Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Three Stories

Mormon women ‘tortured children to instil discipline’
Two Mormon women tortured six young children by forcing them to eat red-hot chillies and whipping them with nettles, a court was told yesterday. Deidre Carrington, 41, and Maria Keable, 60, are also alleged to have punched and kneed the four girls and two boys, hit them with wooden spoons and rolling pins, and gagged them. Robin Johnson, for the prosecution, said: “This was a case of two women who were completely out of control.” The children were woken at 5am every day, made to say prayers and read scripture, before doing hours of housework. If they did not do their chores quickly enough and to a high standard, they were punished.

“The cruelty amounted to physical harm, punishing these children even when they were very young,” he said. “The physical abuse included striking and slapping, administering chilli powder and chopped chillies, using rolling pins and spoons to strike them, making them eat on the floor, making them eat raw eggs and striking them with stinging nettles.”

The eldest, a boy now aged 13, was gagged when he was naughty and bundled into a sheet to be restrained while he was beaten, the court was told. The women were also said to have placed him between them and punched him to each other like “a football”. They would also pick him up and throw him across the room.

Sadistic foster mother's 19-year reign of terror
(This one comes with pictures).
A foster mother was found guilty today of subjecting three young children to a "horrifying catalogue of cruel and sadistic treatment". Eunice Spry, 62, routinely beat, abused and starved the youngsters in her care over a 19 year period. The devout Jehovah's Witness forced sticks down their throats and made them eat their own vomit and rat excrement. As punishment for misbehaving, she would beat them on the soles of their feet and force them to drink washing up liquid and bleach.

Scrap women's prisons, peer says
Women's prisons should be shut down and replaced with small secure units, according to a report commissioned for the Home Office. The plan is being recommended by Labour peer Baroness Corston...She says women should be held in units near their families and not in large jails like the one in Holloway, London. If adopted by the home secretary, Baroness Corston's approach would see Holloway and about 14 other all-female prisons in England and Wales shut down or converted into jails for men. Lady Corston recommends a significant cut in the overall number of women who are sent to jail, with greater use of community punishments instead. Frances Crook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said "prison simply doesn't work" for women.

Have a Nice Day


finndistan guy said...

This is what we need. Giving counter examples for texts claiming that women are the fairer, nicer, calmer, etc etc sex.

Even though the exceptions dont change the rule, the rule of women being innocent is wrong to begin with, so the exceptions will build up to the point where they are not exceptions but a considerably large database of disproving facts.

Heretic said...

Thanks. You might like to take a look at my other website.

Jim said...

Prisons don't work very well for men either - just not really serving thier neds, you know? Do these people propose getting rid of men's prsions too? Thought not.

BrusselsLout said...

The issue I think that's central to this newest piece of PC brilliance is that wimmin are "less violent" than men.

The assumption here is that

violence = evil nastiness

and that

non-violence = goodness with high sense of morality.

This is crassly simplistic.

I have known some men who could have some explosive (and violent) tempers when provoked, but who could also have hearts of gold most of the time.

I have also known some nasty pieces of work of either sex who would never raise a hand (and who take an arrogant pride in it).

The reason women are "less violent" than men is because they don't have the physical capability of it. That's all. (But even that doesn't stop some of them from trying, when you look at the DV statistics.)

Or to look at it another way, I would personally rather be punched in the face and end up with a bleeding nose than have my wallet stolen. This is not to say that the human body is of less value than money, but I know that my nose will heel in a few days. I could still walk home with it bleeding. However, my wallet going missing would put me through endless inconvenience. If I'm miles from home, I wouldn't be able to get home. If it happened in the middle of winter, I could freeze to death.

I wish some of these people in government could think, even just a little bit.

Anonymous said...

I take great issue with the idea that women are less violent than men. My view is that women have ALWAYS been as violent as men but their violence is lagely ignored.

Also, the focus on violence alone as an expression of female criminality is a smokescreen. Women also con people, pick pockets, shop lift, burgle, steal cars, kidnap children, do illegal drugs, abuse children (both sexually and physically) and on and on.

It is important for the men's movement NOT to allow the opposition to lead the debate by only responding to their claims and propaganda. We MUST, in my view, formulate our own arguments, gather and present our own evidence and force the opposition to look at our claims, on OUR terms.

One of the most effective ways (but not the only one) of doing this is using YouTube, Google Video and other sites to get OUR message across. There is a superb example of the power of this here:

(If the page does not load just hit the reload button in the browser)

This video can be freely downloaded and passed to friends, other activists or just left in public places, such as libaries, all over the world. As a means of getting the word out, such iniatives are invaluable and vital to our success.

BrusselsLout said...


You've hit on something really important: we need a strategy and an action plan.

At the moment, all I can think of doing is making contributions to blogs (this one being my favourite and only regular one at the moment) and writing to my MP (from whom I have not yet had a response after nearly 3 months).

See, what concerns me is that we see nothing of our POV being put across in the mass media (certainly not the British media, with which I still keep in touch despite living abroad). Here, the feminist view of the world is accepted as a given. No one is ever interviewed challenging it. It's as if an alternative view does not exist. And government policy is still being made on tired old feminist mantra that flies in the face of fact.

We need two things:

1. A strategy that we could all work on. (For example, would writing to Congressmen or Members of Parliament be effective? Would a continual dialogue with one be even more effective?)

2. A means to measure progress. There is no stronger driving force than confidence. But to give us that confidence, we need to know if what we are doing is working, and what we need to work on to get it working.

But I agree, the Internet as a tool really is a great start.

Anonymous said...

This might interest you ...

BrusselsLout said...

Anon (9:31 AM)

I know we can use the Internet as a tool (if this is what your message is) just as feminists here are using it to express an anti-porn sentiment while, at the same time, describing vividly their experiences watching men wank in parks.

But are men's rights pages being viewed by large enough numbers of people? Or, if not, is this number growing?

My concern is that most men are oblivious to the problem that the most vile forms of feminism -- the ones being applied by governments -- actually poses for them.

Jim said...

"My concern is that most men are oblivious to the problem that the most vile forms of feminism -- the ones being applied by governments -- actually poses for them. "

Amen. Men stay willfully blind. So often it is other women who wake them up and them hound them into doing something. One more reason why most men need women.

The Duke Rape Case may start to change this a little. Anyone who denies that these three guys were falsely accused and kept accused for a ridiculous length of time is looking either like a race bigot, a gender bigot, or both. People are not letting this go. It may turn into a real turning point.

Nick S said...

Feminists have long argued that more men should be prosecuted and convicted for offences such as rape, domestic violence, child sexual abuse etc. In a lot of cases they have succeeded in eroding the presumption of innocence and stacking the system in favour of the prosecution. Yet they willfully ignore the fact that the criminal law is so much softer on women, and that proportionately fewer women are punished for their crimes.

This is gross hypocrisy. The feminist position seems to be that men should be punished and condemned, even if there is serious doubt over their guilt, while women should still be let off the hook even when their guilt is proven beyond doubt.

Heretic said...

Nick S, What you say is correct. Feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with justice and equality. It is about maximising advantage for women relative to men. The truth doesn't enter into it.