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.

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.

Women Never Lie About Rape - Chapter 7245: Tim Cole Vindicated

To merely ponder some truths is to be fully persuaded of the mental illness and moral vacuum that is feminism.

The Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer (March 20, 2010), from wire reports, states that the family of a man from Forth Worth, Texas, who died while imprisoned for a rape he did not commit cried and hugged at his graveside Friday, holding a framed copy of the first posthumous pardon granted in the state of Texas' history.

Gov. Rick Perry had already granted Timothy Cole's pardon nearly three weeks ago. He gave Cole's relatives the pardon document earlier Friday.

Cole was cleared by DNA testing in 2008 (though please note, he had always been innocent, unlike his accuser, who presumably wobbles around scarfing down huge amounts of chocolate, discussing Oprah and American Idol, and continues to refer to herself as a "victim" even as we speak), nine years after he died in prison at the age of 39 consequent to asthma complications. He had spent the final 13 years of his life behind bars.

On several occasions, Cole had been offered opportunities to walk free and receive a pardon if only he would admit his guilt in the rape. He had always refused, maintaining till his untimely and tragic death that he was innocent.

Cole served his country in the United States Army and would have graduated from Texas Tech University excepting for the false allegations made against him by feminist icon, Michelle Malin.

Women Don't Lie About Rape, Chapter 6321 - Even Nutty Chicks Can't Lie!

Dating back to the time of Joseph in the book of Genesis (cf. Genesis 39:), mankind has recognized that women file false charges of a sexual sort as a means of exacting vengeance on men. More recently it has become widely recognized that such charges are filed as a means of getting one's way (i.e., custody battles) or eliciting sympathy.

And when women who are reckoned to be sane by our culture are prone to falsely accuse merely out of a desire for vengeance or control, how much greater is the propensity for false allegations when a woman has a diagnosable mental disorder? It should also not be overlooked that one of the primary correlatives of false allegations is what is nominally called "mental illness", but what really isn't illness at all, but what many professionals consider to be "character malformation."

"The growing prominence of character disorders... may be seen as a natural and inevitable response to - or an expression of - our contemporary culture. As Christopher J. Lasch notes in The Culture of Narcissism:

'Every society reproduces its culture - its norms, its underlying assumptions, its modes of organizing experience - in the individual, in the form of personality. As Durkheim said, personality is the individual socialized.'

{Kreisman continues} American culture has lost contact with the past and remains unconnected to the future" (p. 62).

{And}

"Over the past two decades, therapeutic settings have seen a basic change in psychopathology from symptom neuroses to character disorders" (p. 66).

From I Hate You - Don't Leave Me: Understanding the Borderline Personality by Jerold J. Kreisman, M.D., and Hal Straus

Kreisman continues that certain personality disorders are reckoned to be the nearly exclusive domain of women - by a factor of two to one or more - and that one of the reasons for this is the inability of women to reconcile the expectations of the nouveau-feminist culture with their innate sense of what they really want and what they really are, based on their prior role models and personal capabilities and desires (p. 67-75).

Enter John Fund, an intrepid reporter of the old school (meaning that he reports facts rather than the neurotic perceptions and preferences of a libtard establishment and is therefore labeled "conservative" and "reactionary")....

John Fund, an innocent man who was raped by feminism.

John Fund was a contributing writer to U.S. News & World Report who worked his way up to a job as a contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was a man odious to liberals for his writing (such as the notorious "Arkansas Project," which formed the backbone of what Hillary Clinton believed to be a "vast, right-wing conspiracy") during the various Clinton scandals, which of course means he told it like it was rather than giving Billy Bob Clinton and the Arkansas Mafia the pass that, say, CNN and the New York Times was pleased to give him.

Fund met a woman named Morgan Anne Pillsbury who was aged 29 (though her passport says that she is named Carolyn Anne Pillsbury and is 36, but then again she was born as Carolyn Barteaux) and began a relationship with her. By his accounts, it wasn't all that serious precisely because she was a smidgen unstable. By her accounts, they were planning to be married.

Further, by her accounts, one night Fund simply walked out on the marriage plans and then beat her up. She was raped. He dated her mother and impregnated both her and her mother. Worse than all that, Fund was revealed to be a terrible housekeeper {shudder!}.

Fund was arrested - all the while maintaining his innocence. Police were unresponsive to his protestations because, of course, rape is such an intimate violation that women never lie about it. Of course, they learned this during the Anita Hill slander-fest, in which one feminist after another mechanically mouthed that "it is the seriousness of the allegation, not the nature of the evidence, that matters," giving birth to the New Era of Feminist Inspired False Allegations. The media, though there were indications from the very beginning that the story didn't quite jibe, didn't really care about innocence or guilt - the liberal media rejoiced that Fund was finally getting what he deserved for his participation in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."


Eric Alterman, a liberal journalist, wrote,

"...the smearing of Fund raises questions that define us morally and politically. It did not take a lot of investigation on my part to conclude that Pillsbury was not the kind of source one could legitimately use to hang a man in public. Why were so many so eager to use her that way? No principle was at stake. It was all about payback."

Fund retained counsel and began to spend thousands of dollars to prepare for his defense. He was, however, unable to keep his arrest out of the media, and he eventually lost his prestigious job at the Wall Street Journal and was demoted to writing for opinionjournal.com.

Then documents began to drip out from Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury. An affidavit. A letter to the Wall Street Journal. Various public statements. The rape didn't occur, but the beating did. Well, maybe the beating didn't. Actually, none of it did. Well, it did, but Fund made me write that it didn't with the threat of imminent force. Did I mention that I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder?

She admits that one of the distinguishing features of Borderline Personality Disorder is the inability to distinguish fantasy from fiction - in either the perception thereof or the telling thereof. How many lies have you told in your life, Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury? "Too many to name."

Fund, of course, is widely recognized today to be the innocent victim of a slanderous, vengeful, and unstable woman's flights of fantasy. The problem was, it was apparent from the beginning. Did the police care? No. Did the District Attorney care? No. Did the media care? No. In fact, the media kind of approved - Fund bested our boy (Clinton), and now he is getting his from this crazy woman.

Fund, though innocent, has never regained his position at the Wall Street Journal.

John Fund is an innocent victim of a feminist culture which encourages the use of slander as a weapon in the culture war. John Fund, and millions like him, is an innocent victim further of a feminist-designed culture in which women are encouraged to use false allegations as a way of settling accounts. Feminists have brainwashed law enforcement into believing that all allegations of sexual misconduct are valid by their mere utterance - arrests MUST be made, and no-drop prosecutions follow, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Yet it is now known with certainty that the rate of false reporting for feminist-favored crimes such as rape occurs at a rate anywere from seven to twelve times that of false reporting for other crimes! (The Washington Post estimated that the rate of false reporting for rape exceeds 30 per cent, but other estimates exceed 60 per cent.)

See how feminism works: It produces a culture which encourages maladaptive thinking and behavior patterns in women (Sometime when you have a moment, try to reconcile the twin feminist assertions that "Women can do anything that men can do!" and "We need to lower standards so that more women can be admitted to law school/serve as policemen and firemen/become generals and admirals like men are already doing!" and see if YOU don't blow a mental gasket.). It persuades law enforcement and media that failure to treat the consequent neuroses as reality is a sign of incipient "sexism" and is evidence of the existence of a "patriarchy." It removes procedural hurdles to keep neurotic women from assaulting the innocent (The standard of evidence for the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order in most states is "the subjective fear of the complainant," and police are allowed, nay, encouraged to use the complaint itself - filed under this wholly subjective standard and irrespective of any evidence -as a basis for the filing of charges!). And then it denies that when you make it easier to lie about something that people have a tendency to lie about anyway, you will get more lies (Did you know that, under Bill Clinton's modifications to the Violence Against Women Act, women cannot be charged with perjury based on the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint? Has anyone heard about the Durham D.A.'s plans to prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum yet?).

The truth of the John Fund story is this: at least one rape did, in fact, occur. John Fund was willfully, coldly, and intentionally raped by a neurotic woman, the legal system, and the media. And whether we are talking about his professional life or his personal life, he will likely never recover. And John Fund's story is a valuable morality play in that it demonstrates how thoroughly the system itself has been corrupted by feminism: now the innocent are willingly sacrificed to the feminist goddesses because evidence simply doesn't matter in a world dominated by a false ideology.

The entire culture has been corrupted by feminism: and the police, the legal system, the population at large, and even the media are willing to substitute feminist neuroses for the perceptions of their own eyes. So corrupt has the system become that even after a man's name is cleared of all wrongdoing, he can expect to pay the price for being falsely accused for the remainder of his life.

John Fund, as of this writing, is still a columnist for Opinionjournal.com. He has never regained his original position with the Wall Street Journal.


________________________

See this for a summary of John Fund's story by the liberal writer, Eric Alterman:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 4762

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth?

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

Problem: How to avoid being grounded until 2015?

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

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

And who best fits this profile?

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

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

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

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."

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.

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."

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?

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."

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 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.

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.