Men’s Rights activists can frequently be heard proclaiming that our cause is all about equal rights. We are not misogynists, we do not wish to return society to the patriarchal days of yore, we are not as crazy as the FemiWhores. All very good and true. My gripe with this only arises when we feel the need to articulate it a little too simplistically. That ‘all we want is equality – equal rights, equal treatment, equality before the law’ etc etc…
There is nothing wrong with any of these things. Equality is good. But equality is not the be all and end all of the men’s rights movement. Certainly not, if it is reduced to some simple maxim, such as ‘equality before the law’. Now I realise that some of my dear readers might suspect I am a little sex obsessed, but nonetheless, I’m going to illustrate my point with reference to the issue of pornography. Firstly, because I think sex lies at the heart of feminism and because sex is at the heart of the fundamental differences between men and women that even the average professor of womben’s studies can’t pretend to ignore. And secondly, I’m going to focus on porn because I believe there has been a lot of it on the television screen lately. No, not just mine, I watch fewer porn DVDs than Jacqui Smith’s long suffering husband these days. I’m referring to female porn. I’m referring to Susan Boyle, to Holly Steel, to the grotesque TV bear pit of entertainment that is Britain’s Got Talent, as well as the hundreds of exploitative reality and talent shows that were its predecessors.
Female Porn and Britain’s Got Talent
For years she had been resigned to the quiet life of a spinster , settled down snugly with her family of cats in her little anonymous Scottish village. Then one day, Susan Boyle appeared in front of Simon Cowell et al, a huge live audience, and millions of television viewers around the world…and proceeded to sing like an angel and charm a nation. Before she knew it, she was being invited on to the Oprah Winfrey show, celebrities were queing to be her friend.. and the British tabloid press were writing bitchy and false stories about her in order to entertain their grubby readers. And now Susan Boyle has suffered an emotional breakdown. What is more, the makers of the show are facing allegations that they were well aware that she was on the point of a nervous collapse, yet refused to pull her out lest it hit ratings for their grand final.
Do we care? Probably most of us do not. Or perhaps we do care, we care so much we’d like to see more of it. More of Susan Boyle’s suffering. How much would Susan Boyle be paid to allow the cameras into her mental health clinic so we can gawp and ‘cheer on Susan’ while we wonder if she makes it to the next stage? The television ratings would be astronomical. And you know what? The huge majority of that audience would be female.
I couldn’t help notice that whenever the camera panned to the audience members during the show, men were outnumbered by at least 4 or 5 to 1. And probably those men were simply with their girlfriends or wives, probably half dragged into the theater by them in fact. Most of the viewers for such talent shows are female. Likewise with the inane and similarly exploitative reality shows such as Big Brother that make a spectacle of long drawn out suffering and conflict between competing, and often vulnerable, individuals.
This is why I call it female porn. It is voyeuristic and it is DEFINATELY exploitative.
Female Child Porn
But it gets worse. For just a few days before Susan Boyle’s thankfully private collapse, the largely female audience of the same show were ‘treated’ to the sight of little Holly Steele having an apparent nervous breakdown on stage, induced by the long drawn out pressure of being watched and scrutinized by over 20 million adults. Pressure, it is now clear, that was far too much for 47 year old Susan Boyle. Now, ladies (?) and gentlemen, little Holly Steel is 10 years old. 10 years effing old for Christs sake!! What were the producers of the show thinking? What were the people who were watching a little child being put under such enormous pressure thinking?? Well, actually I know what they were thinking. I’ve seen the comments posted under the videos of her public breakdown that are getting millions of hits on YouTube. Here is one typical example :
Do you think the little brat was faking it? Why were there no tears running down her face if she was genuine? They should of kicked the ugly little bitch out.
Probably less than 1 in a 100 YouTube commentators even raised the issue as to whether it might be morally questionable to subject a 10 year old to that pressure. For the vast majority, the only thing that was worthy of debate, was whether or not her breakdown was genuine and whether or not she should have been given a ‘second chance’. Similarly in the national press. Even now that Holly’s fellow contestant Susan Boyle has been admitted to the mental ward, I haven’t read any articles or commentary on the morality of allowing a small child to be placed under the same intense pressure and what the long term consequences might be for her.
Well, apparently half the nation tuned in and lapped it all up. Maybe the silence is out of guilt. We have all read the feminists justification of locking men up for simply looking at pictures of 21 year old women in school skirts or smiling 17 year old girls posing topless, because – ‘the mere act of looking creates the supply and is therefore abuse’.
Conclusion – It isn’t just about equality before the law
So what does this show, apart from the fact that women abuse and exploit children in far greater numbers than do men? Laws against porn inevitably target men and result in men being sent to prison. In relation to porn, what does ‘equality before the law’ mean? That every time a woman looks at a picture of a 21 year old in school uniform, she has to face the knock on the door and a place on the sex offenders register, just as a man would? WTF??? Most women don’t have any interest in the slightest in doing any such thing (despite the misguided quest of many MRAs to demonstrate that as many women as men are ‘paedophiles’). No, most women are too busy watching 10 year olds being exploited and psychologically traumatised for life on talent shows to be looking at porn. Or else, watching some dysfunctional 14 year old having her emotional problems dissected and exploited for tea-time entertainment on the Oprah Winfrey show or Jeremy Kyle.
It’s not just about equal treatment. It’s about who decides the treatment and why.
It’s not just about equality before the law. It’s about who sets the law and why.
**Update – 200 people complained to offcom about the treatment of Holly Steel…..150 to complain that it was a disgrace that the little brat had been given a second chance…only 50 to complain that child abuse should not be televised entertainment, not even for women.
@theantifeminist,
Why is it that only you and me and maybe one or two other blokes seem to understand this?…
I think what those bitches do is far, far WORSE than blokes looking at ‘child abuse’ images!
Of all those images I’ve seen (or 17+ year old children) being sexually ‘abused’ or ‘exploited’, they ALL appear happy about what they are doing: I have not seen even ONE single image of so-called ‘child-porn’ or ‘child abuse’ that depicts the model in a state of distress or of being abused or exploited, that they claim as the reason any man caught looking at such images must be sent to prison for years and years. Conversely: nearly every time I see one of those talent shows for children, I see blatant child abuse, where the REAL victims are clearly very distressed and would most likely be more emotionally damaged than what they might be if they were actually raped!! In the US they are seriously discussing the possiblity of executing men caught in possession of child-pornography!
If the real issue was indeed child-abuse prevention and the reason men must have their lives destroyed for merely looking at imgaes of that ‘abuse’, because the need to look at them maintains the demand for them, well those women surely need to be sentenced to life in prison, NO PAROLE!
It just makes me so mad!!!
Because women’s needs define the goals and values of society. Although most men’s rights supporters would claim to understand this, even they don’t seem to be able to apply that understanding when it comes to defining men’s rights values i.e. believing that putting women in jail for life for sucking off a lucky 14 year old boy is an end in itself, even if 40 year old men still get the same punishments for having relationships with 14 year old girls.
99% of the population see no contradiction in watching for entertainment a 9 year old girl breaking down in tears through the pressure on a reality show, and cheering when they read of a lonely old man being sent to prison to be raped for browsing pictures of smiling 17 year old ‘children’ on the internet.
I think you and me (and we’re part of 1% of the population) that does see a gross contradiction in watching for entertainment a 9 year old girl breaking down in tears through the pressure on a reality show, and cheering when they read of a lonely old man being sent to prison to be raped for browsing pictures of smiling 17 year old ‘children’ on the internet.
We therefore would also agree that women being put in prison for life for giving a horny (and lucky) 14 y.o. boy is almost an abomination of justice.
Eivind Berge makes quite a long-winded yet logical argument about that ridiculous administration of ‘equal’ or fair justice, purely and simply on the basis that if a boy or man has sex, he can ONLY be willing and consenting and as he insists all the way through: bloody LUCKY little boy!
But those manginas and other so-called MRA’s, i.e Reddiit mangina’s rights blog commentators, insist on this BS ‘equality’ nonsense!
Anyone with even a basic insight into the sexual trade union, knows that feminism is not about and has NEVER been about: gender equality!
Well said Alan. I would point out that I agree with Jack that, sadly, we should push for women to recieve the same (cruel and unjust) punishments that men currently recieve. Not as an end in itself, but to possibly stop women supporting paedohysteria laws.
Having said that, I can’t help thinking that these women caught with teenage boys probably thought that such laws only apply to men, and may even have supported the double standard. Furthermore, a 14 year old girl is no more likely to suffer, and is just as ‘lucky’ as a 14 year old boy with an older partner. In fact, both gender teens are just as likely as each other to be left traumatised by the child abuse industry forced victim labelling and ‘therapy’ (the real harm in such relationships).
Yep, for sure! Many of those girls are indeed lucky to have older partners too, because they probably do a far betterr job in terms of moral support and show them a quality of love that their dysfunctional families couldn’t possibly give them.
I’ve read of such young girls even committing suicide when their ‘paedophile’ lover was sent to prison for a few years of arse rape, because that support is suddenly taken away and she just falls down in a manner of speaking, with a loud and disturbing thud!
Why TF can’t people (not just the sexual trade union) just live and let live? I would never do anything like that to my daughter at any age – everyone (regardless of what age they are) should surely be allowed the basic right to choose who they like or love…
Why it matters to insist on equal punishment for females and males notwithstanding the type of crime becomes clearer if you keep in mind men’s innate instinct to protect (= spare) women. Consider the public’s reaction in the two following cases:
1) Man gets sent to jail (or to the electric chair) ————–> women AND men cheer
2) Woman gets sent to jail (or to the electric chair) ———–> women don’t mind or care BUT men think “poor girl, she should be spared”
Result: jail or death row = men only
Jack, yes I see your point when you state notwithstanding the type of crime and I agree. I think I may have lost the point somewhere when discussing a specific ‘crime’ (although I don’t even think it is an ‘event’ let alone crime) relating to consenting sex between 2 people, where one or both are according to the sexual trade union enforced law: a ‘child’ (under the legal age of consent).
My point was and still is, that I don’t believe that a boy or man can be ‘raped’ or coerced into having sex.
However, considering that when the girl is a ‘child’ (with a much older man) it is also truly consensual, yet the adult man is automatically branded a predator – or paedophile child rapist, so an older woman must also be viewed in the same way in the eyes of this ridiculous, draconian law. (Because a relationship or sexual liaison between an older woman with a boy ‘child’ must be and can only be truly consensual also). And must therefore: also face the same draconian treatment under these nonsense laws at least in terms of time in prison and being branded a child sex offender by way of the publicly accessible registries.
Such a woman offender of course, would never have to suffer daily beatings and homosexual assaults whilst in prison, among other atrocities reserved only for men…
And…..the women can give birth to his child and he, the raped boy is forced to pay child support BY LAW, yeah the law forces raped boys to pay child support to the female rapist, just imagine forcing women to give birth and rise children product of rape BY LAW, and one of the many excuse feminists use in abortion debates is to women who have been rape abort if they get pregnant, but forget the men and boys who are raped and are force to pay the rapist.
That’s it. There is a real issue with adults seducing young people, but it is not one of female vs. female offender. It is one of victimless crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
Consensual acts that harm no-one should not be criminalised.
EXACTLY Jack! The only victims in such ‘crimes’ (non-events to me) are those so defined by this NONSENSICAL and PSYCHOTIC law. The couples involved were probably the happiest they’ve both been in their lives until the state found out about them… As I mentioned above: many of the ‘victims’ end up taking their own lives.
It’s just beyond comprehension really how our society has allowed these psychotically envious trollops to pass any kinds of legislative change, let alone these sorts of society destroying changes.
In a way we (MRA’s that comment on these forums) are a fairly select group – we are not brainless sheep: we can SEE what’s going on and I conjecture that most are like me – noticed this years and years ago, when it all started to get serious…