Laura Bates – the child-woman, speaks again

If ever there was an example of the sheer unrestrained infantility of some young women today, the professional victim Laura Bates is the epitome. Yet she seems to pop up everywhere in her crusade, Jeanne D’Arc- like, against what she calls ‘Everyday Sexism’. Catch her TEDx talk here – if you can stand seventeen minutes of simpering solipsism, that is.

This child-woman would have us believe that she is always being sexually harassed by men – but, really, does anyone seriously believe her wild, uncorroborated, claims?

  • She recounts being sexually assaulted on a bus ‘Whilst talking to my mum’. Why didn’t she scream and demand the police be called?
  • She says there were many witnesses who turned their faces away, but that means they must have heard her protestations, and, therefore, were witnesses.
  • The bus driver would almost certainly have locked the doors and got on his radio to get things moving pretty damn quick to get the authorities.

Buses have CCTV these days. A man sitting beside a woman and reaching inside her legs almost to her crotch, as Bates says happened, could not do that clandestinely. He would be easily detectable from video footage because such an act takes some pretty obvious manoeuvring. Then there is the mother, to whom Bates alleges she was talking on the ‘phone when this incident happened. Why didn’t she immediately call the police?

Does Laura Bates seriously expect us to believe all this, given her ridiculously high profile in modern feminism? Would she not have gone overboard to have the man prosecuted, whom, she says, ‘touched her up’? I mean, Laura Bates, the ultimate victim, vindicated? What a career-enhancing opportunity that would have been.

Frankly, anyone who believes this fanciful tale are being gullible. Bates is a feminist bigot, speaking to an audience of feminists, at a feminist event, and is using a standard TED technique of telling an anecdote to lead into her biased case, using all the feminine wiles (and whines) at her disposal to manipulate the crowd. I mean, let us get real here.

And let us get real about her basic proposition. How can anyone seriously accept that, because women are not equally represented in all walks of life, that is sexism? To argue such nonsense publicly, as she does here, is, frankly, embarrassing.

Parity is NOT equality. This is stupid logic. Would Ms Bates say that half of the participants in the Olympics 100 metres sprint final should be women?

Isn’t it the real truth that these radicalised young women, who are soaked in the false rhetoric of feminism, are demonstrating a pronounced and very dubious psychology? To me, they present as professional grievance collectors, always on the look-out for evidence that supports their narcissistic paranoia.

Sexual assault apart, the things Ms Bates generally complains about (presumptuously on behalf of all women), would, only half a generation ago, a) have been regarded by the woman as a compliment and, b) laughed off with an adult, womanly put down. Yet, now this is ‘Everyday Sexism’, applauded to the roof by an audience of feminist acolytes, who, like Bates, can’t see that they are being infantilised by the very ideology they claim liberates them. It is crazy.

However, it moves out of the realms of craziness when it comes to issues such as domestic homicide.

When Ms Bates so simperingly complains that ‘over two women a week are being killed by their male partners…’, she is lying: nakedly, baldly, and culpably.

In 2013, in the UK, the official figures prove that 76 women were so killed. By my math that is not ‘More than two women a week’, unless, that is, you work to a six-week month, which is probably what they use in cloud-cuckoo land. I write at some length on the issue elsewhere in this blog.

Ms Bates is wildly wrong about domestic homicide being an issue of sexism: that self-righteous crusade upon which she is embarked. Anyone with even an ounce of discernment can surely see that to cast female domestic homicide as a matter of sexism (discrimination, or sexual harassment), is, basically, nonsense. At best it is logical ineptitude – at worst, sheer, downright, irresponsible, malicious, trouble-making.

Carried to its logical outcome, Laura Bates’s proposition must lead to the conclusion that because men kill more women, that is sexism. Presumably, in her book, it wouldn’t be a problem if as many men as women were the victims of domestic homicide?

In this most serious social area, indeed in just about every other area in which Ms Bates’s whining false logic is applied, she shows herself up, not only as a liar and peddler of false factoids (the ‘Over 80,000 women are raped each year’ is another egregious misleading misuse of official statistics), but as the narcissistic, self-obsessed fool she really is.

Ordinary people – people who want to live ordinary lives free of this cloying creed of feminism – are just getting heartily sick of the childishness that feminism is morphing into, with its outdated and divisive case against men and all things male: endlessly churned out by these self-obsessed young women, whose sole (and really rather obvious) intent is to be the centre of attention.

If you turn off the sound and freeze-frame Ms Bates throughout, you will see the craving need in her face: to be fawned over, applauded by audiences of the faithful, lauded and seen to be important, presumably so as to satisfy some deep inadequacy in this young woman, who so perfectly represents the face of modern ‘special snowflake’ womanhood – and all the result of the perverted and perverting cult of feminism, which is an angry creed.

I commend this video to my readers and viewers for education and enlightenment, because it shows the likes of Ms Bates up for how statistically-challenged they really are, how logically inept are their arguments, how emotionally needy they show themselves to be, and how downright despicable is their use of false factoids in the pursuit of what amounts to an endless childish tantrum about so-called sexism.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

  • Jankers

    These women could never understand that their slow and lonely descent into spinsterhood is entirely their own fault, after all what man could possibly resist them, they have a million examples of how they are fighting off the unsolicited attentions of men on a daily basis.

  • AProudFeminist

    Not to be disrespectful, but men such as him are the very people we are trying to talk about.
    I don’t even want to argue with him (but that’s pointless considering he is no more).
    The idea of not arguing logically, but resorting to name-calling and infantilizing the reality of an articulate young woman is downright repulsive. But what else to expect from a patriarch?