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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
This lady is just spouting her "pig dribble".
Gender / Raunch feminists get a disproportionate amount of cultural power and persuasion when they spread "hysteria".
If society was to force logic and reality in the realm of hysteria..it would diffuse the hysteria that has turned our otherwise sound legal system into a sort of "Klan court".
The problem with women like this is that they are too busy feeling sorry for themselves over the "wage gap" or the "glass ceiling" or too many skinny models or whatever, that they have no sympathy left to spare for men whose lives have been ruined due to false accusations.
The whole response is 'Yeah yeah, whatever. Now can we get back to the woman-as-victim narrative. I am so much more comfortable with that.'
"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."
Surely this is satire designed to send up feminist hatred and stupidity.
First she mocks the fact that people would get indignant over anyone being wrongly convicted and jailed for a crime they never committed. Yeah right. What hollow posturing and grandstanding! I guess we just want something to complain about!
Then she makes the ridiculous tangental leap from that to claiming some link with blaming actual rape victims for being raped.
My, you are one clever girl!
The name of her blog sums it all up.
I can also add to the insanity of her post with this:
"A culture of homosexual group sex has been exposed with recent allegations of ‘sexual abuse’ by some retired fire fighters against their colleagues. These allegations have given rise to a debate on the nature of consent within group sex between men.
[...]
We need to take into consideration several important points before we make such spurious judgment on the nature of this so called ‘abuse’.
One, it is a well known fact that groups of men in dangerous occupations tend to have sex with each other. The men making claims of abuse, knowingly and willing entered into a hazardous occupation which was, and still is, male dominated. What did they think was going to happen? Cup cakes and Kumbayah? No, these men knew full well the nature of other men and they willingly entered into an environment where they knew there was a risk of sex. Haven’t they seen the sexy calenders that firefighters produce for gay men?
[...]
Three, none of the men indicated that the group sex was unwelcome until years later. They report passively accepting the ‘abuse’, none of them claim to have asked the accused to stop, nor did they indicate that they had struggled in any way. It is difficult to believe that the advances of the accused were unwelcome when no indication was made on the part of the ‘victim’ to resist."
(see http://allecto.wordpress.com/)
This blogger then adds a note at the end that she didn't really mean it, bla bla bla, like I believe it.
Actually what pissed me off more than the garden variety man-hater, was the Dallas Morning News thing where the guy get's awarded $600,000 from the state and has to pay a 1/3 of that to the Govt. in taxes.
That's disgusting, and another example of why I don't acknowledge or recognize this govt we have. They don't work for me. They're not my govt.
They're thieves and criminals and have been partying with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money for decades now. Screw them.
How she can equate a rape victim with someone who's been wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years is a bit of a give-away (to the fact that most of her brain is missing).
No rape victim has ever been raped continuously and without break for 12 years running.
"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 to radical feminists, 'society' is responsible for creating and encouraging rape. So anyone indoctrinated in this ideology would see a rough equivalence between the two. That is, they are both injustices created by society as a whole.
Also, feminists believe men are collectively responsible for rape or anything bad that happens to women. So if a man is falsely accused, it is really his own fault for contributing to the rape culture in the first place. Only when men have solved all the world's problems and can guarantee women will never experience anything unpleasant do we get our human rights back. It is kind of like the reward for rescuing the maiden from the dragon.
The thing I find most ridiculous about this ideology is that holding men to such absurdly high standards of responsibility compared to women is clearly not compatible with treating women as adults with equal moral agency.
The gender / Raunch crowd that NOW dominate American politics has risen to power using faulty and inflammatory agitation propaganda.
Now that they are leading the country, where are they taking us??
1. Obesity is an epidemic amongst American children, (maybe because the gender / Raunch community has told society that sports and recess can be taken out of schools because its so male, and causes violence against women).
2. boys are being dumbed down, and sit in front of the T.V. wacked out on psychological drugs (mostly moms getting them on them against the wishes of the father).
3. while society is consumed with "women as victim hysteria", the perverts that are running our country are selling our childrens futures to China.
4. America collapses under the weight of its own decadence, all the while the media tells us to keep watching the "women as victim hysteria"
Nick says
"The thing I find most ridiculous about this ideology is that holding men to such absurdly high standards of responsibility compared to women is clearly not compatible with treating women as adults with equal moral agency."
good stuff!!
We could have avoided all of these false allegations if we had just liquidated these "females" 30 years ago.
Females who spew anti male hatred should have been pelted with garbage and given a good beating.You don't debate femi nazies, you beat the crap out of them along with every little mangina who supports them.
The number of posts and comments from this year so far compared to 2009 have nearly DOUBLED.
Outstanding work!
Something that may be helpful to the readers here would be to compile a "scoreboard" database of the news stories posted that shows:
. Country of the story's origin
. Number of persons accused in the case
. Number of accusers
. Accused Named in story?
. Accusers Named in story?
. Age of person accused at time of accusation
. Age of accuser(s) at time of accusation
. Prior accusation made by accuser? y/n
. Reason false accusation made:
(need for alibi, to hide sexual activities, revenge/spite, etc)
. Prior criminal record accuser y/n?
. Prior criminal record accused y/n?
. Accused arrested?
. Amt of time accused incarcerated
. plea bargain y/n ?
. acquitted y/n?
. DNA evidence y/n ?
. Accuser recanted y/n?
. Case dropped by police y/n?
. Case dropped by DA's office y/n?
. involves malfeasance, deception, or fabrication of evidence on part of law enforcement or DA y/n?
. Occupation of Accused (if known)
. Occupation of Accusers (if known)
. Link to post
. etc (there many ways to categorize)
This would be especially useful for verification when those who oppose us come trolling -- to be able to quote stats from the news stories we post here. Instead of telling some troll gender-feminist to spend her next several weeks reading this site to understand the issues, we could fight statistics with statistics (and save them weeks of reading that you know that they aren't going to do anyway). Perhaps it may also quell the need for name calling and useless invectives. Indexing this blog as mentioned above would be a BIG help to our cause.
"Don't feed the trolls."
This hate blog is cited as a catalyst for conversation, not because I am so outraged by it. I think it's good every so often to highlight what we're up against.
Yes, any fool can start a blog so why give her any attention? Sure, it's fun to laugh at her but I doubt if she has more than 2 people reading her so called blog.So why wase your time on her.
Anon, you are incorrect about her audience. She has a huge audience. She was just cited by a large mainstream liberal blog. And I wish that we could just poke fun at her, but she and her ilk are too dangerous for that. Some of her snarky ideas echo feminist legal scholars' ideas, which aren't that far off from her thinking. Seriously. We need to highlight and be aware that there are people like this out there. By the way, she's the one who once wrote a post called "How to end rape" setting forth her plan to end rape. It includes the following vile inanity:
"The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of non-consent . . . . As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished (by my calculation.
. . . .
"Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration."
FRS NOTE: One comment to that particular post (when she allowed comments to posts) said this:
“I think the central point that the dudes ‘don’t get’ is that the majority of [advocates of this bizarre proposal] genuinely don’t care if [the] proposal is ‘not fair’ to the hypothetical falsely accused rapist of the post-revolution future.”
P.S. Yeah, that quote I posted in the previous comment is laughable -- but is it? How far off is the following serious proposal by a feminist legal scholar?
Feminist scholar's new book proposes most dangerous idea ever: turn sex into a presumed crime when a woman cries 'rape'
Most of the excessive feminist rape reforms were once dismissed by sleepwalking men and women as laughable. See where we are now.
I'm sold. These people aren't funny, they're scary.
Archivist, I know you won't like me saying this - you may even consider it 'misogynist', whatever that means.
But after reading that shit you just posted, I pretty much just stopped caring about women being raped.
"There is an alliance, in the sense that politics makes strange bedfellows. Law enforcement is under inappropriate scrutiny from rape feminist groups to take rape "seriously.""
Except that isn't what the word "alliance" means. An alliance is a voluntary and mutual agreement. No one in law enforcement wants to be under this inappropriate scrutiny.
"Among many other things, the result is that law enforcement often takes precautions that it otherwise would not take. It arrests men based on the say so of a lone accuser because to refuse to do that would be seen as "not believing" a rape victim . And rather than release an accused rapist while they investigate, they fear the remote possibility that he will actually rape someone if released. If that were to occur, the hue and cry would sound wide and far among women's groups and the police officers who released him likely would lose their jobs. DAs are under similar pressures, as are judges."
I completely agree, except this pressure is not entirely, or even mostly, from women's groups. Everyone hates rapists, including the most un-feminist hardcore conservatives. Even the other criminals hate rapists. And it's been this way long before there was ever such a thing as feminism. The problem that feminism has caused is that it has pushed for legislation, such as the VAWA, changing the law itself.
"example 1..When police arrest a non violent man in a domestic violence situation, and hold him in jail until he pleads guilty to a lessor charge just to get out, this sir is one of the ways law enforcement is "manufacturing statistics"."
No, mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence are part of the VAWA. That's the law, not law enforcement. Nor does that have anything to do with statistics.
[(1) To implement mandatory arrest or pro-arrest programs and policies in police departments, including mandatory arrest programs and policies for protection order violations (Part U, SEC. 2101)."
http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/federal-domestic-violence-legislation.html]
"You see in order to meet their gender feminist bosses 2% false rape accusation number, when in reality the percentages are much higher, the law enforcement community simply "re-defines what the meaning of is, is"
.... By Not leaving any paper trails of false rape accusations, they can continue to tell the public the faulty and inflammatory misinformation that only 2% of all rape accusations are false, when the reality is much greater."
Please show me exactly which statistic based on police data that produces such a number. The UCR/NIBRS no longer has such a category, and it was never 2% even when it it did.
Anon at 10:42: Allies don't have to love each other, and this seems like an alliance. Also, when you say this " except this pressure is not entirely, or even mostly, from women's groups," you overplay your hand. Rape hysteria has always been a problem, but it has now infected vast numbers of middle class college boys and is an epidemic. Why? Well, you do the math: which group spearheaded the multitude of rape reforms that not only expanded the scope of rape to include non-forcible, uncorroborated rapes? Marital rape? What group spearheaded the efforts to forbid any evidence of the accuser's sexual past with men other than the accused? Hint: it begins with an "f." For the past 30 years, feminims has been the intellectual firepower that has fomented rape hysteria. They have used the law and order clout of chivalrous men and women, feminism's useful idiots, to give teeth to their ideology.
Sorry that you take such offense to Scott's posts. I do agree that we should be careful suggesting conspiracy theories (akin to theories that have JFK living on the top floor of Parkland Memorial Hospital), but feminims has molded rape law for the past several decades, and that's a fact.
Snark, I understand how you feel. Yours is a righteous anger. Might I suggest that we think about innocent and guilty people and forget gender and the particular crime. Trust me, I know how hard that is given the hatred spewed by some who want us to support rape victims.
Funny, isn't it, that rape advocates are turning off decent people like you because of their hatred. Talk about a bad tactic. Rape victims ought to tell these assholes to shut up because they are doing more harm for their cause than anyone.
"Might I suggest that we think about innocent and guilty people and forget gender and the particular crime."
Oh, believe me, I have a conception of justice which is quite separate from my own personal feelings - that's a problem feminists seem to have. Separating the two.
E.g. even if I feel absolutely nothing for raped women, I still believe that, if the evidence shows beyond a doubt that a rape occurred, and the rapist was indeed the defendant, then he should serve a considerable sentence.
That's a principle of justice which is based on reason, not emotion. It takes into account guilt and innocence. The punishment should fit the crime but must be civilised.
If I were unable to separate out reason from emotion, I might advocate something like those complete fuckwits Arpagus and MikeeUSA advocate, e.g. a 'right to rape' and so forth.
As it turns out, I do believe in principles of justice, abstracted from my own personal beliefs. The two may even conflict, in which case the former must win out. And of course, we can't discount the fact of crossover: unless one is extremely careful, principle and reason become infected by emotional bias nonetheless.
However, if I were to find that an actual rapist had walked free, I just don't think I'd care any more. Bit by bit, this radical, extreme misandrist shit from vile feminists has killed off those places inside me that might have given a damn.
"However, if I were to find that an actual rapist had walked free, I just don't think I'd care any more. Bit by bit, this radical, extreme misandrist shit from vile feminists has killed off those places inside me that might have given a damn."
I think Snark has given voice to a widespread trend that rape victims and all of us who care about rape victims need to address. Feminist sexual assault "advocates," with their genders war nonsense and insistence on a "patriarchy" that protects rapists, have turned off hordes of decent and intelligent people from caring about rape. I hear people articulate this in various ways, but never with the clarity that Snark has done. He's angry. He's disgusted. And who can blame him? Spend a few hours reading through this blog and you'll understand why.
The self-appointed advocates for rape have made it very, very difficult for men and the people who care about men to care about rape. They are using the crime of rape to advance some twisted ideology separate and apart from raising awareness about rape. They are getting high on a sort of victim fetish, where men and the their patriarchy are oppressors. And I say that as someone who forces himself to care about rape -- it is a real effort.
Rape victims need to stand up and denounce the man-haters. Seriously. They aren't doing you any favors. They are dividing the populace on an issue where there should be total agreement. Don't ignore Snark's feelings. He is tapping into something that I think is widespread.
Let me put this in as simpleton terms as possible.
Faulty and inflammatory "manufactured statistics" being given to the public, that is pre-judge-icing the public against the innocent is a perversion of our legal system. It is also unconstitutional to use federal dollars to discriminate.
I already explained how law enforcement by the strategic use of gender feminist inspired "perverted protocols" are manufacturing faulty and inflammatory misinformation. This is in fact un-constitutional, and the gender feminist deviants in their war on man, and traditional family have simply gone too far, and need to be re-balanced.
"Anon at 10:42: Allies don't have to love each other"
Which is irrelevant.
"and this seems like an alliance."
Then please explain how, without ignoring what words mean.
"Also, when you say this " except this pressure is not entirely, or even mostly, from women's groups," you overplay your hand."
No, not in the least. Most people are not liberal feminists, but the fear and hatred of rape and rapists is almost universal.
"Rape hysteria has always been a problem, but it has now infected vast numbers of middle class college boys and is an epidemic. Why? Well, you do the math: which group spearheaded the multitude of rape reforms that not only expanded the scope of rape to include non-forcible, uncorroborated rapes? Marital rape? What group spearheaded the efforts to forbid any evidence of the accuser's sexual past with men other than the accused? Hint: it begins with an "f.""
Again, those are changes in the law (or university policies). Making the law, which is what politicians do, and enforcing the law, which is what the police do, are two different things.
"Sorry that you take such offense to Scott's posts."
Regardless, there are two very important things to consider here.
Firstly, there is is problem of making claims without evidence, which anyone who is against false rape accusations or feminist misinformation should understand.
Secondly, it makes us all look crazy, and puts people off.
"I do agree that we should be careful suggesting conspiracy theories (akin to theories that have JFK living on the top floor of Parkland Memorial Hospital)"
So let's not do that.
"but feminims has molded rape law for the past several decades, and that's a fact."
There is no "but" here, as that's exactly what I wrote, "The problem that feminism has caused is that it has pushed for legislation, such as the VAWA, changing the law itself", and not some imaginary conspiracy.
"Making the law, which is what politicians do, and enforcing the law, which is what the police do, are two different things."
It's real simple: the police wouldn't be enforcing draconian rape laws without the rape reforms spearheaded by rape feminism. Your insistence on disconnecting the two is peculiar. Ya got bad, hateful policy being enforced vigorously by folks fearing to lose their jobs. Get it?
You've made your point here, and on another thread (or at least you've tried to). People can either choose to agree with you or not. I don't. But we're beating a dead horse with this, so move on to something else.
"Let me put this in as simpleton terms as possible.
Faulty and inflammatory "manufactured statistics"
So let me ask again, which faulty and inflammatory statistics are being manufactured by law enforcement?
You've falsely accused the the police for producing this "2%" statistic a hundred times over, yet you cannot produce the slightest shred of evidence to back it up.
"I already explained how law enforcement by the strategic use of gender feminist inspired "perverted protocols" are manufacturing faulty and inflammatory misinformation."
No, you haven't. You only spouted some double strawman about arresting people for domestic violence, which is not only the law itself, but has nothing to do with rape statistics.
Back on topic: Snark, I think your comments, and your understandable disgust, ought to be its own post.
My last comment on that alliance nonsense: the two percent canard actually found its way into the legislative history to justify passage of VAWA, one of feminism's crowning achievements.
Now, ENOUGH!!
"Snark, I think your comments, and your understandable disgust, ought to be its own post."
All righty. Your place or mine?
Let's cross post -- can you write it?
Yeah. I'd actually like to tie it into something related, so expect it up on my blog today or tomorrow.
Great, then we'll run it here. Also plug your excellent blog.
"It's real simple: the police wouldn't be enforcing draconian rape laws without the rape reforms spearheaded by rape feminism."
I completely agree. The problem is the law itself, and the solution is to change that law.
"Your insistence on disconnecting the two is peculiar."
What's peculiar is blaming the law on the police, and not being able to separate the two. You sound like some teenager who is angry at the cops because he got busted for drinking and driving.
"Ya got bad, hateful policy being enforced vigorously by folks fearing to lose their jobs. Get it?"
No, I don't get how that constitutes a "misinformation alliance" or any sort of collusion between police and feminists.
"You've made your point here, and on another thread (or at least you've tried to). People can either choose to agree with you or not. I don't. But we're beating a dead horse with this, so move on to something else."
If you don't agree, then you should be able to explain why, although you certainly aren't under any obligation to do so. I'm hardly the only one who posts here who is tired of seeing one person post the same boilerplate comments over and over again. So I find your suggestion more than a bit odd that anyone else is beating a dead horse and should move on, when the same false and unsubstantiated comments have been repeatedly posted, almost verbatim, several hundred times.
I apologize if I seem impertinent. It's just that in my opinion, the image this blog has is important in what it is trying to accomplish, and we should be especially careful not to alienate those who have significant credibility with the public on the subject of crime.
"Now, ENOUGH!!"
Sorry, I posted before I saw that.
Still, you are right. The police did not produce that number.
Seriously, this is my last post on this issue. You're free to say what you want.
Your statement about my sounding like a teenager is insulting (and that's as you intended it) and it evinces a significant ignorance about my innumerable writings on these subjects. My beliefs and understandings can't be simplified into a single comment -- there's not enough room, and I don't have enough time. Again, another of my themes is the importance of recognizing nuance.
While the conduct of law enforcement is being swayed in important respects by rape feminism, most police "get" it. They know that these are very tricky issues that need to be navigated with delicacy. Too many don't "get" it.
But for reasons known only to you, and contrary to the millions of words written on this blog, you minimize the deleterious effects of rape feminism over the past thirty years. ". . . except this pressure is not entirely, or even mostly, from women's groups."
Come again?
Arresting college boys on uncorroborated acquaintance rape claims that did not involve force or resistance is not driven by womens' groups?
How can I say this politely? I'll just come out with it. You're wrong. That sort of claim, which is ground zero for rape feminists (they don't talk about stranger rape), is only charged and only leads to expulsions and convictions because of rape feminism.
"Everyone hates rapists, including the most un-feminist hardcore conservatives."
Stranger rapists and men who force themselves on a woman. Yes. But that's not what the rape feminists are talking about. That's not what we're talking about.
Everyone hates college boys who get drunk with their dates who then decide to have sex -- but only the boys are arrested for rape?!
Sorry. Not in my experience. Not in the real world. People don't approve (and they esp. disapprove of women acting like that), but they aren't in favor of treating college boys like stranger rapists and shipping them off to prison.
And husbands who supposedly "rape" their wives -- which claims are based on the wife's uncorroborated say so and did not involve force or resistance -- but are made just so she could get the upper hand in an upcoming divorce?!
Conservatives approve of that?
None of that -- none of it -- could have been charged before the feminist rape reform revolution. And from everything I've seen, modesty aside -- in my expert opinion -- most people are outraged that men are charged for those things. Ever read the comments beneath a local story about a false rape claim? These aren't people who read this blog. They are average people who are reading their local paper. Men, women, doesn't matter -- they're almost always outraged. They think the pendulum has swung too far. The idea that Joe Six Pack is sitting in front of his TV rooting for the justice system to toss college boys in jail for drunken sex, or to take the woman's word in a custody battle is -- pardon my French -- horseshit.
These things are only done, and they only have the force of law, because of, as you call them, women's groups. Rape feminists, to be more accurate.
In your words, it makes us all look crazy, and puts people off, when we insist on something that isn't so.
So don't do it.
That is literally my last word on the subject because I am under a deadline to get something else done.
No i was not busted for drinking and driving, I was falsely accused of rape that simply never happened, and almost beaten to death by the guys she told this lie to; and the police that handled my case refused to charge her with anything...which would have showed the community i live in that she was lying when she said i raped her.
Women as victim hysteria = massive amounts of pork dollars for white middle class females.
Archvist said...
"Most of the excessive feminist rape reforms were once dismissed by sleepwalking men and women as laughable. See where we are now."
I see Archvist is finally waking up and realizing that heterosexuality as we know it is in danger. These people are organized and powerful and are not satirists. Mark my word, there will come a day in this country when ALL heterosexual intercourse will be illegal and defined as violence against women. It's closer than you think. All of these feminist scholars are involved in a well organized and financed plot. They are taking over from within. Think about it! If you a practicing heterosexual man, you had better enjoy it now while you can because some day it's all going to be gone. This is a conspiracy against Western civilization and centuries of male dominance. Don't believe me? Read some of the radical feminist literature from the last 40 years, it is frightening.
"All intercourse is rape."
We're getting there.
For what it's worth, I do believe we are actually getting closer to 'all men are rapists' rather than further away. The difference today is that feminists are practicing rhetorical discipline. They're the same level of crazy.
Making false rape accusations is an unrestrained act of violence. Violent women are 50 times more likely to kill their children then non-violent women.
If we get around the gender feminist Academic curtain, and started to study women who kill their children...you might just find that that they were domestically violent with their partners years before, but with current law enforcement practices..these violent women are not intercepted.
"I do believe we are actually getting closer to 'all men are rapists' rather than further away."
One would hope that at some point this level of hatred will become obvious to middle America/middle UK.
"It was not misquoting per se, but you did accuse him of saying things he never said."
No-one was accused of saying anything. Archivist merely put forward some scenarios that he believed were consistent with the views being expressed by Anonymous. He did not accuse Anonymous of specifically stating those things.
Then Anonymous misrepresented the situation by claiming he was being misquoted or accused of saying those things specifically.
Twisty says a lot of things on her blog just to make a point. I think you are overreacting to this one. She didn't say she wants the falsely accused to be imprisoned.
Sonja Newcombe said...
This blogger then adds a note at the end that she didn't really mean it, bla bla bla, like I believe it.
I've seen this particular blogger before. This effort doesn't surprise me. She has absolutely no understanding of male victims at all. Of anything. The disclaimer adds to the meanness she commits.
Her problem is the couple of media portrayals of rape she references. Instead of castigating that media - which is arguably pitching to women anyway - she prefers to denigrate one of the groups of victims involved. It isn't coincidental that the group is male.
Anon at 8:20: it is possible that I judge this particular blogger more harshly based on other things I know about her, but I do think that even if we knew nothing else about her, this comment is grossly insensitive to the falsely accused.
Archivist
she knows about you too.
So it may be that you're both wrong about each other?
Who else but MEN established these 'traditional rules for sex'? And you wonder why you get accused of rape.
"It would be impossible for a man to be convicted of rape before any intelligent and sophisticted jury if they heard that she had been invited for some drinks at his place and went there freely. When she decided to go there she had already given consent for sex
Anon @9.23--You are correct. MEN invented morality and the Law.Before this time there was no law and females just survived in the matriarchical herd. Rape? What's that? It's like saying the bull raped the cow lol Rape, and other crimes are only crimes because we say they are. Females should be thankful to Men for even making rape a crime rather then a minor annoyance. In that case where a female goes to a man's place for some drinks, there should always be a presumption that she went there to have sex. This does not mean that he should force her to have sex but since we do not know what happened and only have her word for it, which is usually worthless, a jury must always assume that the man is innocent since she went there freely. This is not the same as a woman who is chloroformed and dragged somewhere. Since there is a presumption of innocence and criminal cases are decided on beyond a reasonable doubt and unanomously there is no way that a man could possibly be convicted by a reasonable jury in a case where a woman freely met a man because this is a he said/she said type of case and there would be reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt=acquittal.Also, rape cases cannot be decided like murder or robbery because these things are always illegal; having sex is not illegal except under certain conditions that we call rape. Since only two people are present we must always presume that the man is innocent. A defendant doesn't have to do anything to prove he's innocent, the burden of proof is on the State and they must do it by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.Even DNA means nothing in these cases because the man is claiming she agreed to sex and as a juror I may choose to believe him as well as the fact that the woman went to meet him. Jurors don't know everything that went on or what was in the man's and woman's minds or a woman's motivation for lying and claiming she was raped or do we imprison men based on a woman's perception of what happened.I would only consider DNA as additional evidence in cases of stranger rape.
Anon at 11:21
That is a nice post you wrote and I see things the exact same way.
The way I look at it there is NO EVIDENCE beyond someones WORD in those cases.
Stuff like that should ever even result in an arrest.
"Who else but MEN established these 'traditional rules for sex'? And you wonder why you get accused of rape."
Actually, it is invariably women who make the rules. Men are expected to initiate sex because that is what women want. Women like to feel desired, and male desire stimulates female response. And women are more attracted to confident men.
I am sure a lot of men would love to be relieved of the burden of initiating sex and risking rejection, and instead simply have attractive women come onto them more. But women make the rules. That is why men have traditionally been expected to ask women out, pay for a date etc.
The problem is that ugly women can't get decent men to like them, so they decided to wreak vengeance on heterosexual relations. Hence the feminist movement was born.
"Twisty says a lot of things on her blog just to make a point. I think you are overreacting to this one. She didn't say she wants the falsely accused to be imprisoned."
'Twisty' quite clearly stated that she is happy for falsely accused men to be "immediately and irreversibly castrated."
There's a huge contradiction in her argument, because she wants to do away with the process of determining guilt altogether, yet continues to use the phrase "if convicted ..." etc. In this mendicant's world, there would be no court. For her, an accusation is evidence of guilt. And she's happy to mutilate innocent men - she even seemed to find the whole idea amusing.
I'm sure she does.
She is filth. Utter filth and scum, and quite frankly, I think she deserves to be locked up for a long time on the grounds of hate speech. Maybe then she'll learn a little about respecting others.
I hear 'the rules' thrown around by feminists during their little anonymous drive-bys, but I don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Rape = forced or coerced intercourse
Not rape = everything else
There, those are the 'rules' I'm willing to lay down. But given their perverted ambitions to lock up and mutilate as many men as possible, feminists want to define the 'everything else' as rape as well. So yeah, no wonder guys gets falsely accused.
"In that case where a female goes to a man's place for some drinks, there should always be a presumption that she went there to have sex."
Imho, that's taking things to far in the other direction.
""It was not misquoting per se, but you did accuse him of saying things he never said."
No-one was accused of saying anything. Archivist merely put forward some scenarios that he believed were consistent with the views being expressed by Anonymous. He did not accuse Anonymous of specifically stating those things."
Sorry Nick, but that's exactly what Pierce did. Go back and read what he wrote (if it's still there). And those scenarios were not in any way consistent the views I expressed.
There seems to have been quite a bit of deleting in this thread. Which makes me wonder what else has been deleted.
I agree with Snark. We shouldn't be giving blogs like I BLAME THE PATRIARCHY any benefit of the doubt. They are a threat to males, and we need to stand up to them.
"Rape = forced or coerced intercourse/Not rape = everything else. There, those are the 'rules' I'm willing to lay down."
Those are the rules I'm willing to concede, too. The suggestion that men have a set of universal rituals beyond that is stupid.
@Anonymous 11:23 PM
"Even DNA means nothing in these cases because the man is claiming she agreed to sex and as a juror I may choose to believe him as well as the fact that the woman went to meet him."
Due to changes in the law and the resulting elimination of corroboration requirements, DNA really only helps during the investigation stage or during appeal. If a case goes to trial, in most states, a woman's word alone is now enough to convict. Further, during voir dire (jury selection) jurors in some states can be excluded from serving if they are unwilling to convict based on a woman's word alone. So, you may not even be allowed to serve on the jury based on your statement (sad as that is).
Snark: I'm afraid that you really don't understand what the feminists and to a lessor extent most females are doing. You say that rape is something that is forced or coerced but that can be expanded to mean almost anything.A female can claim that she was mentally coerced and say she had a "feeling" that he was thinking about hurting her if she didn't have sex with him while the guy actually did nothing at all to threaten her. What is that? Rape by female intuition? Rape only means a few things. It must be by force or a Reasonable threat of force. A man who threatens to tickle her to death if she doesn't have sex with him is not a Reasonable threat. Rape can also mean having sex with an unconscious woman or one that is obviously mentally retarded but even in these cases it's not black or white. Rape can also mean by deception where a man has sex with a woman pretending to be her partner. You may laugh at this but most females don't even know what rape by deception means. They think it means that a man promised them something,like being their bf, and then didn't deliver after having sex with them.Or he said he was wealthy and he turned out to be poor. Or he lied or misrepresented himself in some way. Believe it or not many females actually believe these things are crimes.I guess that anything that hurts a woman's feelings, insults her, makes her look like a fool or stupid is considered a crime by them.
Anon,
Thankyou, but I am VERY MUCH aware of feminist categorical dissolution. See this piece I wrote at The Spearhead. I have another two pieces in the works along the same lines, the latter of which deals specifically with the categorical dissolution of rape.
In other words, you're preaching to the choir.
What I was referring to was this silly notion of 'the rules'.
Feminist anonymous drive-bys here refer to some 'rules' that apparently all men abide by, which says that rape is okay e.g. if she goes back to your room with you. What a ridiculous assertion. I have never seen anyone here promote that idea. It's a complete strawman, as is this very notion of 'the rules'. I've honestly never heard of such a thing.
My response TO THAT PARTICULAR IDEA is that the only 'rules' I understand and abide by are the ones where rape = forced or coerced intercourse, and non-rape = everything else in the universe.
But as I mentioned in my post, feminists are trying to bring many things which are not rape under the rape umbrella.
We are in agreement, I think you just didn't read my post carefully enough.
"Snark: I'm afraid that you really don't understand what the feminists and to a lessor extent most females are doing."
When you start off a comment like that, about one of the shining lights in the men's movement, it counsels one not to read the rest of the comment.
Axel, he's some guy with a computer writing a few paragraphs on men's blogs. Nothing wrong with that but a shining light? 1000's of men do the same and a lot better. When he's published a book, written a published article for the Times or The New Yorker then that would be a start.
Axel, he's some guy with a computer writing a few paragraphs on men's blogs. Nothing wrong with that but a shining light? 1000's of men do the same and a lot better. When he's published a book, written a published article for the Times or The New Yorker then that would be a start.
"When a female goes out with a man it is like a mini marriage and as we all know a man cannot rape his wife."
I guess we're not on the same page. Mini marriage?
You wouldn't happen to also go by the name MikeeUSA, would you?
"It is the men who define reality not females and children."
Men do not 'define reality'. Reality exists quite apart from what any man perceives it to be.
Hey you guys either have a comments policy or you don't. Mikee's comments have to go.
"Mini-marriage"? Oh, great! Ya go on a date and you owe alimony!
I moderated before, I'll moderate again.
Comment moderation is in effect. Thank MikeeUSA or whatever the fuck his name is.
Just responded to your thoughtful email, Snark. And just sent an email to Axel, too.
Post a Comment