The Fourth Reich
By
Michael The Libertarian
Emily Lindin. What a wonderfully anti-American person she must
be, based upon recent tweets of hers. I'm not sure about the order
in which they originally appeared, but here they are (transcribed by
your humble author):
“Here’s
an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about
innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment
allegations.”
And:
“The
benefit of all of us getting to finally tell the truth + the impact
on victims FAR outweigh the loss of any one man’s reputation. If
some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process
of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to
pay.”
Well,
there's a lot to digest, there. There's nothing I can really defend.
I try to do that, as often as I can, but I'm not seeing it. Let's
take that first one: She's not concerned (AT ALL) about innocent
men
losing jobs or their reputation over false
allegations.
How
could any American with two brain cells to rub together defend that?
Then, there's: If some innocent men's
reputations take a hit ... that is a price I am absolutely willing to
pay.
Well,
isn't that magnanimous of her? She's
willing to pay that price. Of course, the glaring fault in her logic
is that it wouldn't be her – or any other woman – paying any
“price”, but let's stay with the women, shall we?
What
about the mothers, wives, daughters and grand-daughters of those
innocent
men? Is there any chance those ladies might be affected?
Let's
dig a bit further than that, shall we? It has long been a tenet of
American criminal law that it is better that ten guilty men go free
than for one innocent man to be wrongly convicted.
Did
you see what I did there? I slipped into the legal realm. Let's stick
with reputations and the non-legal realm.
She's
okay with damaged reputations, lost jobs, families possibly becoming
destitute … All for what she considers “undoing the patriarchy”.
I'll save the low-down on wage inequality for another day (when I'm
really bored and willing to do other peoples' research for them), but
let's talk about her particular brand of feminism.
Unfortunately,
it has become the main-stream brand of feminism. The movement is no
longer interested in equality. They're interested in deposing the
“abusers” and becoming the new abusers. It's not about fairness
and equality. It's about reversing roles and continuing the abuse,
just with a different target.
Of
course, that assumes that men are a different target. They've been
targets (at least the fat, old, white ones) for many years, now. The
“allowable” butt of most jokes, and targets of political insults
that are thoroughly excoriated and unprotected, by the defenders of
“equality”. This is what the movement has become; misandry.
When
I was very young (five-years-old or so), my baby-sitter (Debbie W.,
if she's out there!) used to take me to N.O.W. rallies. I doubt that
I was indoctrinated, but maybe so. Be that as it may, when I was
older (about 12), I agreed with some of their positions. I believed
that there was some work to be done. I believed that women held very
few positions of power, but I also believe that we've changed in a
very negative way to try to change those things.
When
I was growing up in New York, there was a rule that NYPD officers had
to be 5' 10” tall. There was a reason for that. It was so they
would present a somewhat intimidating figure and reduce the need to
go to the billy club or (God forbid!) the gun.
Eventually,
that standard was erased and ladies now serve as police officers.
They don't quite cut the same figure as the 5' 10” officers did. My
belief is it has been to the detriment of the NYPD. I have no figures
since it would be impossible to believe the dirt bags, even if they
did say they were “cowed” by the arresting (female) officer.
Somehow, I just doubt it.
In
the military, women rarely served outside of clerical, medical or
legal capacities. I remember President Carter, ordering the military
to expand the role of women in the military. Almost immediately, the
question went out about women in combat. The very
first
group to denounce that idea was … drum roll, please … N.O.W.
That's right, those champions of equality argued against it, back in
1976!
Through
the years, that opinion has been eroded to the point where women now
serve in combat positions and that's a good thing. However, the way
it's been accomplished is by lowering the physical standards for
women in the military. Later, the standards were also reduced for
males, in an attempt to promote parity. That is not
good vís-à-vís combat ability and troop readiness.
Here's
the real nail in the coffin for the misandrists, currently “leading”
the equality movement, which I believe is a misnomer, obviously. It's
why I refer to women like Ms. Lindin as “Feminazi.”:
Why
is it that eighteen-year-old males are required to sign up for
Selective Service (“The Draft” for those of you in Poughkeepsie),
but eighteen-year-old females aren't? That seems awfully incongruous
to me.
Duplicity?
Well, by my definition, yes, but it has become the new standard for
most “main stream” feminists.
Where's
the equality?
An
interesting side note: as I was typing this, the words “misandry”
and “misandrist” came up as misspelled words on this word
processing program. The program didn't recognize them as even being
words, almost as if those people/conditions don't exist.
I
detest repeating myself, but I will: Where's the equality? You'd
better believe “misogyny” is recognized (I checked).
-
Michael
Comments
Post a Comment