Sunday, April 17, 2016

Moron feminist takes two small incidents and hangs huge generalizations on them

Widely-read Australian feminist, Em Rusciano, below, takes two slightly off-colour incidents and claims that they prove what a bad lot "men" are. If that's feminist logic, it sure discredits feminism.  I can find two incidents that will prove anything and everything by her criteria. 

Generalizations need to be founded on representative sampling, not one-off incidents.  If you like unrepresentative sampling, just stand outside a divorce court for half a day and you will find a stream of men who will give you chapter and verse to prove that WOMEN are a bad lot

TO THE people raising the future men of the world: I’ve been forced to contact you, because the level of online douchery and quite frankly predatory behaviour aimed at young women, has this week hit an all time dickhead high score.

By now, I’m sure you’ve read about the man who took a creep shot of a woman doing her fruit and veggie shopping at Woolies. He thought it would be romantic to post it on their Facebook page and then say he’d turn up everyday in the same spot until she acknowledged him.

It was also a huge week for prestigious higher education institutions.

Male students at Sydney’s UNSW filmed themselves on a bus trip chanting the following: “I wish that all the ladies were little red foxes, and if I were a hunter I’d shoot them in the boxes.”

Not since Lennon and McCartney have such lyrical heights been reached.

The delightful Melbourne University crew were found to have a Facebook page that rates female students’ looks, tells you where you can find them, and provides delightful photo captions such as: “I bet some vibrato on her G-string would sound nice”. Hint: the woman they were rating was a musician.

I have two daughters, and when I read these kinds of things, I completely despair as to what kind of world I’m sending them into.

You see, I can teach them all manner of things about life. I can arm them with the tools to deal with certain challenges. But in this particular scenario, I’m completely impotent.

I can’t stop men from taking photos of them without their consent. I can’t teach boys that chanting words that glorify acts of rape and violence against my girls is gross and wrong.

So, I’m asking you to have higher expectations of your sons’ behaviour. I’m asking all fathers to model their own behaviour in a manner that shows their sons how to respect women. Hey, lets not stop there. Why not be respectful of all humans in general?

I’m asking that all mothers be courageous enough to squash any inequality, should it pop up even in the tiniest way. As women, I’m sure you never want to be objectified, so don’t accept it from your sons or their fathers.

Teach them to be in tune with their own feelings. Allow them to explore a range of negative emotions, not just anger.

Tell them that it’s OK to be sad, vulnerable and sensitive. I believe forcing young men to repress emotions leads to frustration and bad behaviour down the track.

I don’t think it’s right that I have to tell my girls that they need to adjust their behaviour and actions to compensate for the possibility of a man not being able to control himself.

Realistically I’m going to have to, but I’d rather not.

Finally, remind them that girls are their equals and are people first. Remind them that no­ one is better than them — or less than them — because of what gender they are.

I have no doubt that a lot of you already do this. I am in no way saying that all your sons will behave in this manner.

I’m just a mother trying to help shape and change the world in which her daughters are growing up, so that they may be the best humans they can be.


What do British Muslims Really Think? Now we know. And it's terrifying

I sat down to watch 'What British Muslims Really think' with my best multicultural head on.

I cleared my mind of all preconceptions; grubby Rochdale cabbies passing white girls round for sex like a fried chicken bargain bucket, Imams beating kids into devotion, and the truly indoctrinated, blowing up Brussels to get 72 virgins in paradise.

Putting my feet up on the recycling bin, channelling my inner Polly Toynbee, I waited to sit corrected - prepared to accept the most dangerous Muslim in Britain is Bake Off's Nadiya Hussain armed with a Victoria Sponge.

But, much as it pains me to say it, I have been right all along. British Muslims are not part of some rich tapestry of urban life. It's a myth, dreamed up by the BBC, and perpetuated by the Islington elite.

It is them and us. And THEY have no wish to be anything like US.

The reason Muslims enjoy our country is because it is tolerant. Not the bits where we are tolerant of each other, you understand. Not the fact we respect your right to be Jewish or utterly ungodly. Or our warm embrace of those who identify as straight, gay, lesbian or as gender-fluid as a snail.

No. They enjoy our country because we are tolerant of their right to be as as prejudiced against Jews and as homophobic as they please.

52% disagree homosexuality should be legalised. Even more oppose gay marriage. Years of British acceptance, now rolled back under a Neanderthal rock because the Koran has come to town. And no one appears to have the moral fibre to point out the hypocrisy of it all; Islamic Societies are proliferating across every University campus, the same safe spaces where any view not militantly pro-LGBTQ is rightly petitioned into silence.

Catholic bakers in Ireland are persecuted if they don't wish to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, the law demanding their compliance. But UK Muslims - they can be as homophobic as they choose.

This tolerance they enjoy in the UK is not valued for their ability to assimilate as open-minded citizens. But tolerance of a new virulent strain of Islam which is perversely segregationist and intolerant of our ways.

Having watched what British Muslims think of women, I am relieved my daughters were in bed. I have already written to their schools asking for my children to be exempt from any further trips to the local mosque. I stand against any segregation of my girls from boys.

But Muslim girls are not afforded such liberty, considered to be fortunate to be educated from the back of the room in subjects deemed appropriate for their uses - like cooking and sewing.

Where are the strident feminists fighting for the rights of Muslim girls; their genitals mutilated yet defended as a cultural thing and forced into marriages with ugly uncles?

Unbelievably, one in three British Muslims support the right of a man to have up to four wives. And that's young Muslims as well. 18-24 year olds are utterly backwards in their thinking - defended by progressives and liberals.

Why would women share husbands like a field full of flighty deer, waiting for one mangey rutting stag to mount them with his measly Muslim member?

One Muslim woman describes it as a privilege. Well I've been there, and it didn't make me feel special.

My first husband - allegedly a Catholic - thought he would try the polygamy thing, informally, with busty women up and down the country. We had a feisty divorce but I kept my children.

If I were a Muslim, British Sharia courts would have taken my children from me by now at the advent of my second marriage, tying my hands and crushing my heart.

Sitting there on my sofa, listening to women say there is no such thing as rape within Muslim marriage, my pelvic floor is in spasm in disgust. 39% of British Muslims - men and women - say a woman should always obey her husband.

Extend this thinking a little further and you end up with a women in utter subservience, hidden from the world, shrouded in a burqa. For many this submission undoubtedly extends to a good beating.

From there it's only a short sandal-footed shuffle into Sharia Law where women's evidence is worth half of that of a man's, and only two in three British Muslims think stoning a woman to death for being raped is wrong.

UK Muslims can be as sexist and violent as they choose.

Imagining this new breed of Muslims want to assimilate into our country is farcical. There is no integration. They do not want to assimilate into our increasingly secular ways.

They want to practise a more radical form of Islam, taught by Wahhabi Imams, living under Sharia law, rejecting homosexuality, promoting the subservience of women, supporting jihad.

Multiculturalists are determined to distance Muslims from Islamic extremism, imagining it to be the acts of the alienated few.

But the reason we so seldom hear Imams and leaders in the Muslim Community speaking out against terrorists is that in truth, many are right behind them.

25% had sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. 20% have sympathy for the 7/7 suicide bombers. Over 100,000 Muslims in the UK have sympathy for terrorist acts. Many support a future attack on the very country which showed them tolerance, allowed them to practise their particular brand of hate, and gave them a home.

I have heard what Muslims really think and it is clear multiculturalism has never existed.

Through no fault of our inclusive culture, it is them and us. And British Muslims expect us to change our ways to fit in with them.


Woman who grew up wanting to be a boy says she's glad she didn't change sex - as she's now happy in her own skin

When I was a little girl I wanted to be a boy. I felt deep down that I'd be far happier that way and had a nagging suspicion that life as a male would be more fun than being female.

Aged just four, I remember my father, older brother and a group of his friends all lumping bricks around the garden to fire up a barbeque on one of the first warm days of summer.

I'd been helping all morning by gathering smaller sticks for kindling – although my efforts were largely ignored and met with an eye roll and a pat on the head.

Wiping the sweat from their brows and taking a five-minute break, the men took their tops off to bask in the sun and I followed suit. 'JEN!' they cried in unison, 'Put your T-shirt back on! You can't do that… You're a girl!'

I stomped off, peals of the boys' laughter ringing in my ears, feeling anger and embarrassment prick at my cheeks as I bristled with irritation at how unfair it all was.

It was something I grappled with throughout my childhood. But before long, my parents relaxed and accepted the way I was. I spent blissful days out in the woods on adventures, getting muddy, or riding my bicycle as fast as I could.

One time, when I was eight, I came flying off over the handlebars and skidded along the road near our house on my arm and face – causing a scab to form across my top lip that looked like a moustache and joined my permanently scuffed knees.

I didn't care though and was back out on my bike the next morning.  I loved being a tomboy and nagged my mum to let me get my hair cropped short.  I hated having my hair tugged, plaited and tied with ribbons before school every day.

I was only ever forced into dresses against my will, for example if my mother insisted that I should wear them to go to church on Sundays, but I would rush upstairs and change the second I got home – feeling much more comfortable in jeans, wellies and a scruffy jumper.

At school, I had friends who were girls but I was drawn to hang out with the boys. Like me, they wanted to get outside and go sledging in winter or dunking each other at the local swimming baths in summer.

I looked down on my younger sister Angie who held tea parties for her dollies, had an arsenal of perfumed beauty potions and loved to wear frilly pink dresses.

I accepted that I was a girl but I looked and often acted like a boy and I know that had I been offered the chance to become a real one at the age of ten and given hormones I would have leaped at the chance – not grasping the consequences of such a life-changing and massive decision.

I found the idea of having periods one day soon terrifying and I loathed the thought of developing breasts and having to wear an uncomfortable bra.

But, as I grew into my teens and puberty kicked in, I completely changed. I slowly started to understand the power of being a woman and finally became happy in my own skin and began to love make up, fashion and fully embracing my femininity.

It's clear that transgender children need love, support and – crucially – understanding – not just from their parents, teachers and their peers but from all of us. If they feel depressed, confused and are struggling, then therapy is a fantastic tool that must be available to all children and their parents.

Ideally, childhood should be a magical time where kids are free from the labels and constraints that adults must deal with as they're the brief, brilliant years when we discover the world and start the long journey to fully developing our personalities.

If a girl feels like she is a boy at heart and wants to play football, cut her hair short and run about in what might be traditionally seen as 'boys' clothing, or if a boy wants to wear pink, grow his hair long and play with dolls, then let them enjoy it.

Gender is becoming much more fluid these days, and people are much more free to switch back and forth and dress and act as they please without judgement.

There's not a lot of data out there yet, but I do know that I'm a different person at 40 than I was five years ago and I'm nothing like the child I was in 1986.

I wonder if hormone therapy had been available to me as a ten-year-old - and I had taken it - if it would have turned out to have been a gigantic mistake?


The feminising of justice that makes it hard for men charged with rape to get a fair trial

Of course, rape is a terrible crime and gang-rape is one of the worst things that human beings can do to another person.

So, had four young men who were arrested after a group sex session at a student ball been found guilty of sex crimes, they would have been jailed for many years.

But the case against the quartet collapsed this week after detectives were accused of 'cherry-picking' evidence to support the prosecution, while 'airbrushing' anything that suggested the men were innocent.

Lawyers for the four students (who had been charged after the drunken sex session during a May Ball at the Royal Agricultural University in Gloucestershire) argued that evidence had been 'withheld' by officers before the trial. This included messages taken from the victim's phone hinting that she may have consented.

It also emerged that the alleged victim had given 'different accounts' as a witness in another rape case involving an Army officer — also acquitted.

How could the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have got it so wrong?

I have worked for many years as a human rights and civil liberties barrister and I'm afraid that I do not think this case can be dismissed as a one-off. Sadly, it illustrates a deeper problem in our justice system when it comes to sex crimes.

Having once been deplorably insensitive to the problems that rape victims face, I believe that our criminal justice system has swung too far the other way. It now assumes that an accusation by a woman is tantamount to proof of guilt.

Even worse, it has encouraged sharp tactics on the part of the police and the CPS who are keen to have a more positive image as being tough on sex offenders and winning more successful prosecutions.

The most grotesque example recently involved Scotland Yard's VIP paedophile murder inquiry — and investigation into claims that a string of Establishment figures were responsible for killing three boys in the Seventies and Eighties.

Though the probe collapsed, the police refused to say sorry to those whose lives had been ruined or reputations shattered by a suspected fantasist called 'Nick', whose claims triggered the investigation. Most controversially, one of the investigating officers, Det Supt Kenny McDonald, had described Nick's delusional ramblings as 'credible and true'.

The fact is that our criminal justice system is supposed to be founded on two critical principles. First, the presumption of innocence. Second, due process: the belief that criminal accusations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, by fair procedures.

However, when it comes to sexual assault, decades of campaigning by feminists and more strident members of the victim lobby have browbeaten judges and policy-makers into a change of approach.

The prevailing attitude seems to be that it is unfair to anyone claiming to have been the victim of a sexual attack that they should have to accept that their alleged attacker is 'innocent until proved guilty' and that the case has to operate under due process.

As a result, the system has been re-engineered to make it more difficult for the accused to defend himself.

Even the definition of rape has been changed. Previously, it was a defence for a man to show that he honestly believed the woman was consenting. But the Sexual Offences Act 2003 — passed by the Labour government — introduced a so-called test of reasonable belief in consent. This means that the accused has to show he took reasonable steps to ensure that the woman consented to sex.

This has led to the ridiculous situation whereby some students demand 'affirmative consent'. This means that consent has to be sought and given at every stage of any sexual encounter.

Most ridiculously, students at one U.S. high school have been told that men should obtain consent every ten minutes during sexual activity. A further worrying development is that the police and CPS seem to see themselves as advocates for complainants — though they should be acting impartially.

The result is that they appear to shut their eyes to any evidence that might complicate their plans to bring a prosecution. This phenomenon is known as 'confirmation bias'. This was confirmed by the absurd admission of one Manchester barrister who said: 'If someone complains, we prosecute.'

I'm sorry, but such a perverse attitude is highly dangerous. No one benefits when innocent people are wrongly accused.

The fact is that this creates a new class of victim: the falsely accused, or those who are prosecuted, who are presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

Some high-profile examples of those wrongly accused of sex offences are Nigel Evans MP, radio presenter Paul Gambaccini, war hero Lord Bramall and former MP Harvey Proctor.

Significantly, the legal authorities' attitude was outlined by former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer.

In an article for the Criminal Law Review in 2014 written after he had left the post, he explained how changes were needed to improve the way the credibility of alleged victims was assessed.

He called for 'a more sophisticated approach that starts with the assumption that the victim is telling the truth'.

Sir Keir has since been elected as a Labour MP. But the pressure to believe all complainants began before he was appointed DPP.

Back in 2002, the Metropolitan Police issued a Special Notice 11/02 entitled 'A policy for the investigation of rape and serious sexual assaults'.

It began: 'Principle 1. It is the policy of the Met to accept allegations made by any victim in the first instance as being truthful. An allegation will only be considered as falling short of a substantial allegation after a full and thorough investigation.'

This approach encapsulates the problem. When the word 'victim' is used before a crime has been proved in court, it means there is a presumption of guilt. Equally, what happened to the promise of a 'full and thorough investigation'?

I am aware of many sex attack cases in which defendants and their lawyers have complained that when they provided the police with evidence suggesting that a complaint of sexual assault was false, the police simply ignored it.

For example, there was a case in which a teenager was accused by a girl of a similar age of raping her. As part of his defence, the accused boy's mother went through social media postings that her son and the girl had made during the time in question.

They showed that every time the girl claimed she was being attacked, she and the boy were in different locations. Yet despite this research being given to the police, the officers later returned it as 'unused material'.

Though the case went to trial, the accused's mother handed her dossier to the CPS barrister, who said they had never seen it before. Separately, it became clear that the girl's story didn't add up.

Within 24 hours, the prosecution barrister told the judge that the complainant was no longer regarded as a witness of truth and the trial collapsed.

However, things should never have been allowed to reach that stage. The boy's family incurred very substantial legal costs, which they were unable to recover from the CPS.

I believe that such people who are falsely accused and who are put through unnecessary and traumatic experiences should be able to sue the police for damages — compensation for negligent investigations. This is allowed in Canada.

Should those who have been falsely accused have even more right to redress? For example, ought they be able to sue the CPS if they feel their case has been mishandled?

Theoretically, it's already possible to sue public officials for misfeasance, but that requires proof of bad faith — something that is a very high threshold to cross.

Regardless of the redress that might be available to those who are wrongly accused, there is a much more important principle at stake.

Namely, that it is imperative that our judicial system is fair to both accuser and accused.



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


No comments: