Monday, October 31, 2011


"I have never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association. I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless."

Story here:

Blowing old allegations into headline news: The sex rumors about Herman Cain, and the ugly spectre of black men as sexual predators

POLITICO reports that back in the 1990s, "at least" two unnamed female employees of the National Restaurant Association, which black GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain headed from 1996-1999, complained to colleagues and senior association officials about alleged inappropriate sexual behavior by Cain involving alleged conversations supposedly "filled" with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, which supposed unspecified conduct allegedly offended the women and forced them to leave their jobs at the trade group. The unnamed women supposedly signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts. The agreements, we are told, included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

POLITICO says it knows the identities of the two women but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

So the uppity black Republican is crucified by innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations, and the women who supposedly were wronged can't be subjected to the well-honed scalpel of cross-examination by those few media types who'd be willing to subject them to it.

In the days ahead, some members of the news media will try to dredge up the more-than-decade-old allegations in the hope of "trying" the claims in the court of last resort, the American media circus. The same media circus, by the way, that gave such a fair "hearing" to the Duke lacrosse boys, the Hofstra defendants and too many others to chronicle. And, yes, that was sarcasm.

In the end, the result of such efforts is as predictable as it will be unsatisfying: it will be "he said/she said," which means, he loses, because when it comes to sex allegations in America, the accusation becomes its own conviction, and it's usually enough to destroy any man, especially a prominent black Republican.

The Cain innuendo raises the spectre of America's shameful habit of stereotyping black men and boys as hyper-sexualized primitives, barely able to control their urges when it comes to women. It was that ugly stereotype that made a white woman's cry of "rape" a death sentence for countless innocent black men and boys in the Old South, and in too many other places (Duluth, most prominently).

Remember the 1897 New York Times piece we talked about earlier this year? It was an unabashed defense of the practice of lynching blacks for the crime of rape. The writer noted that the victims of such lynchings were "generally black negroes of the lowest order" because, he asserted, "the negro is generally the criminal" and "he seems particularly given to this odious crime." What about false claims? Make sure you're sitting down when you read this: "The only ground of objection to this mode of dealing with these criminals is the fear that the innocent might suffer. As the most careful precautions are taken against this result it is not a likely thing lest the wrong man is executed."

Have these attitudes really changed?  Surely the New York Times would never again print such an odious celebration of prejudice against black men, but the unspoken beliefs still bubble just beneath the surface. Can you say "Hofstra"?  As Clarence Thomas said at the circus that masqueraded as his Senate confirmation hearing: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

How should the allegations about Cain be treated?  The way the news media treated the sexual assault allegation against Al Gore. Or, rather, didn't treat it. The news media barefly covered it because it wasn't newsworthy, you say?  But a rape claim against minority teenagers at Hofstra was newsworthy?  Um, right. Put it this way, Al Gore, a former US Vice President, is one of the most revered icons of the left. He got more popular votes in the 2000 election than George W. Bush. He won the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award. But the rape claim against him was scarcely worth mentioning?

For the record, when the Gore claim finally hit the news last year -- several years after it was first made -- and was quickly buried by the press, I said this: ". . . the way the news media covered the claim against Gore is the way the news media should cover all rape claims." A lot of conservative talk show hosts were quick to malign Gore for political advantage.

In covering the innuendo against Cain arising from two alleged claims from the 1990s, we should be guided by feminist Susan Estrich, who, last year, discussed how we should treat the claim against Al Gore. "[T]he problem is," she said, "we just don't know and there's no way to determine." Then she said this: "I'm the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance. . . . . But I'm also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends [sic] and purposes . . . ruined by a false accusation."

Somehow, I don't think too many people will care if Herman Cain was falsely accused. Just a hunch.

La Salle woman charged with false report

A La Salle woman remained in the La Salle County Jail Tuesday on a charge she made a false claim of sexual assault.

Jessica M. Lee, 19, 1020 Second St., Apt. 608, was arrested last week on a warrant for felony disorderly conduct.

Lee allegedly made a bogus report to La Salle police Aug. 29. The charge is punishable by probation or prison. She needs $1,500 cash to make bond.


Friday, October 28, 2011

College Administrator to OCR: 'How do I respond to an angry parent who sees the injustice to her son that the college is supposed to believe the alleged victim?'


This is also a men's rights issue . . .

See here.

Slut Walk participant pissed that newspaper had the audacity to run her photo

The Dal Gazette, the student newspaper for Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, sent reporters and photographers to the local Slut Walk event. In its coverage, the paper included the photo to the left, accompanied by this story, which explained the mission of Slut Walk. Among other things the newspaper noted: “A person’s attire or activity is not provocation for sexual violence.”

The story did not identify the woman pictured.

But Emilia Volz, a third-year gender and women's studies student at the University, said the photo was of her. Volz wrote to the student newspaper and said this: "This was quite a surprise for me as NO ONE had asked if it would be ok to publish this picture. I am not mad, at all, I just wanted to bring light to the fact that if anyone else had a photo like that in the paper without express permission they would be quite pissed off. I do not want an apology or anything of the type to be published."

Then Volz proceeded to complain about other aspects of the paper's coverage; specifically, it allegedly quoted someone who was not at the event. At no point in the letter did Volz request a retraction of the photo.

But the newspaper didn't print Volz's letter. Instead it ran an editorial explaining that it is "naive to expect journalists wouldn’t do their job" in covering the events.  And it explained why the editors felt the paper had every right to show the photo."Our Slut Walk article made waves because we had the audacity to take a photograph of one of the protesters who was marching in only her bra."

The editorial continued: "Any event held on public property can be photographed. In a rented building, or a private building–that’s different. If you march down a main street in a bra, the media will take your photo. If you lead a march protesting violence against women, you will get reporters asking tough questions. It’s naive to expect otherwise. Welcome to public life."

Well, the editorial apparently didn't sit well with Volz. Volz took her case to the court of last resort, the Dalhousie Women’s Centre. The Women's Centre sent this over-the-top -- indeed, other-worldly -- notice to their members (FRS's commentary is interspersed):

"It has come to our attention that the Dalhousie Gazette published a photograph of a woman's body without her permission in print and on the Internet.When she objected . . ." [she "objected" by declaring that she wasn't mad about it and was not seeking an apology or anything else] ". . . they refused to take it down [they didn't "refuse" to do anything -- they weren't asked to do anything] and the Editor-in-Chief wrote a victim blaming editorial: ‘Smile you’re at a protest.’ [Read that again: it is "victim-blaming" to show a photograph of a woman who purposefully dressed in a sexualized manner in order to make the point that women should not be raped even when they dress in a sexualized manner? This characterization borders on the pathological]  We believe it’s unethical to distribute pictures of individual’s bodies without consent, that this picture was taken without context and thus defeating the purpose of the event and that the Gazette's Editor-in-Chief is perpetuating the victim blaming culture that the protest was fighting against. [The picture was used in context, it was positioned next to a news report that explained the purposes of the Slut Walk] If you have as much of a beef with this as we do, come by tomorrow and write or sign a letter from 10am to 4pm at the Centre."

Volz also complained to a local news outlet. "Ok, she thinks. I did wear a bra to a protest. So maybe I was asking for this to happen... Wait! Isn’t that the problem that Slut Walk seeks to address? No matter what women wear, they aren’t asking to be objectified, raped, sexually harassed, or used by anybody else as a sexual object to draw attention to a story in a newspaper?"

Wait, wait, wait. I'm lost.

Didn't you purposefully dress in a sexualized manner -- in a very real sense, you objectified yourself -- in order to make the perfectly valid point that women should be permitted to present themselves as sexualized beings without being raped?

I mean, you, and likely others at the Slut Walk, dressed that way specifically to draw attention to the message you were trying to convey, right?  And yet for some reason you are pissed that a newspaper ran a photograph of the body you purposefully sexualized to get your message across? 

Come again? 

News coverage of Slut Walks the world over has shown women with less covering their torsos than you wore, Ms. Volz.

The sex columnist at the Gazette, Hayley Gray, quit in protest of the paper's puported mistreatment of Volz: "[The] message of [Slut Walk] was that, no matter what someone wore, they deserved to be treated with respect and asked for their consent." 

Right, their consent to engage in sexual relations. Ya know, it is not a crime for men and boys to look, or, heaven forbid, even to have an involuntary erection when they do. That doesn't mean they assume she's a piece of meat without a brain, and here's the important point: it doesn't give them license to rape or harass.

And photojournalists covering Slut Walks are going to show some of the things the participants did to get their message across. That's just how it goes.

Gray continues: "So 'If you march down a main street in a bra' I get to snap your photo and not try to ask for consent, doesn't cut it. It actually perpetuates the rape myths and victimizing culture that enraged individuals to create slut walks in the first place."

The misplaced rage in the previous sentence seems to have blinded the author to the fact that it makes no sense. "Rape myths"?  A woman purposefully showed off her body and a newspaper ran a picture of it to make the very point the accompanying news story explained. That has as much to do with "rape myths" as does a ham sandwich. And "victimizing culture"? If the photographer had sneaked in her dorm room and snapped the picture, that would be a "victimizing culture." Not when she intentionally parades down a public thoroughfare exposing her body to make the very point the newspaper got across.

But let's not quibble about this. Let's just have the Women's Centre write the stories, and take the photos, for the newspaper. That way, they can control the message and make sure it's presented "exactly right" -- as they determine what's "exactly right."  And above all else, they can make sure they don't run a photo of someone so attractive that it might actually elicit an involuntary erection in some misogynistic college boy.

The message of Slut Walk -- that women don't ask to be raped by the way they dress -- is one that no rational person can disagree with. But, once again, extremist gender warriors do the cause far more harm than good by coming off as asses.


Caleb Warner won't return to UND even after getting expulsion reversed

The story is found here.

Can you blame him for not wanting to go back to that place? Would you return to UND?  I wouldn't.

Caleb and a still-unnamed classmate had consensual sex. She lodged a complaint, and a student relations committee ruled in February 2010 that he violated four sections of UND's code of student life, including “violation of criminal or civil laws.

Caleb was banned from campus for three years.

Caleb asked for a rehearing based on new information; specifically, the fact that she was charged with a crime, not him. The fact that he was the real victim here, not her. (One of the reasons Mr. Warner was expelled was because he supposedly violated criminal or civil laws. But it turns out that the law enforcement agency charged with actually determining if a crime should be charged determined that it was the accuser, not the accused, who violated criminal laws.)

In a letter to Mr. Warner, Robert Boyd, UND's vice president of student and outreach services at the time, rejected the request and based it on a section that requires appeals to be filed within five days of any sanction.

Finally, this month, North Dakota’s provost, Paul A. LeBel, wrote in a formal ruling that although the presumption of innocence applies to the accuser, who will not be extradited for the case to proceed, the arrest warrant reflects the “professional judgment of a trained law-enforcement officer that there was probable cause to doubt” the accusation. The sanctions against Caleb were lifted.

It was a very belated, but correct, decision.  But it can't undo the harm.

Caleb's life has been scarred forever.

His accuser's identity is still inexplicably protected by the news media. She has been charged with a crime; he hasn't.

In UND's sexual assault protocols, it proudly declares: "UND attempts to foster a safe learning and living environment on-campus for all members of the campus community."

Based on UND's shameful handling of this case, I think what they mean is "all members of the campus community who don't have a penis."  Let's be honest.

Heidi Jones: the latest high profile false accuser to be spared jail time

A follow-up on this story, and this one.

Ex-weather gal Heidi Jones sentenced to 350 hours community service at not-for-profit for false report

A little sprain in the forecast didn't stop "cry-rape" weather gal Heidi Jones from limping into Manhattan Supreme Court today to be sentenced for snowing authorities last fall.

Jones, 37 -- wearing a tight gold skirt, a frilly matching sleeveless blouse, and a big black boot-cast on her left foot -- will serve 350 hours of community service at a not-for-profit agency.

The former WABC/Channel 7 meteorologist had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of filing a false police report. She'd claimed that a "Hispanic" pervert in his 30s or 40s had grabbed her from behind as she jogged in Central Park last fall.

Detectives embarked on a lengthy investigation, scouring surveillance video and canvassing for witnesses. Returning empty handed, they questioned Jones again, uncovering inconsistencies as she repeated her account.

It was when she was confronted with the discrepancies that Jones admitted to cops that she fabricated the story as a bid for sympathy.

"I have so much stress at work, with my personal life and with my family," Jones, who also filled in on "Good Morning America," explained to cops.

"I just want to take a moment to express my sincere and profound apology to all who were involved," Jones said in a sentencing statement to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers.

"Most importantly, the police department," she added. "I will work extremely hard to pay back the city and the department through community service," she said.

Jones must continue to undergo psychological counseling, the judge said.

Teen recants Mtn. View sexual assault story

Mountain View police said that a 16-year-old girl who told officers she had been sexually assaulted in Whisman Park in late September has recanted her story.

On Oct. 14, police spokeswoman Liz Wylie issued a press release reporting that the girl had been groped by two men in a bathroom in Whisman Park sometime between 6 and 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 26, 27 or 28.

Wylie said on Oct. 21 that the girl had "confirmed to us that no assault of any kind occurred."

"Due to her status as a juvenile, I will not be releasing any more information what-so-ever as to how we know it didn't happen, what she said to us, etc.," Wylie wrote in a press release, sent out at about 3:30 p.m. "In the same way that people sometimes legitimately delay reporting very real crimes for various personal reasons, sometimes people report crimes that did not at all happen for various personal reasons."

Wylie added, "The important thing is that there (are) not two men out there attacking women."


Thursday, October 27, 2011

Web post applauding penile mutilation must be removed

Our friend Paul Elam wants Nicole Fabian-Weber's vile pro-mutilation post removed from the Web. Paul asks that we communicate with the blog owner to express our displeasure.  Here is the contact information:

And here is my note:

In an era when we tell our sons they must never engage in gendered violence, Nicole Fabian-Weber (“Wife Cuts Off Husband’s Penis & Chucks It in the River,” 10/18/11) celebrates sexual mutilation when the genders are reversed. Your Web site has done a grave disservice to our children by running that piece, and you should pull it now.

Without even a hint of due process, without a scrap of evidence being considered by a trier of fact, Ms. Fabian-Weber arrogates to all women the right to exact the most gruesome vigilante “justice” on any “member” of any member of the opposite sex.

By what rationale is such a despicable display of gender get-evenism acceptable to your Web site?

We can tell our sons that gendered violence is unacceptable until we’re blue in the face, but when they see that it’s OK when mommy does it, they won’t bother drawing those fine-line, politically correct distinctions you seem to take for granted, and they’ll assume it must be OK when daddy does it, too.

Is that the kind of shameful example you want to set?


Pierce Harlan

The college student who concocted a terrible rape lie to highlight the problems of safety for women

We dip into the archives today to highlight one of the most peculiar false rape allegations on record.

In 1990, Mariam Kashani, a 19-year-old sophomore and feminist activist at George Washington University, decided she needed to "highlight the problems of safety for women" in a very prominent way, so what do you suppose she did?

She concocted an elaborate false rape hoax, that's what.

Here's how it happened. A reporter for the student newspaper had heard rumors of an alleged rape that supposedly occurred early in the morning of October 31, near Strong Hall, a large dormitory. For reasons lost to the mist of history, the reporter tried to confirm the rape with Margery Mazie, a sophomore who is co-founder of a feminist organization on campus called Women's Issues Now. Mazie directed the reporter to Kashani, who told him she had actually met the victim, a white woman, through a friend at the D.C. Rape Crisis Center.

Kashani told the reporter that the victim had been raped by two black men "with particularly bad body odor."  When the rapists had finished their foul deed, they supposedly laughed, and one of them purportedly told the "victim" that she was "pretty good for a white girl."

A fake policeman who identified himself as "Mark Smith" backed up the story to the reporter by phone. "Mr. Smith" said he had taken the victim to D.C. General Hospital and had filed a report on the rape. Neither the reporter nor his editors ever reached "Mr. Smith" at the Police Department; Ms. Kashani always offered to personally call the officer's beeper, and he called them back.

The reporter worked on the story for a month before publishing it on December 6.

Then the truth came out. Kashani called campus police and confessed: there had been no rape. The New York Times described the reaction: "As news of the fabrication spread around campus, the fear that had rolled over the school like a thick fog [after the alleged rape was reported] was blown away by clear, cold rage."

Kashani offered an apology. "My goal from the beginning was to try to call attention to what I perceived to be a serious safety concern for women," Kashani said in the letter. "From the bottom of my heart, I deeply regret all that has occurred."

What better way to highlight the fact that women are sometimes raped than by citing an alleged incident where no rape occurred?  Kashani wasn't a false accuser as much as she was a herald for the sexual grievance industry that would soon descend on college campuses across America and fabricate a campus rape crisis. It's The Music Man all over again, and only Professor Harold Hill can save River City from the dire dilemma it found itself in -- a dilemma that Professor Hill concocted out of whole cloth.

Kashani said the rape she described "did, in fact, occur but did not take place at the time and location as reported."

Denise Snyder of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center, for one, wasn't happy. Sh said that the "incredible fabrication" served to reinforce the "myth" that women lie about rape.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. You see, false rape claim after false rape claim after false rape claim is decried -- because, we are told, every false report only serves to reinforce the "myth" that women lie about rape. That's kind of like saying that reporting on all those murders in Detroit only serves to reinforce the myth that Detroit has a crime problem.

The racial element of the lie was especially problematic. Ronnie Thaxton, vice president of the Black People's Union on campus, said: "I was outraged. I think it was just another attempt by some white people to discredit young black males in this country."  Rozelle Moore, a black senior at the university, said: "She definitely owes the campus an apology, and she owes an apology to black males."

The university president said that "our black students, faculty, staff and neighbors" were "special victims of the hoax," adding, "They were stereotyped in a provocative and unfair way."

Columnist Suzanne Fields said there were plenty of goats in the story: the false accuser; the reporter; blacks--and especially black men; and all women.  The one group she left out, because she obviously didn't think of them as a group deserving of protection, was all men -- you know, the group that has a monopoly on being falsely accused accused of rape.  But why bother bringing that up when you can use a crime directed at men as an excuse to claim it victimizes women?

A generic rape lie told about any male, black or white, taps into pretty awful stereotypes -- about gender. There is an insidious, but potent, strain of misandry bubbling just beneath the surface in our culture that automatically credits every rape accusation as true and that regards every male above a certain age as a potential predator.

But the racial animus present when white women falsely accuse black men of rape is particularly repugnant because it taps into a time, not that long ago, of the hanging trees in the Deep South, when a white woman needed only to whisper "rape" and the very word became a death sentence for an innocent man or boy. 

Sadly, the lessons about race from that shameful chapter of our nation's history are rarely remembered. The lessons about gender from false rape claims uttered since the Book of Genesis are rarely acknowledged. We will continue to remind readers of both.


Occupy Baltimore's 'Sexual Offense Policy' Underscores Loopy Excesses of Far Left Gender Politics

The persons who speak out the most on sexual assault issues are, ironically, among the most extreme and irrational voices on the subject. Not surprisingly, many are allied with the "Occupy" movements. I've highlighted pertinent portions of Occupy Baltimore's "Sexual Offense Policy," which illustrates the extremism, and which would be laughable if these people weren't serious about it:

Occupy Baltimore Sexual Offense Policy

Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted commentary or physical contact. It is the victim's prerogative to classify any action as sexual harassment, and to decide whether or not the harasser be ejected from Occupy Baltimore. If the victim chooses to enforce the ejection policy, the harasser will be ordered not to return until the Safer Spaces Committee in conjunction with the Mediator’s Committee has reviewed the incident on the following day.

Instances of sexual abuse and assault will be handled according to the expressed desires of the victim. The Security and Medical teams are equipped with a list of resources, including contact information for the police, hospitals, sexual assault hotlines, and women's shelters. In these instances, #Occupy Baltimore welcomes the involvement of the Baltimore City Police and encourages victims to report crimes. We also recognize that the U.S. Justice System is flawed, especially when it comes to cases of sexual assault. If for any reason the victim feels uncomfortable with police involvement, their wishes will be respected.

Anyone reporting sexual assault, with or without police involvement, will have the support of the Occupy Baltimore community. This includes but is not limited to medical assistance, transportation, protection, investigation, mediation and conflict resolution, and emotional support and counseling.


Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Congress is about to screw over your son

The draft VAWA reauthorization bill is a blatant, politicized, institutionalized embrace of partiality that favors the female accuser and maligns the male accused.

Did the headline get your attention?

This is the most important issue I know about for persons interested in men's rights. Radical feminists understand how important it is; too many persons concerned about men's rights do not.

The VAWA draft reauthorization bill being spearheaded by Senator Patrick Leahy incorporates the most important maladies contained in the heavily criticized, anti-male, April 4 "Dear Colleague" letter issued by Russlyn Ali of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.

The "Dear Colleague" letter represents an assault on innocent college men because it makes it much easier to find them guilty of sex offenses. If Congress enacts the principal tenets of the "Dear Colleague" letter into law, and Obama certainly will sign it, it will become that much more difficult to repeal.

The proposed act, like the "Dear Colleague" letter, mandates that colleges find persons accused of sex offenses guilty if the "preponderance of evidence"--just a little over 50%--shows they did it. The vast majority of sex offenses on campus are lodged against men.  Most schools currently use the higher "clear and convincing" standard, which protects innocent men by mandating that colleges are certain of their guilt before they are expelled and their lives are forever altered.

The draft VAWA reauthorization bill abdicates the responsibility to set the standard of proof in cases involving sexual assault and other alleged sex offenses to the the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

As OCR is currently constituted, this could scarcely be worse news for men on campus, or for persons concerned about a man on campus.

The most alarming language in the proposed law is found in the provision that tells colleges how they must adjudicate disciplinary proceedings involving sexual assault and other sex offenses:

"Procedures for on-campus institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, which shall include a clear statement that—

(I) such proceedings shall—

(aa) provide a prompt and equitable investigation and resolution;

(bb) be conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to domestic violence,    dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability;

(cc) apply the standard of proof recommended by the most recent Guidance issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights . . . ."

The dangers to innocent men posed by these provisions are innumerable, and they are chilling. Let us briefly describe them.

ACCUSERS ARE CALLED "VICTIMS": The draft bill unitizes language that is offensive to innocent men unjustly accused of sex offenses on campus. VAWA currently provides that schools should establish the procedure that "students" should follow if a sexual assault occurs. The reauthorization bill changes the word "students" to "victims."   It also refers to the "accuser" as the "victim" even in situations where the college disciplinary hearing board has found in favor of the accused (e.g., it provides that the "victim" may appeal if she loses).

The change in nomenclature is blatant and purposeful. Congress should not be in the business of taking sides according to gender in cases involving alleged sex offenses, but any fair-minded assessment of the language in the draft law indicates that's exactly what it is doing. Congress has the duty to protect both the accuser and the accused; by branding any and all accusers as "victims," both before the school's hearing and even after the disciplinary board has found in favor of the accused, it is signaling a presumption that the accused--almost always a male--is guilty. It would be difficult to fathom a more crass, politically motivated bias.

PROMPT INVESTIGATION: The provision requiring schools to "provide a prompt" investigation and resolution is a nod to the Department of Education's April 4 mandate that schools should not await the conclusion of a criminal investigation before proceeding with it's own Star Chamber proceedings against men accused of sex offenses. 

This, of course, is precisely the opposite of what colleges should do. Colleges are not equipped either to investigate or adjudicate serious criminality such as acquaintance rape. Alleged sex crimes often often pose severe evidentiary challenges even for trained law enforcement personnel, much less amateur college sleuths.

The case of Caleb Warner illustrates the injustices that can occur to innocent men when schools push ahead with their own investigations and hearings before trained professionals are afforded the opportunity to conclude their own investigations. Caleb was expelled from college on a sexual assault charge before the police investigation revealed that Caleb was, in fact, the victim, and that his accuser had lied. Asked about the college's hearing that resulted in Caleb's expulsion, a police detective said, "All I can tell you is that the proceeding at the university took place before my investigation."

ONE-SIDED ASSISTANCE FOR "VICTIMS": The "officials" who will conduct the hearing must be trained on "how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability." Moreover, the accuser, but not the accused, is to be notified of her "rights."

Absent from the bill is even a hint, much less a mandate, that the officials conducting the hearing are to be trained to respect the rights of the presumptively innocent.  It is well to recall that Stanford trains its judicial panelists who preside over disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of sexual assault by using materials that assume the accused male is guilty even before the hearing has begun. The VAWA reauthorization bill could be read to lend Congress' imprimatur to such egregious training methods.

It is a hallmark of the American experience and a universally accepted tenet of the common law tradition that hearings be conducted with impartiality, fairness, and fidelity to the evidence. Adjudications of criminality should be free from even the appearance of bias. Those fundamental principles should never be tossed onto a scrapheap of politicized indifference to appease an interest group, and the draft VAWA reauthorization bill is a blatant, politicized, institutionalized embrace of partiality that favors the female accuser and that maligns the male accused.

"PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE": Under the proposed law, schools must apply the standard of proof mandated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The OCR's most recent pronouncement on the subject is found in the April 4, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter.

This, of course, is the most troublesome aspect of the draft bill. It is ironic that schools are free to still apply a higher standard of proof in cases involving non-sex offenses. As a result, most schools will continue to apply the "clear and convincing" standard to far less serious alleged offenses that are much easier to investigate and adjudicate.

If someone told you that there was a 50.1 percent chance that your parachute would open, would you jump out of the plane? The question scarcely survives its statement. Yet, the Obama administration thinks that this level of certainty is sufficient for colleges to make a life-altering decision about young men accused of heinous sex offenses. Put another way, your son will be expelled even if the college disciplinary board is 49.9 percent certain that he's innocent.

Brett Sokolow of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management is the leader of what can aptly be called the campus sexual grievance industry. He has advised thousands of schools on sexual assault policies, and has long predicted that the day was coming when Title IX claims could be used for sexual assault claims on campus. '"'The ‘Dear Colleague’ letter was one of the most important moments of my professional life," he recently said. Sokolow has been pushing for a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for some time. Why?

Sokolow says he understands why some colleges want to use the higher "clear and convincing" standard due to considerations of "fairness" for accused students who might be expelled; however, he declares, that is not the best practice for colleges because the clear and convincing standard doesn't allow the "victim" (his word) to "win" under certain sexual assault scenarios.

Similarly, and as but one example, the University of Virginia Cavalier Daily applauded the new "preponderance of the evidence" standard dictated by the Department of Education's April 4 "Dear Colleague" letter and said it "addresses a glaring shortcoming in the current policy, which fails to acknowledge that few cases of rape or sexual assault feature 'clear and convincing' facts. . . . .'The self doubt and confusion a survivor feels after experiencing an assault combined with a lack of knowledge of what to do and where to go in the hours after an assault makes hard evidence difficult to come by in some cases,' Andrea Mousouris, a fourth-year College student and external chair of the Sexual Assault Leadership Council said . . .."

There is no evidence to support the belief that it is "too" difficult to find sexual assault perpetrators guilty under a "clear and convincing" standard, or that by lowering the standard, more actual victims will report their rapes. While finding a student guilty of a heinous sex offense should be difficult, it is by no means impossible to do exactly that under a "clear and convincing" standard. Rapists are routinely convicted in criminal courts under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which is even higher than the "clear and convincing" standard.

Even more disturbing is the implication that since it is allegedly difficult to prove sexual assault under a "clear and convincing" standard, then the solution is to adopt a policy that will make it much easier to punish not just the guilty but even the innocent. These advocates have it exactly backwards: the absence of hard evidence to prove any offense is a sound reason to be wary about finding men guilty of it, not a valid justification to make it easier to punish the innocent with the guilty. This point is so terribly fundamental and beyond dispute that it has been lost in the politicized cacophony.

And under this draft VAWA reauthorization bill, what is to stop the OCR from adopting an even lower standard, like the one employed at Brown University?  Nothing. Brown University uses a standard of proof that requires only "a reasonable basis" for a finding of guilt in sex cases--that means that a disciplinary board can even have more than a 50% belief that the man accused is innocent, but it must find him guilty if there is just a "reasonable basis" for believe he did it.

It is perplexing in the extreme that there is no discussion whatsoever of the delicate and critical balance between (1) the need to punish the guilty and (2) the need to insure that the innocent are not punished with them. Only the former interest is deemed socially important; the latter is treated as non-existent. The latter should, of course, be afforded even more weight than the former if a perfect balance can't be struck.

The persons who care only about protecting rape victims understand the importance of what the OCR did. Men's rights advocates largely don't. Wendy Murphy -- who once branded the Duke lacrosse defendants as "rapists" because, she said, Crystal Gail Mangum was "entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim," and who also said "I never, ever met a false rape claim" -- that Wendy Murphy -- said this about the April 4 directive:  "It's hard to exaggerate the importance of the new advisory that the White House put out last week about the application of Title IX to tougher college standards on sex assault." For once, Wendy Murphy was right.

At Stanford, Associated Students of Stanford University President Angelina Cardona summed up how central this directive is to feminists: “Lowering of the standard of proof is absolutely crucial to the women’s community.”

That sums it up. The April 4 directive, and now the draft VAWA reauthorization act, increase the risk to innocent men that they will be found guilty based solely on the say-so of a rape accuser. For too many women's advocates, that twisted, vile outcome--not justice for all--"is absolutely crucial to the women's community."

Warren Settles False Rape Lawsuit for $2.8M

A follow up to our story HERE. $2.8 million for 12 years is slightly over $233K (thanks to hieronymous for the catch) per year.

DETROIT (AP) - A Detroit suburb has agreed to pay $2.8 million to settle a lawsuit brought by a man who spent nearly 12 years in prison for rape before winning an acquittal at a second trial.

The deal between Jeffrey Moldowan and the city of Warren and one of its former police detectives, Donald Ingles, was agreed to last week in federal court. Moldowan's lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial next month against two remaining defendants.

It was not immediately clear whether the money will come from the Warren city government or its insurer.
Moldowan was convicted of abducting a former girlfriend, raping her and dumping her on a street in Detroit in 1990. He was 20 at the time. His conviction, as well as the conviction of an alleged accomplice, was thrown out in 2002 based on new alibi witnesses and an expert who recanted her testimony about bite marks found on the victim.

The Macomb County prosecutor put Moldowan and Michael Cristini through a second trial in 2003 and they were acquitted.

Moldowan, now 41, filed a lawsuit in 2005, claiming his civil rights were violated by a bungled police investigation and the decision to hold a second trial. He also sued Dr. Alan Warnick, whose bite-mark testimony was crucial in the 1991 trial. Warnick reached an out-of-court settlement in August.

The $2.8 million deal with Warren was made Oct. 11, less than a month after the city offered $2 million, court records show. Messages seeking comment were left Tuesday with Mayor James Fouts and attorneys for Moldowan and the city.

Trial is set for Nov. 2 for the remaining defendants, Macomb County and prosecutor Eric Smith. They offered $100,000 to settle on Oct. 6.

After Moldowan's '91 conviction, a private investigator found a witness who said he saw four black men standing around the body of a naked female and that two of them had bragged about the assault. The victim had told police that her attackers were white and familiar to her.

The woman also had been seen at a crack house in the Detroit neighborhood that summer.

Moldowan sued the woman who accused him of rape, but a federal appeals court in 2009 said she could not be pursued. Her statements were "critical" in the decision to file charges but "were only part of a broader, independent investigation," the court said.

A similar lawsuit filed by Cristini in 2007 is pending.


Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Nicole Fabian-Weber supports women who cut off their husbands dicks -- because the women claim they were abused

Wife Cuts Off Husband's Penis & Chucks It in the River

By Nicole Fabian-Weber

A 29-year-old Vietnamese woman, only identified by her surname, Pan, was sick and tired of her husband's philandering ways and his physical abuse. So she did what any scorned, ballsy woman would do: She waited until he was passed out from drugs and sleeping pills and cut off his penis -- with a pair of scissors. Then she threw the severed member in a Taiwanese river like it ain't no thang.

Afterward, she turned herself into police and allegedly told them that she felt no regret for what she did to her unemployed, drugged-out dirtbag of a husband. Bad. Ass.

Although I consider myself to be somewhat of a pacifist, I must admit, I've always admired a woman who has the cojones to cut off a man's weenus. Lord knows I wouldn't be able to go through with it. No matter how much the bastard deserved it. Cutting off a dude's private parts -- with scissors (scissors!) no less -- would probably be more punishment for me than the man itself. Shudder! Blech! Ick!

Then again, I've never been pushed to such a point in my life. I imagine women who are actually ready to go through with ... the deed have reached a place where they literally have nowhere else to go. They've been abused -- physically, sexually, and emotionally -- for far too long, and cutting off the thing that essentially gives men their power seems like the best option. And it probably is.

Pan, who worked at a local karaoke shop to support her family, has been taken into custody on charges of assault. And you know what? I bet she couldn't care less. She probably feels pretty damn good right now.

Do you think cutting off a man's penis is a suitable punishment after enduring years of emotional and physical abuse?


Yarloop rape claim was false: police

Only a day after a 15-year-old girl was found to have "cried wolf" over a false rape claim, Bunbury detectives have charged a 65-year-old woman with falsifying a sexual assult complaint.

The Yarloop woman had told detectives late last month that a man had entered her bedroom in the early hours of the morning and threatened and then sexually assaulted her.
Police had originally said she was "very distressed" and "shaken up" by the ordeal.

Detective Senior Sergeant Jon Munday today said that investigators had established the incident the woman had complained about was false and the public could put its mind to rest.

"Members of the public are safe and should not be concerned about a sex offender loose in the Yarloop community," Detective Senior Sergeant Munday said.

The woman has been charged with creating a false belief after reporting a sexual assult on herself on September 24.

She will appear in the Harvey Magistrate's Court on November 21.

Yesterday police revealed that they were investigating the circumstance of a false complaint of rape in Mount Claremont by a 15-year-old girl.

The girl had originally complained that she was jogging along Stephenson Avenue, near Challenge Stadium, when she was pulled into bushes and raped.


Monday, October 24, 2011

Innocence Project says 'registered sex offender' arrested this month was falsely accused


On October 14, 2011 at approximately 8 p.m., while working security at the Orange High School game against River Bend High School, Deputy Garcia Madison observed and identified Edger Lee Coker, a violent sex offender from the VA State Police registry, on school property observing the football game.

Deputy Madison took Coker into custody and transported him to Central Virginia Regional Jail. Coker was charged with VA Code Section 18.2-370.5 ( Sex Offenders—prohibiting entry to school property).

Coker was held at the jail on a $3000.00 secured bond.

Sheriff Mark A. Amos
Orange County Sheriff's Office

Edgar Coker was adjudicated delinquent in 2007 upon false allegations that when he was 15-years old, he forcibly raped a 14-year old girl. After Edgar's adjudication, the alleged victim fully recanted her allegations against him and admitted that she had invited him into her home and had engaged in consensual sexual activity with him, but made up the rape story because she was afraid of getting in trouble after her mother came home. There is currently an appeal pending in the Supreme Court of Virginia addressing the recantation. The alleged victim and her mother have been tirelessly working to reverse his wrongful adjudication for over three years.

After he had completely served his time in the Department of Juvenile Justice, Edgar sought and received permission to enroll in Orange High School, despite the fact that he was already on the sex offender registry due to the false rape adjudication. Orange High School allowed Edgar to enroll. Edgar in fact enrolled at Orange High School and recently graduated. While he was a student at Orange, Edgar participated in the Orange High School track team and was featured in the Orange County Review for his athletic achievements.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office's press release omits all of this critical information and instead creates the misimpression that a sexual predator was caught attending a high school football game. In fact, Edgar Coker is innocent of wrongdoing and had permission to attend Orange High School.

We are requesting that, if you will not remove Sheriff Amos's misleading press release from your website and Facebook page, that you at least print the contents of this e-mail alongside the press release.

Counsel for Edgar Coker,
Matthew Engle
Deirdre Enright
The Innocence Project
University of Virginia School of Law

Joe, why don't you tell the truth about rape?

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden engaged in monstrously irresponsible politicking by asserting, with evidence that would be laughed out of any court in America, that rape would rise in Flint, Michigan if the GOP blocked the Obama jobs bill, which would result in more cops being hired.  He belligerently defended his fear-mongering when a journalist questioned him about it by chiding, "Don't screw around with me."

Of course, it's Joe who's been screwing around with the American people on this issue.  The Washington Post branded his crass fear-mongering what it is: bullshit.

Even if Joe had sufficient evidence to link a supposed surge of rape with a loss of cops in Flint--and the Post suggests he doesn't--"it is likely one of many factors that affects the crime rate, not the single one, as Biden suggests. The FBI itself lists more than a dozen variables in what causes crime to increase in a community."  See here.

So why didn't Joe mention the other variables?

Because the other variables don't advance any immediate agenda Joe Biden has any interest in furthering, that's why. 

So what else is new?  The truth about rape is rarely discussed. The people who dominate the public discourse on rape won't discuss these other variables because they don't advance any agenda these people seek to further. Among other variables for increased crime cited by the FBI are the following:

*Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability;

*Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics;  and 

*Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.

It is no secret to anyone interested in eradicating serious criminality that rape offenders are disproportionately found among the lower socioeconomic classes, persons mired in a cistern of hopelessness and dependency. They are typically under-educated, under-employed, and under-skilled.

This, of course, doesn't fit the preferred narrative of persons like Jessica Valenti, who once posited: "Rape is part of our culture; it's normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies me."

The persons who control the public discourse on rape would have us believe there is no typical rapist but that all of masculinity is infected by "rape culture," and that our college campuses -- relatively safe venues by any measure -- are hotbeds of male sexual predatory misconduct, even though they aren't.

They would prefer us to believe that the supposedly "undeservedly privileged," white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, hetero, upper-middle class, Christian, college athlete, from an intact family is just as likely--hell, more likely--to rape as a kid living without a father in the throes of poverty.

There is no question that some white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, hetero, upper-middle class, Christian, college athletes from intact families are rapists. But they are rare.

The rape problem isn't fueled by imaginary "rape culture."  And it isn't fueled by "toxic masculinity." It's largely fueled by the absence of masculinity; specifically, the absence of masculine role models in fatherless households. Fatherlessness is a problem largely ignited by dubious social engineering dating to the Great Society when women with children were paid so long as no father was present.

While a bunch of angry young white women feel perfectly empowered to shout misandry into bullhorns on Dartmouth's and similar safe campuses, if they were really concerned about rape, they would take their shtick to the inner city.

The fact is, too many of them aren't interested in the truth. They blithely conflate the truth with their politicized agendas. They are happy to wallow in a self-created victimhood where they can believe that middle and upper-middle class American males control society, are ignorant, evil, and so imbued in "rape culture" that they deserve the badge of "rapists."
Another of our rare posts of a male filing a false report.

No criminal charges will be filed in connection to a sexual assault of a teen male reported July 15 near the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay campus after authorities determined the incident didn’t happen as reported, the university said today.

A young man told authorities in July he was sexually assaulted just after noon in a light-colored minivan parked on Leon Bond Drive near the Bay Settlement entrance on the outskirts of campus. But because inconsistent and unverifiable testimony from the boy, officers said there is not enough evidence to substantiate his account.

In addition to multiple interviews, UW-Green Bay Police did an online investigation, looked at surveillance videos from the area and reviewed text messages.

UW-Green Bay Police Chief Tom Kujawa said today that the case serves as a cautionary tale about Internet safety and protecting yourself online.

“It is critical for children and parents alike to exercise caution in online chat forums and other forms of electronic communication,” Kujawa said.

“There is, unfortunately, a great deal of potential for people to misrepresent themselves or engage minors or other vulnerable persons in inappropriate and illegal correspondence and relationships.”

Although authorities have not issued charges in this case, Kujawa said campus police continue to encourage victims of sexual assault and other crimes to report those incidents to police.

The boy and his family cooperated with the investigation, Kujawa said. He said the school does not plan to pursue charges against the boy, nor seek to recover investigation-related expenses from his family.


Sunday, October 23, 2011

In case you missed it . . .

Read it now:

Crude sign evidence of 'rape culture'? Really?

'Chickens have come home to roost': Some taxi drivers think twice about picking up young women because of false sex claims

The Campus Sex Kabuki Dance: Colleges teach women to fear men, then invite the men to move in with the women

Rape report at Purdue was false, second rape report at Purdue is assumed to be true

I am reprinting a news story verbatim. The deficiencies in the reporting are so glaring, they speak for themselves.  It's a report about a second alleged sexual assault at Purdue in several days. The first was found to be false. Yet the second is treated as a for-certain sexual assault. Here is the story:

Purdue police investigating sexual assault

Purdue University police are investigating a Saturday morning sexual assault that occurred near the south side of Heavilon Hall on campus.
The assault occurred about 12:45 a.m. The suspect is described as a white, college-age male standing 5 feet, 11 inches and weighing about 200 pounds. He was reportedly wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt.
Purdue spokeswoman Jeanne Norberg said officials are viewing security tape from security cameras in the area.

"We hope the video will be of some use," Norberg said.

Police are asking anyone with information or who may have been in the area to call the anonymous WeTip hotline at (800) 782-7463.

Norberg said officials are encouraging students to take advantage of the Safe Walk program, where members of the student security patrol escort those walking on campus alone at night. An escort can be requested by dialing (765) 494-7233.

"We're urging everyone to be aware of their surroundings and to utilize Safe Walk and make sure they're not walking alone," Norberg said.

This is the second reported sexual assault in the past week.

The first, which was later determined to be a false report, was reported by 18-year-old Clarks Hill resident Tiphani Webb, who told police she was raped by a male acquaintance around midnight Tuesday near the John T. Myers Pedestrian Bridge.

Webb was arrested Friday on suspicion of false informing and booked into Tippecanoe County Jail.

Norberg said it is believed there is no connection between the reports.


Saturday, October 22, 2011

'24 hour truce on man-bashing'

A comment under this story Women’s studies students propose 24-hour truce, which we discussed here, says this:

"I find this 'truce' insulting to men, to my husband, to my sons, to my father. All of whom are good, caring, strong men who care for their families and their communities. It infers all men are mean, evil, violent and rapists.

"Women worry about violence and sexual assault? A healthy fear, but not when it has been raised to an irrational level by hysteria mongers. Men are far more likely to experience violence in their lifetime than women.

"I propose we they have a 24hr truce on Man Bashing; a 24hr truce on cherry picked, manipulated statistics that paint a jaundiced picture of our World; a 24hr truce on hysteria mongering for self serving purposes;a 24hr truce on denying the problems also faced by Men.

"I want a fair and good World for myself and all members of my family, regardless their gender. This type of stunt is self-promoting, divisive and unproductive."

Friday, October 21, 2011

Wrongly accused man freed after 30 years

Based on information posted at the Innocence Project Web site, a woman made a false rape claim that sent an innocent man to prison for 30 years.

From the Innocence Project Web site:

"Henry James was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to life without parole on May 7, 1982. James, who testified on his own behalf at trial and presented three alibi witness to back up his testimony, has always maintained his innocence of the rape of a woman who he had met on several occasions and who lived adjacent to him. Although the defendant was with the victim’s husband the day before the attack and had several encounters with the victim on that day, she told police immediately after the crime that she didn’t know her attacker. However, two days later she identified James from a book of suspects and later picked him out of a lineup.

"James requested the help of the Innocence Project, which sought to do DNA testing of the rape kit. Although officials at the Jefferson Parish Crime Laboratory were cooperative, the initial searches for the evidence proved fruitless. On May 3, 2010, Milton Dureau, who worked for the lab, was looking for evidence in a different case when he stumbled upon a slide from James’ case. Fortunately, he remembered the case number from his earlier search. The evidence was sent to Orchid Cellmark, which did STR DNA testing on the slide. The testing, which was completed on September 26, 2011, excluded James as the perpetrator in the rape.

"With the consent of Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick, Jr., a Jefferson Parish judge vacated the conviction and dismiss the charges late on October 20, 2011. James is expected walk out of Angola prison on Friday morning, October 21.

"The Innocence Project is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law."

Women's Studies Class uses Dworkin's '24-Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape' to raise awareness about domestic violence

At the 1983 Midwest Regional Conference of the National Organization for Changing Men (now, the National Organization for Men Against Sexism), the spiritual leader of modern feminism, hatemonger extraordinaire Andrea Dworkin, gave a speech titled I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape.

The "Truce" speech evinces a view of reality so severely misshapen that it borders on psychosis. That this woman could be considered influential in any movement, much less a broad-based movement that has helped shape public policy, tells us everything we need to know about both the movement and the society that kowtows to it.

The incoherence and the over-the-top denigration of men, both as a class and as individuals, makes the speech richly absurd and terribly pathetic at the same time. It made me laugh out loud several times. But then I remembered the influence this woman wielded, and still wields long after her death, in shaping public policy, and I stopped laughing.

Now, students in Laura Diener's Women Studies 101 class at Marshall University are using Dworkin's "Truce" as both a learning experience and to help raise awareness about sexual assault and violence against women -- these are issues which, according to one sophomore, "are never addressed."  (Yeah, you read that right: "never addressed.")

Let's take a look at Dworkin's "Truce" speech, if only to remind ourselves about the true face of feminism, and to get a sampling of what they are teaching our daughters in these Women's Studies classes. Here are some excerpts, with my analysis interspersed.

"I have thought a great deal about how a feminist, like myself, addresses an audience primarily of political men who say that they are antisexist. And I thought a lot about whether there should be a qualitative difference in the kind of speech I address to you. And then I found myself incapable of pretending that I really believe that that qualitative difference exists. . . . . I can't come here as a friend even though I might very much want to. What I would like to do is to scream . . .."

[What a great ice breaker: tell your audience you hate them!] 

"And also: that we do not have time. We women. We don't have forever. Some of us don't have another week or another day to take time for you to discuss whatever it is that will enable you to go out into those streets and do something. We are very close to death. All women are. And we are very close to rape and we are very close to beating."

[Nothing connects better with a group of strangers than to make far-fetched statements everyone knows aren't true.] 

"And we are inside a system of humiliation from which there is no escape for us."

[Well, there's a red flag -- she missed taking some kind of medication the day she gave this speech.]

"Every eighteen seconds a woman is being beaten. There is nothing abstract about it. It is happening right now as I am speaking. And it is happening for a simple reason. There is nothing complex and difficult about the reason. Men are doing it, because of the kind of power that men have over women."

[Nice! It's not the tiny percentage of men who are actually rapists who rape, it's "men," which includes the vast majority who would never dream of committing rape. But why quibble over a little thing like that? If she wants to call me a rapist, as a feminist icon, she would know.]

". . . .men believe they have the right to force sex, which they don't call rape."

[Yeah, because every time I pin my wife to the floor and force my penis inside her against her will -- you know, pretty much a daily thing depending on how much I want to "get some" -- I get so-o-o pissed off when she calls me a "rapist"!  I am NOT a rapist! I'm a man!]

". . . . you're turned into little soldier boys from the day that you are born and everything that you learn about how to avoid the humanity of women becomes part of the militarism of the country in which you live and the world in which you live. It is also part of the economy that you frequently claim to protest."

[It's my understanding that Rod Serling of Twilight Zone-fame scripted this part of the speech for her.  I know what you're thinking, it gives "unintelligible" new meaning. But, hey, remember, she missed taking her medication.]

"I think that you rightly perceive--without being willing to face it politically--that men are very dangerous: because you are."

[Ah, Andrea, you're a woman after my own heart!  Finally, someone willing to speak the truth about me! Here I come, ladies -- clear the sidewalks -- hide, cause I might just rape you!  If only all women would respect me like Andrea does.]

"The men's movement seems to stay stuck on [the fact] that men don't really feel very good about themselves. How could you?"

[You tell 'em, sister!]

"The things the men's movement has wanted are things worth having. Intimacy is worth having. Tenderness is worth having. Cooperation is worth having. A real emotional life is worth having. But you can't have them in a world with rape. Ending homophobia is worth doing. But you can't do it in a world with rape. Rape stands in the way of each and every one of those things you say you want. And by rape you know what I mean. A judge does not have to walk into this room and say that according to statute such and such these are the elements of proof. We're talking about any kind of coerced sex, including sex coerced by poverty."

[Yeah, who needs some stupid law to tell me I'm a rapist? I'm a man, and that's all you need to know. And "coerced by poverty"?  Say what? Ever wonder where the colleges get their ideas about how to define sexual assault?]

"Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence."

[No, no, no--don't say you believe in my humanity--I am so unworthy!]

The shame of men in front of women is, I think, an appropriate response both to what men do do and to what men do not do. I think you should be ashamed.

[I am such a wretch -- because I have a penis.]

So, the young women at Marshall University are studying using Dworkin's "Truce" to write how they'd like their wretched male classmates, and men in general, to change. 

You tell us, sisters!

The professor reveals that the point of the exercise is to demonstrate the futility of calling for such a truce. Why is that? "We can't have a 24-hour truce with rape, it's impossible, which is such a sad thing. We can't have a truce with no violence, we can't have a truce with no rape, we can't have one with no cruelty but we want that and the fact that we can't have these simply things show some of the major problems in our society"

Why can't we have those things? It's not hard to guess: men.

Say it ain't so, Joe! Biden’s absurd claims about rising rape and murder rates

Read it here: The Washington Post

Next week: The bizarre thing your Senators are up to, and how it will hurt our sons in college

A preview: they say the Department of Education can lower the standard of proof used in sexual assault cases on campus even below the preponderance of the evidence standard.

You read that right. This is the most important topic in this entire milieu, but our newspapers don't think it's newsworthy.

Check us out next week.

Burnley woman jailed over false rape claims

A Burnley woman who falsely accused her lover of rape has been jailed for two years today.

Keeley Horrocks, 20, of Grant Street, Burnley, accused the 59-year-old victim who was arrested and had his home searched by police, Bolton Crown Court heard.

He was then interviewed and vehemently denied any wrongdoing, explaining that the pair had been in a consensual sexual relationship for nine months.

The suspect, from Rochdale, was released on bail after spending up to 20 hours in custody.

Horrocks underwent a full medical examination and over several days was video interviewed by trained officers, and gave a lengthy and detailed account of her ordeal, all of which proved to be false.

Evidence was reviewed and it emerged that the report of rape had been made shortly after the "suspect" sent a text message to the woman's ex-boyfriend, with whom she was trying to rekindle her relationship.

The man from Rochdale suspected that he and the ex-boyfriend were both being lied to.

Horrocks later pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice following her initial report of rape to police on January 3 2010.


Thursday, October 20, 2011

Vice President Biden defends using rape scare tactic to pass jobs bill

Jason Mattera, the editor of the Human Events, confronted Vice President Joe Biden about these comments.  Mr. Mattera asked the vice president if he regretted using a "rape reference to describe Republican opposition" to the jobs bill. (As we previously explained, Biden pulled some numbers out of his ass, and from the toilet tissue thin evidence he cited, he said that if the GOP doesn't pass the jobs bill, rape and murder will rise in Flint Michigan.)

That, of course, is nothing short of monstrously irresponsible politicking -- fear-mongering of the worst kind. But Joe seems proud of it, and he defended himself in a beligerrent way:

"Let's get it straight, guy, don't screw around with me," Biden told Mattera. "Listen to me. I said rape was up three times in Flint, they're the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder's up, rape is up, burglaries are up. That's exactly what I said."

When Mattera asked if it was appropriate for a person in Biden's position to make warnings like that to advance a bill, Biden ended the interview.

I can't wait until Marco Rubio or Chris Christie debates this Grade "A" jackass prior to the election next year.

See here:

Crude sign evidence of 'rape culture'? Really?

Last August, male students living off campus at Western Illinois University put up a sign in front of their house during move-in weekend for students that read: "Freshman girl drop off here. U honk we drink. Freshman girl drop off, Oral-tation Aug. 20."

Members of the school's Feminist Action Alliance are still upset about it. They want the university to do something.

The guys said the sign was a joke, and that some women even liked it.

Oh, Really? It was funny? Guess it's over my head. I'm more a fan of Oscar Wilde and Julius H. Marx and brothers. To me, not only was this not clever in the least, it was symptomatic of a puerile vulgarity and incivility that marks the era we find ourselves stranded in.

But the campus feminists read lots more into it. They think it's evidence of "rape culture."

"I think the behavior that these guys have displayed contributes to the fact that our society has an overall rape culture, which condones rape," said Alicia Guzman Riley, a junior double majoring in law enforcement and women's studies.


By conflating this crude and innocuous fratboy "humor" with a vile act where one human being turns another into his personal masturbation sleeve, these people trivialize the horror of rape and do rape victims no favors.

It is akin to insisting that when Moe konks Curly on the head with an oversized mallet, it's evidence that we live in a "murder culture." Sort of waters down the seriousness of murder, wouldn't you say?

It scarcely seems necessary to note the following: there is no evidence that cracking an occasional crude sexual joke or even looking at Playboy Magazine from time to time leads to rape.  (Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson of Texas A&M said this: ". . . pornography is no more linked to rape than violent games are to violent crimes. Researchers have long known that rape rates have gone down in the U.S. as pornography consumption has increased. Rapists typically consume less pornography and are exposed to it later than non-rapist men.")  There is no "rape continuum," any more than there is a "murder continuum," or a "burglary continuum." 

There is, instead, a chasm, as difficult to cross as the Nefud Desert, that separates the vast majority of men from the tiny percentage of criminal deviants who rape. An intense revulsion for rape is far more characteristic of masculinity than is any inclination to condone the vile act. Sometimes, that revulsion plays out as an overt overreaction that leaves presumptively innocent men and boys accused of rape beaten or even dead at the hands of a vigilante.

But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good victim narrative?

Since the childish sign in question furnishes no evidence whatsoever that the men who made it are rapists-in-waiting, a fortiori, it provides even less support for the cockamamie notion that rape is either condoned or "normalized" among men in general.  The very suggestion would be appallingly sexist if it weren't so zany.

What the campus feminists don't understand is that they can't "empower" women either by pretending women are powerless, or by spending their every waking moment looking for ways to brand men as dicks.


International Roundup

A series of false rape/sexual assault reports:

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

I wish I could write this well . . .

Go read a great article by Alexander Baron: Op-Ed: Frightened little women - false rape news, and a retrospective

Until college men and women of good will inject themselves into the public discourse on rape, extremists will steer the policy

When colleges go looking for students to serve on committees to discuss changing sexual assault policies, who do you think volunteers?

Here's a hint: it ain't a starting running back on the football team. In fact, it's rarely anyone who wears a jockstrap out of necessity on a regular basis.

It's generally a true believer feminist who thinks that there is an overarching "rape culture" on campus. She believes that school needs to be made safer for women. And she sees no need to balance policies designed to nab rapists with policies to protect innocent men from being punished with the guilty--"rape culture" already provides too many protections for both the innocent and the guilty, she believes.

Harvard is looking to revise its sexual assault policies, and has appointed student representatives to a special committee charged with reviewing current policies. Samantha A. Meier ’12, was one of the appointees to the review committee.

Is Samantha Meier representative of the student body?

Meier believes this is an “opportune time” for Harvard to take a look at its own sexual assault policies.  She hopes to discuss changing the definition of consent used by the school. "Under most legal definitions, forced sexual intercourse can be considered rape or sexual assault only when the victim said 'no' or was incapable of doing so due to the influence of drugs or alcohol, according to Meier.  Meier said that she and other students on the committee hoped to push the University instead toward an 'enthusiastic consent' model, in which an incident can be called rape in the absence of affirmative agreement."

“The only people who lose out in this model are the rapists,” said another student, who also was selected to serve on the committee.

“We all care a lot about these issues,” Meier said, “and we want Harvard to care about these issues and take them seriously.”

Who is Samantha Meier? She's a sociology "concentrator" who has taken a number of Women, Gender, and Sexuality  classes. She's even organized and moderated a feminist blogger gathering at Harvard.  (At that gathering, Sady Doyle from Tiger Beatdown discussed her Twitter campaign to respond to the “victim-blaming” and “rape apologism” that she said has characterized Michael Moore’s dismissal of Julian Assange’s sexual assault allegations.)

Are Samantha Meier's views typical of Harvard students'? I sincerely doubt it.

"Enthusiastic consent" is unworkable as either a legal standard or an official university policy. It would punish men with expulsion, in all likelihood, even if actual consent -- agreement to proceed with a sex act -- were present so long as such consent wasn't sufficiently "enthusiastic." 

Men and women, of course, do not carry "enthusiasm meters" into the bedroom, and to punish young men (and, yes, young men are the prime target) for not conforming to an artificial and politicized construct that would be fairly impossible to gauge borders on the barbaric.

It is clear beyond even a cavil that some people are incapable of showing enthusiasm even when they are enthusiastic -- about anything, sex included. Rape?

And who, on earth, would decide if the consent was "enthusiastic" anyway? 

The reality is that men and women in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and sometimes -- perhaps often -- without all that much enthusiasm.  When my wife was trying to get pregnant, I was sometimes called to perform when it wasn't especially convenient. I suppose the erection masked the fact that my mind was worrying about a deadline for filing a brief. Was I "raped"?  Would any sane person even suggest that?

So, does Samantha Meier represent the student body, or just the feminists within the student body?

Until men -- and women -- of good will realize that they have a right, indeed a duty, to participate in the public discourse on these issues even though their views don't fit the preferred narrative, every sexual assault initiative will be steered by persons who want to re-engineer male conduct to fit a feminist ideal.  They will be steered by persons more concerned with engorging the definition of sexual assault by constricting the definition of "consent" than insuring that sexual assault policies don't punish the innocent with the guilty.

It is time for men and women of good will to inject themselves into the public discourse, and push the extremists and ideologues to the side.


'Chickens have come home to roost': Some taxi drivers think twice about picking up young women because of false sex claims

"Good," read a comment under the news report that some St. John's, Canada, taxi drivers are thinking twice about picking up young women due to fears of false sex claims. "The chickens are finally coming home to roost." Story here. (Participate in the poll to the right of the story.)

But no, it's not good. It was, however, just a matter of time before men in professions vulnerable to false rape claims (and that includes law enforcement and the clergy) started to openly voice the terribly politically incorrect sentiment that they are concerned about false rape claims, and for good reason.

According to the story: "A taxi company official in St. John's says some of his colleagues are thinking twice about who they pick up downtown because they fear they'll be falsely accused of doing something wrong. 'It's unfortunate but today, young single females or even two females in the car... bad news. Especially if they're intoxicated,' said Doug McCarthy, general manager and a driver with Co-Op Taxi in St. John's."

It is well to remember that it is not in the taxi company's interest to pass up a fare without good reason. There is a strong business incentive for taxi drivers to pick up young women, and anyone else willing to pay for a ride. There is also a strong business incentive to not publicly express sentiments that will anger a large segment of your potential customer base.

Unfortunately, the fear of false rape claims trumps the monetary benefits of a fare, and the fact that this fear is now being openly expressed is an indication of how prominent it has become.

The chief problem seems to be young women and alcohol. "McCarthy said some young women are drunk and pass out on the way home. He said that when the driver wakes them up, they can't remember where they are going. In some cases, he said they threaten to make false accusations against the driver to avoid paying their fare. 'You touched me or you did this or that or you made a proposition,' said McCarthy, describing what drivers have reported being told."

We have reached the stage where taxi drivers now feel safer with men in their cabs.  "McCarthy said fear that they'll be the victim of a false accusation, such as assault of inappropriate touching, has left some drivers struggling with the decision to pick up a young girl and bring her home if she is alone.  'Rule of thumb used to be pick up young girls first, take them home, pick up couples seconds and last, pick up the guys and take them home. Now, it's reversed,' he said."

Judging by the comments beneath the news report, the story has already drawn some outrage. The headline of the story alone --"St. John's taxis leery of young women" -- probably would be more socially acceptable if it read: "St. John's young women leery of taxi drivers." 

To say that taxi drivers have reason to worry is not to suggest that taxi drivers never sexually assault young women. Some do. My guess is that assault stories get far more publicity than the stories about false rape claims lodged against taxi drivers. Nevertheless, just as some women have openly, and without public censure, expressed the need for "women only" taxis (not to mention "women only" hotel floors, gyms, beaches, buses, and train cars), the legitimate concerns of taxi drivers about false sex claims should also be respected.

It needs to be remembered that relatively few young women make false rape claims.  Yet, all it takes is one to destroy a driver's life. It would be wrong to punish all young women for the actions of a few, just as it is wrong to punish all men for the actions of a few. Perhaps the only viable solution is cameras in taxis.

This blog has covered a fair number of false rape claims lodged against taxi drivers:

A drunken young woman trying to avoid paying a fare falsely alleged that a taxi driver attacked her, that he pulled off your leggings and knickers, and then chased her. See here.
A kind taxi driver agreed to give a drunken 17-year-old a ride even though she had no money and no other driver would pick her up. He even allowed her to pay her fare the following day. She repaid his kindness with a wicked lie that caused him to be arrested in front of his colleagues. Intimate samples were taken, and he was kept in police custody for 12 hours.  See here.

A teen falsely reported to police she had been sexually groped by a taxi driver while she took a local cab home from a friend's house. See here.
Four young women falsely accused a taxi driver of sexual assault after he told one to put a cigarette in his cab. See here.
A teenager lied that a taxi driver tried to rape her, causing him to be arrested and held in custody for nine hours, because she didn't have the fare. The father-of-three broke down in tears in the witness stand when he gave evidence about the night, an image the judge said will "haunt the memory of the jury for a very long time." See here.
A young woman falsely accused a cab driver of raping her, apparently out of revenge over a fare dispute that occurred the week before.The part-time cabbie was arrested at his home and taken to the police station where intimate samples, DNA and fingerprints were taken. See here.
A 23-year-old woman was jailed after falsely claiming she had been raped by a taxi driver who tried to be a Good Samaritan to her in a bid to obtain £10,000 from him. See here.
Two women were willing to destroy the life of a cab driver with a rape lie because they didn't want to pay a fare. See here.
A taxi driver was locked up for almost a day and had his licence suspended for several weeks after an alcoholic drug abuser claimed he had raped her. See here.
A girl falsely accused a cab driver of rape to justify her long absence at home to her parents. See here.
A young woman told him that if he didn't give her money, she would scream and say he had attempted to rape her. The taxi driver called her bluff and threatened to call the police. Then she and her friends grabbed the taxi driver and pulled him back against the seat while one of them ripped his pocket and stole money. See here.
And we can't forget Clive Bishop. Mr. Bishop lost his taxi business and was shunned by the community as a result of a false rape claim that sent his false accuser to jail for ten months. He sought compensation for his ordeal by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). After all, Britain pays crime victims, including women who claim they've been raped, substantial sums of money as "compensation." Victims of alleged rapes need not have been subjected to violence to trigger the payments. Unfortunately, since Mr. Bishop wasn't raped -- only destroyed by a rape lie -- he was denied compensation because his victimization wasn't violent. See here.
Last year, Mr. Bishop told False Rape Society: ". . . sexual offences that are alleged are the only crime where innocent people are arrested locked up without any evidence to back up what someone has alleged. . . . Don't forget while I was arrested for a crime that never occurred and locked up, my freedom and liberty denied, she was in a comfortable suite being befriended and pandered. My emotions were ignored and I was arrested, judged and convicted without any compassion or evidence. Believe me when I say that I am still suffering!"

Thanks to Bill for the story.