Jill Meagher

Who are all these people?   What are they protesting against?

It’s about Jill Meagher, a young woman who was horribly raped and murdered.   Why would 30 000 people turn out to march about Jill in particular?   Reminds me a bit of the 300 000 Belgians who marched on Brussels over the aristocratic child rapes and murders.

whose body was found north of Melbourne a week after she disappeared while out with workmates at a Brunswick bar. A 41-year-old man faces charges of rape and murder

If she was out with mates, how could she have been raped and murdered?   Ah, just found out that she was alone in transit – an insane thing for a woman to do, especially these days, as noted further down.

Women have always been a problem for themselves.   Look at men and women, boys and girls.   Now, before the days when the uncaring new Casey Anthony type parent and the PC teacher, plus the global culture left children woefully exposed, children were relatively safe.

There was a thing called common sense which prevailed.

Kids had curfews, there was a generally agreed procedure that you didn’t go off to France with someone else’s kid and women didn’t generally try to outdo men by getting into paedophilia.   It wasn’t great but it wasn’t a disaster.   Comparatively, it was a utopia.  Kids would grumble about the boundaries but knew where the boundaries were.   The wise parent gradually allowed more and more freedom for the offspring.  In other words, parents cared.

So there really was no issue with kids – everyone knew what had to be done to protect kids.   The problem was women.   They are, at the same time, both grown up and also very vulnerable.   A father can tell a kid: “No, you’ll be home at 10,” but he can’t tell his woman that.   He never used to have to – she was an adult alongside him, she knew, they both knew.   She knew there were places not to venture, situations which she wouldn’t enter unless she had physical support and so on.

Not now.   What we’ve got today is the insanity and infantilization of the global socialist culture, through feminazis and really nasty people like the Marxist who’s just died – what was his name?   Through the Saul Alinskys etc.   Woman is now, at exactly the same time, less capable, more vulnerable and yet she feels she is Helen Reddy – invincible, can do anything, can have anything, the glorious dawn of a new era for women.

Except it’s not glorious.   It’s an abject failure.   Domestic violence has soared, women are not doing it well and they keep getting raped and/or killed.   There are certain things they simply haven’t taken onboard.

1.   There are so many men layabouts now and a new type of male on the streets and in pubs and clubs – a beast inside.   Where he used to sink a few pints after work with mates, then go home to the wife, now he collects benefits, sits around watching porn or else goes out looking for trouble.

Men should all be out at work and they’re not.  Why not?    Ask whoever invented “positive discrimination”, the welfare culture, the masculation of women and the emasculation of men into SNAGs and Metros, ask the misandrist CPA and everyone else devoted to removing men as a factor in society.

And men have gone one of three ways – either 1.  they’re the age I am and don’t let women get uppity but at the same time respects her more deeply than today’s equality lip service givers or 2.  they become emasculated, especially the new young men who’ve had a barrage of subtle abuse from females in the home or at school or 3.  they become the new yahoos, bestialized brutes in men’s skins.

The new man sees the attitude of women to him, how women carp on and on about respect and being able to do it all, being the winners of the Olympics for GB and so on and he sees that women don’t give a toss about anyone but themselves.   So whither respect, whither chivalry?    The yahoo takes the things that have characterized men through the ages and exaggerates them into a grotesque parody.

This is the type of yahoo 30 000 people marched in the streets against.   For what?   I saw the protest and took it on board.   If you’re reading this, you might have too.   We all agree the violence is shocking but women are addressing the wrong people – they need to address the yahoos about these things.

And do they honestly believe the yahoos are listening?

2.  There is this Lara Logan syndrome – believing that she is living in some sort of cocoon where men who feel they’ve been f***ed over, who are going to do a woman violence as sure as night follows day – she believes she is immune from harm, that somehow they’ll put all that aside when they see her and suddenly be all chivalrous.   Her sisters have killed off chivalry in men but she thinks they’ll be chivalrous with her … because it’s her.

Lara Logan was well off, with the lovely home, everyone worshipped her beauty, she was fully infused with the American females idea that not only can she mix it with the men [e.g. Marissa] but she can dominate.   It’s a highly politicized chip on the shoulder.   With this attitude, she marched over to a bunch of Arabs in the middle of an angry protest – how insane was that [?] – and proceeded to get groped and/or raped.

Then she was shocked to the core that such a thing could happen.  Amazing – this is what feminism has done to women’s brains.

Back home, the new young woman or recycled woman then goes out with the least chivalrous men about on the streets.   She’ll go off with a perfect stranger she’s not met before for a one night stand, as an article of her newfound freedom to be a skank, asserting that she is still a woman of virtue and she thinks that somehow, miraculously, she will be automatically safe.

She conflates that she should be safe from harm with actually being safe from harm.   All those people on the streets protesting are protesting over what they see should be, what the government, in its draconian misandrist legislation, should have ensured and yet it’s ensured the opposite.   She is dismayed that it hasn’t gone the way she’d hoped and in fact could never ever have gone any other way.

She becomes more manlike with every passing year, she becomes unreasonable in her attitude and impossible to speak with.  At the bar, whilst trying to mix it with the men as one of the men, she expects them to behave with perfect civility and chivalry .

Meanwhile, the yahoo observes her and waits.    He equates her with the porn he watches ad nauseam.

3.  The government, by its draconian measures to change the very nature of work in the land, its support for the misandrist CPA and for any measure which will put men down has angered many.

The unsustainable PC narrative clung to so vehemently by devotees is an abject failure and far from empowering anyone, it has both disempowered them in real terms, plus created a new monster to prey on them.   The people I feel sorriest for are not the new women who think they can go anywhere, do anything with impunity – though what happens to them is unfortunate.

The ones I feel sorry for are those ladies of the old school, the ones brought up properly to be feminine and who expect men to act as gentlemen in return, women such as those I meet at work.   In the eyes of the yahoos, these ladies are lumped under the same heading and are, in their eyes, rapable flotsam, just as much as the tattooed, gum-chewing, foul-mouthed monstrosities you see all over the place today  [see Daily Femail column for examples].

Let’s take my bosses for an example of the other type – a proper woman.   They would never take the takings to the bank alone – they’d always go with someone and yes, preferably a man.   Now, they don’t carry on about what women can and can’t do – they know the limits.

Men know limits.   On a scale from Mike Tyson and Popeye the Sailor Man to the limp-wristed wimp, there is a sliding scale of people able to protect themselves and those who can’t.   Down one end of the scale are children and then the bulk of women and then when you get into the men who can look after themselves, there are still a few women in the mix.  Finally you get the freakish women weightlifters etc. up with the alpha males and then you get to the Tysons, George Foremans etc. above that.

I’d probably be about two thirds of the way up.   Russia tended to have pretty solid men and so there were maybe a good third I wouldn’t have been able to handle, maybe even more.   That’s why one trained in the gym – there was no choice, you had to be strong.   Women, on the other hand, went to the gym to be toned and svelte.   In Russia, a woman expects the man to protect her in the traditional sense and has no hang-ups about that.

It’s only here in the west that so many women have taken leave of their senses.

And looking at domestic violence – why does it happen?   If he’s so bad, why does she go with him or marry him?   If she knows he’s a beast, odds are he’ll beat her.   So she says she didn’t know when she committed to him.    Well 1. why didn’t she and 2. if he was nice but subsequently turned into a ravening monster, why did he?   I mean, men aren’t werewolves.   They don’t suddenly come out at night and change.   Something happened in that relationship for the worse.  What was it?

Everyone reading this knows the answer to that.

………..

Jill Meagher took a route she’s taken before, assuming she was safe on her own.  She wasn’t..   She wasn’t safe because of all the things mentioned above, things I’d wager she never once gave thought to in that walk to and from her works party.

That’s the real tragedy.   That and the utter pointlessness of all those women marching when what is really needed is a fundamental change to the whole paradigm, to get society back on track again.

May Jill Meagher’s soul finally find peace.

………..

I have to close off comments now on this thread because due to my own negligence, I caused it to restart at another thread:

http://www.nourishingobscurity.com/2012/10/02/sarah-struggles-with-jamie/

That’s where it currently is. Sorry. Trackbacks still work though.

24 Responses to “Jill Meagher”

  1. Suzie October 3, 2012 at 09:22 Permalink

    Actually, she was five minutes walk from home but according to your logic she should have known better than try to walk it alone. Of course, it’s her fault. Feeling invincible. She should have stayed at home, safely tucked up in bed so that a rampant lunatic could not have killed her. Obvious, isn’t it?

    This march was about expressing sadness, respect and solidarity. I’m not surprised that you do not understand.

  2. Moggsy October 3, 2012 at 09:28 Permalink

    Some small points. I think we all know (men and women) there are places to avoid and situations that can be dangerous. Sometimes the situations just develop where a person wouldn’t really expect them.

    There are predators out there.

    The thing is you can’t avoid taking some risk, just living. Unless you want to live alone in a cell.

    Rape and murder can happen to girls who don’t take chances and don’t dress “immodestly”, no matter how careful they are.

    You can say some people “ask for it” by dressing “wrongly”, although the dress you complain about is often not so inappropriate for the location they are in and it is a bit two faced because what they dress in is often to please the average guy, what guys want them in.

    You can say some people put themselves at risk from where they go.

    But all these are really just red herrings. It does not change the FACT that the most “modestly” dressed girl, being careful where/how she goes and being cautious is still not safe from predation. It happens.

  3. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 09:34 Permalink

    Suzie – the simple answer is that – 2minutes, 5 minutes or 5 hours – it should not have been taken alone. The proof is in the sad tragedy. Women such as yourself really need to wake up and drop this feminazi, women-can-do-anything thing. You can’t. I’m not saying you’re a feminazi but you keep putting out their point of view and it’s a devalued point of view which leads to tragedy.

    Nor can men do certain things, nor can children, nor can dogs and cats. This is reality, which the modern woman is divorced from.

    As for solidarity/sadness, I’m with that in spirit too. I want no women harmed or in danger, nor children. This is biological/psychological for a male. But there are reasons for this danger – very cogent reasons – and those marchers are not taking that onboard. Sympathy is great but action on behaviour prevents it happening again.

    She need not have stayed tucked up in bed. No one said anything about her not going to her works do. Why on earth the husband couldn’t have dropped her off and collected her I don’t know. Families have been known to have cars.

    Moggsy:

    But all these are really just red herrings. It does not change the FACT that the most “modestly” dressed girl, being careful where/how she goes and being cautious is still not safe from predation. It happens.

    Yes, very much so and these are the ones I feel sorriest for. Degenderizing this for a moment, in all walks of life, it is certain people who ruin it for others.

  4. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 09:55 Permalink

    Think I need to add one more thing. That Forrest who went with Megan to France – what he did was wrong and now he’s paying for it but one thing was for sure – while she was with him, she was safe.

    I don’t mean morally safe but physically safe from violence. The chump was crazily in love with her and if there’d been a threat, he’d have defended her to the death.

    Compare that to Jill where there was no protection whatever.

  5. Moggsy October 3, 2012 at 10:09 Permalink

    So should we just say “Well hey I guess it just happens then. Occupational risk…”?

    Like getting back from a bombing raid in WWII and saying “I say! Poor old Sally bought it on the way back from the store. What Eh!. Got taken out by a damned rapist, came up on her blindside.”

    Feeling sorry for them? That and the price of a coffee will get you a cup of coffee.

    I really, really, don’t think we should just throw our hands in the air and say there is nothing to be done. Nor should we offer excuses that take away from the emormity of what these “people” do.

    That goes fro rape and murder, it goes for muggers and the like also.

    The Megan thing? To me not the same ball park as the rest of the post, not really part of it. That looks mostly more like a relationship, messy, inappropriate? foolish, badly thought out, thoughtlessly hurting other people, and more.

  6. Suzie October 3, 2012 at 10:29 Permalink

    I think her husband was supposed to come along but fell asleep on the sofa. OMG, it’s all down to him!

    Well no, I don’t think so. To use the death of a beautiful young woman to advance your agenda is shameful. Do you seriously want a world where all women are infantilised and can’t venture out after dark because they are a temptation for mad men? Women are not children who need boundaries.

    The Maths teacher in France is a whole different story. Not remotely comparable. I almost feel sorry for him.

  7. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 11:29 Permalink

    To use the death of a beautiful young woman to advance your agenda is shameful.

    You really make some silly comments, Suzie but as you’re under the feminazi spell, I forgive you.

    Plus I have no agenda. Sane pundits in general do though. Go to OoL and you’ll read many of them. I’m just one of the many. What gives you away is your talk of agendas – only the left and/or feminazis have agendas, narratives. We just say to hell with that. We don’t actually have an agenda, we don’t campaign – we react.

    This post in fact is a reaction against stupidity and if that sounds harsh, it needs to be to stop the type of thing which happened to Jill Meagher happening. You give the impression you’re out for her best interests but you’re not – you would perpetuate the same violence over and over.

    I, on the other hand, am telling women to wake up to what’s really going on. Therefore I have her interests and women’s more at heart than these vague emotional outpourings which are not going to stop the violence in any way, shape or form.

    It needs women such as yourself in one way and the new men in another to wake up and change their behaviour. That’s the only thing which will stop this burgeoning violence.

    Men and women need to get back to working together, not in antagonism, which you are with me. You can’t be anything but antagonistic though because your head is stuffed with these ideas of men being the enemy. You project that onto me because I actually come out with what’s happening and naturally will attract the ire of feminazi stormtroopers.

    The important thing is not what you and I think but what readers generally think of it all. That’s who I write for.

  8. richard October 3, 2012 at 11:41 Permalink

    Don’t know, James. It might be worth pointing out that people FrAnce can buy pepper spray or non-lethal defensive kit. You can’t in UK or Oz. As for a firearm, forget it. Take a rape or beating, then get a crime number from the police, those members of the public who arrest you for carrying arms yet carry their own.

  9. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 11:42 Permalink

    Yes, there are those gas attacks in France, especially on the Madrid to Nice line. Point taken on that.

  10. Suzie October 3, 2012 at 11:59 Permalink

    James, if you were successful, happy, in a wonderful relationship with a woman who loved you you wouldn’t be spouting this stuff.

    You’ve lost your way and you are blaming society for your isolation.

    Juxtaposing the word feminism with Nazism is horrendously ignorant. As are you.

  11. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 12:38 Permalink

    No Suzie, it’s you who are the sad one – you’re the one who’s lost her way. I am in a very good relationship with a number of women and one wrote this morning asking me to return – I’m seriously considering it – most women in RL, as distinct from the bizarre world of blogging, know how I feel about them and that’s why we get along.

    You desperately want your ad hominem to stick so that you don’t have to face the reality, the truth of what your lot have done and your own sad view of the world. Unfortunately, you’re quite bitter about it – it comes out in your comments and your agenda is an unsustainable one.

    Most of us just get on with life, Suzie. Why not drop your hate men agenda and just get on with life too?

    Have you noticed the only spiteful comments on this blog come from feminazis? They go straight for the jugular, don’t they? Let’s put it to the test. Look at your comments and then look at all other comments on all other topics on this page – there are 30 posts still up on the front page.

    Scour those comments and count how many went ad hominem on me, even on the Islam thing which has a history of heated comments.

    Not one of them apart from you. Does that not tell you something, Suzie dear about who is the sad one here?

    This might help:

    http://youtu.be/qH-mjGNqlHs

    Just one more before I go:

    A feminist is an evolutionary anachronism, a Darwinian blind alley. In biological terms, there is nothing that identifies a maladaptive pattern so quickly as a below-replacement level of reproduction; an immediate consequence of feminism is what appears to be an irreversible decline in the birth-rate. Nations pursue feminist policies at their peril.

    – Babette Frances

  12. Daniel October 3, 2012 at 16:17 Permalink

    This is more than heated, James. It is personal.
    I think you and Suzy took it too far because the message you wanted to profile regarding feminism and its agenda didn’t appear too clearly. Maybe another article/post regarding this topic without linking it to a recent crime would be more open for debate. Within this context I understand Suzy’s drive to react although it shouldn’t become personal.
    I think some readers are equally a bit reluctant to post as they felt that the article was bit hard and the comments harsh. But hey, let’s restart.

    James, I don’t know if you understand French but a person you should follow is Alain Soral:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Soral
    Listen to what he says – there are many video’s out there relating to your interests.

    Regarding the article, I can only say some things regarding women/men’s relationship as I’m a ‘specialist’ ;-) in the subject and not about the Jill Meagher case.
    This is a topic which finds its comparison in the Islam thing as no conclusive result can be obtained. Probably it is somewhere in the middle… There is however much to say about feminism BUT it should not be an excuse to degrade women’s possibilities nor a platform to sell past times when women where also suppressed.
    Common sense did not really prevail in those times. Men touched women without repercussions. Ok, present situation is definitely in overdrive and men are easy target to criminalize as we are (general speaking) the hunters in a sexual game – but don’t fool yourselves, in fact it is women that will control the situation in the end ;-) … more than ever before.
    Rape is of all times and I’m personally convinced all men can have rapists tendencies in certain situations as all women can act occasionally as whores. It is the violence and the easiness one demonstrates in the act that makes all the difference to determine if one is a psychopath. For example, in war times the % of men raping when opportunities occurred, is much higher than in normal conditions (an organised society). Berlin was raped by Russians. Some of them did it violently, others smoothly… but rape is rape and it is of all times. I’ve even heard it could be explained in evolutionary biology – question of spreading the genetic material in unfavourable conditions. Women can act as whores because they gain power through the sexual game and sometimes it is the path one as to walk to create favourable social conditions (sometimes for their kids) or even a matter of survival. I never stated that men ARE rapists and women ARE whores, just that it is part of a very ancient behaviour, hidden and buried under a pile of culture of human interacting and social conditioning. I’m sure lots of people will deny this as they deny the beast within themselves.

    All has to do with respect and all should be free to act in respect to the other and to themselves.
    It is not really the relationship between man and woman that is the major problem nowadays, it is promoted sexual consumerism and the intention for a conflict-driven scenario between the sexes that destroys the social fibre. There’s much more in common than there are differences.

  13. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 16:55 Permalink

    I can only say some things regarding women/men’s relationship as I’m a ‘specialist’ ;-)

    As am I, Daniel, as am I. When I choose to go for the jugular with a woman, which is not often, it is for a reason and often there is a history behind it. One day we’ll meet in France, you and I and discuss the ladies in general over a coffee or wine and thanks for your concern.

    In the case of this situation in this post, Suzie felt that she would allow ad hominem to do her work for her. In that, she showed no respect of the kind you mention but that wasn’t the main beef I had – it was the intellectual shoddiness. One can say anything about me but I won’t tolerate intellectual shoddiness.

    At work just before, I showed a lady friend of mine the correspondence and she was appalled at Suzie’s pretence at knowing my personal life, bringing it into the discussion and then commenting on it. As I explained to my friend, that’s feminazis for you – they’re a different species, a quite nasty breed. They spout tolerance but are the most intolerant people going.

    I allowed this today in this comments thread to show readers what they have on their hands.

    Now my ladyfriend did not go cold at reading all that, instead she said: “Never mind, we know what you’re like,” and I won’t tell the rest. We had a drink together and discussed her upcoming trip instead.

    Often there are two sides to a question. Not on the one in this post.

  14. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 18:12 Permalink

    And here’s the tender, sensitive way the feminazis use Jill Meagher’s death for their own ends:

    http://rhiannon-hart.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/jill-meagher-slutwalk-and-reclaim-night.html

    They’re going to do a Slut Walk. Nice sleazebags. And Suzie dear has the nerve to say that I used her death. Sheesh! What an effing hypocrite.

    Arkell v Pressdram.

  15. CherryPie October 3, 2012 at 22:52 Permalink

    James, I have read through this comment thread carefully and on this occasion it was you that started with the ad hominem comments. Read your first comment again…

    Daniel was correct when he said:

    This is more than heated, James. It is personal.

    You have allowed that to cloud your judgement in your responses and you also have made assumptions about someone you know nothing about.

    You and I are friends and I know what you (really) think about women. But your posts on women are quite offensive (and make a reader think you hate women), I don’t read them any more because the way the are worded provokes a certain reaction (in me) and with all ladies…

    Do you do that on purpose?

  16. James Higham October 3, 2012 at 22:54 Permalink

    Predictable response, Cherie, which I was expecting. On this matter, Suzie is in the wrong and unless feminazis wake up and women generally, such tragedies will continue. Her ad hominem in lieu of good arguments said it all.

    Now I’m sorry if that offends but something needed to be said and I said it.

    You are wrong on this matter, Cherie. Perhaps you can stop and consider that it is possible for you to occasionally have the wrong end of the stick you know.

    Let me say it one more time. Until women stop this self-entitled, don’t oppress me rubbish and realize there are tjhings they simply cannot do, then tragedies will continue and get worse and worse. One day, circumstances will force women to take sensible measures.

    While they stick with the PC narrative, the whole thing goes downhill. No good has come from this PC rubbish, only division and rancour. What I write here is mild compared to the hundreds and hundreds of blogs much blunter than I shall ever be.

    So to say things like do I do it deliberately shows 1. zero intention to understand and 2. automatic assumption the man is wrong in this.

    I’ll say it again – until women wake up on this, the tragedies will continue and get worse.

  17. Amfortas October 4, 2012 at 05:46 Permalink

    I wanted to post this comment to the Jill Meagher thread but there was no post box there for me. Maybe you can fix that James, transfer it across and delete this first paragraph.

    No-one has mentioned the ABC, our taxpaid national broadcaster for which Jill Meagher worked.

    The ABC’s news and comments were kept full of the Meagher rape and murder for days and suddenly, oddly, 30,000 people took to the streets. Yet murders happen every week. Rapes too. They do not get such coverage nor huge marches.

    Organising such a ‘march’ takes great effort, backed by ‘organisation’, dedication to goals and the inclusion of a great many ‘workers’. How many ABC staff, paid by us, diverted their time and workplace assets to getting this march up and walking?

    We as a society are all aware that crimes occur. We support laws that severely punish the criminals who perpetrate them. We recognise that the criminal is not ‘the ordinary’ behaviour in a civilised society and that they are few, proportionally.

    Men are murdered at a far greater frequency than women. There are no marches for men. In Oz we have an ongoing crie de brainless – ‘Australia says NO to violence against women’. Men are ignored at best and treated as potential rapists and murderers all at worst. It is hysteria. It is fueled.

    The ABC is part of the fire that the fuel goes on.

  18. James Higham October 4, 2012 at 06:01 Permalink

    1, Amfortas – done but kept the first paragraph because I wanted to write to readers on the post box closed thingy. Revolution Harry also had the problem and it was because the settings for comments was 7 days – that is, they automatically close in 7 days.

    There’ve been a few cases of late where people have wanted to leave comments on older posts and I generally work on 30 posts on the main page. Looking at that page now, it seems the oldest is Saturday the 29th but that doesn’t seem enough time, so I’ve made it 12 days for now.

    2. Just had another ad hominem from Suzie and now it’s getting childish – I mentioned in the comments, you’ll recall, about shoddy intellectualism and this latest comment was simply taking that and accusing me of it. That’s of no value to anyone so the comment did not get through.

    3. I need to make it crystal clear that it’s not Suzie as a person but as a feminazi brainwashing victim that I have issue. I don’t have issues with individuals per se but with the rubbish they’re spouting. I’m quite sure that she and I, under other circumstances, could have a nice cup of tea together and all would be well.

    Similarly, saying Cherie was wrong on this matter does not mean anything further than that vis-a-vis the estimable Cherie. I don’t appreciate the personalizing of an issue. When someone tackles the issue and disagrees, that’s fine – they’re keeping to the issue. When it is an attack on me personally, then it is of no use whatever. Personal attacks do zero for me – I’ve had them all my life – but they do cloud issues and that I do not wish to see in a debate.

    4. Knowing this had to be written and being dog-tired at about 11 last evening, it was wiser to close comments for the night and get some sleep [it was a pretty momentous day in RL for me yesterday]. Plus only heated words would have ensued when exhausted and nobody needs that.

    However, the thread is open again now. I would ask people not to make it personal but to address the issue itself. If they can’t, then on this thread only, I shan’t allow the comment I hasten to add that other threads follow the general blog rules].

    The reason it’s curtailed at all by WP is to stop spam and there’s a lot of it about.

    5. Finally getting around to your actual comment, Amfortas – yes, I was aware of the role of the ABC and asked why, in the post, it happened to be a march for Jill in particular – fine that she be commemorated and let’s show no disrespect to her, the poor soul. Let’s commemorate her by all means. But why only her? Why not for other victims?

    Yes, this thing was as organized as the OWS and by the same sorts of people and with the same money and organization behind it, in order to perpetuate the feminist agenda. This was why I was so angry with Suzie – the intellectual shoddiness of accusing me of precisely what she and her sisterhood were doing – it’s a common technique on the left, much commented on at other blogs.

    Not only that but the reason for my disgust with the actions of these people is shown clearly in the Slut Walk that was organized as a “commemoration” of the dead woman. Now that woman [may I call her a lady?] had a husband and lived a married family life. She was as connected with a Slut Walk as she would have been with Pol Pot or the Iranian leader, i.e. not at all.

    And Suzie had the sheer gall to accuse me of using the death to further my agenda! There’s a point when people’s indecent actions, in this case those harpies organizing that Slut Walk, crosses the line.

    That’s why, Daniel, I was not amenable to your analysis because it did not take these other factors into consideration. A Slut Walk, for crying out loud!! To commemorate a dead woman! Sheesh! Is there no decency left in the world?

    And what’s the tag line of these idiots? “To reclaim the night, to reclaim the streets for women.”

    Bloody hell – they want to perpetuate precisely what caused the death – they are seriously telling women to go out on the streets and get raped and murdered. This is the lunacy of the left and to an extent, many women. I wrote it in the post – that they think something “should be” and conflate it with “what is”. It is bloody well not safe for women on the streets so these feminazi crazies are actually perpetrating great evil on women by urging them to be on the street alone.

    There is something seriously sick about that mindset of such people – they’re actually sociopaths – and as for any vestiges of compassion for the dead women – don’t make me laugh. That type does not give a toss about the good of women. At least I’m trying to keep them safe as far as I can.

    This was why that woman was appalled yesterday when she saw the comments thread. She actually said to me – but you were arguing it was not safe for women.

    Yes.

    And she accused you of not having a happy family life.

    Yes, that’s the mindset of the feminazi.

    I went on to ask her if she’d walk around at night on the street alone in the middle of Scunthorpe or wherever. The look on her face said it all. Now why can this girl be sane and these other crazies can’t? This is why I keep trying for women because there are still people like the lady yesterday who are sane and want a normal life.

    And I do think it’s up to people, including me, to do what we can to make things safer but insane, unsustainable feminazi agendas will produce the opposite, as they’re designed to do by the perpetrators and as so many women are now writing – I’ve quoted quite a few of these and have a dozen or so more up the sleeve.

    6. Issue has been taken over the use of the term feminazi. It’s not my term but it’s quite accurate. The Nazis pursued an agenda of destruction of their society through discrimination against one particular demographic. The parallel is exact. “Feminazism” is a most appropriate term.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feminazism

    “a radically misinformed progressive female who thinks she’s fighting for some cause who instead does more harm than good “.

    7. Late note – I’ve just found a comment on another thread by one of the women accusing me of “irrationality”. That’s very good, most amusing, coming from that source. The only irrationality is in women failing to wake up and perpetuating:

    a. This behaviour which sees them unsafe;
    b. Personalizing the issue to attack the speaker, rather than what’s been said.

    This was yet another example of it. Not the least attempt to see how she was being irrational – not the slightest whiff of doubt over that. That’s what we’re up against.

    Being angry is not, by definition, being irrational. Being angry is being angry – it can be quite focussed and have basis, which I’ve provided above.

  19. Moggsy October 4, 2012 at 08:47 Permalink

    I think Daniel makes some good points.

    I also think Cherry makes a valid argument, and I agree your posts on women can somtimes get offensive and/or patronising, if you intend it or not.

    On the comment about male murder rate. Men may well be murdered more often than women, mostly by men.

    I commented against this before on the Jamie post that I think sometimes the violence men perpetrate against women is often qualitatively quite different, a perversion /variation of the sexual hunter behaviour Daniel spoke of, plus there is warped dominance behaviour also.

    James using your Feminazi hate word makes it look like being reduced to ad-hominem tricks. I figure it is really their left wing politics you can’t stand that and perceived unfairness.

  20. James Higham October 4, 2012 at 08:53 Permalink

    Sigh – naturally you would, Moggsy and so will Twilight if/when she gets around to it – all with feminist brainwashing to varying degrees. Women are not used, in these PC times, to actually being taken to task and made to account for their actions. It’s a shock to the system when it happens and the natural reaction is to blame the one saying it, especially if he is male.

    I was giving voice to views that so many have around the world but most keep to themselves. The only issue remaining is whether to raise it or not.

    My view is that of Edmund Burke:

    http://www.padfield.com/1997/goodmen.html

    The only qualification is that I don’t see myself as “good” but more like Sydney Carton in Sale of Two Titties.

    As mentioned before, most men are vastly more direct than I am on it:

    http://www.rooshv.com/7-ways-feminism-is-destroying-american-women

    Plus:

    http://www.soulwinning.info/evils/feminism/destroys.htm

    http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/feminists-destroying-women-because.html

    http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4688

    https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/matriarchy-feminist-rule-destroys-every-society-that-implements-it/

    http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8259

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/04/5-ways-feminism-has-ruined-america

    http://www.amberpawlik.com/DestroyingWomen.html

    How many more do you need? It just came from li’l old me and my head? What’s the betting you ladies will not bother reading those.

    That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Lst thought – when your body has a virus, do you try to destroy the body itself or just the virus?

  21. Moggsy October 4, 2012 at 11:55 Permalink

    Naturally I would? I would.. What exactly?

    I don’t think I made any particualrly “feminist points” they were neutral, objective and trying to be reasonable/honest.

    It sounds as if you dismiss what I was saying, or any point I agreed with just and _only_ because of whatever you feel I would “naturally” do. Of course reflecively, by instinct like an animal, or maybe conditioning alone with no actual intelligence or thought on my part inviolved. My opinions can’t be valid can they…

  22. James Higham October 4, 2012 at 12:42 Permalink

    It sounds as if you dismiss what I was saying

    This is precisely the reversal I took Suzie to task over. Standard feminist tactic. Look, Moggsy, on the other post you had the stats put in front of you for the looking – you can see the feminist line is a lie – and you “dismiss what I say” or what people who know are saying?

    How many women are pointing this out to their sisters now? How many, eh? And with one broad sweep, you dismiss the lot. Sheesh. Shooting blanks don’t help – where are your counter-stats?

    It’s the feminazi lies which have sucked you in and so many women and when you’re fronted with them, you look about for stats and they only come from feminist tomes and government studies, neither of which are worth diddly squat.

    Independent stats, as Amfortas provided, I’d like to see refuted. Because if they can’t be, then women have been sucked in and disempowered by a Lie.

    Same Lie in Nazi Germany, same Lie by Obama, same by Romney, same by Merkel.

    That’s what this thing is all about. Please learn for once and don’t try to just auto-counter when you ain’t got no ammo to fire with.

  23. Moggsy October 4, 2012 at 13:20 Permalink

    At the other post I boiled the FACTS down into-simple-chunks that are not contrary to reality.

    You know as well as I do that complicating stats and references is basically a logical fallacy. Do you really seriously dispute that the majority of crime is perpetrated by a small minority of the population for instance? Does it contradict your so-called stats?

    Or that the same is true of violence? Or are you claiming it is endemic? No. I think you just seek to muddy the waters and try to pretend you scored points. Fine play your games if you don’t want a serious discussion. Enjoy.

  24. James Higham October 4, 2012 at 17:11 Permalink

    I have to close off comments now on this thread because due to my own negligence, I caused it to restart at another thread:

    http://nourishingobscurity.com/2012/10/02/sarah-struggles-with-jamie/

    That’s where it currently is. Sorry. Trackbacks still work though.

    The answer[s] to Moggsy are over there.