Women (and Children) Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 5942

A recent issue of the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer demonstrated the utterly contrariness of modern feminist dogma, and the conundrum in which it places our culture. An article in the January 15, 2020 issue by Hilary Kraus titled "Facility's sex stats scrutinized" recounts a recent sex scandal at a detention center. This story profoundly illustrates that what we all know by
sheer common sense about feminism is true....

We all know that women don't lie about rape. They do not do this, feminists say, for several reasons, not the least of which is the sheer moral superiority of the woman. So beyond sin is
the character of the woman that it could never happen that she would lie about rape (or domestic violence, or abuse, or sexual harassment - even if to do so would give her a great amount
of leverage during custody battles, divorce proceedings, or consequent to not being hired or promoted, etc.). We know that women do not lie about rape also because they are so horribly
victimized by "the system" that for a woman to merely complain of rape to the authorities (who are likely to be unenlightened white males who read Plato or the Bible at some point in their lives!) is to submit to being victimized twice: once by the rapist and again by police and the courts.

We have seen much evidence that women do not lie about rape in recent years. We have seen that strippers performing for Lacrosse teams do not lie about rape. Oh, wait a minute....

Well, anyway, we have seen that women never try to seduce college basketball coaches and then extort money from them using false allegations of rape. Oh, *ahem*, well, anyway....

So at least we have seen that well-known performers are never targeted with false allegations of rape....

OK, so journalists are never targeted....

But of course, feminist activists never manufacture false allegations of rape, because they know what is at stake!!! Oh, wait....

Well, anyway, thank God for feminists who tell us that women never lie about rape! Otherwise, the sheer weight of the evidence to the contrary likely would have convinced us that they might deign to do so!

But even if women sometimes do lie about rape (even though we know they don't!), at least children never lie about rape or molestation. Children are, of course, morally unsullied and can be relied upon to not have been brainwashed by tactics endorsed by women's shelters - which encourage women to manufacture false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault as a means of furthering their own personal interests and as a means of snagging federal funding for the shelters. Of course, since children have never been in women's shelters, and because they are, by nature, quite innocent, we can be assured that children merely need to be listened to when they make allegations. Children, of course, would never lie about such things.

Unless, of course, such tactics were now so prevalent that one could learn them merely from existing in a culture which encourages the creative use of false allegations for all kinds of purposes. But inasmuch as feminists assure us that there is no culture of false allegations (because, of course, feminists tell us that the rate of false reporting for sex crimes is identical to that of, say, property crimes!), we can be sure that children have not picked up any such strategies or motivations from our culture.

Enter the Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sponsored a survey which queried youngsters anonymously at various youth centers about conditions inside. Apparently, one area of concern for the DOJ was how many children were being sexually exploited in these youth centers.

It must be that most youth centers are run, managed, and manned by white men, as we know that white men by their very nature are quite violent and spend most of their off-hours raping and pillaging (except, of course, when they can fit such activities into their actual work hours!).

The statistics returned from the Samarkand Center were so alarmingly high - termed in the article "among the worst" for centers taking the survey - that the North Carolina Department of Social Services was called in to investigate the scandal. Nearly 21% of respondents claimed that they had engaged in sexual misconduct under the duress of force. Nearly one-third stated that they had engaged in some kind of sexual acts with adult staff members.

Lo! and behold! Could it be??? These unstained children??? Whoda thunk it?

Nevertheless, I quote the article: "One of the reasons the facility's statistics were among the worst is because some of the residents didn't tell the truth." Do tell....

According to an investigation by the North Carolina Department of Social Services, many of the girls "admitted to law enforcement officials that they falsified information."

Translation: they lied. How improbable! That they were both women and children, and yet these most unsullied of creatures lied about the one thing that such unsullied creatures never lie about?

I admit, the story is confusing.

Oddly, Linda Hayes (whom we assume to be a woman), the secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in North Carolina, stated that "gathering data anonymously from youth with histories of behavior problems can be unreliable."

Linda Hayes, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, maintains that rape allegations must be filtered
according to the accuser's background, should not be anonymous, and should be
compared with existing evidence. Secretary Hayes must not be a feminist!

Ms. Hayes obviously did not receive the "Women Don't Lie About Rape" memo.

Now wait a minute here....

Let's take that statement about at-risk youth and examine it.

Feminists tell us that when allegations of rape or sexual misconduct are made, the sexual history of the complainant makes no difference.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that people with "histories of behavior problems" can't necessarily be trusted.

Feminists also tell us that making the identities of rape victims known re-victimizes them and is unnecessary to a complete investigation.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that when data is harvested anonymously, it can be unreliable.

Feminists assure us that women simply don't have any motivation for lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, and therefore the negative effects of false reporting are an assurance that false allegations are kept to a minimum.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that anonymously requesting data on sexual misconduct can be "unreliable," even when NOTHING is at stake; these girls were, after all, just filling out a survey.

One might reasonably ask the question: if little girls hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and recognizing that they exist in a legal and cultural mileu in which false allegations are not only tolerated, but often rewarded, will lie about rape, violence, abuse, and harassment when they have absolutely nothing to gain, how likely is it that others, who stand to gain or lose custody, property, promotions, or other perks, would lie under a similar cloak of anonymity and gross tolerance of falsehoods?

I'm just wondering. But since I am a guy, perhaps we could ask Linda Hayes...?

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 4762

Women do not lie about rape. We all know that because the feminists have told us that it is so.

And if a woman ever lies about rape, she is a liar, but not because she lied about rape. Rather, she is a liar because she lied about lying about rape. For the one thing that we know (because feminists have told us so!) is that women do not lie about rape. We have yet to receive a similar memo on whether women lie about lying.

Women, of course, know that there is far too high a social cost to lying about rape. For instance, they might be charged with a crime. Oh, wait.... Well, anyway, everybody immediately blames her for being raped, like in the Duke Lacrosse and Hofstra cases. Oh, waitaminnit.... Well, of course, her sexual history is then explored.... Dang! Duke Lacrosse again!

Well, at any rate, women have no reason to lie about rape. I mean, it's not like they would lie about rape to try to extort money from somebody. And a woman would never lie to make a political point. And a woman would never lie to simply be vindictive. And no woman is vile enough to make stuff up during a custody battle, divorce, or similar legal proceeding. And of course, women are so morally evolved that they would never even think of lying about rape in order to excuse their own questionable behavior. And of course, it is the height of misogyny to believe that a woman might level charges that could expose an innocent man to dozens of years in prison merely to get something as worthless as, oh, say, a day off from work?

Well, now we can add one more reason why a woman would have no reason to lie about rape: to get her own sorry rear out of trouble!

Turns out a 15-year old in the Carrick section of Pittsburgh, PA, recently told cops that some loathsome figures had kidnapped her, spirited her away in the back of a van, and raped her in the privacy of the woods.

Is this the part where we add the obligatory "she feared for her life!"???

The truth?

Our repugnant little minor had been feuding with ol' Mom and Dad. She took off, no doubt thinking, "I'll show THEM a thing or two!" But when she realized she didn't have a job, didn't have a place to live, her various boyfriends' parents might not take her in, and no offers to be CEO of major corporations (or even to teach Women's Studies at Yale! the utter inhumanity!) were incoming, she decided it might be a good idea to make her way back home.

Problem: How to avoid being grounded until 2015?

Ahhhhh! I know, I'll become a victim!

For, being a public school student (no doubt), our repugnant little minor has long ago learned the central issue of all of feminism: victims are not responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be punished!

And who best fits this profile?

Crystal Gail Mangum... Danmell Ndonye... you get the idea. When a woman makes a false allegation of rape, domestic violence, abuse, or sexual harassment, she is not a perpetrator of the crime of perjury, she is a victim. Someone to be pitied and treated, not punished. A false allegation of rape is a free pass out of whatever trouble may be ailing you!

Our children have learned well the lessons of feminism. And feminism has successfully enabled those who are willing to slanderously destroy others for even the smallest of rewards. You shouldn't have to suffer being grounded, punished, disciplined, or corrected honey - just slander and you can have your way.

If she were my kid, she'd be grounded till 2015....

The Real Child Abusers

"HHS studies report that 'children in mother-only households were three times more likely to be fatally abused [murdered] than children in father-only households. Females were 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [murder] and 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children.'”

F. Roger Devlin, "Rotating Polyandry - and its Enforcers," in The Occidental Quarterly.

Los Angeles: Pay Parents to Take Care of Their Kids

A new welfare program in Los Angeles county targets two of the most perennial problems of the welfare culture: unemployment and caring for the children of working families.

Now some welfare state twit has come up with the ultimate grandiose government program: Why not pay unemployed parents to care for their own children?

With steep state budget cuts under debate in Sacramento, Los Angeles County supervisors voted Tuesday to push for changes to CalWorks and other government aid programs they said would save nearly $270 million.

Included in their suggestions is a novel proposal: Put unemployed parents to work caring for their own children.

I don't even know what to say about this.

Let me try....

Liberalism, feminism, and the whole welfare state has now reached a point of ultimate stupidity. The only place to go from here is a rubber room.

The Most Widespread Form of Child Abuse

"Child Abuse," like "domestic violence" and "sexual harassment," is one of those concepts that is becoming about as concrete as the concept of the "widget" in economics - it generally means whatever somebody wants it to mean (and if you don't believe that, then check out Alex Baldwin's book, below, but that is a side issue that I don't want to get distracted about...).

The partial definition of "child abuse" in Black's Law Dictionary includes:

"...a parent's... failure to act that results in a child's exploitation [or] serious physical or emotional injury...."

If one accepts this definition (and I am not sure that I do - how does one define "emotional injury?" how is "emotional injury" measured for seriousness?), then it is hard to imagine a context in which children are more systematically or widely exploited and emotionally (and intellectually!) injured than in the government schools of the United States. Neal Boortz writes in Somebody's Gotta Say It!...

Child abuse is neither always obvious nor intentional.

The most rampant form of child abuse in this country is not only legal, but committed routinely. It is the act of taking what arguably is, or should be, the most precious things in your life - your children - and placing the responsibility for their education i the hands of the government.

There's no escaping the fact that our country has problems... huge problems. I believe, however, that these problems have a common cause - that being the ignorance and stupidity of people whose "education" (if you want to call it that) was inflicted at the hands of government schools.

Year after year, our wonderful government education system cranks out hordes of young men and women who are completely unable to cope with, let alone understand, our culture, our history, our institutions, and what it takes not just to survive but to thrive in America.

We've reviewed the alarming facts already. Average high school graduates cannot tell you the responsibilities, or even the names, of the three branches of government. They can't tell you the name of the vice president, and probably do't kow that there is a designated third in line in the presidential succession.

They can't make change or do basic mathematical computations without a computer or calculator. They can't read apartment leases, balance their checkbooks, or read maps. They certainly have no understanding of capitalism, or free enterprise, and couldn't write a one-paragraph description of what constitutes profit.

{snip}

Would you think I'd finally gone off the deep end if I suggested to you that these government schools really don't exist for the purpose of truly educating your child in the first place? What if the people who developed our system of government-run, compulsory education had other goals in mind?

Allow me to suggest to you that our government schools were designed not to foster excellence through knowledge, but rather to insure that the American masses are relegated to an insipid, dull existence where they have barely enough knowledge and drive to sustain themselves in an anti-individualist society, but not enough of an education to understand how thoroughly our system of government is destructive of individual initiative and th quest for excellence.

Ominous thoughts....

I once taught at a private school in South Carolina. Our tuition was $95 a month per student (on the ten-payment plan). The local public school spent an average of $8,000 per student per annum.

Whenever a government-school student transferred to our school, there was a mandatory one-month period in which they were required to attend after-school care.

Why?

So that their reading skills could be brought up to the same grade level as the students in our school.

Is sending kids to government schools abuse? Probably not. But it is hard to argue with Boortz's points. And it is also hard to deny that keeping kids in government schools ultimately does more harm to their intellect and psyche than does living at home with the strictest of parents.

Since telling kids, "No, you can't have a car," or "You're grounded" is often characterized as "abuse."

Poster Mom

Below are two stories that recently appeared on page 9 of the June 2 edition of the Kinston Free Press, from AP wire stories. Given the increasing frequency of stories like these, it is long past time to start rethinking the presumption of the family court that women by default make the best caretakers of kids.

Mom Charged with Burning Disabled Child: Injuries Allegedly Inflicted with an Iron

FAYETTEVILLE, NC - A North Carolina mother, with a degree in social work, repeatedly burned her handicapped child with an iron after the young girl with physical and mental disabilities struggled to iron her dress on Easter Sunday, authorities said Monday.

Nia Michelle Brooks, 33, of Fayetteville, has been charged with aggravated assault on a handicapped person, felony child abuse and assault inflicting serious injury....




The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office said Brooks burned her daughter with an iron on both her arms, her left thigh, and her right leg, leaving scars that investigators said clearly came from an iron.

The 11-year old child told investigators that she was burned because she wasn't ironing her Easter dress the way her mother wanted....

Authorities... said [the child is nearly blind and] is mildly mentally retarded.

Runaway Sitter Now in N.C. Jail

RAEFORD, N.C. - A 17-year old babysitter accused of kidnapping a 9-month old child and heading to Alabama is due in a North Carolina court....

[Renesha Shante] Griner is charged with first-degree kidnapping and has a hearing scheduled Monday.

The sheriff says that the rising high school senior convinced a former boyfriend in Opp, Alabama, that the baby was his. Investigators say that the baby's real mother had left the child with the sitter last weekend.

Two observations on these stories:

1) One wonders how many times Nia Michelle Brooks, as a social worker, has presided over the confiscation of the children of others for offenses far less serious than that she inflicted upon her own child.

2) Ranesha Shante Griner demonstrates a couple of truths about the whole "women don't lie about sex" stupidity that is the foundation of the Feminist False Allegation Industry. First, women do lie about pretty much everything, even before they are aware that perjury is encouraged by feminist legal theory. Secondly, it appears that women are perfectly adept at lying, stealing, cheating, and even kidnapping for one central reason - it helps them get what they want. Today, they want a boyfriend, so they lie about being pregnant. Tomorrow, they are tired of the boyfriend, so they lie about "domestic violence."

Why Isn't Child Support Based Upon A Flat Rate?

The reason that child support payments are not based on flat rate schedules which actually bear some resemblance to expenses that could reasonably be associated with the rearing of a child is because child support payments are not, in fact, intended to be used for the rearing of children. Rather, child support payments are intended to be used to transfer assets from a man to a woman.

This is also why courts have no interest in tracking the use of child support payments by a woman. The courts do not care what the money is used for, only that the assets are transferred from the man to the woman. We know that courts are capable of monitoring money - given the eagle eye that they demonstrate in tracking the income of a man who owes child support and given the scrupulous attention paid to men's incomes prior to the signing of an equitable distribution prior to divorce. Since courts are capable of closely supervising men's income they demonstrate that they are equally capable of supervising the outflow of cash from a woman's account. That courts show no interest in doing so indicates that they really do not care about children.

The truth is that child support payments are intended to keep the ex-wife or ex-lover in a comfortable lifestyle and function as a disincentive to marriage so that the swelling ranks of bitter, lonely feminists continues to grow. But as an excuse, "a man has a responsibility to support his children" sounds politically a lot more viable than does "a man has a responsibility to support the wife who committed adultery against him and then sued him for everything he had."

Child support is abusive and should be completely abolished. It encourages the violation of the marriage contract by women (which women demonstrate they are quite capable of violating, given that far more than two-thirds of all divorces and separations are initiated by women) and it ignores that men's commitment to rear children is based upon that contract of marriage. In other words, men never have agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children minus the emotional, intellectual, and physical contact that is necessary for parenting and they have never agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children without a wife/mother to assist them.

If women are just as capable as men (as feminists say that they are) then let them bear the full burden of rearing children when they file for divorce. Let the law say that whoever has the BENEFIT of full custody of the children also has the RESPONSIBILITY to actually provide for them.

Of course, feminism is not about responsibility, so expect such a theory to be viciously opposed.

Such a law would also have the added consequence of functioning as a disincentive for the ridiculous surge in divorce that is ripping Western civilization apart at the seams. Women, and feminists particularly, need to grow up and recognize that they do have a responsibility to their husbands, to their children, and to society. And if they choose to reject that legal responsibility entered into freely and without compulsion at the marriage altar, then let them bear the burden all alone.

What Is The Impact of a Missing Father?

The impact of the loss of a father on both boys and girls is wholly negative, in spite of the feminist myth that only mothers are necessary to effectively rear children.

The impact upon boys is well-known. When boys do not have a positive male role model in their lives, the middle part of the behavior bell-curve tends to be erased. Young boys tend to adopt extremes in behavior - becoming prissy (even adopting homosexuality, see sources below) or becoming so frustrated with an emotional mother attempting to act as a stable authority figure that he rebels and becomes aggressive, overly macho, or even criminal.

The impact upon girls is just becoming known (see sources below). Studies show that the single greatest factor in predicting "success" for a teenage girl (no matter how it is defined: avoidance of addiction, avoidance of jail, progression in education, stability of a future marriage, etc.) is the presence of a stable male authority figure in her life. Girls without fathers show exponentially higher likelihood of pregnancy prior to marriage, of contraction of STDs, of psychological instability, and of criminal tendencies.

Following Columbine, there was significant interest in the "profile" of unstable, delinquent, and violent teenagers. Numerous studies were done to try and determine the significant factors that might indicate a child would grow up into a troubled teen or adult. One Columbia University study found that, in single-parent homes where the mother is the head of the home, a child is 30% more likely than the average child to become involved in drugs, alcohol, and violence.

The FBI conducted a similar study and found that, in the history of school shootings there was a peculiar profile which was called "The Classroom Avenger" profile. All 17 school shooters up to the time of Columbine had in common that they were from homes in which the father was absent, distant, or not involved in parenting.

For 30 years, Johns Hopkins University attempted to find contributing factors to various social and medical ills, including suicide, mental illness, and heart disease. After following 1377 people for three decades, there was only one factor common enough to bear a causal relationship to all of these various maladies: that factor was closeness to parents, and particularly the father.

In my opinion, what these studies show is not necessariy the value of the father per se - I expect that the same sorts of problems would be produced by a culture that endorsed motherless homes in the same way that our culture has endorsed and encouraged fatherless homes. But rather, it is not that a child needs a father in order to have the best chance at success in life, but a child (male or female) needs BOTH a father and a mother.

An incredible harvest will be reaped by our world in the very near future. We may simply consider the alternating aggressiveness, flatness, overmedication, lack of ambition, and frankly, lack of intelligence and morals to be a social problem adhering to this generation of fatherless children. But someday this generation of fatherless children is going to grow up.... What then?


Sources:
Caroline Thomas and Karen Duszynski, "Closeness to Parents and the Family Constellation in a Prospective Study of Five Disease States," Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, May 1974.

James P. McGee and Caren R. DeBernardo, "The Classroom Avenger" in The Forensic Examiner, May-June 1999.

"Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality" by Joseph Nicolosi

National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (www.narth.com)

"Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Meg Meeker, M.D.

Should No-Fault Divorce Be Abolished?

As I understand the story (and I am open to correction on this, though I think the broad outlines are correct), Ronald Reagan led the way for the adoption of no-fault divorce when he was governor of California in the 60's-70's.

Prior to that time, divorce in every state had required a showing of some fault on the part of one or the other partners. This was because marriage was considered a contractual matter which required some sort of basis for dissolution of the contract.

But that a showing of fault was necessary led to couples who were simply determined not to live together anymore engaging in what was disparagingly called "collusive divorce," in which one party would admit to some outlandish infraction that they had, in fact, never committed, in an attempt to end the marriage. This had, in fact, happened to Reagan. His first wife had informed him that she was, ummmm, otherwise engaged, shall we say, and that she did not intend to continue the marriage. While he fought for his marriage for a time, he eventually relented and agreed to confess in a divorce court that he was guilty of "cruelty" to his wife. This was, in California, the most common ploy for "collusive divorce."

Rethinking later, Reagan decided that it was a horrible blot on his character to have people believing that he had ever been cruel to the woman that he so loved. He vowed to do something about it, and spearheaded no-fault divorce legislation, signing it into law in 1970.

He obviously never foresaw the moral wreckage that would follow.

In Reagan's day, some people did decide to stay married rather than perjure themselves in court. They worked on their marriage and generally things turned out well. Since no-fault has spread, however, there is now no longer any brake on divorces and more kids will grow up without two parents than grow up with two parents.

In North Carolina, divorce is no-fault, but the division of assets can be based on fault. I know of one case in which the couple divorced on a no-fault basis (the only choice in the state) , but the husband received all of the marital property except for his wife's IRA as a result of his wife's continued adultery.

I would suggest the following modification, which would both avoid the "collusive divorce" of the past and would also place a brake on the unrestrained divorce of the present: Any divorce in which both parties agree - let it be done on a no-fault basis. But any divorce in which one party does not agree for any reason whatsoever (i.e., a contested divorce) should be dissolved only on a fault basis and only at severe cost to the separating party - loss of kids, loss of assets, loss of everything.

Marriage is more important to society and to the people invovled in it than is the "freedom" of any one party. Marriage is more important to society than is the feminist ideology which opposes it and seeks to destroy it. Marriage is (and prior to feminism had always been treated as) a contract - and in no other area of life would we allow a person to simply walk away from a contract without any consequences merely because she "wasn't happy" with it.

The social cost of divorce has become too high. Too many men's and women's lives, finances, and psyches are being ruined by a too-easy divorce law. Too many children are growing up frustrated, neglected, angry, and lost without two parents. It is, imho, time to end this thing.

Do away with no-fault divorce. And while you are at it, let's do away with child support, the subornation of perjury by women's shelters, and the presumption of female fitness in child custody disputes. Feminism has befouled the waters of justice for too long and the evidence of its cancerous nature is plain for all to see. The legacy of irresponsibility and attendant moral chaos begotten by no-fault divorce will be felt in this country for generations to come.