. Riyadh, truly, needs a war. So, the geo-political road for that war is being paved, and feminism and Cologne are just doing their part. People are raging against Islam. They are seething with contempt for the entire muslim world. They are ready for blood. Maybe, just maybe, they are ready for war. Perhaps that was the plan all along.

Cologne: The Right Question…

By now, many have seen the Iben Thranholm interview on Cologne posted on RT. It is a classic, in that it asks the question that has been on most lips: Where were the men?

Of course, ‘the men’, as we all know, were, as she says, too feminized to intervene. But isn’t this just the point of feminism? Empowerment? To let women have the power of men? Seems like men have acquired the attributes of women fairly well. Like helplessness. And skills like how to stand around in shock and stare while you dial the police who are standing a few yards away. So why haven’t the feminists taken on the mantle of power and the responsibility that comes with it? Certainly, this should have been their finest hour. A chance to show their effectiveness. What we got from the SJWs and Feminists in Cologne was failure. Has anyone asked why?

Another question to the feminists (male and female alike) and politically correct would be, “Are you seriously going to tell me you never thought something like this would happen?” To both questions, what you get is a sense that actually securing the society against enemies, and people who mean harm, is a skill the feminists haven’t practiced much. So quick to disarm cis gendered white hetero men, will they now take on the responsibility of defense and defend themselves… and how about defend us men?After all, we hear, women are fully capable of taking charge. So why didn’t they? In their delusion they got into bed with another delusional character, the state, who they not only thought they could control, but who they (get this) thought gave a damn about them. You couldn’t make it up.

They have no expertise in it… after all of the decades of feminism, they have no plan. Where is the sisterhood shouting “We’ll take care of this.”? It doesn’t exist. All those years of feminism, and in the heart of its operational theatre, left/liberal Cologne, they have nothing to defend themselves with. No plan for safety, resistance, anything. I guess they just thought they could always count on men.

Maybe the real question should be:  Where were the women?




Political Correctness Kills

Political Correctness Kills

It kills fun and it kills happiness: two of the main reasons for living.

And it’s also killing off the economy, as Sydney, Australia has learned.

Endless ‘pc’ inspired moves to do what the progressives do best, micro-manage everything and pass new legislation until everyone gives up and goes home, have made perhaps their biggest impact in Sydney Australia, where the participants in a once enjoyable, good time city have thrown in the towel on the city’s nightlife. An epic description of the micro-managed world of political correctness by Matt Barrie has crossed the broadsheets. And it’s a description of defeat snatched from the hands of success that is telling.

Early closing times, limited opening times, restricted moving areas (…sounds like a ‘safe space’), specified drinking potions at specific times, decanted in approved cups, have all been instituted by a government who manages one set of issues, by thereby creating another set, which will then need further amendment via yet more legislation. It never ends. The bureaucrats have ‘gone wild’, and are delighting in their small, pithy restrictions that ensure that having a good time is finished. It’s just part of the menace that feminism, with its ‘man-spreading’ issues, and safe space designs, (will eventually morph into the need to ‘design’ a completely safe society), has helped push to a place of political prominence.

Comedy will soon be made illegal too… because someone’s feelings might get hurt. This week’s news that Monty Python founder John Cleese has bowed out of the American campus scene should wake people up. But it won’t. We will just learn to live without laughter. Because laughter is often at someone’s ‘expense’. That makes laughter cruel. It will have to stop. Laughter shouldn’t be the product of offense. Find something else to laugh about.

No restriction will be too petty in future. Eventually, you will have most of your life micro-managed by the politically correct mentality that feminism has ushered in, with its deliberate infection into every facet of life. Sex, of course, needs ‘enthusiastic consent’, which, of course, can never be fully verified by people who really aren’t sure whether they’ve been raped or not. Soon a city financed eunuch will stand at the end of the bed while you ‘get it on’, to make sure nobody’s experienced a crime. And even then, we won’t be sure if consent was ‘achieved’.

Yep, ‘pc’ ruins everything it touches.

And thats just the start of it. State regulation of life and feminist regulation of society are marching hand in hand, completely inured to the horror they are creating. If it all prevents one woman from being sexually assaulted then it was all worth it, no matter how draconian. No matter how restrictive all covenants are, no matter the fact that everyone has to sit home and do nothing all night. It is safer.

Feminists assure us that it’s all for the best, that their self-permissive, but highly regulated and authoritarian culture is, in fact, progressive. But when the 11:59 to Cologne comes rolling around – for which the politically correct wrote the script, financed the production and bought the (train) tickets to – you’re too scared to do anything. You’ve learned how anything you might consider doing, like intervening, could be construed as politically “incorrect”. Surely you don’t want to offend… or wind up in court or jail. Sapped of your will, you just look on, too weak to resist the madness. You impotently stand and look at the horror, wondering how much jail time you would do to try and help stop a mass sexual assault for which feminism, and political correctness should hang its head in shame… and accept responsibility for… but won’t.

After all, what the hell we’re you doing outside after midnight anyway? Maybe the ‘outdoor’ life should be made safe for women, and all men put under a permanent curfew? There are a lot of women (mostly feminists) who would have no problem with that. First the safe spaces, then the restrictions on movement…probably soon, a little sharia-lite to make our new immigrants feel more welcome. (Is the blindness of feminism incapable of seeing that it’s ‘creations’ will eventually be turned on its mostly female proponents? Evidently.)

Political correctness, and its primary enforcer and enabler, feminism, has seen fit to restrict human movement and action because of the demand for ‘safety.’ But it hasn’t managed to get the police to intervene to stop mass assault, even when they’re standing right there. (They have learned to erase video recordings of the incidents, though.) Perhaps people should ‘learn’ that resisting someone attacking you is actually not acceptable; that fighting is not a last resort, but no resort at all. Maybe we needed this, to promote another raft of legislation onto us all so that we are accepting of an even more draconian interference of the state into our lives? It just might be necessary. 

Education remains the key here. We need to teach, and even more importantly, learn, how to stop defending ourselves, how beautiful helplessness can be politically becoming, and how to devolve all of our personal and civic power to the state… the same state that came to everyone’s ‘rescue’ in Cologne.

No mind that we still can’t decide what rape is, so we’ve decided to err on the side of caution and include just about anything. It should be patently obvious now that rape is a grossly misunderstood subject, and has been widely delimited in nature, as it has never properly taken into consideration all the many forms it comes in… touch rape, stare rape, thought rape. Those are real crimes. There’s also regret rape; rape by embellishing your bank balance or inflating your career success. Borrow your friends’ porsche and pass it off as your own to impress a girl – that will also be considered rape. Soon all will be rape… and our lives further and further restricted by the potential of rape, until we are properly locked up at home where we can do no harm. But even that will not be ‘safe’.

Domestic Violence, we now know from Spanish legislation, will now be considered an ‘act of terrorism’. It will be ‘prevented’ the same way a terrorist attack will be. By vigilance, increased ‘surveillance’, along with constant observation and monitoring of the ‘situation’. Please do ‘Tell us if you see something suspicious’, the authorities implore us. They give the impression they can ‘help’. But Cologne has proved, they either can’t, or won’t… or don’t want to.

They say ‘Don’t let the terrorists win’ ? Hell, we’ve all but surrendered anyway. We used to teach people to fight and resist. Now we just tell them ‘they need to be safe’, and that we can, given enough legislative power, construct a society that is safe for them. The authorities will take care of everyone. But they don’t. The authorities take care of what’s important to them – their pensions.

And the feminists will cheer, they’ll sit home and discuss more legislation, and they’ll be ‘free’ to indulge themselves, socializing only in the virtual world, where no one can stare at them, ‘judge’ them, or even look askance at them in their increasingly morbidly obese horror. Soon stare rape will happen over an i-phone, and calling fat people fat or laughing at them will have been made illegal and punishable by jail time. And eventually, disagreeing with a ‘registered feminist’ or ‘political correctness officer’, will also become illegal. Because your way of thinking is not ‘correct.’ And if your thoughts aren’t ‘correct’, then political correctness hasn’t gone far enough into the root of the problem, and further, corrective ‘education‘ (why do the sessions always take place behind a locked door ?), will be necessary… until you think the right thoughts. You are thinking the right thoughts, aren’t you? You had better be.