Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Feminism in Action

It is deadly illegal, in many jurisdictions around the world, to have certain pixel arrangements stored on your computer. If you have these prohibited pixel arrangements on your computer, you can be arrested and fined, or sent to prison, or get your name pilloried in the public record by being placed on a certain list.

I am referring, of course, to child pornography -- meaning, graphic depictions of people below the legal age of sexual consent engaged in sexual activities. And perhaps, pruriently naked. I'm not sure exactly how the law is written. But again, you will be in big trouble if you are caught with such pixel arrangements -- as GIF, JPEG or other -- stored on your computer, or on detachable media, or elsewise in your possession.

The idea is, that if you possess such pixel arrangements, you are an accomplice to the exploitation of children, and furthermore, that you are likely to be something called a "pedophile". Now, a pedophile is technically one who either uses people below the age of consent for sexual gratification, or at least feels a desire to do so.

Bear in mind that the mere presence of compromising pixel arrangements on your computer is enough to get you in trouble. It doesn't matter how they got there. The previous owner of your computer might have placed the material in some obscure folder, and you none the wiser. But that makes nary a shred of difference. If the legal authorities find it, your ass is toast, mister!

And if the the model looks "mature" but is below the correct age, then congratulations pal! It's kiddie porn whether you know it or not!

But wait, here's a new wrinkle. It seems you don't even need to stash the stuff on your computer at all. Have a look at the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6642465.stm

As you see, it takes only some criminal hacker halfway around the world to order kiddy porn with your (stolen) credit card number, and the legal authorities will have all the proof they need to lock you up and put your name on the pervert list. Oh, and here's more fun -- your friends and family will shun you like a leper!

All right. This is feminism in action. Seriously now, do you see any feminists getting up in arms about stuff like this? What, maybe a grand total of twelve? No, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of self-identitified feminists, male OR female, don't give a goddamned cold pile of spit that such things are happening. And why? Because they reckon such things are happening to MEN, and they either don't give a pile of spit about men, or they actively wish to harm men. In either case, they have no reason to raise any moral clamor when things like this happen. . do they?

Certainly, they do not. How would it increase the power of women, to care about innocent men getting their lives destroyed? If I were a feminist, and I wanted to increase the power of women any way I could, then I would be happy to destroy as many men as possible, wouldn't I? You bet your ass I would.

The very last thing I'd want to do, is make a fuss about men who had been victimized.  Why, that would collapse the feminist narrative, wouldn't it? I mean, everybody knows that women are the victims, right? So we can't have men horning in on that action now, can we?

Besides, the whole point of feminism is that men are collectively guilty. Any or every man is guilty for any or every bad thing that any or every man has ever done. Under the feminist regime, men do not exist as individuals. Rather, they exist as a demographic bloc, and the feminist way is to chop away at that rotten block a little bit here, a little bit there -- and it doesn't matter where the axe blade falls, provided only "the patriarchy" gets carved down to size and female power increases.

Time and again, on every issue imaginable, you see that same pattern. Feminists are callously indifferent, at best, when rotten things are done to men under color of law, public policy, or institutional authority.

Yes. That is how any or every feminist thinks, because so far as I'm concerned, feminists are collectively guilty. That's right feminists, you're the ones who started the collective guilt business, and now your very own karma bites you on the ass! Your very own petard hoists you skyward! So don't whine to me that "not all feminists are like that", because I frankly don't give a cold pile of spit about what you are saying. You dished it out in the beginning, and now you can take it. So far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one feminist, you've seen 'em all.

Remember: the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. And feminism is the aggressor. 

And now, feminism is getting what feminism has been dishing out for YEARS.

Notice that I didn't say "women".  I said feminism.  And not only are not all women feminists, but not all feminists are women. I don't like to overstrain the obvious, but it's a routine feminist trick to gloss over that little point every chance they get.  So let's nip it in the bud, I say.

What's your problem, you don't like my attitude? Well, I'll tell you what. I'll cut you a deal. You stand up in front of the world, and announce loudly and clearly that you are NOT A FEMINIST, and then do something positive to live up to this, and guess what? I'll let you off the hook.

You know what? I think that's mighty generous. I mean, it is inoperable for me to say that I am NOT MALE. But it's as easy as pie for you to say that you are NOT A FEMINIST. Right?

And you know what else? I'll sweeten the deal even more. Yes, I will stand up in front of the world and declare that I AM NOT AN "MRA". 

So go on and tell us now that you are NOT A FEMINIST.

Give it a go. Give it a whirl.

Otherwise, I'll assume that you are indeed a feminist. And so far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one feminist, you've seen 'em all.

8 Comments:

Blogger Eincrou said...

It's not only that the viewer is an accomplice, but that they are 'revictimizing' the minor by enjoying the arrangement of pixels or ink.

This is a superstitious claim that amounts to magic, but it goes unchallenged. It's enough to cage someone for two decades though -- if they're a male.

6:35 PM  
Blogger Trista R. said...

The men in your article were acquitted, weren't they? And I know there reputations have been ruined but I did see this written on blog post written by YOU:
"The new-fangled coalition gummit in Great Britain has rudely shoved political enemies out of the way, and passed the motion to give anonymity to rape defendents."

so it seems that that will no longer be a problem. So, then men get accused, they figure out it was credit card fraud and the man in question gets to live his life again since his name will no longer be made public. Maybe you wrote this post before the law was passed?

And I don't know a single person who neglects to reformat a previously owned computer BEFORE the use it. That is standard practice! Everything gets swiped so that you have enough memory to put your own stuff on it AND just in case there is anything illegal on it.

I really don't understand what feminism has to do with this.

3:04 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I really don't understand what feminism has to do with this."

Yes. Because you don't want to understand it. You're blocking.

'S Okay! Get busy and start denouncing non-feminist men and women. Do it loudly.

6:22 AM  
Blogger Trista R. said...

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the rest of my comment. You only picked at (and did not explain your stance on) a single sentence and used it to attack my character. This makes me a little hesitant to listen to you or even take your points seriously. I like opposing viewpoints so long as they make sense....

4:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

The legislation in England that you cited (anonymity for rape defendants) eventually got rolled back by the Labour cohort in Parliament; Cameron wussed out and capitulated. Ancient history.

But that issue is irrelevant here anyway. Maybe you weren't paying attention and got things mixed up.

All right.You apparently don't give a shit what's being done to MEN, but I care quite a bit. If you displayed some moral urgency about this, maybe I could take your "points" seriously -- if I knew WTF they were.

7:50 PM  
Blogger Trista R. said...

The chances of someone getting arrested for child pornography because the previous owner of their computer was a perv are slim to none. Almost everyone swipes a previously owned computer when they get it. Furthermore, even if the person in question simply reformatted and left it at that, the only people likely to find such files would be the police. And WHY would the police be investigating some random dudes computer? THEY WOULDN'T! He would have to be under suspicion to begin with! False kiddie porn allegations (which you have not proven to exist in moderate or high numbers with anything substantial.)can't happen that way but maybe for a VERY small handful of people.

10:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Then you feel that false allegations, and false prosecutions, are morally acceptable in principle if they only happen to a small handful of people.

Thank you for clearing that up.

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, swiping would not prevent police from finding old files on a computer, really just depends on who's looking. The only safe way to prevent that would be to install a new hard drive. The suggestion that police would only be looking into computer files because the person must be guilty of something is fallacious in several ways and sounds like malicious and willful ignorance, however in reality it is not at all unlikely that police have a look at the computer files of anyone that they are intent on busting. If they get lucky and find illegal porn on the computer, that is, one photo of a person deemed to be below the age of consent, or who appears so, then they've got a lever.(Ness busted Capone on tax evasion.) Also they can simply find embarrassing photos, don't have to be illegal. Proposing to make a legal issue out of them effectively threatening, for example, to out a gay person. Saying it isn't so just shows you're ignorant on this, or a bullshitter.

Also to remove a little more bullshit, in reality, plenty of people purchase used computers where most or all personal files have been erased (thus not removed at all) do not reformat the computer, no doubt including some "people you know". I have worked places where the business purchased used computers and I could even find old files from the previous user just looking around, no recovery. Trista it seems like you just throw out bullshit as you go along, thinking that makes some sort of argument about something. Not to be too too mysogynistic about this, (because disagreeing with you shows how much I just hate you), but it seems like a lot of womyn have problems with just this sort of thing. The thing is, when you parse out a law with the idea that, it's not harmful because that's just a detail, that won't hurt anyone, well, that's how the assholes get a foothold, no different than when they say, oh you can have an abortion, just as soon as we're done sticking this wand up your vagina and making you look at the screen. This has everything to do with feminism incidentally, it's basically "what you do" as a feminist, attempting to change laws and society such that men are reduced in power in status and women elevated. Men are more likely to get busted for porn. Just like when they try to require ID for elections, seems so harmless, you're doing the same thing; you work in the same way. If that sort of thing weren't what feminism is about, then you'd change the name to egalitarianism.

9:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home