That was the issue. You brought up that gang-rape case in the attempt to dispute my assertion that White women are overprivileged in relation to White men.

I did not. Your idea that I was disputing your assertions is just another example of your attributing most comments as being directed to yourself. If I pointed to this as an instance in which white girls and women were given a raw deal in “White” courts, it is because there are a number of people who have commented on “Feminism” on these pages, and blame every ill in the world on “Feminism.” You say I have no argument, but you are arguing with yourself and your own phantoms.

If I wanted to argue, I would ask where are the blameless white men who are supposed to be protecting their girl children and holding their families together? Maybe at work, or maybe at the Pub? When journalists try to explain these crimes, they say the British people are too scared to say anything for fear of being called “racists.” My God!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344218/Asian-sex-gangs-Culture-silence-allows-grooming-white-girls-fear-racist.html

The point was the lack of justice these women received. You are the one who turned it into a white women’s privilege argument.

That was the issue. You brought up that gang-rape case in the attempt to dispute my assertion that White women are overprivileged in relation to White men.

I promise you that leniency for Muslim gang-rapists does not help the average White male in the slightest. On the contrary, it’s one more way in which the White male is disadvantaged under the current order. Those non-White males are as overprivileged as women.

It’s probably not a coincidence that the last woman who tried to argue that women were not overprivileged also had to resort to talking about Muslims. If that’s the best argument that you can muster, then you have no argument.

Men’s egoism knows no ends, and must be assuaged at all costs. Your comments here are an example: You have stated that white women are over-privileged; you now insist on that in any and every example, with no exceptions. Now you say that white women get shorter prison sentences than white men for the same crimes. But you don’t say how often white women are the victims of violent crimes against them by white men. Yes, it happens. To you, rape doesn’t count. White women are way behind white men in committing violent crimes, and when they do the crimes are usually family centered, meaning they are not a threat to society. While white women in academia and the corporate world may be somewhat over-privileged now due to the influence of social engineering giving preference to minorities, that takes place more in the hiring than in the treatment they receive after being hired.

White men need to put forth their “male dominance” against the enemies of our white societies, not against their own women. What a wimp-out that is! The days when that could be done, when White men ruled all civilized societies, are over. It wasn’t White women who brought about the change – they are just pawns in the game. I say the responsibility lies with White men and all the addictions they have allowed themselves to fall into – TV sports watching, pornography, homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, rejection of religion, living in mother’s basement unmarried.

For those who like to repeat that women have all the advantages in Western society now because of “Feminism”, how about this?

“Gang rape” in “a tough neighborhood outside of Paris” means MUSLIMS.

The overprivileged status of women in Western society today is based on the persistent chivalrous tendencies of White men and the exploitation of that by White women.

I was discussing the matter with a feminist a couple of days ago and she also found it necessary to seek justification by referring to the behavior of Muslims. It has no relevance to the fact that White women today are overprivileged relative to White men, who do not act toward women in any way like Muslims.

Feminism and the lenient sentencing of those Muslim gang-rapists (not to mention their presence in France) are in fact different aspects of the forfeiture of White male dominance.

Greg Johnson’s and the NANR’s view on homosexuality is more like Ancient China than Greece/Rome:

Homosexuality in China at Wikipedia.

For example: “The political ideologies, philosophies, and religions of ancient China regarded homosexual relationships as a normal facet of life, and in some cases, promoted homosexual relationships as exemplary. Ming Dynasty literature, such as Bian Er Chai (弁而釵/弁而钗), has been argued to portray homosexual relationships between men as more enjoyable and more “harmonious” than heterosexual relationships.”

The ancient Greeks and Romans frowned upon a man who was submissive since sex had a power angle: “Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role” (from Wikipedia.

Also, note this from the same article: “By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.[194] “Death by sword” was the punishment for a “man coupling like a woman” under the Theodosian Code.[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology.”

So, homosexuality in Ancient Southern Europe was completely different than what NANR is supporting. And it wasn’t just a “Christian-thing” to look down on men who behaved like women.

Also, Romans/Greeks expected men to marry and have children regardless of whether they enjoyed dominating other men on the side.

The NANR’s view on homosexuality should be considered Oriental or Modern Liberal.