The Princess Mentality Continues?
Apparently, this woman in Britain can get away with attacking two men and leaving one of them scarred with no repercussions because, according to the judge, she is a good mom (via Dean Esmay):
Rebecca Bernard has 51 previous convictions for crimes including violence and threatening behaviour.
She led an all-girl gang that brought terror to their town and has been the subject of two Asbos for making her elderly neighbours’ lives a misery.
You might have thought that when the 23-year-old attacked two innocent men in a nightclub with a champagne bottle, a custodial sentence would be inevitable.
But she walked free from court after a judge decided she was a good mother to her three young childrenIn the latest drink-fuelled assault, Bernard smashed a bottle over one victim’s head then stabbed the other in the arm with its jagged neck.
A court heard she launched the attack because she believed, wrongly, that the men were laughing at her..
The article mentions that Bernard is mentally ill, but if she is so mentally ill that she beats men and abuses the elderly, how great can she be? And if a good mother gets off scott-free, what about good dads? Sadly, with our courts and the media, they probably believe there aren’t any. Their take? Most moms are princesses, all men are dicks.
Women’s violence is also frequently by proxy (getting other men to do it for them). They get away with that as well, because they can make it seem deniable. The right crime for passive aggressive people!
I read a story on the Drudge Report about a women who thought that two guys in a bar were giving her gang signs. So she went over and started giving them gang signs back. They just seemed to ignore her, so she went out and got a bunch of men in a gang to come back in and beat the living crap out of them.
It turned out that the two men were completely deaf and were communicating by sign language. They were simply confused when the woman came over and started making weird signs.
Another funny thing: Some feminist Web sites talk about women getting disproportionately higher sentences than men for the same crime. I can only read that and shake my head. Real statistics don’t interest them at all.
I mean funny in the sense of “odd” above. I don’t think two men getting beat up for no reason is funny.
man assaults anybody he likes for years, then smashes a bottle over the head of a woman giggling nearby
he then stabs the woman’s female companion with a shard from the bottle
result: judge praises him as a “good father” and sends him back to his community
what would the communitiy’s response be? we know that, they’d demand his long incarceration as a habitual criminal (not that ANY judge would have released a male under such circumstances)
similar scenarios happen every day all across the western world
this is tyranny — one class of persons whose citizenship, in every measurable category, is superior to the citizenship of the underclass (males)
there isn’t even an ATTEMPT at “equity before the Law” because the Law is a woman’s tongue
that is tyranny, and purposeful infliction of terror upon an entire class of people (males)
this incident isn’t reflective of “princess mentality” so much as indicitive of the unassaiable fact that Princess (females) rules the western world, operating as a slaveholding Master Class all across the planet
the constant screeches about “oppression of women” and lack of “equality” have long since been exposed as feeble covers for malevolent, sadistic, selfish, vengeful behavior that is constantly either encouraged or supported by our satanic, matriarchal nations
thx for the piece
That’s not a Princess.
That’s a Skank. Different beasts entirely.
Unfortunately, this particular, persistent outcome of Female Supremacism is enabled by people on both sides of the political spectrum. The Right likes to pretent they’re not feminist, yet still demands chivalry and promotes the notion that women aren’t responsible for their own decisions.
I think there are two issues here.
The first is that the British system of criminal just has gone off the rails, IMO. In the case of the British bus driver who intentionally struck a bicyclist with his bus (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/video-bus-driver-smashes-into-bike-7034204.html), the penalty was just 17 months. Seventeen months? For attempted vehicular homicide?
The second issue is an old story. Women are almost always given lighter sentences for the same crimes. The only exception is that women who kill their children get a heavier penalty than men who commit the same crime. Other than that, women tend to skate. See http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2870.html.
Having raised four sons, I can tell you that the latter bias permeates all the way down to the elementary schools. When my second son was in the second grade, there was a little girl who had a crush on him. He made the mistake of telling her that he didn’t like her while at the top of the slide. She head-butted him off the ladder and he fell the ground. Oh yeah. The head-butt knocked out his two front teeth. She got a 15-minute time out. He got sent to the school office because, and I quote, “You’re not allowed to bleed on the playground.” So he missed all of recess and she sat down for 15 minutes.
Conduct a thought experiment and tell me what would have happened if my son had head-butted the second grade girl off the slide with the same results.
“Having raised four sons, I can tell you that the latter bias permeates all the way down to the elementary schools. When my second son was in the second grade, there was a little girl who had a crush on him. He made the mistake of telling her that he didn’t like her while at the top of the slide. She head-butted him off the ladder and he fell the ground. Oh yeah. The head-butt knocked out his two front teeth. She got a 15-minute time out. He got sent to the school office because, and I quote, “You’re not allowed to bleed on the playground.” So he missed all of recess and she sat down for 15 minutes.”
Can you sue the school over there?
Is this new? The first thing Ann Coulter wrote, right out of law school, was a review of a collection of feminist legal writing. One of the things she pointed out was an article that pointed with approval to a British rule that a woman who killed her child within a year of birth could not be convicted for murder because of post-partum issues.
The obvious question is that if women who give birth are incapable of not killing their children, why are they allowed to drive – or vote? Come to think of it, why are they allowed near children?
It’s depressing enough that people argue with straight faces that: 1) women are superior, and 2) cannot be accountable for their actions. Most rationale people see the contradiction in that. (personally, I think it is more demeaning to women to argue that being female means one is not culpable, like children aren’t culpable.)
What is downright dangerous is when the entire federal government makes laws and social mechanisms supporting both contradictory premises. Politicians spend half their time telling women how wonderful they are and how much they are entitled to, and the other half telling them how bad they have it and how it is never their fault. And they vote for such politicians in droves. Women have no idea how much they have been manipulated in their anger towards men for political and economic gain.
I hate it when men whine like women. Men run the world. If you’re pussy-whipped, it’s your fault, not her’s.
Go to your place of employment and let women know who the boss is, and that you aren’t a whiner like they are. You’ll quickly find out that the people in supposedly powerful positions aren’t necessarily the ones wielding the power. Hope you have a good resume. You’d need it.
So mean should act like bullies? If they did, women wouldn’t have a chance.
So men should act like bullies? If they did, women wouldn’t have a chance.
Comment Monster is either a woman or a man who is headed for a very big fall.
So they basically treated her like a very young child, too innocent and immature to be accountable for her actions. Don’t feminists get angry when men treat women like children? Oh yeah, that’s only when it’s politically expedient.
In times of total war, women don’t have any power aside from men protecting them from other men. Take what Japanese soldiers did in China, for instance. Or what has occurred throughout history. I would not pay attention to the falsehoods of feminism were this not a time of relative peace in the western world. Feminists never say a word about what is done to women in the Muslim world. They never ban together, hop on airplanes and fly over there to protest braless and nude from the waist up, marching with banners down the streets of major cities in the Muslim world, freeing their sisters. They’d die, and they know it. Women only hit men that won’t hit them back. Or in cultures that if they do hit them back, they go to jail. They only go to war against those they know they can defeat. The ones who, for some reason, allow them to win.
They never say a peep about the atrocities in the Muslim world because there is no (liberal) political gain from it.
They also didn’t say much about how many women Bill Clinton destroyed because there would have been a (liberal) political cost to it.
Most people are unaware of the millions women who have had their vaginas rendered incapable of sexual pleasure by crude cutting tools, but there is no (liberal) political gain to this information.
But, we convened federal hearings, mobilized most of the national press, and had 24/7 news coverage over the possibility that Anita Hill may haven been subject to (gasp) words she didn’t like by Clarence Thomas. But there was (liberal) political gain to be had.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/08/world/asia/afghanistan-public-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Where’s the outrage, fembots? Crickets……..
They’ll manufacture outrage over nothing if there is (liberal) political gain while snoozing through real atrocities.
A friend of mine did make the point that in the UK it does seem like they’re less likely to incarcerate in general, but I have to respond by noting that it’s now a matter of policy that women be treated more leniently there:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html
I’d like to see Leilani Rectors response to this. She was crying out loud that there are good american/white women and that we men should look for them. Her silence on this alone shows that her claims of her being good were total horseshit.
There are many ways to “Go Galt”.
Refusing to “commit” to one sided and unfair relationships is certainly one way.
Reserving gallant behavior for those few who recognize and reciprocate, rather than demanding it as an obligation is another.
There is a scene where a man was reprimanded for holding a door for a woman by her saying, “don’t hold that door for me because I am a lady.” To which his response was. “Not to worry, I am holding it because I am a gentleman.” I will resist the attempts by others to change who I am.
Last time I held a door for a lady she informed me curtly that her arm was not broken.
So I let the door go. She darn near had a broken nose.
Now I only hold the door if a man is present.
I don’t believe that men, exclusively, should hold the door for women, exclusively. That attitude treats men as servants just as it treats women as helpless victims. I think ALL people should hold the door for ALL people, just out of common courtesy. That woman should have told you, “Thank you,” and then she should have held the next door for YOU. (You wouldn’t have a problem with that, would you?) That way, she’d be appreciating your kindness and showing that she’s not above showing some to you in return.
3 kids = £200,000 (not a typo, see [1]) per year per head to keep in a British kids’ home = £600,000 per year, most likely until they are 18 if she goes to jail for any length of time.
Say they are under 8(probably even younger), make that around 30 years care, so that’s a cool £6 million the judge saved the tax coffers here.
Plus, he did the kids a real life-saving favor and kept them out of kiddie hell — even a crazy, violent mother is not as dangerous to them are those children ‘homes’ (also see [1])
So, sadly most likely not the princess bonus(which would be relatively trivial to fix), but the only rational choice amongst the irrational options that a hopelessly broken system ‘offers’.
[1] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jennymccartney/100169230/the-child-care-home-system-is-as-great-a-national-scandal-as-the-banking-crisis/
That is a fabricated dichotomy. Removal of the children and placement in foster homes is another option.
Foster homes are in very short supply, due to the removal of anyone unsuitable from the list: smokers, fatties, Christians, people who are deemed ‘too old’ and other politically incorrect rabble, not to mention the many people who cannot be bothered to go through the Gestapo-style process detailing ones’ life minutely and checking for the right attitude before being accepted as a foster parent.
Personally I think we should have deferred sentences — she should be sentenced to the normal tariff now, with 20% off if she behaves herself until her children are of age, and with extra time added on if she doesn’t, to commence one week after her last child’s 18th birthday.
So, solution number three is less available. That does not negate my statement about it’s existence and so it’s still a false dichotomy. There are at least three options, regardless of one’s thoughts and feelings about them.
Not every children’s home poses danger to its occupants. It’s a statistical argument and statistics simply don’t apply to individuals (people or establishments) except as an abstract *potential*.
There’s no real potential involved when discussing this woman. She’s a known, dangerous person who has repeatedly demonstrated the lack of ability to discern actual threat (fifty-friggin-one previous convictions).
By the way, I’m fully aware the UK and US children’s services are screwed up, but I would promote that this woman has shown she is screwed up even more by her own history.
For these specific children, a children’s home would present the lesser danger.
I forgot to mention that
a) princess bonus does exists, and in this instance it is ever more perfidious since the children are in essence hostages here – she can do what she wants for now whilst there is no dad or other family to protect the kids.
b) always follow the money… for example, why was this woman not helped when there still was time to do so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9392192/Psychopath-murdered-teenage-girl-in-park-after-health-services-refused-to-section-her.html — and then had the book thrown at her? It’s in essence another variant of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ — maybe some stranger will pay the price, but for now, our budget remains in bounds.
The mess gets worse, the closer you look at it!
Crystal Gail Mangum falsely accused three Duke lacrosse team members of rape. Nothing happened to her.
Sometime later she got mad at her boyfriend, assaulted him, bashed up his car and set his clothes on fire in the bathtub which threatened to burn down the house. Her three children were in the house and it was one of them who called the police. She was let off with time served and given back her children because the judge thought she was a “good mother”.
She subsequently stabbed and killed (this fact does not seem to be in dispute) her next boyfriend and she’s now in prison awaiting trial. Let’s see if the criminal justice system will finally act.
I guess Rebecca Bernard will have to kill someone before she’s locked up, but maybe not even then.
Many Moons ago I was in court for a probation violation. The court was packed with mostly duded and the judge was ripping into everybody that went before the stand. I mean like saying stuff like we were worthless and didn’t deserve to live. But then the one girl that was caught writing a bad check. The judge asked her why she wrote the check and of course she said it was to buy baby formula and diapers. And then she busted out balling crying. And the judge with a trembling hand wiped a tear away from his eye and said, “I can’t imagine if my daughter was in such dire situation that she had write bad check to feed her children. I’m going to suspend your sentence and get you back home where you can do what you need to do to take care of your children.” And then the next guy comes up and he’s right back to fire and brimstone. She was walking out the court room all happy smiles and I’m like jeez wish I was a girl, they seem to get away with everything.
Neat article, I’ve been interested in internet security mechanisms for a few years now.