We moderate all comments on our blogs and YouTube channel, to spare followers the angst of ploughing through the nonsense feminists spout. But sometimes a feminist will make a series of comments of such mind-numbing stupidity and ignorance, we feel it’s our civic duty to publish them, for public entertainment. Agnieszka Niemira is such a person. She left four comments on a video of an episode of The Big Questions, which features two estimable women, Belinda Brown and Angela Epstein (I do wish Angela would declare herself an anti-feminist rather than a non-feminist, in common with Belinda, but that’s for another day). The video is here, Niemira’s comments here.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Justice for Men & Boys 
My replies there:
1 : @ Agnieszka Niemara :
‘What are the criteria for being on the panel of this program?‘
No idea. From the format of the programme I’d suggest that some of the audience are members of the public selected from applicants and those asked to speak are invited. I’m surprised that you couldn’t work that out for yourself.
‘The ignorance of Belinda and Angela are astonishing.‘
Is astonishing, not ‘are’. The / their ignorance is astonishing. I’m surprised you don’t know that.
‘I would have recommended … ‘
However, you won’t because?
‘ … some basic studies in feminist theory … ‘
Interesting: Belinda and Angela, both women of ability who have achieved more than many, of either sex or any gender, are ignorant because their view of the world does not accord with yours, yet you are, presumably, prepared to accept their opinions if they submit to courses of ‘re-education’ (for which read political indoctrination and programming) approved by you. You sound like an apparatchik of a totalitarian ideology; a devotee of what some might term a malign religion.
‘ … and some basic prison studies prior to participation. ‘
I wrote ‘you are, presumably, prepared to accept their opinions if they submit to courses of “re-education” (for which read political indoctrination and programming) approved by you‘; you wrote ‘I would have recommended some basic studies in feminist theory and some basic prison studies prior to participation.‘ ‘Prior to participation’? You sound like an apparatchik of a totalitarian ideology; a devotee of what some might term a malign religion.
Are you?
2 @ Agnieszka Niemira :
‘Having a son actually strengthened my feminism. ‘
I can understand that. Producing a male infant might easily drive a mentally unstable woman, which all feminists are, further into a viciously misandrous cult (more than one clearly insane yet still at liberty feminist has publicly avowed her intention to abuse and torture, or kill, any sons she bears): you might have seen it as your mission to ensure that he grew up as the servant or slave of women everywhere; you might have seen it as your duty to ensure that he grew up as a girl; you might have seen in him the man who started him and so decided to act out your revenge fantasies on him. What we can be certain you didn’t see was your responsibility to ensure that he grew up as a happy and contented man.
3 @ Agnieszka Niemira :
‘Women can obviously do anything men can do … ‘
Can they? I can’t see it so it can’t be universally obvious. What I can see is that whatever some mad cows claim, women have not done anything men can do before men have done it, many, many times, and made it almost risk free safe for women to do it. When women do something, anything, before a man does it, I’ll accept the observation that women can do things, a thing or some things but not anything, that men can do. Until then I’ll continue to laugh at women such as you who claim that ‘women can obviously do anything men can do’.
‘ … plus create people within their bodies … ‘
Not without one of the sixty million plus sperm most men produce every half hour for most of their lives. When women can fertilise one of their lifetime total of four hundred or so eggs without one of the sixty million or so sperm men produce every half hour throughout most of their lives I’ll believe that women can ‘create people within their bodies’. Until then I’ll continue to laugh at women such as you who claim that ‘women can obviously do anything men can do’.
‘ … birth them … ‘
Presumably you meant to write give birth to them. That notwithstanding, I have not heard of a woman who gave birth unaided nor of a woman who chose to give birth without some of the comfort and safety available from the scientific, technological and medical advances made by men.
‘ … and sustain them on the outside. ‘
What do women sustain ‘their’ babies with? Who earns the money to pay for the food women consume to make the milk they sustain ‘their’ babies with? Who earns the money to pay for the clothes those women and babies wear? The beds they sleep soundly in, often while their providers are working in difficult, dirty or dangerous occupations; the roofs under which they shelter without a care in the world; the energy that keeps them warm and the purified water they drink without a care in the world, not to mention the toilets from which they think their waste is inconsequentially flushed away, never to be seen again? Who does all that while women ‘sustain [‘their’ babies[] on the outside’?
If women have always been strong enough to be able to do any of those why have they apparently always been so weak that they have never been able to stop men from preventing them?
Until women stop whining that men prevent them from doing what we can do and get on and do it I’ll continue to laugh at women such as you who claim that ‘women can obviously do anything men can do’.
4 @ Agnieszka Niemira :
‘Belinda, you are speaking in the public sphere.
I’m sure Belinda knew that: what purpose otherwise could she have had in appearing in the programme?
‘If it were not for feminism, you would not have a voice … ‘
Non sequitur (and I’m certain you cannot see it): were your premise true women could not have a voice but for chivalry not feminism. Just as I am sure you cannot grasp that so I am certain you cannot see that your proposition confounds itself and proves mine: women have a voice thanks to men, who listened when they had a duty not to, and not feminism.
‘ … you would be imprisoned in the private sphere … ‘
Since you don’t explain what ‘the private sphere’ is, I must presume that you allude to the domestic sphere, by which I mean home and hearth, which women almost unanimously opted for before technology made certain fields of men’s work easy and safe, when those women who thought the men working in such fields powerful and ‘sexy’ deluded themselves that they could do the jobs as well and so seem as sexy and powerful. Such women are now learning that there is more to such jobs than meets the eye, as men have always known.
‘ … and your safety would be dependent on your husband. ‘
Interesting.
Firstly safety: In what context do you pitch this concern? Physical? Financial? Environmental?
Social? And at what level: locally? Nationally? Globally? Whatever, in every context and at every level, your safety is guaranteed by men, whether or not you are married to them. Who earns the money you spend (remember women, on average, spend 90% more than they earn and pay just 28% of income tax while consuming about 75% of benefits)? What number do you call if you feel unsafe and what overwhelmingly is the sex of those who respond?
Whether or not you are married, feminism has not altered the fact that women still depend upon men even if they no longer have to marry one of us to secure an income.
Secondly ‘would’: Would is the preterite of will, which means an intention from wish or desire. That women ‘would’ be dependent upon their husbands explicitly states that they wish to be. I’m sure you did not mean to say that but that is what you have written.
Thirdly husbands: Women’s media are filled with advertisements seeking husbands more prosperous than the advertisers and articles bemoaning the dearth. Why is that if those women advertise for husbands able to support them if they do not want to be dependent upon them?
LikeLike