Unfortunately, what she is digging is a grave for her tiny brain. Recently, the lukewarm actress complained of being sworn at after expressing some opinion or other about one of those things where a bunch of men throw their balls at one another.
Now, she’s gone all the way to writing an article for some site or other in which she expands on one set of unproven claims with a second set of unproven claims and throws in a lot of feminist tripe just for the hell of it.
While a reasonable person knows that the internet is full of these things called trolls, who like to make people unhappy just for the lolls, Judd claims it’s all because she’s a wiminz. Her being an actress and all, I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s dumb rather than dishonest when she claims it’s all some sort of patriarchal thing rather than a bunch of jerks going after a soft target. But what really gets me about this whole thing is her insistence that what she experienced is “gender-based violence.”
This latter is a fine example of both Hollywood idiocy and of the dangerous and stealthy way in which feminism redefines terms to suit its own aims. If the idea takes hold that calling someone a nasty name is a type of violence, why would it not eventually become something that can land you in jail? After all, it’s violence and we all know violent people belong in jail. This is dangerous and contemptible even if one does not look further – if one does, then it gets even scarier. If calling Judd a whore is violence, why shouldn’t it be violence to call Obama or Cheney scumbags? Assuming she’s a Democrat (as safe an assumption as one can make, I would wager) she has probably referred to many Republican politicians by all sorts of colorful names. This means, by her own standards, that she has committed acts of violence and should therefore be the subject of police reports the same way her trolls are. She is also claiming that she was threatened with rape, but as she gives no evidence of that I am not taking it seriously. Funny, huh? The most serious charge she has to make and no evidence provided. She has caps of people being mean to her, but does not bother to give us caps of the so-called rape threats. And even if such threats were made, they are not violence, either – just the kind of meaningless threat one sees on the internet all the time. Being a rabid feminist weasel, Judd uses the article to go on about all sorts of claptrap, such as the “what was the rape victim wearing” thing, something which I have only ever seen happen in the minds of deranged feminist weasels. I’m sure it does occasionally happen, but it is so uncommon that I have never actually been witness to that particular bit of stupidity – and god knows i’ve seen plenty of stupidity. Which brings us back to the knuckle-dragging halfwit who wrote the piece, a piece in which she, ironically, complains of being called dumb while also doling out howlers such as these…
“in which my genitals, vaginal and anal, should…”
“an attempted oral rape by yet another adult man.”
That’s right, folks, Ashley Judd, a woman who objects to being called stupid and who thinks her opinions matter, thinks her asshole is part of her genitals! Good thing she never had children. As for “adult man,” what other kind is there? Is the definition of “man” not “an adult, male human”? It is in my world. Let’s face it, anyone this hilariously stupid should not be allowed to write on anything of substance. Indeed, it pretty much makes me wish that sport was the only thing she blabbed about.
Already infamous in MRA circles for her charming tale of how she kicked some boy off his bike then kicked the shit out of him for having slapped her ass, this lame-brained twat of a woman has just put out a video specifically intended to tell us how thoroughly justified her actions were!
Not surprisingly, the thing is loaded with feminist bullshit such as claiming that the boy “violated her” by slapping her ass, something that is meant to conjure up an emotional response that rightly belongs with rape, not with a very mild sexual assault. She also claims the slap left her with “tears in her eyes,” which can be taken to mean that the little fucker has a slap like a Mike Tyson haymaker or, more likely, that he did her some very severe emotional damage, possibly even resulting in a case of PTSD which to this day causes her to have flashbacks every time she sees a tricycle!
She also keeps going on about a power imbalance, while failing to mention that the “guy” in question was 14 years old! Seems to me that, unless he was an especially large 14 year old, that power balance was very small and possibly even in her favor! That, of course, is why the dishonest little dirtbag does not mention the male’s age – she wants us to picture the average American man at around 5’10 and 190 lbs! How do I know the little hoon’s age? Because she has, in the past, admitted it. But I guess since then she has realized it was a mistake to do so…
She also spends a lot of time going on about “defending herself,” something which is clearly a misrepresentation meant to make the boy look like a would-be rapist, despite there being no indications that he was going to do anything that went past the disrespectful. As I see it, the most she could have justifiably done is knock him off the bike and tell him off, kicking him once he was down was clearly excessive by most legal standards. And let’s not forget — we don’t know that he did any of this shit! Maybe she was in a bad mood and he looked at her the wrong way! But even by her own account, he committed a mild sexual assault, she committed assault and battery, so it’s pretty obvious who the thug in this scenario is. As for comparisons to Ray Rice, she is right in that they are unwarranted — Ray Rice didn’t kick his fiancée once she was down!
Nine year old thug-in-the-making Aiden Steward has been suspended from his school by its female head after she found out the little bastard had brought a home-made pipe bomb to class and threatened to “Blow all your bitch asses sky high!” Heroically, Principal Roxanne Greer knocked the kid unconscious with her handbag and then threw herself on the bomb, hoping to absorb the imminent blast. Kids being a bit inept at bomb-making, it turns out the bomb contained no actual explosives and consisted primarily of empty juice boxes and Barbie doll heads. Nonetheless, I commend this brave woman for her heroic intentions and promise to never again call women “a bunch of whiny wankers.”
Of course, that’s not how things really went down. In another fine display of PC-fueled misandry gone apeshit, the fool running the Kermit Elementary School in Frog’s Ass, Texas, suspended the boy after he playfully told a classmate that he could make him vanish using a magic ring like the one in The Hobbit. And by “vanish” he probably meant “make invisible,” but the person in charge – almost certainly Greer, as it is, to the best of my knowledge, the principal who has the final word on these things – chose to see it instead as, wait for it, a terroristic threat! That’s right, folks, Al Qaeda is now sending kiddie terrorists into Amerikan schools armed with magic rings and copies of the Necronomicon – it’s no coincidence that the latter was written by a mad Arab, you know!
When the little boy’s dad asked the school what was going on he was told by the principal, the aforementioned pinhead Roxanne Greer, that magical threats would not be tolerated and that she would say no more because “All student stuff is confidential.” Stuff? I’m surprised she didn’t add, “Like, you know.”
This isn’t some one-off either. The kid has previously been suspended for referring to another student as “black” – this being Texas, the politically correct term is presumably “nigger” – and for, shock! horror!, bringing something called the Big Book of Knowledge to school, because the last thing you want kids in a learning environment to be exposed to is knowledge!
This is clearly a case of PC thuggery, and of a small-minded person being allowed way too much power, but it also smells of anti-male bias. Would a girl be suspended for such peccadilloes? Unlikely. Let’s face it, a girl this age could probably go around school threatening to turn people into frogs, and if anyone suggested suspending her they would have the ACLU complaining that they were oppressing Wiccans!
Once upon a time there was a man called Algernon Shufflebottom, who, to prevent unwanted humorous beats, we will henceforth refer to as Mr. S. Mr. S was a married man, and the father of three young children. “It’s a dangerous world,” Mr. S thought to himself, “So I’d better go out and buy myself a big, intimidating dog to guard the wife and kiddies when I’m not at home!”
So Mr. S went down to the animal shelter and was lucky enough to find a strong looking puppy – a male Rottweiler. As it turns out, the male puppy had been turned in along with his sister, and not wanting to separate the two creatures the soft hearted Mr. S decided to take both puppies. “I’ll train the male to be a guard dog, and the female can be a pet and playmate for the kids,” he told no one in particular.
So Mr. S took the puppies home, and named the male “Badass” and the female “Sweety Pie,” and he treated both dogs well. The only difference was that when it came to Badass, he trained him how to be a guard dog – how to growl whenever a stranger came into the yard, how to attack when commanded, how to tear off people’s arms and legs, how to use an M16, that kind of thing. Sweety Pie, being meant for the home, was trained to be gentle and kind, to help out with the children, and to stay away from things like M16s. In time, as is the wont of such things, the cute little puppies grew into big strong doggies. Late one night, a very suspect character carrying a big bag marked “Stuff what I stole” came into the yard while Mr. S was taking a wiz and the rest of the family were sound asleep. As Mr. S stood at the toilet, he looked out the window and saw Badass dash out of his kennel, sprint across the yard and launch himself against a mysterious figure. “Holy crap,” thought Mr. S, “Badass has caught a burglar!” He pulled up his tighty whities, ran outside, and just as he was calling off Badass, Sweety Pie, who was up late watching re-runs of her favorite soaps and eating cheesecake, rushed out of the house and with a loud snarl latched onto the burglar’s throat. Startled by his sibling’s unexpected actions Badass leapt back from the burglar with one of those “What the fuck!?!?!” looks on his face. For his part, Mr. S was thoroughly freaked out by Sweety Pie’s actions and told her to immediately stop mauling the hapless burglar. “Bad girl, Sweety Pie! Stop eating the man’s neck or dadda will be very angry!” But Sweety Pie would not listen and as Mr. S and Badass tried to drag her off the burglar she tore the man’s head right off, sending it flying through the air like a pretty red balloon. Then Sweety Pie calmly marched back into the house to finish watching her stories and eating her cheesecake. Mr. S and Badass stood there in the yard, bathed in moonlight and spattered in crimson and looking at one another in disbelief. After a few minutes of silence, Mr. S and Badass, not wanting to see Sweety Pie end up in the electric chair, buried the burglar and his head in the backyard, said a little prayer for the man’s soul and went back to sleep.
Moral of the story : Some dogs have to be taught to be violent, other dogs are just that way by nature.
And by “other dogs,” I mean women. Now, I realize this is a controversial claim uncommon even amongst MRAs and others rebelling against the plutocratic-feminist alliance, so I will explain further. What makes humans violent? Nature, nurture, maybe free will (if it exists). We know why men commit so much violence, and other than the fact that they are bigger and stronger than the shorties, it all comes down to nurture. From cradle to grave, from the first time mummy hands you a toy gun and says, “Here, honey, go out in the yard and pretend to kill your little mates!” to when you’re an old man sitting in a movie theater watching Harry Brown or Gran Torino, the message is clear – men are supposed to be violent, and without being so they aren’t really men at all. People being simple creatures, all that’s needed is a few years of role models of the same sex, and approval from family and peers for having an interest in violence, and the outcome is pretty much assured. This explains, if not all, then certainly the majority of male violence.
But what explains female violence? The cultural factors don’t seem to be there – how many women spent their childhoods getting toy cowboys and “Indians” to kill one another? How many spent their teens idolizing action stars? How many got the thumbs up from their mates for decking someone? Very fucking few, that’s how many. And yet female violence, in the context of a near-total lack of societal encouragement, is shockingly common. Most of the serious child abuse ( the milder forms can be explained through women’s greater access to the kiddies ) is committed by women. Around a third of Amerika’s serial killers are female. At least a quarter of one-sided domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is committed by women. And a lesbian is as likely to be abusive towards her partner as a straight man, despite not having the size and strength advantage.
Where the fuck does all this come from?!?!?! It’s obviously not nurture – for every Buffy and Xena there are a hundred Stallones, Schwarzeneggers, Bronsons, Eastwoods, Van Dammes, Lees, Lis and Lundgrens – so that leaves either nature or free will as the culprit. There seems to be no other way to explain it. Women in our society are not taught to be violent – hell, they are actually taught to be the opposite of violent ! – yet when they find themselves in a position that allows them to belt the crap out of people they can actually be worse than men. So either it is in their nature to be violent or they are making some deliberate choice to be violent. Either way, it doesn’t look too good for the gals. If the first, they are born to be bad and just can’t help it, if the second, they can help it but choose not to do so. Bonobos with good haircuts, or assholes by choice, that’s what it all comes down to. What the fuck is a Bonobo, i hear you say? It’s a sort of chimpanzee, woman’s closest animal relative, and one of the few primates amongst which most of the violence is committed by the women, er, I mean the female chimps. You want a good idea of what women would be like if society didn’t invest so much energy in the old Sugar and Spice conditioning, take a look at Bonobos. Needless to say, if we ever start raising girls the same way we do boys, there will be a huge rise in female violence. Indeed, it could be argued that that is already happening – a couple of decades ago the most common reason for women in England to be arrested was shoplifting, now it’s assault. And that’s just with a few Buffies and Xenas, imagine what would happen if the media was flooded with violent female role models! Girls Gone Wild? Girls Gone Psycho, would be more like it.
So that’s the moral of the story – male violence is mostly the doing of nurture, female violence is mostly the doing of nature. Or to put it another way, keep an eye on your bitch before she bites your balls off.
Being forever in search of something to be offended by, some Guardian writer has decided to attack the custom of actors who aren’t disabled playing characters who are disabled and has even gone so far as to compare it to wearing blackface!
In a waste of pixels called, “We wouldn’t accept actors blacking up, so why applaud ‘cripping up’? Some escaped lunatic called Frances Ryan complains that…
“While “blacking up” is rightly now greeted with outrage, “cripping up” is still greeted with awards. Is there actually much difference between the two? In both cases, actors use prosthetics or props to alter their appearance in order to look like someone from a minority group. In both cases they often manipulate their voice or body to mimic them. They take a job from an actor who genuinely has that characteristic, and, in doing so, perpetuate that group’s under-representation in the industry. They do it for the entertainment of crowds who, by and large, are part of the majority group.”
Well, yes, the two are different, though one shouldn’t expect someone who writes for the Guardian to be able to makes such razor thin distinctions. First, blacks are not handicapped, which means they are capable of getting themselves to the studio and learning their lines, which is more than can be said for the kind of character Hoffman played in Rain Man! Where the fuck are you going to find someone that mentally disabled who can learn all those lines and hit all those marks while at the same time delivering an adequate performance? How about someone who can do all of the above while being so disabled that all he can control is his left foot? Come one, Little Ms PC, find me an actor who has both cerebral palsy and the talent of Daniel Day Lewis. You can’t.( Maybe in ten or fifteen years RJ Mitte, the kid from Breaking Bad, will be that good, but that remains to be seen.) Amazingly, the writer comes close to acknowledging her argument’s flaws but somehow manages to sail away into la-la land all over again…
“The explanations for “cripping up” are obvious…On a practical level too, perhaps hiring a non-disabled actor is easier. The ability to walk allows Redmayne to portray Hawking before being diagnosed with motor neurone disease. But I can’t get away from the fact that, if these arguments were made for white actors “playing black”, our outrage would be so great that the scenes would be left on the cutting room floor.”
Not only does this show a disconnect with reality, it is also deeply racist. This is the second time she has equated blackness, which does not confer any intrinsic disadvantage, with disability, which is something that by necessity must involve intrinsic disadvantage. That’s why it’s called disability, because it makes you less able! Is the writer, on some level, saying black people are less able than whites? I suspect so – after all, if you don’t think apples and pears have certain things in common why lump them both under the category of “fruit”?
Perhaps starting to slowly realize that she’s spouting crap, the writer then moves on to more rational, albeit still flawed ground…
“After all, disabled characters create powerful images and sentiments for audiences. They can symbolise the triumph of the human spirit over so-called “adversity”. They can represent what it is to be “different” in some way, an outsider or an underdog who ultimately becomes inspirational. These are universal feelings every audience member can identify with. And there is something a little comforting in knowing, as we watch the star jump around the red carpet, that none of it – the pain or negativity we still associate with disability – was real.”
Why is “adversity” in quotation marks? Is she saying that being disabled isn’t really something that involves adversity? Same thing for “different.” What, being disabled doesn’t actually make you different? I guess the disabled just seem different because of, you know, all the differences! It’s almost as if, in some quasi-psychotic way, she is trying to deny the very existence of disability while at the same time writing about it! The one area in which she may have somehow stumbled onto a half-truth is that it is comforting to know that at the end of the day’s shoot Daniel Day Lewis was able to walk to his car and drive to his hotel room without crashing into a crowd of pedestrians! But that theory, at best, explains only partly why the non-disabled are so often cast as the disabled. I have yet to hear of someone who stopped watching Breaking Bad because the guy who played Walt’s son couldn’t leave his illness at the studio gates when he went home at night! No, to a sensible person – a category of creatures that these days seems to exclude just about everyone who writes opinion pieces for The Guardian – the truth is as plain as Lena Dunham late on a Sunday morning. Disabled people are a smallish minority, and within the subsets of disability they are a tiny, tiny minority. Take cerebral palsy. The bloody thing is so rare that only one in 500 people actually have it! In the US, on the other hand, around one in seven people are black! That is why blacking up is not acceptable, because there are a shitload of black actors out there, and with so many of them on tap the chances are good that you can find someone to do a great job without having to resort to a masquerade. With rare conditions such as cerebral palsy and Stephen Hawking’s illness (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which apparently afflicts only 1 in 50 thousand people) your chances of finding someone who has the requisite ability combined with the, according to this writer, requisite disability are about as good as the chances of someone at The Guardian writing something sensible!
The whole article is a joke — the half-witted caperings of an idiot looking for an excuse to be offended, a clown looking for a reason to yell “oppression!” into the echo chambers of the internet. It is the kind of thing that the right points to when they want to convince Joe Mouthbreather that the left is full of loons — it is the kind of thing we really don’t need to be associated with.
Free material for Rush Limbaugh here.