Another day, another Feminist writing garbage.
Today’s big winner Jean Hatchet, who would like to conflate “domestic violence” with terrorism and equate “terrorist” with “man.”
And then feminists wonder why some of us don’t like them.
Terrorism affects our lives with quite miserable regularity at present. Most days we wake up with the niggling fear that somewhere in the world a man will have driven a car or lorry into a crowd. Or a man will have walked into a pop concert with an explosive. Or a man will have reversed his car into a protesting crowd. We are afraid of men in airports. We are afraid of men while on demonstrations and marches. We are afraid of men on public transport. We are afraid of men while we walk around cities.
Your paranoia is neither my fault or my problem.
Some men, and some women, will be bristling angrily already while reading this. I am using the word “man” they will be thinking. They will probably be shouting in annoyance, “that is sexist!” “Women kill too” they will protest.
Yes, women do kill too. Mainly, they kill children and each other.
Truth isn’t sexist. All of the men who have committed all of the most recent acts of global terrorism are men. All of them.
Except for the ones who were female.
It was therefore frustrating to see Jason Burke in the Guardian at the weekend finding all sorts of different links between the perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks except the one that was blindingly obvious. They are all men. Violent men.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
This is the same line of reason in which an abundance of Jews in Hollywood = Hollywood is controlled by THE Jews.
But okay, let’s ignore the culture, ethnicity, and the…religious ideology or political ideology of terrorists and just chalk it up to them having a penis.
By the way, who initiates the majority of the divorces in the Anglosphere?
70%+ women? That must mean vaginas inevitably lead to divorce.
Joan Smith wrote here about the other notable link amongst other recent male terrorists. They frequently, so frequently that it is impossible to exclude its relevance, have a history of violence against women. Often the violence is against women they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Unless the men in question hit the women in question over the head with a stick and dragged the women in question back to their man-cave, she knowingly selected this man to associate with.
Men present value; women accept value.
If a woman picks a man with a tendency for beating ass, that’s her fault.
Since that article one of the suspects in the Barcelona attack has been shown to have a history of domestic abuse. James Alex Fields Jr. the murderer in Charlottesville had a history of domestic abuse of his own mother.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
James Fields is a diagnosed schizophrenic, but let’s leave that crucial fact out. Don’t want to fuck up this anti-male narrative we’ve got going on here.
The World Health Organisation report ‘Violence Against Women. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women’ in 2016, showed that globally 30% of women will experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.
Let’s think about that. Terrorism is horrific. But 30% of the global population will not experience directly an act of terrorism that harms them physically. 30% of women will.
That’s a shame. Sounds like they should have picked a better dick.
On my project ‘Ride for Murdered Women’ the other day the woman I honoured on bike ride 72 was a 43-year-old, qualified solicitor by the name of Alison Jane Farr-Davies. Alison had been beaten to death and thrown downstairs naked by her boyfriend.
James Dean, her murderer, hit her like a rocket or a bomb. It could be said that he was her war. Being in a relationship with a violent man is similar to being in a war. It hurts like war. It is perpetual lived terror. It hurts like terrorism.
Ha. Now for some fact that are inconvenient to Hatchet’s narrative: First, the guy’s name is DEAN JONES, not James Dean. I’m not even English and figured that out in 30 seconds. Huffpo, tell your bloggers to step their game up.
Second, Farr-Davies was a drug addict. She was an addict prior to her relationship with Jones, who is also a drug addict.
Like attracts like. Farr-Davies met Jones, accepted the value he presented (fellow druggie), and consented to a relationship with an unstable drug addict who ended up committing manslaughter on her (the court agreed that he did not intend to kill her).
Feminists can blather on about “domestic violence” until they are blue in the face, but they cannot talk their way out of basic sexual economics and the fact that while men may express interest, ultimately, women choose men, especially in the world of the “liberated woman.”
And when a woman chooses a man who has some blatant, obvious moral defect, then she gets what are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of entering relationships and having sex with morally defective men, whether it is losing their money, getting their skulls cracked, or ending up dead at the bottom of the stairs.
Violence and abuse of women is committed in such numbers that it is, and should be seen as, terrorism. It is designed to create terror in women specifically and to stop them going about their daily lives in safety.
Interesting. Allow me to pull a few numbers.
From the 2015 Uniform Crime Report prepared by the FBI:
Total murders reported for 2015: 13,455.
Total number of male victims of murder: 10,608
Total number of female victims of murder: 2,818
From the UK’s Office of National Statistics for the year ending March 2015(Caveat: The UK jukes its murder stats so they aren’t really reliable)
Total number of male victims of murder: 331
Total number of female victims of murder: 186
Let’s try another. From Juristat in Canada for 2015:
Total number of male victims of murder: 428
Total number of female victims of murder: 175
Getting the point yet? Allow me to make it unambiguously. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence, up to and including murder, than women. And now feminists want to expand the already overbroad umbrella of “terrorism” to cover their demonstrated inability to pick a morally upright man? They want to raise the hue and cry when women are less likely to be murdered, both in total and per capita, than men?
It does. It should be tackled as a priority as high on the list of global governments as any extremist terrorist threat. There should be a COBRA meeting, or its global equivalent, called every day that a woman dies. A woman dies like this somewhere in the world every day.
Call the meeting.
When a woman dies, there needs to be a Cabinet-level meeting. When a man dies, just broom his corpse off the street and continue with business as usual.
Explain this feminist definition of “equality” to me again, because I, for the life of me, am not getting it.
Wait a minute, I think I’ve got it now: In Feminism, equality means that women are sacred and men are disposable.