What's Really Behind the Domestic Violence Industry?

Modern feminism is powered by perjury.

Women's shelter's teach it, women propagate it, and the family court system indulges it. Of course, this is the reason why in most states a woman cannot be charged with perjury for anything that she alleges in a complaint to secure a Domestic Violence Protective Order.

Holding women accountable for telling the truth would be bad for two things: it would be "bad for business" for the Feminist False Allegations Industry and it would be bad for the feminist Myth of the Dangerous Beast Named Man.

"Domestic Violence" is a political crime of the nature of "Criticizing the Glorious Proletariat" in a Communist regime. It is vague, contradictory, and unconnected to real violence of any kind. It represents an offense to a viewpoint rather than an actually-definable crime.

People are alternately amazed, incensed, and incredulous when they learn that it is considered "domestic violence" to fail to take a woman's feelings into account, or withhold money from her, or make her feel that relationship problems are her fault.

Because, of course, rational people realize that quite often, an individual's feelings can't really define a course of action. Much more important issues such as morality, necessity, and opportunity sometimes dictate one's decisions, and our feelings - if we are mature adults (and this is the crux of the problem for spoiled feminists) - simply have to follow behind. What is claimed in court as "withholding money" can actually be a version of "what we can afford right now," and its opposite would sound like, Sure honey, feel free to bankrupt us! And to imply that making a woman feel that relationship problems are her fault is somehow a crime, is of course to deny that relationship problems can ever be a woman's fault - an irrational leap possible only for the same illogic that gives birth to modern feminism.

But too, the goal of the Feminist False Allegations Industry, whether domestic violence or "date rape" or sexual harassment or any of an endless number of manufactured offenses is concerned, is ultimately political. That is why, in family court, no matter what a man's testimony is, he simply can't win. If he works hard, he is neglectful of her needs and distant. If he spends time at home, he has failed to earn enough to provide a decent living for his wife.

The brazen, naked politics of the Domestic Violence Industry is made quite plain in the below quote:

"As a feminist sociology professor and a researcher with specializations in family studies and criminology in general and domestic abuse specifically, expert witness work on behalf of battered women has evolved naturally from my research, teaching and community work related to families, crime, and domestic abuse. I was able to read, teach, and research about domestic abuse – the politically motivated terrorism of women and children held hostage by batterers in our patriarchal social order – for only so long before I was compelled to act. I consider my expert witness work on battering and its effects as a form of feminist activism that follows naturally from the expertise I have gained as a researcher, teacher, and author of domestic violence. It is creative applied sociology."

These words were spoken by Ann Goetting, a professor of sociology at Western Kentucky University.

"Creative Applied Sociology," methinks, was once called "junk science."

Trudy Schuett on Women's Shelters

Women's shelters "often make the divorce process seem simple, even desirable. They don’t tell prospective clients that divorce can be emotionally and financially devastating, and in the cases where there are children, drag on for years of acrimony with effects extending outward to other family members and friends. We’ve seen cases where fictional abuse, contrived for the purposes of leverage in court, became a reality. Relatively minor cases of abuse, which might have been addressed had other ways been available, have become violent and out of control.

Divorce is seldom any kind of solution to the problem. Still, it is the only one offered.

Other dubious “services” provided by shelters include a barrage of feminist propaganda...."

See Trudy Schuett's three-part series on so-called "Domestic Violence Shelters."

Attorney Admits Feminist Women's Shelters Feed Justice System its Ideology

See all four parts of this lecture at Opposing Feminism.

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."

What We're Missing in DV Debate

I was recently turned on to the writings of K. J. Wilson and Susan Murphy-Milano by a posted question by a poster who calls himself "MadShangi." His questions about these two feminist writers were so intriguing that it sent me to the library to request their books by interlibrary loan.

While reading Defending Our Lives: Getting Away from Domestic Violence & Staying Safe by Susan Murphy-Milano, a profound thought occurred to me: we are asking all of the wrong questions about domestic violence.




The typical debate on the issue of domestic violence revolves around a few predictable axes: are men or women more often the victim of DV? By how much is DV over reported statistically? How often is DV falsely alleged?

These are important questions, but they are only mildly important when the central question is asked: Isn't DV really just a chimera?

Whether DV occurs a lot or a little - ultimately, it is all fake. Whether it is a male vs. female or female vs. male problem, it is all fake. And no matter how many times someone intentionally makes up a lie about it (and statistics and experience suggest that is more often than not), it is all ultimately a lie, even when it meets factual legal requirements.

Murphy-Milano's book begins by the story of her own life. As a child, she became acquainted with very real violence first hand. The stories of her seeing her mother's head being banged into an iron bedstead are harrowing. One can only imagine how horrifying it was to see one's mother taped up, beaten to a pulp, and apparently only inches away from life support in a hospital. And then, there was the murder.

Her father, an Illinois policeman, murdered her mother and then killed himself, leaving a note saying,

"To whom this may concern. This is business only. I did what I had to do. No one leaves me and gets away with it...."

One can only imagine the very real emotional trauma experienced by a little girl who watches her mother go through a nightmare such as this, and then comes home one day to find both parents lying dead in the home.

But up to now, I have related very real crimes: assault, battery, murder.

But in Murphy-Milano's book, directly opposite the page which contains this sentence:

"My father had shot my mother in the back of the head at close range..."

... is a chapter titled "Recognizing Domestic Violence."

We move from the clearly definable lines of assault, battery, and "shot my mother in the back of the head" to nebulous concepts like "wife abuse" (which I learned was the "most common" crime in the U.S.) and "domestic violence."

"Oh," say you, a typically-informed member of the general public, "they are the same thing!"

Really now?

Because in an attempt to define "domestic violence" (and let's face it, if it looked like what happened to her mother, would it really need defining?), Ms. Murphy-Milano proposes such answers as:

* Name-calling or yelling.
* Using angry expressions or gestures.
* Humiliation, either in public or private....
* Accusations of infidelity....
* Constant questioning of the other person's judgment or decision-making abilities.
* Threatening to leave....
* Ignoring or minimizing the other person's feelings....
* A desire to have sex for the wrong reasons.
* Insistence that you do things his way.
* Clinging to you constantly....
* Unpredictable behavior.

Then she plainly states, "Domestic violence is a combination of threats, control, insults, and insane jealousy."

Notice how glibly and blithely she glides from "he shot my mother in the back of the head" to "clinging." As if the two were first cousins. As if the two were even remotely related by species.

Why does she glibly and blithely so glide? Is it because she is such a raging idiot that she does not comprehend that there is a difference between the two? Or is it because she is manipulating her audience with the first story in order to gain acquiescence on her minor points - "clinging" and "angrily gesturing?" Are we to consider her serious? Honest? Sane?

Now, don't get me started, I see the Catch-22 she is pleased to place men (notice the masculine pronouns) in. Both "threatening to leave" and "clinging to you constantly" are domestic violence? Who exactly determines what the right reasons are for having sex? Why is insisting on having his way domestic violence, but insisting on having her way is assertiveness? And unpredictable behavior? Who on this planet is more unpredictable than a woman who is under the tender ministry of PMS? Murphy-Milano is good enough to warn us that "unpredictable behavior can become life-threatening!", so take heed, men!

Like I say, don't get me started on the utter childishness of all of this.

Except that the nonsense that is this book is now the law in most of the 50 states of the USA.

Now, don't get me wrong, it isn't the law in the sense that some legislator voted on it. But rather it is the effective law, as enacted from the bench in thousands of domestic relations courts throughout this land. Because the ideology of Murphy-Milano's book informs thousands of feminist organizations and women's shelters who are responsible for the continuing legal education of judges and lawyers everywhere.

Nobody denies that Murphy-Milano's father was a criminal, and that what he did was a crime. But what exactly is the relationship between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and

unpredictable behavior... [and] ignoring or minimizing the other person's feelings?

Yeah, I know, this is how ghastly murderers act prior to their murders. I get that. I also get that this is how everybody on earth acts on alternating Wednesdays and Thursdays. They do it before having a bath, and after eating cucumbers, and in some strange concurrence with swimming. So we can, by the same logic that makes "unpredictable behavior" and "ignoring or minimizing another's feelings" either DV or the precursor thereof, design a new DV statute which reads

Any person found to have eaten cucumbers or to have engaged in the sport of swimming at any point in the past 30 days may have his movement restricted and his access to wife, children, and home denied...

... because studies have conclusively shown that all abusers have engaged in swimming and eating cucumbers. There is certainly as much correlation between cucumber consumption and domestic violence as there is between anger and domestic violence.

Except for one thing: women are not neurotic about cucumbers. Well, most of them anyway. And herein lies the tragedy that is feminism - feminism has provided the forum for the most neurotic and emotionally damaged of women to project their neuroses upon the rest of us. Apparently one woman's neurotic, irrational fear of a man raising his voice or gesticulating when he talks translates into a reason to undermine, or even destroy, the whole institution of marriage and even society itself.

"Domestic Violence," as it exists in the law, is simply a projection of the fears of neurotic women. Their "perception" of fear or danger or being "controlled" has no more correlation with reality than does the schizophrenic's perception of pink, flying elephants. It may be very real to him, but it is not real.

To this extent, the whole Domestic Violence Industry and subculture functions as a representation of feminism itself - all modern feminism is really just an attempt to project and objectify (make real) the subjective and neurotic fears of women: fears that they will not be treated well, fears that they cannot do all that men can do, fear that they are weaker, fear that they are not strong enough to chart their own course.

I have argued dozens of times that the concept of "domestic violence" is to the law what the concept of "widget" is to economics - a thoroughly empty word willing and able to be filled with whatever meaning a person might desire. But let's be honest for a second. If "domestic violence" is what Ms. Murphy-Milano says, then we are all domestic abusers. Both plaintiff and defendant, child and parent, husband and wife. Any person who has ever thought his own needs superior to those of another is guilty, and must be imprisoned forthwith.

This can't be serious, except that it is. Men are in jail right now whose crime is "failing to take their spouse's feelings into account."

I have sat in on over 100 domestic violence protective order (DVPO) hearings in my state. Only one of them alleged what an average man on the street would even recognize as "violence," and then so oddly that one was left with the feeling that he had happened into an episode of The Twilight Zone (The complainant claimed that her husband beat her with a riding crop, then admitted that she bought the same from a porn store for that very purpose - turns out she was into S&M play, and then simultaneously claimed to have been burned with hot coffee, beaten with a rod, strangled nearly to death - all without the benefit of any bruises. Thankfully, Ms. Murphy-Milano set me straight on this one when she wrote that one is always to "be supportive.... Believe her. Don't say 'That's impossible' or 'I find what you are telling me hard to believe.'"). Yet I have only ever seen one DVPO that did not result in a finding of civil liability, and often arrest.

What the general public doesn't know, and probably doesn't want to know, is that "domestic violence" has nothing to do with "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and it has everything to do with "failing to regard her feelings."

One who was being less than charitable might assume that Murphy-Milano's view of what constitutes "domestic violence" is informed less by a real concern for finding a cause and effect relationship than by a desire to treat all men as if they are abusers, and all relationships as if they are inherently abusive.

I know, that is taking things too far. I'm a conspiracy theorist....

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." Linda Gordon

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." Robin Morgan

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women.... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." Sheila Cronin

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to f**k/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, even if she does not feel forced." Judith Levine

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin

You get the idea.

So here is my theory: anytime that you are in a courtroom and you are listening to a "domestic violence" hearing, and there are no charges of assault, or battery, or what have you, you are listening to a lie whether or not the legal elements are met.

You are listening to the institutionalization of a lie. It is a lie in one of three ways:

1) It is a lie because it suggests that there is no difference between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and "he failed to take my feelings into account."

2) Or, it is a lie because it intentionally blurs the line between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and "he failed to take my feelings into account."

3) Or, it is a lie because it is the product of a neurosis that is genuinely unable to see the distinction between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and "he failed to take my feelings into account."

What we are missing in our discussions about DV is this: we treat the category itself as if it is legitimate, and we argue about how to properly apply the category.

But listen, if I beat you, I get convicted of assault. If I shoot you in the back of the head, somebody utters the word "homicide."

But when I hear "domestic violence," what am I actually hearing?

After reading Murphy-Milano, I think I am hearing "I feel victimized, but I don't have any evidence to prove it."

I am no longer going to argue that a certain percentage of claims of "domestic violence" are false. They all are false. One hundred per cent of them.

Because any claim that is real will be called "assault," "battery," or "murder."

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.

False Allegations Video: WCVB (Boston)

Abuse of Domestic Violence Protective Orders against the innocent. The one thing that the story gets wrong, because it is a feminist talking, is when she says that the vast majority of domestic violence restraining orders are based on legitimate claims. Of course, far more than 90% of them are not.

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.

Why Do Women Make False Allegations?

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that false allegations of rape, sexual misconduct, child abuse, and domestic violence do occur. Credible estimates on how often range from 20%-60% of the time. Given that the rate of false reporting for all other crimes hovers in the 2%-4% range, it is obvious that women do lie, and that they have a really serious problem with lying about rape.

But one question that may seem somewhat elusive yet is why? What on earth would motivate someone to level such a charge falsely? What advantage could be gained?

The reasons range far beyond mere spite and hatefulness, though that is a common motivation (a woman in my county made up false rape allegations about her ex-boyfriend and three of his friends to punish him for breaking up with her at the party at which he broke the news to her that he was moving on - the district attorney, as per usual, did not take any action against her, though the four men [one of whom was not even at the party] spent almost a year in jail).

Take a look at the CrimLawProfBlog and you will see some of this discussed. In the mid-80s, the US Air Force did a study on false reporting of rape within its own ranks and found that upwards of 30% of all reports were provably false. Several congresswomen, upon hearing about the investigation, demanded that the investigation be stopped and all records of it destroyed for the usual political reasons. You will need to read down into the comments section of the page to get this information.

Women lie for a host of reasons, including spite. One of the comments on this law professor's blog notes that women often lie to "solve a problem." They get pregnant, get an STD, get a hickey, or are found to have been cheating on their significant other and one way of making their problem go away is to claim to have been raped.

Of course, it is common for false allegations of rape, domestic violence, or child abuse to be leveled in custody, alimony, or equitable distribution hearings, where a show of fault can result in greater legal rights for the offended party.

A reason that is just coming to light why women lie is to level the playing field. Where women are going through custody or divorce and are known to be guilty of adultery, assault or battery, substance abuse, or something else, they are being taught at women's shelters to play the "domestic violence" or "rape" card as a means of making sure that they are not the only ones who appear in court with negative information on their record.

It is now a very common ploy - evidence of which I keep in my files - for attorneys who volunteer at women's shelters to (at the behest of the supposed "victim") file false allegations of domestic violence, rape, child abuse, or whatever, and a week or so before a hearing to send an offer of settlement which says, "If you give my client, the "victim", all or most of the property and/or the custody rights, we will drop this claim against you."

(Of course, they also fail to mention in such offers of settlement that for criminal cases, the authority to "drop" charges rests with the D.A., but that is another issue....)

Crystal Gayle Mangum, in the Duke Lacrosse case, claimed to have been raped as a means of keeping herself out of the drunk tank on the night she was taken in for questioning. And, by the way, this woman has never been taken to task for her wrongdoing either, has she?

Other reasons come to mind: radical feminists have levied such charges to illustrate their own cause (see my blog entry on the NOW president who made a false rape allegation), to get attention, or just because our society says that lots of women get raped, and they don't want to be left out of such noble victimization.

The reasons women lie are multitudinous. The main benefits seem to be that false claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment, or whatever else helps them to appear to be a victim rather than irresponsible, or simply helps them to get their way when they otherwise wouldn't.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 907

And note how she states, "I FEEL VERY VIOLATED."

Feminists, when are you going to admit that most rape allegations are false?



Why do women make false rape allegations?

Because they can. Because they are encouraged to do so. Because there is no consequence to being found out as a liar. Because it helps them to get their way.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 732

Of course, it is a (false) doctrine of the feminist movement that women do not lie about rape. They also do not lie about domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment, their age, their weight, or their breast size. Come to think of it, when feminists maintain that men and women are equally capable at everything on the planet, we must obviously carve out a single exception: women are not capable of lying.

Like every assertion of feminism, however, the evidence seems to diverge rather sharply from the feminist dogma. Without rehashing old ground like the Duke Lacrosse case, the NOW chapter president in Florida who made up false rape allegations as a means of ginning up interest in her FemmeFascist ideas, and the half dozen other ridiculous stories that I have documented on this blog in the past, we have The Case of the Surreptitious Photographer.

It seems that a 41-year old man who owns a multimedia company in Britain was invited over to the flat of a 27-year old female. Oddly enough, the 41-year old's identity is not private, while the U.K.'s Daily Mail steadfastly refuses to print the name of the lying wench who falsely accused him.

The two of them had sex. Apparently, it was, ummmmmmmmm, sex with gusto. Exhuberant sex. Sex so embarrassingly, ummmmm, "active" that the judge warned the jury that they might find it "extremely distasteful."

Something went wrong after all this great sex (when will men learn to simply leave the apartment after the sex is over?) and the two argued. The 27-year old perjurer and the 41-year old, whose name I refuse to print because I have higher ethics than London's Daily Mail, had an argument. Somebody called the police. The 27-year old female "rape victim" alleged that the two were fighting because she had been serially raped. And the innocent 41-year old businessman was arrested on the spot and charged with four counts of rape.

During the trial, the woman told the jury that the accused "forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in the living room."

Then, during cross-examination, something both strange and wonderful happened. The accused's cell phone was produced. Now, remember, the accused owns a "multimedia company."

So a short film was shown to the jury. A film of, oddly enough, the night in question's proceedings.

Yes, our Multimedia Man had secretly used his cellphone's camera function to film himself and the "rape victim" having sex.

So after the film, the accused's defense attorney stated to the "rape victim," "You and Mr. [X] were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other's presence." Apparently that was an understatement, given the participatory nature of the "rape victim's" sexual calisthenics.

To which the "rape victim" then essentially admitted that while she was very comfortable with the sex, she wasn't happy with the conversation that followed it.

The judge then warned the prosecuting attorney not to present further evidence. You see, the "rape victim" is protected from perjury charges by so-called "rape shield" laws, but anybody else who offered evidence could very well have faced the full wrath of the court for either perjury or contempt.

The jury went into chambers and cleared the accused of all charges.

This despite the "rape victim's" claim that, "He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far."

Emphasis added to show the direct, unequivocal nature of the false allegations.

It's a good thing that we know that women do not lie about rape, or child abuse, or sexual harassment, or domestic violence. Otherwise, cases like this one might make us believe that they do.

Oh, and by the way, those who work in the "industry" do, in fact, recognize that not only do women lie about these things, but that claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual harassment are MORE likely than other claims to be false. Some say that the majority of such claims are lies.

Like the U.S. Air Force, whose study is referenced in the comments section on this page, where lawyers discuss the phenomenon of false rape claims. Or RADAR's story on false rape claims.

It is certainly worth asking, and a question that Western society ought to be asking itself repeatedly until the significance of both the question and its answer sink in, as to why the normal rate of false reporting for all crimes hovers around 2%-4%, but these feminist-privileged offenses (rape, domestic violence, child abuse and molestation, and sexual harassment) have estimated rates of false reporting exceeding anywhere from 25% to 60%.

Chick Makes Up Rape For A Day Off From Work!

A woman in Marlow, OK recently made up two rapes in an attempt to get some much needed R&R from a job that, undoubtedly, was "stressing her out."

Trisha Bonney, 18, reported that upon returning home on a given night an intruder had been in her home who attacked her, threw her onto her bed, and raped her. Bonney was spotted by a nursing home worker across the street from her home, sitting on a chair and crying.

Police, of course, responded with overwhelming force - increasing the number of street cops by up to 30% on shifts while looking for the perpetrator. Three innocent men were brought in for questioning and tested for DNA matching.

About a week later, Bonney reported a second intruder in her home who also raped her. Nearby contractors (working on the next door home), dudes hanging out in an alley smoking, and physical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof) indicated that either there was no perpetrator in this case, or that the rapist was the beneficiary of new hovercraft Nikes - allowing him to walk above the ground without leaving footprints - and an Invisible Man coat.

Upon sharper questioning, the "victim" admitted that she had made up the second rapist to lend credibility to the first claim of rape. Apparently she didn't appreciate it when cops began to actually investigate her claims of rape rather than merely accepting them. These cops apparently didn't get the memo from the neighborhood women's shelter, "Always believe the victim."

Oddly, Bonney has actually now been charged with a crime - unusual for perpetrators of false allegations (can anyone say Crystal Gail Mangum?). She faces a criminal trial for falsifying a police report.

If all women who made false allegations were similarly charged, two things would be true: 1) There would be fewer false allegations, and 2) there would be a greater need for women's prisons.

Link below:

http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9247223


Article: More than Half of Rape Allegations are False

The Child Support Industry

Take a woman who can't afford a child and society calls her a victim or a hero and will grant her an abortion - or an endless supply of welfare checks. Find a man who can't afford a child and society calls him a deadbeat dad and tosses him into jail. At least that is the perspective of Kathleen Parker in Save The Males (Random House, 2008). She writes:

It's hard to cough up the dough [for child support] when your broke, harder still if you're behind bars.... Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2005 that 70 per cent of child support debt is owed by men who owe $10,000 a year or less or who have no earnings at all....

The child support industry has been a windfall for states and for middle-class divorcing women. Economist Robert McNeely and legal scholar Cynthia McNeely go so far as to suggest that... governmental policies [on child support] have led to destruction of the family "by creating financial incentives to divorce [and further incentives resulting in] the prevention of families by creating financial incentives not to marry upon conceiving a child."

Penalizing errant fathers has become the only form of chivalry modern woman will tolerate, but it is chivalry, based on the idea that Uncle Sam must come to the rescue of the nation's distressed damsels. The real result of the child support industry, however, has been the creation of a system that grants bureaucrats unprecedented access to private records and control over the lives of people, most of whom have committed no offense. As investigative reporter Robert O'Harrow Jr. wrote in The Washington Post, commenting on the expansion of federal child support initiatives, "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to... keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing."

Women Don't Lie About Domestic Violence: The Strange Case of David Letterman

A woman in New Mexico filed a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint against David Letterman, whom she had never met. The basis of the complaint was that he used his late-night comedy/variety show to control her thoughts. The DVPO was granted by a judge, at the cost of Letterman's freedom of movement (should he have been in New Mexico) and Second Amendment rights (no matter where he was).

How did such an outrage actually take place in the American legal system? Under Bill Clinton's revision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO was changed to "the subjective fear of the woman/complainant." Somehow or other, the woman - tinfoil hat in hand - must have convinced the judge that she was genuinely afraid of David Letterman being a "controlling male," the ultimate offense in the bedwetting radical feminist litany of possible sins.

Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson was accused of raping a woman he had never met. On the night he "raped" her, he was at a speaking engagement states away. He spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself against the false allegation before he was even charged.

Two words: Duke Lacrosse.

The Criminal Law Professor's blog, populated by people who have been active in both the prosecution and defense bars, contains estimates that anywhere from 20% to more than 50% of all rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse allegations are false.

Yet in most states a woman CANNOT be charged with perjury for any statement that she makes in connection with a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint. And neither of the actually guilty parties - the so-called rape "victims" in the Tucker Carlson and Duke Lacrosse cases, were charged with a crime.

Do we really want to make it THIS easy for women to lie?

For those not actually acquainted with feminist jurisprudence it is a common assertion among feminists that "Women don't lie about rape/domestic violence/whatever" or, conversely, the more moderate claim is that women only make false allegations of rape or domestic violence at the same rate as fale reports of other crimes (around 2%).

However, every legal innovation sponsored by feminists makes it easier to lie (for instance, excluding perjury from DVPO claims, so-called "rape shield laws", and the lowering of the standard of evidence to "the subjective fear of the woman" in DV cases) and the evidence among those in the know is that claims of rape and domestic violence are falsely reported at a rate from 10 to 30 TIMES as high as false reports for any other crime.

And most people do not realize that Bill Clinton's modifications of VAWA essentially made it easier for women to effectively lie. Not only has the standard of evidence been changed to "the subjective fear of the woman" (whereas the standard for civil claims is "the preponderance of the evidence", i.e., 50%+ likelihood, and for criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt"), but it is now the policy of most police departments to have a "Must-Arrest" policy consequent to any domestic violence allegation - no matter how ridiculous the story told by the woman, or no matter the lack of evidence, or no matter the number of contradictions in her account. No matter the evidence to the contrary - local police MUST arrest the person against whom the complaint is filed on some criminal charge if a Domestic Violence Protective Order is filed.

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.