Women Don't Lie About Rape or Molestation - Chapter 8652: The Oprah Winfrey "Show"

Women do not lie about rape, sexual molestation, domestic violence, or sexual harassment. I know and believe this in the inner reaches of my soul. I know this because feminists assure me that it is true.

Of course, on the rare occasion that a woman DOES lie about rape, sexual molestation, domestic violence, or sexual harassment (though I know that never happens - and I came to this knowledge because feminists assured me of it), that it is always a symptom of poverty or mental imbalance. Normal women don't lie about rape. And of course, very powerful women do not lie about such things either - for they have no need to lie. Of course, this is all a very theoretical discussion, since NO WOMAN LIES about these things, but, just for the sake of discussion, you understand, IF THEY DID, relatively sane women and women who are sufficiently empowered would NOT be among those who lied about such things.

Enter, Oprah Winfrey....

Surely, The Big O is the most powerful woman in the world. She has been powerful longer than Michelle Obama, and will likely be here long after the other Obama is gone. She is more powerful than Hillary, having endorsed Barack Obama against Hillary and thoroughly spanked her! She is likely more endeared by middle class women than even the very Queen of England, or, unbelievably, the recently departed Princess Diana! Oprah is so powerful that she has appeared on the covers of Time, Forbes, Newsweek, and even more important: Cosmo! She is a force to be reckoned with in the economic, political, literary, and cultural worlds. She has the power to tell middle class white women what to think - and they obey (making Oprah far more powerful than the husbands of those same women)!

How odd, then, that The Big O would find it necessary to embellish the events of her life....

We all know the story of Oprah Winfrey's life. From a dirt-poor existence in rural Mississippi - so poor that she, in fact, "adopted" a couple of cockroaches as pets! - she arose and clawed her way to the top, empowering women forthwith, and proving that black women particularly are strong, independent, powerful persons of infinite and moral character. And of course, her story was made even more astounding because, at an early age of minority, she was the victim of child sexual abuse. Poor Oprah was raped, for the first time, at the tender age of nine....

The story in and of itself is enough to inspire simultaneous joy and weeping. It is enough to confer hope upon the hopeless. It is enough to justify her rise to what may be the most powerful, trustworthy, and influential voice on the earth.

Fancy, with such a story, an investigative writer such as Kitty Kelly even attempting to write a book? What exactly was Ms. Kelly's intent - to IMPROVE such a story? Hardly possible.

Nevertheless, with such annoying constitutional rights as freedom of speech at risk, Ms. Kelly set off to do her "research" on the life of The Big O: Oprah Winfrey. As if such "research" were necessary - I mean, Oprah has already told us the story, has she not? - Ms. Kelly then set off to talk to literally dozens of people to get the information for her book! Did I say dozens? Surely, I meant at least 100 different people! Did I say 100 different people? Actually, Ms. Kelly claims to have interviewed more than 800 different people as well as having worked with primary and secondary sources over a time span of four years!

Many of those were family members who knew her during the time periods in which she was teaching tricks to cockroaches and surviving the emotional devastation of sexual molestation.

Oddly, many of those family members took a great deal of resentment at Oprah's representations about her poverty and sexual molestation.

“Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and roaches I have no idea,” Katherine Carr Esters said.

"She may be admired by the world, but I know the truth," [Vernon Winfrey, Oprah's father, with whom she went to live at age 14] says. "So does God and so does Oprah. Two of us remain ashamed."

Apparently, Katherine Carr Esters, Vernon Winfrey, and God did not get the required memo from the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminists that women do not lie.

In fact, it turns out that Oprah lied about quite a bit. She wasn't so poor that she wore dresses made of potato sacks, as she has maintained. In what I consider to be a bombshell, but which I have yet to see repeated in the mainstream media, Oprah, at least for a time, is said to have willingly worked as a prostitute. There were never any pet cockroaches. In fact, according to Kitty Kelly, there was no child sexual molestation.

NOW is going to have to do a much better job of circulating this "women-don't-lie-about-rape" memo. Apparently Kitty Kelly didn't get it either.

But, Vernon Winfrey did say a rather interesting thing: he said that even Oprah knows the truth (though he implicitly denied that she has enough moral fiber to feel ashamed - as he is, and as he reckons God Almighty to be - about her lies). Katherine Carr Esters took it one step further, in recounting one of her confrontations with The Big O about the lies that she is prone to tell....

“I’ve confronted her and asked, ‘why do you tell such lies?’ Oprah told me ‘that’s what people want to hear. The truth is boring.’”

At least Oprah is consistent in her behavior. Though she presents herself as being something of a "feminist-lite," she apparently regards the truth with the same skepticism and disdain as do her more radical femtard sisters when she admits that "The Truth is Boring."

Now, Ms. Kelly has found other parallels between Oprah and the feminist mainstream:

* A preference for lesbianism.

* A sham marriage/not-quite-marriage.

* An attitude of entitlement.

* A boiling cauldron of anger, just waiting to be released upon some unsuspecting innocent.

And staffers were, *ahem*, encouraged to help keep these, and other factoids, "out of the tabloids."

But perhaps it is the lying about rape that is most disconcerting. Nay, certainly it is her lying about rape that is most disconcerting.

Notice the sheer ease with which such a lie is presented and maintained. Katherine Carr Esters says to Oprah, "Why do you tell such lies?" Oprah simply replies, "It's what the people want. Truth is boring." They want an entertaining and inspiring story. I just give them what they want. Reality be damned.

Or, as summarized by wire sources:

Oprah Winfrey embellished her poor upbringing and made up stories about sexual abuse to boost her ratings, her relatives say in Kitty Kelley’s new biography, the New York Post reported Monday.

The women who lie about rape, child abuse, molestation, and sexual harassment are the very pinnacle of beings so morally corrupt that they scarcely qualify to be called "human." Their worth is so little as to demand that the earth itself swallow them alive and keep them from being any further burden upon the earth. They are pigs. Children. Worthless. Satanic. Vile. Beyond redemption. Deserving only of utter and eternal destruction in Hell, and certain to find exactly that.

But, on the other hand, at least the common woman who lies (and there are millions of them!) is lying for something. At least with most of them, there is custody at issue. Money at issue. A job promotion at issue. Vengeance at issue.

For Oprah? No custody or promotion or any other issue... she is willing to lie because that is what people want and expect. She lies because, rather than being a millionaire, she'd prefer to be a billionaire. She lies because not to lie would simply produce a life that is insufferably boring....

In Oprah's mind, as in the minds of all unthinking women (i.e., "feminists"), reality doesn't matter nearly so much as "what I or the people want." Life is not about honor or truth or morality - it is about a series of exciting templates - mental crutches that those who are incapable of thought rely upon in order to properly (they feel) understand life. Or be "empowered." Or increase their "self-esteem." Or whatever the folks at Lifetime are warbling on about these days....

And of course, to this unthinking herd of cattle, the most exciting template of all is the template of the victimized woman who nonetheless rises to the top.

From "The Burning Bed" to Harlequin Romances, women who are incapable of building real character or engaging in real thought are pumped full of templates all of their lives. Acceptance of these templates inevitably turns these emotionally-overwrought and irrational women to feminism. Feminism, of course, demands that one believe templates rather than comprehend truth, because if one who respected truth became a feminist, they would immediately begin asking uncomfortable questions like, "If men and women are equally capable, why do standards to law school, medical school, business school, the military, the police, and the fire department have to be lowered so that more women can do what men are already doing?"

Feminists, of course, do not appreciate such uncomfortable questions. When women are trained to mindlessly repeat the tenets of a feminist-designed template, such insights are happily avoided.

And because feminists are incapable of thought and are quite averse to reality, they have bequeathed to non-feminists (as well) certain templates that it is necessary to accept. Like the myth of the violent man. Or the myth which notes that women make the best parents. Or the myth that women don't lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or molestation and abuse.

On the sacred pages of Objectify Chicks!, it has been noted time and again that women will lie about rape for just about any reason under the sun: for money, out of a preference for neurotic existence, for a pack of cigarettes, to make a political point, to be vindictive, to cover their own questionable behavior, as a means of exciting sympathy to avoid getting into trouble, in order to get a day off from work, or even for no reason at all.

It is odd, is it not, that in engaging in her program of propaganda and lies, by adopting the most convenient template for her crusade of marketing and manipulation, Oprah Winfrey has destroyed that template?

It is now known that upwards of 60% of all allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse are manufactured - and all of the manufactured allegations are made by women or by children at the behest of women. The next time you are on a jury and someone repeats this howler: "Women don't lie about rape," you know right away that you are being lied to. You know it, because you know that even Oprah Winfrey lies about rape.

And if a lawyer or judge will lie to you about something as basic as that - when it is their responsibility to rather remind you that all accused are presumed innocent (with the corresponding necessity that all accusers are presumed to be lying till evidence establishes otherwise) - perhaps you should ask yourself: "If this judge/lawyer/"victim"/witness will lie to me about something so basic, I wonder if they are lying about everything that they have said?"

For if a woman as powerful, wealthy, respected, and (allegedly) sane as Oprah would lie about rape for absolutely no reason at all - what woman wouldn't lie?

What About Moderate Feminists?

What exactly is a moderate feminist? Another person has, by way of analogy, alluded to "moderate Nazis," and while the average person who believes that The Daily Show and Oprah actually broadcast news might find that a tad illiberal, there is a kernel of truth to what he is saying.

The truth is, I can envision a member of the Nazi party who simply said, "You know, I love Germany. I am a nationalist and I think we need to get control of immigration. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of this country and this Adolf guy seems to be all over that stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he seems the only one who can drag us out of the economic morass we are in, so I voted for him, and joined the party - and the pay is good as a party member; lotsa opportunity! So I do it for my wife and kids."

He has no hatred of Jews; no desire to rule the world; doesn't approve of the use of corruption and violence as political tools - his agreements with the movement are entirely pragmatic.

But doesn't the presence of such a man in the Nazi party lend credence to its less noble goals? While HE sees National Socialism as a decision regarding infrastructure and national greatness, OTHERS see his participation in the movement as an implicit approval of the wider goals of the party. And let's not forget, that whether he agrees with Nazi goals or not, there is strength in numbers, and the party of the concentration camp is made stronger by his mere association with it.

But the real problem, it seems to me, is not that our mythical moderate is lending credence to something he doesn't agree with, but rather that to associate with a lie not believed is simply the calculating act of an evil person, and to believe less of a lie than someone else does not confer any amount of truth upon the original lie. All who believe a lie, even if they do so to varying degrees - nevertheless believe a lie! And all are morally culpable for choosing the lie - though they choose less of it than another - when the truth was apparent.



But if we could draw a line between "radical feminazis" and "moderate feminists," does anyone have any idea where that line would be drawn? Are there certain basic beliefs that a moderate feminist would have? Likely, in my opinion, she wants an expansion of or maintenance of abortion rights. Likely, she is on board with the Domestic Violence bandwagon - and even if she admits that men are often victims rather than perpetrators (an exceedingly moderate stance), she still likely agrees with the feminist definition of DV - including "failing to take another's feelings into account" or "trying to withhold money" or "being controlling" - and of course the idea that a person simply trying to look out for his own interests, balance his budget, or keep his wife from harming herself or leaving him are criminal deeds to be equated with assault and battery is part of the neurotic radicalism that is radical feminism, no?

As an aside, as a former resident of South Carolina, I have followed the Mark Sanford scandal with some interest, having been personally acquainted with him years ago. I notice that his wife kicking him out of the house and refusing to let him see his kids for a period of time while he took time to think through his adultery has not once even been suggested to have been Domestic Violence! Yet I have been in court and seen men have Domestic Violence Protective Orders continued against them for threatening to take the kids away, for threatening to leave, and even for trying to keep a woman from leaving him! Odd, no?

Or perhaps it isn't abortion or domestic violence: maybe it is wage equity that is the issue of "moderate feminists." First, since all reasonable people know that wage equity (at least in America) has already been achieved, focusing on this non-issue is much like focusing on Domestic Violence or Global Warming: throwing governmental money and power at a made-up issue in an attempt to expand governmental power. But that governmental power IS and WILL BE expanded: at the cost of discriminatory policies against men. Do "moderate feminists" find it OK that more highly-qualified men are routinely discriminated against so that less-qualified females can have jobs? Is that best for society? The client? The economy? The men and women involved?

Or maybe it is the family that is the issue? Perhaps the moderate feminist simply despises the male-headed home. She despises evangelical Christianity, the Patriarchy, traditional values - however she characterizes it - and feels that women are equally qualified to hold authority and lead the home. Now, of course, she feels this in direct opposition to the facts, since we all know that the plague of divorce is a female concoction (with 2/3 of all divorces - the vast majority utterly groundless - are initiated by women) and that children are harmed by growing up in a home headed by a woman alone. But of course, it is not the children or society or all the millions wasted on family lawyers or even the fact that eight years down the road she will call somebody like me and say, "You know, I thought I would be happier/married again/whatever if I left my husband, but looking back I see I destroyed the greatest situation I ever had." - no, it is not any of these things: for the stability of society and the good of children and even the truth itself are expendable so that a woman can get what she wants.

To say nothing of the fact that, if a woman truly feels she is competent to head a home (and consequently destroy it), there is a great harvest of manginas out there who would be more than glad to agree to such an arrangement. There is no need for a political movement legislating such - but you see, it is not her own freedom that the feminist desires (for she will gladly exchange "slavery" to her husband for "slavery" to the government!) - it is merely the unadulterated hatred of men and their authority that she despises. It is not her submission to a man (which would never occur) that she hates, it is the willing submission of other women - reminding her of her own neurotic fears of men, and illustrating that they are, in fact, neurotic fears, since women in male-headed homes seem to do quite well.

And every once in a while, the emotions begin to rear their ugly collective head, and these "moderate" feminists forget that the TV camera is on, and even such moderates as congregate in the Church of Oprah forget themselves and let the truth slip, showing the vicious hatred, the neurotic fear, the irrational departure from reality that is the feminist mindset - even among the more "moderate" of their ilk:

"You're trying to get your hunger needs met," Dr. Smith tells Melissa. "What are you hungry for? To be loved? To be cared for? To feel special? These are not things to be ashamed of. You're asking a great question: 'How can I stop this?'"

Dr. Smith says that a lot of young girls are treating their bodies like trash cans. "Trash cans for what? For boys' sperm. For boys' insecurities. The boys come and drop their trash in our bodies. … It keeps going until we decide that we aren't receptacles for garbage. That my body is a temple; it's sacred. … I'm not the place that boys come and drop their sperm, their insecurity so they can pump their muscles up as I shrink down into nothing."

Well, since Oprah Winfrey is the very definition of "feminist lite" or "moderate feminism," given this quote, can you tell me exactly what is the difference between a "moderate feminist" and "radical feminazi?"

Feminism in all of its strains is a neurosis - a mental illness - because it is at its root a departure from reality and a flight into neurotic fears ("all men are abusers/rapists")and neurotic fantasies ("I can do whatever a man can do so lower all the requirements to accommodate me!").

We are happy whenever we find a bipolar patient whose illness is under control. She is always better off than the person committed long-term who cannot even come outdoors and live life. But at the end of the day both are sick. Very sick. Painfully, woefully, and pitifully sick.

And these "moderate feminists," though they may be married, though they may spout platitudes about men being victims of domestic violence, and though they may sing in the choir at church, (and though, like our moderate Nazi above, they may preface every discussion of feminist ideology with the phrase: "Well, now I don't agree with THAT....") are just as surely living a neurosis - a reality constructed only in their mind - as are the more rabid radicals whose rite of passage is the abortion and whose worship service is The Vagina Monologues.

And who, exactly, is prepared to characterize the violent destruction of the human child, engaging in systematized perjury as a means of getting money (or one's way), the use of government force to deny opportunity to others, and the destruction of the family - the very foundation of society and the only truly safe place for women and children to dwell - as a position of moderation?

Oprah.com: Hatred of Men, Mainstreamed!

It is often asserted that feminism is not about the hatred of men, but rather it is about improving the self-esteem and empowering women.

There is probably no type of feminism that is more "feminism-lite" than the daily stream of nonsense that flows from the Oprah Winfrey show. Oprah is, of course, the very definition of the mainstream.

How revealing, then, that such a vile exchange as the following would occur on her show, thereby demonstrating that feminism is, in fact, about an irrational, illogical, and neurotic rage directed at men by women barely in possession of their senses.

The following discussion, from an abstract of an episode of Oprah's talk show, is taken word for word from Oprah.com. In it, some feminist Ph.D. equates sperm with trash.

"You're trying to get your hunger needs met," Dr. Smith tells Melissa. "What are you hungry for? To be loved? To be cared for? To feel special? These are not things to be ashamed of. You're asking a great question: 'How can I stop this?'"

Dr. Smith says that a lot of young girls are treating their bodies like trash cans. "Trash cans for what? For boys' sperm. For boys' insecurities. The boys come and drop their trash in our bodies. … It keeps going until we decide that we aren't receptacles for garbage. That my body is a temple; it's sacred. … I'm not the place that boys come and drop their sperm, their insecurity so they can pump their muscles up as I shrink down into nothing."

The episode, interestingly enough, was titled "Empowering Girls."

Are Men, or Women, Mediocre?

I admit it is, on the face of it, a stupid question. "Mediocre," as a concept, refers to a relation to the mean or average, and when one takes a category as broad as "men" or "women," it is impossible to relate it to the mean or average since the category itself comprises the mean or average.

However, it is a question that I was recently asked by a woman. "Why are there so many mediocre men in the world?" And my response was, of course, "How do you know it isn't the women who are mediocre?"

She meant, of course, that in her quest to locate the perfect man, she was running into dozens upon dozens of men whom she considers to be woefully inadequate. And my response, of course, was intended to sensitize her to the fact that it may not be the men she is running into that are the problem - maybe it is the standard she is using to judge, or (horrors!) maybe it is the judge herself!

In my counseling, I often see women whose expectations regarding relationships are imbalanced, to say the least, and outrageous, to say the most. Again, my counseling experience goes back 20 years, and I can honestly say that it is worse today than it was in, say, 1988.

Women come into relationships with two influences present, and one influence lacking, which makes it absolutely impossible for them to build a quality relationship as they once did in the past. The two influences that are present are feminism and the media (which I often refer to as Oprah, in recognition that all mainstream media today is a progenitor of watered-down feminism and is female-centered), and the influence that is lacking is a religion, a coherent philosophy, or some other dominant worldview that is actually attached to reality.

Women today expect for their relationships to make them happy. Happiness, of course, is not a goal (both religion and classical philosophy recognize this) but is rather a byproduct of making correct choices and of fulfilling one's duty. Yet feminism, and our feminist culture represented by the media, teaches women that they have no responsibility that they are obligated to fulfill. Don't want a baby? Abort it. Don't want your husband? Leave, and use the power of the state to get him out of your hair! Want his money but not his presence? Don't worry, child support and alimony will relieve you of the duty of providing for a family and false allegations of child abuse or domestic violence will allow you to keep your kids. Women expect, because both Oprah and Sex in the City tell them it is so, to have the world (i.e., men) catering to their every whim for as long as they (men) are wanted, then to meekly walk away when they are no longer needed. But don't forget to mail that check!

Because women no longer have any duties (so society tells them), they cannot properly understand what it means to love another person. Love is, after all, not an emotion, but it is rather a settled commitment to be loyal, faithful, and act in another's best interest even when your emotions may make it difficult for you to do so. Because women are no longer capable of love, they spend their years flitting from one unfulfilling relationship to another all the while wondering what it is that is wrong with men. Why don't men want relationships? Why can't men make them feel loved? But of course, those of us who are men - who learned to love our fellowman in the military, on football fields, and in the workplace - understand that we only FEEL acceptance when we have committed our loyalty to something larger than ourselves. Since feminism and the media tells women that there is nothing larger than themselves and their notional fancies (which change from moment to moment), women - to the extent that they buy into feminism and the dominant feminist culture (whether they consider themselves to be feminists or not) are incapable of finding the one thing that they seek: a loving, stable relationship.

The problem is, the problem isn't the men. Men are getting the blame - just as Nazis gave the blame to Jews - but the blame belongs firmly with women themselves, whose character, development, and ability to love has been compromised by feminism. So there is an endless cycle of blaming, resentment, fear, and frustration that women feel toward the men in their lives which undermines every single relationship in which they engage. Yet the perceived problems never find resolution because the perceived problems (men) are not the real problem (women’s buying into feminist fallacies) – and no matter how many times you attack the wrong problem, it isn’t going to solve the real one.

The other dynamic that I have noticed is something that became plain to me one night while at a club. There was a Country & Western song that was popular some time back, called, I think, "I Ain't Settlin'," in which a band of foxy female country music singers extol their own virtues and warble on about how just any old man will not do for them - in other words, they refuse to settle for anything other than the greatest man on earth.

However, I noted while working in the club that, though this song was generally popular, it tended to be popular with women who were about four feet eleven ,weighing approximately 200 pounds, with A-cups for breasts, nappy hair, no job, a passel of kids, thrice-divorced, and a face not wholly unlike that of the average hedgehog.

Now sure, if you are 5'8 with DD breasts, a multimillion dollar income from country music, and a body and face that causes premature ejaculation as you walk down the street, it is easy to sing, "I ain't settling." The problem is, that snotty attitude that "I am too good for the average guy" has been internalized, because it is constantly promoted in the media, by the female population at large, who really can't get away with it. Frankly, for the average women who sings "I Ain't Settlin'", the average guy would be selling himself quite short.

So, it is to a certain extent a problem that is innate to women. Women tend to be emotional and vain. That has always been true. The real problem, though, is that feminism has come along and told them that they are justified in their vanity and told them that what they want emotionally is more important than life as it really exists. Women have bought this bill of goods by the millions.

And therefore it is women, not men, who are the problem. And if a solution to the widespread social ills, as well as the personal struggles of women, is to be found, it will be found consequent to a change from women themselves.