Feminist Guardian Journalist - Women who rape young boys shouldn't go to prison
According to Barbara Ellen, a feminist guardian journalist, women who sexually exploit and abuse underage boys should not go to jail. She says that victims of such abuse would agree with her on that, implying, in her article, that grooming and rape (by women) of boys is an enjoyable experience one that should leave male friends of the victims jealous....I'm not even making this up.
Have a read through this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/barbara-ellen-madeleine-martin-comment
A glimpse into the mind of a feminist.
What do you think?
Have a read through this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/barbara-ellen-madeleine-martin-comment
A glimpse into the mind of a feminist.
What do you think?
(edited 7 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
This cant be real... lol
Original post by CookieButter
According to Barbara Ellen, a feminist guardian journalist, women who sexually exploit and abuse underage boys should not go to jail. She says that most victims of such abuse would agree with her on that implying that its enjoyable and that the male peers of these victims should be jealous of them for the experience...I'm not even making this up.
Have a read through this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/barbara-ellen-madeleine-martin-comment
A glimpse into the mind of a feminist.
What do you think?
Have a read through this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/barbara-ellen-madeleine-martin-comment
A glimpse into the mind of a feminist.
What do you think?
Just read it. God, Barbara Ellen really is an idiot, isn't she. She seems to just sweep the whole issue about abuse of trust and frank child abuse which any teacher having sex with a pupil is doing under the carpet in some vague puffery about 'differences in the sexes'.
Original post by CookieButter
A glimpse into the mind of a feminist
No. A glimpse into the mind of a moron.
She doesn't think that way because she's a feminist, she thinks that way because she's an idiot.
She just happens to also identify as a feminist.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by elsawj
she's obviously not a feminist then?
Well said this has nothing to do with her claiming to be a feminist...
Child abuse is child abuse.
Original post by Drewski
No. A glimpse into the mind of a moron.
She doesn't think that way because she's a feminist, she thinks that way because she's an idiot.
She doesn't think that way because she's a feminist, she thinks that way because she's an idiot.
Original post by Little Popcorns
Well said this has nothing to do with her claiming to be a feminist... Child abuse is child abuse.
Original post by elsawj
she's obviously not a feminist then?
In 2003 feminists in the UK changed the definition of rape to exclude female perpetrators of rape from prosecution for the crime.
In 2014 in the USA feminists managed to successfully change the definition of rape (as it is defined by the FBI for the collection of statistics) to exclude female perpetrators of the crime from being considered as rapists and included in rape statistics .
in 2010 feminists in 'Israel' successfully managed to cancel a law charging women with the rape of men.
This is part of feminist agenda world wide. Sadly, a good number of people are ignorant to these facts. I'm going to be making a new thread detailing the above soon as I think this topic is important and deserves to be highlighted on its own.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ions
"Paedophilia is ok because the boy can brag about it to his mates" is basically what she's saying.
ridiculous that the guardian would publish something like this.
This woman is a total idiot. I can't even wrap my head around how she could be so stupid
ridiculous that the guardian would publish something like this.
This woman is a total idiot. I can't even wrap my head around how she could be so stupid
I think the word Sexist would be a more fitting way to describe her.
Original post by CookieButter
in 2010 feminists in 'Israel' successfully managed to cancel a law charging women with the rape of men.
why have you put Israel in quotation marks "CookieButter" ?
Original post by CookieButter
I think the word Sexist would be a more fitting way to describe her.
Both seem equally as good don't they
Original post by cbreef
This cant be real... lol
Oh its real....things like this are not usually talked about much in the media so not many people are exposed to them but the more you research into feminism the more you are exposed to things like this....believe it or not, trivialising rape of males by females is very common among many many feminists and believe it or not there are feminist beliefs out there that are far far far far far far worse than this...stuff that would make ISIS beliefs look liberal.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by elsawj
she's obviously not a feminist then?
Oh yeah, the infamous "No True Feminist" fallacy.
All in the name of free speech, of course.
****ing ****.
****ing ****.
Original post by Little Popcorns
Well said this has nothing to do with her claiming to be a feminist...
Child abuse is child abuse.
Child abuse is child abuse.
Advocating preferential treatment for women sounds like a feminist to me
Posted from TSR Mobile
A paedophile is a paedophile, regardless of the gender of the offender or the victim.
This is an "adult" (I use the word in the bodily sense only), justifying the emotional and sexual exploitation of a minor. If a man had written it, or voiced views like this, he would rightly be branded as a child abuser for life. By taking this stance using the shield of feminism as a lame excuse for her personal views, she gives not just feminists but all women a bad name. Let's get this straight from the start: Women kill. Women lie. And women also abuse children, just as men do. It's just that society doesn't like to accept this last great taboo, unless it's tested in court.
There are a couple of fundamental assumptions in Ms Ellen's argument, one of which she should know, having been a teenage girl, and one of which she can't, as she's never been a teenage boy.
Firstly, teenage girls are invariably more emotionally and sexually mature for their age than teenage boys. Assuming parity is not reasonable. Therefore a female adult taking advantage of a boy under her protection is actually abusing a child emotiionally younger than her own experience of being that age. She should be acutely aware of this.
Secondly, she assumes that all teenage boys are care free and "up for it" without any consequence; that they all mature at the same rate and age; and come from stable backgrounds. The sexual exploitation of young boys, which she is advocating, does not take into account that there is a significant percentage of boys who have come from home where being sexually, psychologically or emotiionally abused is the norm, whether by a male or female adult, or both. To ignore this fact and just wash it away with a withering, unaccountable and selfish statement that teenage boys are "up for it" speaks volumes of her own inexperience in the world, combined with what I suspect from her writing is a self-centred, narcissistic approach to the responsibilities of being an adult female.
Let's be clear: Promoting the exploitation of any person to whom one is in a superior position, let alone a minor, is utterly unacceptable.
It's what people trafficking, sexual enslavement and paedophilia is based upon. She blithly ignores this fact.
Advocating such views, especially publicly, is morally unacceptable. The line is drawn in law at a fixed age for boys and girls for a reason. For some, it's undoubtedly well past the age where they are capable of handling a "relationship" (I used the term loosely) with an adult. For others, it is sadly still not old enough.
Whichever, the line is much harder, and rightly so, for those who have children in their care, such as teachers and care workers, which is why relationships between teachers and pupils over the age of legal consent is so strongly discouraged. Those in charge of minors have a legal obligation. Those in charge of young adults, a moral one. Either way, being involved with someone whom reports to you in either the classroom or at work will always raise questions of impartiality and favouritism, and should be avoided by anyone with a sound, logical mind.
Personally? I'd like to see her on the sex offender's register, as she is obivously a danger to minors with views like this.
Expounding them in a (previously?) respectable newspaper makes her all the more so.
If I were her editor, male or female, I'd be telling her to clear her desk.
This is an "adult" (I use the word in the bodily sense only), justifying the emotional and sexual exploitation of a minor. If a man had written it, or voiced views like this, he would rightly be branded as a child abuser for life. By taking this stance using the shield of feminism as a lame excuse for her personal views, she gives not just feminists but all women a bad name. Let's get this straight from the start: Women kill. Women lie. And women also abuse children, just as men do. It's just that society doesn't like to accept this last great taboo, unless it's tested in court.
There are a couple of fundamental assumptions in Ms Ellen's argument, one of which she should know, having been a teenage girl, and one of which she can't, as she's never been a teenage boy.
Firstly, teenage girls are invariably more emotionally and sexually mature for their age than teenage boys. Assuming parity is not reasonable. Therefore a female adult taking advantage of a boy under her protection is actually abusing a child emotiionally younger than her own experience of being that age. She should be acutely aware of this.
Secondly, she assumes that all teenage boys are care free and "up for it" without any consequence; that they all mature at the same rate and age; and come from stable backgrounds. The sexual exploitation of young boys, which she is advocating, does not take into account that there is a significant percentage of boys who have come from home where being sexually, psychologically or emotiionally abused is the norm, whether by a male or female adult, or both. To ignore this fact and just wash it away with a withering, unaccountable and selfish statement that teenage boys are "up for it" speaks volumes of her own inexperience in the world, combined with what I suspect from her writing is a self-centred, narcissistic approach to the responsibilities of being an adult female.
Let's be clear: Promoting the exploitation of any person to whom one is in a superior position, let alone a minor, is utterly unacceptable.
It's what people trafficking, sexual enslavement and paedophilia is based upon. She blithly ignores this fact.
Advocating such views, especially publicly, is morally unacceptable. The line is drawn in law at a fixed age for boys and girls for a reason. For some, it's undoubtedly well past the age where they are capable of handling a "relationship" (I used the term loosely) with an adult. For others, it is sadly still not old enough.
Whichever, the line is much harder, and rightly so, for those who have children in their care, such as teachers and care workers, which is why relationships between teachers and pupils over the age of legal consent is so strongly discouraged. Those in charge of minors have a legal obligation. Those in charge of young adults, a moral one. Either way, being involved with someone whom reports to you in either the classroom or at work will always raise questions of impartiality and favouritism, and should be avoided by anyone with a sound, logical mind.
Personally? I'd like to see her on the sex offender's register, as she is obivously a danger to minors with views like this.
Expounding them in a (previously?) respectable newspaper makes her all the more so.
If I were her editor, male or female, I'd be telling her to clear her desk.
So much utter nonsense in this thread. 
Wrong. The SO Act already defined rape this way and always has, the changes made in 2003 were not related to gender.
What a load of utter tripe. If you browse around extremist sites, then maybe you'll find stuff like this, but it's an absolute tiny minority of people overall. The idea that such views are common amongst feminists is utter bull.
Some Trump supporters are Neo-Nazis. Does that make all Trump supporters Neo-Nazis? Of course not. Just because one feminist spouts an opinion, or performs an action, does not incriminate anyone else who supports the ideology.
Original post by CookieButter
In 2003 feminists in the UK changed the definition of rape to exclude female perpetrators of rape from prosecution for the crime.
Wrong. The SO Act already defined rape this way and always has, the changes made in 2003 were not related to gender.
Original post by CookieButter
Oh its real....things like this are not usually talked about much in the media so not many people are exposed to them but the more you research into feminism the more you are exposed to things like this....believe it or not, trivialising rape of males by females is very common among many many feminists and believe it or not there are feminist beliefs out there that are far far far far far far worse than this...stuff that would make ISIS beliefs look liberal.
What a load of utter tripe. If you browse around extremist sites, then maybe you'll find stuff like this, but it's an absolute tiny minority of people overall. The idea that such views are common amongst feminists is utter bull.
Original post by Dodgypirate
Oh yeah, the infamous "No True Feminist" fallacy.
Some Trump supporters are Neo-Nazis. Does that make all Trump supporters Neo-Nazis? Of course not. Just because one feminist spouts an opinion, or performs an action, does not incriminate anyone else who supports the ideology.
Her opinion is disagreeable (and I'm not surprised the Guardian chose to post it) but I don't think her views are necessarily mainstream feminist.
Though a lot of people do seem to have that opinion. It's even joked about in movies.
Though a lot of people do seem to have that opinion. It's even joked about in movies.
Original post by Dez
So much utter nonsense in this thread.
Wrong. The SO Act already defined rape this way and always has, the changes made in 2003 were not related to gender.
Wrong. The SO Act already defined rape this way and always has, the changes made in 2003 were not related to gender.
You are mistaken.
The UK is one of the few countries around the world where women cannot be charged with the rape of men. This state is influenced by feminist activism.
In 1994 the rape of men was included in the definition for rape by the justice system particularly in cases involving burglary where the words "raping any woman" where exchanged to "raping any person" as a definition for rape in The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. So male victims of rape were included in the definition for rape such that if a female raped a male person she would be charged with rape.
The change (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/pdfs/ukpga_19940033_en.pdf)
Explanation for the changes in 1994 by a feminist paper:
(http://nicolewestmarland.pbworks.com/f/Rape+Law+Reform+in+England+and+Wales+-+Westmarland+2004.pdf)
However, in 2003, and after a decade of feminist activism the changes of 1994 were 'annulled' and the definition for rape was redefined once again as it affects women and to exclude female perpetrators of the crime from prosecution for male rape. The new definition for rape became as follows:
A person (A) commits an offence (of rape) if—
(a) HE intentionally PENETRATES the VAGINA, ANUS or MOUTH of another person (B) with his PENIS,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Thanks to feminist activism the UK remains one of the few countries in the world where a woman cannot be charged with the rape of a man. there are similar examples in 'Israel' and the USA and I would not be surprised if there were other countries (where feminism is institutionalised) were similar sexist changes have been made.
Original post by Dez
What a load of utter tripe.
I did not want to report this post for the rude comments because I thought the points you raised deserved a reply but please be respectful of other people's opinions.
Original post by Dez
If you browse around extremist sites, then maybe you'll find stuff like this, but it's an absolute tiny minority of people overall. The idea that such views are common amongst feminists is utter bull.
Some Trump supporters are Neo-Nazis. Does that make all Trump supporters Neo-Nazis? Of course not. Just because one feminist spouts an opinion, or performs an action, does not incriminate anyone else who supports the ideology.
Some Trump supporters are Neo-Nazis. Does that make all Trump supporters Neo-Nazis? Of course not. Just because one feminist spouts an opinion, or performs an action, does not incriminate anyone else who supports the ideology.
These sexist changes, including the ones in 'Israel' and the USA have been brought about by feminist activism. They were done in the name of feminism. When trying to repair this sexism, one must address its causes, wouldn't you agree?
ISIS is a form of Islamic extremism. Its terrorism is driven by a particular ideology, namely that of Wahabism. The world is fighting ISIS on two fronts now. On the ground and on an ideological level against Islamic wahhabism. one must address the driving force, the ideology behind the terrorism or sexism as is the case with these changes. One must therefore address and condemn feminism for these sexist changes.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jon Reade
A paedophile is a paedophile, regardless of the gender of the offender or the victim.
This is an "adult" (I use the word in the bodily sense only), justifying the emotional and sexual exploitation of a minor. If a man had written it, or voiced views like this, he would rightly be branded as a child abuser for life. By taking this stance using the shield of feminism as a lame excuse for her personal views, she gives not just feminists but all women a bad name. Let's get this straight from the start: Women kill. Women lie. And women also abuse children, just as men do. It's just that society doesn't like to accept this last great taboo, unless it's tested in court.
There are a couple of fundamental assumptions in Ms Ellen's argument, one of which she should know, having been a teenage girl, and one of which she can't, as she's never been a teenage boy.
Firstly, teenage girls are invariably more emotionally and sexually mature for their age than teenage boys. Assuming parity is not reasonable. Therefore a female adult taking advantage of a boy under her protection is actually abusing a child emotiionally younger than her own experience of being that age. She should be acutely aware of this.
Secondly, she assumes that all teenage boys are care free and "up for it" without any consequence; that they all mature at the same rate and age; and come from stable backgrounds. The sexual exploitation of young boys, which she is advocating, does not take into account that there is a significant percentage of boys who have come from home where being sexually, psychologically or emotiionally abused is the norm, whether by a male or female adult, or both. To ignore this fact and just wash it away with a withering, unaccountable and selfish statement that teenage boys are "up for it" speaks volumes of her own inexperience in the world, combined with what I suspect from her writing is a self-centred, narcissistic approach to the responsibilities of being an adult female.
Let's be clear: Promoting the exploitation of any person to whom one is in a superior position, let alone a minor, is utterly unacceptable.
It's what people trafficking, sexual enslavement and paedophilia is based upon. She blithly ignores this fact.
Advocating such views, especially publicly, is morally unacceptable. The line is drawn in law at a fixed age for boys and girls for a reason. For some, it's undoubtedly well past the age where they are capable of handling a "relationship" (I used the term loosely) with an adult. For others, it is sadly still not old enough.
Whichever, the line is much harder, and rightly so, for those who have children in their care, such as teachers and care workers, which is why relationships between teachers and pupils over the age of legal consent is so strongly discouraged. Those in charge of minors have a legal obligation. Those in charge of young adults, a moral one. Either way, being involved with someone whom reports to you in either the classroom or at work will always raise questions of impartiality and favouritism, and should be avoided by anyone with a sound, logical mind.
Personally? I'd like to see her on the sex offender's register, as she is obivously a danger to minors with views like this.
Expounding them in a (previously?) respectable newspaper makes her all the more so.
If I were her editor, male or female, I'd be telling her to clear her desk.
This is an "adult" (I use the word in the bodily sense only), justifying the emotional and sexual exploitation of a minor. If a man had written it, or voiced views like this, he would rightly be branded as a child abuser for life. By taking this stance using the shield of feminism as a lame excuse for her personal views, she gives not just feminists but all women a bad name. Let's get this straight from the start: Women kill. Women lie. And women also abuse children, just as men do. It's just that society doesn't like to accept this last great taboo, unless it's tested in court.
There are a couple of fundamental assumptions in Ms Ellen's argument, one of which she should know, having been a teenage girl, and one of which she can't, as she's never been a teenage boy.
Firstly, teenage girls are invariably more emotionally and sexually mature for their age than teenage boys. Assuming parity is not reasonable. Therefore a female adult taking advantage of a boy under her protection is actually abusing a child emotiionally younger than her own experience of being that age. She should be acutely aware of this.
Secondly, she assumes that all teenage boys are care free and "up for it" without any consequence; that they all mature at the same rate and age; and come from stable backgrounds. The sexual exploitation of young boys, which she is advocating, does not take into account that there is a significant percentage of boys who have come from home where being sexually, psychologically or emotiionally abused is the norm, whether by a male or female adult, or both. To ignore this fact and just wash it away with a withering, unaccountable and selfish statement that teenage boys are "up for it" speaks volumes of her own inexperience in the world, combined with what I suspect from her writing is a self-centred, narcissistic approach to the responsibilities of being an adult female.
Let's be clear: Promoting the exploitation of any person to whom one is in a superior position, let alone a minor, is utterly unacceptable.
It's what people trafficking, sexual enslavement and paedophilia is based upon. She blithly ignores this fact.
Advocating such views, especially publicly, is morally unacceptable. The line is drawn in law at a fixed age for boys and girls for a reason. For some, it's undoubtedly well past the age where they are capable of handling a "relationship" (I used the term loosely) with an adult. For others, it is sadly still not old enough.
Whichever, the line is much harder, and rightly so, for those who have children in their care, such as teachers and care workers, which is why relationships between teachers and pupils over the age of legal consent is so strongly discouraged. Those in charge of minors have a legal obligation. Those in charge of young adults, a moral one. Either way, being involved with someone whom reports to you in either the classroom or at work will always raise questions of impartiality and favouritism, and should be avoided by anyone with a sound, logical mind.
Personally? I'd like to see her on the sex offender's register, as she is obivously a danger to minors with views like this.
Expounding them in a (previously?) respectable newspaper makes her all the more so.
If I were her editor, male or female, I'd be telling her to clear her desk.
If I could thumb your comment up a thousand times I would.
I would also agree 100% that this journalist should be on the sex offenders register....but please read the comments on the article. Nobody is even offended by what she has written. Read the comments left in this thread. Nobody has called out her sexism but you. Had this been a man the entire world would have been turned upside down and feminists would be screaming PATRIARCHY! If it had been a he, he would have most likely been fired. men have been fired for doing far less than this in regards to women.
We live in a sexist culture. I would argue one that is a MATRIARCHY as apposed to a PATRIARCHY.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
