Catherine Comins' famous "quote" about falsely accused men gaining from the experience was, in reality, a Time Magazine writer's characterization of what she said. What Comins actually said may be worse than what is attributed to her. This is from a 2001 Time Magazine article about rape:
"Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of 'rape.' She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. 'To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him.' Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. 'They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions.'"
The "loose use" of the term "rape," of course, has done grave injustices to innumerable innocent men and boys. Encouraging it is almost indescribably evil. We could read most of the stories we report on in this website as manifestations of the "loose use" of the term "rape." Contrary to Comins' statement, "rape" is a word that should be treated as sacred. It should never be used lightly, and it should only be uttered when an actual rape occurred. Anything less not only serves up a grave injustice to the man or boy who is the alleged rapist, it also trivializes actual rape.
The term "rape" has been devalued over the past several decades because it has been trivialized by talk of "rape continuums" and all manner of efforts to engorge its definition to include garden variety male sexual conduct. Comins' clarion call to use the term loosely is emblematic of this devaluation.
Comins suggested that women who unilaterally declare themselves to be "victims" of a vast array of purported offenses falling under the rubric of sexual intimidation (which, I assume, includes sex as a result of perceived psychological coercion -- including "oh, come on, you're always too tired") are justified in fastening the "rapist" label -- with all its heinous implications and permanent stain -- on their "intimidators."
This entire blog is replete with reports of the reputational and other harm that result from a society that tolerates, and by tolerating, implicitly encourages, women to unilaterally label a presumptively innocent male a "rapist." If the accused male has a contrary account of the facts, it's not worth listening to. The only thing that matters is that women are empowered to cry "rape" whenever they feel like it, even when it's not justified.
Comins is usually quoted as saying that falsely accused men "can gain from the experience." In the article, that "quote" is not in quotation marks and might be the Time author's characterization of what Comins said. But it's what follows that is infinitely worse: Men who are unjustly accused "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them."
Did you get that? The men's pain can serve as an indoctrination into a sort of feminist Nirvana, molding males to be more respectful of, and more user-friendly to, women. Taking this attitude to its logical extreme, every male would benefit from, and should have, a false rape claim lodged against him. Underlying Comins' comment is a twisted and vile gynocentric worldview that is misandric at its core. It regards rape as rampant and men as inherently flawed because they are predisposed -- by socialization, I am sure -- to rape. One clever way to make them respectful of women is to falsely accuse them of rape.
Except that, judging from the falsely accused we hear from and the falsely accused we report on, a false rape claim is among the last things that make men respectful of women. In fact, false rape claims have exactly the opposite effect: they often foment long-lasting distrust, even hatred, of women.
It is bad enough when ignorant and uneducated women and girls destroy men and boys with vile false rape claims. It is altogether unforgivable when an apparently educated woman in a responsible position with a major university thinks that false rape claims are not just acceptable but beneficial. Comins, of course, should have been fired on the spot when this issue of Time hit the stands.
Time seems to have appreciated the over-the-top quality of Comins' statement. The paragraph immediately after Comins' vile quote is as follows:
"Taken to extremes, there is an ugly element of vengeance at work here. Rape , is an abuse of power. But so are false accusations of rape, and to suggest that men whose reputations are destroyed might benefit because it will make them more sensitive is an attitude that is sure to backfire on women who are seeking justice for all victims. On campuses where the issue is most inflamed, male students are outraged that their names can be scrawled on a bathroom-wall list of rapists and they have no chance to tell their side of the story."
That males accused of rape might have their own "side of the story" is what is thoroughly lacking from the present public discourse about rape. Funny, but for a nation that cherishes the concept of due process, we are quick to toss even the suggestion that the male's story should be heard onto an ash heap of indifference when it comes to rape.
From Time again:
"It would be easy to accuse feminists of being too quick to classify sex as rape, but feminists are to be found on all sides of the debate, and many protest the idea that all the onus is on the man. It demeans women to suggest that they are so vulnerable to coercion or emotional manipulation that they must always be escorted by the strong arm of the law. 'You can't solve society's ills by making everything a crime,' says Albuquerque attorney Nancy Hollander. 'That comes out of the sense of overprotection of women, and in the long run that is going to be harmful to us.'"
I agree, Ms. Hollander. But the primary victims of that sense of over-protection are the falsely accused for whom this blog is dedicated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
One thing that I find extremely frustrating is the idea that the accused, even if not guilty of rape, must have done "something".
We're lucky if they toss men a few crumbs:
"Oh yeah by the way, false accusations harm men too. Okay now that we got that distracting detail out of the way, let's get back to the most important issue, that false accusations harm theoretical women who might be raped some time in the undetermined future."
You mean to tell me there is not one newspaper or magazine with people working there that are aware of the issue of false accusations? They're all slaves to their feminist and PC masters? All of them? Not one writer, journalist, editor, wants to break the mold and do something different?
What an absolute failure our media is. You're a bunch of failures. All of you.
That comes out of the sense of overprotection of women, and in the long run that is going to be harmful to us
I suspect Ms. Hollander says this, not out of principled consideration regarding overreach of the law, but purely out of its potential impact on "us" e.g. women.
Does this mean when children falsely accuse it's to be viewed as a 'learning moment' for adults to respect them?
Anonymous - "Does this mean when children falsely accuse it's to be viewed as a 'learning moment' for adults to respect them?"
Very insightful! Yes, by the logic of Cathrine Comins, being accused by children stand to gain great insight by being forced to imagine themselves as child molesters, etc.
Thank you for pointing that out. It helps to show just how utterly stupid Cathrine Comins' comments were.
BTW, some anonymous posters, like you, make intelligent and insightful comments on a regular basis. And, while the style and language would seem to point to one person making many of those comments, it's impossible to know with any certainty if just who is making which comments.
And, of course, some anonymous posters are just the hit-n-run variety, while others may be lurking trolls, looking for spots to hurl insults and falsehoods.
Having asked before, I realize that some individuals need to be highly guarded as to their identities. Yet, a single initial used to "sign" a post would allow others to associate the posts of select individuals, who really are due attribution when being quoted and referenced.
Just a suggest that I'll hope you'll consider. CBGirl "signs" her posts while remaining otherwise anonymous, as AoFR did for a time also.
It's very helpful to know when they are making comments. For long-time readers, we know a good deal about CBGirl and the ordeal she is being put through. She doesn't need to explain herself over and over, those 6 extra identifying characters at the end of her posts speak volumes.
Use the Name/URL option, that's what I do, and pick any handle you like.
AoFR - "Use the Name/URL option, that's what I do, and pick any handle you like."
Yes, that's AfOR, not AoFR as I erroneously typed in my last post (and even my failed attempt to correct it). Sorry about that.
I seem to be having trouble typing at the moment. Perhaps it's low blood-caffeine levels. I'll see to that directly.
FYI, the article is dated 24 June, 2001, not 1991, which, because of its recency, makes her viewpoint that much more scary.
"In fact, false rape claims have exactly the opposite effect: they often foment long-lasting distrust, even hatred, of women."
You got that right.
I wouldn't call it hatred, but distrust, suspicion, and disbelief at their claims of rape? Hell yeah.
As for feminists who encourage this, I have a primordial hatred for them, yes.
I sure hope someone falsely accuses Catherine Comins of a serious offence, so that she can sit in her jail cell wondering if she 'would have been capable' of doing it.
When we start arresting people on the grounds that they 'may be capable of doing' a crime, we are living under tyranny.
Back in the 90s there was a flurry of accusations and prosections against women for child molestation in daycare centers in the US and child murders due to Muchhausen's by proxy in the UK. I wonder what they would have to say to this animal's maunderings?
"You mean to tell me there is not one newspaper or magazine with people working there that are aware of the issue of false accusations? They're all slaves to their feminist and PC masters? All of them? Not one writer, journalist, editor, wants to break the mold and do something different?"
Actually, there have been films and stories covering these issues. I've commented on them here on FRS previously:
MSNBC "Witch Hunt"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29993322/
Rick Sanchez on CNN:
http://ricksanchez.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/17/i-didnt-rape-anybody/
The most jack-assed thing I heard a woman say about the Duke-Lacrosse Players:
"well, they probably did not rape her, but if she accused them of THAT, then they must have done something wrong".
I think that statement demonstrates that this kind of mentality exists in women. That is, quite a few women have a "I can do no wrong" or "my accusations are always justified and upright".
It is just sick.
It caused too much negativity when posting under my old 'handle', which is why I no longer do so.
I now post anonymously and my comments are respected and given fair consideration.
I'm not here to inflame or cause upset.
Sometimes I'm praised as 'insightful' other times decreed 'an asshole'.
One thing I am is sincere in my desire to help this cause.
Anonymously or not.
The sad "rape culture" myth that some women believe, and the prevalence, demonstrated best here, by the way, of false charges of rape were actually eye opening to me.
It hasn't helped true rape victims get justice, though. Were I now called to sit on a jury for a trial on a rape charge, I would be very mindful of the "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" principle by which our criminal courts are supposed to operate. Quite frankly, without corroborating evidence of some kind suggesting force or lack of consent, I rather doubt I would ever get past reasonable doubt on a "he said/she said" case now.
And the notion of convicting on rape charges a male who ceased intercourse upon request, but didn't cease "quickly enough" literally turns one's stomach. How could any male get beyond reasonable doubt on that if the defendant had even a 2L as counsel?
Congratulations, rape culture adherents. You have now succeeded in making it more difficult for true rape victims who have no corroborating evidence to get justice. I wonder if the upshot of this attitude in men will require that rape juries be all female in the future??????
"You have now succeeded in making it more difficult for true rape victims who have no corroborating evidence to get justice."
Imho, convicting someone without corroborating evidence isn't justice.
"I wonder if the upshot of this attitude in men will require that rape juries be all female in the future??????"
It should be a jury of one's peers.
It is a perversion of our legal system to enable false rape accusations like it is now doing.
Catherine Comins was a monster. For anyone like her to be allowed to work for a university is like having Himler on the payroll. Hate is hate.
And I wonder if she would "spare" the victims of lynchings; the black men who died because of the lies of white women.
Anon at 5:15: Thanks for reminding us about the lynchings. That really puts Comins' comment in perspective.
We now have the largest population of male prisoners in the entire world.
Does that mean American males are the most criminal in the entire world?
Does it mean American men have turned into roving packs of criminals?
Do American women need 'outside' protection from them?
The same men who once sacrificed their lives, and are still required to be at the ready to do so again, are enemies of American women, vast populations of them to be caged and 'on paper'?
I'd like to hear the feminist theories of WHY American men vastly outnumber any other criminals in the entire world?
Rape culture? Criminal culture? Perhaps there's a friendly country willing to accept American males and leave this country to the women and victims.
"Rape culture? Criminal culture? Perhaps there's a friendly country willing to accept American males and leave this country to the women and victims."
That would be nice. I'd split right now if I could. My ancestors came over here before the Revolution, but I'm about ready to say "Fuck this country". There's just too many stupid and insane people here.
I've travelled, a lot, but the USA is one place I have never been.
Obviously I've met a lot of yanks elsewhere, but having also met a lot of everyone outside their own countries, I know that you can't tell much about a country by those of its citizens who choose to travel.
Having said that, I know quite a few good people who have gone to the US, and travelled around in the US, some quite extensively.
They have ALL said the same thing, and it boils down to this...
1/ Some yanks are absolutely fucking great, truly wonderful people.
2/ Most yanks are just plain strange, two peoples separated by a common language and strange belief systems.
3/ Everyone else, which is a large minority, of yanks are flat out fucking mental.
4/ You can't tell by job or social status or anything else which category they fall in to, until you actually start to talk to them.
As a nation everyone else thinks you are crazy, one the one hand you'll all talk about freedom and whip out the S&W or Ruger, brandish it at the European as proof of those freedoms, on the other hand most of you are apparently more than happy to exist knowing nothing at all about the outside world, and for what you do know to be propaganda.
Speaking personally, back in the mid eighties I knew yanks who were leaving places like Orlando because the lift boy was a vertical transport technician and the guy pumping gas was a fuel transfer technician, and these ex-yanks all had one thing in common, trying to warn those of us who would listen that it was coming to europe too...
There were far greater problems with the US, they said, but those two job titles were examples, if the audience picked up on them then they could talk about the real evil, the outsourcing, the lack of adherence to constitution, the 1950's italian style corruption.
I met americans who literally quit working for american corporations and went to work for the mafia because it was less corrupt and more honest, plus it offered a path to employed ex-patriate and emigration status, while earning money doing essentially the same job they did for PHB or Haliburton etc.
Sadly they were right, we in europe imported a LOT of that shit and bought into it wholesale, and the result is that we are in many ways as fucked as the US is.
However, on balance, europe is still better than the US, becuase we have a LOT more history here, and when you get 1,000 plus year old cultural differences by simply getting in a car and driving 200 miles it makes it a lot harder to herd sheep across a continent.
US political conventions are like Elvis concerts, or the Beatles, it is a fucking mania, the fervour is quasi religious.
EU political conventions are utterly different, nobody buys into it to that extent, we're cynical, at the genetic level.
We're more like Woodstock, dozens and dozens of bands.
The really, really, really big thing is comms technology, in the last 20 years THAT is the revolution.
Give everyone at an Elvis gig or a Beatles gig a Blackberry and you know what 99% of the messaging will be about.
Give everyone at Woodstock a blackberry and the type of messaging will be UTTERLY different.
Being able to literally reach out an touch buildings that are more than 1000 years old changes things, it changes your perspective.
Yeah, the yanks had a civil war, but you never had the romans, the vikings, you never had a Cromwell walk into the Senate...
The Mayflower actually sailed from Portsmouth, but because of bad weather put in to Plymouth.
The passengers and crew took some time ashore, so the last English soil they touched was the Mayflower steps in Plymouth.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Exeter,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.366007,-4.134174&spn=0,0.132093&z=14&layer=c&cbll=50.366113,-4.134114&panoid=WcuyPdiSizR06dkst1rOZQ&cbp=12,111.52,,0,7.11
Go ahead, pan around, see if you can see the sign, yanks visiting can't get over the fact that there isn't some huge edifice to celebrate it, just a small stone plaque in a wall, to celebrate what is from the European perspective just one small footnote in a very long and very rich history.
If you as a yank can get your head around THAT sort of thing, then by all means emigrate to Europe, and you'll have a great time.
Sure, we have our problems, I'm an FRA living in the UK, but relatively speaking I am SO MUCH BETTER OFF than any FRA living in the states.
And already you can see and feel the tide turning here in Europe, so things will get better.
Freedom of travel within the EU, but every state is truly different and unique, it ain't like going from kentucky to tennessee.
However, on balance, europe is still better than the US, becuase we have a LOT more history here, and when you get 1,000 plus year old cultural differences by simply getting in a car and driving 200 miles it makes it a lot harder to herd sheep across a continent.
US political conventions are like Elvis concerts, or the Beatles, it is a fucking mania, the fervour is quasi religious.
EU political conventions are utterly different, nobody buys into it to that extent, we're cynical, at the genetic level.
We're more like Woodstock, dozens and dozens of bands.
The really, really, really big thing is comms technology, in the last 20 years THAT is the revolution.
Give everyone at an Elvis gig or a Beatles gig a Blackberry and you know what 99% of the messaging will be about.
Give everyone at Woodstock a blackberry and the type of messaging will be UTTERLY different.
Being able to literally reach out an touch buildings that are more than 1000 years old changes things, it changes your perspective.
Yeah, the yanks had a civil war, but you never had the romans, the vikings, you never had a Cromwell walk into the Senate...
The Mayflower actually sailed from Portsmouth, but because of bad weather put in to Plymouth.
The passengers and crew took some time ashore, so the last English soil they touched was the Mayflower steps in Plymouth.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Exeter,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.366007,-4.134174&spn=0,0.132093&z=14&layer=c&cbll=50.366113,-4.134114&panoid=WcuyPdiSizR06dkst1rOZQ&cbp=12,111.52,,0,7.11
Go ahead, pan around, see if you can see the sign, yanks visiting can't get over the fact that there isn't some huge edifice to celebrate it, just a small stone plaque in a wall, to celebrate what is from the European perspective just one small footnote in a very long and very rich history.
If you as a yank can get your head around THAT sort of thing, then by all means emigrate to Europe, and you'll have a great time.
Sure, we have our problems, I'm an FRA living in the UK, but relatively speaking I am SO MUCH BETTER OFF than any FRA living in the states.
And already you can see and feel the tide turning here in Europe, so things will get better.
Freedom of travel within the EU, but every state is truly different and unique, it ain't like going from kentucky to tennessee.
However, on balance, europe is still better than the US, becuase we have a LOT more history here, and when you get 1,000 plus year old cultural differences by simply getting in a car and driving 200 miles it makes it a lot harder to herd sheep across a continent.
US political conventions are like Elvis concerts, or the Beatles, it is a fucking mania, the fervour is quasi religious.
EU political conventions are utterly different, nobody buys into it to that extent, we're cynical, at the genetic level.
We're more like Woodstock, dozens and dozens of bands.
The really, really, really big thing is comms technology, in the last 20 years THAT is the revolution.
Give everyone at an Elvis gig or a Beatles gig a Blackberry and you know what 99% of the messaging will be about.
Give everyone at Woodstock a blackberry and the type of messaging will be UTTERLY different.
Being able to literally reach out an touch buildings that are more than 1000 years old changes things, it changes your perspective.
Yeah, the yanks had a civil war, but you never had the romans, the vikings, you never had a Cromwell walk into the Senate...
The Mayflower actually sailed from Portsmouth, but because of bad weather put in to Plymouth.
The passengers and crew took some time ashore, so the last English soil they touched was the Mayflower steps in Plymouth.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Exeter,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.366007,-4.134174&spn=0,0.132093&z=14&layer=c&cbll=50.366113,-4.134114&panoid=WcuyPdiSizR06dkst1rOZQ&cbp=12,111.52,,0,7.11
Go ahead, pan around, see if you can see the sign, yanks visiting can't get over the fact that there isn't some huge edifice to celebrate it, just a small stone plaque in a wall, to celebrate what is from the European perspective just one small footnote in a very long and very rich history.
If you as a yank can get your head around THAT sort of thing, then by all means emigrate to Europe, and you'll have a great time.
Sure, we have our problems, I'm an FRA living in the UK, but relatively speaking I am SO MUCH BETTER OFF than any FRA living in the states.
And already you can see and feel the tide turning here in Europe, so things will get better.
Freedom of travel within the EU, but every state is truly different and unique, it ain't like going from kentucky to tennessee.
dunno what happened there.. soz...
Chef Snark said...
I sure hope someone falsely accuses Catherine Comins of a serious offence, so that she can sit in her jail cell wondering if she 'would have been capable' of doing it.
When we start arresting people on the grounds that they 'may be capable of doing' a crime, we are living under tyranny.
May 4, 2010 11:17:00 AM
You got that right.
I also like how all these feminazi wimmins studies bitches have all read (and enjoyed) nancy friday, but none of them talk about that...
Yes, indeed AFOR, Americans are a strange lot.
I recently recieved an E mail picturing the thousands and thousands and thousands of American soldier's graves in Europe, asking why Mr. Obama was 'apologizing' to Europeans for our 'arrogance'.
Why indeed.
Hopefully they'll wait until that generation's orphans die off before they reclaim the land those men are buried in.
Yes, Anon at 11:00, on behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for winning World War II and for keeping Europe from being run over by every bully that comes along that could easily wipe you out.
I remember in the mid-80s seeing a million Europeans protesting Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. While those progressive moonbats were spewing their anti-American venom, Reagan was, in fact, working to win the Cold War. Not one of those ungrateful wretches ever thanked Mr. Reagan.
So, yes, I very much apologize to you -- you've done so very much for us that I owe you that. And in case there's a language barrier, that was sarcasm.
@ Archivist, and all yanks for that matter.
Nobody in Europe minimises the importance of the US in *either* of the world wars.
Having said that, John Wayne did not single-handedly win WW2, nor did the yanks, not even close.
By far the biggest contribution that yanks made to winning WW2 was logistics, everything from guns and ammo to staples like food and fuel, and the sheer amounts the yanks shipped over, (logistics) was staggering.
NOBODY who was either too young to enlist, or in a "protected" job, who was in the south-west or south coast, tells any stories about the yanks that are anything but a variation on the theme of logistics and apparently unlimited supplies.
THAT is the over-riding impression left of the yanks, even 60 years later.
Which is why everyone "over a certain age" in Europe was absolutely fucking STAGGERED to witness the saga of Katrina / New Orleans, which was after all a problem of logistics.
The USA of the 21st century is at best a distant cousin of the USA of the mid 20th century, in more ways than one.
It is a popular misconception among Americans that the US voluntarily entered WW2, at least against the Germans. In fact, the US didn't. The US entered the general war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the US entered against Japan and did not, repeat not, declare war on Germany. However, a few days after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the US, thereby putting an end to the US dilemma. After a meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt, it was agreed that the British and Americans would have a "Germany first" policy. Whether the Americans would have declared war on Germany had not Hitler made the decision for them is one of the great unanswered questions of history. The US had, of course, been completely isolationist prior to 7 December 1941 - Roosevelt's Lend-Lease program had got through Congress by one, repeat one, vote. The answer is that yes, probably the US would have entered the war against Germany, but possibly not on the scale that it did, and almost certainly not with Germany being given priority over Japan. But nobody will ever know for sure.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2
quite a good analysis actually. lot of good history there, well worth a quick read, eg it mentions the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928
Katrina/New Orleans was because the whole damn city is beneath sea level and the levees were allowed to fall into disrepair. The rest of the Gulf Coast was hit WORSE than New Orleans but nobody talks about that -- because the left in the U.S. wanted to make New Orleans a racial issue. I did work for a company in Biloxi whose building was carried hundreds of feet away. Literally.
As for World War II, logistics is all we did, huh? The fact is, the U.S. lost more military lives that the UK, and almost as many lives overall (our civilians were spared because of those two little bodies of water on both sides of us.) As for why Japan stupidly awakened the sleeping giant to drag us into the war, I could write a book. Suffice it to say that it's the best thing that ever happened to Europe.
And I don't care what else you say on this blog -- don't ever -- EVER -- speak of the great John Wayne in a disparaging manner.
Chill, I know about the deaths, though I should point out that as a proportion of population the death rate was three times higher for a tommy than for a yank, however, they both pale compared to the german deaths
servicemen killed in ww2
US 416,800
UK 382,700
Russia (an ally) > 9,000,000
Germany 5,500,000
Japan 2,200,000
whether "they" started it or not, that is a staggering statistic.
some more
The first German serviceman killed in the war was killed by the Japanese (China, 1937)
The first American serviceman killed was killed by the Russians (Finland 1940).
80% of Soviet males born in 1923 didn't survive World War 2
There were 433 Medals of Honor awarded during World War 2, 219 of them were given after the receipiant's death
The youngest US serviceman was 12 year old Calvin Graham, USN. He was wounded in combat and given a Dishonorable Discharge for lying about his age. (His benefits were later restored by act of Congress).
When allied armies reached the Rhine, the first thing men did was pee in it. This was pretty universal from the lowest private to Winston Churchill (who made a big show of it) and Gen. Patton (who had himself photographed in the act).
The Russians destroyed over 500 German aircraft by ramming them in midair (they also sometimes cleared minefields by marching over them). "It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army". - Joseph Stalin
The average German officer slot had to be refilled 9.2 times
By D-Day, 35% of all German soldiers had been wounded at least once, 11% twice, 6% three times, 2% four times and 2% more than 4 times
http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/
some *excellent* statistics
AFOR - the most telling statistic of all is how many foreign soldiers are buried on American soil, defending the US from it's enemies.
You're right. Americans certainly must be a strange breed to those "watching" from the sidelines.
see, yanks are waaay too thin skinned, and don't listen to what people say, but to what they think they say.
You won't find anyone here in europe who either actually remembers the war, had parents who were in it, or who were taught it at school as recent history, who is in any doubt whatsoever to the american contribution.
Fact is, I personally don't think americans understand the american contribution, except a couple of american ex gunnery sergeant majors I met mebbe, they understood.
logistics.
let me explain.
a soldier is "x" effective.
a soldier with a gun is more effective.
a soldier with a gun and plenty ammo is more effective still
a soldier with a gun and plenty of ammo and food and equipment is still more effective
a soldier with all the above and a willy's and plenty of fuel, even more effective..
you see where this is going?
take a look at that ww2 statistics page I linked to, and really look at the numbers.
american soldiers, on a soldier per soldier basis, punched way, way, way above their weight, and as archivist said, there were more of them in ww2 than british soldiers (who also shot US made bullets, etc etc etc) and more of them killed...
but the 10 german soldiers died for every american, and 50 russian soldiers died for every american, and a lot of that was because of logistics.
today, in 2010, the american soldier STILL kicks ass, for the same reason...
english soldiers in the dust bowl drive around in an updated version of a lightweight farm vehicle first built in 1950, and the war department can't afford to replace them
if english soldiers in the dust bowl in 2010 need armour support, or air support, or medevac, or you fucking name it, guess who they call? uncle sam.
logistics, logistics, logistics.
you know why the standard english army is the 5.56? the truth?
logistics
7.62, much less 50 cal bmg are bigger and heavier, and we JUST AIN'T GOT THE LOGISTICS, never have, never will.
look at the liberty ships, nobody else could have built them, EVEN TODAY some of those builds are awesome, that's WITH robots and CNC and wire fed auto welders
logistics.
============
I genuinely have no idea why every yank you meet automatically assumes that every european thinks you had fuck all to do with ww2 except maybe a bit of lend lease.. why is that?
I have tools that the yanks brought here in the preps for d-day, they still work, adjustable pipe dies etc.
while we were using methane from shit to run the few vehicles left, and fucking waste vegetable oil for lube oil...
logistics...
I dunno, maybe fox news tells y'all that the ungrateful europeans think they won the war all by themselves.
we never said that.
As a nation everyone else thinks you are crazy, one the one hand you'll all talk about freedom and whip out the S&W or Ruger, brandish it at the European as proof of those freedoms, on the other hand most of you are apparently more than happy to exist knowing nothing at all about the outside world, and for what you do know to be propaganda.
****
Yeah, that's my country, 'tis of thee. Sweet but not really the land of liberty.
We have a great economy, and a wonderful tradition of individual rights that have always come with a nod and a wink when we were trying to ignore the difference between our values and our reality -- for example, slavery; and now our epidemic of false rape accusations, and runaway incarceration.
We're the biggest blowhards on the planet when it comes to freedom, and yet we incarcerate more people on earth than any other country. If you can't add that up, don't feel bad: neither can I. And I've lived here my entire life.
And you're absolutely right about how ignorant Americans are of the rest of the world. Most of us think that our legal system is soft in comparison to those of other countries!
And whatever our slimy tabloid media says is important goes right to the top of the public's priorities, which means we spend little time even thinking about the most important issues we face. The lowest common denominator sets the tone for the national dialogue.
"And you're absolutely right about how ignorant Americans are of the rest of the world. Most of us think that our legal system is soft in comparison to those of other countries!"
I've met yank bikers and we've ridden around europe, sooner or later you always attract the attention of someone in uniform.
It's really, really, really wierd, the yanks go all cold and controlled and polite, expecting "the man" to draw down on them...
that and all of them with canadian flags so no-one would take them for yanks (except their canadian flags were always a different size from the canadian flags the canadians wore, for some reason) and I used to tell em, drop that shit and slap a swedish flag on, 99% of europeans can't tell the difference between a yank and a swede.
like I said, never been stateside, after those experiences I always said if I ever went I'd travel by cab, fucked if I would drive myself if that's the attitude the cops have.
knew a an ex jarhead name of dave barr, lost both legs on a landmine, rode his shovel all over, right across russia (in winter... what can I say, jarhead) right down south america, he said the same thing, argentinian cops rebuilt his bike for free, russian cops fed him and kept him from dying of cold, american cops scared him..
we in europe have a lot of asshole laws, and we ignore most of them
you have the greatest law of all, the constitution, and you seem to ignore most of it
also, gotta say this, hundreds of thousands of yank soldiers came here, prepping for d day and all that, as archivist and others have said, fighting for countries that they had no stake in, and here in the south and south west of england the yank MP's started designating coloured and non coloured bars in our pubs, did NOT go down well with the locals, that was supposed to be one of the reasons we were fighting the germans.
also gotta be said, everyone here said, despite hundreds of thousands of yanks, they were all polite, well behaved, statistically speaking near as dammit zero trouble of any kind, quite the opposite, I personally never heard of a single theft, not a single murder, not a single rape, from any of my relatives who all lived here through that period.
so hundreds of thousands of yanks, it's wartime so nobody knows shit, there is no CSI, 75% of the local men are away fighting, and like I say, none of my relatives ever heard of a single rape.
now the children and grandchildren of those troops are apparently raping 1 in 4 women, with CSI, with ID up the wazoo, with CCTV, in peacetime...
I just doesn't make any kind of sense.
I don't just mean the accusations, I mean how they can be made.
now the children and grandchildren of those guys live in a country with the highest per capita prison population on the planet
Country Prison population
per 100,000 inhabitants
United States
of America 756[16]
Russian
Federation 611
New
Zealand 186
Australia 157
United
Kingdom 148
Netherlands 128
Canada 107
Italy 104
South Korea 104
Germany 95
Turkey 91
France 85
Sweden 82
Denmark 77
Japan 62
Iceland 40
India 22
I'm sure I speak for all europeans, we just don't get it...
it doesn't make sense.
Either there are lots and lots of false rape accusers and feminists putting out false statistics, or feminism messed up our society pretty badly. Either way we know what the problem is.
aFor, what the fuck is with the anti-Americanism?
Knock it off.
@ AfOR
"I've travelled, a lot, but the USA is one place I have never been."
Stephen Fry has recently produced a DVD documentary on his recent trip through the US.
http://www.stephenfry.com/2008/10/10/stephen-fry-in-america/
I think you'd enjoy it from his perspective.
@ AfOR
You definitely know your history. I agree with you about the EU/UK being a better place to live having traveled there and to Oz/NZ. The US now is so different to the US in which I was raised.
Perhaps the Queen should simply revoke our Independence. Taxes back-dated to 1776 of course. That little insurrection 234 years ago -- we're sorry!
"Letter of Revocation of Independence of the United States"
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blrevocation3a.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blrevocation_cleese.htm
"aFor, what the fuck is with the anti-Americanism? "
what anti-americanism?
we're pro-american you stupid bastard, hell it's almost hero worship, but our hero turned out to be a lip synching sleazeball, and we keep asking "what the fuck happened to you" and we don't get any answers.
george clooney drives a jap hybrid electric car to the oscars, whoop de do, hold the front fucking page, stop the presses.
42 years ago you guys put an all electric 4x4 on the fucking moon.
those who witnessed what you could do half way around the world 70 years ago would have simply accepted that if you'd wanted to you could have drained the gulf of mexico, not just big easy.
what the fuck happened to you?
Afor
I'm from the united states and you are right we do incarcerate more people than any other country in the world....we are known as the land of the free.
I think we are going big time down the toilet in this country...more and more and more laws and seemingly everything is corrupt.
We don't have serious proposals of Sharia law in the US just yet, AFOR.
Something major is in the wind, and it's not just the US that's going to hell in a hand basket.
AfOR is not anti-American.
This country does have a law and order fetish that destroys too many innocent men.
AfOR is not anti-American.
Amen, Hallelujah, most europeans spend most of their lives dreaming of the american dream.
This country does have a law and order fetish that destroys too many innocent men.
Is it a "law and order" fetish though?
Or is it a control fetish? It is the rise of the Blackshirts?
We in europe want to know.
We in europe are *scared*
If the US gets bipolar disorder nowhere is far enough away to not be badly, badly, badly affected.
If the US goes much closer to a techno-feudal (look at the political dynasties you have) state, the whole fucking world is going to go to hell in a handbasket.
Who else is able to stop world war 3?
(just by being there)
If the USA collapses fucking the fucking balkans can follow true to history and go up in smoke again, and trigger the next big one... it doesn't take a loon in the ussr or china any more, any reasonably small country or event can light the tinderbox.
People do seem to take false accusations of rape way to lightly...
Want a nice example?
A 13 year-old girl with a knife was trying to rob a man. Of course, a full-grown man could just push the little girl aside and in fact, so he did. Naturally the girls screams he's a rapist and that he already raped her sister. Nearly every single pedestrian around comes to help the "innocent girl" and beat the man to a bloody pulp. Police arrive, see a dirty, bruised man on the street who they are told is the rapist and arrest him.
He is taken to jail without a real trial (where rapists are particularly hated in my country), he is a man after all, so he MUST be guilty, right? and the next day they see the inmates playing soccer with something, which turned out to be the man's head...
I suppose the worst part is that after actually undertaking some really minor and basic research, the man not only turned out to be innocent, but to be a hard-working father of two.
Just in case you wonder, the story is not made up. Did not happen in the US but in Venezuela, but the point is the lightness with which the word is used and how easy it is to use it as a threat.
Off topic & over a year old:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml
Probably the worst dose of misandry since the Comins quote.
Post a Comment