Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Feminist "hero" who publicly shamed a Tinder date for voicing his body-type preference is a hypocrite. Women are just as vocal
The man criticized below was condemned simply for being honest. A sad thing. He was even honest in a polite sort of way. And if she can swingeingly condemn the man surely that leaves her open to criticism too: I think she is a bitch with an inflated ego. She is also fat. So I agree with the comments below by Peter Lloyd. Some further comments, however:
Chubby is not sexy to either men or women and chubbies of both sexes need to get over that. If you don't like your limited chances with the opposite sex you have to reduce your food intake; it's as simple as that. Not easy but simple.
And just as many men ignore flat chested women as potential partners, so many women ignore short men. Ask any short man! Short men often report feeling quite invisible. And, perhaps sadly, no amount of complaint will alter that. (To forestall "ad hominem" comments, I am 5'10")
If you are in a disadvantaged category, you just have to deal with it. Short men and fat women work harder at relationships and that usually gets them someone, even if that someone also falls short of some ideal. A combination I have sometimes seen is a very rotund woman with a skinny but very scrubby man -- JR
Michelle Thomas was hailed a feminist hero for criticising a Tinder date who rejected her because of her size.
The 30-year-old, from Crystal Palace, London, went public when her online suitor discontinued their courtship because, physically speaking, she wasn't his type.
In a Dear John letter which has since stormed the internet, the unnamed man wrote:
'I really enjoyed your company and actually adore you. 'You're cheeky and funny and just the sort of girl I would love to go out with if only my body and mind would let me. But I fear it won't. 'I'm not going to bull***t you... I think you're the prettiest looking girl I've ever met. But my mind gets turned on by someone slimmer.'
But her response reinforced the odd, unwritten rule that women can say whatever they want about sexual desire and attraction, but men can't.
Venting through her blog, she claimed his behaviour was somehow 'body shaming' and 'objectifying' the female form, but, sorry sisters, I disagree.
Yes, fair enough, he wasn't being diplomatic or sensitive, which, as Prince would say, is sadly a sign o' the times, but in an age of over-opinionated people who constantly over-share, this is the new normal.
In fact, the only thing he's truly guilty of is having an honest opinion about women - one that isn't deemed 'on message' by the sisterhood - and actually voicing it.
Even former Deputy PM, John Prescott - a man who was battling bulimia at the time - was publicly humiliated by mistress Tracey Temple when their affair surfaced. She said his penis was like 'a cocktail sausage'. Classy!
Sadly, this isn't rare. Turn on any TV or film, listen to any song lyric, and you'll soon hear something similar.
Then there's website TubeCrush which pervs, and rates, unwitting men on the London Underground, while new dating app Lulu has caused controversy for encouraging women to shame men who give them 'bad dates'. Complete with pictures.
Even on a day-to-day basis I hear women say how they've dumped their latest man because he wasn’t tall, handsome or fit enough. The same women who, while asserting that a woman's size and shape doesn't matter, judge their boyfriends on the bulge in both their wallet and trousers.
The big difference, however, is that most men are too polite to ever go into detail. Especially directly. 'Does my bum look big in this?' 'Of course not,' we say.
Ironically, talking to Femail about the furore, Michelle said how pleased she was that many of her blog respondents were men who'd shared her letter with their sons – presumably to teach them about sensitivity and politeness with women. And that's great.
My point, however, is that perhaps they should refer their daughters to this article, too. After all, it was women who started this pathological honesty about men's bodies, so - as long as it continues - the yin to their yang will always be considered fair game. And, although it's sad, it's the world we live in.
Arrogant Muslim gets his just desserts
Muslims may treat women with contempt but British courts don't
A hospital consultant has become the first man to be ordered to pay all of his £550,000 assets to his ex-wife, following an extraordinary divorce ruling.
Anaesthetist Dr Essam Aly, 54, 'washed his hands' of his family after leaving wife Enas, 46, in 2011 and moving to Bahrain - and has not paid a penny in maintenance or child support since 2012.
Out of the reach of the British authorities and courts, it was feared the 'serial defaulter' from Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, would never again pay to support her or their two children.
So to ensure that the children and the wife would be secure, a family court judge ordered that their entire £550,000 fortune should go to her. Court of Appeal judges have now upheld the payout.
The court heard the husband worked at Queen's Hospital in Burton, while the wife was a GP in Derby. The couple married in 2002 and had a son and a daughter, before separating in 2011.
Dr Aly moved to Bahrain the following year, and has since started a relationship with another woman, undergone an Islamic marriage ceremony and had another child.
At Birmingham Family Court last year, the wife complained that she had received nothing from him since he left Britain.
Her case was that he had effectively 'abdicated responsibility' for her and his children, appeal judge Lord Justice McFarlane said.
'Looking to the future, there was no expectation that she could look to him for any future payment of maintenance and it was therefore necessary for her to achieve an award representing effectively most of the capital assets,' he said.
She secured an injunction freezing his assets, resulting in the discovery of additional bank accounts, said the judge.
Giving judgment last July, Judge Mark Rogers awarded her the proceeds of sale of their £250,000 home in Burton, plus another £310,000 held in the bank.
And Lord Justice McCombe, who heard the appeal with Lady Justice Macur and Lord Justice McFarlane, questioned what else a judge could do in such a case.
'What was the judge supposed to do, faced with a serial defaulter, to make proper provision for this family?' he said. 'The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them.'
Upholding the award, Lord Justice McFarlane said: 'The judge had in front of him a case where he was entitled to hold there was no realistic expectation of getting any further maintenance out of the husband'.
'He was beyond the reach of enforcement of courts in this country. He hadn't been paying for the previous two years.
'The judge was required, in determining the outcome of the financial provision proceedings, to give first consideration to the welfare of the two children.
'On the case before the judge, the wife was to have the sole responsibility and financial burden for bringing these children up.
'The judge, therefore, concluded that she should have the lion's share, if not all, of the assets, as she needed them to house herself in appropriate accommodation and make provision for these children.
'Thus it was that he awarded her a far more substantial lump sum than would otherwise have been the case if equality was the only yardstick.'
Where we've got to -- because of feminist misandry
A new app aimed at reducing false allegations of rape has been launched and forces would-be lovers to record their consent before having sex in case the police get involved.
We-Consent users film 20-second clips on their phones stating who they are about to have sex with before recording their face and their partner's.
The app only works if the cameras detect human faces and both parties are clearly heard saying 'yes', otherwise the recording is stopped and they are encouraged not to have sex.
Developers say their app will end 'misunderstandings' but rape support groups say they are wrongly suggesting rape is about disagreements about consent rather than a decision made by a rapist.
We-Consent users are asked to confirm their names on camera before they are asked: 'Say yes or no'. If the users say 'yes' the app responds with: 'Consent confirmed. Have fun'.
When asked who the app is targeted towards, the US designer, Michael Lissack, explained it is American athletes who have become fraught in numerous recent sexual scandals.
He said: 'Who seems to be mostly involved with scandals? Athletic teams and fraternities.'
Among critics of the app is the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre, which slammed it for apparently showing rape is the result of misunderstanding rather than an attack.
A spokesman said: 'This app seems to completely misunderstand sexual consent as an ongoing process rather than a one-off decision.
'It also appears to be based on the myth of sexual miscommunication, that rape is the result of a misunderstanding of consent rather than a decision made by a rapist.'
It came after a string of high profile cases in recent years, including one involving footballer Ched Evans, who was convicted of rape after a jury agreed unanimously his victim was too drunk to consent to sex.
Earlier this year the country’s top prosecutor said men accused of date rape must be quizzed by police over the ‘steps they took’ to establish that a woman agreed to sex.
Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said detectives should question a suspect about ‘what assured him’ the alleged victim had consented.
New guidelines would guarantee a ‘more balanced consideration’ of the accounts of both the suspect and the alleged victim, she said.
Campaigners described the move as a ‘huge step forward’ in ensuring fewer rapists escaped justice.
But critics said the measures threatened to shift the burden of proof by moving towards making rape suspects prove they were innocent.
We-Consent has been met with mixed reactions, with some saying it increases the perception that false allegations of rape are more common than in reality.
Those who expressed lukewarm support include Elouise Beverley, a member of the Royal Holloway, University of London's feminist society. She told student newspaper The Tab: 'I think it's positive to encourage dialogue about consent and I hope this app helps to do that.
'But the creator's focus on keeping athletes away from sex scandals seems to encourage the idea that false accusations of rape and sexual assault are more common than they are really.
'It seems the creator is more concerned with the reputations of perpetrators than the well-being of survivors of sexual assault.
'However despite those concerns I think checking in to make sure everyone is sober and making informed consent is definitely a step in the right direction.'
It is not clear where the consent clips are stored but the app website states they are held for seven years and can be made available only by a court order.
A CPS report showed that in a 17-month period there were 5,651 prosecutions of rape, and 111,891 for domestic violence, in England and Wales but there were just 35 prosecutions of false allegations of rape.
If You're White, Shame on You
More Leftist racism. If you really wanted to stop racial consciousness you would stop focusing on race
The leftist-inspired deconstruction of traditional America — and by extension, the dominant white Judeo-Christian culture that formed the basis of it — continues apace. MTV has produced “White People,” a documentary in which five young white people are made to feel uncomfortable about their inherently “privileged” position in society. This claptrap is narrated by Jose Antonio Vargas, an openly gay Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose coming out as an illegal alien in a 2011 New York Times column has earned him celebrity status — and apparently, legal immunity.
As the trailer indicates, the documentary aims to “change the way you think about white history” and urges its audience to “all get uncomfortable together” when dealing with racial issues. In a Facebook post accompanied by the picture of the same young white man apparently reduced to tears in the trailer, Vargas spells out his objective: “We cannot have an honest conversation about race in America until we explore and unpack what ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilege’ mean in America.”
MTV President Stephen Friedman doubles down on this invidious nonsense in a press release. “Whiteness often remains unexamined in conversations about race in this country, even as it acts as the implicit norm against which other racial identities are judged,” he insists. “By shining a spotlight on whiteness, we hope ‘White People’ will serve as a powerful conversation starter that encourages our audience to address racial bias through honest, judgment-free dialogue.”
That would be honest, judgment-free dialogue as long as one concedes white privilege is the baseline from which any conversation about race can proceed. Thus it is completely unsurprising that one of the documentary’s cast members, 21-year-old “Lucas,” is channeling his inner useful idiot, and became, as the press release puts it, “passionate about the topic of race and began teaching white privilege workshops.”
If enough guilty white people visit the film’s website, such workshops may no longer be necessary. It is there they can access the seven-day “bias cleanse” provided by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. It promises to “provide you with the daily tasks that will help you begin to de-bias yourself.”
Thankfully, following the trailer’s posting on YouTube, “White People” received the barrage of negative comments it so richly deserves. “I’m Asian, and I am offended for white people by this show,” said one person. Another got to the meat of the issue. “What it means to be white? Well for starters that I am somehow a terrible racist by default, simply because I am white. That I should feel bad/guilty/apologetic about issues that happened over 100 years ago to people that I have nothing to do with. That somehow everything is magically in my favor, which it is not. Yep. That’s how it feels.”
What happened — exactly — over 100 years ago? America became one of the first nations on earth to eliminate slavery.
“Today the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race,” black economist extraordinaire Thomas Sowell explains. “Even the leading moral and religious thinkers in different societies accepted slavery as just a fact of life. No one wanted to be a slave. But their rejection of slavery as a fate for themselves in no way meant that they were unwilling to enslave others. It was just not an issue — until the 18th century, and then it became an issue only in Western civilization.”
It is precisely this part of American history the white privilege hucksters choose to ignore, because the redemptive part of America’s historical legacy is inimical to the America-damning agenda promulgated by the Left. It is an agenda that can only thrive in the atmosphere of ginned up racial divisiveness that has become the Left’s calling card.
But not just divisiveness. We are in the midst of “the therapeutic culture’s hostile takeover of the culture,” explains The American Spectator’s Daniel Flynn. “We go for the gut or tug at the heart. Stimulating the mental circuitry strikes as a non sequitur to a generation trained to emote rather than think. The Thought Police put themselves out of business and created a more ominously Orwellian control apparatus: the Feelings Police.”
It is a “police force” comprised entirely of leftists currently dedicated to purging everything with which they disagree from the public square, especially a white Judeo-Christian culture that presents the largest impediment to the “fundamental transformation of the United States” these would-be totalitarians seek to attain.
Toward that end, anything resembling a competing idea becomes either a “microaggression” requiring a “trigger warning,” or something subjected to ad hominem attacks designed to make competing ideas utterly irrelevant, or subservient to name-calling. And when intellectual rigor is abandoned in favor of emotionalism, guilt, or lack thereof, becomes the only currency by which one’s commitment to “the cause” is measured.
And if one feels no such guilt? Shut up and go with the flow — or else.
Radio talk-show host Mark Levin insists, “[W]e’ve had a silent coup in this country.” Levin is wrong. There has been nothing remotely silent about the American Left’s insidious intention to destroy people and ideas with which they disagree. Whether it is the demonization of the Confederate flag, the removal of a Founding Father who appears on our currency, or the severe punishment of bakers who won’t bake the cake, the message is clear: The people who wish to preserve anything resembling American history, culture or tradition are irredeemable bigots who must be exiled to the fringes of “enlightened” society.
And when the Left’s own odious policies actually get someone killed, such as a lawless sanctuary city agenda that enabled a five-time deported illegal alien to snuff out the life of a 32-year-old woman? Defend the bankrupt notion that Rule of Law takes a back seat to accommodating the sensitivities of illegal aliens and their contemptible enablers. And why not? Recent Supreme Court decisions added a patina of legitimacy to “flexible” interpretations of the law, led by a chief justice who conflates advancing the leftist agenda with protecting the “integrity” of the Court.
As for genuine privilege, Vargas, and the 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom are demanding to be accommodated, go right to the top of list.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.