10/10/01

TYPICAL FEMINIST?

Are their thin fibres active?

Who's the woman on the left? The one sitting next to Stephen Byers, The Transport Secretary.

Why, she's Jo Moore, a Labour spin doctor who works on behalf of the government.

And she's a 'special adviser' to Stephen Byers.

She's a fairly typical, left-wing, ambitious, self-serving, "feminist type" - well into her career, furthering her cause, pushing forward her agenda.

And what, one might wonder, was she doing while some 3,000 Americans were dying

And what, one might wonder, was she doing while some 3,000 Americans were dying, almost before our very eyes, in the recent terrorist attacks in the USA?

Was she sitting like a stone, frozen by the news, her mouth hanging open in disbelief, stunned with shock, like the rest of the world, as the information continued to pour in?

Oh no. This emotionally-deficient woman - this typical feminist - was frantically emailing her colleagues pointing out how useful this catastrophe was going to be for her political masters.

Here's her email to 'Alun'.

SUBJECT: Media Handling

Alun

It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.

Councillors' expenses?

Jo

One of this woman's first thoughts was how to make political mileage out of this catastrophe - this awful catastrophe, which, apart from the sheer death toll, had awful implications with regard to war, and to possible further terrorist attacks, perhaps in other cities, that might well have been imminent. 

Who knew what else was going to happen next on that dark and shocking day?

And yet, what arose in this woman's mind, was the desire to 'use' this tragedy to help her cronies bury any forthcoming news that simply might not be helpful to them - if widely discussed.

Just think of what was going on in the hearts and minds of most other people on that day.

Aren't you all horrified?

I'm not.

It's just what I keep telling you!

On occasion, I receive an email suggesting that I am too over-the-top when I describe feminists as "hateful, self-serving, uncaring, emotionally retarded" and so on, and how I loath them. 

I exaggerate too much, some say.

this is an example of real feminist thinking at work.

Well, maybe this event will help some of you to open your eyes a little further, because this is an example of real feminist thinking at work.

Ms Moore is exactly the type of woman who pushes forward the feminist agenda and who rises high up the ladder in the Labour Party. 

Anyway, here is what Jeremy Paxman said on BBC's Newsnight. (To Americans, his words might sound rather tame, but to those who know Mr Paxman's usual manner, he was clearly very angry.) 

Anyone who has had any dealings with this government will be scandalised by the revelation that one of its ministerial advisers tried to exploit the tragedy of September 11th to the party's advantage.

Imagine the government's mortification at it being made public that within an hour, a single hour, of the World Trade Centre catastrophe, at least one spin doctor was advising that now was the time to slip out potentially embarrassing announcements.

Everyone recalls where they were when they heard [of the attacks]. This was an event that was so awful, so awesome, so horrific, that it's no exaggeration to talk of a "state of collective, global shock".

But there was an exception.

Within minutes, at the Department of Transport, an email was being drafted, about how to take advantage of the catastrophe. 

Jo Moore is a spin doctor personally loyal to the Transport Secretary, Stephen Byers. She's paid by the taxpayer.

Her boss has 'form' when it comes to slipping out controversial announcements hoping that no-one will notice. [i.e. he's done it before]

In 1999 he released both the results of the DTI investigation into Geoffrey Robinson [a Labour politician who was under investigation for wrongdoing] and also the funding plans for a controversial Turkish Dam project - three days before Christmas!

The media [simply] ate their turkey and shrugged.

But this [situation] is callousness and manipulation of another order! 

And here's Tony Wright, Labour MP. (Yes, a LABOUR MP.)

This is a failure that goes to the heart of how people think about their role in the government and in the political system!

This is not an error of judgement. This is not a failure of that kind. This is a failure that goes to the heart of how people think about their role in the government and in the political system!

The above paragraph is worth reading again. 

Tony Wright is revealing the reality about those who are 'in power' - the governing 'elite'. These people are truly out only to serve themselves. They will distort, deceive and corrupt, in order to feather their own nests, further their aims, and keep themselves in power.

But, do we really want such people - those who, for example, care so greatly about 'burying' information - to be the ones running the country? And to have such powers?

Do we really want people who display such coldness and uncaring in the face of such tragedy to be our lawmakers, and our policy implementers? 

Do we really want such people to remain at the centres of influence?

No, we don't.

But this is what we've got.

And in Ms Moore's particular case, there is definitely something more to it all. 

And I am clearly not the only one to think so. 

After all, it seems that it was actually a 'colleague' of Ms Moore's who was so appalled at her emotional insensitivity, that he, or she, actually leaked the email to the press.

And yet, Ms Moore has been doing well in her career. She 'advises' government ministers. She is an 'acceptable' person to her government and to the politicians. She is listened to. Her employers are mostly happy with her performance at her job.

And there are many others like her.

It makes me shudder.

Well, has she now apologised?

According to the Independent she apologised neither for sending the e-mail in the first place nor for its content, only for any offence that resulted link now defunct

Well, whether she has apologised appropriately or not, the point is that some aspect of a normal human's emotional system was, clearly, completely unavailable to her at the time in question. It was highly deficient. Presumably, it also didn't even make her aware of how the recipients of her email might think of her.

But this is absolutely typical of feminists. 

Such women do not have the capacity to experience what most people take for granted.

Such women do not have the capacity to experience what most people take for granted.

And so, for example, they do not have any emotional impediment to placing thoughts about advantaging themselves and their personal careers into the very forefronts of their minds while others might be being burned to death, huge buildings might be collapsing, and further terrorist attacks might well be imminent across the rest of the world. 

And, similarly ...

 They do not see the need for women to take responsibility for their own actions.

They do not understand why it is morally wrong that men who are accused of sex-assault should have their names publicised during a trial (and who are, therefore, 'innocent') while their accusers remain anonymous. They do not care that their very own feminist laws create more domestic violence. They do not concern themselves about the appalling consequences to people that occur as a result of their encouragement to others to make false accusations. They do not see the need for women to take responsibility for their own actions. It troubles them not in the slightest that families break down and children lose their fathers as a result of their nefarious activities in the field of family law. They wouldn't bat an eyelid when it comes to lying about the evidence and presenting phony or distorted research findings. They have no understanding of how it is that when a woman verbally says 'No' she might well not mean it, or be endorsing it with the rest of her body. They see no problem with corrupting the justice system in order to imprison more men or to remove them from their homes.

These feminist women are some of the most selfish people on the planet.

These feminist women are some of the most selfish people on the planet. They are emotionally-deficient. They are not normal. They care only for themselves. And they willfully damage others.

But they are not only to be found trying to further their careers in Parliament and in politics by continually pushing wimmin's issues, they are also the ones typically running domestic violence units and Women's Studies courses. They are the ones who like to keep publicising distorted facts and figures in order to demonise men. They are the ones who are constantly baying for even more disempowerment of the male gender. 

Ms Moore's email is just one example of the way in which such women think and act.

And I have seen this sort of thing many times in the women who 'lead' the feminist movement - and in those who continually encourage others to endorse it. 

when I accuse feminists of being emotionally-retarded, or deficient, I really mean it.

And this is why when I accuse feminists of being emotionally-retarded, or deficient, I really mean it.

I am not simply trying to be insulting.

I want people not only to see what these women are saying and doing, I want them to see who they are. Inside. Deep down.

Well, should Ms Moore resign?

Yes, of course she should.

Surely, no-one having such a deep-seated and callous disregard for those horrendous events of September 11th should be in such a powerful position of influence - and particularly someone who was so quick and eager to profit from them.

Further, this woman clearly viewed this tragedy as a means whereby she could perpetrate some kind of deception - on the public. The public which she is supposed to be serving.

And, finally, look at her email again.

What was her state of mind as she wrote it?

"Councillors' expenses?"

She was actually making a joke.

She was actually making a joke.

While the planes were crashing into the buildings killing thousands of people, and with some of these even jumping out from a hundred storeys high - a sight which will haunt me for many years to come - and while the lives of many thousands more were being shattered and broken, and while passengers within those planes were being blasted to bits as they were purposefully crashed, this woman was actually put into a humorous mood.

Is It All In The Thin Fibres?

Scientists announced Sunday a study that shows humans have a special set of nerves - thin fibres - for feeling pleasure at a mother's caress or a lover's embrace. - 4 min

This is a particularly interesting finding for me, because I have long suspected that feminists are emotionally dead.

A touch to them is nothing more than a touch. And it doesn't actually give rise to much more than the sensation of a touch. There is no loving emotional 'beyond'.

 the orgasms are all there, but there is something missing.

And the same, for example, is probably true when it comes to sex. The physical sensations and the orgasms are all there, but there is something missing.

And this is why, for example, feminists do not understand things like marriage.

These are the women who, when they were little girls, presumed that Uncle Ted must be a sex-abuser because he patted their butt. 

Their thin fibres were not active.

These are the women who, when they were called 'darling', or were stared at by men in the street, presumed that they were being harassed or assaulted.

These are the women who have no understanding about how two people might be completely besotted with each other and yet still slap and fight each other all day.

These are the women who are offended by even the mildest of jokes that mock them and, amazingly, even by those that actually compliment them.

These are the women who think that because men like to look at women's naked bodies, they must be viewing all women as sex objects - even though one of these women are actually men - and cannot, therefore, have any real idea about what such things might actually mean to men.

they can have absolutely no idea - AT ALL - about how women speak and behave when acting sexually with men.

These are the women who think that when women say No, they ALL actually mean it - despite the fact that most of these women have never - NOT ONCE! - even tried to have sex with a woman; which means that they can have absolutely no idea - AT ALL - about how women speak and behave when acting sexually with men.

These are the women who think that any unwanted touch by a man should justify some hugely hostile retribution.

And these are the women who just cannot understand why men might become violent when they lose their homes and their children, or even when they are simply threatened with such things.

But, in fact, these are not women at all.

They might look like women, but women they are not.

They are missing something fundamental to being a woman - to being a human being.

And I reckon that it could be their thin fibres.

Also see, ...

Some People Have Personality Disorders