Cartoon for October 1, 2009
Amazing to watch "liberals" defend Polanski--whose films I happen to love--on the strength of the quality of his work.
Labels: Roman Polanski
posted by Ted Rall at
4:18 PM
NEW RALLBLOG
EVENTS
- May 3, 2010 - Wright State University - Dayton OH
- May 7-8, 2010 - Ohioana Book Festival - Columbus OH
- June 16-19, 2010 - Association of American Editorial Cartoonists - Portland OR
- BOOK TED RALL FOR YOUR EVENT
BUY A CUSTOM-SIGNED COPY--BOOK SHIPS IMMEDIATELY!
RECENT BOOKS
TED RALL SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE
TED'S TWEETS
Previous Posts
- SYNDICATED COLUMN: Build Stuff. Then Leave.
- Cartoon for September 28, 2009
- New Animated Cartoon
- Cartoon for September 26, 2009
- Cartoon for September 24, 2009
- SYNDICATED COLUMN: Swine
- New Animation Up
- Cartoon for September 21, 2009
- New Animation Out Tomorrow: Disney Downsizing
- Pat Tillman Revisited
CONTACT
RSS
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
Links
- AAEC
- Asia Times
- Cartoonists with Attitude
- Common Dreams
- Crooks and Liars
- EurasiaNet
- NBM's Cartoonist Blog
- Greg Palast
- Rude Pundit
- Smirking Chimp
- Cole Smithey
- Paul Tullis (Plenty)
Cartoonists
- Kirk Anderson
- Jennifer Berman
- Justin Bilicki
- Ruben Bolling
- Matt Bors
- Clay Butler
- Steven Cloud
- Lloyd Dangle
- Jeff Danziger
- derf
- Barry Deutsch
- Tim Eagan
- Mark Fiore
- Ed Hall
- Keith Knight
- Tim Krieder
- Brian McFadden
- Stephanie McMillan
- Eric Millikin
- Kevin Moore
- Stephen Notley
- Joel Pett
- August J. Pollak
- Mikhaela Reid
- Ben Sargent
- Jim Siergey
- Andy Singer
- Abell Smith
- Jen Sorensen
- Scott Stantis
- R. Stevens
- Tak Toyoshima
- Tom Tomorrow
- J.P. Trostle
- Shannon Wheeler
- Signe Wilkinson
- Jason Yungbluth
U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
- Actual Unemployment Rate (courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics)
- Actual Inflation Rate (courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics)
44 Comments:
If you make enough money, you start making campaign contributions. Then you get a certain number of free passes.
It's the American way.
Pete Rose didn't rape a 13-year-old, and he did hard time. Polanski gets to live the rest of his pathetic, artistic life with the frogs.
I think Polanski should be let go, but only because his victim, Samantha Geiner, wants him released. She doesn't want the trial and the media circus, apparently.
My favorite director is none other than Stanley Kubrick. Dr. Strangelove and The Shining in particular.
no one cared when my friend's older sister got me drunk and attacked me when I was 13. I told my dad a few years later, and he had nothing to say about it. He just smirked uncomfortably.
Incidentally, my rapist never made a movie. She is married now. We are friends on facebook.
I don't want to prosecute her because I can't afford to take the time off of work.
oh, since we are listing favorite directors, I list David Lynch.
Listing Kubrick is cheating!
I wonder if Whoopi Goldberg had a 13 year old daughter that was raped would she just chalk it off to different culture or just ignore it.
Great cartoon, Ted. It is bullshit the way Polanski has been defended and made out to be some kind of hero. I read in an article the other day that Polanski has paid his price for what he did. Bullshit.
He got away with he did because he had the cash to run and hide. He is a fucking coward. Fuck him.
Kubrick is the best. Space Odyssey.
The past is the past. Polanski doesn't pose a current threat, and he certainly has contributed to society through his work. (Knife on the Water and Chinatown are my favorites.)
The victim wants the matter dropped. I think the only valid reason to incarcerate him at this point is the argument that the example would serve to deter others from committing similar crimes. (Although, I daresay, his high profile flight and exile have already served as a greater deterrent than any normal prosecution would have.)
America sees "criminal justice" in terms of retribution. It's vindictive self-righteousness. People are sent to prison not to "reform" them but to punish them. It's disgusting that this element is always present in any discussion of domestic crime and punishment. Enlightened societies seek to rehabilitate offenders so that they can rejoin society in a positive way, and if that isn't possible, to protect society from the offender (and to protect the offender from themselves). "Revenge" isn't a valid motive.
But, anyway, you have to give Ted kudos for separating the work from the man. History is full of examples that prove that beautiful art can be made by less-than-beautiful people.
--------
Errol Morris is probably the best living American director.
I like too many European directors to even consider naming just one...
I defend him on the grounds that this "Pedophilia!" our culture seems to be on a current "Witch Hunt" over is not that bad.
Don't get me wrong, if Freddy Kruger kidnaps, rapes and murders a lil one he has committed kidnapping, rape and murder. But that should be a crime like any other. All are supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law.
But this "Statutory" nonsense is "Justice by Points"... The police will ignore a raving man holding an axe while they write you a ticket for speeding, as long as he isn't swinging his axe at people. He'll fight back and since he's a nutcase there's no income to parasite off of. Once he murders a family for change under their couch cushions, then they get a small army and bust him for big points.
The prosecutors couldn't care less about "Justice" for his "Victim" who btw wishes she'd never filed a police report with how "Raped" she feels because of the judge, prosecutor and media. Read the "Smoking Gun" thing on that. They just want points. Aside from what she said so her momma wouldn't kick her out, it sounds like Polanski treated her to the time of her life and made her a real woman versus the 2 (or more) boys she let F-ck her earlier AND he gave her good drugs, not cheap stuff like she'd tried earlier. They'll spend at least US$3 million just trying to get him back to the states, but no one they care about has to pay it.
I say "Enough"...
Don't get me wrong, kidnapping, etc. are still crimes. But no more technicalities, filling the jails with people with underage girlfriends, pictures on their computer or who had "fun" on vacation. Who cares?
Matter of fact, what if for this recession we LEGALIZED Kiddie Porn?
During the first year, there'd be a FLOOD of it, and a ready, legal source of income for a lot of desperate people. Under "Child Star" laws, a good portion of this money would be locked into bank accounts for when the kids grew up. The rest of it would go to the kid's family so they could probably live indoors. Vile, sick, etc. rave all you want.
But versus it being illegal-
a. Any Mafia group getting any money off of it. Too much public attention for their tastes.
b. Money does not therefore feed other crimes.
c. Obviously, the kids would be protected from the worse parts of porn, just pics and stuff.
d. Money generated by it would be part for the kid, part for the parents, versus either photos traded by a kidnapper or meth money.
e. Existing Kiddie porn could be viewed on now legal sites with revenues being distributed to "Victims" and "Children's funds".
This modern "Enshrinement of Children" is plain dumb. They are "little adults". They are every bit as naughty, nasty, crime-prone and even a bit meaner. Polanski did all he should have had to have done: Pay money to the girl's mother for "Ruining" her as a wife under old (Biblical) property crime laws, and we can see that despite him not marrying her they didn't stone her.
Angelo, if she wasn't really disgusting, even you probably didn't care. Otherwise, there's something weird about you.
Regardless if she was or not, Incitatus' comment is disgusting.
Angelo, it's not for Incitatus or me--or anybody else--to judge you as "weird" or "normal" in this matter.
"Angelo, if she wasn't really disgusting, even you probably didn't care."
I went back for more.
But that is frighteningly immaterial, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone.
I actually think that exploiting adults is just as bad as exploiting children.
Ted Rall, It makes me happy to see someone is trying to remind people what a scumbag Polanski is, and not just for his movies in the last ten years!
It sickens me to see that his employment as an "artist" seems to give him a pass to certain folks in our media elite. By that logic, if Hitler was the second Picasso, would he have gotten a free pass?
Peterpaul in Atlanta
Remember these views when arguing that violent criminals under 18 are 'children' who should not be treated as adults. Like it or not, we have an arbitrary age that defines adulthood in the legal sense. Before this age, the minor cannot give consent. It's rape, and the rapist must do his time. The thoughts and wishes of the victim are immaterial in these cases.
I myself was a bit torn on this matter. My father, whom I heard this morning finally died - yay - molested my step-sister for 13 years, until she was 16, a fact he admitted to me the last time I saw him, in 1994. Because of that, because of things that happened to myself at age 13 at the hands of a counselor, and because of other stories I have heard, I believed that anyone who raped a child should be put to death. This is because the harm done creates a burden on society, and such a burden must be prevented as it is worse than taking a productive member of society out of the picture, it puts someone who is a drain on society in place of an otherwise productive (or missing) person.
But then the story of Roman Polanski came along and made me think. I still haven't resolved the matter fully, but what I do still firmly believe is that a person in authority (counselor, father, preacher) who knowingly uses that authority to gain sexual favor from a person who is at the time, young enough that the incident permanently and adversely affects the child, should be put to death.
I also believe the registered sex offender list is unconstitutional. Here we have a classic example of cruel and unusual punishment. If we, as a society, don't believe these people are safe when they come out of prison; they why in the hell are we letting them out of prison? Geeze people, give me a break already. And we put people on this list for getting raped by horses, and screwing stuffed animals, and for minors sending pictures of themselves to other teenagers (all true stories! -NO MINOR should be put on this list, period.)
We have become a society of simpletons. We want to put away people who do things we don't like (moral legislation), but we don't want to actually reform anyone who commits a crime - even while we shield real criminals (corporations who knowingly send poison to people - American Peanut Corporation for example).
As for Roman Polanski - I think he served enough time, especially given things were resolved with the victim. I am inclined to take his side not because of my respect for his body of work (watch "The Fearless Vampire Killers" to get a sense of his love of the young breast - funny, but not my favorite, that's "China Town) but because I personally know how screwed up the American justice system is.
Anonymous:
This nation IS on a witch hunt. In 2004, a statute was added to the US Code, 18 USC 1466A, which made it a crime to possess anything that "they" could interpret as "child pornography. This was a stark change from what is truly child pornography, which necessitates exploitation of minors. With 18 USC 1466A, artists can be imprisoned for drawing cartoon depictions of children being raped, as can those who view them. This code would never stand up against a test in the Supreme Court, yet it is what is the basis for minors being imprisoned and put on the registered sex-offender list for sending nude photographs of themselves to other minors.
The fact is, 18 USC 1466A is a thought crime statute, written during the reign of George "Orwell" W. Bush. It needs to go away.
But it does NOT justify exploitation of minors, period. Deviance is okay, but it should NOT affect innocent children, nor should we begin accusing children of exploiting themselves. Wake up people.
I'm glad to see Angelo has sense of humor, unlike the appropriately nicknamed Grouchy.
We can debate endlessly whether statutory rape is nonsense or not, but the fact remains that it is a criminal offense. Hey, I happen to think the income tax is nonsense, but I would think it very unwise not to pay it. As Rall correctly points out, Polanski gets a lot of sympathy because of his high-profile and influential friends, sympathy which would be so generously bestowed upon a regular Joe, say, in Bed-Stuy or the Appalachians.
While I don't think having sex with someone who has hit puberty is necessarily pedophilia (the age of consent in my state is still 16, which some people would consider pedophilia), anally and vaginally penetrating someone you've drugged while they're saying "no" is rape, regardless of their age. As in rape-rape, Whoopi Goldberg you disgusting tool. I don't give a fuck what art they've made (I LOVE Rosemary's Baby). Just look at his defenders, for the most part (et tu, David Lynch?) Typical navel-gazing Hollywood pieces of shit. I say let him die in prison and I hope he does, if only for the people it will upset. And Susan Stark (though I'm not surprised), it doesn't matter what his fucking victim says. You obviously don't understand the rule of law. Go figure. And then read the grand jury testimony. It's pretty fucked up, and so is he. I don't really care how his mother or wife died, either. And I'm certainly not some John Walsh type, railing about the "scumbags". I'm usually borderline amoral, but watching some people go down in flames is just so satisfying.
Thank you, Ted, for your cartoon. On behalf of predator victims everywhere, several of whom I've known very well.
By the way, Stanley Kubrick had more talent in one of his nose hairs than Roman Polanski has exhibited throughout his whole career, especially his career on the lam. A Clockwork Orange and 2001 are his twin peaks. Speaking of, I think David Lynch really crossed the line signing that petition. One thing he's never been to me is a pretentious Hollywood fuck, until now. Oh well, he'll never top INLAND EMPIRE anyways. He's dead to me.
18 USC 1466A may have been signed by Bush, but it was introduced by both D's and R's. It passed the Senate 84 yes, 0 no, 16 present. it passed the House with no objection.
Grouchy,
Our resident utilitarian's Hayekian leanings inform his equivocal remarks. For people like him, the value of the product called rape is determined by the consumer(ie. victim), not the law.
This is a consumer-driven economy, you see.
The invisible hand guides the rapist...
--SOMEWHAT OFF TOPIC--
Incitatus, I thought about you the other day when I saw Ron Paul on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart asked him for a real-world example of a country that lived up to his libertarian ideal. I asked you the same question a few weeks ago, and it was interesting to hear Paul give the same reply I think I've seen you give: "America started off pretty good" (presumably before it became simultaneously fascist and communist).
America started off good, did it?
The U.S. started off as a wealthy pre-industrial settlement which had previously been a protected outpost of a large and powerful global empire. Its agrarian economy was largely based on slave labor, and the relatively small white population had enormous natural resources and almost limitless space for western expansion--they could take anything they wanted if they could kill the technologically inferior Indians that had already been softened up by Britain's reign.
That's the libertarian's "real world" example. Yeah, that's a great model to work from--it'll work anywhere in 21st century world, wont it?
Paul is a clown. At least you're honest enough to say you have no use for "equality," which is something Paul would never say because he likes to play the populist.
Incitatus, you're less of a hypocrite, but you're no "realist;" that's for sure.
Y'all are aware that this isn't just statuatory rape we're talking about with Polanski, yes? From Wikipedia: "Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and 'despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her', each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop." Even if she'd been an adult, what he did to her would still be rape. Should he do time for repeatedly raping a 13-year-old after plying her with drugs, even though "it was a long time ago" and his victim has since forgiven him? Are you kidding me? Of course he should.
Wait, Incitatus is no "realist" because he "has no use for equality"?
Show me an example of equality in the natural world. Meaning, outside of mathematics. Also, quit whining about the oh-so-noble people who happened to be here first. They were killing and raping each other before somebody else showed up (long before any of us were born) and killed and raped them. Tis the way of the world. Their religion was superior, as far as religions go. That's about it. Every civilization was built on the pile of skulls of another one. I can't believe some people still stay awake at night crying about it. And that, in a nutshell, is "reality".
Also, Europeans were briefly involved in slavery. That's true. It's been over for quite awhile now. Yet, slavery persists. Probably just a lingering effect of colonialism, right?
anyway. next issue.
Mr. Smith, you missed the entire point.
Incitatus, Ron Paul and other libertarians are not realists because they are fixated on the imaginary "free market." Unlike advocates of social democracy, they're unable to offer a plausible example of their ideal society. My point about 18th century America was that those conditions were historically singular and don't exist anymore.
I wasn't making any particular comment about the morality of colonial America, or its slightly progressive breakaway from England.
Are you too dense to understand this?
Angelo said:
For people like him, the value of the product called rape is determined by the consumer(ie. victim), not the law.
Funny, I don't think it was me defending Polanski. Anyways, I merely made a tongue-in-cheek comment about how much your typical male teen would care about being molested by an older female.
Grouchy,
You were right, your comments were very off-topic and naive. I'm not a utilitarian as Angelo, with no reason to back him up, claims I am. The market may not be "totally" free anywhere, but it is reasonably free in the social-democracies you claim to love so much, but apparently don't know all that well. As far as imaginary concepts go, "surplus value" and "socialism" have a lot more Utopian baggage tied to them.
Pedophilia is of several varieties. There is the mildly obsessive flavor powered by hormonal excess and locked in place by the impunity of status, power and privilege that high-testo-men's social position gives them. There is the Fritzl variety which is about domination and control because men get a real juicy dopamine charge from dominating and controlling. There is the Catholic church flavor which is reactionary and shows the spiritual bankruptcy of patriarchal religions. And there is the "flight to youth" variety which is men's timid whimpering response to real women shining in all their native power and beauty once liberated from men's vicious, pointless and expensively maintained social controls.
Just why should parents get any of the money that could be generated by child pornography? Why should men be able to profit from the exploitation of women's and children's bodies? Why can not the women and children profit directly and legally from the use and portrayal of their own bodies? Because that would instantly give women and children vast economic power and freedom from male exploitation in every other market venue. Why should women and children have to work for a living at pitiful dribbling half wages and be sexual slaves to men when men will gladly, slaveringly fork over all their stolen money for their spiritually empty, hormone-driven visual gratification? Oh, no! mustn't let women and children have control of their own bodies, must make it illegal for women to have sex for money so the mafia can continue to make money off them and men can keep all women's wages low and pay jacksshut nothing for women's menial labor in the "home", child care, elder care while jacking up their own wages for everything from mining to mass murdering.
Incitatus: I think Ted might have denied my long, rambling response to whats his nuts re: social democracy vs. libertarianism (neither of which I fully subscribe to) and which is more utopian, but you summed it up nicely. Thanks, not that you were defending me or anything.
Grouchy: What's the opposite of dense? Fluffy? Airy?
Ted: You can delete my comments if they're off-topic. I won't freak out on you and call you an awful human being. I will freak out on you if you go ahead and approve my initial and now superfluous response. Or not. It's your site.
Incitatus, I don't know why you keep telling me I don't understand existing social democracies. I'm perfectly aware that they are mixed economies that allow the private sector to play a significant (though highly regulated) role.
Libertarians have a stock reply to any problem: "the free market." Social democracies, on the other hand, are pragmatic and understand that "the free market" doesn't work in many instances--and by "doesn't work," I mean isn't good for society's general welfare.
---------
And for Mr. Smith:
I know that you're a little miffed that I wasn't the straw-man you wanted me to be. To make up for it, I'll go further off topic and reply to your question, "[s]how me an example of equality in the natural world."
"Equality" is an ideal that exists in the human mind because humans are social creatures with a highly evolved capacity for empathy. Considering it's a human construct, it doesn't make any sense to try to find "equality" in the "natural world."
"Freedom" is also an ideal and human construct, by the way.
OK, "Grouchy", I'll bite. Humans are an indivisible part of the natural world, whether they live that way or not. So, I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with your equality "argument". I empathize with those killed in senseless wars. It doesn't mean I'm naive enough to believe in the possibility of "world peace", which shares top billing with "equality" as the most impossible and unattainable of pipe dreams.
Good day.
Oh, wait, I almost forgot to stay on topic. Screw Roman Polanski. Since when did surviving "the" (sorry, had one more pair to get rid of) holocaust give anybody a free pass to do what and who they want for the rest of their lives?
You're the one who brought up the "natural world." As I think you've noticed, I've never used the term without quotation marks.
Ending slavery once seemed an impossible and unattainable "pipe dream." Then Jim Crow seemed hopelessly entrenched in the south. But African Americans now enjoy something you might call "equality."
And the rest of the "developed world" has universal health care. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Humans are capable of realizing ideals.
Use your imagination. Dare to dream.
Good day.
Said Grouchy:
"the free market" doesn't work in many instances--and by "doesn't work," I mean isn't good for society's general welfare.
Is that like, always? Inexorably? Harsh words for a "pragmatist".
"Freedom" is also an ideal and human construct, by the way.
Except that people are born free, as free as the wind blows, whilst to make all trees equal you need hatchet, axe and saw.
Reverend, "world peace" is a muchmore attainable goal, since to achieve that, governments only need to stop murdering people. Equality (and I don't mean "equality in the eyes of thew law" like in Grouchy's ill-thought Jim Crow example), on the other hand, requires them to actually squeeze and twist people, sometimes not metaphorically.
Except that people are born free, as free as the wind blows, whilst to make all trees equal you need hatchet, axe and saw.
Yes, little babies enter the world free little autonomous creatures, ready to make their way in the world without any help from their mommies or their community.
Get real.
No market is "free" so long as women's labor is underpaid (commerce) and unpaid (menial, domestic).
No market is "free" so long as men can profit from porn, pimping and sexual slave trafficking, but women cannot profit from legal sex trade.
And The Constitution does have a clause about domestic violence.
Men have interpreted this as meaning southern states' insurrection; it is high time that it be applied to the pandemic violence against women in the "home": that castle, that fortress of men's dominion where men can beat, rape, imprison, pimp out, and even murder women and children with perfect impunity for the LIFETIME of the women and children so incarcerated. You think Fritzl and the rest of his ilk are anomalies? No, they are the heroes of patriarchy: the men who have succeeded in dominating beyond the wildest dreams of lesser, low-status beta males. Only high-profile rapists like Putin and Polanksi, Italian statesmen and other mafioso have more liberty to trample on the rights and bodies of women and children than "Tom", "Dick", and "Hairy" (classically suggestive names) already have.
Marriage is a labor-saving device. It saves men from having to do any labor and it puts women in "de vice".
Incitatus: Good point about world peace. Of course, anything's possible ('cept maybe equality). I'll dare to dream and here's an extra point for the Rush reference.
Free Polanski! Or let him rot, I really don't care. I keep forgetting about it until I see this cartoon.
Also, LOL at the new women's studies major Anon. Seriously.
It's never as simple as male/female or black/white, Ms. Anon. Plenty of evil patriarchal men are victims of domestic violence and shitty pay, too. We're not all Roman Polanski, raping and making movies and living in our chalets. Give me a break, please.
It is as simple as you are, male-god worshipping Not-Rev. Men hog 90 % of everything on earth and use it to wage war, commit genocide, trash the enviroment, and oppress women in every place on earth. You poli-sci pimps don't deserve a break except in your arms, legs and necks. Black, white, yellow, and brown, it's the same all over: blood and bruises for women, liberty and land for men.
In every race and every country men control the money, own the resources, stack laws in their favor and keep women from going wherever the fuck they want to go by open violence, economic coercion, imprisonment and intimidation. There is not a single civilized place on earth -- not one place where women are truly free from male malice.
The most primitive jerks cut off girls' clits for 'religious purposes'. The next worse lot wrap women in burqas and prevent them from being able to drive or go out in public.
Women in Afghanistan starve to death in their rooms because the Taliban won't let them leave to go to work.
Tell that to men in the US and they react just like you: "Oh, lighten up it's not so bad as all that."
It IS that bad and worse. But since it isn't your thin ass on the line, you couldn't give a warm spurt for what women endure. In Mexico and Guatemala there is an epidemic of femicide. In Papua New Guinea women can't walk to the market without being raped and can't stay at home without being beaten. In Italy, women do not even know that the rest of Europe would never tolerate the level of sexism rampant in their society. The lesser levels of sexism in Europe are tainted by sexual slavery rings run by the mafia that capture Eastern European girls and market them all over the continent.
In Russia and Israel you have prime ministers who brag about the number of women they have raped.
In India bride burnings are a source of profit and a daily news item.
Don't even think about what happens to women in Thailand, Turkey, Bulgaria, Croatia, Somalia...the list goes on.
Every country. Every race. Plain and simple.
In the Nordic countries where there is nearly equal representation of women in the political branches there is a glimmer of what could be. But only a faint one.
The duty of men is to protect the weak and nurture the children.
As a ruling class you all have spectacularly and totally failed.
Only women do the real work of ensuring that the children of the world are fed, educated, nursed and occasionally protected against male sexual predators.
And they do it for little to no pay.
You and your porn-producing, pimping buddies think you can keep on in your power seats by your divide and conquer method: Good Religious Married Girls who slave for you till you are ready to dump them and Bad Evil Unmarried Girls who prostitute themselves for your pleasure and profit. And you use the bitchslap technique to keep both sets of slaves in line. In the 'home' or on the streets, there you are with your ever-ready, handy-dandy fists.
Well, your criminal protection racket is about to come to its well-deserved end.
You haven't even begun to learn what is in store for you when the gynocracy takes hold.
All that's needed to turn this whole shite situation around is for enough women to go on strike.
You hormone-driven morons have had your turn and the best you could do is to bring the world to the brink of total destruction.
Now it's our turn to rule so you can move over.
Just sit back, relax, and enjoy it.
Anon, you sure do make a lot of assumptions about me. First of all, not only do I not worship a male god, I worship no god at all! Also, I was raised by and have spent my life surrounded by women and have nothing but respect for them, on a case by case basis of course, as with everything. I've never held a position of power in my life, which kind of sucks for me since apparently I've always had the key dangling between my legs. Shit, my life is nearly half over! And before you condemn all men, try blaming most of the world's oppression of the womyns on religion, where the blame belongs. I wish my ass was still thin. It's not quite fat but it's definitely not thin. Lastly, what's taking the gynocracy so long? It sounds kinda interesting.
Things I won't mention: I'm a victim of genital mutilation (are you? I doubt it), I've never raped anybody (unlike Roman Polanski, and people like you, who miss the forest for the trees every time you absurdly blame an entire gender for your problems, never cease to amuse me. Thanks!
Congratulations on making it to college, darling. You learn so MUCH about the world, don't you?
I completely share your outrage at the way women's oppression is dismissed as being unimportant and their labor as being of less worth.
If it makes the problem any easier to face, maybe you can remind yourself that you are talking to a group of people who are numbed against feeling empathy because they have blocked their ability to feel their own loss and pain.
Bathing a human brain in high levels of testosterone actually changes its ability to connect the right and left halves. So the men who most need to know what you are saying are the ones least able to receive the information. It might be less frustrating to keep trying to communicate with those who are closed off by the accidents of body chemistry and more rewarding to extend efforts to communicate with people of like mind.
The belitting tone and self-serving attitude of men who declare themselves to be worthy of reverence is just another symptom of men's inability to consider women's issues before their own--even when their own religions tell them to set self aside.
The hypocrisy of making assumptions about others belongs to you Smith. You know nothing about the writer and keep on making taunting remarks to prove yourself to be in the 'right' because you cannot listen--you must intrude self at all cost. You are simply proving the writer's case.
Hey, last two Anons who are most likely the same person: Suck on this. No, choke on it:
Domestic violence study
Post a Comment
<< Home