Friday, July 29, 2011

'. . . It’s a wonder I allow myself near my sons'

Iconoclast Chad Hermann has no use for ideological purity, political correctness, or partisanship. His political views are all over the map, and his Pittsburgh Post-Gazette blog can best be described as a repudiation of bullshit.  He's the guy who demolished the one-in-four lie: see here.  Among other things, this is what he wrote today:

Nafissatou Diallo's Media Blitz For "Every Other Woman in the World": Lady Justice Weeps

"Flanked by members of women's rights groups and advocates for Latinos and blacks," including a member of the New Black Panther Party, Nafissatou Diallo--who accused former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her--held what the New York Post called a "press conference/rally/image makeover" in which she announced that she was standing up for "every other woman in the world." (See here and here.)  Diallo declared: "You have to remember this guy [Strauss-Kahn] is a powerful man."  (See here.)

The press conference, the latest in a series of high profile attempts to cast Diallo in the role of victim, came hot on the heels of her Newsweek and ABC interviews.

The New York Post suggested that Diallo had gone Hollywood. "She was unrecognizable," at the press conference. "Gone were the baggy, gray slacks and lime-green, shapeless blouse she wore in that ill-advised interview on ABC. Gone was the lifeless hair."  (See here.)

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Susan Brownmiller on DSK accuser: "I believe her story."

Let your comments be heard on Salon:

My comment is here:

Woman is victim of elaborate revenge plot, and the lessons for false rape cases

This isn't a false rape case, it's the story of a classic rush to judgment that is, in many ways, typical of the cases we feature here. It holds an important lesson for the kinds of cases we normally cover here, but you have to read to the end to get to it.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Dr. Phil

I read a startlingly inaccurate assertion that is repeated, in one form or other, in many places:

"There is no empirical data to prove that there are more false charges of rape than of any other violent crime. Estimates indicate that only 2 percent of all rape reports prove to be false, a rate comparable to the false report rate for other crimes." M. Torrey, "When Will We Be Believed? Rape Myths and the Idea of a Fair Trail in Rape Prosecutions" (forthcoming 24 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1013 (1991)); Parrot and Bechholder, eds., "Acquaintance Rape" at 28 (1991) ("(A)ccording to police records, false reports are no more likely for rape than they are for other serious crimes.")

Sound familiar? Of course it does. Anyone who advocates for persons falsely accused of rape and similar offenses encounters it routinely.  It is as offensive as it is dishonest, and even though it was debunked long ago, it is repeatedly trotted as fact. See, e.g., E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947 (2000), a scholarly law review article that painstakingly traced the two percent canard to its baseless origin.

No, I didn't copy the above quote from the literature of a college's women's center.

It's from the Congressional Record. It was introduced during the first wave of hearings over VAWA.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Please add your comment to Roy Black's article at Salon


Here is my comment:


This might just be the best piece ever on behalf of the falsely accused.

Justin Sallis sues after false rape arrest

Just came across this story from last year. It appears that it all took place in 2010.

On March 14th, Justin Sallis had sex with the woman he was dating. The next day she reported to police that she had been raped. The kicker to it, the description she gave, didn't match Mr. Sallis. 

There was DNA recovered, and it matched Sallis. Of course, since they both agree there was consensual sex, this shouldn't be a problem, should it? Think again. Police, in response to her report of rape, never showed her a photo of Justin, nor did they even ask if he was the attacker.

The police presented information to the attorney's office of Ramsey county, who then filed charges of third-degree criminal sexual conduct against Mr. Sallis. There is no information given on how long this took, but during this process, Justin moved to Chicago. On August 17th, six U.S. Marshals arrested him.

The suit states that Mr. Sallis didn't resist arrest, but the marshals beat, tasered and repeatedly kicked Justin in the head. It was bad enough that he lost consciousness and was taken away by an ambulance.

Justin then spent 25 days in jail, the suit claims, in a cell that was only intended for 2 men, but had at least two other men at all times in the cell. He was then extradited to Ramsey County on the 10th of September, where he learned the details of what he was charged with.

It wasn't until the 24th of September, over six months after the initial report of rape, that a member of the public defenders office showed the complainant a photo of Justin. It was at that point that she agreed, Justin wasn't the rapist and that they had had consensual sex around the time she was actually raped by another man.

With this information, and with the complainant reiterating that the man who raped her was much older than Justin, Sallis' lawyer presented the finding in court and the charges were dismissed.

Sallis claims deprivation of liberty and infliction of emotional distress, among other things. The lawsuit names the city, county and the U.S. marshals (who are unnamed), as well as Catherine Pavlak, the lead St. Paul police investigator; Elaine Ashbaugh, the assistant Ramsey County attorney who signed the criminal complaint; St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington; and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner.


Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Nafissatou Diallo's claim against DSK is "like multiple choice—pick a version"

From the Atlantic Wire:

This week's media blitz by the maid accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape has seriously jeopardized her own case, sources at the Manhattan district attorney's office tell the New York Post. In a move that many legal analysts described as risky, Nafissatou Diallo shared her rape allegations against the former International Monetary Fund chief with Newsweek and ABC News. "There's so many inconsistencies now it's incredible," said a source. "It's like multiple choice—pick a version." At issue is a conversation Diallo said she had with DSK during their encounter. She told Newsweek that when he emerged naked from the bathroom she said, "Oh, my God. I'm so sorry." And he responded, "You don't have to be sorry. You're beautiful" as he grabbed her breasts. The tell-all interview includes more dialogue between the two, but this conflicts with statements Diallo gave to a hospital counselor hours after the alleged attack in which she said he did not speak. Post sources say there are "many" other discrepancies but they were not mentioned in the article.

According to The New York Times, the decision by Diallo and her legal team to appear in print and on television signals that prosecutors may be giving up on the case. "Lawyers not involved in the case said it was virtually unheard of for someone alleging sexual assault in a highly publicized case to come forward — name, face, and all — to speak to the news media while prosecutors were still investigating," reports The Times. Raymond R. Castello, a defense lawyer and former deputy chief of the Manhattan district attorney's trial division, says, "My expectation is that she’s now speaking to the press because she has an expectation that the prosecution is not going forward with her case.”


Can we please stop trying rape cases on the pages of Newsweek Magazine?

COMMENTARY: Last May, Newsweek showcased the "understaffed, underfunded, and overworked" cops of the NYPD Special Victims Division -- the cops who specialize in sex crimes -- by featuring their unit in a celebratory spread in the wake of "the most sensational alleged sex crime the NYPD has handled in years," the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape claim. ("To Catch a Creep.")

Monday, July 25, 2011

Lara Ailis McLeod charged with filing false rape report

While no reason for the rape lie in the linked story is given, it appears that the false accuser knows the person she accused. After investigating the claim, it was revealed that Lara Ailis McLeod had lied about the "incident," and no rape actually occurred.

Rep. David Wu's opponent says Wu should resign over 'He said/she said' allegation of nonconsensual sex: "There is nothing that can be explained that makes this situation right."

Seven term Congressman David Wu, D-Ore., has been accused of having an "unwanted sexual encounter" with a barely legal young woman. The Oregonian quoted sources as saying that a distraught young woman called Wu's Portland office earlier this year and left a voicemail accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter in Southern California three weeks after last year's election.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

First woman to command ship in navy: White males tend to commit the sexual assaults in the military because they 'seem to think that the world -- and all its contents -- revolve around them'

Retired Navy Commander Darlene Iskra, the first woman to command a ship in the U.S. Navy, writes a piece on a blog touting the end to the military's ban on gays serving openly in the military.  Iskra uses the occasion to assert that sexual assault and harassment in the military are not committed by women, gays, lesbians, or, by implication, blacks, but by white males -- "who," she asserts with a broad brush, "seem to think that the world -- and all its contents -- revolve around them." 

Iskra further suggests, without citing any supporting authority, that the fear of false rape claims is one of several fears that accompanied the integration of women into the military that proved to be unfounded. 

Iskra's piece can be read here:

"The Noble Lie, Feminist Style: False accusations of rape are more common than you think," by Cathy Young

". . . the fact is that some women do make false claims of rape [because they are mentally ill and vindictive and for] . . . other reasons, just as some men commit rape because they are mentally ill or violent sociopaths."

Read the entire piece here:

Friday, July 22, 2011

Gender 101: Biden is Biden

by Connie Chastain*

For several weeks, I've been the recipient of some emails from a group called I don't remember signing up for these emails, although maybe I did. The two or three notices I've received have been about issues I care not one whit about. Until the latest.

MSNBC adds Tawana Brawley advocate Al Sharpton to its line-up

MSNBC is reportedly handing the Reverend Al Sharpton its coveted 6 pm timeslot "in a move bound to cause a storm."  See, e.g.,

Coming this Autumn

FRS is going to be implementing sweeping changes this coming fall in a significant push to give the community of the wrongly accused a more effective and potent voice. You will gradually notice these changes starting in the coming weeks.  The audience for this blog is large, but given the importance of our message, it needs to be much larger.
Our message remains the same as it has been since this blog was started, but sometimes that message has not been delivered with the clarity and care it both requires and deserves. That is our fault. Our core mission is grounded in notions of justice and fairness so fundamental and sound that there shouldn't be any plausible controversy about it.

The goal of holding sexual offenders accountable for their misconduct is one that is universally shared by all civilized people, but in pursuit of that goal, society too often allows presumptively innocent persons accused of rape and sexual assault to be unnecessarily harmed in significant ways. That harm becomes most apparent in cases of wrongful (including false) claims. We will single-mindedly and narrowly deal with issues related to that harm, without politically charged rhetoric, and without veering into peripheral areas that are both controversial and unnecessary to our message.  We are open to including discussion of other alleged crimes where the presumptively innocent are harmed by the proverbial rush to judgment.

Our transformation will include, among other things, a careful examination of our links section. Most sites are currently included because of individual post(s) that support our mission, but the impression we convey is that we are endorsing the totality of the site. One possibility is to link to specific posts that are consonant with our message on both the sites currently listed and others, including even sites that otherwise contain views we might disagree with.  We would merge these links with the links on our "informative sources" page, which contains citations to the Innocence Project and many other sites and articles (that page is routinely ignored by our readers). Steve and I are currently brainstorming these and many other issues.

Please be patient with us.  Thank you.

Trial date set for Meghan Franks

Meghan Franks will go to trial on September 19th for falsely accusing a police officer of rape when she was 17. As she was a minor at the time, I'm surprised she is named.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

DSK's French accuser shaping up to be a flake and a loose cannon

See here:

Rape claims generally come down to credibility. When the accuser has none (and in both DSK's American and French cases, it now appears there are two incredible accusers), is it fair, under those circumstances, to allow law enforcement and the media to crucify a presumptively innocent man, as has been done here? 

Can we ever do justice for rape victims by tramping on the rights of presumptively innocent men accused of rape?  The question scarcely survives its statement.

More tiresome gender hypersensitivity

People who focus on "gender" issues invariably start to view the entire world through a gender lens, and too often they start to see "gender" where they shouldn't, and they become hypersensitive to innocuous conduct. This is unhealthy for a multitude of reasons.

And, yes, at times we are guilty of such hypersensitivity here.  We resolve to try not to be.

When gender hypersensitivity happens with politicians, as in the story below, it distracts focus from real issues. And here we go again.

Cong. Allen West sent an angry missive to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz about a medicare debate, telling her, among other things, that she was not "a lady." So, of course, a petition was started to protest West's "outrageous" and "despicable" and, of course, "sexist" behavior, claiming that his comments were evidence of "the Republican war on women."  See here:

Oh, my, oh, my. When will this end?

When former Democratic Senator Arlen Specter told Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann to "act like a lady," he was widely chastised for his "sexist" remark and was forced to apologize.

When hecklers told Hillary Clinton to "iron my shirt," it was grossly sexist, and everyone agreed that it was. But not every attack or criticism on a female politician is sexist. Just as not every criticism of President Obama is indicative of racism.  By turning the West-Wasserman Schultz encounter into a gender issue, the far more important debate over Medicare is being obscured.

And when people conclude that accusing West of misogyny is a silly overreaction -- and they will -- they will be more likely to accept West's policy position than examine it on its own merits.

Sexism is unacceptable, every sane person agrees. By the same token, it is silly to pretend that politicians are genderless. If a politician behaves in an offensive manner, it is not sexist to accuse him or her of not acting like a "gentleman" or a "lady" depending on his or her gender.  But a politician's gender should never be used as a sword to hold her or him to standards not applicable to the other gender (e.g., "iron my shirt").

I think we're all agreed on that. So let's take this a step further: a woman has no more right to dictate that a male politician live up to her notions of masculinity than a man has the right to dictate that a female politician live up to his notions of femininity.

Makes sense? Of course. Then why does the mainstream media allow women to hold men to gender standards, while it condemns men who do the same to women?

During the last senatorial campaign, Sharron Angle, Robin Carnhan, Christine O'Donnell and Jane Norton -- all women -- verbally attacked their male opponents by telling them to "man up."  See here.  Sarah Palin has also used the term "man up" and has questioned the president's “cojones.” I saw no one attack that as sexism.

Holding male candidates to some invisible standard of masculinity is nothing new. Can you say "Edmund Muskie"? In 1972, Senator Muskie was the Democratic front runner for president until the Manchester Union-Leader attacked his wife, Jane. When Senator Muskie defended his wife in an emotional speech, he appeared to cry. That was the end of his campaign, and his chance to ever be president.  Muskie, you see, had violated an almost universal standard of manhood.

Do we really think much has changed since Muskie's implosion? 

And, of course, female candidates are not routinely attacked for legally avoiding military service as male candidates are. I doubt this will change in the next 25 years, if ever. Not serving is considered at least a minor violation of some standard of manhood.

Let's say this: I "get" why sexism is potentially more damaging to female than male candidates. Women are still breaking into a man's game, and any hint that women are inferior because of their gender should not be tolerated.

But that's not the point. The point is that it's absurd and a harmful distraction to imagine sexism where it doesn't exist, as in the West-Wasserman Schultz debate. 

And beyond that, the point is that it's an inappropriate double-standard to allow a female politician to attack a male politician for not living up to an invisible standard of masculinity, while it's wholly unacceptable to hold female candidates to any gender standard. 

When we tell our kids that it's fair to hold men to some gender standard or other, they won't understand that it's not fair to do the same to women.  Because, you see, kids don't understand these fine-line distinctions adults invent to rationalize bad behavior.

If every attack on a female politician is going to be transmogrified into "sexism," then I'd say this nation isn't ready for a female president (I'm ready for one, the rest of the nation isn't).  That's because we need a president we're allowed to criticize. Even those of us with penises.

Woman who admitted fabricating a rape claim is still 'the victim' in news report

A 20-year-old woman admitted to fabricating a rape claim, and Door County Sheriff Terry Vogel said: "The incident never occurred."  The story is found here:

Nevertheless, she's still "the victim" according to Door County Advocate reporter Ramelle Bintzat (  The woman is being referred to the Door County District Attorney's office for criminal obstruction charges. Bintzat does not name the accuser, despite the fact that there is no evidence that she was a victim of anything.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Another Rape Urban Myth: What Fuels These?

The horror flick Candyman (1992) had an intriguing premise: what if a frightening urban legend could literally take on a life of its own by the sheer psychic weight of widespread belief in it?

If you saw the film, you will recall that a couple of plucky female grad students, studying modern urban folklore, set out to study the origins of, with the goal of ultimately debunking, one such particularly nasty legend: that of the murderous, hook-handed Candyman, believed to terrorize a crime-ridden Chicago housing project.

But because the grad students are threatening Candyman's very survival by casting doubt on him, he assumes corporeal form and appears to one of them. "I am the writing on the wall," he explains. "The whisper in the classroom. Without these things, I am nothing." Because of her lack of faith in him, he decides he needs to fuel the legend, so he devises a gruesome death for her. "Your death," he tells her, "will be a tale to frighten children, to make lovers cling closer in their rapture. Come with me and be immortal."

North Dakota Rape Myth

Is the premise of Candyman so outlandish? We've seen time and time again on this site that rape urban legends often take on a life of their own. In one North Dakota town, there's an urban legend circulating that tells women they shouldn`t go to the local Walmart after 8 pm because men are using chloroform to knock them out and rape them. A similar legend says that gangs of oil riggers are harassing women outside Walmart.

New Brunswick woman arrested after fabricating assault story

QUEBEC - A New Brunswick woman was to appear in court in Quebec City Tuesday after being accused of fabricating a sex assault story.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Tonight, Paul Elam Examines Why Society Would Think It's Funny If Your Dick Was Cut Off LISTEN UP!

Sharon Osbourne Should Be Fired From "The Talk"

In case you missed the vile misandry on "The Talk," here it is:  Write to CBS to protest the misconduct of the show's hosts here: is my note:

What would a child think when he or she hears the ladies of  "The Talk” laughing and making sport of the news story about a woman who cut off her husband's penis and threw it in a garbage disposal because he filed for divorce?  Sharon Osbourne proclaimed, among other things, that this act of mutilation was "quite fabulous" and "hysterical," adding that she lights candles by Lorena Bobbitt's picture.

What would a child think when he or she hears the female audience laughing uproariously at the hosts' trivialization of a vile act of domestic violence?

A child would naturally assume that such mayhem is not merely tolerable but commendable. And since there is no rational justification why such violence is acceptable against a man but not a woman, a child would assume that members of either sex are fair game for such barbarism. We cannot tell our sons that they must never inflict harm on women while in the next breath we guffaw at the grievous harm inflicted on a man by his wife.

For reasons too obvious to chronicle, Sharon Osbourne's comments are indefensible by any standard. She needs to be removed from the show immediately, and the other hosts need to be publicly reprimanded. There should not be any debate about this, and if the genders were reversed, it would have already happened.

Maid lied about rape

An Indonesian domestic worker was jailed for three months for lying that she had been raped by a man on three occasions.

Monday, July 18, 2011

NOW, You Can Cry Me A River . . .

I'll be concerned about this the day you publicly call for the repeal of Fed.R.Evid. 413. See here.

Thanks to Mudlark for the link.

Falsely accused man awarded $852K

Not only was Mr. Ginyard awarded a judgement of over $850K, he was also awarded custody of his children. With the knowledge of just how egregious an act is needed for custody to be taken from a custodial mother, this is a rather interesting turn.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

I will be concerned about women who are raped but aren't believed (because of their pasts) the day feminists are concerned about Fed.R.Evid. 413

Feminists and female features writers for major U.S. dailies are beating the tom-tom about the Dominique Strauss-Khan case. They are upset that even if the accuser has a history of telling lies, she still might have been raped but isn't being believed because of her character.  "Unfair to women!" they cry.  "It plays into ancient stereotypes going back to Potiphar's wife!" Blah, blah, blah. Cluck, cluck, cluck.


Even if it were proven that women with questionable pasts have a harder time being believed when they cry rape, it is not something I am terribly upset about.

Why?  Put it this way: if you loathe and detest the stereotyping that goes on in rape cases based on peoples' pasts, there's a far more serious concern you should be talking about: Federal Rule of Evidence 413. The only problem is, males have a near monopoly on being screwed by Rule 413, which pretty much means that the people I'm addressing will be OK with it even though it might just be the single most unfair law on the books. Don't believe me? Read on -- you'll be amazed who agrees with me.

Rule 413 provides that "in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant."

Several states have enacted their own versions of this rule. 

If you aren't a lawyer, you may not realize how outlandish this rule is. Rule 413 allows the prosecution to demonstrate a rape defendant’s alleged propensity to sexually attack women by introducing into evidence by just a preponderance of the evidence (50.000001%) a prior alleged rape to show that the man on trial acted in conformity with this supposed character trait. Note that this evidence of a prior rape is admissible even if the man never takes the stand (despite the 6th Amendment); even if the man had been criminially acquitted of the prior sexual offense (despite the 5th Amendment); and even if the alleged prior rape occurred many years ago, when a middle-aged man was a teenager or a young man in his 20s. The jury will hear that the man did it before, and will likely conclude he must have done it this time, too. The jury might even want to punish him because it figures he must have done it one of the times. This rule is in force only for sexual assault, no other crime.

Want to see just how unjust this law is? You'd better sit down before you read this: Mr. VAWA himself, then-Senator Joseph Biden, found it repugnant.  No, I'm not kidding.  Biden stated:

"[Under these rules, t]he prosecutor, instead of just having to deal with that witness and those facts, is able to go out and find anybody who is willing to say, 'By the way, when he was 21 years old when we were parked in the car he physically molested me,' without any proof of anything. Now, the people who might . . . have been around to prove that that was not the case, the couple you double dated with in the front seat of the car, are dead. But you have a witness, the one person sitting there, who says, 'But that happened to me 25 years ago.'" 140 Cong.Record S12,261 (August 22, 1994).  Biden declared that he had "a moral, intellectual, and practical aversion" to this rule. Id.

Wow!  Let that register in your craniums: Joe Biden said that.

The purpose of the law, for those law-and-order Republicans, like Bob Dole, who pushed it, is to convict more rapists.  The problem is, it might be possible to "prove" by a preponderance of the evidence that an innocent man on trial for rape committed a prior sexual assault many years ago. And that "proof" would often seal his conviction in the present case, even though he didn't do it.

Don't you hear all the protests about this unjust law?  Neither do I.

So yes, dear features writers who are wringing their hands and beating their breasts over the crucifixion of Strauss-Kahn's accuser (whose name is Nafissatou Diallo): even women who've lied about other things can be raped.

But the harm that Rule 413 can do to innocent men is far worse.

In the case of the Strauss-Kahn accuser, even assuming she really was raped, she won't spend many years in an awful prison if her rapist goes free. 

In contrast, an innocent man convicted because of Rule 413 will have his life destroyed. The stakes are infinitely greater.

In the case of the Strauss-Kahn accuser, some of the revelations about her character go directly to a motive to tell a rape lie: for one thing, she discussed the possible financial benefits of pursuing charges against a wealthy man. Moreover, one newspaper claimed she is a prostitute, another important piece of evidence to show her rape claim was a lie.

In contrast, the evidence of the alleged prior sexual assault admitted under Rule 413 has nothing to do with motive. It is admitted merely to help send a man on trial to prison, whether he did it or not.

I also will be more concerned about feminists' complaints that women are underrepresented in CEO positions the day I hear feminists complain that women are underrepresented in the jobs with the greatest mortality rates, and among the homeless.

I also will be more concerned about feminists' complaints that women aren't paid the same as men the day I hear feminists complain that men work too many hours and aren't treated as equals in family law court.

I also will be more concerned about feminists' complaints about female genital mutilation the day female talk show hosts can report on a woman slicing off her husband's dick without guffawing and crying out, "You go, girlfriend!"

In short, I'll be more concerned about your complaints the day you give a flying fuck about the other half of the population of planet earth.

Until then, I don't have time.

Catching up: College Men at Risk

I have just returned from Salem, Massachusetts where I've been studying the witch trials. I am analyzing the lessons they hold for the falsely accused and will include my summary in a piece I'm working on for our site, The Spearhead, and A Voice for Men called The New Salem: How College Boys Became the 'Witches' of the 21st Century.

It seemed only fitting that while I was drawing uncanny parallels between one of the most sinister chapters in the jurisprudence of this continent and the experience of the presumptively innocent accused of sexual assault on our modern day college campuses, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial by Harvey Silverglate called Yes Means Yes--Except on Campus. It should be required reading. (Letters in response can be sent to It’s about the Education Department trashing due process on campus in rape and sexual harassment cases.

This piece should be read in conjuction with the scholarly explanations of the Department of Education's new law -- and make no mistake, the new law is a sea change -- by the foremost authority on these issues, Hans Bader. a former attorney in the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights: here and here.

Eli Lehrer also gets it right here.

Trevor Burrus gets it right here.

Michael Barone  gets it right here.

Ah, but the Chicago Tribune has nothing but positive things to say about the new witch hunt procedures being applied to Notre Dame. See here and here. (And, no, we aren't talking about the way the school handled one particular incident. We're talking about the procedures being applied to presumptively innocent young men across the board.  Good work, Chicago Tribune.)

In case you didn't know, dirty jokes have been outlawed at Notre Dame. See here. Thanks, Obama administration.

And, off-topic, but in case anyone missed it: Cathy Young brings her usual astuteness to the Strauss-Kahn debacle: here.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Gender 101: Feminist Motherhood

by Connie Chastain*

I don't know many bona fide radical feminists. I've run into many women, both in cyberspace and terrestrial reality, who call themselves feminists but not radical feminists.

They acknowledge the progress women have made due to feminism in the past fifty years -- usually in the area of choice, as in the freedom to choose a career rather than being locked into wife-and-motherhood. Or the freedom to obtain an education, which was denied to women throughout most of history. They talk less about the choice of ending pregnancy thanks to "reproductive freedom" but acknowledge that it, too, is a positive for women bestowed by modern feminism.
Most of these women are married with children and most of them work outside the home, so they haven't actually chosen between two alternatives they've been presented with. Point out to them the beliefs and goals of radical feminists -- the ones who direct the movement -- and they're likely to say the radicals are few, unknown and relatively powerless, and hold themselves up as examples of true feminism.

I once had a self-described feminist tell me that because she, a teacher, had never heard of Carol Gilligan, then Gilligan was basically unknown and had little influence. Now, Gilligan almost singlehandedly transformed education in America to accomodate the way girls learn, and develop hostility to the way boys learn. But she didn't have much influence, according to my nonradical feminist acquaintance.

These women that I call quasi-feminists claim to love their families, and feel a responsibility to raise their children to be happy, productive, well-adjusted adults. But I wonder how any woman who loves her sons and daughters would expose them to such a soul-destroying philosophy during their impressionable youth. Regardless of what these women say in defense of feminism, even small doses of it teach girls to despise and reject motherhood, and boys to despise and reject their manhood.

Two appalling and heartbreaking examples are found in the lives of Rebecca Walker, daughter of feminist icon Alice Walker who wrote The Color Purple, and Edgar van de Giessen, son of a leading feminist in Holland. Their stories are online, and serve as a warning to all who refuse to see the ultimate effects of radical femnism on children.

Rebecca Walker's story appeared in the UK's Daily Mail in 2008. Blissfully happy in her role as mother of a three-year-old boy, she says she "...very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman. You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women...."

And it wasn't just motherhood Alice Walker despised. Her daughter's very femaleness, with its potential for motherhood, earned her wrath. "As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery..."

The short article in the Daily Mail gives a stark glimpse into the life of a child raised by a radical feminist who saw her as "a calamity." The emotional distance from a woman who was incredibly self-centered, the early sexual activity, the longing for a traditional home with a loving mother -- Rebecca relates her experience with hearbreaking honesty. You can't help but cheer for her embracing motherhood and loving her son as she was never loved.

Van de Giessen's story is just as appalling. "I would like you to imagine," he says, "how it is for an growing boy in the age of ten to hear every day from his mother that men are the cause of all trouble in the world, that men are guilty of all crime and war and repression in the world, that all men should be castrated after their semen has been deep-frozen to ensure the existence of the next generation, that men should live in different cities than women, so that they could all kill each other and so solve the problem of their own existence."

As a result of his mother's teaching, van de Giessen developed a deep distrust in himself, and in male authority. And is it any wonder that he doubted his lovability -- or that he required "...25 years of therapeutic and spiritual search and deep emotional healing..." to begin finding self-value and to develop relationships with others?

Both Walker and van de Giessen use the term "rabid feminist" to describe their mothers -- worse, even, than radical feminists, indicating that there are degrees of the poison inherent in the philosophy. The self-proclaimed femnists of my acquaintance would certainly not describe themselves as either radical or rabid. They profess to love their children, including their sons.

The inherent selfishiness of feminism, exhibited to a shocking degree by Alice Walker, pervades the entire philosophy, just as feminist influence pervades society -- and can blind women to the harm it does to their children. Maybe their lives aren't as poisoned as Rebecca Walker's or Edgar van de Giessen's. But they're harmed nonetheless. And we who aren't blinded by feminist selfishness see it all too clearly.

Rebecca Walker's story:

Edgar van de Giessen's story:

*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is

Thursday, July 14, 2011

HCPD: Victim lied about sexual assault

Let's start with the headline. Sorry folks, but if she lied about it, and it didn't happen, she isn't a "victim" of anything. She's the perpetrator of a crime. You would like to think that "journalists" would be a bit more careful about how they are wording things, wouldn't you?

Little detail is given as to what in the investigation led police to determine why this was classified as a false allegation, but it is interesting to see that filing a false police report, at least in Horry County, South Carolina, is a felony.

Ayanna Chamesha Dozier is being held on $5,000 bond, and in a bit of good news, no one was arrested, or even detained, based on her claim.


Wednesday, July 13, 2011

A follow up to our story HERE.

A six year susapended sentence and mental health supervision is the deal that the prosecution and defense have agreed to. However, the judge can override that if he feels it's warranted. I think a custodial sentence in a mental health facility should be assigned.


Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Former Sewanee student suing school after false rape accusations

CHATTANOOGA (AP) - In a legal fight surrounded by unusual secrecy, a former student at Sewanee: The University of the South contends the university wrongly forced him to leave after a female student falsely accused him of rape.

A federal judge at a hearing Monday in Chattanooga set a July 28 jury trial on the suit that seeks at least $1 million in compensatory damages from the private, Episcopal-affiliated campus in southeastern Tennessee.

The former student was never criminally charged. The victim claimed she had been raped in his dorm room.

The suit contends the university has harmed his reputation and career prospects by improperly deciding he violated its sexual assault policy early in the fall 2008 semester.

Identified only as John Doe in court records, the suit contends it was consensual sex. All attorneys declined comment.


Monday, July 11, 2011

Inmate allegedly falsifies report of sexual assault

Arrested for possession and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia? Check. Resist arrest? Check. Hey, lets plan on claiming sexual assault as part of a master plan to escape custody.

Bobby Waddle decided to file the false report of sexual assault, so he would be taken to the hospital, which worked, but he didn't count on being guarded at the emergency room for more than eight hours. That appears to be where his "plan" went awry.

As he was being examined at the hospital deputies reviewed security tapes, interviewed other offenders and listened to visitation and telephone conversations. Police realized that no one but Mr. Waddle was in his cell. It was all part of a plan to use the jail and court system to get released.

Waddle will, along with the other charges above, now have a charge of filing a false report and the prosecutor is asking for reimbursement of over $1,000 to cover the costs of investigating the false claim.


Saturday, July 9, 2011

Gender 101: The Female-Only Assumption of Innocence

by Connie Chastain*

The Internet is abuzz with the Casey Anthony verdict and I'm not really surprised to see that I'm not the only one viewing the murder of little Caylee, the trial and the verdict in light of feminism's influence on western culture. Being a rightwing extremist, I tend to agree with those who assign feminism a great deal of responsibility for social pathologies such as those demonstrated in this case.

One of the best columns I've read connecting our culture's callousness toward children and the feminist sacrament of abortion is found at the ultra-right American Thinker. In an article titled The Bitter Fruit of Caylee's Death, author Jeannie DeAngelis makes many salient points, but one that really struck me was this: Many murdering mothers are acquitted, "... which is indicative of a chilling truth that a mother murdering her own child is not nearly as offensive anymore as a child being murdered by a stranger. Who can deny this has a direct connection to the approbation our society gives to women who rid themselves of their child before birth?

And who believes, as I do, that this story would have unfolded iquite differently n the media if a man had been accused of murdering little Caylee? We would be subjected to unending diatribes about the violence of men against women and children.

Would be? We are, constantly. Although in recent years, it has become known that women instigate domestic violence against men, male victims are given little sympathy by society and violence perpetrated by females against males given scant attention. Women are badly injured, while men aren't hurt all that bad. Men who abuse are controllers and manipulators. Women who abuse are ill or disturbed. This is also true for mothers who murder.

I'm not saying there aren't any bad men. There are. But under feminist influence our society doesn't acknowledge the occasional bad man; it identifies maleness itself as bad, even though the vast majority of men do nothing wrong. Women, on the other hand, are basically good and decent and occasionally do bad things through little or no fault of their own.

This is the premise behind claims of rape culture. It is feminists holding men who do not rape responsible, in some measure, for those who do. It is the premise behind excuses given to women who falsely accuse men of rape. And it is why I believe things would have gone down very differently had the accused in Caylee's murder been a man.

However, as with so many other feminist assertions palmed off on our culture, this one has a reliable and realistic counter assertion that neutralizes the assumption of male evil. I'm talking about the Bureau of Justice Statistics charts on Child Maltreatment -- Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship, 2003. The charts clearly indicate that mothers only are the perpetrator in 30.5% of cases, fathers only in 18.2%

Now let me make it clear that I don't know whether Casey Anthony murdered her child and I'm not going to try to second guess the jury. But that's not my point, anyway. My point is that feminism has skewed the application of justice based on their victim-view of human history and an obsessive drive to get even for oppression that's largely imaginary.

Until we come to our senses, men can expect continued demonization, and excuses will be made for women who commit crimes, even the most heinous.

*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is

Friday, July 8, 2011

Sick of the loons on the sexual left who seem to hate the truth that a man was likely the victim of a false rape claim

Why do feminists hate when the facts reveal that rape claims were likely lies? 

Salon's Heather Michon, who describes herself as a "[n]on-radical feminist," is so hermetically sealed in her gynocentric bubble-wrap that she refuses to conceive of even the possibility that DSK might have been the victim of a terrible crime, a crime that seems to have destroyed his career.

First, she mocks a presumptively innocent man. "Why, we should give poor ole DSK the French presidency just to make up for all his suffering." Then she calls the accusations against Nafissatou Diallo "DSK's public-relations wet dream."  Anti-male derision oozes from every word.

The fact that this man she's deriding was likely the victim of a vile crime is of no import to her. She never mentions it except to ridicule those who have the audacity to suggest it.

Now tell me, dear readers, what do you call a male writer who writes with similar derision about a woman who might have been raped?  Unemployed, that's what.  But somehow it's just peachy for the Amanda Marcottes and the Heather Michon's to use presumptively innocent men accused of rape as their human piñatas. And outlets like Salon invite them to do it.

But wait, Michon's not finished. Next she concocts what is to feminists the discussion-closing, ironclad argument to "prove," by innuendo, speculation, and surmise that a rape occurred even where it can't possibly be proved. It's the old "just because the district attorney couldn't prove it doesn't mean she wasn't raped."

It's more accurate to say this: just because a woman who's less credible than Crystal Gain Mangum said she was raped doesn't mean that anyone should take it seriously. 

Then, Michon imputes a bad motive to the D.A. -- of playing politics -- by beating the defense team to the punch with the ugly news about her. "Strauss-Kahn is not the only one with a political future to ponder," she clucks. 

It's as if she's downright pissed that the truth was revealed about Nafissatou Diallo. 

Picture the villain in the denouement of a "Scooby Doo" episode: ". . . and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"

Then Michon blathers on about how senseless it would have been for Nafissatou Diallo to make a false rape claim.  Michon obviously isn't a daily reader of this blog, because we could make the same assertion every single day of the week about our false accuser du jour. Most seem to have an infinite capacity for being flat-out stupid.

But tell me, Michon, doesn't your argument work better the other way? Isn't DSK too smart to rape a maid when he could have any prostitute, not to mention any number of other women, for a sex partner?  I mean, you do see what happens to a man accused of rape, don't you? Hmm?  Do you think DSK got where he did by being so careless?

Finally, trying to appear even-handed, she declares: "An actual 'victory for justice' would be establishing the truth of what happened in Suite 2806 of the Sofitel Hotel on the afternoon of May 14 and bringing any alleged crimes before a jury. Even if we take Strauss-Kahn at his word, he committed a crime that day: He solicited a prostitute."

Fine, but doesn't that mean that she's a prostitute, and isn't that a crime?  More important, does Michon acknowledge the possibility that Nafissatou Diallo might have committed a terrible crime of falsely accusing a man of rape?

Somehow I doubt it.  That doesn't seem to fit her preferred narrative. Sounds like the only "crimes" Michon wants to talk about are those committed with a penis.

Well, you have our most sincere sympathies, madam, because this is pretty much how all the high profile "rape" cases turn out.  Rape isn't rampant, despite the self-selecting surveys that "prove" it is; it isn't one-in-four, it's more like one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven. See here.

You may have to pick a different alleged crime to get all indignant about.

Kerry Touzin pleads guilty to inexplicable false report of Rape

Kerry Touzin pled guilty to filing a false report of rape on May 27th. Once again, we don't have any reason for why she would do so.

It started when she claimed she met a man on the website Plenty of Fish (an online dating site I assume). She stated that she arranged to meet him, and that when she got into the man's car, he drove to a dead-end road and sexually assaulted her.

The police then created an online persona, arranged  to meet the man, and when he showed up, they arrested him. However, during the course of the investigation, it was discovered that nothing illegal happened, and that other evidence showed that Touzin lied about her report. She was arrested and pled guilty in court on the 16th of June.

She has been sentenced to 1* year in jail.


*Thanks to zarko for the catch

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Derby woman jailed for 'revenge' rape claim: she admits she was "just being evil"

A 21-year-old Derby woman has been jailed for 16 months for falsely claiming a former boyfriend raped and indecently assaulted her.

Amber Mills of Leacroft Road, Derby, pleaded guilty to two counts of perverting the course of justice.

The judge at Derby Crown Court said she had made "planned, despicable, determined and sustained attempt at revenge" on her victim.

Derbyshire police said it had spent 40 hours investigating the case.

Mills told police that a man had exposed himself to her on a Derby street in October 2010 and later raped her.

She later admitted that she was "just being evil".


Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Man found guilty of 36-year-old "he said/she said" rape charges

This is a follow-up to our post Atrocity: Man tried for 'rapes' allegedly committed 37 years ago, found here.  The man was found guilty:

I am not suggesting that these were false rape claims. If the women's accounts are true, they suffered a terrible ordeal when they were children.

But the defendant was not able to fairly defend himself. The passage of time stripped him of that opportunity. If he is truly innocent, a terrible injustice has been done.

While the women claimed he babysat and raped them over the course of a year, he testified he recalls only babysitting them twice. I am certain that even if he is innocent, he was not able to produce any alibi evidence to show he wasn't there as often as the women claim. Any such evidence would be long gone.

Then there's this: "The court heard that the offences came to light after one of the victims saw a photograph of Greig in a newspaper in relation to a story about a missing man. He had been the policeman holding a poster giving the man's details."

I am curious about that because I don't know too many men at 51 who resemble what they looked like at 14.

One of the bases for the Supreme Court's holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape is the risk of false claims:  The court wrote: "There are, moreover, serious systemic concerns in prosecuting the crime of child rape that are relevant to the constitutionality of making it a capital offense. The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a 'special risk of wrongful execution' in some child rape cases."  The court supported its decision with all manner of authority. 

Many men have been charged with rape, and some have been convicted, on the basis of powerful acting. No one -- no sane and rational person -- wants to see a rapist walk. But if a man can't fairly defend himself, shouldn't that be the more serious concern?

Girl,18, Drops False Rape Charge

Another false accusation, to keep from getting in trouble with the family.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Prosecutor to drop charges against DSK

The DSK case likely will be history soon. The New York Post reports that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is going to be released -- it's not sure when, but "the eventual dismissal of the charges was 'a certainty,' and . . . it would likely happen at Strauss-Kahn's next scheduled court date in two weeks or possibly sooner."

Which means that the cackling hens who are Western Civilization's self-appointed court of last resort for all things gender -- women who write features pieces for the US's and the UK's leading dailies -- will commence their usual caterwauling about the misogyny in allowing a little thing like a woman's credibility to interfere with the conviction of a presumptively innocent man in a "he said/she said" sex case.

And they will wring their hands and beat their breasts about how this will keep women from coming forward to report their rapes.

I take no delight in stating the obvious: that's what happens when you insist on accepting the word of a hotel maid -- but any woman will do -- about whom you know absolutely nothing, over the word of a man who heads up the intergovernmental organization that oversees the global financial system -- but any man will do.  This wasn't a rush to judgment, it was a 60-meter sprint in record time.

We will also hear from the usual newspaper columnists who are disgusted that this woman did what she did but are at least equally disgusted with DSK -- for putting himself in a situation where a woman could falsely accuse him of a vile crime. You know, "victim blaming," except nobody will call it that, because men are pigs and all that.

There's plenty of blame to spread around for this debacle.

First, there's Nafissatou Diallo. We routinely make this point and will continue to do so until we drop dead: we have handed anonymous women and children far too much power to destroy innocent men and boys, and this case only underscores that point.  When it comes to rape claims, this country more closely resembles Salem, Massachusetts, 1692, than the nation of Jefferson and Lincoln.

Then there's the district attorney and the nitwits at the NYPD Special Victims Unit who didn't even know she was a prostitute (according to the New York Post), much less a world-class liar (according to the New York Times), before subjecting DSK to the most celebrated perp walk since Lee Harvey Oswald.  Even if the charges are dropped, it can't be said that the system "worked" here. Not by a long shot.

And finally, the news media deserves a big share of the blame. First, we can blame the vaunted anonymity policy of our nation's newspapers that shields the names of rape accusers.  As Professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, if the accuser hadn't been anonymous, people who knew her or knew her reputation could have "come forward to provide relevant information" about her.  That didn't happen. So the news media proceeded to convict DSK and to beatify his accuser (beatification is one step removed from sainthood). Now we have yet another high profile rape case that looks like it was a lie.

And second, we can blame the editors who blew this case into a Circus Maximus, and the reporters and columnists who put Nafissatou Diallo's picture on holy cards. None of them could resist using the DSK case as another gender passion play where all womanhood is figuratively nailed to the cross, and all manhood is an amalgam of Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate.  By accepting at face value the allegations of a woman whose allegations, by any rational measure, should not be accepted, they blithely helped destroy an innocent man. They also made everyone -- except the extremist loons allied with the sexual grievance industry -- doubt just a little more the word of every woman who cries rape. Congratulations!  I am reminded of the words of a female reporter after the Hofstra debacle where the news media famously rushed to judgment and "convicted" four young minority men: “We need to move slower." Yes, you need to, but you won't.

So, let's see: we have the rape accuser, law enforcement, and the news media. The same old-same old unholy triumvirate.

You know, business as usual.

Woman who lied about rape sentenced to 16 to life for murders

She was given the minimum possible, but it will be up to the parole board to determine if she stays beyond that. While I realize that it was the murders that garnered the sentence, none of it would have happened, if not for the false rape claim.

Monday, July 4, 2011

The Last Word on DSK: Prof. Dershowitz explains the trouble with rape prosecutions

The Trouble With Rape Prosecutions
Alan M. Dershowitz

There are a lot of lessons in the Dominique Strauss-Khan case about how rape investigations and prosecutions should be conducted. The most important is, don’t assume anything until all the evidence is in. The story is almost never what it appears to be on first impression. Everyone should have anticipated the possibility that evidence would emerge suggesting that a) the alleged victim might be in it for the money, and b) she might have her share of skeletons in the closet.

Despite that big oversight, the prosecutor did the right thing at first: he waited to get the forensic evidence before he brought charges against Strauss-Kahn based on the hotel housekeeper’s account of her alleged rape. But then the prosecutor messed up in speaking to the press, publically vouching for the truth of the woman’s account and for her character. Not that the defense team didn’t make mistakes of their own—they should have conducted a thorough investigation before suggesting that Strauss-Khan had an alibi because he had lunch with his daughter.

But prosecutors of sex cases need to do some major housecleaning—not only in District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s office in Manhattan but also in prosecutors’ offices all across the country. Special sex prosecutors and special rape prosecutors are often agenda driven. Too often they believe they’re on a mission and treat the alleged victim in a way that’s different from how they handle any other crime. They’re zealots; I call them Nancy Grace prosecutors. She behaves on her TV talk show as if there’s no such thing as innocence; everybody arrested is guilty. I believe there’s been a Nancy Grace aspect to this case. The prosecution presented its case in public as if there were no doubt about the alleged victim’s credibility or the complete guilt of the alleged offender.

In fact, one very important implication of the Strauss-Kahn case was this: the press is dead wrong not to publish the names of alleged rape victims. It is absolutely critical that rape be treated like any other crime of violence, that the names of the alleged victims be published along with the names of the alleged perpetrators, so that people who know the victim or know her reputation can come forward to provide relevant information. The whole manner in which this case was handled undercuts the presumption of innocence, and the same goes for many other cases like it. By withholding the name of the alleged victim while publishing perp photos of the alleged assailant, the press conveys a presumption of guilt. The next time I have to defend a case where there’s any chance of a perp walk, I’m going to federal court to demand an injunction against it.

In general the Strauss-Kahn case reflects well on Vance’s office. They did the right thing by conducting a vigorous investigation – and then disclosing the results. I’ve been involved in too many cases where investigations produced similar information and the prosecution sat on it or buried it. So, two cheers for Cy Vance’s office. Just two cheers. They shouldn’t have presumed him guilty from the beginning. A good professional prosecutor never tries his or her case in the press. Rudy Giuliani specialized in doing that, and he got burned on several occasions. And then he became mayor, which sent a message across the country that prosecutors benefit by perp walks and what I call “singing indictments.” That’s an indictment so florid and with so many details that you don’t even have to give a press conference, you just hand the thing out like a press release. It’s written in journalese, not legalese. Like Giuliani’s indictments – I’ve heard he used to run the text of some high-profile indictments past his press people before issuing them.

I knew it was all over as soon as Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers refused to comment on the latest revelations about his accuser’s background. It’s clear they believe they have it won, and they can only make things worse if they speak up. It’s even possible that the prosecutors implicitly offered them a deal—“We’ll drop the case if you don’t badmouth us.” I know these two defense attorneys, and they’re usually very active in presenting their case in the court of public opinion. But a good lawyer knows how to shut up when he’s won his case.

Happy Fourth of July

Please be safe, and drink responsibly.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

If it's "misogyny" to ask Michele Bachmann if she's a "flake," what was it when people routinely accused Jerry Brown of being one?

You do remember Jerry Brown, don't you?  He's been dogged with being a "flake" for as long as he's been on the political scene.  See, e.g., here.

Funny, no one ever thought that calling Jerry Brown a "flake" was a slur against all men. Probably because it wasn't.

But when FOX News host Chris Wallace asked Michele Bachmann if she's a flake, all gender-hell broke loose, and the usual banshees had their usual conniption. Don't believe me? Go to Google News and type in Michele Bachmann and flake and sexism and catch up on some of the inane punditry that passes for political analysis in this culture.  (Note that when a female politician tells a male politician to "man up," that's a "you go girlfriend!" moment.  I want to hear someone use that phrase to Palin or Bachmann, just to see the reaction.)

And all I can say is, here we go again. Is that what it's going to be again in this campaign -- no man is permitted to attack a female candidate without being accused of hating women? Just as some insist on conflating all attacks on our mixed race president with racism?

If that's going to be the standard for this election -- where any criticism of a female candidate by any male is automatically construed as "sexism" and "misogyny" -- then this nation isn't ready for a woman president, and every person of good will needs to vote against any woman who runs on that basis alone. 

We cannot have a president who is immune from criticism just because she has a vagina.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Tell me if I'm reading this law prof's blog accurately: False rape claims are valuable because they give people inight into male behavior

Duluth Lynching postcard
Tell me if I'm reading this right.

A law professor asks this question in connection with the DSK affair, apparently with a straight face: is it "necessarily always wrong to use a news story presented as true that later turns out to be false" to gain insight about a larger "truth"?  In the DSK affair, the larger alleged truth is, of course,bad male behavior.

But, as I say, don't trust me, read it and decide for yourself if that's what she's saying:

As reader Mudlark commented when he sent me this blog post, "tell it to the Scottsboro boys."

If I'm reading it right -- and I think I am, even though it's a tad obscure -- it's a slap in the face to the community of the falsely accused, the forgotten collateral damage who are happily sacrificed on the altar of political correctness so that more women will "come forward" with their rape tales.

It reminds me of Time Magazine piece where Catherine Comins, then-assistant dean of student life at Vassar, "argue[d] that men who are unjustly accused [of rape] 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.'",9171,1101910603-157165,00.html

You see, Professor Althouse, the problem, as we demonstrate on this blog on a daily basis, is that the feminists' "larger truth" -- about men and rape -- is comprised of a significant number of lies.

Instead of encouraging people to gain "insight" from lies, you ought to encourage them to reexamine their "larger truth." 

If I am reading your blog post correctly, it is nothing short of morally grotesque.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Round-Up

▲The nitwits at the NYPD Special Victims Unit didn't know she was a prostitute before subjecting a presumptively innocent man to the indignity of the most publicized perp walk since Lee Harvey Oswald?

▲The Wall Street Journal victim-blames the victim for putting himself in a situation where a woman can destroy him with lies.  How about we just focus on the rape liar at this stage, folks?

▲A genius at the New York Daily News wrote this: "Okay, her credibility is as wobbly as a three-legged chair, but that doesn't mean she wasn't attacked."  Great. Except that this case is solely about credibility, madam.  And if she has none (and she doesn't), then the charges against DSK must be dropped, and he needs to be treated as if nothing happened.  Even though that doesn't fit your preferred narrative, madam.

▲The DSK case just the latest in a cavalcade of missteps by the NY district attorney, who should resign, but not before dropping the charges against DSK and apologizing profusely. A few tears would be appropriate.

▲And Time Magazine's blog has the scariest headline of all: "Legal Holes Develop In the DSK Case, But Will Women Care?"  You see, yet another lie has seemingly "exposed" what pigs men are (even though it hasn't), and women aren't likely to want to lose the benefit of those lessons (even though those lessons aren't based in fact). Think Duke Lacrosse, Lorena Bobbitt, Kobe Bryant, Tawana Brawley.  To quote Bobby Darin: "Yes, that line forms on the right, babe, now that Macky’s back in town …."

Friday, July 1, 2011

Gender 101: Benevolent Sexism?

By Connie Chastain*

Okay, how did this slip past me? I admit I've been somewhat preoccupied of late but that is not sufficient explanation for how this phenomenon completely escaped my notice until now. I must be slipping.

More Good News: Ex-WABC Weather Woman Heidi Jones Indicted for Making False Rape Report

You remember Heidi Jones? Here's the update:

Will the NYPD subject Nafissatou Diallo to a humiliating perp walk if she's charged for lying about rape in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case?

In answer to the question posed by the headline of this post: somehow, I most seriously doubt it. If the New York Police Department did that, NOW and the screeching banshees from the sexual grievance industry would have one of their de rigueur conniptions, and someone in law enforcement would be forced to apologize. But it looks like the case against Strauss-Kahn is collapsing under the weight of his accuser's lies. So says the New York Times, which is not in the habit of jumping the gun to vilify a rape accuser.

UP: Case to be filed against 2 doctors for false rape statement

I honestly don't know what to say here. I can think of no valid reason that these doctors would make such a claim.

A case will be registered against two doctors who had wrongly stated that a 10-year-old dalit girl was sexually assaulted in Anwarpur village last Saturday, a senior police official said.

Dr Poonam Mani and Dr Sadhna Tiwari of Saraswati Institute of Medical Science in Pilakhuwa had stated this about the minor dalit girl who later succumbed to burn injuries, SSP Raghubir Lal said today.

Lal said that the postmortem did not confirm rape, but it stated that the 80 per cent burn injuries was the reason for the victim's death.

The victim was engulfed in flames when the door of the room was broken in order to save her, he said.

The SSP did not rule out suicide angle, besides family rivalry for the death.