Women Never Lie About Rape - Chapter 7019: The Vanishing Allegations against David Copperfield

For my next trick, I will make these false allegations disappear!

Before going any further, let me state that I understand that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. I know this because feminists tell me that it is so.

I know that the social costs - such as fear of embarassment, being victimized a second time by the system, and the personal fear of being hunted down by their abuser - is so great that women simply cannot gain by lying about rape. On top of that, I understand that women are far too righteous to ever manufacture charges against the innocent for any reason. The womanly virtues of compassion, cooperation, unity, nurturing, and respect for humanity would never allow a woman to participate in such activities. It is the male characteristics of greed, dominance, vengeance, and competition that lead to immoral behavior, of course.

For instance, if I were an aspiring male model and I were having a difficult time becoming established in my chosen trade, I might do something immoral just to give my career a boost. I
might, for instance, appear in a porn movie, or move into O.J. Simpson's guest house, or manufacture false allegations against somebody famous in an attempt to raise my profile. After all, men are, from a very young age, through all that yucky sports and all that other competitive nonsense, taught that what matters is not how you win, but that you win.

On the contrary, however, if I were an aspiring female model and I were having a difficult time becoming established in my chosen trade, I would likely just suffer in silence while writing
feminist poetry about how the deck is stacked against me, or perhaps get a job as a waitress and hope to be discovered while brightening people's day with my uber-heart-of-gold and making all kinds of sacrifices to raise awareness about breast cancer and be a good mother to my kids.

So, as I say, I get all that. Women don't lie.... heart of gold... etc. etc. Which makes the strange case of David Copperfield's disappearing charges all that more difficult to interpret. For the story seems to fly in the face of what I know to be true, having been told the truth by feminists.

On January 25, 2007, Lacey Carroll, age 21 (as of this writing, age 23) of Kirkland, Washington, who was recently named the first runner-up in the 2010 Miss Washington USA pageant, was
attending a performance by magician David Copperfield in the Seattle area. As she and her entourage entered the performance, she was approached by one of Copperfield's staffers, who are apparently trained to scope out foxy chicks prior to performances and sit them in special seating - seating from which "volunteers" for certain tricks will be solicited during performances. And, *ahem*, from the sound of it, it seems as if Mr. Copperfield might sometimes solicit volunteers from this group for special, backstage performances, if you get my drift.

Lacey Carroll, the vile face of feminism: lie and lie again, because it really is all about you!

Copperfield later invited both Ms. Carroll and her family to dinner, and, in classic "I'm-a-famous-producer" fashion, promised Ms. Carroll that he could help her with her modeling career.

One wonders if Mr. Copperfield was wearing mirrored sunglasses and a hefty collection of gold necklaces when he extended this offer, but I digress. One also wonders if this "helping her modeling career" was phrased in terms of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch my itch", but I digress again.

Whether for counseling purposes, a photo shoot, or a meeting with Stephen Speilberg, or perhaps Copperfield had some really great recommendations on the illusions made possible by makeup, we may never know - but Copperfield, after exchanging email with Carroll for some time, eventually worked up the nerve to invite Ms. Carroll to his private compound on the island of Musha Cay, 85 miles from Nassau, Bahamas. Undoubtedly, Ms. Carroll believed that she would be meeting Mr. Speilberg, if not on the island, at least through a conference call when she arrived.

Alas! When she arrived on the island in July of 2007, only Ms. Carroll and Mr. Copperfield were present on the island! Horrors! Had David Copperfield made all the Hollywood producers, famed photographers, and (gasp!) even Stephen Speilberg disappear!?!?

So for two days, Ms. Carroll stayed on the island. Unfortunately, so did Copperfield. And Copperfield, of course, raped and beat her repeatedly, nay, constantly during the two-day stint.

But then, you didn't need me to tell you that, did you? Because Copperfield is a white male, and white males exist only to rape, dominate, pillage, and harm.

At the end of this two-day orgy of violence, Copperfield did something very strange: he let Carroll go, put her on a plane, and made her promise not to tell.

This is the problem when one is spinning a tale - it is easy enough to simply use the prefashioned templates provided by the local women's shelter in trying to get the tale spun: white male, violence, rape, patriarchal society, fear, sexism in math class. But eventually you have to use some creativity to properly craft the denoument. For a man has violent as Copperfield, merely
putting a chick victim on a plane and eliciting her mild promise not to tell doesn't sound very convincing. Next time, she might want to use that whole "sexism in math class" angle. But again, I digress.

The progress of the story, once it was spun, is pretty predictable thereafter except for the ultra-cool international angle and the FBI raid on one of Copperfield's warehouses: she tells her family that she was taken advantage of, she goes to the local women's shelter where they take a rape kit and coach her on her story (in the future, make sure you spend as much effort in devising an effective ending to the story as you do on the whole rape & pillage part, willya?), the "rape" is reported to Seattle police - who do nothing (Typical patriarchal authorities! Don't they know that women don't lie about rape???) because they have no jurisdiction in international cases (oh, sorry), so they call the FBI who promptly become involved and convene a grand jury for investigative purposes in October of 2007.

No indictment seemed forthcoming... and no charges. Just an endless investigation. As 2007 ended, and 2008 ended, and then 2009 ended, the investigation continued....

And apparently the hopes of becoming the next Tyra Banks had, uhhhhhh, vanished.

So it is important to find a source of reliable income while waiting for your criminal charges to come through so that you can adequately extort a proper settlement from Mr. Moneybags, uhhhhh, Mr. Copperfield.

So she turns to one of the oldest professions in the history of feminism. Prostitution, you guess? No, I said in the history of feminism, not in the history of the world. Rather, Ms. Carroll turns to the finely-tuned feminist fundraising method of extortion.

So yeah, she hangs around in hotel lobbies and fondles the clientele like a normal hooker. But the truth is that most hookers have a slightly more evolved system of ethics than does Ms. Carroll. Most hookers won't manufacture fake charges when guys refuse to become their clients....

So she meets a guy. On a streetcorner, in a hotel lobby, in a bar, or at the restaurant where she works - who can say? She fondles him. Drapes herself all over him. Suggests sex. Suggests a threesome. Becomes so graphic in her suggestive loquaciousness that a second girl abandons the party as being a mite too vulgar for her tastes. So Carroll and her male victim continue the petting party, travelling to and fro looking for a short-term hotel set up, eventually arriving at the Bellevue Westin. While the party waits for their room key, groping, kissing, and all sorts of "romantic" activity occurs - in front of the security cameras. Ms. Carroll, according to hotel staff, is heard to regret that the other chick had abandoned the party, inasmuch as she found the prospect of a threesome quite appealing. She even offered to make a few calls and maybe scare up an additional chick....

Now see? If she hadn't pissed Copperfield off so badly, maybe he coulda made the threesome happen by sawing a woman in half or something!

According to the Bellevue (WA) Reporter:

"Carroll allegedly engaged in foreplay with a 31-year old man in a Bellevue hotel room and then offered to participate in additional sexual acts for $2,000."

Lacey Carroll, liar and feminist, shown here passed out in a car and being taken advantage of while complaining that a threesome seems to be less likely than earlier in the evening.

A bit pricey, if you ask me.

Apparently our 31-year old protagonist thought so as well, inasmuch as he perfected a vanishing act in dispatching Ms. Carroll forthwith. He then called police and reported that he had been the victim of an extortion attempt. Phone call time: 11:02 p.m.

In the meantime, noting that the hotel staff weren't exactly responding to her claims that the man she had been making out in the lobby with, and whom she had willingly ascended into a
hotel room with, had "taken advantage of" her, Ms. Carroll called and reported a sexual assault. Phone call time: 12:30 a.m.

Police arrive. With great seriousness and sincerity, statements are taken. The statements of the hotel employees seem to square more with the accused than the accuser. No matter - the
police checked the security cameras. And they see Ms. Carroll willingly making out with the guy. They see her taking an elevator, alone, while he orders drinks. Somehow, the police are
having trouble squaring all of this with Ms. Carroll's story that she had blacked out in a car and only awakened in the Westin's room with some lumbering brute on top of her.

Wellllllllll, OK. But we are cops, and we know that women don't lie about rape. We know this because we have been in dozens of indoctrination programs sponsored by feminist organizations that taught us that women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, and abuse. So in spite of all the evidence, we are gonna do a rape kit on this chick.

So Ms. Carroll is taken to Overlake Hospital. A rape kit was completed.

But, oddly enough, police do not, in most jurisdictions, have an automatic right to examine the results of a rape kit without a court order. Normally, this presents no problem, inasmuch as
victims (both real and fake) will sign a waiver allowing the private medical results to be revealed to police. They do this, whether they are telling the truth about rape or lying (now, again, I
realize that women NEVER lie about rape), because generally there IS, in fact, the sperm of the accused within them, so it becomes a question of whether that sperm entered her consensually or not. The presence of sperm within a woman obviously always helps her case, because cops know that women do not lie about rape. If the sperm is there, they know the woman was raped! All neat and tidy, huh?

Odd. Ms. Carroll refused to sign over the results of the rape kit to the cops.

"Well, now honey," muttered Sgt. Mumblefuster of the Bellevue Police Department, "if you don't let us have the results of the rape kit, how can we prosecute? Why won't you sign over the results to us?"

"Because," replied Ms. Carroll, "the results of this rape kit might adversely affect my case against David Copperfield."

So the federal investigation of David Copperfield, magician, has disappeared. Any promise of Ms. Carroll enjoying the fruits of extortion have similarly, likewise vanished. And several
chimeral aspects of the Feminist False Allegations Project are revealed....

1) Women DO lie about rape - and it happens frequently. In fact, there are some chicks who are professional liars when it comes to the feminist-favored sexual allegations of rape, domestic
violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

2) Women are vicious in their capability to lie about rape. Lacey Carroll lied about rape in regards to two seperate innocent men in a period of only a couple of years - both in attempts to
extort money. If the relatively minor amount of $2,000 for a sexual foray that never took place is sufficient to motivate a woman to lie about rape, do you honestly think that they will not lie
for custody, to cover up their own adultery, to ensure a favorable disposition of marital assets, or to gain vengeance on a husband or lover?

3) Women recognize that they no longer even have to be crafty in their use of false allegations. Feminism, the state religion of the legal system, has so corrupted judges, lawyers, police
departments, and every other aspect of the legal system by making them receptive to false allegations that, no matter the evidence, the allegations are welcome. And unless you have
millions of dollars to spend on legal defense (as the Duke Lacrosse players or David Copperfield did) or the good fortune to have security cameras nearby, the wheels of injustice simply start to turn until its innocent victims are ground up.

4) Lacey Carroll, likely because she was a prostitute, is being charged for her false allegations. Remember, however, that less than 5% of women who file false allegations are charged. Even
today, Crystal Gail Mangum has never been charged with the crime of filing false allegations against the Duke Lacrosse team.

What any fool would know, but mind you, feminists are not just any fools, is borne out by the spate of false allegations that are plaguing the country. When you make it easy to bring false allegations, people - whether they are men or women - will accuse with bluster. When you not only make it easy to bring false allegations, but remove the consequences of doing so, people will bring them by the ton.

Let's hope that you, who may or may not have millions to spare, are as successful at dispelling the false allegations when they hit you.

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.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 1

The role of women's shelters, in my state, is considered so important that their tactics cannot be discussed in a courtroom.

This is your first clue that something is up, and it probably isn't kosher.

I've been talking to women, in both formal and informal contexts, for a period of about five years about what goes on in women's shelters. All of the women that I have talked to have been on the inside of the shelters, and all of them have signed confidentiality agreements. So I will refer to them with alternate names on the remote chance that there might be liability involved for them. But they all agree on the essentials of what happens, and what happens is, quite frankly, both frightening, and is evidence of the fact that women's shelters have very little to do with protecting women, and are rather local fortresses for the war against men and the family.

I post the following for a variety of reasons. First, I think that men need to be sensitized to watch out for the behaviors discussed below, and should be forewarned as to the potential significance of the behaviors. Secondly, most people who support women's shelters with financial or in-kind contributions believe that the places simply exist to protect women - they have no idea what is actually going on inside. Hopefully, knowledge of what is really going on will go a long way toward helping private individuals and organizations - especially churches! - to reconsider their support for such radical, anti-family hate organizations.

Thirdly, evil loves a cloak of secrecy. Turn on the lights, and the roaches scatter.

Elizabeth F. gives a basic overview of what happens when a woman shows up at a woman's shelter. "I was told that I could stay for 24 hours, no questions asked. But if I was going to take advantage of the programs offered at the shelter or if I was going to stay longer than 24 hours, I had to file a Domestic Violence Protective Order" (DVPO) against her intimate partner.

Angie G. tells that there were several instances in which the police were actually brought into the shelter to "help" a woman fill out a DVPO "adequately." A responding officer, a detective, and the head of the sex crimes unit all came in with the "leader" of the women's shelter to "help" women fill out the DVPO for maximum impact.

Now, a few notes about DVPOs. A DVPO hearing is what one law professor has called a "quasi-criminal hearing." It is not criminal because, to have been found liable for "domestic violence" in a DVPO hearing does not result in a criminal conviction, nor even criminal charges being filed. However, the following things either normally happen or routinely happen when a DVPO is "continued." A "continuation" is a finding of liability that would be the equivalent of "guilt" in a criminal proceeding.

* For one year (or longer in some states), the person found to have committed "domestic violence" loses their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

* The person found to have committed "domestic violence" is generally immediately removed by governmental force from his home.

* The person will immediately lose custody of his children, and the fact of a DVPO will be a central finding in any custody hearings which follow.

* His paycheck may be taxed for alimony and child support without even so much as an initial hearing. Further, rest assured that a finding of liability for "domestic violence" will be a consideration of many courts in asset division, permanent alimony rulings, and permanent custody hearings.

* In my state, a DVPO that is "continued" can be used, on its face, as evidence upon which the police may base criminal charges.

Think about that. Think long and hard about that. A woman comes into a women's shelter with a desire to have some privacy for a few days. She is informed that, unless she makes allegations against her husband/intimate partner, she must leave first thing in the morning. The police investigators are summoned to help her fill out a DVPO complaint in such a way that it will "pass muster" in a DVPO hearing. Consequent to the hearing, the DVPO is "continued." Now, the police use the complaint that they themselves have helped to fill out as the sole basis for the filing of criminal charges.

One must assume that people who work in "Domestic Violence Units" or "Sex Crimes Units" would be peculiarly adept at recording evidence - or allegations - in such a way as to maximize the possibility of criminal conviction, no? It is a vicious cycle in which (in some cases certainly, and in every case potentially) the police help form the very allegations upon which charges will eventually be based.

And in fact, my own personal experience (which is certainly not exhaustive, but I have no reason to believe that it is abnormal, either) bears this out. I have witnessed over 100 DVPO hearings in approximately five years. Only once has anything been alleged that the man on the street would recognize as "violence." Yet only once in that 100+ hearings has a man failed to have his DVPO "continued" against him.

This would all be bad enough if women's shelters were merely passive organizations that waited for the abused to wander in to assist them. In fact, this is not the case. Women's shelters recruit heavily. I have personally seen stacks of business cards, posters announcing local organizations, schedules for local meetings, and placards bearing state hotlines in courthouses (conveniently hanging over the ubiquitous free forms to file for separation, divorce, custody, and of course, DVPOs), doctor's offices, the local free clinic, the Deparment of Social Services, universities, and even local gas stations.

My wife and I saw a poster which depicted a barefooted woman walking on the beach with her back turned to the camera, dressed all in white, holding a transparent white shawl above her head with both hands thrust in the air in a sign of victory, with a caption that read: "Need a new start? The State of _________'s Office of the Attorney General can help you relocate without a trace with your children if you have been the victim of domestic violence. Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for more information."

These publicly-advertised meetings are not necessarily what you would think.

The average person seeing these posters saying, "Call xxx-xxxx for information on our next meeting" would undoubtedly assume that the meetings were to help women who were suffering from abuse to find a way out.

Yet Angie G., Elizabeth F., and Amy P. all agree that dealing with actual "violence" is only a subtext at such meetings.

Angie G. says, an unnamed woman "came in September and just sat through the meeting. She was asked if she had ever been abused, and she said, 'I feel emotionally abused by my husband.' She didn't really say much more. Everybody else said their piece, and the counselors continually reminded them that phrasing their story in certain ways was important to a finding of domestic violence in court. They made these recommendations even for the women who had already gotten their DVPOs continued. Every once in a while, they would get back to the new, 'emotionally abused' woman. One time the counselor even said to her, 'See how it's done?' When the 'emotionally abused' woman came back in October, she had this whole story about how she was being beaten, controlled, accused, and everything." [Emphasis added]

When I asked Angie G. if she had been encouraged to lie, she said, "No, not so much lie. The counselors and police are very adamant that you take things [that happened to you] in the most negative way possible." It is not so much lying as not giving anybody the benefit of the doubt. If it can be construed in a negative manner, then it becomes part of my complaint.

However, Amy P. states clearly, "When I said that I didn't have any physical abuse at all - I just wanted to be done with a cheating husband - they coached me on what to say."

Every woman that I have talked to on this subject agrees that one of the primary topics of discussion in these locally-advertised "meetings" is how to catch your man at domestic violence.

That will be the subject of the next entry.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

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."

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.