Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 10, 2021
AOC's real target is MGTOW
Now she is associating white supremacy with the mythological patriarchy. I knew this is her angle. In fact I discuss it here.
Saturday, May 9, 2020
Rapist Joe goes back to school
The Unofficial Democratic Nominee for President, Joseph Biden, is doing two things: he is only looking for a female for vice-president. Proof that Biden is highly misandric. Also, Biden wants to put back into place the draconian mandate "dear colleague" which destroys the due process rigths of male students accused of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment on the nation's college and university campuses. Biden wants to destroy the due process rights of young college/university men. The same due process rights he clings to. Apparently, with Biden it is "due process for me but not for thee". Perhaps the men of America should send Joe Biden a message and that is: "because of me the Presidency is not for thee".
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Women who rape men
Writing in Time, Cathy Young notices something interesting in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures on rape: Women rape a lot more than people think..
If the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, " rape culture " is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.
How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7% in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7% of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person — usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "other sexual violence." And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being "made to penetrate" — either by physical force or due to intoxication — at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1% in 2010, and 1.7% and 1.6% respectively in 2011).
In short, men are raped by women at nearly the same rate women are raped by men.
According to a recent study from the University of Missouri, published by the American Psychological Association, male victims of sexual assault are often victimized by women: "A total of 43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95% said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity."
This shouldn't be so surprising. Back in the old days, when talk of "rape" or "sexual assault" generally meant forcible penetration at the hands of a stranger, rape was unsurprisingly pretty much a male-committed crime.
But feminists pushed for a broader definition of rape, going beyond what Susan Estrich, in a very influential book, derisively called Real Rape, to encompass other forms of sexual coercion and intimidation. And so now the term "rape" as it is commonly used encompasses things like "date rape," sex while a partner is intoxicated, sex without prior verbal consent and even — at Ohio State University, at least — sex where both partners consent, but for different reasons.
Unsurprisingly, when the definition of rape — or, as it's often now called in order to provide less clarity, "sexual assault" — expands to include a lot more than behavior distinguished by superior physical strength, the incidence of rape goes up, and behavior engaged in by women is more likely to be included in the definition. (At juvenile detention centers nine out of 10 reporters of sexual assault are males victimized by female staffers.)
Thus, as Young points out, the CDC finds that men make up over a third of the victims of "sexual coercion," which can include such things as "lies or false promises, threats to end a relationship or spread negative gossip, or 'making repeated requests' for sex and expressing unhappiness at being turned down."
Students and staff protest against sexual violence.
Critics tend to dismiss these as trivial, suggesting that the men involved should just "man up." But, of course, there's no reason to think that such coercion is any more trivial where men are concerned than where women are concerned, unless you believe that women are such fragile flowers that they cannot possibly withstand things that men are supposed to ignore.
It will be interesting to see how college disciplinary boards handle this. If, in light of the data, women exhibit a similar predilection for sexual misbehavior to men, then surely the colleges should be punishing roughly as many women as men for such conduct. If they are not, the only possible explanation is some form of institutional sexism. That should be good news for Title IX attorneys, at any rate.
Finally, all this talk of rape on campus must be making college enrollment officers — already having trouble filling seats — even more nervous. Telling female students that they have a one-in-five chance of being raped (even if it's not true) isn't going to make them, or their parents, more likely to spend six-figure sums sending them to college. It might even push them toward online alternatives, as a YouTube parody video suggests.
With rape rates actually falling sharply, the current moral panic over campus rape seems more like political agitprop and mass hysteria than anything else. Like all such, this, too, will pass. But it will also do damage along the way. May reason assert itself sooner, rather than later.
Source
If the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, " rape culture " is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.
How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7% in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7% of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person — usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "other sexual violence." And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being "made to penetrate" — either by physical force or due to intoxication — at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1% in 2010, and 1.7% and 1.6% respectively in 2011).
In short, men are raped by women at nearly the same rate women are raped by men.
According to a recent study from the University of Missouri, published by the American Psychological Association, male victims of sexual assault are often victimized by women: "A total of 43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95% said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity."
This shouldn't be so surprising. Back in the old days, when talk of "rape" or "sexual assault" generally meant forcible penetration at the hands of a stranger, rape was unsurprisingly pretty much a male-committed crime.
But feminists pushed for a broader definition of rape, going beyond what Susan Estrich, in a very influential book, derisively called Real Rape, to encompass other forms of sexual coercion and intimidation. And so now the term "rape" as it is commonly used encompasses things like "date rape," sex while a partner is intoxicated, sex without prior verbal consent and even — at Ohio State University, at least — sex where both partners consent, but for different reasons.
Unsurprisingly, when the definition of rape — or, as it's often now called in order to provide less clarity, "sexual assault" — expands to include a lot more than behavior distinguished by superior physical strength, the incidence of rape goes up, and behavior engaged in by women is more likely to be included in the definition. (At juvenile detention centers nine out of 10 reporters of sexual assault are males victimized by female staffers.)
Thus, as Young points out, the CDC finds that men make up over a third of the victims of "sexual coercion," which can include such things as "lies or false promises, threats to end a relationship or spread negative gossip, or 'making repeated requests' for sex and expressing unhappiness at being turned down."
Students and staff protest against sexual violence.
Critics tend to dismiss these as trivial, suggesting that the men involved should just "man up." But, of course, there's no reason to think that such coercion is any more trivial where men are concerned than where women are concerned, unless you believe that women are such fragile flowers that they cannot possibly withstand things that men are supposed to ignore.
It will be interesting to see how college disciplinary boards handle this. If, in light of the data, women exhibit a similar predilection for sexual misbehavior to men, then surely the colleges should be punishing roughly as many women as men for such conduct. If they are not, the only possible explanation is some form of institutional sexism. That should be good news for Title IX attorneys, at any rate.
Finally, all this talk of rape on campus must be making college enrollment officers — already having trouble filling seats — even more nervous. Telling female students that they have a one-in-five chance of being raped (even if it's not true) isn't going to make them, or their parents, more likely to spend six-figure sums sending them to college. It might even push them toward online alternatives, as a YouTube parody video suggests.
With rape rates actually falling sharply, the current moral panic over campus rape seems more like political agitprop and mass hysteria than anything else. Like all such, this, too, will pass. But it will also do damage along the way. May reason assert itself sooner, rather than later.
Source
Thursday, April 18, 2019
A victim of Cardi B steps forward
Cardi B's drugging scandal just got worse. A man has come forward to claim that he was once drugged by Cardi B, and robbed. And a new hashtag has been created to highlight Cardi victimizing men- #SurvivingCardiB.
A man has come forward claiming that he was drugged by Cardi, then he was beaten and robbed by Cardi and her gang.
Before the alleged first victim came forward this morning, Cardi B was working overtime to thwart the pending 'drugging' scandal.
Yesterday Cardi was forced to speak out and defend herself against detractors who watched the Instagram video showing Bardi recalling that she drugged and robbed men when she worked as a stripper.
The scandal popped off this weekend, when a three-year-old video that was shared on social media over the weekend, Cardi, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, explained that she drugged men and then robbed them. Cardi claimed that she was "forced" to rob the men in order to make it in the music industry and secure studio time.
The rapper originally posted the video in response to someone who said she did not deserve her success. She said she would drug and rob men who wanted to have sex with her during her time as a stripper in New York.
The Grammy-winning rapper initially brushed off the social media backlash in separate tweets on Sunday and Monday.
But she addressed the controversy in a lengthy post on Tuesday and said that she has not glorified her past behavior or referred to it in her music because she is not proud of it.
"I made the choices I did at the time because I had very limited options," she said. "I was blessed to have been able to rise from that but so many women have not."
Source
A man has come forward claiming that he was drugged by Cardi, then he was beaten and robbed by Cardi and her gang.
Before the alleged first victim came forward this morning, Cardi B was working overtime to thwart the pending 'drugging' scandal.
Yesterday Cardi was forced to speak out and defend herself against detractors who watched the Instagram video showing Bardi recalling that she drugged and robbed men when she worked as a stripper.
The scandal popped off this weekend, when a three-year-old video that was shared on social media over the weekend, Cardi, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, explained that she drugged men and then robbed them. Cardi claimed that she was "forced" to rob the men in order to make it in the music industry and secure studio time.
The rapper originally posted the video in response to someone who said she did not deserve her success. She said she would drug and rob men who wanted to have sex with her during her time as a stripper in New York.
The Grammy-winning rapper initially brushed off the social media backlash in separate tweets on Sunday and Monday.
But she addressed the controversy in a lengthy post on Tuesday and said that she has not glorified her past behavior or referred to it in her music because she is not proud of it.
"I made the choices I did at the time because I had very limited options," she said. "I was blessed to have been able to rise from that but so many women have not."
Source
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Feminist's son is accused of rape
I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.
It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”
That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.
In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.
These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.
How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.
The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.
The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.
That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.
There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.
I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.
Source
Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.
It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”
That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.
In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.
These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.
How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.
The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.
The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.
That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.
There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.
I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.
Source
Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
George Will does not get it or MGTOW in action
Why Are Millions of Men Choosing Not to Work By George Will
American men who choose not to work are choosing lives of quiet self-emasculation.
The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force-participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs. The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression–scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis, which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this: Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosen to not seek work are two and a half times more numerous than men that government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs. What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” Only about 15 percent of men 25 to 54 who worked not at all in 2014 said they were unemployed because they could not find work. For 50 years, the number of men in that age cohort who are neither working nor looking for work has grown nearly four times faster than the number who are working or seeking work. And the pace of this has been “almost totally uninfluenced by the business cycle.”
The “economically inactive” have eclipsed the unemployed, as government statistics measure them, as “the main category of men without jobs.” Those statistics were created before government policy and social attitudes made it possible to be economically inactive.
Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010 there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million nonfarm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever. America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of those in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”
America’s economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Yet America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’”
In 1965, even high-school dropouts were more likely to be in the workforce than is the 25 to 54 male today. And, Eberstadt notes, “the collapse of work for modern America’s men happened despite considerable upgrades in educational attainment.” The collapse has coincided with a retreat from marriage (“the proportion of never-married men was over three times higher in 2015 than 1965″), which suggests a broader infantilization. As does the use to which the voluntarily idle put their time — for example, watching TV and movies 5.5 hours daily, two hours more than men who are counted as unemployed because they are seeking work. Eberstadt, noting that the 1996 welfare reform “brought millions of single mothers off welfare and into the workforce,” suggests that policy innovations that alter incentives can reverse the “social emasculation” of millions of idle men. Perhaps. Reversing social regression is more difficult than causing it. One manifestation of regression, Donald Trump, is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning, self-esteem, and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.
Source
It is George Will and other blue pill conservatives like him that do not see what is obvious to those of us in the manosphere. In fact we called it right. Feminism begets gynocentricity,gynocentricity begets misandry and the results of misandry are the situation we have today. Men are checking out and I don't blame them. Men are figuring why give a fuck about a society that doesn't give a fuck about them. Politicians cater to women at the expense of men. California is scraping its statue of limitations for sex crimes. Why? I guess to crucify Bill Cosby when he is tried there. The democrats changed the law to lynch a black man. I guess they are the Dixie party after all.
American men who choose not to work are choosing lives of quiet self-emasculation.
The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force-participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs. The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression–scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis, which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this: Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosen to not seek work are two and a half times more numerous than men that government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs. What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” Only about 15 percent of men 25 to 54 who worked not at all in 2014 said they were unemployed because they could not find work. For 50 years, the number of men in that age cohort who are neither working nor looking for work has grown nearly four times faster than the number who are working or seeking work. And the pace of this has been “almost totally uninfluenced by the business cycle.”
The “economically inactive” have eclipsed the unemployed, as government statistics measure them, as “the main category of men without jobs.” Those statistics were created before government policy and social attitudes made it possible to be economically inactive.
Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010 there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million nonfarm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever. America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of those in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”
America’s economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Yet America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’”
In 1965, even high-school dropouts were more likely to be in the workforce than is the 25 to 54 male today. And, Eberstadt notes, “the collapse of work for modern America’s men happened despite considerable upgrades in educational attainment.” The collapse has coincided with a retreat from marriage (“the proportion of never-married men was over three times higher in 2015 than 1965″), which suggests a broader infantilization. As does the use to which the voluntarily idle put their time — for example, watching TV and movies 5.5 hours daily, two hours more than men who are counted as unemployed because they are seeking work. Eberstadt, noting that the 1996 welfare reform “brought millions of single mothers off welfare and into the workforce,” suggests that policy innovations that alter incentives can reverse the “social emasculation” of millions of idle men. Perhaps. Reversing social regression is more difficult than causing it. One manifestation of regression, Donald Trump, is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning, self-esteem, and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.
Source
It is George Will and other blue pill conservatives like him that do not see what is obvious to those of us in the manosphere. In fact we called it right. Feminism begets gynocentricity,gynocentricity begets misandry and the results of misandry are the situation we have today. Men are checking out and I don't blame them. Men are figuring why give a fuck about a society that doesn't give a fuck about them. Politicians cater to women at the expense of men. California is scraping its statue of limitations for sex crimes. Why? I guess to crucify Bill Cosby when he is tried there. The democrats changed the law to lynch a black man. I guess they are the Dixie party after all.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
California wants to eliminate the statue of limitations when it comes to rape cases
Supporters urge governor to sign bill ending statute of limitations for prosecuting rape
Flanked by alleged sexual assault victims and their supporters, state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) urged Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday to end California's statute of limitations for rape.
The Legislature sent Leyva's bill, SB 813, to Brown last week. He has until Sept 30 to sign the bill, which would end the time limit in California for prosecuting rape, child sexual abuse and other felony sex crimes.
"This bill does not abolish the very high burden-of-proof standard," Leyva said at a state Capitol news conference. "[SB] 813 simply ensures that the door does not slam in the face of victims."
Several of those who spoke in support of the bill said they were sexually assaulted. They were joined by attorney Gloria Allred, who said she met with representatives from the governor's office Tuesday morning. Allred is representing more than 30 women who say comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them.
"For almost all of them, wherever the alleged sexual misconduct is said to have taken place, no criminal case will be filed," Allred said. "For most of these accusations it was simply too late for a prosecutor to even consider them." Several of the alleged assaults occurred in California.
Allred said that a number of Cosby's accusers "had no idea" there was a statute of limitations for rape prosecutions.
A woman identified only as Linda said at the news conference that she was sexually assaulted by Cosby in the 1970s and supports changing the law in California.
"I didn't report the assault because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I did go to law enforcement at that time," she said.
Cosby, who has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual, is being tried in Pennsylvania on three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault. The charges were filed just before that state's 12-year statute of limitations would have expired.
In California, the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the alleged victim turns 40.
Source
Let's take a look at SB 813 and see what it says. On the official website all I read was blah blah blah. So I went to the website of the bitch that authored this monstrosity and this is what I read:
SACRAMENTO – On the first day of the 2016 legislative session, Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) today introduced important bipartisan legislation to end the statute of limitations for rape and related crimes in California.
Source
Now let's let that sink in. Especially if you've been accused of sexual misconduct in the past. There are a ton of problems with this bill. Memories fade,witnesses die. Who is going to remember clearly what happened 40 or 50 years ago. This is a "get men" bill and we need to oppose it. The best way to do that would be to contact Governor Jerry Brown and let him know that SB 813 is a bad bill and that he should veto it. The more of us he hears from the better and so goes California so goes the nation. Stopping it here means you can spare your state from monstrous bills like SB 813.
Flanked by alleged sexual assault victims and their supporters, state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) urged Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday to end California's statute of limitations for rape.
The Legislature sent Leyva's bill, SB 813, to Brown last week. He has until Sept 30 to sign the bill, which would end the time limit in California for prosecuting rape, child sexual abuse and other felony sex crimes.
"This bill does not abolish the very high burden-of-proof standard," Leyva said at a state Capitol news conference. "[SB] 813 simply ensures that the door does not slam in the face of victims."
Several of those who spoke in support of the bill said they were sexually assaulted. They were joined by attorney Gloria Allred, who said she met with representatives from the governor's office Tuesday morning. Allred is representing more than 30 women who say comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them.
"For almost all of them, wherever the alleged sexual misconduct is said to have taken place, no criminal case will be filed," Allred said. "For most of these accusations it was simply too late for a prosecutor to even consider them." Several of the alleged assaults occurred in California.
Allred said that a number of Cosby's accusers "had no idea" there was a statute of limitations for rape prosecutions.
A woman identified only as Linda said at the news conference that she was sexually assaulted by Cosby in the 1970s and supports changing the law in California.
"I didn't report the assault because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I did go to law enforcement at that time," she said.
Cosby, who has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual, is being tried in Pennsylvania on three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault. The charges were filed just before that state's 12-year statute of limitations would have expired.
In California, the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the alleged victim turns 40.
Source
Let's take a look at SB 813 and see what it says. On the official website all I read was blah blah blah. So I went to the website of the bitch that authored this monstrosity and this is what I read:
SACRAMENTO – On the first day of the 2016 legislative session, Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) today introduced important bipartisan legislation to end the statute of limitations for rape and related crimes in California.
Source
Now let's let that sink in. Especially if you've been accused of sexual misconduct in the past. There are a ton of problems with this bill. Memories fade,witnesses die. Who is going to remember clearly what happened 40 or 50 years ago. This is a "get men" bill and we need to oppose it. The best way to do that would be to contact Governor Jerry Brown and let him know that SB 813 is a bad bill and that he should veto it. The more of us he hears from the better and so goes California so goes the nation. Stopping it here means you can spare your state from monstrous bills like SB 813.
Friday, July 8, 2016
So that's who's behind it
College association calls civil-rights agency a ‘Star Chamber’
It may have confused some observers why a constitutional law professor-turned-president would preside over the most blatant denial of due process rights to college students in recent history.
An intriguing Washington Post analysis might have the answer: President Barack Obama ceded all responsibility for campus sexual-assault to his vice president before they were even in office.
And Joe Biden has proven a zealot without any regard for the rights of students who face accusations bereft of any evidence beyond an accuser’s oft-fuzzy memory:
Biden said he spoke to Obama about the issue even before they won the White House in 2008, requesting a staff to work on violence against women “within the office of the vice president,” rather than at the Justice Department.
“He said, ‘Okay.’ He knew how strongly I felt about it,” Biden said, adding that over time Obama became more engaged with the issue.
Biden’s influence has apparently led the White House to judge all colleges that provide a fair process for accused students as cavalierly harboring rapists:
According to White House officials, top members of the administration — including the president, the vice president, their wives and members of the Cabinet — will not visit institutions whose leaders they consider insufficiently serious about pursuing sexual-assault allegations and punishing perpetrators.
Biden told the Post he also wants the feds to “take away their money” if schools provide basic fairness to accused students.
That echoes the federal funding threats made by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) when universities don’t immediately turn their adjudication proceedings into a fait accompli, as happened at Tufts University in 2014.
An official with the American Council on Education, which represents 1,600 college and university presidents at the federal level, aptly characterized OCR as “a Court of Star Chamber, with arbitrary rulings, no rights for those under investigation and a secret process” governing schools who fall under Title IX investigation.
Meanwhile, the legality of OCR’s “guidance” on Title IX is the subject of at least three federal lawsuits by students or their parents – meaning it’s likely that whoever succeeds Obama and Biden will have to clean up the legal mess they left.
Source
Sunday, June 12, 2016
A scrape on campus: holes in the Stanford rape conviction
After years of faking campus rape cases (Columbia University, University of Virginia, Ohio University, Duke University, Occidental University, and so on) feminists finally found a supposedly legitimate case of campus rape and pushed it to a conviction in the Stanford rape trial of jejune Freshman Brock Turner. The judge sentenced Brock to a scanty six-month term of imprisonment, which has angered people across the political spectrum and calls and petitions are demanding the judge’s removal.
What could have motivated an otherwise law-and-order judge to issue such a light sentence, when he could have sent the first-time offender away for up to 14 years? I believe that a close reading of the victim’s own impact statement, delivered by her aloud in court after the guilty verdict, offers clues that tend to undermine the prosecution’s case and support Brock’s claims that “Updie” had consented to their ill-fated sexual encounter as a part of a scam to further push both her own enrichment and the feminist agenda.
You can read Updie’s statement here. It is long and harrowing so you may have to read it twice to see how badly she screwed up her case. Unfortunately, because of rape shield laws, the information she revealed was not used at trial – victim impact statements are not probative in trials because they are only given at sentencing and normally they only cover the aftermath of a crime. Updie, however, led the court through the entire evening of the alleged rape and in doing so wound up saying way too much.
The judge, who would have been keenly attuned to the many subtle admissions Updie let slip out, had to feel a growing horror as he realized his court had been subverted from a place of legal justice to a tool of the Social Justice vengeance against men. Updie is lucky that Brock got any more jail time at all – the judge could have let him off with time served.
Here are some of the howlers Updie revealed in her statement. Updie’s words are indicated with green font. My analysis follows each section.
Your Honor, if it is all right, for the majority of this statement I would like to address the defendant directly.
Slighting the judge to lambaste the accused directly was not a wise start. The judge wanted to hear items related to sentencing, not her vengeful verbal assault on the scared boy sitting at the defendant’s table. The judge’s ears had to be burning – what details and slip-ups was she going to give to self-sabotage her own case?
On January 17th, 2015, it was a quiet Saturday night at home. My dad made some dinner and I sat at the table with my younger sister who was visiting for the weekend. I was working full time and it was approaching my bed time. I planned to stay at home by myself, watch some TV and read, while she went to a party with her friends. Then, I decided it was my only night with her, I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister.
The virtue-signalling in her introduction is not only annoying, it hints at a guilty mind already spinning a fantastical account of an innocent encounter. Then, out of the blue, we get the first damning admission:
On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there.
A man who fantasized about “big papa” partying with little girls in braces would be dealt with harshly. I see no reason to go easy on a female pedophile, either. The judge had to be paying full attention now. In fact, Updie was 22 and a college graduate at the time of the party. Brock was a freshman.
I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college. The next thing I remember I was on a gurney in a hallway.
Updie admits she is an experienced hard-partier – she surely knew what the implications of over-drinking at a hookup frat party were. Notice also that her memory of the party and its aftermath was supposedly nil so that any other detail she gives about the experience is either concocted, or in direct contradiction to her own statement, or perhaps both.
I knew no one at this party.
Um, her sister was there, and Updie admitted to speaking to her sister earlier that same evening.
My boyfriend did not know what happened, but called that day and said, “I was really worried about you last night, you scared me, did you make it home okay?” I was horrified. That’s when I learned I had called him that night in my blackout, left an incomprehensible voicemail, that we had also spoken on the phone, but I was slurring so heavily he was scared for me, that he repeatedly told me to go find [my sister]. Again, he asked me, “What happened last night? Did you make it home okay?” I said yes, and hung up to cry.
Updie lies to her boyfriend about being okay at the party. One motivation for a woman faking a rape is to cover up infidelity in an established relationship. Updie had been caught by her boyfriend partying with a bunch of younger men. Suddenly the defense would’ve had a new avenue to explore – was the rape claim a ruse to get Updie off the hook for straying? – but this revelation came too late to be used at trial. The judge had to be cringing inside at this.
One day, I was at work, scrolling through the news on my phone, and came across an article. In it, I read and learned for the first time about how I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize. This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me.
Up until this point Updie had no clue about what had happened to her, nor who had done it. The idea that she just stumbled onto her own anonymous case and recognized it as her own strains credulity. Her name has never been revealed, as far as I can tell. She had no memory of what happened – supposedly – yet now she just magically happened to remember that this was her? Oops. Even Updie admits this is miraculous:
When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me, this can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information.
Perhaps that is because it is all confabulation? I have searched for the article she described without success.
The night after it happened, he said he didn’t know my name, said he wouldn’t be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn’t mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing…When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn’t know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away.
How does Updie know that Brock kissed Updie’s sister? Updie had claimed she didn’t remember anything and Brock had no way of guessing sororal relationships in a dark, drunken frat house. Perhaps in her haste to demonize Brock for hitting on her sister, Updie has accidentally shown that she was more functional than her other statements allow for.
He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me.
Updie was not alone, her sister was right there, making kissy-face with Brock. Jealousy is another reason women fake rape claims.
Sometimes I think, if I hadn’t gone, then this never would’ve happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else.
This is standard feminist boilerplate to excuse their own risky behaviors by claiming they were saving some other girl – another girl who might have been happy to hook up with a noted athlete. This is the third reason women fake rape claims – to further the feminist agenda that all men are bad. A judge hearing this might well realize that Brock was being used as a pawn in a feminist game.
The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub. Never mentioned me voicing consent, never mentioned us even speaking, a back rub.
More of the feminist agenda – although nonverbal clues are 80% or more of communication, feminists know they can artificially inflate rape rates by insisting on a verbal consent standard that no one actually uses during sex because there are better things do to with one’s mouth.
One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it.
Do they really put details like that into public news about rape cases without contacting the victim? Again, credulity is strained.
I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on.
Settle? While one might well settle a civil case, “settling” a criminal case doesn’t really work in this context. Updie seems to be talking about some sort of civil case with monetary damages instead of a criminal trial. This is the fourth reason women fake rape claims: money. But, surprising Updie, Brock decides to fight the charges.
It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet.
Nearly raped? Doesn’t “nearly raped mean “not raped”?
When I was told to be prepared in case we didn’t win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me.
More feminist agenda: get rid of due process of law, he is automatically guilty, and no counter-evidence could ever matter even if it proved him innocent. You, dear reader, can imagine why a fair-minded judge might rankle at this.
Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring.
Rather helpfully, Updie reads one of her own contradictions into the victim impact statement, in essence reminding the judge that she had lied to them all, and yet they had convicted Brock despite her lies.
I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name.
She remembers being asked for her name after her clothing was removed, contradicting her claims about not remembering anything.
Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission.
Even Updie thinks the feminist consent standard is ludicrous, and she blames Brock for following it!
Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place.
Oops, now Updie is back to plugging the feminist verbal consent standard again. Could you please pick a standard and stick with it, maybe? Because your nonverbal YES is sounding more and more like a calculated feminist trap.
To sit under oath and inform all of us, that yes I wanted it, yes I permitted it, and that you are the true victim attacked by Swedes for reasons unknown to you is appalling, is demented, is selfish, is damaging. It is enough to be suffering. It is another thing to have someone ruthlessly working to diminish the gravity of validity of this suffering.
Yes, under feminism, men are not allowed to defend themselves. Dump due process of law.
The victim statement went on and on like this, full of unlikely details, political posturing and imagined suffering at something the supposed victim cannot remember. Explaining why the judge gave such a modest sentence should be clearer now – Updie should be glad she wasn’t laughed out of court.
For young men, the message should be clear – do not date or hook up with women on campus. Brock’s life is ruined: no college degree. No Olympic games. A lifetime as a registered sex offender.
Perhaps other young men can learn from his example.
Source
What could have motivated an otherwise law-and-order judge to issue such a light sentence, when he could have sent the first-time offender away for up to 14 years? I believe that a close reading of the victim’s own impact statement, delivered by her aloud in court after the guilty verdict, offers clues that tend to undermine the prosecution’s case and support Brock’s claims that “Updie” had consented to their ill-fated sexual encounter as a part of a scam to further push both her own enrichment and the feminist agenda.
You can read Updie’s statement here. It is long and harrowing so you may have to read it twice to see how badly she screwed up her case. Unfortunately, because of rape shield laws, the information she revealed was not used at trial – victim impact statements are not probative in trials because they are only given at sentencing and normally they only cover the aftermath of a crime. Updie, however, led the court through the entire evening of the alleged rape and in doing so wound up saying way too much.
The judge, who would have been keenly attuned to the many subtle admissions Updie let slip out, had to feel a growing horror as he realized his court had been subverted from a place of legal justice to a tool of the Social Justice vengeance against men. Updie is lucky that Brock got any more jail time at all – the judge could have let him off with time served.
Here are some of the howlers Updie revealed in her statement. Updie’s words are indicated with green font. My analysis follows each section.
Your Honor, if it is all right, for the majority of this statement I would like to address the defendant directly.
Slighting the judge to lambaste the accused directly was not a wise start. The judge wanted to hear items related to sentencing, not her vengeful verbal assault on the scared boy sitting at the defendant’s table. The judge’s ears had to be burning – what details and slip-ups was she going to give to self-sabotage her own case?
On January 17th, 2015, it was a quiet Saturday night at home. My dad made some dinner and I sat at the table with my younger sister who was visiting for the weekend. I was working full time and it was approaching my bed time. I planned to stay at home by myself, watch some TV and read, while she went to a party with her friends. Then, I decided it was my only night with her, I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister.
The virtue-signalling in her introduction is not only annoying, it hints at a guilty mind already spinning a fantastical account of an innocent encounter. Then, out of the blue, we get the first damning admission:
On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there.
A man who fantasized about “big papa” partying with little girls in braces would be dealt with harshly. I see no reason to go easy on a female pedophile, either. The judge had to be paying full attention now. In fact, Updie was 22 and a college graduate at the time of the party. Brock was a freshman.
I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college. The next thing I remember I was on a gurney in a hallway.
Updie admits she is an experienced hard-partier – she surely knew what the implications of over-drinking at a hookup frat party were. Notice also that her memory of the party and its aftermath was supposedly nil so that any other detail she gives about the experience is either concocted, or in direct contradiction to her own statement, or perhaps both.
I knew no one at this party.
Um, her sister was there, and Updie admitted to speaking to her sister earlier that same evening.
My boyfriend did not know what happened, but called that day and said, “I was really worried about you last night, you scared me, did you make it home okay?” I was horrified. That’s when I learned I had called him that night in my blackout, left an incomprehensible voicemail, that we had also spoken on the phone, but I was slurring so heavily he was scared for me, that he repeatedly told me to go find [my sister]. Again, he asked me, “What happened last night? Did you make it home okay?” I said yes, and hung up to cry.
Updie lies to her boyfriend about being okay at the party. One motivation for a woman faking a rape is to cover up infidelity in an established relationship. Updie had been caught by her boyfriend partying with a bunch of younger men. Suddenly the defense would’ve had a new avenue to explore – was the rape claim a ruse to get Updie off the hook for straying? – but this revelation came too late to be used at trial. The judge had to be cringing inside at this.
One day, I was at work, scrolling through the news on my phone, and came across an article. In it, I read and learned for the first time about how I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize. This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me.
Up until this point Updie had no clue about what had happened to her, nor who had done it. The idea that she just stumbled onto her own anonymous case and recognized it as her own strains credulity. Her name has never been revealed, as far as I can tell. She had no memory of what happened – supposedly – yet now she just magically happened to remember that this was her? Oops. Even Updie admits this is miraculous:
When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me, this can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information.
Perhaps that is because it is all confabulation? I have searched for the article she described without success.
The night after it happened, he said he didn’t know my name, said he wouldn’t be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn’t mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing…When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn’t know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away.
How does Updie know that Brock kissed Updie’s sister? Updie had claimed she didn’t remember anything and Brock had no way of guessing sororal relationships in a dark, drunken frat house. Perhaps in her haste to demonize Brock for hitting on her sister, Updie has accidentally shown that she was more functional than her other statements allow for.
He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me.
Updie was not alone, her sister was right there, making kissy-face with Brock. Jealousy is another reason women fake rape claims.
Sometimes I think, if I hadn’t gone, then this never would’ve happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else.
This is standard feminist boilerplate to excuse their own risky behaviors by claiming they were saving some other girl – another girl who might have been happy to hook up with a noted athlete. This is the third reason women fake rape claims – to further the feminist agenda that all men are bad. A judge hearing this might well realize that Brock was being used as a pawn in a feminist game.
The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub. Never mentioned me voicing consent, never mentioned us even speaking, a back rub.
More of the feminist agenda – although nonverbal clues are 80% or more of communication, feminists know they can artificially inflate rape rates by insisting on a verbal consent standard that no one actually uses during sex because there are better things do to with one’s mouth.
One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it.
Do they really put details like that into public news about rape cases without contacting the victim? Again, credulity is strained.
I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on.
Settle? While one might well settle a civil case, “settling” a criminal case doesn’t really work in this context. Updie seems to be talking about some sort of civil case with monetary damages instead of a criminal trial. This is the fourth reason women fake rape claims: money. But, surprising Updie, Brock decides to fight the charges.
It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet.
Nearly raped? Doesn’t “nearly raped mean “not raped”?
When I was told to be prepared in case we didn’t win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me.
More feminist agenda: get rid of due process of law, he is automatically guilty, and no counter-evidence could ever matter even if it proved him innocent. You, dear reader, can imagine why a fair-minded judge might rankle at this.
Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring.
Rather helpfully, Updie reads one of her own contradictions into the victim impact statement, in essence reminding the judge that she had lied to them all, and yet they had convicted Brock despite her lies.
I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name.
She remembers being asked for her name after her clothing was removed, contradicting her claims about not remembering anything.
Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission.
Even Updie thinks the feminist consent standard is ludicrous, and she blames Brock for following it!
Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place.
Oops, now Updie is back to plugging the feminist verbal consent standard again. Could you please pick a standard and stick with it, maybe? Because your nonverbal YES is sounding more and more like a calculated feminist trap.
To sit under oath and inform all of us, that yes I wanted it, yes I permitted it, and that you are the true victim attacked by Swedes for reasons unknown to you is appalling, is demented, is selfish, is damaging. It is enough to be suffering. It is another thing to have someone ruthlessly working to diminish the gravity of validity of this suffering.
Yes, under feminism, men are not allowed to defend themselves. Dump due process of law.
The victim statement went on and on like this, full of unlikely details, political posturing and imagined suffering at something the supposed victim cannot remember. Explaining why the judge gave such a modest sentence should be clearer now – Updie should be glad she wasn’t laughed out of court.
For young men, the message should be clear – do not date or hook up with women on campus. Brock’s life is ruined: no college degree. No Olympic games. A lifetime as a registered sex offender.
Perhaps other young men can learn from his example.
Source
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Rape is different
Why is “rape” different?
with one comment
What makes rape different from other crimes? Why is it that we seem to have a greater horror of rape than we do of murder? And is this attitude towards it even rational?
I’ve got a friened whose daughter was murdered. NO sexual activity took place and the guy was eventually caught and sent to prison. She actually said to me that would RATHER her daughter HAD been raped but NOT murdered.
I think that’s a completely RATIONAL attitude. Like me, she thinks her daughter’s murderer OUGHT to have been executed instead of sent to jaia. She also thinks that rape is NOT as serious a crime as murder.
That doesn’t mean that I think it’s a trivial matter. Nor does it mean I don’t CARE about women (or men) who get raped. Christ, I’ve BEEN raped myself so I’m not exactly coaching from the sidelines!
Anywya, let’s look at what it IS that seems to make rape a crime of particular horror to so many people. In the first place, IMO, it’s the voyeur in us. It gives a sort of prurient, salacious “edge” to the crime that you don’t get with most offences. Who gets turned on by reading about a Mafia hitman shooting dead a rival mobster? But when a girl gets raped…
Then there’s the frisson of fear. Reading about a rape gives you that shivering feeling and raises your goose pimples (goose bumps). Fear is a huge sexual turn-on for many people.
Then there’s the feeling of helplessness. The woman lost her power to resist and was forced to submit to the man. That’s a huge turn-on as well for many of us.
You’ve also got the appeal of violence. Although MOST rapes AREN’T violent (mine was) when you read a case that ISN’T like that you’re almost disappointed. Violence can also be a huge turn-on.
Now let’s look at other ways in which rape is “special.” You DON’T ask a bank manager if he WANTED to be robbed (unless you’re a cop who thinks he was in on the heist and looking for a piece of the action). You DON’T ask someone who’s been mugged in the street whether they WANTED to be mugged or they really WANTED to hand over their money. You DON’T ask a victim of a violent assault if they WANTED to be beaten up.
Why then do we ask a woman who says she’s been raped if she DID enjoy it, want it, ask for it, contribute to it by her own behaviour, or even INCITE it? Why do we ask these questions about rape and NOT about other types of crime?
The answer IMO is a complex mix of factors. In the first place (I’m quoting British figures here) only 8% of rape claims involve strangers. The other 92% involve husbands, boyfrieneds and friends. It’s more difficult to persuade people (rightly or wrongly) that it WAS rape when there were already clear bonds of mutual AFFECTION between the two parties.
Secondly, there’s IMO an understandable attitude that the woman is trying to evade and sort of responsibility for her actions. Why SHOULD she think she can dress like a slut, talk dirty, get drunk, parade about like a whore and yet NOT take any responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES of her actions if it goes pear-shaped? A girl like that ISN’T a VICTIM of rape IMO; she’s either a slapper who WAS asking for it and got what she REALLY wanted in a guilt-free way or else she was a prick-teaser who tried it on with the wrong bloke and came unstuck.
Let’s be honest here. A heterosexual man and woman are at some point BOTH going to want to have sex, even if NOT with each other. And being a prick-teaser is actually a form of BULLYING by the girl. She’s saying, I know you want me but you can’t have me and I’m gonna rub it in your face that you can’t. Most blokes just ignore that sort of thing but SOME get so mad that they decide to punish the girl for her behaviour by raping her.
What happens in those cases is very similar to what happens when a victim of bullying can’t take any more and snaps. (I speak from experience on that one; after a year of being bullied at school I snapped and nearly killed the bully. It took six kids and three teachers to pull me off of her else I’d have killed her!). Just like a victim of bullying can go over the top and be more violent than the original bully was, so a victim of prick-teasing can snap, go over the top and rape the girl.
So whose fault is it then? It’s obviously the bully’s fault if he or she gets done over by their victim.
In the same way, it’s the fault of the prick-teaser if she does get raped. Without the initial bullying, the victim would never have snapped. Without the prick-teaser, the girl would never have got raped.
If she’d acted decently and not led the bloke on nothing would have happend. Slo, whatever way you look at it, it’s her fault she got raped. She bullied the bloke and he snapped. You could almost look on it as an act of self-defence!
I know a lot of peoople are going to find what I’ve just said (at best) sad, at worst sick and disgusting.
Even as I write these words myself I can hardly believe how they sound.
I’m now going to talk about the cases where it clearly is the case that the woman dressed decently, spoke well, didn’t behave like a tart and wasn’t drunk or high on drugs.
How do we explain them? In the first place, 9 times our of 10 they will be attractive women of child-bearing age and will be far more likely to experience rape as a traumatic experience than older and less attractive women.
I remember one of the elderly victims of a rapist in London being interviewed about her experience (she was in her 80s) and she was actually giggling as she described her rape.
Those cases, though, are a minority of rapes and (for some obscure reason) almost always involve black men. It’s very unusual for a white male to rape an elderly woman. (Not that most blacks do it either, of course!)
Genuine rape cases, to judge from the fact that MOST complaints brought to the police are thrown out after further investigation or else withdrawn by the woman herself), are a tiny proportion or REPORTED rapes.
In 95%of the cases when rape claims DO come to court, the defendant is found NOT GUILTY.
DNA evidence has also exonerated hundreds of men who were WRONGLY convicted by showing that it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to have committed the rape in the first place.
Whatever way you look at it, that means that the MAJORITY of rape accusations are FALSE – either through conscious and deliberate LYING or else through misunderstanding.
Is it worth spending so much time, money, energy and resources into pursuing such a rare crime?
Just playing Devil’s Advocate again LOL!
Source
with one comment
What makes rape different from other crimes? Why is it that we seem to have a greater horror of rape than we do of murder? And is this attitude towards it even rational?
I’ve got a friened whose daughter was murdered. NO sexual activity took place and the guy was eventually caught and sent to prison. She actually said to me that would RATHER her daughter HAD been raped but NOT murdered.
I think that’s a completely RATIONAL attitude. Like me, she thinks her daughter’s murderer OUGHT to have been executed instead of sent to jaia. She also thinks that rape is NOT as serious a crime as murder.
That doesn’t mean that I think it’s a trivial matter. Nor does it mean I don’t CARE about women (or men) who get raped. Christ, I’ve BEEN raped myself so I’m not exactly coaching from the sidelines!
Anywya, let’s look at what it IS that seems to make rape a crime of particular horror to so many people. In the first place, IMO, it’s the voyeur in us. It gives a sort of prurient, salacious “edge” to the crime that you don’t get with most offences. Who gets turned on by reading about a Mafia hitman shooting dead a rival mobster? But when a girl gets raped…
Then there’s the frisson of fear. Reading about a rape gives you that shivering feeling and raises your goose pimples (goose bumps). Fear is a huge sexual turn-on for many people.
Then there’s the feeling of helplessness. The woman lost her power to resist and was forced to submit to the man. That’s a huge turn-on as well for many of us.
You’ve also got the appeal of violence. Although MOST rapes AREN’T violent (mine was) when you read a case that ISN’T like that you’re almost disappointed. Violence can also be a huge turn-on.
Now let’s look at other ways in which rape is “special.” You DON’T ask a bank manager if he WANTED to be robbed (unless you’re a cop who thinks he was in on the heist and looking for a piece of the action). You DON’T ask someone who’s been mugged in the street whether they WANTED to be mugged or they really WANTED to hand over their money. You DON’T ask a victim of a violent assault if they WANTED to be beaten up.
Why then do we ask a woman who says she’s been raped if she DID enjoy it, want it, ask for it, contribute to it by her own behaviour, or even INCITE it? Why do we ask these questions about rape and NOT about other types of crime?
The answer IMO is a complex mix of factors. In the first place (I’m quoting British figures here) only 8% of rape claims involve strangers. The other 92% involve husbands, boyfrieneds and friends. It’s more difficult to persuade people (rightly or wrongly) that it WAS rape when there were already clear bonds of mutual AFFECTION between the two parties.
Secondly, there’s IMO an understandable attitude that the woman is trying to evade and sort of responsibility for her actions. Why SHOULD she think she can dress like a slut, talk dirty, get drunk, parade about like a whore and yet NOT take any responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES of her actions if it goes pear-shaped? A girl like that ISN’T a VICTIM of rape IMO; she’s either a slapper who WAS asking for it and got what she REALLY wanted in a guilt-free way or else she was a prick-teaser who tried it on with the wrong bloke and came unstuck.
Let’s be honest here. A heterosexual man and woman are at some point BOTH going to want to have sex, even if NOT with each other. And being a prick-teaser is actually a form of BULLYING by the girl. She’s saying, I know you want me but you can’t have me and I’m gonna rub it in your face that you can’t. Most blokes just ignore that sort of thing but SOME get so mad that they decide to punish the girl for her behaviour by raping her.
What happens in those cases is very similar to what happens when a victim of bullying can’t take any more and snaps. (I speak from experience on that one; after a year of being bullied at school I snapped and nearly killed the bully. It took six kids and three teachers to pull me off of her else I’d have killed her!). Just like a victim of bullying can go over the top and be more violent than the original bully was, so a victim of prick-teasing can snap, go over the top and rape the girl.
So whose fault is it then? It’s obviously the bully’s fault if he or she gets done over by their victim.
In the same way, it’s the fault of the prick-teaser if she does get raped. Without the initial bullying, the victim would never have snapped. Without the prick-teaser, the girl would never have got raped.
If she’d acted decently and not led the bloke on nothing would have happend. Slo, whatever way you look at it, it’s her fault she got raped. She bullied the bloke and he snapped. You could almost look on it as an act of self-defence!
I know a lot of peoople are going to find what I’ve just said (at best) sad, at worst sick and disgusting.
Even as I write these words myself I can hardly believe how they sound.
I’m now going to talk about the cases where it clearly is the case that the woman dressed decently, spoke well, didn’t behave like a tart and wasn’t drunk or high on drugs.
How do we explain them? In the first place, 9 times our of 10 they will be attractive women of child-bearing age and will be far more likely to experience rape as a traumatic experience than older and less attractive women.
I remember one of the elderly victims of a rapist in London being interviewed about her experience (she was in her 80s) and she was actually giggling as she described her rape.
Those cases, though, are a minority of rapes and (for some obscure reason) almost always involve black men. It’s very unusual for a white male to rape an elderly woman. (Not that most blacks do it either, of course!)
Genuine rape cases, to judge from the fact that MOST complaints brought to the police are thrown out after further investigation or else withdrawn by the woman herself), are a tiny proportion or REPORTED rapes.
In 95%of the cases when rape claims DO come to court, the defendant is found NOT GUILTY.
DNA evidence has also exonerated hundreds of men who were WRONGLY convicted by showing that it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to have committed the rape in the first place.
Whatever way you look at it, that means that the MAJORITY of rape accusations are FALSE – either through conscious and deliberate LYING or else through misunderstanding.
Is it worth spending so much time, money, energy and resources into pursuing such a rare crime?
Just playing Devil’s Advocate again LOL!
Source
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
A woman's perspective on rape and feminism
Enjoying rape; a woman’s point of view
OK, let’s start of by taking it as a given that a heterosexual man can enjoy raping a girl. We can all understand that he can find it pleasurable and get his rocks off by fucking her whether or not she wants him to.
The question is, though, what does a girl get out of being raped? How can she find anything pleasurable about being fucked against her will, often being brutally beaten into the bargain and maybe humiliated in various ways as well?
As someone who can speak from experience on this one, I’ll tell you for free. There are a lot of reasons why a girl can get off on being raped.
To begin with, it gives her the ability to avoid any kind of responsibility for her own actions, behaviour or attitudes. A “rape victim” can claim that she didn’t want to be fucked and that it was only the man who forced her to have sex. It’s sex without the guilt and that gives her a massive boost to her ego because she can have the most perverted type of sex and yet smile innocently and say to anyone listening, “hey, guys, it wasn’t my fault.”
A lot of the time a girl who is really a depraved slut will use that excuse to make it look as if it wasn‘t actually her fault when she knows perfectly well that it was.
That way she gets a double whammy of enjoyment from being “raped” because not only was she able to get the depraved sex she wanted but she also gets the smug satisfaction of thinking how she’s been able to con and manipulate people into thinking that she is some kind of “rape victim” rather than what she really is, a whore who not only wanted it but loved every second of it!
Obviously, a girl like that is going to thoroughly enjoy being raped. What about the ones who are not depraved sluts or professional whores, though? How can they possibly enjoy being raped?
Well, funnily enough, in the majority of cases the “rape victim” clearly does enjoy it! Most women who get raped orgasm while they’re being raped. I know I did when it happened to me at the age of 18 and even now it was the best sex I’ve ever had in my life! Other women who’ve been “raped” have told me the same thing, that they came and that it was the most intense, satisfying and pleasurable orgasm they’ve ever had.
Well, if you come when you’re being raped there’s only one possible explanation for that.
You’re having fun and you’re enjoying what’s happening to you!
You’ve suddenly realised that actually, in spite of what you thought before it happened. in reality you wanted to be raped and you’re fucking loving every miunte of it!
The mind can play many strange tricks on us and even lie to us; the body never lies. The fact that the girl is orgasming proves that she’s really thoroughly enjoying herself and that she really wanted to be raped whatever she says. Her body is telling the truth about how she felt and only her mind and mouth are lying about the pleasure she had.
That fact alone makes her “rape” an act of consensual sex. By the very act of climaxing she is demonstrating that she really wanted it all the time and is fucking loving it now that she’s getting what she wanted!
So let’s recap briefly. The guy gets what he wants, to fuck the girl; she gets what she wants (an orgasm); so both partners have been sexually fulfilled and enjoyed the experience.
How can that be called a crime? The very second the woman starts to get aroused by her rape it’s obvious that from that point on the sex is entirely consensual.
The guy has done nothing wrong; he’s obviously helped the girl by giving her an orgasm which otherwise she’d have had to frig herself off or whatever to get.
The girl’s done othing wrong either; she’s had an orgasm during the course of great sex which, as her body’s reaction clearly demonstrates, was entirely consensual.
Why then should this harmonious activity, of a man and woman fucking each other in an entirely consensual sexual behaviour, be considered a crime?
If anything the rapist should be praised because, thanks to him, the girl’s had a proper orgasm through fucking which otherwise would have been a lot harder for her to achieve.
Really, we can only admire the rapist and hope the girl realises how lucky she was that he raped her and that she is suitably grateful to him and thanks him for what he has done. The truth is that he’s done her a big favour and she should feel flattered that he chose her and, of course, she should express her gratitude and thanks to him for giving her the best orgasm of her life.
Far from being any sort of a “rape victim,” she’s really a very lucky girl and ought be happy that she’s just had the best consensual sex of her life!
Source
More reasons to legalise rape!
More reasons to legalise rape!
1) It’s fun – especially for the rapist!
2) It’s the rapist’s right to do what he likes with his own body!
3) It’s the rapist’s right to choose!
4) If the girl says no she’s being disrespectful and he’s got every right to show her that her own selfish and childish wishes don’t matter.
5) It’s the only REAL sex – everything else is just vanilla!
6) A girl who gets raped is either a worthless whore who’s fucking ASKING for it or else a disrespectful feminist dyke who DESERVES to be raped to show her what she’s missing!
7) A girl who gets raped is MORE likely to get pregnant so it assists the population growth if a rapist does what comes naturally.
8) Making rape a crime hasn’t stopped rape. It’s just made it more dangerous. The guy could get hurt with scratches, punches, kicks, or even hit with objects found nearby. If rape was legalised it would be safe and properly managed. Thee would be special “rape hotels” where needy guys could go and rape the girls with clean facilities and with doctors and nurses on hands to make sure that the girl isn’t carrying any sexually transmitted diseases and to look after the medical welfare of the rapist. The government could even make some money out of it by taking a percentage from the rape hotels so that rape would be contributing to the nation’s economy!
I can think of loads more reasons why rape is good and should be legalised but that’s a start!
Source
Why rape is a gift we should welcome
OK, I’ve put forward already some of the reasons why there’s nothing wrong with raping us girls. I reckon all men convicted of rape should be released from prison immediately and given full compensation for wrongful imprisonment. I’ve got some other ideas on how to help them get over the trauma of their time in prison but I’ll save them for another post!
I’m now going to explain why it’s positively right to rape us. Far from being a crime, rape is actually a public service and a gift to us girls for which we ought to be grateful.
In the first place, it’s equal opportunity sex. Any man can do it to a girl. He doesn’t have to be rich, good-looking, clever or charming or anything like that. All he needs is to have a cock and he can rape me or any other girl just as good as any rich Hollywood star or wealthy businessman can!
Just think of the advantages. Rape means never having to buy me dinner. Rape means never wondering how much it costs to fuck me. Rape means never having to take me out or buy me prezzies. Rape means never having to worry if his car is flash enough or eough of a top of the range model. Rape means never having to worry if he’s got a well-paid job or not! Rape means never having to buy me flowers or pay me compliments!
All a rapist needs is a cock and he can fuck me, or any other girl he wants.
That’s pretty much an equal-opportunity approach to sex, right?
Secondly, it’s obviously my fault that I got raped, isn’t it? After all, if I’d said “yes,” or, even better, “yes please, sir,” he’d never have had to go to all the trouble of raping me, would he? So, like I said, it’s all my fault that I got raped. He didn’t do anything wrong and I’m the only one that did.
Like I said, it’s my fault I got raped in the first place and I should never have said no instead of yes!
Because I did say no like an ungrateful and disrespectful fucking bitch of a twat, he had every right to rape me.
As well as giving him pleasure, he also had the right to rape me just because I was enough of an arrogant cunt to say no to him in the first place, right?
So he had the right to rape me as a just punishment for being arrogant and ungrateful enough to say no to him in the first place, see?
So actually I deserved to be raped for saying no!
Now let’s explain why rape is a gift to us girls and why we should welcome it if we’re lucky enough to get raped.
Rape is the only real sex; everything else is playacting. There’s nothing like the adrenalin rush a girl gets when she’s being raped. It’s amazing how nearly always she’ll have an orgasm just because she was raped rather than having vanilla sex.
So, you see, the rapist is actually doing the girl a big favour by raping her, right? He’s giving her an orgasm which she’s hardly ever going to get with vanilla sex, not just through fucking, anyway; only if the bloke knows how to get a girl’s clit aroused properly which a lot of them haven’t got a fucking clue about!
Another big favour he’s doing her is he’s giving her guilt-free sex. The girl was probably a totally depraved fucking slut anyway or at least secretly wanted to be. Thanks to the bloke who raped her she can get fucked as hard as a professional whore or the village bike that everyone’s rode and yet not have to take the blame for being a total fucking slut so she doesn’t have to feel ashamed or guilty about getting fucked! Once again, the rapist has done the girl a big favour by raping her!
She ought to be very grateful to him! It’s a win-win situation; he gets to fuck her, she gets fucked without having to feel guilty about what she’s done. Everyone ought to be happy about what’s gone down!
Another reason why she ought to be grateful to him is that rape, as some statistics that have been posted on Mansland from scientific geezers who’ve done research on this subject have shown, is more likely to make a girl pregnant than if she’s just fucked the vanilla way. So as well as all the other favours he’s doing her, he’s giving her an extra chance of having a baby by him!
Another reason why rape is so good is that it’s the most honest way to have sex. Hey, guys, you don’t have to tell me you love me; you don’t have to listen to my boring twat talk conversation; you don’t even have to say you think I’m beautiful (though it would be nice if you did but that’s just me being selfish and vain!)
All you have to do is come up to me and say something like, “hey, cunt, I want to fuck you.”
If I say yes then obviously I wanted it anyway so it couldn‘t have been rape in the first place, could it?
If I say no then obviously it’s my fault if I get raped because then you’ve got a perfectly legitimate reason to rape me and, more than that, you’ve actually got a positive right to rape me for saying no.
See how it goes? If I say yes it isn’t rape; if I say no it’s only rape because of what I did wrong, so it’s all my fault, right? The guy who raped me has done nothing wrong at all. In fact, he’s been positively good in the way he’s treated me! I’m the only one who’s gone and done anything wrong!
Now let’s look at some more benefits to the girl who gets raped. Apart from the higher chance of getting an orgasm and of getting pregnant as a result of rape, she’s also going to get the adrenaline rush that comes when you get the shit scared out of you. God, how fucking sexy it is being scared! It’s dead exciting for her to feel that kind of fear and it’s very good of the bloke to give her the chance to experience such a lovely feeling. It’ll almost certainly be the best sex she’s ever had; much better than a boring old vanilla fuck!
The more she fights her true inner desire to submit, and the more she resists her longing to be taken by force regardless of her own selfish desires, the stronger her sexual arousal will become. Yes, folks, our friend the rapist is doing her a favour yet again; he’s turning her on!
Maybe that’s why (as exhaustive psychological and physical studies of so-called “rape victims” have shown; even the lying feminist twats (or, as I prefer to call them, “cuntists” – I hate the fucking feminists with their bullshir, or as I call it when they come out with it, “cowshit”) haven’t been able to explain away or refute the data that shows, maybe surprisingly to a vanilla mind, that the more violence a man uses against a girl when he’s raping her, the less “trauma” she suffers.
To put it in plain English, the girl will actually benefit more from being raped with a certain amount of violence and intimidation than she would from being treated more “gently.”
So, all you rapists out there, if you want to beat us up while you’re raping us, don’t worry about it. You’re not only not doing anything wrong; you’re actually doing us a favour by beating the shit out of us when you rape us. You’re making it more pleasurable for us if you rape us like that so, hey guys, don’t even think about holding back when you rape us.
Just slap us about and punch us and kick us; we fucking love it! Just insult us verbally, telling us we’re all bitches and whores and sluts and cunts; just remind us that we’re not only fucking asking to be raped but that we really fucking love it and we’re just lying twats and hypocritical cunts for pretending that we don’t when we really do; and when you’ve finished having your fun don’t forget to remind us that it was all our fault that we got raped.
As for the girl, what should she do? There’s only one obvious or at least honest answer she can give.
She should say “thank you for raping me. I will be grateful to you for this precious gift for the rest of my life.”
Source
You can see she loves men. Feminists,OTOH,she let's have it with both barrels:
Why feminism sucks
I’m a woman, but I’m not a feminist.
Not at all; not even one tiny bit.
I’ve got NO sympathy for the so-called “women’s movement,”
When I say things like that to a lot of people, especially women, they look at me with a mixture of horror, embarrssment and disbelief. It’s as if I’d said some dirty word in church or something. Saying I don’t believe in feminism when I’m a woman, according to some “feminist thinkers,” supposedly makes me a “gender traitor.”
A gender traitor? Blimey! And I didn’t even know men and women were at war! I thought we were both supposed to be part of the whole cosmic thing, the greater scheme of things and all that.
I had no idea we were supposed to be enemies!
Anyway, what exactly do feminists want? Let’s take a brief overview of what they say they want. These are not in any particular order by the way.
1 Equality
2 Equal opportunity
3 An end to domestic violence
4 An end to rape
5 Affirmative action
6 Positive discrimination
7 Separate but equal treatment
8 Abortion on demand
9 Female empowerment
10Ban on pornography
There are others which some want and not all feminists agree on even some of the 10 I’ve quoted but that’s the broad brush stroke of what they say they want.
Let’s begin by pointing out some obvious contradictions and redundancies.
If a society is equal then obviously equal opportunity is part of that so point 2 is redundant. If a society is equal then points 5, 6 and 7 are in direct CONFLICT with what they claim they want. Point 9 also seems a bit iffy if you believe in equality,
Most people (including most MEN) would broadly agree with them about rape and domestic violence. There’s two problem there though IMO.
The first is that the definition of both has been stretched so widely that they’ve lost any meaning they might have had once. There’s a lunatic fringe of the feminists which is now calling for consensual sex between a man and a woman to be a criminal offence unless the guy is able to produce written consent to sex by the woman! Not just in general, either; a specific written consent to each and every act of sex. Otherwise the guy can be charged with rape!
How crazy is that? Maybe we should just get a lawyer standing in line in every bedroom with a written contract drawn up and the guy signs it every time he wants to have sex!
And it’s “gender discrimination” in any case because there’s no corresponding obligation on the woman to sign this paper stating that the man was a willing participant! Would that mean that a woman could now get away with rape but a man can’t even have consensual sex with his own partner without drawing up a legal document first?
Utter madness!
And, of course, the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and others have argued that unless the woman directly initates and controls the act of sex then even consensual sex is rape!
So let’s get this right; if the man initiates and controls the sex it’s rape but if the woman does it isn’t?
Yeah, right.
Funny how all that talk about equality and equal opportunities went out of the window, isn’t it?
The whole idea of “separate but equal” treatment is a heap of lies. That’s what the segregationists in the south used to argue they had in terms of the treatment of African-Americans and the Supreme Court rhrew it out as unconstitutional. Yet again and again I’ve seen that exact phrase used by feminists to justify a more privileged position in society for women.If
That equality thing again, right?
Funny how much it reminds me of “Animal Farm” where Orwell gets the main character to say “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others!”
The fact is that the feminist claims to equality are a lie. They don’t want equal treaament; they want a privileged status for women and for the law and society to favour women more than men.
Well, ladies, that might be your gynocratic utopia but there’s no way it’s anything resembling either equality or equal opportunity!
The same thing goes for “affirmative action” or “positive discrimination” programmes. If you appoint the person you genuinely feel is the best for the job regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever that’s being non-discriminatory., If you have quota systems where you force employers or whatever to choose a less capable person simply because of their gender or skin colour or whatever that’s just being racist or sexist and there’s nothing “positive” about what you’re doing. Once again, the feminist claim that they want equality is just a lie.
The rape question is more complex. I know my views on rape are unconventional to put it mildly so I’ll just argue with feminism from the mainstream point of view.
Rape, according to the law, is a sexual act carried out against the wishes of the other person and without their consent. Men can rape women or other men and women can rape men or other women. The issue of consent is crucial in establishing whether or not a sexual act was an act of rape or a consensual encounter.
Now in normal criminal cases like if you’re accused of stealing something (probably the nearest legal parallel to rape) the court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the act of theft. There’s a presumption of innocence, the need to produce hard evidence and (ideally) eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you did it.
In rape cases, all this is stood on its head. There’s no requirement for eyewitness testimony (obviously that’s often difficult so we can let that one go)’ the burden of proof is shifted from the accuser to the defendant so instead of her having to prove that he did rape her, he is compelled to try and prove tha the didn’t; there’s a presumption of guilt; due process is routinely ignored or set aside; and no hard evidence against the defendant has to be produced. Routinely, innocent men are sentenced to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, as DNA tests have subsequently shown. Out of the men in the US who’ve been CONVICTED of rape and served time in prison and then subsequently got DNA testing, 60% turned out to have been NOT guilty. In other words, they not only hadn’t raped the woman; they couldn’t have raped her. The only reason the man was sent to prison was because the woman lied about what had happened.
So, OK, the woman lied about being raped. What happens to her? 9 times out of 10, nothing at all. At worst she might get a slap on the wrist. Once in a blue moon one will get sent to prison for about 5 minutes but that’s rare. Yet she’s c learly guilty of perjury and reckless endangerment by her lying about what happened. So why should she get a free pass?
Then there’s the question of “anonymity.” The feminists claim that it’s essential for the identity of the accuser, or as they habitually refer to her, the “rape victim,” to be protected.
Fine, let’s go with that. But what about the accused? Why doesn’t he get the same right to anonymity? Why is it OK to splash his name and photo all over the media but not hers? What’s sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.
That old “eqaulity” thing again, right?
Once again we see feminists demanding special privileges for women that they deny to men. They are quite happy to violate due process, set aside the presumption of innocence, and allow “evidence” in rape cases that would be thrown out of court in other types of criminal trial. Why? Do they really want equality? Or do they just hate men?
There’s also the fact that in 45% of cases in Britain where the woman goes to the police and it’s investigated, it’s found out during the course of the enquiry that the woman is lying about being raped. That means that nearly half of the cases brought to the attention of the cops are phoney raps.On top of that in 53% of cases where she makes an accusation and then withdraws it, investigation shows that, once again, she was lying about being raped.
Now I’m no greatr mathematician but whatever way you look at those statistics they add up to the same thing. Most claims by women that they were raped are false and downright lies.
So why do people believe in this vast conspiracy of rapists that the feminists put about? Search me! I guess it’s partly a genuine fear of crime, fear to the point of paranoia; partly because we’ve been brainwashed by lies; and partly just salacious interest. Whatever, the facts simply don’t support the feminist claims on rape and nor do they provide any excuse for the feminist subversion of due process, the presumption of innocence and lowering the bar for evidence and testimony in “rape” trials.
Out of the cases that DO come to court, in 40% of them it’s shown either at the trial or subesequently that, guess what, once again the woman was lying about what happened. No crime, except maybe domestic violence, is more often lied about than rape. Women use it as a weapon to intimidate a man they’ve fallen out with, as an excuse for their shame at the consensual sex they had, or even to cover up some other offence that they, not the man, committed.
On top of that even when an accused man can show beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape the woman he can still be convicted and sent to prison solely on the unsupported word of his accuser. That old equality again, right? Crime labs routinely knowingly falsify the results of DNA tests and other forensic items that are entered into evidence and lead to the conviction of wholly innocent men. Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Ma nhattan DA’s office, says that 50% of the rape cases she dealt with were based on unfounded accusations and were entirely baseless. In other words, half of the claims just in the cases she dealt with were nothing more than malicious lies! Although they’re reluctant to publicise the fact, the majority of cases investigated by the Innocence Project concern allegations of rape.
Even when the claims of rape are so clearly false, feminists still maintain their fantasies in violation of the truth. In one notorious case a student at a university in America eventually admitted that she’d lied about being raped by a male student (they hadn’t even HAD sex!) and a “feminist thinker” commented, “well, maybe he didn’t actually rape her, but he clearly violated her in some way.” A VAssar assistant dean went even further, claiming that it was “good” for a man to be falsely accused of rape, since it forced him to think “well, if I didn’t violate her, could I have done?”
Most rape accusations are lies and the same, sadly, is also true of “domestic violence.” This is defined so loosely that almost anyone could be sent to prison for it. The U.S. Justice Department definition of “domestic violence” includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing.” as acts of “domestic violence.” On the basic of such fantastic claims, men in America are routinely jailed, often even without ever being brought to trial! .
Even worse, according to officially reported figures released by police, allegation of domesitc violence by women against men now stand s at a figure of 38%. Given the extreme reluctance of men to report abuse by their wives and girlfriends against them, senior police sources unofficially admit that the majority of domestic violence in Britain is now carried out agaist men by women. Yet where is the publicity for the cause of “batterd men?” Where are the shelters for thme to hide away from their abusers? #where is the rapid intervention by the police to arrest the woman before she kills or seriusly injures her man?
Well, where is it? Nowhere, of course. Under the posionous influence of feminism, men are slowly being turned into second class citizens.
What we hear instead is a relentless and dishonest chorus about violence by men against women when even the police admit that nowadays the majority of domestic violence cases are actually assaults by women upon men! As the innate chivalry of men, to say nothing of their social embarrasment at having to report their wife or girlfriend, makes them disproportiobately less likely to file a complaint, the police s7uspect that the true figures show that around 66% of actual domestic assaults are carried out by women against men, Yet neither the media nor government addresses or even discusses the problem in any way. Women habitually portray themselves as the victims and men are castigated as brutal abusers who are battering their partners almost non-stop.
Bad as the situation is in Britain, it is even worse in America. The law is stacked against the male defendant to such an extent that cases of domestic violence now resemble the “justice” system in countries like North Kore3a or Iran. One judge in New Jersey, for instance, told his fellow jurists, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Even the official court publications of New Jersey admit that due process is routinely ignored in domestic violence cases because “it perpetuates the cycle of power and control wherby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” Look at the loaded language used as well – “perpetrator” and “victim” rather than “accused” and “defendant.” The guilt is assumed simply because charges have been brought. The presumption of innocence, likd eue process, is chucked on the scrapheap. A New York “feminist” judge describes the removal of the presumption of innocence as forcing “batterrers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.”
There are also Kafkaesque tribunals known as “integrated domestic violence courts” where the guilt of the defendant is automatically assumed and which have the power to seize property, including homes, even though the person accused has not been convicted or even charged with any offence. Nor is it necessary to allow them to be present at the “hearings” where such decisions are taken to defend himself , or represented by a lawyer at them. These “domestic violence courts” are deliberately set up to evade the constitutional rights of the citizen and even the existing criminal law with its guarantees of protection., The presumption is of guilt and not innocence, the burden of proof is done away with altogether, and it has become standard practice for “confessions” to be extorted from the accused by a variety of means.
Pennsylvania is in a class of its own when it comes to this issue. In that state, men are routinely arrested and held in custody until they sign a “confession” stating “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man is then order to “descibe” his “violence,” even if he insists that he did notr commit any. His “confession” also includes the words “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.” If he does not sign these forms, he can be held indefinitely in prison, without any chafrge, until he does sign them.
So what we have is a situation where a man accused of domestic violence can be held in prison without charge, have his property and assets seized without trial, even if he insists on his innocence. If a man accuses his partner of the same offence, she will not be subjected to the same kind of treatment and is far less likely to be convicted if the case comes to court. And that’s in spite of the fact that women are the aggressors in two-thirds of the cases!
And, of course, unlike the law in Britain, where the violence at least has to be physical, in the Stater you can be treated like this just on the basis of “”extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing!.”It’s like the old days where a “nagging wife” could be subjected to the “scold’s bridle” except that these days its’ a “nagging husband!” .
That old feminist equality thing again, right? Yeah, right!
For all their gobby ranting about equality, feminists don‘t want it at all. They want to rule men in the same way the slaveowners ruled the slaves in the old days. They’re gynocrats and not democrats. They compalin about patriarchy but want to institute a matriarchy.
The obvious incompatibility between affirmative action, positive discrimination and “separate but equal” claims with their boasted belief in equality is just total hypocrisy. They just want the hens to rool the roost.
Feminism is an essentially Nazi way of looking at the world. Feminists look on men in the same way the Nazis looked at the Jews and gypsies and they’re every bit as ruthless, dishonest and indifferent to the sufferings of their victims. A lot of people don’t know this but Nazi Germany was the first state where openly feminist women got positions of power. Guida Diehls, Lydia Gottschewski, Gertrude Scholtz-Klink wielded huge power, greater than any woman had had since the days of Catherine the Great or was to see again before Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. Gottschweski, a loathsome racist and militarist, is listed on a feminist website as one of its “Women of Wisdoms” and coyly described as “a German political activits,” though the site carefully avoids saying which ;party she was active on behalf of!
Feminism doesn’t even respect women. It might hate and demonise men but its greatest contempt and hatred is reserved for what it calls, in a phrase reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan’s “race traitors,” “gender traitors.” Women like me who are “just” mothers and wives are looked upon with total contempt, regarded as stupid, unambitious, lazy and as “perpetuating the patriarchal power structure.”
Bollocks!
Because these people are incapable of feeling love and compassion themselves, or tolerance for other points of view, or respect for other humans simply because we all share that rich humanity, they hate and demonise anyone who does.
The only “crime” of “gender traitor” me is the crime of love.
In the words of the poeet Pope, “is it, in heaven, a crime to love too well?”
Yes, Your Honour, I plead guilty to the crime of love.
As Luther said at his trial for heresy, “here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.”
Source
OK, let’s start of by taking it as a given that a heterosexual man can enjoy raping a girl. We can all understand that he can find it pleasurable and get his rocks off by fucking her whether or not she wants him to.
The question is, though, what does a girl get out of being raped? How can she find anything pleasurable about being fucked against her will, often being brutally beaten into the bargain and maybe humiliated in various ways as well?
As someone who can speak from experience on this one, I’ll tell you for free. There are a lot of reasons why a girl can get off on being raped.
To begin with, it gives her the ability to avoid any kind of responsibility for her own actions, behaviour or attitudes. A “rape victim” can claim that she didn’t want to be fucked and that it was only the man who forced her to have sex. It’s sex without the guilt and that gives her a massive boost to her ego because she can have the most perverted type of sex and yet smile innocently and say to anyone listening, “hey, guys, it wasn’t my fault.”
A lot of the time a girl who is really a depraved slut will use that excuse to make it look as if it wasn‘t actually her fault when she knows perfectly well that it was.
That way she gets a double whammy of enjoyment from being “raped” because not only was she able to get the depraved sex she wanted but she also gets the smug satisfaction of thinking how she’s been able to con and manipulate people into thinking that she is some kind of “rape victim” rather than what she really is, a whore who not only wanted it but loved every second of it!
Obviously, a girl like that is going to thoroughly enjoy being raped. What about the ones who are not depraved sluts or professional whores, though? How can they possibly enjoy being raped?
Well, funnily enough, in the majority of cases the “rape victim” clearly does enjoy it! Most women who get raped orgasm while they’re being raped. I know I did when it happened to me at the age of 18 and even now it was the best sex I’ve ever had in my life! Other women who’ve been “raped” have told me the same thing, that they came and that it was the most intense, satisfying and pleasurable orgasm they’ve ever had.
Well, if you come when you’re being raped there’s only one possible explanation for that.
You’re having fun and you’re enjoying what’s happening to you!
You’ve suddenly realised that actually, in spite of what you thought before it happened. in reality you wanted to be raped and you’re fucking loving every miunte of it!
The mind can play many strange tricks on us and even lie to us; the body never lies. The fact that the girl is orgasming proves that she’s really thoroughly enjoying herself and that she really wanted to be raped whatever she says. Her body is telling the truth about how she felt and only her mind and mouth are lying about the pleasure she had.
That fact alone makes her “rape” an act of consensual sex. By the very act of climaxing she is demonstrating that she really wanted it all the time and is fucking loving it now that she’s getting what she wanted!
So let’s recap briefly. The guy gets what he wants, to fuck the girl; she gets what she wants (an orgasm); so both partners have been sexually fulfilled and enjoyed the experience.
How can that be called a crime? The very second the woman starts to get aroused by her rape it’s obvious that from that point on the sex is entirely consensual.
The guy has done nothing wrong; he’s obviously helped the girl by giving her an orgasm which otherwise she’d have had to frig herself off or whatever to get.
The girl’s done othing wrong either; she’s had an orgasm during the course of great sex which, as her body’s reaction clearly demonstrates, was entirely consensual.
Why then should this harmonious activity, of a man and woman fucking each other in an entirely consensual sexual behaviour, be considered a crime?
If anything the rapist should be praised because, thanks to him, the girl’s had a proper orgasm through fucking which otherwise would have been a lot harder for her to achieve.
Really, we can only admire the rapist and hope the girl realises how lucky she was that he raped her and that she is suitably grateful to him and thanks him for what he has done. The truth is that he’s done her a big favour and she should feel flattered that he chose her and, of course, she should express her gratitude and thanks to him for giving her the best orgasm of her life.
Far from being any sort of a “rape victim,” she’s really a very lucky girl and ought be happy that she’s just had the best consensual sex of her life!
Source
More reasons to legalise rape!
More reasons to legalise rape!
1) It’s fun – especially for the rapist!
2) It’s the rapist’s right to do what he likes with his own body!
3) It’s the rapist’s right to choose!
4) If the girl says no she’s being disrespectful and he’s got every right to show her that her own selfish and childish wishes don’t matter.
5) It’s the only REAL sex – everything else is just vanilla!
6) A girl who gets raped is either a worthless whore who’s fucking ASKING for it or else a disrespectful feminist dyke who DESERVES to be raped to show her what she’s missing!
7) A girl who gets raped is MORE likely to get pregnant so it assists the population growth if a rapist does what comes naturally.
8) Making rape a crime hasn’t stopped rape. It’s just made it more dangerous. The guy could get hurt with scratches, punches, kicks, or even hit with objects found nearby. If rape was legalised it would be safe and properly managed. Thee would be special “rape hotels” where needy guys could go and rape the girls with clean facilities and with doctors and nurses on hands to make sure that the girl isn’t carrying any sexually transmitted diseases and to look after the medical welfare of the rapist. The government could even make some money out of it by taking a percentage from the rape hotels so that rape would be contributing to the nation’s economy!
I can think of loads more reasons why rape is good and should be legalised but that’s a start!
Source
Why rape is a gift we should welcome
OK, I’ve put forward already some of the reasons why there’s nothing wrong with raping us girls. I reckon all men convicted of rape should be released from prison immediately and given full compensation for wrongful imprisonment. I’ve got some other ideas on how to help them get over the trauma of their time in prison but I’ll save them for another post!
I’m now going to explain why it’s positively right to rape us. Far from being a crime, rape is actually a public service and a gift to us girls for which we ought to be grateful.
In the first place, it’s equal opportunity sex. Any man can do it to a girl. He doesn’t have to be rich, good-looking, clever or charming or anything like that. All he needs is to have a cock and he can rape me or any other girl just as good as any rich Hollywood star or wealthy businessman can!
Just think of the advantages. Rape means never having to buy me dinner. Rape means never wondering how much it costs to fuck me. Rape means never having to take me out or buy me prezzies. Rape means never having to worry if his car is flash enough or eough of a top of the range model. Rape means never having to worry if he’s got a well-paid job or not! Rape means never having to buy me flowers or pay me compliments!
All a rapist needs is a cock and he can fuck me, or any other girl he wants.
That’s pretty much an equal-opportunity approach to sex, right?
Secondly, it’s obviously my fault that I got raped, isn’t it? After all, if I’d said “yes,” or, even better, “yes please, sir,” he’d never have had to go to all the trouble of raping me, would he? So, like I said, it’s all my fault that I got raped. He didn’t do anything wrong and I’m the only one that did.
Like I said, it’s my fault I got raped in the first place and I should never have said no instead of yes!
Because I did say no like an ungrateful and disrespectful fucking bitch of a twat, he had every right to rape me.
As well as giving him pleasure, he also had the right to rape me just because I was enough of an arrogant cunt to say no to him in the first place, right?
So he had the right to rape me as a just punishment for being arrogant and ungrateful enough to say no to him in the first place, see?
So actually I deserved to be raped for saying no!
Now let’s explain why rape is a gift to us girls and why we should welcome it if we’re lucky enough to get raped.
Rape is the only real sex; everything else is playacting. There’s nothing like the adrenalin rush a girl gets when she’s being raped. It’s amazing how nearly always she’ll have an orgasm just because she was raped rather than having vanilla sex.
So, you see, the rapist is actually doing the girl a big favour by raping her, right? He’s giving her an orgasm which she’s hardly ever going to get with vanilla sex, not just through fucking, anyway; only if the bloke knows how to get a girl’s clit aroused properly which a lot of them haven’t got a fucking clue about!
Another big favour he’s doing her is he’s giving her guilt-free sex. The girl was probably a totally depraved fucking slut anyway or at least secretly wanted to be. Thanks to the bloke who raped her she can get fucked as hard as a professional whore or the village bike that everyone’s rode and yet not have to take the blame for being a total fucking slut so she doesn’t have to feel ashamed or guilty about getting fucked! Once again, the rapist has done the girl a big favour by raping her!
She ought to be very grateful to him! It’s a win-win situation; he gets to fuck her, she gets fucked without having to feel guilty about what she’s done. Everyone ought to be happy about what’s gone down!
Another reason why she ought to be grateful to him is that rape, as some statistics that have been posted on Mansland from scientific geezers who’ve done research on this subject have shown, is more likely to make a girl pregnant than if she’s just fucked the vanilla way. So as well as all the other favours he’s doing her, he’s giving her an extra chance of having a baby by him!
Another reason why rape is so good is that it’s the most honest way to have sex. Hey, guys, you don’t have to tell me you love me; you don’t have to listen to my boring twat talk conversation; you don’t even have to say you think I’m beautiful (though it would be nice if you did but that’s just me being selfish and vain!)
All you have to do is come up to me and say something like, “hey, cunt, I want to fuck you.”
If I say yes then obviously I wanted it anyway so it couldn‘t have been rape in the first place, could it?
If I say no then obviously it’s my fault if I get raped because then you’ve got a perfectly legitimate reason to rape me and, more than that, you’ve actually got a positive right to rape me for saying no.
See how it goes? If I say yes it isn’t rape; if I say no it’s only rape because of what I did wrong, so it’s all my fault, right? The guy who raped me has done nothing wrong at all. In fact, he’s been positively good in the way he’s treated me! I’m the only one who’s gone and done anything wrong!
Now let’s look at some more benefits to the girl who gets raped. Apart from the higher chance of getting an orgasm and of getting pregnant as a result of rape, she’s also going to get the adrenaline rush that comes when you get the shit scared out of you. God, how fucking sexy it is being scared! It’s dead exciting for her to feel that kind of fear and it’s very good of the bloke to give her the chance to experience such a lovely feeling. It’ll almost certainly be the best sex she’s ever had; much better than a boring old vanilla fuck!
The more she fights her true inner desire to submit, and the more she resists her longing to be taken by force regardless of her own selfish desires, the stronger her sexual arousal will become. Yes, folks, our friend the rapist is doing her a favour yet again; he’s turning her on!
Maybe that’s why (as exhaustive psychological and physical studies of so-called “rape victims” have shown; even the lying feminist twats (or, as I prefer to call them, “cuntists” – I hate the fucking feminists with their bullshir, or as I call it when they come out with it, “cowshit”) haven’t been able to explain away or refute the data that shows, maybe surprisingly to a vanilla mind, that the more violence a man uses against a girl when he’s raping her, the less “trauma” she suffers.
To put it in plain English, the girl will actually benefit more from being raped with a certain amount of violence and intimidation than she would from being treated more “gently.”
So, all you rapists out there, if you want to beat us up while you’re raping us, don’t worry about it. You’re not only not doing anything wrong; you’re actually doing us a favour by beating the shit out of us when you rape us. You’re making it more pleasurable for us if you rape us like that so, hey guys, don’t even think about holding back when you rape us.
Just slap us about and punch us and kick us; we fucking love it! Just insult us verbally, telling us we’re all bitches and whores and sluts and cunts; just remind us that we’re not only fucking asking to be raped but that we really fucking love it and we’re just lying twats and hypocritical cunts for pretending that we don’t when we really do; and when you’ve finished having your fun don’t forget to remind us that it was all our fault that we got raped.
As for the girl, what should she do? There’s only one obvious or at least honest answer she can give.
She should say “thank you for raping me. I will be grateful to you for this precious gift for the rest of my life.”
Source
You can see she loves men. Feminists,OTOH,she let's have it with both barrels:
Why feminism sucks
I’m a woman, but I’m not a feminist.
Not at all; not even one tiny bit.
I’ve got NO sympathy for the so-called “women’s movement,”
When I say things like that to a lot of people, especially women, they look at me with a mixture of horror, embarrssment and disbelief. It’s as if I’d said some dirty word in church or something. Saying I don’t believe in feminism when I’m a woman, according to some “feminist thinkers,” supposedly makes me a “gender traitor.”
A gender traitor? Blimey! And I didn’t even know men and women were at war! I thought we were both supposed to be part of the whole cosmic thing, the greater scheme of things and all that.
I had no idea we were supposed to be enemies!
Anyway, what exactly do feminists want? Let’s take a brief overview of what they say they want. These are not in any particular order by the way.
1 Equality
2 Equal opportunity
3 An end to domestic violence
4 An end to rape
5 Affirmative action
6 Positive discrimination
7 Separate but equal treatment
8 Abortion on demand
9 Female empowerment
10Ban on pornography
There are others which some want and not all feminists agree on even some of the 10 I’ve quoted but that’s the broad brush stroke of what they say they want.
Let’s begin by pointing out some obvious contradictions and redundancies.
If a society is equal then obviously equal opportunity is part of that so point 2 is redundant. If a society is equal then points 5, 6 and 7 are in direct CONFLICT with what they claim they want. Point 9 also seems a bit iffy if you believe in equality,
Most people (including most MEN) would broadly agree with them about rape and domestic violence. There’s two problem there though IMO.
The first is that the definition of both has been stretched so widely that they’ve lost any meaning they might have had once. There’s a lunatic fringe of the feminists which is now calling for consensual sex between a man and a woman to be a criminal offence unless the guy is able to produce written consent to sex by the woman! Not just in general, either; a specific written consent to each and every act of sex. Otherwise the guy can be charged with rape!
How crazy is that? Maybe we should just get a lawyer standing in line in every bedroom with a written contract drawn up and the guy signs it every time he wants to have sex!
And it’s “gender discrimination” in any case because there’s no corresponding obligation on the woman to sign this paper stating that the man was a willing participant! Would that mean that a woman could now get away with rape but a man can’t even have consensual sex with his own partner without drawing up a legal document first?
Utter madness!
And, of course, the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and others have argued that unless the woman directly initates and controls the act of sex then even consensual sex is rape!
So let’s get this right; if the man initiates and controls the sex it’s rape but if the woman does it isn’t?
Yeah, right.
Funny how all that talk about equality and equal opportunities went out of the window, isn’t it?
The whole idea of “separate but equal” treatment is a heap of lies. That’s what the segregationists in the south used to argue they had in terms of the treatment of African-Americans and the Supreme Court rhrew it out as unconstitutional. Yet again and again I’ve seen that exact phrase used by feminists to justify a more privileged position in society for women.If
That equality thing again, right?
Funny how much it reminds me of “Animal Farm” where Orwell gets the main character to say “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others!”
The fact is that the feminist claims to equality are a lie. They don’t want equal treaament; they want a privileged status for women and for the law and society to favour women more than men.
Well, ladies, that might be your gynocratic utopia but there’s no way it’s anything resembling either equality or equal opportunity!
The same thing goes for “affirmative action” or “positive discrimination” programmes. If you appoint the person you genuinely feel is the best for the job regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever that’s being non-discriminatory., If you have quota systems where you force employers or whatever to choose a less capable person simply because of their gender or skin colour or whatever that’s just being racist or sexist and there’s nothing “positive” about what you’re doing. Once again, the feminist claim that they want equality is just a lie.
The rape question is more complex. I know my views on rape are unconventional to put it mildly so I’ll just argue with feminism from the mainstream point of view.
Rape, according to the law, is a sexual act carried out against the wishes of the other person and without their consent. Men can rape women or other men and women can rape men or other women. The issue of consent is crucial in establishing whether or not a sexual act was an act of rape or a consensual encounter.
Now in normal criminal cases like if you’re accused of stealing something (probably the nearest legal parallel to rape) the court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the act of theft. There’s a presumption of innocence, the need to produce hard evidence and (ideally) eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you did it.
In rape cases, all this is stood on its head. There’s no requirement for eyewitness testimony (obviously that’s often difficult so we can let that one go)’ the burden of proof is shifted from the accuser to the defendant so instead of her having to prove that he did rape her, he is compelled to try and prove tha the didn’t; there’s a presumption of guilt; due process is routinely ignored or set aside; and no hard evidence against the defendant has to be produced. Routinely, innocent men are sentenced to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, as DNA tests have subsequently shown. Out of the men in the US who’ve been CONVICTED of rape and served time in prison and then subsequently got DNA testing, 60% turned out to have been NOT guilty. In other words, they not only hadn’t raped the woman; they couldn’t have raped her. The only reason the man was sent to prison was because the woman lied about what had happened.
So, OK, the woman lied about being raped. What happens to her? 9 times out of 10, nothing at all. At worst she might get a slap on the wrist. Once in a blue moon one will get sent to prison for about 5 minutes but that’s rare. Yet she’s c learly guilty of perjury and reckless endangerment by her lying about what happened. So why should she get a free pass?
Then there’s the question of “anonymity.” The feminists claim that it’s essential for the identity of the accuser, or as they habitually refer to her, the “rape victim,” to be protected.
Fine, let’s go with that. But what about the accused? Why doesn’t he get the same right to anonymity? Why is it OK to splash his name and photo all over the media but not hers? What’s sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.
That old “eqaulity” thing again, right?
Once again we see feminists demanding special privileges for women that they deny to men. They are quite happy to violate due process, set aside the presumption of innocence, and allow “evidence” in rape cases that would be thrown out of court in other types of criminal trial. Why? Do they really want equality? Or do they just hate men?
There’s also the fact that in 45% of cases in Britain where the woman goes to the police and it’s investigated, it’s found out during the course of the enquiry that the woman is lying about being raped. That means that nearly half of the cases brought to the attention of the cops are phoney raps.On top of that in 53% of cases where she makes an accusation and then withdraws it, investigation shows that, once again, she was lying about being raped.
Now I’m no greatr mathematician but whatever way you look at those statistics they add up to the same thing. Most claims by women that they were raped are false and downright lies.
So why do people believe in this vast conspiracy of rapists that the feminists put about? Search me! I guess it’s partly a genuine fear of crime, fear to the point of paranoia; partly because we’ve been brainwashed by lies; and partly just salacious interest. Whatever, the facts simply don’t support the feminist claims on rape and nor do they provide any excuse for the feminist subversion of due process, the presumption of innocence and lowering the bar for evidence and testimony in “rape” trials.
Out of the cases that DO come to court, in 40% of them it’s shown either at the trial or subesequently that, guess what, once again the woman was lying about what happened. No crime, except maybe domestic violence, is more often lied about than rape. Women use it as a weapon to intimidate a man they’ve fallen out with, as an excuse for their shame at the consensual sex they had, or even to cover up some other offence that they, not the man, committed.
On top of that even when an accused man can show beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape the woman he can still be convicted and sent to prison solely on the unsupported word of his accuser. That old equality again, right? Crime labs routinely knowingly falsify the results of DNA tests and other forensic items that are entered into evidence and lead to the conviction of wholly innocent men. Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Ma nhattan DA’s office, says that 50% of the rape cases she dealt with were based on unfounded accusations and were entirely baseless. In other words, half of the claims just in the cases she dealt with were nothing more than malicious lies! Although they’re reluctant to publicise the fact, the majority of cases investigated by the Innocence Project concern allegations of rape.
Even when the claims of rape are so clearly false, feminists still maintain their fantasies in violation of the truth. In one notorious case a student at a university in America eventually admitted that she’d lied about being raped by a male student (they hadn’t even HAD sex!) and a “feminist thinker” commented, “well, maybe he didn’t actually rape her, but he clearly violated her in some way.” A VAssar assistant dean went even further, claiming that it was “good” for a man to be falsely accused of rape, since it forced him to think “well, if I didn’t violate her, could I have done?”
Most rape accusations are lies and the same, sadly, is also true of “domestic violence.” This is defined so loosely that almost anyone could be sent to prison for it. The U.S. Justice Department definition of “domestic violence” includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing.” as acts of “domestic violence.” On the basic of such fantastic claims, men in America are routinely jailed, often even without ever being brought to trial! .
Even worse, according to officially reported figures released by police, allegation of domesitc violence by women against men now stand s at a figure of 38%. Given the extreme reluctance of men to report abuse by their wives and girlfriends against them, senior police sources unofficially admit that the majority of domestic violence in Britain is now carried out agaist men by women. Yet where is the publicity for the cause of “batterd men?” Where are the shelters for thme to hide away from their abusers? #where is the rapid intervention by the police to arrest the woman before she kills or seriusly injures her man?
Well, where is it? Nowhere, of course. Under the posionous influence of feminism, men are slowly being turned into second class citizens.
What we hear instead is a relentless and dishonest chorus about violence by men against women when even the police admit that nowadays the majority of domestic violence cases are actually assaults by women upon men! As the innate chivalry of men, to say nothing of their social embarrasment at having to report their wife or girlfriend, makes them disproportiobately less likely to file a complaint, the police s7uspect that the true figures show that around 66% of actual domestic assaults are carried out by women against men, Yet neither the media nor government addresses or even discusses the problem in any way. Women habitually portray themselves as the victims and men are castigated as brutal abusers who are battering their partners almost non-stop.
Bad as the situation is in Britain, it is even worse in America. The law is stacked against the male defendant to such an extent that cases of domestic violence now resemble the “justice” system in countries like North Kore3a or Iran. One judge in New Jersey, for instance, told his fellow jurists, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Even the official court publications of New Jersey admit that due process is routinely ignored in domestic violence cases because “it perpetuates the cycle of power and control wherby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” Look at the loaded language used as well – “perpetrator” and “victim” rather than “accused” and “defendant.” The guilt is assumed simply because charges have been brought. The presumption of innocence, likd eue process, is chucked on the scrapheap. A New York “feminist” judge describes the removal of the presumption of innocence as forcing “batterrers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.”
There are also Kafkaesque tribunals known as “integrated domestic violence courts” where the guilt of the defendant is automatically assumed and which have the power to seize property, including homes, even though the person accused has not been convicted or even charged with any offence. Nor is it necessary to allow them to be present at the “hearings” where such decisions are taken to defend himself , or represented by a lawyer at them. These “domestic violence courts” are deliberately set up to evade the constitutional rights of the citizen and even the existing criminal law with its guarantees of protection., The presumption is of guilt and not innocence, the burden of proof is done away with altogether, and it has become standard practice for “confessions” to be extorted from the accused by a variety of means.
Pennsylvania is in a class of its own when it comes to this issue. In that state, men are routinely arrested and held in custody until they sign a “confession” stating “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man is then order to “descibe” his “violence,” even if he insists that he did notr commit any. His “confession” also includes the words “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.” If he does not sign these forms, he can be held indefinitely in prison, without any chafrge, until he does sign them.
So what we have is a situation where a man accused of domestic violence can be held in prison without charge, have his property and assets seized without trial, even if he insists on his innocence. If a man accuses his partner of the same offence, she will not be subjected to the same kind of treatment and is far less likely to be convicted if the case comes to court. And that’s in spite of the fact that women are the aggressors in two-thirds of the cases!
And, of course, unlike the law in Britain, where the violence at least has to be physical, in the Stater you can be treated like this just on the basis of “”extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing!.”It’s like the old days where a “nagging wife” could be subjected to the “scold’s bridle” except that these days its’ a “nagging husband!” .
That old feminist equality thing again, right? Yeah, right!
For all their gobby ranting about equality, feminists don‘t want it at all. They want to rule men in the same way the slaveowners ruled the slaves in the old days. They’re gynocrats and not democrats. They compalin about patriarchy but want to institute a matriarchy.
The obvious incompatibility between affirmative action, positive discrimination and “separate but equal” claims with their boasted belief in equality is just total hypocrisy. They just want the hens to rool the roost.
Feminism is an essentially Nazi way of looking at the world. Feminists look on men in the same way the Nazis looked at the Jews and gypsies and they’re every bit as ruthless, dishonest and indifferent to the sufferings of their victims. A lot of people don’t know this but Nazi Germany was the first state where openly feminist women got positions of power. Guida Diehls, Lydia Gottschewski, Gertrude Scholtz-Klink wielded huge power, greater than any woman had had since the days of Catherine the Great or was to see again before Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. Gottschweski, a loathsome racist and militarist, is listed on a feminist website as one of its “Women of Wisdoms” and coyly described as “a German political activits,” though the site carefully avoids saying which ;party she was active on behalf of!
Feminism doesn’t even respect women. It might hate and demonise men but its greatest contempt and hatred is reserved for what it calls, in a phrase reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan’s “race traitors,” “gender traitors.” Women like me who are “just” mothers and wives are looked upon with total contempt, regarded as stupid, unambitious, lazy and as “perpetuating the patriarchal power structure.”
Bollocks!
Because these people are incapable of feeling love and compassion themselves, or tolerance for other points of view, or respect for other humans simply because we all share that rich humanity, they hate and demonise anyone who does.
The only “crime” of “gender traitor” me is the crime of love.
In the words of the poeet Pope, “is it, in heaven, a crime to love too well?”
Yes, Your Honour, I plead guilty to the crime of love.
As Luther said at his trial for heresy, “here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.”
Source
Friday, February 5, 2016
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Tell the Univeristy of Minnesota to abandon anti-male draconian practice
From SAVE Services:
The University of Minnesota President, Eric Kaler, is attempting to enact an affirmative consent policy at the school. Members of the University's Board of Regents asked him to hold off until they could review such a serious change at their next meeting. Now, the President is getting pressured into enacting the policy by media, even though affirmative consent would result in draconian and overbroad definitions of sexual assault crimes. Such definitions would require the school to call innocent students 'criminals'.Please contact President Kaler now and tell him to NOT pass an affirmative consent policy, and to instead stick with state definitions of crimes.
Call: (612) 626-1616
Or Email: upres@umn.edu
This is a good sign. They are proceeding with caution. 15-20 years ago they would be enthusiastic about a pro-feminist policy change. Hell they would be shouting it on top of roofs so that everyone could hear that they take women's complaints seriously and they didn't care if the complaints were genuine or not they just went with them. Gushing all over themselves about how sensitive they are to women's concerns. Today that is not the case. Today they are proceeding with caution and rightfully so. We are no longer sitting back and taking it. We are no longer sitting on the sidelines wondering when the misandry would end because as long as we did nothing nothing would change. We finally got fed up and decided to push back and that is when things got turned around. Men's Rights Activism works don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
The University of Minnesota President, Eric Kaler, is attempting to enact an affirmative consent policy at the school. Members of the University's Board of Regents asked him to hold off until they could review such a serious change at their next meeting. Now, the President is getting pressured into enacting the policy by media, even though affirmative consent would result in draconian and overbroad definitions of sexual assault crimes. Such definitions would require the school to call innocent students 'criminals'.Please contact President Kaler now and tell him to NOT pass an affirmative consent policy, and to instead stick with state definitions of crimes.
Call: (612) 626-1616
Or Email: upres@umn.edu
This is a good sign. They are proceeding with caution. 15-20 years ago they would be enthusiastic about a pro-feminist policy change. Hell they would be shouting it on top of roofs so that everyone could hear that they take women's complaints seriously and they didn't care if the complaints were genuine or not they just went with them. Gushing all over themselves about how sensitive they are to women's concerns. Today that is not the case. Today they are proceeding with caution and rightfully so. We are no longer sitting back and taking it. We are no longer sitting on the sidelines wondering when the misandry would end because as long as we did nothing nothing would change. We finally got fed up and decided to push back and that is when things got turned around. Men's Rights Activism works don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Feminist goes on anti-male murder spree
EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD WOMAN GOES ON KILLING SPREE, DECLARES WAR ON THE PATRIARCHY, DIVIDES FEMINISTS
July 3, 2014 · by Diversity Chronicle · in Gun Control, Homophobia, Intolerance, Patriarchy, The Right To Choose, The War On Women · 2 Comments
Fighting Patriarchy
By Werombi Towradji
“Every male is a legitimate target. Every male is a rapist and an abuser of women! There are no exceptions! Even little boys will grow up to one day abuse women in some way or another. They too are legitimate targets.” So said young Anna Feldman in a politically charged “woman-ifesto” released over the internet hours before she grabbed an M-16 military style assault rifle and began her one woman war on patriarchal sexism at her college.
Many Feminists and Human Rights activists agree with Feldman; all males are potential rapists and they justly deserve to die for their collective crimes against women. Unfortunately, Feldman did not limit her killing to males. Several women were seriously injured and several died during her attack at Washington Progressive Community College.
Because Anna chose not to limit her attacks to men only, her actions remain controversial among feminists and progressives. In her attack last Thursday, Anna killed 24 men and injured 41. Regrettably, Anna also killed 26 young female college students and injured 67. Tragically, after the shootings, Anna turned her gun on herself, shooting herself in the head, ending her own life after ending so many others.
Friends of Anna report that she was distraught over her inability to find a girlfriend. Weighing nearly 400 pounds, Anna sometimes felt that her weight might possibly have been a barrier to finding a meaningful relationship with an attractive young woman. Anna complained on her blog that “All the pretty lesbians go for slender thin girls. OK, I am a little bit large. Maybe I am a little awkward with girls. But why can’t someone just give me a chance? I am a kind and fun person. I deserve to be loved. Girls can be so superficial. Besides, no one has the right to judge me for how I look. Lookism ultimately stems from patriarchy, it is a male behaviour that sadly women have adopted.”
In the weeks preceding her attacks, roommates reported that Anna often spent her evenings crying. She would often watch Lifetime television or read erotic lesbian vampire fiction and consume an entire carton of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Some critics on the extreme fringe of the radical right, believe Anna was pushed over the edge by her own personal life problems, rather than by an overriding concern with social justice. A friend, Lynette Rodriguez, suggested to Anna that she should consider trying to lose weight, exercising and perhaps talking to someone about her problems. Anna responded by telling her to “shut up you judgemental fucking cunt” and to “stop fat shaming” as “beautiful women come in all sizes and shapes.”
While Women’s Studies professors and Feminists across the country have praised Anna for her courage, and her brilliant manifesto, some are hating on her, even in death. “Anna reported in her diary entry the day that she died, that she wanted to get revenge on all the ‘pretty’ slim girls who turned her down and didn’t give her a chance. She wasn’t just mad about men abusing women. She felt women too had somehow wronged her. That makes Anna a traitor to her gender! Feminists do not hate other women! The psycho bitch thought that she was somehow entitled to pussy!” Prof. Claudia Jackson at Mississippi State Women’s College noted.
“Some say she’s a little bit like that creep Elliot Rodgers. Maybe that’s too harsh. She was upset because she couldn’t find someone to love her and have a relationship with her. Of course he was a man, so he only wanted sex. On the other hand, Anna did write a brilliant manifesto calling for the absolutely necessary eradication of all men from the planet. She was a complicated individual. She deserves much praise but also much criticism. If only she had directed all of her energy toward fighting patriarchy. Deep down, I believe she was a truly noble person.” Feminist veteran Gloria Steinem noted.
Close friend and fellow student Susan Aaronson had only praise for Anna. “She showed so much courage. She shot so many men. It was great! I was cheering for her after I found out! The girls she shot were traitors to their womanhood anyway. They were just make-up and dress wearing trash. Real women are strong and empowered and they don’t have to shave their legs or wear make-up or to try to look good for men. We don’t need women like them anyway. We are a stronger gender because they are dead! Anna is my hero!”
Some feminists believe the criticism of Anna is being unjustly levelled. They point out that Anna did not kill a single person herself. Anna used a gun to commit the horrific crimes which transpired. They claim that we should stop judging Anna and ask, instead, how did a young college girl gain access to a deadly weapon. It seems likely Anna would not have harmed anyone had she been unable to obtain a gun. In fact, if it were not for guns, this entire incident very likely would have never occurred! They also point out that our society continues to glamorize guns and violent weapons in films and television. These important factors cannot be divorced from the tragedy.
Anna’s feminist defenders also point out that according to her gynecologist, Anna was in the middle of her cycle and her judgement was impaired and strained by deep emotion at the time of the attacks. In short, she was not in any way responsible for her actions at the time. It also seems highly likely that a man sold Anna the gun which she used to tragically kill so many. Very few women work at gun stores or own or sell assault rifles.
One thing is for certain, the gun is at least partially responsible and Anna should not have to bear the responsibility for her actions alone. When someone is killed with a gun, two elements are involved, the killer and the gun, which does the actual killing. Without the second element present, killing someone would be much more difficult, if not impossible. It is unbelievable that we are in 2014 and all private firearms have not been outlawed yet in the US. Let us hope that politicians will fully exploit this tragedy and attempt to finally repeal the second amendment once and for all!
Some extreme women haters in the so-called “Men’s Rights Movement” are complaining about imaginary double standards in the treatment of the Elliot Rodger case compared to the Anna Feldman case. They claim that Rodgers was ridiculed for having a “sense of entitlement” for feeling he had a right to female companionship. Yet, they claim Anna Feldman has been given a pass by most for her ultimately murderous anger over not being able to get a girlfriend. The simple answer to this is that any heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman inherently involves the exploitation of women. A woman is only truly free and empowered when she has chosen to embrace lesbianism. Therefore, a man has no right to female companionship while a woman does.
The so-called “Men’s Rights” women haters claim that we were forbidden from asking what motivated Elliot Rodger and what led him to commit his crimes. They allege that we were not allowed to see him as a human being with feelings of his own. They claim that great effort has been made to portray Anna Feldman, by contrast as a complex human being, and to exonerate her from responsibility for her actions. They also allege that the mainstream media has worked to cover up the Anna Feldman case and that most people have never heard of it!
Let’s get this straight. Any attempt to understand Elliot Rodger and his motivations constitutes a crime against women and an act of violence! He was a racist white supremacist woman hating murderer who felt entitled to women’s bodies! As Anna Kasperian of The Young Turks noted, we shouldn’t be trying to understand Rodger, but instead we should be asking legitimate questions. Questions like how did he get a gun! By contrast Anna Feldman was a complex individual, who while not perfect, exerted great effort to advance women’s rights. The two are polar opposites and have almost nothing in common.
Since Anna’s death, several women have come forward alleging that they were sexually abused by her. Progressives believe that these critics are paid shills hired by the extreme and radical right. Their purpose is to propagate false and unverifiable claims in an attempt to discredit Anna Feldman’s struggle against patriarchy. These women are traitors to their gender and their allegations are as absurd as they are offensive to the cause of women’s rights. These creatures have shown by their behaviour that they don’t deserve to be called women. They are nothing but whores and bitches who seek to malign the name of a woman whose greatness they can never hope to approximate. They are motivated by greed and jealousy, and are hoping to sell their BS stories to Fox News.
Perhaps Anna’s greatest contribution to the feminist cause was her manifesto. In it Anna expressed profound and brilliant thoughts that are inspiring a new generation of feminists and human rights activists. Titled “My Woman-ifesto” Anna bravely and unabashedly sought to warn young girls about the dangers of men, and urged them to begin experimenting with lesbianism. Thousands of copies of her Woman-ifesto are turning up at schools and colleges across the country and around the world.
Anna noted “The earlier you start trying lesbianism the more normal it will seem to you and the easier it will be. I spent several years working to overcome my unnatural and disgusting attraction to men. Heterosexuality constitutes a betrayal of your gender. It is a myth that people are born heterosexual, it is entirely a social construct.”
Anna pointed out that “All unborn fetuses are parasites that depend on women’s bodies in order to survive. To become pregnant is to allow an organism to live and grow in your body. Remember the movie Alien? These hideous aliens would grow inside people’s bodies and then kill them. Fetuses are no different from that, why can’t people see that? Every baby is a hostile parasite that must be destroyed. If you ever become pregnant it is your moral duty to have an abortion. If you don’t do it, you are a traitor to your gender and part of the patriarchy. Abortion must be made compulsory!
Anna advises girls to “recognize that every male is a potential rapist who only sees women as a means to satisfy his own disgusting lusts. Men are incapable of love or compassion. They are pigs unworthy of life. It is our great destiny as women to abolish the male gender and rid our planet of all men. Women will require a strong leader to do this. I believe that I am the one ordained by Gaia for this great undertaking. I know that I am destined to rule the world. Women who resist or stand in my way, will just have to die.”
Anna’s actions make her a very controversial figure, but she deserves to be remembered as a complex human being and not a monster. She was a strong and brilliant young woman, yet also a woman who was suffering deep emotional pain. She was a woman who desperately craved love and acceptance but tragically was unable to find it. As we mourn the deaths of the young women she tragically killed, let us also hope that in death Anna found the peace that she could not find in life.
In this writer’s opinion, Anna deserves to be remembered as a victim of the radical gun lobby, which enabled her to ultimately obtain an assault rifle. She was an intelligent, strong, and independent young woman who, despite her faults, made a greatly meaningful contribution to feminism and women’s studies. Like Malcolm X was to African-American studies, Anna Feldman will be to Women’s Studies.
I write this article just after the Supreme Court’s offensive, blatantly chauvinist and woman-hating ruling that privately held corporations do not have to pay for women’s birth control and abortions. The Supreme Court of male chauvinists claims that the government can pay for the birth control and abortions and that businesses should not be forced to violate their religious principles. However, that is a mere smokescreen.
The real agenda of the Supreme Court is to try to make it as hard as possible for women to exercise their own rights over their own bodies! Their goal is ultimately to outlaw all birth control and all abortions, under all circumstances. They want to force women to have children they do not want against their will! These patriarchal extremists will not be satisfied until every woman in this country is bare-foot, pregnant, and chained to a kitchen stove! They want nothing less than the total enslavement of women.
Tragically, we live in an age where the war on women becomes ever more violent and radical, and where far-right and religious extremists conspire and threaten to stop women from having access to birth control and abortion. Brave women like Anna Feldman are needed now more than ever! Yes, she made mistakes, but we need more women like Anna Feldman, strong and courageous women who are not afraid to fight patriarchy. Patriarchy must be castrated and smashed, before it succeeds in outlawing birth control and reducing women to their former status as kitchen slaves and breeders for men.
Source
I was floored by the hypocrisy in this article. This is how feminists think. This is who they are. They accuse others of rape and violence yet engage in it themselves. When others do it they blame the perps yet when they do it they blame the victim. Wait,isn't that "victim blaming"? Yes,it is. Don't feminists pay lip service to protest "victim blaming"? Yes,they do. When is "victim blaming" okay? Well,apparently when a feminist does it is excused by other feminists and society at large. This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to address. For our own safety we need to address it as a society and we need to do so now.
July 3, 2014 · by Diversity Chronicle · in Gun Control, Homophobia, Intolerance, Patriarchy, The Right To Choose, The War On Women · 2 Comments
Fighting Patriarchy
By Werombi Towradji
“Every male is a legitimate target. Every male is a rapist and an abuser of women! There are no exceptions! Even little boys will grow up to one day abuse women in some way or another. They too are legitimate targets.” So said young Anna Feldman in a politically charged “woman-ifesto” released over the internet hours before she grabbed an M-16 military style assault rifle and began her one woman war on patriarchal sexism at her college.
Many Feminists and Human Rights activists agree with Feldman; all males are potential rapists and they justly deserve to die for their collective crimes against women. Unfortunately, Feldman did not limit her killing to males. Several women were seriously injured and several died during her attack at Washington Progressive Community College.
Because Anna chose not to limit her attacks to men only, her actions remain controversial among feminists and progressives. In her attack last Thursday, Anna killed 24 men and injured 41. Regrettably, Anna also killed 26 young female college students and injured 67. Tragically, after the shootings, Anna turned her gun on herself, shooting herself in the head, ending her own life after ending so many others.
Friends of Anna report that she was distraught over her inability to find a girlfriend. Weighing nearly 400 pounds, Anna sometimes felt that her weight might possibly have been a barrier to finding a meaningful relationship with an attractive young woman. Anna complained on her blog that “All the pretty lesbians go for slender thin girls. OK, I am a little bit large. Maybe I am a little awkward with girls. But why can’t someone just give me a chance? I am a kind and fun person. I deserve to be loved. Girls can be so superficial. Besides, no one has the right to judge me for how I look. Lookism ultimately stems from patriarchy, it is a male behaviour that sadly women have adopted.”
In the weeks preceding her attacks, roommates reported that Anna often spent her evenings crying. She would often watch Lifetime television or read erotic lesbian vampire fiction and consume an entire carton of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Some critics on the extreme fringe of the radical right, believe Anna was pushed over the edge by her own personal life problems, rather than by an overriding concern with social justice. A friend, Lynette Rodriguez, suggested to Anna that she should consider trying to lose weight, exercising and perhaps talking to someone about her problems. Anna responded by telling her to “shut up you judgemental fucking cunt” and to “stop fat shaming” as “beautiful women come in all sizes and shapes.”
While Women’s Studies professors and Feminists across the country have praised Anna for her courage, and her brilliant manifesto, some are hating on her, even in death. “Anna reported in her diary entry the day that she died, that she wanted to get revenge on all the ‘pretty’ slim girls who turned her down and didn’t give her a chance. She wasn’t just mad about men abusing women. She felt women too had somehow wronged her. That makes Anna a traitor to her gender! Feminists do not hate other women! The psycho bitch thought that she was somehow entitled to pussy!” Prof. Claudia Jackson at Mississippi State Women’s College noted.
“Some say she’s a little bit like that creep Elliot Rodgers. Maybe that’s too harsh. She was upset because she couldn’t find someone to love her and have a relationship with her. Of course he was a man, so he only wanted sex. On the other hand, Anna did write a brilliant manifesto calling for the absolutely necessary eradication of all men from the planet. She was a complicated individual. She deserves much praise but also much criticism. If only she had directed all of her energy toward fighting patriarchy. Deep down, I believe she was a truly noble person.” Feminist veteran Gloria Steinem noted.
Close friend and fellow student Susan Aaronson had only praise for Anna. “She showed so much courage. She shot so many men. It was great! I was cheering for her after I found out! The girls she shot were traitors to their womanhood anyway. They were just make-up and dress wearing trash. Real women are strong and empowered and they don’t have to shave their legs or wear make-up or to try to look good for men. We don’t need women like them anyway. We are a stronger gender because they are dead! Anna is my hero!”
Some feminists believe the criticism of Anna is being unjustly levelled. They point out that Anna did not kill a single person herself. Anna used a gun to commit the horrific crimes which transpired. They claim that we should stop judging Anna and ask, instead, how did a young college girl gain access to a deadly weapon. It seems likely Anna would not have harmed anyone had she been unable to obtain a gun. In fact, if it were not for guns, this entire incident very likely would have never occurred! They also point out that our society continues to glamorize guns and violent weapons in films and television. These important factors cannot be divorced from the tragedy.
Anna’s feminist defenders also point out that according to her gynecologist, Anna was in the middle of her cycle and her judgement was impaired and strained by deep emotion at the time of the attacks. In short, she was not in any way responsible for her actions at the time. It also seems highly likely that a man sold Anna the gun which she used to tragically kill so many. Very few women work at gun stores or own or sell assault rifles.
One thing is for certain, the gun is at least partially responsible and Anna should not have to bear the responsibility for her actions alone. When someone is killed with a gun, two elements are involved, the killer and the gun, which does the actual killing. Without the second element present, killing someone would be much more difficult, if not impossible. It is unbelievable that we are in 2014 and all private firearms have not been outlawed yet in the US. Let us hope that politicians will fully exploit this tragedy and attempt to finally repeal the second amendment once and for all!
Some extreme women haters in the so-called “Men’s Rights Movement” are complaining about imaginary double standards in the treatment of the Elliot Rodger case compared to the Anna Feldman case. They claim that Rodgers was ridiculed for having a “sense of entitlement” for feeling he had a right to female companionship. Yet, they claim Anna Feldman has been given a pass by most for her ultimately murderous anger over not being able to get a girlfriend. The simple answer to this is that any heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman inherently involves the exploitation of women. A woman is only truly free and empowered when she has chosen to embrace lesbianism. Therefore, a man has no right to female companionship while a woman does.
The so-called “Men’s Rights” women haters claim that we were forbidden from asking what motivated Elliot Rodger and what led him to commit his crimes. They allege that we were not allowed to see him as a human being with feelings of his own. They claim that great effort has been made to portray Anna Feldman, by contrast as a complex human being, and to exonerate her from responsibility for her actions. They also allege that the mainstream media has worked to cover up the Anna Feldman case and that most people have never heard of it!
Let’s get this straight. Any attempt to understand Elliot Rodger and his motivations constitutes a crime against women and an act of violence! He was a racist white supremacist woman hating murderer who felt entitled to women’s bodies! As Anna Kasperian of The Young Turks noted, we shouldn’t be trying to understand Rodger, but instead we should be asking legitimate questions. Questions like how did he get a gun! By contrast Anna Feldman was a complex individual, who while not perfect, exerted great effort to advance women’s rights. The two are polar opposites and have almost nothing in common.
Since Anna’s death, several women have come forward alleging that they were sexually abused by her. Progressives believe that these critics are paid shills hired by the extreme and radical right. Their purpose is to propagate false and unverifiable claims in an attempt to discredit Anna Feldman’s struggle against patriarchy. These women are traitors to their gender and their allegations are as absurd as they are offensive to the cause of women’s rights. These creatures have shown by their behaviour that they don’t deserve to be called women. They are nothing but whores and bitches who seek to malign the name of a woman whose greatness they can never hope to approximate. They are motivated by greed and jealousy, and are hoping to sell their BS stories to Fox News.
Perhaps Anna’s greatest contribution to the feminist cause was her manifesto. In it Anna expressed profound and brilliant thoughts that are inspiring a new generation of feminists and human rights activists. Titled “My Woman-ifesto” Anna bravely and unabashedly sought to warn young girls about the dangers of men, and urged them to begin experimenting with lesbianism. Thousands of copies of her Woman-ifesto are turning up at schools and colleges across the country and around the world.
Anna noted “The earlier you start trying lesbianism the more normal it will seem to you and the easier it will be. I spent several years working to overcome my unnatural and disgusting attraction to men. Heterosexuality constitutes a betrayal of your gender. It is a myth that people are born heterosexual, it is entirely a social construct.”
Anna pointed out that “All unborn fetuses are parasites that depend on women’s bodies in order to survive. To become pregnant is to allow an organism to live and grow in your body. Remember the movie Alien? These hideous aliens would grow inside people’s bodies and then kill them. Fetuses are no different from that, why can’t people see that? Every baby is a hostile parasite that must be destroyed. If you ever become pregnant it is your moral duty to have an abortion. If you don’t do it, you are a traitor to your gender and part of the patriarchy. Abortion must be made compulsory!
Anna advises girls to “recognize that every male is a potential rapist who only sees women as a means to satisfy his own disgusting lusts. Men are incapable of love or compassion. They are pigs unworthy of life. It is our great destiny as women to abolish the male gender and rid our planet of all men. Women will require a strong leader to do this. I believe that I am the one ordained by Gaia for this great undertaking. I know that I am destined to rule the world. Women who resist or stand in my way, will just have to die.”
Anna’s actions make her a very controversial figure, but she deserves to be remembered as a complex human being and not a monster. She was a strong and brilliant young woman, yet also a woman who was suffering deep emotional pain. She was a woman who desperately craved love and acceptance but tragically was unable to find it. As we mourn the deaths of the young women she tragically killed, let us also hope that in death Anna found the peace that she could not find in life.
In this writer’s opinion, Anna deserves to be remembered as a victim of the radical gun lobby, which enabled her to ultimately obtain an assault rifle. She was an intelligent, strong, and independent young woman who, despite her faults, made a greatly meaningful contribution to feminism and women’s studies. Like Malcolm X was to African-American studies, Anna Feldman will be to Women’s Studies.
I write this article just after the Supreme Court’s offensive, blatantly chauvinist and woman-hating ruling that privately held corporations do not have to pay for women’s birth control and abortions. The Supreme Court of male chauvinists claims that the government can pay for the birth control and abortions and that businesses should not be forced to violate their religious principles. However, that is a mere smokescreen.
The real agenda of the Supreme Court is to try to make it as hard as possible for women to exercise their own rights over their own bodies! Their goal is ultimately to outlaw all birth control and all abortions, under all circumstances. They want to force women to have children they do not want against their will! These patriarchal extremists will not be satisfied until every woman in this country is bare-foot, pregnant, and chained to a kitchen stove! They want nothing less than the total enslavement of women.
Tragically, we live in an age where the war on women becomes ever more violent and radical, and where far-right and religious extremists conspire and threaten to stop women from having access to birth control and abortion. Brave women like Anna Feldman are needed now more than ever! Yes, she made mistakes, but we need more women like Anna Feldman, strong and courageous women who are not afraid to fight patriarchy. Patriarchy must be castrated and smashed, before it succeeds in outlawing birth control and reducing women to their former status as kitchen slaves and breeders for men.
Source
I was floored by the hypocrisy in this article. This is how feminists think. This is who they are. They accuse others of rape and violence yet engage in it themselves. When others do it they blame the perps yet when they do it they blame the victim. Wait,isn't that "victim blaming"? Yes,it is. Don't feminists pay lip service to protest "victim blaming"? Yes,they do. When is "victim blaming" okay? Well,apparently when a feminist does it is excused by other feminists and society at large. This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to address. For our own safety we need to address it as a society and we need to do so now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)