The Snarkings of a Snarky Swine
From BBC radio, here is Brian Banks telling an interviewer how a consensual makeout session led to five years in jail for a rape his accuser later admitted didn’t happen. According to Wanetta Gibson — the lying sack of shit who sent Banks to jail — she didn’t come forward because doing so might have meant losing the 1.5 million dollars she was awarded after suing her high school — you know, the one in which the rape didn’t happen.
Interview here
This is a guest post by Daisy Duchess, President of the National Organization of Feminist Weasels. My publishing of this article should not be taken as an endorsement of Ms Duchess’s views.
Will the horror never end? Will the patriarchy never cease to come up with new and novel ways to oppress the sisters? The latest instrument of male dominance being unleashed upon Swedish women is — I shudder to name it — men sitting with their legs open on public transport! As can be seen on this site, men all across Sweden have started oppressing women by refusing to cross their legs while commuting to and from work — or more likely, given that they are men, to and from the unemployment office.
What this shameful patriarchal display does is establish and reinforce unconscious patterns of dominance, thereby subliminally convincing women that men are superior beings. Though she may not be aware of it, the average woman will look at such a display and think “Look at the size of those gigantic legs! How can a poor little woman like myself ever compete in the workplace against such a superior being ? I had better go back home and make someone a sandwich.”
So how should the Swedish state deal with this latest salvo in the worldwide war on women? The answer is clear — unless Sweden wishes to be seen as the most misogynist country in Europe, it must immediately criminalize sitting open-legged on public transport. A special branch of the police force should be set up for the purpose of patrolling the public transport network for such criminals, and issuing fines for first time offenders and hauling repeat offenders off to jail.
No doubt the chauvinistic bastards committing these crimes will have their excuses, claiming “B-b-b-but, sitting cross legged will squash my fiddly bits!” To this I say “Rubbish!” Such men should either stand or simply take their fiddly bits and go home. In fact, now that I think about it, why are men even allowed to sit down at all on public transport, when the space could be used by a woman and her shopping? There’s something to think about…
Martha Rendell was an Australian serial killer, a sadistic piece of scum who in the early 1900s killed three of her de-facto husband’s children by coating the inside of their throats with diluted hydrochloric acid.
Rendell had stolen the children’s father, one Thomas Morris, away from his wife, who was then kicked out of the house by her idiot husband and forbidden to see the children – sort of like the modern Family Court with the sexes reversed.
Martha was a monster of a woman who delighted in abusing the children and who seemed to have no motive other than the pleasure she derived from torturing them. One neighbor even claimed that on several occasions she had peeked in Martha’s window to see what all the screaming was about, and had seen Martha smiling with delight as she watched one of her victims writhing in pain. Other neighbors claimed to have heard Martha laughing over the children’s screams.
Rendell’s method was as simple as it was cruel. She would simply place a small amount of acid in the victim’s drink. This would lead to a sore throat which the family doctor would then order treated by coatings of a certain medication, a medication for which Martha then substituted the diluted hydrochloric acid. The acid being diluted it took her young victims weeks to die, though it remains unclear whether they died from the acid itself or from starvation due to not being able to eat.
Rendell’s luck ran out when she tried the same acid-in-the-tea trick on the fourth Morris child, a teenage boy who unlike his father knew scum when he saw it. Young George Morris ran for his life to his real mother’s house, and his disappearance led the already suspicious neighbors to call the police, who eventually uncovered the sickening killing spree and charged Martha with murder. In September of 1909 Rendell was found guilty and sentenced to hang, a punishment which seems rather genteel compared to her crimes – a nice long bath in some diluted acid would seem much more fitting to this writer.
Due to the two fatty deposits on Rendell’s chest the death sentence led to much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, with various baby-kissers and clergymen making it clear that a woman’s life is worth more than that of three children, but decency won out and on the 6th of October 1909 Martha Rendell was led to the noose by two female attendants, presumably so that she wouldn’t get felt up on her way to hell…
Most of this information was sourced from “Australia’s Serial Killers” by Paul Kidd.
Australian GynoBeast Frances Knorr wanted some cash, so she decided the way to make it was to look after other people’s children. Or to be more accurate, pretend to look after other people’s children.
Child minding in 19th Century Victoria was a very different proposition to its modern day equivalent. Parents, usually single mothers, would pay to have their babies looked after on a long term, full time basis. The mother would make an initial payment of 5 to 20 pounds then smaller monthly payments, and would visit the babies at certain pre-arranged times – a situation which couldn’t have been much fun for either the mothers or the babies.
Unfortunately, there were numerous cases in which the so-called carer was only in it for the money and the babies were abandoned, left to starve, murdered outright, or if they were lucky, sold off to childless couples. Knorr was one such “baby farmer” as the press of the time dubbed these dirtbags. She would take the money, kill the babies in her charge, then move on to another address and start all over again. Her baby-killing spree finally came to an end when a man occupying one of her former residences decided to plant a vegetable garden and dug up something other than an angry gopher. What Mr. Clay instead found, that September day in 1893, was a decomposing baby girl with a rope around her neck.  After the police were called locals told them that Knorr had also resided in a nearby house. When that house’s garden was dug up the police found more dead babies, this time two boys who had been suffocated.
Eventually Knorr was found guilty and sentenced to hang for the murders of these three babies, though it is estimated that she may have killed as many as 13 children. Because she was a woman there was much public controversy, and Melbourne hangman William Perrins was so distressed at the social repercussions of killing one of The Important Sex that he killed himself instead! A couple of days before Perrins was to carry out the execution, he got drunk, stood over a sink, and slit his own throat! If nothing else, this pitiable act shows that we have made some progress in the last one hundred years – I don’t recall any Yank slaying himself rather than a murderer for fear of being ostracized because the killer in question was female! No siree! These days we don’t ostracize men for executing women, we just hand women life when a man would get death, and a slap on the wrist when a man would get life!
Most of this information was sourced from “Australia’s Serial Killers” by Paul Kidd.
Details of hangman’s suicide found here.
What is it with Ms Magazine and weird views on animals? First there was the bizarre rant on My Little Pony, and now some twit seems to think that it is somehow sexist or misogynist to use the simulated torture of a woman as part of a campaign against animal testing of cosmetics.
A cosmetics company called Lush set up a publicity stunt in which some folks in white coats pretended to carry out cosmetic testing on a young woman in a leotard, then used said stunt to attract attention to a petition against such practices. Apparently this would have been fine had the “test subject” been a male, but since she is a woman, the writer asks this rather easily answered question…
“But why must the stand-ins for tortured animals always be young women?”
Well, call me a misogynist if you must, but it may have something to do with  the fact that animals used in such unnecessary testing are being tortured on behalf of one sex in particular. Which sex could that be? Are there many men wearing all this garbage on their faces? Not outside of drag joints there aren’t, so the answer is clear — the fictional victims are female because the real victims are being tortured in the name of female vanity. Animals are suffering so that a bunch of shallow and superficial women can pretend to be hotties when they are in fact notties.
And here’s what really pisses me off  about animal testing — how the fuck does anyone come to the conclusion that women don’t already have more than enough of this crap? Why torture animals to test new cosmetics when we know from decades of women’s use that there are already hundreds of safe cosmetics on the market? Yes, that’s right, it’s our friends the corporate bastards again. Make the public want something new and useless, so that they will throw away the useless garbage they bought last year and replace it with some brand new crap. What it all adds up to is this…
Corporate Greed + Female Vanity = Bugs Bunny being tortured to death!
There’s a petition here, and below is the video. Believe it or not, the gals at Ms “could barely finish watching the video.” Christ, these are probably the kind of women who faint when they watch the movie Gremlins! And that’s just when Gizmo is on the screen — soon as the gnarly title characters make their appearance, these latter day suffragettes burst into tears and run to the nearest police station!