The Pussy Pass is an Old-Fashioned Thing
This story in today’s NZ Herald shows how the pussy pass was the norm 50 years ago. Marjorie Ellingham poisoned food that she served to guests and this was later assumed to be a way of covering up her own suicide. She gave herself much more arsenic than she put in the others’ food, presumably so her death would look like food poisoning that had not killed the others. Apparently, she had been experimenting for some time feeding others doses of arsenic. A young son of her guests ended up dying after eating her arsenic-laced food.
The reaction at the time is mirrored by that of the article’s author 50 years later after she dug up news articles, inquest reports etc about the case. There was a great deal of excusing for this woman’s manslaughter. She was in a “tortured, depressed state”, she “reasoned that she alone would die”, she was actually really caring and considerate in trying to protect her family from the shame of a suicide by making it look like a food poisoning accident, it was never in her plan that a child would die, she was referred to later as a ‘madwoman’, she was a gentle woman who ‘never intended to cause the death of others’, it was the fault of her controlling mother and ‘neurotic’ father, and so on.
But imagine if it had been the father who carried out this poisoning. Most unlikely he would have been shown such understanding. He would have been an idiot placing others at risk with lethal substances, and a selfish bastard for depriving his wife and children of a provider in the first place rather than seeking help responsibly. His suicide would likely have been seen as an act of violent retribution to his wife.
In fact, Mrs Ellingham knew the boy was dying from her poisoning and she could have saved his life by admitting what she had done and with what. Instead she withheld that information and let him die before the doctors were able to identify the toxic agent. Giving arsenic to others at all was always going to place them at risk of serious harm or death and she made the choice to do so. She wasn’t too mad to plot and carry out her plan carefully and systematically over a long period, and she wasn’t too tortured or depressed to graciously host numerous people at her home on frequent occasions. One of her own children was found to have lethal quantities of arsenic in his body that had been administered over a long time, which tends to throw doubt on her assumed considerate intentions.
The pussy pass is the result of longstanding protection and compassion towards females at levels never shown towards males. Such special treatment runs deep and has hardly been dented in the drive to gender equality. The feminists have been silent concerning this form of gender inequality as for many other inequalities that favour women.
Sorry not on topic, but anyone else think Frances new law on prostitution is just a one sided attack against men, we all know that a majority of customers are men and the new law states it will only be illegal to buy ‘not sell’ sex.
So a large majority or offending and punishment will only happen towards men. This policy seems a huge blow to Men’s Rights.
Comment by too tired — Thu 7th April 2016 @ 4:37 am
If you read that in the context of the current immigrant climate in Europe, it is more likely a political knee-jerk against the situation, and the bad look.
France is still a religiously conservative country and very defensive of its tourist image.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 7th April 2016 @ 6:24 am
Thanks for bringing this to our attention ‘too tired’. The duplicitous feminist position on prostitution was discussed here recently, highlighting how ridiculously opposite this is compared to their position when it comes to punishing the providers of abortion services but not the female customers.
Several other European countries have already bowed to irrational feminist demands to criminalize, punish and economically exploit (through fines) the customers of prostitutes but not the prostitutes who sell the service. It’s an incredible example of both the pussy pass and the treatment, the persecution of men as a lower class group.
The feminist arguments include the following:
‘The customers impose sex on the prostitutes through economic power’
Well, perhaps, but exactly the same can be said for most forms of employment. Most working men have little choice economically except to provide paid services to those with the wealth to employ them, often in dangerous, body-wrecking roles. Huge numbers of men are killed or maimed in the jobs they do. Men’s hourly rate for their services is generally much less than what prostitutes are paid for their services. Shall we illegalize the employers of men too, the customers of men’s services? It’s plainly ridiculous.
‘The customers are exploiting the prostitutes’
This is generally silly feminist spin. In fact, the prostitutes are exploiting men’s need for sex in order to profit, earning much more than they could in most other jobs. Prostitutes are quite happy to take money from customers who have become addicted to the novelty of new sexual partners, or to the illusion fostered by the prostitute of a ‘special relationship’ with her. Prostitutes provide a powerful, addictive product. They are the pushers and the customers the victims in the trade. As far as exploitation goes, it’s the customers who need greater protection (nearly all other service industries long ago had such protections imposed on them, but of course it has been seen as unacceptable to try to impose power and control on a mainly woman’s industry). Nevertheless, fundamentally the exploitation of customers’ wallets by prostitutes is no more or less unacceptable than the exploitation of customers’s wallets by any other service provider.
‘Prostitutes are economically forced into continuing their trade’
Sure, economic need forces both men and women to provide paid services in almost every case, and prostitution is no different in that regard. However, many prostitutes choose to do what they do and enjoy relatively high earnings without the need to study for years.
‘Most prostitutes have been trafficked and are forced into providing their service’
This is largely manufactured feminist mythology. Foreign women who choose to move from poorer to richer countries illegally may find prostitution is one of the few ways they can earn money, and it’s a safer way than some of the other alternatives. There may be considerable numbers who move under a false promise of other work, but that applies probably much more often to men. Those women still have a choice whether to remain there illegally or not, and all they need to do usually is walk to the nearest police station to be able to escape from the fraudsters who expect them to work in a way contrary to what was promised. However, it is a fact that when illegal immigrants are caught working as prostitutes they generally claim to have been forced, but it’s surprisingly rare for there to be evidence of this leading to prosecutions for such traffickers. Where sexual slavery occurs there are already strong laws in civilized countries to deal with that. Those laws are more likely to be enforced when it comes to rescuing damsels from bondage than for the much greater number of men trapped in jobs all over the world under threats of violence to repay debts to traffickers or those who sponsored them.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 7th April 2016 @ 9:23 am
Here’s another blatant pussy pass. Yes, if you’re a woman, drink drive repeatedly, assault a police officer, steal police equipment and generally behave disorderly, no worries. You’ll get name suppression so publicity doesn’t upset you and you’ll get a ‘helping sentence’ with no punitive component.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 29th May 2016 @ 5:26 pm