TTB #7: The Spearhead

Hello readers. Sorry for the hiatus; even trolls go on holiday! Having said that, I've actually been back for about a week, trying to catch my breath before diving into the cesspool. I've got so many blogs I want to share with you, so to get started after my brief break, we'll hit the ground running again with The Spearhead.

When a group of people decides to name their blog after a phallic symbol, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that they actually are huge cocks, should we? We're going to dive right in on a post all about whether it would be sensible to make street harassment illegal.

Once, when I was about 18, I was walking to a girlfriend’s house in an inner-city neighborhood late at night, and a woman happened to be walking in front of me, taking the exact same route I was. I kept walking, about a half block or so behind her, thinking little of it. When I had almost arrived at my destination, I noticed she had picked up her pace a bit and was looking over her shoulder from time to time. I didn’t really care, and continued on my way. By the time I was at the apartment, she was virtually running into her own place, which was directly across the street from my girlfriend’s. I stood in front of my destination, finishing a smoke before ringing the doorbell. Just as I was ready to go in, some guy opened a window several stories up in the apartment building the frightened woman had entered and started yelling at me about "stalking." In somewhat rough language, I explained that I had every right to walk from one place to another, and told him to mind his own business. He shut the window and left me alone.

If there were some "harassment" law, I imagine I could have been arrested and brought to court just because some woman was frightened that a man happened to be walking behind her at night. It wouldn’t matter why the man was walking behind her, because in the feminist world all it should take to have men arrested is a "feeling."

Right . . . so he didn't initially intend to make a woman feel threatened, but then realized he did make her feel threatened--but he didn't give a shit, and indeed deliberately continued in a threatening manner. I live in "the feminist world" and I don't want him arrested for that, but I do want to give him a stern look and remind him about human feeling and common courtesy.

I, and probably most American men, think it’s in poor taste to hoot or whistle at women. However, I’ve noticed that plenty of women rather like the attention.

Some may! Many won't. To me, the fact that some wouldn't--and you can't know which you're dealing with when you're whistling at strangers--would be enough to stop me from doing it myself, to disapprove of anyone who did it, and to support any woman who said that she'd like it to stop. So I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. It's in poor taste, yes. Some women enjoy it nonetheless, yes. Therefore it's . . . ok? What are you saying, Welmer?

[A law against street harassment] would give them [a woman] power to make the men stop in case it didn’t feel right. For example, she might not call the police if some strapping, young Navy officer propositioned her from across the street, but if a pasty, thin nerd remarked that she had a "nice dress" she’d call in the boys in blue to give him a concrete sandwich and dislocated shoulder as they wrestle him into cuffs.

I have a friend who, when we were teens, used to engage in what might be called harassment under Ms. Kearl’s definition. It embarrassed the hell out of me, because as we were driving around, he’d proposition every good-looking girl he saw. He was a good-looking guy, so they just loved it.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH I see what you're saying! You're saying that Nice Guys can't get away with that shit; therefore women are Horrible Bitches because some women don't mind that behavior when it comes from some men--not to mention that none of those men are YOU because you are so Nice! It has all become clear.

Let me just point you to this edifying read about Nice Guys, Welmer. And this one. And while you're at it, tell me more about your hunky friend . . .

Unsurprisingly, like most young rascals, he had been raised by a libertine single mother.

A SINGLE MOTHER! BURN HER!

The guys at The Spearhead have a real THING about single mothers, it turns out. But before we get to that, let's finish off this bit about street harassment:

Hopefully, people are starting to realize that if feminists have their way, not only will we be legislated into a police state, we’ll be sucked absolutely dry to accomodate the feelings of women who demand that every aspect of their lives be defended with force of arms and law. We are already starting to reevaluate out profligate consumer culture; isn’t it about time we question the voracious hunger for entitlement our women have developed?
-Legislating Propriety

Women, if you're considering asking street harassment to be considered simply harassment (because that's what it is, and because a significant number of men apparently don't think enough of women or each other to encourage each other not to do it without legislation first being put in place), you are voraciously hungry for entitlement.

Read the comments for more men who actively enjoy frightening women who are walking alone, then consider the female sense of entitlement, then let the walls ring with hollow laughter. (Let's not even discuss that "our women" bit. Oh ok, briefly: Dude, we are not "your women.")

Anyway. On to single mothers.

Here in Seattle Joel Zellmer, a Kent man, is facing trial for the murder of a 3-year-old girl. He allegedly killed her for a $200,000 life insurance policy he took out on her with her mother. In 2003, the girl drowned in a pool in her new stepfather’s back yard. When the child drowned, the death was initially thought to be accidental, but prior incidents children came to light, and Zellmer was arrested in 2007. His first wife’s son had his legs broken in 1990, supposedly in a hit and run by an uninsured driver. Zellmer received a $25,000 insurance settlement from the "accident." Later, a baby somehow ended up in his hot tub, and was injured. In 2002, his fiancée left him after some suspicious incidents and his suggestion that she and her daughter get life insurance policies.

SINGLE MOTHERS! BURN THEM!

. . . but wait, you say. There's nothing there about single mothers. It's just a thing about a guy who likes hurting children for money, right? If we're going to blame anyone here, it's the guy who likes hurting children for money. Aren't we?

AHA, YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO MY CUNNING TRAP! I took this paragraph and rewrote it with the focus that a normal person who wasn't obsessed with eeevil single mothers would have employed. Here's what Welmer actually wrote:

Here in Seattle Joel Zellmer, a Kent man, is facing trial for the murder of a 3-year-old girl. He allegedly killed her for a $200,000 life insurance policy he took out on her with her mother. In 2003, the girl drowned in a pool in her new stepfather’s back yard. When the child drowned, the death was initially thought to be accidental, but prior incidents involving the children of single mothers Zellmer proposed to came to light, and Zellmer was arrested in 2007. His first wife’s son had his legs broken in 1990, supposedly in a hit and run by an uninsured driver. Zellmer received a $25,000 insurance settlement from the “accident.” Later, the baby of a single mother he was dating somehow ended up in his hot tub, and was injured. In 2002, he started dating several single mothers at once, and then got engaged to one, who left him after some suspicious incidents and his suggestion that she and her daughter get life insurance policies.

Here we can see that the problem here is not Joel Zellmer, but instead the single mothers he targeted.

The facts state that if a woman with small children is having a relationship with a man who is not the child’s father, the man is 60 times more likely to kill the children than a resident biological father. Of course, plenty of men who date and marry single mothers are perfectly decent, but sadly a lot of them are not. Some of them are downright homicidal.

Wow, that is a worry for these women and their children, isn't it?

It is every caring divorced father’s nightmare that some guy who doesn’t give a damn about his kids might soon become the “man of the house.” In these situations, the children suffer disproportionately from the choices that were ultimately made by their mother, and these choices are facilitated – even encouraged – by the law of the land.

Oh. I see. So it's not the children you ultimately worry most about here? Or perhaps even the women, who have the sole responsibility for these children for a variety of unhappy reasons? It's the weekend dads?

Personally, I’d recommend avoiding [single mothers], because in the majority of cases they chose to become single mothers. Only a fraction of them faced the kind of abuse or neglect that justified putting their children in that situation. In most cases, they either got tired of their husbands and dumped them or intentionally got pregnant by a man who had no intention or desire to become a father. A man with good sense should approach any relationship with a single mother with extreme caution. However, they are also an easy mark. In many cases, they are desperate, so some guys might choose to take advantage of that.

Oh. Right. Yes, of course. Poor old weekend dads.

. . . But. Seriously? You're not going to blame Joel Zellmer for that story up there, the killing children thing? It's really entirely the fault of the single mothers involved?

Men like Zellmer, if he really did murder the girl, are only taking advantage of easy prey.
- Worst Nightmare for Divorced Fathers

Oh. Um. Ok.

Right, I think for now these little bits are enough from Welmer and his rag-tag crew of giant cocknoses. But, as you can see from the self-congratulatory comments they get over there, there's very little dissent. All the more reason for you to Troll This Blog, if you've got the stomach for it. As always, do play nice.

(By the way: if you agree with Welmer (or if you ARE Welmer), you should just go away quietly now--not because I am afraid of the big scary logical arguments you might beat me down with manfully in the comments section, but because I'm a woman writer and you are duty-bound to avoid me.)

TTB #6: Lawrence Auster at View from the Right

http://amnation.com/vfr

Girls, we all know we're at fault when violent crime happens to us, right? Sure we do. We hear it all the time: ooh, she shouldn't have walking around alone (even to the toilet in her workplace, according to Laura Wood!); she shouldn't have been dressed that way; by looking and acting like that she was asking for it.

Sometimes the world isn't safe even if you've been personally behaving like a nice girl, since all the other girls around you have been behaving badly. "Lady" Lydia's son-in-law, Aiden Humphrey, wrote an enlightening vignette for Ladies Against Feminism about this very phenomenon. The article has sadly now been removed, but I helpfully archived it. It went like this:

"Chumming" for Sharks

Yesterday I spoke with a man who spends a lot of time surfing in the ocean in waters frequented by great white sharks. He said that he did not worry very much about the sharks - except on one occasion.

One day his friend sustained a heavy cut which began to bleed into the ocean waters around them. At that point, they decided to get out of the waters quickly - because sharks can smell blood a long way away.

"We didn't want to chum for sharks," he said.

Women who dress like harlots chum for sharks - with their own bodies.

Women who dress like harlots make the waters unsafe for everyone.

Women who dress like harlots are not the only ones who get attacked - they draw out predators who prey on innocent girls, who just happened to be in nearby waters.

"What did I do wrong?" asks the innocent.

Nothing - it's just that the waters are chummed by your friends.

We should execute all rapists. But the waters won't be safer until we pull the chum out of the water.

Sin makes the waters unsafe for everyone.

-Aiden Humphrey, 2004

So Lawrence Auster's most recent commentary on the disappearance of a 17-year-old girl who disappeared while jogging is no real surprise.

A registered sex offender named John Albert Gardner is being held for questioning in the disappearance of 17 year old Chelsea King in San Diego. The sheriff says that numerous pieces of physical evidence connect Gardner to King, and that there is a “strong possibility” that he is involved in her disappearance. A statement by Chelsea’s parents says, “She is an extraordinary daughter and also someone who is committed to her community. She has huge dreams and wants to change the world.” Maybe she was dreaming her huge dreams about changing the world when she went jogging alone in a place that, according to several VFR readers who are familiar with the area (see comments by Scott H., Ferg, and James P.), abuts on areas populated by lawless people. Perhaps if she were an ordinary girl who just wanted to live in this world instead of an extraordinary girl who wanted to change it, she might have been paying more attention to her actual environment, or, better, not gone there at all. In no story so far have I seen any suggestion that it was not wise for a teenage girl to go running alone in a park, apparently on one of the many trails in the park. The coverage of the story, the sentimental response, and the statement by Chelsea’s parents assure that other extraordinary young women will keep doing what Chelsea did and delivering themselves into the maw of death.
-Suspect Held

Yes, yes, girls. No dreams about changing the world for you. Be ordinary, and for god's sake stay indoors where you cannot be seen. You're delivering yourself into the maw of death otherwise yadda yadda yadda YES WE KNOW THIS LAWRENCE THANK YOU NEXT.

I could spend quite a lot of time talking about "the stroll in the jungle" theory and how people who commit crimes are the people who are responsible for those crimes and all that same old tired old boring old obvious stuff that smart people already know and conservative Christians somehow struggle with.

But no, this is not the time for that. That's because there's something more interesting hiding here in the dirt.

Ladies. Now, ladies, listen closely. Did you know that there is a specific circumstance under which you can be raped or beaten or murdered where it isn't your fault? Can you think of it? Think really hard about what we know about the people I focus on in this blog.

Have you got it yet?

Yes! That's right!

You are not at fault if the person who rapes or beats or murders you . . . is black!

I am the eldest of five. One of my sisters, who was 13 at the time, was raped when she attended a party on our block. One of the blacks repeatedly asked her to go upstairs to see his apartment. After several rejections, he accused my sister of racism. As a well-indoctrinated, guilt-ridden liberal, she had no choice but to go with him. Out of fear and shame, my sister did not share her story with us until she landed in a mental ward a couple of years later.

Another sister was raped by a black open-enrollment "student" at City College in a locker room after she attended a co-ed swim class. The prosecuting attorney told my sister it was an open-and-shut case because she did everything she was supposed to do: She reported the event immediately, gave a detailed description of the accused (including a bizarrely shaped goatee), and then went directly to the hospital. However, after all the evidence was given, when the jury was polled, the whites voted to convict, but the tribe hung together and hung the jury.

Ironically, before her trial even began, another black tried to rape her in the elevator of her own building. He entered the elevator after her, and sent it down to the basement. There he cut her neck and was about to have his way with her, when someone luckily brought the elevator back up.
-Mike Berman

What black savages did physically to Troy Knapp when he made the mistake of bicycling through a black neighborhood in Charleston in 1989, knocking him from his bike and bashing in his head with pipes and trash cans until he was brain damaged for life, the congregrants of Wright's church are doing to whites with words and whoops every Sunday. The low-level blacks avenge themselves on whites physically; the "high-level" blacks do it verbally. But the motive and the emotions and the primitive mob dynamics are the same.
-Lawrence Auster

The minor incident I describe at the restaurant was just the first in a series of a painful course in education on race realism. Like when a white girl Cal student was tortured, raped, and murdered and we all organized a protest march, only for me to see my fellow socialists drop the project when two Oakland black guys were arrested and bragged (bragged!) to the TV news cameras about how much she suffered in their van.
-Kevin V.

. . . I have had a family member raped by a black. I was mugged by a black in Times Square. My father was mugged by a black. A black dragged my mother in between subway cars and tried to throw her off while the train was moving. On another occasion while my mother was waiting on the subway platform blacks threw some metal strips from a moving train in my mothers face cutting her and just missed blinding her by a hair.
-Karl D.
-The ultimate story of a liberal who was mugged by reality

There's so, so much more there if you're capable of reading through it without crying or needing a shower. But let's just have a look at what they're saying.

1. Mike Berman's sister "had no choice" but to accompany her rapist alone to his apartment. His other sister went to a locker room after a co-ed swim class, but his outrage is focused on the rape itself and its failure to meet justice.

2. Troy Knapp cycled through a bad neighborhood. Well, it was a black neighborhood, and to Lawrence Auster that's a bad place in itself--but I think we can say it's a bad neighborhood because people get knocked off their bikes there (kind of like the white neighborhood where a white friend of mine was knocked off her bike by some white kids, badly damaging her knee in the process (but I digress)). How does Lawrence react? Troy Knapp made a mistake, but the people who beat him are responsible for their crime. (He even states explicitly that "of course Knapp didn't do anything to deserve it"--though Chelsea King did, apparently. Of course, Auster's reaction is part racism, part sexism.)

3. A female student was raped, which spurred Kevin V. and others on to take part in a protest march.

4. Karl D. went to Times Square and got mugged. His father was also mugged. His mother stood (alone?) on a subway platform and was the victim of violent crime. Karl calls out none of these people for putting themselves in positions of potential danger--he quite rightly puts the blame for the crimes on the shoulders of the people committing them.

So what can we learn from this?

. . ..I was going to write a tongue-in-cheek list of principles Lawrence Auster and his friends would have us abide by, but I'm sorry--in the process of writing this, I've lost all sense of humor. I'm sure you can see where I was going. I don't want to live in a world where racist feeling trumps sexist ideology. But apparently I do. These people are sickening.

Sigh. You can troll this blog if you want to, but, like so many other right-wing bloggers, Lawrence Auster doesn't do comments like normal people. You have to email him. Honestly, I wouldn't want the Google ads in my sidebar that would inevitably result from his replies, so I probably wouldn't bother.