Sunday, June 11, 2017

More on the female sex offender charade

Humans are a curious mixture of rational and irrational creatures. We are smart enough to operate airlines that almost never crash, yet dumb enough to have a justice system which routinely fails to achieve justice because many of the laws themselves are fundamentally unjust. There is no better example of unjust laws than the sex laws, and because sex is obviously something women have and men and boys want, the pinnacle of insane injustice is to pretend women "abuse" boys by giving them sex. The most famous female victim of feminist sex laws is Mary Kay Letourneau. Hers was the case that raised awareness of the utter insanity of feminism, at least for me, and helped radicalize me into a sworn enemy of the feminist state. Prior to that case, I never imagined that the state could be so absurdly and irrationally cruel as to imprison women for being nice to boys. It was an eye opener to the cruelty of the world and the irrationality of the justice system as well as the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of feminists.

Now Mary Kay Letourneau is back in the news for getting separated from her former "victim" Vili Fualaau. Which means that their marriage has been amazingly solid by any contemporary standard, even to the point of not needing to deal with custody issues because their kids are all grown up by the time they get divorced. The Mary Kay Letourneau story is a triumph of love over feminism, so compelling that the media has trouble siding with feminist sex-hostility. For example, CNN says:

"Mary Kay Fualaau, formerly Letourneau, was a married 34-year-old teacher and mother of four in Seattle in 1996 when she began an affair with Fualaau, her 13-year-old student. Letourneau gave birth to her young lover's child before she went on to serve more than seven years in prison on charges related to their sexual relationship."

How delightfully put! "Charges related to their sexual relationship," instead of something along the lines of "went to prison for sexually abusing/raping him," which is the usual feminist wording. They even admit that it was a love story rather than an abuse story. I don't know how that subversive tone made it into CNN, because the same cannot be said for most cases these days. The mainstream media usually presents unadulterated feminist sex-hostility with wholehearted hatred, without any room for doubting that they really mean it. I find it deeply disturbing that they have embraced not only the hate, but also the idiocy of pretending that boys can be victims of women's sexuality simply because they are underage, which is so manifestly absurd that it flies in the face of literally all of reality including the experience of the boys themselves. Here is a current case which drives home the full insanity of our feminist legal systems:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4590430/Abuse-victim-says-sex-BBC-DJ-like-drug.html

It starts out with a normal teenage boy who gets lucky with an older woman and of course enjoys it. Then 20 years later, he "attended a child sexual exploitation course and realised what the Wadsworths had done to him was a criminal act." Feminist propaganda is presented as reality even while admitting that the propaganda itself is solely responsible for making the man think he has been abused!

This kind of coverage is deeply disturbing because the fact that the media can get away with it demonstrates that I am surrounded by idiots. A human being who can take this drivel seriously and think it was "abuse" is so far below me intellectually and morally and spiritually that I regard them as absolute dirt. I can think of nothing more apt to make me lose respect for my fellow man, and sadly, these morons are now so commonplace that it is hard to find a sane individual. Thankfully, I count some of these sane people among my readers, so kudos to you, but the rest of society is hopelessly brainwashed by feminist sex-hostility.

And of course they completely control the justice system, which routinely perverts victimless sex into "abuse" simply because someone is underage, and most absurdly of all, imposes the same standards on women even though the boys are in fact the opposite of victims.

This is the stuff of mad nightmares, and it beggars belief that it can exist. I have thought long and hard about why, and reached the conclusion that it can go on all too easily because there is no feedback in the justice system. If people are sent to prison based on absurd laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality, how would we know? The scary answer is that we can't. People are labeled as criminals for whatever reason, go to prison and then the narrative of criminality is self-validating and self-perpetuating, reality be damned. Abuse is abuse because it is abuse and offenders are offenders because they are offenders and that is all the proof anyone needs. Unlike air travel, which gives rise to a sense of immediate calamity if airlines operate unsafe planes that don't deliver passengers to their destination, there is no feedback mechanism to tell us that people get convicted based on gobbledygook. Well, none except a few voices of reason like mine crying out in the desert. That is all we have. It is difficult enough to reverse wrongful convictions when someone is factually innocent; when the law itself is out of touch with reality, it is all but impossible. Laws can be based on any crazy ideology or fiction and frequently are, and sadly there is no corrective influence on legislation equivalent to the laws of physics that keep engineers sane. Societies are perfectly capable of persecuting large groups of people for no sensible reason at all, and this can go on for a long time.

To get some idea of how much it takes to reverse misbegotten laws, look at the War on Drugs. It is still going strong despite droves of sensible people pointing out that it does more harm than good. And the few changes that have been made are marginal and incremental, like legalization of cannabis in a few US states after a tedious battle against a monstrous drug war. There is not nearly as much opposition to meaningless and draconian sex laws, so that gives us some idea of how far away the Men's Rights Movement is from achieving any progress. We are doomed to walk among idiots who think underage sex is "abuse" and that even women can be sex offenders in a society which does its level best to reify those lies, but I for one am on a mission to at least make them feel my contempt and disrespect for them as people. I seethe and roil and shake with hatred against all the dimwits who have internalized the antisexual norms of our times, and this is not a figure of speech, it is literally how I am every day. I have to exercise great restraint to even keep my words legal, as the record shows.

27 comments:

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Very well said that sex is something that women have and men wants. It's a product in the hands of women only, and they sell it to the highest bidder. Not just for money, but for social status, security, popularity, humor, poetry, skills in sport and so on, depending on what the particular woman wants.

A women is never in a relationship with a man for sex, just for what he can offer her in exchange of sex.

Anonymous said...

I must disagree with your notion that women can't rape men. Despite it's true in general terms that sex is something women have and men want, but not every woman is desirable for a particular man.

I made an analogy for this:
Let's say you love chokolate and I have a chokolate factory. So I have chokolate and you want chokolate. Now what would you call it, if I grabbed some long expired, rancid, moldy chokolate, and not just gave it to you but forced you to eat it? You love chokolate, but not the expired, rancid, moldy ones. Those you would refuse if you had a choice. But you are forced to eat it.

Eivind Berge said...

You misunderstand my argument. What I mean by saying that women can't rape men is not that they should be allowed to force men to have sex any more than anyone should be allowed to force you to eat chocolate. Both of these would be assault and should be punishable as such, but there is nothing about forced sex with a woman that makes it worse than any nonsexual assault, for example forcing someone to eat chocolate. The feminist insanity occurs when female sexual coercion is called rape and prosecuted as rape, which leads to a profoundly undeserved punishment, because the sexual aspect obviously does not aggravate the crime the way rape law assumes (there is a three-year MINIMUM sentence in Norway, for example, so accepting the claim that women can rape men means imposing this).

The cases referred to in this post are merely statutory, however, which is complete bullshit no matter how you look at it.

Thomas said...

Forcing someone to eat moldy chocolate can perhaps equal being forced to have sex with an ugly woman. But neither of these actions deserves being called rape and being punished to the degree that rape is. There is no real harm done in any alternative.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, that is about the level of severity I would ascribe to it. A lot of people seem to forget that there are other crimes than rape whenever this subject comes up. Just because it isn't rape, doesn't mean it must be legal. It is just a category error to call it rape.

Anonymous said...

"Forcing someone to eat moldy chocolate can perhaps equal being forced to have sex with an ugly woman. But neither of these actions deserves being called rape and being punished to the degree that rape is."

"Both of these would be assault and should be punishable as such, but there is nothing about forced sex with a woman that makes it worse than any nonsexual assault, for example forcing someone to eat chocolate."

The same logic could be applied to "classic" rape as well, then. What makes that worse than a non sexual assoult? Bodily harm doesn't occur or if it does, it's not part of the rape, it's also assoult. Humiliation occurs but it also happens in non-sexual assoult. Psychological harm might happen but it can also come from non-sexual assoult too. In traditional societies a raped woman was "damaged goods", but in progressive societies that doesn't happen becouse sex outside marrige isn't a big deal. The only thing that can make rape a special assoult type is that it is a little like robbery: the rapists takes it for free what other men have to pay for*. Does that warrant the so much more harsh punishment than what non-sexual assoult gets?

*The sexual market value of an ugly woman is on par with the average man. Chances are she will have to pay instead of getting payed for sex. So if she forces herself on a man, she also takes for free what she was ought to pay for.

Statutory rape is bullshit, I agree.

Eivind Berge said...

Feminists have managed to corrupt it in all sorts of ways, but I do think classic rape merits a separate crime with a harsher penalty than nonsexual assaults with a comparable level of violence. My reasoning is based neither on a patriarchal concept of "damaged goods" nor feminist rape hysteria, but on evolutionary psychology, which tells us that women appear to possess rape-avoidance adaptations because their sexuality is so valuable that their minds are designed to protect it and be very careful about which men they have sex with. One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence, to help women avoid being raped again. I therefore agree with treating rape as a separate, more serious crime, provided that it is reasonably defined. Feminists have abused this sympathy and corrupted the definition to things like statutory rape and drunken regret-rape and even applied it to supposed male victims of female rapists, all of which is nonsense that the Men's Movement needs to fight. But I do not believe we should oppose the legal concept of rape altogether.

Eivind Berge said...

"The sexual market value of an ugly woman is on par with the average man. Chances are she will have to pay instead of getting payed for sex."

This is completely false, and if you really believe it then I suggest you reorient yourself a little towards reality. One way you can do so is to run an an experiment with personal ads impersonating the ugliest woman you can think of versus the most handsome man and see who gets more offers of sex.

Somebody already tried something like that and here are the results:

http://sluthate.com/viewtopic.php?t=41769

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"Feminists have managed to corrupt it in all sorts of ways, but I do think classic rape merits a separate crime with a harsher penalty than nonsexual assaults with a comparable level of violence. My reasoning is based neither on a patriarchal concept of "damaged goods" nor feminist rape hysteria, but on evolutionary psychology, which tells us that women appear to possess rape-avoidance adaptations because their sexuality is so valuable that their minds are designed to protect it and be very careful about which men they have sex with. One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence, to help women avoid being raped again. I therefore agree with treating rape as a separate, more serious crime, provided that it is reasonably defined."

Men have hard to understand how traumatizing real rape is for women, as for us it was an advantage to spread our semen wide and far. Trond Andresen has an interesting comment about these differences between sexes:

"På en annen FB-gruppe skreiv jeg dette, i forbindelse med Gay Pride-arrangementet i Oslo. Noen synspunkter?
_________________

Jeg er sjøsagt tilhenger av at seksuelle minoriteter skal få leve som de vil uten diskriminering. Men det er et problem med deler av (den mannlige) homsekulturen (som ikke gjelder for lesbene, se under). Problemet er homsekulturens særegne utagerende seksuelle hedonisme.

Med fare for å erte på meg noen snowflakes med en aldri så liten mikroaggresjon, tror jeg den utagerende seksuelle hedonismen i homsemiljøet ikke bare er en slags "vi-har-vår-egen-kultur"-greie og at mange hopper på den for å være en del av flokken, slik det er for alle slags subgrupper i et samfunn. Jeg tror også den utagerende seksuelle hedonismen hos homsene kan forklares evolusjonspsykologisk. Menn har opp gjennom evolusjonen i liten grad blitt rammet av seriøse konsekvenser av å spre sin sæd i øst og vest. Mens kvinner som kjent ofte blir gravide og får ansvar for et barn.

Evolusjonen har da selektert for en kvinnelig psykologi som er mer konsekvensorientert, i retning av å finne en ressurssterk partner som tar ansvar. Dette vil også prege lesbene. Mens det for menns vedkommende ikke har vært noe seleksjonspress i retning av å være seksuelt tilbakeholdende og konsekvensorientert.

Når man da har en setting med menn som er seksuelt tiltrukket av menn, blir det sjølsagt langt mer tut og kjør; tilfeldig og spontan sex tar av i mye større grad enn i heteroseksuelle situasjoner. Gjensidig onani og munnsex på do er bare et utslag.

Og homser vil - som alle minoritetsgrupper som til en viss grad befinner seg inne i ei holdnings- og livsstils-boble - ha en tendens til å la sine normer for hva som er fest og gøy også i noen grad prege de velmente forsøkene på å stelle i stand noe for barn, når de skal feire seg sjøl. slik de gjør ved årets Gay pride.

Dette kan være et problem.

Denne innebygde seksuell-hedonisme-tilbøyeligheten hos homser gjør også at den gjennomsnittlige homse er svakere for liberalisme, individualisme og dermed høyrepolitikk enn den gjennomsnittlige lesbe. Noe som det Vestlige Imperiet er meget klar over, og utnytter til psykologisk krigføring på den geopolitiske arena."

A civilization without women cannot exist, because here men would just kill one another until one man was standing back alone. One can see this in the former Wild West, where murder rates were high as Mount Everest. When the women later came in society stabilized.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

- Menn er dyr - kvinner også:

http://forskning.no/meninger/kommentar/2017/04/menn-er-dyr-kvinner-ogs%C3%A5

Anonymous said...

"One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence, to help women avoid being raped again."

And what do you think about the case when a man gets raped by another man? Don't you think it is just as traumatizing, or maybe even more, becouse 1) it likely couses bodily harm, not only psychological harm, and 2) the male victim gets little simpathy?
If we can agree in this than I would conclude that women aren't special in this regard.


"This is completely false, and if you really believe it then I suggest you reorient yourself a little towards reality. "

That thread... OK, you convinced me! Also, I thought I have lost all hope in mankind already. Now I lost additional hope I didn't even know I still had!

Nevertheless, if that creature forced herself on me and somehow managed to make my dick erect and forced it into her smelly cunt, I would consider that a rape, and I'm pretty sure it would make me emotionally scarred really badly! And if people found out that I was with that thing, that would be a great shame for me, worse than being a virgin. And if they also found out that she forced me to be with her, that would give me no sympathy but only additional shame that I wasn't strong enough to resist.
Just like when a man gets abused by a woman, he gets no sympathy but only shame becouse it implies weakness wich is unmanly. (Nevermind that even if he isn't weak, the laws bind his heands.)

Eivind Berge said...

Øyvind, thanks for a nice article that tells it like it is. It is amazing how serious research on evolutionary psychology can coexist with a cultural taboo against admitting any sex differences which has even infested the legal system and leads to absurdities like pretending women can rape men.

Anonymous, I agree that it is reasonable to treat male-on-male forced sex as the same crime as rape. It is equally worthy of punishment (at least) for the reasons you mention (except for the sympathy bit -- I think that is a myth; men are very aware that REAL homosexual rape is something quite bad). The evolutionary reason for why homosexual rape is likely to be just as traumatizing is that it is an attack on the man's status, which in turn hurts his reproductive fitness.

But I still think women are fundamentally different, because they are uniquely traumatized by sexual coercion by the opposite sex. There is no way this is equivalent for the sexes. Even if you claim to be a rare exception who would get scarred just as badly, most men would not, and the law needs to be based on a reasonable man standard. However, I flatly don't believe you, because you are ignoring the fact that women are uniquely traumatized by rape because of ADAPTATIONS arising from their need to be sexually selective -- that is, rape isn't just bad because of a natural tendency to be disgusted by foul smells and ugliness like you seem to think, but something much more profound that men can't intuitively understand. If you get traumatized by a smelly cunt, well, then that's no worse than for example forcing you to lick a toilet or something, which wouldn't be a sexual crime but covered by other assault laws, just like forced sex with a woman should be. And no, it wouldn't be shameful for you that a woman forced herself on you (when we are talking about sex, not other abuse); quite the opposite. Men would envy you for being so irresistible and women would be more attracted to you due to preselection. The only way you can screw it up is to call it rape, because then you receive the kind of ridicule that I am promoting, and which is instinctively felt by most men even when they don't articulate it because they are politically correct. Getting sympathy for that is a losing battle if ever there was one, and men who truly feel they need a legal recourse because they got forced to have sex with a woman would be well advised to frame it as a simple assault rather than a sexual assault (but sadly the legal system would twist it into a sex crime anyway in this feminist climate and the man would get his share of ridicule even as the woman would likely get convicted). One absurd example of this:

https://crimewatchdaily.com/2015/11/20/i-feared-for-my-life-twerking-victim-breaks-his-silence-about-what-really-happened/

A man felt he was about to be robbed or killed and the scumbag feminists in the police and media presented it as if he was the "victim" of sexual attention from women, as if the twerking was the problem here.

Anonymous said...

Man skulle tro at det var 1. april, men vi er midt i juni, så det her må være seriøst ment:

http://www.freerangekids.com/u-s-house-passes-bill-that-would-subject-teen-sexters-to-15-years-mandatory-minimum/

Eivind Berge said...

Wow! And even "conspiracy" to obtain a picture is to be punished by 15 years minimum.

"That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt."

As I have said before, this is our culture's version of honor killing. Our culture considers the sexual purity of minors as so important that it will gladly destroy them in order to preserve it. Adults must be destroyed too for the slightest infringement on this supposed sexual purity, obviously, but that is so widely accepted that it isn't even questioned. It is a kind of scorched-earth tactic -- these hallowed sexual objects, defined as any person under 18, have such a profound religious significance to us for some bizarre reason that their imagined asexuality is literally more important than anything or anyone. While paradoxically denying that it exists, our culture is absolutely obsessed with the sexuality of minors, in the worst possible way.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Jøss:

https://www.nrk.no/nordland/_-kjonnsdelt-undervisning-er-lovlig-1.13560847

Of course girls learn better not having a gang of boys hanging around fighting for their attention.

Patrick said...

"While paradoxically denying that it exists, our culture is absolutely obsessed with the sexuality of minors, in the worst possible way"

Couldn't agree more. I think as for as evolutionary terms, One reason why females are more reluctant to have sex is that they are the carriers of offspring.

But as for female on male rape; That would be classed, in my mind, as sexual assault, just like forcing an object into someone -- sexual assault yes, But not rape.

Eivind Berge said...

"But as for female on male rape; That would be classed, in my mind, as sexual assault, just like forcing an object into someone -- sexual assault yes, But not rape."

I can agree with "sexual assault" as an objectively descriptive term for those acts, but not as an excuse to jack up the punishment 20 times over what the violence would otherwise merit just because of the sexual aspect. Which is how the law inevitably treats "sexual assault" in these hysterical times, so we really shouldn't use that word unless there is a sexual violation that reasonable people can understand.

If someone forces an object into you, then you are probably more worried about things like pain and bodily harm than the fact that you are being sexually violated, so it is inappropriate to let the sexual aspect define the crime even if it is sexually motivated. And likewise, female sexual coercion might involve concerns about your health and safety, but reasonable men are not worried about some kind of sexual violation per se in that scenario, so it is deeply immoral to have a law which says 95% of the harm is a sexual violation. We are now in the insane position of having a rape law which holds that women deserve 3-21 years in prison for something reasonable men do not acknowledge as worthy of punishment AT ALL! It is surreal when you think about it, and the only reason the charade is not more visible is because Norwegian men still don't accuse women of rape in practice. Criminal law is a rabbit hole which is so disconnected from reality that it is difficult to understand how people can live with it. I guess they mostly deal with it by acting as if insane laws don't exist, but then you get fringe cases where they are actually enforced, leading to the kind of travesties frequently seen in the UK. Women "raping" adult men is still academic even there, but enforcement related to contrived sexual abuse of minors has reached epidemic proportions.

Anonymous said...

In fact, today I saw another news of another female teacher arrested for "abusing their minor students." How disgusting they give me this abuse-industry scum liars. But that did not end there, then in another newspaper, there was a star article on a guide for parents to 'protect' their minor children from alleged sexual predators. The climax was when I was in another news archive site looking at the coronation of bokassa, and appeared an ad about rejecting 'child' marriage, WTF?? what the hell had to do with it? Instead of an ad from a clothing store, that garbage appears to have been sponsored by some government or feminist NGO of shit. All that in just 2 hours. I hate these motherfuckers. In fact today there are feminist demonstrations in another country asking for more money for their hunting against men, because we are rapists, child abusers, murderers and sexual slavers... the monsters of humanity and 99% of men do not even try to stop these miserable feminist fascist shits.

I like 'underage' young girls, I'm glad to be a man, even if I feel ashamed of most of men, so fuck you menkiller feminist fascist scum!!!!!

Men would have to marry girls, because it is what nature commands us, just as aristocracy, militarism and masculine aggressivity must return, and I do not hate females, I like girls, I just hate this opresive misandrist women. All of this 'sex with minors is rape' are just rabble with their nonsense of protection of childhood, extended to the end, they are modern fascism.. If you look at the history of the KKK the first wave conservative feminism came mainly from there, and the second wave feminists from the UK were followers of BUF and Italian fascism. Fucking murderers.

Eivind Berge said...

If teachers had any sense, they would take action against these hateful laws against sexual relationships with students. Teachers' unions are powerful, so they could easily effect change. All it would take is a strike. But I guess teachers are generally just as infested with feminist sex-hostility as any other group these days, so they will simply stand by and let more and more of their colleagues rot in jail.

Anonymous said...

I hate the fact that even watching a high school girl people call you sick, I'm sick of this world, I hate my life, it has to be just a nightmare and I'll wake up. This can not be real.. in the ad against child marriage was a girl doing a "finger", for god's sake this should de is a bad joke JUST A BAD JOKE

Eivind Berge said...

Unfortunately it is all too real. We should not be surprised, because every culture and time seems to have some kind of sexual bugaboo. If it wasn't sex with minors, it would have been homosexuality, miscegenation or something else stranger than you can imagine. The Romans had a frightful taboo against sex with Vestal Virgins, for example. I don't know how to fix this, since all of these taboos have nothing to do with reason and simply get replaced with another one if you manage to root it out. If I were a religious type, I would say it has to do with our fallen nature, like original sin. But a more natural explanations is as a side effect of the need to regulate sexuality, which to some extent makes sense, but the justice system is such a crude tool that it also creates a lot of seemingly random, senseless collateral damage.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

http://www.verdidebatt.no/innlegg/11688840-bygdesladderen-drepte-ingolf

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Feminism achieves hysterical proportions:

http://forskning.no/kjonn-og-samfunn/2017/06/anklaget-kvinnediskriminerende-kommentar

kek said...

░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ - - - FIGHT AGAINST FEMINISTS AND SAVE THE MEN!
▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████] ( if you see this you must copy and paste this on the MRA
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤ pages to save the Men)
F*** FEMINISTS!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Hva er dette her?:

http://forskning.no/meninger/redaktoren-har-ordet/2017/06/hva-er-en-god-vits-om-kvinner

Kan ikke se at mannen har slått noen vits overhodet, bare kommet med et argument, om enn ikke underbygget.

Har man her funnet det perfekte offer, hvit eldre mann, og skal statuere et eksempel? Slik at man kan innføre det totale overvåkningssamfunn, og gi advokatene en ny gullalder for uttalelser som blåses opp utover alle dimensjoner? Hvilket forferdelig samfunn, hvor alle tanker overvåkes og man må tenke seg om ti ganger før man tenker, leser, skriver eller tegner noe som helst:

https://steigan.no/2017/06/23/den-tyske-staten-innforer-dataovervaking-av-alle/#comments

Eivind Berge said...

Feministene har ikke mer igjen å gå på når det gjelder lovverk og annen politikk. Det er ikke nok for dem å ha et samfunn 100% tilrettelagt for feministisk ideologi med de mest hatske sedelighetslovene de kunne finne på og likestilling på alle fronter. Det skal tydeligvis være nulltoleranse for alt de ikke ler av også. Så det er det de er opptatt av i disse dager, for de har ikke flere kampsaker igjen. Men vi må ikke la dem dra mannskampen ned på samme plan. Det er lovene som straffer falske seksuelle overgrep vi fremfor alt må kjempe mot, for det er de som virkelig teller, ikke retten til å komme med en dårlig vits.

Eivind Berge said...

Vi må ikke glemme at feminisme handler om vold. Vold fra politiet mot menn, hjemlet i lover som feministene har trumfet igjennom. Dessverre har dette lovverket nå blitt så normalisert at det for den historieløse observatør kan synes som om feminisme handler om hvilken type humor som skal være akseptabel. Men det er jo bare toppen av kransekaken på alt feminismen har utrettet. For meg som husker hvordan de feministiske straffelovene ble til og ser hvor ekstreme endringene er, er det fryktelig trist at den oppvoksende slekt får inntrykket av at kjønnskampen står om bagateller. Mannsbevegelsen har tapt så fullstendig at vi ikke engang klarer å skape bevissthet rundt hva vi faktisk står for.