Saturday, July 19, 2008

Hell's Belles

If I told you that there was a group of people in our society that are able to get away with crimes that ordinary men would be jailed for.... if I told you that this group of people could do things like kill babies and carry out the most horrific acts of mutilation and get away with it.... if I told you that the public was completely uninterested in recognising these crimes, or bringing these people to justice... you'd probably think that I am describing the most terrifying and sadistic crime gang, who have somehow gained a total grip of control over the judiciary, media and police forces. Yet this is not a criminal gang I'm describing, its women.

A couple of quick example from the recent news illustrates this nicely:

A mum who killed her six-month-old baby by shaking him and throwing him to the ground causing devastating brain injuries has walked free from court.

Evil father who murdered baby boy jailed for life (must serve a minimum of 20 years)

This fits the usual template: whenever a woman kills a child she is treated with sympathy, often offered counselling, treated as a 'victim' of her own mental state. When a man does the same he is treated as evil and punished.

It is starting to look like women have a legal licence to kill their offspring. Of course its only a small step from turning our backs while 1-in-4 babies are aborted, to allowing mother's to kill babies out of the womb too. Some may balk at my using the word baby to describe the subject of an abortion, but the alternatives are all too easily used to hide the fact that its an innocent, defenceless living being whose life is being snuffed out. If I used a phrase like '1-in-4 pregnancies now result in abortion', it is a passive description which serves to hide the fact that it wasn't an event which just 'occurred' but a consciously initiated action, which typically didn't have to happen, and it also hides the fact that we're talking about a young life, not an inanimate object. Feminists are forever complaining about women being objectified by media like men's magazines, yet they will happily objectify a young developing baby to hide the fact that the vast majority of abortions are wrong, and that it is a life which is being taken. We should remember that the former (the 'objectified' women in the men's mags) are handsomely paid objects of desire, the later (the aborted babies) are defenseless innocents, murdered using the latest tools of medicine (a science which was supposed to HELP people).

Of course, abortion was sold to us as a last option for the desperate mother who had been raped, could not afford to raise a child, or who was going to give birth to a baby that would be severely disabled. The argument was one for allowing an evil act to occur in order that a larger evil was avoided. But these cases no longer describe the vast majority of abortions. Equally, I'm not a particular type of relgious fundamentalist who believes that as soon as conception occurs, the fertilised egg has equivalent rights as a formed baby. I'm aware that a certain proportion of aborted fetuses are more akin to a ball of cells than a baby. Nevertheless, a growing number of doctors and researchers are questioning whether feutuses that are still young enough to be aborted, can feel pain. In other words, many aborted fetuses ARE far more like babies than balls of cells. They have functioning nervous systems and brains, they may be able to consciously experience sensations and feel pain. To call this life a fetus one minute (when still inside the mother), then a baby several minutes later, when its been born, seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Of course, any distinction is somewhat arbitrary when we are talking about a continuum of development, but I'm sure there is a more moral AND intelligent point of demarcation between when the baby is a ball of cells, and when it is an unborn baby with functioning limbs, brain and nervous system. Until we understand that distinction better, the default position of any moral person with a shred of integrity must be that its wrong to kill a highly developed unborn baby just because the mother was too lazy to use contraception, because she is more interested in her career than her baby, or because shes ultra-promiscuous. And we know that a large number of this now VAST number of abortions are for such 'lifestyle' reasons. Its become a form of late-stage contraception for many women.

All the other arguments to excuse abortion, can also be exposed as unethical. For example, yes an unborn child does not yet have a repository of memories and a formed personality, but if you follow this line of reasoning, then you could say its less evil to kill a 5-year-old than a 20-year-old, as the former is less sophisticated, and less developed as a person. Yet we clearly don't usually think in those terms. The other 'principle' that pro-abortion women like to use is that "Its my body, so i can do what I like with it", yet if a man tried to use that principle to be naked in public, he would be arrested. Is it REALLY okay to take a life, yet evil to display your naked body? I'm not saying this as a defense of naturism, I'm merely trying to create the contrast to show how inconsistent and ridiculous this situation is.

More examples of how women's evil is continually being indulged:

Groups calling for the actual abolition of women's prisons! (Link)

Harriet Harman here in the UK wants to change the law so that women who kill their husbands and say the husband was abusive will be prosecuted for the lesser crime of manslaughter and not murder. Even if the act was pre-meditated and in cold blood.

One-in-five investigated cases in the UK revealed that the named-father of a child that the mother was seeking payment for was NOT actually the biological father, yet so far not even ONE of these mothers has been prosecuted for this fraud. (Link)

Domestic violence by women is known to be widespread, yet thanks to feminist pressure groups, the issue is still framed as an overwhelmingly male one, serving to hide the prevalence of female violence.

A case against a female paedophile is harder to prosecute than one against a male paedophile, as juries tend to be more sympathetic towards the former: thus meaning there needs to be lots of damning evidence against the former in order to elicit the same response from the jury that could be gained by just saying a man "fucked a kid". Because the state will tend to only take a perpetrator to court when it thinks it can win the case, women who have sex with youngsters are far less likely to even be prosecuted.

So, why has this situation arisen? Why are women able to get away with crimes more easily than men?

I believe there are several reasons:

(1) Feminist pressure groups have exerted enormous influence through the media and governments towards highlighting male crime and excusing female crime.

(2) Both men and women are naturally more sympathetic towards women than men. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in people's minds when connecting the idea of 'crime' with 'woman'. When seeing the face of a man and hearing that he committed a crime, people tend to imbue him with evil qualities. When people see a woman's face and hear shes committed a crime, they tend towards finding excuses for her, and finding ways to view her as a victim of circumstances. I believe this is a natural tendency. Probably at least partially because of this

(3) Men have the innate advantage of physical strength which helps them commit crimes. Women have the innate advantage of being good at manipulating people's emotions/sympathies. The key thing is that women aren't prohibited from using their innate strengths for evil purposes. Men are. Society realises that men's physical strength needs controlling, but it doesn't realise that women's manipulativeness does. I believe in past times, Western societies were more aware of this natural skill of manipulativeness, and were cognizant of the need to curb it.

(4) Women tend to use their children as a sort of 'human shield' to avoid being prosecuted. i.e. 'If you sent me to jail, my children would suffer'. Therefore even if a prosecution is brought against a woman (and we already know this is less likely than against a man), judges will be less likely to imprison her if she is a mother. Of course, the same doesn't apply to fathers.

(5) The role that women play in crime is hidden for several reasons, meaning that the public are not often exposed to the concept of female crime (or at least far less regularly than male crime).

No comments: