Who Harms Women?

‎"Feminists have done more damage to women since the 60s than men have done in all of human history." Carmen Connors on WRDU's (106.1, Raleigh/Knightdale, NC) "The Morning Rush"

Interesting FEMALE perspective, wouldn't you say...?

My Chat With an Attorney

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

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

This was not news to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who'da thunk it?

Draconian Feminist Sentencing Destroys a Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Face of Feminism: Linzi Gorman, False Rape Slanderer

Get drunk: Check!

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

Feel regret or fear: Check!

Make up story about being raped: Check!

Send police on witch hunt: Check!

Allow innocents to be arrested and charged: Check!

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


This story originally appeared in the Belfast Telegraph:

Face of a rape liar

Sunday, 25 April 2010

[No author given]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crystal Gail Mangum - Feminist Icon

Finally, Crystal Gail Mangum has been called to account for her crimes!

You will, of course, remember Ms. Crystal Gail Mangum. She is the slanderous harpy (i.e., feminist) and "exotic dancer" (i.e., hooker) who lodged false allegations against the Duke University Lacrosse team in 2006 - apparently because she felt slighted when she was not tipped what she thought she deserved for dancing at one of their parties.

As per usual, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper intervened and administratively dropped the charges against the lacrosse players, the decision was made in the local district attorney's office to not prosecute Mangum for her crimes of abuse of process, filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, or even perjury.

The stated excuse for not filing such criminal charges against her was that she was too mentally unstable to be legally responsible for her crimes (but then, aren't all feminists similarly mentally unstable?). However, let's never forget that it is the official legal dogma of the feminist movement that slanderous women who file false allegations against innocent men (and there are many - up to or exceeding 60% of the aggregate allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse or molestation are false allegations) should never be prosecuted, inasmuch as such prosecutions of slandering hussies will deter "real victims" from filing their complaints. Oddly, feminists have never argued that those who file false insurance claims should not be prosecuted lest such prosecutions deter those with real insurance claims from filing....

But one district attorney in a false allegations case, in explaining why he would not file charges against the perjurious feminist who slandered an innocent man, demonstrated the depths to which femtard mythology has penetrated into the black heart of the legal system....

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in fact, codifies this feminist desire to encourage false allegations by encouraging states to adopt no-prosecution policies against any women who file charges of "domestic violence" against a male - even if such charges are determined to be false.

The end result of this turn of events is that feminists strive for a cultural milieu in which women are encouraged to file false charges against innocent men by removing all costs to themselves for doing so. It is the decriminalization of the crime of perjury - if one is a woman, of course.

Now of course, morally, matters are much stickier. For in fact, we have all known that Crystal Gail Mangum was a criminal nearly from day one. That the state refuses to prosecute her based on its political corruption by feminist dogma does not mean that she is not a criminal - for certainly she is a criminal, regardless of whether she has been prosecuted. And she is rightly viewed with contempt across the board in this country today.

But nevertheless, the whole Duke Lacrosse situation remains an interesting illustration of what passes for "justice" in the twisted feminist mind. Emotionally unstable and mentally shortchanged women are encouraged to approach life from a perspective of vigorous anger and self-absorption, never considering the lives of so much as their own children, and certainly giving less than a care about any man or even society itself. When such women act out... errrrrrr... lash out... uhhhhhh... "empower themselves," the innocents whom they are in the process of destroying are expected to simply accept their punishment (in the criminal realm, or settle, at a cost of thousands or millions of dollars in the civil). Meanwhile, the costs to those individuals is astronomical (as the Duke Lacrosse players and their families had to expend millions of dollars to defend themselves against the slander of Mangum and District Attorney, Mike Nifong), the costs to society are unexpected and far-reaching (as the Duke Lacrosse team lost an entire season of play, Mike Nifong lost his job and wound up in jail, Duke University settled out of court for willingly participating in the slander against the lacrosse players, several players did not graduate from Duke, the lacrosse coach lost his job, and the entire Durham community was divided along political lines) over what was, remember, merely a woman acting out because she had been brought up with a sense of feminist entitlement in a feminist culture which teaches women that if they do not get what they want they are justified, nay, even required, to be assertive and stand up for your rights and not be any man's doormat and lash out in some way at whatever displeases them.

Feminism is, of course, a mental disorder. It is a form of neurosis, in which its adherents are taught to ignore reality, replacing it with a dream world designed in their own heads. Further, it is a form of sociopathy, in which social conventions and the rights of others are submerged into an extreme narcissism and self-absorption that produces a bent toward aggression and crime. Whether those crimes be the filing of false allegations, other forms of perjury, or the slaughter of unborn innocents on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust, feminists are simply and inarguably criminals - though mostly unprosecuted, as was Mangum.

Feminists often tell us that "sexual predators" (i.e., those whose lives have been unjustly stained by the feminist false allegations industry's slanders) should be stopped on the first sign of deviance, so that far greater crimes in the future may be avoided.

Would that feminists were equally as concerned about the criminal potential of their own adherents, whose crimes are not imagined. Mangum's criminal record, for instance, is interesting. She was arrested for driving while impaired in 2000, and surrendered (or had revoked) her license in lieu of prosecution. But in 2002, Mangum was charged with grand larceny, driving while impaired, speeding to elude arrest, and assault on a government official when she stole a taxi belonging to a man to whom she was giving a lap dance, initiated a high-speed chase with police, and attempted to run over a policeman who approached the taxi on foot. She pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and spent three weekends in jail.

Then, of course, came the moment(s) of truth. On February 17, 2010, Mangum's daughter called Durham County's 911 and reported, "My mom's gonna die if you don't hurry."

Upon arrival, the police found Mangum in a violent, chaotic meltdown. She was, of course, merely "being assertive" in feminist style. Police report that they observed her "kicking, scratching, and throwing objects" and that they heard her threaten to kill her boyfriend (!!!???), one Milton Walker, when she screamed "I'm gonna stab you, motherf****r!" Yes. In front of police. Think maybe Missy has come to believe that there are no consequences for her wrongdoing...?

Upon further inspection of the home, police discovered that she had deposited her boyfriend's clothing in the home's bathtub and set them on fire.

Did I mention that Mangum's three children - aged 10, 9, and 3 - were present in the home?

I am pleased to report that Mangum has finally been charged with a crime -a whole slew of 'em, in fact! From attempted murder, to simple assault, arson, child endangerment, communicating threats, identity theft, damage to property, and resisting arrest, she has finally had the state endorse the proposition that all of us knew to be true from early in 2006 - that Crystal Gail Mangum is a sociopathic criminal who ought to have been locked up long ago.

Yet, something bothers me about all this....

I have previously pointed out that Mike Nifong is a feminist icon. It really doesn't make sense that he has been disbarred, charged and convicted with crimes, and locked up in jail - all he did was exactly what feminists have demanded that all law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts do: believe all allegations made by women against men regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, I can't really see charging Mangum with any crimes since all she is doing is exhibiting the strong, independent, assertive (some would say narcissistic and sociopathic) personality type that is encouraged in women by our feminist culture.

For instance, feminists encourage the filing of false allegations against men, and even admit that they are not really concerned that such false allegations take place! One Catherine Comins of Vassar College remarked in Time magazine....

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Undoubtedly this is true. Primarily, I would think they gain a realistic perspective on feminism.

If false allegations are merely a public service done by women toward men, why then, who is more of a feminist iconoclast than our beloved Crystal Gail Mangum?

Feminists additionally assure women that, when they feel that their rights are trampled on, or when their feelings are not taken into account by the male authorities in their lives (be that daddy, hubby, lover, or employer), they are justified in manufacturing criminal or civil charges, in the form of a false rape claim, a claim of domestic violence, or a manufactured civil claim of sexual harassment.

Undoubtedly, Mangum merely looked at the economic hardship of her country (for she is undoubtedly a patriot), and decided to handle her problems without further burdening a family court system that is already overburdened with the false allegations of thousands of other women! Criminal? Hardly. Mangum is merely a feminist who respects Hayek!

Feminist culture teaches women that their happiness, self-fulfillment, self-esteem, and self-absorption is the primary issue in all of reality. It justifies the destruction of innocent men, the devastation wreaked upon the institution of marriage, justifies the groaning weight of the welfare state, and even serves as a ready reason for the slaughter of the unborn in the womb. Children are merely appendages that can be disposed of at will when the interests of the mother are at stake.

It is puzzling, then, why Mangum could be charged with child abuse. After all, had the fires that she set inside the house actually gotten out of hand and her children had perished, undoubtedly she would not have thought of it as murder, but rather as a 40th-trimester abortion (at least for her ten year old, feel free to do your own math on the other two kids!).

I could go on, but I think the point I am making is rather much clear. Crystal Gail Mangum may or may not be a criminal, but in a feminist culture in which her behaviors are merely the logical extension of femtard agitation it is worth considering: Is it true that Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon, having mastered the behaviors and attitudes encouraged by feminism, and if so, is it also true that feminism is merely the politicization of a criminal sociopathy?

Defining Rape Down, and Down, and Down.... (Guest Column from theFIRE.org)

Originally posted at theFIRE.org

This is yet another feminist legal innovation and a repudiation of all that is good and right and fair about Western jurisprudence: in order to commit a crime, it has traditionally been required that one possess the mens rea - guilty mind or knowledge that one is doing wrong - of a crime. Feminists would rather just have all men be known as rapists, so now it is necessary to define rape in such a way that one isn't aware one is committing it.... [ed.]

New Duke Policy Renders Students Unwitting Rapists; Removes Protections for Those Accused of Sexual Misconduct

April 7, 2010

DURHAM, N.C., April 7, 2010—Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

"Duke's new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong," said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. "Members of the men's basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are 'perceived' as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct."

The new policy was introduced at the beginning of the school year with fanfare from the Duke Women's Center—the same center that apologized for excluding pro-life students from event space in a case FIRE won last month. Women's Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke's student newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, "The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop." (In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis that campuses like Duke are likely to harbor smarter sex offenders who are better able to outwit investigators.)

Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through "perceived power differentials," which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

"Of course, there is no way that everyone who was intoxicated during sexual activity, let alone 'perceived' as more powerful, is going to be charged with sexual misconduct," said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. "Add to that the provision about an unintentional atmosphere of coercion, and anyone can see that Duke's policy is impossible to rationalize or to fairly and equitably enforce. As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime."

The new policy even makes reporting of so-called sexual misconduct mandatory for any Duke employee who becomes aware of it, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victim.

Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different "jury" to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one's peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.

Other problems in the sexual misconduct policy, detailed in FIRE's letter to Duke President Richard Brodhead of March 4, include giving the complainant more rights than the accused, requiring the results of a hearing to be kept secret in perpetuity even if one is found not guilty or is falsely accused, and allowing anonymous and third-party reporting so that the student may never be able to face his or her accuser.

FIRE wrote, "As a private university, Duke is not obliged to agree with the authors of the Bill of Rights about the value of the right to face one's accuser. Nevertheless, Duke ignores their wisdom at the peril of its own students and reputation." Duke has declined to respond to FIRE's letter in writing.

"More than any other school in the nation," Shibley said, "Duke should be aware that its students deserve the best possible rules and procedures for ensuring that rape and sexual misconduct charges are judged fairly. Sexual misconduct is a serious offense. Duke students deserve a policy under which true offenders will be punished but the innocent have nothing to fear."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

Empowering Women!

So I am talking to this femtard. She assures me she is neither "doctrinaire" nor "extreme." She isn't a follower of the Femtard Goddess, Oprah, nor does she "hate men." She is a "reasonable" feminist.

So I say to her, "No, you are not a 'reasonable feminist.' Nobody on earth is a 'reasonable feminist' because nobody has ever become a feminist through reason. You are a feminist - to whatever degree - because of your emotions."

"That's the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in my life. I just believe that men and women are equal - that's not emotional, it's a fact." quoth my soon-to-be weeping femtard prey.

"Well," quoth I, "both you and the feminists say that you believe that men and women are equal. But here are two propositions that neither you nor feminists can argue with: first, there are NO facts which indicate that men and women are equal, and secondly, both you AND feminists believe that women are inferior to men."

"Feminists believe that women are inferior to men? You... you're...."

"Exactly," I said. "Listen, I hear your words. I hear you when you say 'Women can do anything that men can do.' I hear feminists say that as well. But I know you are all lying. Lemme ask you something: If women are capable of anything that men are capable of, then why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in the military (for both admission and promotion) so that more women can do what men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of doing anything that men are capable of doing, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in police forces and fire brigades so that more women can get jobs that men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of everything that men are capable of, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards of admission - specifically for women, not across the board - so that more women can be admitted to law school, medical school, and MBA programs?"

"Well, just because a woman can't do everything a man can do physically...."

"Oh, so now you admit that men and women are not equally capable?" I said as I cornered her (the first time).

"Uh, no. No, I didn't say that."

"You just said that women can't do what men can do physically," I reminded her.

"Well, you aren't so stupid to believe that a woman who is 5'2, 120 pounds, is going to be able to do everything that a man who is 6'2, 230 pounds can do?" she replied.

"No, I don't believe that at all. But I am not the one who said women and men were equally capable. You said that. So now you are arguing with yourself?"

"No, of course not. But there are some women who are able...."

"But we aren't talking about some women, we are talking about women as a group. Feminists do not desire to hold women to the same standards as men - which would allow some women, those who are able to perform at the same level as men to get the same jobs or opportunities as men - I am more than happy to have women who are physically and otherwise as capable as men to do the things that men do. But that is not the feminist goal. The feminist goal is to lower standards for women so that women who are not capable of doing the things that men are doing can have the jobs that only men are capable of doing well."

"It's not just women, feminists want equality for everybody," she replied, both off-topic and smugly.

"Really? So what feminists really want is for men who are 5'2 and 120 pounds to be given jobs as firemen?" Trapped again, she was.

"Uhhh, maybe so." She lied, of course.

"Really? Because I have never seen any legislation ever introduced by feminists that would have accomplished that! Rather, what I see is a continual desire to define competency down so that - more women alone - so that women can finally manage to reach the ever-decreasing bar of competency and act as if they are equal to the guys who met minimum levels of competency that were much higher."

"That's outrageous."

"Maybe so. But is it wrong? Did I misspeak? Am I factually wrong? Can you tell me any feminist initiative that would have benefited men that are 5'2 and 120 pounds?"

Realizing she was unable to answer, and therefore refusing to do so, she retorted, "Well, just because women are not able to do what men can do physically doesn't mean they are inferior."

"Well, it certainly means they are physically inferior, if physical output is the measuring stick. But we aren't just talking about physically are we?"

"If there is any real difference between men and women, it is physical," she insisted.

"That may or may not be, we haven't established that yet," I replied, as if I knew a secret that she didn't. "But I can guarantee you that feminists do not believe what you just said. Feminists actually believe that women are also intellectually and morally inferior to men."

"I can't do this anymore..." she whined.

"Oh, come on. Don't let reality crowd your neurosis there, OK? You aren't afraid of the truth are you?"

"What you are saying is not the truth."

"How would you know? You haven't even tried to counter it!"

"But I've never heard all this before...."

"Of course not. Feminism depends on the ignorance of the populace - it can't prosper any other way. A mind that had ever been acquainted with merely ONE fact would thoroughly reject the 'Long ago in a land far away' ideology of feminism. But aren't you glad you are hearing it now for the first time?"

"You say such outrageous things. How do feminists believe that women are morally inferior?" At this point, my prey is near tears and is visibly shaken. Her voice quakes.

"Not just morally, but also intellectually inferior. Yes, feminists believe that. They reveal that they believe women are intellectually inferior when they attempt to lower standards for admission to law school, medical school, and MBA programs (among others) so that more women can be employed in the professions. Again, it is pretty clear that if women are equally capable, there is no reason to lower standards."

"No," she said, "what you don't get is that those 'standards' were set by men." When she said "standards," she indicated quotation marks with her fingers.

"What difference does it make who set them? If men and women were equally capable, women should have no problem meeting the standards whether they were set by God, the Queen, or a passing UFO. I mean, which aspect of 'equally capable' do you not understand?"

"Because women were not allowed to give input when these standards were set...."

"Foolishness," said I. "Nobody consulted me when the rules of basketball were designed. That has nothing to do with whether or not I am equally as capable at basketball as is Michael Jordan. Nobody consulted me when the rules of backgammon were designed. Nevertheless, if I am gonna play backgammon, competently or otherwise, I am expected to abide by the rules that were set by somebody else. And by the way, nobody consulted me when VAWA was passed either, and VAWA has far more impact upon men than the rules of backgammon, so your indignation seems both hypocritical and misplaced.... But who makes the rules is irrelevant. We all live in situations in which the rules have been provided by someone else and we are nevertheless expected to excel or demonstrate competence. If I want to claim to be equally as capable as Michael Jordan, then no matter who made the rules, I have to perform with him."

Silence. So I continued.

"So when feminists demand that standards to professional schools be lowered so that women can be admitted and practice law and medicine and whatever, when men have already been entering, leaving, and practicing from Harvard Law for a century or more, they are admitting that they do not believe that women are 'equally capable' with men intellectually.

"Now, let's talk morals..." I continued. "Feminists also do not believe that women are as morally sound as are men."

"See, this is what I hate. You are just being silly now." Smug again. Confident. Right where I want her....

"Well, OK. When feminists changed the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] under Bill Clinton, it was the legislative enactment of the feminist myth that 'women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.' Of course that silly little fairy tale first gained wide exposure during the Clarence Thomas hearings, when that braying feminist ass, Anita Hill, was revealed to be lying about sexual harassment. And so people rightly guffawed at the myth at the time. But that pissed feminists off so much that they began to seek to have their mythology codified into law - one result of that compunction to enact feminist fairy tales into law was VAWA."

"I don't see what that has to do with women's morals," she interjected. Fair enough. I had been interrupting her as well. Though for two different reasons: I interrupted her because what she was saying wasn't worth hearing, and she interrupted me because she didn't want to face the truth.

"You don't see it because you are talking when you should be listening," I said quite righteously. "Now, as I was saying, the femtard fairy tale that 'women don't lie' was codified in several ways - in the presumption of guilt for those accused (inescapable in Domestic Violence Protective Order [DVPO] proceedings, where the standard of evidence is the 'subjective fear of the woman', but present also in rape proceedings where a woman is referred to as a 'victim' even when she is revealed to be lying about rape, and in shielding her identity without shielding the identity of the one slandered by her), in the exclusion of relevant evidence from courts (so-called 'rape shield' laws, but they represent the only time that I know of in Western jurisprudence in which character evidence that has a direct bearing on the allegations being brought are excluded, even though they could indicate that the accuser is lying), and a lowering of evidentiary standards. Again, the standard of evidence for issuing a restraining order prior to VAWA was 'the probability of harm.' In other words, if the order was not issued, it was probable that harm would accrue to the petitioner. But for a DVPO, the standard of evidence was changed to 'the subjective fear of the woman.' In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she 'fears' her husband/daddy/lover, then she can take everything he owns and have him treated as a criminal - no evidence necessary."

"What the &^%$ are you talking about? I don't see this!" she objected.

"Let me ask you something: If women are so morally superior to men that they never lie - even if they only never lie about certain things, like sex or violence, why is it necessary to lower the standard of evidence? And by the way, they didn't just lower it, but they lowered it to the extent that it is essentially no standard of evidence at all - merely to make the claim is to be considered to be telling the truth by a court (quite a violation of the "innocent until proven guilty" tradition in Western jurisprudence, wouldn't you say?). If women are morally equal to men, shouldn't their ability to tell the truth be tested by the same standards of evidence that have always tested the testimony of men? Shouldn't the men that they slander be considered innocent except for objective evidence proffered of their guilt? Shouldn't women who slanderously accuse men have to meet the standards of evidence of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'a preponderance of the evidence,' or 'probability/likelihood of harm?' Sure they should! They should, that is, IF it is true that they are just as capable of telling the truth as are men! But by insisting on an impossibly LOW standard of evidence for the complaints that only women make, aren't feminists simply demanding to be believed for the sake of their own complaint? And if I insist that YOU believe ME just because, am I not admitting to you that there is something wrong with me or my story, and asking to be given the benefit of the doubt? And if I am asking to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to telling the truth in court under oath, am I not admitting that in the moral matter of telling the truth, I am morally inferior to those who must prove their complaints with real evidence?"

"You know, I don't think either of us is going to change each other's mind," she stated, rather than trying to rebut my exquisite logic.

"Of course we aren't. You won't change my mind because I am right and you are wrong. And I won't change your mind because you are not interested in truth and facts."

"What you are saying isn't the truth," she stated again.

"Then why won't you show the error in what I have said?"

"You know," she said, "It's not all about facts. People's opinions matter."

"No, people's opinions don't matter at all. They are all different, and generally contradictory. How can they all be true? And if they are not true, how can they matter? After all, it is our responsibility to form our opinions based on reality, not to try to bring reality into conformity with our opinions, as feminists do."

"There's more to it than that," she said. "It's not all about facts and truth. It's about self-worth and self-esteem. It's about a world in which I can feel good about myself."

"Thank you," I said.

"Thank me for what?" she asked.

"Thank you," I said again, "for admitting that you are a feminist because of feelings and not facts. As I said when we started talking about this, no feminist ever became a feminist intellectually. It's all about feeling, emotions, and a certain neurotic preference for castles in the air rather than cold, hard, reality."

Full circle....

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?