Men, Rape and Injustice
I have been reading the fascinating new book by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor on the Duke Lacrosse fiasco entitled, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.
The book brings to light the factors that led to three innocent men being railroaded by the criminal justice system and by a society that presumes white men are guilty by virtue of their sex and race. The opening chapters describe the milieu at Duke, including the hardcore partying that was going on by both the men and women on campus. There is mention that the Duke women were as horny as the guys there with more than one sorority on campus hiring male strippers (page 2) but this was never picked up in the media (of course not, male strippers for women are considered empowerment, while for men they're sexist).
Much of the book sets the stage for the context of the Duke case, including the increase of far left academics at Duke, the racial tension between Duke and Durham, the police who built the case without evidence, and the match that caused the case to ignite--prosecutor Michael Nifong. The book is also about heroes and champions of justice: the defense team, the defendants themselves and the bloggers and others who came to their rescue, from both the left, right and center.
My favorite chapter in the book is entitled "Presumed Guilty: Feminist Overkill" as it describes the statistics for false rape allegations. The chapter opens with a look at Catharine MacKinnon's Yale commencement speech in 1990 in order to understand the eagerness of so many journalists and academics to find the Duke lacrosse players guilty. MacKinnon's words that day, capture the radical feminist line clearly that has permeated current PC circles. She stated, "Look to your left, look to your right, look in front of you , and look behind you. Statistics tell us you have just laid eyes on someone guilty of sexual assault." The radical feminist line is that women never lie about rape. But statistics belie this belief.
The book lists these false rape statistics including one from Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's office who wrote, "There are about 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen" (page 374). I wonder how many more men across the nation are caught up in false claims or mistaken identities because so many are eager to rush to judgment? Rape is a horrible crime but so is convicting an innocent man of a sex crime. The authors of the book state: "Terrible as it is for a victim to see a rapist escape punishment, it is far, far worse for an innocent person to be convicted of a sex crime."
I remember talking to a professor about the Duke case when it first captured the attention of the media, her response? "Those guys are guilty as hell, have you ever seen how some of those athletes and fraternity guys act--partying and making noise? They'll rape anyone." She had no interest in the facts and used as her frame of reference all partying noisy fraternity guys and athletes as if that is how justice should work. "Oh, they are loud and party a lot--guilty just for having fun while male." I now have the pleasure of buying several copies of this book and dropping one off on her desk next time I see her. Will it bring her around? Not by itself, but it's a start ....
Update: The book is up to#752 436 265 on Amazon and is #1 in the category of rape and #10 3 in sports. This is an important book; stand aside Harry Potter, I hope it reaches #1!
The book brings to light the factors that led to three innocent men being railroaded by the criminal justice system and by a society that presumes white men are guilty by virtue of their sex and race. The opening chapters describe the milieu at Duke, including the hardcore partying that was going on by both the men and women on campus. There is mention that the Duke women were as horny as the guys there with more than one sorority on campus hiring male strippers (page 2) but this was never picked up in the media (of course not, male strippers for women are considered empowerment, while for men they're sexist).Much of the book sets the stage for the context of the Duke case, including the increase of far left academics at Duke, the racial tension between Duke and Durham, the police who built the case without evidence, and the match that caused the case to ignite--prosecutor Michael Nifong. The book is also about heroes and champions of justice: the defense team, the defendants themselves and the bloggers and others who came to their rescue, from both the left, right and center.
My favorite chapter in the book is entitled "Presumed Guilty: Feminist Overkill" as it describes the statistics for false rape allegations. The chapter opens with a look at Catharine MacKinnon's Yale commencement speech in 1990 in order to understand the eagerness of so many journalists and academics to find the Duke lacrosse players guilty. MacKinnon's words that day, capture the radical feminist line clearly that has permeated current PC circles. She stated, "Look to your left, look to your right, look in front of you , and look behind you. Statistics tell us you have just laid eyes on someone guilty of sexual assault." The radical feminist line is that women never lie about rape. But statistics belie this belief.
The book lists these false rape statistics including one from Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's office who wrote, "There are about 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen" (page 374). I wonder how many more men across the nation are caught up in false claims or mistaken identities because so many are eager to rush to judgment? Rape is a horrible crime but so is convicting an innocent man of a sex crime. The authors of the book state: "Terrible as it is for a victim to see a rapist escape punishment, it is far, far worse for an innocent person to be convicted of a sex crime."
I remember talking to a professor about the Duke case when it first captured the attention of the media, her response? "Those guys are guilty as hell, have you ever seen how some of those athletes and fraternity guys act--partying and making noise? They'll rape anyone." She had no interest in the facts and used as her frame of reference all partying noisy fraternity guys and athletes as if that is how justice should work. "Oh, they are loud and party a lot--guilty just for having fun while male." I now have the pleasure of buying several copies of this book and dropping one off on her desk next time I see her. Will it bring her around? Not by itself, but it's a start ....
Update: The book is up to
and is #1 in the category of rape and Labels: men's rights, political correctness
posted by Helen at 10:24 AM
121 Comments:
"Rape is a horrible crime but so is convicting an innocent man of a sex crime."
Anyone who would falsely accuse someone of rape is just as sick as someone who would commit rape.
In China, the law is that if someone falsely accuses someone of a crime, then that person must be punished for the crime they falsely accused that person of.
I always thought the Duke rape case was more divisive along racial lines than gender lines.
I suspect it's probably an even split Cham. But let's hope we don't ever have a broad enough statistical sampling of these non-cases to really know.
I fear though that we already do.
cham --
Protest signs with "castrate" aren't gender specific? It's also pretty divisive.
There were three lines; gender, wealth and race. And all were weighted against the innocent young men and for the stripper.
As the photo at the bottom of this article shows, it wasn't a very racially motivated attempted lynching.
This is a very important issue. The Duke incident represents an extreme case, where a horrible crime was alleged and prosecuted, a lynch-mob mentality took hold of the community, the national press was involved, and the case unraveled quickly and spectacularly. I fear though, that many, many incidents of lesser magnitude, but involving a similar dynamic occur frequently but stay well under the radar screen.
There is much more to Duke than gender, as others have commented, and Nifong's reprehensible involvement speaks to the importance of local and national divisive racial politics. But the campus politics are about gender, privilege and power. And these have all been turned on their heads on campuses across the nation.
The New Yorker ran an article about a year ago about the Duke case that sounds very much like the Johnson and Taylor book (may have been written by them, I don't remember). It described the campus environment, the politics and the anti-athletic sentiment of the faculty, the tension between Duke and the community. I shuddered when I read it because I felt as if I could have been reading about the university where I now work, and the ones I attended as an undergrad and grad student. I can't help but feel that similar incidents are inevitable unless we learn the right lessons from Duke.
One simple guideline might be to look at which individuals have power in a given situation. This may be different from which groups have historically had power, or who has power in other situations.
If a distraught student comes into my office, I can close the door and let them cry. If it someone with whom I have some familiarity and rapport, I can give a comforting tough or even a hug. My male colleagues cannot do this.
I don’t know this for a fact, but I imagine that if a male student acts insolent or disrespectful to me, I can say that I "feel threatened", and have him removed from my class. Because I am the women and he is the man, my claim of feeling threatened might be taken seriously. If a female student does the same to one of my male colleagues, and he reacts in any but the most neutral, professional, dispassionate manner, HE opens himself up to a harassment charge.
Universities have Deans for Women's Affairs, events for Women Faculty, departments or programs (Women's Studies) for which, as recent events prove, a man can never serve as Chair or Director.
Explain to me how this is fair?
This book, and the New Yorker article, should be required reading for all academics everywhere. We should be forced to take a hard look what our perhaps well-intentioned attempts to redress historical wrongs and create an inclusive environment have wrought.
What I see happening right now is not about equality and inclusion, it’s about power.
What makes the newly empowered so dangerous is that they think that they are still the victims.
ada47:
"What makes the newly empowered so dangerous is that they think that they are still the victims."
Amen, and I agree that this book should be used in academic classes everywhere but fat chance of that. I do think, however, it is important to support this book and those like it that present information that the MSM will not cover.
The University setting is a hotbed for kooky political correctness and unfair gender and race profiling, so long as the gender is male and the race is "white." Fortunately, much of it is so extreme and irrational that it is not taken seriously or even discussed in most quarters outside their academic cloisters (that is a fact). Unfortunately, in the Duke non-rape case, an opportunistic D.A. trying to buy votes from minorities joined in an unholy alliance with the "pc" crowd. The outcry about the injustice to the three young men is surprising and encouraging (Prof. Johnson's blog garners hundreds of thousands of viewers each month), but this outcry is also a warning bell. As white males become more and more aware of this sort of misandry, the fringe radical feminist/pc crowd will see a backlash they can't even fathom -- legislatively, politically, in fact in every realm. By their irrational bigotry and hatred, these fringe elements, I submit, threaten to harm the real advances made for women over the past 100 years, and that should be very disturbing to them. Does anyone seriously think men are going to sit still and become punching bags for these lunatics as men become more aware that they are unfairly profiled because of their gender? And please don't talk to me about historic injustices or "payback time" -- it is not in our geneticaly predisposed make-up to allow that to happen. The Duke Lacrosse case should be a wake-up call to restore rationality in the quest for equality.
The stripper in the Duke case ain't wrapped tight. But she saw an opportunity. She was isolated and no one was allowed to get her statements for publication from the word go. Nifong had more on his mind than the truth. Me thinks that was the last thing on his mind. Nifong had Nifong's career and fame on his mind, and found an opportunity. The case to put him on the map. It was a dream come true, that backfired.
Were I the coach and any one of the accused, or even in that house that night, I would be suing to beat the band. Duke would end up a Gov't housing project or a community college.
My daughter does NOT attend Duke because of the Lacrosse case. There are 88 professors there that will never get the opportunity to poison my daughter's mind. They should all fired.
Duke has settled for an undisclosed sum with the coach and team.
It is being reported in the local paper that a federal civil rights lawsuit against Durham is being prepared.
So far as I know, the "stripper" responsible has received no punishment for what is not her first such crime. And the Democratic state AG essentially recommended no charges be brought against her because she might not be "responsible". But that doesn't seem to have caused any restrictions on her being a "parent".
Meanwhile, with very few exceptions, the race/class/gender fanatics at Duke and elsewhere have ignore the case outcome and carry on ranting as usual. This type does not learn lessons. It maintains the narrative at all costs.
What hapened at Duke can happen at any ofthe so-called 'Elite" universities. There are plenty of faculty members and students that think and act like Duke's "Group of 88". Fact and reason and the lawsof the land mean not a whit to these kooks.
What happened to the Duke Lacrosse players and their allies can happen anywhere , any time.
Sad part is, the faculty who make up the "group of 88" will never be punished for their idoicy and their actions in stirring up truble in Durham.
i wonder if the Duke players are sueing these professors
The Duke case brought out a lot of the ugly, bigoted stereotypes of the left - by race, gender, class and sports (anti-jock).
I'd love to see the professor's reaction to the book on her desk. Unless she's more open-minded than most lefties, she'll construct an elaborate rationalization for her original position.
How common are false rape claims? Here's coverage of two separate cases in the Cincinnati news today.
Hopefully, the statement made by danny about the Duke faculty never being punished will not remain unrevised. Is it not a prejudice exposed? Have they not expressed their "superiority" to those they teach? Perhaps many students who may have attended Duke, now will not. Duke and its faculty deserted, then turned on its own students. Let's hope no prospective students and their cash cow parents forget that fact. Who would attend such a place? No child of mine. Turnabout, after all, is fair play.
These people live in a strange world. A world that simply does not exist off campus or otherwise outside the world of academia. The inmates rule the asylum.
The unfortunate truth is that on most American campuses, there are a significant number of self-righteous, chronically offended professors who deem their sole academic mission to be that of disabusing the middle class students of what the profs view as their quasi-conservative, wrong-headed middle class mores. The profs' goal is to indoctrinate their brand of gender and race sensitivity into the students' wrong-headed, privileged skulls. These tyrants seek to embarrass the white males, and especially the white male athletes, for their so-called white male privilege and the "sins" of their patriarchal fathers and grandfathers and on and on. These professors assert their far-out, far left theories in tedious, incomprehensible prose that not even their fellow lunatic professors understand. The fact is, these petty, angry people couldn't hold a job in corporate America where this sort of nonsense is not tolerated. Unfortunately, in the Duke case, they found the perfect ally in the D.A. who saw this Crystal Managum's lies as a chance to buy black votes. There is a special place in hell for Crystal, the D.A., and these professors (except the professors don't believe in hell).
Right now the stats are pretty well cooked. Feminists are fond of citing a figure that only 3% of sexual assault accusations are false, then claiming that only a small (pick a number between 25 and 50) percent of sexual assaults and rapes are actually reported.
However, the 3% figure includes only cases that are conclusively disproved and not those where the charges are dropped because the putative victim is obviously lying or where no evidence exists. This keeps the numbers down.
OTOH, the get the numbers up, all accusations of sexual assault are assumed to be true, so you end up comparing apples and oranges.
Many men's groups estimate that the number of false accusations run close to 50%, which would make rape and sexual assault one of the most overreported crimes. And given the huge number of accusations every years, even 3% is still a lot of false positives.
In essence we have a system designed to produce large numbers of accusations, which it does very well. What it does not do a very good job of is sorting out the truth.
p.s. Did Glen read the book? What did he think?
Locomotive breath,
Glenn hasn't read it yet but is very interested in the topic.
This is the blogger's lament. Most of us just sit at out computers reading the news on the Web and then comment on whether we think someone is guilty or a crime or the victim of political correctness run amok.
Here in Peoria we have a case of lawyer who was charged and found guikty of molesting a three year old girl. He is either:
A. A rich white male with powerful friends and the money to hire connected attorneys from Chicago to escape the punish he deserves, because 3 year old girls don't lie.
or
B. The victim of a woman who went doctor shopping for one who would say he found evidence of abuse, then prosecuted by a man who was afraid to NOT prosecute a rich white guy accused of a horrible crime.
The trouble is is CAN'T be a little of one and a little of the other.
I do not envy people who sit on juries. I don't envy police, prosecutors, judges or the juries who have to decide these things.
All we can ask if for people to consider all the facts, not where one stands on "political correctnesss."
Peoria Pundit, one of the great scientific advances in recent years that is recognized by the courts is DNA evidence. Several months ago a lawyer friend of mind was instrumental in getting a wrongly accused man released from prison after 18 years of wrongful incarceration. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06129/688526-85.stm
DNA doesn't lie, but 3-year-olds can, and do lie. In point of fact, every poll shows that the majority of Americans lie. How is it that the one, unique, singular, sole subject that people supposedly DON'T lie about happens to be the one thing that can destroy a man -- rape?
I submit that people are more likely to lie about rape than any other crime precisely because of its power to hurt men. The Duke Lacrosse case is raising people's awareness about rape and liars. Now if they would only prosecute the lying nutcase who started the whole thing, that would really send a message.
PODCAST!!!
Locomotive Breath,
It's been in the works if the authors are willing....
You write: The radical feminist line is that women never lie about rape. But statistics belie this belief.
Is it that statistics belie that belief - great oxymoronic alliteration, btw - or is it that the term is so expansively defined by feminists the claim is true, if you accept their (ultimately absurd) premise? (i.e. MacKinnon and her fellow travelers don't believe they're lying. They believe their definition!)
Perhaps it's a difference without a distinction. But I wish I knew if MacKinnon et al really means what she says.
Soccer Dad, the radical feminist blather has concocted all manner of invention to support their absurd assertion that women never lie about rape. Let us not be distracted by their twisted agenda; we should simply ask: Can it possibly be true that women never lie about rape? The question scarcely survives its statement. One of the problems here is that we dignify these absurdities with thoughtful discussion. Rest assured that for all the hand-wringing we engage in, the justice system largely works despite some well-known instances where it's broken down. It's creaky, and it's slow, but it usually weeds separates the liars from the true victims.
While the Duke fiasco rolled along we in Australia saw a similar miscarriage of justice, this time a fifteen year old boy who spent nearly a year in prison because of the lies of a young woman with her eyes on victim compensation.
Innocent boy's jail nightmare
To date neither Patrick or his family have been compensated and the liar remains anonymous and uncharged.
It's time. It's high time. It is time we, as a society, begin to examine the deep, deep psychotic mindset that would make a false accusation against anyone for anything, especially when it destoys an entire life.
Unfortunately for women, this appears to be an almost exclusively female psychiatric disorder. We need to begin putting these people under a microscope and begin to do exhaustive research, because it is that important and it is a problem that has always been with us, and it is not a problem that is just going to go away.
I refuse to live in a society where I work hard to obey all the laws all of my life and even live as a good and virtuous person contributing to society, to only be subject to arrest at any given moment based on the false allegation of some psychopath (any woman at any time) and quite possibly railroded through court.
Fathers and mothers, otherwise you need to start telling your sons that obeying the laws and being an ethical person does not matter and means nothing, and that he can go to jail for nothing, and that the law, court, society, and women are dangerous enemies to him and his life.
The real source of this false accusation syndrome is power. The sick need of women to wield 'power' over a man by destroying his life.
It's time.
As a Durham resident, and someone close to actual rape victims, I watched this case closely. It was apparent by the end of the first week that Ms. Mangum was lying.
As for her still being allowed to keep her children, and in fact be well compensated for keeping them, - that is just the racism of low expectations. The locals do not expect much of black women, so if one is thought to be a little "crazy", well, that's just the way it goes. The fact that she was able, upon her second attempt at claiming she was gang raped, to ignite a firestorm, well, there's an unintended consequence for you.
I have followed KC's blog for well over a year - the good news is that Nifong is gone, in no small part thanks to KC's effort. No local writer or blogger did more to expose the horrible racist nitwits in Duke and Durham than KC. We all owe him a lot.
That nothing has changed with Hardin as our DA - well, that's the good ol' boy system at work. I think I will move...
Jimmy hit the nail on the head about why there was no prosecution against the Mangum. Our society still patronizes some folks. If I were a black woman and wanted "equality," I'd be most outraged that I am patronized Mangum is patronized in this manner simply because she's a black woman. It shows how weak society views her "kind." And the same goes for women who are "battered" for years but do nothing until one day they snap and murder the supposed abuser (who's no longer around to refute the allegation). Society says these women were too weak to handle it in the proper manner, and that, my friends, is the worst kind of patronizing.
I put it all down to the current and infamous "the narrative is true even if the facts aren't" mindset possessed by some of our intellectuals and reporters. For them, the global narrative is simply more important, more worth studying, more worth getting right, than the local reality. Or else "reality" simply doesn't exist and each political group is entitled to interpret a situation in whatever way it believes is most empowering.
It's sort of related to the old cliche about liberals loving mankind but hating people. Easier to love an abstraction, a principle, than to figure out how to love a flawed and frequently disappointing reality.
It is time we, as a society, begin to examine the deep, deep psychotic mindset that would make a false accusation against anyone for anything, especially when it destoys an entire life.
That is utterly true.
Unfortunately for women, this appears to be an almost exclusively female psychiatric disorder.
That is utterly false unless you mean it appears to you. Men do this as well.
Judge Rufus Peckham,
"Society says these women were too weak to handle it in the proper manner, and that, my friends, is the worst kind of patronizing."
I agree but the problem is that gender feminists today want special privileges for women without responsibilities. Hence, women can cry rape anytime but are not responsible if they accuse someone falsely. They think that women should get equal pay with flexible hours and child care but should not have to work the enormous hours it often takes to make a large salary. They think women should never be viewed as "hysterical" or "mental" but they want the option of shooting men in the back while asleep and claiming verbal or psychological abuse as an excuse. I see it as patronizing as you say, but for many gender feminists, they see it as men's just desserts.
Dr. S,
The unfortunate thing here is that the Duke "Gang" of 88 is just too isolated from reality to know they were off base/wrong/guilty of incitement.
Many academics (of course Instapundit and Instawife not included as you are certainly well diversified in your interests/actions/beliefs) are so far afield from the real world as to be incapable of rational dialog on this topic and most others...
I had a high school friend who went on to obtain numerous degrees, etc. He failed in the business world and retreated to the only one he understood...academics. There he was not challenged, and was able to continue down his life's path....
Duke
"Society says these women were too weak to handle it in the proper manner, and that, my friends, is the worst kind of patronizing."
You should watch 'Mad Men' on AMC. Among other things, it examines the world of the 60's, when women were UNempowered. It was from this forge that today's political climate was wrought. Obviously, the pendulum has swung too far. Equality means equal responsibility, but the 'fix' for injustice was set at a time when women could not accept such responsibility, because they had no power.
Certainly today's world is not 'fair' to women. But then, it is not 'fair' to honest men, either. 'Feminists' (whatever that term means today) cannot hold out for a fair world in which judgement before the crime (i.e., 'political correctness') is no longer deemed necessary. PC needs to be decried NOW, or it never will be, because the world will never be 'fair'.
Our justice system is based on the premise that some of the guilty will go free in order to protect the rights of the innocent. Political correctness seeks to overturn this, by punishing before a matter can be decided by the courts. (Or, 'instead' of the courts, since many important disputes these days never go though the daunting trial process.) It was ever thus... before we had the culture of political correctness, we had lynch mobs. Same deal.
"They see it as men's just desserts." So sad, Dr. Helen, that these ostensibly liberal women resort to the the worst sort of stereotyping and pre-judgment, as if ALL men deserve their arbitrary wrath.
One of the surprising aspects of the Duke Lacrosse case is the number of men who have taken an interest in this case (e.g., K.C.'s blog has garnered an incredible amount of traffic). The only reason that the gender feminists have achieved any "success" in their twisted agenda is because most men, frankly, don't see them as a threat -- yet. But the more radical, the more insane the gender feminists become, they run the risk of awakening "men" as a group, and we have millions of years of history to suggest that "men" as a group will not quietly tolerate being stereotyped in ways they consider grossly unfair. It would be unfortunate to see a male backlash erode the very real and important progress made for women in the past 100 years. We need to restore rationality to the quest for equality, and I think you help do that very well.
mr. snitch! we should not assume that women felt "oppressed" any more than men in the unenlightened '50s and '60s. Try to tell most of the men from that era where I live, Pittsburgh, that they were "liberated," as they trudged to the often-dangerous, sometimes deadly steel mills, often at night shift, so they could support their families. Much fun -- in that climate, there was no room for talk of the "patriarchy," or "white male privilege." Their "privilege" was to work at the mill if they wanted to eat, to rent an apartment, to marry, to raise a family, to live. Often overlooked in all the screeching is that the U.S. economy was simply not big enough for both spouses to work in that era, as most spouses do today; if the economy today suddenly shrunk and two-fifths of the jobs disappeared, yes, you'd still see a fair number of women working, but most spouses would elect for the woman to raise the family -- not as a "patriarchal" decision, but as a joint decision and because the individual woman and man want it that way. As disgusting as that might sound to the gender feminists.
reality2007 said first:
...the deep, deep psychotic mindset that would make a false accusation against anyone for anything, especially when it destoys an entire life...
reality2007 said next:
...this appears to be an almost exclusively female psychiatric disorder...
reality2007 said in the third paragraph:
...some psychopath (any woman at any time)...
Conclusion: reality2007 must be a woman.
"Conclusion: reality2007 must be a woman."
Cathyf: You're an idiot, but not just any idiot.. the kind that actually thinks they're clever- the worst kind of idiot, and no, you are not going to derail this thread. If you would like to comment, then keep your comments on the subject. The subject is false accusations.
Excuse me, r2007, but you accused me (as well as the other 3 billion women on the planet) of being a psychopath because I have two X chromosomes. That's what "any woman at any time" means after all.
That is either:
a) false (and by your assertion that only a woman "would make a false accusation against anyone for anything, especially when it destroys an entire life", you must be a woman) or;
b) true (in which case it must be terrifying indeed to live knowing that there are 3 billion of us psychopaths out there just waiting to gitcha, any one of us, at any time, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!)
cathyf:
That is all so stupid, that you are not even intelligent enough to even argue with. Thank you for illustrating how and why so many women are not even focused or intelligent enough to even understand what the problems in society are and how you perpetuate even more problems in your infinite stupidity.
Here's someone who is exactly like you. You can see in the clip that she is quite confident like yourself. Too bad confidence doesn't replace intelligence.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J1Szcx0VkRoe.
But I seriously doubt that you are as attractive. (Or attractive at all).
This whole mess proceeds directly from the baleful influence of one of the most toxic elements of modern Leftist ideology: Collective Justice (CJ).
In "Collective," Leftists do not count people as individuals but rather as members of their respective kinds - i.e., victims vs oppressors. What a single person does, thinks or says matters not so much as what his "side" is taken to have done, thought or said.
By "Justice," the Left doesn't mean something as as old-school and literal as an accurate finding of guilt or innocence followed by the punishment fitting the crime. Their "Justice" is a cosmic, zero-sum game wherein one side "wins" every time someone on the other side "loses."
This is how so many Leftists can, for example, keep a straight face while calling for "justice" for somebody like the cop-killer Mumia abu-Jamal. "Justice" in the sense of answering for one's crimes has been served; this guy is as guilty as the day is long and was convicted accordingly. But that's not the "justice" they're calling for. Their "justice" means a verdict for the side - the collective identity - they find politically and ideologically preferable.
Which brings us back to the Duke case. It's not so much that radfem misandrists, the Group of 88 and rest of their co-religionists truly thought the boys were guilty. Their guilt or innocence mattered far less than which "side" the boys represented (Hint: it starts with 'O' and ends with '-ppressor'). The demands of CJ were that the boys be offered up in sacrifice to the gods of political correctness.
Judge Rufus Peckham: "mr. snitch! we should not assume that women felt "oppressed" any more than men in the unenlightened '50s and '60s. Try to tell most of the men from that era where I live..."
I never said that 'women felt oppressed' in the 50's and 60's. In fact, had I said anything about how women 'felt', based on observable evidence, they probably felt better off than those who came before. (Which, as a whole, they were. But that says more about women's past lot in life than it does about the advances of the 50's - 60's.) Women of that era probably also felt a vagure unease, a dissatisfaction they did not quite know how to address. (This is portrayed nicely in 'Mad Men', whose backstory can be viewed by cable users via On Demand at no charge. It's a good, entertaining look at those times.)
I did say that women were unempowered during that era. Which, compared with today, is demonstrably true. And the average woman had less opportunity and control over hert destiny than the average male.
Was the coal miner's lot in life less desirable than the coal mine's owner? Of course. What's the point?
I recognize your point about the relative 'oppression' (which I call lack of empowerment - oppression infers an oppressor, and my point is not in identifying oppressors) of men, as well. I agree with it. In fact, my post agreed with it, making that very point.
I don't think we really disagree on anything. You just didn't consider my post very closely before issuing your comment.
Reality2007,
Come on, you make some decent points at times but there is no need to stereotype women--for to do so is to treat us with the same disdain and unfairness that you accuse women of treating men with. Make your points without resorting to personal attacks. Cathyf has a point, you are saying that women alone mostly possess the traits of a psychopath which includes lying. Your assumptions are that 1) all liars are psychopaths--not true and 2) all psychopathic traits of lying are part of the female make-up. Again, not true. Psychopaths make up a small percentage of the population albeit a dangerous one. In fact, antisocial personality which is not the same as a psychopath but a diagnostic category in the DSM-IV, states that the overall prevalence of APD is 3% in males and 1% in females but may be underdiagnosed in females. However, the point is that women do not tend to lie more than men.
In the case of rape, a charge of rape carries a lot more baggage if a man is accused by a woman as he is more likely to get charged, even on false allegations. Women, on the other hand, typically do not get charged and when they do, the penalty is often less. I agree that false rape charges are an important issue and one that should be studied. However, attacks and stereotypes of women who are innocent is not the answer here.
For a real feeling of those first few days and an understanding of how this incident exploded into a national story read this post.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/from-wall-of-silence-to-community.html
It reads like a Grisham novel, but its true!
Helen,
Men do alot of bad things, false accusations are very rarely one of them. We are not talking about what men do wrong today.
"you are saying that women alone mostly possess the traits of a psychopath which includes lying."
Your assumptions are that 1) all liars are psychopaths--not true and 2) all psychopathic traits of lying are part of the female make-up. Again, not true. Psychopaths make up a small percentage of the population albeit a dangerous one."
That doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. Here is what I wrote:
"It is time we, as a society, begin to examine the deep, deep psychotic mindset that would make a false accusation against anyone for anything, especially when it destoys an entire life.
Unfortunately for women, this appears to be an almost exclusively female psychiatric disorder."
You get really confused easily. I'm not really that smart (average intelligence) and even I don't have such a tangled reading comprehension.
In addition, can you even remember ever hearing of a man who made a serious false accusation? A famous case, or any case? Oh, I'm sure there's a couple out there, but we're talking about the rule, not the exception. Men lie, but not like that- destroying a person's entire life. A lot of it has to do with women's amorality.
Instead of criticizing me for 'stereotyping' and other PC (another way of saying 'denial' and 'lies) garbage. Start focusing on something new and refreshing; it's called: The Truth.
Agreed, mister snitch! My only addendum to what you've pointed out is that for the majority of families existing at the time "Mad Men" was set, most men had neither a college education nor a white collar job. And if you worked in the mills (most men in my rust belt town did), you probably were at least as dissatisfied as your wife and felt more than a "vague unease" with your lot. The important point is that women were culturally precluded from advancement; MOST men were economically but not culturally precluded. It wasn't fair to either sex that only men COULD advance themselves (even though it was only a theoretical possibility in most cases), OR that only men culturally expected to slave away in the steel mills while their wives raised the family. Much of that had to do with the size of our ecomomy at the time, and not misogyny.
When the question of false accusations came up at Durham in Wonderland I was one of the first if not the first to bring up the Linda Fairstein quote - with links.
KC had an army of Davids doing his research for him and hashing it out on his blog. We looked at FBI stats. We looked at women's movement blogs etc.
All to the good.
One of the things that surprised me was that the incidence of rape (per capita) has declined 75% over the last 30 or 40 years.
reality2007, there doesn't appear to be a problem with Helen's reading comprehension at all. You've selectively left off the "money quote" portion that started the objection to begin with. Here it is as a refresher.
reality2007 wrote: I refuse to live in a society where I work hard to obey all the laws all of my life and even live as a good and virtuous person contributing to society, to only be subject to arrest at any given moment based on the false allegation of some psychopath (any woman at any time) and quite possibly railroded through court.
(My emphasis in bold).
The obvious interpretation of your parenthetical remark is that by using the term "some psychopath", what you really mean is "any woman at any time".
It's hard not to read that as a statement that you think all women are psychopaths. This sort of broad-brush approach (really, I swear, no pun intended) continues with statements like "A lot of it has to do with women's amorality."
It's clear that more than a few folks object to those kinds of unqualified statements, and rightly so. You seem to be stating rather explicitly that all women are psychopaths, and that this stems from the "amorality" of all women.
Gee, what's to take offense at, there?
Rather than criticize the reading comprehension of others, would you instead like to tell everyone what the "proper" parsing of your parenthetical should have been, if not what I noted above?
Or do you actually think that any given woman at any given time actually is a psychopath?
Likewise, did you really intend to speak to the amorality of ALL women, or should you (perhaps) have qualified it by stating it as "some women"?
C'mon everyone - what the hell is KC's?
You guys are leaving me hangin' out here.
"It's hard not to read that as a statement that you think all women are psychopaths."
Who cares? Seriously, in light of the nightmarish reality that I or any man could go to jail for nothing but a false accusation based on the whims of some female (which it always is)who cares what the cause is- fix it! You've got a better explanation, let's hear it. The other half of the equation is the insane laws that facilitate women. Worrying about my political correctness in contrast to having your life destroyed for nothing is far, far, far, far more important.
"It's clear that more than a few folks object to those kinds of unqualified statements, and rightly so.."
I take offense to being in danger of going to jail for nothing at any moment of any day.
"Or do you actually think that any given woman at any given time actually is a psychopath?"
How would you know, and what difference does it make? It's like if rape became legal tomorrow and women were freaking out, saying this is crazy, and the only response from men is, "not all men are like that." Do you get it yet?
br549: KC is KC Johnson, the blogging professor largely responsible for exposing the lies in the Duke Lacrosse case. http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
Who cares? I do, and I would hope that you would as well. If you actually think all women are psychopaths, you need serious help, STAT!
Of course, if you actually believe that, you'd probably be unbalanced enough not to care whether you're unbalanced, nor whether anyone else reading this will summarily dismiss anything you're said and are likely to say in the future.
Or, as an alternative, you could try acting and conversing like a rational adult. Might make for a nice change of pace.
I think the true rates of false accusation of rape (and the stats show that rape accuations are male accused / female accuser in the vast majority of cases) are both shocking and scandalous. The false accusation is devastating, and is woefully under-criminalized and under-prosecuted. It's a significant problem, and needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.
Much larger penalties need to be invoked for false accusations of any crimes by anyone, where the consequences are this devastating, and there need to be high-profile prosecutions made... regardless of the politically-correct fallout. Such penalties for false accusation also need to be made commensurate with the amount of damage they cause.
Justice demands it.
There, see, that's not so hard, is it?
It doesn't really matter that it's men that are going to jail for uncommitted crimes, and women making the accusations. It would be precisely as unjust if the genders were reversed. The problem is that a serious crime is being committed here (false accusations of rape), major damage is being done to innocent people, and justice is being thwarted. That needs to change.
In the process of stating this case, I didn't have to make ridiculously delusional claims of my own, especially not ones tied to only one gender. That makes it a little easier to take me seriously, eh?
You might want to look into that.
Or, you could just stick to that strategy of calling 51%+ of the population psychotic and amoral, with their gender as the dead giveaway that lets you spot them. I'm sure that'll convince people.
Dr. Helen is doing the world a service by helping focus attention on an important book like this. I'd hope you'd be interested in seeing that message get out, rather than acting out and driving people away from the conversation with your ridiculous hyperbole.
Would hardly be the first time if I'm wrong on that account, though.
I still think I'm onto something with the "Collective Justice" problem. (see prev)
False reports of crimes are the same across all crimes, no matter the gender, about 20%. (Many blogs, papers and journals have discussed this. esp. the insurance industry with regards to false reports of thefts; and yes, men do falsely report thefts.)
Thank you for publicizing this book, which I assume will read as well as KC's Blog.
For the pot bangers, the gang of 88, some journalists ("something bad happened there"), & certain sanctimonious types (“my kids were never/would never be at such a party; these kids put themselves in harm’s way & shouldn’t have been surprised when they got harmed)”, it isn't just that you got the facts absolutely wrong, it’s the absolute moral certainty with which you presented your conclusion.
As for academia, funny, but sex & feminism are supposed to go together like high temperatures in August & Global Warming theorists. (Of course, there is the “all sex is rape” über extremist faction of the feminists. Let me be clear: I’m saying that “not all sex is rape”, not that “no sex is rape”.)
Now, a conflict has arisen between (a) believers in anything goes sex-wise on most campuses and (b) PC faculties & administrators who, believing that the Official Preppy Handbook is the alpha & the omega of intellectual analysis of white dominance, have decreed that preppy white males must be punished for doing male sex things.
(What, few members of the Lacrosse team were children of coupon clippers? Nevermind! What, Black basketball & football players routinely have such strip shows & force themselves on black females? Nevermind! What, girls watch male strippers? Nevermind! What, college girls willingly pose for Girls Gone Wild? Nevermind! What the girl was a professional with the DNA of several guys, none of them members of the Lacrosse team? Nevermind!)
Now, what KCJ has called “Durham In Wonderland” has unraveled after it turned out to have been based on a Barney-Fyfe like investigation & wild counter-factual, selectively-indignant accusations of witch hunters who thought they had the perfect PC storm. Perhaps college administrators will have to stop completely ignoring Animal House behavior on the part of all students, preppy & non preppy, white & non white, male & female, & perhaps parents of white male students will have to stop abjectly putting up with the absolute power held by the selective-indignant crazed feminists & their wimpy male supporters. Ya think? Nah.
And, I don’t believe that white males will never rape women, anymore than I believe that no football player will ever grab a face mask or no basketball player will ever foul his opponents. And I really do believe that all the above should be justly punished. I simply posit that academia acknowledge that, like athletic misconduct, sexual conduct which is declared wrong for white male elite athletes must, in fairness, nay, by parity of logic, be declared equally wrong for all students, including black males & women, & all fratboys & fratgirls. And that we should return to a presumption of innocence for white males, a healthy skepticism about “buyer’s remorse” in “date rape” situations, & an end to the conclusiveness of the presumption that women never lie about rape. And that we all might understand the science of DNA. And that a declaration of innocence by the AG of NC cannot be blithely dismissed as just a "who knows objectively what might have happened & while there is some evidence in support of the charge, there's just not enough for us to say it's enough evidence to overcome 'reasonable doubt' "
Finally, for Feminists who really care about women, poor as well as rich, the mother of one of the three accuseds said something like this on 60 Minutes:
This is a poor woman who’s been taken advantage of by men all her life. And no one has taken more advantage of her than Nifong.
One more way to reduce "repercussions" of false rape reporting is the look at our punishments.
Admittedly, all crimes are bad. But it all has to be in perspective. In may not be popular to say this, but many crimes, from dogfighting to rape to "3 strikes" carry huge sentences that just don't seem to be in the right proportions. Now in Virginia, 'speeding' is this horrible 'crime' with thousands of dollars of fines just imposed without the driver being able to seek a fair hearing...
It is like we seek vengeance instead of justice (or rehabilitation) and the 'collateral damage' is innocent men in prison.
I'm as conservative as anyone here, and am glad that Nifong got his comeuppence for framing the LAX players for rape. That said, I'm not about to get carried away with copious attaboys for them either. They, a bunch of privileged if not rich white boys, hired a black stripper to entertain them and then apparently hassled her when it came time to pay her. Somewhere along the line someone apparently threatened her with a broomstick too. Add that they did all this in a southern town that's about 1/2 black, and the black folks who live there are considerably less advantaged economically than the average Duke student. What's wrong with this picture? First, as a conservative, I would have much higher expectations of my son than to engage in such behaviors --from a moral standpoint. Second, if my son were going to Duke, I'd expect several rungs of of decision-making up the intelligence ladder than what was displayed here. Thus, and sorry, they get no free pass from me. Deplorable.
so spread, you cant have "fun" if your rich and white. you cant hire strippers, if your a man, and rich and white.
i am afraid you are just pandering to the bias against white males.
would it have matter if they werent rich, or white.
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=57004&in_page_id=2
what about this article
Two male strippers were robbed, threatened with a bat and had their tyres slashed as they fled from unruly women at drunken bachelorette party that had got out of control, according to reports.
The police were called to the scene in Washington County, Oregon after a friend of the two strippers, who was acting as their security guard, called the emergency services
were these white, rich women, entitled to do what they did.
Deplorable? Perhaps. Young and not thinking? Sure. Ever been to a "bachelor" party yourself? I have, a long time ago. When about the same age as they Duke players.
Did they hire black strippers, or did black strippers show up? Should it matter? Only if it was a bait and switch.
Has the broomstick thing been verified? I, to this day, cannot find a thing to believe in what came from the accuser's side of the story, save the fact they were actually there.
There are a lot of "millionaire next door" types - plumbers, electricians, hardware store owners, in business for themselves, who send their kids to the best schools, because they can. They have worked hard to get where they are. Privileged? Who would not want the best for their kids? But you still have to make the grades to get in there, and stay. Would you rather your own child to get a Harvard education if you could afford it, or go to a local community college and transfer to a small and struggling state college no one ever heard of? Not that there is anything wrong with that, if it is all one can afford - and you child is not making the grades necessary to get grants and loans to get into better schools.
Blame Duke for being in Durham instead of Boston or New Haven, or even Asheville. Makes just as much sense. Prejudice against the south is as strong as it was over a hundred years ago. I travel up north a lot, and hear it all the time.
What actually happened, how it was handled, and the opportunists that came out of the woodwork, made it what it was. The way Duke handled it is deplorable, as far as I am concerned. Nifong - ha!
Please go easy on Reality 2007, in your haste to appear fair and balanced and shut him up you ignore his point.
Whether or not all women are psychopaths is immaterial. A wise man treats them all as psychopaths. Each has the power to destroy a man's life with a single false allegation. Whether it a child abuse allegation in a divorce or custody proceeding, a vengeful rape allegation to punish an unfeeling boyfriend, or a simple lie to cover up embarrassment, makes no difference.
All women, each and every one, have The Power. Helen has the power. She may not want it, she may swear she will never use it, but she has it nonetheless. She and the other women on this website may be uncomfortable or angry if you point it out, since they are "not one of those". Yet, as an educated white women, they have way, way more of The Power than most women.
You must treat all women the way you treat a psycho -- don't let the door close behind you. Don't touch. Don't rest a reassuring hand on the shoulder, don't comfort a crying child. Don't. Don't. Don't.
This knowledge is passed on as a matter of simple folk wisdom in other cultures. Black men, for example, are raised with this wariness of white women from birth.
And it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise with over-the-top accusations of gender hatred on Reality 2007's part. If a murder happens next door and your friendly neighborhood policeman just wants to visit with you, to get some ideas, to see what you think happened, man-to-man, neighborly-like, do you chat with him freely? Of course not. Does that mean you hate law enforcement? Of course not.
If a bunch of drunk college boys leaving a bar offer to walk your daughter to her car in a dark parking lot, do you encourage her to go with them? Of course not. Does that mean they are all psychopathic rapists? Of course not.
Prudence dictates that you treat the cop like a prosecutor who is looking to convict you, and that your daughter treat the young men like they are gang rapists, and (as Reality 2007 clearly understands) that you treat women as psychopathic liars -- nicely, of course, but treat them like they are all psychos nonetheless.
For men, the reality goes even deeper: they must engage in double-think and double-act. They must pretend that they trust women implicitly even when they live in honest, rational fear of The Power.
For example, if you are a white male professor, you never, Ever, EVER say to a female student during office hours, "please leave the door open, I do not mean to be unfriendly, but I cannot take the chance that you may turn psychopathic liar on me. There is a more than insubstantial chance you will do so and further that you will be immediately and wholeheartedly believed. I take a serious personal and professional risk by inviting you into my office for office hours and you must (at the very least) respect that and leave the door open."
No, instead of this honest recognition of the potential psychopath in every woman, a male professor has to say things to female students during office hours like "Please leave the door open, I am waiting for a grad student to stop by and tell me something", or "It's a bit hot in here, don't you think? Would you mind if I opened the door and let a little fresh air in?".
That is the reality, pure and simple. Ask any white male professor.
All Reality 2007 has done is tell the truth: a wise man treats them all as psychos. But that hurts women's feelings, so you caution him on this website not to say it out loud.
Reality 2007, we know where you are coming from. We know the truth and we appreciate your fear. We share it.
Reality 2007, I will leave you with the words that a Southern black mother gave her sons many, many years ago: "You can be friends with white folks, but always be careful. Don't tell them you don't trust them 100% for they will take offense. And never, Ever, EVER get caught behind closed doors with a white woman."
Reality 2007, the "white folks" on this website "took offense". Let that be a lesson to you.
didymus2000 -- Quit talking to yourself. Your language and content betray.
spread eagle -- Your points are debunked already at KC's. Go read.
I've got the power..........
I an br549. br549 of the Mountain!
With apologies to George Carlin.
Cute, didymus. Are you reality's sister, or alter ego?
Thank you for the info,your Honor.
Just spent the majority of my lunch hour on KC Johnson's site.
Wow.
I have one thing to say to white students attending Duke:
Run, Forest! RUN!!!
Well, thanks, didymus2000. It seems to me the problem here is that of priorities- people's petty nit picking over matters of delivery, and it's more than a little gay. (Can you say magina?) If there is a fire in a theatre, who's going to hear someone politely stating there is a fire? This matter of false accusations is what is called a 'silent crisis.'
As John Lennon once said, "no one is paying attention to proper and prim intellectual essays and articles written by smug intellectuals, mentally masturabting to their own words."
Politeness to women is only another reason why we are here at this nightmare reality. To be quite honest, I do not give a flying fecal matter particle what women think anymore- I lost respect for women in general at leat 15 years ago (I'm 44) because they no longer deserve respect- no. 1 reason why? Women in the U.S. no longer respect men- women now regard men in general as just stupid and below human, and I'm supposed to respect that? It's a big part of the reason why women can destroy lives with no regret... think about it. I have no respect for anyone that doesn't have basic respect for me.
reality2007/didymus2000 --
The proper analogy would be someone screaming "Fire!" when the fire is in the theater down the block.
John Lennon was married to Yoko -- go figure.
Politeness to reality2007 is only another reason why we are here reading this nightmare he calls reason. To be quite honest, I do not give a flying fecal matter particle what reality2007 think(s) anymore - I lost respect for him in general at lea(s)t 15 articles ago because he no longer deserves respect - no. 1 reason why? He doesn't respect us - he regards us generally as just stupid and below human, and I'm supposed to respect that? It's a big part of the reason why he can spout off with no regret... think about it. I have no respect for anyone that doesn't have basic respect for me.
reality2007 wrote: I have no respect for anyone that doesn't have basic respect for me.
That's a fine philosophy when taken on an individual-to-individual basis, but the math doesn't quite work out when you try to apply it to an individual-to-massive-group interaction.
You're taking the actions of some members of a given class, and determining from that how you should treat ALL members of that class.
That is a textbook definition of prejudice. Because some women falsely accuse rape and destroy the lives of some men, you treat all women as amoral psychopaths who no longer deserve respect, because some of them regard men as just stupid and below human.
Why not treat the actual psychopaths as pyschopaths, instead of comdemning the entire group? Why not have "no respect" for those individuals who regard men as just stupid and below human, rather than anyone who also happens to have an XX chromosome like they do?
Why stop at just women as the identifying group? You do realize that all of those people engaging in that behavior are humans, right? Why don't you just come out and state it clearly: Humans don't reserve respect, because some of them do these horrible things. It's in their natures, after all.
Sociopathy. It's what's for dinner.
I should have heeded the aphorism about trying to teach a pig to dance... would have saved time and effort.
It's a bit of a leap from "we must behave cautiously when dealing with the opposite sex" to "we must assume all men are rapists" or "we must assume all women are psychopathic liars."
Not that it matters. I deal with women - sane and crazy ones - in my own way.
P.S. - br549 is God.
i found that there is a minority of truly evil self absorbed witches, but i do tend to treat them all the same, because i didnt dare do other wise.
the minority ruins it for the rest. so no wonder men are worried/nervous about such peopl, its so hard to find a true person rather than a money grabbing witch.
its not our fault, its the women who make it so much harder for every good woman.
The book is now ranked 285. And it is #4 in sports and #2 in true crime. That is awesome if you have enough influence to cause this rise. Oh and I was surprised to see you run a Harry Potter ad. :)
"The proper analogy would be someone screaming "Fire!" when the fire is in the theater down the block.
John Lennon was married to Yoko -- go figure.
Politeness to reality2007 is only... (ad nauseum)"
Cute, but you just parroted what I said, and unfortunately, I hate burst your bubble, but it wasn't even a tenth as clever as you obviously think that was. Sorry- ouch!
Try being original, you'll find it a refreshing change, and oh, yea, try actually discussing the subject- (Psst- here's a hint, I am not the subject- and no, matter how much you obsess over me, I won't sleep with you)
The subject is false accusations of rape. Thank you.
reality2007 --
Cute, but you just parroted what I said
No shit, Sherlock.
Try being original is a concept you should look into yourself. All your little skreeds read alike. Hence the parroting. You parrot yourself.
(Psst- here's a hint, I am not the subject- and no(,) matter how much you obsess over me, I won't sleep with you)
Thank friggin' god. I don't even think a gay man would want to sleep with you.
If the subject was false rape accusation, why did you spread the venom to encompass all women? Obviously a vast intellectual such as yourself (despite your inability to glean basic facts from my postings) should know the problem with speaking in absolutes.
"...a leap from "we must behave cautiously when dealing with the opposite sex" to "we must assume all men are rapists" or "we must assume all women are psychopathic liars."
Interesting, isn't it? Women have really pushed the idea that all men are rapists for decades now, which in turn has perpetuated this culture of instant acceptance that when a woman makes an accusation of rape, he is instantly assumed guilty with virtually no question as to whether or not the accusation could be false.
But uh oh, what's this?!?
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/08/19/0819ogletree.html
Look's like female teachers are now being falsely accused of molestation, having their lives turned upside down, losing their jobs, reputation, having to spend $100,000 on legal fees to prove they're not guilty all for for nothing.
Looks like decades of silence, denial and indifference from the female population is starting to catch up with our so-called 'fairer' sex.
Ouch! Now women are getting a taste of their own medicine- tastes like feces doesn't it, ladies?
That's why pay back is called a BITCH.
serket,
Thanks--I put the new ranking in the updated post.
"All your little skreeds read alike. Hence the parroting. You parrot yourself."
Uh, riiight.
"a vast intellectual such as yourself (despite your inability to glean basic facts from my postings) should know the problem with speaking in absolutes."
Let's get this over with and get everyone up to speed- this is so stupid. Look, when someone says 'they are all like that' whatever the subject is, you are supposed to be intelligent enough to know that the speaker does not literally mean ALL; as in every last one. It's a figure of speech, Puto. Even a toothless redneck KKK member from Kentucky with an IQ around that of room temperature doesn't even truly believe that every single last negro is the same. Get a life, for Christ's sake! This never ending one trick, dog and pony act of 'you can't say they're ALL the same, you're stereotyping, bla, bla, bla..' is your one and only so-called 'intellectual' concept that you know and usually, like most of you that never shut up about this very simple concept to understand (that is not important at all) you are prabably otherwise functionally illiterate- having the ability to read, but almost no comprehension and read nothing but gossip magazines and garbage.
Which begs this thought: Yes, not all women are capable of making a false accusation, but they do all have the power to put a man in prison for it and even if caught lying, nothing will happen to them legally or any other way- they are free to falsely accuse all day long, whereas if a man really does rape a woman and is caught, he is going to prison, period.
But here's my question: How am supposed to know if a woman wouldn't be capable of making a false accusation? Because she has pretty teeth? Because she smells nice? Because she tells me she wouldn't?
(Psst, Oligonicella, I know you'll need this spelled out for you, so I need to tell you this is called a 'rhetorical' question- that means you are not really supposed to answer it- I am making a point- there is no way to tell).
"Look, when someone says 'they are all like that' whatever the subject is, you are supposed to be intelligent enough to know that the speaker does not literally mean ALL; as in every last one."
Isn't the speaker supposed to be intelligent enough not to make such ass-hatted generalizations in the first place, and thus avoid the whole mess?
bugs,
Naaaaaa, just the local rep.
Oligonicella:
It's self-proving. There's nothing there to "debunk." To a traditionalist --a conservative-- strip parties are not acceptable on several levels. Period. The would-be debunk just went tilt. Then, on top of that, rich white males targeting black women in the deep south for their bawdy amusement is just plain dumb. I mean really dumb. As in stoooooo-pid dumb. Try to debunk that.
Stop enabling these guys. If you really care about them you will want them to grow up and begin manifesting imitable character. What they did isn't.
Like I say, I'm glad they were cleared and I'm glad the Nifong got his, but these guys don't deserve to be lauded.
A number of posters have argued that the problem with Duke’s Gang of 88 and their ilk elsewhere, is that they are divorced from reality.
And at least one poster has argued that the problem with feminism is that ‘the pendulum has swung too far the other way,’ (single quotes, because I might not have exactly quoted the poster in question).
I beg to differ on both counts. The Gang of 88 made it clear from the get-go, that they were uninterested in the facts of the case. And when on April 10, 2006, all 46 white lacrosse players were ruled out as suspects by DNA testing, they began a campaign of lies on top of lies that sought to rationalize railroading men whom they knew were innocent.
That the Gang and feminists have continued to insist that the men “are not innocent” – even after they were formally pronounced innocent – had nothing to do with the case, and everything to do with multicultural theology, whereby in a case of "original sin," white, heterosexual, able-bodied men (WHAMs) are metaphysically guilty, the facts and the law be damned.
And so, the problem with those who supported railroading three innocent white men was not the hoax supporters’ connection to reality, but their immorality. The Duke Rape Hoax was a study in evil.
As for feminism, the tenured feminists and their student sycophants are the beneficiaries of the third era in American feminism. The third era began with the publication of communist propagandist Betty Friedan/Freedman’s The Feminine Mystique, which likened suburban, middle-class households to “concentration camps.” This era fabricated a phony history with phony oppression, to justify its sexist hatred, its greed, and its lust for totalitarian power. The pendulum wasn’t swinging too far in response to injustice; the whole movement was an injustice.
At least one poster (Barry Kearns) has concluded that poster reality2007 contends that all women are psychopaths (i.e., pathological liars who through false charges seek to destroy men’s lives).
If you are going to be angry at the man, at least be angry at him for the right reason. He has not maintained that all women are psychopaths (see above definition), but that all psychopaths (see above definition) are women.
As for poster Spread Eagle, either he’s just a leftist troll posing as a “conservative” (like the staunch Illinois Democrat who recently claimed to be a Republican who had come around to support Democrats), or he knows almost nothing about the case in question, and has some very dubious moral precepts.
http://vdare.com/stix/070113_duke.htm
Nicholas Stix
Stix: I'm as conservative as anyone. These guys were falsely accused and deserved to be exonerated. Okay? That's what I said and that's what I believe. Got that? Make sure you let it sink in. Now, at the same time they are NOT heroes. They made some bad and immoral choices along the way. These things are not mutually exclusive. Both propositions can be and are true simultaneously. And yes, I did say immoral. It's an irrefutable fact. If YOU are a true conservative then you know in your heart of hearts that's true. Or, maybe it's just in your parallel universe that woman-respecting family-values conservatives hire strippers to perform at keg parties and which are explained away as boys will be boys. Not in mine. Mmmm-kay?
It was an accusation of rape. It became a vehicle for all that followed. Once the snowball started rolling, the original accusation no longer mattered to those with ulterior motives, their own agenda, or axes to grind. To that, I agree.
The Gang of 88 are perhaps the most reprehensible. They see things as they are, and as how they should be. Just ask them. Wait, no need. They took the opportunity of the rape scenario to tell us without the need to ask first.
And of course, they have the superior intellect and moral authority to teach ALL colors, cultures, and both sexes how it should be. But first, those who they view as having "the power" need to be beaten down, so that everything can be restructured to their way of thinking. Universities become boot camps.
Sadly, even with the incredible discoveries and outpouring of knowledge over the passed few hundred years, mankind itself has not changed. All the power struggles, etc., just have new wings and the noses have been painted.
Like I've said before, I have convictions as well. Were I able to pursue them, I'd be a hermit in a cave.
spread eagle --
I don't laud them, I just don't pillory them. The points of your post, compared against KC's blog, are debunked.
nicholas --
He has not maintained that all women are psychopaths
"... some psychopath (any woman at any time) ..."
Meaning you can point to any woman at any time and she is a psychopath. Or certainly close enough when you take the whole of his postings on this and other articles.
reality2007 --
Yeah, right. They do. You don't use all once in a while. You use it throughout your skreeds. Hence.
(Psst, Oligonicella, I know you'll need this spelled out for you, so I need to tell you this is called a 'rhetorical' question- that means you are not really supposed to answer it- I am making a point- there is no way to tell).
Um, piss off. I respond to what I want to. It's called a public forum, not a soap box. And 'rhetorical' statements are frequently false and inflammatory. Just read your own. As such, I'll respond if I wish. You also have the option of stopping your fingers from typing a response. Let's you set the example, eh?
In China, the law is that if someone falsely accuses someone of a crime, then that person must be punished for the crime they falsely accused that person of.
reality2007
Somehow that sounds biblical.
"Isn't the speaker supposed to be intelligent enough not to make such ass-hatted generalizations in the first place, and thus avoid the whole mess?"
Aren't you supposed to be intelligent enough to actually discuss the subject? If you would like to join the discussion, it is about false rape accusations. Let me guess, you don't have anything to say.
Pointing out someone's ass-hatted generalizations is staying on topic by exposing false and inflammatory dialogue meant to skew the discussion.
"Pointing out someone's ass-hatted generalizations is staying on topic by exposing false and inflammatory dialogue meant to skew the discussion."
If a woman was or was not a psycho, how would you know, and what difference does it make? It's like if rape became legal tomorrow and women were freaking out, saying this is crazy, and the only response from men is, "not all men are like that," "not all men would rape a woman."
Pick it up and get your act together and learn what is and isn't important. You're obviously very naive and sound like some college freshman, brainrinsed by some magina/femarroid professors.
Here's a question for all of PC police on here that are men- when you get your ass thrown in prison for 20 years (because you're all SO much more intelligent with your gay little sermon on stereotyping) because you gave the woman who falsely accused of rape the benefit of a doubt that she just 'wasn't like that,' (why else would you end up in this situation?) I wonder if all your fellow inmates that are raping you up the ass for real daily, all day long, for the next 20 years, I wonder if they'll be politically correct as well?
"Now, at the same time they are NOT heroes. They made some bad and immoral choices along the way.... And yes, I did say immoral. It's an irrefutable fact. If YOU are a true conservative then you know in your heart of hearts that's true. Or, maybe it's just in your parallel universe that woman-respecting family-values conservatives hire strippers to perform at keg parties and which are explained away as boys will be boys...."
-----------------------------------
What, pray, is "irrefutably immoral" about hiring the services of adults who voluntarily offer and advertise themselves as strippers, to perform on private premises for the benefit of other consenting adults? Who is victimized? Where's the harm? Is it immoral of women to visit Chippendale's or to hire a male stripper? Is it immoral when black people hire white strippers, or just the other way round? Such behavior is certainly not illegal.
Isn't it the essense of conservatism that freedom of contract should be inviolate and that private consensual behavior be free from governmental coercion? And how do "family values" (marital fidelity, responsible child-rearing etc.) have any bearing on this, given that these students were unmarried and not parents?
Immoral? Not so much irrefutable fact as unsupportable opinion.
Our local village misogynistic sociopath wrote: Yes, not all women are capable of making a false accusation, but they do all have the power to put a man in prison for it and even if caught lying, nothing will happen to them legally or any other way- they are free to falsely accuse all day long, whereas if a man really does rape a woman and is caught, he is going to prison, period.
Wrong. There are women who have been prosecuted and punished for false accusations of rape, and there are also men who have been caught after committing a rape, but never spent a day in prison.
You exaggerations are just silly. It is not legal to level false accusations of rape, it is already a crime. The issue is that it is an underpenalized and underprosecuted crime, especially given the frequency at which false accusations occur, and the severity of the consequences of a "successful" false accusation.
This creates an environment where there is relatively little danger in levelling a false accusation, and therefore we see far too much of it, as there are a much larger number of "rational actors" of weak moral character who will see the "reward" as outweighing the risk, and therefore choose to do it.
This needs to change. The penalties need to be much larger, the prosecutions need to be much more high-profile, and the message needs to get out that this cannot be tolerated.
It will be hard to meet that goal when radical third-wave gender feminists are fighting against it all the way, because it clashes so severely with their own narrative that women simply don't lie about rape (or so few do that it doesn't matter).
More than enough of them do lie, and it clearly does matter.
The LVMS then says: But here's my question: How am supposed to know if a woman wouldn't be capable of making a false accusation? Because she has pretty teeth? Because she smells nice? Because she tells me she wouldn't?
The truth is, any human is capable of levelling the accusation. You're operating from a false premise if you think anyone can't. The vast majority never would, but they all have free will, and that means they can do evil.
If you can't deal with the fact that humans can do evil, you've got much bigger problems on your hands than false rape accusations.
Under that standard, it's more-or-less impossible for you to interact in society at all, because you can't know for sure that any person isn't going to just slit your throat at any given moment. You'd therefore have to treat everyone as an amoral pyschopath.
We live in a society, though, and the presence of laws and punishments acts as a deterrent, which prevents people from randomly violating each other for whatever minor advantage they see from it. Anyone can do significant evil, but most won't do it casually... in no small part because the risk greatly outweighs the benefit (and a great number of people have a strong enough moral code that they wouldn't even without the risk of punishment).
The problem is not that women (or any other human for that matter) can do this. The problem is that there is vastly too little punishment being applied to those who actually do it, and therefore we see way too much.
Some of those without a strong moral code will, at the margins, be willing to exploit the imbalance between risk and perceived benefit, and use the accusation as a weapon.
When the punishment is raised to fit the level of the crime, and public starts seeing successful high-profile prosecutions for this crime happening more often, then we'll see the problem start to get fixed. The solution has nothing to do with amorality or psychosis among half the population, or how to treat them because of it. It has everything to do with a lack of proper deterrence.
When the risk greatly outweighs the perceived benefit, the vast majority of the "rational actors" at the margin who today would be willing to level a false accusation (because it's relatively easy and low-risk today)will no longer do so. That's about the best we can hope for, as at that point it would be little different from any other crime that takes place today.
LVMS: It's like if rape became legal tomorrow and women were freaking out, saying this is crazy, and the only response from men is, "not all men are like that," "not all men would rape a woman."
It would be like that it were LEGAL today for a woman to level a false accusation of rape against a man at will, on a whim.
It's not legal to do so, so it's not like that. It's not punished nearly often enough or nearly severely enough, but it's also not legal. Acting like it is doesn't solve anything.
A better analogy would be to say that it would be like men only being prosecuted for rape as often as women were prosecuted for false accusations (as a percentage of actual events), and if men were only receiving the same kinds of token punishment for rape when convicted as many women face if convicted of levelling a false rape charge.
And that would be pretty-much equally outrageous.
Rather than railing about all women being amoral psychopaths, why not focus on the real problem: the lack of prosecutions and punishments taking place for this crime, and the politically correct environment that fosters a travesty like this?
Unless, of course, your real goal is just to spew misogyny.
LVMS: If you would like to join the discussion, it is about false rape accusations. Let me guess, you don't have anything to say.
Yet oddly enough, when people actually do bring up on-topic points regarding the problems of false rape accusations, you don't actually engage them on those points. You instead choose to spew misogynistic bile, homophobic insults and other claptrap... anything but actually engaging others about what you acknowledge is the actual subject of discussion.
Occam's Razor would indicate that it's because you're more interested in being provocative than in seeking solutions.
In other words, that you're a troll.
michael: Isn't it the essense of conservatism that freedom of contract should be inviolate and that private consensual behavior be free from governmental coercion?
No, that sounds more like the essence of libertarianism. Not at all the same thing.
I don't recall legalizing prostitution being a plank in any "true conservative" political platform, nor drug legalization for that matter, nor abolition of all "blue laws".
All positions consistent with your quote, and fully consistent with libertarianism. "True conservatism"? Not so much...
"There are women who have been prosecuted and punished for false accusations of rape, and there are also men who have been caught after committing a rape, but never spent a day in prison."
This is about survival and seeing between the lines and realizing the real truth- that is why I'm a winner and you are a loser.
Listen and shut up and you might be in danger of learning something about the real world little man- at the end of the day and in the big picture it doesn't matter. 95% of the time men get buried under the jail and women get a slap on the wrist. We have to have the laws there for false accusations just for show- otherwise it would all be too obvious. It's all wink wink.
"If you can't deal with the fact that humans can do evil, you've got much bigger problems on your hands than false rape accusations."
You can't even deal with the truth and the real world, much less evil, Oppie. Men do evil, but the laws do not facillitate and enable them to do so. You are one confused individual. How do you even make it through one day? I was laughing out loud reading your 'rebuttals.'
Even if I was a ' village misogynist sociopath,' you are the village idiot. If I had choice I'd definately take the first one. You obviously don't even know what a 'sociopath' is (do you get your education from Oprah and Montel?). A sociopath is an individual who is a social cameleon, adapting their behavior to whatever social situation they are in- if they're around jocks, they behave and dress like jocks, around nerds, they behave and dress like nerds. If I were a sociopath I would be blending in with everyone else here, not rocking the boat. Save your twenty-five cent 'psychoanalysis' for your dog.
"We live in a society, though, and the presence of laws and punishments acts as a deterrent, which prevents people from randomly violating each other for whatever minor advantage they see from it. Anyone can do significant evil, but most won't do it casually... in no small part because the risk greatly outweighs the benefit (and a great number of people have a strong enough moral code that they wouldn't even without the risk of punishment)."
Golly, is that how it works? This sounds like something a bright thirteen year-old would write for his junior high writing class. You aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know, and the points you made about the problems with the legal system and women is just a cold oatmeal style of saying everything I've already more or less said. Whatever...
"The solution has nothing to do with amorality or psychosis among half the population, or how to treat them because of it. It has everything to do with a lack of proper deterrence."
The amorality and mental instability of women (with the law backing them up)is part of the problem- not the solution.. are you on drugs? You're not even thinking straight here.
"A better analogy would be to say that it would be like men only being prosecuted for rape as often as women were prosecuted for false accusations (as a percentage of actual events), and if men were only receiving the same kinds of token punishment for rape when convicted as many women face if convicted of levelling a false rape charge."
No, that analogy is nowhere as good as mine- mine is far more appropriate for the situation, yours is just goofy.
"You instead choose to spew misogynistic bile, homophobic insults"
'Spew misogynistic bile?' You go to Stat Trek conventions don't you?
"Occam's Razor would indicate that it's because you're more interested in being provocative than in seeking solutions.
In other words, that you're a troll."
...and you live with mother, don't you?
Get a job.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aren't you supposed to be intelligent enough to actually discuss the subject? If you would like to join the discussion, it is about false rape accusations. Let me guess, you don't have anything to say.
No need to guess; scroll up to my comment logged at 4:15pm on 8/27 regarding "Collective Justice."
And so, the problem with those who supported railroading three innocent white men was not the hoax supporters’ connection to reality, but their immorality. The Duke Rape Hoax was a study in evil.
As for feminism, the tenured feminists and their student sycophants are the beneficiaries of the third era in American feminism. The third era began with the publication of communist propagandist Betty Friedan/Freedman’s The Feminine Mystique, which likened suburban, middle-class households to “concentration camps.” This era fabricated a phony history with phony oppression, to justify its sexist hatred, its greed, and its lust for totalitarian power. The pendulum wasn’t swinging too far in response to injustice; the whole movement was an injustice.
Well said, NickS.
And props to BarryK as well.
but isnt it a sad reflection on society that we have people like reality, and others (myself included), that has to be very careful, in our choice of partners.
a certain vocal minority of women, destroy any chance of men finding a partner because of these bad people. now i say be wary of any woman, and i mean any woman, because they may be a card carrying man hating psychopath. due to the actions of this small minority.
its become, you dont dare talk to a woman, in a bar, let alone walk her home, or even have sex with her.. the risk of being called a rapist, or worse, is there and present.
its like playing russian roulette with 3 live rounds, the chance is there, dare you play it. the only way to win is to not play..
and thats what men are doing.
[Out of touch with] reality2007 wrote:
The amorality and mental instability of women (with the law backing them up)is part of the problem- not the solution.. are you on drugs? You're not even thinking straight here.
The closest thing to a "solution" you've proposed on the entire thread has been:
Unfortunately for women, this appears to be an almost exclusively female psychiatric disorder. We need to begin putting these people under a microscope and begin to do exhaustive research, because it is that important and it is a problem that has always been with us, and it is not a problem that is just going to go away.
From your 12:05 PM, August 27, 2007 "some psychopath (any woman at any time)" post.
The road to solving this issue is not through putting 51% of the world's population under a microscope with an intensive research program. That's why I said the solution had nothing to do with your flailings about women being amoral psychopaths.
I've outlined a reasonable road to getting the problem fixed. You clearly don't want to engage those proposals.
The vast majority of false accusations are coming not from those who are so detached from reality that they can't tell the truth from fantasy (and we'll never stop those), but instead from the bad actors at the margins who are exploiting the lack of enforcement and weak penalties.
Fixing the enforcement and penalty issues, as I've outlined numerous times already, wipes out the bulk of the problem, and this will fall to the same category as any other crime.
What did you expect your "extensive research" program to recommend? Some vaccine to immunize women from those amoral psychosis cooties they get from having XX genes? A gene therapy program? Reduced citizenship rights and police supervision? A new set of "Speaking While Female" laws?
Your proposal solves nothing. It's merely provocative rage-venting.
Get real, get practical, and get engaged in discussing REAL solutions, or just admit that you're not really interested in solving this... that you just want to stir things up and fling feces at the walls.
mercurior, what's destroying the dynamic between men and women in this case isn't the fact that some small percentage of women who are "card carrying man hating psychopath[s]".
It's the utterly toxic nature of Political Correctness that we've allowed to metastasize around this.
It's the condemnation that society accepts when it's hurled at a man who points out that this particular woman really is a nutjob, and the PC-fostered society that stands idly by when epithets and false accusations are levelled at them.
False accusations of rape are a serious crime, but they're not treated nearly seriously enough. If they were, men wouldn't have to be afraid as they are now.
That's part of why this book is valuable: it points out the horrific consequences of this kind of third-wave gender feminist agitprop.
I think Helen rightly noted in the original post that this makes it a valuable tool. It might help with chipping away at the icebergs of mental sewage (of PC and "collective justice" thought a la BrainFromArous) that have formed around some otherwise-intelligent folks.
"Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths."
It is true that the true definition of 'sociopath' has been lost over time due to pop culture.
You see, the original definition of sociopath was and still isn't the same as 'anti-social.' I know it's going to be hard for you, but stop and try to use your brain for a second and think about it.
If 'sociopath' means 'anti-social,' then why not just say 'anti-social?' What happened was that 'sociopath' sounded more intellectual, so people like yourself, poorly educated and trying to impress, started using it to descibe someone is really just plain anti-social. I'm a lot older and I have a university degree and I remember the original defintion in my psychology courses. It's where the word came from in the first place.
It's the same thing that happened over time with the word 'provocative.' That word has been inappropriately used so much for so long, it has practically taken on a whole new meaning. I dated a therapist with a master's degree in psychology who was a lot younger and we spent an entire day aguing over the defintion of sociopath- they've even started teaching the wrong definition in schools now.
The DSM also says that homosexuality is not a mental illness. The DSM used to say homosexuality WAS a mental illness... until 1978.
It's all political and cultural, but I'm still right and you are still wrong.
"The road to solving this issue is not through putting 51% of the world's population under a microscope with an intensive research program."
That's exactly what the feminists have done for the last 40 years- they have put 50% of the population under a microscope, but all of they're 'conclusions' have all been based on fantasy. Time to turn the tables, but since we are men, we'll do real scientific research.
"The vast majority of false accusations are coming not from those who are so detached from reality that they can't tell the truth from fantasy (and we'll never stop those), but instead from the bad actors at the margins who are exploiting the lack of enforcement and weak penalties."
Wrong again. Like everyone else, you are confusing a character issue with a cultural issue. Mainstream women now feel justified to use (which is really abuse) the system. That is why it is called 'amorality.' Political correctness isn't going to solve anything, in fact political correctness is more than half the reason things are so screwed up.
"Fixing the enforcement and penalty issues, as I've outlined numerous times already, wipes out the bulk of the problem, and this will fall to the same category as any other crime."
I won't argue with that. Make any false accusation a felony.
"What did you expect your "extensive research" program to recommend? Some vaccine to immunize women from those amoral psychosis cooties they get from having XX genes? A gene therapy program? Reduced citizenship rights and police supervision? A new set of "Speaking While Female" laws?"
To end the societal breakdown, i.e., single motherhood, feral women, the spreading of veneral disease, broken homes, suicide.. I could go on all day. A lot of the problems with women today are public health issues.
"Get real, get practical, and get engaged in discussing REAL solutions, or just admit that you're not really interested in solving this... that you just want to stir things up and fling feces at the walls."
You just descibed what women do everyday, all day long. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop- because God knows the LAST thing any woman wnats to do is something constructive.
“Shaming tactics.” It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.
Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men’s issues, romance, etc.
The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion:
The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
Examples:
“You’re bitter!"
“You need to get over your anger at women.”
“You are so negative!”
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.
Examples:
“You need to get over your fear.”
“Step up and take a chance like a man!”
“You’re afraid of a strong woman!”
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”).
Examples:
“Stop whining!”
“Get over it!”
“Suck it up like a man!”
“You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
“You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
“Your fragile male ego …”
“Wow! You guys need to get a grip!
”Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (”yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.
Examples:
“Grow up!”
“You are so immature!”
“Do you live with your mother?”
“I’m not interested in boys. I’m interested in real men.”
“Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”
Response:
It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) - The Elevated Threat ChargeDiscussion:
The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
Examples:
“You guys are scary.”
“You make me feel afraid.”
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression.
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) - The Sour Grapes ChargeDiscussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.
Example:
“You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”
Response:
In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?” At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts ChargeDiscussion:
The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
Examples:
“You’re one of those right-wing wackos.”
“You’re an extremist”
“You sound like the KKK.”
“… more anti-feminist zaniness”
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are “out of the mainstream” is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of “False Compromise”).
Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.
Examples:
“Are you gay?”
“I need a real man, not a sissy.”
“You’re such a wimp.”
Response:
Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.
Examples:
“I’m not like that!”
“Stop generalizing!”
“That’s a sexist stereotype!”
Response:
One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.
Examples:
“You misogynist creep!”
“Why do you hate women?”
“Do you love your mother?”
“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
“You are mean-spirited.”
“You view women as doormats.”
“You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
“You are going to make me cry.”
Response:
One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
Charge of Instability (Code White) -
The White Padded Room ChargeDiscussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
Examples:
“You’re unstable.”
“You have issues.”
“You need therapy.”
“Weirdo!”
Response:
In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.
Examples:
“You are so materialistic.”
“You are so greedy.
”Response:
It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, “So you are saying I shouldn’t spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you —and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?”
Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -
The All-That-Glitters ChargeDiscussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.
Examples:
“If you didn’t go after bimbos, then …”
“How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?”
Response:
Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, “high-maintanence” women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) - The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.
Examples:
“I bet you are fat and ugly.”
“You can’t get laid!”
“Creep!”
“Loser!”
“Have you thought about the problem being you?”
Response:
This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation.
Examples:
“Stop being so negative.”
“You are so cynical.”
“If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.”
“C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.”
Response:
The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -
The Pink WhipDiscussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.
Examples:
“No woman will marry you with that attitude.”“Creeps like you will never get laid!”Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
If you want some constructive advice, here you go:
Eight Types of Women Men Should Avoid
1) The Spoiled Princess.
As the name indicates, these are the women who were materially spoiled while growing up. They’ll expect a man to spend all his money, go in debt, and then call him a buffoon when financial problems arise.
2) The fat chick.
Men like slim, sexy women -- not jiggling bags of lard. A normal man does not want a partner who weighs more than he does. Fat women should be avoided because they’re expensive to feed, embarrassing to be seen with, and could potentially crush a partner under their weight while having sex. There is no such thing as big and beautiful.
3) The career woman.
Of all the women listed so far, the career woman is among the worst. She’ll complain that women make less than men, but then complain that her boyfriend or husband is inadequate if he makes less than her. Since they’re at work all the time, they’ll be even more likely to cheat on you. The more obvious problem is that housework and childrearing will be neglected.
4) The college woman.
This is the stage women go through before becoming career women. The average college woman has been indoctrinated into feminism so heavily that there is no reasoning with her. Like a parrot, she mindlessly repeats what her feminist professors said, and considers herself a great “intellectual” for it. These women are among the most arrogant is existence.
5) The “used goods” woman.
These are the women who have been divorced and have one or more children. These days, such women are as young as twenty-two. These women should be avoided because they’re just looking for some chump to support their kids. Such women are already extorting money from some poor soul; don’t volunteer to be the next.
6) The party woman.
These are the women who constantly get drunk, sleep around, and have tramp stamps over their butt cracks. Many of them become addicted to illegal drugs such as cocaine or meth. These women are leeches and often carry various STDs. They spread their diseases and often try to drag other people into their addictions with them. Avoid these women if your value your health.
7) The woman who wants to be a man.
These women want to do everything a man does for no other reason than the fact men are doing it. Despite being physically inferior, they want to join the military. Others want to enter traditionally male fields such as law enforcement or fire fighting. Heterosexual men like feminine women, not lesbian wannabes.
8) The basket case
These are the women with severe mental issues. They cannot possibly be happy wherever they are, or whatever they are doing. They constantly pop their doctor-prescribed meds, but are still just as crazy as ever. When in a relationship, these women will always blame the male for their unhappiness. The male also becomes the focus point of their insanity, so avoid them at all costs!
This comment has been removed by the author.
"reality2007 then proceeds to spam a small mountain of provocative garbage lifted directly from americanwomensuck.com onto the thread without attribution, instead of just linking it."
No, it did not come from 'americanwomensuck.com' and there was no link because I had the list saved in a 'Word' document and copied and pasted it on.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
Read the list. It applies to you. Maybe you can actually learn something today.
Anyway....where were we?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Exactly one hit. I wonder where? But I'm sure it didn't actually come from there, so it's clearly not possible to provide a link to that."
Wow, that is SO fascinating, and an incredible waste of time, and also unfortunately it doesn't have anything to do with the content of the list, & that list is to inform you that you are wasting your time here.
Fly away fly.
you are wasting your time here
I agree. Anything further (and probably much of it up to this point) IS a waste of time.
No point in feeding a troll further, the points are made and there's no hope of anything constructive coming from trying to engage someone like you. So I'll stop trying.
(/scribbles quick Post-It note: Do Not Feed The Troll)
As br549 said, where were we?
exactly barry, but for the most part these type of women are the pc crowd. i have found the more vocal anti male, are the ones who expect women to be held to lower standards than men.
that they want rights and no responsibility, and men to have responsibility and no rights.
this tiny minority is more vocal, and politicians and the people in power, because they speak up, beleive everyone feels that way.
in an office you can have a picture of a male model, on a calender, but not a woman.
women can go to a male stripper and its a fun night out, when men go they are sad inadequate people.
Admittedly, I don't get out that much beyond errands, chores, and traveling for work. I do travel over most of the country. Most of the extreme agenda types, for me, are seen on the tube, or written about in printed magazines and on blogs. I just don't see them in day to day goings on. I don't think it is because I am an isolated individual, but believe it is because they aren't around in most every day goings on. Or if they are, they really tone it down.
Perhaps I've resided in areas that are more quiet than where they choose to take their stands, or make their standing waves, as it were.
Wasn't it Nixon who came up with the "silent majority" thing? Maybe it still holds. Desk tops and lap tops did not exist then, so maybe many more are being heard on all sides now. That is a good thing.
One of my favorite things about the 'net and cable is that there are so many more sources and opinions available than when it was network and newspapers only. Although, still, what is deemed newsworthy in the mainstream, and how it is presented, AND its content and depth, is controlled by someone else who decides what it is I shall see and hear. I just don't like that.
"No point in feeding a troll further, the points are made and there's no hope of anything constructive coming from trying to engage someone like you. So I'll stop trying.
(/scribbles quick Post-It note: Do Not Feed The Troll)
As br549 said, where were we?"
Where have you been? 'Troll' officially lost its meaning quite some time back. It used to mean someone who was being disruptive, just trying to derail a discussion. The irony is that I have been consistantly discussing the topic- just not in the way you like- that is not the same as 'trolling.' And in fact, people like you are the ones derailing the subject by wanting to talk about ME.
That is why 'troll' has now just became the buzzword/cliche all-purpose/dumpster word used to descibe simply anyone someone disagrees with. Nowadays, if you call someone a troll, you might as well be saying, "wa, I'm a spineless wimp and you're smarter than me. Wa."
Even if I was a 'troll,' I would still rather be that anyday than what you strike me as- a loser.
Here you go -- a frightening list that you don't hear enough about in the mainstream media:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
Sorry to change the subject slightly - but someone up there suggested that about 50% of rape allegations are false.
I don't buy this at all. I think that the figure for false accusations is nearer 80%.
The reason for this is simple Maths; viz that if 50% of allegations are false then this means that men are some FOUR times more likely to rape women than are women to make false allegations of rape; and I just do not believe that this is the case.
I simply cannot believe that men are four times as likely to rape, as women are to falsely accuse; e.g. see my piece entitled Rape Baloney ...
http://www.angryharry.com/esRapeBaloney.htm
(PS Thanks Dr Helen for a truly great blog.)
My concern is piqued at this time. But I will not put myself in a place where I could be accused of such a crime. It is not in my makeup. And it sure ain't worth it. Nothing is THAT good, as I've said before.
I really do enjoy talking to women, though. Ones who are self assured, easy going, happy with themselves, with life, who aren't constantly wondering if what I really want is something more than what is there.
Or if I'm imagining they may be thinking that, if I'm reading things wrong. Either way, it's too much trouble now-a-days. Somebody's missing out on a good one, that's all I gotta say about it. No brag, just fact.
Maybe everything truly is upside down now. You know, "all the good ones are taken", things like that.
Statements one used to hear women say about men.
its like walking in a crime ridden area, you may only get mugged once out of the 1,000 times you go there, but would you want to take the chance.
same with women, would you want to take the chance. its wrong to suggest EVERY woman is like that, there are some good ones out there, but the risk makes it unfeasible.
Feasible, schmeasible - as long as she's good in the sack.
(Sorry - I just wanted to elevate the discussion a bit. Did it work?)
Judge Rufus Peckham said...
"They see it as men's just desserts." So sad, Dr. Helen, that these ostensibly liberal women resort to the the worst sort of stereotyping and pre-judgment, as if ALL men deserve their arbitrary wrath.
Much of what was needed to free up womens lives was achieved very rapidly in the seventies. Subsequent to that the extremists seem to have held sway. There is a very discernable shift from a pro women to anti men movement in the late seventies - early eighties.
Stereotyping and prejudging is an area where later feminists seriously show their hypocrisy. Earlier feminists highlighted much of the stereotyping of women that existed. Interestingly the portrayals they objected to were mostly quite benign.
A couple of months ago Australian media published the statements of Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs OA. Prof Briggs was awarded her Order of Australia for her work in the field of child sexual abuse. She has the ear of politicians and public. She wants parents to keep their younger children away from teenage boys because they pose too great a risk of paedophilia. Perversely if one of those teenagers is sexually assaulted by a woman she would be highly unlikely to be punished even if caught. As those boys get older nothing will get any better.
M. Simon said...
One of the things that surprised me was that the incidence of rape (per capita) has declined 75% over the last 30 or 40 years.
And at the same time the definition of rape has been broadened substantially.
@Spread Eagle ®
You are substantially wrong in several of your claims surrounding the night in question. I would suggest you examine it a little more closely.
I would further suggest that you statements suggest you believe the black folks who live there who are considerably less advantaged economically than the average Duke student to also be less moral.
According to Glenn Sacks, there is some controversy over a quote from Linda Fairstein, who once headed the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. The quote is:
"There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."
I have used the quote in two of my columns, as one piece of evidence (among many) that false rape accusations are a problem. The columns are Research Shows False Accusations of Rape Common (Los Angeles Daily Journal & others, 9/15/04) and Kuehl's Spousal Rape Bill Will Harm Innocent Men (Sacramento News & Review, 6/15/06).
Recently Fairstein disavowed the quote, saying "I don't believe that and don't know where they got it," and that prosecutors "have to acknowledge that false accusations do happen, though they are less than 10% of reported rapes."
My source for the quote is law professor and legal commentator Alan Dershowitz, who quoted it in several of his newspaper columns and other writings during the mid-90s. (Others have used the quote, too, but I won't speculate on their sources).
It is not at all clear that Fairstein was misquoted--she may very well have said these exact words and forgotten (or preferred to forget) it. However, while she may have said it, because she now disavows the quote it would be misleading for me to continue using it. I have asked my webmaster to delete the quote from wherever it appears on www.glennsacks.com and www.hisside.com.
As to the question of how many rape claims are false, it depends on how you look at the question and what stage of the process (reporting, prosecution, etc.) you're examining. I do not and have not claimed to know the answer. What I have claimed and still do claim is that false claims of rape are common, and that all policies regarding rape must account for this.
I am curious if the book addresses bloggers like Amanda Marcotte that pushed up until and beyond the time the students were declared innocent, that the students were in fact guilty.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
ed hardy clothing Online Store - We wholesale and retail cheap ed hardy shirts
g including Ed Hardy Men's Clothing,ed hardy clothing Clothing,Ed Hardy Kids Clothing, ed hardy womens Sunglasses, Ed Hardy Swimwear and more.
性愛影片色咪咪影片網哈啦聊天室咆哮小老鼠影片aa成人漫畫葉晴貼影片影片轉檔程式情色影片foxy下載色情小說女影片免費下載a片aa免費看情色文學成人小說aa 片免費看影片 aa訊豆豆出租名模情人視訊aaa影片下載城男同志影片免費影片線上直播日本美女寫真集免費av18禁影片18成人卡通成人a片同志影片
Post a Comment
<< Home