"I do believe that his position is becoming increasingly untenable. He has a major problem with regard to solving his own family difficulties, and I personally cannot take the view that a person's private life does not affect their public life." -- Rev. David McIlveen
Reverse the genders -- if Bill Clinton had yet another affair, would anyone suggest HILLARY needed to step down as US Secretary of State? The feminists would explode.
Read the N.Ireland story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nireland_politician_s_teen_affair
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I'd take a step back from using any of them as poster boys for anything, absolute scum the lot of them...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fall-of-the-house-of-robinson-1863058.html
AfOR
There's actually a bit more to this than is reported here. She used her position to secure a £50,000 loan to her lover to help him open a cafe and it is alleged that he knew about this and did not declare the interest.
Comment from Northern Ireland here.
Malcolm is right that there is more than is reported here. There is a certain amount of apparent corruption and undeclared conflicts of interest going on. Peter Robinson, if reports are accurate, was not involved in the financial, and when he found out insisted that all the money be returned to where it came from, but did not declare it to the authorities, as he was required to do - that's apparently the extent of his wrongdoing, and that's why he's being called to resign.
But there were calls for him to consider his position before the financial stuff came out - for example this story in the Guardian, that impeccably liberal and pro-feminist paper.
Compare that to British cabinet minister Tessa Jowell, whose husband is being investigated in Italy for alleged money laundering and tax fraud. This money paid off their mortgage, but she insisted she knew nothing about it. They separated, she's still in the cabinet, and nobody sees anything wrong with that.
Equally, when news of Iris's affair broke, lots of people commented darkly that there were two people in a marriage and Peter must have driven Iris to cheat. Don't remember anyone saying that about Elin Nordegren.
There is still a sense that:
(a) a man in a position of power must be the alpha dog, and if his wife cheats that harms his status, and
{b) men are responsible for their wives' misdeeds.
I hold no brief for Peter Robinson. He's my MP, but I've never voted for him, and I still wouldn't. But with my "men's issues" hat on, this is an interesting story.
As I argued on The Spearhead, by any feminist definition of rape, this is a rape.
Power and age differential. Sex in return for money that the boy badly needed.
This is rape by any feminist definition.
Feminists need to call out Iris Robinson on her rape, and we should be pressuring them to do so.
I hear you Snark, but I'm leery of going down that road, as it can legitimise the feminazi standpoint...
as an aside, and interesting article in the times
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article6982160.ece
Feminism seen as promiscuity?
I'll give you a couple of quotes...
the first one relates to what I have been saying on spearhead as much as the false rape culture.
"Bella agreed: “I met this guy in a pub the other night. We had sex once and ... it’s pathetic. We’re lying there ... and he says, ‘Are you going to sleep with other people?’ I thought: who are you; why are you asking me this? Obviously I’m having sex with other people. He decided he loved me; he was texting me and phoning me for days. After having sex once! What’s that about?”
Wasn’t it possible he might have felt a real connection? The girls looked at me, shaking their heads — that isn’t how sex works.
“You don’t get so heavy with someone after one night,” said Ruby.
“I’m much more attracted to the guys who don’t really give a shit,” said Anna.
“God, yeah, there’s nothing attractive about a guy who gets all emotional on you,” said Bella. "
and
"There was this complete detachment from the act itself and what it means. This isn’t rape or sexual abuse, but it isn’t a positive experience. In some ways I find it quite disturbing. But people have so normalised this kind of sexual activity — it’s totally emotionless. The act itself is no longer about intimacy; it’s no longer about communication.” Esther feels that the culture she sees around her is not a true fulfilment of what feminists fought for in the 1960s: “People say that this kind of behaviour began in the 1960s, but I’m not sure. I get the feeling that the ideal of liberated sex in the 1960s was about really loving and valuing your body and being proud of it. Now there is a toxic mix, for young girls, of feeling they have to be sexually active but also feeling very critical of their bodies. So they will have lots of sex, but without pleasure or pride."
AfOR
"I hear you Snark, but I'm leery of going down that road, as it can legitimise the feminazi standpoint..."
Actually, it doesn't. The feminazi standpoint only applies 'rape' in situations where the genders are reversed. By forcing them to apply the same standards to all situations, regardless of gender, the logical conclusion of their own argument is that an awful lot of women are rapists.
They can then either cling to their argument, which criminalises as many women as it does men, or they can let go of it altogether.
I don't think that will work, the problem doesn't lie inside the minds of feminazis, the problem lies inside the female biased legal system.
AfOR
College Rape Stats---Cutting-Edge Modern Fiction
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2009/12/college_rape_statsthe_cutting.html#more
Snark, I hope you are joking. Countering feminist rape reform by pretending women can rape boys is a terrible, hare-brained idea. It doesn't matter if a lot of women legally are rapists because boys and men have no interest in prosecuting them anyway, except for a few lunatic-fringe morons who agree with the feminist definition of rape, and when it happens, feminists are only happy to jail a female "rapist" because she has been sleeping with the enemy. The notion that women can be rapists or sexual abusers is the very pinnacle of feminism as it both legitimizes the feminist concept of rape by denying sex differences and pretending rape reform is good for men, too, and a way to poison even more relationships and create an even colder world for boys to grow up in. Don't be a useful idiot for the feminists and condone this. I know some horribly misguided putative MRAs argue that women can be sexual predators with a straight face and I hate them for it as much as I hate feminists.
And think how egregiously offensive it is for a teenage boy to suggest that his relationship was rape. I would have been pissed off by this discussion if I were him. It makes a complete mockery of male sexuality and offends both the "victim" and all the boys who can only dream of being so lucky, which of course is the majority. I had to pay to lose my virginity at 21, would have killed to get someone like Iris as a teenager and am profoundly embittered by the fact that my entire youth was wasted by consisting exclusively of sexual frustration. It is bad enough that male sexuality is utterly worthless; let's not add insult to injury by pretending it is something women prey on, and especially when you are young and in fact lacking any means to attract women. The most hurtful insult women use is "You can't get laid." How do you top that? By saying "You can't get laid -- but that guy over there is so popular we need to protect him from female rapists." That is what the myth of the female sexual predator amounts to and the insult of it makes my blood boil with hatred.
The proper way to combat feminist rape law reform is not to feed the abuse industry and give them more of what they want, but this: Renounce the subjective guilt and stigma of rape. I certainly have, for this and another reason I explain elsewhere. Now that we are all legally rapists anyway, why should we care if we actually rape women or not? There is no reason to bother expending effort to obtain women by legitimate means when most legitimate means have been criminalized as rape. We might as well take what we want directly; the consequences will be the same, and yes, sex is worth many years in prison for a man so we are not going to stop fucking you no matter what -- you are just going to enjoy it a lot less.
I've read the Spearhead article on this now and I must say it makes me sick how Welmer claims Iris "took advantage of him" and it is "all about power and the consumption of innocent prey."
I thought Welmer knew better than that. Is he really serious? Somebody tell me it is satire and Welmer has not turned into the social constructionist feminist he sounds like there. I am too upset right now to read the comments.
Let me make this absolutely clear. Sex (in a heterosexual context) is a female resource and male sexuality is worthless. Sex is the act of a woman giving something to the male. The boy is lucky, period; a woman can never, ever be said to "prey on" a boy. I don't care if she is a cougar, or what the age and/or power differential is or even if he was outright forced: Getting sex from a woman is always a good thing. And the relationship will not "haunt his steps" like Welmer so daftly puts it, but enhance his value tremendously and help him get more women in the future. Yes, there are more desirable women out there, but a cougar is a million times better than nothing and the last thing women want is a virgin.
Hey Pal, getting sex from am old hag is not always a good thing for a boy. Suppose the hag can still get pregnant and does and the boy is a naive 16yo which may be over the age of consent but he can be liable for child support. There have been cases where these old bags have forced a boy under the age of consent (rape) to have sex and when she got pregnant the boy (victim) had to pay child support.
Post a Comment