This was a weird one. The heading was ‘Husband’s shocking texts reveal reality of domestic violence‘. Well we might have missed something but the texts didn’t seem shocking and there was nothing showing domestic violence happening or having happened. Is it we or they who are irrational? Or is it a cynical production of a false news story to cash in on the feminist fashion and cater to a market of unthinking bigots who will believe, without critical thinking or careful attention to the body of the article, any headline that fits their beliefs. The editor of the NZ Herald must also have fallen into that category. That list of women’s refuge and support groups must get quite good ratings because many opportunities are made to include it.

The story even gave the name of the woman involved as ‘KrissyKross’; one might think readers would read a bit more critically with that but there you go. The name apparently referred to an anonymous poster on an image-sharing web community, i.e. a site for finding and sharing pictures. The article didn’t even interview the woman or know who she or the accused man were or whether any of it was true. The allegations, not in the texts but in the blog writing by this woman, did not sound credible and there was certainly no evidence provided.

Perhaps the story was invented by the owners of the web site to attract more customers.

The motivation for making these texts public was unclear, even assuming that any such texts ever existed. The woman wrote that she released the texts “years later because the stigma that surrounds women who stay in abusive relationships had kept her silent”. Think about that for a moment. Does that give any reason for releasing the texts? No. The reason for releasing the texts appears to be either that the woman wanted to justify to herself and the world what she previously said and did, or she wanted to put the boot in for a bit more retribution against the man who wronged her, allegedly by being abusive; or both.

So the woman objected to the texts as abusive and wrong, yet she and millions of feminists reading this crap think that a woman making public what was intended to be private and a woman taking it upon herself to add to the punishment meted out by the state are behaviours so moral and ethical as to be lauded.

Is it we or they who are crazy?