by Connie Chastain*
No, I'm not talking the title of World Heavyweight Champion for boxing, although no doubt about it, that title has to be fought for.
I'm talking about the current squabble over which women will claim the title "feminist" -- conservatives or liberals.
A couple of months ago, feminist writer Jessica Valenti blasted Sarah Palin for "adopting the feminist label." Apparently, leftist feminists believe conservative women cannot, or should not, share the title. Nevertheless, most of the female candidates who won primary races in June identified as conservative Republicans -- and feminists.
You have to be careful with labels. Many political writers have questioned Sarah Palin's conservatism, and I'm not in total disagreement with their doubts. But when it comes to the feminist label, it is most interesting to see what self-identified feminists say it means.
Numerous definitions, explanations, discussions of what a feminist is can be found on the internet; none of them sticks with me more than more than a highly misandric piece written in 2008 by Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts titled "I Am a Feminist." I've often wondered if Pitts realized how greatly he was demonizing his fellow males in this column.
You can read it here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08039/855735-35.stm
The column concludes, "We have lost collective memory of how things were before the F-word. Of the casual beatings. Of the casual rape. Of words like 'old maid' and 'spinster.' Of abortion by coat hanger. Of going to school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and needing a husband's permission. Of taking all your spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition, aspiration, creativity and pounding them down until they fit a space no larger than a casserole dish."
Shortly after this piece was published, I recapped it in a chatroom as, "Men = casual beaters, casual rapists, heartless insulters, irresponsible impregnators, rigid controllers and haters of women..."
When some of the chatroom members hotly took exception to my recap, I explained further that it was logically implied in what Pitts wrote.
"Of the casual beatings." Requires casual beaters -- does it not? -- who would be men, unless you imagine Pitts is talking about women casually beating other women?
"Of the casual rape." Requires casual rapists, who would be men --unless you imagine Pitts is talking about women casually raping other women.
"Of words like 'old maid' and 'spinster.'" Heartless insults that require heartless insulters, and since we know the feminist tenet that women are not heartless, we can infer that Pitts is talking about men.
"Of abortion by coat hanger." Abortions are performed on pregnant women, and women cannot impregnate other women, so the impregnators are men, and since the woman is having an abortion to get rid of the child, that means she was impregnated by a man too irresponsible to practice birth control, or to take responsibility for the baby.
"Of going to school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and needing a husband's permission." "Allowance" and "permission" imply control, and men are doing the controlling.
The violence and abuse, the heartlessness and insults, the reproductive irresponsibility, and the rigid control all adds up to men's hatred of women. That is what Pitts is saying about men in this article and he implies these things, these effects of men, would be running rampant and roughshod over women--but for feminism.
In a recent column for RealClearPolitics, Cathy Young opined that conservative feminists speak to "an audience that seeks individualistic and market-oriented solutions, rather than big-government-driven ones, and focuses on women’s empowerment rather than oppression.... The women who embrace it are likely to transform both feminism and conservatism. The feminist movement ignores them at its peril."
I have my doubts. Feminism, as Pitts so ably demonstrated, is man-hating at its core. Any woman--or man--who does not accept and promote that concept does not deserve the title. In my humble opinion.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team. Her weekly essays appear every Friday. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
We could, of course, talk about the world experienced by the typical male until relatively recently, but that wouldn't fit with Pitts' moonbat agenda. Suffice it to say it wasn't the world of "Mad Men" or whatever the hell Leonard's ilk think it was. It entailed things like risking their lives everyday to work in dangerous manual labor jobs just to feed, house, and clothe a woman and her children. You know: Of taking all your spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition, aspiration, creativity and pounding them into a fiery blast furnace at a dirty, dangerous steel mill. And the families that owned the mills -- wives and daughters too -- lived in luxury. But, gee, that doesn't fit Leonard's moonbat victim narrative, does it? Too much nuance; no clear villian or hero/heroine.
Here's the reality: feminism flourished after a world was created with a massive number of service jobs that made the non-domestic sphere easy. That's a fact.
And, no, Leonard, women don't need men now. They've got the government to support them. Obama is their "husband." Don't believe me? Aside from blacks, single wymym are his predominant demographic.
What moonbat feminists like Pitts pretend to ignore is that feminism has changed. While at the same time, the feminists themselves make a distinction, with terms they invented, between first-wave feminism, second-wave feminism, and an either current or up and coming third wave of feminism. In her book, "Who Stole Feminism", Christina Hoff-Sommers describes a difference between "equity feminism" and "gender feminism". So both its proponents and critics agree, feminism is significantly different from when it started.
The problem is that liberal feminists, by placing it all under the single banner of "feminism", want to act as though the validity of first-wave feminism somehow justifies the inequity of second-wave feminism. Even though -- by their own admission -- their philosophy and goals are contradictory.
All of the good things that feminism achieved -- the right to vote, reproductive choice, employment and educational opportunity -- were achieved by first-wave/equity feminism. One could argue that it was the most successful political movement in all history. Yet, its great success also meant that it was no longer necessary. It had achieved its goal.
I'm sure most people are against slavery, but when was the last time you heard someone describe themselves as an abolitionist? I believe that England and the United States should remain separate countries, but I don't call myself a revolutionary. That work has been done.
If young woman "now disdain the banner under which their gender fought for freedom," it's because the feminism that fought for their freedom no longer exists. If they "scorn feminism even as they feast at a table that feminism prepared", it's because what feminism has become had nothing to do with preparing that "table" and its preparation was finished long before they were born. Calling two radically different political movements "feminism" does not make them the same.
"One could argue that it was the most successful political movement in all history."
Except that it was the byproduct of an exploding economy and the creation of an incredible number of service jobs that did not exist earlier. Moreover, technology rendered housework a part-time job. The times were ripe for women to take their place out of the domestic sphere. Those who view feminism as a long march away from male oppression don't understand history in the least but are concocting a story to rally the troops in some modern-day struggle -- real or imagined.
"Feminism, as Pitts so ably demonstrated, is man-hating at its core. Any woman--or man--who does not accept and promote that concept does not deserve the title."
I agree with this 100%. While all misandry is not feminism, all feminism is misandry.
At its very base, feminism is all about misandry, even so-called first wave feminism which may have been more focused on rights, still contained a good deal of misandry and its only gotten worse since.
Feminism is a hate movement.
TDOM
"Except that it was the byproduct of an exploding economy and the creation of an incredible number of service jobs that did not exist earlier."
Could you please explain that a bit more? While it's plausible the expansion of the tertiary economy may have contributed to second-wave feminism, that didn't happen until after World War II.
"Moreover, technology rendered housework a part-time job."
In the 1840's??
Don't be dense, Anon. All the major gains occurred post-WW2 and not in the 1840s when the groundwork was being laid. Now, why might that be?
Anon at 11:48: Anyone who's studied any history separate and apart from GENDER STUDIES knows what the fuck he's talking about. You people act as if the brave foremothers showed the menz the folly of their oppressive ways. Go take your first wave, second wave, tenth wave, and shove 'em up your fucking ass. Mangina.
Anonymous - ”All of the good things that feminism achieved -- the right to vote, reproductive choice, employment and educational opportunity -- were achieved by first-wave/equity feminism. One could argue that it was the most successful political movement in all history. Yet, its great success also meant that it was no longer necessary. It had achieved its goal.
I'm sure most people are against slavery, but when was the last time you heard someone describe themselves as an abolitionist? I believe that England and the United States should remain separate countries, but I don't call myself a revolutionary. That work has been done.”
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
It’s a shame that you write something so profound, but leave no way to attribute it to you (as an individual).
That the goals of equity-feminism have largely been achieved (and, in many instances, they over-shot the equity mark – i.e. affirmative action) makes feminism as a movement as significant as (as you brilliantly note) modern day abolitionists
Archivist - ” We could, of course, talk about the world experienced by the typical male until relatively recently, but that wouldn't fit with Pitts' moonbat agenda. Suffice it to say it wasn't the world of "Mad Men" or whatever the hell Leonard's ilk think it was. It entailed things like risking their lives everyday to work in dangerous manual labor jobs just to feed, house, and clothe a woman and her children. You know: Of taking all your spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition, aspiration, creativity and pounding them into a fiery blast furnace at a dirty, dangerous steel mill. And the families that owned the mills -- wives and daughters too -- lived in luxury.”
Much of the problem with the claims made by feminists (and their apologists, like Pitts) is what is classically known as the Apex Fallacy, which is to say that they look at the men who are on top, and project their power and status as being emblematic of that enjoyed by all men. Thus, that 50% or more of woman overall don’t enjoy the income/lifestyles of male corporate CEO’s or male professional athletes is seen as the patriarchy oppressing all women.
The corollary to the “Apex Fallacy” would be what might be termed the “Base Fallacy”, which projects onto all men the traits of the worst of men (all men are rapists, etc.).
slw, your theory is correct, but you overlook something even more fundamental. For every man who headed a corporation, there was a woman who shared his mansion, directed his servants (male servants as well), lived a life of luxury, got her picture in the society pages, and inherited all his money when he died years before she did. For every man at the top, there was at least one woman who had it as nice as he did because of the fruits of his efforts.
"Don't be dense, Anon."
While SLWerner thinks what I wrote was just "just brilliant". Which I do appreciate. But I guess you can't please everyone.
"All the major gains occurred post-WW2 and not in the 1840s when the groundwork was being laid."
Except they didn't. Almost all inequalities in the law were addressed prior to WWII. In 1848, New York State passed the Married Woman's Property Act, giving women the right to retain property they brought into or acquired during a marriage. Which was then further amended as similar laws were passed in other states. In 1920, U.S. women gained the right to vote.
In England, there was the Representation of the People Act 1918, The Sex Disqualification Act of 1919, Matrimonial Causes Act of 1923, etc.
Otoh, almost all the "gains" after WWII had nothing to do with women being treated equally under the law.
"Go take your first wave, second wave, tenth wave, and shove 'em up your fucking ass. Mangina."
Have you thought about writing children's books?
Anonymous - "While SLWerner thinks what I wrote was just "just brilliant". Which I do appreciate."
Demonstrating that once a movements goals have been achieved, that there is no longer any point to maintaining that movement (i.e. abolition), and then pointing out that the laudable and worthwhile goals of feminism (as stated by feminists) HAVE been mostly achieved or exceeded; was, in fact, nothing short of brilliant. It is the perfect counter-argument to the idea that feminism is still widely necessary. It essentially backs those who continue to identify themselves as feminists into a corner of having to show themselves to be mostly "gender-feminists", seeking selective female empowerment and advantage, irrespective of equity and/or equality (or even fairness and justice, for that matter - just look at their opposition to anonymity for those accused of rape, for example.).
What I don't understand is why conservative women, including candidates/politicians, would even want to claim the title "feminist."
I know social conservatives, or the pejorative "socons," for short, are looked upon unfavorably by some men's rights advocates as pedestalers of women, but that's another issue/essay.
The point is, I haven't found the defining factor of feminism, man-hating, prevalent among conservatives, whatever other faults they may have. So why even attempt to adopt the name?
Pitts refers to Jessica Valenti's claim that the word, feminist, has been misused and mischaracterized by conservatives for so long that women are afraid to identify with it ".... because they've been taught feminists are anti-men..."
And then Pitts follows up with his egregiously anti-man paragraph, claiming only "the F-word" saves women today from these awful, male pathologies. Do these feminist-folks even read their own writings?
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/08/05/they-were-expendable/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/08/06/male-expendability-and-the-nature-of-tribes/
Anonymous said...
What moonbat feminists like Pitts pretend to ignore is that feminism has changed. While at the same time, the feminists themselves make a distinction, with terms they invented, between first-wave feminism, second-wave feminism, and an either current or up and coming third wave of feminism. In her book, "Who Stole Feminism", Christina Hoff-Sommers describes a difference between "equity feminism" and "gender feminism". So both its proponents and critics agree, feminism is significantly different from when it started.
The problem is that liberal feminists, by placing it all under the single banner of "feminism", want to act as though the validity of first-wave feminism somehow justifies the inequity of second-wave feminism. Even though -- by their own admission -- their philosophy and goals are contradictory.
All of the good things that feminism achieved -- the right to vote, reproductive choice, employment and educational opportunity -- were achieved by first-wave/equity feminism. One could argue that it was the most successful political movement in all history. Yet, its great success also meant that it was no longer necessary. It had achieved its goal.
I'm sure most people are against slavery, but when was the last time you heard someone describe themselves as an abolitionist? I believe that England and the United States should remain separate countries, but I don't call myself a revolutionary. That work has been done.
If young woman "now disdain the banner under which their gender fought for freedom," it's because the feminism that fought for their freedom no longer exists. If they "scorn feminism even as they feast at a table that feminism prepared", it's because what feminism has become had nothing to do with preparing that "table" and its preparation was finished long before they were born. Calling two radically different political movements "feminism" does not make them the same.
Aug 6, 2010 10:11:00 AM
You forgot how chivalry aided feminism, as it does today. The both walk hand in hand.
"It essentially backs those who continue to identify themselves as feminists into a corner of having to show themselves to be mostly "gender-feminists", seeking selective female empowerment and advantage, irrespective of equity and/or equality (or even fairness and justice, for that matter - just look at their opposition to anonymity for those accused of rape, for example.)."
Exactly. Not to get overly philosophical, but first-wave/equity feminism sought to change de jure inequality, or inequality under the law, while second-wave/gender feminism seeks to change perceived de facto inequality, or inequality in practice not caused by government.
First-wave feminism was a huge success, not only because it was in agreement with established principles of law, but because it was simply a matter of changing the law to be more congruent with those principles. Otoh, second-wave feminism has been a dismal failure, not only because it is in disagreement with established principles of law, but because it changed the law to be less congruent with those principles.
The only way the government can counteract de facto inequality is to correct de jure inequality, then wait for the natural forces of human action to even things out. Trying to correct de facto inequality directly by enacting laws and government policy that favors one group over another only creates a new de jure inequality. Worse, second-wave feminists seek to change the law based on de facto inequality that does not even exist. For example, second-wave feminists pushed for the Violence Against Women Act, even though more men were victims of violence. As a result, there is almost no evidence that it has reduced violence against women, but rather increased violence against innocent men at the hands of government -- a clear example of de jure inequality.
Today there are many feminist flags to wave around.
1. Classic feminism is the idea that women should work to pay their own bills.
2. Victim feminism is the idea that women are victim enough, then the state should send them grants, and funding and shit like that.
3. Gender / raunch feminism is the modern day feminism that says upper white middle class homosexuals are more oppressed than black people were 100 years ago. They believe upper white middle class homosexuals should get all the state and federal "victim dollars" that the blacks were getting. Gender feminists "Empower" themselves by attacking hetero-sexual males.
If gender feminists were to attack another country, to try and take the country over, their first action would be to create a "missinformation Alliance' with the law enforcement community of that country.
Then with the "manufactured" statistics from this "Alliance", gender feminist perverts could spread their agitation propaganda like a virus.
The most obvious indicator of feminism's hubris is its inability to view history in anything other than gender-struggle terms.
Does anyone really believe that any complex phenomenon, such as war, politics or technological progress, can be explained in terms of one - and only one - simple principle and one perspective? It's absurd. Even the atomic theory of matter, as universal as it is in its specific sphere, isn't referenced when trying to explain tax policy, or why a revolution broke out in 18th century France. Yet these madwomen and their deluded brothers-in-spirit find the whole of history explicable by a brief catch-phrase - that such intellects have the power to vote over the rest of us should be a matter of public urgency.
I don't think I've ever heard a feminist acknowledge the hardships suffered by men in our not-so-distant past, nor the role of technology in our better quality of life today, nor the contribution of men to assemble - out of nothing - the very things that women today take for granted. Things like universities, voting democracies, land registers and markets that allow the easy purchase and sale of land, and principles of law and order and their enforcement.
Any reasonable mind will readily acknowledge that the combined effect of these and many other factors are what give us our relatively comfortable lives - and that feminism contributed next to nothing. Its greatest claim to fame is probably in the publishing industry, where it has enabled so many untalented authors to earn a living spitting bile, rather than contribute something positive that their constitutions rendered them incapable of.
It is at best a charity - but a highly inefficient one. At its worst, well, others have already said that well enough.
If our society survives feminism, in the future, spouting feminist rhetoric will be illegal, like spouting Nazi rhetoric in Germany is today.
In Florida, during a domestic violence dispute both parties are detained.
In Vermont (which is heavily Gender femninist dominated), the male will be arrested even when the female is caught with the weapon in her hand. This Vermont "perverted approach" does very little to combat overall societal violence...but it does serve to "Empower" the Gender feminist community.
The Gender feminist dominance of Vermont politics is directly linked to the degree of "Missinformation Alliance" with their law enforcement. Break the "missinformation Alliance", and you have just neutered the root of the faulty and inflamatory agitataion propaganda that gender feminists use to "empower" themselves.
I'm from Vermont, and i have studied the Gender / Raunch rise to political power over the last 20 years. Their rise to power is a direct result of their "Alliance" with law enforcement. Florida is not Gender feminist dominated because the degree of "missinformation Alliance" between law enforceement and gender feminist perverts is still in its infancy stages.
I'm just giving you guys a heads up, and a chance to stem the Gender / raunch communities power grab.
Vermont arrests the male in a domestic (even when the female was the violent party), and florida arrests both parties until they figure out who was violent. Floridas legal system is not gender feminist ideologically perverted, vermonts is.
This incessant gender/raunch/alliance commentary needs to stop.
Saying that there are good feminists is akin to saying that there are good Nazis or good Communists. There are no such animals! All feminists are evil to the core-end of story.
I agree with Slwner, the 10:11 was loaded with brilliant analagies. Whether it was recycled from another blog, we don't know, but for sure everyone should read this piece. I am totally impressed with the wisdom. It's almost like an epithany for me.
That said, I'm not clear on how it involves rape culture which we all know has been prevalent in our college culture throughout time.
"That said, I'm not clear on how it involves rape culture which we all know has been prevalent in our college culture throughout time."
There is no such thing as "rape culture". That is a fantasy that you have made up in your addled brain. Rape is a crime in every country and city-state in the world and always has been.
99.9% of men have no interest in having sex with an unwilling woman,and probably would not even be able to get an erection for a woman who did not seem sexually available.
Telling dirty jokes is not a crime. Bragging about "sexual conquests" is neither a crime,nor abnormal for a healthy male. Looking at pictures of naked women is not a crime, as long as those women are above the age of consent and have given their permission to appear in those photos.
As much as you'd like for something to be wrong with these acts,they are perfectly natural for males to engage in, and YOU in fact are acting in a bigoted and sexist fashion against males by asserting natural masculine activities are "dirty" or "wrong".
"Rape culture" DOES NOT EXIST.
Repeat that over and over until the preponderance of facts supporting the assertion sink into your skull.
Me being a man is not rape. Forcibly inserting my penis in your vagina against your will is rape.That is the only thing that IS RAPE. Period.
Unless you can prove that males are forcibly inserting their penises in people in a "prevalent" fashion on college campuses,you are engaging in sexism and slander.
ARC TALK RADIO
Monday, August 9, 2010 (6 p.m. EST)
Dial: (724) 444-7444
Code: 29521#
NO CONVICTION ON SEX CHARGES; MUST REGISTER AS LIFETIME SEX OFFENDER?
Please join us this Monday for a very special Hot Topics as we welcome the Orin family to the show.
Recently, Orin, the father, was falsely accused of two counts of sexual abuse in the state of Iowa. He held to his belief the criminal system was fair and the truth would prevail and it did, somewhat. The victims in his case statements did not match the evidence and one of them had falsely accused another in her past. The County Attorney request Orlin be charged with harassment, and dropped the sexual abuse charges with no registration since no sexual intent. The Judge agreed and Orin was sentenced to two years probation.
Now, Orin moved his wife and children to Missouri where they wanted to get a fresh start and start over. He followed through with a Inter State Compac to transfer his probation and was then told by Missouri DOC he has to register for life and he can never live with his children again. He must move out!!
Orin has been refusing to register or comply and financially cannot afford any legal help since he is drawing unemployment. He has decided he wants to tell his story and warn others what the Missouri DOC is doing to him and others alike.
Please join us and support Orin’s family as they come forward and join ARC Talk Radio to tell their story and seek legal assistance and help to stop the state of Missouri from destroying their lives and becoming the collateral damage to the harmful laws.
Q: "And, no, Leonard, women don't need men now. They've got the government to support them."
Only the government no longer "supports" as it once did by encouraging single motherhood with welfare and free medical. We now have forced labor, full blown out and out slavery and imprisonment of some dupe who may or may not have agreed to "being the sperm donor".
That shit's been going on for generations - it didn't start with Obama, and has grown and florished under EVERY presidency.
The complaints about social programs supporting "single moms" have ended up being a "frying pan into the flames" for men.
The good 'ol days of "Welfare Cadillac" mythology have been replaced with "Child Support BMW" reality.
Q"While SLWerner thinks what I wrote was just "just brilliant". Which I do appreciate. But I guess you can't please everyone."
That is why I personally post anonymously, SL.
One minute you are 'brilliant' here, the next you're a dickless mangina.
Pierce, you sum up the issues well. The idea that all social progress is a result of political or ideological movements rather than scientific or economic progress is a simplistic, reductionist way of looking at the world. It's a bit like the obtuse claim you sometimes hear that if it weren't for organized labour, working conditions would still be the same as in the 19th century.
Of course in previous generations women often had fewer opportunities in relation to education, employment and the like compared to today. But it is silly to pretend that this was all because of some evil plot by men to keep women down until the heroic women's libbers turned up and saved the day. In reality, the policies of earlier generations were dictated by economic necessity.
The ultimate irony is that women's liberation is only possible because Western men were able to generate sufficient economic surpluses that can be redistributed to a lot of wasteful and indulgent policies designed to benefit women (like educating women so they can just throw in their jobs or only work a few hours). Feminism is a luxury of a healthy economy. Once the economy collapses, we can no longer afford to indulge the fantasies of silly women.
"I agree with Slwner, the 10:11 was loaded with brilliant analagies. Whether it was recycled from another blog, we don't know, but for sure everyone should read this piece. I am totally impressed with the wisdom. It's almost like an epithany for me."
I'm glad you found it so impressive. It was not recycled from another blog. That would have been plagiarism, and I wouldn't do that.
"That said, I'm not clear on how it involves rape culture which we all know has been prevalent in our college culture throughout time."
No, it hasn't. There is no such thing as rape culture. It simply does not exist. It was invented by second-wave feminists because first-wave feminism was so successful, there wasn't anything left to complain about significant enough to motivate young women to become feminists. The entire college date rape industry has nothing to do with preventing rape, and everything to do with political indoctrination.
"That is why I personally post anonymously, SL. One minute you are 'brilliant' here, the next you're a dickless mangina."
Unfortunately, the owners of this blog refuse to enforce their own comments policy. Imho, allowing ad hominem attacks is the biggest problem with this blog -- a disgrace and embarrassment that seriously undermines its cause.
"In reality, the policies of earlier generations were dictated by economic necessity. "
I fail to see how economic necessity could dictate de jure inequality.
"Once the economy collapses, we can no longer afford to indulge the fantasies of silly women."
Although the two events were not related, the the U.S. the economy did collapse -- during the Great Depression of the 1930's -- after women gained significant equality under the law, and it did not require reversing those changes.
Otoh, I agree that government programs and changes in the law due to second-wave feminism are an economic burden. It's just that you can't seem to separate the two.
"I fail to see how economic necessity could dictate de jure inequality."
Requirement of hard physical labour + absence of new technology = sexual division of labour.
MarkyMark - there I disagree with you. Just because a person follows a particular political ideology doesn't mean they are inherently Good or Evil.
Their ideals may not be Good, but it doesn't follow that the person is Evil.
""I fail to see how economic necessity could dictate de jure inequality."
Requirement of hard physical labour + absence of new technology = sexual division of labour."
What are you talking about?
Gender / Raunch feminisms empowerment in any given area of the country, is directly proportional to the degree of faulty and inflamataroy agitation propaganda that pervert proffessors get to vomit at their respective universities.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1301410/Holiday-teacher-accused-rape-woman-preys-tourists.html
A teacher was arrested and held in a Greek jail after being falsely accused of rape by a woman his lawyer alleged preyed on tourists to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation.
The supply teacher's Greek lawyer, Alcybiades Hajantonis, yesterday claimed the woman disappeared after making the allegation. But he alleged she had previously pocketed nearly £500,000 (600,000 euros) by cashing in insurance policies on up to three previous alleged rapes.
'Swedish authorities cannot find her and we still can't get back the bail money. She obviously does this on a systematic basis.'
beat me to it snark, well done...
Post a Comment