New blog - MFIF

The new blog called My Fault I'm Female is well worth reading. It has only been in existence for 8 days and has received over 60 'entries'. It's about those really irritating incidents which happen in every day situations because people make incorrect assumptions about women. www.myfaultimfemale.wordpress.com or there is a link at the top of this page. Brilliant reading - long may it continue. Except that you could say it would be a very pleasant world if there was no need for it . . .

Bile

I find the sheer unpleasantness of some people involved in bolstering the egos of down trodden men completely incomprehensible. The comment posted on my last entry demonstrates the vitriol quite nicely. I say I can't understand anyone wanting to subvert the justice system in the way www.avoiceformen.come advocates and they respond in such a violent way. I thought men were always held up to be the reasonable and logical sex?

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that they're not at all reasonable and certainly not logical. They're always on about how all laws favour women and men are side lined. If men are really side lined - which I don't accept - then they only have themselves to blame. They have - in some cases - not adapted to the modern world and the way society has changed. It is no longer acceptable to behave as though women are inferior to men and just a little bit thick.

Unfortunately some men do not seem to have realised that and want to turn the clock back to when women knew their place. If that actually happened and women were returned to the home and not allowed to work unless they were unmarried - how would this benefit men precisely? They complain now that they have to pay child support when there is a divorce. If they had a stay at home wife who had never worked they would find a divorce would cost them even more. Or are they saying they should be allowed to keep everything and throw their wives on the street when they want to trade them in for a younger model?

It seems some men only ever read The SCUM manifesto. They haven't read any of the thoughtful and thought provoking writing by such feminists as Natasha Walter, Kat Banyard, Sheila Jeffreys, Rosalind Miles et al. But of course they write in rational language quoting research studies to back up their statements so they aren't of interest to these men - I would say they needed a higher IQ than they possess to even understand them. I always compare such writers favourably with Neil Lyndon and his personal rant - No More Sex War - in which no reserach is quoted and women are the ONLY source of trouble in the world. I still haven't managed to finish that by the way because it is just a rant and not cogently argued at all.

How would you vote?

If you were picked to be part of a jury and the case you were hearing was a rape case - how would you vote?

Speaking for myself I hope I would consider all the evidence as objectively as I could and decide whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty on that basis. I would not decide in advance that the defendant was guilty - whether or not there was sufficient evidence against him.

But this is what the web site www.avoiceformen.com is advocating in an article posted on 20 July 2010 entitled 'Jury duty at a rape trial? Acquit' - except that the article says the writer will vote not guilty - regardless of the evidence. Because women lie. Men of course are plaster saints who never ever tell a fib - not even a white lie - and will always admit if they are guilty of such a heinous crime. And I'm the Queen of Sheba!

Whether this article is talking about America or the UK I think it is disgusting and disgraceful and I would be saying that even if I found something similar on a feminist web site saying the writer would always say the defendant was guilty.

And they say men have a sense of justice and fairness which women lack? Men are always logical and reasonable? No I don't think so somehow.

Roman Polanski

So Roman Polanski will not be extradited to face jail for raping and drugging a 13 year old girl. He admits he committed the crime but says he's got away with it because everyone including judges and juries would do the same thing if given the chance. That was the gist of what he said. What message does this send out to everyone? That such 'crimes' aren't really crimes at all - or they aren't if you've made some good films. Art excuses bad behaviour I suppose.

I for one will never watch a Roman Polanski film again - though I'm sure that won't bother him. I am just completely disgusted by the whole thing and equally disgusted by the men and women who have defended him in the media by saying the girl grew up without any problems and anyway she'd been abused before so it didn't matter - or she wanted it so that's all right. NO ONE wants to be raped - unless perhaps they have some sort of mental illness.

Body modifications

I've just been reading something about voluntary surgery to change the appearance of female genitals. As ever my question is why? In conversation with MJR he said some people might feel very miserable because their genitals didn't look right. My answer - what is right? He'd seem a programme in which someone felt really worried about having sex because she didn't think she looked normal and so she had surgery to change the appearance of her labia. But I still say - as I always do - whose to say what's normal? We're all different and why would we all want to be the same?

I don't have pierced ears. I have had many people say - why don't you get them pierced so that I can buy you earrings? I used to wear clip ons at one time - but having left them in many different places by accident I stopped wearing them. I've never felt the need to have my ears pierced - and certainly not so that people can buy me presents of earrings! I think I must be in a small minority as most people seem to have pierced ears. As for piercing anything else - no way!

Twilight and other things

Why have so many people gone all 'holier than thou' about the Twilight films and books? Many journalists have commented - favourably and unfavourably about the appeal of both films and books to middle aged women and how dangerous this is. Well why? I haven't read the books or seen the films because vampires don't really interest me - though I can understand the attraction. But I really cannot see anything wrong with middle aged women loving the books or the films. If you don't know the difference between real life men and vampires by that age then you probably have other problems as well for which you possibly need expert help.

I don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the adults who enjoy this latest vampire craze. Taste in books is always going to be personal and shouldn't be a matter of snobbery, shame or guilt - unless perhaps you're indulging in something that is forbidden by law. Twilight is as far as I can gather not breaking any laws. So why criticise someone for liking it? Too many people have this idea that if a book is aimed at children then it should not be read by adults. Yet the books were written by an adult, printed by adults, published by adults, sold by adults . . . . .

This seems to be yet another stereotype - adults read books for adults; children read books for children. Oh right then - not sure what that makes me since I read Harry Potter and I do read so-called children's books from time to time - and very good they are too. No I'm not ashamed of it and no I don't think it makes me any less of an adult.

I came across an excellent comment in a book by Mike Pannett - a Yorkshire policeman - about rape stating categorically that rape is a violent crime and has nothing to do with sex. We are getting somewhere when members of the police say that. The book in which I read the comment is called Not on My Patch, Lad.