Saturday, February 27, 2010

Idiocy from a radical feminist who couldn't care less about the falsely accused

Here's the literary equivalent of especially pungent feces from I Blame the Patriarchy,whose blogger seems not only to hate and despise and loathe approximately one-half of the population of planet earth solely due to their gender (don't trust me, go to her blog and decide for yourself) -- because, gee, wouldn't you know it, that half hates and oppresses and subjugates the other half! -- but almost as bad, she truly thinks she's funny. You know, "funny" in that supposedly sharp, intrusive, and er biting way that man-hating feminists aspire to be. "Pathetic" is too mild a word to describe them, much less their writing. Read this diarrhea of the keyboard by the person who runs that blog, as she tries to ridicule people concerned about men falsely accused of rape (and by the way, that includes such vile misogynists such as the folks who run The Innocence Project, and Janet Reno who's on the board of the Innocence Project, and Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Prof. KC Johnson, and countless others). Following the nutty blather, we'll try to put it in perspective for you (as if shit needs to be put into perspective):

Speaking of real life and downers, one of my aged relatives just called to complain to me about this situation, displayed on the front page of this morning’s Dallas Morning News: Wrongfully convicted rapist gets exonerated after a 12-year hitch, and the Great State of Texas reimburses him $600,000. But along comes the IRS with jaws that bite and claws that catch, claiming non-rapist owes a third of the dough to the federal government.

Along with a sympathetic pang for the dude unjustly accused of rape, my relative harbors an abiding antipathy toward the IRS.

“Bastards!” says the aged relative, getting pretty fired up.

“Now see here,” I say, “you’d better give me the keys to the Cessna.”

No doubt the IRS are bastards, but one can’t help but note that there is no commensurate front-page public outpouring of outrage on behalf of the rape victims whose rapists are never convicted at all. Nobody’s payin’ them 50 grand a year for pain and suffering. No newspapers are running front-page articles spotlighting the government’s failure to render justice on their behalf. And for sure no relatives are callin’ me up to complain that the rape conviction rate in the UK is only 6%.

Wrongful conviction for rape strikes quite the chord of intense indignation. So melodious is this chord to the ears of patriarchy enthusiasts that there still rages, in 2010, a huge debate over whether a rape victim may be held responsible for her own rape.

FRS COMMENTS: First, I am conflicted about printing this because it only furnishes ammunition to misogynists who don't need any more ammunition than they think they already have. The "person" who writes this blog is not representative of women, of course, but I still feel conflicted.

Second, I would have to be that vile misogynist Shakespeare (he's a "vile misogynist" because he's male) to adequately describe the idiocy at work in her "reasoning." I will say this much: isn't it wonderful how radical feminism can't see the difference between (1) the negligence and sometimes intentional misconduct of the criminal justice system, operating at the behest of society as a whole, when it works in complicity with a false rape accuser to deprive an innocent man or boy of his liberty for years or decades, destroying his life in the process, and (2) the felonious, unilateral act of a lone criminal who rapes a woman? But, hey, why let little things like, oh, facts and reality, get in the way of a good woman-as-perpetual-victim metanarrative?  Get it straight (and I know "straight" doesn't apply to you, lady):  in the former, the harm was caused by the system acting for all of us; in the latter, the harm was caused by a criminal. Get it? Those rape "victims" who are deprived of justice can sue their "rapists" civilly (with its attendant reduced burden of proof). But before they can prevail, they need to prove it.

Third, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism knows that when a man or boy accused of rape is cleared or exonerated or found "not guilty," the justice system by necessity has "failed" the "victim"? Never mind that such failure must be taken as a matter of faith by relying on the word of -- cough, cough -- radical feminists, who hate men like this "human being" seems to (again, don't take my word for it -- read her blog and decide for yourself).

Fourth, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism truly, really thinks that when it comes to rape, the justice system is working at the behest of the rape accuser alone as opposed to society as a whole? You know, it's in no one's interest aside from the accuser to get rapists off the street. Right.

Fifth, isn't it astounding when radical feminists complain that there is widespread indignation for the falsely accused when they, themselves, spearheaded an avalanche of rape reforms in the past three decades to make it easier and easier and easier to convict innocent men and boys of rape?  Because of "people" like this, society has handed women and girls unprecedented power to bring their rapists to justice, but it never bothered to consider what to do when when they abuse that power.

But enough of this. I have "misogny" I need to practice: I have to respond to some email from men falsely accused of rape.