Tuesday, April 21, 2009

My harshest condemnation yet: for the unfathomable misandry displayed by a male college writer

Comment: My comments to the op-ed piece posted below may be the harshest I have written on this site. Read the op-ed piece and decide for yourself if my opinions are warranted. I believe that the publication of this particular op-ed piece is the height of journalistic irresponsibility and tells us everything we need to know about political correctness run amok on our college campuses. When will college students learn they can fight rape without maligning an entire gender? Without pretending men aren't falsely accused of rape?

A Drexel University student who goes by the name Lonnie Snyder -- whom I know nothing about aside from what's written in his op-ed piece -- has seen fit to manufacture a clearinghouse of irrationalities to support his blithe, cavalier rejection of "Nicole's" recantation in the much publicized Philippines rape case where Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, a man not much older than I suspect Mr. Lonnie Snyder is, has been sentenced to serve out decades in prison for a putative rape his accuser now says never occurred.

As we've previously reported here, Nicole's recantation was set forth in a very rational, thoughtful affidavit that manifests what can only be called a guilty conscience. A guilty conscience is not something that the extremist wing of the feminist community can understand, given that it is premised on the existence of right and wrong, a truth separate and apart from their own ideological, narcissistic whims and desires. Nicole's affidavit says she doesn't think it is fair that a young man is rotting away in prison based on a sexual encounter that was confusing and that, she fears, sent him mixed signals. Nicole isn't sure if it was rape, and in a just and rational world, that should be enough to free the young man.

How does Mr. Lonnie Snyder react to this affidavit? He rejects it out of hand by invoking the most inane speculation, the wildest surmise and the most asinine conjecture.

Nicole had "courage" to initially report the rape and to put herself through the court proceeding, Mr. Lonnie Snyder declares. But then, deus ex machina, Mr. Lonnie Snyder plops a conclusion on the page that might just as well have fallen from outer space. Mr. Lonnie Snyder leaps, bounds and soars to the conclusion that Nicole's recantation can only be accounted for by outside pressures, interference or threats by third parties.

Of course, this childish speculation is factually incorrect as shown by a cavalcade of innumerable rape claim recantations cited on this website; recantations where, objectively, the evidence simply did not support the claim in the first place.

I would be curious as to what outside pressures Mr. Lonnie Snyder thinks "got to" Nicole. The U.S. military? The Philippines government? UFOs? Bigfoot? Mercifully, Mr. Lonnie Snyder doesn't bother to tell us -- because, of course, he can't tell us.

Mr. Lonnie Snyder proceeds to demonstrate that he is astoundingly uninformed when it comes to the legalities of rape. He writes: "When the woman, 'Nicole,' made her statement rescinding her rape accusation, she said, 'She had been kissing and drinking with [him] … [she] may have in fact have been so friendly and intimate with [him]' that things got carried away. I maintain that this is not her fault. I have been taught that consensual sex requires that I ask whether a woman is OK with a sexual act, then give her time to respond. If I feel like she is not OK, then I stop initiating sex." (Emphasis supplied.)

Mr. Lonnie Snyder has been taught wrong. Consent does not "require" a verbal manifestation of assent. Consent is any manifestation of assent to enter into sexual relations. It can be expressed by conduct as well as words, and it can be shown from all the surrounding circumstances. The test is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would understand that consent has been given. The woman’s secret, undisclosed intentions, desires or whims, and her ex post facto, false and belated, after-the-fact hissy fits of regrets, are of no import; all that matters are her external, objective manifestations of assent at the time of the act.

Then Mr. Lonnie Snyder regales us with his views on rape in general, which could have been copied verbatim from the most virulent anti-male radical feminist's playbook. "I think that the most important thing we can do to help a rape survivor is to believe them," he ejaculates. Rape is, after all, "one of the most underreported crimes in this country." And: "In the U.S. there is an epidemic of sexual harassment or assault - and most of it isn't reported. This means that these silent victims will live forever with the internal stigma, shame and psychological aftermath of a traumatic experience without ever getting help. These people are truly alone."

On and on he blathers, one feminist mantra cascades atop the next until they collapse upon one another to form a sort of Rorschach inkblot of unmistakable misandry. It's all here: women might lie about everything under the sun but, mirabile dictu, the subject of rape acts as a truth serum that forces anyone not possessing a Y-Chromosome to speak incontrovertible truth. When it comes to rape, one gender is incapable of telling a lie while the other is incapable of telling anything but lies. Except, of course, when the woman recants her rape claim -- in that instance, she automatically reverts to being a liar -- double-X chromosome be damned. Mr. Lonnie Snyder also trots out the canard that rape is rampant because of underreporting. We know that rape is rampant because no one is reporting all these rapes that must be occurring, which proves, of course, that rape is rampant. Get it? Neither does anyone else.

And when Mr. Lonnie Snyder automatically believes every rape claim, by necessity, he brands every male ever accused of rape a "rapist." Without a scrap of evidence having been admitted at trial, every male ever accused of rape is guilty in the court of last resort, the op-ed pages of Drexel University's student newspaper. To hell with the fact that upwards of half of all rape claims, or more, are likely false, as shown by objectively verifiable data. In fact, every unbiased study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a very serious problem. Every single one. But why let the facts get in the way of a good feminist victim metanarrative? Anyway, don't blame Mr. Lonnie Snyder for not knowing about the countless men who have been falsely accused -- after all, his feminist mentors never mentioned them, did they? Mr. Lonnie Snyder would do well to spend a couple of days reviewing the true-life accounts of the falsely accused on this website before he writes another op-ed piece. And when he reads their stories, maybe he'll think to himself about these "silent victims [who] will live forever with the internal stigma, shame and psychological aftermath of a traumatic experience without ever getting help. These people are truly alone."

Mr. Lonnie Snyder's piece never should have found its way inside this newspaper; it frankly seems to have been written so that Mr. Lonnie Snyder's other piece could find its way inside some hot feminist who buys into this horseshit. I have no patience for feminists who treat men accused of rape as flotsam, and even less for college men who regurgitate vile feminist shibboleths when it comes to false rape claims. Young men like Mr. Lonnie Snyder live their lives in blissful ignorance, unaware that, as a young, Y-Chromosome carrying member of the human race, it could be him rotting away in a jail cell on the other side of the planet. He does a disservice to all falsely accused young men who are victims of this most foul circumstance, and he should be ashamed of himself.

HERE IS THE OP-ED PIECE:

Does society have a 'blame the victim'mentality?

Lonnie Snyder
Issue date: 4/17/09 Section: Ed-Op

I was reading The Wall Street Journal recently and I came across an article that really bothered me - a woman from the Philippines, who originally claimed she had been raped by a U.S. marine, has rescinded her rape accusation.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, "It wasn't clear why the woman identified as Nicole in court papers, recanted her testimony in a sworn in statement."

After reading that very statement, my head filled with questions and theories. Why would a person suddenly decide that she had not been raped, especially since a court ruling declared that she had indeed been raped in 2005? I wondered if there was outside pressure that caused her to recant her statement.

I find it hard to believe that a victim would just change her story without interference, or possibly a threat. I think society unfairly blames the victims of sexual assaults more than they blame the aggressors. I believe that if a person says he or she was raped, then that is exactly what we should believe.

From listening to survivors of rape and sexual assault, the hardest part of reporting a rape or sexual assault is telling your friends, because friends might not believe an assault took place. I might add, these people are both male and female survivors. I think that the most important thing we can do to help a rape survivor is to believe them. This holds essential since rape is one of the most underreported crimes in this country. Many in the criminal justice community estimate the amounts of sexual assaults that actually occur to be over double the amount that are reported.

Think for a moment what this means: In the U.S. there is an epidemic of sexual harassment or assault - and most of it isn't reported. This means that these silent victims will live forever with the internal stigma, shame and psychological aftermath of a traumatic experience without ever getting help. These people are truly alone.

Further, I really don't like to hear that a person is being pressured to deny that she was raped, as is the case with the woman in the Philippines. I respect that she had the courage to initially report this and go through all the long court proceedings in 2005. She and the accused man were said to have been out to a dinner and a club the night of the rape.

When the woman, "Nicole," made her statement rescinding her rape accusation, she said, "She had been kissing and drinking with [him] … [she] may have in fact have been so friendly and intimate with [him]" that things got carried away.

I maintain that this is not her fault. I have been taught that consensual sex requires that I ask whether a woman is OK with a sexual act, then give her time to respond. If I feel like she is not OK, then I stop initiating sex. I have learned this through my membership in the group One in Four at Drexel. Of course, when alcohol is involved, everything is different. I know in Pennsylvania, you cannot consent to have sex if you are intoxicated. I do not know what the law is in the Philippines, but I still think that the male in question was wrong to initiate sex if he saw that she was intoxicated. I encourage more students to read up on this issue and to take a stand.

Getting involved doesn't mean you have to drop everything and march on Washington, or spend hours defending your position at a legislative meeting. If you are looking for some way to speak out against sexual assault or rape, Drexel frequently hosts many speakers on the topic. There are organizations to advocate the restriction of domestic violence and/or sexual assault. But even if these measures seem like too much for you, you can make a difference on your own as well. If you hear some of your friends joking about rape, I encourage you to explain to them that it is actually very hurtful, not funny, to both men and women.

Link: http://www.thetriangle.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=0f1084e5-a214-4afd-8683-973edf2a21d1