Attack Of The Lying Breastapo Feminazis: Why, Of Course, It’s All Men’s Fault

By James Delingpole: My Emma ‘Mattress Girl’ Sulkowicz award for services to third wave feminism goes this week to Caroline Starmer - a breast-feeding mother whose baby was viciously snatched from her bosom by a security guard at a budget clothing store in a clear case of criminal assault.

Except, of course, it didn’t happen.

Caroline Starmer was not assaulted by the security guard in much the same way as “Jackie” (the anonymous victim of the UVA campus rape story) was not raped as part of an initiation rite during a chapter house party, as actorvist Lena Dunham was not raped at Oberlin College by a Republican called Barry and, indeed, as Sulkowicz herself was almost certainly not raped at Columbia university.

What is it with these crazy chicks?

Well I think I know the answer and it’s one, I’m pretty sure, that all the crazy chicks out there are going to agree wholeheartedly: basically it’s all the fault of men.

Up until recently, you may recall, we lived in a universe entirely run in the interests of the oppressive patriarchal phallocracy. Men made all the rules, men started all the wars (because they think fighting’s cool), men would insist on showing off in that pathetic male way of theirs by writing most of the best literature, composing the best music, painting the best paintings, inventing all sorts of ostentatious blokey toys like the internal combustion engine, the television, the internet, the aeroplane, the printing press and so on. And frankly it just wasn’t fair.

So something had to be done to correct the hideous gender imbalance. And if you buy into the above analysis of historical male domination – as how dare you not? – then there can only be one possible explanation as to why things have since shifted so markedly in women’s favour. It happened because men allowed it to happen.

Some of you may disagree. Not it wasn’t men who were responsible for this: it was manginas (or manginae, for you Latin scholars) who are another thing altogether.

I hear what you say but I still call that nitpicking. Yes it’s true that the kind of hipster-bearded pussy or agonisingly worthy comedy writer on Twitter who dedicates his miserable, spavined, testicle-free life to waving his limp penis on behalf of porcine female social justice Amazons with studs through their lower lip (and God knows where else besides) in the belief that this will ingratiate himself with the opposite sex ought theoretically have abandoned all claims to being a man.

But biologically he is still a man in the same way that Caitlyn is, au fond, still Bruce. And the same goes, I’m afraid, for all those other manginae in positions of authority who sold the pass over the years by doing suicidal things like appointing Alison “yes, he probably raped you” Saunders as Britain’s Director of Prosecutions or failing to fact check highly tendentious rape stories in Rolling Stone or neglecting to give a fair hearing – that’ll be you, Michael Arthur, provost of University College London – to distinguished Nobel-prize-winning scientists viciously maligned by feminazi harpies on false charges of “sexism.”

In allowing the terms of the debate to be set by vengeful and hysterical extremists, these men have not served the cause of ordinary women one jot. Rather they have done the equivalent of what PJ O’Rourke calls “giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boys.” And it’s women who stand to suffer most in the resulting crash.

As an example, let’s examine in more detail the story of this Caroline Starmer, the mother who went into her local branch of Primark with her baby daughter, and there concocted the allegation that she had been assaulted by a “sneering” security guard who had supposedly objected to her public breast-feeding. She reported the incident to the police claiming it had left her in “excruciating pain.” Had this been true, of course, it would have caused costly reputational damage to Primark and almost certainly resulted in a custodial sentence for the offending security guard.

But it has since emerged in a court case that Starmer made the whole thing up.

And it wasn’t the first time, either. For some reason, this doesn’t appear in the Telegraph’s online report of the case, only in the print version. But here are the details:

Starmer had made a similar allegation on Facebook against her local swimming pool. She wrote “disgusted that they tried to remove me from the premises for breast feeding my twins” in a one star review of the Leicester Leys leisure centre.
Leicester council strongly denied that Starmer had ever made a formal complaint about the incident. Leicestershire police also confirmed that the incident had not been reported to them.

You might argue that besides Primark, Leicester Leys leisure centre, and that unnamed security guard, the other victim of this sorry saga is Starmer herself.

At the risk of judging a book by its cover, I’d say that she doesn’t look like the brightest tool in the box. And the fact that it seems never to have occurred to her that security camera footage might subsequently be used to verify her allegations probably confirms it.

So here we have a not very bright mother-of-four facing a possible jail sentence for perverting the cause of justice as a result of being goaded and encouraged by the prevailing culture of feminist grievance and hysteria into committing a crime which a few years ago would have been literally unthinkable.

A generation ago she might have chained herself harmlessly to the fence at Greenham Common; three generations ago, perhaps she would have chained herself harmlessly to some railings in support of the Suffragette movement. (Or perhaps not. She wouldn’t have stood the chance of being compensated for assault, would she? Also, no men would have been hurt).

No. The crime Starmer committed was entirely a product of our “rape culture” culture where vengeful feminists stalk the land like tyrannosaurs with a bad case of PMT looking for some new non-cause to screech about, some hapless fall-guy (scientist, security guard, student, solicitor: anything in trousers will do) to eviscerate, while the manginae responsible for creating this Jurassic World III: Revenge of the Terratrixes look on with a mix of awe, fear, and smug, “I’m a white knight, me” satisfaction.

I suggested earlier that Starmer was stupid but maybe she isn’t. Maybe, as with semi-celebrity feminist crusaders Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, her appallingly dishonest behaviour was in fact a perfectly rational response to a world where the rules have now been skewed so grotesquely in the feminazis favour that it scarcely matters whether the claims they make are true or false: the authorities would hardly dare question the world of a wronged woman for fear of being deemed sexist.

It’s just as well that closed circuit TV was working in Primark that day. Otherwise who knows what might have happened. An innocent man could be in prison right now. Which is more than reason enough, it seems to me, for the judge in this trial to give Caroline Starmer a sentence the sisterhood won’t forget in a hurry.

Source