Archive for April, 2011
In Mexico, Men are Being Routinely Skinned Alive. Feminists Denounce it as ‘Leading to Violence Against Women’. Call for Crusade Against ‘Femicide’
***WARNING (SERIOUS) – The links contained in this article, and even some of the descriptions I reprint, are truly horrific. If you have never witnessed ‘gore’ on the internet (and if you haven’t you appear to be in a minority) then you need to be warned that a little bit of your soul and your humanity will be taken away, and a lot of your innocence. If you do not want to be desensitised to human savagery, you would be advised to skip this article. I do feel that writing it, together with the links, is necessary.
The film lasts seven minutes, in which a group of masked men in military style clothing have hung a man by his feet.
This person was clearly still alive when the assailants castrated him. Music can be heard playing in the background as one of the men step in and strategically peels back the face and skin of the victims before decapitating him.
After it is over, the people standing around joke and laugh while they take cell pictures of this gruesome act.
The video ends with the body being hacked up into pieces, and put into black plastic trash bags.
It’s actually worse than that. The description above doesn’t mention that in between the castration and the skinning of his head, they disembowel the poor chap.
Mexican drug gangs are engaged in a war of ever increasing barbarity. In a kind of ’grown up’ game of schoolyard ‘you hit me, I’ll hit you back harder’ tit for tat, the rival narco gangs have gone from beheading each other to skinning their enemies alive whilst ripping their still beating hearts from their bodies (WARNING). All to gain control of the multi-billion dollar drug route into America.
It might be slightly ‘re-assuring’ to think that the victims are ruthless psychopaths themselves, simply getting a bitter taste of karma, but many appear to be random men, often taxi-drivers, taken from the street and posed as captured rivals for publicity effect, and in order that the assassins can claim their $500 for each kill. And there is little doubt that the narco gangs now increasingly look at members of the general population as potential enemies who need to be ruthlessly taught a lesson. Recently, a Professor of Social Science was beheaded whilst his wife was forced to watch (although she was physically unharmed, the white knight commentators underneath the piece claim that she had it worse than her husband!).
As a British citizen, I sometimes ruefully thought that America had a better deal than Europe in terms of its brown-skinned, but still Christian, demographic future. It appears that I was wrong. Hell, I’ll take the worst horrors that a Eurabian religous civil war can throw at me any day, than face what’s probably coming shortly to an American town near you.
But one clear fact in the barbarity of 21st century Mexico, is that the vast majority of the 36,000 victims of the drug war are men. And probably only a fraction of this number are actually ruthless Drug Cartel killers. In fact, even an increasing percentage of the gangs themselves have been violently forced to become members, often before they are even in their teens. The horror story currently gripping Mexico is the discovery of mass graves containing the bodies of hundreds of immigrants crossing over from South America, hoping to gain a new life in the USA when their buses were stopped by ‘Los Zetas’ and then all executed when they refused to join the most feared and bloodthirsty narco gang in Mexico.
Female victims of the drug wars are extremely rare, and when they do occur, they stand out because of their very rarity. This week, five sex workers were tragically found killed. The uncommoness of this was such that it’s still a matter of dispute as to whether the killings were directly drugs related.
I had been meaning to write an article on the Mexican drug wars, discussing what lessons could be drawn from the unparalleld savagery resulting from it. For example, does it mean that mangina trans-humanists such as Hank Pellissier and David Pearce might have a point regarding male violence? Certainly, such violent tendancies would be better out of the human gene pool, but only if the disgusting DNA flaws in the female animal were removed as well (and that might be all that is required) - the female attraction to ‘bad boys’ that results in these drug gangstas having pussy dripping all around them, and which feeds the gang culture world-wide, which teenage boys are particularly prey too, and which the Mexican drug cartels are only the most extreme example of.
And what should be the proper punishments for drug users in America, the people who are the DEMAND that feeds the SUPPLY which CAUSES THIS HORRIFFIC VIOLENCE? After all, in the European Union, a man caught looking at a cartoon picture of a 25 year old fictional character in pigtails and a school uniform will soon face a minimum 2 years in prison. In America, men can be sentanced to decades in prison, and now even told they must remain in prison after they have served their sentance. All on the basis of spurious unproven ‘supply and demand’ arguments. As mentioned above, teenagers and children are increasingly becoming the victims of the drug violence. A 15 year old boy was recently found dismembered by the gangs. Still want to get high in the club tonight? To my mind, 15 year old Mexican boys being dismembered as a result of American dudes snorting coke, is far worse, and far more of a direct supply and demand, than is a man looking at a picture of a 17 year old girl (real or a cartoon) in a bikini. Especially when it has been confirmed that ‘child porn’ actually reduces the incidence of real abuse. And what of the people who watch these videos? I’m supposed to feel that I abused a child if I accidently clicked on a picture of a manga girl in a short skirt, but watching a man being castrated and beheaded has no causal relationship to the act filmed itself ??
I don’t know, I’m not a feminist. In other words, I’m not a mentally diseased child abusing animal. Despite sexual trade union theory, I still can’t really get to grips with their twisted brood mare animal psychologies.
Thirdly, my original article was going to draw comparisons between violence over control of the multi-billion dollar drug trade, with the almost complete non-violence involved in control over the supposed multi-billion dollar sex trafficking or child porn industries. These Mexican savages obviously have no moral regard whatsoever for any human life, even butchering teenagers. Anything that gets in the way of the billions of dollars profit available from importing drugs into America will be destroyed. As the Professor of Sociology above, who apparently made some remarks about a drug gang to his class, and then promptly had his head sawn off in front of his wife, discovered.
Would such barbaric and utterly ruthless monsters really allow a relative handful of feminists stop a ‘multi-billion dollar sex trafficking industry’ if such beasts were in control of it (and of course, if such an industry really existed, they would be)?
Of course, if there really was an industry as profitable as sex trafficking, then you can be sure that any feminist in Mexico, and probably the USA too, would need 24 hour protection by a team of armed personal bodyguards. And, equally obviously, they don’t.
However, even though this fact itself proves that sex trafficking as a multi-billion dollar industry is an evil feminist myth, it hasn’t stopped Mexican feminists from trying to pursuade us that women, non-existant sex trafficking victims et al, are the real victims of the Mexican drug war.
Marcela Lagarde, a Mexican academic who is considered one of Latin America’s leading feminist activists, said in an interview with Efe that the war on drugs being waged by President Felipe Calderon has led to more violence against women in Mexico.
“Everything that is happening favors violence against women,” Lagarde told Efe Thursday in Madrid, adding that the Mexican leader’s strategy “cultivates a very violent culture” and “establishes an ideology of violence, of defeat, of war.”
“That’s a very macho culture, very misogynist, and we women are left defenseless,” Lagarde said.
The activist, who has been calling for the inclusion of femicide in Mexico’s Criminal Code, has published numerous articles about gender identity, feminism, human development and deomocracy.
The BorderlandBeat article makes reference to Ciudad Juarez, the ‘capital’ of the Mexican drug wars :
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico’s murder capital, first gained notoriety in the early 1990s when young women began to disappear in the area.
In most of the slayings, the victims were young women from poor families who came to the border city from all over Mexico to work in the many assembly plants, known as “maquiladoras,” built there to take advantage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Investigators have not determined who is behind the killings, although there has been speculation that serial killers, organized crime groups, people traffickers, drug smugglers and child pornographers, among others, may be involved.
Over 500 women have been killed in Juarez since 1993, with the majority of the cases going unsolved.
500 women being killed in the most violent city on Earth over the last 18 years is a tragedy for every one of them and their families, but a ‘Femicide’ it certainly is not. Not when 3,000 people, the vast majority of them men, have been killed in the same city in the last year alone, many of them brutally beheaded and dismembered, and increasingly, skinned alive, and even their hearts ripped out.
Of course, when I read this disgusting feminist beast today, I got very angry, and had to rattle off this post. But really, I shouldn’t be, and nor should you. Tragically, it appears that feminist fantasy and profitable sexual trade union ‘victim ideology’ is on a collision course with the unreconstituted reality of Azteca male violence in Mexico. The ending is unlikely to be pretty.
Despite many slamming size zero models – even Victoria Beckham banned them from her fashion show last year – the runway waif has now been backed by top academics.
A new report warns that getting rid of super-skinny models could worsen the nation’s obesity epidemic.
Researchers Dr Davide Dragone and Dr Luca Savorelli, from the University of Bologna, Italy claim that introducing larger models will increase unhealthy eating habits.
On the same basis as these academics, I’ve argued previously that in the midst of a child obesity epidemic, the feminist obsession with anorexia and the banning of ‘idealistic’ slim images of women is an utter obscenity and a clear form of child abuse. But what’s more, it’s clear evidence for the sexual trade union theory of what feminism is.
I’ve promised Ferdinand Bardemu I’ll write the occasional article for Inmalafide. I thought I’d start with an outline of the theory propounded on this blog that feminism is a sexual trade union for women reacting to changes in technology that continue to drive open the free sexual market (and put feminists, and the majority of women, at a sexual disadvantage).
Thinking about the article, I’ve been forced to reflect again on why I think this explanation of feminism is superior to the massively more popular ‘Cultural Marxism’ accounts. And I’ve read again the first chapter of Steve Moxon’s excellent (and essential) ‘The Woman Racket’ and also Angry Harry’s typically cogent and well argued essay ‘Cultural Marxism and Feminism’.
I don’t think sexual trade union theory, and theories that place Cultural Marxism at the center, are actually in opposition. I just think that the latter are simply incapable of providing complete explanations of the entire historical narrative of feminism, and the specific focus that feminism has always had on protecting the sexual interests of its supporters as they become increasingly threatened by a forever widening free sexual market. Cultural Marxism has been the intellectual mask, the rationalisation, that feminism has needed since the sexual market was blown open with the introduction of the contraceptive pill. That is not to deny that Cultural Marxism has, indeed, had a very concrete and leading role in the astonishing ‘success’ that feminism has enjoyed in the last few decades. But, for me, it is sexual trade union theory that best explains the underlying psychological motivations behind feminists themselves.
Feminism began with the religious and conservative social purity movements of the 19th century. The first agitators for the vote for women were often extremely and openly racist. In fact, many argued that it was necessary for white women to gain the vote as a counter to the enfranchisement of the black male. It should also be remembered that the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, was a socialist thinker. Since the 60′s, feminism has certainly been predominantly left-wing. But recently, with the likes of Sarah Palin, we’ve begun to see the strong re-emergence of the ‘femiservative’ (a term coined by Ferdinand Bardemu).
Feminists have always changed their political allegiances with the wind. The only constant is that whichever intellectual or political theory their movement adopts, they do so with the rationalisation and protection of their threatened sexual interests chiefly in mind (consciously or subconsciously).
The feminist focus upon, and exploitation of, anorexia, and the campaign against size zero models, as well as laws such as the recent French ban on ‘digitally airbrushed images of women in the media’, can be explained partly by cultural marxism, but more exhaustively (and more simply) by sexual trade union theory.
Not only do feminists pursue a policy of campaigning against size zero models, as well as digitally slimmed down images of women, policies that will likely cause a rise in general obesity, (something that is a far greater problem for young girls than is anorexia). They also remain completely silent about the fast food industry, which spends millions and makes billions in persuading young people to eat their unhealthy, fattening products.
But really, why should cultural marxism, in itself, so clearly lead feminists to confront the fashion industry rather than the fast food industry? Other ‘liberal progressives’ and Michael Moore Wannabes have. The fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men who, in the words of one commentator, want their female models to be as sexless and aneroxic as possible, as a kind of substitute for the unattainable boys that they pine for. Not exactly the usual bogeymen of cultural Marxism. The food industry is dominated by buisnessmen running international corporations that make massive profits from destroying the health of children through obesity…and ruining the sexual attractiveness of teenage girls (something, which of course, feminists want). The multi-billion dollar male dominated fast food industry is a more logical and honest target for victim and opresser ideology, but attacking the fashion industry, and remaining silent upon obesity and fast food, serves the sexual interests of feminists much better.
The fact is that only sexual trade union theory can explain all feminist behaviour, from particular campaigns such as the targeting of ‘size zero models’, to the broad brush strokes of each successive wave of feminism. Feminism has always been the story of women being stirred into increasing political activism as new technology threatens their sexual power in a market that continues to open. Size zero models and digitally airbrushed images are just one of the latest manifestations of this in the history of feminism as a sexual trade union.
If you thought Krauser PUA had balls, wait till you see his evil twin brother – ‘Jambone‘ – in action. 00:45 (her) ‘I think you’re creepy’ ; (him) ‘oh I’m very creepy - you haven’t seen the half of it’
I think Jambone was just having a bit of fun here, but it is apparently an example of ‘cocky/ballsey’ method (or something like that). By way of contrast, the PUA in the video below also has plenty of balls, but his approach is described as the ‘low energy method’. What I like about this guy is that he utilises something very basic and simple that has a lot of scientific evidence to back it up – speaking in a low voice turns the chicks on. And it’s very simple to achieve. Once or twice a day, repeat the word ‘gonggggggggggg’ a few times and let your lower vocal cords vibrate on the final g for as long as possible. Believe me, in less than a week, you’ll be talking like the guy in this video.
Of course, the above video should be more modestly titled – ‘how to approach two cute French girls in the park without being told to fuck off’, but it is no doubt impressive. Maybe they were, indeed, having their ‘night in’, and maybe he’s banging them both at this very moment’ after a few Facebook chats - they definately were giving him ‘indicators of interest’ (IOIs) right from the go. From my ‘average frustrated chump’ (AFC) perspective, he does come across as a little too obviously PUA (Neil Strauss’s ‘The Game’ has become a bestseller in just about every country in the world now – even cute French girls know when they are being gamed by a PUA if it’s too obvious).
But this is basically how I found and met my 17 year old French fuck buddy. I’m not a PUA, but if I had just 20% of the PUA skills of a, say, Krauser, then I imagine I’d probably be scoring with a new 9 or 10 at least twice a week – even when just limiting myself to approaching 16 – 21 year olds (as I do, and let’s face it, most 9s or 10s are that age range anyway. In fact, I’m not sure a woman above 21 is technically capable of being a 10, and if she is, it’s only in comparison to women her own age or older).
Of course, with the dangers inherent in the expression of successful male sexuality growing by the day (read ’27 precautions before having sex’), I’m not sure I’d want to acquire the skills of a top notch PUA. As far as I’m concerned, only approaching tourists, or meeting girls abroad, is remotely safe these days. The reason is that tourists will carry a passport (very, very unlikely to be faked) and girls in most European countries are required by law to carry personal ID (again, extremely unlikely, in fact a criminal offence, to be faked), so you can be sure that they are over 16 (or, sadly for American readers, 18). You don’t necessarily have to say ‘can I see your passport to check that you’re not jailbait before we go any further?’ – just naturally play the ‘I’ll show you my dodgy passport photo if you show me yours’ game, or a similar variation.
The other day, as I strolled through the park, I noticed a couple of blonde chicks on the grass directly ahead, their backs facing me. As I approached, the super cute one of the pair turned and saw me, and immediately licked her lips (yes indeed) and nudged her friend. ‘If they are German and the passports say legal’, I thought to myself, ‘they are in for the hardest British banging since the second world war’. The other girl turned her head and looked me up and down, and said in a decidely un-german and very English upper-caste Norman accent - ’he’s nice’. They might have been 16, or they might still have been jailbait. Sure, I could have sat down and talked, exchanged e-mails or numbers, and had a religiously observed purely platonic friendship until their 16th birthdays, but in the UK it’s even a risk simply giving a girl under 16 your e-mail address.
I shrugged my shoulders, smiled at her regrettably, and walked on.
The super cute girl, who was beyond pretty, had long thin legs, and was wearing a pair of micro-shorts. Hell, even Chris Hanson would have exclaimed ‘sweet mother mary’ and been tempted to have a seat right here on the grass beside her. As I walked on past, she cried plaintively, in an ultra-posh accent’, ‘I’m not a baby, you know’. Well, it’s in the interests of the femi-beasts (and my personal safety) that we pretend that you are, sweetheart, I felt like telling her. And at least she was sweet enough not to get aggressive, which happens to me quite often when jailbait vainly try to seduce me. A few years ass rape in prision, a place on the sex offender’s register, the probable loss of your job, friends, and family, and the label of a paedophile and a child abuser hanging around your neck for the rest of your life – all these things are merely shit tests that a beautiful young girl would still expect you to risk in order to win her prized selection. And this is why you will never see 15 year old girls marching in protest to have the age of consent lowered. It’s all about power.
The ‘German’ animal who castrated the 58 year old lover of his 17 year old daughter, has been sentanced to 6 years in prison for the crime.
6 years might seem pitifully low, but it was more than was expected, and the victim expressed himself satisfied with the judgement. ‘Helmut.S’, who emigrated to Germany with his family from Kazakhastan as a 10 year old, was also ordered to pay his victim 80,000 Euros.
The age of consent in Germany is 14, 16, or 18 depending on the nature of the relationship. A man over 21 can be prosecuted for having a lover aged 14 or 15 if he ‘exploits any sexual immaturity’. Until quite recently, such prosecutions were almost non-existant, but feminists in the EU have pressurised Germany into promising to increase the number of such cases coming to court. As such, there have been a number of trials occuring that involve older men and 14/15 year old girls where the older partner had ended the relationship and the girl suddenly decided that she had been ‘abused’ (in the words of one commentator, speaking about the situation in the UK and generally - ‘most men in prison for having sex with teenage girls are actually there because they stopped having sex with them’).
When the ’minor’ is over the age of 16, an older partner can only be arrested if a postition of authority is abused, for example a teacher/pupil relationship. In the castration case, the Father reported her daughter’s affair to the police, who politely informed him that her relationship was perfectly legal, and thus infuriating him into committing this dreadful act.
Two disturbing aspects of the trial as being reported in the German press are that, firstly, the defence team used the argument that the 58 year old victim had exploited the girl’s sexual immaturity – why should they be allowed to do this when the law in Germany says that girls over 16 have full sexual autonomy (unless in a position of trust?). Secondly, if I’ve read the German articles correctly, the girl appears to have been persuaded to make a false rape accusation against her older lover, which was then retracted.
Of course, I don’t want to dismiss the noble protective feelings a father has for his teenage daughter, but what this ‘man’ did was completely indefensible. The fairest age of consent laws to be found in Europe are probably in neighbouring Austria. The age of consent is 14, however, between 14 and 16 the state can prosecute an older partner, but generally only if his/her parents bring a complaint. (note also that in Austria, 16 year olds can vote and drive cars). The best solution is surely to allow parents some say, whilst leaving the interfering state out of it until it really is necessary – without going down this appalling vigilante route, of course.
On a side note, it appears that this creature was one of the hundreds of thousands of ‘ethnic Germans’ who had been living in the Volga basin area of the former Soviet Union for centuries, and had been invited back to Germany in order to solve the collapse of the birth rate and inevitable Islamification at the hands of the massive Turkish immigrant population.
Such ‘German’ Russians speak like Russians, look like Russians, and behave like Russians. They rival even the Turkish population for their contribution to the crime rate, particularly violent crimes, and like most of the Turks, completely fail to assimilate, walking the streets in menacing groups, spitting constantly on the pavement and leering at every blonde virgin who passes, whilst knives visibly jut out from their back pockets.
But at least they remind the native German population that Hitler was wrong.
W.F.Price has uncovered a classic piece of feminist history in the 1674 Women’s Campaign Against Coffee. Yes, women were lobbying the British Government as far back as the 17th century in order to stop their sexual interests being threatened by change (in this case, the introduction of coffee houses) :
It turns out that a group of proto-feminists had approached the king demanding that he shut down the coffee houses a year earlier, as the elixir was held to be causing their husbands to become snotty, “Frenchified” fellows who had lost all interest in sex (with their wives).
The document they presented is “The Women’s Petition Against Coffee,” and it is well worth reading for the humor therein if nothing else. In one hilarious passage, the “Buxome Good Women” warn that coffee-drinking husbands run the risk of being “Cuckol’d by Dildo’s.”
Linked in the comments section of that very Spearhead piece was another illuminating article that deserves highlighting – Seven Ideas You Can Never Discuss on Television :
6. WOMEN AREN’T TOTALLY INNOCENT AND HELPLESS.
Although there isn’t a person alive who hasn’t met a despicable woman, it remains heretical to imply that women may possibly be human beings, and as such, they may be capable of acting with willful malice toward others. Despite the fact that nearly every sociological study of family violence ever conducted has concluded that women hit men at least as frequently as the inverse, “domestic violence” is still viewed as an exclusively male-on-female phenomenon. But who needs muscles when you have WMDs such as societal prejudice and the law squarely on your side? In her book When She Was Bad, author Patricia Pearson argued that until puberty, boys and girls both express aggression physically. Around age 12 women turn to more sophisticated tactics for intentionally inflicting harm: gossip, shaming, and false accusations. It’s like on Seinfeld where Elaine explains that instead of giving one another wedgies, girls tease each other until they develop eating disorders. False rape charges, as well as phony claims of domestic abuse and sexual harassment, have become commonplace. The double standard is so lopsided, female spousal abusers are even permitted to become Secretary of State without it ever becoming an issue in their vetting process.
That article appeared on the website of ‘Taki’ – (Taki Theodoracopulos) – a right-wing Conservative British Greek who once infamously upset the sexual trade union by declaring a manifestly obvious truth - that the social condemnation of older men having sex with 14 year old girls is chiefly about ‘feminists stopping men pursuing younger skin’.
The reader who recently submitted a very helpful and much sought after graph, which shows the rapidly declining ‘reproductive value’ of a woman once she is past her teens, has given an explanation as to exactly how it should be interpreted. A couple of other readers suggested that the graph appears to show that evolutionary psychology would predict that men ought to find 3 year olds more attractive than 30 year olds, which obviously isn’t the case, and which makes clear that the graph isn’t a strict correlation between ‘reproductive value’ and ‘sexual attractiveness’. However, once a girl is capable of giving birth, then it is reasonable to expect there to be a strong correlation between her reproductive value (as defined by David Buss and illustrated in the graph) and her sexual attractiveness :
In the words of the reader himself :
So i’ve done some more research and found out why the graph line plummets after the age of about 17. It’s because that was the typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in ancestral times and therefore the age at which a girl would start using up her reproductive capacity.
The best females for a man in ancestral times to seek after would have been those that have made it through childhood and proven their health but not yet born any offspring so that all of her reproductive years with which they could give a man offspring were ahead of them.
A lot of the reason girls have evolved to have such firm, pert tits in their adolescent years may actually be to advertise their nulliparity and high reproductive capacity to men. In traditional hunter-gatherer societies, most women have had a baby or two by the age of 20 and this takes its toll on their bodies. Their tits lose a lot of pertness and breast feeding makes their nipples harden and darken.
The firm, pert tits of a young adolescent girl with their soft and unused nipples are proof that she has yet been through a pregnancy and breast fed a baby and is still at maximum reproductive capacity.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reports that 1 in 7 American girls are now experiencing puberty at the age of 7! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1376048/More-1-7-American-girls-puberty-age-SEVEN.html
Of course, you will still get years of ass rape as a sick perverted paedo if you pick one up in a nightclub 10 years after her breasts first started forming, even if she showed you fake id, (or if you click on a single ‘self-shot’ pic of her as a 17 year old, 10 years post-pubescent, on an adult porn board).
see also reported today in the BBC : children taller and wider in a single generation
A conservative Indonesian MP who helped pass a controversial anti-pornography law resigned on Monday after he was caught watching explicit videos on his computer during a parliamentary session.
This blog rarely delights in mocking men. Mainstream media is so full of misandry that we deserve the odd refuge from critical hate, even if it may result in men’s rights sites like mine appearing to have overly simplistic views regarding men = good, women = bad. But male sexual hypocricy is one of the vilest and most shameful things that the human being is capable of, let’s be clear about that, not least because it is one of the root faults of (most) men that allows the sexual trade union to put the balls of every one of us on a leash so easily.
I recently posted how even Guardinistas were acknowledging the growth of the MRM via our ‘overbearing’ presence on the comments sections of the British voice of cultural marxism. Check out the comments left under this feminist piece : Polish Feminism is No Longer Ridiculed
“Why require parties to place 35% women on election lists and not the 50% as originally demanded?”
Did the feminists also demand that 50% of trashmen, coal miners, high-rise construction workers and fishermen be women? Funny how the dirty and dangerous jobs do not warrant the same feminist attention to equality as electoral lists. BTW, why not go further and declare that 35% of neurosurgeons must be women? This goal could be easily achieved by relieving women from the whole “outdated”, “patriarchal” duty of going through medical studies, the way women are relieved from the “outdated”, “patriachal” burden of having to compete for votes in an open election. In plain English, a 35% quota for women means that 35% of men are held back by law so that they can’t compete on a level ground. Doesn’t the Polish constitution prohibit gender discrimination? Hello, Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, anybody home?