We have just lived through the most momentous week in British social policy for the best part of 40 years. The fact of female sexual abuse of children is now acknowledged. Even on Woman's Hour! So all "family" (anti-family) and children's policy since time immemorial has been just plain wrong.
No wonder, of course, that Harriet Harman thinks all men are pederasts, as well as wife-beaters (there are no husband-beaters...) and the frequenters of prostitutes (all women, their clients all men...). When she was making her way politically, all the men that she knew were pederasts, since she was providing the legal cover for the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sexual abuse committed by women is not unheard of. But it is far, far, far, far, far, (etc) less common than sexual abuse committed by men.
ReplyDeleteThat is why sexual abuse committed by men gets most of the focus. Simply because it's most of the reality.
How do you know?
ReplyDeleteMen and women are different. In no respect are they more different than in their sexuality. All the relevant data bear this out. Why would you expect their prevalence of sexually deviant behavior to be the same?
ReplyDeletePlease understand this: it's not a question of women being good and men being bad. It just that when men and women are bad, they frequently are bad in different ways.
Women probably abuse children in vast numbers (they are hugely more likely to kill them), given their far easier access to children even in the nude.
ReplyDeleteLike, for example, domestic violence against men, those who control this field ideologically refuse to conduct the necessary research, because it does not fit their presupposed agenda of excluding (heterosexual) men from the socialisation of children.
You actually think that women's maternal access to their children is allowing them to commit acts of pedophilia in "vast numbers"?
ReplyDeleteAm I reading you right?
"Harriet Harman thinks all men are pederasts, as well as wife-beaters (there are no husband-beaters...) and the frequenters of prostitutes (all women, their clients all men...)"
ReplyDeleteBit hard on Harman. I don't recall her ever making these statements publicly.
I think it's perfectly possible, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteOh, sure -- it's "possible".
ReplyDeleteBut only in the sense that the laws of physics do not, as far as we know, make such an outlandish unlikelihood (in terms of human behavior) a literal impossibility throughout spacetime.
Of course, you don't really believe that millions of women are lusting after their children, either. Otherwise, you wouldn't have responded to a direct inquiry by pointing way off yonder into the vague realms of the subjunctive.
How do you know that it is "an outlandish unlikelihood"?
ReplyDeleteFor one, take a look at your local sex offender registry. Compare the number of women to the number of men.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a perfect metric, but it's a far sounder starting point than is the insight that [gasp!] WOMEN BATHE NAKED INFANTS -- and you know what that means!!!11!1
[lightning flashes/thunder resounds/a door slowly creaks open in the dark...]
Why do I bother?
ReplyDelete