Kill all rapists and reverse burden of proof: this week in unhinged feminism

[Metaphor]

Although the full length episode has now been withdrawn by Australia's national broadcaster pending investigation due to feminist statements so outrageous that even the leftwing ABC got concerns, the episode transcript for last Monday's "Q&A" panel show is still available:
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-04-11/11646878

The episode--funded by Australian taxpayers--was wall-to-wall anti-male hate, top-to-bottom anti-white racism, and, despite one of its panellists specifically being an anti-ageism campaigner, was also filled with disdain for the old (if they're white men).

The episode began with how awful white people (white people only have a single culture) are at taking care of their elderly. Particular highlights are comments from NAYUKA GORRIE and MONA ELTAHAWY congratulating themselves on how their ethnic communities revered and respect their elderly.

Now while there is room for subjective debate about different cultures and their respect of the elderly, the first whopping lie comes from HANA ASSAFIRI in the following exchange:

And, coincidentally, the highest group of homelessness in this country are...?

FRAN KELLY

Older women.

HANA ASSAFIRI

Women over 50.

Nobody calls her out on this lie, there's simply credulous agreement and head-nodding, when anybody who has cursory knowledge about the facts of homelessness knows that men are the majority of homeless, and they're an even great majority of the elderly homeless, and they're an even greater greater majority of the worst type of homelessness, sleeping rough.

But there isn't much time for lies to stop the party, there are more lies that they need to cram into the program. But before that, we get an inchoate thought from the esteemed school of anarcho-feminism with a comment that the police can't be reformed and needs to be replaced with...community?

Yeah good luck with that very mainstream idea that people will totally support and totally isn't unhinged unalloyed unreconstructed loony toons insanity.

NAYUKA GORRIE

I think it’s a waste of time to try and change something like the police. It’s truly a waste of time. We’ve been trying for years and years and years. It hasn’t worked. So, what are different ways of dealing with the things that we go to police for? So, if it’s... You know, if it is...


FRAN KELLY

Because we do go to police for help. We do go.

NAYUKA GORRIE
And they don’t help. Like, they... You know, Ms Dhu... Ms Dhu is a really good example. You know, she went for help and she ended up dying. You know, Auntie Tanya was... she was...she was drunk in public. But, you know, you would help someone normally. You know, there are going to be thousands...


FRAN KELLY
It should be a health response, not a police response.


MONA ELTAHAWY
Well, if you’re talking about...

NAYUKA GORRIE
..of people who are drunk tomorrow, and they’re going to be helped.


FRAN KELLY
Of course.


NAYUKA GORRIE

But why...? Why do we need to rely on them when we can build communities to do that work for ourselves?

Now, in an extremely refreshing event, the anti-ageism campaigner actually had the cojones to push back against the rampant ageism, sexism, and racism of Mona, but her protests fell on deaf ears:

MONA ELTAHAWY

...So, this is what we are seeing. We’re seeing people who are saying, “No, we deserve better,” against these old white men, mostly, who are saying, “No, we want to keep our hands on everything.” And clearly you have to be on this side, that’s what’s changing.


ASHTON APPLEWHITE

It’s not their age. It’s not their race. It’s their privilege.



MONA ELTAHAWY

I think that a lot of them it is. They’re old men.



ASHTON APPLEWHITE

They are indeed old men and many are white but that is because of the privilege that they have enjoyed their whole lives, that they are trying damn hard to hold on to that is being threatened as it never has been.


FRAN KELLY
But also, underneath the privilege, isn’t there also a disruption going on? And that’s affecting not just the...as you would say, the old white men in power, it’s affecting the people in the communities who... That has been their livelihoods. This is a period of great change we are projecting here and living through.

JESS HILL
People are terrified.

NAYUKA GORRIE
As well, I think old white men, yeah, you know, sure, absolutely. But when we... Like, white women voted for Trump.

MONA ELTAHAWY

Oh, I have a whole chapter on them. I know.

But the real zinger of the evening is Mona endorsing the killing of rapists. Not by the State (because she doesn't believe in the death penalty), but, by individual women or maybe mobs of them.

MONA ELTAHAWY

...How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill? Not the state, because I disagree with the death penalty and I want to get rid of incarceration and I’m with you on the police. So I want women themselves... As a woman I’m asking, how many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?

Back to NAYUKA claiming white people don't have morality and advocating "burning stuff" (presumably white people's stuff but maybe white people too):

NAYUKA GORRIE

So I’m thinking about, you know, a colony, we live in a colony. We’ve tried for 230-plus years to appeal to the colonisers’ morality which doesn’t seem to exist. I think violence, yeah, I think violence is OK because if someone is trying to kill you, there’s no amount of, “Oh, but I’m really clever.” You know, “I’m really articulate.” No amount of that is going to save you, so, yeah, let’s burn stuff.

I can't do any more of that show. That was my breaking point.

But enough of those batshit feminists. Some different batshit feminists have made a submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission about sexual consent laws and they propose to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases:

“Our preliminary submission proposes that evidence of positive confirmation of consent or explicit permission should be required to negate a charge of sexual assault,” the clinic’s submissions read, noting that “the clear majority” of 43 preliminary submissions were “in favour of adopting an affirmative consent model”.

But it doesn't stop there: apparently persuading somebody to have sex with you is also non-consensual:

Its submission accused defence lawyers opposing the changes of having “a vested interest” in maintaining the status quo, and also expressed concerns over submissions from the Law Society and Bar Association that “consent after persuasion is still consent”.

“What level of ‘persuasion’ (would) members of the bar regard as acceptable?” The clinic’s submission asked. “Are they just talking about flowers and a massage? Or are they talking about financial incentives, veiled threats, bargaining and relentless badgering? Would they be happy with the same level of ‘persuasion’ being used to extract confessions from defendants?”

What's wrong with financial incentives? I guess they are sex-work exclusionary radical feminists (SWERFS). And bargaining? What is wrong with bargaining?

Just another day in a culture that hates women. Just hates them.

 

[Lion IRC]

Violent reactions by women to violence against women is a foolish strategy.
The tax payer funded left wing media in .au fundamentally misunderstands the target of their rage. And no, they won't be "fact checking" their own opinions and woke articles of faith.

 

[ruby sparks]

I watched the video and it is indeed a pretty poor showing, imo. Far too much ideology and dogma and a shortage of facts and balance, on the part of the panelists. Extremism, in other words.

Just for example, in justifying the idea of violence, by women, the analogy with slaves rebelling is ridiculous. It might have carried at least some weight, 100-300 years ago, or in some countries nowadays, but today, in 'western' societies? It's an overstatement and a misrepresentation of the state of affairs.

 

[Toni]

Violent reactions by women to violence against women is a foolish strategy.
The tax payer funded left wing media in .au fundamentally misunderstands the target of their rage. And no, they won't be "fact checking" their own opinions and woke articles of faith.

Millennia of being nice, of placating, avoiding, etc. has not been terribly effective.

 

[laughing dog]

Violent reactions by women to violence against women is a foolish strategy.
The tax payer funded left wing media in .au fundamentally misunderstands the target of their rage. And no, they won't be "fact checking" their own opinions and woke articles of faith.

Why do you expect a higher standard of the media than you do of yourself or the Catholic Church?

 

[Lion IRC]

You don't read very carefully do you.
Did I sound like I was praising them?
I don't have a high expectation of them. I have a LOW expectation of them.

 

[laughing dog]

You don't read very carefully do you.
Did I sound like I was praising them?
I don't have a high expectation of them. I have a LOW expectation of them.

I pointed out that whatever standard you were holding the media to, neither you nor the Catholic Church met that standard. And your response is an illustration of my point.

 

[Lion IRC]

WUT?
I said they won't be "fact checking" their opinions and woke articles of faith.
And that they (the biased left-wing ABC) misunderstands the object of their rage.
They are allowed to be opinionated and mistaken.

What makes you think I expect something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck to be something other than a duck. I EXPECT them to be what they are.

You don't like what the Catholic Church says. So what?

You've got this wacky notion that raising ones 'standards' to meet your 'expectations' means agreeing with your opininions and beliefs.

 

[starwater]

Metaphor - about every other day there is a new rant from you about how women are just so mean and are causing you so much anguish with them expressing their rights to be equal. You come up with the most obscure things to focus on and nitpick and hair split and scrutinize so you can justify your anti-women views. If anyone agrees with you - then there you go you feel righteous. Dude you need help. Go see a therapist.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor - about every other day there is a new rant from you about how women are just so mean

Non. I post a lot on the strange, unreasonable, and incoherent arguments that feminists make, the easy racism, sexism, and ageism that feminists indulge in, the women-as-victim narrative endorsed, echoed, amplified and venerated by feminists (and society in general), and the often blatant lies and word-game misrepresentations that feminists make.

and are causing you so much anguish with them expressing their rights to be equal.

If a person - whether feminist or not - cites a law that is problematic or discriminatory - I don't have any issue with that being rectified.

But when feminists opine that burden of proof should be reversed in sexual assault cases, that has nothing to do with equal rights of any kind. And it's fucking crazy, and I will call it out.

You come up with the most obscure things to focus on

Obscure? Is there something obscure about feminists appearing on a mainstream primetime nationally-funded panel show and suggesting women should kill rapists?

What's 'obscure' about feminists wanting to reverse burden of proof in legal trials? Are all people not subject to the legal system?

and nitpick and hair split and scrutinize so you can justify your anti-women views.

What anti-woman views? What have I said that is "anti-woman"?

If anyone agrees with you - then there you go you feel righteous. Dude you need help. Go see a therapist.

For what do I need help? Because I believe certain non-mainstream things? Being a minority is not a mental illness, starwater.

 

[Derec]

Millennia of being nice, of placating, avoiding, etc. has not been terribly effective.

So you are condoning feminist violence directed at men?

 

[Lion IRC]

It's more like condoning the condoning of violence against violent men.
A very foolish strategy for a woman to tell a violent man ...I'll see you and raise you

Gender equality is a myth in a UFC cage fight.

And wimmin telling (all) men ..."it's ok we got this" is, once again, very foolish.

 

[Derec]

It's more like condoning the condoning of violence against violent men.

1. Allegedly violent men. Any woman can say she was raped and use it as justification for murder.
And yes, some women do lie about rape, contrary to feminist myths.
2. It is a hallmark of civilization that crimes are investigated by police and adjudicated by the courts. Revenge killings should not be tolerated.
3. Death penalty for rape is too severe a punishment.

 

[Toni]

Millennia of being nice, of placating, avoiding, etc. has not been terribly effective.

So you are condoning feminist violence directed at men?

Nope but I am empathizing with the frustration.

Also, sometimes women do fight back. That doesn't necessarily end well for the man.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo, it's definitely sad when your worldview, your paradigm for viewing humanity and human relationships, is essentially that it's a war between the sexes.

I hope we can surely all agree that these women were a bit ott.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

War between the sexes can never be won, as there is too much fraternizing with the enemy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah yes, good old "LOOK AT THIS RADFEM, her crazy means all feminists are crazy!"

We all realize there are people that go too far. The existence of someone that DOES go too far does not imply that people who don't go as far but in some of the same directions went too far. It is a broad brush, a non-sequitur.

We have a whole thread here built on a non-sequitur. That, and the inability to see it, means that the person who posted it should probably seek help, either educational or mental.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ah yes, good old "LOOK AT THIS RADFEM, her crazy means all feminists are crazy!"

We all realize there are people that go too far. The existence of someone that DOES go too far does not imply that people who don't go as far but in some of the same directions went too far. It is a broad brush, a non-sequitur.

We have a whole thread here built on a non-sequitur. That, and the inability to see it, means that the person who posted it should probably seek help, either educational or mental.

You apparently didn't notice the "rad" in the term "radfem". At most you can say that one radfem doesn't speak on behalf of all radfems, and you'd be right, but it wouldn't make this strawman you are pushing here so.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's more like condoning the condoning of violence against violent men.

1. Allegedly violent men.

Sure, but I was taking it for granted that an eye-for-an-eye meant exactly that.
Technically, it's not "revenge" if you get the wrong man.
Although I don't doubt that extreme feminists might like the idea of collective punishment.
...kinda like forcing all men obey a nighttime curfew

Any woman can say she was raped and use it as justification for murder.
And yes, some women do lie about rape, contrary to feminist myths.

No doubt.
But you have to admit that the feminazi rejoinder here is that lots of men lie when denying they have raped their victim.
So it's a nil-all-draw.

2. It is a hallmark of civilization that crimes are investigated by police and adjudicated by the courts. Revenge killings should not be tolerated.
3. Death penalty for rape is too severe a punishment.

Agreed.