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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, so journalists are never targeted....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit, the story is confusing.

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

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

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

Now wait a minute here....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Don't Lie About Abuse - Chapter 3126

A blogger named planstoprosper, a neurotic lying woman who has just enough knowledge of the legal system to cry "child abuse" and then make herself judgment-proof, a messy divorce and custody battle, and a legal and cultural climate that encourages women to make false allegations in order to get their way... and what do you get?

1) Yet more evidence that feminists are in cartoon country when they allege that "women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse."
2) Enough objective evidence to keep in mind and take into the jury box any time you may be summoned for one of these kinds of cases.
3) An assurance that Objectify Chicks! isn't the only blog that cares about these types of cases.
4) A $1.2 million dollar verdict for defamation, uncollectable because the woman is judgment-proof.
5) A vicious, lying woman who maintains custody of the child.
6) No criminal charges.

Lesson to women: If you have to perjure yourself to get your way, it's worth the risk - as long as you have enough foresight to judgment-proof yourself. Because even when your perjury is discovered, district attorneys generally (though not always) will look askance lest they risk deterring other "victims" (!) from coming forward.

And the last paragraph is worth the price of reading the blog...

A false accusation of abuse is abuse. Victoria Douglas should be spending years in jail for what she has done to Rodd Sutton and his daughter.

Women Don't Lie About Rape Chapter 1736 - Rick Pitino

Karen Sypher - the face of evil; feminist icon

The sickness that is the Jezebel psyche - that malpsychia that feminism attempts to not only teach but to normalize - that mercenary, immoral, slandering, indeed, Satanic mindset that seeks to transform female seduction into hard, cold, CA$H - has perhaps never been quite so plainly displayed as in the case of one Karen Sypher.

Feminists, of course, assure us that women don't lie about rape! Oh, no! Why, the social stigma and the shame and the psychological trauma and [insert breathless, depression-inciting mishap of your choice here] simply PRECLUDE as a matter of course the idea that women would EVER lie about rape.

Well, yeah, OK, the Feminist assures us when we mention "Duke Lacrosse," sure women lie about rape, but only at the same rate that all other crimes are lied about. I mean, there are gonna be false reports, after all. Just like property crimes. Yeah, that's it - property crimes. So if people lie about getting their tires stolen or getting scammed by telemarketers at a rate of 2%-4%, then that is about right for rape as well! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Of course, there are reasons why false reports of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse MIGHT be much higher, the enlightened citizen replies to the feminist. First of all, for property crimes there is usually some evidence of a crime - it isn't he said/she said. In other words, one would be loathe to report the theft of one's tires with four new Goodyears on one's SUV. And one would certainly produce an empty passbook savings account for cops when one complains of a sociopathic telemarketer, no? But what is the evidence of rape, domestic violence (and note here that "domestic violence" is not to be equated with "assault" or "battery"), sexual harassment, or abuse? Merely the claim that someone has committed it.

Secondly, in all claims that I might make as an alleged crime victim, the person accused enters the courtroom with the presumption of innocence. This is normally not the case in cases involving allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. Rather, in any of these instances in which a woman accuses a man in the modern Western legal system, there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the accused - the trial is not to determine whether he is guilty, it is rather to determine whether he is innocent. What else do you think that femtards mean when they say, "Always believe the victim?" [Susan Murphy-Milano states it well in her book, reviewed here, when she says: "be supportive.... Believe her. Don't say 'That's impossible' or 'I find what you are telling me hard to believe.'"]

And happily, for the pond slime that comprise the feminist movement, it seems that many police have internalized this concept. The charging officer in another false rape case responded to questions of whether he believed the false accuser in spite of her incredible, inconsistent, unsubstantiated, and outright mutually exclusive claims (during the 15 months it took the false accuser and the charging officer to work up the allegations!) with,

"It's incumbent upon us to believe what the complainant tells us.... It's a matter of support. They're vulnerable."

But those who deal with rape cases - lawyers and judges - in fact estimate that anywhere from 40% to 60% of rape claims are false.

It is a good thing that feminists happened along to "educate" us on the extreme unlikelihood of women lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. I mean, in all honesty, they do have a point: What possible motivation could a woman have? Money? Revenge? Power? Getting herself out of trouble? Surely no woman is so morally fallen as to use seduction and slander in an attempt to ruin the lives of the perfectly innocent merely to grab at such mundane, temporal wares?

Enter Karen Sypher, the wife of the Louisville Cardinals' basketball team's equipment manager Tim Sypher. A 49-year old stunner, Sypher seduced the college basketball team's coach, Rick Pitino - former coach of the New York Knicks and college basketball legend, having coached both the Kentucky Wildcats and now, their in-state rivals, the Louisville Cardinals.

Well, these things happen. Let's not be too judgmental.

Act 2 of this drama, however, starts to get gnarly - and not in the "valley girl" sense of the term. Sypher contacts Pitino claiming to be pregnant - and he fronts $3,000 for an abortion.



That figure struck me. After making a few calls around, I discovered that the most expensive pricetag for an abortion procedure I could come up with was about $700. Odd....

Later, Karen's jealous hubby Tim approaches Pitino. You can almost anticipate what happens next, right? Louisville headlines screech: "JEALOUS HUBBY MURDERS CARDINALS COACH! COPS SAY, 'WE DON'T BLAME HIM!'"

But, no. See, Tim wasn't jealous of his wife's, uhhhhhh, charms. Rather, he seems to have been jealous of Pitino's money. Tim Sypher, the equipment manager of the Louisville Cardinals, approaches his world-famous boss with a list of demands. [On this point, I should mention both that the police have not charged Tim Sypher yet, and that he seems to be in the process of de-Karen Syphering himself. There may be more to this aspect of the story than immediately meets the eye.]

Oddly, none of the demands were "Keep your hands off my wife, you oaf!" Rather, the demands were for free college tuition for the Sypher's four kids, $3,000 a month in recurring payments, and money to pay off the couple's mortgage. All told, the value of the demands could have exceeded $10 million, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors, you say? Yes, I said prosecutors. Because Pitino ratted the Syphers out, and in May, 2009, Karen Sypher was indicted for attempting to blackmail Pitino for in excess of $10 million.

So two months later, guess what happened? Sypher decides that she has been raped. Twice. Once in a restaurant with a witness nearby willing to testify that there was consensual sex (Did I mention that she FORGOT to mention this witness to the cops when she filed the charges?) and once on an evening when Pitino was actually in California.

Police say that, as of this moment, they will decline to file charges.

On the odd timing of Sypher's rape claims, USAToday reports:

"The more information I gather, the worse it looks for you," [Investigating Sgt. Andy] Abbott told Sypher during a July 13 phone interview, according to a transcript of the call.

Commonwealth's Attorney David Stengel announced in July, after reviewing a videotape of the interviews, that he wouldn't prosecute the case because Sypher's claims were void of credibility and lacked any supporting evidence.

During one interview, Abbott asked Sypher why she didn't report the alleged crimes when they allegedly occurred, and why she waited until after she was charged with extortion to finally report them.

Transcripts of the interviews show she offered varying responses to the first question, saying first that she wanted to forget about what happened, then that Pitino threatened her, and finally that "they kept throwing me crumbs to keep me happy." But she couldn't say what those were.

Abbott asked Sypher in the interview why she was coming forward now, only after she was charged.

"Because … where we are, it seems like retaliation," Abbott said.

"I know it does," Sypher responded.

So there you have it - everything that sensible people (i.e., non-feminists) have been saying about the flood of false rape allegations enabled and encouraged by feminism for 30 years. Women DO lie about rape. They do it for many reasons, including money, power, and vengeance, or to get themselves out of a hole (to name only the few reasons illustrated in this ONE story). And normally, the so-called criminal justice system enables them in doing it.

But if you are as famous and as beloved as Rick Pitino, with all of his millions, and happen to have been a continent away on the night you were accused of raping someone, sometimes you can escape having false charges taken seriously (though not always - see Tucker Carlson's story).

That's not much encouragement for the poor divorced plumber who sleeps at home, alone (and therefore without an alibi), and barely leaves his hometown, though. So I wonder if the fact that Pitino was not charged represents progress - or is it just an aberration?

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."

Fun with Figures

The Domestic Violence Hysteria (DVH) perpetrated upon the unthinking (witless?) American public by the Domestic Violence Industry (DVI) is now an international phenomenon. Not only Americans are subject to this hysteria.

The DVH takes various forms: Domestic Violence is the leading cause of death of women between such and such an age and such and such an age (variously 15 and 44, 19 and 51, etc.). One in four women are subject to Domestic Violence in a lifetime. And who can forget the oldie but goodie, Super Bowl Sunday is "the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman!" due to Domestic Violence by beer-guzzling, football watching Steeler (or, insert football team's name here: ______) fans.




An interesting radio program on the BBC subjects various claims to examination by statisticians.

Uh-oh.

Don't tell me that somebody is going to subject a claim of feminist propagandists to fact-checking, are they? Isn't that misogynistic? Or against the law? Or maybe that is an act of domestic violence itself (Don't laugh - femtard organizations perpetrate the myth that one of the solutions to violence against women is to "validate the experiences" of the "victim," or "always believe the victim.")?

So statistician Tim Harford, upon examining the nonsensical claims of the DVI, notes that their "rogue statistics" are prone to "mutate as [they] circulate" because they tend to move from mouth to mouth - it is a giant version of the children's game of Telephone (remember when everybody lined up and tried to get a message from one end of the line to the other by whispering in one another's ear?). The statistics are never fact-checked - even by legislators or journalists - and they tend to morph over time.

Upon actually checking the figures, Harford found that annually in Britain, 2,000 women died from cancer. Over 1,000 died from all "external causes" combined - which would include domestic violence - but would also include accidents, street violence, and even causes as diverse as an intentionally-inflicted suicide.

Well, we always said that girls were not good with math, didn't we?

So more prodding. Forget about Britain. What about in the world at large? Because, of course, nobody watches the Super Bowl in Britain! Surely all those drooling beasts in America bump up the worldwide numbers, right?

Well, according to Colin Mavers of the World Health Organizations (WHO), the leading cause of death for women aged 15 to 44 worldwide, is HIV. Domestic Violence doesn't even place or show in this race (sorry femtards!), as tuberculosis and suicide are the second and third causes of death, respectively.

Perhaps women should be protected from themselves, rather than their husbands... errrr, intimate partners?

Homicide, of which domestic violence is a subset, is not even in the top ten causes of death for women of this age group worldwide, according to the WHO.

And incidentally, the WHO's measure of disability ("Well, my man didn't kill me, but he sure harmed me!"), tallies the three leading causes as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, in that order.

Chicks are crazy, you know?

When Britain's Home Office (a governmental ministry) was queried as to where their assertions that DV was a leading cause of death and/or disability came from, it issued a statement saying that the stats were merely used "for illustrative purposes."

Well, now.

One must wonder as to why the Home Office did not choose to "illustrate" the sorry shape of the female populace by blaming it all on candied yam consumption. Perhaps that would not have been as politically expedient.

As Tim Harford, our intrepid statistician puts it, "Thank goodness for 'illustrative purposes!' Otherwise, I would be worried that a bogus statistic had echoed around the world, copied apparently without question into official [governmental] reports, news bulletins, and policy documents."

So how are the statistics on domestic violence gathered when they are not simply made up? Well, women are simply asked in surveys.

Because, of course, women do not lie about such things.

But even so, genuine statistics show that only 4% of women experience domestic violence in any year.

Not quite the 1 in 4 figure that femtards insist on, but then we all know that chicks are no good at math.


On the Web, or click the link above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9p0t/More_or_Less_15_05_2009

The BBC removes links to these radio programs after a few weeks. You will find a (more or less) permalink here:

domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3 - Hosted on SaveFile.com

Or at Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/FalseDomesticViolenceFiguresExposed

Even Cops Admit: Women Use Claims of "Domestic Violence!"

It is the dirty little secret of America's family courts and the legal system generally. Liberals will not admit it because it is politically incorrect, and conservatives will not admit it because they have been brainwashed into believing that it sounds unchivalrous.

But inside the legal system, there are faint whispers of recognition that all feminist jurisprudence is a failed experiment. Repeatedly, I have heard from lawyers statements like, "The pendulum has swung too far...."

The false allegation is one of the primary weapons in the arsenal of feminism. Feminist organizations suborn the perjury of individual women as part of the larger war against men, promising them a brighter day of happiness and the transfer of assets consequent to their lies. Feminist leaders glaze the eyes of the public with ridiculous assertions that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse (despite all evidence to the contrary). And feminist jurisprudence covers for the perjurers by insisting that any attempt to properly punish these feminist-favored perjurers will result in legitimately-wronged women being made afraid to "come forward."

Yet even among professionals who work in the Feminist False Allegations Industry (FFAI), the strain is beginning to show. Liberal constitutional scholar and appellate lawyer Alan Dershowitz has stated, "Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime - and women are not being punished for those crimes."

In my own personal experience, lawyers who work on both sides of the FFAI refer to Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearings as "show trials," "star chambers," and "kangaroo courts." And even cops, who routinely arrest men based on what they know are false allegations, will secretly admit that perjury is a common occurence when a woman is committing adultery, seeking custody, or desires to be rid of a man but keep a hefty sum of his assets.

But rarely does one hear a policeman publicly decry the FFAI.

In an April 27 story, Tulsa's news channel 6 carried a story on its webpage by Lori Fullbright titled "Tulsa Woman Falsely Reported Rape." Fullbright quotes Tulsa Police Sergeant Gary Stansill of the Tulsa Sex Crimes Unit, "It's just a fact, in sexual assault investigations, we have false reports."

Two points: First, this is the evaluation of someone whose livelihood and profession is intertwined with the FFAI. This is brutal honesty masquerading as understatement. And unfortunately, it appears that our investigator has become jaded enough by all of the false reporting that he simply accepts it as "just a fact" of life.

Secondly, note that from the perspective of the annoyed police investigator, what the FFAI calls the "cries of the victim" and what courts call "perjury" is merely a "false report." Clinical. Clean. Administrative. No real harm, just a waste of time.

From the perspective of the falsely accused, however, it is a false allegation. A lie. A lifechanging slander. Vicious. Brutal. The needless persecution of the innocent.

And keep in mind, though feminists, with their amoral newspeak, continue to call such miscreants as the still unnamed criminal liar who slandered a man for no reason a "victim," there is only one innocent party here: the man who for years to come will still blanch anytime that he hears the word "rapist."

I recently picked up a book by an ex-Miami cop, ex-FBI agent, and former instructor of cops on the issue of "domestic violence." The book is titled, "Arrest-Proof Yourself" and the author is Dale C. Carson.





The book is decent enough, giving general advice on how to appear (or disappear) so that cops can't see you, how to be polite and protect yourself. The book is targeted to a general audience excepting two chapters: one chapter pertains to minorities, helping them overcome the propensity cops have for arresting minorities.

The only other chapter narrowly targeted is titled, "When Girls Tell a Tale that Sends You to Jail." That chapter begins, "This chapter is addressed to men. It will infuriate women.... It advises men how to defend themselves against women...." Odd way of putting it, don't you think? Because if the author were merely trying to get men to obey the law, wouldn't he say "here is how to protect yourself from cops!"? But rather he says, "You need to defend yourself against women."

Odd.

He then notes that, unfortunately, when a "girl tells a tale that sends you to jail," men often find themselves dealing with predominantly female judges, cops, and lawyers. This can be a dangerous spot, asserts the ex-FBI agent and teacher of cops on the subject of domestic violence, because "some of these women are on a mission from God to make men miserable."

Again, odd. Shouldn't these women be on a "mission from God to enforce the law?" But the author does not choose to put it that way....

He then goes on an extended discussion of avoiding arguments with women. He states, "Arguments that once might have been resolved by participants now result in arrests and imprisonment." Now note, he is not talking about beatings here, he is talking about arguments. The ex-FBI agent is admitting that merely arguing with a woman puts one at risk for imprisonment.

If so, that certainly lends credence to the idea that a controlling man is merely a man who refuses to cede control to a woman.... And of course, the greatest felony in the feminist rulebook is to be a controlling man.

Our author then continues, "Men and women argue. They yell. It may be a natural occurrence, but it can also be a crime." Wow, what an admission. Arguing is a crime. That which our author describes as a "natural occurrence" is, under feminist jurisprudence, now a crime? How long before belching, another "natural occurrence," is similarly criminalized?

But wait. This chapter is written to men, not to women. As a matter of fact, the author warned in the beginning that the chapter will "infuriate women," doesn't he?

Could this be an implicit admission on the part of our ex-domestic violence teacher and ex-FBI agent that arguing is only a crime for men? That which is "standing up for your rights" for women is "domestic violence" for men?

It seems that is precisely the conclusion at which one is to arrive. For in the practical advice section which follows, our ex-cop advises men, "Do not talk with the woman for at least three days.... Telephone calls, answering machine messages, or notes may be considered stalking.... [D]o not be in the woman's presence without a witness." No corresponding advice is sagely distributed to the woman.

Why in the world would such advice be granted to one sex and not to another? Glad you asked. For our ex-domestic violence teaching hero advises us at the end that such absolutist abandoning of a relationship is necessary for the following reasons:

* "The woman might lie and induce others to lie."

* "The woman might injure herself before police arrive so as to increase the charge against you from misdemeanor disturbance to felony battery."

* Women can recruit the power of the state to take their side in disputes with men, with disastrous consequences."

The moral? Cops who are honest know the following:

1) The law is written to place the state on the side of women in relationship disputes, regardless of who is ultimately at fault.

2) Women routinely act out and lie in order to recruit the state to help them dispose of inconvenient men, secure child custody, or capture assets.

3) Men are by default guilty of wrongdoing in any dispute with a woman, under feminist jurisprudence. There is no presumption of innocence, and the only "evidence" needed in most cases is to determine where the male is so that he can be locked up.

What is most disturbing about these stories is the disjuncture between what cops know to be true in real life and what courts actually suppose to be true. Cops know that women lie, and lie repeatedly, when it comes to issues of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse. They lie because they are vindictive. They lie to get their way. They lie because they are encouraged to do so and because there are no consequences to being found out.

Yet, for a man accused of any of these sins in either civil or criminal court, there is an assumption of guilt not found anywhere else in the law because of the most outrageous lie in all of feminist theory: "women don't lie about sex."

Do Women Lie About Rape and Domestic Violence?

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.

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 link below 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 proveably 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 Gain 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?

The reasons women lie are multitudinous. The main benefit seems to be that false claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harrassment, 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.


Sources:

Criminal Law Professor's Blog (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html.)

One Year Anniversary: Ice, Ice, DV

Add to the incomprehensibly long list of stories that seem (!) to undermine the feminist theory that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, abuse, their weight, their age, the bank balance, etc. Just a year ago, Vanilla Ice had charges of Domestic Violence dropped against him in Wellington, Florida.

---------------

Prosecutors decline to charge rapper Vanilla Ice

April 29, 2008, 6:54 PM EST

WELLINGTON, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities decided against prosecuting Vanilla Ice for a domestic battery charge since his wife recanted her original statement.

The 40-year-old performer (real name: Robert Van Winkle) — who sold 15 million copies of the single "Ice Ice Baby" in 1990 — was arrested April 10 at the couple's home. Authorities said his wife called 911 and claimed he kicked and hit her during an argument. She later told deputies he only pushed her.

In an affidavit provided to Palm Beach County prosecutors, Laura Van Winkle recanted her original allegations. She now says any physical confrontation was accidental.

Prosecutors on Tuesday closed the case.

---------------------------------------

I love this story because it demonstrates that women DO, in fact, lie about domestic violence. It doesn't matter what you think happened here, the complainant is a liar.

After all, count 'em folks - there are no less than THREE different stories told by Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee here. Which one is true?

Maybe none of them are.

Thank God the feminists have assured us that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse - otherwise my very first thought would likely be that Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee has a problem with the truth.

Like Crystal Gail Mangum.

Oh, is that another lie?

Women Abuse More Than Men: But Who Cares?

When it comes to alleged abuse of women by men, society has a "zero tolerance" philosophy. When it comes to women abusing men, which actually happens more often, "every person must perform their own calculus to determine whether to get involved."

Women abuse men more than men abuse women. Nobody cares. Not even cops.

So says this ABC News report.





The cult of the battered woman is a religion like all others, requiring only faith to be a part of it. However, it is a particularly vicious cult, in that it is based on absolutely no truth known to man, and it is devoted to the destruction of men through the use of false allegations in the legal system... and perhaps even greater destruction can be both encouraged and tolerated.

Mary Winkler, of course, whose false allegations of "abuse" extended to the sheer horror of her husband asking her to wear platform heels in conjunction with sex, was convicted of shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun, butserved only 67 days of a potential 60-year murder sentence.

Now, as the former judge states in the following video, any man who makes a woman "feel bad about herself" is apparently susceptible to murder, and the woman is certain to find great sympathy and serve only a token sentence. This is the real legacy of the "all women are victims/all men are abusers" lies told by feminism for going on 40 years.





Does it come as a surprise that there is a boyfriend?

There is nothing so evil as a woman convinced by our Oprahized culture of her own victimhood. Except, perhaps, those who defend such a woman. Notice how immediately, in the local news blurb below, feminist apologists begin making existential leaps and excuses, accusing the REAL victim, the murdered father, of crimes that even his own murderous wife did not imply.





... As if to say, "Well, if the female murderess' crime was not justified by the story she actually told, then there must be something even more sinister than the story she told. For we know, no woman would ever murder her husband without cause. Because everybody knows that all men are abusers, and that means all women are victims, and are justified in whatever steps they take to deal with their victimization."

Did I mention that there is a boyfriend?

For an extensive bibliography examining the incidence of female on male violence, click here.