Feminists get sick on their own dog food.

Feminists have been lecturing us for years that we need to automatically believe women who accuse men of rape.  To carefully investigate these serious accusations and wait until the facts come in is to perpetuate “rape culture”, feminists tell us.  Slate’s DoubleX warned about the danger of this foolish philosophy back in September with False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem:

More than a quarter-century ago, feminist legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon wrote that “feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men”; today, Jessica Valenti urges us to “believe victims en masse,” because only then will we recognize the true prevalence of sexual assault.

But the warning from within their own ranks wasn’t heeded.  In late November Sabrina Rubin Erdely and her editors at Rolling Stone made the mistake of eating their own feminist dog food, and ran with a fantastic story of ritualized rape at the University of Virginia.  Feminists around the nation devoured this fantastic story without a second thought, using it as the poster child for “rape culture”.  Chloe Angyal of feministing.com went on MSNBC and praised Erdely for revealing the truth to her about America’s rape culture:

I have to thank you, Sabrina, for writing this. I think you’ve done a tremendous act of public service, and I’m genuinely very, very grateful. It is hard to read an article like this and avoid the conclusion that we live in a culture that hates women, just hates us. It’s hard to read an article like this and conclude that the men in this culture, the boys and men in this culture, are raised to see women as not just less than them but in some cases as less than human.

This is not just a frat problem. This is an American problem.

Feminists had barely finished their meal before they started to feel the rumblings of trouble to come.  It was obvious to everyone that they had swallowed something putrid.  Instead of purging themselves of the problem, feminists tried to fudge the diagnosis.  Julia Horowitz, the assistant managing editor at the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, wrote in Politico that “to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”  Zerlina Maxwell wrote an article in the Washington Post titled No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims*:

Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.”…

In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist…

The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook…  But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.

But those rumblings didn’t go away.  Rolling Stone’s editors are now a mess, and they are starting to recognize the problem with consuming the gelatinous mass of canine cuisine in the first place:

We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate. Given all of these reports, however, we have come to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie’s request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment – the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day. We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story. These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie. We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening.

All of this was a huge misstep by feminists, an unforced error.  Just a few weeks ago they were methodically advancing their new rules for handling sexual assault allegations on campus which place a huge burden on the accused.  They even had many conservatives signing on to California’s new Yes Means Yes law in the deluded hope that it would usher in a post-hookup sexual marketplace.  Now they are a sad, stinking, wretched mess, trying to figure out how to undo the damage they did to their own cause.

One thing strikes me as fairly certain;  I don’t think feminists have learned their lesson.

Bon appétit, feminists.

*The title of the Washington Post article may have been changed after initial publication, because the title in the url is “no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims”

This entry was posted in Feminists, Philosophy of Feminism, Rape Culture, Social Justice Warriors, Yes Means Yes. Bookmark the permalink.

206 Responses to Feminists get sick on their own dog food.

  1. Pingback: Feminists get sick on their own dog food. | Manosphere.com

  2. Will S. says:

    It indeed was ‘automatically’, not ‘generally’; I saw this screencap somewhere else, but found it again here:

  3. Ryan says:

    “The title of the Washington Post article may have been changed after initial publication”

    It was. I saw the original and there are screen shots floating around. And it accurately reflected the content, which has since been slightly altered. One line read, “We should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.” The “always” has been removed.

  4. JF says:

    “They even had many conservatives signing on…”

    JF: Why do I find myself fearing and loathing the duped evangelical conservative backers of feminism than the actual self-proclaimed feminists themselves?

  5. Pingback: the Revision Division

  6. Ryan says:

    JF wrote: “Why do I find myself fearing and loathing the duped evangelical conservative backers of feminism than the actual self-proclaimed feminists themselves?”

    Fear: Because the dupes are wolves in sheep’s clothing and can kill the flock.

    Loathing: Because they ought to know better.

  7. JDG says:

    Wrongly accused perps???

    These people of lost all ability to reason.

  8. Dalrock,

    But the warning from within their own ranks wasn’t heeded. In late November Sabrina Rubin Erdely and her editors at Rolling Stone made the mistake of eating their own feminist dog food, and ran with a fantastic story of ritualized rape at the University of Virginia. Feminists around the nation devoured this fantastic story without a second thought, using it as the poster child for “rape culture”. Chloe Angyal of feministing.com went on MSNBC and praised Erdely for revealing the truth to her about America’s rape culture:

    As you might already know, I post pretty frequently over at Bloomberg with Megan McArdle. I usually find her writing to be excellent. Usually. Just not in the last week. She had two posts urging everyone to support Jackie’s decision to go to campus administration to report her rape but not the police (because it might be too much for her.) And yet, Megan thought the cops and the DA should still go after the fraternity boys, even without a victim pressing charges. She offered this semi-retraction post on Friday about her crusade that we should pursue this “rape culture.”

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-05/rolling-stones-rape-story-fails-victims

    What exactly is a “rape culture?” One of the commenters over at Megan’s said it best (emphasis mine….)

    My grand unified theory of progressivism is that it’s based on boredom, and the need to fill the psychological space once occupied by religion.

    The lives of upper-middle class white kids lives are so comfortable, they feel the need to manufacture meaning. All of their material needs have been taken care of their entire lives, and they simultaneously feel guilty about it, but also entitled to it. The real source of their privilege – the humdrum bourgeois values so integrated to their upbringing that they take it for granted – is boring, so they try to find new and ever-more ostentatious ways of signaling that they’ve moved past it publicly while perpetuating it in private.

    That’s why you have the distinction between rape, and “rape culture”. The former is the criminal act of an individual – and a criminal investigation is a series of procedures pursued with mundane, bureaucratic regularity. There is no deeper meaning to criminal investigation. Whether a perpetrator is caught or not, whether they’re convicted or not, it’s ultimately just another entry logged in a book on a shelf in a sub-basement. It’s as meaningful as auditing an expense account.

    “Rape Culture”, on the other hand, is an epic struggle against a system. It’s symbolic. It’s a way of distancing yourself from the trappings of privilege while clinging to its source. It lets you play the hero, striking a blow against the tyrannical system while you continue to get college credits and something to put on your resume when you graduate. Best of all, there are no individuals in a “rape culture”, no specific wins or losses – you can keep on declaring victory while continuing the struggle forever.

    Profound. And IMHO, entirely correct. Its kind of like atheist white-knighting where the knight speaks out for the poor working in the fields and how unfair it is, and then returns to sleep in the luxury of Camelot.

  9. greyghost says:

    There is no such thing as a wake up call for a feminist or women in general. A woman can walk out of an abortion clinic and talk about how much she loves kids and wants to have a big family. They won’t miss a beat they will holla rape with the same hysteria tomorrow as they did for a false claim yesterday. The feminist and women in general don’t care.
    The wake up call is for all of the people that just jump on the claim and run with it. The police, rolling stone etc.

  10. See, there is a time for hate; and the time for hating feminists came a long time ago but it’s never too late to start. Hate a fucking femcunt today!

    They deserve it!

  11. Bob says:

    On the topic of post-publication changes: Rolling Stone’s original retraction stated
    “In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.”
    but that was considered “blaming the victim” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/08/us/uva-rape-jackie-rolling-stone/)

  12. Lyn87 says:

    From the Rolling Stone semi-retraction:

    … These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie…

    Uh, no. Rolling Stone screwed up because they ran with a story that was “too good to check” because it fit their libtard worldview. Jackie was also at fault, though, because she lied about being raped.

    But here we see the hierarchy of victim-hood of the far, feminist left – some victims are more deserving than others. So even though “Jackie” was not raped and lied about it (going so far to avoid detection as to convince a gullible reporter to not do the most basic act of fact-checking required of professional journalists – getting both sides), the editors at Rolling Stone have to fall on their swords anyway and thus treat her as if she is an actual victim. They could very well say, “A woman made up an extravagant lie about being raped and we screwed up by publishing it as factual without checking it out.” But they won’t do that because that would be an admission that some rape claims are false – and that cannot be uttered on the left.

    What amazes me is that Rolling Stone published P.J. O’Rourke for as long as they did.

    A long time ago I was living in a small town and did stories for the local weekly newspaper. No big deal – just making a few bucks covering town meetings when I wasn’t otherwise busy. Then at one of those meetings – usually filled with zoning petitions and boring crap like that – a HUGE story fell into my lap. The local elementary school principal was accused of misusing about $50,000 in town funds… The City Attorney addressed the board… The legal wheels were already turning… Jail time was a distinct possibility. It was undoubtedly the biggest news story in a decade in that little town. And since almost everybody knows almost everybody else, and the guy and his wife were both prominent citizens, I knew everyone on both sides of the case. But even in that crappy little town with a paper that comes out once a week and is read by about a thousand people, I interviewed the City Attorney in the hallway after the meeting and I called the principal on the phone before I turned the story in to the editor. The principal said he wasn’t free to speak on the record (totally understandable), but he understood that I had to write the story. I thought long and hard about how to word it so as to not show bias either way, or convey my thoughts on the merits of the accusation. You’d think a major international media outlet would have at least as much in the way of journalistic ethics as me writing stories at $20-a-pop and my editor running a small-town weekly newspaper that usually has a story about crops on the front page.

  13. @Benanderii says:

    Reblogged this on snurrigtdotcom and commented:
    I den turbulenta tid vi lever i, med tanke på det politiska läget i Sverige, så knuffas andra ämnen som bara indirekt kan förknippas med rasism och fascism lite åt sidan. Bland annat FATTA-projektet och påstående som att kvinnors berättelser om våldtäkt alltid skall bli trodda.
    Därför kan det vara intressant att läsa följande bloggartikel av Dalrock som handlar om våldtäktskulturen som härjar på University of Virginia. Hur otrolig, i ordets rätta bemärkelse, anklagelserna än är så fastnade Rolling Stones redaktion för den. Utan att kolla underlag eller få belägg för sanningshalten överhuvudtaget. Rolling Stones inser så småningom sitt misstag och gör en rättelse.
    Att anklagelsen ändå skulle kunna tjäna som “bevis” i Sverige för “våldtäktskulture” ser jag som ytterst troligt!

  14. Frugal Nerd says:

    “The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook… But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.”

    Giant load of BS. I personally decided not to pursue a career teaching high school history precisely because I knew the mere accusation of sexual misconduct would ensure I would be scrubbing toilets at Wal-Mart for a living the rest of my life. On top of that, even if exonerated, I would be a community pariah. This decision was made after I got my bachelors in history education.

    “I have to thank you, Sabrina, for writing this. I think you’ve done a tremendous act of public service, and I’m genuinely very, very grateful. It is hard to read an article like this and avoid the conclusion that we live in a culture that hates women, just hates us. It’s hard to read an article like this and conclude that the men in this culture, the boys and men in this culture, are raised to see women as not just less than them but in some cases as less than human.”

    You want to see a culture that REALLY, UTTERLY HATES WOMEN? Move to a country that strictly enforces Sharia Law. Enjoy those tingles that you get while a man beats the crap out of you just because he can. The police will almost always blame the woman for every problem in the marriage by default (the exact opposite of American culture).

    Advice to any man falsely accused of rape: FIGHT. Fight tooth and nail. Do not come to a monetary settlement – that will only generate more accusations. Bill Cosby is a tragic, cautionary example of what not to do when faced with false rape allegations.

  15. MarcusD says:

    Whatever Rolling Stone finds, “A Rape on Campus” clearly aligns with Dana’s vision for high-impact magazine journalism. In a 2006 appearance at Middlebury College, Dana gave a speech titled, “The Myth of Fair and Balanced: A Defense of Biased Reporting.” According to a writeup in the Middlebury Campus, Dana put forth a common and compelling critique of contemporary standards under which journalists “worship the grail of objectivity” and “play twister to hide their bias,” said Dana, a 1985 graduate of Middlebury.

    “I want to do stuff that’s biased.” He merely meant journalism driven by a worldview, as with Eric Schlosser’s 1998 Rolling Stone expose, “Fast-Food Nation” — a series that upended thinking on the world’s McDonald’s and the like. “We can become the seed pod for great things,”said Dana of such work.

    Though the editor said his publication would endeavor to give both sides of a story, he said, “we’ll write what we believe,” according to the Middlebury Campus.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/08/rolling-stone-managing-editor-in-2006-well-write-what-we-believe/

  16. MarcusD says:

    CAF at it again:

    Working with your spouse: Good idea or not?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926991

    What to do while you wait for “The One” (…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926946

    I don’t want to be disliked here, but I need to ask some serious questions about my marriage!
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926943

  17. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    Some recent threads on CAF (from today) that are relevant to recent discussions:

    breastfeeding and sexuality
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926879

    Reasons to use NFP
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926878

  18. GeminiXcX says:

    MarcusD says:
    December 9, 2014 at 3:03 am
    “What to do while you wait for “The One” (…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926946

    LMAO!!

    I also looked up the only other thread by that same user “angelcrystal85”:
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=911078

    By using the simple analysis method of RooshV’s “online-girl hamster thread” and the now-missing “awful women’s profiles” by theprivateman, I have easily concluded why this thing (woman) can’t find herself a decent man to settle for.

    What a moron! X-D

    -GXcX

  19. GeminiXcX says:

    *It is hard to read an article like this and avoid the conclusion that we live in a culture that hates women, just hates [women]. It’s hard to read an article like this and conclude that the men in this culture, the boys and men in this culture, are raised to see women as not just less than them but in some cases as less than human.*”
    Hmmm, not sure how I failed to arrive at these same obvious “conclusions”. . .
    Either I work too hard on my powers of observation, or I’m too lazy to drop myself down to other’s level of stupidity.

    “I have to thank you, Sabrina, for writing this. I think you’ve done a tremendous act of public service, and I’m genuinely very, very grateful.”
    Now on this, we’re in agreement. I’m also extremely grateful, as this writing (and the response by the “public”) has done a tremendous act of personal service by convincing me that I may, in fact, be superior to more than 95% of the general masses which are comprised by a completely ignorant populace.

    -GXcX

  20. GeminiXcX says:

    Oops, “comprised by” should have been “comprised of”. There’s probably a whole host of other mistakes just in that post alone. Oh well.
    My atrocious grammar always forces me to humbly admit that I will never make it into that top 4% !😉

    -GXcX

  21. Opus says:

    All claims of Rape are false; at least personally and professionally, I have never come across one that had any veracity.

  22. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/publisher-alter-lena-dunham-book-755193
    Lena Dunham book altered after rape story questioned. Rolling Stone ceased to be a magazine of any use after it quit talking about music and started following fashion an celebrities. Not to mention Jan Wener, divorced his wife and shacked up with a man and adopted a child. Let us not forget the joke they call the Rock and Roll hall of fame.

  23. Mike T says:

    *The title of the Washington Post article may have been changed after initial publication, because the title in url is “no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims”

    Back in the 80s during the satanic sexual abuse hysteria, prosecutors believed stories from little kids about things that were so over the top that they wouldn’t pass the writing team on a B horror movie like kids getting cut up or sodomized with swords (I think that was one example I saw in an article a few years ago) and a complete lack of corroborating physical evidence (obviously… the kids would have been dead, not testifying). Quite a few lives were destroyed because we all know, kids don’t lie and so when a kid tells a psychiatrist an utterly insane, implausible story that defies the laws of nature and our knowledge of the human body, there must still be truth. Cuz kids don’t lie.

    In an ideal society, the women advocating a replay of this injustice would be sentenced to hard prison time for the mere utterance of speech aimed at advancing an obvious injustice.

  24. Exfernal says:

    Fact-checking is sexist. Let’s establish truth by fiat instead. /s

  25. Fracture says:

    @Frugal Nerd,
    That’s not true. I’m a Muslim and I live with my family in the heart of the Muslim world (Saudi Arabia). The Sharia laws are derived from the words of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad’s practices, and are used to govern the lives in Islamic countries accordingly, there is no “separation of church and state” here. It is said in the Quran that oppression is wrong as Allah(God) has forbidden it for himself, and whoever does so will be punished unless they repent and stop. Also, it’s said that women are to be treated with kindness and justice.

  26. rogerrrrrr says:

    We’ve already had the Duke case which was an even bigger fiasco for the race-baiters and feminists. Yet here we are again. These things will continue to happen until the American people no longer care.

  27. earl says:

    Or as Roosh stated…’I got raped, is the new ‘he didn’t call back.’

    This false rape accusation was from 2012.

    http://nypost.com/2012/02/09/lets-put-the-girl-who-cried-wolf-on-trial-instead/

  28. earl says:

    And I’d have to say…given all these pyschotic women taking all sorts of mind altering drugs, listening to propaganda, and living in a state of loose morals…a man should really consider chastity (abstention from unlawful or all sexual intercourse and purity in conduct and intention) for the sake of his reputation. It won’t prevent a false accusation entirely…but it will prevent it much more than deciding to engage with these sociopaths.

  29. Dave says:

    There is no such thing as a wake up call for a feminist or women in general.

    Feminism is a gigantic ball of lies, and all true feminists know this. It’s the men who continue to act as if the feminists are acting from pure motives. There is absolutely nothing true in feminism. It’s claims are untrue. The statistics they use are untrue. The promises they hold are untrue. Feminism is an ill wind which blows no one any good. It harms women, men, children and society as a whole. Feminism is the greatest evil of our generation. Unfortunately, feminism will see to our demise as a people, not just a civilization.

    Rather than running for cover, men should confront this feminism haystack of lies with the spark of truth, and see it engulfed in flames. Let every man falsely accused of rape promptly sue his accuser of libel or defamation, as the case might be, and pursue her as vigorously in court as she eagerly wants him destroyed. Bill Cosby ought to do the same. When confronted with the unyielding truth, feminists tend to squirm, change the subject, or run for cover. Men need to make them uncomfortable more these days. We can defeat the monster of feminism.

  30. earl says:

    ‘When confronted with the unyielding truth, feminists tend to squirm, change the subject, or run for cover.’

    Or as I’ve seen it so eloquantly explained by feminists….’It doesn’t matter if the allegations are false or the story is a hoax…RAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!!!!!!!’

  31. thedeti says:

    Pertinent (NSFW, language)

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-girl-who-cried-rape.html

    TL;DW: After Jackie/UVA, Cappy no longer believes anyone claiming rape. If you really have been raped, go to the cops. False rape accusations make it more difficult for women who really have been raped.

  32. hoellenhund2 says:

    False rape accusations make it more difficult for women who really have been raped.

    I hear this all the time but I find it rather doubtful, for the simple reason that real rape leaves physical evidence behind.

  33. Opus says:

    @Hoellunhund2

    Not if you leave thirty or forty years between the rape and the reporting thereof.

    There seems to be an inverse correlation between the rise of Rape claims and the increase in female promiscuity. The two are surely not unconnected.

    Women cannot cope with sex outside of Marriage or Prostitution as unlike men they require some form of reward.

  34. hoellenhund2 says:

    I am glad that ‘feminists’ have pushed the normalization of false rape accusations to such a degree that pushback is coming from all directions.

    The problem with that is that when social trends reach a point where even average, otherwise uninterested and ignorant people notice their consequences, it’s already late to do something about them. Average people, after all, have limited intelligence and are generally slow to notice things around them. Now they’re finally noticing that the ruling oligarchy has sided completely with feminists pushing these policies gutting due process and presumption of innocence, and that those who oppose them are powerless to stop them. They’re also starting to notice that tradcons and feminists are co-belligerents. But again, it shows that it’s too late to stop them. The time to stop them was maybe around 1850 or so.

    Think about, say, 2005. Were feminists more sane back then? No. Did you see widespread criticism of, and pushback against, feminism? No, because average people were ignorant and uninterested about all these issues. The housing bubble was still growing, so everyone just assumed that the economy will just keep growing and everything will turn out fine, young men will just keep being the useful idiots they have always been, getting well-paying jobs and getting married, fathering children etc. Average people just didn’t care about anything because things seemed to be going fairly well.

  35. Chris says:

    “In important ways, [innocent until proven guilty] is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

    Are these friggin’ people serious?

  36. Jeremy says:

    In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist…

    The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook… But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.

    This is pure female solipsism:

    “It’s not so bad guys, to be falsely accused, you might lose your job, which will damage your career, which is your primary lifelong activity, or you might lose some social media followers, some of whom are real friends and career contacts, but who cares? That’s nothing compared to being raped!”

    Only a purely self-centered mind, with no concept of a male life cycle, could utter such words. Let me educate females who may be reading… Jobs are not just “things” that men “get” to “pay bills”… a job is how a man DEFINES HIMSELF, the team he works with is PART OF HIS IDENTITY. If you take that away from him, you DESTROY THE MAN. You women have the honor of creating new human life and being a part of the biological tree that is the human race throughout history. Men have no such connection, we do not give birth. Therefore we find meaning in our lives based on what we do with ourselves, what we accomplish with our bare hands with the time we have. If you take that away from a man, you either have a wish to create a future disgruntled office shooter, or you’re an ignorant c***.

  37. AnonS says:

    Don’t you see. Rape Culture makes women make false rape reports. So who is the real victim… (women)

  38. Scott says:

    “Are these friggin’ people serious?”

    Yes, they are. And at least they are finally giving us the courtesy of saying it out loud.

  39. Scott says:

    The rape of a man’s good name (and all the fallout that goes with it) is inconsequential.

  40. Rick says:

    The problem with false claims is going to get worse and worse. The objective is to remove men’s rights to presumption of innocence and due process. Feminists want to push ‘yes means yes’ up to the criminal justice system. For the time being, men will just be expelled from campus through preponderance of evidence, with no due process, without attorneys, with no right to question the accuser, via kangaroo courts.

    The colleges don’t want the women to go to the police because it affects their reputation, insurance costs and opens them up to civil litigation. This also gives women the power to destroy innocent men’s lives when they’re late for work, didn’t prepare for a test, when they’re mad at a former boyfriend, after being rejected, for purposes of extortion, to open civil suits, after they regret drunk sex and after they’ve cheated on their current boyfriend (all proven excuses used by women in past false rape claims).

    There are many men who are now suing universities for being expelled in this manner. Expect an explosion of false rape claims at universities. The “yes means yes” law is going to backfire and finally expose the cluster B personality disorder that feminism represents.

  41. GottliebPins says:

    Every day that I read more stories about false rape accusations and how seemingly sane and intelligent people defend them even when they know the stories are false makes me ever more glad that I am post-marriage, post-dating, and post-caring about women and what makes them happy. All that matters to me now is my own happiness and my children’s. I avoid women for my own sanity and security. They are not rational.

  42. hoellenhund2 says:

    JF: Why do I find myself fearing and loathing the duped evangelical conservative backers of feminism than the actual self-proclaimed feminists themselves?

    Tradcons are worse than feminists, because they appear to be more sane and reasonable than feminists to ordinary people, even though they are just as gynocentric and gynonormative, and plainly delusional.

  43. Jeremy says:

    @TFH says:

    Extremely few women care about this.

    No doubt. I just find it staggering the ignorance women deliberately cling to about how men live. They project all their own perceptions of life onto men’s lives and choices, with no consideration for how different it might be, and how fundamentally stupid their assumptions are.

  44. earl says:

    ‘Women cannot cope with sex outside of Marriage or Prostitution as unlike men they require some form of reward.’

    GASP! Are you saying women and men aren’t equal? But our propagandists keeps shoving this down our throats.

    I think promiscuity in general should be looked down…but certainly when it comes from the female side after listening to the propaganda…they have very little self awareness on how much it damages them inside.

  45. Goes without saying that women, most women, have become temptations and have no concept of decency, honesty and goodness.

    Soon there will be a rape culture and feminists will have created it.. they know not what they do..

  46. easttexasfatboy says:

    Folks, there’s no such thing as free sex. Never has been. Yeah, I get the after sex rape accusation. He didn’t call. Thing is, he probably promised her all sorts of things. True, some women are mentally unbalanced, or worse. This is what happens when you fish in a poisoned pond. You see, most young guys are getting the picture. If you want a college degree, you need to go where it’s safer for men. Even if you’re MGTOW, generally you have to interact with women. Here’s the problem as I see it……women can’t handle honest indifference. You know, when you really don’t care if she lives or dies. It damages their pride. So, you can find yourself an object of obsession. That’s when false rape comes to the fore. Negative attention is better than none. See the point? Somehow a young guy has to learn how to maneuver without a wake. I figure that false rape accusations will grow as a means to trap a young man in marriage. Especially if the feral female is smart, plain, and lacking options. Sadly, most young guys aren’t savvy enough to use this advice. Perhaps one is. A savvy young man understands that things have changed. The well meant advice from older folks is useless in the face of mendacious feminists. The only way to survive is to hide your personality in a constructed one. Perhaps as a well meaning fool who is a disaster to be around. Do whatever you have to do to get your degree. And as for that degree, give that some real thought. Go where the women aren’t. I’m a repair plumber. Good trade. Folks are always going to need plumbers. Lots of opportunities. Anyways, we have to hide in plain sight. Anyone can see we’re headed for hard times. Stock up on food. Keep your mouth shut. Understand that feminists hate you. They are going to try to destroy as many men as possible. Act as a foole, and survive. Survival isn’t fair. It isn’t nice. It doesn’t help your sworn enemies. It doesn’t protect or feed a woman that you suspect is a feminist. That’s a hard thing, but you cannot deprogram a feminist. You see, the future belongs to the fertile. Those who raise their children and don’t abort them. I personally believe that WW3 started a while back. We’re in the lull before things kick off.

  47. Dave says:

    I hear this all the time but I find it rather doubtful, for the simple reason that real rape leaves physical evidence behind.

    Very true indeed. In another life, I used to work in ER. I once saw a woman who was raped. She was a total mess. I mean, if you could picture misery, fear, hopelessness and depression all rolled into one, you might be getting close to how she looked. There was that empty, forlorn look in her eyes, with disheveled hair and torn clothes. She was there, but obviously not there in the ER as she answered questions. She seemed not to be able to care about what had happened to her. It was like, she lacked the energy to care. She looked defeated. You cannot look at her and not instantly become angry and compassionate at the same time. Her appearance looked wretched. I felt really sad for her, though I never met her before then, and not after.
    What these fools (aka feminists and sjw) refer to as rape today is nothing more than a joke, and an insult to those who have ever been raped. As a Christian I cannot afford to wish evil on anyone, but I think some of these feminists will learn a thing or two if they experienced what rape is, particularly in some far away village, where their attacker has not showered in so many months.

  48. Dave says:

    If you want a college degree, you need to go where it’s safer for men.

    I totally disagree. How long are we going to withdraw from society, so that we won’t be victimized by the feminists? How much more are we going to give up? We’ve given up our families, our women, our children, our churches, our educational system, our workplaces, our government, our play places. Now, you advocate that we give up even more of our schools.
    I say No! It is time to stand up to these bullies and refuse to yield. I challenge any man unfairly accused of rape to promptly sue his attacker, and demand monetary compensations. It is not necessary for the case to go to trial or for the guy to even win. The prospect of being called up in court to prove nonexistence rape will force many lying feminists to think twice before they cry rape. It is past the time men acted as victims of false rape accusations. Let them call these feminists out on their game consistently. Let each accused guy sue his accusers. Let both go to court to prove their cases. At the very least, the counter lawsuit from the guy might force the accuser out of anonymity.
    You don’t deal with bullies by running away; you confront them and call their bluff. That is exactly how to deal with the feminists.

  49. easttexasfatboy says:

    As a follow up on my earlier comment, think of it this way. In East Germany under the communists, folks had to disimulate. You know, hide your real personality. Do what you have to do to avoid being ruined. I learned how 40 years ago. I spoke fluent Spanish in Texas. I am a big ole white boy. White folks didn’t trust ANYONE who could speak Spanish. Plain fact. So, I was one way around white folks, and another around my Mexican friends. They thought it was great! I had to live like they did. Here I was working as a plumber. My livelihood depended on white folks. They were the only people who could afford us. Nowadays it’s different. I get work because I’m fluent in Spanish. Here’s the point…..If you have to be tricky to survive, well, welcome to the real world. Always let folks speak first. You’ll be surprised what you learn. Lots of older white folks are extremely racist. I need to make a living. Duality of personality. I hope this helps a young guy somewheres. We shouldn’t have to act this way, but feminism practices personal destruction. Dudly Dooright is dead. They took him out and shot him. Be smarter than your opposition. Understand that false rape accusations will kill your career. Like I said, most young men simply aren’t smart enough to survive in a dangerous environment. Sad but true.

  50. Dave says:

    “Soon there will be a rape culture and feminists will have created it.. they know not what they do..”

    Laws don’t really stop the bad guys, because those guys already knew what they were doing as bad. It is the beta folks that will be victimized by these laws. The alphas (good and bad) will simply ignore the laws and take whatever they wanted, without regard to the consequences.
    There will be rape culture alright, but not because more women are being raped, but because normal male-female interactions will become criminalized and reclassified as rape. But I expect the whole house of cards to soon crumble, as many men, including law enforcement agents and their close friends, fall victim to these accusations, and see them for what they really are. Unfortunately, much damage would have been done.

  51. easttexasfatboy says:

    It depends on your circumstances. Some guys can fight the fine fight. Others don’t have the resources. It’s called survival. Yeah, I’d like to be able to stand up and fight amongst the barbs and arrows. But the reality is that few of us have the resources. Have you got rich parents? How are they going to handle a rape accusation? What happens to them if they get smeared also? You need to stop and think. I’m emphasizing survival over everything else. This society is headed down the toilet. Any woman is able to ruin you. ANY WOMAN. You don’t have the civil rights you think you have. Yeah, rich preppies can fight until their folks throw in the towel. Once again, I’m emphasizing survival. Live dog versus dead lion. That’s reality for most guys nowadays.

  52. Dave says:

    Understand that false rape accusations will kill your career.
    Not necessarily. The fact, though, is that you cannot stop false rape accusations against you if no one fights back. The guy in another state who sues his accuser for defamation is actually helping all men everywhere against false rape accusations. The more countersuits that are filed by falsely accused men, the less false rape accusations will become. Each wannabe rape victim will have to think twice before crying “rape”, knowing that she would likely be sued and forced to defend herserf in court, and may end up in prison for false rape claims.

    And, on another note, what type of life is worth living when you have to live like a schizophrenic–having to maintain double personality? Is that what it has become to be a man in today’s world? I hope not.
    By their very nature, real men live boldly, and die even more boldly. America would never have been if our forebears lived like double-faced cowards.

    “Cowards die many times before their deaths;
    The valiant never taste of death but once.
    Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
    It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
    Seeing that death, a necessary end,
    Will come when it will come.”

    ― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

  53. easttexasfatboy says:

    Like I said, it depends on what your resources are. What happens to the guys who get hammered and lose everything? What happens if you don’t have any backup? I’m the last of my line. I married foolishly. Children weren’t an option. She became a fanatical Jehovahs Witness. That’s a guarantee of a divorce. Witness women always divorce their unbelieving husbands. That’s what they’re taught. So, as far as dealing with women, I’ve been around the block. You can’t fight a cult.

  54. hoellenhund2 says:

    We’ve given up our families, our women, our children, our churches, our educational system, our workplaces, our government, our play places. Now, you advocate that we give up even more of our schools.

    You have it backwards. It was women and institutions that gave up on men, basically because they decided most of them aren’t useful anymore. Men didn’t abandon society. Society abandoned men.

  55. Scelus Maximus says:

    We should give out free t-shirts to all women who claim to have been raped; only then will we truly know just how prevalent rape is.
    /femtard

  56. S. Chan says:

    Consider the following three points.

    First, Jackie claimed that the “room was pitch-black inside” and that “a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table”. She then lay there, for three hours, while seven (originally five) men raped her, with shards of glass cutting in to her. Thus, according to Jackie, the men who were in a room so dark that they could not see, would be largely naked lying on a floor with lots of broken glass—for three hours. It is extremely implausible that the men would do that to themselves, even if they were evil: the men would surely risk getting severely cut by the glass.

    Second, Jackie claimed that, later on, some man “flung a bottle at Jackie that broke on the side of her face”. Bottles break easily in Hollywood movies, but special props are used then. Bottles do not break easily in real life: try it for yourself, or watch this video test—
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/ramzpaul-tries-to-shatter-a-beer-bottle-across-a-skull/

    Third, the claim that ritualized rape could be part of a fraternity pledging/initiation process is extremely implausible. All those fraternity guys participating and keeping the secret of a horrendous felony? None of the raped girls (previously) going public? Such a process would eventually be exposed, and at least some of the perpetrators would get long prison sentences: that is virtually certain, and the guys would know so.

    The three points together demonstrate that the story is extremely implausible even on its own terms. Although the research that the Washington Post later did was certainly highly valuable, no research was needed to see that the story greatly lacked credibility.

    An additional point is that the Rolling Stone said they did not contact the alleged perpetrator because of Jackie’s wishes. Yet the story effectively identified the perpetrator: a handsome lifeguard at the university swimming pool who was a member of Phi Kappa Psi and was then in his third year at UVA—that is easily enough information to identify someone. Of course, it has since turned out that there was no such person. Rolling Stone, however, say that they believed Jackie’s story. If so, then they were willing to publically identify a man they accused of orchestrating a gang rape without contacting the man or giving the man any opportunity to defend himself.

  57. Mike T: “Back in the 80s during the satanic sexual abuse hysteria, prosecutors believed stories from little kids about things that were so over the top that they wouldn’t pass the writing team on a B horror movie”

    And who was right there supporting those witch-hunts? Feminists like Gloria Steinem.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/01/gloria_steinem_represents_the_worst_of_modern_feminism_120818.html

  58. “All those fraternity guys participating and keeping the secret of a horrendous felony?”

    But don’t you see, we live in a *patriarchy* that let’s men do whatever they want, and doesn’t care a whit about women, and is at war against women, and thinks rape is no big deal, since women belong to men as property, etc.

  59. Frugal Nerd says:

    @Fracture,

    From my experience, also living in a Middle East Arab country, Muslim men living to those standards are the exception, not the rule. Theory and practice are often two very different things.

  60. Dave says:

    You have it backwards. It was women and institutions that gave up on men, basically because they decided most of them aren’t useful anymore. Men didn’t abandon society. Society abandoned men.

    By “giving up” I meant to give in to the demands of the feminists regarding those things. The feminists keep demanding; we keep yielding to appease them; only for the feminists to demand even more. When a few vocal women began their feminist madness, what did most men do? Well, they said “It’s just the vote; let them vote, and all will be well”. We all knew that’s not what happened. As is true of women’s nature,they never have enough. The more society gives the more they asked for, until now that men don’t even have so much as a breathing space in their own world and in their own countries anymore. We know that the feminists will eventually be hoisted by their own petard, but it is like the case of the falling skies; we’ll all be affected, whether we like it or not.
    But for anyone to advocate that we should give up more in this late hour is to ask for the impossible. What exactly do men have to give up, short of the air in their nostrils? They’ve given up everything else and are now living lives they never wanted. Many men are bitterly living the lives of eunuchs, when that is really not what they desire. Feminism has stolen their women and poisoned those women’s minds.

  61. S. Chan says:

    There is an excellent, albeit long, related article in Slate:
    The College Rape Overcorrection“.

  62. http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/08/hysteria/

    In spite of still growing confirmation that the story was a hoax, femosphere bloggers hold out hope against hope that even the smallest part of a medieval-like rape story to rival Silence of the Lambs could be true.

    The pivot for this will of course be how the falsehood injures women who genuinely are rape victims, but this is just the shiny keys jingling to distract anyone sympathetic to their ego-investments from the fact that they wanted to believe this story was legitimate.

    They wanted to believe it without an afterthought of critical analysis.

    They wanted to believe it in spite of the obvious melodramatic dialogue described by “Jackie”.

    They wanted to believe the pulp fiction that a naive freshmen girl could be frat boy initiation raped for three hours on the shards of glass from a broken glass table and never seek medical treatment or have anyone raise an eyebrow over the bloody mess that her back must’ve looked like as she nonchalantly walked out of the party house.

    They wanted and still hope that even the most marginal parts of the story might be true. They want any shred of hope that will distract from the fact that they must now confront their complete acceptance of this obvious farce without any compunction of critical thinking.

    They all have to face the fact that their presumption of male guilt comes before any logic or reason. This is the uniquely feminine hysteria that even men will invest themselves into if it means they can more positively identify with the Feminine Imperative.

    They are caught on a barb they can no longer ignore or deny, that they are so ego-invested in the feminine-primary narrative they would blithely destroy men’s lives a to prevent having to confront it.

    Just as the German populace had to confront their ego-investments in Nazi propaganda when Berlin fell, the true believers in the Feminine Imperative’s social conventions must now confront the illogic of their beliefs in light of evidence that cannot be refuted.

  63. Boxer says:

    Dear Rollo:

    The pivot for this will of course be how the falsehood injures women who genuinely are rape victims

    Exactly, but women, as TFH will remind us (and remind us, and remind us) tend not to fully “get” the whole cause-effect procedure.

    It’s a lot like that population of men who actually do beat the shit out of their wives, fuck other women, refuse to work, etc. These men actually exist, but they’re such a tiny minority compared to the make-believe population (and nearly every divorced woman I know will sing some looney song about how her ex-husband “abused” her) that it’s easier just to consider all such stories fabricated, until proven otherwise. The end result is that no one really believes a wimminz who complains about a man.

    Boxer

  64. Tam the Bam says:

    S. Chan, agreed. Given the smashed plateglass and broken bottles, this unidentified room should be bloodier than a trench dugout after a direct hit. Get the cadaver dogs to find the room, and the fetch the Luminol. Then sift through the yDNA profiles to identify the assailants.
    Or is she afraid they might not find something?
    “Vulnerable” my bumcrack, she lied. Lie, lie lie. Ole Chuckie Manson is “vulnerable” in exactly the same way as she is, if the DSM-5 is worth a button, and he’ll be buried in the prison yard.

  65. I stuck my head in on this topic last week.

    They don’t care. They don’t care that their stories aren’t believable. The narrative is all that matters. We have a “rape culture” and we need to hand our son’s en masse over to the like of Zarina Williams and Jessica Vallenti so that they can be taught not to rape. That is all that matters. If a few eggs get broken on the way to making this happen what is that to a true revolutionary Marxist? Jurisprudence is for sissies.

  66. Zerina Maxwell….ah whatever.

  67. Ryan says:

    S. Chan wrote: “Thus, according to Jackie, the men who were in a room so dark that they could not see, would be largely naked lying on a floor with lots of broken glass—for three hours. It is extremely implausible that the men would do that to themselves, even if they were evil: the men would surely risk getting severely cut by the glass.”

    Implausible, but desirable in a rape fantasy:

    http://blog.jim.com/culture/false-rape-fantasies/

    Broken glass implies frantic eagerness, which frantic eagerness does not fit with twenty[-five] minutes per rapist, nor does frantic eagerness fit with high status highly attractive guys having sex. The story [is] unreal in ways that provide the teller with the maximum sexual arousal.

    Her being down in the broken glass makes sense if she is telling a political tale about cis heteronormative rape patriarchal oppression, but the oppressors being down in the broken glass only makes sense as getting her off sexually.

  68. Rick says:

    Here’s what UVA is working on now – instant suspension for anyone accused of rape/sexual assault. I’m telling you guys, it’s just going to get worse and worse and worse. I’m sure there will be no punishment for false accusations. Notice the word “offenses”. Who exactly determines guilt? The kangaroo court? Who’s doing the “prosecution”? All to stop a non-existent rape culture created through false statistics.

    College guys are so very, very screwed. False accusations are going to go through the roof, as this piece seems to indicate and promote:

    “A zero-tolerance policy would mean that any group, be it a fraternity or other organization on Grounds, with repeated sexual misconduct offenses would immediately be kicked off Grounds. Additionally, any individual who is accused of sexual assault would be suspended as soon as a University official is notified of the event, and expulsion would be the only punishment the accused is found guilty. This is not the fairest way; we would be punishing people by association. And it is not the easiest way; we would be forced to endure countless expulsions and scandals. It is, however, the only way to change a culture rooted in excuses and violence. By punishing entire organizations, it forces people to look out for their friends to make sure they are doing nothing wrong. Instituting mandatory prosecution and harsh punishments sets a iron example of what will happen to transgressors.”

    http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2014/12/patel-the-silver-bullet

  69. BTW, I’ve been floating around the #Gamergate and the fun some of those guys are having at the expense of Gawker/Jezebel SJW feminists is not to be missed. I think they stand a good chance at rubbing those sites out of existence.

  70. @Rick, sounds like “The Trial” by Kafka. The Kafkatrapping in the SJW circles is going into redline RPM’s.

  71. thedeti says:

    The colleges don’t want the women to go to the police because it affects their reputation, insurance costs and opens them up to civil litigation. This also gives women the power to destroy innocent men’s lives “

    Feminists are part and parcel of this too. They encourage women to make complaints about fellow students allegedly sexually assaulting them because it is easier to “get” the alleged rapist this way. At the criminal law, rape is exceedingly difficult to prove. The standard of proof is high (“beyond a reasonable doubt”). The evidence depends on credibility because it’s “he said, she said”. Most of the time, the accuser and accused know each other and have some sort of relationship to each other. (The violent rapist unknown to his victims and attacking seemingly random women is rare.) Even presuming the physical evidence is present, it usually consists of pubic hair and semen, which occurs with sex. Many times there is no effort at all to preserve any physical evidence.

    The rape claims which tend to succeed are ones in which:

    1. The rape was reported immediately to law enforcement and/or medical personnel.

    2. A rape kit was run on the victim to preserve physical evidence: pubic hair and fluids.

    3. Photographs and video of the injuries were taken as soon as possible after the occurrence.

    4. The victim gives a full statement and account of the incident and she sticks by the story, admitting even to facts that are not favorable. All details come out the first time and do not change. The statement does not become embellished or altered as time wears on.

    5. The victim tells others of the attack very soon after it happens; and those others also give statements to police.

    6. The victim cooperates with law enforcement and agrees to press charges.

    And admittedly, even then, many alleged rapes aren’t prosecuted because the victim isn’t credible enough, or the evidence is deemed not strong enough beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction.

    So one reason for the current environment surrounding false rape claims and the efforts to move sexual assault claims to quasi administrative proceedings is to make it easier to sanction and “get” these men.

  72. Tam the Bam says:

    “College guys are so very, very screwed” because they are stupid.
    Which bit of “stay the heck away, and don’t give those faculty commissars a red cent ever” don’t they get?
    As the ratio of men (boys) on campus drops because of this Salem madness, so the probability of any random male student being accused of Teh Rape rises. Chucking your folks’ money down the drain, absolutely no point enrolling because they’ll get you in the end. Innocence is no defense, citizen!
    They could be gayer than RuPaul and they’d still be stitched up by these half-assed Star Chambers of envious academic failures and malevolent deadbeats. The busy, working, researching professors wouldn’t touch this tar-baby garbage with a (condom-shrouded) stick.
    Yay for single-sex universities, a Victory for Fembinisiyum. Enjoy, girls.
    The boys will likely be doing college somewhere else. Overseas, most likely. Sucks to be them, eh?

  73. In addition to women automatically being believed when they claim rape, women are automatically believed in other vital areas of inter gender issues. For example if a married couple goes for marital counseling, the therapist will most of the time just go along with the wife’s version of events; and that goes if the therapist is either a secular or christian therapist. Also, pastors hugely tend to favor women than men. Single men are treated as if they are too selfish to be married. Single women are treated as if they are victims of the no-good-men-available syndrome.

  74. Remember the 2004 election when Dan Rather was caught using fake documents in a major news story, and he defended himself by claiming that they were “fake but accurate?” We all had a good laugh at his expense and he ultimately lost his job.

    Now with the UVA rape scandal turning out to be a hoax, and Lena Dunham exposed as the white Tawana Brawley, and the media writing unironic editorials about how those of us who care about the facts and the truth are rape apologists, or that it doesn’t matter if they’re telling the truth or not… Rather was just too far ahead of the curve.

  75. At first I thought Dalrock’s title was a little harsh, but after slogging through some.feminist writing on this, I think he showed remarkable restraint.

  76. God Is Laughing: Gamergate has been busily and successfully writing to Gawker Media’s advertisers and getting them to drop out. Big names, like Intel and Mercedes. Jezebel’s parent company is losing piles of money. If anyone here has some free time and wants to help a good cause…

  77. Jeremy says:

    I’m not too selfish to be married, I just have reasonable standards in a nation of sluts.

  78. thedeti says:

    Luca:

    Yep. That’s why marital counseling or marriage counseling is usually not recommended around these parts. If a guy needs to talk it out with a counselor, he should go alone, never jointly. He also should not go for joint counseling for the specific purpose of trying to “save” a marriage. If joint counseling is being suggested, the marriage is probably too far gone to be saved.

    Pastors favor women over men because women are the ones who tend to control where the family attends church (it shouldn’t be this way but it is in practice) and women are the ones who control the volunteering, tithing and giving. (Follow the money.)

  79. Rick says:

    “In addition to women automatically being believed when they claim rape, women are automatically believed in other vital areas of inter gender issues.”

    Oh yeah – and a lot of the men support this false victim narrative. During a conversation regarding UVA, a friend of mine told me he was worried about sending his daughter to college due to the rape culture. I told him he should be far more worried about sending his son. I got “the look” of confusion and contempt. Many a sheep is going to be led to the slaughter. College campuses are breeding grounds for cluster B infected feminists. It is going to get very ugly, very fast, for naive, ignorant boys – especially those without fathers that would otherwise warn them of women’s true nature.

  80. Boxer says:

    During a conversation regarding UVA, a friend of mine told me he was worried about sending his daughter to college due to the rape culture. I told him he should be far more worried about sending his son.

    He shouldn’t send either, unless one or both is committed to doing something very specialized, like a BSN or BEE. In these cases, most of the coursework can be done at an apolitical (and more affordable) community college before transfer. If your kids want to study the liberal arts, get them a library card and have them do some coursera or MIT open courseware sessions. Hire a broke-ass Ph.D. candidate from the useless university to teach them anything they won’t be able to learn here (which probably won’t be much, outside of technical writing and higher math).

    The modern university system is bloated, and full of people who would be otherwise unemployable. Big names (Google is one) in industry are starting to remove the degree requirement from the hiring process, too. Don’t waste your money.

  81. DaveA says:

    TFH wrote, “a woman is the much scarcer reproductive resource, so her life is more valuable …”

    That’s only true in species where babies survive to adulthood with no help from their fathers. It’s true in equatorial Africa and in the welfare ghettos of the First World. But for white women hoping to raise a family in a safe suburb with good schools, marriageable *men* are the scarce resource. (“Oh shit, I just turned 30 and I’m still single! What happened?”)

    Intra-sexual competition selects for beauty in the more abundant sex. Hence Asian women are more beautiful than Asian men, but African men are more beautiful than African women. Upper class whites resemble the former, while lower-class whites … the hardest part about living in a trailer park is not being able to look at pretty women because there aren’t any.

  82. earl says:

    OT: The Sexodus Part 2 Article is Up.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/09/The-Sexodus-Part-2-Dishonest-Feminist-Panics-Leave-Male-Sexuality-In-Crisis

    What is interesting is the comments the young men made…all similar statements to the fact they’ve given up, there is unrealistic standards, and women aren’t worth the hassle anymore.

  83. WillBest says:

    Of course by crying wolf so much, I am not convinced that the statute of limitations on rape should be roughly 48 hours after escaping the physical proximity of the rapist for any victim over the age of 17. If you can’t bring yourself to file a police report in that time. It isn’t rape.

  84. Rick says:

    @God is Laughing

    This goes beyond anything imaginable:

    Rights to due process – stripped. Rights to presumption of innocence – stripped. Right to confront the accuser – stripped. Right to cross examine – stripped. Name of the accuser – hidden from all and from the accused. Right to present evidence in your favor – stripped. Name of the accused – published publicly. Rights to an attorney – stripped. Instant suspension from a mere accusation – check.

    There’s nothing you can ever say to young college men that will make sense to them. What are you going to tell them? If a woman accuses you of rape and gets at least one female cohort to cooperate her claim you’re going to be expelled? Can you see the drool oozing from feminists mouths over the implementation of such a policy? I’ve no doubt there will be a big push to get this law incorporated into VAWA.

    Has the world gone completely insane? Just make it illegal for men to go to college and get it over with already.

  85. Snowy says:

    Opus said “All claims of Rape are false; at least personally and professionally, I have never come across one that had any veracity.”

    I believe this.

    Also, for those who are not already aware, I’d like to point you in the direction of a blog writer, Dr Rookh Kshatriya, whose Anglobitch Thesis of sexual repression (especially of men’s sexuality) provides explanations of what we see today that I have not encountered before. I highly recommend his blog to all thinking men. I implore you to look into it.

    http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com.au/

  86. new anon says:

    The colleges (and feminist) don’t want the women going to the police, because they are establishing another–second–legal system. One where they–the college–makes the laws and hands out judgment without any checks on their authority.

    Our legal system is far from perfect, but it at least has some checks on it. Decisions can be appealed to a higher court; citizen jurors make the decisions on guilt; laws are passed by elected officials; governors and the president can pardon anyone found guilty; and all of it must be done out in the open where everyone can see the proceedings.

    Compare that to these college kangaroo courts. The proceedings and evidence are in secret; nobody knows who actually makes the decision of guilt; the “law” is a policy that can be changed on a whim, or not followed at all; the accused is not allowed to present a defense, or even know who their accuser is. It is in fact, a private legal system.

    You can make the argument that public, government courts were established to prevent exactly what these colleges are doing.

    These men are being accused of something that is PUBLIC, legal crime, but being prosecuted in a PRIVATE court.

  87. new anon says:

    The more I think about it, I wonder why the 6th amendment shouldn’t apply in this case.

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]”

    UVA is a government entity.

    The accused is being prosecuted and faces a penalty if found guilty: the definition of a crime.

  88. thedeti & new anon,

    The colleges don’t want the women to go to the police because it affects their reputation, insurance costs and opens them up to civil litigation. This also gives women the power to destroy innocent men’s lives…

    The colleges (and feminist) don’t want the women going to the police, because they are establishing another–second–legal system. One where they–the college–makes the laws and hands out judgment without any checks on their authority.

    Both almost there. Your reasons are all excellent, but you are both missing two pieces as to why they don’t want women to go to the police.

    First piece. If a college student goes to the police and files charges against another college student then the school no longer has any authority to do anything. They can’t kick him out of school for “rape” because he is only alleged to have “raped.” If they kick him out on their own authority AND the DA refuses to prosecute OR they do prosecute and he is found not-guilty, the now “not guilty” young man can sue the crap out of the school and he’ll win….. BIG BUCKS!!!! The school opens itself up to liability for acting against an innocent person.

    If she doesn’t go to the police, now the school has authority because the school can bargain with the young man. Young man, we have a girl who says you raped her. Sign this document right here and you will have to leave school BUT we wont tell your parents that you sexually assaulted her (it will be confidential) and we promise NOT to tell any future schools that you are transferring to that you had to leave because of sexual assault. It will just be a transfer.

    Second piece. These kangaroo courts at these college are just bullshit organizations that are indoctrinated with the feminist imperative. But they aren’t stupid. They KNOW that the “rape” is nothing of the kind, just “regret.” Criminally, it is very obvious what “rape” is. If the boy kicked down her dorm room door, ran into her room, and violated her, they are NOT going to handle that situation in kangaroo court. They will take her right to the police and the boy will be immediately arrested. In that case, they KNOW they have a “winner.” But that is NEVER how it happens. In basically all of these “rape” cases they know that (criminally) they DON’T have a winner. She got drunk and sort of consented and then woke up the next day and felt awful about who she slept with. So of course, they don’t want her to go to the police because the DA isn’t likely to prosecute and even if he does, he is not going to find 12 jury members who will convict.

    Going to the police makes this REAL. If it becomes REAL (like what is happening with Jameis Winston because she did charge him) then the school has almost zero power of authority over the situation. It is already in public, the boy’s parents already know, every school he would transfer to would already know, the school has no leverage, nothing to get him to sign a document and leave quietly and prevent being sued. Going to the police makes the university vulnerable (financially) if they take any action on their own accord.

  89. joshtheaspie says:

    @Rick

    Any time I hear some father say that he insisted his daughters get self defense training before going to college, I ask “did you do the same for your sons?” They are taken aback, and then (either sheepishly, or derisively) say “I just figured he could take care of himself”. To which I bring up the fact that men are more likely to be injured due to criminal assault than women are, are about as equally likely to get raped, and need self defense training far more than women do.

    Then people quickly change the subject.

  90. Morgan says:

    It’s an interesting coincidence that rape hysteria is taking over college campuses right as the women begin outnumbering men. Laws of supply and demand would suggest men use rape to get sex from women when females are scarce. Every man would be able to pair up with an available woman and have a committed sexual relationship. Yet here, we’re seeing it increase as women aren’t able to get committed relationships when men are scarce. As females compete for scarce male attention with their sexuality in the hook up culture, they become less likely to enter a committed sexual relationship because of the abundance of available sex for men. Men no longer need to commit for sex, and women are left feeling like they gave up sex for nothing, aka raped. Perhaps this is just correlation, but there may be a causal mechanism in there as well.

    My hypothesis is that you have 30 women competing for the same guy, and thirty men with no female attention. Hook up culture allows the guy to entertain all thirty women without committing to any one. Whereas previously, he would have to choose one, and then the other 29 would slowly be bumped down the ladder of expectations to the other men. Instead, all thirty are left feeling they have a chance with this man but are still left unsatisfied. A false rape accusation is a way for her to claim her territory, or at least ruin his chances with other women if she can’t have him. If men stayed in monogamous relationships, this would all go away, because these other women wouldn’t have the opportunity to claim rape. Or, on the other hand, if women stopped being sluts and giving away sex outside of relationships. Since the second solution is unlikely, I’ll pin my hopes on men.

  91. Boxer says:

    Morgan:

    That’s actually the best theory on this phenomenon that I have seen expressed, even among all the other heavy-hitters.

    Boxer

  92. Dave says:

    As the ratio of men (boys) on campus drops because of this Salem madness, so the probability of any random male student being accused of Teh Rape rises.

    More likely debauchery will get even worse. Women will go to great lengths to get the attentions of the few men on their campuses, and the men will insist on videotaping every encounter with them. I expect that due to intra-sex competitioon, women will actually out their competitors who plan to use the rape arsenal against the guys.

    Rights to due process – stripped. Rights to presumption of innocence – stripped. Right to confront the accuser – stripped. Right to cross examine – stripped. Name of the accuser – hidden from all and from the accused. Right to present evidence in your favor – stripped. Name of the accused – published publicly. Rights to an attorney – stripped. Instant suspension from a mere accusation – check.

    All of these anomalies are easily fixed by high-powered lawyers. Once the school gets sued once or twice by those “rich white kids” who are falsely accused, and the school leadership loses their jobs, they will tread carefully in subsequent cases.

  93. Just Saying says:

    we need to automatically believe women who accuse men of rape

    I have seen it often enough to know that is BS, and had it happen to me once – up to the point where I produced videos of the event and made it known that they would be “public” if things progressed. Magically, everything went away – for me… (Having her on video screaming “F**K ME” pretty much showed it wasn’t rape, but if I hadn’t had the video, I would have been up sh*t’s creek.) Unfortunately, the guy I’m thinking of who showed me the underbelly of women wasn’t so lucky. He was on an athletic scholarship – which he lost due to her accusations. The event was a common one – she was PO’ed her boyfriend didn’t take her to a party, so she went by her self and f**ked a guy – to get “even” with her boyfriend. When she found out that her boyfriend didn’t take her because he was at his mother’s funeral – she felt like the slut she is, so suddenly, it was “rape”…

    Women hate to reveal what they are – so it’s much easier to cry rape, and hide behind that shield. Of course the people at the party said it was exactly what it was – a woman that f**ked the guy and enjoyed it. Of course, when you find out the facts it’s easy to understand what happened. She felt like the slut she is for f**king a guy when her boyfriend was at his mother’s funeral – so she had to find a way to make the guy’s fault. Thus, it was “rape”….

    Of course Feminists hate to admit that women are that petty and do things like that all the time – but it is how women are. Heck, I’ve used it to bang wives when they thought their husband was cheating on them, or just because she was upset with him. That is just how women are – they are spiteful and out to hurt any man that makes the mistake of caring. That is why I enjoy women, but never make the mistake of putting a higher value on her, then she places upon herself.. That is where most men go wrong – they place a higher value on her then she places upon herself.

    So never make that mistake – and never marry a slut as she knows what she is, and will do her best to hide it. But once a slut – always a slut… You don’t have to believe me… You’ll find out for yourself eventually…

  94. Morgan & Boxer,

    My hypothesis is that you have 30 women competing for the same guy, and thirty men with no female attention. Hook up culture allows the guy to entertain all thirty women without committing to any one. Whereas previously, he would have to choose one, and then the other 29 would slowly be bumped down the ladder of expectations to the other men. Instead, all thirty are left feeling they have a chance with this man but are still left unsatisfied. A false rape accusation is a way for her to claim her territory, or at least ruin his chances with other women if she can’t have him.

    I was in a poker room playing in a poker tournament the night East Carolina University (the Pirates) put something like 70 points on UNC Tarheels (in a football game, no less.) One of my poker opponents admitted to the table that he was an ECU alum, a very proud one at that moment. I had previously heard from my boss (a former resident of North Carolina) that ECU was a total “party school.” I had heard the term before (with respect to Arizona State University) but I wasn’t sure what it meant in the context of ECU. “Party school” is very subjective. Then I found out what it mean “objectively.”

    At break in private, I queried my opponent about his alma mater in the context of it being a “party school” and he smiled at me and said (when he was there) it was three-women-to-each-man. It was a total “party.” Well I didn’t understand what he meant by that, why would the female to male ratio indicate a party? Here is how. He said that he was a virgin when he went to school at ECU and inside of his 4 years, he had sex with 80 different women (20 different women per year.) And the entire duration he had a girl friend at ECU whom he was never faithful, a girl friend that he could just show off to his friends and family and dispose of upon graduation. It was pretty obvious why he got his 80, he was a total AMOG. He was a thin, intelligent, clever, calculating, good looking guy with a lot of confidence. And as a result he was an exceptional poker player.

    Point is this, for him that school was a total “party.” He got to f-ck for conquest his 80 (along with all the other ECU AMOGs) while 25 other beta guys at ECU maybe got none. I’m quite sure you are right Morgan, if he were at ECU today scoring his 80 personal sexual conquests, at least of few of them might claim they were “raped” since he was able to trade them in with ease (one every other week.) Her consentual sex would turn into regretful sex with turns into sexual assault. Of course, it wouldn’t be sexual assault in a court of law, but maybe in an ECU kangaroo court with 3 or 4 of his 80 girls with broken hearts (and now a ruptured hymen)…. you have rape culture.

  95. Snowy says:

    In a world of ‘no God’, that is ‘no objective truth’, what else can we expect? ‘No God’ essentially equates to insanity, which is what we have. Adam must be turning over in his grave.

  96. minuteman says:

    I see a time in the not to distant future when unmarried men and women don’t socialize without a chaperone. But this time it will be for the protection of the reputation of the men rather than the women.

  97. Old Asian Man says:

    “I see a time in the not to distant future when unmarried men and women don’t socialize without a chaperone.”

    Isn’t that how it should be? Particularly for young people?

  98. Opus says:

    When I was a very young lawyer I was taught NEVER to see a female client (especially a spinster) on her own and that I should always have another person – preferably a woman – with me. False allegations, in themselves, are nothing new.

    Morgan indeed does nail it at 9.05 and it reminds me again that as a young law student when the ratio of men to women in my class was 90-10 that the girls remained chaste the entire time and no rapes or gauche advances were attempted. Despite their being advised to the contrary, women cannot cope with the inevitable rejection that casual sex brings, and (as I have mentioned more than once before by reference to Don Giovanni from 1787) women are either convinced that the man should want to marry them or that they have been raped. Casual sex (we now learn from Roissy) has been linked to poor mental health and thus the girl giving it up the most is also the one most likely to react badly even as she appears the most daring and confident.

    All sexual encounters should be videotaped, though sadly that seems to be illegal where I am.

  99. JDG says:

    I’m not too selfish to be married, I just have reasonable standards in a nation of sluts.

    Bears repeating.

  100. Spawny Get says:

    Dalrock, is this news (just found on Twitter)?

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/census-bureau-may-stop-tracking-u.s.-marriage-trends

    Sorry if it’s old news to you

  101. infowarrior1 says:

    @Benanderii

    To the bro in Sweden I say Hi. Glad to know that this message is penetrating the Saudi Arabia of Feminism.

  102. infowarrior1 says:

    @TFH ,Jeremy
    ”Jeremy,

    a job is how a man DEFINES HIMSELF, the team he works with is PART OF HIS IDENTITY. If you take that away from him, you DESTROY THE MAN.

    Extremely few women care about this. Not just self-proclaimed ‘feminists’, ask any ordinary woman in a Socratic way about whether due process is valuable in cases of rape or not. Probe their answers. You may not like what you find.”

    If women don’t care and they are solipsistic. Then they can’t rule. Why are we giving them authority over men, if they can’t grasp this concept?

  103. Tam the Bam says:

    new anon : “These men are being accused of something that is PUBLIC, legal crime, but being prosecuted in a PRIVATE court.”

    Oh we’ve had that Over Here for simply ages, dontchaknow?
    For instance if Wee Brendan gets denounced (anonymously of course) for selling the odd baggie of weed to his teen chums, or robbing houses, the bhoys will grab him off the street and kneecap him after a fair hearing. In the interests of “Thu Cummunidy” and the Struggle or some such.
    No evidence required. That would be unpatriotic.

    I hope these university torquemadas have the style and presence of mind to wear black balaclavas (the ones with just the eyeholes and mouth). Anything else would be letting the side down.

  104. Gunner Q says:

    hoellenhund2 @ 8:52 am:
    “The problem with that is that when social trends reach a point where even average, otherwise uninterested and ignorant people notice their consequences, it’s already late to do something about them. Average people, after all, have limited intelligence and are generally slow to notice things around them. Now they’re finally noticing that the ruling oligarchy has sided completely with feminists pushing these policies gutting due process and presumption of innocence, and that those who oppose them are powerless to stop them. They’re also starting to notice that tradcons and feminists are co-belligerents. But again, it shows that it’s too late to stop them.”

    Nonsense, it’s recruiting time! Ordinary Joes are not just waking up to the problem, they’re having the proverbial gun put to their head. That’s a big, bad, EXPLOITABLE mistake by feminists!

    I bet the Constitution Party will have record growth in 2015. Can’t wait to get the holidays out of the way now… men are desperate and looking for allies… oh yeah, baby! No more fence-sitters!

  105. Old Asian Man says:

    Did Jackie recant?

  106. Boxer says:

    I bet the Constitution Party will have record growth in 2015.

    LOL! Please. The U.S. Constitution is the framework by which feminism took root. Feminism began in the USA of the 1950s, metastasized here, and was spread around the world to the detriment of everyone.

    In hindsight, it would have been much better for American men to have been conquered and colonized by the USSR, which put radical feminists in prison, and made regular women do productive work.

    The last thing men need is more faggot CONservatives trying to run interference for the radfems, and shore up the great satan, America. Instead, serious men should quit paying attention to elections (if anyone was on your side, they’d not be allowed to be a candidate) and start sowing the seeds of a healthy, patriarchal society at home, where the government has limited opportunities to interfere.

  107. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/you-cant-just-accuse-people-of-rape

    Writing in the Washington Post about the University of Virginia rape case, Zerlina Maxwell asserts, “We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

    Where to begin with this kind of statement?

    For one thing, even an outlandish accusation would not exactly be cost-free; it could be devastating. There would be police interviews, professional questions. As Maxwell blithely notes in the piece, the accused might be suspended from his job. Does he have enough savings to live on until the questions are cleared? Many people don’t. What about the Google results that might live on years after he was cleared? Sure, he can explain them to a prospective girlfriend, employer, or sales prospect. But what if they throw his communication into the circular file before he gets a chance to explain? What about the many folks who will think (encouraged by folks like Maxwell) that the accusation would never have been made if he hadn’t done something to deserve it?

    But while the effect on the accused is one major problem with uncritically accepting any accusation of rape, it is not the only problem. There’s another big problem — possibly, an even bigger one: what this does to the credibility of people who are trying to fight rape.

    I think Megan feels like she was duped. Or maybe she swallowed a red pill for a change?

  108. JDG says:

    Feminism began in the USA of the 1950s…

    I beg to differ. 1850s is my estimation of the origins of feminism in the US.

  109. Boxer says:

    I beg to differ. 1850s is my estimation of the origins of feminism in the US.

    Well, if we take that view, then we both have to agree with TFH that feminism has lasted for the last 100,000 years or so, and is merely a part of human evolution. I do agree that the “tender years” nonsense was a huge feminist milestone, mind you, and that happened around civil war time.

    The 1950s US was a really fertile hotbed of feminist nastiness, though, and all of its worst elements can be traced directly back from the present. Dried out old whores like Gloria Steinem and certifiable lunatics like Sylvia Plath found this culture and this time period the most fertile place for spreading their toxic ideology.

    http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=constructing

    If only I had a time machine…

    Boxer

  110. Maunalani says:

    On MSNBC last night, they were arguing for a reversal of the presumption of innocence in alleged rape cases.

  111. Boxer says:

    On MSNBC last night, they were arguing for a reversal of the presumption of innocence in alleged rape cases.

    As TFH and others have pointed out, it is most often people who hang out with feminists (SJW types and male feminist sympathizers) who get hit with the false rape accusations, as well as white knights and manginas (who women see as “creepy” and unattractive). With some exceptions, the majority of men affected by this nonsense will end up being the men we all dislike anyway. It is good that they bear most of the costs and burdens of feminism, while the rest of us enjoy our lives.

  112. JDG says:

    Well, if we take that view, then we both have to agree with TFH that feminism has lasted for the last 100,000 years or so, and is merely a part of human evolution.

    Sorry I don’t see a connection between women publicly pushing feminist ideas in the 1850s (I’ve read the 1st rally was in 1848) and human evolution. I don’t even believe there is such a thing as human evolution. I’m convinced that feminism if anything is either a result of or a cause of societal decay, not human evolution.

    I do agree though that something happened in the 1960s that opened the flood gates of iniquity, and so it would make sense that something was going on prior to this to bring about the sudden exponential increase of depravity in society.

  113. JDG says:

    The 1950s US was a really fertile hotbed of feminist nastiness, though, and all of its worst elements can be traced directly back from the present.

    There has been a steady movement to “empower” women from the 1850s up to the 1960s. After that, insanity…

  114. MarcusD says:

    Help, starting to change my mind regarding waiting til marriage:/
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=927184

    What kind of a sin is kissing?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=927235

    A Question About Relationships
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=927199

  115. Dave says:

    “I see a time in the not to distant future when unmarried men and women don’t socialize without a chaperone. But this time it will be for the protection of the reputation of the men rather than the women.”

    And who will the chaperone be? Another woman, who might end up supporting the sisterhood, or another man, who will likely be accused of being a collaborator with the accused should the woman decide to play the victim card? Will the American society exist long enough to that stage?

  116. johngmateus says:

    Karl Rove perfected the technique of getting left-wingers to trip over themselves in doubling down on lies and being far less professional than they let on.

    When he sent the fake Bush documents to CBS during the 2004 election, he must have been astounded with glee when Dan Rather & Co. not only ran with it, but they didn’t fact check it. Later, when Rove unleashed the power of bloggers to fact check it—famously, Little Green Footballs exposed it—CBS & Rather doubled down on the memos. “Fake but accurate” described their attitude. Eventually, Dan Rather got dismissed for it (although he claims it was a voluntary, totally unrelated retirement).

    When they won’t listen to your own screams, let them listen to their own guys doubling down on lies.

    I would not be surprised if this Jackie story were sent on a platter by a Rovian right-wing operative to Rolling Stone, to see if they would run with it. When they did, the operative just pointed out the obvious idiocy in it to others, who ran with it (like Steve Sailer).

  117. Tam the Bam says:

    ” much better for American men to have been conquered and colonized by the USSR” WTH 8oxer? Sssssshhhhhhhh!
    As a card-carrying cadre of the Hotdog College, you’re supposed to maintain deep cover at all times.
    Not publish The Plan in the opposition’s inhouse media.

  118. Tam the Bam says:

    Dave : “And who will the chaperone be? Another woman, who might end up supporting the sisterhood, or another man”
    A droid, obviously. Equipped with Tasers, full-spectrum recording gear, and cavity-inspection cameras.
    Perhaps some of the sexbots could be modified.

  119. Opus says:

    I see that over at RoK there is a new article under the heading All Public Rape Allegations are False. Who can doubt it for when I see that Lady Gaga (no idea who she is but I suspect she is a crooner) alleges that at the tender age of nineteen she was raped, I conclude that she has a new record to sell.

    I won’t bore you with the horrors of Yewtree where the life-wrecking allegations of half a century ago are given airing but what I would like to know is: whatever happened to Teenyboppers? – airbrushed out of history it seems. Clearly for the promiscuously inclined it would be wise for any disc-jockey or Lothario to insist upon two identity papers preferably with photograph.

    Has Dalrock lost his nerve in the title of the above essay: I don’t think its the Dog’s food that he has in mind.

  120. Bon appétit, feminists.

    Hope they choke on some dicksausage while they’re at it..

  121. Dalrock says:

    @MarcusD

    Help, starting to change my mind regarding waiting til marriage:/
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=927184

    I see that one of the objections she states is men not wanting to wait for years to have sex. The obvious question is, why is she expecting them to remain her celibate boyfriend for years? If she isn’t ready to marry, why does she think she is ready to look for a husband? If she is ready to find her husband, why not simply marry him and skip the celibate boyfriend step?

    I didn’t read the whole thread but I skimmed through part of it to see if someone pointed the obvious out. What I found instead was Robyn p reinforcing this nonsense:

    4. “If she can withhold sex with me for years, who knows if she will do that in the marriage too?”

    This has got to be the most self-centered argument I’ve heard. Women must always be willing to satisfy men’s needs apparently. “How dare she refuse me!” Yeah. That’s the kind of man I want to spend the rest of my life with alright. That right there should show you these guys are not interested in a truly loving relationship. They are only looking for what they can get out of a girl. You don’t need that in your life. You’ll only get hurt.

    Besides, the exact same argument could be made from the other side. If he is unable to discipline and control his sexual urges when he’s not married, who knows if he will do that in marriage too? Chastity separates the strong from the weak. You’ll know that a man really loves you and isn’t just trying to use you if he is willing to wait.

  122. MV says:

    Greek is the new Black

  123. MV says:

    It seems that feminist tower of babel is collapsing from top down.

    First the elites decided to replace old harpy guards with younger, sweeter Emma Watson and her soft #HeForShe begging for chivalry. A frenzy of feminist intercannibalization about the theoretical definition of the word “feminism” ensued.

    Now even MSM can’t ignore the hysterical man-witch hunt which is going on under label of “rape prevention” in feminist ivory bastions which are universities. Intercannibalization between 100%-crazy-academic-feminists and 95%-crazy-outside-world-feminists is picking up speed as we speak.

    Courts, police and HR departments will follow the pattern, sooner or later.

    And then the happy day will dawn, when men in white suits will pick up and safely institutionalize the very last of the feminists:

    Glenn T. Stanton of “Focus on the Family”.

  124. Lyn87 says:

    johngmateus says:
    December 10, 2014 at 3:04 am

    Karl Rove perfected the technique of getting left-wingers to trip over themselves in doubling down on lies and being far less professional than they let on.

    When he sent the fake Bush documents to CBS during the 2004 election, he must have been astounded with glee when Dan Rather & Co. not only ran with it, but they didn’t fact check it. Later, when Rove unleashed the power of bloggers to fact check it—famously, Little Green Footballs exposed it—CBS & Rather doubled down on the memos. “Fake but accurate” described their attitude. Eventually, Dan Rather got dismissed for it (although he claims it was a voluntary, totally unrelated retirement).

    When they won’t listen to your own screams, let them listen to their own guys doubling down on lies.

    I would not be surprised if this Jackie story were sent on a platter by a Rovian right-wing operative to Rolling Stone, to see if they would run with it. When they did, the operative just pointed out the obvious idiocy in it to others, who ran with it (like Steve Sailer).

    I think the tin-foil hat on your head is slipping… you may need to adjust the chin strap.

  125. Looking Glass says:

    @JDG:

    It’s actually a whole lot easier to explain, but people have to be uncorked from their view of history a bit to get the point.

    The 1800s saw the end of Slavery and much of the “historic” barbarism in the West. But, Humans being Humans & Sin being Sin, it never goes away. It simply started morphing. The rise of industrialization brought depravity to a whole new level of efficiency: something Europeans found out all too brutally in WW1. But this wasn’t the point where things changed, that was in the 1850s.

    The one thing, most especially Christians don’t want to deal with, is that we’ve been dealing with a Religious War for nearing 200 years. It’s just that no one has bothered to notice.

    I’ll drop this link, if you want to kill a couple hours trying to pinpoint the exact moment where it really got rolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy

    In short, it’s the result of (mostly) German Philosophers in the 1800s, but, obviously, most weren’t thinking they were out to create a Religion. But they did. Just not in the traditional “A Guy says things, he’s a messenger from God!” way.

    The important detail is that it is the first native European Religion in on about 1200~1500 years. It’s been a long time. But it ended up creating 3 separate branches: Communism, National Socialism and Progressive Movement (US Term)/Socialism (European Term). All 3 are still banging around, in one form or the other, but they most definitely exist as Religions. Though they all start from an explicit rejection of Judeo-Christian Ethics: which is also why they always end up eating their own.

    The failure of the Christian Church is the fact that we saw a replay of the Gnostics and no one was the wiser. In the US, the Progressive Movement really did begin from within Churches. While I’ve seen the argument it started from a “phileo love” point of view and got corrupted over time, there’s no way to reconcile that with what we understand now. It was the “Christian Kosher” version of the new Religion (which has the State as God). Intentions matter to God, and the intentions for “Public Morals” were not founded in the Spirit, which is always a sign of where the failure & Sin would result. (Say hello to Eugenics!)

    So what really happened in the 1960s was the long, 100+ year march of unwinding Christian morality. At the same time, a significant portion of it *HAS* to be kept, otherwise the economy collapses. (Laws, Business Ethics, Leaders being under the same rules; all of those little details that make a Modern Economy work. The Japanese & South Koreans just outright imported the systems and they have modern economies for it.) But the depravity simply was able to unleash itself via the social settings. Where, previously, dealing with other populations with severe force was fine, yet sleeping around was badly looked down upon, we now have a world were the use of force is “bad” (unless it fits something that isn’t useful for the country doing it) but being a whore is considered fine.

    This is both nothing terribly new (e.g. Fall of Rome) or easy to deal with. But, Irenaeus started dealing with the Gnostics by at least 180 A.D. It took through Nicea & Chalcedon to really clean up most of the mess. Even if we still see a good portion of the damage cropping up every now and again. (Though they were still handing out Anathemas as late as the late 500s against different parts of the teachings that showed up.) So, we are in for a long, long battle over this disaster.

    Side point: I’ve viewed the start of the European Religion as stemming from Germany for a fairly specific reason, beyond just the most major works emanating from there. It’s payback for allowing Martin Luther to operate. Whether Roman, Protestant or Orthodox, the Reformation kicked Christian Evangelism back to the forefront of operation and started the process of getting all of the Churches out of their waywardness. There are those Powers that don’t much appreciate the Church operating properly.

  126. Boxer says:

    As a card-carrying cadre of the Hotdog College, you’re supposed to maintain deep cover at all times. Not publish The Plan in the opposition’s inhouse media.

    No worries: I just got expelled from the Frankfurt School for comparing the merits of the different Advanced Industrial Societies (hat tip Uncle Herb) during the cold war. It’s true, though. Khrushchev put feminists in prison. Later (mid 1980s during the Brezhnev era) there were a couple of American educated feminist dykes in Leningrad (what they used to call St. Pete) who started a feminist newspaper. They were sent to a mental hospital for a while and then deported. I’m sure there were many other examples.

    For all their faults, I can’t blame the chekists on this account. This is what a healthy society would do here, to people who made it their mission in life to spread their own misery around to everyone else. Feminists are life’s failures, and while we may never completely silence them, containment of their insanity is a fair response.

    Boxer

  127. @Dalrock,

    The more I’m around this stuff the more it seems like it’s perfectly designed to punish men and women for ungodly behaviors. She wants a celibate boyfriend, a Godly wife seeking man sees an unserious sex denier and nexts her. He want’s a promiscuous girlfriend, a Godly husband seeking woman nexts him, or they get the premarital sex that is going to make them both think that they got what they wanted while making them miserable by degrees. My advice to young unmarried men these days is to tune up their crazy detectors and stay far away from them.

  128. jbro1922 says:

    @Dalrock and God is Laughing,

    Seems like this idea of waiting is built on the assumption that it takes years to get to know and vet someone for marriage. And celibacy movements teach that sex gets in the way of the vetting process, so women are taught to not let sex complicate things by getting their emotions involved. I had a friend tell me she wanted to get together, break up, get back together and live with her spouse prior to marriage. To make sure she knew what she was getting. So I guess that’s what is meant by vetting. I wonder if she would provoke a fight just to start that process. I thought vetting was mainly done through prayer.
    Explains why I didn’t date in my 20s. I wasn’t looking for a husband, so what was the point? I think a lot of women just want a man to keep waiting on the wings so that they can pursue whatever they want in their 20s and yet not be technically alone. So they either string said man along or do the break up, get back together cycle.

  129. Get married to a suitable partner at 17, take divorce off the table. Work on your marriage with God and your spouse, have babies. Rinse repeat. Worked for centuries. Until feminism. Now everyone is “happy”.

  130. And by “suitable”, I mean someone that you find reasonably attractive and reasonably agreeable. This can be determined after a period of a month or two. None of this life soul mate “the one” nonsense that has us chasing unicorns and pot’s of gold at the end of fantasy rainbows.

  131. new anon says:

    Maybe we should start labeling these women who think it’s OK to make a false accusation a Mayella Ewell after the character in “To Kill a Mockingbird” who made the false rape accusation.

  132. Opus says:

    I blame Robert Schumann. As everyone knows: in 1837 he proposed to Clara Weick, but her father forbade her marrying a penniless composer. Quite right too, as Clara, in true feminist style was the one who could as a top pianist make a lot of money. In true Beta mode Robert continued to pursue Clara and after writing a lot of music married her in 1840, after which children were born, so we can safely say she was a virgin at marriage. This seems to be the template for ‘no sex until marriage’ but it is fair to say that had Herr Weick approved, then things would have been different. For no sex before – or after – marriage Peter Tchaikovsky seems to be the model. Perhaps Tchaik is the sort of guy Robyn P would be interested in. I expect she is just as old and ugly as Nadezhda von Meck another woman Tchaik failed to have sex with even though she paid his living expenses.

  133. earl says:

    ‘My advice to young unmarried men these days is to tune up their crazy detectors and stay far away from them.’

    My advice is similar but more crude because a lot of guys still don’t get it.

    ‘Don’t stick your dick in crazy.’

  134. @Earl

    I was thinking precisely that. Sometimes the more direct approach really is the more humane as well. Looking at this story I’m am rapidly coming to the conclusion that anything that you can stick your dick into that you aren’t married to is categorically crazy. She is either trapping for “the one”, chasing the mythical alpha marrying man with her vagina, in the process of settling miserably after failure in her first goal, or totally insane because she has doubled and quadrupled down on a program that does nothing but reduce her MMV and her sanity.

  135. earl says:

    ‘I’m am rapidly coming to the conclusion that anything that you can stick your dick into that you aren’t married to is categorically crazy.’

    Yes with that mindset it will save many a men (and women) a big headache and heartache. The risk-reward to premarital sex is way more risk and little reward (same as it always was with fornication). People have more than enough info at their disposal to see that now…if the rats want to continue the rat race, it’s on them.

    Bonus: Without sex to fog up a person’s mind…they can see much more quickly what type of crazy they are dealing with.

  136. Opus says:

    I was wondering who the earliest person to make a claim of false Rape: rather than Mockingbird, should not the bad woman be Pharaohs wife from Genesis 39? [turns up in Dante Canto 30]

  137. Why buy the cow when she has mad cow disease? (Same goes for drinking the milk).

  138. earl says:

    ‘I was wondering who the earliest person to make a claim of false Rape: rather than Mockingbird, should not the bad woman be Pharaohs wife from Genesis 39?’

    Important thing to note about that story…it was her idea, he rejected her on good grounds, and she makes up a story to her husband to save face. All we get from the Pharoah was that he was angry and put him in prision…he never questioned Joseph on his side of the story.

    It seems most false rape accusations work against men because there is only emotion and no due process.

  139. Opus says:

    @Earl

    Quite right, and is it not the case that those unfortunate negro men who were Lynched in the Nineteenth century were far less a victim of any form of Racial Bias than of the male propensity to White-Knight.

    It is shocking to have to say it but (I have it in writing): an ex gf of mine in a letter to me wrote that she would never want to hurt anyone and yet about a month later was making what (I have long since realised it to be) was a false claim against a man who had helped her out. Naturally at first I believed her cock-and-bull story, but time reveals all hoaxes for what they really are and brings them into focus the way a mountain comes into outline as one moves back.

    Again: women – especially those who claim to be most empowered – cannot cope with rejection pursuant to casual sex which they willingly, if not the instigators thereof, enter in to. I am merely fortunate that I was not – on that occasion – the one on the receiving end of the allegation and subsequent custodial residing at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.

  140. JDG says:

    Looking Glass says:
    December 10, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Thank you for taking the time to write this. This makes sense to me. I’ll check out the link.

  141. joshtheaspie says:

    I’m just going to not deal with women outside of work, and at work, will attempt to avoid being alone in a room with one.

  142. JDG says:

    Boxer – Seriously, they kicked you out?

  143. Actually guys it was Potiphar’s wife (the Pharaoh’s Royal Jailer).

  144. earl says:

    That’s the thing…hookups leave many a men at risk should they decide to ‘not call’. A thing often forgot during the passion phase.

    Rejecting a woman’s advance…yet another risk especially if she is on the ugly side. Don’t spend time alone with a woman you aren’t attracted to if you can manage. The alone time is when you see the true nature of women come out. They are the predators.

    Have a good vetting process and be careful which women you allow in. That includes your time, body, heart, home, etc.

  145. JDG says:

    THF – The notion that FI did not start until 1850 in the US is just false.

    I wasn’t writing about the feminine imperative. I was commenting on the feminist movement in the US.

  146. new anon says:

    The biblical story of Joseph and Pothiphar’s wife has many similarities to “To Kill a Mockingbird”, but I think comparing them to the women in Mockingbird will have a greater impact.

    The left has little respect for the Bible, on the other hand Mockingbird is held closely to their heart as a modern morality tale. Using Mockingbird will allow us to hoist them by their own petard (“how can you say the characters in Mockingbird were so evil, when you are doing the exact same thing?”).

    It also allows us to make an obvious point: some of these false accusations will be white women accusing black men, and for the same reasons Mayella made the accusation in Mockingbird–after the fact she regretted being attracted to a black man. These colleges are recreating the environment found in Mockingbird that led to Tom Robinson being falsely accused and his eventual death.

    If nothing else, this will allow us to split the left along identity groups. At least some on the left will change their outlook when they realize what is being created is a system that allows white women to unjustly accuse minority men of crimes. It would even give President Obama an out to reverse the education department order that is driving this at the college level.

    Potipher’s wife is a mystery. No only really knows much about her. The Mayella character is clearly defined (on film no less) and quite frankly despicable. Plus, her attitude in Mockingbird parallels the attitude of the left in this instance. She is not upset that nobody believes her story; she’s upset that people are questioning her RIGHT to condemn a man to prison. She’s a white women; he’s a black man; her word should be enough by itself to send him to prison. Isn’t that exactly what the left is saying? A woman’s word alone should be enough to send a man to find a man guilty?

    Using one of the left’s best loved morality tales against them would be much more effective in this case, which is why we should start labeling them modern day Mayella’s.

  147. earl says:

    ‘Potipher’s wife is a mystery. No only really knows much about her.’

    What type of woman makes false rape claims?

    We didn’t need much info on her past. It was most likely littered with bad news with no story of redemption in there.

  148. greyghost says:

    Opus

    Quite right, and is it not the case that those unfortunate negro men who were Lynched in the Nineteenth century were far less a victim of any form of Racial Bias than of the male propensity to White-Knight.

    That is the case. Bill Price of the spearhead did an article and the subject came up about how the racism of lynch was also founded and initiated by white knighting for white women. The times made it easy to say a black man raped you and a slut became instantly virtuous

  149. As far as the mid-19th century, a lot of bad crap got started during the Transcendental Generation. Some of the leading “lights”? Helena Blavatsky, Theodor Herzl, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield, Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, C.T. Russell, the Shakers and various other assorted heretical nutbags came on the scene in a relatively short period of time. I think they planted many of the spiritual seeds to the noxious weeds that we are dealing with today in Cultural Marxism/Feminism/Post Modernism.

  150. new anon says:

    To reinforce my last post…

    Remember how hot the walking through NY catcalling was until someone pointed out it was essentially complaining that a bunch of Black and Hispanic men were failing to show a white woman the “proper” respect due her. The left started running from it like it was radioactive.

    It’s been said that feminism is really about the problems of privileged white women. The “rape culture” is–at its core–about these privileged white women wanting to have the power to accuse ANY MAN (white, black, red, or yellow) of a crime and have him punished based solely on her word alone. It’s about returning to the days of “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Bring the buried racial politics of the “rape culture” movement to the surface and we can blow this thing up.

  151. Oh yeah, connection there. The whole celibacy with men still doing the heavy lifting was put into practice by the Shakers. They went so far as to insist upon celibacy in preexisting marriages. It has a common spirit as these modern fruitcakes. (And the modern whackjobs are heading to histories scrapheap for the same reasons).

  152. new anon says:

    UVA suspended all fraternities based on a single woman’s allegation.

    I’m sure at least one (if not more) was an African-American fraternity.

    Here we have a concrete example of a group of black men being labeled as rapists and punished simply by the word of a white woman.

  153. “Once the school gets sued once or twice by those “rich white kids” who are falsely accused, and the school leadership loses their jobs, they will tread carefully in subsequent cases.”

    The only problem is the Dept of Education can basically destroy most universities by pulling their federal funding, so the “Dear Colleague” crowd holds the upper hand.

  154. “it is most often people who hang out with feminists (SJW types and male feminist sympathizers) who get hit with the false rape accusations, as well as white knights and manginas ”

    I don’t know, I doubt the frat brothers at University of Virginia are feminist sympathizers. This sounds like wishful thinking to me.

  155. @TRPeterman, Yeah, I suspect that a certain number of toxic dicked PUA’s are going to get swept up in this whole thing (frat boys fit this category IMO).

  156. new anon says:

    @TRP,

    Exactly, the Dept. of Education’s “dear colleague” letter is what is driving this, which is one reason I think we should be playing up the racial angle.

    How will the left react when it’s pointed out the policy has (or eventually will) result in an innocent black man being railroaded simply on the word of a white woman?

    At the least, it will split the support for this along the left’s identity group political lines.

  157. Chalk all of this up to “Strategies to force Alpha’s to commit to feminist hegemony”?

  158. How will the left react when it’s pointed out the policy has (or eventually will) result in an innocent black man being railroaded simply on the word of a white woman?

    At the least, it will split the support for this along the left’s identity group political lines.

    This EXACT THING is happening right at this moment with Jameis Winston. You don’t hear anyone in the media mentioning “rape culture” and Jameis Winston in the same breath because… he (a black boy) and she, (a white girl) do not fit the “rape culture” narrative.

  159. Spacetraveller says:

    An excellent way to expose her lie about ‘harrassment’ or ‘rape’ or whatever:
    Expose another lie she has told, and you are home free.

    This woman is a disgrace to all of womanhood.

    Not only has she been exposed as lying about the alleged ‘harrassment’ (because she was still texting the man involved even after she made the accusation!) but now it turns out she never attended Oxford Uni to study politics.
    Liar, liar…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867718/Ukip-chief-blasts-sex-accuser-revealing-text-messages.html

  160. jeff says:

    Dalrock,

    Not meaning to thread jack… My wife and I are going to a nouthetic counselor who did tell wife sex should happen as much as possible…. but he does keep going on about how I should put up with her shit…. blah, blah, blah this verse and that verse.

    I am having an ongoing email chat with him about what she does and I am suppose to just lie down and take it. He quotes bear with each other and humility, christ and the church. He is a good man and I respect him and has the best teachings I have ever heard! foodforyoursoul net

    I wanted to let you and everyone else get a stab at any questions that you all want me to ask. I will not ask asinine, or snarky questions, but questions like, “If Christ is the ‘husband’ and the wife is the ‘church’ does the ‘church’ (wife) have any responsibility?”

    I did ask him that to which he would not outright answer, but did go at my wife after this point blank and then repeated to me that even if she didn’t change I was to ‘man up’ and forgive/forget.

    Ask away if Dalrock ok’s this!

  161. Jeff, Isaiah 1 (or any Old Testament verse that refers to Israel, His wife, as a harlot). Matthew 23 where Jesus tells his “wife” that He is going to leave her desolate. The modern Churchian wants to ignore any of the prerequisites of holiness or the idea of our chastity as His bride. God isn’t marrying a contentious women or a harlot, no matter how much the harlot twists the Scriptures.

  162. In other news, #Gamergate appears to have attained another scalp. Nick Denton is stepping down as President over at Gawker. Lotsa fun! Can’t wait for them to shutter Jezebel.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/12/gawkers-nick-denton-to-step-down-199807.html

  163. thedeti says:

    Jeff:

    First, I fail to see the point in any kind of joint counseling whatsoever, even if it is nouthetic. What inevitably happens in any kind of joint counseling session (one therapist, one husband, one wife) are two things:

    1. the counselor (or pastor, or whatever) takes one person’s side. Of course, the counselor usually takes the wife’s side. From then on out, it almost always becomes an issue of getting husband to do/not do/be/not be things and behaviors, to “improve” the marriage.

    It almost always devolves into “husband, you have to change this and this and that and the other thing, and then your marriage will be ‘better’ and you’ll have more sex and she will be ‘happy’.” There is never, ever any suggestion that the wife needs to do things or change behaviors or responses to improve things. No, it is always, always the husband’s fault.

    2. The wife uses the joint counseling to gather and amass evidence and ammunition for the impending divorce. She can do this because she’s privy to everything you say to the counselor. There’s no privilege against disclosure.

    I’d suggest the following:

    1. Immediately end joint counseling of any kind, even with a pastor.

    2. Insist on your marital rights. You have a right to sex. No sex, no marriage. If she is firm in her decision to withhold sex, that decision will result in an end to the marriage and also an end to your financial obligations to her.

    3. You have a duty to love her as Christ loved the church, but that does not entail a duty to allow her to nail you to a cross every day. So, yeah, absent her adultery, violent physical abuse, or her abandonment, you have to stay with her — but you don’t have to put up with her maltreatment. You can correct that and she has an obligation to respect you in that. She has a duty to respect you in all things. Not some things. Not most things. Not everything except the things she doesn’t want to respect you in. ALL things. All things means ALL THINGS.

  164. earl says:

    @Jeff:

    “If Christ is the ‘husband’ and the wife is the ‘church’ does the ‘church’ (wife) have any responsibility?”

    The church submits to Christ and submission is an act of free will. However it is not an easy thing for anyone to do.

    I’d say foremost pray for your wife as well as do what deti has stated.

  165. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ December 9, 2014 at 10:40 pm:
    “LOL! Please. The U.S. Constitution is the framework by which feminism took root. ”

    You aren’t seriously dismissing the entire Constitution just because of that one Amendment, are you? Female voting power is easy to bypass. For example, once we criminalize disobedience to the Constitution women could elect the devil himself and the welfare state would still collapse, because the Tenth Amendment does not allow the Feds to make transfer payments to private citizens. Even on the local level, feminist tyrannies that circumvent the presumption of innocence would become punishable. The Republicans could enact this simple law tomorrow, if they cared about anything but themselves.

    Don’t confuse Constitutionists with Republicans. At least look before you dismiss us as tradcons and hope for invasion by foreign powers.

  166. JDG says:

    So the FI was all religions, all cultures, all eras.

    I have no argument with this statement. I believe the FI has been around since the fall (please see Genesis Ch 3 for details).

  167. earl says:

    “LOL! Please. The U.S. Constitution is the framework by which feminism took root.”

    I’d say Marxism is the better reasoning behind feminism.

  168. @Earl, identical twins with their own shared language.

  169. earl says:

    ‘I believe the FI has been around since the fall (please see Genesis Ch 3 for details).’

    The feminine imperative…is nothing more than a weaker person seeking to be with a stronger person. It happened since the fall because humans became weak in their sinfulness.

    Even guys have this imperative.

  170. Boxer says:

    I’d say Marxism is the better reasoning behind feminism.

    Betty Friedan, Shulamith Firestone, Jean Kilbourne, Katherine MacKinnon…and all the rest of that toxic crew… These are not actually Americans. They’re from some strange, never heard of “Marxist” society.

    Yes, that makes perfect sense, Earl. Thanks

    Boxer

  171. Dalrock says:

    @jeff

    Dalrock,

    Not meaning to thread jack… My wife and I are going to a nouthetic counselor who did tell wife sex should happen as much as possible…. but he does keep going on about how I should put up with her shit…. blah, blah, blah this verse and that verse.

    I am having an ongoing email chat with him about what she does and I am suppose to just lie down and take it. He quotes bear with each other and humility, christ and the church. He is a good man and I respect him and has the best teachings I have ever heard! foodforyoursoul net

    I don’t object to some discussion of this. We are now two days and 170 comments after the initial post.

    Based on what you have described I would probably focus on what is truly loving for a husband (the leader). It is true that we are called to live with our wives in understanding, and that we are called to love them. But if your wife is acting out, it isn’t loving for you to encourage it by putting up with it. It also isn’t loving to set this example to your children (if you have any). You are teaching your children what Christian marriage is by example. My focus would be on separating those things your wife is doing which should be lived with in understanding, and those things which love requires correcting. Histrionics, lies, threats, tantrums, etc fall into the latter category, even if she is using these as tools to attain what might be in the former category.

    However, this won’t work if he isn’t comfortable with biblical teaching on headship. But even if he isn’t, it is extremely important to get clear on this in your own mind.

    @Thedeti

    First, I fail to see the point in any kind of joint counseling whatsoever, even if it is nouthetic.

    This is a good point. Two questions immediately come to mind:

    1) Who is leading this family? Is it the husband? Or does the counselor outrank the husband?
    2) What is the purpose of the counseling? Is it to lead to following the biblical roles in marriage, or making people (meaning the wife) happy? To the extent that these two aren’t in concert (following Scripture vs being “happy”), which takes priority?

  172. earl says:

    So those ladies you mentioned got their philosophy from the U.S. Constitution and not a philosphy that is based on class relations and societal conflict, uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation.

    Yeat that makes perfect sense, Boxer. Thanks.

    Earl

  173. thedeti says:

    jeff:

    Another thing is this. I’m not opposed to any sort of counseling, be it pastoral, biblical, nouthetic, or traditional secular “tell me about your mother” long term psychoanalytic therapy. Use these guidelines:

    1. Go alone. ALONE. No joint counseling. The purpose of counseling is to help YOU, to talk about YOU and YOUR issues, to get YOU better, to improve YOU. The purpose of joint/marriage counseling is to help the marriage. The latter does nothing to help YOU, but instead demands that you do things to help HER and the marriage.

    2. Give it three months. If you aren’t getting some results by the end of those three months, one or more of the following is happening.

    a. You don’t really want to change or get better. If this is the case, discontinue counseling immediately. Stop wasting your money, suck it up, and learn to live with yourself the way you are until you do want to get better.
    b. You don’t understand the point of the counseling. Talk to the counselor and work on it until you do understand it.
    c. Your counselor sucks. Get a new one.
    d. You and your counselor don’t get along or see eye to eye. Get a new one.
    e. You need more help than a counselor can give you. Consider something more intensive or seeing a psychiatrist for medication.

  174. Old Asian Man says:

    I’m not reading anywhere that Jackie recanted but that she asked the reporter not to publish her story in the Rolling Stone and she did anyway. Jackie did not name names nor did the reporter Jackie had been medicated for depression and anxiety and so we can expect details to be fuzzy. Either that or the reporter made some mistakes. In any case Jackie told her not to publish it..

  175. “How will the left react when it’s pointed out the policy has (or eventually will) result in an innocent black man being railroaded simply on the word of a white woman?”

    Good point. Remember that silly “harassment” video and how it got flushed down the memory hole when people pointed out that most of the (ahem) harassers shown were nonwhite? I womder if the United Negro College Fund has any thoights on this.

  176. JDG says:

    The feminine imperative…is nothing more than a weaker person seeking to be with a stronger person.

    How does this explain special treatment for women throughout history, but no special treatment for weaker men through out history?

  177. JDG says:

    IBB – Sorry this column is late. I got raped again on the way home. Twice.

    I laughed out loud.

    I should clarify — by “raped,” I mean that two seductive Barry White songs came on the radio, which, according to the University of Virginia, constitutes rape.

  178. Spike says:

    You’re too nice by calling it “dog food”, Dalrock. I’d call it ‘excrement’.
    Consider Ms Maxwell’s piece: She trivializes the consequences of false rape accusations against men and says women are “reluctant” to make such claims. This is in defiance of the fact that numerous police forces both in the USA and around the world put false rape accusations at 40-45%. When the media get a hold of the story’s lurid details, the name of the accused is published, This means he can lose his job, his children, his marriage – the lot, before even being tried. When media retractions come out, they are on page 7 of the paper, away from most reader’s radars.

    On another note, notice how the word”victim” has now been replaced with “survivor”, in an Orwellian twist? This implies strongly that the act threatens the life of the woman, which isn’t true in any but the most extreme cases.

  179. Virtue says:

    AUGHHH this post has made me angry all day long. What the FUCK Dalrock, how did it come to this?

  180. How will the left react when it’s pointed out the policy has (or eventually will) result in an innocent black man being railroaded simply on the word of a white woman?

    1. That won’t happen. The left is quite comfortable with applying its own absolute rules selectively, so these rules simply won’t be applied in such a case.

    2. If it did happen, they’d ignore it, as they ignore anything that doesn’t fit their preconceptions.

  181. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    Part of manhood is accepting responsibility for your own faults and failures, and this is extensible to our discussion here today. A man would admit the failings of his own culture, rather than grasp at imaginary straws, which don’t exist, to excuse them away.

    So those ladies you mentioned got their philosophy from the U.S. Constitution and not a philosphy that is based on class relations and societal conflict, uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation.

    Of course they did. Under the cover of the feminist US Constitution they operated freely and with impunity, and feminists today wave the flag and quote the US Constitution as they “help” women worldwide to destroy families and “redefine” marriage legally in various and diverse places (Africa, etc.).

    No Marxist nation (even when there were such things) ever allowed such a toxic crew to operate freely. Only your nation did this.

    Yeat that makes perfect sense, Boxer. Thanks.

    Happy to help you grow up and take responsibility today, and you’re welcome.

    Boxer

  182. Tam the Bam says:

    ” Feminists are life’s failures” quoth the Boxer
    Now that is I suppose the advantage of the long view, but I perforce through want of time may not indulge in such olympian disdain. On account of being a lot nearer That, than T’other.

    Until I have tapped my glass of cordial (and possibly a few saucers of nuts, dubious and foul-smelling saltpork preparations, olives and cigarillos, and Auntie Gladys’ Madeira cake) down on their coffin-lid, I’d be loth to account anyone a “failure at life”.
    But take heart, the opportunity arises rather more frequently than one might … hope.

    In the vernacular of the autonomous spectacle, “them ain’t dead yit”. Or is it “dead but they won’t lie down”?

  183. @ Virtue:

    Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.
    (Heb 12:26-29)

    College campuses, governments, church organizations, charities, you name it, they are all going to get pulled down. And God has his people (like Maxwell) to do it.

    Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
    (Isa 54:16-17)

    Be the servant, not the coal.

  184. Tam the Bam says:

    Spacers:- “This woman is a disgrace to all of womanhood.”
    I dunno , (shamelessly stolen from another comment thread)
    ” I blame the person who appointed him to interview female candidates – with a name like Roger Bird, what did they expect?

    She’s a Labour plant. Only “defected” a few weeks back. Expect her to reappear reborn on some toothgrindingly bad but mysteriously well-rewarded BBC “issues” slot, or as the Shadow Commissar for Commoonidy Action Against Old Bald White Dweebs Who Make Philp Larkin Look Sexy.
    Seriously what was everyone involved including the spindoctors smoking?

  185. Tam the Bam says:

    Philip not Terrance of course.

  186. DEN1 says:

    Phi Kappa Psi, The ‘New’ Scottsboro Boys.

  187. Jeremy says:

    Re: the 1850s vs the 1950s… Feminism may not have begun in name in the 1850s, but it did begin back then. Look up the history of prohibition and how it came to be in the United States. Prohibition was the first case of a social movement specifically targeted at turning men into white knights to make a specific human behavior illegal to appease the women. Our interpretation of the constitution changed then, and it was mostly the fault of the women in the U.S. at the time.

  188. Ernst Schreiber says:

    For those of you debating dates (1960s, 1950s, 1850s), may I suggest you take a closer look at 1789?

  189. earl says:

    ‘Part of manhood is accepting responsibility for your own faults and failures, and this is extensible to our discussion here today. A man would admit the failings of his own culture, rather than grasp at imaginary straws, which don’t exist, to excuse them away.’

    It does exist. That doesn’t mean I’m saying my nation is without faults. I’m saying the faults of my nation came from accepting Marxist theology without snuffing it out. But when you have that type of freedom in a democracy…once Marxist theology is the majority that’s when problems arise.

  190. earl says:

    ‘How does this explain special treatment for women throughout history, but no special treatment for weaker men through out history?’

    Women have reproductive value so there is the treatment considered there. Human nature is to snuff out the weak so that might be why weaker men didn’t get special treatment….but the nature of God shows His power through the weak. This is why it is important to be a God fearing society. You mess with the weak cruelly…you get the wrath of God.

  191. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-11/lessons-from-the-rolling-stone-debacle

    Ha Ha!!!! Comments are better than the article, even when they are jokes!

    Tinfoil hat time:

    Jackie is actually a deep plant by a bunch of MRAs to discredit Amanda Marcotte and feminism in general, or she just pulled the greatest troll of the decade.

    MRAs don’t strike me as that good at planning ahead. (Or at recruiting female college students to be the bait, for that matter)

    They also wouldn’t have been able to shut up long enough for Erdely to so completely hang herself.

    Her last tweet is pointing to a WaPo article that is a profile about her. She thinks it’s awesome, but it also talks about how she didn’t contact the alleged perps.

  192. MV says:

    FRONTLINE REPORT:

    After a total and utter defeat…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/11/the-full-demise-of-rolling-stones-rape-story/

    …Feminist Wehrmach troops are abandoning the indefensible #IStandWithJackie outpost and retreating to their fortified #OneInFour fallback position…

    http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/do-we-cover-rape-more-when-we-think-women-lie

    …just in time to be massacred again by a new bombshell from (How appropriate!) Department of Justice.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/

    Oy vey!

  193. MV says:

    It is done. The Sisterhood officially aborted their new poster girl.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/11/_istandwithjackie_and_the_feminist_response_to_the_unraveling_of_rolling.html

    Thus passes the glory of the world.

  194. Dalrock says:

    @MV

    After a total and utter defeat…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/11/the-full-demise-of-rolling-stones-rape-story/

    I think it is even worse than that Wapo article states. The other WaPo article it cites leads me to wonder if Jackie had invented her date for the night in question in an effort to evoke interest/jealousy from “Randall”. If I have a bit of time I’ll do a short post on it. It is pretty astounding. The details are there, but WaPo seems to be trying to bury them. Either that, or I’m misreading the badly formatted story (it jumps back and forth in time repeatedly).

  195. MV says:

    @Dalrock

    Yes, it seems she “catfished” herself. She invented an imaginary boyfriend, complete with fake phone number (through which she was sending texts to her friends in his name) and pictures (stolen from the facebook account of her old high school colleague). And then she went to a date with this imaginary boyfriend and returned home raped. Perhaps we should call an exorcist to chase this untangible “demon rapist” out of poor girl.

  196. MV says:

    New Yorker stands with Cindy:

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/rolling-stone-cindy-uva-rape-story?int-cid=mod-latest

    So, Rolling Stone magazine (however not Sabrina Rubin Erdely personally) will end up as a designated scapegoat for this Charlie Foxtrot. R.I.P. It was a somewhat good magazine until it sold itself to SJWs.

  197. Boxer says:

    Dear MV and Dalrock:

    The lengths to which these hucksters go to try and salvage what’s left of their credibility… It’s nothing short of breathtaking! Hilarious to see so much spin in such a small, well lit area.

    It was a somewhat good magazine until it sold itself to SJWs.

    In the old days, Hunter S Thompson used to write for it. Whether that’s a bad or good thing, depends upon your point of view, but it used to at least have some content. I think what throws the media these days is the fact that feminism isn’t really “edgy” or “alternative” any longer. Feminism is the establishment, now. It’s hard to criticize the establishment without stepping on the toes you’re committed to sucking.

    Boxer

  198. MV says:

    @Dalrock

    BTW. I’d wait with that short post. Since she is unstable as Chernobyl reactor she can commit suicide under all this pressure. Or gets “suicided” (like general Erwin Rommel). In that case, everyone on the internet who disbelieved her story will be labeled as “cyber-murderer” and her corpse will be re-used to “raise awareness of cyberbullying of women”. It’s better to give this particular mentally ill woman some chivalrous slack and concentrate on her feminist abusers instead IMO.

  199. Scott says:

    Dalrock-

    In light of Jeff’s comment upthread, I thought I would finally get around to writing this. Hoping you might pop in, read it, and give it a little promotion!

    I was a nouthetic counselor in a former life.

    http://westernphilosophyeasternfaith.blogspot.com/2014/12/nouthetic-counseling-and-red-pill.html

  200. Bruno Abzug says:

    I have expatriated. Problem solved.

  201. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    This is really becoming funny. You seem totally ignorant of even the rudiments of American history, so I’m starting to doubt that you’re from North America at all. Especially enjoyed the “Marxist theology” quip. I’ll be waiting for a definition of that oxymoron.

    It does exist. That doesn’t mean I’m saying my nation is without faults. I’m saying the faults of my nation came from accepting Marxist theology without snuffing it out. But when you have that type of freedom in a democracy…once Marxist theology is the majority that’s when problems arise.

    You’re wrong, of course. The faults of America came from allowing bigfoot to run around loose, and from allowing space aliens to immigrate. Certain people knew of the problem, but refused to snuff it out.

    But then, that’s the type of freedom you have in a democracy. The freedom of tinfoil hat nutters to concoct wild theories rather than face their own obvious weaknesses — which leads to them repeating their mistakes.

    Regards, Boxer

  202. Pingback: The girls who cry wolf | Atavisionary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s