Left-Wing Feminist Diane Abbott Turns Femiservative
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256850/How-feminism-blame-breakdown-family-Left-winger-Diane-Abbott.html (Warning – does contain images that readers may find offensive)
Feminism is partly to blame for the breakdown of the family, one of Labour’s most senior female politicians has said.
Diane Abbott, the party’s public health spokesman, said that major issues facing society ‘stem from family breakdown’.
And in a surprise admission from one of the Left’s most outspoken feminists, she conceded that women’s rights campaigners have neglected the family.
Miss Abbott, a divorced mother with one son, also highlighted the harmful impact on society of internet pornography and fast food…
..Miss Abbott also threw her support behind Tory MP Claire Perry’s crusade to introduce controls on viewing internet pornography.
‘Children very young, ten or 11, can go online and see stuff they could not have bought in a newsagent 20 years ago,’ she said. ‘This crude pornification is new, and leads to the objectification of the human body, especially girls’ bodies.’
“leads to the objectification of the human body, especially girls’ – what these old hags wouldn’t give to have their bodies turned into those of a nubile teenage girl, and be objectified by every man that looks their way..or at least every Alpha male. I wonder how many hours Diane Abbot spends every day applying make-up, choosing fashions, trying to eat right to keep what’s left of her figure etc ? If male science ever gives these femihags total power to choose how they look, you can be sure they will choose the look that leads to them being ‘objectified’ the most, and you wont ever hear a peep from them again about objectification.
As for her turn to femiservatism, it’s unsurprising when you realise that feminists are just parasites who hijack any cause or ideology in order to raise their sexual market value. Feminists or femiservatives never actually believe any of the shit they come out with, and certainly not the ideology their sexual trade unionism comes dressed in. Women, and feminists like Abbott, are starting to see that despite all the draconian legislation introduced by left-wing feminists, the free sexual market has still not been closed. Unable to grasp that this is because the sexual market is dictated by technologies that humans have little control over (such as the creation of the internet), they are now flooding to either femiservatism or Islam in order to vainly preserve their vag value.
Happily, as mentioned above, possibly within decades, it will become a reality that even the likes of Dianne Abbott will be able to look like a 15 – 16 year old Anna Kournikova. When that happens, the sex war ends, as does the Sexual Trade Union, as does the criminalization of male sexuality.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/01/new-method-allows-scientists-to-insert.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
george
5 Jan 13 at 12:11 pm
She said,
What she also fails to remind the paedosleaze addicted Daily
MisandristMail readers, is that the same precious children she refers to can also go online and look at people being burnt to death, stoned to death or even their same-aged peers being beaten to death by bullies.I know what I’d rather see my kids looking at online…
If it’s so terrible for them to experience via ‘online pornography’, the process of how life is created, surely to any reasonable person – even a feminist: the DESTRUCTION of life in such gruesome and gory ways has to be MUCH worse experience for them?
Of course watching murder isn’t sexual and it doesn’t involve attractive ‘objectified’ teenaged girls, via ‘pornification’ of their bodies, so it doesn’t matter.
Murder and mayhem even of children, doesn’t threaten her sexually thus doesn’t make her turn a bright shade of green…
Stupid, Jealous ol’ femihag…
LOL!
Alan Vaughn
5 Jan 13 at 1:18 pm
@theantifeminist
Regarding the link posted by ‘george’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
There were some unprecedentedly good comments under That Guardian article, and one in particular was so good it was removed! It was posted by some commentator calling himself (or herself) ‘ElizabethBathory’.
Hmmmm, a familiar sounding pseudonym…
Would it be possible to repost ‘ElizabethBathory’s’ comment here?
Alan Vaughn
5 Jan 13 at 2:54 pm
@theantifeminist,
I just read some more comments under the Guardian story on paedophilia and the commentator ‘ElizabethBathory’ has posted a lot of other comments that weren’t removed… He is clearly just another paedohysteric or paedocrite, or both, so please ignore (and don’t publish) my comment above.
(I thought ‘ElizabethBathory’ might have been you, since the comment was removed and also because you are very familiar with the woman who once owned that name).
Alan Vaughn
5 Jan 13 at 3:17 pm
I haven’t checked the comments at that article Alan, but it is interesting that a paedohysteric, male or female, would choose the name of the most infamous serial killer of children in history. Male or female, that person should be watched by the authorities.
theantifeminist
5 Jan 13 at 5:35 pm
One of the biggest ironies of our times is perhaps that on the one hand youthfulness and looks unspoiled by age are THE big thing in today’s society and people go to sometimes insane lengths to maintain a youthful appearance well past their salad days… whereas images of actual youthfulness, of youths between about 14 and 18 who by definition OWN youthful looks, are increasingly being outlawed; women pose nude for Playboy in their early 40s because they think they’ve still got it, while even so much as a bare-breasted picture of a 17 1/2-year-old young woman smack bang in the middle of her sexual prime, which the 40-year-old woman more than just secretly wishes she still were, gets you into all kinds of legal trouble.
Ageing Women try desperately to still look like “the real thing” in terms of youthfulness, but in reality, the only way for them to even so much as halfway achieve that is to have the actual real thing banned. Perhaps in the desperate hope that people will forget what actual youthfulness really looks like if it is flat out made illegal. In a way, it’s like the maker of some cheap knock-off cola trying to have Coca-Cola banned because his knock-off pales in comparison with the “real thing”.
inclinedreader
5 Jan 13 at 6:04 pm
Why is it, that the more articles like this I read, the more I get this creepy feeling – men being forced to marry…
A scary thought…
Scarecrow
5 Jan 13 at 11:41 pm
with a leftist fem turned conservative it should now be quite unambiguously clear what all this new ‘anti-feminist’ women thing is really all about
on the bright side if the fems all leave the left then the maybe the left can go back to what it was back when dawkins was a young man: an unprecedented pro-male political force
evilwhitemalempire
6 Jan 13 at 4:47 am
Here the contradiction this woman makes:
By supporting family in some way and admitting that feminists has destroyed family—-> then call for more gov control over fast food and pornography, if if she really care about family in first place then how can she demands the gov to play the role of parents when it comes to fast food and porn?
Here people with common sense will understand that politicians whom really care about family actuality want to give parents the power, control and responsibility of their families,but what we have today is gov playing the sole parents in children lives, this is why conservative have a double standard, they claim for families yet want the gov to say what their children can eat and watch.
MRA
6 Jan 13 at 7:18 am
@Alan Vaughn
Over at The Grauniad they remove/don’t put up comments they don’t like, even if those comments are within the guidelines. I have personal experience with this policy.
We have no way of knowing how many dissenting comments there actually are @ Comment Macht Frei. They allow some, including some very good ones, bit how many are quashed?
How thoroughly paedohysteriacal they and their readers are I found out one time when there was an article about the AOC in European countries. This knucklehead commented that Peter Tatchell got his facts wrong about A’OC in various countries, and that it’s only for close-in-age. Otherwise, apparently, it’s 16. Italy was the example used. This inaccurate (bizarrely so, since the person claimed to know because he/she lived there)information was applauded in numerous responses and up-votes-I don’t remember how many; it was a while ago. People enjoy being censorious about SOMETHING.
So, there may have been some sensible comments after thsi article that didn’t see the light of day.
So with this article,
Dog Meat
6 Jan 13 at 10:28 am
@theantifeminist-
“Feminists or femiservatives never actually believe any of the shit they come out with…”
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Perhaps that’s why some are prepared to convert to Islam and go on the Femihaj lol.
One might also say a femihag’s a femihag’s a femihag.
Dog Meat
6 Jan 13 at 10:31 am
…So with this article, the same applies.
Or maybe not.
Quoting author Jon Henley,
“There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.”
I found it astonishing, in a minor way at least, that this admission was made.
Then I read the whole thing and was really surprised-and by the comments
It’s almost like a something’s switched over in the new calendar year. Weird.
Dog Meat
6 Jan 13 at 10:55 am
As far as I know only Belgium has introduced a ‘close in age’ clause to the age of consent. Really, this is just a way of introducing a higher age of consent through the back door as (in Europe) even close age relationships BELOW the age of consent were and are rarely if ever prosecuted.
It’s odd how people just can’t get how arbitary the age of consent is. Yes, the age of consent is (or at least was) 14 for most practical purposes in Germany, and only a few years ago it was quite common to see men in their 30s (especially Turkish men) with 14 year old blondes and nobody would bat an eyelid.
I was in Spain last summer, when I happend to be sitting on a bench in a busy street in Madrid next to a pair of elderly gentlemen. Two very pretty girls who must have been no more than 15 walked past wearing barely ass covering mini-skirts. One of the old men said something to the girls as they walked past, to which the girls turned their head at him but walked on giggling. My Spanish is good enough to know that he was making a cheeky sexual request to the girls.
theantifeminist
6 Jan 13 at 11:01 am
Who knows… if certain femiservative groups get their way in the future, that might become an offense which will then be known as “offline grooming”. Feminists on the European Social Committee in the run-up to the new directive against “child” prostitution and pornography not only wanted the age of consent raised to 18, but also wanted to make it a criminal offense to chat up any person under 18 in the street with the overt or veiled intent to proposition them for sex. In its most extreme form, this proposal was of course supposed to exclude a defense of mistaken age… naturally, once again the true purpose being to strike fear in the hearts of any men feeling attracted to women in their sexual prime. After all, at first glance, would you stake your life (as you would literally, considering it just might be ruined) on whether a young woman is 16, 17, or 21?
inclinedreader
6 Jan 13 at 12:12 pm
Scarecrow:
I think it’s more than intuition, I’m getting the uneasy feeling too that Spartacus and your collegue Notanmra were right about 4th Wave feminism using the MRM and fake ‘traditionalism’ as a vehicle. And also like Rookh predicted once about the feminism’s inherent puritanical strain coming to the fore.
Naturally, they’ll wave ‘traditional marriage’ around as one of their new reforms. But what they really have in mind isn’t going to be anything close to ‘traditional’ except with the veneer of monogamy.
Eric
6 Jan 13 at 11:30 pm