Female Radio Personality Describes the Historical Rationale for Feminism, and the Legal Basis for Sexual Harassment, in a Single Concise Rant

Who says chicks can't do philosophy? I was extremely encouraged to hear the following rant by a local radio personality in which she alternately describes the historical basis for the feminist movement, the legal basis for sexual harassment claims, the origin of the Latin language, and the meaning of life (rumored to be, "42"). Next week, catch Carmen's lecture on the relationship between bipolar disorder and the space-time continuum...!

"The feminist movement was started by a bunch of ugly women who wanted special treatment. Feminists do not want equality. They want special treatment. These are a bunch of women who want to be promoted and make their way up the ladder without being qualified.... [Feminism has succeeded] because men are a bunch of wussies, and you [guys] let this happen.... If your [fathers] had not been doormats we wouldn't be in this situation today. Women have no interest in equality, because if they did, we wouldn't see the number of sexual harassment lawsuits that we see."

Carmen Connors, WRDU 106.1's Morning Rush (Raleigh/Knightdale, NC)

Feminists Do Not Believe That Women Are Equal to Men

I do believe that equality before the law is, and ought to be, the ideal. This would necessarily imply that all affirmative action principles and other preferences for women (such as the ludicrous presumption that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and molestation) be weeded out of the courts in both principle and practice.

However, such an equality under the law would necessarily result in inequality of results. Men and women, not being the same, necessarily cannot be equal if their ability to secure certain outcomes is the measuring stick for "equality." And what is more, NOBODY - not even feminists - believes that men and women are equal, using that measuring stick.

First, note that the very structure of the law under feminism puts the whole world on notice that feminists consider women to be inferior to men. Feminists structure VAWA in such a way that a woman who makes an allegation is presumed to be a victim, even without the presentation of any evidence. The standard of evidence for obtaining a restraining order under VAWA - which could cost a man (because only men fall into this buzz-saw - that's the way feminists set it up) his home, his children, his marriage, his income, his reputation, and often his freedom - is the "subjective fear of the woman."

Yet if I do so little as proffer an insurance claim which winds up in court, I will be required to produce voluminous evidence to back up may claims or risk, not only losing my claim, but perhaps being charged with insurance fraud. That women are expected to receive the benefit of the doubt when making criminal and quasi-criminal allegations (and, that this is the feminist IDEAL for them to receive said benefit of the doubt) demonstrates clearly that feminists believe that women have a problem with truth-telling, and are thus morally inferior to men.

If feminists really believed that women are as adept at telling the truth as men are, why would they seek to LOWER the standard of evidence for one of the most serious allegations that a man can face to a standard below that required for an insurance claim or a property dispute? Aren't feminists admitting that they doubt the veracity of women (which may not be a bad idea, at least if one asks the Duke Lacrosse team or Dominic Strauss-Kahn or even the Casey Anthony jury) in seeking to have them be believed just because they make claims?

Further, all legal and cultural restrictions/incentives that imply that I should hire/promote merely based on gender is again a backhanded admission that without such restrictions/incentives, women COULD NOT attain such positions or promotions, and again is an implicit admission by feminists that they believe women to be inferior in the workplace. So feminist policy shows clearly that even feminists do not believe women to be equal with men.

But secondly, though feminists will brazenly and obnoxiously proclaim from every housetop that "women can do anything a man can do," I have never been in a personal conversation with someone making that outrageous claim but what the claim has not been immediately followed by a series of caveats....

"... but of course, you can't expect a woman to be able to lift as much as a man...." (this one admission, alone, philosophically destroys the equality argument, in my opinion, since physical strength and stamina necessarily influence, though not necessarily determine, every other ability in life)

"... but of course, social structures have hindered women from attaining fame and fortune as inventors and scientists...." (as if men have not accomplished everything in history against opposition, i.e., talk to Luther, Columbus, Einstein, Churchill, Reagan, or even Johnny Unitas or Joe Namath about how the world just rolled over and encouraged their accomplishments)

"... but of course, the good-old-boy network excludes women from participation...." (as if women, if they were "all that" and twice as bright as men to boot, would not have long ago discovered that the solution to this problem is the establishment of a good-old-girl network to compete against, and ultimately annihilate, the good-old-boy networks)

"... but of course, opportunities have been denied to women...." (because of course, men, at birth, receive a giftwrapped box with opportunity enclosed in it)

But the point should be pretty clear - if you are my equal, you are my equal no matter what. And every caveat that you can attach to your statement of "I am equal to you" is merely an admission that you realize you are NOT equal to me.

For instance, I was recently regaling my wife with stories of what a great basketball player I am, when I said:

"I am every bit the equal of Michael Jordan in every way, but, of course, I have never dunked the ball; and of course, the NBA conspired against me to keep me out of professional basketball; but that is because I am only 6'1, white, and can't jump as high as many NBA players; and so, of course, I never won an NBA championship. But the truth is, I am the equal of Michael Jordan in every way."

I would submit that the nonsensical warblings of feminists about female equality with men are about equally as credible. And the truth is, feminist claims of the equality of women, when it comes to ability, are much more an attempt to convince themselves than they are a justifiable attempt to convince the rest of us.

People who believe in justice will always be committed to genuine equality of men and women before the law. But people who have an intellect more mature than a 12-year old's and who do not fear reality recognize that such equality before the law will necessarily result in a wide practical inequality between the sexes.

Guest Column: Feminist Redefining of "Consent" Encourages False Rape Allegations

Originally posted February 19, 2011

By: JILL GUIDRY

Blog: Don't Buy The Abortion Lie!


Over the years I've been involved in the prolife movement, I've encountered quite a few radical feminists. Even more so, now that I'm also engaged in online activism. Every single radical feminist I've run across claims to be a victim of rape. Every. Single. One. Yes, I've heard the 1 in 3 statistics about women and sexual assault. But seriously, every single one of them? This phenomenon seems woefully underrepported by MSM, doesn't it? given all the recent attacks on John Boehner by the lefty feminists on Twitter regarding his 'redefinition of rape,' I thought it was time for a closer look at how feminists themselves have redefined rape in order to play the victim card and victimize others, namely men and their own unborn babies via abortion.

No one disputes that certain plants thrive in dim light and moist conditions. Can any objective observer dispute that false rape claims likewise thrive in a culture that erupted in the past forty years as a backlash against a perceived oppressive "patriarchy" that regards even certain garden variety sexual relations as a form of tyranny against women? It is no stretch to assert that this culture actively encourages young women to manufacture rape out of whole cloth by teaching them to equate consensual intercourse with vile sexual assault.

Misinformation is the engine that drives this culture (as we know from the baby-as-a-blob-of-cells abortion rhetoric), and rape hysteria and false rape claims are its noxious emissions. Outright lies are passed off as facts by what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry, sexual assault advocates and radical feminist writers who insist women do not lie about rape despite overwhelming evidence that a significant percentage do. The myths engendered by this toxic culture are repeated so often that they have crept into our popular culture -- including the assertion that only two percent of rape claims are false and that one-out-of-four college women are raped. The "truth" these stats seek to "prove" -- that women are routinely and brutally attacked by men -- is not supported by objective facts so it suffices to make up statistics as needed to support the "truth" being peddled.

Despite all the radical feminists' twisting, pounding, contorting and screeching, American women are not being sexually tyrannized by American men -- some women are tyrannized by some men, just as innocent people are tyrannized by criminals all the time. (Note that men and children are also victims of rape but never merit so much as a mention by feminists.) But rape is not rampant in the United States, on campus, in taxis, in wooded areas, or any of the other places where women claim they've been raped and it often turns out they haven't. The one exception may be prisons where young men with typically no experience in the prison system are routinely brutally raped and typically don't report it for fear of even worse brutalization. In fact, men may be victimized by rape more than women because of prison rape. Nevertheless, although the rape of females is treated with all the solemnity of a national crisis, the rape of men in prison is a punchline.

By demonstrating that the culture that engenders these two percent and one-in-four lies is invalid and, therefore, unacceptable, and by teaching young women to assume responsibility for their actions instead of being assured they are "victims" of some amorphous male oppression when they experience after-the-fact regret about having intercourse, we can reduce certain of the more vile kinds of false "acquaintance rape" claims.

But first it is necessary to expose this gender-divisive rape culture that encourages young women to cry "rape" even when rape has not occurred:

YOUNG WOMEN ARE FED A DISTORTED AND WILDLY CONSTRICTED VIEW OF "CONSENT" INTENDED TO LEAD THEM TO INTERPRET LAWFUL INTERCOURSE AS "RAPE."

Young women are being wrongly taught that sex induced by a male's verbal cajoling without physical threat is rape.

They are being wrongly taught that rape occurs in the absence of a woman's "enthusiastic" consent, as if "enthusiasm" can be measured in any objective sense, and as if otherwise perfectly lawful but not necessarily "enthusiastic" consent is somehow legally inoperative.

They are being wrongly taught that sex after a woman takes any alcohol or drugs invariably negates the woman's ability to validly consent.

And they are being wrongly taught that statutory definitions of rape must yield to a woman's own experience -- thus, men somehow must mold their conduct to fit an amorphous, free-floating, moving target of a subjective and secret whim of a woman's "experience," including, presumably, her after-the-fact, ex-post facto, false and belated hissy fits of regret about having engaged in intercourse. The fact that such a standard, with all it Star Chamber ramifications, furnishes no guidance to the male as to what constitutes "rape" prior to the act, is not at all troubling to the enlightened feminists proffering this standard. Due process be damned. Rape occurs when they say it occurs, regardless of whether it actually did.

Such a standard is especially pernicious given that it has now been proven by objective evidence that women experience greater after-the-fact remorse than men about one-night stands. They encourage a slut culture, then rail at the inevitable results.

If feminists wanted to assist young women -- instead of feeding them misinformation in an attempt to have them invent rape from whole cloth, they would teach them that after-the-fact regret about one-night stands is a common, indeed natural, feeling for women. This would encourage young women to think twice before engaging in such encounters and about falsely crying rape afterwards. But, of course, the feminists accuse anyone of making suggestions that might hold young women responsible for their actions as "victim blaming" -- a magic incantation they blithely toss off in an attempt to keep young women in a state of perpetual infancy, freed of any responsibility for their actions when it comes to sex.

With such gross misinformation floating about it is little wonder that some young women have a terribly inaccurate understanding of rape. The test to determine if valid consent was given in the context of rape is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would have believed that the woman consented, based on the totality of the circumstances, including her words and actions. If a woman willingly assents to sex, it is not rape. Whether she secretly "wanted" to have sex, or did not "want" to have sex, is completely beside the point. The inquiry focuses solely on her outward manifestations of assent.

Beyond this, it is strikingly naive to attach rigid rules as to what constitutes "consent," including, for example, any insistence that consent must be "enthusiastic." Persons in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and sometimes, perhaps often, without all that much enthusiasm. Some people rarely express "enthusiasm" about anything. When a woman is trying to get pregnant, her partner often has sex out of obligation even when it's not especially convenient and often when he is not especially "enthusiastic." Has he been raped since he gave into her verbal desires without being "enthusiastic"? No sane person would suggest that, but by this inane feminist standard that is the only logical conclusion.

And women sometimes fake both "enthusiasm" and orgasms, often because a couple's sex drives are not in sync and because she's more interested in fostering a long-term relationship than having a momentary sexual experience. In such circumstances, if the guy knew the truth, he may or may not want to have sex. Is a woman's faked enthusiasm that induces sex a kind of rape of the man? The feminist standard, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests it must be. How utterly silly.

Another fallacy is that "no" always precludes valid consent for whatever happens after. To ignore what happens after "no" is uttered is naive in the extreme and blinks at nuance and the complexities of interpersonal relations. Again, no such rigid rule is appropriate. First, a look, a nod, an embrace inviting sex are often clearer than a teasing "no." Second, should we declare as a matter of law that valid consent is a legal impossibility after an accuser says "no" -- regardless of what occurs afterwards? Her subsequent words and actions over the next minutes or hours be damned?

"Consent" does not lend itself to a rigid definition, because human relationships in the area of romance and sexuality are often complex with literally a limitless number of possible scenarios that defy tying everything up in a nice, neat feminist package. To insist that consent must be "enthusiastic" and that "no" cuts off any possibility for romance for the entire evening are concepts unworkable in the extreme and were concocted to vilify male sexuality. Again the only valid test is that a person in the position of the male must reasonably understand that there was consent. When a woman embraces her partner and prepares for intercourse in the absence of threat of physical force, consent is present, regardless of whether every radical feminist stomps her foot and insists it isn't.

My Chat With an Attorney

So I was talking to an attorney earlier this week. The conversation shifted - lurched - from a generic "how-are-you-doing?-how's-the-family-how-ya-likin'-your-new-office-manager?" to "Why I no longer practice family law...."

The attorney says to me, "I've had it. All family lawyers are outrageous liars."

This was not news to me.

"And the judges - for God's sake! - the judges tolerate childish antics from the attorneys because they are afraid of calling women out on their neurotic and juvenile behavior..."

Of course, the implicit fact behind this statement is that most family lawyers are, indeed, women. Oddly, family law once was the area of practice that the bottom ten per cent of a law school class went into because it isn't really law - it is more like institutionalized temper tantrum throwing, which suits women well....

"... and the women!" the attorney continued. "Holy #$@&!!! I guess the judges in family court tolerate perjury so much because if they didn't, the women wouldn't be allowed to testify at all!!!"

While I agreed with what the attorney was saying, and inwardly was cheering, I did find it odd to be hearing all this - from a FEMALE attorney!

While I was tempted to ask her how many of the men she thought were lying, I figured that question might telegraph my position a bit much. Instead, I offered, "Yeah, and those godawful domestic violence hearings. I mean, once I saw a guy get thrown into jail because he had cancelled an insurance policy without telling his wife - she claimed it "made her fearful for her safety" and under the DVPO law in our state, the judge just locked him up....."

My female attorney friend didn't miss a beat. "Phshaw!" she exclaimed. "Domestic Violence indeed! I swear that 85% of the allegations offered by women are patently, obviously false. These women start committing adultery and in order to keep their husbands from finding out - or worse, ratting them out to friends and family - all of a sudden their husbands are "controlling" and "emotionally distant" and "emotionally abusive. I have yet to see a woman enter a DVPO hearing complaining of bruising, if you know what I mean" my attorney friend volunteered, somewhat craftily.

So it turns out that my FEMALE attorney friend, who admits that she started her law practice with "high hopes" and "faith in the system," now considers herself "jaded" and "never to darken the doors of a family court again." Why?

"Those lying women," both the family law attorneys and their clients.

Who'da thunk it?

Draconian Feminist Sentencing Destroys a Woman

Michelle Taylor got drunk one night and allowed a 13-year old boy to fondle her breasts.

She was charged with the crime of committing lewdness with a minor (a charge which feminists in Nevada had recently been part of having the legislature change the sentence for, in an attempt to fight the bugaboo of "sexual predators" - i.e., as a means of having men who were slandered by their wives in custody battles locked up permanently), she was tried, and convicted.

Now she appears at her sentencing "hearing" with only one possible sentence: life in prison.

Everything that the defense attorney says in argument against the legislative statute is true. It is a draconian, unconstitutional violation of due process. The female lawyer is particularly compelling, I think, when she argues that if Ms. Taylor had killed the "victim" (?) after allowing him to fondle her breasts, the maximum sentence would be only 50 years. As I say, everything that the defense attorney says is true. What is the greatest truth, however, is what went unsaid - what went unsaid despite a direct question.

At one point, the female defense attorney says, "This law was never intended to apply to... people like Ms. Taylor," and the judge responds, "Why not?" The defense attorney, shaken, promises "I'm getting to that," yet she never explains why Ms. Taylor should have been excluded from the application of this law, or what type of person it was intended to apply to.

She doesn't say it because she can't say it. Nobody can say it, though everybody in the room knows the answer. It is literally the pink elephant in the room.

For, though organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) deny it, it is plain that feminist involvement in "child abuse" and "child molestation" issues is far more about ensuring that men are pliant on custody and other issues during divorce, and about adding another tool to the feminist toolkit for destroying men. One organization, Stop the Silence, accessed through the NOW website, states that one of its primary objectives is working on issues of "protective custody" (i.e., not letting Junior and Janey be around Daddy, whom Mommy slandered when Daddy showed up in court with lawyers!) and "other prevention measures, i.e. a focus on appropriately dealing with offenders."

Of course, appropriately dealing with offenders means being sure to hyperventilate appropriately prior to locking innocent men slandered in divorces up for life.

So the defense attorney can't say what she is thinking: "Your honor, the dirty little secret of the legal system, that everybody in this courtroom knows, is that this law was enacted only to burden men with such harsh treatment - and many of them for doing less than Ms. Taylor did. Only men were supposed to be warehoused for life after their ex-wives invented false allegations of child abuse against them. 'Life in prison' for such a mediocre crime as allowing a 13-year old boy to fondle one's breasts is too much for a woman."

But it is a law that was sought and pushed by feminists as a means of destroying men.

And men face such kangaroo court proceedings as this every day: in fact, every single Domestic Violence hearing in the United States today is a "hearing" only in the same "star chamber" sense as the "hearing" endured by Ms. Taylor - the end result is already determined, no matter what the evidence is shown to be. For men, to be accused is to be guilty of domestic violence. At least Ms. Taylor had the chance at a trial - though her lawyer complains that she was not offered an opportunity to plead out.

Every day in America, innocent men are accused of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse by women who have no morals, who are encouraged to do so by "women's shelters," attorneys, police, and courts who not only knowingly countenance such false allegations, but refuse to charge them with perjury when their slander is evident. Every day these men's lives are destroyed, and many innocent men end up in jail under such draconian laws, designed by feminists in their war against men.

But now, it turns out the proverb is true: "Whoso diggeth a ditch shall fall therein" (Proverbs 26:27).

For feminists, I hope that each of you one day tastes the equality that you have designed for Ms. Taylor and for thousands of innocent men that your immoral and hateful program has destroyed, or attempted to destroy.

For Ms. Taylor, I sincerely hope that somehow you (and the thousands who did less than you - all men slandered by women) are released and find grace to rebuild a meaningful life.

Face of Feminism: Linzi Gorman, False Rape Slanderer

Get drunk: Check!

Bang a couple of strangers in the bushes at the park: Check!

Feel regret or fear: Check!

Make up story about being raped: Check!

Send police on witch hunt: Check!

Allow innocents to be arrested and charged: Check!

Hey Femtards! How's that whole "women don't lie about rape" thingy workin' out for ya?


This story originally appeared in the Belfast Telegraph:

Face of a rape liar

Sunday, 25 April 2010

[No author given]

This is the drunken liar whose false rape claim almost wrecked the life of a grammar school pupil.

Lying Lindsay Gorman, known as Linzi, sparked a huge manhunt when she told police she had been sexually assaulted late at night in Belfast's Botanic Gardens in April 2008.

The 20-year-old from the plush Walnut Hollow area of Larne had, in fact, had drunken consensual sex with two different men in bushes at the park.

But detectives believed her pack of lies and a short time later arrested Campbell College student Mark McLean.

In June 2008, the innocent 18-year-old from east Belfast appeared in court charged with rape.

He was freed on £3,500 bail after being forced to stand handcuffed in the dock while a lawyer publicly accused him of being a sex offender.

A detective, fooled by Linzi's lies, even told the court that police had forensic evidence linking Mark to a “high-profile stranger rape”.

Three weeks later later bed-hopping Linzi went to Newtownabbey PSNI station and admitted she made a false rape claim.

Planned Parenthood Official Witnesses Abortion on Ultrasound, Joins Pro-Life Movement!

While no comment is really necessary on the below video, I can't help but be amused with the response of the murderous femmedromes at Planned Parenthood: if the facts get out, people will not support us anymore, so we must obtain restraining orders to keep the facts from getting out!

Typical behavior of liars and those who know that their position cannot be buttressed by truth.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 2478

"The reason feminism uncovered this reality [of male oppression], its methodological secret, is that feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men."

Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified



“It’s incumbent on us to believe what complainants tell us ... It’s a matter of support. They’re vulnerable.”

Sergeant Doug Smith, the cop who investigated the false charges against a Canadian Member of Parliament (who will remain nameless because he is the REAL victim), and levied felony charges against him despite the "victim's" inability to remember in which year the "rape" took place, despite the 15 drafts of the complaint that it took to work out all of the "victim's" inconsistent claims, and despite the fact that the "victim" had been previously convicted of lying about a Social Security scam and had falsely accused one of her bosses of sexual harassment.

From reports at WCBSTV.com.

Wrongly Named In Hofstra Rape: 'Happy To Go Home'

Charges Dropped Against 4 Men Under Arrest; Search For 5th Called Off

September 17, 2009, 9:22 A.M.

REPORTING: Magee Hickey

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Just minutes after the charges were dismissed against four men accused of gang-raping a Hofstra student, there were hugs and jubilation from family members as the quartet was released from the Nassau County Jail Wednesday night.

The bombshell admission that the 18-year-old Hofstra University woman had lied came when she was talking to prosecutors Wednesday, the Nassau County District Attorney's office said.

She told them she had made up the story that she had been gang-raped by five men in a dorm bathroom on Sunday. Instead, she said the whole sexual encounter had been consensual, something the four men had claimed at the time of their arrest.

"I'm happy that the truth is out, that we can clear our names. All of us have last names. All of us have families. I'm sure they were embarrassed. I'm just happy we're out of here, that you're here. That we can get our story told," said wrongly accused Kevin Taveras.

The 18-year-old woman at the center of the story has not been identified and the DA's office is now saying they've launched an investigation in her statements.

Hofstra Vice President of University Relations Melissa Connolly released the following statement:

To the Members of the Hofstra Community:

We have been notified by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office that the young woman involved in the alleged rape incident has recanted her claims against the five young men.

This week has been a very difficult one for our entire community, and we will need time to heal and understand the events of the last few days. As additional information becomes available we will post it on the University home page.

The four men, Hofstra student Rondell Bedward, 21, Stalin Felipe, 19, and Jesus L. Ortiz, 19, all of the Bronx; and Kevin R. Taveras, 20, of Brentwood, had been charged with five counts of first-degree rape.

They told CBS 2 HD's Kathryn Brown on Wednesday night they were happy to be released after spending three nights in jail, but did not offer opinions on the accuser. They said they did not know the accuser and had no idea why she would make up such accusations.

Felipe said he's just relieved the entire ordeal is over.

"I'm actually very happy that the truth finally came out," Felipe said. "I'm blessed. My family is here right now to pick us up and I'd just like to thank everybody for your support out there. The truth is finally out.

"I prayed to God on the inside that everything would work out. I actually thought everything was going to go down bad. It feels so horrible when you are innocent and then you are going down like you are guilty.

When asked if he had any reaction to the fact that the woman lied about the incident, Felipe took the high road.

"Basically I have no hard feelings toward her. I don't know why she did it. I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts."

"I respect women. I would never disrespect women, so being accused of that hurt me and my brother, you know? I'm just happy that everything is finally out in the open and we get to go home."

Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice issued the following statement on Wednesday evening:

Moments ago my office moved to dismiss all charges against four men accused of committing a sexual assault on the campus of Hofstra University.

Late this evening, during the continuation of the Nassau County Police Department's investigation of the allegation, and under questioning by my office's chief trial attorney and chief sex crimes prosecutor, the alleged victim of the sexual assault admitted that the encounter that took place early Sunday morning was consensual.

Following the interview, my office moved quickly to appear before a night court judge to dismiss all charges and request that the judge order the individuals' immediate release.

Nassau County Judge Robert Bruno dismissed the charges and ordered their release. I have launched an immediate criminal investigation into the statements and reports given by the woman in connection with this incident. Further details regarding this investigation will be released at a later time.

CBS 2's Kathryn Brown contributed to this report


BREAKING: The New York Post is reporting the identity of the criminal who falsely accused these four innocent victims.

The four were arrested after 18-year-old freshman Danmell Ndonye made her ugly, false accusation. The fifth innocent person she accused was never arrested and his name was not released.

The Post further reports that at least one death threat has been communicated to the innocent victims and that one of the accused has been banned from his college campus. The Post is also reporting that a key piece of evidence (not available for all who are falsely accused) was that security cameras failed to corroborate the false accuser's story.

Women Don't Lie About Sexual Violence - Chapter 2043

Tila Tequila is allergic to alcohol.

According to Tequila's Twittering...

“I am allergic to alcohol. It has been publicly known for years. That is how I got the name Tila “Tequila” cuz the irony. I can’t drink.”

This will come as quite a surprise to many of her fans, who see her portrayed on television as a champagne-swilling "hottie" whose natural domain is the bar.

It also comes as quite a surprise to those who maintain that, on September 5-6, Tila Tequila was drinking at a San Diego night club, Stingaree, until closing time, about 2 a.m. It particularly comes as a surprise to the deputies who determined that she had been drinking. Deputies, you say? Yes, but I am getting head of myself....

Back to the story, of which, we all know there are always two sides - the lie and the truth. Let's cover the lie first: Tequila maintains that, in addition to being allergic to alcohol, she was assaulted, choked, and falsely imprisoned by Shawne Merriman on September 6. She called paramedics, deputies were summoned, and neither apparently found any injuries, but they took her to the hospital (you know how neurotic little women like to be fussed over!). Deputies also allowed her to sign a citizens' arrest against Merriman (a common ploy when law enforcement officials refuse to arrest because of obviously trumped-up charges), and Merriman was taken into custody charged with two felonies: assault and false imprisonment.

Now, Shawne Merriman plays outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers and is nearly 6'5, 270 pounds. One scouting report calls him "a physical freak with an undeniable mean streak." Tequila, on the other hand, claims to be 4'11 and 93 pounds. Choking and assaulting with no injuries? Come again?



Oddly (?), several witnesses who were present at the scene seem to find inconsistencies with the story, as well. Or at least inconsistencies with Tequila's story. Merriman's attorney, Todd Mancuso, maintains...

"There were numerous eyewitnesses that will support [Merriman's] version of the events that transpired at his home."

Hmmmmm. A woman lies about matters tangential to the alleged assault but which provide context to it ("I don't drink."), numerous witnesses, from a bar owner to the nightclub employees, to eyewitnesses at the scene of the alleged violence. Law enforcement officials find no evidence of any injury. Law enforcement refuses to make the arrest on their own authority, and forces the complainant to take out a citizen's arrest. Everyone involved admits that the complainant appears to have been drinking quite heavily.

So of course, Merriman was arrested.

Now, the truth. Tequila's story was so tortured and twisted that it actually hurt to write it. The next story is clean and straightforward.

The truth is that Tequila was drinking heavily enough to be "visibly intoxicated" at a birthday party at which she was also seen giving lap dances all night to one Shawne Merriman. Upon the untimely (for Tequila) arrival of closing time, Tequila, Merriman, an assortment of friends, and at least two women sufficiently foxy to attract Merriman's attention made their way back to Merriman's home.

As these things are prone to go when you are young, good looking, tall, muscular, famous, and made of money (as is Merriman - well, I can't vouch for good-looking, but my wife said, "mmmmhhhmmmmmmmm!"), Merriman ended up in his bedroom <*coughcough*>, errrrrrrrr, in his bed <*coughcough*>, well, in a rather compromising position with the two foxy ladies previously asserted to have attracted his attention.

Tequila, as girlfriends are prone to do in such delicate situations (especially when drunk), wandered into Merriman's bedroom. Always jovial, and apparently unacquainted with the old saying about three being a crowd, invited Tequila to, uhhhhhhh, join him and his two, uhhhhhh, friends.

For some reason unknown to anyone other than her, Tequila took offense at this proposed arrangement. So she responded in the only way a self-respecting woman could respond: she stripped off all her clothes, threatened to have sex with the entourage, and threatened to drive home, both drunk and sans clothing (because the shoulder harness on a seat belt doesn't chafe as badly when you only weigh 93 pounds).

Merriman, forsaking his other two, uhhh, friends, then attempted to persuade Tequila that A) everything was going to be alright, B) it is against the law to drive while drunk, and C) walking and driving around in public without clothing is likely not the best life decision that a 93-pound sexpot can make. Even Britney Spears at least wears boots, for cryin' out loud.

What happened next can best be summarized thusly: drama, drama. Then, the inevitable happened! That Merriman became violent? Alas, no. The inevitability of male violence is a feminist myth, of course. But what is TRULY inevitable is that when a neurotic drama queen of any age (and any weight), whether famous or not, gets into a verbal tiff with her boyfriend/husband/father/lover/boss and can't seem to make him acquiesce, the false allegations begin to fly! 'Tis the feminist way, of course.

So 911 is called, deputies and paramedics summoned, you know the drill.

Tequila alleges violence. Merriman denies. The assembled crowd quietly grumble, "That ain't what WE saw." The medics say "She doesn't appear to be injured." The deputies say, "You don't appear to be injured. Are you sure you aren't drunk?" Tequila says, "Just because my name is Tequila everybody always thinks I am drunk! Don't you KNOW I am allergic to alcohol? You guys are such HATERS! Don't be a HATER!" The Deputies say, "We aren't going to arrest him." Tequila says, "I am only a little woman! Didn't you guys get the memo from the Domestic Violence Unit? You are supposed to always believe the victim!" The Deputies say, "Ma'am, we really don't want to arrest anyone till you are sober again." Tequila says, "I am allergic to alcohol! I want him arrested!" The Deputies say, "Well, we can let you fill out the papers for a citizens arrest...?" Tequila replies, "I'm not good at spelling since I majored in Women's Studies. Could you guys help me fill it out? Or are you gonna keep being HATERS?"

The most cogent observation offered (thus far) on the Tequila-Merriman series of events? From the bar owner, of course...

"It sounds like [Tila Tequila] is allergic to the truth."

Unfortunately, when a culture makes the decision to not only foster, but to encourage and protect false allegations, many will develop such allergies.

Thankfully, we have feminist dogma to help us interpret these events, which otherwise would be rather confusing. For feminists assure us, of course, that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

Unfortunately, it appears that feminists may have their work cut out in convincing some of the folks who witnessed these events that feminist dogma is true. For it seems that those who actually were present and witnessed these events chalk it all up to a fit of jealousy on Tequila's part...

"Sources close to the story told Vara that Tequila -- also known as Tila Nguyen -- was unhappy that she was not the only woman getting attention from Merriman, and jealousy played a role in the early morning altercation."

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."

Justice by Wise Latina Woman

Sonia Sotomayor boasts that the full-orbed experiences gained by and empathy demonstrated as a result of merely existing as a "Wise Latina Woman" will likely produce better results than those presided over by similarly situated Yale law grads, but ever so unfortunately white guy, judges.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

Contrary to the Obama administration's assertions, this statement was not merely an unfortunate choice of words on the part of Sotomayor, but rather is a statement which she (proveably) used in at least three public, prepared speeches.

Apparently, "reaching better conclusions" doesn't even remotely resemble what the average guy on the street would consider to be a close approximation of "justice."

Jeffrey Deskovic was falsely accused of rape when he was 17 years old. By now, if you have been reading this blog, you know the drill: he is assumed to be guilty because all men are, of course, rapists, the police violated his fifth amendment rights, he was taken to trial despite hair fiber evidence and DNA evidence that didn't match, prosecutorial misconduct followed, yada yada.

In other words, a typical rape case.

And Deskovic was, of course, convicted (I didn't really have to tell you that part, did I?). Follows a series of appeals. Or attempted appeals, at least. Because in one instance, his appeals lawyer got some bad advice from a court clerk and missed a filing deadline by four days. The prosecutor showed up to argue that the 96 hours in question were somehow prejudicial to the interest of the people of New York.

Funny, isn't it, how DNA and hair fiber evidence that doesn't match isn't detrimental to the people's interests, but a 96-hour filing deadline is? But I digress....

So Deskovic's attorney requested a ruling of "equitable tolling," which would have allowed the appeal to continue based on the fact that the missed deadline was the fault of the court itself and would have recognized the extreme weight of both the proceedings and the evidence. After all, which is more weighty - the possibility of an innocent man spending the remainder of his life in prison, or an arbitrary filing deadline that was, after all, missed on the advice of the court itself.

You guessed it! The court denied the appeal, which forced another appeal into the court of one Sonia Sotomayor. Thank God! Because the empathy and wisdom of Latina women is, of course, well-known.

Undoubtedly, when given a choice between merely procedural matters not the fault of an appellant and the substantive justice due to an innocent man, Sotomayor would utilize her "richness of experience as a Wise Latina Woman" and come up with the proper result, right?

Deskovic writes at Politico.com,

Sotomayor and a colleague upheld the lower court’s ruling, writing that “the alleged reliance of Deskovic’s attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. Similarly, we are not persuaded that equitable tolling is appropriate based upon Deskovic’s contentions that the four-day delay did not prejudice respondent, petitioner himself did not create the delay, his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit.”

A second appeal to her court resulted in the same decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case. I remained in prison for six more years, with no appeals left....

After six years, Deskovic obtained representation again, that attorney once again investigated the DNA evidence and found a match in a national DNA database. Deskovic, after serving 16 years total (and six years after experiencing the empathy of a Wise Latina Woman) was released. Today, he is an activist for victims of false imprisonment.

Learn the lesson: The much-vaunted "empathy" sought by Barack Obama, and located in Sonia Sotmayor, is not an empathy that focuses on entering into human suffering in order to ensure that proper and moral legal decisions are made resulting in some close approximation of justice. It is rather a politically-correct narrowmindedness which, freed from the constraints of morality, logic, reason, and law will consistently grant to liberal special interests the desired result, no matter the demands of actual justice.

And what desired result is more sacrosanct to the perverted postmodern mind than the feminist claim that there simply are no false convictions of rape? Women don't lie, police don't manufacture evidence, and all men are beastly perverts anyway. On procedural grounds or otherwise, we ought to just lock all the men up anyway (Obama excepted, of course), because if they have not yet raped, they are even now in the process of scoping out their prey.

Mike Nifong: Feminist Hero!

I have been convinced since it became obvious that Crystal Gail Mangum was lying that Mike Nifong has been getting a raw deal. Since the 1970s in this country, feminists have been telling us that, when a woman makes an allegation of rape, society must ALWAYS believe the woman!


This is what Mike Nifong did! In the face of overwhelming evidence, he believed the woman. Shouldn't feminists be rallying to his side? Didn't he just obey the feminist dictat that has come down for the last 30 years? Mike Nifong isn't a corrupt District Attorney - rather, he is a faithful feminist! Right?

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.

Why Do Some Believe There Is No Wage Gap?

In any discussion with a feminist, after she has been proven wrong on every other issue, her position will eventually devolve to the trump card: "Well, I just believe women ought to get paid the same amount for doing the same work, don't you?"

This is the appeal to the "wage gap," that amount that women don't get paid for doing a man's work. The wage gap is, of course, buttressed by hundreds of newspaper stories, conferences, and senile legislators every year who go about warbling about the unfairness of it all.

But people who are responsive to truth and facts do not believe in the wage gap.

Because, the fact is, there is no wage gap. Any rational human being (which excludes everyone affiliated with NOW in any way) can dispassionately look at the evidence and see that there is no wage gap. However, feminists run to the supposed "wage gap" when they lose all other arguments concerning justice, morality, and the supposed "equality" of men and women, as if the one final, irrefutable reason why everyone should agree that feminism should still exist is because women are being abused by underpaying employers.

In fact, women have achieved parity with men in terms of pay. It is a continuing feminist myth that there is a so-called "wage gap," but once you dispense with simplistic feminist thinking on this issue, it is apparent that no "wage gap" exists.

One way of determining job performance is promotion - but since the positions which folks are talking about are very few and tend to be highly selective, I think a better means of discussing the performance of women as a group (and whether their performance is adequately rewarded) is by peering into the so-called "wage gap." Wages, of course, is the reward given to women as a group - so it is the most direct means of determining how women as a group are treated.

In any survey of men and women aged 35, there will be a stark difference in the median wages of the respective groups - men will always be anywhere from 8 cents to 15 cents on the dollar higher, according to the studies that I have seen. Feminists take this as an evidence of a glass ceiling, reasoning, "Every 35 year old should be making roughly the same amount of money in the same job. Since that is not so, the cause is necessarily that we live in a patriarchal society that discriminates against women."

Of course, this is politically convenient - but as with everything that feminists say, it is not true.

Because, in any grouping of 35 year old people, the males will have worked, on average, 10 years longer than the females in the group. This is because men begin working sooner (or, at least among the current crop of 35 year olds, they did - it seems like kids never work at all today, but that's another discussion), and tend not to have childbearing, sickness, and moving gaps in their work careers.

When the two groups are normalized, i.e., only women who have never had children remain in the group, then the discrepency in the wages drops to a mere 2 cents - which is a reasonable risk premium on the part of an employer that the female MIGHT get pregnant and drop out for 5 years, might move, etc. Of course, such a minor variation could also be explained by imbalances in performance, sickness or other absenteeism - but on the whole 2 cents is statistically insignificant.

The same could be said of the so-called "glass ceiling" issue with promotions of women. If the average woman has worked less and performed less effectively than the men in her peer group by age 35, she is not likely to ever be invited to become a CEO (or any senior officer) of a corporation, simply because she is far behind the curve as far as the experience level of her peer group.

There is no wage gap and no glass ceiling. There is only underperformance by women.

An excellent source on the wage gap myth is Carrie Lukas in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

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.

NOW President Lies About Being Raped!

It is a common assertion by Feminazis that women do not lie about rape, molestation, and domestic violence. However, studies indicate that, while the normal rate of false allegations for every other crime category is approximately 2%-4%, false report of sexual or other violence by females against males can extend has high as 60%.

"In a forensic study of 556 investigations of rape allegations, 33% were proven (by DNA and other evidence) to be false. In another 27% of the cases, the woman either failed a lie-detector test or admitted having lied when faced with the prospect of submitting to a lie-detector test. In other words, it was found that at least 60% of rape allegations are probably false. Even the liberal Washington Post has admitted that at least 30% of rape accusations are false {A rate more than seven times higher than the norm for false allegations of all crimes - ed.}.

"In a review of 350 criminal cases in which a person who had been convicted was later proven (by DNA evidence) to have been innocent, it was found that 23 had already been executed and eight had already died in prison."

Thomas B. James, J.D., Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, (Aventine Press, 2003), p. 86.

Every single one of these persons falsely accused and either imprisoned or executed were males falsely accused, and then punished, by females.

A story from Florida captivated my attention for its sheer irony: while Feminazis traverse land, sea, and air, complaining that "women never lie about rape" and cursing the patriarchy for being so bold as to insist on actual evidence of such - isn't a woman's mere assertion all the evidence that is needed? - in the face of mounting evidence that there is a serious problem (Lacrosse, anyone???), I found a story of a regional president of NOW (the Feminazi National Organization of Women) who is now facing charges for false allegations of rape.

Link below!


_____________________

NOW President Charged with Making Up Story About Campus Rape


In November, Desiree Nall, told Winter Park police that she was raped by two men in a Rollins College bathroom."The college was on high alert and the neighborhood was in confusion because there was a lot of fear," Winter Park police spokesman Wayne Farrell said.



Investigators told WKMG-TV that Nall confessed to making up the story.

Nall is the president of the Brevard Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Local 6 News reported. Police said she may have been trying to make a statement when she lied about the rape.

{snip}

Nall could spend up to a year in jail and be forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars police spent of the investigation.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/4359657/detail.html

____________________

I wonder what "statement" Little Miss Feminazi was trying to make? I wonder if it is similar to the "statements" made by the sixty percent of women nationwide who daily lie about rape as an act of revenge, those who lie about abuse and molestation as a means of securing custody, and those who lie about "domestic violence" as a means of securing the best possible custody, alimony, and property settlement when they have given up on their marriage and family?

Just wondering....

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.

Women Don't Lie About Rape: The Story of Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson is the former conservative co-host of the CNN political debate show, Crossfire, and later the host of his own political variety show on MSNBC, Tucker. The bow-tie wearing heir to the Swanson fortune is a representative of the hip, libertarian, young new face of American Conservatism.

Following an episode of Crossfire, in 2003, a producer brought a registered letter from an Indiana attorney to Carlson. Cringing already - when do you ever received a registered letter from an attorney that contains good news? - he pulled the letter out and read that the Indiana lawyer's client was planning to file rape charges against him within a few short days.

Her story: Carlson had been in Louisville on a certain day and had met the "victim" in a bar. He had bought her drinks and dinner, then unobtrusively slipped knockout drugs into her drink. Having passed out, the "victim" woke up in her seat at the restaurant with Carlson gone and blood all over her. She "knew" he had raped her. In front of everybody. The whole restaurant. The patrons of which were so cold and calloused that they continued with their various romantic evenings - nobody acted as if anything had happened, nobody called the authorities, and nobody remembered having seen a thing. There followed a round of intimidating correspondences between Carlson and his "victim," so motivated by fear and on the verge of a "breakdown," the "victim" had decided to prosecute Carlson just to make all the pain and fear go away.

On advice of liberal fellow co-host Bill Press, Carlson immediately contacted "insider" Washington attorney Bob Bennett. Over $14,000 in legal fees and one minor investigation later, turned up the following facts:

* Carlson had never been to Kentucky, and was, in fact, giving a speech elsewhere on the night in question.

* The "victim" had been sending Carlson "fan letters" for some time, and had sent him small gifts, each of which he had sent a thank-you note for (as was his custom) - hence, the "intimidating correspondence."

* The "victim" had sent an email to Carlson on his birthday - kept alive, though apparently deleted, by CNNs email archiving - claiming to be his biggest fan and telling him he was "great." This email was sent a full month after the "rape" had occurred.

In light of these revelations, the "victim" decided not to go forward with the criminal allegations. She knew that pursuing criminal charges against Carlson, she said, would hurt her reputation and business. Carlson, in a moment of cosmic clarity, thought, "[she] didn't want to embarrass herself by testifying against a rapist like me." "Irony" fails as an adjective here....

But Carlson was out his $14,000, and felt a little victimized himself. Following the accusations, many sleepless nights had followed in which he actually tried to convince himself that he might have committed the rape of this unknown "victim." After all, he knew, as do all journalists, and as feminist American culture continually (mis)represents, that behind all sex scandals is some small grain of truth. As he himself said....

The one thing every journalist knows for certain about sex scandals is that they're always true. Partly true, anyway. Maybe you didn't rape this woman, they'd think; maybe you just had unusually rough sadomasochistic sex with her and she misconstrued it. Or maybe your affair with her simply fell apart in an acrimonious way, perhaps over your cocaine habit. Maybe you had sex with her but never knew her name. Something definitely happened between you, though. People don't just make up specific allegations out of nothing.

Imagine his surprise when he continued receiving mail from the "victim" even after she had dropped her twisted threat of criminal charges.

"I am glad to hear that Mr. Carlson can verify his innocence to the claim that I had made earlier," it began. "In light of the evidence that you provided to me, obviously the person who had assaulted me was not in actuality Tucker Carlson, but an impostor."

In another missive, the Victim explained that Carlson should actually be ashamed of himself, for she, as the woman always is, is the real victim.

"I don't appreciate the statements that you made about my mental status. I am a highly educated individual, with multiple degrees. I am a manic-depressive. [But] everyone of concern knows that this condition can be very well managed. It is usually the ignorant that sensationalize it. There are some very successful people who have this condition. I know many."

So of course, the real crime was not the ridiculous assertions of the "victim," nor the threat to bring criminal charges, nor the participation by her lawyers and others in perpetrating this travesty, but, as in the case of Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) - the REAL crime is the ignorance, intolerance, sexism, racism, poverty, and other attitudes fostered by the patriarchy that force women into making such claims. "Sensationalizing bipolar affective disorder" is, of course, a greater crime than making false accusations which could have sent a man to prison.

In a few months, Carlson received a clock radio from The Victim with a note attached: "for the misunderstanding." A few weeks later, another note professing that she was still "your biggest fan."

The lessons of Carlson's suffering?

* It took arguably the best attorney in the country and over $14,000 to handle this matter appropriately - before the charges were ever filed! How many men with lesser connections and zero funds can afford "justice?" Remember, the falsely accused Lacrosse players at Duke spent over $1 million collectively on their defense without a trial.

* Carlson's alibi appears, to me, to be airtight. How many single men whose excuse was "I was at home sleeping because I had to work the next day" could do as well? How many men whose alibi was, "I met the girl at a bar but she was too weird for me to try to pick up" could do as well as Carlson did?

* A combination of feminist-inspired credulity and a constant desire by those hiding in the dark corners of the "justice system" to make a buck, make a name, or get a promotion, works in tandem to prop up even the most outrageous allegations. Police and DAs in many jurisdictions no longer even "screen" allegations of sexual misconduct made by a woman - they simply file charges and say "let a jury sort it out."

* The lite feminism of Oprah Winfrey has successfully conjured up a moral climate in which women cannot lose if they choose to make false allegations. If they allege, the mere allegation is tantamount to a finding of guilt. If they allege something preposterous, an endless number of psychological disorders and feminist-defined "syndromes" will serve as an excuse. If they allege and are proven to be lying, they are nevertheless still the victim because of their race, gender, handicap, or social status.

* The presumption of innocence for men, is gone. Men are abusers by virtue of their very existence. So a $14,000 tax on maleness is simply the price men are expected to pay - even if they have never been to Kentucky.

____________________

From various sources, but see Tucker Carlson's article to reference quotes in this post at http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/09/13/carlson_ excerpt/index.html