You remember Janice, right? She of the “why are middle class men so useless” tirade?
Well, she’s back at it, this time claiming that men are a malign influence we need to stamp out pronto.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/janiceturner/article3768313.ece
As always, Janice in italics.
While he was on remand for the murder of Tia Sharp, Stuart Hazell wrote a letter to his father: “You know I’m not a bad person,” he said. “It’s the Hazell curse.” Not his fault: the internet searches for “violent forced rape” and “little girls with glasses”. Attacking a child who trusted him, penetrating her with a sex aid, strangling, then posing and photographing her 12-year-old corpse: not his fault at all.
Wow! There’s a leap of logic. Saying you are not a bad person is not the same as saying you are innocent. Hazell is simply identifying a pattern of behavior within his particular family as a contributing factor to his horrific crime, and most evidence bears that assertion out: adults who commit shocking crimes against children were almost always abused themselves as children.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482.full
Forces beyond his control made him commit this horrible crime. Hazell claims that he was abused as a child and thus powerless against an almost occultish desire to visit his own suffering on the next generation. He was a mere puppet of his innate drives and sexual impulses, a victim of destiny.
He wasn’t a victim of destiny, he was a victim of childhood abuse that left him so profoundly damaged, he became a perpetrator of the very crimes that blighted his own childhood. Again, that’s not terribly unusual.
It might surprise you to know that a significant percentage of men who were abused as children were abused by women, and that abuse by a female relative correlates very highly to becoming a perpetrator.
There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men – 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993).
http://www.canadiancrc.com/PDFs/The_Invisible_Boy_Report.pdf (p.28)
A curse is a magnificent excuse. It not only obviates all blame but dismisses the need for any further analysis. And it struck me that in this bizarre and grisly year, in which stories of sexual violence — from Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall to Rochdale and Oxford — have saturated the news, that our examination of such events has been just as worthless and hollow.
Well, your examination certainly constitutes worthless and hollow. Why is it that you seem to have noticed all the nasty, evil men, but you make no mention of the nasty evil women who were up to murder and mayhem during the same period?
Fiona Andersen killed her three small children, and is hailed as a “beautiful girl”.
Sheri Torkington killed a woman she didn’t even know after a screaming argument with her boyfriend.
Michelle Mills stabbed her boyfriend to death in a brutal attack that was so frenzied she broke the blade right off. She then sat and watched him die for 20 minutes.
Melanie Smith set fire to a house and killed five members of a young family because she wrongly believed the mother was having an affair with her partner.
The endless assaults, rapes and dressing-room gropings exposed by Operation Yewtree were put down to 1970s sexual mores and celebrity indulgence. The “grooming” cases in which vulnerable girls were trafficked at rape parties were blamed on our dismal care system and the imported culture of Pakistani Muslims. The most arcane acts, committed by Hazell or Ariel Castro, the Ohio basement kidnapper, were filed with the likes of Fred West or Ted Bundy under “evil”.
I like how you left Rosemary West out of your analysis, there, Janice. I guess she was just an innocent dupe under the spell of darling Fred? Under a curse of some sort?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West
Meanwhile, wherever I go, whichever women I speak to — my hairdresser, my old ma, friends at my exercise class, a gazillion strangers on Twitter — all are asking the same uneasy question: what is it with men? I can foresee the outraged, defensive online comments gathering now under this piece: “man-hating feminist”, “how dare you blame the whole male gender”. But seriously, guys, have you never stopped to wonder hard why members of your gender do so many vile things to members of ours?
Why, yes, Janice, I’ll bet they have. Have you ever stopped to wonder why so many members of your gender do equally vile things to their husbands and boyfriends and especially to children? I always wonder how it is possible to be evil and such a fucking coward at the same time. How hard is it to strangle a baby? Why not pick a more equally matched opponent? What is it with women that they go after the smallest, most vulnerable of victims?
http://motherswhokillchildren.blogspot.ca/
Because, let me tell you, womankind is a permanent state of Maoist self-criticism. If, say, some new study suggests that kids in nurseries are the tiniest bit disadvantaged compared with those cared for by mummies at home, we must pull on our hair shirts, wring our hands at our whole sex’s selfish ambition. Daily we are berated for female shortcomings: we drink too much, break up the nuclear family with our pesky financial autonomy, are too promiscuous, cause our own cancers with frivolous lifestyle choices. And that’s on top of our workaday self-flagellation: we’re too fat, too old, are wearing unfashionable pointy shoes during a round-shoed summer . . .
Selfish
Neglectful
Drunk
Slutty
Broken families
Frivolous
Fat
Old
Concerned about shoes
Yeah, that about sums it up, Janice.
Perhaps the reason women spend so much time thinking about these things is because it takes a lot of energy to defend such shallowness and superficiality.
People hardly ever feel guilty about doing the RIGHT thing, now do they? And based on your photo, Janice, you are definitely too fat.
So it seems only fair that, just this once, men do a little uncomfortable soul-searching. Apply your larger, more rational male brains to a very big conundrum: why do men commit almost all of society’s crime? It is a question so seldom considered that when the sociologists Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley tried to analyse it, they found the Ministry of Justice does not even routinely break down offences by gender.
Men don’t commit all of society’s crimes. They get charged and prosecuted for all of society’s crimes. Women have long received preferential treatment from the justice system, and continue to do so, masking the true extent of women’s criminal proclivities.
Domestic violence, for example, tends to be mutual, but men are far more likely to be charged and convicted of an offence both genders take part in equally.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Men who kills infants will not be seeing the light of day for a long, long time. Women who kill infants get a pat on the head, the address of a therapist and a prescription for Prozac. Indeed, there is a call for even MORE leniency for mothers who murder their infants.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scrap-outdated-infanticide-law-say-judges-495016.html
Fathers were more likely than mothers to have killed their infants using violence which wounded. Nonetheless sentences were unrelated to the brutality of the offence: mothers who had killed with wounding violence received less severe penalties than fathers who had killed in a non-wounding way.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8264367
With persistent digging they found that in the year to June 2012, 85 per cent of all indictable crimes in England and Wales were committed by men. Moreover, the more serious the offence the more male offenders: 88 per cent of crimes against the person, 98 per cent of sexual offences and 90 per cent of murders were by men. And although theft is seen as the domain of female shoplifters, women were responsible for only 21 per cent. Taking into account that 19 out of 20 prisoners (each costing around £40,000 a year) are male, Cockburn and Oakley calculated that if men committed the same amount of crime as women, we’d save £30 billion a year.
You mean of course if men were CONVICTED of the same amounts of crime as women and sentenced to the same amount of time. Even when women are convicted, they get less time in jail. Why, Vicky Pryce announced the day she was released from jail that she would be writing a book discussing the economics of jailing people women, and who wants to bet she thinks it’s a bad, bad thing?
That’s a fat chunk of the deficit paid off right there. You mean we’re clawing back a pittance from disabled folk with spare bedrooms when dealing with the root cause of male violence could save the defence budget? So why is this is not a key government strategy, except that men’s brutality is seen as a given — an unavoidable downside of superior physical strength and sexual urgency, a by-product of that dark Y chromosome and the sloshing rocket fuel that is testosterone.
Indeed, why is not a priority? Let’s get to the root cause of male violence, shall we? How about we start by looking at these men’s earliest years. The first few years of life have a dramatic impact on how people come to perceive and react to the world around them.
http://www.bjdd.org/new/105/81to95.pdf
Oh-oh. Can we see the problem here? Who cares for small children during their earliest years? Who is primarily responsible for shaping their minds and experiences? Who governs whether their lives are filled with love and affection and stability, or abuse and neglect and violence?
Oh, that would be women. Hello, Mummy!
Let’s take all these violent, terrible men and NOT blame their hormones, but look at their earliest experiences. Where are their mothers?
Oh, right. Janice already answered that. They’re off at the pub getting sloshed and worrying about their footwear.
But is it really a given? As I’m sure male Times readers are bursting to tell me, not all men are rapists or wife-beaters. Then why not focus on what turns innocent boys into dangerous men? This week Diane Abbott, the Shadow Public Health Minister, made a much-heralded speech about the crisis of masculinity. She described modern man as lost in a post-industrial landscape, functionless, suicidal, porn-addicted, racked with performance anxiety in a “Viagra and Jack Daniels” culture, having “moob reductions” while unable to articulate his feelings.
Nice! What a sweet characterization of men. Well, I suppose if Janice is going to portray modern women as fat, drunk sluts more concerned about fashion than their own children, it’s only fair that she portray men as fat, drunk, emotionally crippled porn-addicts who can’t get it up.
Gosh her love of humanity just shines like a beacon in the night, doesn’t it?
But she still hits it. What turns innocent boys into dangerous men? What is it, Janice? Or more accurately, WHO is it?
It was a somewhat broad brush picture. Blue-collar manual jobs were lost decades ago and today’s young men who greet each other with “bro” hugs are certainly less restricted by masculine norms than boys at my school who believed it was effeminate to study English A level. But putting the spotlight on masculinity felt timely in 2013, the year of the sex crime.
Let’s just go back for a minute and consider:
There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men – 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993).
Oh, dear. Looks like our fat, drunk slutty mothers have been up to a little bit of alarming behavior when the lights are off and no one is looking.
At the heart of her speech was a welcome affirmation of fatherhood, hitherto absent from Labour thinking for fear of sounding judgmental about what constitutes a family, and all the more powerful from Ms Abbott, a single mother. “We need to say loudly and clearly, that there is a powerful role for fathers,” she said. “Loving fathers are a benefit to children, loving families are a benefit to men.”
How rich, coming from a single mother. Yes, indeed. Loving families are a benefit to our entire society. Why then do we have so many social programs to benefit single mothers, who, by definition, have made sure their children have no fathers in any meaningful sense? Why does the UK offer tax incentives to mothers who farm their children out to day orphanages and punish women who care for their own children?
Maybe what is required is a Ministry for Men to focus on building healthier, happier men and in doing so guarding against the tragic consequences of malign male libido. (It would be self-funded by the resultant fall in crime.) A minister to oversee the provision of mentors for fatherless boys, to ensure those who witness domestic violence do not abuse themselves, to promote sex education based upon consent and respect. A male leader saying categorically that men are masters of their own lives, not slaves to their sexual appetites or victims of a curse.
You’ve got that ass-backwards, bitch. There is nothing malign about the male libido. What is malign is the abuse boys are subjected to, often by women, that results in the kind of anti-social behaviors you rail against.
Monsters are not born, honey. They are made. Made by whom?
That’s the real question. Maybe we need a Minister for Women to teach women not to sexually abuse boys, to teach them not to have children if they don’t intend to care for them, to teach them how to behave like mothers and wives and sisters and daughters and friends. Stop thinking about your fucking shoes and start thinking about someone other than yourself.
No one is saying that sex offenders should get a pass for how they have decided to act as an adult. The word adult is synonymous with autonomy and responsibility. Being the victim of an abusive, loveless childhood peppered with sexual assault is not an EXCUSE for how adults behave. It is an EXPLANATION.
In order to understand why innocent boys become dangerous men, we are going to need to bring women into the conversation. How have these boys been mothered? Where are their fathers? What, exactly, have their experiences been?
That means we need to listen. Listen to what damaged men have to say. Discover how and by whom they were damaged. It’s easy to just blame men for being men. It’s the testosterone. Nasty stuff, that is. It’s also a complete cop-out.
No baby is born determined to grow-up to be a child rapist. Those that do deserve our condemnation, absolutely, but that does not automatically exclude compassion. No, Hazell should never see the light of day again. Perhaps his mother shouldn’t either. He wasn’t born that way. He was made.
The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. And the hand that decides to beat the ever-loving shit out of that baby is the hand that slays the world.
That hand often belongs to a woman. If we really want to know what is up with men, we’ll need to start by asking what the fuck is up with women?
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 
When people do to others what was done to them, it’s revenge, which is an attempt to replace humiliation with pride, i.e, a good self-image. It never works.
The Greeks called it Hubris followed by Nemesis, with the original definition of Hubris being to humiliate someone, most especially in public. They considered it so obscene they banned it from the theater.
The original definition of “obscene” was “that which should not be shown in public.”
LikeLike
If England (or anywhere else) were to formulate a ministry of men, and the true reasons for male violence were publicized, that ministry would be shut down so fast that nobody would know it existed. Count on it.
LikeLike
Being the victim of an abusive, loveless childhood peppered with sexual assault is not an EXCUSE for how adults behave. It is an EXPLANATION.
Indeed, but the Janice Turners of the world are never going to hear it. One of the most common methods of deflecting impolitic or uncomfortable facts is to conflate explanation with excuse.
LikeLike
Once again, it’s funny you should post about a topic that’s relevant to me today.
In my neck of the woods, a 14-year-old girl convinced her 19-year-old boyfriend to kill her father, who was a prominent local blogger. I predicted on his blog she’d get the same treatment as Kara Borden, who did the same thing in Pennsylvania eight years ago and got off scot-free.
Well, sure enough the local paper today is running a sympathetic story on her which is more like a one-sided propaganda piece for her defense team. Instead of being a killer (she was charged as an adult), she’s someone who “struggled mentally,” etc. They’re even badmouthing the dad’s fiancee, who lived with him, claiming (without full evidence) their relationship was “strained.” Feel free to read or comment here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/ellicott-city/bs-md-ho-arnold-profile-20130518,0,5307050.story
LikeLike
Hazell claims that he was abused as a child and thus powerless
Isn’t this a claim made all the time by women who commit crimes, especially violence against men? One that is widely used to pass off or minimize the actions of women?
In the linked stories, Michelle Mills tried to use previous abuse to excuse her horrific murder (note that she also claimed over 70 previous male partners; coincidence?).
Why do men commit crimes? Men, apparently especially in the UK, have been marginalized, left jobless or underemployed while women in the workforce are essentially subsidized, and forced to accept and pay for separation from their children. A generation or more of young men are left at loose ends without prospects for work, stable marriage, and families. What the fuck do you expect to happen?
A man who has a loving wife and family usually will work himself into an early grave to provide for them and won’t have the time or energy to commit crimes.
But, of course, it’s all that raging testosterone and libido that’s to blame. Add to all of the marginalization above, men are just raging sex beasts unable to control their violence and lust.
I will not be shocked when we soon hear calls for chemical castration of men to solve the problem. And they’ll ask men to pay for it, of course. Because the ladies need another pair of shoes.
Now, what, I wonder, could be the root cause of the state of men in today’s world? What societal change could have happened, say, oh, forty years ago that might have led to this state of affairs?
Hmmm. That’s a tough one…
LikeLike
So good! Thank you!
LikeLike
Nothing truely defines the term “educated idiot” more than a feminist. I recall several news reports in recent times about day care workers and nanny’s being caught on hidden cam abusing children. Sometimes babies. Feminists, as per usual are mostly silent about this, I guess shoes and proper fitting bras are more relevant to them. Feminazis can’t handle truth.
LikeLike
Unless i’m mistaken Women have killed some 50 million children since Roe vs Wade in the US.
And men are the violent ones?
LikeLike
Yep, that is why we have a 1.6% fertility rate without immigration in the United states. Our feminist culture made it ok to murder unborn children for 40 years.
LikeLike
It might surprise you to know that a significant percentage of men who were abused as children were abused by women, and that abuse by a female relative correlates very highly to becoming a perpetrator.
Late last night I happened to catch on TV One’s Unsung program a bio feature on the late Soul/R&B singer Lou Rawls. It detailed at length Rawls’ abusive relationship with his first wife and children, especially his eldest son, Lou Jr. At one point a long-standing friend and associate of Rawls was interviewed who pointed out that Rawls once told him, in a moment of candid conversation, that he attributed his seething anger, feelings of mistrust and betrayal, and the need to always control his environment to the fact that, while a young teenager traveling on a Gospel singing circuit, he was sexually molested by several older women in the Gospel group. He also apparently had serious “mama issues,” having been the illegitimate son of a teen mother who was never a consistent part of his childhood upbringing (his grandma filled that role and was apparently something of a Bible-thumping tyrant).
It’s perhaps unfortunate that Rawls didn’t come of age in an era where a man could talk openly about such things without being the subject of ridicule or hostility, especially a man of his stature and fame. It’s equally unfortunate that he’s dead now and can’t speak to it today. To restate the obvious, what Rawls experienced as a teenager at the hands of female sexual predators certainly does NOT excuse his abuse of his loved ones. However, it sure does EXPLAIN it. I think we can also say that his experience is hardly an isolated example.
LikeLike
It would not be very convenient for Janice to explain why the boys were singled out for this treatment, or why the female staff and headmistress of the orphanage who knew what was going on did not stop it. “May Be Disturbing to some viewers”
This reminded me of a sitter who watched us at her house. She would use a belt on her two boys as they were finishing their bath. They once pulled their shirts up and they had multiple purple stripes the thickness of the belt on the front and back of their torsos, I can only imagine what their bottoms and thighs looked like. The fat bitch seemed proud of her work. Makes me wonder if she rubbed one off when she had finished.
LikeLike
I loved reading about Diane Abbot’s railing against the ‘whiskey and Viagra’ culture… one look at her and it is unsurprising that any male that dealt with her would require copious amounts of both.
I try to tell men “Look, your dork understands what your brain refuses to acknowledge”. A healthy man never needs viagra into his eighties. The only possible reason a man in his fourties would require viagra is because his body is telling him he is NOT attracted to the woman he is supposed to be spinking.
Whether it’s due to psychological castration, disgust at her lack of femininity, disgust at her unwillingness to keep herself in shape, or any combination of those factors, Men need to start listening to their sausage… If it doesn’t sit up and beg, keep it the heck away from that hole.
LikeLike
At least we know she reads Dalrock’s blog..
LikeLike
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/christian-denial-and-institutional-resistance-to-change/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/godly-unashamed-unwed-mothers/
Hey, Missssss Turner, tell your daughter I said Hi!
LikeLike
No wonder they’re so screwed up when adopted out abroad.
LikeLike
And just what is wrong with whiskey and Viagra (read, just the normal desire for sex) culture. Whiskey and sex are my reasons for getting out of bed in the morning… 😉
LikeLike
“why do men commit almost all of society’s crime?”
Because the justice system in nearly every country determines what is a crime based on the genitalia of the alleged criminal.
If a man kills someone, he’s a murderer. If a woman kills someone, she’s a misunderstood or mentally-ill victim. Man goes to prison, woman goes to treatment. You,Janice Turner, participate in making things this way.
” It is a question so seldom considered that when the sociologists Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley tried to analyse it, they found the Ministry of Justice does not even routinely break down offences by gender.”
And do you know why that is? Because the fucking books have been cooked and a competent mathematician would find the numbers quite unbelievable.
“…to promote sex education based upon consent and respect. A male leader saying categorically that men are masters of their own lives, not slaves to their sexual appetites or victims of a curse.”
Uh-uh. Not slipping that one by me. “[S]ex education based upon consent and respect” doesn’t mean “sex education based upon consent and respect” any more than “equality” meant “equality”.
What it does mean is incompatible with your following statement,which is itself a blame-redirecting platitude.
Isn’t it just the teeniest bit possible that men are slaves to YOUR sexual appetites and proclivities? Why is it that every public outreach campaign for women has posters of guys and says “Don’t be THAT guy”,and all the public outreach for men says the same thing, “Don’t be THAT guy”. Isn’t there ANYTHING in the world that women are responsible for? Why do you keep asking men to take responsibility while you keep shirking your own,even SEMANTICALLY? You won’t even PRETEND to take responsibility,that’s how dead set you are against it.
Sex education for men should not be handled by women, there is an inherent conflict of interest there and it allows women to abuse men/future men. That means no women sex educators and no feminist gynocentric propaganda in the education program, and NO negotiation on these matters.
Sex education needs to be based on responsibility and accountability, as it always has.Maybe even more so than it always has been.
LikeLike
I am the son of a verbally (extremely) abusive mother. So I know how it feels. This video takes me back to childhood. I was not beaten but the terror was the same. No physical pain but…
I know a lot of cases of abusive mothers. In Spain is very normal. Spanish mothers are heavy smokers in front of their children, they use to blame on children their issues with hubby, they scream a lot, they are terrible tyrants because the ratio female/male we have in Spain (7/3) Spanish women start they careers at school. I have been always in favor of segregated sex education, at least in Spain, to protect the boys.
You complain about American women… Spanish women are the scum of the Earth.
LikeLike
“Feminism” and “male chauvinism” (in Spain would be “machismo”) are meaningless concepts. Because are female concepts. Female concepts makes no sense at all.
LikeLike
In this case, a man is allowed to punch a women’s face?
LikeLike
I am not saying that women cannot handle concepts. Of course they can. It is just there is no single concept on Earth invented by women. Just the few we have like “male chauvinism” or “feminism” or “maternal instinct” or “I just want a nice guy” are nonsense. Wag the dog.
LikeLike
From Aretae:
“In mammals, the costs of bearing young are distributed disproportionately among the sexes.
In mammals, correct game theory play for reproduction between men and women are different.
In particular, attitude (both mental and genetic) towards risk should be a huge (the largest?) gulf. One should expect more variance among males than among females.
This means that roughly all (10:1) of the worst people in the world on most axes should be males
This also means that roughly all (10:1) of the best people in the world on most axes should be males”
To me, this is where her analysis goes off track. She is only dealing with one extreme of the male “condition” and forgetting that there is another extreme there, too.
Huge acceptance and affinity for risk comes with the male “condition” by nature of evolution (or, since I’m not interested in getting in a debate here, design).
That means that you can’t deride the male tendency towards being involved in a large amount of violent crime without also accepting that without that tendency, we wouldn’t be where we are today. No electricity, no plumbing, no space travel, no defense…
You can’t get to this point and then start deriding the exact tendencies that got you here without talking out of both sides of your face.
LikeLike
@Goober-
Talking out of both sides of their face is what Feminist apologists do best.
LikeLike
Janice Turner is self-evidently so full of shit that her eyes are brown. Also, she fails to provide any evidence for what she is saying. The guy in question at the beginning is providing an explanation as to why he was such an asshole, and she hypocritically demands there be more research into it while demanding everyone accept her bullshit liberal white middle class entitled theory. Also Janice, ever heard of Katherine Knight who cannibalised her own husband? Ilse Koch who walked naked around Buchenwald and shot any Jews who looked at her? Made them into lampshades? Kara Homolka who with her husband raped several women and murdered them including her own sister? Then she has a spoiled white middle class tantrum for middle class white entitled women being called out on their own behaviour? Not to mention hers and Diane Abbot’s hypocrisy over their bullshit theories with absolutely feeble solutions to these made up problems. Sorry Janice, but you can’t write for shit. I’m a trained writer myself and I could take a beating from the Yardies and Russian mob simultaneously and I could write a better article on the pavement in my own blood between blows. Why don’t you take your self important over privileged arse out of writing IQ lowering articles and become a cleaning woman? You’d be much better off that way and so would the world.
LikeLike