A commentator on a thread at Glenn Sacks' site about the rape of women in war (the thread is closed) posted the following comment that merits comment:
"Instead of making up things to get yourselves angry about, why don’t you address male violence that leads to men raping women and girls and boys and men. Men have used rape as a form of control of women forever, and I guess now they’re doing it to men and boys. You rarely see women raping men. Why is that?"
Do you see what she did? She seemed to discuss "men" in general, as a class, instead of making clear that it's just men who rape. Her comment fairly implies that all adults possessing the Y-chromosome have used rape as a form of control over women as a class.
She likely would deny that this was her intention, but the fact is, this comment borrows a page from the radical feminist playbook that holds men as a class responsible for using rape as a form of control over women.
Yawn.
The inane caterwauling that tries to fasten communal guilt on all men for the misconduct of a tiny percentage of men is nothing less than the yipping yapping death howl of radical gender feminism. It is tiresome, and morally vapid.
It is lost on these people that it is absurdly sexist to condemn an entire gender based on the malefactions of a few of its members. In any other context, we have words for that sort of thing -- "bigotry" comes to mind.
Let's get it out there: we are opposed to rape. We are opposed to men who rape. Yes, men rape more than women, and, gee, maybe that's because they have penises (and under the common law, only a penis-bearing human could legally commit rape), and because they are biologically more aggressive and have a greater sex drive.
I don't see many women inventing things, rescuing people or fighting wars that women support and that benefit women, either. Hmm. Maybe -- could it be? -- men and women are different? No, no, no -- in that commentator's world, they can't be -- men have been socialized to do evil and to keep women from doing all the great things men do, that's all.
Um, right.
In any event, there's a widespread movement among even less radical feminists to suggest that innocent men have a greater responsibility to prevent rape than innocent women.
The fact is, I can't stop anyone from raping except me. The so-called hypermasculine culture we live in does not promote rape, contrary to the radical feminist metanarriatve. Studies show rape declines when porn use goes up (note I am opposed to porn for other reasons). Singling out young men who do not rape as being responsible to stop rape, while excusing young women who consciously put themselves in situations where rape is more likely to occur, is asymmetrical gender blaming.
Newsflash: rapists are responsible for rape. Period. Not innocent women -- even the multitude who drink and purposefully arouse men; and not innocent men, even the multitude who like to be aroused by women. The fact is, women have greater ability to stop rape than innocent men do by not putting themselves in harm's way. But even suggesting that is deemed "victim blaming."
If people like the commentator really wanted to stop rape, they would tell women not to put themselves in situations where rape occurs instead of blaming innocent people for the sins of the guilty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
And of course an even better way to put a stop to rape than any of thsoe listed in the article is to lets the police go out and catch some rapists.
Those making false rape allegations are taking up valuable police time and resources with their lies and thus stopping them catching genuine criminals such as rapists.
See the story posted above this one -- the picture is of a police car being towed away for evidence after police were accused of rape.
I agree with the gist of the article, but I want to point out a few things.
If people like the commentator really wanted to stop rape, they would tell women not to put themselves in situations where rape occurs instead of blaming innocent people for the sins of the guilty.
The fact is, women have greater ability to stop rape than innocent men do by not putting themselves in harm's way. But even suggesting that is deemed "victim blaming."
Rape seems to be the only crime in which people have this huge discussion about what the victim did and didn't do, what she should've and shouldn't have done, like that could've change anything of what happened.
There's no problem with talking about percautions, but it seems like it's brought up more in the cases of rape compared to any other crime. Why is that?
People sometimes focus so much on what the victim did (if anything at all) rather than acknowledging that no matter what she did the rapist is to blame. That person CHOOSE to rape.
Since the majority of rape is by someone the victims knows, besides binge drinking, what really constitues putting oneself in harms way? Perhaps this question is too broad.
"Rape seems to be the only crime in which people have this huge discussion about what the victim did and didn't do, what she should've and shouldn't have done, like that could've change anything of what happened."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rape is the only crime where the discussion about safey -- which occurs in almost every home across America when mothers chide their sons to "be careful" and about going into "bad" neighborhoods -- is deemed by people like you to be a bad thing. You want to transmogrify good advice into a sermon about how the Partiarchy tolerates rape by focusing on the victims.
By any measure that is pure horseshit, excuse my feminist profanity.
Only idiots don't blame the rapist.
One of the sacred mantras of the gender-feminist/sexual-assault-industrial complex is that to even suggest ways women can prevent rape is "victim blaming." As one sexual assault advocate, Walker Thornton, Executive Director of Sexual Assault Resource Agency, recently said: "I'm constantly asked what women can do to prevent sexual assault. Not, what can we do as a community to help young men not commit sexual assault. We're still blaming women." She continued: "If I go on TV and say don't go home late at night alone, don't talk on the cell phone, be aware of your surroundings, I fail to say, there's a man out there attacking women. That's victim-blaming, and it let's them off the hook."
This, of course, distorts how most people view rape beyond all recognition. And, yes, attitudes like this foment an atmosphere that could make rape more likely.
No one is letting rapists off the hook, except perhaps for the most vile souls among us, and they are vastly outnumbered by everyone else. Every story we report where there is an over-reaction to a rape claim involves a male who can't control his anger when told that a loved one has been raped. It is quite possible that men detest rape more than women. Men, as a class, do not excuse rape. Just as men, as a class, do not excuse murderers. Or burglars. Or any other criminals.
Of course, some of the same people who cry "victim-blaming" do excuse one class of criminals -- can you guess which one? That's right, false rape accusers. And we have the posts on this site to prove it. But I digress.
Now about the topic itself.
I agree that the poster is guilty of generalizing, but aren't we all. I've seen it here on this board. I think the poster was thinking about the fact that, as you said, the majority of rapists are men. But yeah I understand you're concerns.
I honestly don't think that when someone says that men can help prevent rape, they are saying that ONLY men can do this or that it's only a man's responsibility. I think that since rape is STILL seen as mainly a woman's issue, people want men to be involved as well. I mean women are already taught to take percautions. Here's a quote that better explains it:
"Women are taught since infancy how to alter their behavior to avoid rape. It is an ever-present consideration which most of us learn to simply take for granted. We take precautions which don't ever occur to most men in order to avoid sexual assault."
Now I don't know about the "from INFANCY" part, but you get my drift. This is already present in our mindset. I think it's more about educating men about rape and some aspects in our society that correlates to ideas about rape. At least that's what I like to believe.
Of course in the end, no one, man or woman, can prevent rape. Only the person who's thinking about raping can.
Oh, something just came to mind.
Newsflash: rapists are responsible for rape. Period. Not innocent women -- even the multitude who drink and purposefully arouse men
Not to be nitpicky, but what's with the "even"? Maybe I'm looking to much into it, but it seems that you're almosting putting them into two categories. That women who drink and arouse men shouldn't be included under the general innocent women category. Same thing goes for the innocent men in the second part.
Urgh, I hope I made sense. I don't really have a way with words like others do.
"We take precautions which don't ever occur to most men in order to avoid sexual assault."
Like what?
The fact is, innocent men are criminally assaulted 1.5 more than innocent women. "Men are 150 percent more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women are. . . . . Men are more likely to be victimized by a stranger (63 percent of violent victimizations) . . . ." J. Friedman, J. Valenti, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape at 23 (2008). Ms. Valenti runs the most popular feminist blog in the world, Feministing.
So who should be altering their behavior? And which gender exhibits signs of being a tad paranoid?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rape is the only crime where the discussion about safey -- which occurs in almost every home across America when mothers chide their sons to "be careful" and about going into "bad" neighborhoods -- is deemed by people like you to be a bad thing. You want to transmogrify good advice into a sermon about how the Partiarchy tolerates rape by focusing on the victims.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Especially about what you THINK I believe.
I have no problem talking about safety percautions in cases of rape, LIKE I SAID. But I've seen boards and comments about a rape incident in which readers constantly focused on and scrutinized what the victim did to the point of partly blaming the victim for his/her own rape. More often than not, the victim is already needlessly blaming his/herself. I think what it all comes down to is tact and in the case of a rape victim posting an account of his/her incident, consideration.
Just curious, do you really equate, lets say, getting drunk at a house party full of friends to going into a bad neighborhood (I'm not condoning getting drunk by any means by the way)?
To me, there's a difference between victim-blaming and discussing safety percautions. I just wanted to point that out, not that I was against any discussion on safety percautions. Anyway, you can thank those who victim-blame for making discussions on safety seen in a bad light.
By any measure that is pure horseshit, excuse my feminist profanity.
Why is that feminist profanity lol? Profanity is profanity. And I thought "horseshit" was a legal term (I think you or someone said this in another post)?
What you and others of your ilk take as victim blaming is really people questioning WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY CONSENTED. When a young woman dresses in a manner designed to arouse male attention (and come off it if you deny this happens routinely, everywhere); when she flirts and carries on with males in a physical, provocative way; when she drinks to excess and sticks around with horny guys who she knows are also drinking to excess -- yes, people wonder if, indeed, she really consented, or more accurately, if she led the guy to believe she wanted to have sex (and if the guy reasonably believed she consented, it ain't rape anywhere). Given the "he said/she said" nature of most rape allegations, is it any wonder people have such doubts? Seriously? Separate all the radical feminist bullshit, and that's really at the heart of most supposed "victim blaming." It isn't "victim" blaming in the least -- it's outright wondering if she really was a "victim." And damn, it would be a lot easier to believe her if there wasn't all this evidence that she invited "something" to happen. (You know how the rad fems say "something" happened in the Duke lacrosse house? Well when girls act like what we used to call "sluts," everybody wonders if she didn't consent to "something.")
And, no, that's not to excuse rapists who rape. It's just that given the sexual nature of the encounter, we have no idea if there really was a rape.
Pierce,
Like what?
Here are some things that come to mind. For one thing women are STILL being told that there's a connection between a likelihood of rape and what you wear. Or that women are careful when picking outfits to make sure that they don't give guys the "wrong idea". I've heard of parents giving their daughters change to use a pay-phone to call them if her date tries to take advantage of her and she escapes. Women are taught to be conscious of how much they drink while at a party or club mainly out of fear of sexual assault or rape more than anything. You can say that men are also concerned about how much they drink, but is it to the same degree as women or is it in regards to sexual assault? We are also taught to not leave our drinks while at parties or clubs. When I was at college, which was predominatly female, we were encouraged to either walk in groups or to walk with a trusted male at night (I usually ended up walking by myself, I didn't really mind much to the dismay of my parents). We are taught to be careful of going into a male's room or house or inviting them to our room or house even though we know him well. All this out of fear of rape and sexual assault.
Now these are in regards to sexual assault. Most of the time, when safety percautions are taught in regards to rape and sexual assault, it focuses more on women than on men, and since women seem to be the majority of victims when it comes to these crimes (correct me if I'm wrong), I can see why. So in that regard, of course women take percautions that don't occur to most men.
With that being said, I don't dispute your statistics.
Sexual assault doesn't kill you, usually.
With all this hysteria talk about rape...one would think that women/girls are being raped behind every closed door in America..Which is just simply not the case.
Rape hysteria gives women an unrealistic, unfounded, cultural power over society...because most rape claims are false, unrealistic, and unfounded.
When a young woman dresses in a manner designed to arouse male attention (and come off it if you deny this happens routinely, everywhere); when she flirts and carries on with males in a physical, provocative way; when she drinks to excess and sticks around with horny guys who she knows are also drinking to excess -- yes, people wonder if, indeed, she really consented, or more accurately, if she led the guy to believe she wanted to have sex (and if the guy reasonably believed she consented, it ain't rape anywhere).
Wait...WHAT?!
Consent has to do with what a person WEARS now?! And "leading a guy on" can be from winking to dancing with him at a club or party.
If a woman says NO and/or fight back I think it would be obvious that she didn't consent. If she doesn't seem eager at all in the prospect of having sex with a guy who's trying to initiate it, I wouldn't see how anyone would say that's consent. What matters is that if she wasn't interested in having sex with him, he should END IT THERE. What matters is whether she agreed and was eager to have sex AT THAT MOMENT. I know you don't believe in this idea (but hey I don't agree with your idea of consent), but this is where "enthusiastic consent" comes into play. To me, this form of consent is all about being eager to have sex at that moment.
Victim-blaming is taking what you said, and using that to actually BLAME rape victims for what happened to them. People have every right to wonder about what happened in an incident. But to question whether a woman was a victim because she was flirting or by what she wears??? Come on.
I can understand drinking in the situation in which both parties were drinking, but just because she was drinking doesn't automatically mean that she was drunk, unless she admitted it or it was proven by medical records and police reports. This goes for the guy too. And say if two people are just kissing, and she doesn't want to take it further, then it shouldn't.
"When someone says, "But she was drunk/stoned/wasted," or "But she was asking for it," or "But she was totally flirting with him/making out with him" or "She didn't explicitly say no/fight back so she wasn't raped" implies that women's bodies are available for the masses if they indicate any kind of interest, whether its purposefully or unintentionally, or if they're drunk/stoned/wasted, or if they are wearing a short skirt."
According to your post, you can "invite" something to happen by walking in a bad neighborhood, or by walking in a poorly lit are at night.
This Is Not An Invitation to Rape Me
Sexual assault doesn't kill you, usually
Yes, and? Like I said I don't dispute the statistics.
Rape hysteria gives women an unrealistic, unfounded, cultural power over society...because most rape claims are false, unrealistic, and unfounded.
Cultural power???
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it.
With all this hysteria talk about rape...one would think that women/girls are being raped behind every closed door in America..Which is just simply not the case.
How is it hysteria if women are the majority of the victims (this isn't about women or men as a class)? I thought you all were for people talking about safety percautions in regards to rape. Maybe I'm thinking of something else, is the hysteria in regards to the believed amount of occurances? But still, if most of the victims are women....
Renee says,
"Rape seems to be the only crime in which people have this huge discussion about what the victim did and didn't do, what she should've and shouldn't have done, like that could've change anything of what happened"
honey, you live in some kind of fictional universe if you think that is a typical scenario. Actually you do have a tendency to mix things up. What Pierce is talking about has little if anything to do with any particular individual being second-guessed...which doesn't happen anyway, because it is considered victim-blaming.
You have been indoctrinated in the feminist mantra beyond all hope.
"For one thing women are STILL being told that there's a connection between a likelihood of rape and what you wear."
Actually, fairly recent studies have shown there is in fact a relationship between youth and beauty, and who gets raped. That is why rape victims are usually in their 20's or 30's. And any idiot can see that the more skin a good-looking woman shows, the more it will be apparent that she is good-looking.
Only complete dipshits living in a world of denial cannot see that that makes perfect sense.
regarding my above entry,
Actually, the myth of the 70-year old rape victim use to be the crux of the 'rape is a crime of power' argument, if my memory serves me correctly.
[Okay, I admit it...it's not a myth. I saw a whole one case written up in the Washington Post over about a 17-year period of living in that area. And please don't someone tell me there are lots more old ladies being raped than we hear about.]
Okay, If I am dressed to the nines and wearing expensive jewelry and I walk into a neighborhood or an establishment where robbery is likely to occur or, I enter such wearing just a t shirt and plain blue jeans, which will make me most likely to get robbed?
I have heard it before; never judge a book by it's cover but, I have also heard; first impressions are lasting impressions. A person is usually judged by their appearance. If I appear to be wealthy, people will more than likely think I am wealthy thus, I am more attractive to robbers. Would it be fair to say I brought it upon myself for presenting an appearance of being wealthy?
Renee, you seem to purposefully misread what I write so I cannot respond to any further. Nor will I read any articles that are one-sided radical gender feminist bullshit. If you'd listen to what I write, you would learn something instead of using my clear words as an opportunity to espouse a radical feminist ideology.
For everyone else, no woman who is raped "asks" for it. The real question is, was it really rape? When a woman who manifests conduct consistent with someone out for sex based on all the surrounding circumstances, it's impossible to say if she consented or refused to consent. Most of the alleged "victim blaming," I submit, is really people wondering aloud if she willingly assented to sex. For every instance of such wondering ("victim blaming"), contrary to the popular stereotype, there is twice as much whispering that the guy is a dreaded rapist.
This topic, of course, is ground zero for the radical feminists since they would have us believe the surrounding circumstances, the testimony of the guy, even DNA evidence that contradicts the allegation of rape are meaningless. Let us be brutally frank: they insist that a woman is raped whenever she says she was raped, the other evidence be damned, so anyone who would dare question that "fact" is a woman hater.
In fact, they, of course, are misandrists who also hate women -- because when we thrown our sons and brothers and husbands and boyfriends in jail based on a woman's word that is contradicted by the evidence, we not only destroy an innocent man or boy, we destroy the women and children who depend on him.
I knew from the beginning that Ms. Renee was a poser and a feminist troll. She does not and never has supported the False Rape Society cause. All of her posts should be ignored.
Actually you do have a tendency to mix things up.
As some of you all do with my posts.
So a woman brings it on herself by what she WEARS then??? Should women not show ANY skin then as a safety percaution?
Okay, If I am dressed to the nines and wearing expensive jewelry and I walk into a neighborhood or an establishment where robbery is likely to occur or, I enter such wearing just a t shirt and plain blue jeans, which will make me most likely to get robbed?
What is an equivalent situation in the case of rape then? If a woman wears shorts, halter top, a short skirt, a short/and or low-cut dress, or even tight jeans and top to any party, club, or large public entertainment gathering?
So what would you all have women do then, especially to avoid looking like she "consents" to sex. I mean hey, a guy from a difference country and blame a rape victim for "inviting" rape if she doesn't dress how her culture dictates she dress.
Anon,
Exactly what studies are you talking about? Are they scientific?
Bad Science: Asking For It
You guys are basically saying that women incite rapists by what they wear, right? A victim is somehow partly responsible for the behavior of a rapist by what she wore. Sure....
"You guys are basically saying that women incite rapists by what they wear, right?"
That's NOT what I am saying. I am saying that sometimes, people wonder if a woman might have actually consented based on all the surrounding circumstances, and this is transmogrified into "victim blaming." You see, what the rad fems really object to is anyone questioning a woman's claim that she was raped, so they gussy it up into "victim blaming."
Evolution, Gender, and Rape: Women Should Dress to Avoid Rape...How?
Page 198-200
This is just a piece from that section:
How would you advise women to dress to avoid rape? There have been rapists who were aquitted because the victim dressed "provocatively" in a turtleneck sweater and a mid-calf skirt...
A Woman's Clothing is Not an Incitement to Rape: The Myth
This is a Scotland based website:
The way women dress is routinely cited as an incitement to rape. References to sheer and clinging fabrics, low-slung jeans and low-cut tops, bare midriffs, short skirts and liberally applied make-up are common in the context of rape trials.
Women are often judged on the basis of the way they present themselves, as though the presence of a bra or a subtler shade of lipstick might have made all the difference between an uneventful occasion, and one on which a sexual assault took place.
The assumption that such choices can lead to rape – that clothes can speak for women who say no – are ludicrous and extremely damaging.
Although she is the complainer in the case, which means that there is every chance she has been raped, it is the woman, and not her alleged attacker who is held up for public examination.
Scrutinising the way in which a woman was dressed at the time of an assault is one of many ways in which common myths and prejudices are exploited in order to damage her reputation and credibility in the interests of the defence.
Although the accused’s behaviour and intentions are of far more relevance than any clothing, in Scotland, he rarely takes the stand or is made to account for his choices or behaviour.
The Impact
"Although she is the complainer in the case, which means that there is every chance she has been raped . . . ."
That's from one of Renee's sources. That tells us everything we need to know about their objectivity.
Why does she torture our website like this?
"Why does she torture our website like this?"
Huh? The question should be:
Why do I ALLOW her to torture our website like this? Block her IP.
That's NOT what I am saying.
That may not be what you're saying Pierce, but I'm getting that impression from the other posters.
I still believe that unless you're dressed in nothing but lingerie with the blatant intent to have sex or in the case of a loving couple who trust each other, what a person wears to public places plays no part in consent. Believe it or not, many women do like to dress nice to attract men, like you said, and it goes no farther than that. I mean who goes to a club looking frumpy?
Questioning whether she consented based on whether she was drinking PERIOD (and not whether she was actually drunk), what she wears isn't right. In the case of how she acted before the exact incident, what constitutes "consenting", flirting, kissing, dancing with a guy? Women do kiss and flirt without the intention of sex you know.
What matters to me is the evidence. Now the question is, what constitutes as evidence in these cases besides DNA and any possible physical marks?
I knew from the beginning that Ms. Renee was a poser and a feminist troll. She does not and never has supported the False Rape Society cause. All of her posts should be ignored.
AGAIN, just people I disagree with you all on a few things, I'm a feminist? What makes you think that parts of my opinion are feminist ideas and not ideas that people generally believe? My ideas on parts of this topic have nothing to do with my ideas about false rape allegations. Did you even visit the website that I posted. It isn't even a radical feminist website, much less a feminist website.
What Pierce is talking about has little if anything to do with any particular individual being second-guessed...which doesn't happen anyway, because it is considered victim-blaming.
Actually, if you question whether rape really happened and if instead she consented, then that is second-guessing the rape victim. And that does happen. Depending on what is being asked, it's not always victim-blaming.
If I appear to be wealthy, people will more than likely think I am wealthy thus, I am more attractive to robbers. Would it be fair to say I brought it upon myself for presenting an appearance of being wealthy?
This example is ridiculous. A wealthy person has the right to dress whatever constitutes as appearing rich, especially if they earned that wealth. I doubt that a wealthy person consciously walks into a neighborhood where robbery is likely to take place anyway unless they HAVE to. That person didn't "bring it on him/herself".
Well, I've said my piece. Agree to disagree.
Anon, how do I block her on blogger?
Pierce, if you have no access to blocking IPs, as the Administrator of your blog, can't you delete posts from any user?
Renee said...
" What is an equivalent situation in the case of rape then? If a woman wears shorts, halter top, a short skirt, a short/and or low-cut dress, or even tight jeans and top to any party, club, or large public entertainment gathering? "
IMHO, it may not only be what a woman wears but also how she behaves. I don't know of any men who are mind readers. If a woman is dressed in a provocative manner and not only flirting but, in essence, doing what was once known as " prick teasing", how is a man supposed to respond? Is he supposed to ask her what her intentions are? Ask if she is teasing him or is she really interested in having sex with him?
Ask her if she is just using him?
Ask her if she is just seeking attention?
Are you saying that it is ok for a woman to dress provocatively,tease men and, play them? The hotel I work at used to have a bar. I actually heard a woamn tell another woman, who was complaining about a man who was talking to her, " if you don't want to get "hit on" or "picked up", then what are you doing in a bar?" The woman who was talking also made issue with the manner in which the complaining woman was dressed. I did disagree (silently) with one thing she said; "everybody knows you go to bars to get picked up.
Back to being dressed to project the image of being wealthy or, being actually wealthy and dressing any way I want, yes it would be my right but, I should be aware of how I dress may be interpreted by others. If I walk into a bar where most of the clientele are women, I may naturally attract the eyes of women who are just looking for some "sugar daddy" to buy them drinks and give them money to pay their bills with.
Now if I refuse to buy any woman in the bar a drink or give her/them any money, I will most likely, based on seeing the experiences of men who have done so, be called gay,a fake or, any other stinging shaming insult(s) she/they wish to hurl at me. I may have went to the bar with no intention of meeting any women or, seeking any company but, how I am dressed conveyed a different intent. Would it be right for me to be insulted or shamed because a woman got the wrong impression? No, just as it isn't right for a man to assume a woman wearing certain clothing is seeking someone to have sex with. However, if I dressed in clothing that couldn't be perceived as someone looking to attract the attention of a woman or spend money buying a woman drinks or giving her money to pay her bills, the likelyhood of causing confusion wouldn't exist. Do you think if I dressed to the nines and had a large amount of money, I wouldn't attract women looking for some of it? What would you have me do, dress like a bum? Stay at home?
As far as being robbed,robbery can take place anywhere ( not just armed robbery). If I am dressed in a manner that displays my wealth and I get robbed, who is to blame?
To connect the logic of being robbed to being raped, doesn't rape rob the victim of somethings?
Do you suppose I would be blamed for the way I dressed? The manner I behaved?
"Anon, how do I block her on blogger?"
I wonder if 'Renee' can take a hint?
I am beginning to recognize her method of commenting as essentially the same as jeana's on gs.com. The difference is 'jeana' appears to be more radical or antagonistic in her manner of commenting, but if you look beneath the surface, there are a lot of similarities.
The difference is enough, however, to convice us that it is possible that Renee is not a troll, but is instead someone with good intentions and an I.Q. of ten.
Renee could be the infamous blogger known as Robin Steele.
The bottom line is she does not support this site, she's merely playing with it. Please stop responding to her posts and just ignore her.
who's Robin Steele?
http://siberianow.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/robin-steele-exposed-part-2/
thanks for posting the link, but I better not look at it tonight. I'm already pissed off about something else.
Post a Comment