tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post4489081324923964972..comments2024-03-13T11:14:26.768-04:00Comments on A Radical Profeminist: Lethal Weapon 5, featuring The Homicidal Misogynist Maniac Mel Gibson who DOESN'T realise that "What Women Want" is to NOT BE MURDERED BY MENUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-77843955344954520222010-07-22T19:51:08.440-04:002010-07-22T19:51:08.440-04:00Thanks, Julian. As I was typing "apologist&q...Thanks, Julian. As I was typing "apologist", it just seemed so, well, <b><i>wrong</i></b><br /><br />Sorry if I went a little off-topic, but I just have so many thoughts and so much to say about these MRAs and other patriarchal support-ists that I can't seem to confine myself to the topic at hand. But suffice it to say, for now, that their "Patriarchy is GOOD for WOMEN" chant is why they MUST defend things like Mel Gibson and blame the woman......it flies in the face of what they preach. His actions and behaviour simply CANNOT be evidence of a systemic problem that doesn't exist (i.e., patriarchy), but it's that wild, wanton, needs-to-be-ruled-and-controlled whore bitch that is to blame. And that's why we NEED patriarchy, to keep all the wild, wanton whore bitches under control so shit like what pushed poor ole Mel over the edge doesn't happen.<br /><br />LOL!! Yes I've obviously spent a great deal of time around the patriarchy pity party sites and forums. <br /><br />I don't know if these assclowns can get any more delusional than they already are, Julian.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15280718300138682860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-61089146325003198872010-07-22T18:50:18.499-04:002010-07-22T18:50:18.499-04:00Mel Gibson and Tony Hayward of BP: each one self-d...Mel Gibson and Tony Hayward of BP: each one self-defined as the two most unfortunate people in the world. Tony must be worried beyond belief on his yacht, about how many millions he'll earn next year. And Mel, shuffling about from home to home, pacing nervously, wondering what's to happen to him if he has to stop his career because he's exposed far too much of who he really is.<br /><br />Why, he might just have to just jet himself here and there and party his life away! Poor dear.<br /><br />Surely there's a human rights NGO just for them?!<br /><br />This just goes to show how little they understand about the experience of actual oppression, on the receiving end. They think withdrawal of affection, or lack of blow-jobs, or being asked lots of relevant questions about why you didn't have any plans for what to do when millions of gallons of oil leaks out of a drilled sea-floor well--by people who want to know the truth about them--is a grossly inhumane hardship that is akin to being stoned to death, or gang-raped, or having bigoted obscenities screamed and yelled at you by someone with the power and ability to kill you in an instant.<br /><br />Mel Gibson is about as oppressed and harmed by Oksana Grigorieva media as Tony Hayward is oppressed and harmed by the Caribbean Sea. It's not that one woman or one sea can do no harm. It's that in each of these stories, there is no reasonable "other side" for the perps and their representatives to argue.<br /><br />In each case, the usual methods used to hide the evidence of their own harm were taken away. Mel had counted on privacy, and Tony had counted on no cameras being focused on his drilling disasters.<br /><br />What the super-privileged rich white boys don't seem to comprehend is that <b>getting caught with blood or oil on your hands</b> isn't an actionable offence in which you get to claim to be the victim. They don't get to blame women and the sea for their own wrong-doings.<br /><br />It's about time their defenders stopped whining about the perpetrators being called out publicly on what they are so used to doing in the secrecy and comfort of their own castles.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-64992178997748901682010-07-22T18:50:10.872-04:002010-07-22T18:50:10.872-04:00Excellent points, Patti.
That explains the Father...Excellent points, Patti.<br /><br />That explains the Father/Husband/Ruler/Patriarch/Possessor's let's-maintain-and-strengthen-our-Rights Movement men in a nutshell.<br /><br />I'm glad you put in support-ist, replacing apologist, as these misogynists are doing far more virulent and dangerous stuff regarding women's safety, health, and human rights than merely apologising for patriarchy's existence. They're NOT apologising for it. They're refusing to apologise for it, and, as you well know, they pretend it doesn't exist, and that they are the victims in women's matriarchal war against men.<br /><br />Can they get any more delusional and have any less contact with actual political-social reality?<br /><br />I think the sheer enormous expanse and density of their collective privileges and entitlements allows them to be as ego-centric and self-absorbed as they want to be--which is to say, and as woman-blaming and woman-hating as they want to be.<br /><br />After all, what the hell do they know about the existence of women of any color, of poor people, or Third and Fourth World people? NOTHING.<br /><br />And with that tremendous narcissism and ignorance of what is really happening in the world of people who AREN'T THEM, melded to their social entitlements and structural power, means they are indeed a force to be reckoned with.<br /><br />I hope they come to see just how fortunate (in a thoroughly organised and carefully protected way) the class-, race-, ethnicity-, gender-, age-, ability-, sexuality-privileged population is.<br /><br />It astounds me how clueless they about about their extraordinary levels of LACK OF systemic victimisation. <br />They are publicly silent on the subject of their own non-oppression. <br /><br />Ah, to be UNvictimised, and yet, to give each other the permission to believe they have some moral or ethical ground to stand on while they whine about how rough their super-privileged lives are.<br /><br />Listening to Mel Gibson go on and on about his poor self. What the fuck is he smoking?<br /><br />I think he's got a rich white straight patriarchy pipe he's been sucking on for years. And the pipe and its contents are manufactured from his childhood, his society, and his soul.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-53030068878398495072010-07-22T17:37:05.455-04:002010-07-22T17:37:05.455-04:00"men who believe women and their children are..."men who believe women and their children are their property use identical tactics. These men's aims are to instill complete control over the woman and her children as well as terrifying her to such an extent any thought she may have of leaving her male abuser is perceived as impossible. This is how violent men control women within the so-called safety of the home. But the home is not safe for women - rather it is the place where men can inflict violence on women and their children with impunity, because 'the family unit' is supposedly sacrosant and only in exceptional circumstances should the state interfere."<br /><br />And I've spent enough time at patriarchal apologist...or, rather, patriarchal support-ist......sites to know that they view male ownership of females and children of both sexes as something that is EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL to females and children at the GREAT EXPENSE of the males. Why? Because when men view women and children as their "possessions" and "property", they will fight to the death to PROTECT them.<br />To them, women not wanting to be owned or possessed by a man is evidence of the utter stupidity of the female sex.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15280718300138682860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-37313570059617563452010-07-22T14:57:40.388-04:002010-07-22T14:57:40.388-04:00The people saying it are the apologists for patria...The people saying it are the apologists for patriarchal atrocities. The people saying it either have Stockholm Syndrome, or are misogynistic tyrants.<br /><br />How woman-hating does a man have to be for the public to not rush to blame her and find some way to absolve him? The answer is blowing in the wind.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-21774149523391870682010-07-21T21:01:16.460-04:002010-07-21T21:01:16.460-04:00It so disgusting that SO MANY people are saying th...It so disgusting that SO MANY people are saying that Oksana "coldly manipulated" him into doing this stuff! What is wrong with people???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-30160420984192631092010-07-21T17:09:05.760-04:002010-07-21T17:09:05.760-04:00Oh poor Mel Gibson - he must have been driven beyo...Oh poor Mel Gibson - he must have been driven beyond endurance by the antics of that nameless woman!! This is what I've have no doubt will be proclaimed by male supremacists because women are always to blame for supposedly causing 'good men' (sic) to lose control. <br /><br />Men such as Mel Gibson are two a penny - meaning they are numerous and these men never lose control, instead they use manipulation and cold rage in order to enforce their pseudo male power over women and children.<br /><br />Gibson's sustained and deliberate violence against women and children is appalling but not unusual. The only difference is Gibson unlike many men, has financial and social power which he will use to justify his sustained violence committed against Ms. Grigorieva and her children. Gibson you might be the biological father of one of Ms. Grigorieva's children but you most certainly are not a father. Instead you are a vicious, manipulative bully who thinks his financial power will protect him from punishment. <br /><br />Gibson's violent and sadistic acts committed against Ms. Grigorieva are sadly all too common because men who believe women and their children are their property use identical tactics. These men's aims are to instill complete control over the woman and her children as well as terrifying her to such an extent any thought she may have of leaving her male abuser is perceived as impossible. This is how violent men control women within the so-called safety of the home. But the home is not safe for women - rather it is the place where men can inflict violence on women and their children with impunity, because 'the family unit' is supposedly sacrosant and only in exceptional circumstances should the state interfere. <br /><br />Gibson will probably be proved right because no doubt he will provide evidence that he 'temporarily lost control' due to unjustified provocation from Ms. Grigorieva and male supremacist society will back him 100%.JENNIFER DREWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02112807166372869685noreply@blogger.com