The Feminist Enemy Fires Another Shot at Men

Here. Virgin Airlines has decided that if you are a male and only if you are a male, you are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children who are not related to you on a flight. Women of course may sit next to children any time. Although this was a policy formulated by Richard Branson’s Virgin Airlines, it obviously has its roots in feminism. Gender feminism states that all men are potential rapists and child molesters. The Pedophile Mass Hysteria sweeping the US right now is being caused by a number of factors, but some of the perpetrators are gender feminists and femiservatives. Femiservatives are basically conservative feminists or conservatives who do the feminists’ bidding for them. For instance, around 1920, a femiservative outfit called the Women’s Temperance Union put into place California’s age of consent laws, putting them at 18, which was very high for the time in an era when many females were marrying at 14 or 15. This same WTU was also responsible for the atrocity of Prohibition. Prohibition is a prime example of how Female Rule always fails. Male Rule produces more or less workable and functional societies, whereas Female Rule always produces dysfunction and chaos. Male Rule versus Female Rule means whose thinking will rule society. Will male thinking or female thinking dominate the public sphere? The Virgin Airlines rule is a prime example of the chaos caused by Female Rule. The idea that men may not sit next to children for fear they might molest them is classic female thinking.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “The Feminist Enemy Fires Another Shot at Men”

  1. There’s a sociological term for this — it’s called moral panic.
    Women seem especially seceptible to this kind of behavior and indeed most feminist political and social platforms seemed based on a variety of moral panics: pedophilia, domestic violence, rape and even the gender earnings gap. Politicians love a good moral panic because they can usually use it to get votes for something that’s actually a non-issue.

    1. I am not sure what is causing Pedophile Mass Hysteria. I suspect it is being driven by women though. Banning men from sitting next to kids seems like a gender feminist notion.

      1. Well in America I also think the celebrity John Walsh is much to blame. If you recall, his son was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered years ago. He and his wife then started a campaign to bring awareness to the “pedophile problem.”
        What they did was present statistics for abducted and missing children — the numbers of which were shockingly high. They then associated these numbers with their issue. What they weren’t saying though was that for the vast majority of abducted and missing children, most were abducted by their own parents temporarily typically as part of a custody battle after divorce. They were taking a story which should have been about the very real crisis of family breakdown and conflating it with pedophiles. They then went on to become rather wealthy off of it.
        The irony is that if you know the story, Walsh’s wife was largely responsible: she left the 7 year old child alone in a big dept store so she could shop for lamps unhindered. People today seem to always want to deal with their guilt and pain by passing laws and creating awareness — warranted or not.

      2. Were you not hugged enough by your mother? You seem hungry for discrimination against all kinds, and though you claim to empathize with persons of african decent (yes! we are not black), you heart is filled with hatred for others such as the Judaic community and women. Feminism is not a choice, given the socio-economic and political structure of the world, it is force upon many women like myself. When we get to a place where each and every culture has a male and female divinity/god/goddess, we may be better able to apply your comments. However the extent of sexual tourism in poverty entrenched countries by mostly males, may have a legitimate correlation to the decision of the Airline company. When you can admit that, you lack love and sincerity you’d find it much easier to exist, and also to work for changing the dynamic that leads the person who births the child to have less power than the one who rapes them.
        Consider mediating, and please don’t copulate and your wisdom is on hate.

    1. Nothing. The fact that he’s Jewish has nothing to do with his policy, of course. The grotesque overrepresentation of Jews at the top of political and economic power in the West is rather sickening though.

      1. Part of that is because the Ashkenazic IQ is much more highly represented at the top end of the Gaussian IQ curve. I think their average is something like 15 points higher than the average for Europeans. Check this out:
        There’s a lot of other stuff at that site you’d probably be interested in as well.

        1. Yes, I really don’t like him. He is a true blue White Supremacist, and he really hates Blacks. He’s really racist against Blacks. He’s just terrible. It’s guys like him that make me retch every time I hear the word “HBD.” Seriously, HBD types are just sickening. I would much rather rant against feminism than deal with HBD stuff.

    2. It merits a mention as this fits organized Jewry’s obsessive compulsion of undermining the social structures and institutions of the White gentile majority they seek to supplant.

      1. Personally I think that any society with a substantial Ashkenazi population is lucky since they’re intellectually so productive.

        1. It’s a mixed bag. I go to read the New York Times and I am looking at the authors and columnists.
          I mean, excuse me, but that’s really annoying.
          I go to read my news magazine and look at the authors:
          Oh well, there’s always the TV. Let’s try CNN and Fox News and see who they are interviewing:
          It’s annoying! At some point, you start to wonder if in you’re in an occupied country.

        2. Personally I think that any society with a substantial Ashkenazi population is lucky since they’re intellectually so productive.
          The Parsis of India are intellectually superior and highly productive, not just economically, but also culturally. Yet they do not provoke hatred from the masses because unlike the Jew, they do not attempt to subvert the host culture, its institutions, and its values. Neither do they attempt to hijack India’s foreign policy for whatever reason.

        3. At some point, you start to wonder if in you’re in an occupied country.
          Way ahead of you Robert, haha.
          In all seriousness though, one day, historians and other curious observers are going to ask themselves how a minority within such a small minority group came to wield such grossly disproportionate power and influence, and why the majority so willingly put up with it.

        4. @ Dota
          Good point about the Parsis.
          However, simply minding your own business as a highly successful minority isn’t always going to guarantee that you’ll avoid the wrath of the masses.
          The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, for example, tend to work hard, mind their own business, and for the most part enjoy their money in private. That hasn’t really spared them the wrath of the indigenous Southeast Asian masses, however. The 1998 anti-Chinese pogrom in Indonesia comes to mind.

        5. I agree. I’d like to see someone do a movie like that idiotic “A Day Without Mexicans”, but it would be “A World Without Jews”, just to illustrate the dispoportional amount of contributions Jews have wound up making to the world all the way across the board. Yes, I understand how it can make some of us gentiles feel a bit insecure. But let’s get real, Jews have not, are not and will not “subvert” American culture with their own, nor have they done so anywhere else. At least, I don’t recall being unable to purchase pork products or hearing about forced cicumcisons anywhere, has this been happening without my knowing? Muslims, on the other hand, consistently require that their adopted cultures cater to their own religious and cultural demands, but you don’t see Jews doing that; as long as they can find a good Chinese restaurant, they’re fine.

        6. BAG
          I’m aware of the ethnic tensions in South East Asia but with the Jews its different. Let me share something with you. The Jews have traditionally been dominant in commerce but they lack trader values. As a descendant of the trader caste myself I can tell you what that the core value around which the trader ethos revolves is compromise. We seek harmony through trade. Note that the Gujarati city of Surat was spared of Hindutva riots because the trader castes that dominate that city wouldn’t have anything to do with it. The Jew tends to use commerce and trade as a weapon. I was reading part of Kevin MacDonald’s book (people that shall dwell alone) online and stumbled upon something interesting. He was comparing the historic causes of hostility towards the Hutterite community versus the Jewish community. Due to the social/organizational structure of their colonies, the Hutterites can afford to undercut the competition somewhat, which leads to resentment from other farmers. The Jews however have impoverished certain classes (such as the peasants of Ukraine I think) with their activities. Mark Twain talked about their predatory behaviour against the newly emancipated black community which had begun to move into agriculture. Anti Semitism isn’t just some disease that whites are genetically predisposed to, there are some very real historic reasons which are generally suppressed in the Lame stream media. Sorry about the typos/grammar, in a bit of a hurry.

        7. @ Dota
          Indeed. Of course, we’re taught that all manifestations of anti-Semitism is merely pathological hatred on the part of gentiles, and that analyzing the role Jews have played in causing anti-Semitism is “blaming the victim.”
          But at times, you can’t help but think that Jews themselves know that their behavior can cause anti-Semitism. Why do you think certain Jews such as Peter Beinart and other Jewish liberals have started to become more critical of Israel, and to a smaller extent its supporters in the U.S? Even Tom Freidman, everyone’s favorite neoliberal, has come out and attacked the Jewish lobby (though he didn’t blatantly refer to it as the “Jewish lobby,” for obvious reasons).
          Well, they’re in damage control mode, and are scared to death of an inevitable anti-Semitic backlash.
          Even self-described “anti-Zionist” Jews display similar behavior. Unlike Freidman, who had the honesty to openly discuss it, getting Jewish “progressives” to even talk about the lobby is difficult. One of the most prominent “anti-Zionist” Jews of the UK, Tony Greenstein, once claimed that talking about the Israel lobby was the first step towards holocaust denial (as documented by Jeff Blankfort). Even the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein display similarly coyish behavior when it comes to talking the Israel lobby. Finkelstein at least acknowledges that it exists and it has power (even though he downplays it), while Chomsky has flat-out ignored or dismissed its importance (once again documented by Blankfort).
          It really makes you wonder. Why is it that these so-called “anti-Zionist” or “liberal Zionist” Jews spend so much time, on the one hand, criticizing Israel’s oppressive policies, and yet at the same time provide cover for the Jewish lobby and try to attribute Israel’s actions to “U.S. imperialism” or similar nonsense?
          Well, you can’t help but think that they’re trying to end Israel’s embarrassing behavior, while at the same time ensuring that the Jewish community doesn’t get scrutinized, thus ensuring that they remain completely safe.
          As one of the commenters over at Mondoweiss once pointed out, if there is indeed some anti-Semitic backlash, in what has to be one of THE most philo-Semitic countries in the history of the world, then Jews really have only themselves to blame.

          I mean, excuse me, but that’s really annoying.

          The discussions here can get a bit Jew heavy, too. It’s a bit weird as the UK don’t really have super Jews like the States does, so it’s hard to understand it all.

        9. “The discussions here can get a bit Jew heavy, too. It’s a bit weird as the UK don’t really have super Jews like the States does, so it’s hard to understand it all.”
          No wonder the UK is no longer a superpower.

        10. China’s greatest strength. It is impenetrable to Jews.
          China’s greatest weakness. It is impenetrable to Jews.

  2. Since most men are actually heterosexual and attracted to adult women, perhaps they should really worry about men sitting next to unaccompanied women, since every man is obviously a potential rapist. Hey, sharia law!

  3. I did a search and can find no evidence whatsoever that Branson is Jewish.
    You’ll have to show a source on this one.

      1. This is hilarious. “JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW.” And Dota used it for such a wonderful, teachable moment.
        Your Jewy-Jew friend,

  4. But anyway, of all the things that Jews can be blamed for, I don’t think feminism is one of them, Betty Friedan notwithstanding.
    I think part of the English speaking Western world’s whole pedophilia hysteria and overall angst over sexuality comes from a rigid, puritanical Protestant anti-sex ethos (this is especially true in the U.S.).
    Don’t get me wrong, the Protestant ethic had a lot of positive side effects, but healthy attitudes towards sexuality wasn’t one of them.
    Combine that with a modern, culturally leftist ideology (disproportionately spearheaded by Jews, true) that situates men (or any other “oppressor group”) as the bad guys, and you’re going to have a lot of anxiety over male sexuality, the whole “creep/creeper” phenomenon being a prime example.

  5. BTW, on the matter of Jews, I highly recommend Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century.
    Combined with what we as (liberal) race realists know of Jewish IQ everything about them becomes clear and understandable.

    1. I also highly recommend that book. Well, at least the first chapter, which is all I read. I read it here, for free courtesy of Princeton University Press, the publisher. I’m not really interested in the history or Russia or Palestine, so this chapter was enough for me.
      Stimulating reading, good scholarship. I recommend it to those here who are, um, interested in The Jews.

        1. Ha! I was wondering when Aaron would come out of hiding. Prior to this post, this blog took a pretty long break from the Jewish Question (focusing more on gender related issues), but the second Jews are mentioned, along comes Aaron!
          (and for that matter, why isn’t Andyboy also on the scene? ;-))

        2. This is going to sound incredibly weird, but I actually miss Andyboy. He’s somewhat more endearing than Aaron in some ways. Aaron is a sarcastic dry witted turd (I mean that in the nicest way Aaron 🙂 ). but Andyboy (like Johnnyboy) takes himself so seriously that he’s oblivious to people laughing at him. He just keeps on goin 🙂

        3. @ Dota
          I get what you’re saying, LOL.
          Aaron, even though he occasionally displays typical Jewish defensiveness or tribalism, is open to criticism of Jews, and is willing to analyze the Jewish Question from an intellectual standpoint.
          Andyboy, on the other hand, is so delusional that, you’re right, he just doesn’t seem to understand that he’s being mocked/laughed at.
          Now that I think of it, I also kinda miss Johnnyboy. He was always good for a laugh.

        4. There are other commenters I miss:
          1. Lafleur. Where the hell has she been? She was one of this blog’s most intelligent and insightful commenters. If American women were more like her in terms of attitude, my opinion of them would be drastically different.
          2. Wade. Another one of this blog’s great commenters, with an incredible knowledge of history. One that rivals my own. Haha, JK, not trying to brag or anything, but I share Wade’s appreciation for history. He also had a good sense of humor.
          3. Oneoftoomany. Prior to the arrival of Dota and Atheist Indian on this blog, she was the most intelligent and insightful Desi commenter out there, and is capable of being a one-woman-army when it comes to dispelling romanticized Western myths about India.

        5. Thanks for the book tip, sugar. Couldn’t find the author’s name anywhere on the web page. Which university is he at, again?
          I did enjoy this sentence on the web page, helpfully displayed in red because it’s important: “Each chapter may be searched for words and terms using your browser’s EDIT/FIND tools in the bar at the top of your screen.” An indispensable aid for scholars!

        6. The book is anonymous sadly, but it still strangely still fits your criteria: Stimulating reading, good scholarship. I recommend it to those here who are, um, interested in The Jews.

        7. Aaron, it’s called When Victims Rule. It’s actually an excellent document, over 2,000 pages. I have read a lot of it until I got bored of Jews. It’s superb in many ways, but it fails to tell us what we should do about Jews or what Jews should do to act better.

  6. Dear Robert
    The driving force of the Prohibition movement were Protestant churches. They all supported Prohibition, except the Lutherans and the Episcopalians. The Lutherans were of course Germans and Scandinavians, who like their beer, and the Episcopalians are an upper-class institution, and they like their drinks. Women couldn’t have done it all by themselves.
    Regards. James

    1. @ James
      Good point. It should also be noted that Prohibition was in many ways as much of an anti-Catholic campaign as anything else.
      I don’t think women are primarily or solely responsible for moral panics or hysteria, but they certainly do their part in adding as much fuel to the fire as possible.

  7. I’m glad you touched on that article Robert. I read it yesterday and wuz , well not shocked , but underwhelmed.
    That is one of the fucking stupidest policies ever. In my minds eye here’s what really happened.
    Lame parents not wanting to spend time with their out of control child, put IT on a plane to send IT somewhere. IT has the great misfortune to sit next to a male adult who will not put up with it’s antics. IT gets put in it’s place by stern male adult and sees fit to cause a big ruckus.
    Knee jerk reaction by airline is craft stupid policy making all men look like pedophiles.
    Because we all know how easy it is to sexually assault somebody on a crowded plane with lots of witnesses. Actually it’s become a common pedophile tactict (droll sarcasm).
    Good stuff. Are you due for a BF update ? been awhile……………

      1. Bummer . Your info is usually the best read.
        Meant to add to my previous comments, the airline would likely not have a problem sitting an unaccompanied minor next to Casey Anthony.

  8. This is fucked up and such bullshit. In protest, men should not fly on virgin until the rule is overturned.
    How often are children molested on planes anyway and why aren’t they with their parents?

    1. @ Steve
      Exactly. If these demented pedophile hysteria types actually knew a thing or two, they would know that rapists, pedophiles, and other perverts tend not to publicly target kids on HIGHLY CROWDED places like airplanes!
      They tend to choose victims who are scared, vulnerable, are afraid to tell, and they tend not to perform their perverted misdeeds in the public eye.

  9. New slogan for Virgin Atlantic
    “Fly Virgin Atlantic; your child will remain virgin, till he/her reaches destination”

      1. Yeah, it’s a pretty good routine.
        I wish someone would do a similar routine on the whole “creeper” hysteria as well.
        It seems that both the pedophile and “creeper” hysteria come from the same rotten stew: basically, the idea that all men are potential rapists and predators, and that their dark impulses need to constantly be held in check.
        You even have various feminists, and male apologists for feminists, openly endorsing the word “creeper.” Because, ya know, we live in a horrifically sexist “rape culture,” where women have to constantly (yes, CONSTANTLY) be on the lookout for male predators. And since men are so much bigger and scarier looking than women, women understandably fear them.
        Therefore, beta males MUST constantly regulate their behavior simply not to give off the “creeper” vibe, because, you know, women can never be too careful.
        Same thing with pedophile hysteria. Obviously, children are so much weaker and vulnerable than grown men, and since most men are potential predators (I mean, c’mon, they’re a bunch of creepers and potential rapists, after all), then everything needs to be done to ensure that vulnerable kids are protected. I mean, hey, you can never be too careful. And men around little kids must carefully regulate their behavior just not go give off the pedophile vibe.
        You know, I used to think feminism was merely about equity (equal pay for equal work and all that jazz), but the more I read feminist blogs, the more I can’t help but think that feminism is simply about criminalizing masculinity.
        Men are naturally bigger, they pose a threat to women, and thus they need to constantly put themselves in check just to ensure that they don’t make a woman FEEL creeped out.
        (notice that I put the word “feel” in all caps because all that matters is that a woman FEELS threatened. After all, a woman’s perceptions of danger can never be wrong, and even if they are, they can never be criticized)
        It’s as if there’s a witch hunt mentality, as Tulio once pointed out a while back.

        1. I mean, shit, to hear the feminists and pedophile hysteria crowd tell it, you would think we were living in Egypt, Pakistan, or Afghanistan.
          If I had magical powers, all American feminists would be forced to live for an extended period of time in Egypt and Pakistan. Then, they would know what it’s REALLY like to have to be on constant guard for rape and assault.

        2. And of course, the hypocrisy of it all is evident in the way that so many women pursue douchebags, whom they like because they have a dangerous and exciting feeling to them.
          I guess their danger radars only pick up on beta males.

    1. Well you do, because you are an Indian, one of the lower tier races of attractiveness srs. It makes sense you would be with a fat chick and then brag about bagging it online.

  10. Female thinking right here:
    “Jennelle Carrillo, of Cleburne, Texas, has sued the Cowboys and owner/general manager Jerry Jones after she suffered severe burns to her backside while allegedly sitting on a bench outside Cowboys Stadium before a team scrimmage in August 2010.”
    The poor thing. Probably, with her junk being sustained by bigger Texas burgers, she probably didn’t even know that it happened until she smelled flesh burning.

  11. BAG, I’ve been posting comments occasionally on various topics, not just Jewy ones. Somehow, I’ve gone from being Robert’s White Nationalist to being Robert’s Jew. I’m not really sure how that happened; the views I express on race and Jewness have stayed the same.

    1. Robert, could you please delete the comment I’m replying to here? It’s a duplicate posted by mistake. Thanks.

  12. @ Richard Smothers – “…perhaps they should really worry about men sitting next to unaccompanied women, since every man is obviously a potential rapist.”
    The day won’t be too far when gender segregation to prevent ‘sexual harassment’ becomes a reality in the Anglo-American world. This is actually an unofficial policy among airlines in South Asia and the Middle East, where unaccompanied young women and men aren’t seated together, due to ‘cultural reasons’. The policy carries across to other forms of transport as well, like railways and buses, to an extent.
    The kind of paedophile hysteria that feminists play on, often use base rate fallacy to evoke emotional outrage (or moral panic, as some would call it. Since most people accused of child molestation are males, it follows that
    most paedophiles = males
    males = potential paedophiles.
    Using the same line of reasoning (~fallacy), it also follows that since most baby killers are females, one should trust women with babies, since the potential of a woman killing a baby is high.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)