When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video

The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.

The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male.  It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.

Well, that new information changes things a bit, doesn’t it? So why then could this editorial not be titled “A Policy of Murder”? Why is all its emphasis on the rape of women and none of its emphasis on the murder of men? Why is this revelation thrown away as a tagline at the end of the article and offered only as “an indication of how utterly we are failing the people of Darfur” rather than as an indication of how utterly we are failing to direct equal compassion and attention toward the atrocities inflicted upon men?

“this policy of rape flourishes only because it is ignored” while the death of men simply does not matter

Adam Jones, author/editor of Gendercide and Genocide (2004), has studied these issues in depth. Genocide may be defined as the attempt to exterminate a given population. Gendercide is the selective mass killing of one gender. As Jones makes clear, the gender of choice for extermination is nearly always the male gender. In part, males are selected because males are more easily assumed to pose a threat, but also because males may be slaughtered without over-burdening the slaughterers with guilt and trauma. Moreover, you can slaughter males and provoke only minimal world outrage. In fact, the media will focus mainly on hardships faced by the women deprived of men. [...]

“One of the best indicators of the special vulnerability of men and boys is the frequency with which relatives and friends sought to disguise them in women’s clothing,” asserts Jones. “The African Rights report ‘Death, Despair and Defiance’ cites a number of examples of such procedures, which are reminiscent of similar practices followed in the Bosnian and Kosovan conflicts of the 1990s.”[5] Clearly, if females were specially targeted, males would not be donning female clothing. Yet, as the media reaction to Rwandan atrocities makes plain, women will be presented as the victims almost no matter what the truth. Jones continues: source

• Feminist rape laws don’t apply to male prison rape victims
• "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!
• Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago
• Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?
• Definition of "Rape": When a "Rape" is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word "Rape" & the Perversion of Language
• Way over 50% of rape accusations are false. 7.4% blatantly enough to prosecute (Bavarian Police research report)
• What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!

Why discrimination against males, exaggerating female suffering to the extremes?

Human-Stupidity strived to look behind the facts. we want to understand WHY things are as they are. Why is mail hurt, male suffering and male victimization actively ignored to the point of falsifying statistics. How come that a "Violence against Women act" was not shot down as unconstitutionally sexist by the supreme court.

Why can Hillary Clinton get away with saying that women are the main victims of war, because their husbands and brothers die in war? Not to even mention that there are credible sources that Hillary Clinton battered Bill Clinton in the White House, of course, unpunished.

Even in China, special protection for women, ignoring men

Well, you’ve absolutely got to admit Female Victimization in Bosnia, or Arabia, or China, or whatever . . . right?” People look at me then as if to say: Either he admits MP/FV or his credibility is totally shot. Well, I could be wrong but the best evidence I know of does not support the MP/FV paradigm anywhere at all. My research indicates that matrisensus influence is always a match for patriarchal influence, and brutal places are brutal to both sexes. China? Over a ten-year period, 59,543 men and no women died in coal mining accidents alone![19] Male slaves trafficked into China find prosecuting their slavemasters particularly difficult because Chinese law only protects women from being trafficked in as slaves.[20]

You can go to a brutal place, catalogue only the brutality toward women, and on that basis conclude that women are the victims, but if you don’t research conditions for men, if you don’t compare the female victimization against male victimization, your conclusion is logically bankrupt. Even worse, our perceptions of gender reality are further distorted when the only comparison that is regularly made is the comparison between conditions experienced by the average woman vs. conditions experienced by the elite male. source

Footnote [20]       See, Kang Yi, “Some human traffickers may walk away in ‘slave’ case,” June 15, 2007, www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm. “‘Those traffickers who lure migrant workers, mainly adult males, to do forced labor will not be convicted as the criminal code only covers those who traffic women and children,’ Guan Zhongzhi, a lawyer with Zhonghuan Law Firm told chinadaily.com.cn. The legal loophole has put male victims in an awkward position when fighting against their traffickers in the court of law.”

Blame Husband’s infidelity

Bossip.com even finds a way to blame the father’s infidelity for it: The serial cheater who berated his longtime girlfriend just before she drowned herself and their three kids in the Hudson River won’t face any charges in the tragic deaths

Jezebel-sucks deletes dissent

Human-Stupidity posted a comment on Jezebel that this is a psycho assassin infanticidal mother. We mentioned that feminists would not look for psychological explanations if the father were the assassin like father shot family dead.
It took Jezebel.com-sucks 8 entire minutes, at 7 am, to delete our comment. Admirable efficiency. Dissenting opinions are not welcome. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Armstrong, 25, drowned along with 5-year-old Landon, 2-year-old Lance and 11-month-old Lainaina. Only her 10-year-son Lashaun escaped the tan van turned death trap NY Daily News

Of course we, unwisely, could not refrain from mentioning that if the father had slightly fondled the kids in wrong ways, they would not try to find deep motivations in the father’s past but rather want to jail him for 20 years.
(no, we don’t condone inappropriate fondling of children, but we think that assassination is a much more serious crime. See our teenage sexuality and child porn witch hunt topics)

River Murder-Suicide Mom’s Tragic Final Moments

Tragic final moments of the murderer?  a multiple child assassin? What about the tragic moment of the drowning kids? And the grieving father?

Anna North — A day after a Newburgh, New York mom killed herself and her children by driving into the Hudson River, interviews with survivors reveal some clues about her emotional state — and the family problems she was struggling with. River Murder-Suicide Mom’s Tragic Final Moments | Jezebel sucks

Her emotional thought? that is the fist thing feminists at Jezebel-sucks think after a multiple child assassination. Pre-meditated. Even announced it on Facebook!

According to her surviving son, ten-year-old Lashaun, she told her kids "I’m sorry, I’m going to do something crazy," and "If I’m going to die, you’re going to die with me." But just before Lashaun escaped the sinking van, she grabbed his pant leg and said, "I made a mistake."

While your car is sinking you hold your kid by the pant legs to have a chat? Probably she tried to hold him by the pant leg so he would drown too. My suspicion is confirmed by the MSNBC TV report. Obviously she was not sorry enough so she would try to save the kids.

Initial reports made it sound like Armstrong had intentionally let Lashaun out of the car, but it now appears that he slid out through a window and swam back to shore,

No, she wanted to kill the fourth child too.

The newspaper quoted Ryan as saying that Lashaun’s mother held her children as the minivan slipped into the river, saying: "If I’m going to die, you’re going to die with me." MSNBC

It is the father’s fault!

It is unbelievable. We thought Jezebel was bad. It can get worse:

Epitome Of A Bad Father: Deadbeat Dad Won’t Face Charges Even Though His Restraining Order Violation Drove Ex To Drown Herself And Their Kids

The serial cheater who berated his longtime girlfriend just before she drowned herself and their three kids in the Hudson River won’t face any charges in the tragic deaths.[...]

Pierre and Armstrong were fighting over his infidelities just before she took the six-block route into the river.

James said that Pierre arrived around 6:30 p.m., causing a ruckus until he left around 7 p.m. Armstrong, 25, posted a Facebook message apologizing in advance for the murder-suicide at 7:13 p.m. [...]

Lashanda Armstrong, 25, kept a steady job and took college classes but was abandoned by Jean Pierre — the fly-by-night father of the three dead children — and had nowhere to turn for help.

“He was terrible to her. He was very domineering and controlling over her. He was just so cruel. She just wanted a normal family,” said one friend, Christine Santos, 29, who lives nearby.

The dad also threatened to claim custody of the kids.

“That’s what pushed her over the edge,” said Santos. “He must have broken her spirit and taken away her will to live.”

Here we got the motive:
Kill the children to make sure the the serial cheater father can not get custody of the kids.

Maybe the father was a jerk. Cheating is one thing, but if he really left a 2 year old roaming the freezing streets for lack of attention, then he is quite irresponsible. For feminists this is probably worse then intentional mass assassination perpetrated by a serial killer woman.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Helmut Seifert, 47, an ethnic German originally from Russia, was enraged when he heard his 17-year-old daughter was having a relationship with Phillip Genscher, 57.

He went to police in the town of Bielefeld where he lives but officers said they were powerless to intervene.

"The man then recruited two work colleagues at his factory and then went to the house of the victim," said police.

"The man was forced to remove his trousers and, fully conscious, he was castrated. The severed testicles were taken away by the perpetrator."

The man was close to bleeding to death but managed to call police. His life was saved but he remains a eunuch for life. [...]

He told police: "I received a phone call anonymously that my daughter was involved with a guy 40 years older than her. You said you couldn’t stop him – so I did.

"I saw it as my duty as a father."

German man castrates teenage daughter’s 57-year-old boyfriend (The Telegraph)

This was republished here Dad, 47, in Germany castrates man, 57, for dating 17-year-old daughter (NY Daily News)

• Note: nowhere did the article say that the couple actually had sex with each other
• even if they did, the age of consent in Germany is 16, there is absolutely no legal problem

Naomid

2:59 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Why is everyone calling this guy a perv?? He was DATING the girl, not raping her! If an 18 year old guy was dating her, would you call him a "perv"?? Remember, Charile Chaplin married his wife when he was 54 and she was 17, and they had 8 kids together and stayed married for 30 years until his death, and she never remarried and is now buried next to him. Is that being a perv? If anyone is a perv, it’s a psychopath who cuts off *****. What do you think that is going to do to his daughter? She is going to be terrified to get into any kind of relationship again.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=80&tstart=0#ixzz18gndinDh

Interesting discussion among the NY Daily News Readers

here

Dangerous vigilantes

The correct legal situation info about German law

brooklynNYC

1:14:58 PM
Dec 14, 2010

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In this rare and special case, a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 14 As specified by Sections 176 (Sexual abuse of children) and 182 (Sexual abuse of youths), which read: § 176: "(1) Whoever commits sexual acts on a person under fourteen (14) years of age (a child) or allows them to be committed on himself by the child, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to ten years [...]" § 180: "(1) Whoever abets the commission of sexual acts of a person under sixteen years of age on or in front of a third person or sexual acts of a third person on a person under sixteen years of age: 1. by actin

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gPfl3nc

Positive and understanding opinions

anabelle23

4:23:30 PM
Dec 14, 2010

the little strumpet knew EXACTLY what she was doing. this entire puritanical hypocrisy is the stuff puke is made from. the older man probably treated her better than most young men who pretend to love, deflower, and dump leaving them emotionally scarred and damaged. the father was wrong, wrong, wrong – hope they castrate him then throw him into a gay prison for 20 years. there is a reason why girls can make babies at 13 so stop pretending they are innocent little angels. some of them are more savvy and cunning than professional streetwalkers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gRii1bv

Chad66

1:47 PM
Dec 13, 2010

The girl likes older men. So who cares. Or was Daddy jealous because she was dating this other guy and not her own Daddy. Beisdes, like someone mentioned, nothing was said about having sex. AND why did Daddy need other people to help him. And if she likes older ment , there will always be older men around. Daddy should get 40 years in jail. at lest.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gg3eB4A

lebinz

1:51 PM
Dec 13, 2010

You’re all talking about two different things. 1. whether or not this is a child molestation case (i tend to think that this is an insult to REAL cases where 9 and 12 year are being raped), and 2. whether older men should date younger women. The first is clear, the children should be protected, the second is not only stupid, but insulting to women. Just like we shouldn’t be telling women what to do with their own bodies; just like it is wrong for muslim women to be stoned for cheating; we should respect their decision. Whether you feel comfortable or not isn’ the issue, that is your opinion and it is none of your business.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18ggW8rfW

lebinz

1:55 PM
Dec 13, 2010

And it is funny how, as a manager, I can’t tell a 20yr old "I don’t hire women so young" but we as total strangers can say who they get to date and who they don’t get to date. Even by imposing restrictions on the "age limit" they are allowed to date is simply treating them like a piece of property. No one says this about boys. Boys do whatever they want with whomever they want. Demmi Moore picks up someone younger than she is and she gets a pat on the back. Donald Trump dates a model and people are angry. Women are property. Simple as that. This is why some of you are so outrage at the simple fact that there is an age difference.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gghjRrQ

plsstoptheHate101

1:49 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Josie911 I take personal offense to your statement because I am one of those that has benefited from Viagra, and I am putting my 19yr old girlfriend to college. So what do we have in common, she is getting a free education and I keep a smile on my face, what is wrong with that.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gjL5S3A

plsstoptheHate101

2:17 PM
Dec 13, 2010

I was going Yeah good for him until I realise that I am 55 and dating a 19yr old…thanks to Viagra she is very happy. I tell you what, there is not a young man today if he lives to be an old man who will not appreciate Viagra. Pryor to Viagra men committed suicide.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18ghbZvjc

OBJ

3:19 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Zeke: And Hindus and French Catholics and Canadian. In much of the world young women marry older men for stability and security. Their philosophy is why marry a guy and be with him during the struggling years when you can marry someone who is already established. And end up a well-off widow.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=80&tstart=0#ixzz18goI9woN

Violent reactions

RickEvans033050

7:57:08 AM
Dec 20, 2010

The number of sociopath posters applauding this guy’s actions is appalling. Yes the age difference is disturbing however a 17 year old is not a little girl. Also, using ‘man’ to describe him is a stretch considering the coward had to recruit a couple of thug pals to restrain the victim. It’s one thing for this 47 year old to man-up and go one-on-one against the 57 year old victim over his daughters’ "honor". This was a cowardly lynching

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gSm8S1y

giantnyc

12:21 PM
Dec 13, 2010

While involvement with a teenager is despicable, I generally do not agree that people should be left to impose their brand of justice. Disguisting, yes, but was the low-life committing an illegal act? Was she at the age of legal consent? What if the father decides other things are his duty; restrictions based on religion, race, political leanings, anyone older than any age he decides is too old? Where is the limit? That is tough to say, but there is the law. He should probably have put on his thinking cap on and addressed why his young daughter is getting involved with an old man in the first place. Instead, he will be in jail, unable to help his daughter deal with her issues. Maybe this was more about him than his daughter. I dunno.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502#ixzz18gdTvsUd

Os brasileiros já conhecem o problema: devido a “direitos humanos” menores predadores continuam soltos atacando turistas e brasileiros. Assassinos e assaltantes são liberados por direitos humanos a visitar familia (e logo ficar fora da prisão e começar assaltar no mesmo dia) e tem direito a visitas conjugais (com direito a celular de presente, escondido naquele lugar escondido da namorada).

Sem falar do problema que os presos gastam o nosso dinheiro que poderia ser melhor aplicado em escolas e hopitais.

Sim, eu entendo que abrindo mão de direitos humanos é problematico, nem tenho solução perfeita, somente quero abrir uma discussão para derubar o dogma (direitos humanos inviolaveis).  Talvez bandidos não deveriam ter tantos direitos humanos.

Quando puder vou acrescentar uns links a noticias relevantes (ou voces podem me mandar nas respostas)

A versão em Ingles tem mais detalhes.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/
http://latestnewsworldwide.blogspot.com/2009/04/nato-ships-helicopters-hunt-down-7.html