Briefly on domestic abuse and self-defense

Domestic abuse is never acceptable.

I repeat for the slow among you-

Domestic abuse is never acceptable.

There is no excuse for it.

Here comes the reasonable objection What about self-defense?

Well, actually fighting back should be the last resort.
I keep seeing repressed rage MRAs salivate over the prospect of hitting a woman because ‘she started it’, or ‘she deserves it’ and they seriously think that’s how the law works and that the law is somehow unjust, while out the other side of their mouth they claim women are inherently weaker as a sex, physically. …Errr, yes, these two facts may be connected, shocker! Women are not physical equals! Which means different legal standards are not sexist, but in fact, based on biological reality. And totally fair. And the MRAs wonder why Paul Elam was exposed as a domestic abuser and deadbeat? Those who virtue signal the loudest on domestic violence often have a history of it. This is a common pattern with men who claim victim. What do you think abusers do, in the legal system? They always gaslight, they always try tu quoque, they always pretend they’re the ‘Real Victim Here’. The sob story is always Mummy Was Mean To Me so All Women Are Evil. Few variations, as if anything justifies abusive behaviour as an adult (and they always go after women because we are the physically weaker sex, a man might actually fight back!). Good parents aren’t supposed to be your friends. They sound like typical entitled narcissists and fall for Just World Fallacy, even applying it to other people’s abuse e.g. “Elam told her she had asked to be raped, and that she had slept with his friend because she was bored with her marriage.” So don’t give them a second of sympathy.

Back to the topic.

Men can inflict disproportionately more force in a fight per blow, they were evolved to kill other men, that’s why they need to hold back in all but life-threatening situations (the same rule does apply to women equally but rarely applies in practice as women rarely have that potential for overpowering). The law on self-defense hinges on disproportionate force for this reason, it’s never necessary. If it were necessary, that would be easily proven as a life-threatening situation and therefore it would have become necessary.

Restrain if you cannot physically leave but in all other situations leave, leave the first time they pull this and preferably report it. This advice on leaving applies to women too. Don’t stick around and reward them with your company or they will keep doing it. This is a standard enshrined in law but based in unchanging biology and case exceptions prove the rule e.g. A female MMA must hold back her physical force too, and those who abuse their boyfriends are also evil as the males, e.g. Ronda Rousey. If men were really the cool-headed and rational sex as they claim to be, they wouldn’t have such dismal control of their ‘temper’ that characterizes small children. There’s no such thing as ‘temper’, in fact. You aren’t being possessed and suddenly lack legal responsibility for your own fists (even psychotics are responsible for answering to their crimes). Neurological studies have shown giving in to violence is a choice when risk is flagged by the limbic system, fight or FLIGHT is engaged, and choosing to be violent once makes the person more violent in the long term by reinforcement looping. People will weak impulse control will often falsely claim their desire to harm or kill others was ‘too strong’ and overpowered them, with no thought to how that applies to their literally overpowering their literal victim. “I’m the Real Victim (TM) Here” bullshit again.

Either women are physically weak and need male protection by evolution

or

they’re equals in a fight and OK to attack, you don’t get to claim both.

Sports alone prove which is truth. We can’t need men and simultaneously not need them for the most basic provision (physical security) and that’s why deadbeats like Elam are such scum – r-types revoke the provisions they owe their offspring, such as physical and financial security, the most masculine and selfless provisions possible. It’s no coincidence they’re necessary for the healthiest children. To address a common myth: The problem with the children of single mothers isn’t the single mother herself – it’s the absence of the securities of a father. In this way, deadbeat fathers are always worse than single mothers, because women are always left holding the baby and the ‘man’ gets to leave physically or financially under specious pretense. I hate to say it, but to prove it, see how well children fare if one parent dies. That’s right – they need the father more.

TLDR: Standing against domestic abuse doesn’t make you a feminist, they don’t even care, it’s another funding exercise for them. It makes you someone who hates those that exploit perceived weakness to treat human beings as a rag doll for their personal failings. It just so happens most domestic abusers are men, and in fact, the figures in this one crime are skewed because the abuser’s best legal defense strategy is to file a counter-claim, this is almost always done. However, looking by injury, it is mostly men. However, such people exploiting others are always scum, as exceptionally strong women are also held to the same standard based on physical merit, making it not technically sexist legally or in theory, but totally fair. You should be against abuse on principle, whatever the sex of the people involved.

The sexes don’t have to be the same physically to get the same legal protections. They just need to be the same species: human.

And if you ever wanted a typical case study of the life and history of a psychopath, Paul Elam fits the bill better than any other American I’ve seen. Multiple divorcee, always blaming others, never learning lessons, accused of abuse by multiple partners, children by many partners, refusing to support said children, drug use, alcoholism, fantasies about violence, trying to provoke people verbally as an excuse for violence, middle-aged white male, persecution complex, entitlement complex, superiority complex, jail time served, anti-justice, will commit perjury in court out of hatred, low-class occupations their entire life, inability to commit to a job employed by others, nomadic and so on. It’s alarming how perfectly he fits the profile.

Consider this;

“the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk [through] life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign”

thatsjustsickewwtfgrossno

Behold, the blatant misogynist in MRA clothing, using SJW victim-signalling with the sexes reversed. #GiveYourMoneyToMRAs They’re all parasites using others’ victimhood as a sanctimonious platform for their own ego and grifting. If they couldn’t make money, they wouldn’t be there.
Actual white trash like this usually has a heart attack from all the clogged hate at his age. The world will be a better place. At least there’ll be plenty of historical evidence why he was trash. You can’t say he’s misquoting himself.

Video: Sexual Selection and the Welfare State

A classic example of Pathological Altruism and dysgenics.

I won’t do the common thing, which is to mock the welfare state, because it used to be a prosocial force supporting war widows, people I have unending respect for, and single parents who had no other choice (it still happens). In short, people who went into marriage and childrearing with K-selected, virtuous intentions and various hardships caused a lethal ‘failure to thrive‘, in many respects. This had such a negative impact on the future prospects of society that such a safety net was completely necessary at the time. Its expansions were largely unmerited and now veer strongly into WTF territory with the entitlement of extreme r-types.

The modern blob we call the same is an edge case, an aberration of a limited boost programme.

Older mothers pass risk to their child

http://uk.businessinsider.com/consequences-of-having-kids-late-in-life-2015-6?r=US

biology is sexist

/sarc

…Research has suggested that children born to older women are likely to have shorter lives. In a study of 200 years of demographic data about a large group of Swedes, mother’s age at birth was one of the most significant non-external factors affecting how long a person lived, along with the mother’s lifespan.

It’s no shock the genes a mother passes down will affect her child’s lifespan. But in addition to genes, mothers pass down a crucial cellular component called mitochondria. As Dr. Martin Wilding proposes in the journal Fertility and Sterility, published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, children born from older mothers could receive compromised mitochondria in their cells — shortening their lives….

Men don’t get off the hook though. Past 40, they pass on higher risk of mental illness.

Brave New Eugenics: officially making fatherless babies

article

In full;

Britain is to get its first NHS-funded national [socialist] sperm bank to make it easier for lesbian couples and single women to have children. [DS: boys without any father at all]

For as little as £300 – less than half the cost [???] of the service at a private clinic –  they will be able to search an online database and choose an anonymous donor on the basis of his ethnicity, height, profession and even hobbies.

The bank, which is due to open in October, will then send out that donor’s sperm to a clinic of the client’s choice for use in trying for a baby. [IVF is too expensive and causes birth defects and retardation]

Heterosexual couples will also be able to benefit, but the move – funded by the Department of Health – is largely designed to meet the increasing demand from thousands of women who want to start a family without having a relationship with a man.

Critics last night called it a ‘dangerous social experiment’ that could result in hundreds of fatherless ‘designer families’.

The former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said last night: ‘It is the welfare of the child that must come first and not the fact that people want a particular kind of baby.’ [or any baby, you don’t have a right to another human being, that’s called slavery]

Bishop Michael, who once chaired the ethics committee of Britain’s fertility watchdog, added: ‘This is social experimentation. It’s one thing for a child not to have a mother or father through tragedy, but it is another to plan children to come into the world without a father.’ [who wants to tell the Children’s Rights people?]

The National Sperm Bank will be based at Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, which currently runs an existing NHS fertility clinic and recruits sperm donors from the local population. [who are liable for 18 years of Child Support payments]

Funded by a £77,000 Government grant, the bank will be run by the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT) which this year received  an additional £120,000 of public money to organise egg and sperm donation.

Over the next three years the NGDT aims to recruit at least 1,000 men and collect sufficient  donations for the sperm bank to meet demand.

Laura Witjens, NGDT chief executive, said: ‘There are people who  are medically infertile or practically infertile [you mean they can’t have children because of their lifestyle choices, their choices] – they want to use donation services in the UK but can’t do so because there isn’t enough donated sperm. [blame Child Support laws]

‘The demand from same-sex couples and single women has grown exponentially. It’s become more socially acceptable to say, I haven’t found a guy yet, don’t want to wait for him, still want a child.’

She added: ‘The aim is that we will have enough surplus sperm so that we will be able to set up a service for people like single women and same-sex couples.’

She described this group as ‘customers rather than patients’. [Then they can fucking pay for private.]

Britain has a major shortage of sperm donors, whose anonymity is preserved until any children they father reach the age of 18. [not really, the kid can track them down – Facebook? Google?]

Women who want to have a baby using donated sperm have been routinely waiting for up to two years, with many eventually forced to seek donors abroad. [what a shame]

Treatment resulted in the births of 161 babies to lesbian couples.

Ms Witjens rejected suggestions that children suffer adverse consequences from lacking a father figure. [abuse charges?] ‘There is no evidence to suggest that children are better off with or without a father,’ she said. ‘There’s never been a call – from us or the Department of Health – to reduce the access to sperm for same-sex or single women. That’s a non-issue.’

Ms Witjens pointed to the removal of the reference to a ‘need for a father’ in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, when taking account of a child’s welfare when providing fertility treatment. [equality!]

She added that the National Sperm Bank would also help prevent desperate women using murky unregulated services and going online to buy sperm. [or save up and pay private. If they can’t save enough they can’t be good parents.]

Heterosexual couples with fertility problems who need donations as part of IVF treatment will be among the customers of the new bank.

But a large percentage are predicted to be professional, single females who decide to have a baby without a man.

And based on current trends, more than a quarter of all the recipients are likely to be gay women.

Latest available figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show that in 2011, 4,101 cycles of donor insemination were carried out in the UK.

Of these, 1,271 related to women registered with a female partner. That figure represents more than  a quarter of the total and was a  23 per cent increase from the  previous year.

There are currently just two clinics in the UK where women can choose donors from an online list.  Both are private and charge around £850 for the service.

NHS funding for fertility services, including donor insemination, is decided by regional Clinical Commissioning Groups and varies widely. [same NHS which has been refusing cancer treatments to cut costs, including to children]

CCGs are typically more likely to fund heterosexual couples struggling to conceive rather than lesbians or single women because they are considered to have more of a medical need. [duh] The NGDT hopes the sperm bank will be self-funding after a year.

A spokeswoman for the HFEA said: ‘We welcome the new National Sperm Bank which will help to ensure that the recruitment of donors and the availability of donor sperm is better organised.’

____________________________________________________________________

COMMENT: Designer babies are a disaster for society, writes Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali

This announcement raises some important questions about the future of our children and the role of men in our families  and communities.

The most important thing to say is that the needs of  any child must be primary. It is the upbringing, welfare and education of the child that should be the prior consideration. It is not enough to ‘want’ a child, let alone one with particular characteristics.

This bank will allow women to choose from profiles of donors, which will include educational attainment and ‘attractiveness’ criteria, [DISCRIMINATION!] raising the spectre of ‘designer babies’, born to the parents’ specifications. [this was predicted. Holy Shit, someone tell CH!]

What if  the process of pregnancy and birth ‘interferes’ with the desired outcomes? Will such babies then  be rejected? [yes, they already are]

Research shows that children are best brought up in families where a mum and dad are present. The role of fathers in the nurture of their children is unique and cannot be replaced by other so-called ‘male role-models’ or, indeed, an extra ‘mother’.

Research tells us that children relate to their fathers differently than to their mothers, and this is important in developing a sense of their own identity.

In particular, boys need closeness to their fathers for a sense of security and in developing their own identity, including appropriate patterns of masculine behaviour.

The results of ‘father-hunger’ can be seen in educational achievement and on our streets, where it contributes to delinquency.

None of this should detract from the heroism of single parents. They should be provided with every support by the State and by local communities.

There is, however,  a big difference between children growing up without fathers because of death or family breakdown, and actively planning to bring children into the world who will not know one of their biological parents and where such a parent will never be part of the nurture of these children. [violation of a human right, actually]

Research tells us that children relate to their fathers differently than to their mothers, and this is important in developing a sense of their own identity, writes Bishop Nazir-Ali

This also brings the question of anonymity to the fore. The change in the law, so people could, at a certain age, find out who their biological father is, has certainly contributed to the ‘shortage’ of donors in response to which the sperm bank has been set up. [and the big bill, say, for University tuition, 18+?]

If there is no anonymity, will potential donors come forward, or will the bank face these same ‘shortages’?

The anti-equality movement: how feminism has returned to fascism

Questions raised (my answers);

  • What was Patriarchy called before? Global Capitalism.
  • Are women always the victim? No.
  • What do children have to do with adult feminism? Pawns.
  • How do we break the cycle of abuse? Teach adults how to parent instead of removing a child
  • How has the breakdown of family affected society? Mental illness, economy, crass culture…
  • Why isn’t there research on abuse refuges? Woman as criminal.
  • Why have feminists encouraged single mothers? Happy people don’t protest.
  • Why is the woman’s vote the important vote? Anger.
  • Why is it called feminism? Feminization.
  • Why are they against beauty? Men enjoy it.