Pedophile Manifesto

And interestingly so many of the commenters on the assault of Maria MacLaclan (a petite 60 year old woman) by Tanis Wolf (6 foot two person) say the same - she provoked it. She was asking for it.

April 2018 NewStatesman article:
'The madness of our gender debate, where feminists defend slapping a 60-year-old woman: It seems swivel-eyed to condemn rhetorical “attacks” and blithely ignore physical ones.'

BY HELEN LEWIS
(extract)
"You would have thought that a feminist getting punched in the face would be reasonably large news – particularly if her attacker had boasted online earlier of wanting to “fuck up” some feminists, comparing them to fascists. But the conviction of the person who attacked 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan at Speakers’ Corner last year didn’t trouble the pages of the Guardian, where I would normally expect to hear about something that veers close to being a hate crime, or the LGBT website Pink News. Why? A clue comes in the fact that MacLachlan was slapped by a 26-year-old transgender woman called Tara Wolf, who explained to the court that MacLachlan was a “TERF” – a term commonly used to stand for “trans exclusionary radical feminist”, ie one who doesn’t believe that trans women are “real” women, but which Wolf defined as a “trans exterminatory radical feminist”.

The implication was that MacLachlan, now 61, wants all transgender people dead – something that seems absolutely barking until you realise this is quite a common accusation in activist spaces. The feminist group Sisters Uncut, which has done great work protesting the closure of domestic violence services, somehow looked at the case and decided that Wolf was the real victim. It used a hashtag – #freetheshewolf – and called for a protest outside Hendon Magistrates’ Court, asking for support for a “trans woman targeted… and harassed by TERFs, transmisogynists and cops”, adding: “Attacks on trans lives will not be tolerated.” (Continues)

"The Wolf affair also demonstrates another alarming phenomenon: the left getting high on its own supply of self-righteousness. “Some feminists have a different conception of gender to me” gets smudged into “some feminists talk about me in ways that I find offensive” and on to “some feminists are basically Hitler, trying to eradicate people like me”.

Once you reach the last statement, then of course you can slap a woman and still think of yourself as a good person. She wants to kill you; a mere punch is self-defence. (I’m not exaggerating about the language. The Edinburgh branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted the day after the attack: “Punching TERFs is the same as punching Nazis. Fascism must be smashed with the greatest violence to ensure our collective liberation from it.”) (continues)

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/04/madness-our-gender-debate-where-feminists-defend-slapping-60-year-old

You mention Brexit: I'll assume by your comment on yobbery and large portions of the population you don't approve of that you believe only people who think like you should be allowed to vote?

If our bloody stupid governments of the last fifteen years had listened to, engaged with and tried to do something about the actual concerns of the many working class people who were struggling with immigration instead of just loftily announcing they were bigots who should just be ignored and let more superior people know what was best for them, those people might have been less angry, less disenfranchised, the real issues might have been addressed and we might not be in the God-awful mess we are now in.

Women are raising real issues, real concerns about the impact of this political ideology on them, their lives, their safety, on children's safety, on their civil rights - and they're being loftily told they're subhuman bigots with no right to those opinions who should be ignored.

How do you think that's going to end?

Sorry I've gone of topic.

+++

If ordinary men get concerned about our safety, then the consequences for us are huge. This is when girls and women's families start restricting freedoms. And we are encouraged to restrict our own freedoms, as after all, if there is a risk, should we not "protect ourselves"? Sex segregation allows us to participate in public life by reducing risk, which in turn reassures us and our families. There are still places we try to avoid, where flashers like to lurk, and worse. But still. Take the sex segregation away and what happens is simply that pervy men take over places women used to be. And the women stay away.

With Hampstead I suspect the eventual outcome will be mixed sex (women and girls with chaperone), gay male (as the men's ponds predominantly was) and straight male ( lots of straight men feel uncomfortable with gay men around, especially in a situation where picking up might be going on, but would still like to swim without women around).

To lie: to knowingly and intentionally state something other than the truth.

In this case what people are doing is talking about inconvenient truths. Unwanted truths. And there's plenty of evidence of TRA/liberal belief that to state truths, facts and evidence that show transgender ideology in a negative light is in itself an act of 'hate' and is morally wrong. News stories should be suppressed. People shouldn't talk about it. You can seriously fuck off with that.

Suppression of truth and facts to ensure positive propaganda is all that is shared with the public in order to avoid the general public having the full picture, realising what it involves and resisting the political agenda, is morally wrong. It's fascism.

If you are aware of male violence and deliberately provide them with exactly the one-sided information to bring forth a violent response then you are complicit in their violence.

No.

The person committing the violent act is to blame. Where have we heard this before?

I only hit you because i love you so much
You made me do it
She provoked me

Etc.

And interestingly so many of the commenters on the assault of Maria MacLaclan (a petite 60 year old woman) by Tanis Wolf (6 foot two person) say the same - she provoked it. She was asking for it.

Funny how women are the ones being accused of being hysterical and unable to control their emotions when the vast majority of violent crime is committed by men isn’t it?

Anybody who reacts to words, verbal provocation, or a message board with violence is in the wrong. Full stop.

yobbery of a large part of the population

Translation: working class men may consider turning to violence when the country's entire mediating and political class are supporting the dissolving the safeguarding frameworks that protect their children from abuse.

Nice bit of classism there. Mums aren't allowed to protect their kids. Working class dads aren't allowed to protect their kids now either. Lovely.

Nobody is inciting violence here. Nobody is suggesting that they who shall not be named on a thread about paedophile tactics will be the ones doing the abusing.

Women on FWR oppose any political demands that require the dilution of safeguarding, regardless of who is doing the demanding. Women on FWR are worried about both the dilution of safeguarding and the uptick in male violence that may follow if authorities are seen to be untrustworthy with regards to child protection.

And while some may have sexual orientation to children

Most child rapists don't - they do it because they can.

And no sexual orientation allows for abuse/ rape. That is a crime, and a different thing. The only reason it comes up, that papers can print "Virtuous paedophile" with a straight face, is because societies all over the world are characterised by gross levels of male sexual entitlement, and the idea that its normal and expected for men to sometimes "give in" and "take what they want" is widely accepted.

X post

I forget what they call them.

"Virtuous Pedophiles"

Virtuous paedophiles!

That's it.

Apparently refraining from raping a child when you want to is "Virtuous".

But I was under the impression that any attempts to 'legitimise' paedophilia are just a hoax/joke?

No. They aren't. Of course male trolls also like to stir it to make SJWs look stupid. But there are people who think paedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation.

If you go around spreading lies about a group of people, then you take some responsibility for the negative reaction that brings forth, whether it's verbal or physical.

Ironic when so many TRAs justify their calls for violence against GC women both online (I'm sure you've seen it out there, it's pretty intense) and in real life (Tara Wolf assaulting Maria Maclachlan) with the 'they are asking for it' line.

Are you saying that men can't engage their own brain when it comes to deciding whether or not to physically harm a trans person?

Or is this, once again, about women being responsible for the actions of men? Same old, same old....

MAPs (minor attracted persons - pass the vomit bag please).

Not read the thing but PIE got a long way in the 70s. Let's not forget that.

There has been an upswing in the press in the last few years of sympathetic articles about paedophiles who claim they don't offend. It's just a sexual orientation, poor me etc. I forget what they call them.

I'm in my 40s and I strongly suspect that if my dad saw a male person heading into a public toilet or changing area where I was he'd still go into protective parent mode. It's a normal and entirely reasonable reaction to the awareness that predatory males exist in significant numbers.

The men at my workplace, when a co conversation came up about this were firmly of the belief that

People with dicks should under circumstances be in changing rooms, toilets with women, or competing against them at sports.

One expressed deep concern about the number of creepy fuckers who would take advantage.

Men have wives/ mothers/ sisters / daughters that they feel protective of, and they know what men can be like. This is the entire basis of their often overbearing restrictions on our lives, compared to our male relatives. In this case however, their instincts are fine by me. Because in this case they are wanting to maintain protections that we fought for in the first place.

I also can't see this working, as there is one thing very different from, for example, gay and trans rights, which is that the liberal left was always pretty much on the side of those and bound to support them when they came to the fore (however imperfectly this support may have been given sometimes), whereas there is universal disgust at paedophilia whatever your politics.

The Right Wing often puts out this idea that the Left will be bleeding hearts for any cause and therefore, for example, gay marriage is a slippery slope for legalised zoophilia or paedophilia when it doesn't follow at all.

That document in the Twitter thread, where is it from?

I know, as linked above, that there were hoaxes around adding the P to LGBT. What is this 'paedophile manifesto?'

I have quite grave concerns around the erosion of safeguarding rules which seem to be going on at the moment, keeping disclosures confidential, encouraging children to talk to adults they don't know without telling their parents etc.

But I was under the impression that any attempts to 'legitimise' paedophilia are just a hoax/joke?

GC women have been called Nazis, among other things.
Are you saying that women would be justified in using violence against losing women only spaces, Milly? And that trans people would only have themselves to blame?

Milly seems a bit shocked by the idea that some people (let's call them "feminists") believe men to be responsible for their own actions.

If you are aware of male violence and deliberately provide them with exactly the one-sided information to bring forth a violent response then you are complicit in their violence.

This is the feminist board Milly! I can’t believe you are victim blaming to excuse male violence!

Well said.

If you run any campaign based on smears and lies, knowing the propensity for yobbery of a large part of the population then you are partly responsible for the consequences

nope, nope and nope

1. the people on this thread are not running a campaign, they are stating an opinion
2. a person's 'propensity for yobbery' is their own business and the extent of it is known only to them

or should people who as a group are disproportionately prone to violence (let's call them 'men' for ease), carry cards with the degreee of their propensity for yobbery recorded on them?

then women can ask to see the cards and make an informed decision about what subjects to talk to those individuals on. thus taking their proper degree of responsibility for male violence

try again chum

Hey Milly this is the feminist forum. Here we talk about women's rights issues. Try Reddit for your woman blaming MRA nonsense.