Is anyone going to tell me that women don’t have sexual fantasies during sex with their partners? Like imagining some other man or a masculine stereotype is the one with whom they are being intimate? Of course they do. Are they not objectifying the man by doing this? Of course they are. Does it matter? No, of course it doesn’t matter.
It only matters if you are a feminist using feminist ‘reasoning’ and judging men for doing this. This perfectly normal aspect of human sexuality is condemned by feminists and their philosophical mentors.
Objectification is only a real offence in the feminist handbook. That twisted feminist tenet from the 1950s and 60s was articulated by Simone de Beauvoir the ‘matron saint’ of feminism. Yet she herself was no saint. She was a groomer and a paedophile, who openly seduced her own girl pupils, and engaged in menage a trois with them and Jean Paul Sartre. She was active in France in the early 1970s seeking to have the law changed to make sex with minors legal. This was the same time that the paedophile exchange was active here in the UK. You’ll remember the PE? Harriet Harman’s name was rather uncomfortably connected with its activities by the media only last year.
The feminist ‘offence’ of objectification, was actually turned into a real offence by the Blair government, driven by the likes of Harman, Cooper, and the hundred or so other ‘Blair’s Babes’ who drove its agenda in their feminist rage.
Now, feminists control the culture of our most powerful institutions, such as the CPS and the legislature. The quasi crime had been turned into a real crime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – a product of the Labour Party (aka the Feminist Party IMHO). The Labour SOA 2003 is a feminist charter for sexual regulation based on feminist objectification theory.
As far as I can tell (and I remain open to correction on this) Rolf Harris was convicted of touching offences only. And those offences were charged under the SOA 2003, which even makes touching a woman’s body through her clothing a criminal offence.
Yet this law wasn’t even in force at the time of the allegations made against Harris. There was no suggestion of rape or penetration, just touching. Nothing more. Yet a man in his eighties is sent down for five years for that? Is that justice? Is a man in his eighties found guilty by a jury that is heavily influenced by feminism as we all are, a reliable conviction? is he such a danger to society at his age that he needs incarcerating?
Or is it are we witnessing pure feminist vindictiveness out of control amongst us, borne of social reprogramming to dangerous, twisted ideologies promulgated by dangerous twisted people?
Now we have Cliff Richard in the frame: the latest in a long line of old men, picked off, publicly exposed to shame and ridicule, then trashed in jail, whilst their poor, hurt, ever so delicate ‘victims’ (notice we don’t talk about complainants anymore) who are really their tormentors, enjoy legally sanctioned anonymity.
I ask again, is that just? Are we all standing equal before the law?
Can no one see what is really going on here? Feminists have been at work for decades whipping up a storm of vindictiveness against men in our society by creating a culture of the victim (another aspect of objectification theory). The feminist cadre who now rule and govern the CPS, backed by the incessant rhetoric of feminist politicians (including in the Tory Party it has to be said), are making it clear that any claim will be treated seriously, and the ‘victim’ given total anonymity whilst the ‘perpetrators’ (again their words!) are pursued and brought to ‘justice’. (NOTE: a complainant only becomes a victim upon conviction of the accused, but again, the language is telling. It is being used to condition us – and juries.)
Then, when the accusations come out of the woodwork, as they inevitably will in such a climate of opinion, the feminists in the CPS (and, indeed, in the police now, who are running scared of the feminist backlash if they exercise anything like their traditional skepticism, and who in any case have women also now in very influential positions who are totally ‘right on’ with the feminist agenda) are waiting with open arms (I sometimes think baited breath), ready ‘to help’: ready with alacrity to enforce feminist law handed to them on a plate by feminists in government.
What we are really seeing here is a process of picking off examples of the patriarchy for show trials. Pour encourager les autres, that phrase of Votaire’s used to describe Admiral Byng’s show trial and execution, “In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.”
We need to wake up to the fact that we now live in a feminist totalitarian regime. They’ve played a long game. They’ve now got power and they’re coming for men, be in no doubt about it.