Think it’s time, in the light of posts today, to make comment. As with most bloggers, I post as issues come up. Who knows what the next one will be? However, there are certain attitudes I take into this posting all the same.
# Anything coming from a politician or from a PCist on the left is to be treated with the greatest scepticism until shown to be right by corroboration from trusted sources;
# In any crime or untoward situation involving men and women, my very first instinct is to explore the woman’s actions in the matter. No doubt the media will take care of exploring that of the man and that can be put on the table as well.
My prime text on this is Agatha Christie’s:
“That is natural, mon ami. As for me, I am not so sentimental about beautiful young ladies,” said Poirot. – from “After the Funeral”, 1953
My own life experience is a bit different. In hindsight, there’s nothing really I have to complain about, hence you’d rarely see me going on about crimes of women in my past. Methinks it was a case of give as good as you got. I’ve only been taken to the cleaners twice and in both cases, I should have seen it coming. Didn’t excuse them but in my eyes, that’s just the nature of the beast.
So my hostile attitude towards certain women stems from other cases.
The very first one and one I blogged on in my early days, was that of Wayne Carey [footballer] and Kelli Stevens downunder. In this, it was the injustice which got me. He’s an animal, a loverat who broke up his family from philandering and was one half of the cheating with his best mate’s wife.
What got Australia at the time is that the cuckolded man, Anthony Stevens, was in hospital from a work incident at Carey’s pub involving broken glass and he nearly lost his life. Carey visited the hospital with Kelli Stevens and Anthony suspected nothing. Why would he? His wife was pregnant [supposedly by him] and here was his best mate driving her to the hospital.
You know what I’m going to write. Yep, they were having it on, those two. Australia was outraged because this broke the whole “mateship” pact and it raged for weeks and months. However, what no one was speaking of was her role – she was getting off scot-free in the shadow of the erring celeb.
To me, the real dog’s act was hers. Let me speak plainly, if anatomically:
While she had her own man’s child inside, she was allowing another man inside. You might find that acceptable behaviour, par for the course, especially if you’re one of these modern young swingers but I’m afraid I beg to differ.
She was caught by stupidly going into a loo after Carey at a team birthday dinner. At the time, I wrote this many times to the papers and there was some support for my contention that she was the lowlife but most were still solely down on him.
Warne was at it at the time too.
Then in late 2007 came Knox and Sollecito and once again, I was amazed how people got behind her because a. she was female and b. she had a certain prettiness to her. To say she was innocent at that time was just as rubbish as me saying she was guilty, as it had not all come out by that stage – the bulk of the evidence came later.
So, in order to be against Knox, I had to be for Meredith and the seven other girls, plus the two housemates. Therefore, gender does not enter this question but her massive support does enter it.
These were the two issues which did it in my case – there was such injustice and women were getting off lightly because of what they were that any other issue which came up I began to see in this disgruntled light. Until then, I’d have read it, looked at the ceiling and moved on.
Fellow bloggers and the MSM were now bringing up all sorts of cases where a woman was killing someone or accusing someone of rape and they were getting off scot-free yet again. So you see how all this is coming together. There was that one of the girls in the States who took a taxi ride and when he asked for the money, they got nasty and accused him of rape to the police. Yet again, they got off scot free – he was just exonerated, that was all.
At this point, I kept going back to my own experience of women which had not been like this. WN1, for example, was eminently fair and though her woman’s logic had me nonplussed many times, in hindsight she was fine. My dear mother was also that way – difficult to get a line on at times but still my mother at the end of the day.
So, what was going on here? It became slowly apparent that the type of women who are lowlifes are the type who do things and they get into the papers. Therefore, many others one never hears about are fine, upstanding, lovely souls. At least, that’s how I rationalized it.
Then came the Falconio case, the Chamberlain case revisited, the McCanns and by now, if anyone showed evidence of the female’s guilt, I’d think it quite possible, pending corroboration. There was no blockage in my mind that a pretty girl could never do something dastardly.
However, if no corroboration came, then it lapsed.
When the investigators let Joanne Lees off scot-free, in favour of a sole perpetrator, despite quite probing questions still unresolved about Ms Lees to this day, that was outrageous. When someone came to me for support some years back, it was not her story which convinced me but the corroborating prime sources. And so on.
Some people confuse this with the chivalry question. I’ll be chivalrous to any woman in real life and am but that doesn’t mean I believe everything she says and doesn’t mean I think her guiltless in all respects. Life doesn’t work that way.
Hell, the number of times I supported my wife/gf and she was not right would fill a book. Doesn’t mean I hate her, doesn’t mean I’m a womanphobe because I’m patently not – it just means I don’t buy her stories lock, stock and barrel.
So that’s the background to this attitude and next time an issue comes up, e.g. Jodi Arias or Casey Anthony, then first instinct is to go through her story with a fine tooth comb. Then I’ll look at the other aspects after that.