Prof. KC Johnson, guru of the Duke Lacrosse fales rape spectacle, is following Hofstra, and among other things, he writes:
"[T]he New York Times covered the accuser’s recantation in an article penned by Anahad O’Connor. O’Connor’s article shielded Ndonye’s name, yet included the names and ages of the four men she falsely accused. Even assuming that a rationale exists for shielding the names of false accusers (which is quite a stretch in and of itself), what possible rationale could exist for not reporting the name of the false accuser while simultaneously reporting the names of the people she falsely accused? I e-mailed O’Connor for comment, but have not received a reply; if I do, I will post it."
You want to know why Ms. O'Connor didn't write back? Because she knows that by any reasonable measure, the practice Prof. Johnson complained of is wholly indefensible. It is a sorry vestige of radical feminism that purports to empower women by pretending they are powerless. It is yet one more example of a wrongheaded, politicized policy that treats the falsely accused as collateral damage in "the more important" war on rape.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
It is a sorry vestige of radical feminism that purports to empower women by pretending they are powerless. It is yet one more example of a wrongheaded, politicized policy that treats the falsely accused as collateral damage in "the more important" war on rape.
In the end it is going to be self-defeating for women. The lame-stream media is dying anyway, and their ability to conceal the truth and spread their lies has been seriously decrease by the internet.
I've read a lot of commentary on this case, and the comments are running overwhelmingly against the standard women's position that men's concerns and issues are insignificant because women's are always so much worse. Most threads have a few dedicated trolls like we have here trying to confuse the conversation and parrot the party line, but eventually their lack of good faith and essential malice becomes apparent.
When the tide of public sentiment turns against them, it won't matter how loud they shriek - their credibility will have been destroyed. Men are becoming aware that women will believe a liar and vote to convict even if the man can prove he was having dinner with Obama at the time the alleged "rape" was supposed to occur.
I think we are watching the death throes of a dying strategy, and the more doggedly they pursue it the faster it is going to die. Once men become generally aware of the essential malice that women have toward them, they will withdraw their support of women and we will end up seeing how "empowered" they actually are once their lies no longer work.
Great work, KC Johnson. Keep up the pressure on the liars.
I was reading today's Newsday and shook my head when I read the letters to the editor about this case. Every one they printed spoke of how even though it was consensual, the males should be ashamed and were disgusting for participating in it. Not one even implied that the female should be ashamed or had any responsibility. She was "troubled". Of course on the flip side it's never suggested that males are "troubled" or "just need help". It's pathetic. The truth of the matter is the ultimate control in any sexual encounter is by the woman. In any consensual sex, it occurs bc the female permits it. This whole delusion that females are helpless and have no power is so laughable.
Post a Comment