Excellent analysis, Janice. I used to say that men were guilty until proven innocent: this case proves that men cannot be proven innocent. If accused, they remain guilty no matter what happens. Guilt and innocence have become totally detached from reality, and exist in the intersubjective realm of feeling and collective belief, informed almost entirely by sexual identity factors and insulated from evidence. It is hard to see how our culture could be in worse shape with regard to sex and gender.
Canadian guys tend to avoid women in public and at work because the harassment laws there are terrible. A Canadian man could risk being detained and charged because he accidentally looked at a Canadian women and she felt uncomfortable. This looks Orwellian.
It's appalling that the criminal harassment can be a one-time incident, such as a reply to a comment, and once the woman in Canada feels it's harassing, the police are faster than an ambulance in contacting the 'harasser' and warning him with charges of criminal harassment.
This is exceptionally ubiquitous in feminist cities like Toronto, Vancouver, SW Ontario, and to some extent Montreal with post-Marxist anticapitalist feminism (and funny how the post-Marxists dislike cops but wouldn't hesitate to use police against a man for approaching them).
I have a theory running through my head at the moment that Feminism (and maybe other ideologies) and pure greedy Capitalism (not the type of Fair Trade that I read about with Ayn Rand / Ludwig von Mises) is actually the two sides of the same coin?
I'm not an expert.. but I'm continually shocked at how many people are anti-capitalism and never read a word. This was me two or so years ago.. let alone the fact that I've not read any of Marxists stuff...
But @Alex any comments please :)
For me, limited I feel, I think that Marxism pushes 'workers/we are all exploited' by the Capitalists and yet Marx has dragged women out of the home to work and pay tax.. (that is one slant and I'm just rattling on here.. but... )
It is almost like Christ between two thieves on the cross (and I'm certainly not able to enter into some big debate about all this.. but...)
it is just a thought for me.
Also, this woman that Janice has so kindly drawn our attention to, will not take responsibility that she demands:::
"E.M. repeatedly demanded that the players have sex with her, mocked those who wouldn’t as “pussies” (p. 30) and masturbated, naked, in order to entice the yet-unconvinced. She demanded of the young men, “Can one of you guys come over and fuck me?” (p. 30), “Can I suck your dick?” (p. 34), and “Is anyone going to do anything to me or do I have to do it all?”"
It strikes me that with Marxism and greedy evil Capitalism that we give over our own free will, self power, integrity, self determination!, creativity, abilities and ? to those outside of use, to leaders who supposedly know more.. we form an Aura whereby we rely on an external human being to look after us, punish others for us, not take full responsibility for ourselves.
She gets drunk, asks to be 'fucked' and then when it doesn't fit her fantasies she complains, then that is knocked back and then she complains again and in between time, have I understood this fully, she gets paid a huge amount of money by an organisation because they are running scared about losing money and yet they verify by this payment that she was not responsible for anything!!!! Madness.
so @Alex or someone else, I'm going to external sources to qualify what I think is fine but slightly crazy !!!!!!!!
It is such a trick of the hand .. Plato's Cave comes to mind in my associations...
In Toronto colloquially known as Toronna, many transit stations are accessible by shopping malls. Being trespassed from those shopping malls means being prohibited from using public transit.
Shopping malls have rent-a-cops who have the lawful powers to trespass people, including men who make women feel "uncomfortable" or "uneasy", but at the same time, the homeless guys and Roma beggars are left alone.
Staring could be defined as criminal harassment in Canadian law. It would depend on what the woman claimed and how zealous the police officer was. At the very least, the man could have his day ruined by a police visit and warning.
In the UK, posters in the London subway explicitly warn that staring is a form of sexual harassment.
As someone who lives, works, and studies in Canada, I have literally never heard anyone express fear of interaction because of potential lawsuits. I, like all my friends, have flirted with and asked out coworkers. A friend of mine is now married to a guy who approached her at a cafe.
This is cope from guys who want an excuse to never take action in their lives. It’s a convenient excuse “oh I would but I can’t”. Bullshit.
Don't bother with this guy. There are pro-Trudeau trollfarms which go on the internet monitoring comments which are critical of his regime and his pet projects like radical feminism.
The Toronto trollfarms and bots either flag the critical comments to get them removed or respond with gaslighting anecdotal evidence which isn't true.
The initial claim is anecdotal. "Canadian guys tend to avoid women in public and at work". Really? They do?
But by all means. Continue shelling up like a 12 year old with a crush around women, then going home to blame Trudeau. Funny how these same people will then go on and on about how "we need to rise up" when they can't even rise up to speak to a woman.
Also LOL @ you accusing me of being a bot when you have only interacted with this post. You can look through my profile and find very little mention of Trudeau at all.
Studies show that 60% of men are less likely to be comfortable chatting up women at work or in public, and 27% of men avoid one one meetings with women at work. Perhaps you're not as old as some of us here, and haven't witnessed the cultural shift with your own eyes or had the personal experiences which lead to caution. No one is saying that all women are evil and dangerous or that it's never safe to flirt or date, but it's a lot worse than it used to be and the consequences of 'indiscretions' are way more serious than they used to be. In many, if not most, American companies it's strictly forbidden for supervisors or management to have any kind of romantic or sexual relationships with anyone else in the company and you will lose your job for it. I've known a few companies that don't allow employees to even socialize with customers or clients and most, if not all, educational institutions absolutely forbid romantic and sexual relationships between students and faculty. In some states, including mine, sex between a student and faculty or administration at the school they attend is actually a crime. This is not just with minors, either, it applies to universities and students of any age.
Trolls and bots aren't the same thing, by the way.
You know this reminds me of when Toronna women would remain silent when a homeless guy with the stench of urine and poop are yelling at them during his skitzo episode, but at the same time, those same Toronna women would press the emergency button if they see a man seated across them, and they think he's staring at her exposed labia on purpose because she's wearing a daisy duke shorts and sitting in a way which exposes her labia.
I stopped saying guilty till proven innocent a long time ago. Instead I say guilty till proven guilty. The worst sentence is not being proven guilty but remaining in legal limbo because there is no possibility to be proven innocent.
In Canada, this will only mean that an ambulance chaser will siphon as much money from the plaintiff knowing that the Ontario judges are biased against men and pro-feminist. In other words, this means that suing a Canadian woman for a false accusation is almost a futile approach. It's a waste of money.
Weird that you admit to a prior belief that men were guilty until proven innocent, but now feel emboldened to state otherwise by external evidence that shouldn't have been required, and now regard your former belief as a "detachment from reality" that you ascribe to others.
1. "Believe women" is the prejudice of a simpleton.
2. I'm old enough to remember when the progressive mantra was: "What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is nobody else's [damn] business - least of all their employer's." Now that we know it was consensual, the NHL and the woke Mrs. Grundys should STFU.
3. Logic dictates that all those people who condemned the hockey players' behaviour on that night, "even if it wasn't criminal," should be approximately five times as disgusted and morally outraged by the conduct of E.M. now that there is no excuse not to know what really happened. Yet I have not seen a single note of rebuke for her sexual mores.
4. Patrick Kane, Jake Virtanen, the two University of Ottawa players, and now these five hockey players makes something of a pattern and a track record. Yet I'll give odds that the next time an accusation of sexual impropriety is leveled, there will still be an automatic rush to judgment. "The difference between humans and rats is that rats learn from their experience." (B.F. Skinner)
Re number 2, Pierre Trudeau used to say the state has no business in the bedroom of the nation. Now feminist theorists, judges and lawmakers want to micromanage and criticize if not criminalize every move
To be fair, Trudeau elder referred to the gay hysteria which meant he was against homophobia. Unfortunately, Canadian radfems today are subtly homophobic and transphobic. EM mocked the hockey players using subtle homophobic insinuations if they refused her advances.
It shows that Canadian feminism is a self-serving agenda which would throw gays and transgender persons over the rooftop with Islamists if they wanted to advance their agenda.
"Subtle?" Really, it was anything but subtle. I've experienced that, myself, on several occasions. I'll bet most men have. A lot of women just can't really deal with the simple, obvious reality of "He's just not that into you." Accusing an uninterested man of being gay is not a perception, either. Most women, if they thought a man was really gay, wouldn't berate him for it. It's meant to be an insult to a heterosexual male who rejected them sexually.
This reminds me of a similar less high profile incident involving 4 of our college hockey players in 2006. Hockey is the premier sport at Minnesota State Mankato, so these students were clearly assets to the university and well known and loved in the community. Just being in their company, I got to see how women literally would throw themselves at the players sexually, often much to the horror of the young men. Hell, I was talking to the hockey Captain (a student my class) in an off campus venue and a young woman came up, assumed I must have some relationship to the team and proceeded to sit on my lap!!!!!! As I sat in shock, the captain stood up and took her hands and removed her saying, no, you can't be behaving that way with him (me).
In this case, a female hockey player joined 4 of the men and some of their various female friends at an off campus apartment of some of the players where they engaged in some underage and of age drinking and smoking of marijuana. One female hockey player later complained saying she didn't remember everything but thinks that "something" happened. Police investigated and found no basis to take any action as there was no evidence for anything other than a bit of pot smoking and alcohol consumption...all consensual. The complainant was not satisfied and complained to the university which REJECTED the official police report and sought to punish the 4 players despite the contrary testimony of all present. Apparently, one woman who "thinks" something happened but has no evidence in her favor and evidence that refutes her allegation carries more weight than the testimony of multiple men and WOMEN who were also present and do not claim memory problems backed up by police. It should be noted that the complainant was known to want a romantic relationship with one of the accused players, but had been rebuffed in her efforts to become his girlfriend.....
The athletic department and university completely threw the 4 Canadian hockey players under the bus. The athletic director never even met with the players before pronouncing judgement against them. As foreign students in the US, the students' ability to even stay in the country depended on their remaining students in good status. The 2 sophomores were expelled and lost the rest of their hockey careers as no one would take them on. The 2 seniors were expelled after classes ended but before they could take their finals. All the students were warned that if they attempted to take their finals they would be arrested for trespassing. Faculty were directed NOT to assist the students, even the seniors, to complete their courses and degrees. As kids from middle class families in Canada, none of the students had the legal resources to fight back against the state.
I knew all 4 students and had the sophomores in my class. I offered as much support as I could. Our group of 6 wrote to the athletic department cancelling our season tickets in protest of their treatment of the players. The athletic director offered to meet with me to discuss our concerns. The players were outraged that the AD would meet with disgruntled fans...but not them. I offered to arrange the meeting and bring them with me so they could get their meeting, but they demured.
Personally, I think many of these problems could be solved if universities were denied any role in adjudicating what should be serious crimes. Further, as rape and harassment are serious crimes, they need to be treated as such. That means any person making such an accusation needs to have evidence and needs to be held accountable should the evidence not stand up to scrutiny. The concern about women being discouraged from coming forward is irrelevant when realizes that false accusations far, far, far outstrip legitimate complaints. The courts should require release of the identity of any accuser and witnesses and advocates on her behalf if the men's identities are released. If the accuser fails to make her case, she should face the maximum penalty for the alleged crime plus the maximum penalty for perjury and filing a false complaint. Make such cases widely known and false accusations will rapidly fall in number and we will see that rape/harassment are actually NOT major societal problems at all.
I strongly agree that universities and colleges should not be in the business of adjudicating cases of criminal harassment and sexual assault. If a crime has been committed, it should be dealt with by police and the courts. If a crime has not been committed, then people should work it out amongst themselves, and the accused should not be judged by feminist ideologues, or anyone.
I think it is possible for a woman (or man) to be a legitimate victim who is unable to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. She or he should not be punished for lack of evidence or weak evidence. But where the evidence proves her (or his) lies beyond a reasonable doubt, there should certainly be some form of punishment. It is a grave offence to bring the delivery of justice into disrepute.
Normally I would agree with you Janice...but the abuses in these matters have been so utterly one sided, that I would argue that the problem of, and harms caused, by false accusations now far outweighs any legitimate victims. No one is forced to bring an accusation. If they have no evidence to support their claim, or, as is often the case, acted in a fashion that makes their argument about being a victim hard to swallow, then they should not bring the accusation. Punishing those who bring accusations they cannot prove is entirely proper as the accused is harmed in any event and had NO choice about whether the case was brought. The American justice system is designed under the premise that it is better a criminal go free than an innocent person be punished. It's time we returned to that premise. Hope this makes sense.
You're missing the point that returning to that premise would mean that accusations without evidence would simply be rejected by the police. That's what should happen. No one should ever be punished for bringing an unproven allegation. They should only be charged with bringing accusations that are PROVEN false.
The problem is that that is very rare. There's no doubt in my mind, in this case, that EM should be charged with false allegations because we KNOW she lied. That shouldn't affect women who may have actually assaulted but simply have no convicing evidence.
Another thought we should consider here is that 2/3 of Title IX cases adjudicated by universities are overturned when brought to an actual court. If a scientific test or vaccine has such a false positive rate, we would stop using it immediately. It is time the same applied here by repealing Title IX in its entirety.
I was under the impression that if no crime was committed... the company or university will typically transfer one individual or another and work to rearrange everyone's schedule to keep both parties from interacting with each other. (I've seen this happen multiple times) So far from one party being punished, it can be a "get out of jail free" card for individuals who are in poor standing at their company.
Generally, the accused is punished to accommodate the accuser no matter how false her claims. Under the presumption of innocence, any accommodation should be made by removing the accuser unless and until her claims are proven in a court of law.
I don't think any accommodations or reassignments should be made at all for unsupported accusations. Businesses should not assume that their employees are children and act en loco parentis.
I agree...but in the current environment...the accused is presumed guilty and punished to make the accuser feel comfortable. So...if Student A makes and accusation against Student B in her class or dorm...Student B is automatically forced to move, barred from the dorm or classroom and other areas of campus where Student A might encounter him. In the case of a faculty member...the faculty member is likely to be barred from campus is the student is in their class (another instructor is forced to take over the class) or the faculty member is restricted to particular areas of campus. The accuser is not barred from ANY area of campus even areas where the accused is required to work but the accuser has no legitimate need/business in entering. This is all done BEFORE any adjudication or weighing of evidence. It is done without even consulting the accused...who may first be hearing of the complaint when the edicts barring them from various places/activities are imposed.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Barring convincing, credible evidence, NOTHING should be done and universities shouldn't be involved in adjudication at all in any case.
I left one aspect of the story out when posting. I said that the hockey players who were falsely accused were very involved in the community. It is worse that this. At that time, there was a young local boy who was a rising hockey star (at least as far as one can be below the age of 10). The poor kid developed cancer and was soon unable to play. The team rallied around this kid and his family helping with fundraisers etc. They became very close. Several of the players who were forced off the team and out of college by this incident were even present in the kid's hospital room when he passed away. The hockey community knew the truth of their character and stood by them. So did law enforcement. The university, however, was more concerned with pandering to Femi Nazis. As you might imagine, there is nothing Donald Trump can do to academia that I will not support given the conduct of academics in these matters.
Since reading your post I have spoken at length to my friend, who did not want me to forward it to him because it is too upsetting for him to read; very understandable I thought. His anger and hurt is unbearable to see.
He told me during our conversation that in the prison where his son is incarcerated there are over 30 other men locked up for similar accusations and, get this, all of their documents inditements have the same CUT AND PASTE WORDING.
The majority of these men were prosecuted by a woman lawyer in a court with a woman judge.
I don’t know if you are cognisant of the Cest cue vie or CQV trust but if you study it it becomes obvious that not only is this misandrist prosecutorial culture anti male it is a massive financial fraud against the CQV trust by governments and judiciaries.
Maybe it is time we recruited and financed a really good investigative journalist to rip this scab of sanctioned corruption from the court systems of our respective countries?
I am not familiar with CQV but am not surprised that the effort is a deliberate and systemic attack on men by abusing the system. The feminist accusers tend to all play from the same playbook which I saw while it was being developed at the University of New Hampshire (1990s). The same system has been used to systemically attack prominent men in the sciences with the goal being to take down a prominent senior male scientist in the various subdisciplines of geology to demonstrate to all that the "culture" has changed and "she" can take you down any time she wants. I attempted to point out what was going on as part of shielding the professional society I worked for from the harm they were heading into. They turned their hate on me to silence me for daring to rock the boat. These Feminazis are so afraid of being outed that they are continuing their campaign of black listing of me going on 7 years after the fact.
As for the cut and paste wording...I have seen this used against faculty whenever a female student doesn't get the grade she wanted. One tried it on me... and failed because I recognized what she was doing and handled myself correctly and kept records demonstrating what actually occurred. It is clear that out college Title IX officer was involved in writing her complaint. I made it my job after my acquittal of wrong doing to make sure that the misconduct coming out of the Title IX office was challenged at every turn. After several years...the Title IX officer left for a university that is likely to close in the next decade.
Tell your friend I am sorry for his son and his fellows wrongfully held in prison. Canada and the US both need some liberation.
I think the main problem these days is the power of social media to bring heavy negative publicity to people and organisations, which can ruin them, so they feel they have no choice but to react in the extreme.
I disagree, this problem goes back well in to the 90's long before social media existed. Institutions are craven when facing the Feminazi backlash which is why a united front against female participation in society needs to be on the table for discussion as a response to feminist abuses of power. Women as a group need to recognize that THEY have the same duty to oppose feminist criminality as the rest of us.
Good article. It always amazes me that charges are almost never laid against the women who do this kind of thing. Men get sent to prison, ultimately released, when the truth comes out, and the female accuser…nothing.
just look at the sentences of female teachers molesting young men to see how fair and balanced the law is for victims. In the end, it is the men that are shying away from women. The birth numbers will speak for themselves.
There are at least a couple of cases in the States, where female teachers raped a male student, got pregnant, then sued for child support----and won!! Could you imagine an underage female rape victim being ordered to pay her rapist child support. lol Brutal
These were statutory rapes, with very willing "victims", weren't they? And very likely traditionalist judges, who saw the boys as men and the women as girls. A very notable case from about 35 years ago in Iceland recently came to light, because the perpetrator is now national minister for youth, or something similar.
But now female teachers canoodling with high schoolers are facing a vigorous crackdown, and this is led by female prosecutors, usually at the behest of the boys' protective mothers. So this falls outside of Janice's domain of women-getting-away-with-murder. It's more like women-cracking-down-on-other-women-while-men-sit-by-with-dumb-expressions-and-watch, a much older phenomenon. (Which sex calls the police when a young woman bares her breasts at the beach?)
The author of "Tampa", a novel about this kind of case, did a ton of research before writing. One telling detail was that the protestors outside the perpetrator's home were invariably other women, some of whom brought their kids. Never saw a single man.
We all know about this one but the accused should not be named by anyone unless proven guilty and even then I'm getting more and more sceptical about any names mentioned. It just becomes a 'walk of shame'.
If someone is acquitted then all references to this person should be deleted from 'all' media and person who falsely accused should be named.
But the courts do not do this which shows they actually don't give a shit.
Trouble with it being deleted on all media is that it’s impossible. A friend of mine went to prison for 18 months for a supposed rape because a girl didn’t want her boyfriend to know she cheated on him. He was released when further evidence came out about it but the damage was done. He made a movie about it called ‘Rise’ that I had a small part in. The courts decided that all media references be removed (something of that nature). It never happened and finally to get his life back he changed his name and moved to another State to start over. Nothing happened to his accuser.
If they are convicted, names published, then later get it overturned… names are often not erased from association of the conviction, and rarely published with the overturning.
I forgot to say in my comment that I'm more and more against any mention of private citizens lives being mentioned in the press and I realise it is complicated but unless what someone does affects private citizens then it is non of our business.
There was also a case in Australia where a male poltiician who voted against same sex marriage was pushing 'family values' as a catholic while having an affair with his female Assistant!!
My point is that people that are in power position should be named in my view but some person walking along the street. So many Media organisations like to print gossip to get advertising sales whilst wrecking other peoples lives.
To be fair, the story about Barnaby Joyce (that politician whose affair is public knowledge) having an affair with his staffer are two different stories. Barnaby would be the first to tell you that he is no saint, but he was going by his belief in the traditional definitions of marriage even if he did break some of the covenants himself. His affair has no bearing upon those definitions he holds as true.
None of us are saints even if we like to think of ourselves as such and by and large, we muddle our way through a lot of different things, occasionally getting a few things right and wrong despite it all.
Her behaviour was disgusting and to be paid for it was reprehensible. Five young men and no doubt their families have had to endure hell as well as have their reputations and future career paths destroyed. The feminists, biased media and any person supporting her should hang their heads in shame, shut their mouths and accept the verdict. E.M. should be jailed, have all her monies returned to the male victims and be publicly shamed as a warning to other false claimers of rape. The hockey league should also show a very public support of these men though I doubt any compensation could ever overcome the trauma they have suffered. This solidarity of women regardless of truth is also getting very tiresome and embarrassing especially when the so-called victim is proven to be a liar.
Since there was no one underage involved, I think the video should be made public with the men's consent. They could edit it so that the faces, genitals, nipples, etc. were obscured to make it legally viewable by anyone, but anybody who wants to know what really happened should be able to. It wasn't clear in the post who owns these video recordings, but I don't see why the owners shouldn't be able to do that as long as the woman's identity wasn't made known.
As always, your reporting and advocacy are as a lighted candle in the gloaming.
That said, it occurs to me that the modern penchant for role-reversal has an ironic twist; it is now incumbent on virile young men to protect their own virtue.
The older I get, the stranger become life's plot twists, it seems. If I were to hazard a guess, the shift became recognizable sometime back in about 1974 or thereabout.
And the preferred narrative is, as it always is in such situations, that true victims of sexual assault will be discouraged from "coming forward." And yet, what they (and false claimants) know all too well is that when one "comes forward," one gets paid, possibly enough to retire on. Doesn't sound discouraging to me.
So no matter what a woman says or does. we are not supposed to take her seriously?
She can retract from any statement years back?
Do women have the accountability of new borns?
How come women can enter contracts? Any signature could have been done under pressure, intimidation, insecurity, imagined threat or at least been declared as such years later.
And the nice thing about evidence being declared as evidence of the opposite what the evidence shows. Really 1984ish. War is peace, Ignorance is strength, feminism is equality, evidence is anti-evidence.
Yes, women are like infants, incapable, easily terrorized, often lapsing into a near-paralytic state of dissociation as a result of male tyranny--except when they're not, when they make better world leaders, better Fortune 500 CEOs, better Supreme Court justices, etc. etc., with far greater emotional maturity and principled judgement than men. It is bewildering, the intellectual gyrations, leaps of logic, and bad faith arguments one must continually entertain, eyes squinting hard and mouth agape in wonder, in order to keep up with feminist thought. But don't give up! We can all do better in time.
I dunno if you know Futurama, but there was one episode with Bender (the robot who was constantly mean and stealing stuff) was not convicted of a crime because the defense succesfully demonstrated that Bender had no free will because of his nature of preprogrammed software.
Bender was so offended that he did everything in his power to proof that robots had indeed free will and when he succeeded and as a consequence finally was jailed, he triumphed.
Reading your stories about feminism, I understood that a woman will never behave like Bender. Rather the opposite.
Janice, we are not the first discovering the accountability issue with women, at is > 100 years old:
“1921 – Judge Rhea M Whitehead – Presiding member of the Superior Court of Seattle
“A husband is going to get a square deal in my court. Too many men are convicted on sobby tales of wives!”
The Woman Judge Who Gives Husbands A Square Deal – She Is Introducing a Novel Procedure In Seattle Where Tears and Sentiment Carry No Weight and Women Are Not Regarded Today as ‘Helpless and Dependent Children,’”syndicated, Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette (In.), Jun. 26, 1921, sec. 4, p. 1
Thank you, Janice. I had heard a few details about this case but was unaware of the extent to which you have presented here.
“M. constructed a more compelling story to explain herself in a way that would be acceptable to her mother and to E.M.’s boyfriend.”
I think you've struck a goldmine with this nugget. The shame surrounding past sexual choices—particularly how they may appear to a new boyfriend or husband—seems to be driving more of this than I had previously considered. See Cassie Ventura for another recent example. This also rings true in my personal experience.
When women invent these stories days, weeks, months, years later, it's called "regret rape". They regret their behavior (or they regret getting caught) so they fabricate false rape accusations to cover it over.
Yes, that's true. Regret rape. Shame over previous sexual exploits. Though I meant that a specific motivation for claiming abuse or non-consent is to appease a new partner and appear "pure" to prevent the relationship ending as well as the shame/judgement. This seems to be part of E.M.’s motivation here, as it was for Cassie Ventura, whose new husband had to listen to accounts of the degenerate behavior she engaged in with Diddy and male strippers/pornstars in court.
I’m also drawing on personal experience here - I was the "new boyfriend" who, for a time, believed the narrative of abuse/non consent. It’s a comforting lie to believe. Perhaps I’m just zooming in too specifically because it cuts close to home.
Consider this, as well. The thing she was probably most ashamed of was that the young men were hardly enthusiastic about participating which must have felt like rejection.
Of course. I'm sure she could see that they were sniggering and giving each other looks and perhaps even passing remarks about her. She said at one point someone said something like 'This girl is crazy.' She was looking for validation and instead at least some of the men were repulsed by her. I think that's why she started taunting and harassing them, calling them "pussies."
This case is profoundly unsettling. It confirms that feminism wants women’s sense of moral superiority to men and their perceived victimhood—even if it comes well after the incident at hand and contradicts all credible evidence—to transcend any reasonable due process. No one who purports to value gender equality could endorse this view. If the legal system cared at all about treating men and women with equanimity, it would provide the same protections of anonymity to all parties prior to any conviction and implement penalties for any discrimination against those who were accused but acquitted.
As Professor Fiamengo has previously shown us from her research, feminism was never about gender equality. I challenge anyone to provide evidence of any feminist who ever did anything designed to increase equality for men in any of the many areas in which they are disadvantaged on the basis of their sex. Feminism is femaleism, that's all, interested only in advancing the selfish interests and power of females regardless of the consequences for society. Otherwise it would have been called equalism.
I've actually heard feminist leaders respond in interviews when they are challenged for not having done anything "designed to increase equality for men" that feminism has no duty to protect or assert men's rights. I would accept that response if they stopped pretending that their agenda is founded on a desire for gender equality and acknowledged that they are a supremacist group and a hate group that has no purpose other than to advance gynocentric privilege.
But pretending to be about equality is how feminists manipulate the ignorant, the gullible and the dumb to do their bidding. After all, who wouldn't support the noble and virtuous cause of equality? I'm constantly surprised and frustrated at the number of people who fail to see the cancerous nature of feminism.
Yet in having an obligation to increase equality for women, I have never heard them complain about why women are not being sentenced as severely as men to prison. Being denied access to the remedial programmes that are available.
Exactly. Don’t hold your breath. I will be amazed if feminism ever renounces the privilege it has sought for women. It is comfortable with the idea that—to paraphrase George Orwell—men and women are equal, but women should be more equal than men.
I've always thought I could get behind lobbying for a narrowing of the gender suicide gap. It is particularly outrageous that women attempt suicide more often than men but manage to commit it much less often.
A little while ago I looked at suicide rates in Oz for persons released from custody in first 2 weeks after custody.
From memory men are generally dying by suicide at approx 7/day or 18/100,000 of population. Women 2/day or 5.8/100k. First 2 weeks post custody men were 503/100k and women 0. Numbers might be a little off due passage of time and memory…
Those receiving psychiatric/psychological support in custody had triple the rate post release. Women are getting money spent supporting them in custody and post release for the difficulties they experience. Men, not so much…
If money was spent on men the rates could be brought down. Also if progressives did not want to demand heavier sentences for women to close the sentencing gap, then perhaps they could demand lighter in community sentencing for men. This would close the sentencing gap, reduce male suicide and reduce the suicide gap.
I have on a couple occasions asked suicide prevention organizations why their materials make no mention of the fact that male suicides beginning at a very young age far outpace female suicides. They state that their funding will be rescinded if they reveal that male suicide rates exceed female suicide rates. They will only receive funding if they obfuscate the gender gap.
Many people have told me that I should be a teacher. I am trained as an historian and I'm told I do a really good job engaging with people, especially young people. But the potential landmines illustrated by pieces like this are why I do not go into teaching.
I worked as a teachers aide due to having a special needs son, and even there, in primary school, mothers would look at me as though wanting to help my son made me suspect. Not all, but most. It was worst from mothers from religiously conservative backgrounds. I was investigated by the school because a 7-year old in my daughter's class gave me a side-hug in a gym with three-hundred other people in it, while I was carrying pizza and drinks for my kids. (In the school's defense, they found I had done nothing improper, while the mother literally moved her child out of the country).
The accusation is the conviction in far too many such instances. By the time you get to high school, many girls are aware of the threats they pose, even if they only very rarely act upon it. Not all tigers are man-eaters, though, yet I give them a wide berth in the wild.
Well said. You're right to be wary, John. All it takes is a single accusation, no matter how bizarre or unfounded, to ruin a male teacher.
We should have male-only schools (male students and male teachers) and female-only schools: problem solved. Then we could employ great teachers like you with very low risk.
There would still be the risk of false accusations of pedophilia and homosexual harassment. It might be even worse. It's gotten to the point that many consider men who want to work with children suspect.
In single sex schools we used to teach Latin and Ancient Greek. Not everybody learnt, and not everybody would use actively, yet it could stretch the mind and if you went to learn other languages it would be easier to pick up.
Now, there is a great deal of remedial English or illiteracy…
I was watching a Youtube video by Hoe Math - I recommend them - and he mentioned, in passing, that women lie to each other all the time in groups: 'Oh, you look gorgeous!', 'No, you don't look fat!' etc. And these lies are a way of testing to be being admitted into a friendship group. I have been really thinking about this.
It isn't so much the subject of lie that matters - though it helps if she supports the other women. - but the humiliation of *having* to lie in order to be accepted. Lying, when everyone knows your lying, is humiliating. And if a woman is willing to humilate herself in order to join a group, then that group essentially owns her. And if anyone is to be excommunicated from the group she can be relied upon to lie again: 'Oh, I never liked her. I can't forgive her for that time when...', even if she actually did like the rejected woman.
So lying - and obviously lying - is all part of female bonding. Especially when it's supporting women. A woman who is willing to humliate herself in front of the public to save the reputation of all women is a hero.
When a woman says, 'But why would a woman lie about such things?' she is obviously lying. The lie is her public scepticism and incredulity that a woman could ever lie. She knows that we all know that her performance is a lie. And the fact that she is willing to go through such a humiliating performance to support womankind is her 'taking one for the team'.
I'm sure many of those protesting women actually believe that the hockey players were guilty despite all the contrary evidence. But I also wonder how many are going along with the lie because, well, they don't know any other way of being.
Fashion magazine like Cosmo and Vogue are chock full of lies - especially the junk science in the skincare ads - and the articles are written to draw the reader into a fake friendship group. Why do women find so much comfort in giving in to lies? It must be a very disorientating, disconnected existence.
A friend of mine thinks there is a conceptual area between actually lying and actually believing in which women simply go along with the dominant belief, whatever it is, neither truly committed to it nor consciously aware of any deception or dishonesty. Many women do not know what they believe until they know what they've been told to believe.
If I've understood, you seem to be describing a state of continual ambivalence, where women are happy to delegate the thinking to others. But then they seem to make up for this by being ultra-concerned and ultra-certain when they've agreed to believe - and they sure let everyone, publicly, know about it.
I think most women are happy to delegate thinking to others; and they also, as you note, appropriate righteous announcements of certainty, moral and otherwise, to their group.
The certainty can change radically over time.
For a long time, the certainty was that women had a different, morally superior, sexuality. It was more generous, more reciprocal, less genital-centered. I don't know how many times I read about how much more loving women were than men, who just wanted genital sex.
Now, in the past five years or so, there has emerged a form of feminism that says women are even more sexually focused than men, more in need of sexual diversity and excitement, more lustful. And it's to be celebrated now. Men are sexually boring, happy to do the same thing with the same woman over and over again.
We've seen a similar flip-flop with the social construction of gender. For decades, that's what gender was: all a matter of stereotypes and conditioning. There was very little basis for it in biology, according to the feminists.
With the advent of so-called trans women taking over medal podiums, suddenly biology has come roaring back, and we're all supposed to say that sex is deeply rooted in biology, which men and conservatives were scorned for saying for years.
I remember one of your videos where you discussed the flip-flopping of feminists on their emotional leadership skills. One decade they aren't more emotional than men and are capable of making tough decisions. The next decade they are more emotional and empathetic than men and that makes them better leaders.
I'd say it's more that way with women, but I don't know how much more. I think that's a spectrum we're all on to some degree. I even catch myself challenging my own beliefs, sometimes, when some demented fool echoes them--which is sort of the same thing. It helps to think of it as tribalism in which the beliefs, themselves, have value other than just being correct knowledge.
I talk with people fairly frequently who claim they believe stories like Noah's ark and I always wonder if they really do or if it's what they call 'faith' which, to me, means something like 'my faith is even stronger if I believe this even when I really don't'. I think it was pondering 'Paschall's wager' that led to this perception, because I can't make logical sense of simply choosing to believe something because it might work out better for you.
Very interesting analysis, and one that is worth spelling out to people -- mainly men -- who are puzzled by such behaviour because it is at odds with their own social norms.
I remember a humorous description of one difference between men and women. When men meet their friends they say "How are you doing, you horrible old b*st*rd!". While with women it is "Your hair looks great! And have you lost weight?".
So men bond with insults that they don't mean, and women with compliments that they don't mean.
The standard feminist truism is "why would a woman lie about rape?" The 'logic' being that it would humiliating to go public and they would have to relive the trauma in public. This all may be well and true for women who actually HAVE been raped, which these same feminists would argue explains the bajillions of 'unreported rapes' (lies of omission?) they claim there are. What is doesn't acknowledge is that false accusers have no trauma to relive, shame, or embarrassment and that there can be MANY incentives to claim victimhood.
Exactly so. What's horrible about describing a rape you didn't experience, especially when it proves, as in this case and so many others, your intense desirability to a group of young studs?
My wife screames to me exasperated once "just give me all your money" despite her effectively having access to it all and observing my estate accounting at the time.
Women live for free because they provide children. However since 1970 women have been in children arrears while driving up their free money income. It'll end in tears.
Yes Hoe Math is a great site on YouTube; very inventive and creative. He was interviewed by someone on YouTube (Pearl Davis ?) and he showed himself to be a very perceptive, intelligent fellow especially for such a young age. Also your comment here about young women constantly being lied to is very accurate. Especially the "hot babes" who grow up in a fantasy or delusional universe and become especially entitled after years of men sucking up to them too.
This woman sexually assaulted all of those young men.
Something similar has happened to me twice. When you're alone with a woman you've never met before who strips and and won't take no for an answer, it's pretty unnerving. At that point, if you reject her, she holds your life in her hands. All she has to do is scream or run out the door shouting "rape" and everyone will believe her and no one will believe you. Both times I felt like the safest thing was to just give them what they wanted, even though it was the last thing I really wanted. I didn't exactly feel violated because, culturally, boys and young men are taught that we're lucky if women were even nice to us and that you'd be crazy to turn down 'free sex'. I did feel disgust and even guilt--another thing boys and men are taught to feel about anything involving a girl or a woman that doesn't go well for any reason.
To truly understand the level of entitlement many women feel about their sexual desires, understand that it probably didn't even occur to this woman that these guys wouldn't just pile on to her with orgiastic delight and enthusiasm. That they didn't was probably why she tried to get them into trouble, later.
Just try to even imagine a guy in a room with 5 women he didn't know at all suddenly stripping and masturbating while barking orders at the girls to "come sit on my face" or "fuck me like you mean it." Now imagine that that video was shown in court after accusing those women of assault because he hadn't really consented.
Excellent analysis, Janice. I used to say that men were guilty until proven innocent: this case proves that men cannot be proven innocent. If accused, they remain guilty no matter what happens. Guilt and innocence have become totally detached from reality, and exist in the intersubjective realm of feeling and collective belief, informed almost entirely by sexual identity factors and insulated from evidence. It is hard to see how our culture could be in worse shape with regard to sex and gender.
Canadian guys tend to avoid women in public and at work because the harassment laws there are terrible. A Canadian man could risk being detained and charged because he accidentally looked at a Canadian women and she felt uncomfortable. This looks Orwellian.
It's grim up here (and I'm saying that as a woman).
That's is just ridiculous... society gone mad...
It's appalling that the criminal harassment can be a one-time incident, such as a reply to a comment, and once the woman in Canada feels it's harassing, the police are faster than an ambulance in contacting the 'harasser' and warning him with charges of criminal harassment.
This is exceptionally ubiquitous in feminist cities like Toronto, Vancouver, SW Ontario, and to some extent Montreal with post-Marxist anticapitalist feminism (and funny how the post-Marxists dislike cops but wouldn't hesitate to use police against a man for approaching them).
I have a theory running through my head at the moment that Feminism (and maybe other ideologies) and pure greedy Capitalism (not the type of Fair Trade that I read about with Ayn Rand / Ludwig von Mises) is actually the two sides of the same coin?
I'm not an expert.. but I'm continually shocked at how many people are anti-capitalism and never read a word. This was me two or so years ago.. let alone the fact that I've not read any of Marxists stuff...
But @Alex any comments please :)
For me, limited I feel, I think that Marxism pushes 'workers/we are all exploited' by the Capitalists and yet Marx has dragged women out of the home to work and pay tax.. (that is one slant and I'm just rattling on here.. but... )
It is almost like Christ between two thieves on the cross (and I'm certainly not able to enter into some big debate about all this.. but...)
it is just a thought for me.
Also, this woman that Janice has so kindly drawn our attention to, will not take responsibility that she demands:::
"E.M. repeatedly demanded that the players have sex with her, mocked those who wouldn’t as “pussies” (p. 30) and masturbated, naked, in order to entice the yet-unconvinced. She demanded of the young men, “Can one of you guys come over and fuck me?” (p. 30), “Can I suck your dick?” (p. 34), and “Is anyone going to do anything to me or do I have to do it all?”"
It strikes me that with Marxism and greedy evil Capitalism that we give over our own free will, self power, integrity, self determination!, creativity, abilities and ? to those outside of use, to leaders who supposedly know more.. we form an Aura whereby we rely on an external human being to look after us, punish others for us, not take full responsibility for ourselves.
She gets drunk, asks to be 'fucked' and then when it doesn't fit her fantasies she complains, then that is knocked back and then she complains again and in between time, have I understood this fully, she gets paid a huge amount of money by an organisation because they are running scared about losing money and yet they verify by this payment that she was not responsible for anything!!!! Madness.
so @Alex or someone else, I'm going to external sources to qualify what I think is fine but slightly crazy !!!!!!!!
It is such a trick of the hand .. Plato's Cave comes to mind in my associations...
Uh, no.
It is Orwellian...
In Toronto colloquially known as Toronna, many transit stations are accessible by shopping malls. Being trespassed from those shopping malls means being prohibited from using public transit.
Shopping malls have rent-a-cops who have the lawful powers to trespass people, including men who make women feel "uncomfortable" or "uneasy", but at the same time, the homeless guys and Roma beggars are left alone.
Not so sure, Toronna still applies. Tran-na is more accurate and it is the largest city in Tranada.
This is not true.
Staring could be defined as criminal harassment in Canadian law. It would depend on what the woman claimed and how zealous the police officer was. At the very least, the man could have his day ruined by a police visit and warning.
In the UK, posters in the London subway explicitly warn that staring is a form of sexual harassment.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/posters-warning-against-intrusive-staring-143344574.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI4uzkdfU-Mnr-4luSnq-N5lhqZkeVGjaGOJJ3edvSEk--D9f4dT1QwdX_rRztY3rh6naTCOTE6kkYeRmQYQJSq58kycxbdUQBhy8H5z9-jrBPq_nSBbuQhHf3-4bHD92Glvk_QJPoIhfHQX70d-i3zStu2tLzZEfH4kY0iFWP58&guccounter=2
Staring is an indication of mental deficit. A sophisticated gentleman can mentally disrobe a woman in less than a second.
That's not the claim I'm responding to.
This is not true.
As someone who lives, works, and studies in Canada, I have literally never heard anyone express fear of interaction because of potential lawsuits. I, like all my friends, have flirted with and asked out coworkers. A friend of mine is now married to a guy who approached her at a cafe.
This is cope from guys who want an excuse to never take action in their lives. It’s a convenient excuse “oh I would but I can’t”. Bullshit.
Don't bother with this guy. There are pro-Trudeau trollfarms which go on the internet monitoring comments which are critical of his regime and his pet projects like radical feminism.
The Toronto trollfarms and bots either flag the critical comments to get them removed or respond with gaslighting anecdotal evidence which isn't true.
The initial claim is anecdotal. "Canadian guys tend to avoid women in public and at work". Really? They do?
But by all means. Continue shelling up like a 12 year old with a crush around women, then going home to blame Trudeau. Funny how these same people will then go on and on about how "we need to rise up" when they can't even rise up to speak to a woman.
Also LOL @ you accusing me of being a bot when you have only interacted with this post. You can look through my profile and find very little mention of Trudeau at all.
Studies show that 60% of men are less likely to be comfortable chatting up women at work or in public, and 27% of men avoid one one meetings with women at work. Perhaps you're not as old as some of us here, and haven't witnessed the cultural shift with your own eyes or had the personal experiences which lead to caution. No one is saying that all women are evil and dangerous or that it's never safe to flirt or date, but it's a lot worse than it used to be and the consequences of 'indiscretions' are way more serious than they used to be. In many, if not most, American companies it's strictly forbidden for supervisors or management to have any kind of romantic or sexual relationships with anyone else in the company and you will lose your job for it. I've known a few companies that don't allow employees to even socialize with customers or clients and most, if not all, educational institutions absolutely forbid romantic and sexual relationships between students and faculty. In some states, including mine, sex between a student and faculty or administration at the school they attend is actually a crime. This is not just with minors, either, it applies to universities and students of any age.
Trolls and bots aren't the same thing, by the way.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_597e3443-0803-4f3c-a0f4-858a9ee994bd
And what is the definition of staring? I would say it’s subjective. This is madness!
You know this reminds me of when Toronna women would remain silent when a homeless guy with the stench of urine and poop are yelling at them during his skitzo episode, but at the same time, those same Toronna women would press the emergency button if they see a man seated across them, and they think he's staring at her exposed labia on purpose because she's wearing a daisy duke shorts and sitting in a way which exposes her labia.
I stopped saying guilty till proven innocent a long time ago. Instead I say guilty till proven guilty. The worst sentence is not being proven guilty but remaining in legal limbo because there is no possibility to be proven innocent.
For 3 or 4 years too. Do feminists ever think about the wives, daughters, sisters, mothers of the men being lied about through this process?
Feminists don't think.
One must presume they do, and that they don't give a shit, as their misandry runs too deep.
You couldn’t have said it better. I’m a 77 year old Cdn female and I’m disgusted with the handling of this case.
Sue her for the false accusation. The only way others will be deterred…
In Canada, this will only mean that an ambulance chaser will siphon as much money from the plaintiff knowing that the Ontario judges are biased against men and pro-feminist. In other words, this means that suing a Canadian woman for a false accusation is almost a futile approach. It's a waste of money.
Then what, just allow this insanity to continue without even trying to stop it?
Weird that you admit to a prior belief that men were guilty until proven innocent, but now feel emboldened to state otherwise by external evidence that shouldn't have been required, and now regard your former belief as a "detachment from reality" that you ascribe to others.
1. "Believe women" is the prejudice of a simpleton.
2. I'm old enough to remember when the progressive mantra was: "What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is nobody else's [damn] business - least of all their employer's." Now that we know it was consensual, the NHL and the woke Mrs. Grundys should STFU.
3. Logic dictates that all those people who condemned the hockey players' behaviour on that night, "even if it wasn't criminal," should be approximately five times as disgusted and morally outraged by the conduct of E.M. now that there is no excuse not to know what really happened. Yet I have not seen a single note of rebuke for her sexual mores.
4. Patrick Kane, Jake Virtanen, the two University of Ottawa players, and now these five hockey players makes something of a pattern and a track record. Yet I'll give odds that the next time an accusation of sexual impropriety is leveled, there will still be an automatic rush to judgment. "The difference between humans and rats is that rats learn from their experience." (B.F. Skinner)
Re number 2, Pierre Trudeau used to say the state has no business in the bedroom of the nation. Now feminist theorists, judges and lawmakers want to micromanage and criticize if not criminalize every move
To be fair, Trudeau elder referred to the gay hysteria which meant he was against homophobia. Unfortunately, Canadian radfems today are subtly homophobic and transphobic. EM mocked the hockey players using subtle homophobic insinuations if they refused her advances.
It shows that Canadian feminism is a self-serving agenda which would throw gays and transgender persons over the rooftop with Islamists if they wanted to advance their agenda.
"Subtle?" Really, it was anything but subtle. I've experienced that, myself, on several occasions. I'll bet most men have. A lot of women just can't really deal with the simple, obvious reality of "He's just not that into you." Accusing an uninterested man of being gay is not a perception, either. Most women, if they thought a man was really gay, wouldn't berate him for it. It's meant to be an insult to a heterosexual male who rejected them sexually.
This reminds me of a similar less high profile incident involving 4 of our college hockey players in 2006. Hockey is the premier sport at Minnesota State Mankato, so these students were clearly assets to the university and well known and loved in the community. Just being in their company, I got to see how women literally would throw themselves at the players sexually, often much to the horror of the young men. Hell, I was talking to the hockey Captain (a student my class) in an off campus venue and a young woman came up, assumed I must have some relationship to the team and proceeded to sit on my lap!!!!!! As I sat in shock, the captain stood up and took her hands and removed her saying, no, you can't be behaving that way with him (me).
In this case, a female hockey player joined 4 of the men and some of their various female friends at an off campus apartment of some of the players where they engaged in some underage and of age drinking and smoking of marijuana. One female hockey player later complained saying she didn't remember everything but thinks that "something" happened. Police investigated and found no basis to take any action as there was no evidence for anything other than a bit of pot smoking and alcohol consumption...all consensual. The complainant was not satisfied and complained to the university which REJECTED the official police report and sought to punish the 4 players despite the contrary testimony of all present. Apparently, one woman who "thinks" something happened but has no evidence in her favor and evidence that refutes her allegation carries more weight than the testimony of multiple men and WOMEN who were also present and do not claim memory problems backed up by police. It should be noted that the complainant was known to want a romantic relationship with one of the accused players, but had been rebuffed in her efforts to become his girlfriend.....
The athletic department and university completely threw the 4 Canadian hockey players under the bus. The athletic director never even met with the players before pronouncing judgement against them. As foreign students in the US, the students' ability to even stay in the country depended on their remaining students in good status. The 2 sophomores were expelled and lost the rest of their hockey careers as no one would take them on. The 2 seniors were expelled after classes ended but before they could take their finals. All the students were warned that if they attempted to take their finals they would be arrested for trespassing. Faculty were directed NOT to assist the students, even the seniors, to complete their courses and degrees. As kids from middle class families in Canada, none of the students had the legal resources to fight back against the state.
I knew all 4 students and had the sophomores in my class. I offered as much support as I could. Our group of 6 wrote to the athletic department cancelling our season tickets in protest of their treatment of the players. The athletic director offered to meet with me to discuss our concerns. The players were outraged that the AD would meet with disgruntled fans...but not them. I offered to arrange the meeting and bring them with me so they could get their meeting, but they demured.
Personally, I think many of these problems could be solved if universities were denied any role in adjudicating what should be serious crimes. Further, as rape and harassment are serious crimes, they need to be treated as such. That means any person making such an accusation needs to have evidence and needs to be held accountable should the evidence not stand up to scrutiny. The concern about women being discouraged from coming forward is irrelevant when realizes that false accusations far, far, far outstrip legitimate complaints. The courts should require release of the identity of any accuser and witnesses and advocates on her behalf if the men's identities are released. If the accuser fails to make her case, she should face the maximum penalty for the alleged crime plus the maximum penalty for perjury and filing a false complaint. Make such cases widely known and false accusations will rapidly fall in number and we will see that rape/harassment are actually NOT major societal problems at all.
I strongly agree that universities and colleges should not be in the business of adjudicating cases of criminal harassment and sexual assault. If a crime has been committed, it should be dealt with by police and the courts. If a crime has not been committed, then people should work it out amongst themselves, and the accused should not be judged by feminist ideologues, or anyone.
I think it is possible for a woman (or man) to be a legitimate victim who is unable to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. She or he should not be punished for lack of evidence or weak evidence. But where the evidence proves her (or his) lies beyond a reasonable doubt, there should certainly be some form of punishment. It is a grave offence to bring the delivery of justice into disrepute.
Normally I would agree with you Janice...but the abuses in these matters have been so utterly one sided, that I would argue that the problem of, and harms caused, by false accusations now far outweighs any legitimate victims. No one is forced to bring an accusation. If they have no evidence to support their claim, or, as is often the case, acted in a fashion that makes their argument about being a victim hard to swallow, then they should not bring the accusation. Punishing those who bring accusations they cannot prove is entirely proper as the accused is harmed in any event and had NO choice about whether the case was brought. The American justice system is designed under the premise that it is better a criminal go free than an innocent person be punished. It's time we returned to that premise. Hope this makes sense.
You're missing the point that returning to that premise would mean that accusations without evidence would simply be rejected by the police. That's what should happen. No one should ever be punished for bringing an unproven allegation. They should only be charged with bringing accusations that are PROVEN false.
The problem is that that is very rare. There's no doubt in my mind, in this case, that EM should be charged with false allegations because we KNOW she lied. That shouldn't affect women who may have actually assaulted but simply have no convicing evidence.
Another thought we should consider here is that 2/3 of Title IX cases adjudicated by universities are overturned when brought to an actual court. If a scientific test or vaccine has such a false positive rate, we would stop using it immediately. It is time the same applied here by repealing Title IX in its entirety.
I was under the impression that if no crime was committed... the company or university will typically transfer one individual or another and work to rearrange everyone's schedule to keep both parties from interacting with each other. (I've seen this happen multiple times) So far from one party being punished, it can be a "get out of jail free" card for individuals who are in poor standing at their company.
Generally, the accused is punished to accommodate the accuser no matter how false her claims. Under the presumption of innocence, any accommodation should be made by removing the accuser unless and until her claims are proven in a court of law.
I don't think any accommodations or reassignments should be made at all for unsupported accusations. Businesses should not assume that their employees are children and act en loco parentis.
I agree...but in the current environment...the accused is presumed guilty and punished to make the accuser feel comfortable. So...if Student A makes and accusation against Student B in her class or dorm...Student B is automatically forced to move, barred from the dorm or classroom and other areas of campus where Student A might encounter him. In the case of a faculty member...the faculty member is likely to be barred from campus is the student is in their class (another instructor is forced to take over the class) or the faculty member is restricted to particular areas of campus. The accuser is not barred from ANY area of campus even areas where the accused is required to work but the accuser has no legitimate need/business in entering. This is all done BEFORE any adjudication or weighing of evidence. It is done without even consulting the accused...who may first be hearing of the complaint when the edicts barring them from various places/activities are imposed.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Barring convincing, credible evidence, NOTHING should be done and universities shouldn't be involved in adjudication at all in any case.
A friend of mine has a son who is currently serving a 15 year prison sentence for a very similar situation to the one described here.
So sad...makes it hard to have any sympathy for victims of sexual assault when you hear such cases.
I left one aspect of the story out when posting. I said that the hockey players who were falsely accused were very involved in the community. It is worse that this. At that time, there was a young local boy who was a rising hockey star (at least as far as one can be below the age of 10). The poor kid developed cancer and was soon unable to play. The team rallied around this kid and his family helping with fundraisers etc. They became very close. Several of the players who were forced off the team and out of college by this incident were even present in the kid's hospital room when he passed away. The hockey community knew the truth of their character and stood by them. So did law enforcement. The university, however, was more concerned with pandering to Femi Nazis. As you might imagine, there is nothing Donald Trump can do to academia that I will not support given the conduct of academics in these matters.
Since reading your post I have spoken at length to my friend, who did not want me to forward it to him because it is too upsetting for him to read; very understandable I thought. His anger and hurt is unbearable to see.
He told me during our conversation that in the prison where his son is incarcerated there are over 30 other men locked up for similar accusations and, get this, all of their documents inditements have the same CUT AND PASTE WORDING.
The majority of these men were prosecuted by a woman lawyer in a court with a woman judge.
I don’t know if you are cognisant of the Cest cue vie or CQV trust but if you study it it becomes obvious that not only is this misandrist prosecutorial culture anti male it is a massive financial fraud against the CQV trust by governments and judiciaries.
Maybe it is time we recruited and financed a really good investigative journalist to rip this scab of sanctioned corruption from the court systems of our respective countries?
I am not familiar with CQV but am not surprised that the effort is a deliberate and systemic attack on men by abusing the system. The feminist accusers tend to all play from the same playbook which I saw while it was being developed at the University of New Hampshire (1990s). The same system has been used to systemically attack prominent men in the sciences with the goal being to take down a prominent senior male scientist in the various subdisciplines of geology to demonstrate to all that the "culture" has changed and "she" can take you down any time she wants. I attempted to point out what was going on as part of shielding the professional society I worked for from the harm they were heading into. They turned their hate on me to silence me for daring to rock the boat. These Feminazis are so afraid of being outed that they are continuing their campaign of black listing of me going on 7 years after the fact.
As for the cut and paste wording...I have seen this used against faculty whenever a female student doesn't get the grade she wanted. One tried it on me... and failed because I recognized what she was doing and handled myself correctly and kept records demonstrating what actually occurred. It is clear that out college Title IX officer was involved in writing her complaint. I made it my job after my acquittal of wrong doing to make sure that the misconduct coming out of the Title IX office was challenged at every turn. After several years...the Title IX officer left for a university that is likely to close in the next decade.
Tell your friend I am sorry for his son and his fellows wrongfully held in prison. Canada and the US both need some liberation.
I think the main problem these days is the power of social media to bring heavy negative publicity to people and organisations, which can ruin them, so they feel they have no choice but to react in the extreme.
I disagree, this problem goes back well in to the 90's long before social media existed. Institutions are craven when facing the Feminazi backlash which is why a united front against female participation in society needs to be on the table for discussion as a response to feminist abuses of power. Women as a group need to recognize that THEY have the same duty to oppose feminist criminality as the rest of us.
Good article. It always amazes me that charges are almost never laid against the women who do this kind of thing. Men get sent to prison, ultimately released, when the truth comes out, and the female accuser…nothing.
just look at the sentences of female teachers molesting young men to see how fair and balanced the law is for victims. In the end, it is the men that are shying away from women. The birth numbers will speak for themselves.
There are at least a couple of cases in the States, where female teachers raped a male student, got pregnant, then sued for child support----and won!! Could you imagine an underage female rape victim being ordered to pay her rapist child support. lol Brutal
These were statutory rapes, with very willing "victims", weren't they? And very likely traditionalist judges, who saw the boys as men and the women as girls. A very notable case from about 35 years ago in Iceland recently came to light, because the perpetrator is now national minister for youth, or something similar.
But now female teachers canoodling with high schoolers are facing a vigorous crackdown, and this is led by female prosecutors, usually at the behest of the boys' protective mothers. So this falls outside of Janice's domain of women-getting-away-with-murder. It's more like women-cracking-down-on-other-women-while-men-sit-by-with-dumb-expressions-and-watch, a much older phenomenon. (Which sex calls the police when a young woman bares her breasts at the beach?)
The author of "Tampa", a novel about this kind of case, did a ton of research before writing. One telling detail was that the protestors outside the perpetrator's home were invariably other women, some of whom brought their kids. Never saw a single man.
We all know about this one but the accused should not be named by anyone unless proven guilty and even then I'm getting more and more sceptical about any names mentioned. It just becomes a 'walk of shame'.
If someone is acquitted then all references to this person should be deleted from 'all' media and person who falsely accused should be named.
But the courts do not do this which shows they actually don't give a shit.
Trouble with it being deleted on all media is that it’s impossible. A friend of mine went to prison for 18 months for a supposed rape because a girl didn’t want her boyfriend to know she cheated on him. He was released when further evidence came out about it but the damage was done. He made a movie about it called ‘Rise’ that I had a small part in. The courts decided that all media references be removed (something of that nature). It never happened and finally to get his life back he changed his name and moved to another State to start over. Nothing happened to his accuser.
If they are convicted, names published, then later get it overturned… names are often not erased from association of the conviction, and rarely published with the overturning.
I forgot to say in my comment that I'm more and more against any mention of private citizens lives being mentioned in the press and I realise it is complicated but unless what someone does affects private citizens then it is non of our business.
For example: Jozsef Szajer: Hungary MEP* quits after allegedly fleeing gay orgy https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55145989
**Member of the European Parliament (MEP)
There was also a case in Australia where a male poltiician who voted against same sex marriage was pushing 'family values' as a catholic while having an affair with his female Assistant!!
My point is that people that are in power position should be named in my view but some person walking along the street. So many Media organisations like to print gossip to get advertising sales whilst wrecking other peoples lives.
To be fair, the story about Barnaby Joyce (that politician whose affair is public knowledge) having an affair with his staffer are two different stories. Barnaby would be the first to tell you that he is no saint, but he was going by his belief in the traditional definitions of marriage even if he did break some of the covenants himself. His affair has no bearing upon those definitions he holds as true.
None of us are saints even if we like to think of ourselves as such and by and large, we muddle our way through a lot of different things, occasionally getting a few things right and wrong despite it all.
Her behaviour was disgusting and to be paid for it was reprehensible. Five young men and no doubt their families have had to endure hell as well as have their reputations and future career paths destroyed. The feminists, biased media and any person supporting her should hang their heads in shame, shut their mouths and accept the verdict. E.M. should be jailed, have all her monies returned to the male victims and be publicly shamed as a warning to other false claimers of rape. The hockey league should also show a very public support of these men though I doubt any compensation could ever overcome the trauma they have suffered. This solidarity of women regardless of truth is also getting very tiresome and embarrassing especially when the so-called victim is proven to be a liar.
Since there was no one underage involved, I think the video should be made public with the men's consent. They could edit it so that the faces, genitals, nipples, etc. were obscured to make it legally viewable by anyone, but anybody who wants to know what really happened should be able to. It wasn't clear in the post who owns these video recordings, but I don't see why the owners shouldn't be able to do that as long as the woman's identity wasn't made known.
Thanks for suggesting this.
The solidarity is not only tiresome, but is harming the reputations of women. The reputation’s are preceding the women.
As always, your reporting and advocacy are as a lighted candle in the gloaming.
That said, it occurs to me that the modern penchant for role-reversal has an ironic twist; it is now incumbent on virile young men to protect their own virtue.
The older I get, the stranger become life's plot twists, it seems. If I were to hazard a guess, the shift became recognizable sometime back in about 1974 or thereabout.
It's interesting how they get mad at the not guilty verdict rather than being mad at the false accusations.
And the preferred narrative is, as it always is in such situations, that true victims of sexual assault will be discouraged from "coming forward." And yet, what they (and false claimants) know all too well is that when one "comes forward," one gets paid, possibly enough to retire on. Doesn't sound discouraging to me.
Yes, punishing false accusers would only discourage false accusers from coming forward
So no matter what a woman says or does. we are not supposed to take her seriously?
She can retract from any statement years back?
Do women have the accountability of new borns?
How come women can enter contracts? Any signature could have been done under pressure, intimidation, insecurity, imagined threat or at least been declared as such years later.
And the nice thing about evidence being declared as evidence of the opposite what the evidence shows. Really 1984ish. War is peace, Ignorance is strength, feminism is equality, evidence is anti-evidence.
Yes, women are like infants, incapable, easily terrorized, often lapsing into a near-paralytic state of dissociation as a result of male tyranny--except when they're not, when they make better world leaders, better Fortune 500 CEOs, better Supreme Court justices, etc. etc., with far greater emotional maturity and principled judgement than men. It is bewildering, the intellectual gyrations, leaps of logic, and bad faith arguments one must continually entertain, eyes squinting hard and mouth agape in wonder, in order to keep up with feminist thought. But don't give up! We can all do better in time.
I dunno if you know Futurama, but there was one episode with Bender (the robot who was constantly mean and stealing stuff) was not convicted of a crime because the defense succesfully demonstrated that Bender had no free will because of his nature of preprogrammed software.
Bender was so offended that he did everything in his power to proof that robots had indeed free will and when he succeeded and as a consequence finally was jailed, he triumphed.
Reading your stories about feminism, I understood that a woman will never behave like Bender. Rather the opposite.
Janice, we are not the first discovering the accountability issue with women, at is > 100 years old:
“1921 – Judge Rhea M Whitehead – Presiding member of the Superior Court of Seattle
“A husband is going to get a square deal in my court. Too many men are convicted on sobby tales of wives!”
The Woman Judge Who Gives Husbands A Square Deal – She Is Introducing a Novel Procedure In Seattle Where Tears and Sentiment Carry No Weight and Women Are Not Regarded Today as ‘Helpless and Dependent Children,’”syndicated, Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette (In.), Jun. 26, 1921, sec. 4, p. 1
I'm reminded here of that silly Legally Blonde movie about the Law Professor at Elle's college defining Law.
"The law is reason free from passion".
How far law has deviated from that when it comes to these types of cases.
Thank you, Janice. I had heard a few details about this case but was unaware of the extent to which you have presented here.
“M. constructed a more compelling story to explain herself in a way that would be acceptable to her mother and to E.M.’s boyfriend.”
I think you've struck a goldmine with this nugget. The shame surrounding past sexual choices—particularly how they may appear to a new boyfriend or husband—seems to be driving more of this than I had previously considered. See Cassie Ventura for another recent example. This also rings true in my personal experience.
When women invent these stories days, weeks, months, years later, it's called "regret rape". They regret their behavior (or they regret getting caught) so they fabricate false rape accusations to cover it over.
Yes, that's true. Regret rape. Shame over previous sexual exploits. Though I meant that a specific motivation for claiming abuse or non-consent is to appease a new partner and appear "pure" to prevent the relationship ending as well as the shame/judgement. This seems to be part of E.M.’s motivation here, as it was for Cassie Ventura, whose new husband had to listen to accounts of the degenerate behavior she engaged in with Diddy and male strippers/pornstars in court.
I’m also drawing on personal experience here - I was the "new boyfriend" who, for a time, believed the narrative of abuse/non consent. It’s a comforting lie to believe. Perhaps I’m just zooming in too specifically because it cuts close to home.
Consider this, as well. The thing she was probably most ashamed of was that the young men were hardly enthusiastic about participating which must have felt like rejection.
Of course. I'm sure she could see that they were sniggering and giving each other looks and perhaps even passing remarks about her. She said at one point someone said something like 'This girl is crazy.' She was looking for validation and instead at least some of the men were repulsed by her. I think that's why she started taunting and harassing them, calling them "pussies."
This case is profoundly unsettling. It confirms that feminism wants women’s sense of moral superiority to men and their perceived victimhood—even if it comes well after the incident at hand and contradicts all credible evidence—to transcend any reasonable due process. No one who purports to value gender equality could endorse this view. If the legal system cared at all about treating men and women with equanimity, it would provide the same protections of anonymity to all parties prior to any conviction and implement penalties for any discrimination against those who were accused but acquitted.
As Professor Fiamengo has previously shown us from her research, feminism was never about gender equality. I challenge anyone to provide evidence of any feminist who ever did anything designed to increase equality for men in any of the many areas in which they are disadvantaged on the basis of their sex. Feminism is femaleism, that's all, interested only in advancing the selfish interests and power of females regardless of the consequences for society. Otherwise it would have been called equalism.
I've actually heard feminist leaders respond in interviews when they are challenged for not having done anything "designed to increase equality for men" that feminism has no duty to protect or assert men's rights. I would accept that response if they stopped pretending that their agenda is founded on a desire for gender equality and acknowledged that they are a supremacist group and a hate group that has no purpose other than to advance gynocentric privilege.
Men get the doubt, women get the benefit.
But pretending to be about equality is how feminists manipulate the ignorant, the gullible and the dumb to do their bidding. After all, who wouldn't support the noble and virtuous cause of equality? I'm constantly surprised and frustrated at the number of people who fail to see the cancerous nature of feminism.
Yet in having an obligation to increase equality for women, I have never heard them complain about why women are not being sentenced as severely as men to prison. Being denied access to the remedial programmes that are available.
Exactly. Don’t hold your breath. I will be amazed if feminism ever renounces the privilege it has sought for women. It is comfortable with the idea that—to paraphrase George Orwell—men and women are equal, but women should be more equal than men.
I've always thought I could get behind lobbying for a narrowing of the gender suicide gap. It is particularly outrageous that women attempt suicide more often than men but manage to commit it much less often.
A little while ago I looked at suicide rates in Oz for persons released from custody in first 2 weeks after custody.
From memory men are generally dying by suicide at approx 7/day or 18/100,000 of population. Women 2/day or 5.8/100k. First 2 weeks post custody men were 503/100k and women 0. Numbers might be a little off due passage of time and memory…
Those receiving psychiatric/psychological support in custody had triple the rate post release. Women are getting money spent supporting them in custody and post release for the difficulties they experience. Men, not so much…
If money was spent on men the rates could be brought down. Also if progressives did not want to demand heavier sentences for women to close the sentencing gap, then perhaps they could demand lighter in community sentencing for men. This would close the sentencing gap, reduce male suicide and reduce the suicide gap.
I have on a couple occasions asked suicide prevention organizations why their materials make no mention of the fact that male suicides beginning at a very young age far outpace female suicides. They state that their funding will be rescinded if they reveal that male suicide rates exceed female suicide rates. They will only receive funding if they obfuscate the gender gap.
Absolutely agree.
Many people have told me that I should be a teacher. I am trained as an historian and I'm told I do a really good job engaging with people, especially young people. But the potential landmines illustrated by pieces like this are why I do not go into teaching.
I worked as a teachers aide due to having a special needs son, and even there, in primary school, mothers would look at me as though wanting to help my son made me suspect. Not all, but most. It was worst from mothers from religiously conservative backgrounds. I was investigated by the school because a 7-year old in my daughter's class gave me a side-hug in a gym with three-hundred other people in it, while I was carrying pizza and drinks for my kids. (In the school's defense, they found I had done nothing improper, while the mother literally moved her child out of the country).
The accusation is the conviction in far too many such instances. By the time you get to high school, many girls are aware of the threats they pose, even if they only very rarely act upon it. Not all tigers are man-eaters, though, yet I give them a wide berth in the wild.
Well said. You're right to be wary, John. All it takes is a single accusation, no matter how bizarre or unfounded, to ruin a male teacher.
We should have male-only schools (male students and male teachers) and female-only schools: problem solved. Then we could employ great teachers like you with very low risk.
There would still be the risk of false accusations of pedophilia and homosexual harassment. It might be even worse. It's gotten to the point that many consider men who want to work with children suspect.
In single sex schools we used to teach Latin and Ancient Greek. Not everybody learnt, and not everybody would use actively, yet it could stretch the mind and if you went to learn other languages it would be easier to pick up.
Now, there is a great deal of remedial English or illiteracy…
I was watching a Youtube video by Hoe Math - I recommend them - and he mentioned, in passing, that women lie to each other all the time in groups: 'Oh, you look gorgeous!', 'No, you don't look fat!' etc. And these lies are a way of testing to be being admitted into a friendship group. I have been really thinking about this.
It isn't so much the subject of lie that matters - though it helps if she supports the other women. - but the humiliation of *having* to lie in order to be accepted. Lying, when everyone knows your lying, is humiliating. And if a woman is willing to humilate herself in order to join a group, then that group essentially owns her. And if anyone is to be excommunicated from the group she can be relied upon to lie again: 'Oh, I never liked her. I can't forgive her for that time when...', even if she actually did like the rejected woman.
So lying - and obviously lying - is all part of female bonding. Especially when it's supporting women. A woman who is willing to humliate herself in front of the public to save the reputation of all women is a hero.
When a woman says, 'But why would a woman lie about such things?' she is obviously lying. The lie is her public scepticism and incredulity that a woman could ever lie. She knows that we all know that her performance is a lie. And the fact that she is willing to go through such a humiliating performance to support womankind is her 'taking one for the team'.
I'm sure many of those protesting women actually believe that the hockey players were guilty despite all the contrary evidence. But I also wonder how many are going along with the lie because, well, they don't know any other way of being.
Fashion magazine like Cosmo and Vogue are chock full of lies - especially the junk science in the skincare ads - and the articles are written to draw the reader into a fake friendship group. Why do women find so much comfort in giving in to lies? It must be a very disorientating, disconnected existence.
A friend of mine thinks there is a conceptual area between actually lying and actually believing in which women simply go along with the dominant belief, whatever it is, neither truly committed to it nor consciously aware of any deception or dishonesty. Many women do not know what they believe until they know what they've been told to believe.
If I've understood, you seem to be describing a state of continual ambivalence, where women are happy to delegate the thinking to others. But then they seem to make up for this by being ultra-concerned and ultra-certain when they've agreed to believe - and they sure let everyone, publicly, know about it.
I think most women are happy to delegate thinking to others; and they also, as you note, appropriate righteous announcements of certainty, moral and otherwise, to their group.
The certainty can change radically over time.
For a long time, the certainty was that women had a different, morally superior, sexuality. It was more generous, more reciprocal, less genital-centered. I don't know how many times I read about how much more loving women were than men, who just wanted genital sex.
Now, in the past five years or so, there has emerged a form of feminism that says women are even more sexually focused than men, more in need of sexual diversity and excitement, more lustful. And it's to be celebrated now. Men are sexually boring, happy to do the same thing with the same woman over and over again.
We've seen a similar flip-flop with the social construction of gender. For decades, that's what gender was: all a matter of stereotypes and conditioning. There was very little basis for it in biology, according to the feminists.
With the advent of so-called trans women taking over medal podiums, suddenly biology has come roaring back, and we're all supposed to say that sex is deeply rooted in biology, which men and conservatives were scorned for saying for years.
One could write a whole essay on this phenomenon.
I remember one of your videos where you discussed the flip-flopping of feminists on their emotional leadership skills. One decade they aren't more emotional than men and are capable of making tough decisions. The next decade they are more emotional and empathetic than men and that makes them better leaders.
I'd say it's more that way with women, but I don't know how much more. I think that's a spectrum we're all on to some degree. I even catch myself challenging my own beliefs, sometimes, when some demented fool echoes them--which is sort of the same thing. It helps to think of it as tribalism in which the beliefs, themselves, have value other than just being correct knowledge.
I talk with people fairly frequently who claim they believe stories like Noah's ark and I always wonder if they really do or if it's what they call 'faith' which, to me, means something like 'my faith is even stronger if I believe this even when I really don't'. I think it was pondering 'Paschall's wager' that led to this perception, because I can't make logical sense of simply choosing to believe something because it might work out better for you.
Very interesting analysis, and one that is worth spelling out to people -- mainly men -- who are puzzled by such behaviour because it is at odds with their own social norms.
I remember a humorous description of one difference between men and women. When men meet their friends they say "How are you doing, you horrible old b*st*rd!". While with women it is "Your hair looks great! And have you lost weight?".
So men bond with insults that they don't mean, and women with compliments that they don't mean.
Good comparison! Thank you.
The standard feminist truism is "why would a woman lie about rape?" The 'logic' being that it would humiliating to go public and they would have to relive the trauma in public. This all may be well and true for women who actually HAVE been raped, which these same feminists would argue explains the bajillions of 'unreported rapes' (lies of omission?) they claim there are. What is doesn't acknowledge is that false accusers have no trauma to relive, shame, or embarrassment and that there can be MANY incentives to claim victimhood.
Exactly so. What's horrible about describing a rape you didn't experience, especially when it proves, as in this case and so many others, your intense desirability to a group of young studs?
Women also feed off public drama.
They can't bear peace and privacy.
BPD is a spectrum for all women.
60%+ women fantasise about rape.
All women enjoy telenovelas.
Without infants to sink their emotional chaos and control into it comes out in wrong and terrifying ways.
Which rape are they fantasising about? The one they are doing? Or receiving? The one they consented to or didn’t?
Consent theory posits all sex is a latent crime committed by men depending how the woman feels at any time afterwards.
It falls into the nonsense basket of feminist aligned ideas.
But not the one they are committing against him…without his expressly sought and given consent.
Divorce rape?
What's his is hers, what's hers is hers.
My wife screames to me exasperated once "just give me all your money" despite her effectively having access to it all and observing my estate accounting at the time.
Women live for free because they provide children. However since 1970 women have been in children arrears while driving up their free money income. It'll end in tears.
Yes Hoe Math is a great site on YouTube; very inventive and creative. He was interviewed by someone on YouTube (Pearl Davis ?) and he showed himself to be a very perceptive, intelligent fellow especially for such a young age. Also your comment here about young women constantly being lied to is very accurate. Especially the "hot babes" who grow up in a fantasy or delusional universe and become especially entitled after years of men sucking up to them too.
Another great piece of writing.
Your analysis can be mined to systematise the actual working of the feminist industrial legal complex.
Sadly, no sane man can engage with women who are sucked into the misandry strange attractor.
It's a crying shame. As surely as we can have sexual equality for only one generation before the absence of mothers depopulates the nation.
This is the real tragedy; the clear and present danger of the white population suicide by feminism.
Feminists used their insider knowledge of mothering instincts to subvert them with resentment.
It's like how Hitler gave the order to destroy everything in Germany because he thought the people were too weak to exist having lost the war.
Evil in the sense of poor decision making causing and aiming for unnecessary suffering.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
- Sir William Blackstone
This woman sexually assaulted all of those young men.
Something similar has happened to me twice. When you're alone with a woman you've never met before who strips and and won't take no for an answer, it's pretty unnerving. At that point, if you reject her, she holds your life in her hands. All she has to do is scream or run out the door shouting "rape" and everyone will believe her and no one will believe you. Both times I felt like the safest thing was to just give them what they wanted, even though it was the last thing I really wanted. I didn't exactly feel violated because, culturally, boys and young men are taught that we're lucky if women were even nice to us and that you'd be crazy to turn down 'free sex'. I did feel disgust and even guilt--another thing boys and men are taught to feel about anything involving a girl or a woman that doesn't go well for any reason.
To truly understand the level of entitlement many women feel about their sexual desires, understand that it probably didn't even occur to this woman that these guys wouldn't just pile on to her with orgiastic delight and enthusiasm. That they didn't was probably why she tried to get them into trouble, later.
Just try to even imagine a guy in a room with 5 women he didn't know at all suddenly stripping and masturbating while barking orders at the girls to "come sit on my face" or "fuck me like you mean it." Now imagine that that video was shown in court after accusing those women of assault because he hadn't really consented.
Deja vu? I hardly think so.