The answer to firearm violence IS NIOT “moar gunz “ . This is self evident .Why , because the more firearms in circulation = more firearms in possession of the nefarious.
Take it from me , proficiency in firearms requires drill, drill, drill, drill , drill and more drill . Then more drill , drill , and drill . A mass killer , using an AR15 – in a fugue of hate – is certainly efficient , because he is in that fugue , and – therefore – knows nothing else , not even fear .
Few amateur civilians – no matter how well armed , no matter what weapon – could , in fear and surrounded by panic , summon the sheer cold hearted focus it requires to meet fire with fire , bullet for bullet . You couldn’t . And you need to admit it .
So what’s the answer ? Drilled , retained militias ? Who then , are the police ? Whither they ? Well , they are those whom – having volunteered as guardians – have sacrificed many of the civil liberties such as members of civilian militias rarely accede . Indeed , it may be fair to argue that membership of such a militia might lead many to assume greater liberties over this who they guard .
Who amongst us really believes that – regardless of our view of the police – any such civilian militia would be free of human failing – somehow less corruptible by power – than a government appointed , regulation constricted , police force? Yes , the police have failings – ANY POC will tell you that . But free of the checks and balances of law and code , the men – yes, for it will be MEN who take this role – you would have armed as your protection , would simply revert , and quickly , to asserting that that protection is an entitlement to droit de seigneur, and your obligation to submit .
Why is “moar gunz” self evidently not the answer ? 30k plus firearms deaths in the US . Every year . The sum in the UK doesn’t often surpass j digit numbers starting with 3 so – even accounting for population differentials – that figure should sober .
I have taken up arms , Because you cannot avoid tragedy and horror by making it statistically more likely , I suggest you do not .
Ah Phillip Hammond , you’re e every clever fella , aren’t you ?Very astute , tax cuts . A neat trick , making socialist like myself look like hypocrites for opposing them .
“Ah , but why are you against helping the poor ?” Y’all say .
Only I’m not . But those tax cuts will wind up hurting the[all but the richest]worker more than most will care to imagine , and here’s why . These tax cuts . It’s the boiling frog . You know the one , where the frog is bathing in a nice warm saucepan , unawares the water is getting steadily hotter , until it’s too late .
Without enforcing taxes currently swerved – such as corporation – where’s the money to fund such as the NHS gonna come from? Nowhere , that’s where . The continuing underfunding of the NHS serves simply to amplify the narrative that it’s “inefficient” , and accelerate its steering away from being a publicly funded service , to a privately funded one .Shifting the obligation to fund healthcare from the collective to the individual .
No longer “burdened” by tax – the people least able to bear it – will be burdened by the cost of healthcare . And the worst part , it’s already being facilitated . By section 75 of David Cameron’s NHS abolishing Health & Social Care Act/2010.
Oh it’ll feel nice , those extra few quid . For a while it’ll feel indeed as though “austerity is over” . Until wages continue to stagnate , employers further excused of their obligation to provide fair remuneration .Until those few extra pennies vanish in reduced tax credits , and when inflation bites .
It’ll all feel so nice that – for just long enough to anaesthetise the most vulnerable against continuing tax avoidance , and the fact that outside the EU this stands to become de facto legal – once they come round , the people will be easy to convince its “that nasty EU” that’s making them poor . That took their healthcare .
This budget isn’t a “budget for the future “ , but “a budget for future past” And the cruelest thing? Making people feel a little better – for a short while – is like putting arsenic in candy .
That cheering you hear ? That’s the sound of the gas igniting under the saucepan .
> than 90% of rapes go unreported
> than 90% of prosecutions fail
In Great Britain , the former Director of Public Prosecutions- Sir Kier Starmer – commissioned a number gathering exercise over two years , concluding that false accusations are rare , that false accusations of rape number no more than those of any other crime . The office of DPP is hardly a hotbed of radical feminism , as it’s current incumbent amply proves .
I’m using loose stats because this will vary , country to country . Do not ask fo citations or argue the toss , the figures are out there .
Aha , you ask , what’s the point to this ? Well , when people use words such as “sanity” , one can only assume that they are insinuating that the opposite behaviour to which they refer , is “insane” . Lacking in sanity .
Now , I’m not opining on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh , nor – indeed – have I ever . I’m going to report what we have all seen , and what is demonstrably true . When questioned – UNDER OATH – Judge Kavanaugh became hysterical . And LIED . Men who knew him in his youth – MEN – were quick to refute his protestations of virginal sobriety in college , and his misrepresentations of group sexual practiced , as “drinking games” . These are MEN with NO AGENDA . Indeed , another cohort not known for its rabid radical feminism . Middle aged , politically conservative , middle class , white , men .
I can partly understand his demeanour , nobody likes being accused of anything . But to LIE UNDER OATH , puce faced and spluttering , whilst claiming to be capable of holding an office that requires qualities , and which he indeed said he possessed – of probity , impartiality , and unimpeachable honesty – thus requiring people to completely ignore the contrast with said between claims and behaviour , is quite remarkable .
This may be immaterial , but Jesuits do not make political moves . They did NOT drop their support because he was republican – remember they endorsed him – but because of what his behaviour under pressure revealed . Quite apart from anything , when a candidate holds views also held by your faith , there can be no hint whatsoever that that candidate’s opinions , treatment of – and morals toward – women , are anything less than benign . Because – hello – that would then suggest the pro life veiews are – indeed – anti woman.
Contrast with Doctor Ford . If anyone’s still confused as to why women don’t report such crimes , look at the tsunami of hate thrown at her . Look how this was tacitly endorsed by POTUS – A SELF CONFESSED SEXUAL PREDATOR – when he dismissed her as a liar . Not once did she collapse into anger – lies , recriminations and temper tantrums – not once did she lose her cool . In the face of all that , while the president himself called her a liar , she stood , exemplifying all the qualities Kavanaugh claimed to posses , yet failed to demonstrate. And yet we still dismiss her , and those who stand with her , as hysterics.
This is why women don’t report . Rape is essentially legal , and reporting such – especially if high profile – requires the acceptance of the crash hot certainty of reprisals , sometimes severe . These reprisals ensure that women veer cautious of reporting the sexual crimes of men against them , and thus men can continue in the belief that – no report = no rape .
In short , don’t report = liar /do report = liar .
When you traduce the sanity of the reactions of women to such events – and opine that there are “real world” situations that more appropriately require their energies – you are not only dismissing their potential loss of their rights to choose , taken by (allegations of sexual misconduct aside ) men who clearly do NOT respect women , you are revealing yourself to be little better .You are telling every woman that ever knew you that she cannot trust you to believe her , or even stand with her to uphold her rights .
You are telling them they are not human .
More and more we are told that the rights of (mostly) males to identify themselves into whatever/previously/restricted/to/female they please , is a “civil rights” movement , equivalent to that of homosexuals .
Well no , and if it has to be broken down into numbered bullet points …then…
1. Until recently , homosexual couples were not allowed to marry . This placed many unable to afford or be afforded the same legal protections – for they or their children – as heterosexual couples . Affording those rights in no way impinged upon those of heterosexual marriages .
2. Nobody – after equal marriage – is stopping those who identify as trans from marrying , as heterosexual and homosexual couples now have equal rights to marry , and this does NOT require a gender recognition certificate , even though the lack of one will result in the trans spouse’s birth sex – rather than gender identity – being recorded .
3. It was previously extremely deleterious[and often still is] to the careers of sportsmen and women to be openly homosexual , never mind that this in no way effected their performance , or impinged on the safety , participation or inclusion of heterosexual sportspersons /teammates /opponents .
4. Conversely , it is extremely deleterious to the inclusion , career progression and participation – particularly in women’s teams and leagues – and impinges on their safety [particularly in contact sports such as AFL or MMA] when male born and ergo male bodied individuals are allowed to participate as women , and there are many examples providing ample proof of this .
5. Homosexual individuals rarely endanger members of their own sex in facilities such as lavatories or changing rooms , where importuning does occur , it is arguably more risky for those importuning , than those approached . There is no record of female homosexuals posing any risk to members of their own sex, little more of their being endangered likewise .
6. Where members of one biological sex have been allowed to share such facilities with those of the opposite – be they transgender or not – sexual attacks have proliferated . While only a very small % of such public facilities are “gender neutral” , > more than 90% of such offences occurred within such – as opposed to sex segregated facilities – with the vast majority of victims being female . (All figures available from MOJ website )
It is clear , then , that there is little or no parallel between the homosexual civil rights movement , and the so-called “equivalent “ claimed by trans activists . In order for homosexuals to be granted the same dignities , rights , and safeties and heterosexuals , no single heterosexual right was lost , no heterosexual restricted or endangered .
Conversely – and noting a cruel irony within , on two levels – affording members of one sex [regardless of gender identity ] un-restricted access to facilities previously exclusive of them , not only impinges on the safety and rights of the opposite sex , but may endanger transgendered individuals as well.
Because if anyone can identify into anyone’s space , anyone WILL. Nefarious men have always , do , and always WILL, utilise whatever means at their disposal to prey on the vulnerable . And that will include the transgendered , as well as women and girls . Likewise , no less nefarious men will view all transgendered individuals as potential predators , creating a backlash .
They are not “the same “ , and those claiming to have any interest the rights of the transgendered , need to how , and why. “The path to hell is paved with good intentions “ is a saying for a reason , people .
You think if it was truly possible to identify yourself into the opposite sex , women wouldn’t do it in our billions ?
You think if we really could become men , shed the catcalls , the groping , the rape culture , the objectification , the medical condescension, the drudgery , the obstetric violence , the forced birth , the continued discussion of our bodily rights as though they’re not our sole domain – hell – the fucking pay gap that hasn’t narrowed even though we now retire at the same age as better remunerated men , that we wouldn’t have , in our billions ? Nah , you know it isn’t possible . Of course you know . You’re lying when you say it is .
And you know it .
But you can’t admit that , oh no . So you take a scientific term and you pervert it . Just like everything else .You call us “cis” . You tell us it simply means “not trans “
And when confronted with the semantic stupidity of prefixing that which needs none – as it’s opposite already has a prefix – you then insist it means “a person who’s gender identity alights with that assigned at birth “
Well, nothing is assigned at birth . Our sex is noted , that’s all . Nobody is assigned an identity at birth . Nobody . There are males, and there are females, the rest – “gender “- is a dress code .
What you’re actually asserting is – is that women who do not identify as trans – are aligned with the aeons of sex based oppression forced upon us by men . That we are happy with it . You’re using the true fact – that we cannot choose to identify out of our sex – against us . That because we don’t choose [BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE]we are ergo simply the way we are meant to be . Because we do not choose not to be .
This – in turn – allows you to justify your marionette personas , puppetting womanhood through simpering ,appropriative , sex bot stereotype .Those of you who bother .
The cohort who do not – simply assert that by not acting/dressing “cis” – they are the true women , having achieved this by escaping gender – by remaining, for all intents and purposes, – men .
It’s the exact same thing as telling a black person or a disabled one they are aligned with that , simply because they do not choose otherwise .
Except you swerve that . It’s “not the same” you say . Well why would that be ? Admit it , it’s because @50% of them are male , and ergo human . And women ? – why , we are an identity – women are just a dress .
Only we’re not . Because if we were , you’d not have to construct lies to justify your porn sick apery, and your narcissistic , covetous hate* . We can’t change sex , you little emperors , and you know it . So you insist we hide hide your nakedness for you , pretend we don’t see .
We see. Everything you do , the harder you try , the more your efforts become as a magnifying lens of reality .
Women don’t have penises. We are all StickerWoman
*copyright . Miranda Yardley
All these men obsessed with “Asian paedo grooming gangs”
Apart from the fact that the vast majority of trafficked kiddy rape and kiddy pornotainment is white dudes……
Are they looking at porn , have they visited prostituted women, even just too look at them in “shop” windows ? Do they go to East Asia, and “hook up” with them “sweet like nubile Asian pussies” , do they know men who have , do , and will ? Do they laugh with them , bond with them ? They yo bros, so it’s cool right?
Well look up . Listen up . Never mind what those profiting from those industries say – including the occasional “porn star” or “happy hooker” – the ad hominem that they would say that , wouldn’t they , is rendered invalid by the fact that they actually would , of course they would . They’re profiting . But hey , it’s legal , so we cool right?
Those industries rely on the naivety of a few , and the paucity life choices of the many . The many ARE exploited , ARE abused . From the “actress” who has to take pain killers – pre take – and eventually undergo bowel surgery , for her prolapse (euphemistically called rosebudding) , to the trafficked Roma teen , “servicing” fifteen men a day in a German mega brothel . But that’s legal , so it’s okay right ?
Them Thai girls , you don’t know how old they are , who’s holding a gun to their heads , you seem totally able to blank the exploitation , the gangs trading on human misery , addiction and abuse , aren’t you ?
They sweet , who cares you value their “nubile” look , that’s not “actual” paedophilia , is it ? You tell yourselves that , but ignore the fact you cannot possibly know . But nobody is arresting you , so it’s ok, right?
You don’t know who is groomed , trafficked , raped , abused (and a large proportion of prostituted women , and groomed girls , DO hail from abusive backgrounds)(or are addicted ! or many other life maims ) do you ?
Newsflash , they all are . EVERY DAMN ONE Statistically speaking , the few who aren’t do not number enough to invalidate that And you secretly know that , because – look at the women around you – if that was SO empowering , SO choicey , we’d be queueing up at careers offices .
And we are not . And you know why . You know . Even if prosecutions are few .
This isn’t about the morals of such women and girls , they are victims . I’ve befriended many a prostituted woman in places such as Brazil . They’re my sisters . We got no beef with each other . It’s about the morals of MEN . Mostly white men .
Look in a Mirror . The face looking back at you is the face of the abuser , the trafficker . Ok , not you personally . SO DONT TAKE IT THAT WAY UNLESS….But the men , the white men with their white man money . Even just images , even just porn . Because buying that is nothing more than paying to watch someone else to do your dirty work
If you do ANY of the above – justify or talk it down – even if you don’t personally but buddy about with those who do , laugh with them about it instead of tackling them on it then imma gonna say this ….
….Your obsession with “Asian paedo grooming gangs “ and the “brave crusade” of those equally obsessed ………might well mean you don’t give an actual shit about the abuse of women and girls[and it don’t matter how many dialectic gambits you hide behind]you’ve just found an outlet for racism , fuckboy .
Yeh , you’re “all Tommeh” , damn right you are .
Why so ? – it’s using an idiom that refers to the female as the most debase thing you can be . So – as such – this is inimical to the dignity of women ,whenever it’s used and whoever it’s used about .And no matter who it’s used by .
Same applies to “pussy” , “quim” and “bitch” , while we are here .
So never mind whether anyone respects women , we do no better by using such idioms ourselves .
So – albeit for different reasons – “c*nt” is no more “just a word” , than “n***er”*
*The ONLY reason black people have been able to “reclaim” “N” , is because fifty percent of black people are men , and ergo human . Even then, many black persons would dispute that it’s ever possible to reclaim such dehumanising idiom , as is their right .
And I share that about “c*nt* .
Hallo whateboutery , isn’t been – what – days ?This time it’s “why are they protesting Trump , whatabout when Obama …(the Saudis , append as necessary) .”
It’s bloody simple , America is – at least notionally – the leader of the free world . Whatever else it may be , it’s the largest economy . And – like it or not – that means something .
Putting aside the inference that such protesters are (what?) not as woke , educated , or whatever – what’s being said here , that they are “hypocrites “? So what *if* they are not as aware of global geopolitics? Are “simple folk” not allowed to protest lest it offend the whatboutist commentariat ? I mean , hello snobbery .
Why not give them the benefit that they do know “as much” , but – unlike those who feel everyone should protest everything , or nothing , they see America as centre – hub if you will – of a Ven diagram , upon which those other global factors , rotate? Could it just be possible they’re focusing on the bullseye of the target , not its outer rings and positions ?
Like I said , America IS the world’s largest economy and – few would argue against the proposition – the world most powerful country .
As to the quip regarding the employment status of the protesters , really? Until I joined the navy I rarely – in my seven years between leaving school and enlisting – had a weekend off , equally rarely consecutive days off – working as I did , variously – in retail , travel , and care . These days the privilege of a job that afford weekends off is even rarer , so it’s no stretch to imagine them perfectly well employed . Or even taking a day’s leave .
It’s a miserly imagination that cannot see beyond one’s own perception and circumstance , and assume triviality and unemployment in those whom – probably – have so little opportunity to protest , they have to pick carefully what that time is spent on . It may well be they’re losing a precious day’s pay , and we sit in judgement , safe at our keyboards ? Huh.
Back to insinuated ignorance – so what – if they *are* as ignorant , what’s the saying ?
Ah yes , “when America sneezes , the world catches a cold “.
And that’s enough for me .
This theory occurs frequently , people asserting that being sexually orientated-towards-and-attracted-to the same sex , and choosing to act on that , as the same as choosing that orientation .
Except , except , social constructs have to have a natural foundation . They’re not conjured from thin air but rely on a material foundation .
Homosexuality, lesbianism and heterosexuality ALL exist in nature , equally naturally but not in frequency . Patriarchy colonises and enforces heterosexuality , because it’s a perfect control tool . Make compulsory what most female mammals do in nature , and by the same token , weaponise it against – not just heterosexual women -but all homosexuals and lesbians, in the form of homo/lesbophobia . They’d be compulsory – as well- if patriarchy could control women through it, to their benefit.
The fact that it is only heterosexuality that is compulsory is NOT equating mammalian heterosexuality as either entirely a construct OR saying that because heterosexuality exists in nature (is ergo natural) and has been weaponised (unlike others which it is weaponised Against ) it is the “only” natural orientation .
But again and again I’ve seen those exact arguments , usually enforced by regiments of straw man , used to bolster why “any woman” , can “be” lesbian .
They can’t . Just because patriarchy has made heterosexuality compulsory doesn’t mean it’s NOT a natural orientation , or that feminists referencing nature are saying it’s the only “natural” one . We have to reference nature in order to analyse that which exists outside human society , just as we have to with the sex in nature/gender under patriarchy paradigm .
Of course , if it was entirely a choice than what are we saying , that het women are freely choosing and colluding in theirs – and all women’s – oppression . Isn’t that just a tad superior and misogynistic?
Now ,there’s the theory that most woman are – at least a little – Bi , which could bolster the argument that women could choose women , but what free choice do we really have? I’d say it’s only a free – caveat, I’m not saying easy – choice when the alternative repulses you . But then , you’d have to afford that choice to those likewise repulsed by the alternatives facing them .
Finally , only under a post patriarchal world will we know for sure , but – it’s worth reiterating that – heterosexuality , homosexuality , Lesbianism , and bisexuality exist within nature – outside human society – AND existed before patriarchy , within human society . We were human and procreated before society was a thing , and certainly before patriarchy moulded society in its own image .
In conclusion ; for me , political lesbianism means loving women and centring women in my politics – it is something ANY woman CAN do – and I feel it inimical to the liberation of women , to blame any group of women for their subordination by patriarchy , under particularly as – with[and-especially-under]compulsory heterosexuality – it is our very biology and SEX , that has been used to enforce that by rape , forced child birthing and sexual slavery . Our common womanhood, in nature , as adult human females . While our sex/sexual orientation has been politicised , it does not automatically follow that sexual orientation can be a purely political choice .
There is no better politic* in rejecting that which repulses you , even less in assuming better politic over women for whom it does not .
*this is not a blanket accusation against any that hold such theories . If you do not[hold your politic so] then this blog should be no more than another theory , to take or leave .