This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 29, 2010.
HANNITY: But, Susan, it's one or two scenarios. Either what she is saying is true or she's lying, which in it of itself would be a crime, right?
ESTRICH: Well, yes, but, you know, the problem is we just don't know and there's no way to determine. All we know for sure is that the police at the time, who were charged with investigating things like this, did not think there was substantial evidence enough to move forward and she chose not to file a civil suit. So what have you got?
. . . .
HANNITY: . . . you have openly talked about you have been a victim of rape. This crosses a very serious line, these allegations. So the question is, what should we do with them?
ESTRICH: Well, you know, Sean, I'm the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance.
I mean this is obviously not rape, but I mean I was scarred by being a rape victim, there's no question about it. But I'm also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends and purposes —
HANNITY: Yes.
ESTRICH: — ruined by a false accusation.
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,595627,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
Give the devil her due. For whatever reason she said this, she's right.
This is a common theme...femmies are all about hatin' on males until they whelp one.
Then, and only then, they clearly see the adverse effects of the world they created.
The "personal is political" seems tailor made for a sex that seems to have great difficulty thinking outside of their own bodies, to think abstractly.
Good on her I guess for having the sac to bring up FRAs. Too bad it was 30 years too late.
As I noted on the other thread, Estrich could have posited a narrow defense of this liberal icon -- which would be what we'd expect from a feminist. For example: "The woman is making this claim in connection with a demand for a big payday," etc. She knows this -- she's no dummy. But she didn't do that. She launched a much broader -- and absolutely correct -- defense of Gore: "It's he said/she said, years after-the-fact, and we'll never know what really happened, so drop it. I wouldn't want my son to be unfairly accused the way the Duke lacrosse guys were."
When have we ever heard a major feminist say something like that? Seriously? If her goal was just to protect a liberal, it didn't need to go anywhere near that far. I mean, when have we ever heard a feminist invoke Duke lacrosse for the right reason?
EW's point is well taken. I think having a husband you love, or a father or brother you love, also would give most feminists balance. I believe that the ones driving this whole "false rape is a myth" are a small but very vocal group.
At least this woman has enough of a soul to care about the future of her own son. Many mothers of boys don't see beyond their own selfish wants.
I appreciate that she acknowledged the Duke victims, and accepts that they are human beings.
That's more than 99% of feminists will ever do.
But it's completely wrong to say that we can't determine what happened.
The phoniness of her story and her refusal to be interviewed prove that it's false. There is no ambiguity there.
What pisses me off the most is the indifference of men. There are literally hundred of thousands of activists who are worrying about sea turtles being burned alive by BP -- but how many men are protesting the naked injustice of false rape accusers being believed and given above-the-law status even when they're busted?
But sea turtles are precious and we're not. We're just men.
For men, acknowledging that other men are victimized because they are men serves to implicitly acknowledge that they, too, can be victimized because of their birth class -- and that just isn't acceptable in our culture. It's a show of weakness for a gender that isn't allowed to show weakness.
"For men, acknowledging that other men are victimized because they are men serves to implicitly acknowledge that they, too, can be victimized because of their birth class -- and that just isn't acceptable in our culture. It's a show of weakness for a gender that isn't allowed to show weakness."
This is Snark - I will admit, that the feminists are actually CORRECT when they say this.
Yes, the traditional male role, does deny men the right to be acknowledged as victims.
Not that this should be a surprise. Most of history involved being raided by another (usually foreign) group of men who were going to kill you and take everything you own. Or being coerced into battle by your own superiors.
For all of history, until recently, men had to be TOUGH AS NAILS, fighting and killing machines. Or else they wound up dead themselves.
But today, there remains a refusal to acknowledge men as victims - in a time where we don't even need to fear the arrival of longboats full of Viking assholes.
HOWEVER. Feminists say this as it is an argument that PATRIARCHY HARMS MEN TOO - that it is an argument against 'patriarchy' is the extent to which they care.
Try bringing up the falsely accused to a feminist - we all know what happens. Suddenly, she has a problem acknowledging men as victims too - at least explicitly. Often, she would actually quite like men to be victimised - consider what has been said to men here ("I hope you are raped" etc.) Just so long as it is NOT ACKNOWLEDGED that they are victims; rather, that they are, 'officially' speaking, the OPPRESSORS still. Perhaps who got what they deserved: think John Bobbitt ...
Feminists only care about it so long as the argument serves their purpose. In practice, they have no interest in acknowledging male victimhood, particularly not those which THEY have created. It would mean accepting two things: firstly, that women do not have a monopoly or exclusive claim on humanity, or on being victims; secondly, that they themselves have committed moral wrongs, and have acted as part of the problem and not part of the solution.
"Men are not allowed to be considered victims" - right, but who is it exactly who is making victims out of us?
Of course, anyone who realised this, and faced the truth, rather than shrinking from it and hiding behind juked statistics and defunct ideologies, would surely consider themselves an ANTI-feminist!
But today, there remains a refusal to acknowledge men as victims - in a time where we don't even need to fear the arrival of longboats full of Viking assholes.
***
Sir, I knew Thorfinn 'Skullsplitter' Hausakljuv. He was a friend of mine.
You sir are no Thorfinn 'Skullsplitter' Hausakljuv.
(Besides -- the Carolingians were askin' fer it.)
The victim mentality is deadly for the survival of a free people. It is well for men not to adopt it. And it is not necessary to adopt it in order to battle injustice.
The only reason men, as a class, are victimized re: false rape claims is because WOMEN, as a class, are deemed victims of men's sexual tyranny. It is this victim mentality that has anointed women "oppressed" that breeds injustices against men.
"The phoniness of her story and her refusal to be interviewed prove that it's false. There is no ambiguity there."
Her refusal to be interviewed does not prove that it was false. Neither does her allegedly asking the Enquirer for money, that the police didn't investigate it further, or that she didn't report it immediately. And saying her story is phony because of its supposed phoniness is a circular argument.
I'm not saying her story is true, but unlike Duke, Hofstra, and thousands of other cases that have been posted to this blog, there is no actual evidence that her story is false. And there certainly isn't any proof either way.
". . . but unlike Duke, Hofstra, and thousands of other cases that have been posted to this blog, there is no actual evidence that her story is false."
And that's the point. There is a movement to just charge things like this and let the jury figure it out. By eliminating the rule requiring corroboration, we ended up flipping the rule on its head -- now, for the accused male to be exonerated, there's a de facto requirement that there be some evidence showing his innocence. And that's just as wrong as the old rule. Ms. Estrich is right -- we can't possibly know what happened, so it HAS to be dropped.
Archivist, I was responding @ Jul 2, 2010 3:40:00 PM to the statement, "The phoniness of her story and her refusal to be interviewed prove that it's false." That simply isn't true.
That being said, I agree that corroborating evidence should be required in order to prosecute. However, just because we don't know of any such evidence, before the police look, does not mean that it shouldn't be investigated. Nor is a lack of evidence of sexual assault evidence of false reporting. They are both separate crimes in and of themselves that each require evidence. Both the accuser and the accused deserve the same presumption of innocence.
"And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance."
Heaven forbid Precious should have to say "no" to a creepy beta male who makes her gina feel "icky".
"However, just because we don't know of any such evidence, before the police look, does not mean that it shouldn't be investigated."
I think that was Ms. Estrich's point -- we won't ever know. I agree with her. The passage of time has almost certainly insured that there's no physical evidence -- of course, there could always be some smoking gun somewhere, but her experience is akin to mine: most unlikely.
P.S. I don't think I ever suggested that the accuser be charged for false reporting. If there's no evidence aside from "he said/she said," that has to work both ways.
"'And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance.'
"Heaven forbid Precious should have to say 'no' to a creepy beta male who makes her gina feel 'icky'."
Yeah, that's certainly how that can be read. Remember, this wasn't written out -- and maybe it wasn't as precise as it would be if she wrote it. My guess is that she was referring to the specific Gore allegation which, if true, would be fairly icky. Note I am not suggesting it is true. I agree with her -- we likely won't ever know.
right. but al gores estimated net worth being 150 million dollars,
i have a 'feeling' based on seeing this a 100 times, he'll just cut her a check for 3-5 million.
dangerous time to be man.
time to cash in if you're a woman.
Her refusal to be interviewed does not prove that it was false. Neither does her allegedly asking the Enquirer for money, that the police didn't investigate it further, or that she didn't report it immediately. And saying her story is phony because of its supposed phoniness is a circular argument.
***
It's phony because it sounds phony, not "because of its supposed phoniness." Real rape victims don't talk about their rapist's "come hither" look, and intelligent people don't use terms like "come hither," anyway.
Before you critize what you hallucinate to be my failed logic, make sure that you have some of your own. There is nothing authentic sounding about Al Gore's accuser.
But I keep forgetting that we live in America, sweet land of misandry, where there is no rape accusation is too cornball or implausible to be believed by our douche bag media, and sometimes even by visitors to a men's rights blog.
And I think we're forgetting the obvious question: WHY THE HELL SHOULD HE HAVE TO PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN?
Anonymous said...
"And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance."
Heaven forbid Precious should have to say "no" to a creepy beta male who makes her gina feel "icky".
Jul 2, 2010 4:49:00 PM
O.K. That's creepy.
" Real rape victims don't talk about their rapist's "come hither" look, and intelligent people don't use terms like "come hither," anyway."
"Come hither" is associated with a female giving a male a 'come hither' look.
Men don't hither. That's a chick thang.
It's a chick thang that you only hear when the chick is masturbating to a shitty romance novel.
11:46: I think his point was that merely asking for sex isn't an act of rape. Because, you know, the feminists like to say that everything is rape, and it isn't.
OT - This 4th of July, I thought it would warm your hearts to know that these are people who will be selected for the jury that will decide whether to believe you or Crystal Mangum: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38067605
A Marist poll released today finds that 26 percent of Americans dont know whom the United States declared its independence from.
The 26 percent includes 6 percent that are unsure that the United States fought any war of independence at all. Other respondents gave a range of countries that included France, China, Mexico, Spain and Japan, according to the pollsters at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
For the record, it was Great Britain we broke away from.
In case you're hoping that's a statistical fluke -- no, it really does represent America:
***
The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. In an effort to increase coverage, the land-line sample was supplemented by random dialing of cell phone numbers.
The results of the survey are statistically significant with a margin of error of 3 percent.
***
So it might be only 23% of Americans who don't know the US fought Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. (That's only 3 in 12 jurors, folks!)
Anon 3:40: So her refusal to be interviewed, her romance novel statements, her general whackiness don't prove she's lying? So be it.
Does the fact that she has falsely accused other men prove that she's lying? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/02/Gore-accuser-accused-ex-boyfriend-in-1998/UPI-49181278124662/
PORTLAND, Ore., July 2 (UPI) -- The woman who claims former U.S. Vice President Al Gore sexually molested her said 12 years ago she had been abused by a former boyfriend, court papers show.
"O.K. That's creepy."
Did it make your gina feel 'icky'?
"Anon 3:40: So her refusal to be interviewed, her romance novel statements, her general whackiness don't prove she's lying?"
No, it doesn't. Being a complete flake doesn't make someone invulnerable to crime.
"Does the fact that she has falsely accused other men prove that she's lying?"
No, it doesn't. Just like a man who has been accused by other women doesn't prove he's guilty. And based on that UPI story we don't know if those other accusations were false.
So, if three other women had accused Al Gore that wouldn't change your opinion of the latest accusation?
Please, try not to be such a blatant liar and hypocrite; it makes you a far too easy target.
"So, if three other women had accused Al Gore that wouldn't change your opinion of the latest accusation?"
I'm not the same anonymous to whom you made this reply, but I can safely say that men in positions of power have big bulls-eye's painted on their backs. Spite, revenge, or a histrionic need for attention could cause some other neurotic woman to cry "me too!" As Estrich and Archivist here have both said, we'll never know.
The law is not concerned with truth, but evidence. Mass hysteria is not unheard of. So, if someone else makes, or a bunch of people make, additional individual claims that Al Gore did such-and-such then the same rules of evidence and corroboration should apply. Unfortunately, they don't. That's not the way the laws are written in some states -- the uncorroborated testimony of additional claimants provide "evidence" of that the other claims must be true. Men are convicted and sent to prison based on such "evidence." Providing anonymity to the falsely accused in these cases could prevent the additional bogus claims from being made.
A prudent person these days needs to protect themselves from all manner of legal problems by keeping a diary of their activities and keeping all of their receipts and correspondence. A diary, receipt, or other evidence has saved more than one falsely accused person, from my reading of the posts and comments here on FRS. Fortunately for Al Gore, his status, business interests, and social calendar require that he keep records or that he maintains a staff that does this for him. After this exposure, I doubt Gore be going for massage therapy again any time soon without a member of his staff being present during the session.
"So, if three other women had accused Al Gore that wouldn't change your opinion of the latest accusation?"
It would depend on the evidence of each individual claim. Ben Roethlisberger was accused by two separate women, but it doesn't mean either accusation was true.
"Please, try not to be such a blatant liar and hypocrite; it makes you a far too easy target."
Please try not to resort to ad hominem nonsense, because it demonstrates you can't defend your position based on facts and reason.
"Did it make your gina feel 'icky'?"
I really hope so.
Famous men need to hide their identity from vampirous women. These vampirous women will grab yer PP, in one hand, and call the police with a false accusation with the other. They are digging for gold!!
9:33: Actually, it means that once I've determined that you are immune to reason, that there is no need to treat you with anything but contempt.
The evidence against her is overwhelming: now all that remains is to convict this serial false rape accuser.
Let's review the evidence so far:
1- She's done it before.
2- Avoids the police (then and now)
3- Her story is very made-up sounding and masturbatory in tone
4- She is being paid by that bastion of integrity and good taste, the National Enquirer
It all adds up to GUILTY.
Restated: real rape victims don't have a history of false accusations, real victims don't avoid their interviews with the police, real victims don't use stupid phrases, such as "come hither look," that make them sound like their jacking off, real victims don't prefer tabloid sewer money to pursuing justice for their attackers.
If it quacks like a dog and walks like a dog then it's not a duck... it's a dog. It is ridiculous beyond belief that the media continues to dignify this liar.
By the way, in case you haven't figured this out, as someone who cares about justice, I find this false allegation to be abhorent.
But as an MRA -- I'm delighted! This is the best thing that could happen for those who want false rape accusers to be punished.
So by all means, continue to support those who are doing more than anybody else to destroy modern victim feminism: the false rape accusers who can't keep their stories straight!
"This is a common theme...femmies are all about hatin' on males until they whelp one.
Then, and only then, they clearly see the adverse effects of the world they created." - EW
I find it so depressing just how narrow-minded, selfish, and short-sighted people can be, i.e. unless an issue directly affects someone's life or family, or someone they are close to, they couldn't care less.
The fact is, I have never been falsely accused of any sexual offence, nor have I ever been taken to the cleaners in a divorce. I have never experienced a major life crisis that can be blamed on the excesses of feminism (Although two close friends have been falsely accused of dealing in child pornography by their exes, as well as being subject to harassment, destruction of property, and in one case child abduction).
But the point is, if I was only looking at my own life, it would be easy to turn my back on all this (perhaps except for the whole 'their but for the grace of God go I' concept). But I don't, because above all else I have a conscience and can empathize with the suffering of others even if I have not experienced it personally.
"P.S. I don't think I ever suggested that the accuser be charged for false reporting. If there's no evidence aside from "he said/she said," that has to work both ways."
Exactly. You yourself didn't suggest it, but so far I've seen a number of jackass comments, such as this one:
"The evidence against her is overwhelming: now all that remains is to convict this serial false rape accuser."
That isn't any different in thought, or any less of a rush to judgement, than the hundreds of comments during the Duke and Hofstra cases that assumed the men must be guilty.
There wasn't a shred of evidence in Duke or Hofstra, but this false rape accuser has done it before. That's all the evidence any reasonable person needs.
Fuck that liar and fuck you.
In case the mangina doesn't realize this, innocent men are CONVICTED EVERY DAY based on evidence that is far slightest than the overwhelming evidence against this liar.
But all of a sudden along comes a false rape accuser, and we're supposed to allow her to have a gender-based super-presumption of innocence. Screw that!
Think about that: the piece of crap compares a serial false rape accuser to the victims of Duke and Hofstra.
How insulting is that?
But this shouldn't surprise me because they do this to us all the time. They start out assuming that the liar must be telling the truth because she has a vagina, and then when they dig up her history of false accusations they throw up their dirty hands and cry, "Not enough evidence to charge her!"
But there is always enough evidence to charge a man -- her moronic, unpublishable romance novel-like testimony and a vajayjay is overwhelming evidence in eyes of our Whore of Babylon legal system.
Anonymous said...
What pisses me off the most is the indifference of men. There are literally hundred of thousands of activists who are worrying about sea turtles being burned alive by BP -- but how many men are protesting the naked injustice of false rape accusers being believed and given above-the-law status even when they're busted?
But sea turtles are precious and we're not. We're just men.
Jul 2, 2010 1:36:00 PM
Feminist-influenced, via media, ranking of humans and animals;
1. Feminists
2. other women
3. children
4 animals
5. the enviroment
6. misc.
7. men
Post a Comment