Capital offences proliferate under political correctness

Updated 2019 01 01: Minor syntax changes in first and last paragraphs

The measure of capital offences is whatever we (that is: primarily social justice warriors—predominantly women) wish it to be. The same is true of the statute of limitations. Therefore, it is easy to determine that anything that happened in the past can—by today’s politically-correct standards—be deemed to have been an offence of the desired severity.

Objective reality and the absolute truth therefore become immaterial, and all behaviours, past and present, can be judged to be and to have been politically incorrect by whatever is decided today’s subjective standards make them, loved or hated, even capital offences — if so desired.

By those standards it has become possible to obfuscate objectionable behaviour by women that should—by objective standards—be judged to be of equally severe character of comparable behaviour by anyone else.

Patricia Pearson correctly assessed the consequences of those practices in the concluding paragraph of her book, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence:

The consequences of our refusal to concede female contributions to violence are manifold. It affects our capacity to promote ourselves as autonomous and responsible beings. It affects our ability to develop a literature about ourselves that encompasses the full array of human emotion and experience. It demeans the right our victims have to be valued. And it radically impedes our ability to recognize dimensions of power that have nothing to do with formal structures of patriarchy. Perhaps above all, the denial of women’s aggression profoundly undermines our attempt as a culture to understand violence, to trace its causes and to quell them.
More: Book information and link to review

The noble aims indicated by that are very easily corrupted. Simply change the meaning of the concept “our” from “all of humanity” to “women” or to whatever we deem our choice of the desired sector of “victims” should be. The cause and aim of that corruption is nothing more than to gain victim status for a desired category of victims, and fairness and equitable justice no longer matter.  It can then be rationalized that the end justifies the means.

See also:


(Visited 48 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Capital offences proliferate under political correctness

  1. Walter says:

    In case it is too troublesome to follow all of the previous links, here is something else about the power of women, a free translation of a poem by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (the poem was part of a letter he wrote in Vienna, August 18, 1784, to congratulate his sister on her impending marriage):

    You’ll experience much in matrimony
    that was half a riddle to you;
    soon you’ll know from experience,
    how Eve once had to deal with
    giving birth to Cain.

    However, sister, those matrimonial duties
    you’ll do gladly with all your heart,
    because, believe me, they aren’t hard.
    But every matter has two sides:
    although matrimony brings much joy,
    it’ll bring you grief as well.

    Therefore, when your husband offers,
    what you feel you don’t deserve,
    dark demeanor in his bad mood,
    then think, that is male whim,
    and say: Lord, Thy will be done
    by day and mine at night!

  2. Walter says:

    Female control and superiority (a.k.a. female supremacism, simply feminism or, if you wish, feminist totalitarianism) has always prevailed. It appears to be a permanent condition of humanity and probably predates civilization, back to when humanity’s ancestors were still swinging in the trees. Don’t take my word for it, take this example:

    «In the beginning of the 19th century, Alexander Pushkin told us about the travails of Eugene Onegin and his views about the power that women exercised over their husbands. (The husband may think he rules the roost, but who rules the rooster? Right!)


    She was like him and always sported
    the latest fashions of the town;
    but, without asking, they transported
    her to the altar and the crown.
    The better to dispel her sorrow
    her clever husband on the morrow
    took her to his estate, where she,
    at first, with God knows whom to see,
    in tears and violent tossing vented
    her grief, and nearly ran away.
    Then, plunged in the housekeeper’s day,
    she grew accustomed, and contented.
    In stead of happiness, say I,
    custom’s bestowed us from on high.


    For it was custom that consoled her
    in grief that nothing else could mend;
    soon a great truth came to enfold her
    and give her comfort to the end:
    she found, in labours and in leisure,
    the secret of her husband’s measure,
    and ruled him like an autocrat –
    so all went smoothly after that.
    Mushrooms in brine, for winter eating,
    fieldwork directed from the path,
    accounts, shaved forelocks,(4) Sunday bath,
    meantime she’d give the maids a beating
    if her cross mood was at its worst
    but never asked her husband first.

    — Alexander Pushkin, “Eugene Onegin,” (begun in 1824) Chapter Two, (translated by Charles Johnston)

    From the translator’s notes: 4. Serfs chosen for the army had their forelocks cut off. [Note, as always during the history of mankind, it was the men, not the women, who were chosen for the army and to die on the battlefield, but that, like so many other things that men do (anyone can see the evidence all around), is something many women readily forget about. WHS]

    More: A.S.Pushkin. Eugene Onegin (translated by Charles Johnston) : Пушкин. Евгений Онегин (пер. на англ. Ч. Джонстона

    See also: ‘In praise of older women‘, Posted on August 6, 2010 by Walter

Comments are closed.