American Leftist mainstream media has some sort of demented narrative that has done an enormous disservice to women as it has chained them to some odious ideal that is absolutely no better than their Rightist rivals.
They have women chained into some Neo-Victorian groove which has no basis in reality.
Women are the same as men. They can be assholes, just like men. They can be psychopaths, just like men.
They are not superior to men. They are not inferior to men.
They are humans, just like men.
But yet, when the Left try to make a case for women, they always fuck it up.
The fuck up began in the real Victorian Era that brought the first seeds of liberation, but it did so on a lie.
The lie wasn’t necessary, and it should have been done on the more powerful truth, but the conniving gambit has made problems and prolonged a battle that should have never started in the first place.
And that lie was the notion of romantic love.
Men saw women as the property, and the governments codified it with laws. Men mistreated women savagely, and it was an extremely oppressive existence for the majority, though there were women who were powerful, and lived full, exciting, and meaningful lives despite the rigs and artificial obstacles.
But for those who were more timid and passive by nature, they resorted to a clever feint: they humanized their gender by planting seeds of romance, and from there, women began to crawl out of that oppressive mindset, breaking away, getting the right to vote, not be property, get work, and making options and opportunity for themselves.
But the case was never actually made on the notion that women were equal to men.
Women were always presented as being the morally superior gender, which is bullshit. Just as you have moral women and men, you have untrustworthy and destructive garbage out there, too, and it comes in every gender-variety available.
You have women who have murdered their children. You have women who prostituted their children and allowed their husbands and boyfriends to repeatedly rape their children — and then feign ignorance, when they damn well knew what was happening.
My grandmother had a fight with a woman who was earning more than her husband, but she knew her husband was sexually abusing her daughter, and refused to leave because she said, “Who is going to support me?”
So you have women who always find excuses why their evil is justified.
We, as a species, have never quite learned to stop with those manipulative binary games where we demonize everyone or deify everyone. The case-by-case assessments are non-existent because everyone wants a hack and a TORTEE: The One Rule That Explains Everything.
The Victorian Era’s gains can be wiped out at any given moment because everything was based on a lie.
Had we had a braver focus on reality, women should be judged the same as men without any narrative rigs. Men can be full of shit; women can be full of shit; people are people, and the point is not to rig and hold back the kind and the competent, but to do our best so that we don’t have to suffer and can live better lives as we deal with our own petty jealousies and learn how to be embrace life instead of make it miserable.
And that means that consequences matter. Men should be imprisoned if they raped someone because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and are corrupting society with their wickedness. The expense and traumas incurred are unnecessary, and yes, make his ilk be aware of what happens when you play those games.
But for the women who have allowed men to molest their children, they, too have to be taught the same lesson: no, sitting on your ass and allowing it to happen has no excuse that gets you off the hook. You are not some neo-Victorian victim: you are a wicked adult who knew exactly what you were doing, but figured the rapist’s pay check was worth more to you than the well-being of the child who had no say in coming into the world and having a piece of garbage for a mother.
And anyone who allows a child to be harmed is a piece of garbage. Fuck you.
But journalism is trying to retain some audiences — any audience — and is now pandering to anyone by offering to serve as their apologists, regardless of what the consequences of that pandering will be.
So what we have now are journalists using a Victorian narrative to advocate on behalf of psychopaths, and other destructive people who do not need compassion, but be held accountable for their behaviours, without incessantly looking for loopholes, and then thinking a neo-Victorian narrative will do it.
This piece of propaganda from the New Yorker is such as case in point: here we have a journalist painting a highly deceptive narrative about how horrible it is for children to be separated from their mothers who are in prison.
For many, yes, it is, but for some, those mothers have repeatedly exposed them to torture, abuse, starvation, rape, prostitution, and death.
Even if they weren’t convicted of those crimes, those mothers have a lot to answer for. They hung around a criminal element. They exposed their children to violence, gangs, drugs, weapons, and danger at every waking moment.
Not all, but not a couple, either.
This article is unscientific in the worst way imaginable. The author has willfully and deliberately chosen propaganda to spin a tale.
Many of these women have their children pimped out, in child porn, working as drug mules, and stealing…and they are placed in the same prison population as women who have done none of these things.
However, you do not take a manipulative approach: if it is bad for some, then it has to be bad for the whole.
And that is hardly the case.
We do not know how many of these women have abandoned their children, and only think about exploiting her motherhood once the reporter came marching along looking for some propaganda to spew.
If we had an actual journalist looking for reality and truth, this isn’t how you approach the subject.
You do not willfully manipulative and distort facts to make a false case, and then try to use the misdirection of a Neo-Victorian narrative to do it. There are so many holes and contradictions in this colour-heavy piece of garbage that it is useless.
I am not unfamiliar with doing a story about women in jail. I did one for Elle Canada about fifteen years ago about women who broke the law to please a boyfriend.
The piece was edited, and the editor took out a crucial profile without my knowledge, but let me explain what I did.
First, I spoke to a dozen people who were classified as experts in various areas of my subject of interest. This gave me a crude roadmap. I then went digging to find individual cases of specific women, and I researched about fifty women just to look for patterns. I read court transcripts, articles, and conducted interviews.
I then looked at fifty more who did not fit the profile, but were in jail for other reasons. They were my control group so I could compare and contrast their situation with my group of interest.
I didn’t make grand sweeping generalizations, but then I interviewed about a dozen women who fit the bill, and then I went with four women.
Unfortunately, my editor removed the last one, and I was not pleased.
While the other three women I spoke to were sympathetic, the last one was not.
None were blameless. One had no children. None should have been there for twenty years, but they should have been punished. The state was not wrong in punishing them, but mandatory minimums were obscene.
But one had a son and dated a drug dealer. Another one was a mother who took up with a prisoner, left her husband, and opened a business where he killed someone and then talked her into confessing to the crime. The third did not have children, but was involved with a drug dealer as well.
I had sympathy all the same for these three, but it was the fourth that was a caution against seeing the situation in a Victorian way.
The fourth was a teenaged killer who murdered an innocent stranger in her sleeping bag to prove to her boyfriend that she loved him. When I spoke to the D.A. about her, he warned me that she was an out and out psychopath.
And, boy, did he have her number.
She was in her twenties by then, and could not understand why she was in jail when she was “daddy’s girl.” She murdered an unarmed sleeping stranger on the say so of her boyfriend, and to her, that should have been reason enough to get off. She thought her sentence was profoundly unfair, and she had all sorts of reasons and excuses, and used a lot of that neo-Victorian propaganda to spin her tale of woe, that sounded very similar to the New Yorker article.
It was bullshit, and in my story, I laid out the facts without her own self-serving spin, but it was taken out, and I had no clue until after publication, but if I had known, I would have pulled out my article. The fourth was critical to understanding that you do not break out the violins just because you want to pretend you are moral, woke, and sensitive.
A lot of people are going to spin a story to gain sympathy, and make themselves look like victims, even if they are the villains and the primary architects of their own ruin. They dust off their children and parade them only when it suits their purposes, but they could not give one flying fuck about them.
A more responsible piece would not be spinning any story. Take fifty women with children who are in jail, and get the facts of each one.
Not just how howling sad it is that their children are separated from their mothers. That’s a confirmation bias right there.
But what kind of mother was she before she was arrested, and no, her version is just her interpretation.
Were those children in foster care, for instance? What do teachers and neighbours know? What do social workers know? You have privacy obstacles, but it is funny what you can dig up when you are determined to find the truth.
I would talk to psychologists and social workers as well as police, judges and D.A.s about the different categories of mothers they come across, and then start to grid my profiles with my information.
I would also talk to activists and advocates of these women.
But I would not be “picking sides.”
What you will find will be far more complex that the simpletons of the New Yorker will puke.
And you have to present the shades in a single piece.
Some children will be very sad and lost, but for others, it will be a blessing in disguise.
And you have to find out why and face that reality that not everyone who gives birth has the right to be called a mother.
Because women are people. Some are good, some are bad, and some are whatever the wind takes them.
Women, just like men, are the captains of their own ships.
My grandmother was alone during the Second World War. She had a limited education, no family, it was war, violent, and anarchy.
She didn’t stoop to illegal activities. She didn’t harm other people. She became a nurse during the war, and saved lives.
Even when there was no options, she made the one that counted, and she raised my mother, moving to Canada, and getting a job on the day she arrived without having connections or knowing a lick of English in a country that looked down on Eastern Europeans, labelling them DP — Displaced Persons.
Whenever I start getting to sympathetic to someone’s sob story, I think about her, and then get snapped right back to my senses.
North America has countless social services and organizations to help people when they are down. There are jobs here. There is free education. There is a bounty of opportunities that never in the history of mankind were there — in a world where there is Internet access and you can even fucking crowdfund if you need money for an emergency.
So in 2018, there are no excuses. None. If these were truly neo-Victorian ladies, they would be gravitating to those safety nets.
And they are not.
It is time we stop spinning garbage narratives to manipulate people, and start presenting empirically-tested information to paint a realistic picture of the world.
People feel sorry for themselves as they wallow and make excuses why they are acting in ways that is beneath them.
If you have true morals and sympathy, you do not enable that vile behaviour, but take away the crutches of narratives, and start presenting facts.
Not the rancid garbage the sheltered goobers at the New Yorker like to spew because they can’t function as moral humans being and try to build fortresses of lies to poison the information stream…