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.
In these topsy-turvy postmodernist times, not a year goes by without its share of feminist idiocy. But it seems to this little piggy that 2014 has been an exceptionally inane one for that herd of blithering bovines currently rampaging across western society, spreading their misandristic manure everywhere they go. Here, then, is a brief and not very informative look at the feminist blunders of 2014 – the dumbasseries, the dirty, dirty lies, and the just plain insanities that the plutocracy’s lapdog crapped onto the planet over the last 12 months.
2014 was the year that Beyonce made a total ho of herself by strutting around in front of the word “feminist.” While many women do this figuratively, Ms Knowles (“Mrs. Carter,” my ass – it’s Jay Z who should have changed his name to Knowles. After all, he’s the bitch in the relationship) decided to do it literally, apparently unaware that the word is rapidly becoming about as popular as a Jewish homosexual at Mel Gibson’s Christmas party. At a time when everyone else is dumping the movement, Little Ms “I Heart Muammar” chose to align herself with it in a way that can never be erased because, thanks to the internet, an image lasts forever and can be seen by everyone. I can confidently predict that about ten years from now, as the plutocrats start jettisoning their hench wenches, Beyonce will be paying one of those web reputation companies to wipe the net clean of this shameful display…
Speaking of pics one will live to regret, this was the year in which the ever-egregious Jessica Valenti once again struck her Jesus Christ pose, this time while wearing this disgraceful bit of attire…
A few weeks later Robin Williams checked out and we can only assume that as soon as he did so Valenti was on eBay trying to buy a copious amount of his tears. As in the case of Knowles, Valenti is young enough to be around when the backlash sets in and the shit hits the fan, and as long as that photo is out there she will have nowhere to hide. But that wasn’t the only blunder by Jessie “Idiot Venus” Valenti. No, this was the year that the depraved little weasel also called for men to be paid less money simply for being men, and just a few weeks later complained of yet another, previously undiscovered, form of patriarchal oppression – namely the wrapping of presents. Yes, while men have to put up with mere inconveniences like the mortality gap and being four times more likely to end up living in a cardboard box, women are valiantly battling through much more serious problems like how to make a proper knot in that darn, slippery ribbon!
This was also the year that the once cute and likable Emma Watson timorously revealed her true colors by urging men to help her out because someone had once… er… called her “bossy.” I have never experienced the sheer and unadulterated horror of being called bossy, but I have been called just about every other expletive under the sun, yet I don’t see Emma rushing around whacking people with her handbag on my behalf. But then, I would have to be a total fool to expect something called HeForShe to be about actual equality. And speaking of bossy little bitches, how about that Facebook lunatic’s attempt to ban the word “bossy?” How did such a knobhead of a woman get to be so high up in such a big company? Pretty sure she wasn’t there from the start, so I guess she was the beneficiary of a generous amount of “positive” discrimination. Either that or she just bossed her way to the top. Either way, making a big deal out of such a little word was tantamount to holding up a sign reading, “Western women have no real problems!” For this we should probably thank Sandberg – I, for one, would be willing to chip in to send her a basket of stale muffins.
This was also a fine year for Mad Mandy Marcotte, a mentally ill louse of a woman best known for having insisted that the Duke boys (the still-living victims of Crystal Gail Mangum, not the ones from that stupid 80s show) were guilty even after it was found that the DNA was not theirs. Yes, Amanda seems to think it is possible for a man to ejaculate someone else’s semen! I guess she should have taken biology at University, but she was probably too busy thinking up fake rape scenarios. She is also the loon who last December ( and hence not strictly speaking part of 2014’s cavalcade of feminist lunacy, but I just couldn’t resist ) claimed that Frozen had some sort of misogynist message to deliver! While everyone else was seeing it as some sort of feminist fable about sisterhood, Mandy was complaining about the size of Anna’s wrists! I kid you not, according to Mandy it was all part of an insidious patriarchal plot designed to engender in girls a feeling of inferiority over having such tiny, delicate wrists! In Marcotte’s very own words, the idea is to signal to the audience that “…an inherent part of being female is to be as small and diminutive as possible…” Hell, I watched the movie after reading Marcotte The Mad’s waste of bits and I barely noticed anyone’s wrists, so I doubt that there were hordes of little girls bursting into tears at the sight of poor Anna’s woefully underdeveloped bracelet carriers! Apparently on an upward phase in her manic depressive cycle, just a couple of days later Mandy claimed that cats are widely disdained because they are seen as feminine animals and associated with single women! This theory would have held little cream even if cats were widely hated, but in my experience cats are actually quite popular. Not only do more Amerikans own cats than dogs, but cats also, as everyone except Mandy knows, rule the internet.
This year, though, Mandy seems to be back on the Lithium so only one nutty blithering made it onto my radar, namely this talking cowpat’s attack on that most evil of patriarchal institutions, the home-cooked family dinner! It turns out that such things oppress women by putting pressure on them to do a good job of cooking a chicken, something which, I am sure, is far more onerous than the pressure to not drive the school bus onto the railway tracks, or to not kill your appendectomy patients by leaving your watch and several sponges inside their abdominal cavity! Typically, Mad Mandy totally misses the irony of a feminist complaining about a “problem” which is for the most part the doing of her own kind, despite actually pointing out that the reason cooking is stressful is that women nowadays are too busy slaving for the capitalists to have enough time, and in some cases even enough money, to play June Cleaver. But wait, who was it that told – and continues to tell – women that working outside the home is so bloody wonderful? Who got them to go into the offices and factories, increasing their workload and bringing down wages and salaries, much to the plutocracy’s glee? It wasn’t exactly the patriarchy, was it? No, it was the Second Wave, and its dunderheaded descendants like Marcotte. Frankly, I suspect that the entire post was secretly paid for by MacDonald’s, and am surprised that it didn’t come with the blurb, “Brought to you by MacDonald’s, purveyors of fine, female-friendly foods.”
This was also the year in which feminism showed its increasing desperation by attacking comic book artist Milo Manara for his bootylicious portrayal of Spider-Woman…
“No way would Spider-Man ever be portrayed in such a sexualized, objectified, de-humanizing way!” tweeted thousands of distraught harpies across the interwebs, albeit without the meticulous spelling and punctuation. But as is the wont for such knuckleheads, it turned out they were wrong…
Over at Wellesley College we found out that the typical feminist is so shitscared of everything and everyone that she thinks even the statues are out to get her! Yes, folks, the female leaders of tomorrow were scared by this guy wandering around their campus…
Yep, feminists at Wellesley decided that a statue of some dorky bloke in his tighty whities posed a sexual threat and quickly set up a petition to have the thing done away with before it could rape everyone! And in case you think this was just the doing of a couple of loons, as of the writing of this piece the petition had 1,015 supporters! Could have been worse – the wankers at Wellesley could have thought the statue was the start of a zombie apocalypse and started hoarding guns, canned food and, of course, tin-foil hats.
Speaking of rape, this was also the year that feminists fucked up not only through their actions but, in this case, through their inactions. Some comedian called Amy Schumer admitted to having it off with some guy who, though apparently the initiator, was so drunk that he kept passing out while trying to go down on her and couldn’t even manage to stuff his wiener into her beaver! In other words, Amy Schumer raped the guy or at the very least she sexually assaulted him, since there seems to have been no actual penetration. Where were the shocked reactions to such an admission? Nowhere to be seen, that’s where. And it’s not as if feminists didn’t know she had made the admission, as she did it during a feminist event called the Ms. Foundation for Women’s “Gloria Awards and Gala!” Yet the silence was deafening, with one of the few exceptions being the always reliably vile Manslug. He, of course, defended Schumer’s crime. If any evidence is ever needed that feminists as a whole think a sober person having it off with someone who is falling down drunk is rape only when it’s the woman who is shit-faced, 2014 was the year they were dumb enough to give us said evidence – simply by shutting the fuck up.
At the risk of sounding like a certain cartoon reverend’s oft hysterical ( I apologize for the use of this intrinsically misogynist word, but being a male and therefore having limited language skills it was the best I could do ) wife, this next one is indeed all about the children. Who but someone with a head full of cottage cheese would have come up with the idea of getting a bunch of cute little kiddies to dress up as princesses and then spout all sorts of vile verbiage?!?! And that’s just the so-called facts cited, don’t even get me started on the profanities! It’s fucking atrocious, is what it is, and not only dishonest but also the most irritating thing since that old woman who couldn’t find the beef! And probably some sort of obscure sort of child abuse as well – like naming your kid “Apple” or “North” – and it sure as hell didn’t go down well outside the echo chambers of feminism.
Late entrants into this cavalcade of mooncalves and dunderpates were the hordes of screaming nutters warning us of the horrors of “manspreading.” “What, in hell’s name, is ‘manspreading!?!?!’” I hear you say. Well, apparently it is the latest evidence of man’s inhumanity to woman, or as I like to call it, the latest bit of evidence that western women truly have no real problems. Manspreading is that thing men do when sitting down in order to not crush their nuts between their thighs. Yes, boys, you are now a misogynist asshole if you don’t keep your legs closed tight as a prissy school marm’s while riding on public transport! Women who think their shopping bag deserves an unpaid seat all its own are, not surprisingly, pretty much ignored.
And speaking of late entries, let’s not forget the famous “catcalling” video in which we found out that a moderately attractive, somewhat Hispanic looking woman spending ten hours walking through some of NY’s lower class colored neighborhoods will have to endure approximately two minutes of vile males saying horrid things like “Have a good day,” and “God Bless you.” This is what feminists see as harassment ( remember the days when you had to do it more than once for it to be harassment? So do I, but I guess we are both showing our Neolithic origins) and the sane people see as, at best, a bunch of friendly helloes, and, at worst, a bunch of very mild passes at a woman who looks like she’s one of the gang ( lots of overlap between blacks and Hispanics in NY neighborhoods apparently). And sure, she should have punched the guy who kept walking right beside her in the plexus, but he was the exception, so they had to throw in all the harmless guys – one genuine creeper during a ten hour walk is just not enough to get anyone pissed off, except maybe the people at Rolling Stone.
Which brings us to this year’s most egregious displays of feminist foolishness, displays dominated, unsurprisingly, by every feminist’s favorite past-time – rape. First there was Rotherham, as hideous a case of gang rape as I have ever heard about, but apparently of little to no interest to the lunatics who run Jezebel and its ilk. If anyone has yet to notice that political correctness and middle class interests are at the core of modern feminism, they need their noses rubbed in the steaming pile of turds that is the Rotherham case. Apparently dozens, possibly even hundreds, of rape victims do not matter, not when the victims are just little skanks from the lower classes and the perpetrators are Muslims of an especially brownish hue. Yes, folks, gang rape is a big problem – but only when the victim is well off and/or the perpetrators are evil white males.
Or better yet, when the victim is high up enough on the social ladder to be going to University and the alleged gang rapists are a bunch of rich white guys, for 2014 was also the year of the great Rolling Stone meltdown, without a doubt the biggest feminist fuck up of the year. Why RS is doing stories on anything more important than Taylor Swift’s latest musical swipe at her ex-boyfriend is anyone’s guess, but if they must insist on delving into important matters they could at least try to do the job properly. Instead, some half baked Lois Lane wannabe went off half cocked and did a story that vilified dozens (hundreds, if you count chapters other than UVA’s and their former members) of males yet did nothing to seek out the actual truth. This little turd of a woman, Sabrina Rubin Erdely…
…went in search of a juicy, frat-vilifying rape story for RS, and this led her to another little turd called Jackie Coakley…
Not a bad looking girl, Jackie. I’d fuck her, but only in front of a camera and several witnesses because, you know…
So, the second turd tells the first turd that she had been pack raped at some frat at the University of Virginia, then asked that the so-called journalist not get the frat’s side of the story. And sure enough, Erdely responded with, “Sure, what could possibly go wrong?” The answer to that question turned out to be “just about everything,” as Jackie Coakley’s web of lies got torn to shreds by not only the frat but also by her own friends. Turns out that the man accused of orchestrating the rape, a dude with the unlikely handle of Haven Monahan (which, I believe, is actually the name of that girl Miley Cyrus used to play on TV) doesn’t actually exist. The guy in the photo Jackie had passed off as “Haven” does exist but did not attend that particular university and was apparently far away when the so-called rape happened. Whoops, after even the most cursory of enquiries things are starting to go belly up. Then it also turned out that the frat was not having a pledge drive at that time of the year, and that they did not hold any social event that weekend, and that none of their members or pledges were lifeguards. Oh, yes, there’s also the fact that Jackie changed her claim from being orally raped by five guys to being vaginally raped by seven. Or was it the other way ‘round? See, now everyone’s confused! Also there was all the blood she had all over her from being raped on top of broken glass, blood that none of the friends she called right after the whatever-it-was happened ever noticed. Oh, and speaking of the friends she called after the thing that probably didn’t happen happened? Turns out one of them was a male for which young Jackie had a thang. An unrequited thang, as it turns out – perhaps the guy could smell the crazy in her pheromones. And “Haven”? Why, he was someone who had a requited thing for Jackie and who made sure the uninterested male friend knew about it! Yes, folks, this was the year that the idiots at Rolling Stone dragged us all into a really bad sitcom plot! This entire debacle leaves us with two undeniable conclusions. The first is that some people will believe anything as long as it’s coming from the mouth of a woman, especially if it’s about rape, and the second is that men are well and truly second class citizens in the United States. Had Jackie Coakley fabricated a story about a sorority that had as one of its initiation rituals the committing of, say, the far less serious crime of having it off with a thirteen year old boy, there is no fucking way that Rolling Stone would agree to not get the sorority’s side of the story! I mean, you can’t just go around vilifying women without any proof, and even when you do have proof everyone would prefer that you shut up any way.
Yes, 2014 was without a doubt the Year of the Feminist Pinhead, and the whole thing leaves me wishing that rancid pieces of dirt like Valenti would stir some arsenic into their mug of male tears and die a slow and agonizing death. Okay, maybe that’s a little extreme – how about if they use just enough arsenic to make themselves really, really sick?
And I’m actually being nice there – it’s quite possible she isn’t dumb, just the kind of pathological liar one expects to see spruiking this bullshit.
As everyone knows by now, that girl from the Harry Potter movies has given a lame little speech about the wiminz at the UN and, of course, the internet is just gushing about how wonderful she and the speech were. The first thing I have to ask is, what the fuck is Watson doing blabbing about this subject? Is she an intellectual now? Is she at least a feminist blogger? No, she’s a kewpie doll who makes movies, and about as qualified to give a speech about gender as I am to give one about acting, but as long as you parrot the establishment’s views, qualifications are not needed.
The primary subject of the speech is the suspiciously named HeForShe initiative, something that Watson tries as mightily as she can to portray as some sort of gender equality thing. But alas of her, even before she opens her mouth it becomes clear that this is not about true equality when CNN host Sheep Blitzer tells us straight out that the initiative is about the “inequalities faced by women and girls.” Whoops.
The first thing that strikes me about this video is how scared she looks standing at the podium – all trembly, yet ironically also stiff, poor Emma looks like she’s about to shit herself! Then, summoning up all the courage she can, Watson clenches her tiny bowels and proceeds to complain that feminism is seen as anti-male and that this perception has to change. Well, I have to agree with her on both those points – but not quite in the way she would like. Yes, feminism is seen as anti-male, but for the same reason the Klan is seen as anti-black – because they want to be treated better than those who are of a different and, supposedly, less human group. As an example, only a couple of years ago NOW called for all crimes of violence against women to be considered hate crimes, hence ensuring that they would carry a greater penalty than violent crimes committed against males. If wanting greater protection before the law isn’t bigotry then what the fuck is? As for the way feminism is seen, I too would like to see the perception change, but I would like to see that come about due to an actual change in the truth behind the perception. As Watson makes no mention of changing feminism itself I can only assume that the perception is all she wants to alter, which is why she is up there putting, quite literally, a pretty face on a very ugly movement.
Watson also tells us that “My recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.” Claiming to have done research to establish such an obvious fact seems to me both a deliberate attempt to appear intellectual and an unintentional declaration of her own idiocy. She might as well have added, “Also, recent research has shown me that if you don’t plug the toaster in, your bread will stay mysteriously white. Why this is so I have yet to figure out, but it, also, is probably the fault of men.” Our little mouse then claims that people see her as “too aggressive” due to her feminist views and goes on to timorously point out that there is not a single country in the world in which women have gender equality, conveniently leaving out that the reason for this is that women are treated as inferior in the third world and as superior in the developed world, hence there is, indeed, no country in the world in which women have actual gender equality!
And what can Little Miss Bowl Of Jelly offer as evidence of sexism in her own life? Well, after much thought, she came up with that time back in elementary school when she was called “bossy”! Now we know what Kurtz was thinking when he uttered his famous last words, “The horror! The horror!” – he was thinking what an awful world it is in which little girls some times get called bossy! Watson gives no context for the anecdote, so for all we know she actually was a bossy little thing and the adults responsible (probably female themselves) realized that a mini-Hitler shouldn’t be put in charge of the school play. She also complains about being “sexualized” at 14, and that her female friends dropped out of sport lest they be seen as muscly – “Eeew! I don’t want to look like some filthy boy!” is as likely an explanation as any for that strange phenomenon. And then she throws out a sop to the male sex, a soft little nothing meant to make it look as if the menz matter, by mentioning that her male friends are less likely to express their feelz! But even this bit of lip service is somewhat self-serving in that her male friends’ emotional reticence impacts her personal life as well as theirs. Later on, she throws out sop number two by pointing out that society sees daddy as a lesser parent than mommy, but that can be seen as being about her rather than daddy and, much more importantly, child-rearing is an area in which change would benefit women as much as men. After all, if stay-at-home dads become more acceptable it will be easier for women to pursue their career ambitions.
Probably the only truly positive spot comes when she points out that there are young men out there suffering from mental illness who are afraid to seek help lest they be seen as “less of a men.” Realizing that “a men” is something you say in church, Watson nervously throws in “Or less of a man.” See, now I’m actually starting to feel sorry for her… And sure, she goes on to make a good point about male suicide, but you have to throw the dog a real bone once in a while. And given her apparent admiration of Hillary Clinton, she may even be thinking that women are actually the primary victims of male suicide because they lose their husbands and sons! Indeed, this possibility is supported when she follows up with the valid claim that men are imprisoned by gender stereotypes then immediately points out that freeing men from those restrictions would have huge benefits for women!
Towards the end she goes into some kumbaya crap about everyone being free yet finishes off with – you guessed it – yet another call for men to help women out with their problems! She also distorts history by attributing to Edmund Burke something he never said, but it’s not as if she went to a fancy University like Brown. Oh, wait, she did go to Brown! Perhaps she missed the lecture in which someone pointed out that the famous words “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” are, at best, a paraphrasing of some of Burke’s ideas and, at worst, a fabrication. Note also the total absence of the word “women” in the original quote. It’s almost as if her intention is to state that “Edmund Burke was a great man (he must have been or I wouldn’t be quoting him) and by including women he was being a feminist, hence you should emulate the great man.”
And while I’m on the subject of misrepresentation, I really must make quick mention of the visual aspects of the thing. The tactic of putting a pretty face on a bunch of ugly ideas has already been pointed out, but notice also the broad shoulders on the suit and the pulled-back hair which makes her head look smaller. The combined effect of this is to make her look more adult, less like the frightened baby rabbit that she is and more like the strong, confident woman that she is not. Hell, I could even go so far as to claim the white suit was chosen as a way of signifying the inherent purity and peacefulness of women, but they wouldn’t go that far. Or would they?
For those who can’t be bothered watching the thing, it all adds up to Watson making claims that feminism is about equality of the sexes then proceeding to call for men to help women, though admittedly she does balance this out by calling for men to help women. Watson may as well have said, “Welcome to HeForShe, boys, a solidarity movement where you do a shitload for me and I do nothing for you!” She even complains that men don’t feel welcome in the conversation about gender, which is a bit like Fred Phelps complaining that gays don’t feel welcome at his church. Want us to feel welcome, Ms Watson? Go off and set up SheForHe, an initiative asking women to help men and boys with the many inequities they face in the western world – until you do, you’re just farting through the wrong hole.
And I must admit that until a few minutes ago I was firmly on one of those sides. In fact, this article was originally called “Ray Rice is the Victim.” No matter how many times I viewed the video on Firefox I could not see Janay Rice back hand Ray, nor could I see him spitting on her just before that! I guess the moral of the story is that Firefox has become an unreliable piece of shit and I should start using another browser as the default. In SeaMonkey, the aforementioned events are clearly visible and hence my opinion has changed. What I previously saw as starting when she seems to elbow him in the elevator, now starts when he spits on her. True, it is possible that before they got in front of the camera she spat on him or hit him, and for all we know she may have been abusing him for months or vice versa, but we have to go with the evidence we have today not the evidence we may have tomorrow — if we do otherwise all rational argument is pointless, for tomorrow some creationist may find actual proof that the world is only a few thousand years old!
So, as I see it, this is what happens. He spits on her, she back hands him lightly when outside, once inside the elevator she seems to elbow him, and he retaliates with a fairly soft punch. And yes, it is a soft punch, were it not she wouldn’t have been able to come charging at him right afterwards. At that point he defends himself from what is clearly an imminent attack – surely not even the most addle-brained feminist would claim Janay was rushing forwards to kiss and make up – by hitting her with what is, at the most, a punch of moderate power. At this point I can hear the feminists scream hysterically, “Moderate! Oh, my fucking god! He knocked her out!” But you see, to those who actually know something about fighting it is clear that he is not putting any significant torque behind that punch, hence it is unlikely that he is intending do serious damage. In fact, the punch could even be seen as using a jab to stop an opponent getting too close. As for her going down, of course she goes down, the silly bitch is basically running into the punch! Doing so multiplies the force, hence chances are that even a woman’s punch would have taken her down under those circumstances. Now, if old Ray had stomped on her head once she was down that would have been a different matter, but as it is his was a reasonable and controlled defense.
What all this does is leave me in two minds. On the one hand, he starts the aggression by spitting on her, but on the other hand she is the one who gets physical by slapping him, and once she gets physical she can’t really be complaining that he retaliates. But then there’s that first hand – you know, the one Ray spat on. Hence the ambiguity of the situation. Perhaps the correct view of this incident is quite simply that two assholes got into an elevator and some shit went down. But that’s not good enough for the feminists. As we have seen in the past, the female supremacists are big on taking an ambiguous situation and portraying it as one in which the male is clearly the guy with the black hat and the weird moustache, so once again the feminist hate machine and its ass-kissing supporters have gone into overdrive to lynch a man who may or may not be the guilty party. Amongst feminists the motto is a simple one – when in doubt, blame the male. What matters to them is that they be able to use this case to further feed the all-important narrative of “Woman = Good, Man = Bad” for that is where a huge chunk of their power to stoke female privilege comes from. As for the non-feminists piling on the Big Bad, they are simply going along with our society’s view of men as some sort of second class human being, though I don’t suppose the males doing so are actually aware of this. To such men being the First Sex is part of what makes them “real” men and admitting to not being the top dog is pretty much the same as cutting off their own nuts. And so Rice loses his job (something which, incidentally, does Janay no big favors either!) gets suspended from the NFL and is treated like the most evil thing since Chris Brown.
What the fuck is going on when such an ambiguous situation can lead to a man losing his job and being forever branded that most awful of things – an abuser of women – for the rest of his life? The primary problem here is that, thanks to a disastrous confluence of feminist activism, traditionalist views of women as morally superior, and plutocratic interest, men now occupy a social space occupied by Negroes throughout much of the early twentieth century. Much in the same way that blacks in the old days were not permitted to strike back against whites without facing serious consequences for daring to hit their “betters,” today’s men – be they black, white, or pink with blue spots – are not permitted to strike back against whitey, it’s just that today whitey can be as black as she wants to be as long as she’s got the right anatomy under that skirt. There is no other explanation for this state of affairs. It is certainly not the size difference that is so often mentioned in such cases, we know that because if we keep the size difference but throw out the sex difference the argument changes drastically. “Oh, a 5’8”, 200 lb dude knocked out another dude roughly 5’4” and 150lb? Who cares?” would have been the world-wide reaction had both the people in that elevator been males. And we all know that if the size difference was kept and the sexes reversed, the whole world would be resounding with cries of “You go, girl!” and the woman who may or may not be the villain of the piece would be acclaimed by the media as some sort of feminist heroine standing up against male tyranny. If you don’t think so, consider the reaction when it was thought that Tiger Woods’ wife had beaten him with a golf club after discovering he’d been putting his wood in the wrong hole!
No, this isn’t about size or strength, it isn’t about right and wrong, it isn’t even really about domestic violence. It’s about the sacred rule that a man must never hit a woman, no matter what she does. It’s about female privilege, and it’s about treating half the human race as lesser beings – but that’s perfectly cool with most people, as long as it’s the right half getting pissed on.
Recently in England a truly horrific case of mass rape was uncovered, the kind of thing so lurid one hardly expects to see it outside of some tacky 1970s exploitation movie. Over a 16 year period, organized gangs repeatedly raped at least 1400 mostly teenaged kids in the town of Rotherham, and the authorities ignored the problem, even going so far as to mysteriously “lose” evidence of the attacks. But as outrageous as the case is, and as deserving of long sentences (I would say the death penalty but England doesn’t have it) as the scum responsible may be the case itself is not what this piece is about – that is being handled by plenty of more influential sites.
The aspect I want to talk about is the almost complete lack of outrage on the part of those who pretend to care about rape more than anyone else – The Sisterhood of Rich White Women, or as they prefer to be known, feminists.
While I am sure that some feminist somewhere is giving a shit, the big girls are all falling somewhere between complete silence and just a tiny little mention. According to Google, in the past month there have been no posts at Alternet (you remember them, they are the ones who complained about some store playing The Stones’ “Under My Thumb,”) containing the word Rotherham. A similar search for Feministing.com finds only one mention of the case, and that’s simply a link to the NYTimes, not an actual Feministing article, and a search on Jezebel finds only one or two articles. And who knows, maybe my search engine skills are crap, but surely a story this big should have so many feminist flies all over it that one shouldn’t even have to go looking for the outrage! So why the mysterious silence? Keep in mind that these are the same group of people who not long ago called some boy a rapist because he went down on some smiling girl while they were both pissed as newts. These are the people who continued to label the Duke U. boys rapists after the DNA turned out to be someone else’s. These are the people who still look at DSK as a rapist, and who freak out at the sight of a statue of a man in his underwear, claiming that it will upset women who have in the past been raped by statues. Yet here we have one of the most egregious cases of mass rape in living history, rape on a scale rarely seen outside of a theatre of war, and all is silence. No screaming outrage, no calls for “culture change,” no jumping up and down about yet another horrible case of patriarchal oppression! And you know why? Because the victims were white and the rapists were Pakistani Muslims, that’s why!
Many folks, believing that feminists are some kind of left wing thing, are putting this reluctance down to genuine PC self-censorship but I do not, mainly because I do not buy the bullshit idea that the feminists are leftists. What they are is a bunch of plutocratic lapdogs and stokers of female privilege who care little for leftist concerns – if they did they would be writing about the woes of the poor, which they rarely do. However, even though they are not leftists, their work to increase female privilege is greatly admired by the left — so much so that the latter constantly ignores feminism’s obvious alliance with the plutocracy – and hence their main supporters in the media are left wing outlets that would start to look askance at them were they to start harping on about those awful Muslim men and their undoubtedly racist rapes. As vile as feminists are, in this case the PC sites are just as bad, for both groups are conspiring to stop this case getting as much attention as it deserves simply because of the race and religion of the perpetrators. If both these packs of assholes truly cared about rape victims they would be shouting the news from the rooftops, thereby warning other potential victims that it’s not really normal for a grown man to be taking a romantic interest in a 12 year old girl – even if he is a Pakistani Muslim.
You may be asking yourself, “But wouldn’t the feminists run the risk of pissing off the lefties in order to defend both their race and their sex?” No, they obviously wouldn’t and they obviously haven’t! First, vilifying men and feathering the nests of all women are goals more important to The Sisterhood than the rapes of a few girls and, much more importantly, the girls in question are from the lower classes – there’s a reason why I referred to feminists as The Sisterhood of RICH White Women. If these had been girls from the upper classes – say, students at Yale or Oxford being gang raped by Muslim men – I suspect that even fear of their PC allies would not silence them, but as it stands they simply don’t care. Wrong class, tough titties. You want more evidence of feminism’s lack of concern for the lower classes, there you have it.
Let’s get one thing straight – feminists don’t really care about rape victims. What they care about is using rape as a weapon against men. As long as they can scream hysterically that there is a rapist under every bed and that therefore all men are rapists in training they can continue to portray women as victims of some insidious patriarchal plot. This in turn allows them to claim more privileges for their sex – “Gimme mo’ money just in case I get raped!”– while vilifying men, something which also stokes female privilege, for if men are such scum and women such victims then it is not only acceptable but almost necessary for society to treat women better than it treats men. That is what the rape hysteria is about, not actual concern for victims, and as long as that is the case you can count on feminists to shut their mouths whenever the rapist is someone the left would rather be ignored.