Miriam Elder has a problem, a problem with a column somebody published on Russia Today, and it seems that aside from that little piece of writing, what Miriam Elder also has a problem with is: Russia the country, men in general, particular man named Julian Assange (I heard they have are collectively angry at this guy in The Guardian), another man named Vladimir Putin (that's obligatory), and maybe some other things.

The column, (read it before reading the rest of this post) that so enraged Miriam Elder, is about a certain pro-footballer named Ched Evans who appears to had been a victim of a new way of 'progressive' thinking brought to us by our philosophising Feminists. Feminists have thought very long about rape and came to the conclusion that women are unable to give consent to sex when they are drunk, and thus if a man has sex with a drunk woman, that woman can bring that man to court and call him a rapist. The Feminists in the media will do the rest of the job of destroying that man's character.

As for the column itself, it does not appear to be anything particularly radical from pro-male/anti-Feminist advocacy. The author (and it is hard to tell whether it is a man or a woman) does not appear to be from these circles. The author still believes in myths such as the pay gap, and thinks that Feminism is about equal rights. But Feminists have had a monopoly on discourse for several decades now, any critique of Feminism or pro-male advocacy is therefore instantly met with hostility.

I quote Miriam Elder:

When Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans was sentenced to five years in jail last month for raping a 19-year-old woman, the backlash was immediate. Fellow footballers called the victim a "slag". Online commenters spewed vile hatespeak, accusing her of asking for it.

Who can we now add to that list? The Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.#

"Life sucks in a bad way if you happen to live in Britain," begins a column published on the channel's website in the wake of the Evans verdict. "Disclaimer: Only if you are a man of virile age. Being rich and hot-looking makes it worse." What follows is the worst of rape apologia, a litany of excuses, justifications and jokes that women have spent decades fighting against – 1,000 words devoted to proving why Evans, and, indeed, all mankind, is the true victim.

"No allegations of physical force," writes the anonymous author, venting his rage at the verdict. "No coercion … Yet Evans is found guilty." Let readers remember that the court convicted Evans after hearing that his victim was too drunk to consent to sex, that she believed her drink may have been spiked, that she has no memory of the incident.

Because mankind cannot be a victim of injustice, that contradicts the patriarchy theory where men are the oppressors and women are the innocent perennial victims of male injustices. I am also sure that the girl's drinks were spiked, spiked with high levels of alcohol. It is actually normal for heavy drinkers to have blackouts, read any alcoholism prevention publication in your local NHS clinic. It is said in some reports that she downed half a bottle of wine, and some shots. Excuse me, but after this, do not expect to have any recollection of your last night, that cannot be guaranteed.

I could not find any information on how inebriated Mr. Evans was. Nobody is interested in that of course, we should all assume that Evans was completely sober and in complete control of his actions. Miriam Elder appears to suggest that:

But, according to Russia Today, who hasn't? "You can think whatever you like about the moral standing of the three people involved," the Russia Today author writes. "But the last time we checked there was no statute against getting pissed drunk and having a drunken romp. Not in Britain at least. Because if there were, too many lads to count could be accused of statutory rape after many a pint on a Saturday night." 

And that's exactly the point; which the author promptly misses. For it is the God-given right of every man to have his way with whichever woman he chooses: "We live in 2012 when men increasingly have no rights," says the author. "Too many a woman thinks that somehow men are a source of unfairness and trouble in the world."

The author of the Russia Today column never uttered that it is 'the God-given right of every man to have his way with whichever woman he chooses.' Nor has this been uttered on this blog, or any other place that publishes material of pro-male/anti-Feminist nature that I visit. And having read a number of religious texts, I do not know of any such God given right.

But this inference Elder makes speaks more about herself than it does about the anonymous author of that Russia Today column. Because in her Feminist thinking, we live in a rape culture, where predatory men rape one in four women (I do not have to explain that the latter is complete nonsense but Feminists believe in it and promote it). Thus she is completely impervious to the reality that it is, more often than not, the women who do the selection.

Women of course never make a way on an inebriated man in Feminist fantasy thinking. No, that never happens! The reality is that it does happen, and as I say, more often than not. The only difference here is that a man is expected to suck it up the next morning, and women have the privilege of destroying the man they sleep with through courts. But don't you dare speak about that, or you might provoke the wrath of women like Miriam Elder:

Were these but the ravings of a lone internet commenter or the private ramblings of a chauvinist, that would be bad enough. That they are made by someone who presumably considers himself a journalist, behind a cloak of anonymity provided by a channel that likes to frame itself as an "international news organisation" on par with the BBC and al-Jazeera, is another matter entirely.

Chauvinist is a term out of the dictionary of Feminist shaming language. It means any man (women are said to have false consciousness) who dares to speak-up on behalf of men. How dare he?! What she is even more angry about is that Russia Today provided a space for an article advocating on the behalf of men. It is not a blog like this one or some lone comment somewhere, it is an 'international news organisation' that happens to be even more popular than The Guardian. I personally find it commendable that Russia Today ran an article like that, it is about time the mainstream media began to speak about male issues. But Miriam Elder views things differently, she is angered by the fact that the author of the column in question chose to remain anonymous:

I called Russia Today's spokeswoman, Ksenia Bregadze, to see if the channel stood by the author's words. "It's the position of the columnist – it's not a fact that we support it," she said, which doesn't exactly sound like a denial. Why the anonymity of the author? "It's a situation where the author doesn't want his name to be known to all," she said. Is he in Russia? The UK? The US? "I don't even know who he is."

And at the very end of her article:

But that doesn't mean that anonymous authors, promoted by the state, should be allowed to broadcast their hate-filled views to the world without recourse.

It is precisely irrational women like Miriam Elder why people writing pro-male/anti-Feminist advocacy pieces choose to remain anonymous. Notice how she drops the word 'hate-filled', there is nothing hateful in the article Miriam Elder was reacting to. Typical leftist tactics, these idiots attempt to provoke a moral outrage instead of reacting to any arguments made. This can be seen throughout Miriam Elder's piece with her constant usage of Feminist shaming language. Would you like Miriam Elder, and women like her to have their recourse?

Miriam Elder also managed to insert into her rant the obligatory picture of Russians as barbarians who need to be civilised by progressive British Feminists like herself. And she also did not forget The Guardian's in house grudge against Julian Assange. Throughout her post she refers to Russia Today as state owned:

It remains unclear to me whether that was an example of Russia Today's sloppy unprofessionalism or disregard of questions. The channel's latest star is Julian Assange, who has yet to face accusations of sexual coercion in Sweden. 

The state-run channel says it aims to bring viewers "another story", one not told by the so-called mainstream media. In practice, this means bringing viewers the Russian state's point of view. Let's not forget how several years ago, Vladimir Putin, who is due to be inaugurated next week for a third presidential term, once "jokingly" praised former Israeli president Moshe Katsav for being a "strong man" because he "raped 10 women" (Katsav is now serving seven years in prison after being convicted of two counts of rape). "I never would have expected it of him," Putin was reportedly caught saying off-mic during a meeting with then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert when the allegations first came to light in 2006. "He has surprised us all," Putin said. "We envy him!" 

Russia has a woeful record on women's rights in general, and acknowledgement of rape, marital violence and sexual harassment in particular. Once a leader in the feminist struggle, it is now a haven of reactionary thought on gender roles. There are particular historical reasons for that, and a discussion on the trend is just beginning. 

Does anybody remember how it was with Assange's rape allegation? Assange had consensual sex with two women in Sweden who turned out to be mutual friends, and they decided to settle their differences by accusing Assange of rape. I wonder, should Russia Today not have a person on air who had dodgy rape allegation made agaist him by two easy Swedish women?

As for Putin's remarks on Katzav's rape case, my personal opinion is that Putin was mocking the kind of justice that was visited upon unfortunate Moshe Katsav. Here we have a case of a powerful man (and alleged womaniser) getting accused after the actual events when there was no way to find any proof of the allegations. It is a case of a man going to jail on a mere accusations of women. Wonderful isn't it? Although I personally, unlike Putin, think that this here is no laughing matter.

In Russia as anywhere else, rapists are not treated with ignorance. And when I say rapists, I mean genuine rapists, not some normal guys who had one night stand with a slut they met in a bar. I wouldn't say that Russia is a country where there women falsely accusing men don't exist, Russia is far from perfect, and I have heard of such cases, but I guess the Russians have a long way to go to reach the kind of Feminist tyranny that is the West.

The Bolsheviks might had been leaders in female emancipation in their time, but this was First Wave Feminism with some Marxist additions. Nothing compared to the radical Second and Third Wave in the West which has nothing to do with emancipating women but more to do with winning power and privileges over men. Because if in the opinion of Miriam Elder, the Russians are ignorant, then the Westerners are certainly irrationally over-attentive to issues like rape. Is it making the West any more moral or just? I care to differ.