Have you been following the Duke rape case?
You say you don't know what I'm talking about? Hmm. Read this and ask yourself if it's not something you would expect to have heard about: "Frank Lombard, associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy, has been accused of molesting his adopted five-year-old African-American son and offering him up for sex with strangers on the Internet." Duke’s homosexual rape case elicits silence.
We must state at the outset that Professor Lombard is like every other person accused of rape discussed on this website: presumed innocent and entitled to his day in court. We will not presume his guilt here, and we write this post only to highlight an important truth about how we, as a society, view rape.
Mike Adams explains at Town Hall: "University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a 'perv dad for fun.' The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son."
Now doesn't this allegation strike you as even more serious than the case that embroiled three young, white "privileged" Duke lacrosse players in a year-long media maelstrom over an alleged rape of a black stripper that never happened and that should have been dismissed almost immediately after the complaint was filed? Wouldn't you expect to see protests calling for Professor Lombard's castration, and multiple liberal arts professors signing a petition supporting the noble protesters, as happened with the lacrosse boys?
Why is there none of that here?
Could it be because, as Mike Adams notes, Prof. Lombard is gay? Could it be that Prof. Lombard's alleged act is not viewed as an exercise of hyper-masculine white male privilege and, therefore, is unworthy of our scorn?
"The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement." Duke’s homosexual rape case elicits silence.
Isn't a small, defenseless boy deserving of our outrage every bit as much as an adult stripper? The fact that we are more willing to muster outrage for the latter than the former tells us boatloads about how we, as a people, view rape. Sadly, rape is more than just a crime in our culture; rape has become a rallying cry, a politicized symbol of oppression bigger than any crime. The outrage over it is has been channeled, and organized, and it's wielded to level perceived gender, race and class privilege.
The problem is that when rape is politicized, it is all too easy to lose sight of the fact that a real flesh-and-blood victim, who doesn't care if his or her rapist is gay, straight, rich or even female, has been subjected to a vile assault.
The problem is that when rape is politicized, it is all all too easy to presume guilt because the alleged rapist fits a "type" in the official rape metanarrative, as happened with the Duke lacrosse case, and as has happened throughout our history to countless minority men and boys.
The problem is that when rape is politicized, perpetuation of ideology becomes more important than eradicating rape. The persons doing the politicizing insist, for example, that women don't lie about rape when, in fact, they do, so that the problem of false accusations is permitted to fester. Every law enforcement official candidly admits that false accusations hurt real rape victims, yet the persons who control the public discourse about rape do nothing to stop the liars because any such effort would, by necessity, admit a crack in the armor of their ideology.
I am glad that Prof. Lombard has not been subjected to the scorn heaped upon the lacrosse players. I am glad there are no signs calling for his castration. He is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence because he might just be innocent. But Prof. Lombard's case does pose a striking contrast to the lacrosse case, does it not? That contrast tells us much about our culture, and sadly, none of it is good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
129 comments:
I don't think it's because he's gay, or because the child is black. I think it's more fundamental than that: there's no outrage because EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE THAT HE'S GUILTY.
When the public becomes furious about a case, it's usually one in which guilt is in doubt! Nobody gets mad about Mike Tyson -- because he was convicted -- but everybody hates O.J. Simpson, because he was found not guilty.
Sometimes it seems that the outrage of the public is in direct proportion to the lack of evidence of guilt. There was no evidence in the first Duke case, so the morons had to make up for the lack of evidence by screaming "guilty!" and calling for castration.
"EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE THAT HE'S GUILTY."
All I know is what I see in the newspapers, and I've learned not to accept news reports as fact.
There was widespread outrage over O.J. Simpson long before the verdict -- he was assumed to be guilty from the time of the slow motion white Bronco chase over L.A. freeways.
I think you are overlooking the political component to rape claims. Check out the Group of 88 -- the courses they teach are largely based on oppression identity politics. There is a movement to blame white males for all of society's ills and to brand them "undeservedly privilged." When the news of the alleged assault by the lacrosse guys was made public, a lot of people viewed it as a David and Goliath story -- the struggling black stripper assaulted by the entitled, rich white athletes. Prof. KC Johnson has chronicled this case better than any criminal case in history at http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ and in his widely respected book, "Until Proven Innocent."
"There was no evidence in the first Duke case, so the morons had to make up for the lack of evidence by screaming "guilty!" and calling for castration."
The public was not aware of the evidence -- didn't care about it, yet immediately and widely assumed that "something" must have happened. The boys fit the type -- cocky, rich -- white male.
Identity politics is at the root of the radical gender feminist rape metanarrative.
The news reports could be wrong, that is true.
I often play a game with myself -- when there's a report of a young woman allegedly raped by a stranger, I watch to see when the follow-up report comes out about how it wasn't true. Usually, those reports are incorrect. Many other rape reports turn out to be false, too. Even if some aspects are true, others might turn out to be false.
As I explained in another thread on this blog, the reason for the deafening silence in this case is because of how identity politics works.
Those who are members of the Privileged Identity Groups are protected from media attack.
I recently wrote this primer, What Happened to America?, over at my blog, The Foremost Problem, explicating how this process works.
"Nobody gets mad about Mike Tyson -- because he was convicted "
Come on now. You sound like you weren't around then or something. Feminists were all over it.
But you hear very little about his conviction years after the fact -- much less than you hear about other black men who were acquitted.
In regards to identity politics, it's important to remember that the feminists are different in that they never had a just grievance and had to concoct the myth of abuse in order to have something to sell. The modern feminist movement has always been dominated by spoiled, ungrateful middle class white women who were jealous of the civil rights movement of the 60's. This is why feminists sometimes make ridiculous comparisons between the household chores that their mothers had to do and slavery or the Holocaust. Minority groups have been oppressed in this country; these pampered women have not.
Why is there none of that here?
A partial reason for the lack of publicity is also that the victim is a male.
Men are expendable.
"Minority groups have been oppressed in this country; these pampered women have not."
100% correct. Women are not 'historically disadvantaged, as, say, were African-Americans (since they were brougt over as slaves.)
The problem is that America has always beeen competitive, and a tough place to get going to newcomers. If we are going to start calling people 'historically disadvantaged', we would have to include just about everyone from every country except the English settlers (and possibly Germans)
"A partial reason for the lack of publicity is also that the victim is a male."
Excellent point.
Mr.M and Norm: great points.
Russel James says
"As I explained in another thread on this blog, the reason for the deafening silence in this case is because of how identity politics works.
Those who are members of the Privileged Identity Groups are protected from media attack."
I say..you hit the nail right on the head man. Thanx for being bold enough to say what needs to be said.
Yeah, that's the point of the whole piece: Prof. Lombard's alleged rape is not viewed as an exercise of hyper-masculine white male privilege and, therefore, is unworthy of our scorn.
But Prof. KC Johnson has written millions of words on similar points.
I wonder if a large number of professors is now going to come out and prematurely condemn this man. They were quick enough to do it to the lacrosse players, and there was never any evidence against them.
"EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE THAT HE'S GUILTY."
Oh is that right? Well, I'll make sure I do the same thing to you the next time you're accused of a crime.
How does it feel?
Sorry, everybody BELIEVES there is solid evidence that he is guilty. Based on what has been described there are chat logs and advertisements proving his intent to offer a child for sex. This is far beyond the evidence involved in a typical he said/she said rape case. But sure, the reporting could be off by a hundred miles.
And I think you missed the point of my comment, which is that the less evidence there is, the more certain these people claim to be that a crime was committed. The more evidence there is the less likely they are to care.
The public and the legal system are out to crush the innocent. It is the guilty defendent who has it easy in comparison.
The big question should be...
WHERE ARE THE DUKE 88 NOW???
I will repeat...WHERE ARE THE DUKE 88 now??
Are little boys being raped by their homosexual stepfathers that are colleagues of the duke 88, not worthy of at least a letter to the college..."proclaiming their disgust!!"
Where are the duke 88 now???
Someone should write a book titled "Where are the Duke 88 now"?? It might just sell a few copies.
They were probably lining up to answer the ad.
Norm said...
"A partial reason for the lack of publicity is also that the victim is a male."
" Excellent point. "
I agree.
" I am glad that Prof. Lombard has not been subjected to the scorn heaped upon the lacrosse players. I am glad there are no signs calling for his castration."
Is it not a wonder? I think such desire is expressed when the victim is a female.
" He is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence because he might just be innocent."
Very true and correct. Of course there is the presumption of guilt until/unless he proves himself innocent that is kept alive by feminists and the media.
" But Prof. Lombard's case does pose a striking contrast to the lacrosse case, does it not? That contrast tells us much about our culture, and sadly, none of it is good. "
No, it doesn't. We as a society NEED to seriously work on this.
I know the media is notorious for making mountains out of anthills.
For this ,and many other reasons, I don't accept everything they report as if what they report is the whole story.
Very thought-provoking. I'm slightly surprised that this particular case even made it this far into public consciousness. Many of the reasons for that you have already stated.
I would venture to say that many times, when the victim crimes such as murder and rape are black, it seems like they aren't "worthy enough" or interesting enough for media coverage. This also accounts for my surprise.
Speaking of the mess that was the Duke rape case, there are soooo many things that bother me; from the way the media handled it, to facts that people pulled out of their #$%, to some of the views and even rationale in a few cases.
In regards to identity politics, it's important to remember that the feminists are different in that they never had a just grievance and had to concoct the myth of abuse in order to have something to sell.
When you say abuse, what do you mean exactly? Are you just speaking in general terms?
The modern feminist movement has always been dominated by spoiled, ungrateful middle class white women who were jealous of the civil rights movement of the 60's.
Now I'm not a full-fledge feminist, but I wouldn't go THAT far as to say that women back then were ungrateful. It may seem like that life was easy for them, but back then they didn't really have that many options. Nor were they really encouraged to live their own lives. If they WANTED to be a wife and stay at home mom, then great, but it's a completely different story if they were pressured to do so because it was EXPECTED. I really think that the social norms in those days were really constraining for many women. And God forbid if domestic abuse was involved.
"I would venture to say that many times, when the victim crimes such as murder and rape are black, it seems like they aren't "worthy enough" or interesting enough for media coverage."
In the Duke lacrosse case, it was precisely because the victim was a black woman, and the alleged rapists were "privileged" young white males that the media and the liberal academic community went berserk.
They can't muster any outrage when the alleged victim is a little black boy and his alleged molester is a gay man. THAT doesn't fit their metanarrative, so they do what they always do when the facts don't foster their ideology: ignore it.
Anonymous,
I just looked at your post again and I noticed that you said "modern" feminism.
Like I said, I don't think it's that they're ungrateful. They do make valid points and in-depth analysis when it comes to our culture. But I admit that they can get really fishy sometimes.
Do some of them actually compare their mom's/grandmother's/etc. household chores to slavery or the Holocaust?
Archivist,
In the Duke lacrosse case, it was precisely because the victim was a black woman, and the alleged rapists were "privileged" young white males that the media and the liberal academic community went berserk.
I agree wholeheartedly. Any other time, the media doesn't care. Case in point: Asia McGowan and Megan Williams.
They can't muster any outrage when the alleged victim is a little black boy and his alleged molester is a gay man. THAT doesn't fit their metanarrative, so they do what they always do when the facts don't foster their ideology: ignore it.
True again
Hey...What do the Duke 88 have to say now about one of their own colleagues along with his gay male partner, adopting a little black boy and then ceaselessly molesting him.
I would say the Duke laccrosse fake rape case caused about 150 times more media exposure than when these Duke professors adopted a little black boy and tried to sell him to other molesters on the internet.
Contrasting these cases tells us alot!!, and i really would like to hear from the Duke 88 on this one!!
??Duke 88???...where are you???
Talking about the Duke Rape Hoax. It's interesting to note that those boys didn't get off because they were innocent (although they absolutely were innocent) they got off precisely because they are privileged White males.
If that incident had occurred at North Carolina State, rather than Duke University, those boys would be rotting in prison right now and Nifong would be governor of North Carolina.
"Talking about the Duke Rape Hoax. It's interesting to note that those boys didn't get off because they were innocent (although they absolutely were innocent) they got off precisely because they are privileged White males."
I think you are missing the lessons of the lacrosse case: the sole reason the three lacrosse boys were arrested and charged at all, and the sole reason the astute law enforcement officials sought to make an example out of them in face of overwhelming affirmative evidence showing they could not have done it, was because they were white boys who were perceived to be "privileged."
This is from Russell's blog: (recommendations on how to confront the "global conspiracy")
2.) Behave morally. The Jewish Extremists promote sexual depravity, incuding promiscuity, because they believe it reduces resistance to their domination. They believe they can substitute sexual license for real freedoms. Develop a sense of purpose in life, find a spouse that will enable you to live a long, healthy, productive life with many children to help counter our demographic decline.
3.) Have lots of White babies. (Self explanatory.)
Pierce Harlan,
I understand exactly what you're saying and I agree - to a point.
However, it's important to note that even though the entire system was intent on making an example of them, in the end, they beat the rap. Why?
It wasn't because they were innocent (although, as I wrote above, they absolutely were innocent). They beat the false charges against them because they came from wealthy (ergo, privileged) families. Had they been working class White boys, attending NC state, they'd be in prison right now and Nifong would be a celebrated hero of the victim cult.
You don't like rich white boys either, huh?
Anon said,
"You don't like rich white boys either, huh?"
I haven't said anything about whether or not I like anybody. Where are you getting that from?
But for the record, I pretty much like and get along with, everyone - men, women, White, black, Jew, Muslim, rich, or poor.
However, I despise identity politics. If you are going to live in America, you must have one identity - American. That should be obvious to everyone.
"Had they been working class White boys, attending NC state, they'd be in prison right now . . . ."
That's the whole point -- if they had been charged at all, the whole thing would have been dropped quickly because there would be no political advantage to wasting time on this one.
"That's the whole point -- if they had been charged at all, the whole thing would have been dropped quickly because there would be no political advantage to wasting time on this one."
I disagree. The usual suspects absolutely would have made political hay out of the issue. The only aspect of the case that would have been different - had the accused been working class White boys as opposed to wealthy White boys - is that the kids would be in jail.
Let's just divide men against each other along racial lines, and religious lines, and class lines; let's get them fighting each other instead of supporting each other.
Sounds like a plan -- if you're either a feminist or an authoritarian.
"Let's just divide men against each other along racial lines, and religious lines, and class lines; let's get them fighting each other instead of supporting each other.
Sounds like a plan -- if you're either a feminist or an authoritarian."
Let's just divide Whites against each other along gender lines, and religious lines, and class lines; let's get them fighting each other instead of supporting each other.
Sounds like a plan -- if you're either a global elitist bent on world domination or one of their allies.
Instead of taking a stand against feminist antisocial values we should all unite behind the banner of "have more white babies"?
Russell, what you are saying flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence. The sole reason the charges weren't dropped when the evidence overwhelmingly showed they were innocent was their perceived privilege, and the political advantage to be obtained from it. Any other inference from the facts isn't justified. There are some points that are matters of opinion; this isn't one of them.
"Russell, what you are saying flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence. The sole reason the charges weren't dropped when the evidence overwhelmingly showed they were innocent was their perceived privilege, and the political advantage to be obtained from it."
That statement is inconsistent with the facts as repeatedly stated in this blog.
Are you now saying that no working-class White men and boys have ever been falsely accused and imprisoned, even when there was ample evidence to suggest, or even prove, their innocence?
I repeat, if this case had involved a lacrosse team, constituted almost completely of working-class White students, charged with raping a black stripper, the system's response would have been identical. The only difference would have been the result.
I want to make it clear, I am in no way saying that the Duke boys should have been found guilty. They were innocent of the charges and should have been exonerated. My point is that they were put through the ringer because they were White males and had their parents not had the finances and connections that they had, they would be in prison right now.
No, you posited that they would be behind bars today. Not likely. That is not consistent with the cases we see over and over. Arrested and charged, yes -- very possible. Tried? Most unlikely. Convicted? Even more unlikely. The trend is to arrest and charge and then to drop the charges. Not before their reputations, and their nervous systems, are shot.
Read the Durham-in-Wonderland blog and "Until Proven Innocent" -- KC Johnson is the foremost authority in the world on the lacrosse case. I am merely repeating his take on the case.
The fact is, there are wrongful convictions of rape -- almost all of them are based on misidentification -- those are properly classified as WRONGFUL rape claims. Very few are FALSE rape claims. The false ones almost always fall apart before trial, and it is exceedingly rare to see a jury get it as wrong as they'd have to get this one. Exceedingly.
Oh no, there are plenty of false rape convictions; they don't always fall apart. The prosecutors can delay endlessly until the accused has already been in jail for a year and then they can offer a plea bargain. The vast majority of cases never make it to trial.
But going to trial is no assurance of justice, either -- and at any rate, the defendent is out of tens of thousands of dollars and his reputation no matter what the result.
I, as a working class white male understand what russel is saying about how if it were poor white boys..they would be in jail.
working class white boys are alienated from the protection of the American legal system, for that matter, the American justice system has regressed to the degree no-one gets justice, unless you can pay an attorney to "Interpret what the meaning of justice is"..for you!!
But why is he saying "white" boys? Why not just "boys?"
Where are the Duke 88, "the beacons of morality"???
Are they silent because it was a black boy who got molested, Are they silent because it was gay males that molested this boy???
Why are the voices of morality silent on this latest duke rape??
They could say something, but they would look pretty ridiculous, having already squandered any credibility they ever had.
No one disputes that there are too many convictions for false rape claims -- I don't know what you mean by "plenty." There are not "plenty" of rape convictions compared with the number of claims. And that's as it should be. Plea bargains are common, especially in messy, gray cases. I don't know how we can say that many of those are "false."
Almost all of the Innocent Project's work is on WRONGFUL, not false, rape claims. Those are problems that can be largely avoided by having better identification procedures, and of course, now with DNA evidence. I suspect wrongful rape convictions will take a sharp dive in the years ahead.
The bigger issues in the false rape area are the automatic arrest and all-too-ready incarceration on the basis of even far-fetched rape accusations; the absence of anonymity; grossly unfair evidentiary Rule 413 in Federal Court and it's analogues in verious state courts; and the big one -- refusal to deal with rape accusers the way other criminal accusers are dealt with (e.g., polygraphs can't be used and most importantly, lies are tolerated and not punished, etc.).
Pierce,
Your original response to my comment seemed to assert that you believe that the Duke case occurred because the boys ". . . were perceived to be 'privileged.'"
I'm arguing that the Duke false rape scandal was a result of a social/political milieu that is virulently anti-heterosexual White male, not anti-privileged heterosexual White male. (Although our enemies define all Whites - particularly men - as "privileged").
You seemed to be claiming that the primary reason they were charged is because of their "perceived" privilege.
You then went on to say that had they not been privileged they may have been arrested and possibly charged but that they would not have been tried or convicted. Well isn't that exactly what happened with the Duke lacrosse boys.
They were arrested and charged, but they were not tried or convicted.
It is clear that the only reason they were accused and charged is because they were heterosexual White men.
It is equally clear that the only reason they were not tried and convicted is because of the wealth and connections (i.e. privilege) of their parents.
Had they not had wealthy parents they would be in prison.
"But why is he saying "white" boys? Why not just "boys?"
I'm saying Whites for two reasons. 1.) White males are falsely accused at least one order of magnitude as many times as black males and 2.) black males have dozens (if not hundreds) of organizations and 10s of thousands of activists looking out for their interests. Whites have none.
Finally, where were the black males during the false accusation of the Duke lacrosse boys? They were picketing with the group of 88. Are you aware that the New Black Panther Party was very active in the Durham community particularly in threatening and attempting to intimidate the young White male students that lived in the area?
No one disputes that there are too many convictions for false rape claims
Pierce did exactly that in is last comment.
There's something that I got to get off my chest.
Why do people ALWAYS call the accuser "the stripper"? We all already know she was a stripper. If it was a businesswoman, a Barista, sales woman, would she still be called by her occupation?
From the beginning, it was like (and still is) people used the fact that she was a stripper (and maybe even because she was black) against her and her case. It was like "She's a black stripper and a single mother, of course she's lying". Stripping does not equal prostitution and it is a legal occupation. And also, if something did happen, there was this idea that she brought it on herself due to her line of work and being in a frat house. The value of her words wasn't worth much.
Now I'm not saying she was telling the truth, but some of the reasoning behind the belief that she was lying was ridiculous. Not to mention that a few of the "facts" and evidence of the case was so skewed by the media, that I don't know what's true. If you're going to show me that someone's lying, get the facts straight.
Something else I noticed, calling the accused players boys. What's with that...they're men.
Like I said, I needed to get that off my chest.
It is clear that the only reason they were accused and charged is because they were heterosexual White men.
No I don't think so. I think she accused them because maybe they pissed her off and she wanted to get back at them. Or maybe something happened and she believed that she was assaulted. I feel that something happened but not rape. Once she accused them, officials thought that they had enough evidence to go to trial.
I don't think them being accused by the woman and then charged had anything to do with them being white. You give their race too much credit in this instance.
You're right Renee. Something did happen.
As someone who has lived and worked extensively with blacks and Hispanics, I can make a very educated guess as to what happened in this case.
The two black adult strippers thought that they were going to be able to intimidate the young, inexperienced, White kids (and thus get more money out of them), by going all "chicken-head" on 'em. When it didn't work, one of them got pissed-off and falsely accused them of rape.
I'm saying Whites for two reasons. 1.) White males are falsely accused at least one order of magnitude as many times as black males and 2.) black males have dozens (if not hundreds) of organizations and 10s of thousands of activists looking out for their interests. Whites have none.
Please show your sources for 1/, and please also show some examples of organizations looking out for the interests of black men who have been convicted of rape. For example, have you ever heard of Al Sharpton protesting in front of a prison because a black man was wrongfully convicted of raping a white woman?
Renee, there is absolutely no doubt that nothing happened and that Crystal Mangum is a compulsive lying piece of crap. I'm terribly sorry if you feel that the real victims in this case were the innocent strippers whose profession was given a black eye, but you really need to get your head out of the sand and face reality.
"Please show your sources for 1"
I will be writing about this topic extensivley over at my blog and I will include sources.
"have you ever heard of Al Sharpton protesting . . . because a black man was wrongfully convicted of raping a white woman?"
All the time. Again I'll be writing about this extensively.
God are you full of shit. There must have been something funny in the punch at your last Klan meeting. You think that white men are falsely accused of rape at ten times the rate as white men? Bullmotherfuckingshit. What a load of Nazi propaganda.
Anonymous,
I never said that the accused were not victims or that she was the real victim. Did you even READ what I posted??? Don't put words in my mouth and jump the gun. Do I really need to explain it to you? Fine.
The fact that she was a stripper shouldn't have had any bearing as to whether she was lying nor should her occupation be constantly pointed out by identifying her as "the stripper" all the time. Do we do the same for women of other professions...no. I said alot more than that but you can just reread that post.
Anyway, did rape specifically occur, all evidence points to no, but I'm not going to sit here and say that I know EXACTLY what else happened because I wasn't there and neither were you. Like I said, from what I've read, a few of the facts from the case were not truthful at all. If you're going to convince me that someone is telling the truth or lying, don't skew the facts.
Russell
The two black adult strippers thought that they were going to be able to intimidate the young, inexperienced, White kids (and thus get more money out of them), by going all "chicken-head" on 'em. When it didn't work, one of them got pissed-off and falsely accused them of rape.
Well if that's what you think. Personally I'm not going to act like I know EXACTLY what happened that night.
If you still need to be convinced of anything at this point then you are obviously so biased that nothing in the world will ever convince you. Her repeated falsehoods are well documented; her character and her history are well established.
That you are more concerned with protecting the reputation of stripping as a profession than protecting the integrity of the legal system and the lives and reputations of innocent men is very revealing. Your priorities reveal your belief that no matter what anybody else says, in every situation there must be a woman somewhere who is being treated unfairly. Any criticism of a woman is tantamount to unfair treatment of all women.
"God are you full of shit. There must have been something funny in the punch at your last Klan meeting. You think that white men are falsely accused of rape at ten times the rate as white men? Bullmotherfuckingshit. What a load of Nazi propaganda."
Why so hateful?
"Well if that's what you think. Personally I'm not going to act like I know EXACTLY what happened that night."
You gave your take, I gave mine. I didn't claim to "know EXACTLY what happened." I simply said it was an educated guess. And that's what it is.
"I don't think them being accused by the woman and then charged had anything to do with them being white."
That is not the point. The point is the way they were attacked afterwards, by the Gang of 88, the media, and assorted other Nazis. And yes I DO KNOW that that was the media's attitude..."rich white guys", I think it was some loser like Greta Sustern who used that phrase. And she is a white women, so was attempting to side with blacks. Nancy Grace went all out. (boy if ever there was a maniacal female pig in the media, it is Grace.)
Also, SO WHAT if 'something happened'? Jeez, maybe one of the guys gave her a feel. So that is an incredible breach of integrity and he should be sent to prison and raped for twenty years? Guys will be guys. Women like you are too interested in what is known as 'proscribing male thought and sexuality' which is one of the cornerstones of misandry. We never hear women like you whining if a girl touches a male stripper. in fact it's usually "you go girl!" After all, the stripper is an oppressor.
Also, Mangrum has responsibilty if she was touched or whatever. Sorry, but such 'rights' are not fully conserved when someone gets naked in a closed environment with a bunch of drunk college guys.
Oh yeah, she was drunk too. 'Not being touched while naked and drunk' is no-where in the Constitution.
If you are worrying about women's "rights" being preserved, I recommend you focus on cases where the woman in question acted with integrity.
Sometimes I really do wonder what you are doing on this board.
Feminists make themselve look like COMPLETE ASSES when they try to defend someone like Mangum. Basically, it shows they are not interested in being ethical or having integrity, but are instead just being vindictive and misandric pigs.
You know, sooner or later your game will be up. Fathers and Families is gaining a lot of steam and clout daily, and men are slowly but surely starting to wake up. This is evidenced by the fact that there is a 'marriage strike' going on against women.
The problem is that we MEN will have to clean up the mess seventy years from now, mainly, the mess of several generations of boys being harmed in the extreme by feminism, and single mothers who exercised their 'choice'.
"Anyway, did rape specifically occur, all evidence points to no . . . ."
Wait, wait, wait. We KNOW what happened that night. Three innocent young men were falsely accused of rape. It is fact, incontrovertible and certain. We know it as clearly as we know any fact not videotaped. If we are looking for absolute certainty, nothing is absolutely certain. NFL officials aren't sure what happened sometimes even with four different camera angles covering a play.
Please -- we're not going to start this "we don't know what happened that night." We do, as much as we know anything.
Besides, the boys didn't touch her inappropriately. There is no evidence that they did anything but serve as an audience and employer -- and as victims.
And Norm, it isn't just boys harmed by feminism. Girls are destroyed by it. These women don't think girls need a father find out -- the promiscuity levels for girls go off the charts without a man in the house. That is fact, also, but we don't like to talk about it. Just look at the cover story of Time Magazine this week -- it destroys the principle tenets of feminism.
"Stripping does not equal prostitution and it is a legal occupation"
You sound like you have complete lack of knowledge when it comes to what goes on in strip bars.
And even more disconcertingly, you have by the above statement directly contradicted the oft-heard feminist assertion that striping, porn, and prostitution are all items on the same continuum, that is, the continuuum of ways that women are 'oppressed and subjugated by men.' You can't pick and choose whether or not certain things lie on such a 'continuum' - either they do or they don't.
Feminists NEVER FAIL to do like you are doing...they make a certain claim, then when cornered will make the exact opposite claim.
HYPOCRITE!!!
Pierce,
agreed. Also many of the ills are more or less gender-neutral - for example increased drug use.
I don't read Time; not to get off topic, but what did it say on the cover?
Pierce: I read the Time Magazine article on marriage. It acknowledges all of the horrible results that come from widespread divorce, but maintains the same worn out old myth that President Obama hatches out every Father's Day: that this problem has been caused by male abandonment, and not by female promiscuity and exploitation of the legal system. The attitude is still that it's all the man's fault, even though these shallow women are the ones filing for divorce.
The Time article stressed the importance of fathers in the home. You know, I side with Bill Cosby on a lot of these issues -- the famous "Pound Cake" speech. He let both women and men have it. Neither gender is innocent here in letting the kids down. It ain't black and white -- men are good, women are bad or vice versa.
Norm,
Also, SO WHAT if 'something happened'? Jeez, maybe one of the guys gave her a feel. So that is an incredible breach of integrity and he should be sent to prison and raped for twenty years? Guys will be guys.
No, but are we really going to do the whole "boys will be boys" thing HERE of all places? I thought you all were against negative stereotypes of males. I'm not saying that equals to rape or anything but don't excuse that behavior because "Oh they're boys and that's what they do." To some women, that IS an incredible breach of integrity. But anyway.
"I don't think them being accused by the woman and then charged had anything to do with them being white."
With this quote I was responding to what Russell said, but I agree with what you said directly afterwards.
Women like you are too interested in what is known as 'proscribing male thought and sexuality' which is one of the cornerstones of misandry.
I've never heard of this phrase so I'll have to look it up, but saying things like "guys will be guys" isn't helping matters either.
We never hear women like you whining if a girl touches a male stripper. in fact it's usually "you go girl!" After all, the stripper is an oppressor.
Well if the guy is really bothered by it...Personally, I've never been to a strip club before and even if I go I won't randomly feel up on someone. This is also when society comes into play when it comes to men and anything related to sex...they're EXPECTED to like it.
Also, Mangrum has responsibilty if she was touched or whatever. Sorry, but such 'rights' are not fully conserved when someone gets naked in a closed environment with a bunch of drunk college guys.
Oh yeah, she was drunk too. 'Not being touched while naked and drunk' is no-where in the Constitution.
AGAIN, why are you using the excuse of the guys being drunk? That's the oldest trick in the book. Being able to do anything you want just because you're drunk or the other person is or that the he/she is naked isn't part of the Constitution either. Not saying that was what happened though.
If you are worrying about women's "rights" being preserved, I recommend you focus on cases where the woman in question acted with integrity.
OK now we get to the root of it. You think that ONLY women you deem respectable are worthy of justice and should seek justice than women with occupations not deemed acceptable by society? Yeah....ok.
Why are you so bothered by what I posted? I never said that the men were guilty. I was just bothered at how the case was handled and that I not going to sit here and say that I know FOR SURE everything that happened that night.
Anon,
If you still need to be convinced of anything at this point then you are obviously so biased that nothing in the world will ever convince you. Her repeated falsehoods are well documented; her character and her history are well established.
Admiting that I don't know everything that happened that night makes me biased? I wasn't there, I don't know. Simple as that.
That you are more concerned with protecting the reputation of stripping as a profession than protecting the integrity of the legal system and the lives and reputations of innocent men is very revealing. Your priorities reveal your belief that no matter what anybody else says, in every situation there must be a woman somewhere who is being treated unfairly. Any criticism of a woman is tantamount to unfair treatment of all women.
Looks like you didn't read what I posted either. I wasn't trying to do anything that you claimed in your above quote. You got it SO wrong it's hilariously ridiculous. I was simply pointing out one of the things that bothered me about the handling of this case that noone may have thought about. Clearly you know NOTHING of my priorities or didn't fully comprehend my post.
Norm,
You sound like you have complete lack of knowledge when it comes to what goes on in strip bars.
Haha, you got me! Like I said, I've never been to one, nor do I plan to. I was just saying that by DEFINITION stripping doesn't equal prostitution, so just because someone is hired to strip doesn't mean that sex is included. But hey what do I know.
And even more disconcertingly, you have by the above statement directly contradicted the oft-heard feminist assertion that striping, porn, and prostitution are all items on the same continuum, that is, the continuuum of ways that women are 'oppressed and subjugated by men.' You can't pick and choose whether or not certain things lie on such a 'continuum' - either they do or they don't.
Lol, what does this have to do with ANYTHING I said. I don't agree with that lifestyle and it has NOTHING to do with feminism, I'm a Christian. But she CHOSE that occupation so put it up with her if you ever meet her. I'm not picking or choosing anything.
Feminists NEVER FAIL to do like you are doing...they make a certain claim, then when cornered will make the exact opposite claim.
HYPOCRITE!!!
Haha again, what does this have to do with anything I said. What did I claim?!
You're here on this board and after all that has been posted about males and negative sterotypes and how they are viewed, you're went ahead and pulled the "boys will be boys" arguement. I don't know about you but that sounds hypocritical.
What part of "how this case was handled" are you whining about? The liar ruined the boys' lives and then got a free pass. She even got help paying for college as an added bonus. How do you people manage to twist that around into unfair treatment of strippers as a profession?
Wait, wait, wait. We KNOW what happened that night. Three innocent young men were falsely accused of rape. It is fact, incontrovertible and certain. We know it as clearly as we know any fact not videotaped. If we are looking for absolute certainty, nothing is absolutely certain. NFL officials aren't sure what happened sometimes even with four different camera angles covering a play.
Ummmm...that's my point, nothing is absolutely certain. Like I said, according to the evidence, rape didn't happen, but we don't know everything that happened that night. There were minutes that were unaccounted for.
Please -- we're not going to start this "we don't know what happened that night." We do, as much as we know anything.
I'll end it with this quote from someone online. Sorry, but the quote was in caps and I didn't feel like changing it.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT DID OR DIDN'T HAPPEN. YOU NEVER WILL. NO MATTER WHAT. SO STOP DELUDING YOURSELF AND OTHERS BY ASSERTING THAT YOU DO/WILL. CONCENTRATE INSTEAD ON THE LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS SITUATION AS WELL AS THE PROGRESS AND CHANGE THAT MUST OCCUR IN THIS SOCIETY.
Now before you jump down my throat and be like "I know what happened, those men were falsely accused", I am aware that the charges were dropped. But like I said, I personally am not comfortable in acting like I know exactly what happened that night. I wasn't there.
Anon,
What part of "how this case was handled" are you whining about? The liar ruined the boys' lives and then got a free pass. She even got help paying for college as an added bonus. How do you people manage to twist that around into unfair treatment of strippers as a profession?
How did you manage to take what I said and think I was defending stripping? I'm just going to copy and paste my comment since it's late.
Why do people ALWAYS call the accuser "the stripper"? We all already know she was a stripper. If it was a businesswoman, a Barista, sales woman, would she still be called by her occupation?
From the beginning, it was like (and still is) people used the fact that she was a stripper (and maybe even because she was black) against her and her case. It was like "She's a black stripper and a single mother, of course she's lying". Stripping does not equal prostitution and it is a legal occupation. And also, if something did happen, there was this idea that she brought it on herself due to her line of work and being in a frat house. The value of her words wasn't worth much.
Now I'm not saying she was telling the truth, but some of the reasoning behind the belief that she was lying was ridiculous. Not to mention that a few of the "facts" and evidence of the case was so skewed by the media, that I don't know what's true. If you're going to show me that someone's lying, get the facts straight.
Basically her being a stripper shouldn't have been treated as evidence against her, which is what I have encountered online. I don't care that she was a stripper, it's irrevelant.
Of course not! You only "know" what happend when it's a man accused of rape. Then you do act like you were there!
Oh, you're pissed off because somebody on the internet made fun of her for being a stripper. Somehow your shrunken head confuses this with her being a stripper "being held against her as evidence."
Anon(s),
Of course not! You only "know" what happend when it's a man accused of rape. Then you do act like you were there!
HAHAHA and you know this HOW? You know nothing about me!
Oh, you're pissed off because somebody on the internet made fun of her for being a stripper. Somehow your shrunken head confuses this with her being a stripper "being held against her as evidence."
It looks like somebody else has a shrunken head when it comes to context and social awareness. Believe me, I have seen comments in which her being a stripper was being used against her.
Good! Anything that was used against her was entirely appropriate. She's scum. All of your whining amounts to anger that not everybody accepted her bullshit -- and anybody but a slime would be glad that not everybody did.
You are the perfect example of why I'm an MRA.
You're just a liar and a supporter of false rape accusers. End of story.
Only in your mind is there any lack of evidence. That cunt has been a false accuser her entire life. But please, continue to minimize her actions. The real problem is that people don't respect strippers!
Only in your mind is there any lack of evidence. That cunt has been a false accuser her entire life. But please, continue to minimize her actions. The real problem is that people don't respect strippers!
Wow, clearly you have no reading comprehension. I never said that there was lack of evidence nor did I said that the real problem was people not respecting strippers. Stop getting all scared, really READ what I posted, and use some comprehension.
Ha ha, made you post again! You can't sleep unless you get the last word, you addict.
"CONCENTRATE INSTEAD ON THE LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS SITUATION AS WELL AS THE PROGRESS AND CHANGE THAT MUST OCCUR IN THIS SOCIETY."
The only "lessons" that night are that innocent young men of any color are often falsely accused of vile crimes, and that persons of bad faith continuee to cluck their vicious tongues and suggest that "something" might have happened.
Renee, I assume you are as guilty of rape as those three young men -- because I have ZERO evidence that any of you are guilty of rape. Get it? You don't cast aspersions when there is NO evidence. What you are suggesting, by innuendo, is unjust, immoral, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Absolutely ashamed.
Here endeth the discussion on this point -- I will not put these three boys through any more of this vile slander.
You don't cast aspersions when there is NO evidence. What you are suggesting, by innuendo, is unjust, immoral, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Absolutely ashamed.
I never cast ANY aspersions ANYWHERE! I never attacked them specifically. I've got nothing to be ashamed about. You and a few others on this board REALLY need to stop overreacting when you read something that makes you uncomfortable.
Oh and believe me, there are other lessons that need to be learned from this case, from false accusations; to as someone phrased it "the politics of respectability", and rape (when it really happens). Some of you really need to look beyond your "lens" and see what's going on sometimes. Don't be so biased (yes I'm really getting that feeling from a few of you) that you can't see what else is going on.
Where are the Duke 88, don't they have anything to say about this last Duke rape case???
Where is the voice of outrage / disbelief/ and concern for the children??
"You and a few others on this board REALLY need to stop overreacting when you read something that makes you uncomfortable."
I quoted you verbatim. What makes me "uncomfortable" is people clucking their ugly tongues, suggesting "something" must have happened when it didn't, unable to posit a single scrap of evidence. That, Renee, is the entire point of this blog: men's reputations are destroyed by women who lie and by people like you who engage in this crap.
Disgraceful, Renee. Disgraceful.
I quoted you verbatim. What makes me "uncomfortable" is people clucking their ugly tongues, suggesting "something" must have happened when it didn't, unable to posit a single scrap of evidence. That, Renee, is the entire point of this blog: men's reputations are destroyed by women who lie and by people like you who engage in this crap.
And you just proved my point. All I emphaized was that we weren't there that night. I never said that I thought for sure that those guys did anything else illegal. Here's what I said to Russell:
I think she accused them because maybe they pissed her off and she wanted to get back at them. Or maybe something happened and she believed that she was assaulted. I feel that something happened but not rape.
All I said was that I think something happened. What that was or who did what to who, whether verbal or physical, I DON'T KNOW. Simple as that. That's just how I feel, end of story. Nothing disgraceful about that, and I'm not engaging in anything.
Seriously, a few of you need to calm down and not get so worked up.
Oh and I see this all the time: a female sharing her opinion = whinning....classy and unoriginal.
Oh SHUTUP, we can read, we know what you said and why you said it. You are an enabler of false rape accusers; that's the only problem here.
Oh SHUTUP, we can read, we know what you said and why you said it.
So you say.
You are an enabler of false rape accusers; that's the only problem here.
The only problem here is that you're wrong, but hey you believe what you want, I'm moving on.
You do love to talk for no reason, don't you?
Please move on. Your comments are the reason we have this blog. Men falsely accused of rape spend the rest of their lives putting up with wagging tongues of women like you who "think" that "something" might have happened.
Here is my final word on the subject: if the boys had actually raped this young woman, how would you and your feminist friends feel if multitudes of men went around and said, "She must have done SOMETHING to provoke it." We know how they'd feel -- because such comments are not right. It's victim blaming. And that, Renee, is what you've done to the lacrosse boys. It's not right by any measure, it's not justifiable, and, yes, it doesn't just make me uncomfortable, it makes be damn angry.
Imagine if any woman could be ruined by any man, even if he had a documented history of lies and criminal behavior, and there was a massive social movement enabling these lies against women, and judges granting the liars immunity from prosecution and lawsuits.
I don't think this wagging tongue would be happy under such conditions!
"Imagine if any woman could be ruined by any man, even if he had a documented history of lies and criminal behavior, and there was a massive social movement enabling these lies against women, and judges granting the liars immunity from prosecution and lawsuits."
"I don't think this wagging tongue would be happy under such conditions!"
AMEN! It is disgraceful that the lacrosse boys must tolerate the stigma of criminality because of people like Renee.
I feel overall, renee is an asset rather than a liability.sometimes people say things,and others interpret them in other ways, Can we just move on to another topic.
Like "where are the voices of our nations morality in the latest Duke rape..Where are the duke 88??
If you Renee is your asset then I suggest you get a different portfolio.
Let's get it straight: I give wide latitude here to all sorts of views I don't agree with. But the issues I've addressed on this thread -- very sparingly, I might add -- all go to one thing: the good name of the three boys at the center of the highest profile false rape case in modern times. Renee suggested that something might have happened there. THAT is the ghost that trails far too many men after a false rape claim, some for the rest of their lives. That is ground zero for this site because typically the greatest harm from a false rape claim is reputational harm. When someone makes assertions that suggest possible guilt when possible guilt is not warranted by the facts as Renee did, I don't care who they are -- even one of our best commentators -- I absolutely am going to challenge that, and so should we all.
That in no way has any bearing on my opinions of any of Renee's other comments, but to make an assertion so contrary to the core spirit of this blog -- I have to wonder why she was here in the first place.
I'm going to post one more thing in response to this quote:
Good! Anything that was used against her was entirely appropriate. She's scum. All of your whining amounts to anger that not everybody accepted her bullshit -- and anybody but a slime would be glad that not everybody did.
I could've sworn I posted something in response to it but I don't see it on here. Anyway. Using something that is ABSOLUTELY IRREVELENT to a case such as her stripping for a living is inappropiate and makes YOU and the case look bad. I'm not defending her or false rape accusers as some of you think for whatever reason, I'm just looking a the big picture and how people and the media treated this case. It's amazing how you take the word "something" and make it into this big thing. But I'm not afriad to admit that what Archivist said near the bottom made me think, something that I feel isn't really reciprocated here at times. It's like the way some feminists react to posts they don't like.
I feel overall, renee is an asset rather than a liability.sometimes people say things,and others interpret them in other ways, Can we just move on to another topic.
Like "where are the voices of our nations morality in the latest Duke rape..Where are the duke 88??
Thanks whoever posted this. And, I'm afraid to ask, but what's the Duke 88? I'm assuming that they were really vocal in saying that the players were guilty. If that's the case then yeah they should say something about this too. Politics really played a role in that case.
P.S.
When I said "something" I wasn't even specifically addressing the players or only something illegal.
I think she accused them because maybe they pissed her off and she wanted to get back at them. Or maybe something happened and she believed that she was assaulted. I feel that something happened but not rape. Once she accused them, officials thought that they had enough evidence to go to trial.
All I said was that I think something happened. What that was or who did what to who, whether verbal or physical, I DON'T KNOW. Simple as that. That's just how I feel, end of story.
The people who judged her for being a stripper have been proven right, so you're just blowing hot out of your buns at this point.
Terrific "asset" here.
I've seen this on other MRA blogs and boards. A woman mostly agrees with us, and makes some decent contributions or even writes letters. And then somebody is rude to her, and all of a sudden she starts whining about all of the great things she's done for us, and how we've screwed the pooch by offending her. As soon as she can't get the attention she was getting before her entire attitude turns 180 and she's back to being the same feminist lowlife she was before she discovered MRAs.
I think that Renee is one of the women who will serve as an MRA ally until she is offended in some trivial way; for example, by insulting stripping as a profession.
Renee isn't an ally to anyone or anything. She's simply a confused young black girl, who's in over her head.
You are NOT an improvement. (Facepalm)
Proven right how. What did her begin a stripper have anything to do with her lying.
I think that Renee is one of the women who will serve as an MRA ally until she is offended in some trivial way; for example, by insulting stripping as a profession.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT? I don't care about stripping as I've said before (I don't even support it), if you've even read my posts. I just don't think it should have been used to determine the worth of her words and whether she was lying or not. That's what evidence is for. Are you dense?
Like I said, politics of respectability.
And I am nothing like what you described. Neither am I whining or "tongue-lagging" whatever that means. Considering I have been calm, relaxed, and haven't used any insults for the most part throughout this whole post, I think that a few of you are guilty of those things unfortunately.
A female sharing her opinion = whinning....how classy.
Oh and if I'm confused, CLEARLY I'm not the only one from what I've seen.
I'm not in over my head at all. All is fine and peachy.
Yeah I said that I was moving on, but what can I say, sometimes I'm not one to back down, especially if I'm being insulted.
That would almost make sense, if anybody in a position of power had made some sort of decision based on her being a stripper. But they didn't. You are confusing Someone On the Internet with Someone Who Matters.
But I'm going to stop now, because Russell's presence is a sickening affront beyond any silliness that you could come up with. I hope you enjoy interacting with our resident Fourth Reicher as much as I have.
It isn't just about someone with a position of power doing that. It's about our society, everyday people, and how we view women who aren't deemed "respectable" in regards to anything sex-related. Not to mention how race and classism are involved.
Believe me, I've seen some silliness myself from you and others.
Anon:
"Russell's presence is a sickening affront beyond any silliness that you could come up with."
That's laughable coming from a coward who posts anonymously. Why are you so angry over my comments. If I was saying the world is flat would you be so angry. No, because that would be crazy. If I was saying that the Navajo are running the world would that elicit such hatred from you? Of course not, because that would be crazy. But when I say that Jewish Supremacists are behind feminism you fly into a rage. Obviously, that's because you know its true and you don't want the benefits you derive from Jewish power to end.
Imagine, a group so powerful it's forbidden to point out how powerful they are? Do you know that questioning Jewish power (or even the Holocaust) is an imprisonable offense in
Canada and many European countries. Several men like historians Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolph are in prison, right now, for questioning the sacred number of 6 million dead in the holocaust. If they (the Jews) are right, why do they need to use the coercive power of he state to silence any dissent.
If the Men's Rights community is serious about dealing with feminism then you've got to acknowledge its root.
All of the seminal works of feminism were written by Jews.
Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, Susan Brownmiller, Erica Jong, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Sontag (I could go on) were all Jews. Their works were shepherded from manuscript to bookshelf by Jewish agents, edited by Jewish editors, and published by Jewish publishing houses. Don't take my word for it - look it up.
It is a simple fact and if the problem of feminism is going to be successfully redressed, it must be acknowledged. Pointing out these facts is no more anti-Semitic than pointing out the excesses of women under the current feminist system is misogynist.
Renee, maybe I can help move this along. Looking at it in a vacuum apart from this case, you make a valid point if you are saying that women who lack respectablity are often not afforded the same respect as others. In some and perhaps most contexts, they would not be believed as readily as other women. But -- and I say this respectfully because I do think that's a valid point -- the Duke lacrosse case is not the place to make it. In fact, the lacrosse case is the worst place to make it. First, the only victims here were white upper middle class boys. Second, the media, the academic establishment, the police and especially the D.A., embraced the chance to nail these boys' scrota to the wall precisely and solely becaues Ms. Mangum was a member of a politically correct identity group. The boys were not. Third, Ms. Mangum lied.
Context is everything, and your valid has no validity here. Wait for the proper place to make that point, and I will support it.
Many leading feminists were Jews, but it doesn't follow from this that feminism is one part of a nebulous global conspiracy to divide what you refer to as "the white race." That's just crazy Nazi talk, and the last thing MRAs need is to be associated with your kind.
"are we really going to do the whole "boys will be boys" thing HERE of all places? I thought you all were against negative stereotypes of males"
I only have time to address this one item right no, will get to your other arguments later.
saying "boys will be boys" HERE has absolutely nothing to do with stereotypes...I am merely stating a fact, and one which is pertinent to the topic. Just like girls will be girls. The reason you are viewing what I said as endorsing a stereotype is because when you yourself use it or similar phrases, deep down you know it is a stereotype. You are merely projecting your own thinking onto me.
This is off-topic, but the above reminds me of how women think (or pretend to think) that any man who looks at them is thinking about sex...this has got me thinking lately, that it must be the reverse that is true - when a woman ogles a man she must be thinking about sex. Women project their own thinking onto men.
This is in fact the one crack in their armor, that is that they are otherwise very good at hiding from men what is going on within themselves. This is evidenced by the fact that it is just now coming to light, that unlike men, women have always known that men and women live in very different worlds.
It is just now "coming to light" for MEN, because most men are not intuitive to the same extent women are about certain gender issues. Men must instead do their scientific research to discover these things which women already know.
A case in point is that for decades if not centuries, even possibly milliennea, women hid from men the fact that they are attracted to men's bodies such as in the sense of there now being males strippers. It was only with the 'sexual revolution' begun in the sixties, plus some (probably mostly informal) research, that has resulted in a sea change in this are. Women felt free to deny it no longer.
And to top it off, some of the 'researchers' have no doubt been women!
I should clarify that in the above, I do not mean to imply that it is being specifically studied as to whether 'women have always known' that the two sexes live in very different worlds. It is really the case that this is what is implied by some of the latest research; or at least obvious to SOME men who have thought about the issue or who are more intuitive than the average man.
"Many leading feminists were Jews, but it doesn't follow from this that feminism is one part of a nebulous global conspiracy to divide what you refer to as "the white race."
It isn't just "many of them" anonymous coward - it is nearly all of them. That combined with the fact that their agents, editors, and publishers were all Jewish show that their is a pattern of Jews working together to advance their interests at the expense of the interest of the very real White race.
Please tell me you are not seriously going to start with that whole "I dispute the existence of the White race" nonsense again. Especially, considering I cleaned your clock on that issue last week.
Why are you people so persistent in denying our existence?
Try telling an Irishman some time that he belongs to the same race as an English protestant. Do this on St. Patty's Day, preferably. Actually, make that a drunken Irishman.
Back to your favorite topic, contrary to what that Nazi melon of yours keeps telling you, Jews are not all alike, any more than any group of people is all alike. And the values of Judaism are very, very different from the values of feminism.
What three words in Judaism are more important than "Honor they father"?
First off, I am an Irishman and I accept, as does every other Irishman I know, that I am the same race as Englishmen. The White race. (You need to stop reading Ignatiev - he is a Jewish supremacist.)
In fact, not only do we acknowledge it, but science does as well. To recap what I told you last week - the idea that the White race is not real and is instead merely a social construct came from a Jewish loon named Franz Boas, who was responsible for the creation of the equally loony social "science" known as cultural anthropology. His theories were debunked immediately upon leaving his mouth by the real scientists engaged in the real science of physical anthropology, who could (and can) identify the race of a long dead skeleton simply by examining a jaw or shin bone. The Human Genome Project's recent findings concur fully with the long accepted view of physical anthropologists - that there are 3 races or sub-species of humans: Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid. Why is it that those of you who "dispute the existence of the White race" never seem to dispute the existence of the other races and think it is perfectly OK for them to organize on behalf of their perceived interests?
What do Jews not being all alike or the values of Judaism have to do with what I'm saying?
Okay, so there are three big races, Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid. Which category do you think the Jews fit into?
Better not tell Uncle Adolf who's coming to dinner!
Anonymous Coward wrote:
"Okay, so there are three big races, Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid. Which category do you think the Jews fit into?"
Who cares? What race does homosexual, or feminist, or Muslim fit into? Race is simply one way of identifying oneself and as I explained last week the problem isn't strictly racial, its a problem of identity and identity politics. Jews have a separate identity. One in which their religion and culture teach them that they are chosen by God and therefore they are superior to all others and that is the problem.
Your hero Noel Ignatiev almost got it right when he said that in order to solve the world's problems we need to destroy White identity. If he had substituted the word Jewish for White he would have been right on the money.
It isn't "people with White skin," as he refers to us, that have the privileges in our society (although we should have the privileges, since it is our society) it is his people, the Jews that have those privileges that he ascribes to Whites and that rightly belong to us. He is merely scapegoating us for the sins of his people.
For instance, are you aware that on Sep. 3, 1807 (the last year of the Middle Passage Slave trade before White men put a stop to it) there were 128 ships docked in Savannah harbor. The biggest slave port in America at the time. The registration and ownership info of eight of those ships have been lost over the course of the last 200+ years. The owners of the other 120 ships are known, every single one of those ships was registered to a Jewish owner, but Jews like Ignatiev keep harping about Whites (who he says don't exist) owning slaves. His people were responsible for the most horrendous and vicious part of slavery - the Middle Passage - but he never wants to talk about that little fact.
Further, do you know that he word slave means White person. The Eastern Europeans or "Slavs" were the world's slaves for more than 5,000 years. Traded around the known world by primarily Jewish slave traders and owned by all - Jew, Arab, Indian, Chinese, black, you name it.
Today the "White Slave Trade" or the trade in primarily young slavic girls is still very active - care to take a guess at who runs it? That's right anonymous coward - your people.
According to noted Israeli scholar Israel Shahak slavery is legal in Israel and most of the White girls enslaved are enslaved there.
What "privileges" do you imagine that you are entitled to, just by virtue of your non-Jewish white skin? Should every Jew who is more successful than you send you a check?
Wow, what a misinformed lump of confusion and self-pity and false entitlement, simmering in that hate-seasoned noggin of yours. You can hardly wait to help Hitler "finish the job" because you just assume that you've been cheated -- and by people who by your own admission are just as much members of "the white race" as you are. Incredible.
And it does remind me of the feminist bigots who support "guilty until proven innocent" for all men. Man do I feel sorry for you.
Scumbags like you who preach "the White race doesn't exist" are cut from the same cloth as those that screech "women don't lie about rape."
Russel, you may not be helping our movement by continuing to dwell on race. This blog seems to focus on the very serious issue of false rape accusations, and i for one would like to keep that focus, thank you.
Sometimes I wonder what happened to the reading comprehension skills of the average American. To anybody with a modicum of ability to parse text it should be readily apparent that I haven't dwelled on race. I've merely tried to show the connection between false accusations of rape, feminism, and identity politics, especially as practised by extremely powerful Jewish interests. It is the anonymous coward (among others) who keeps trying to attack the White race every time I try to introduce the topic of identity politics.
I'm done. This blog is about false accusations, not Russell's false sense of victimhood.
Norm,
The reason you are viewing what I said as endorsing a stereotype is because when you yourself use it or similar phrases, deep down you know it is a stereotype. You are merely projecting your own thinking onto me.
I have NEVER used this phrase or anything similar. In fact I HATE, HATE, HATE that saying. For too long, it has been used as an excuse for male behavior to the point in which they could get away with illegal acts. In that context, it IS a stereotype. The way you used it made it look like that you were generalizing males or college-aged males.
Why don't you just avoid the rude college boys by not being a stripper?
". . . it has been used as an excuse for male behavior"
Which male behavior is that? When males wrote the Magna Carta or the Consitution? When a male developed a cure for polio? When a male wrote Beethoven's 9th Symphony or painted the Sistine Chapel? Sacrificed their lives for the women on Titanic? Died on the cross?
Hey, if we're going to stereotype, let's not focus on the tiny percentage of male behavior that's criminal. Let's focus on the greater percentage that is heroic or the product or super genius.
I should have phrased that as immature and negative behavior in men. But yeah we should focus on the good.
And Anon, it always comes back to strippers with you does it?
Post a Comment