We need to get this sort of thing classified as a hate crime. Just as painting a swastika on the garage door of a Jewish person's house is a hate crime, so is this sort of treachery. It is so clearly motivated by hate and indifference, nothing else.
People that do this deserve jail time. We need a justice system that makes that happen.
Such are often crimes of hate, especially where the accused is known to the accuser. In this case, it seems more a case of narcissistic indifference, in which the "creepy" accused wasn't even a real human being to the woman who used him as a pawn in her personal drama.
I can't see a young woman like this (or any woman for that matter) ever being charged with a hate crime if her accused is a white man. The law already condones hatred against white men.
Couldn’t agree more Derpetology. Hate crimes, domestic violence, micro transgressions. Have you noticed that in general only white people or white males are capable of committing these crimes? They are all ideological terms that allow extremists to create and control a narrative. We have always had laws against violence and threats of violence but maybe they weren’t enforced sufficiently at times.
Hate crimes are discriminatory they create privileged victims groups and necessarily less privileged victim groups. If someone commits a crime then the severity of that crime should be judged on many things, the circumstances and details of the crime itself, whether there were any mitigating circumstances to the crime was there provocation, was the criminal suffering from a mental illness etc. What they should not be judged on is the race, religion and sex of the offender and victim. Hate crimes exactly this adding a factor of the race, sex or religion of the victim to a judgement of the severity. It is an intrinsically sexist and racist concept. If someone is attacked because of their race or sex than as a consequence there will be a complete absence of mitigating factors, no provocation of any sort. That should be enough to increase the severity of the offence without it being considered different if it is a white Christian, a black Muslim or a Jewish person. depending on the sex, race and religion of the attacker.
Pragmatically but realistically there is no chance whatsoever that offences committed against white middle aged men are going to be treated in the same way as those against young women.
What should happen is that false accusations are treated as the serious crimes they are based on the actual and potential impact on the victim. This woman's actions resulted in a man being locked up for a month and a very real danger of his life being totally destroyed. These actions should be considered on a par with actual kidnap and imprisonment for a month and an attempt to cause life changing injuries for example loss of limbs or eyesight because that is what the effect on the man has been and could be. Personally I think a sentence of not less than 10 years would be appropriate but doubt it will happen.
That seems about right: this was a cold-blooded, unprovoked, premeditated assault that caused untold suffering and anxiety and would have caused far more if she had got away with it; if the man had a job, it is gone; he may lose his home as a result; and the toll on his mental and physical health is likely to be severe and ongoing.
We know she won't get anywhere near ten years. She will have a very sad story to tell at her trial, if her case even gets to trial, which I doubt it will. I suspect she will take a plea deal in which her youth and her unhappy family circumstances will be seen as mitigating factors. She will perhaps get 6 months in jail (max.) and community service. She is a nice-enough looking young woman who will cry copious tears at every opportunity needed. No judge is going to ruin *her* life.
I believe so too, just like that young woman that stabbed her new boyfriend to death but got away scathe free because “she was high on pot”… that it didn’t warrant upending her future for that episode, the judge says.
I seem to have read that the blatant decision to let a murderer walk free like nothing happened will be (or has been) reassessed, but just the fact that it happened so easily and frictionless makes me think that this one won’t be punished either.
And for the instances where there’s punishment instead of rewards (due to outcry, articles like this, etc), those will just be exceptions few and far to justify saying “see people, we do follow the investigations to the end. *Wink wink*”
Yes, indeed, Matthew. This is a hate crime, the form of hatred being misandry, even though hope for personal financial and emotional rewards might be additional motivations in some cases. That's because hatred is not a transient emotion but a culturally propagated and institutionalized worldview that relies on malice: the urge to harm a target group.
Thank you Janice. A horrible and needless ordeal for this fellow, for sure. She should have to face consequences for such fraudulence, but nothing will happen to her, as you point out.
As awful as this situation is, I despair about the continual (and likely rising) stream of accusations that are flowing out of dating or relationship scenarios. The one-sidedness on the consent and responsibility front is just a disaster-waiting-to-happen for men. When a woman's after the fact subjective assessment of a sexual encounter is given the status of almost biblical truth, well, what could go wrong? (I know the answer!)
I agree. The case here is clear-cut in that the woman had never interacted with the accused man and ultimately confessed to her fabrication. Most cases, of course, are nothing like this. Where a man is sexually involved with a woman, there is now almost no way at all he can prove she consented.
The greatest crime in the human theater is FALSE ACCUSATION. Think of any crime, no matter how heinous. Now imagine being falsely accused of it! In China, severe punishment is metered out for Rape. If however, the accusation is found to be false, the false accuser gets done for the time that the FALSE ACCUSATION VICTIM, was “sent up” for. I wonder what that would do to the situation in the West?
All too true, Derp. They rarely investigate false accusations now. No one is interested in spending police resources to prove that a sexual assault did not happen.
It would be interesting if police departments were forced to make public the types of charges that they decline to pursue and the gender of the offenders that they don't arrest. It would certainly reveal how reluctant the police are to hold women accountable for criminal behavior. We see this kind of information for race all the time and outrage from the public if there are racial disparities in police enforcement, but the media doesn't want to condemn the police for overwhelmingly pursuing males.
Sonja Starr's article "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Sentencing" is the best piece of research I know of on this subject. It's ten years old now, but I'm sure it's still accurate. It shows that women receive sentences that are 65% less severe than for the same crime committed by a man. She controls for severity, degree of violence involved, etc. She also finds that women are far less likely to be arrested in the first place, or charged at all. If charged, a woman is far more likely to strike a plea deal or to be found not guilty. At every step in the criminal justice system, the woman is treated far more leniently.
At this point in time, it would seem so. We must unite to shut them down; civilizations are destroyed like this! Organize a drive to SUPPORT Anti-Feminist Authors and Activists.
Man with a criminal history consisting of only non-violent drug offenses is arrested and charged with attempted rape and kidnapping with zero physical and minimal (if any) circumstantial evidence, beyond the mere word of a woman:
$1,000,000 Bail
Woman CONFESSES to fabricating an attempted kidnapping/rape accusation against a man whom she does not know, resulting in a month of incarceration, tarnished reputation, and undetermined financial and personal losses for said man, as well as the misallocation and waste of police department funds and resources investigating a fraudulent complaint:
$30,000 Bail
Lady Justice may be blind, but she knows the scent of every woman’s perfume, and while her scales may often be broken, you can be sure that her in-group preference is well intact.
I fired a cocktail waitress once, for good cause. When I fired her as she got up to leave my office she said ‘see you at Labour Relations. Firing me because I refused to have sex with you is sexual harassment. This should get me $10,000.’ This was around 1984. Now it would probably get me jailed. I was a bit stunned. Just then the door of the back office flew open and two other cocktail waitresses came out. I was not aware they were there. They heard the whole thing, including my reasons why she was being fired. They tore a strip off her and said they would testify on my behalf. After the fired woman left one of the waitresses came up to me and said ‘If you ever sexually harass anyone here, it’d better be me. And don’t you forget that.’
The feminist (system) gender narcissistic traits of a sense of entitlement (we can ignore the presumption of innnocence) and lack of empathy (doesn’t care what it did to the true victim, the man) is on full display in this story.
This is true. That a woman can commit a serious crime, and then get bail, while the man about whom she lied gets to investigate the amenities of the county jail, is a serious injustice.
It's stunning that this sicko has the nerve to describe her victim as "creepy." I've noticed that feminists often embrace this adjective to designate any man that they plan to attack without basis. If some man's appearance offends a woman's sensibilities, we're to accept that she may persecute him in any number of ways--including having him incarcerated for no reason--and she may do so with impunity. It's emblematic of feminist privilege, and it's devastating that police departments go along with it.
Yes, amazing, isn't it? Perhaps one of the police officers nodded his head in sympathy. We all know how scary it is for a woman to encounter a creepy man, even if she only saw him from afar.
I continue to find it remarkable also that police officers didn't press her on motive/'excuse.' You can bet she will have an elaborate one by the time she goes to trial or negotiates through her lawyer with the district attorney's office (to get her plea deal). The fact that no explanation is recorded in the police report, and that this element of her crime seems to have been passed over very quickly, gives her far more wiggle room than she deserves.
It's especially repugnant because feminists have been asserting for decades that no woman should have to attire herself to please "the male gaze" when she goes out, but men had better make sure that they are pleasing to the feminist gaze if they want to avoid being deemed "creepy" and subjected to all sorts of horrors. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
It's the feminist panopticon. Every man is potentially under feminist surveillance at all times. He doesn't know when he is being surveilled, but he knows he might be at any point in his public life, and that the consequences of a wrong action or wrong appearance could be severe. He had better keep his head down, his mouth shut, his legs together. But even that won't necessarily save him.
Both women and men tend to have a deep bias against men, even the men in their families, and a strong bias in favor of women. A man falsely accused by his girlfriend or wife will often find that his own family members turn against him and side with his accuser. Fathers worry a great deal about potential harms to their daughters, usually far less about potential harms to their sons.
Your comment (and that of others) is spot on, but this pattern so firmly entrenched it can't be the result of mere political influence from the prog/fem movement. There is likely to be a very deep seated evolutionary explanation for it, children and women are much more vulnerable and societies which didn't make them a priority for protection simply didn't survive. Hence the ones that did place a premium on women's safety exist today, this dynamic has worked for a long time - only in recent decades the equilibrium has been disturbed by feminist agitation and skewing the legal system.
The premier of the state of Victoria recently created a new cabinet position for "Men's Behavioural Change." You see, it is men who have to change their behaviour, Janice! Women are unassailable.
I'm a bit surprised the man got off, to be honest. It is a truth universally acknowledged that there is no "typical" response by a rape victim. *Of course* some of them will, suffering trauma, misremember minor details of the events. Some might even lie or embellish - that doesn't prove it didn't happen, though! When confronted with apparent "inconsistencies," a rape victim will often falsely retract her story rather than suffer the indignities of having to explain herself! You must bear in mind that it's the *retraction* that is unbelievable. I've read it all myself decades ago in the domestic violence manual for police and prosecutors published by Alberta Justice (by which I think is meant Alberta "Justice").
But one school of feminist law argues that it's precisely inconsistencies in the statements of alleged victims that prove the truth of their allegations (presumably because the accusers are too hysterical or simply too irrational for clear thinking not only during an attack but also in retrospect). This was the fierce reaction of many feminists to the infamous case of Jian Ghomeshi (who was acquitted in a court of law but not in the court of public opinion). A woman had accused him of sexual assault but nonetheless continued to have friendly relations with him at work and even to ask him for more sex.
Another school takes the opposite approach, which is why so many accusations seem (to my mind) coached or even scripted and therefore "typical." In these statements, women use the same (feminist) jargon and even the same descriptions of their feelings. By the time of #MeToo, more than a few women (and some men) were demanding vigilantism as the cure for a "patriarchal" legal system.
Both schools depend on the doctrine that "female" subjectivity should prevail in the the courtroom, let alone in the public square.
I haven't followed his doings; Diana Davison became quite close with him during his trial debacle and afterwards, and wrote extensively about his false accusers. He was deeply scarred, terrified, struck down. His career never recovered. For years, he was afraid to show himself in public, there was so much hatred and condemnation. I don't know what he is doing now, nearly ten years later.
And he was the *darling* of the Canadian media, beloved and desired. Then in the course of a few weeks, it was all gone.
It’s ironic how many Leftists have been targeted by the MeToos — Garrison Keillor, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, etc. I don’t know about Ghomeshi, but if he’s in the field of arts & entertainment, it’s a surer bet he’s a Leftist than a sturdy race horse competing against jaded nags.
The irony of the vigilantism claim is who will be performing this vigilantism for them? It will not be fellow women - the accusers' feminist allies are only capable of complaint not action - that would have to come from men... Which would be nothing but patriarchal, no? The patriarchy causes violence against women; the patriarchy is the solution to it.
Two examples, Fredro, would be President Biden and Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau, both of whom are proud feminists. They're a whole lot more dangerous than old-style vigilantes, the ones who resorted to hooded costumes, torches, pitchforks and so on.
Their feminism is "performative" to use the left's favourite word. And by looks of it both have short careers ahead.
The point I was making is that enforcement of women's safety on the ground invariably comes down to men (whether legit policing or notional vigilantism), which eaves us in a no-win: patriarchy is to blame for the threat; to be blamed if not solving the threat; then finally to be blamed if we ever do solve it.
Easy example exists in Australia: when criminals kill women there is hell to pay for soft policing; when policing goes hard the left is apoplectic because Aboriginal men are disproportionately imprisoned.
This is a persistent pattern across all fields the left uses to fight their culture war. Complain & accuse whatever is done... And it reveals the central truth of "progressivism": they are not agitating to solve problems, their activism seeks to harness problems to use them to advance political agendas. They don't want solutions because they would lose the impetus to make demands.
Very true. Let's wait and see what she comes up with at her trial. But likely she will strike a very nice plea deal with the district attorney, with an excuse for her behavior heavily centered on some type of trauma. We will likely never hear about it.
When society offers no remedy for plain injustice, victims of injustice often take matters into their own hands. And we don't want that. The law exists in order to avoid "self help."
Do the police really want to be 'thugs for hire', employed by vindictive or even deranged women? Do they enjoy being used and abused?
Why do the police give in to scolding feminist bullies? The police hold more cards than the feminists. Without the police we're screwed. But we'd be much happier without the feminists.
Police officers are often the ones who harbor the deepest doubts about individual women's rape claims and the general number of false accusations; they've heard their stories, noticed the discrepancies, wondered about the exaggerated nature of some claims--but they also know which way the wind is blowing. They are under enormous pressure to make arrests and put together evidence for charges.
A significant part of the problem is that the Duluth model is still frequently used to train law enforcement officers in responding to sexual abuse and domestic violence issues between men and women. It is specifically formulated to warp the officers' minds in favor of women, even if the evidence clearly and abundantly shows that the man is not guilty. This is also why many male victims of domestic abuse don't want to call the police. They know there is a significant risk that they will be arrested despite all evidence showing that they are victims.
There really is nothing more masculine that being the "white knight" and defending women and children. I'm afraid its deep within our socialisation, maybe even biology, for males to be applauded and to feel valued for protecting women and children. In both the "Birkenhead Drill" and the exhortations to recruit men in wars we can see the power of this as men are willing to sacrifice their lives for women and children. Its what makes males so vulnerable. And is the most perfect weapon for feminists.
The answer to all three of your questions is that because police are ordinary human beings too, most have absorbed feminist dogmas. It is career-wise to lean misandrist.
Genesis 34 (man rapes woman; violent vengeance ensues) & Genesis 39 (woman falsely accuses man; he goes to prison with no due process) are both in the first book of the Bible for a reason.
In a sermon on Genesis 39 I once heard, it was suggested that Potiphar would have had Joseph executed unless he doubted his wife's account, which would suggest previous dubious accusations. Joseph was still imprisoned, on this interpretation, because Potiphar's domestic life and social standing would both have deteriorated badly.
Genesis 34 is an odd story since the man who raped Dinah loved her to the point of wishing to marry her and have his entire tribe circumcised to ensure the marriage. The revenge of Jacob's sons seems utterly misplaced and Jacob himself was outraged. Genesis 39 is also odd since even in the following chapter nothing is mentioned of Potiphar's wife comeuppance. It is only in Christian tradition that that the wife confesses and is then forgiven by Joseph.
I was going to avoid the controversial topic religion, David, but, given the interest of several readers in these biblical passages, I'll add a few comments.
Potiphar's wife does not appear in Genesis as a paragon of virtue, someone to emulate. On the contrary, she appears as a warning. Her husband and even Pharaoh get good reviews in the text, it's true. But as Egyptians--that is, as foreigners--they cannot be exemplary figures in the direct sense of ancestors.
But lineage per se is not everything in biblical religion (or in the later Jewish and Christian traditions that derive from it). In terms of Jewish theology, for instance, every human can choose between good and evil--but no one is consistently (or ontologically) either good or evil. This is why scripture gives mixed reviews to every character, including Hebrew or Israelite ancestors. Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery, for instance, and two of them engage in the mass murder of Shechem and his followers. Most of the kings are remembered for their corruption, not their virtue. David is a good king, but even he covets another man's wife and therefore resorts to something like murder. Moses himself disobeys God, who punishes him by refusing him entry into the Promised Land. It's this recognition of finitude at the heart of human existence that confers enduring value on these biblical texts.
In first-world countries, according to reliable statistics, the % of false rape allegations nears 50%.
Consequences for lying about it and the lie being proven? None.
A perfect depiction of the state of established female privilege over men in our sorry Western lands.
(I like to underline though, that in lands free of female privilege, females are truly disparaged. So, with humans, everything is possible, save for real equity and unbias...).
Such is the modern poisoned female mind: having lunch with a female friend, and she says, "women are more moral than men". I ask her what she bases this on. "They just are."
I told her a story about a woman I knew who had all the trappings of a social justice warrior, but had been asked to leave a prestigious welfare role because of a suspected embezzlement.
She shrugged.
So she mentioned war and violence. I told her stories about the women in Papuan tribes who relished torturing rival tribe members captured in headhunting raids, many ears ago.
Solid evidence AND a confession of a false accusation should send this miscreant to jail with the same million dollar bond he had while awaiting trial. The charge? Assault with a deadly feminist adjacent justice system.
False accusations of rape are prime example of the feminist desire, not for "equality," but for female privilege and supremacy. Feminist identification ends at females and does not extend to humans generally. In fact, the feminist view is that all men deserve to be punished for the evil deeds of their ancestors. In far too many cases, what seem to be perfectly reasonable and nice women view men generally with hate and hope for vengeance. This is feminist "progress."
We need to get this sort of thing classified as a hate crime. Just as painting a swastika on the garage door of a Jewish person's house is a hate crime, so is this sort of treachery. It is so clearly motivated by hate and indifference, nothing else.
People that do this deserve jail time. We need a justice system that makes that happen.
Such are often crimes of hate, especially where the accused is known to the accuser. In this case, it seems more a case of narcissistic indifference, in which the "creepy" accused wasn't even a real human being to the woman who used him as a pawn in her personal drama.
I can't see a young woman like this (or any woman for that matter) ever being charged with a hate crime if her accused is a white man. The law already condones hatred against white men.
Hate crimes are a loathsome idea in the first place but, if society is going to go down that road, this is one as well.
Couldn’t agree more Derpetology. Hate crimes, domestic violence, micro transgressions. Have you noticed that in general only white people or white males are capable of committing these crimes? They are all ideological terms that allow extremists to create and control a narrative. We have always had laws against violence and threats of violence but maybe they weren’t enforced sufficiently at times.
No hate crime are a terrible idea.
Hate crimes are discriminatory they create privileged victims groups and necessarily less privileged victim groups. If someone commits a crime then the severity of that crime should be judged on many things, the circumstances and details of the crime itself, whether there were any mitigating circumstances to the crime was there provocation, was the criminal suffering from a mental illness etc. What they should not be judged on is the race, religion and sex of the offender and victim. Hate crimes exactly this adding a factor of the race, sex or religion of the victim to a judgement of the severity. It is an intrinsically sexist and racist concept. If someone is attacked because of their race or sex than as a consequence there will be a complete absence of mitigating factors, no provocation of any sort. That should be enough to increase the severity of the offence without it being considered different if it is a white Christian, a black Muslim or a Jewish person. depending on the sex, race and religion of the attacker.
Pragmatically but realistically there is no chance whatsoever that offences committed against white middle aged men are going to be treated in the same way as those against young women.
What should happen is that false accusations are treated as the serious crimes they are based on the actual and potential impact on the victim. This woman's actions resulted in a man being locked up for a month and a very real danger of his life being totally destroyed. These actions should be considered on a par with actual kidnap and imprisonment for a month and an attempt to cause life changing injuries for example loss of limbs or eyesight because that is what the effect on the man has been and could be. Personally I think a sentence of not less than 10 years would be appropriate but doubt it will happen.
That seems about right: this was a cold-blooded, unprovoked, premeditated assault that caused untold suffering and anxiety and would have caused far more if she had got away with it; if the man had a job, it is gone; he may lose his home as a result; and the toll on his mental and physical health is likely to be severe and ongoing.
We know she won't get anywhere near ten years. She will have a very sad story to tell at her trial, if her case even gets to trial, which I doubt it will. I suspect she will take a plea deal in which her youth and her unhappy family circumstances will be seen as mitigating factors. She will perhaps get 6 months in jail (max.) and community service. She is a nice-enough looking young woman who will cry copious tears at every opportunity needed. No judge is going to ruin *her* life.
Of course, I hope to be proven wrong.
I believe so too, just like that young woman that stabbed her new boyfriend to death but got away scathe free because “she was high on pot”… that it didn’t warrant upending her future for that episode, the judge says.
I seem to have read that the blatant decision to let a murderer walk free like nothing happened will be (or has been) reassessed, but just the fact that it happened so easily and frictionless makes me think that this one won’t be punished either.
And for the instances where there’s punishment instead of rewards (due to outcry, articles like this, etc), those will just be exceptions few and far to justify saying “see people, we do follow the investigations to the end. *Wink wink*”
Yes, too true.
Hear, hear!
Yes, indeed, Matthew. This is a hate crime, the form of hatred being misandry, even though hope for personal financial and emotional rewards might be additional motivations in some cases. That's because hatred is not a transient emotion but a culturally propagated and institutionalized worldview that relies on malice: the urge to harm a target group.
Absolutely!
Or, the very idea of a hate crime is ridiculous.
Maybe mostly attention. For when the SnapTikTakoGrams aren’t intense enough anymore.
Thank you Janice. A horrible and needless ordeal for this fellow, for sure. She should have to face consequences for such fraudulence, but nothing will happen to her, as you point out.
As awful as this situation is, I despair about the continual (and likely rising) stream of accusations that are flowing out of dating or relationship scenarios. The one-sidedness on the consent and responsibility front is just a disaster-waiting-to-happen for men. When a woman's after the fact subjective assessment of a sexual encounter is given the status of almost biblical truth, well, what could go wrong? (I know the answer!)
I agree. The case here is clear-cut in that the woman had never interacted with the accused man and ultimately confessed to her fabrication. Most cases, of course, are nothing like this. Where a man is sexually involved with a woman, there is now almost no way at all he can prove she consented.
#MeToo screwed up a lot of women’s heads, wiped out their memories even.
Well created new memories
The greatest crime in the human theater is FALSE ACCUSATION. Think of any crime, no matter how heinous. Now imagine being falsely accused of it! In China, severe punishment is metered out for Rape. If however, the accusation is found to be false, the false accuser gets done for the time that the FALSE ACCUSATION VICTIM, was “sent up” for. I wonder what that would do to the situation in the West?
In all probability, they'd stop even investigating false accusations if women were to go to jail for them.
All too true, Derp. They rarely investigate false accusations now. No one is interested in spending police resources to prove that a sexual assault did not happen.
It would be interesting if police departments were forced to make public the types of charges that they decline to pursue and the gender of the offenders that they don't arrest. It would certainly reveal how reluctant the police are to hold women accountable for criminal behavior. We see this kind of information for race all the time and outrage from the public if there are racial disparities in police enforcement, but the media doesn't want to condemn the police for overwhelmingly pursuing males.
Sonja Starr's article "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Sentencing" is the best piece of research I know of on this subject. It's ten years old now, but I'm sure it's still accurate. It shows that women receive sentences that are 65% less severe than for the same crime committed by a man. She controls for severity, degree of violence involved, etc. She also finds that women are far less likely to be arrested in the first place, or charged at all. If charged, a woman is far more likely to strike a plea deal or to be found not guilty. At every step in the criminal justice system, the woman is treated far more leniently.
At this point in time, it would seem so. We must unite to shut them down; civilizations are destroyed like this! Organize a drive to SUPPORT Anti-Feminist Authors and Activists.
Unfortunately this will never happen here - too much media mileage a t stake.
Man with a criminal history consisting of only non-violent drug offenses is arrested and charged with attempted rape and kidnapping with zero physical and minimal (if any) circumstantial evidence, beyond the mere word of a woman:
$1,000,000 Bail
Woman CONFESSES to fabricating an attempted kidnapping/rape accusation against a man whom she does not know, resulting in a month of incarceration, tarnished reputation, and undetermined financial and personal losses for said man, as well as the misallocation and waste of police department funds and resources investigating a fraudulent complaint:
$30,000 Bail
Lady Justice may be blind, but she knows the scent of every woman’s perfume, and while her scales may often be broken, you can be sure that her in-group preference is well intact.
Brilliantly expressed, thank you.
Feminists parked their very fat backsides on those scales a long time ago.
I fired a cocktail waitress once, for good cause. When I fired her as she got up to leave my office she said ‘see you at Labour Relations. Firing me because I refused to have sex with you is sexual harassment. This should get me $10,000.’ This was around 1984. Now it would probably get me jailed. I was a bit stunned. Just then the door of the back office flew open and two other cocktail waitresses came out. I was not aware they were there. They heard the whole thing, including my reasons why she was being fired. They tore a strip off her and said they would testify on my behalf. After the fired woman left one of the waitresses came up to me and said ‘If you ever sexually harass anyone here, it’d better be me. And don’t you forget that.’
The feminist (system) gender narcissistic traits of a sense of entitlement (we can ignore the presumption of innnocence) and lack of empathy (doesn’t care what it did to the true victim, the man) is on full display in this story.
This is true. That a woman can commit a serious crime, and then get bail, while the man about whom she lied gets to investigate the amenities of the county jail, is a serious injustice.
Not to mention the rape sessions which await if he is not bailed quickly or is a street fighter.
It's stunning that this sicko has the nerve to describe her victim as "creepy." I've noticed that feminists often embrace this adjective to designate any man that they plan to attack without basis. If some man's appearance offends a woman's sensibilities, we're to accept that she may persecute him in any number of ways--including having him incarcerated for no reason--and she may do so with impunity. It's emblematic of feminist privilege, and it's devastating that police departments go along with it.
Yes, amazing, isn't it? Perhaps one of the police officers nodded his head in sympathy. We all know how scary it is for a woman to encounter a creepy man, even if she only saw him from afar.
I continue to find it remarkable also that police officers didn't press her on motive/'excuse.' You can bet she will have an elaborate one by the time she goes to trial or negotiates through her lawyer with the district attorney's office (to get her plea deal). The fact that no explanation is recorded in the police report, and that this element of her crime seems to have been passed over very quickly, gives her far more wiggle room than she deserves.
That’s the atmosphere of our benighted age.
It's especially repugnant because feminists have been asserting for decades that no woman should have to attire herself to please "the male gaze" when she goes out, but men had better make sure that they are pleasing to the feminist gaze if they want to avoid being deemed "creepy" and subjected to all sorts of horrors. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
It's the feminist panopticon. Every man is potentially under feminist surveillance at all times. He doesn't know when he is being surveilled, but he knows he might be at any point in his public life, and that the consequences of a wrong action or wrong appearance could be severe. He had better keep his head down, his mouth shut, his legs together. But even that won't necessarily save him.
I completely agree.
They are creeps, waist-deep in patchological projection.
Feminists joined a leftist cult and had no idea.
Hard to read.
Incalculably harder to live through.
And worse yet - the masses mostly do not care.
It’s as if they have no fathers or brothers or sons.
Both women and men tend to have a deep bias against men, even the men in their families, and a strong bias in favor of women. A man falsely accused by his girlfriend or wife will often find that his own family members turn against him and side with his accuser. Fathers worry a great deal about potential harms to their daughters, usually far less about potential harms to their sons.
Your comment (and that of others) is spot on, but this pattern so firmly entrenched it can't be the result of mere political influence from the prog/fem movement. There is likely to be a very deep seated evolutionary explanation for it, children and women are much more vulnerable and societies which didn't make them a priority for protection simply didn't survive. Hence the ones that did place a premium on women's safety exist today, this dynamic has worked for a long time - only in recent decades the equilibrium has been disturbed by feminist agitation and skewing the legal system.
Exactly so.
It’s as if they have no fathers or brothers or sons!
That's genuinely the main issue about it.
And why dozens of identical stories happen.
The premier of the state of Victoria recently created a new cabinet position for "Men's Behavioural Change." You see, it is men who have to change their behaviour, Janice! Women are unassailable.
I'm a bit surprised the man got off, to be honest. It is a truth universally acknowledged that there is no "typical" response by a rape victim. *Of course* some of them will, suffering trauma, misremember minor details of the events. Some might even lie or embellish - that doesn't prove it didn't happen, though! When confronted with apparent "inconsistencies," a rape victim will often falsely retract her story rather than suffer the indignities of having to explain herself! You must bear in mind that it's the *retraction* that is unbelievable. I've read it all myself decades ago in the domestic violence manual for police and prosecutors published by Alberta Justice (by which I think is meant Alberta "Justice").
Jesus, what do you expect? Have you no empathy?
But one school of feminist law argues that it's precisely inconsistencies in the statements of alleged victims that prove the truth of their allegations (presumably because the accusers are too hysterical or simply too irrational for clear thinking not only during an attack but also in retrospect). This was the fierce reaction of many feminists to the infamous case of Jian Ghomeshi (who was acquitted in a court of law but not in the court of public opinion). A woman had accused him of sexual assault but nonetheless continued to have friendly relations with him at work and even to ask him for more sex.
Another school takes the opposite approach, which is why so many accusations seem (to my mind) coached or even scripted and therefore "typical." In these statements, women use the same (feminist) jargon and even the same descriptions of their feelings. By the time of #MeToo, more than a few women (and some men) were demanding vigilantism as the cure for a "patriarchal" legal system.
Both schools depend on the doctrine that "female" subjectivity should prevail in the the courtroom, let alone in the public square.
I was wondering about Ghomeshi. I liked his interview with Gordon Lightfoot. Did his career suffer from that unjust accusation?
I haven't followed his doings; Diana Davison became quite close with him during his trial debacle and afterwards, and wrote extensively about his false accusers. He was deeply scarred, terrified, struck down. His career never recovered. For years, he was afraid to show himself in public, there was so much hatred and condemnation. I don't know what he is doing now, nearly ten years later.
And he was the *darling* of the Canadian media, beloved and desired. Then in the course of a few weeks, it was all gone.
It’s ironic how many Leftists have been targeted by the MeToos — Garrison Keillor, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, etc. I don’t know about Ghomeshi, but if he’s in the field of arts & entertainment, it’s a surer bet he’s a Leftist than a sturdy race horse competing against jaded nags.
Yes, he was on the Left.
The irony of the vigilantism claim is who will be performing this vigilantism for them? It will not be fellow women - the accusers' feminist allies are only capable of complaint not action - that would have to come from men... Which would be nothing but patriarchal, no? The patriarchy causes violence against women; the patriarchy is the solution to it.
Two examples, Fredro, would be President Biden and Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau, both of whom are proud feminists. They're a whole lot more dangerous than old-style vigilantes, the ones who resorted to hooded costumes, torches, pitchforks and so on.
Their feminism is "performative" to use the left's favourite word. And by looks of it both have short careers ahead.
The point I was making is that enforcement of women's safety on the ground invariably comes down to men (whether legit policing or notional vigilantism), which eaves us in a no-win: patriarchy is to blame for the threat; to be blamed if not solving the threat; then finally to be blamed if we ever do solve it.
Easy example exists in Australia: when criminals kill women there is hell to pay for soft policing; when policing goes hard the left is apoplectic because Aboriginal men are disproportionately imprisoned.
This is a persistent pattern across all fields the left uses to fight their culture war. Complain & accuse whatever is done... And it reveals the central truth of "progressivism": they are not agitating to solve problems, their activism seeks to harness problems to use them to advance political agendas. They don't want solutions because they would lose the impetus to make demands.
Very true. Let's wait and see what she comes up with at her trial. But likely she will strike a very nice plea deal with the district attorney, with an excuse for her behavior heavily centered on some type of trauma. We will likely never hear about it.
When society offers no remedy for plain injustice, victims of injustice often take matters into their own hands. And we don't want that. The law exists in order to avoid "self help."
Do the police really want to be 'thugs for hire', employed by vindictive or even deranged women? Do they enjoy being used and abused?
Why do the police give in to scolding feminist bullies? The police hold more cards than the feminists. Without the police we're screwed. But we'd be much happier without the feminists.
Police officers are often the ones who harbor the deepest doubts about individual women's rape claims and the general number of false accusations; they've heard their stories, noticed the discrepancies, wondered about the exaggerated nature of some claims--but they also know which way the wind is blowing. They are under enormous pressure to make arrests and put together evidence for charges.
A significant part of the problem is that the Duluth model is still frequently used to train law enforcement officers in responding to sexual abuse and domestic violence issues between men and women. It is specifically formulated to warp the officers' minds in favor of women, even if the evidence clearly and abundantly shows that the man is not guilty. This is also why many male victims of domestic abuse don't want to call the police. They know there is a significant risk that they will be arrested despite all evidence showing that they are victims.
There really is nothing more masculine that being the "white knight" and defending women and children. I'm afraid its deep within our socialisation, maybe even biology, for males to be applauded and to feel valued for protecting women and children. In both the "Birkenhead Drill" and the exhortations to recruit men in wars we can see the power of this as men are willing to sacrifice their lives for women and children. Its what makes males so vulnerable. And is the most perfect weapon for feminists.
The answer to all three of your questions is that because police are ordinary human beings too, most have absorbed feminist dogmas. It is career-wise to lean misandrist.
Genesis 34 (man rapes woman; violent vengeance ensues) & Genesis 39 (woman falsely accuses man; he goes to prison with no due process) are both in the first book of the Bible for a reason.
In a sermon on Genesis 39 I once heard, it was suggested that Potiphar would have had Joseph executed unless he doubted his wife's account, which would suggest previous dubious accusations. Joseph was still imprisoned, on this interpretation, because Potiphar's domestic life and social standing would both have deteriorated badly.
I've heard that too. Definitely possible!
It shows the nonsense that Rape is "condoned" in our society. It has certainly been a capital crime in English Law since at least Alfred the Great.
The ninth commandment is there for a reason too.
Genesis 34 is an odd story since the man who raped Dinah loved her to the point of wishing to marry her and have his entire tribe circumcised to ensure the marriage. The revenge of Jacob's sons seems utterly misplaced and Jacob himself was outraged. Genesis 39 is also odd since even in the following chapter nothing is mentioned of Potiphar's wife comeuppance. It is only in Christian tradition that that the wife confesses and is then forgiven by Joseph.
I was going to avoid the controversial topic religion, David, but, given the interest of several readers in these biblical passages, I'll add a few comments.
Potiphar's wife does not appear in Genesis as a paragon of virtue, someone to emulate. On the contrary, she appears as a warning. Her husband and even Pharaoh get good reviews in the text, it's true. But as Egyptians--that is, as foreigners--they cannot be exemplary figures in the direct sense of ancestors.
But lineage per se is not everything in biblical religion (or in the later Jewish and Christian traditions that derive from it). In terms of Jewish theology, for instance, every human can choose between good and evil--but no one is consistently (or ontologically) either good or evil. This is why scripture gives mixed reviews to every character, including Hebrew or Israelite ancestors. Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery, for instance, and two of them engage in the mass murder of Shechem and his followers. Most of the kings are remembered for their corruption, not their virtue. David is a good king, but even he covets another man's wife and therefore resorts to something like murder. Moses himself disobeys God, who punishes him by refusing him entry into the Promised Land. It's this recognition of finitude at the heart of human existence that confers enduring value on these biblical texts.
Never doubted it, Paul.
In first-world countries, according to reliable statistics, the % of false rape allegations nears 50%.
Consequences for lying about it and the lie being proven? None.
A perfect depiction of the state of established female privilege over men in our sorry Western lands.
(I like to underline though, that in lands free of female privilege, females are truly disparaged. So, with humans, everything is possible, save for real equity and unbias...).
Such is the modern poisoned female mind: having lunch with a female friend, and she says, "women are more moral than men". I ask her what she bases this on. "They just are."
I told her a story about a woman I knew who had all the trappings of a social justice warrior, but had been asked to leave a prestigious welfare role because of a suspected embezzlement.
She shrugged.
So she mentioned war and violence. I told her stories about the women in Papuan tribes who relished torturing rival tribe members captured in headhunting raids, many ears ago.
She shrugged again.
Hope you didn't pay for lunch....
Choose who you share meals with better, though :).
Could have been worse - she could have been a headhunter, not just a feminist cannibal.
"I told her stories about the women in Papuan tribes who relished torturing rival tribe members captured in headhunting raids, many ears ago."
Standard operating procedure in tribal warfare throughout history.
Solid evidence AND a confession of a false accusation should send this miscreant to jail with the same million dollar bond he had while awaiting trial. The charge? Assault with a deadly feminist adjacent justice system.
Exactly.
False accusations of rape are prime example of the feminist desire, not for "equality," but for female privilege and supremacy. Feminist identification ends at females and does not extend to humans generally. In fact, the feminist view is that all men deserve to be punished for the evil deeds of their ancestors. In far too many cases, what seem to be perfectly reasonable and nice women view men generally with hate and hope for vengeance. This is feminist "progress."