I’ve expressed this previously (most recently here), but it strikes me that this requires a separate post for reference purposes.
Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.
Related:
 | Woody on Message heard. |
 | Christmas in The Chr… on Mistaking fecklessness for… |
 | Quiet Desperation on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | whiteguy1 on Message heard. |
 | Vektor on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | John O. on Message heard. |
 | Iowa Slim on Message heard. |
 | wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
I don’t agree. Feminism is the proposition that traditional feminine roles (mother, homemaker) and the duties they entail (chastity, modesty, submission) are optional, while traditional masculine roles are obligatory and non-negotiable.
This is what unites “radical” feminists and “moderate” feminists like Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson. Neither of them think that women have socially and legally enforceable duties. Both camps reject the notion that women have specifically feminine roles that they must carry out on pain of shame. But they take the masculine role as a given.
The majority of women in the West today are feminists and they don’t think men are evil.
Pingback: Dalrock’s Law of Feminism | @the_arv
Actually, I think I agree with this. Dalrock’s law works for RADICAL feminism, but yours works for the run of the mill variety.
Once again :
‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has instead exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, intellectual, physical, economic, civic, parental, spousal, spiritual) far more visibly than was ever possible before ‘feminism’.
Traditional customs benefited women the most, since they were kept out of situations where their shortcomings would swiftly present themselves, creating a credible aura of uncertainty. By contrast, women today charge boldly into situations where their innate inferiority becomes readily apparent.
I thought feminism was about making women strive to be more masculine (career, butch hairstyle, tats, wearing the pants, tough as a man, etc.) and urging men to be more effeminate (submit to wife, in touch with emotions, everything is about feels, replace the objective with the subjective, etc.). Was as far as I know a CIA (OSS at the time) Psy-Op to destabilize society, and curated and organized mostly be eugenicists, such as Margaret Sanger and Alan Popenoe (who created couple counseling in the 30s), more of an insidious version of population control. It is subtle enough to last this long. Gloria Steinem the editor of Cosmo magazine revealed she was a CIA spook during her time at Cosmo.
“Both camps reject the notion that women have specifically feminine roles that they must carry out on pain of shame. But they take the masculine role as a given.”
This is why if you tell women you will not help them cause you’re a feminist, and we’re all equal now,so use their Grrrl Power and sort it out themselves, you get a glob of incoherant shaming-babble.
Good for lolz though.
FWIW: Feminism (Gynocracy) has been the main (vehicle) sub-project in which the aims toward a ‘genderless society’ can be played out, with a façade of morality and righteousness. Planned parenthood still lobbies for the funding to this very day to keep this black op going. It is amazing.
I don’t understand the attempts to define Feminism trying to correct our host- this is Dalrock’s Law – everyone is free to have their own but this is his law.
This law is nice because it highlights the awesome grasp of cause and effect displayed by too many feminists. “Help us you awful vile men!”
Or as was pointed out to me on another blog…
https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2018/09/06/it-turns-out-that-men-are-the-ones-who-can-have-it-all/#comment-8243
“No woman may be held accountable for her actions.”
I like reading these definitions. I see the descriptive and applicable truth in all of them.
From my perspective and personal experience, feminism is merely the hatred of men and boys politicized.
In the religious arena, the politics are sourced from religious dogma, which as we have already seen, is not easily and freely bent and twisted – with virtually no resistance from learned theologians – to serve the interests and necessities of The Sisterhood at the direct cost to men and boys.
In the federal and state government arena, the politics are reflected in policies, laws and statutes that enforce gynocentrism, shift authority, rights, privileges and power to women, while frontloading all public, legal and financial accountability and responsibilities onto men.
In the education arena, the politics are reflected in admissions policies, grants, scholarships and loans, and anti-male rulesets and rhetoric both on campus and off-campus. It is reflected in fem-centric methods of instruction firmly rooted in rote memorization and common procedures rather than practical, hands-on and Socratic instruction methods under which boys excel.
In the workplace, the politics are reflected in reverse sexual discrimination policies including hiring and promotion quotas, overtly discriminatory sexual harassment policies, as well as ridiculous Marxist ideals of “equal pay” or remuneration based on the shear accident of an employee being born with a penis or vagina, rather than based on an individual’s (male or female) actual merit, work performance, or years of consecutive service.
In the sexual relationships and marriage arena, the politics are reflected in the absolution of female hypergamous behavior including sexual promiscuity, bearing bastard children funded by the state. It includes the abolition of any and all male reproductive rights, a carte blanche legal and financial indictment that a man must financially support his work-capable, educated wife well after the divorce (alimony). Husbands bear all legal and financial accountability and obligations to his wife, or else. Wives bear….effectively no responsibility or obligation to their husbands.
In the legal arena, the politics are reflected in overt, discriminatory bias against men and males, as women are frequently granted the benefit of the doubt, and the well-known “pussy pass” in legal matters criminal and civil. Divorce and family court is where this open and unapologetic misandry is lit up like the Las Vegas strip, as men are ripped from their children, excoriated by family court judges, relegated to decades of financial surfdom, prison or suicide.
Dalrock
Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by to men to solve all of women’s problems.
Looks like you misspelled demands.
FSG
The majority of women in the West today are feminists and they don’t think men are evil.
The majority of women in the west are feminists and they don’t think. At all.
Malcom
Actually, I think I agree with this. Dalrock’s law works for RADICAL feminism, but yours works for the run of the mill variety.
Run of the mill women in the West have no problem with demonizing men in many ways, including the entire divorce / DV industry.
The Wanderer
I thought feminism was about making women strive to be more masculine
You are wrong.
Feminism is in part about expanding women’s choices by expanding men’s responsibilities. That explicitly includes conservative feminists who oppose abortion and maybe lesbian weddings…
A conservative feminist is more likely to support abortion and the second ammendment.
Most women today (and increasingly it seems, men) take the gains made by previous iterations of feminism for granted. Casual sex, careerism, the vote, immodesty, abortion on demand and no-fault divorce are achievements that were won decades ago. The bra burning feminists of the 1960s and 1970s are “moderates” now. So if most women don’t identify as feminists it doesn’t mean they aren’t feminists. It just means they’re content with the changes that were made on their behalf from the turn of the 20th century until a few decades ago.
Poll 100 women ages 18-50 at random and ask them if they think women are obliged to be homemakers. I’d be surprised if fewer than 90% said No. Ask them whether women should be morally condemned for abortion, casual sex, immodesty and for leaving their dutiful husbands. Again, I’d be surprised if fewer than 90% said “No.”
Finally, ask them if they hate men. I bet none of them would say they hate men.
Hatred of men is not the defining feature of feminism because it doesn’t establish the common thread between yesterday’s “radical feminists” (now conservatives and moderates) and today’s radicals. The common thread is the shirking of feminine roles. Even Lauren Southern thinks women should be free to carve out their own paths in life.
A conservative feminist is more likely to support abortion and the second ammendment.
Depends on the subculture, including her age. Conservative Boomer feminists are not the same as Millennial conservative feminists. Doesn’t really matter, just watch what they do…
https://www.salon.com/2017/12/04/alt-right-women-are-upset-that-alt-right-men-are-treating-them-terribly/
And this is also proven when they get irritated when some women embrace feminine roles.
“Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion (which is not to be questioned) that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, which is instantly followed by DEMANDS (made by the same feminists) for men to solve all of women’s problems — immediately and without any gratitude or appreciation whatsoever.”
There, FIFY.
FSG
Finally, ask them if they hate men. I bet none of them would say they hate men.
So what?
Watch what they do…
Sarah Jeong. Says it all.
I’m laughing all the way to my popcorn popper…none of that microwaved junk, nope.
Run of the mill women in the West have no problem with demonizing men in many ways, including the entire divorce / DV industry.
Hey, like every other normal human being I deal with women every day.
Nearly all are feminists and none actually hate men as a group en masse. So a definition thst makes man hatred its foundation seems off to me.
‘Southern said that women should be able to choose their own life path and not be attacked for it, which sounds like what women have been shouting for a few decades now’
Fine…but please don’t complain or cry about how sensitive you are when you regret your choices because some other woman is having kids and being a homemaker.
For example:
https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2018/09/06/it-turns-out-that-men-are-the-ones-who-can-have-it-all/
The divorce/domestic violence industry is utilized by women as a weapon, its claimd only believed when it is in their benefit to believe it. In daily life most women don’t give two seconds of thought to it a day.
If you asked any one woman if they thought the divorce industry was set up in such a way as to demonize men, they would vigorously deny it. And mean it, until it became useful for them not to mean it anymore.
Dalrock’s Law of Feminism appears to be widely known in evangelical circles. It gets considerable use as a sermon outline, Bible study guide, and program for men’s retreats. Come to think about it, probably at women’s retreats also.
Men are evil and women are weak, so government must intervene to protect women from men, this government being some hitherto unknown third sex.
Feminism will end when the divorce-ravaged men presently killing themselves decide to first eliminate some of the white knights who enable divorce. Then unhappy wives will be advised to “run away, don’t come back, and please don’t call this number again!” Society will never sympathize with the unjustly ruined man, but it might come to fear his wrath.
Here’s the original article about the woman lamenting her state in life while the men in her office have kids.
https://news.efinancialcareers.com//uk-en/322642/im-female-banker-male-colleagues-making-infertile
The interesting thing is look at the comments…quite similar to what you would see in these parts.
But they’ll certainly blame men for their own self-destructive choices.
Pingback: Dalrock’s Law of Feminism | Reaction Times
Malcom
Nearly all are feminists and none actually hate men as a group en masse.
So?
So a definition thst makes man hatred its foundation seems off to me.
Whose definition are you referring to?
Say, you’re not playing a game of “No True Feminist”, are you?
Following their shock split after just two years of marriage, Emma Watkins has revealed it was she who needed some wiggle room after falling out of love with husband Lachlan Gillespie.
https://bit.ly/2MRGWFi
AR,
I am doing literally the opposite?
Okay, let me rephrase:
Nearly all women are feminist.
Most of them don’t think men are evil.
Therefore that does not work as a definition.
That’s it.
Consider the whole domestic violence industry.
Any random woman I talk to will most likely have no opinion at all on whether or men are innately evil or whatever.
But they ALL believe that they are entitled to do whatever they want and men are not supposed to criticize them for it.
If I were to ask them about the domestic violence industry most would know nothing about it. They only become fans when it directly benefits THEM.
That is what I mean.
Feminism is the movement that aims to give women total freedom with no responsibility
The behavior of men is not a primary goal of feminism. It’s only that men have to behave in a certain way to give women the maximal freedom with the minimal responsibility. They have to behave with minimal freedom and maximal responsibility. It’s a zero-sum game.
But, if women could have total freedom with no responsibility without bothering men, they would do it.
We are only secondary actors in their ‘Me! Me! Me!” drama.
No wonder feminists are illogical. This can’t happen in reality. Hence why they have to blame men when anything to do with responsibility happens lest they realize they do have accountability in their actions.
earl says:
September 6, 2018 at 6:03 pm
Or as was pointed out to me on another blog…
https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2018/09/06/it-turns-out-that-men-are-the-ones-who-can-have-it-all/#comment-8243
This one is a the gem Earl. Feminists tears, yum!
Feminism is all rebellion against God’s patriarchal design for families and against His clear roles for the sexes, including male headship, superiority, and reverence for man’s endowment with the glory and image of God, and female subjection, inferiority, and helpful domesticity.
Workplace obligations are a form of responsibility even if they aren’t a productive, useful or healthy one for women. I know the manosphere likes to rage in regards to the unemployed single mother using her kids as a meal ticket, but those types are uncommon. Most working age women are employed.
I think it’s most useful to look at feminism the same as any liberal movement. There’s no real goal and its purported aims are really just a pretext to the enshrinement of vice and the destruction of tradition and natural, organic community based living. It’s really the only way one is able to make sense of the ever changing and evolving narratives employed by feminists and the obvious paradoxes involved in their championing of “Muslim rights” and transgenders (notwithstanding the sparse, yet amusing attacks on transgenders by “TERFs”) and such.
Dalrock is at least right in that he lays out how feminism has ironically consolidated the power in society in men, or at least in masculinity. Feminism has successfully convinced women to abdicate their power as women so that they may live their lives as poor shadows of men. Richard Greenhorn has a fantastic article about this here:
https://thermidormag.com/defense-of-the-incels/
Choice quote:
“Nothing can be allowed in our regime but sustained chaos, one which consistently keeps the relationship between the sexes in flux, which is always able to toss the old form aside to seek new forms of subordination and degradation when it so requires.”
alt-right-women-are-upset-that-alt-right-men-are-treating-them-terribly/
There are about as many genuinely “alt-right” and libertarian women as there are vegan dogs, and for the same reason: they’re not designed to live such philosophies. Both philosophies center on the idea of self-sufficiency and responsibility for one’s own life and actions, things that are clearly anathema to women. This is also why very nearly all of the female “conservative” pundits of any public renown eventually drop their masks and show that they are really just liberals lite.
@Malcolm
Communism = failed political and economic system, beloved in Western academia and media;
Feminism = Cultural Marxism; eventually migrates into and corrupts the nation’s family law system to enslave men.
Couple things on this matter:
*Women lie. A lot…. so best way to gauge her is facial expressions to being asked “tough questions” or verifying what she says is true or not. They will never admit to lies, because they know our Feminist society portraits women as pure and holy.
*Most women today will DENY being feminists, even if they are DE FACTO Feminists. They just do not want the toxic negative label.
Admitting to be a Feminist is like a woman admitting she is a slut or whore. Only the most radical Feminists own up to the label just as only the trashiest and whoreist women will own up to being a slut.
If you want to test if a woman is a feminist or not ask her these few short questions and watch her facial reactions to the questions:
1) Should man always pay for a date?
(This is a warm-up question. She will balk for a second, watch her reaction, but will say “I am willing to pay sometimes” or “I can split the bill…..” (long pause). If she looks annoyed, she is off to a feminist start.)
2) Ask if she likes Trump or Hillary.
(She may lie here and say she prefers Trump if she knows the male-female ratios of support for Trump).
3) Ask if a woman should always be believed if she accuses a man of rape or sexual abuse?
(If she says “no” to #3, she may not truly be a feminist, or could be lying. The next one will reveal herself to you.)
4) Tell her this quick story: “let’s say I am in a ship that is hit by massive bolt of lightning. Everyone died from the shock, including the captain, all passengers and crew and the ship is sinking fast. You find the only single-person hard-bottom lifeboat and as you are about to jump into it out of the ship, you notice the sea is infested with sharks surrounding the ship. This hard-bottom boat is the only way out for you. As I am about to board it, Hillary Clinton comes running and reaches for it as well. Should I let Hillary go in? Isn’t it women and children first?”
(This is the “Titanic test”. If she says “of course, women go first!” that is a huge warning sign. Make the following point if she says to let Hillary go down first: “Hillary Clinton, the biggest supporter of abortions, the woman responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in her wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya…. Why should I (your name), good Christian man, charitable, who wants to have a family and help others die for Hillary?? Just because she is a WOMAN?!?”
If she says “yes, Hillary goes first”, trust me, she is 100% Feminist, maybe she is a radical feminist – RUN!)
This is a fun test I like to ask women. I do it more for her reactions than anything else. That is like asking women if she is a mudshark… OMG, I LOVE the reactions, even if she is not, her facial reactions will tell you a lot about her.
Women often have it all over their faces. They are quick to get annoyed and frustrated, so that should give you lost to work with. Be very weary of what a woman SAYS, watch what she does.
Dalrock’s law is close, but fails to clarify the root cause. “Your desire shall be [to rule] your husband, yet he shall rule over you.” Feminism is the spiritual component of the woman’s curse. It is the default setting. Feminism is the inborn desire of women to rule without being held liable for their decisions. They crave risk-free power, which requires that men pay for the consequences of the woman’s choices. Calling men evil oppressors is merely a justification for seizing power. The desire for power without responsibility is the essence of feminism.
Pingback: Feminism truisms | Christianity and masculinity
”Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems”
I would take out the word ”’pleas” and replace it with ”demands”. I’d also add, ”without any gratitude”.
Many have said that the modern woman doesn’t hate men. I disagree. They DO hate men, but they have a cognitive dissonance between their emotions and their actions. Thus they can treat men in an appalling manner, but because men aren’t seen / considered / exist or are recognized, they can safely say they don’t hate them.
Proof of Dalrock’s Law:
(as I probably have said before) when I was Stateside, I attended a lecture given by a woman (age adjusted 6 or maybe even 7 and therefore boffable which was all I was thinking as I devised ways to remove her pants – at least in my mind – I was coming close I felt) who was complaining about the fact that too many hymns were patriarchal (Opus nodding sympathetically). She preened when, as she explained, a man came to see her one day having and without commission to do so rewritten one such offending hymn in ‘gender-neutral’ i.e. feminist language – why didn’t she herself or some other oppressed woman do it if the poor hymn was so offensive to her? These days I see (Christian Pastor [retired] that she is) she is on board with all that LGBTQPedo stuff. What that has to do with Christianity I cannot determine: when Roman Catholicism never mind Islam seem the calm voice of reason something has to be seriously wrong.
@Spike
In your statement, substitute “men” for “capitalism” – “harm women” for “harm the poor”.
Marxism, Feminism…. the goal is same. Find an enemy (men or capitalism) and make them the enemy. Blame all problems on that enemy.
In Cuba and in South America, failed socialist leftists regimes (Venezuela, for instance) blame everything and I mean EVERYTHING on the USA or on outside forces trying to take down the regime. There is no food, than Americans are stealing their food. No electricity… Brazilian terrorists destroyed power plant. Middle class fled… they are traitors. And so forth.
Women, especially feminist women, blame everything on men or the patriarchy… a so-called Patriarchy that has not existed in America in at least 50 or maybe even 100 years.
Part of women’s innate hatred of men is that as we age, we become happier, freer to do and say what we really and believe. When we are younger, we are so focused on getting laid, we will do or say anything to get laid. As we age, it becomes easier to get laid and we stop caring. Women lose their power as our need for sex wanes slowly overtime and they lose their beauty as they age.
Also, let’s face it… most women only have their beauty and sexuality as assets. Once they begin to deteriorate with age (much faster if they ride the Carrousel hard), they start to lose their power and control over men and begin losing their minds subsequently.
They begin to resent men for “looking through them” or for not kowtowing to their power over men. Women do not even realize the power of their beauty and youth have over men until they lose it. That is why they hate men for this.
ChristianCool: Whenever you see same doctrines, you can see the same source. Thus, the Serpent’s promise of godhood to Eve in the Garden of Eden is the same doctrine as Hinduism, same doctrine in Mormonism.
Your substitution of words clearly demonstrates the same source: Marxism has ceased to be a political and economic entity due to world-wide failure. So it has simply morphed into a social entity.It is rapidly demonstrating to be just as destructive.
All churches need a series of sermons on Antonio Gramsci, the student of Karl Marx who coined the “long march through the institutions”, because Marxism is doing exactly that.
The world has come to terms with Marx. It has yet to come to terms with Gramsci.
I think “hate” here should be extended to “distrust.” My MIL is conservative, certainly loves her husband (to whom she’s been happily married nearly 50 years), son, and grandsons, but she always gives the benefit of the doubt to women. Upon hearing of a woman with a 3-month-old baby who left her husband, my MIL thought that he must have been beating her, because why else would she do such a thing?
(PS In case it wasn’t clear: I think Dalrock’s definition is a generally useful one, more so than “feminists hate men.”)
On-topic for once. This is parody – for now, maybe:
https://babylonbee.com/news/student-kicked-out-of-class-for-asking-feminist-professor-how-women-are-simultaneously-powerful-and-helpless-victims-of-patriarchy/
alt-right-women-are-upset-that-alt-right-men-are-treating-them-terribly
Translation: Wimminz seeking to infiltrate/co-opt/destroy yet another male-dominated entity are faux-shocked that alt-right men will have none of it.
Translation: Wimminz seeking to infiltrate/co-opt/destroy yet another male-dominated entity are faux-shocked that alt-right men will have none of it.
That Salon article is an excellent find for this post. It’s all right there in a few short sentences.
Alt-right men are harming their women. Alt-right men need stop the alt-right men from doing this.
Bonus points – I’m tougher than you due to withstanding more internet words directed at me than you ever have or will.
My definition of a Feminist is a woman who wants equality in everything, except responsibilities and outcomes.
It is a passive-aggressive hate in many cases.
I tried to figure out my exwife because she seems to respect her dad, but not me. I think I realize that while she “loves her dad” she also despises him in many ways and sees him poorly, even though that is not clear on the outside. She even got him to pay for the initial divorce costs.
My wife strongly opposed those like Hillary Clinton and what she considered feminists, but she followed the exact same script to get back to “being in control of her own life’ in spite of it being rebellion against the Scriptures. She was intensely feminist, far more than I realized for quite some time.
Woman cop walks into wrong apartment (thinking its hers) and shoots and kills a man: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/man-shot-killed-by-off-duty-dallas-police-officer-who-walked-into-wrong-apartment/287-591760228
Dallas, TX — Dallas police say one of their officers was going home after her shift when she walked into the wrong apartment and shot the man inside.
The officer was in full uniform just after 10 p.m. Thursday evening when she walked into an apartment unit she believed to be her own at the 1200 block of South Lamar, about a quarter-mile from the Dallas Police Department.
The victim has been identified as 26-year-old Botham Shem Jean.
While inside, she pulled her firearm and shot Jean. He later died at the hospital from his injuries.
The unnamed officer is now on administrative leave. DPD says they are conducting a joint investigation with the DA.
She didn’t even know which friggin’ apartment was hers?! Why was she a cop?
Why is the officer “unnamed”? You can be sure if it was a guy that shot, his name would be all over the papers and the web.
Are y’all excited? I know I am!
The only true alt-right is the androsphere, as it anything that is right-wing has to be a small-government ideology. Feminism cannot survive without a big government.
Race nationalism, while described as ‘alt-right’, is a very left-wing ideology (Hitler was left-wing, as was the KKK). It wants economic socialism, and has almost total overlap with feminism. Race nationalists are among the biggest woman-worshippers around.
@purge187
“why was she a cop”
Affirmative action hire…
I saw an advert on the side of a bus the other day, said “Your baby has you, you have WIC”. and there it was.
Man loves woman, but it seems woman loves the STATE more. 😉
Anon is a big supporter of the Raj, as indeed am I. India for the Indians? “Certainly not” I replied to Prime Minister Attlee (champagne socilaist) “that’s waaaaayccciiist and also very left wing”. Can’t think why he didn’t take my advice. Now of course we pay tribute to India (but they call it Foreign Aid) £92,000,000 last year – headline in Tuesday’s Mail. My neighbour’s a Bangla (Bangla passport too – very nice man I’d say even though he is Muslim).
British Police carry no weapons which now seems very wise – not that that stops them when given a temporary firearm from shooting unarmed men whilst in their beds (one of my cases). Obviously one of the usual suspects – so American visitors may rest in peace whilst on their travels.
There is a corollary to Dalrock’s law of Feminism that is specific to churchgoing feminists. Something like this:
“Christian Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to force women to do evil, and only Good Women can control men and stop their evil ways”.
Probably too verbose, but with a little rewrite I bet that it would be easy to get the Gregoires and the Rachel Held Evans etc. to sign on. Not to mention most of the usual aging celebrity pastors.
Of course pedestalizing women is idol-worship by definition, but so what?
Jesus wasn’t just black, she was also a woman.
@Anonymous Reader
I would venture as to say that Christian Feminism is an almost entirely Protestant and post-Vatican II Catholic phenomenon. Of course, these two religions do make up the bulk of religious practice in the West, but it is important to note that other Christian doctrines do not allow for such Olympic level mental gymnastics. I have been to Orthodox churches before and in such churches one may still see women with their heads covered. I plan to visit a Catholic church this Sunday that still practices the traditional pre-Vatican II Latin mass, and I shall see what the score is there.
Naturally, I do not mean to say that all Protestants and Catholics are feminist. Indeed, the Dutch SGP is the only anti-feminist political party with parliamentary representation that I know of and it is an explicitly Calvinist organization.
I would venture as to say that Christian Feminism is an almost entirely Protestant and post-Vatican II Catholic phenomenon
You would be wrong on both counts, but especially in terms of time. Mary Woolstonecraft was long dead before Vatican II, just to pick one example.
Culture plays a role as well; feminism is most viral in the Anglospheric countries (UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, India, etc.). Those countries are a mix of Protestant and Catholic, excluding India. There are plenty of Catholic feminists. The further away one moves culturally the less viral. Eastern European feminism comes from a different cultural source (Marxism) than Anglosphere, plus the Eastern church(es) are culturally differerent from the Western – the split is 800 years old, remember. There’s a huge cultural gap between East and West in many ways, I’m not qualified to discuss in detail. Scott can touch it if he wants.
In the US feminism 2.0 post 1950’s is simply a logical outgrowth of feminism 1.0 of the 19th and early 20th centuries. One of feminism 1.0’s victories was the prohibition of alcohol, which was supposed to tame bad men. While this was mainly a Protestant effort (the Methodist church was heavily involved, and suffered a backlash) the push to give women votes cut across all denominational lines. Both Prohibition and women’s suffrage were enacted in the US in the same year. Prohibition was an almost immediate failure and was repealed after 15 years….
Returning to my point: over and over and over again we see churchgoing ladybloggers fretting endlessly about how horrid it would be if some poor, unfortunate woman were to actually submit to her husband who then turned around and ordered her to rob a bank or hijack an airliner or participate in a giant orgy or … or … or … and so it’s just common sense for women to remain in a state of perpetual rebellion against those evil men who dare to try to love them! For their own protection they must rebel! Forever!
“Hysteria” is a word with real meaning.
@Oscar
Don’t forget “Enough” with Jennifer Lopez and “The Brave One” with Meg Ryan! 🙄
Wonder Woman, anyone? LOL
No wonder girls today think they can “dare” guys to hit them or start attacking men with total impunity. They think movies where a skinny woman with a broken arm can beat an army of Arnold Schwarzeneggers and walk away into the sunset. 🙄
The problem for them is men are beginning to fight back. Once men begin to loosen morer and more and give the Feminist what they ALLEGEDLY want (equality), punching a woman back will become much more commonplace in America.
My definition of feminism: “We women will do what we please shall be whole of the law.”
That’s it. Period.
Yes. The majority of them are pathological liars. It’s one of many reasons why they should be strictly controlled by force of law. They can’t get what they want by physical force so they must constantly lie and deceive in order to get it.
Like I said, they can’t get what they want by physical force so they must constantly lie and deceive in order to get it. It’s just a bullshit excuse to be disobedient.
@Red Pill Latecomer
This post is date-stamped, so you can come here in a couple months and see my prediction: she is gonna walk!!!
This Dallas cop, who is surely guilty (by her own admission) of manslaughter (3rd degree murder, possibly carrying up to 5 years in DOC), heck she is possibly guilty of a 2nd degree murder (can get up to 25 years prison) will get NO punishment at all if found guilty. At the most she will get probation if found guilty, because there is no way she will get any jail time. If she is found not guilty, the national media will yawn.
This should be a sure-guilty verdict case. But she is gonna sit there crying, probably gonna say she was afraid the man was gonna rape her, etc etc…. she is gonna walk.
A few months back, we saw a female cop in Oklahoma execute an unarmed large male during a traffic stop (caught on dashcam) and she was found “not guilty”. Her defense? Fear of her life!!! 🙄 In OK case, the female cop cannot restrain a man who is twice her size, so she used her handgun and executed him.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/14/betty-shelby-tulsa-cop-acquitted-in-shooting-death-terence-crutcher-resigns-from-police-force.html
I worked 6 years in Immi and Criminal law and I have seen this movie over and over before and spoiler alert: it ends with female walking away scotch free.
I have seen this so often it is not even funny. I worked in a first degree murder case back in 2004 where this guy’s girlfriend convinced him to kill his estranged wife, she gets him the gun and she sets whole plan in motion and this dunce does it, even though he is a junkie and is doped up most of the time. The prosecutor and the jury hear all this and the girlfriend does not even get charged with any crime…. like accessory after the fact (she threw away the gun) or conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The dunce got life in prison w/o parole for listening to the woman and illing the wife. 😡 The girlfriend’s defense /excuse “oh officers, he threatened to kill me if I did not help him”. And they never charged her. Just incredible.
Hillary Clinton abandons Americans to die in Benghazi and then lies under oath about it, she works a backroom deal and sells 1/3 of American Uranium reserves for cash donations to her “foundation” to Russia (the “UraniumOne” scandal), lies under oath about it all, and she gets to run for president and gets a total pass for her endless list of crimes. Trump gets merely accused by the media via a fictitious Dossier and his entire presidency is on hold and under suspicion and the lives of many of his staffers, including a career General are ruined.
We see female teachers banging 10 year old boys and they get fired from their jobs and get an overnighter in jail and that is about it. https://relampagofurioso.com/the-hidden-face-of-sex-offenders-in-americas-public-schools/
This girl here beats up her little kids with wooden sticks and leaves them all bruised, she gets no punishment at all and she even brags she will get custody in a few months, even with evidence of violence and abuse of children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4864432/Mother-bashed-baby-brags-not-jailed.html
Women routinely are caught making false rape accusations against men and when caught (felony in many States to make false criminal accusations), they get probation or a few days of community service and a small cash fine. This is called a “Poosy Pass” (PP).
Our justice system only works against men. Women get a PP.
If I ever sit on a jury, there is NO WAY I would ever believe anything a woman tells me. Unless there is real evidence, I just assume what she is saying is 100% fake. I see them coming to the office and lying openly and unabashedly all the time.
@ ChristianCool
I’ve been to places where men hitting the women in their household is the norm (mostly, but not exclusively, Muslim countries). They’re all uncivilized shit-holes. I doubt the people pushing this garbage understand where it leads.
ChristianCool,
There was a male cop right beside/behind her at the time shots were fired. Why didn’t he restrain the suspect? How many cops can single-handedly physically restrain any uncooperative suspect? From what I’ve seen on Live PD, it’s likely to take three or more cops to do that.
There’s a lot more to that case than what you are providing, and it was a far cry from an “execution”. I do not think women should be cops on general patrol duty, but I suggest you leave that example out of your anti-female cop ranting unless you want to show your ignorance of the facts of it.
@FSG (@FSpeedGaming)
I don’t agree. Feminism is the proposition that traditional feminine roles (mother, homemaker) and the duties they entail (chastity, modesty, submission) are optional, while traditional masculine roles are obligatory and non-negotiable.
Actually, I think you do.
Here’s what I got from your post (with my additions):
Feminism is the proposition that traditional feminine roles (mother, homemaker) and the duties they entail (chastity, modesty, submission) are optional, and men that demand them from women are evil and unreasonable, while traditional masculine roles, which often result in taking responsibility for the wellbeing of women and children, are obligatory and non-negotiable.
I believe you are saying the exact same thing Dalrock said in his “law”, only in a different way.
Dave — “Society will never sympathize with the unjustly ruined man, but it might come to fear his wrath.”
Oh it already fears male anger. Bigtime. That’s why it’s effectively illegal for a male to express anger towards a female. Including verbally. Yes the ‘authorities’ will put you in their mancages for it. Then pat one another on the back for a job well done. Then go to church.
The Gyno-boot remains fixed on the male face 24/7, no holidays off, and the reason for that is that the western matriarchies well understand that the way to keep male mouths shut, and male bodies in obedience, is to terrorize men and boys. They’re usually more subtle about terrorizing little boys, as it must be arranged so as to appear they are ‘only enforcing equality’ or ‘just trying to protect girls’ or etc.
None of this is in the least accidental. Western intel has been all over this for many, many decades. Long before the ‘laws’ began propagation. They want no uprisings from their subjects and they see to that carefully.
ChristianCool —
Right on the button. Illustrations, too.
Young females become inured to the power and attention they receive from males. When females pass their sell-by, they are uniformly ENRAGED that ‘men’ and the ‘patriarchy’ have stolen this power from them, and awarded it to OTHER females.
This is the heart, the fulcrum. Satan, the State, and the ‘church’ then leverage and manipulate this (guaranteed and ongoing) rage to . . . well do exactly what I’ve witnessed in America the past half-century. Eventually it becomes fully unconscious and accepted that womens’ rage at growing older must be met by severe punishments of boys/men, and endlessly more empowerments, privileges, separate ‘laws’, and etc. for the Protected Class.
Females don’t think about the equivalent experience for males, because females (outside Biblical marriage and family) care for nothing except themselves. For example, females had little/no interest in me prior to about age 30. This did not enrage me, it simply was what it was, and I went on with other aspects of my life. Tra la.
After 30, female interest increased significantly, and has never let up since, regardless of my own interest in them. I’m mid-sixties now, and there is still no slowing down. This absolutely infuriates western females; however, they cared not a whit about my intense interest in them from 12 -30, and their lack of reciprocity, to say nothing of disdain. Nobody matters but Them.
Now that the State and Church are female tools, there is nobody left to tell them any truth that they hate. Women will GLADLY destroy all of civilization in ‘revenge’ for growing older. And scream they are oppressed victims the whole while. It ain’t a joke I wish it were.
@Anonymous Reader
I cannot find any reference to Mary Wollstonecraft being Catholic; according to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wollstonecraft/, she “abhorred” Catholicism, which I suppose is only natural for a feminist Brit.
Recall that we were only discussing specifically Christian feminism, which I took to mean “the justification of feminist dogma using Christian scripture”, as we see today. Of course there were feminists who were Christian centuries ago, but I find it doubtful that they were turning to Christianity as the source of their arguments. Any who were I would suspect were almost certainly Protestant, again, because of the lack of authoritative validity inherent in Protestantism. But nonetheless, I admit to not having read the relative literature. If you are more familiar with it, then I will concede with the conclusion that the rot in the Catholic church goes much deeper than I thought.
Mary Woolstencraft died in childbirth in 1797, (the year Gt Gt Grandmother Opus was born). It would be pretty unlikely that Woolstencraft was Roman Catholic.
We live in a bubble. My friend had never heard the term white-knighting when I used it this evening. We agreed that the term faggott was an Americanism and that faggot was a meatball as well as meaning a bundle of firewood.
Baboon, I am not interested in playing “Protestant Vs. Catholic”; the 30 Years War does not need to be refought. You claimed that feminism didn’t really come into effect until after Vatican II, yet that obviously isn’t the case. It is trivial to find feminists in various denominations in the Angloshere
So, what is your point? Is it just Prot-bashing, or is there something else you wish to discuss?
No I did not. What I was referring to when I made that statement is not the timeframe, but the people, which I had thought had been clarified with my later statements. What I was implying is that Vatican II gave Catholics enough authoritative leeway to justify feminism using Scripture and that feminism that is specifically Christian was not a force in Catholicism until after the conference. Similarly, I would expect those that continue to practice in a pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition to be much less feminist.
Do you have a point, or is this just an exercise in “Prots Bad!”? If the latter, I’m sure you and Jeff Strand can have some quality time together.
@Baboon
If you are serious and not just trolling, I would suggest you read the entire series Dalrock wrote on this site regarding the Cult of Courtly Love. Or read the bio of Eleanor of Acquitane to pick one example. Or both. Because some big chunks of what we call “feminism” just happen to be centuries old; predating Vatican II, predating the US, predating the Reformation, predating Columbus.
If you are keen on the game of “Just return to mah Golden Age” then I have zero interest. There never was a golden age.
If you have some other point, then please consider actually making it.
Opus,
Now of course we pay tribute to India (but they call it Foreign Aid) £92,000,000 last year – headline in Tuesday’s Mail.
That is a miniscule sum relative to what was extracted over 190 years (1757-1947), but I agree that it should end. That money should be given to Pakistan instead, since that is a problem specifically of Britain’s creation.
We agreed that the term faggott was an Americanism and that faggot was a meatball as well as meaning a bundle of firewood.
Ray,
Unfortunately many Christian wives think it is all about them too. That would probably not completely meet the “Biblical marriage and family” standard you note, but many Christian wives think it does. Too many pastors indirectly feed it too, to the detriment of all in their congregations, both male and female.
Pingback: Eve Ill Idolaters | Σ Frame
She didn’t even know which friggin’ apartment was hers?! Why was she a cop?
Are you seriously implying that the typical cop has an IQ significantly north of freezer temperature? I’d like to visit your planet someday and see that for myself.
Even children usually have a good idea where they live.
Even children usually have a good idea where they live.
Most pet dogs do too. Leave a dog half a mile away, and it will find its way back quickly. Even among a row of identical townhouses, it won’t go to the wrong door.
BaboonTycoon
I would venture as to say that Christian Feminism is an almost entirely Protestant and post-Vatican II Catholic phenomenon
I parsed this as an inclusive “and”: “Feminism requires two factors, Protestantism and Vatican II”.
In a pseudo-equation: Protestantism + Vatican II = Feminism.
This parsing states that no feminism existed prior to Vatican II, i.e. the 1950’s, and that if Protestantism did not exist neither would feminism. I have a deep, abyssal reservoir of scorn and contempt for those who retcon or rewrite history, and this statement appeared to be just another one such.
However, on review, I may have parsed the sentence incorrectly. If that is the case, my apologies to BaboonTycoon.
V2 has been blamed for a lot of things but for feminism that’s a first. Especially as Anon Reader pointed out feminism (even with Christian women) existed much longer before V2 came about. Heck if you wanted to go back to women being rebellious to lawful authority like God & husband you can go back to Eve.
A book I read (Ungodly Rage) stated that militant feminism didn’t really start worming into the US churches & convents until the late 70s and moreso the 80s. Nothing about V2 was talked about…it was more women trying to force a wordly doctrine into the church doctrine.
Considering important things in feminism like birth control and abortion have both been stated and restated…before and after V2 as grave evils that no Catholic should be doing.
@Anonymous Reader
I am scarcely even arguing, I am speculating, and what I am saying has very little to do with the question of when certain things happened.
Your own two examples are almost completely irrelevant because courtly love is not a Christian concept, as Dalrock repeatedly explained, and Eleanor of Aquitaine, as far as I can tell, only used the Church for her own convenience and was not much of an actual believer. However, I will say about courtly love that it is a decent illustration of an attempt to subvert Christian principles. They were not so clever in those days, and so they took an artifact of medieval European culture and attempted to graft it onto Christianity via historical revisionism since they could find no justification for gynocentric concepts in the Bible itself (or at least none that people would take seriously in that time).
But that is what I have been talking about all along, if you will refer back to the second post I made in this discussion. I am not talking about Christians who are also feminists. I’m talking about feminists using Christianity to justify feminism. The difference between the two is the difference between the average modern Christian woman and the Sheila Gregoires of the world, and again, my original post was that the latter seems to be mostly found among Protestant and Novus Ordo Catholics, at least in my eyes.
And I bring this up because it begs several questions should it be true. Is it more the result of the culture, the doctrine, or the people itself that causes this? As a collorary, those religions for which this appears to be a rarer phenomenon, what is it about them that causes this to be rarer? The answer for that would seem obvious, but rationalization seems to be the strongest force in female psychology. is this a uniform phenomenon? I brought up earlier the anti-feminist Calvinists in the Netherlands earlier; could there be more groups like them among Protestants that we don’t know about? I just want to learn, really.
@BT
Unless a Church is strictly teaching AGAINST feminism by adhering to the patriarchal model, ANY Church will gravitate towards feminism under cultural pressure.
The SGP is not a Church, but represents a Calvinist tradition that upholds a patriarchal model. The Dutch government was raging mad that this political party would not allow female members, and finally able to enforce “equality” upon the SGP under force of withholding subsidies, which caused the SGP to cave in. They are no longer allowed to promote anti-feminism. Glorious free speech and freedom of religion and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party
The SGP opposes feminism, and concludes, on Biblical grounds, that men and women are of equal value but not equal . Men and women, so the party claims, have different places in society. This belief led to restricting party membership to men until 2006, when this restriction became subject to controversy and was eventually removed. It has traditionally opposed universal suffrage, seeking to replace this with a form of “organic suffrage” restricted to male heads of households. In the 2018 local elections, the party for the first time allowed several women to lead lists.
What feminists have campaigned for ever since coverture they have gained and made the norm and the ocean we swim in.
@BillyS
The scriptures say that the holy spirit in Christians guides them to truth. They that remain deceived in regards to righteousness are unsaved and unregenerate. They that rebel against God without regret and eventual repentance arent saved.
This post could use a restatement of Jim McDonald’s concept of The Feminine Imperative:
Women must always follow their gina tingles, because only good things will happen if they do; and if something bad happens, it must be a man’s fault.
The SGP is not a Church, but represents a Calvinist tradition that upholds a patriarchal model. The Dutch government was raging mad that this political party would not allow female members, and finally able to enforce “equality” upon the SGP under force of withholding subsidies, which caused the SGP to cave in. They are no longer allowed to promote anti-feminism. Glorious free speech and freedom of religion and such.
An organization like that had no business accepting government subsidies in the first place. That they not only accepted them, but apparently DEPENDED on them tells me that they were compromised from the very beginning and thus deserved to fail.
This is yet another example of why Western Europe is in a state of accelerated collapse. Even “anti-Statists” depend on welfare from the very state that they are (ostensibly) opposed to. I haven’t ever known a Western European –not a single one– who wasn’t ultimately a die-hard welfare statist.
The scriptures say that the holy spirit in Christians guides them to truth. They that remain deceived in regards to righteousness are unsaved and unregenerate. They that rebel against God without regret and eventual repentance arent saved.
Exactly. Using this simple yardstick, we can see how minuscule is the population of the truly saved.
Speaking of the Dallas cop who apparently forgot where she lived (which seemed fishy)…there might just be more to that story (if this internet rumor is true).
Anon says:
September 7, 2018 at 10:07 am
The only true alt-right is the androsphere, as it anything that is right-wing has to be a small-government ideology. Feminism cannot survive without a big government.
Race nationalism, while described as ‘alt-right’, is a very left-wing ideology (Hitler was left-wing, as was the KKK). It wants economic socialism, and has almost total overlap with feminism. Race nationalists are among the biggest woman-worshippers around.
You couldn’t be more wrong if you thought Hillary was an antifeminist pro-white anti-socialist Constitutionalist. You REALLY need to learn more about the subject. While there are a few, a very few white nationalists who have not take the Red Pill, most have. Here is a good starting point for you.
https://infogalactic.com/info/16_Points_of_the_Alt_Right
01) The Alt Right is fully right wing, unlike so-called cuckservativism
02) The Alt Right is an alternative to conservatism, neoconservatism, and libertarianism
03) The Alt Right believes in a realistic path to victory
04) The Alt Right is pro-Western
05) The Alt Right is pro-nationalism for everyone
06) The Alt Right is anti-globalist
07) The Alt Right believes all people are different and unequal, as are all racial groups
08) The Alt Right believes in science but opposes scientific culture
09) The Alt Right believes identity is the foundation of politics
10) The Alt Right believes each ethnic group should run its own land
11) The Alt Right believes different groups occupying the same land will fight
12) The Alt Right doesn’t care about political correctness or being liked
13) The Alt Right opposes international free trade and favors appropriate protectionism
14) The Alt Right favors the white race and white nationalism
15) The Alt Right believes all races have their own strengths and shouldn’t dominate each other
16) The Alt Right believes in peace through separation and good borders
In theory, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”. In practice, “Feminism is the radical notion that men aren’t people”.
@OKRickety
I cannot believe I just read this from you. 😮 I am not one to be easily outraged, honestly. But I am shocked.
That Oklahoma female cop EXECUTED an un-armed US citizen without even trying to retrain, arrest, or use pain compliance (pepper spray, billy club, Tazer, etc). The OK female cop, as you point out correctly, did not even wait for male cop to come over and try to subdue and arrest the suspect.
Here is video and sketch of the incident. There were 3 additional male cops there. The male suspect was walking with hands UP, and she supposedly gets “scared of him”, pulls out her firearm and shoots to death a man who is 100%, clearly un-armed! The suspect was ALREADY BEING TAZED by male officer right there.
I have worked over 700 cases total in my Paralegal career and now Law School student. I had over 140 cases assigned to me on average per year, 90%+ were criminal and immigration cases. Cops, many times, will single-handedly subdue suspects all the time. In fact, I can think about 3 cases right now where 1 police officer just Tazered suspect twice (15sec electrical discharge per triggerpull) and hit suspects with baton on legs and arms a couple times if needed and suspect surrenders. 99% of suspects will surrender after Tazer and if not, a couple whacks with baton on center-mass region or pepper spray will get them to stop.
In my hometown, Orlando, FL, cops are HUGE, and they are almost all steroid-laden monsters. Funny thing, we have a large Brazilian population in Orlando and Brazilians and steroids are like bread and butter, and it is very… uh… interesting the Brazilians that get caught by cops there with steroids at gyms never seem to get arrested (and I have heard many stories). The cops just take their steroids, let’s suspect go, and probably go home right away and become massive 300+lbs monsters.
Even Officer LardBucket and Officer Skinny out there will Tazer and pepper spray suspects that resist. Cops have an array of tools to subdue suspect. And if cop cannot do his or her job, then QUIT and go work desk duty at HQ or go work in supermarket bagging groceries.
Regardless, a street cop is not a “super judicial officer”, where they get to hand out death sentences for the judicially un-convicted crime of resisting arrest, which is either 3rd or 4th Degree felony in most States, carrying max 5 years DOC, some States resisting carries 1 year DoC, sometimes less. Death is not an appropriate sentence for that offense, even if convicted in court of law. How can that female cop think she is above the law? What is this, a Steven Seagal movie? 🙄
I am absolutely astounded by what I read. I really am. To think Americans who may refuse to comply with a street cop can be, without any due process of law under US Constitution, be tried, sentenced, and executed by a street cop is absolutely astounding.
So what’s next? Some dude decides not to sign a speeding ticket (which is a huge mistake, btw, since signing traffic citation is NOT admission of guilt, it is just a “receipt of citation” so it avoids requiring State to serve defendants using a Process Server) and what’s next?
Officer can billy club them down on the head and take cash for citation, if the citizen refuses to sign? How about if guy decides not to sign and walks away? How about the cop just skins out that smokewagon and get to work and lights up the dude dead? After all, the suspect became uncooperative. 🙄
Is this what we want? Cops adjudicating cases on side of the road in seconds and carrying out sentencing suspects right there on side of the road, like Judge Dredd? 😮
Maybe The USA should become Iran, China, or North Korea and get it over with. 🙄 Over there cops do execute people on the spot for minor offenses. Until we officially repeal the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, ANY cop that simply pulls out a gun and shoots down an un-armed American citizen on the side of the road, for the offense of “being uncooperative” or even resisting arrest, IS a murderer.
That OK cop executed that man on live camera. She only got away because she is FEMALE and got a PP (Poosy Pass). A MALE officer would be serving 30-to-life right now for same situation, regardless of how skinny/weak/afraid that male could would be.
So YES, that Tulsa, OK female cop executed a man right there on side of road. He got no due process, he was judged, juried, and executed by a street cop.
@earl
Write this down: SHE IS GONNA WALK! I will be surprised if the Dallas cop that executed that guy in his own home after “mistakenly going into his apartment”, is not gonna be found guilty! And in the unlikely event she is found guilty of something (which will be a reduce charge, no way she is gonna be charged with 1st degree murder with firearm, which in Texas carries death penalty). But in the unlikely event she gets convicted of reduced murder charge, from 2nd degree murder to a misdemeanor manslaughter (it IS Texas after all), she will get probation and/or community service and some cash restitution.
Mark my words: she is gonna say he tried to rape her or threatened her life or that she was confused and scared…. She is gonna cry, she will lose weight before trial to look weak and feeble and emanciated. Her lawyers will get the most menacing photos of the man using Discovery (legal cporcess where her lawyers can request and get almost limitless amounts of evidence, documents, data, etc etc) and they will go on the dead man’s FaceBook and they will show the jury this big scary black man and this frightening abuse-victim thin small woman, who just wants to go home and not be raped and beaten by this monster. She is gonna walk, even a conviction = she still walks with probation.
Just imagine this headline: Male Dallas cops “mistakenly enters an apartment” and kills a female. The national media would be in an uproar. CNN would park a truck outside his home and ask questions like “officer, why do you hate women? Are you a mysogynist?”. Hillary Clinton will be claiming she lost the election because of people like this cop… Samnatha Bee would have a whole show dedicated to male cops that kill women.
The lack of media interest in this case tells it all. Worst case scenario, she works out a deal with Dallas PD for a dismissal of her job and gets some of her pension and benefits. But real consequences? Nah.
In Colorado where I am attending law school, there is a type of “affirmative defense” from State Statutes (actual law, not judicial decision/precedent) where women can claim in court after murdering or trying to murder a male victim, which amounts to a bad case of PMS defense (essentially “menstrual emotional reaction”) rendered the woman “temporarily insane”, which is a defense that wipes out all guilt and calls for some medical counseling at a plesant, green, lush mental facility (at taxpayers expense, of course). A year or two, she is out, scotch free.
The laws in our country are so bad now, there is a special category in 15 different States called the “Battered Woman Syndrome” defense for women who commit violent crimes, where a woman basically “snaps” and murders her “abusive spouse” man legally. This defense may be invoked by women ONLY, because as we all know, all men are either rapists or violent to innocent women. 🙄
You guys ever heard of Andrea Yates who killed 5 kids by drowning them in bathtub?? Yates got NOTHING as punishment for a quadruple homicide!!! Yates was “temporarily insane” by her periods and “post-partum depression” and WALKED. She got some counseling and that is it. Think a man who kills 4 of his own kids can do that?? 🙄 Come on, people! 🙄
The media considers Andrea Yates, the murderer, to be the real victim, not the 5 murdered children!!! Andrea said “she had to murder the kids or they would be tormented by Satan”!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769609/Andrea-Yates-grieves-day-five-children-drowned-tub-15-years-ago-likely-never-leave-Texas-mental-hospital.html
How about Lorena Bobbitt who cut her husband’s penis out while he slept and tossed it out? The man (the victim) was mocked and ridiculed on TV for months; late night comedians laughed at this man endlessly for months. Imagine this headline: “man cuts woman’s breasts off and tosses them away”. National outrage!!! How come only a man who has been physically dismembered gets made fun of??
(Lorena was found “not guilty” after she claimed husband abused and threatened her!!! The jury found Lorena not guilty due to insanity causing an irresistible impulse to sexually wound John).
How about Mary Carol Winkler (from Tennessee) who murdered her pastor husband with shotgun while he slept ❗ because he allegedly (no proof) demanded she wears high heels for him in bed? She got 210 days jail, but was not even sent to jail, the judge sent her to mental evaluation.
There is a book by Dr. Warren Farrell, Ph.D, about women using the most absurd affirmative defenses in court and getting away with violent crimes AGAINST MEN and against children, including murder and sexual battery of a child. It is amazing how unjust American courts are when it is a male vs. female case.
In this Dallas fem-cop case the prosecutors can show a video of her banging this guy, dating this guy, hanging out with this guy, surveillance camera of her coming in and out of this guy’s house, etc etc. It will not matter, because Americans have been conditioned to believe a woman under any and all circumstances. She will tell her story, cry, and jury will buy it.
This Dallas female cop is gonna walk.
You can take that to the bank.
I agree with Dalrock’s ‘Law’ on Feminism.
And, being that Feminism is a lie, and the opposite is true: ‘The truth is the assertion that women are evil and naturally want to harm men*, followed by pleas to women to solve all of men’s problems**.’
*Genesis 3:16: women’s desire to take the rule of men and necessarily rebel to do this, and rebellion is the sin of witchcraft and witchcraft has as its leader/father Satan.
**The ONLY problem men have [in rule/dominion Genesis 3:16] is women stealing their authority. All other relational problems are symptoms of that ongoing illness, for she models all rebellion for Satan. THE HEALING OF THE CHURCH STARTS WITH WOMEN TAKING THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE.
ChristianCool,
If those videos you linked are indicative of your news sources, then I understand how you have your beliefs. If so, I recommend you get more information.
Really? You’re going to argue that a woman cop will get away with this, but a man wouldn’t? You must have missed the obligatory SJW training where the argument is that ANY white cop is going to get away with killing a black person. I don’t try to keep up with all cases of this type, but I was under the impression that cops only got prison time in egregious instances, such as the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston.
Again, I know it’s reality TV, but, from what I’ve seen of the behavior of criminals on Live PD, they will act so stupidly you wonder if they have a brain.
Oh yeah if I was betting on it…I’d definately go that route.
Considering how fishy the story was from the beginning…you know something else was going on. How do you forget where you live and then just shoot somebody in their home? The level of excuses women come up with and get away with it is amazing.
Feminism is Eve eats all the apples, gives God the middle finger when He asks her about it, and has the snake present Adam with a restraining order, ordering him to stay 500 yards away while still being forced to provide Eve food, clothing, and shelter.
How about we do a little test. Follow these 4 steps and test out my assertion about crime and gender:
1) Go to any news website (FoxNews, WND, etc etc). Take ANY female crime (murder, sexual assault of a minor…. just any heinous crime you want).
2) Swap out the word “female” for “male” in the exact criminal news article or police arrest report. Do not change anything else.
3) Watch how outraged people become! “Men again hurting women”, says Oprah during her TV special about this “national trend”. National outrage everywhere and anyone who dares defy that narrative is called a misogynist and apologist. Calls to end male violence against women marches in usual places (Madison WI, NYC, S#itcago, San Fran, etc)! Calls to end the Patriarchy are heard hundreds of times a second on Tweeter and the “usual suspect” sources! CNN/MSNBC spend entire days talking about the “growing wave of violence” against women”…. It becomes an endless outrage-fest.
4) Once crime is adjudicated by a Court of jurisdiction: It is probation/time served/counseling for her, hard prison time for him. Swap “male defendant” for “female defendant” and sentence goes from harsh to none at all. I saw this ALL the time at work.
Clearly, there is a world of difference between men and women committing the exact same crimes under the exact same circumstances. The female Dallas cop, the female Tulsa OK cop… and say a male cop accidentally shooting someone, like the officer in SF subway that pulled his gun instead of a Tazer and shot a guy accidentally and killed an unarmed resisting suspect.
You guys are kidding yourselves if you think men and women are treated the same way in ANY court proceeding. No… It is NOT “just family courts” that practice grossly obvious bias against men. It is EVERY COURT where there is a male vs. female dynamic involved.
If it is man vs. woman, the man always loses. To think otherwise is a total lack of awareness our corrupt judicial system.
The ONLY way to fix this is for men to understand this and NOT believe women about whatever they say in court proceedings and demand sentencing, divorce, and legal parity.
Men in juries need to stop believing women in court if there is no evidence to back-up her words because she is almost certainly lying. Jurors need to get it in their heads that men are not always guilty because a woman is accusing him. In my experience, women victimize men more often than the other way around. This travesty of justice has gone on too long in our country.
@OKRickety
No, these videos just demonstrated what happened. I did a quick search late night and posted it. I get my news mostly from TV (Fox) and online websites, like Breitbart.
There is no question that Tulsa, OK female cop executed that guy on side of the road for no reason at all. It is crystal clear on video. The testimony and reports from ALL other officers there say same thing. The guy was un-armed and he was already being tazred. She was “scared” and executed guy. The jury sees black men as dangerous and white women are frail victims and they declared her “not guilty”. It is that simple.
You are looking at this from a NARROW point of view. You need to see this IN CONTEXT. ❗ Andrea Yates (drowns 5 little kids)… Lorena Bobbitt (penis-cutter), Mary Carol Winkler (from Tennessee, who executes husband with shotgun while he slept)…. thousands of female teachers who have sex with boys as young as 10. How about the “mother of the year” that beats her little kids with wooden objects and bruise them up badly and get community service and guaranteed custody afterwards (see: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4864432/Mother-bashed-baby-brags-not-jailed.html ).
The ONLY common thread among all the aforementioned cases is they are ALL WOMEN and they get NO PRISON time at all. They get a slap on the wrist (probation or mental counseling), IF THAT. That is known in legal circles as a “PP” (Poosy Pass). We casually say in cases where wife is caught beating husband with a baseball bat “she is gonna get her PP, let’s focus on divorce proceedings moving ahead”. We don’t even waste time mounting a defense in women-beats-men cases, it is the usual BS in court as we do a “no context” Plea and tell judge “he beats her, he hurt her, he is an abuser etc”. Just watch any Lifetime TV movies and pick a story and tell judge. They believe women because the judges are overwhelmingly left. They are feminists themselves.
Where you are confused is “any white cop”. Any FEMALE cop (regardless of race) can kill any MAN they want with minimum consequence/ risk. Any male cop would be in a world of hurt, especially a white cop.
Understand that white single females are the voting backbone of the Left and Democratic party. Soros “Open Foundation” e-mails were leaked to WikiLeaks. One e-mail said that in Europe, the easiest way to get open borders and welfare for all is to increase female voter turnout to polls. Pick a good looking male leftist candidate to speak feminism and women get to polls and support him. They do not even post or discussion “positions”. They are good looking men who are leftists = mass female turnout. Macron in France and Trudeau in Canada, as easy examples.
Single white females (for now) are THE most protected privilege class in America, hands down. Why do you think there was outrage at the Iowa girl and SF girl who werre both killed by illegal aliens? The victims in both cases were white female (#1 privileged class) and killer was illegal alien (#2 privileged class, quijkcly moving to #1 spot as the Left continues in its anti-Trump crusade).
The left has a whole scale of privilege and the outrage is based on who is higher in privilege scale. Single white females are the largest voting block for Dems, and therefore have to get special privileges. The Left knows women are very short-sighted and once they have a Hispanic majority, like they do in California, they will discard the white females as well (they are “useful idiots”). Look at Blacks in California, one of the core constituencies of the CA Dems. They are losing all power and influence because a) they are a reliable vote block; and b) the Dems need to cater to Latinos and illegal aliens, which is the next privileged group and biggest voting block for the left.
The problem, OkRick, is that unlike you, I work in LEGAL field and have for a long time. I would say 85% to 90% of lawyers make Karl Marx seem reasonable and moderate! 😮 Lawyers are the driving force behind much of the mess America is in right now. Lawyers fund hard-left candidates and Marxist/feminist causes all over the place. They use courts to legislate (judicial decisions in America = law, called “precedent” under English Common law, a terrible system); they use courts to benefit groups they favor (illegal criminal immigrants, women, “minorities”) and to oppress groups they do not like (Christians, white males, Conservatives, etc).
As a Christian Conservative, it bothers me a lot to see this, but it does not change the fact that this is the reality of life in America today. Now in law school, I am seeing this even more often and more clearly than ever. My Law School teaches “legal realism” which is similar to what they teach at Yale Law School.
I will never forget my first day of class for my intro course on Family Law. The professor, a tall older white “old school liberal” wearing a orange bowtie and an ugly gray suit said “if you learn anything during this course will be this: men have responsibilities and obligations; women have rights and privileges. This summaries family law in a nutshell”.
Law professors are not even hiding this anymore. Schools teaching “legal realism” are totally open that the system is rigged. If you attend a “feel good” all-theory Law Schools like Univ CO Boulder law school, you will hear ridiculous platitudes like “the law is blind” and other such crap. Where I attend, it is all real and practical. “The law is whatever the judge says the law is on a given day” –> from Civil Litigation course.
Men need to understand and adjust. Not getting married, not believing women in juries, and pulling out of the system that is designed to destroy them. If you do not think that white males can still make a difference, then go see what happened to Detroit or California. Once the white males move out of the area, the whole system that oppresses them collapses, from courts to public services to safety to tax base to jobs and economic prosperity.
In other news: taking care of children is a full time job, having a job is a full time job, woe is me?!
https://www.wired.com/story/i-am-a-data-scientist-and-mom-but-facebook-made-me-choose/
@earl
Earl posted photos of the Dallas Fem-cop and the guy she executed (see above). She KNEW this guy… but something happened (maybe a break-up?) and for some reason she decided to execute him and make up a preposterous story. 🙄 Killing him may not have been her plan, maybe she went there to confront him and just wound him, and once he died, she started crying afterwards?
What is even worse is how the media is giving HER the benefit of the doubt. 🙄
9/10/2018 UPDATE: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6149453/Texas-Rangers-DELAY-seek-warrant-female-cop-fatally-shot-neighbor.html
Dallas female cop has been charged with… WAIT FOR IT…. Manslaughter!! 🙄 The lowest possible murder charge!! Manslaughter is when someoine is speeding and accidentally kills someone with car… not for this type of thing. Clearly a case where she went there to confront, possibly planned to go and kill this guy (for some reason) and she gets charged with manslaughter (accidental killing)!!!!! 🙄
PP at work, friends. Her risk of prison time just went from 1st Degree Murder (life or death penalty) to 2nd degree murder (“heat of passion murder”, 15-30 years) to manslaughter (max 20 years, but first offense, FEMALE, white… she would get 2-3 max prison, if that long).
Just so you all know, once you are found guilty of a crime, the court orders a PSI (Pre-Sentencing Investigation). A leftist government worker will look at several factors, like race, age, income, prior criminal history, gender…) and recommend court sentence for more or less time than guidelines suggest.
Because she has been charged with accidental killing, Dallas fem-cop prison exposure has been severe limited by getting Manslaughter charge. Now, she is almost all guaranteed NO prison time at all. The game has been rigged to protect the woman before the case even started!! 😮
Here is how it will happen from here on:
The case will go into litigation. If she is smart, she will change her story via her lawyers and say she indeed knew this guy and he beat her, raped her before, etc. She will then say (through lawyers) that she went there to tell him that she was reporting him for rape from before, and he got violent and she killed him accidentally.
She will then keep crying on TV to increase sympathy and will lose weight to seem more feeble and defenseless (just as OJ Simpson took salt tablets to swell up hands so the murder glove wouldn’t fit over a latex glove). Trust me, attorneys do this all the time, they create an image for client and here it is a defenseless, weak, thin, small woman against a monstrous dangerous man (whom she alleges now that hurt and raped her before).
As time passes. media interest will wane and story will fade from news. This helps Dallas fem-killer.
She will plea out to a lesser charge (from an already position of low-criminal exposure to her!), she will ask judge for probation. If judge is black or media turns heat back up on this story, judge might have to give her some jail time to avoid riots. Worst case scenario, Dallas fem-cop will get somewhere between 100-300 days in COUNTY jail, and bam she is done.
I highly doubt she will even do DoC (prison) time or even have a felony on her record.
I am glad we are seeing this live and I am providing background info on how the criminal system works from legal point of view, so you all can see PP system at work. This is a real; thing, it is not some conspiracy. This is taught in law school now as if this level of unfairness is no big deal.
Pingback: Feminists unleash their rage. Men jump off the bandwagon. - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Good catch! | Dalrock
Pingback: Do what she asks, but know in advance that she will take great care to protect herself from feeling gratitude. | Dalrock
Pingback: Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold. | Dalrock
Pingback: What it would look like if the Kendrick brothers made razor blade commercials. | Dalrock
Pingback: When should men take a punch? - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Another Feminist Club Opens Up | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: “Patriarchy Chicken”, a microcosm of feminism. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fake news: Women over 65 are in the SMP power position. | Dalrock