Feminism in Action
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:
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.