Why do Totalitarian Feminists get Free Publicity?

by W.F. Price on December 14, 2010

It’s pretty well-known that women have advantages and incentives in a lot of occupations, which leads to the kind of lowering of standards one sees in the military, fire and police departments and university faculty, but at least they attempt to make some showing of competence in public.

But when it comes to writing for a national publication anything goes, including advocating the dismantling of hundreds of years of jurisprudence, common law, and a widely accepted basic tenet of human rights.

Jessica Valenti just came out with an article for the Washington Post promoting Swedish law over American, and suggesting that Swedish rape laws are a “potential model for our own legislation.”

To drive home that Swedish law is better than American, she points out that moves are afoot in Sweden to revoke the presumption of innocence in rape cases:

The fact that U.S. law is so ill- equipped to actually protect women in realistic scenarios is a national embarrassment – not to mention a huge hurdle in obtaining justice for sexual assault victims. Swedish rape laws don’t ban “sex by surprise” (a term used by Assange’s lawyer as a crass joke), but they do go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation.

In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn’t give it.

The reason presumption of innocence is so basic is that it is often impossible to prove that one has not done something. For example, say someone is accused of stealing a neighbor’s gold and burying it in a secret place while his neighbor was on vacation. If the neighbor was gone for two weeks and the man lived alone, there will be innumerable occasions where he could have done the deed, so he can’t possibly adequately defend himself. He cannot prove that he didn’t do it. Therefore, to prevent people from being thrown in jail unjustly, the burden is upon the accuser to prove that he did in fact steal the gold. This is the only way we can be reasonably sure that the crime occurred. The exact same principle applies to rape, especially where consent is at issue. There is literally no way a man can prove consent throughout the entire act of sexual intercourse short of setting up an all-angles-covered porn recording team in his bedroom, possibly in conjunction with a brain scanner, a telepathist and a psychic. And, if you take feminist concepts of rape into account, even that isn’t enough, because they think women should be able to withdraw consent retroactively (yes, they do).

In a column on Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men site, the False Rape Society does a good job of rebuking Valenti’s idiocy, but what I’m curious about is why the Washington Post gives her any credit in the first place. Does a woman who is so stupid that she is blasé about overturning one of the most important safeguards against tyranny that exists deserve so much as one word in print in a national publication? The old media likes to make a point that they uphold standards better than most online publications, but when they print this kind of garbage that pretty much flies out the window.

I think readers ought to write the editorial board of the Washington Post and politely ask why they are giving a mental lightweight and disreputable radical a platform in their publication. Why are they discrediting their own publication by allowing this kind of thuggish disregard for human rights and justice? Of all people, journalists should be concerned about the potential for abuse of power — especially when it is used to silence critics.

{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }

Szebran December 14, 2010 at 14:19

I think the fact that U.S. law is so ill- equipped to actually protect men in rape fraud cases is a national embarrassment – not to mention a huge hurdle in obtaining justice.
I also think the Washington post is just another feminist propaganda organization though not as bad as say ABCNews.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Gunn December 14, 2010 at 14:34

In all honesty, whilst I obviously disagree with that vapid bitch’s pathetic scrawling, I find it strange that you believe that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle is still sacrosanct under law.

Most if not all the terror legislation since 9/11 has been undermining the basic principles of law, and executive orders such as extraordinary rendition should in all fairness be termed outright illegal.

This doesn’t even begin to take into account the way that police are empowered to use force at the slightest provocation, often going well beyond reasonable force (e.g. dv cases that often result in injury or death to the man merely accused of such). One thing I have to say about the UK is that (maybe because guns are not commonplace) police have a much higher requirement to show that they used appropriate force. Even there however, terror legislation / excuses have eaten away at this principle, e.g. see the case of de Menezes who was shot multiple times in the head in a tube train because of a series of police ‘errors’.

In an environment where habeus corpus has been flung out the window, never mind innocent until proven guilty, is it any wonder that the feminist harpies are pushing for as much as they can get away with?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
garvan December 14, 2010 at 14:38

Eventually all heterosexual sex will legally be rape.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
Snark December 14, 2010 at 14:42

As I said at Paul Elam’s site -

Rape accusations are the easiest to make, and the hardest to disprove.

(Leaving aside the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative …)

Therefore, the burden of proof must be higher (on the part of the accuser) in a rape case than in any other.

Simple, common sense.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
SingleDad December 14, 2010 at 14:42

It was clear to all even when I was a young boy that the liberal philosphy, today called progressive, would not be possible if the constitution where still in place.

Is is necessary for our empire to continue for a dictatorship to arise.

This is the dictatorship of the oligarchy that runs the US now. We are now no different than Brazil or Argentina.

Feminists and they’re male and female syncophants are the foot soldiers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price December 14, 2010 at 14:42

In all honesty, whilst I obviously disagree with that vapid bitch’s pathetic scrawling, I find it strange that you believe that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle is still sacrosanct under law.

-Gunn

Obviously it is not, and never has been, perfectly observed by law enforcement. However, it’s a big step from the cop on the beat delivering some “street justice” to the judge on the bench demanding that the accused and his counsel prove he did not in fact commit the crime of which he was accused.

And yes, the terror legislation is problematic. It’s always something – drugs, terrorism, violence against women – you name it and they’ll use it as an excuse to control people.

Snark December 14, 2010 at 14:43

Feminist logic:

It is not possible to prove a negative;

Therefore, we can conclude the positive.

This is actually what is being advocated here. It’s scary on so many levels. Just think about where this could lead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
rend December 14, 2010 at 14:43

This is absolutely infuriating. There is no crime on Earth – not even the most gruesome of murders – that warrants a “guilty until proven innocent” operating premise. Applying it to rape is even worse because as Welmer’s said, there’s no way for the accused to “prove” that he had consent; the fact that he’s in a courtroom says that he didn’t, so there’s no evidence that can contradict the word of the accuser. I mean, consent is purely a verbal/personal artifact. Why even bother with the trial in that case? Do these feminists even carry their mothball conclusions through to the end?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Snark December 14, 2010 at 14:45

I mean, no man can prove to twelve of his peers that he has at no point in his life committed a rape. Just think of the evidence you’d need for that – literally, footage of every second of his life.

But since he cannot provide this, feminists want to conclude guilt.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Snark December 14, 2010 at 14:46

Why even bother with the trial in that case?

I am pretty sure they have already thought this far ahead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Coastal December 14, 2010 at 14:51

And, of course, should you think ahead and tape the whole thing then – in the UK at least – that too is an offence. So the only way to prove your innocence is to illegal.

Joseph Heller had nothing on modern feminists.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Jake Turner December 14, 2010 at 14:54

Such a law is not only totalitarian, it’s nonsensical. The accused could just turn around and accuse the ‘victim’ of rape for the same incident. With a lack of evidence, both would be found guilty. (Unless the law specifically identified men as aggressors, which is not unthinkable.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Gunn December 14, 2010 at 14:54

Actually, to give an example of where a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach applies, consider quarantine for contagious diseases.

The idea is of course that the harm to the wider group is so large, or so likely, that a curtailment of individual freedom is considered (by society) an acceptable trade-off.

This concept has been broadened over time, so that, for example, there is no real way to allow say the TSA to do what they do except through the invocation of the principle that a greater good is achieved through the abuse of individuals’ rights.

The view that rape falls into such a category is a natural extension of this principle from a feminist perspective; the greater good, of empowering women / disempowering men, is considered worth pursuing at the cost of individual mens’ rights under law.

As Welmer notes, whats interesting is that mainstream publications are allowing this kind of sophomoric analysis to ‘grace’ their pages these days. It is a demonstration that our increasingly totalitarian society does in fact see the removal of male sexual power to be a ‘greater good’.

This kind of thing doesn’t end well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence December 14, 2010 at 14:59

Feminism expands the power of the government bureaucracy and the police state.
Feminism dilutes and restrains the power of liberty-loving men, making the countries it infests ripe for globalist raping and pillaging.
Feminism tears resources from productive males and places it in the hands of females, who will promptly spend it on fabulous bags and shoes.
Feminism creates single mothers who have no idea to raise their children properly, thus causing the masses to call for more government bureaucracy and police state.
Feminism empowers a gender that will trade all their sovereignty for a few privileges at the drop of a hat.
Feminism serves the Ruling Class, and that’s why it is funded, supported, and publicized.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1
Paradoxotaur December 14, 2010 at 15:00

Please remember that, when evaluating an act for criminality, the relevant mental state (mens rea, aka criminal intent), is that of the accused not that of the purported victim. Thus, the question becomes whether or not the accused reasonably believed that the sex (presuming sex occured) was consensual, and was not forced against her (or his) will.

Whether the purported victim consented in writing, withdrew her consent mid-thrust, wasn’t enthusiastic in consenting, or retroactively withdrew her consent is largely irrelevant, other than to provide evidence as to whether or not the accused’s belief was reasonable. Just keep reminding the feminuts that the issue is not the nature of the woman’s self-perception, but whether or not the accused acted with criminal intent – until their heads explode or at least until their hair catches on fire.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
rend December 14, 2010 at 15:00

“Actually, to give an example of where a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach applies, consider quarantine for contagious diseases.”

People are not tried in a court of law for “being disease vectors”. It’s not a criminal offence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Gunn December 14, 2010 at 15:09

Try to walk out of a CDC quarantine zone set up for some serious disease and let me know how it goes.

My point was obviously not that the two were equivalent, rather I was putting forward the usual principle used to justify the idea of guilty until proven innocent.

@Paradoxotaur – mens rea is a very good point, however it presupposes a jury that shares your views on what constitutes normal perspectives. In a world brainwashed by feminism, its entirely plausible that a jury of your peers (ironically, neither manginas nor feminist harpies would I count amongst my peers, but thats the way it goes) will have internalised the concept of guily until proven innocent as it applies to rape. This is even before we start talking about being tried by a judge only, rather than your peers. Guess which country doesn’t use juries? Hint: it begins with an S, ends with an N, and is a feminst stronghold.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
TFH December 14, 2010 at 15:15

More proof on misandry being dominant in the West today.

Jessica Valenti is more famous than Bill Price or Roissy.

In a meritocratic society with a proper sense of justice, the reverse would be true.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 3
Anonymous December 14, 2010 at 15:18

OT: Bride Sues Runaway Groom
http://www.suntimes.com/2788466-417/suit-wedding-buttitta-claims-allegedly.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft December 14, 2010 at 15:21

I have just submitted an email to the newspaper. It reads as follows:

“Don’t you think it is long overdue that we drop the feminist free pass in almost every aspect of life and stop allowing these parasites from infecting our culture? If you disagree and can demonstrate how you have highlighted the evils of feminism and promoted men’s issues, then I will humbly retract my charge.”

I don’t expect a reply beyond shaming language or other ‘corporate talk’, similar to Mr Elam’s recent reply from Australian airlines defending their misandry in painting all men as potential pedophiles.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
SingleDad December 14, 2010 at 15:26

It is then, very easy to control the masses of men. All are rapists and so should be jailed.

Our experiment with mass jailing is a spectacular success and is the new industialization of the US.

I guess it has been too hard to imprison enough white men, criminalizing hetersexual sex won’t work out as they planned though.

The plan appears to be to have our wives imprison us to their financial benefit.

The fly in their ointment is that American women have become so toxic that they are no longer attractive.

I’d rather stay home. It’s hard to find a man to accuse if you never meet him.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
rend December 14, 2010 at 15:27

I’ve also sent an email to the editorial board. Unlikely they’ll read it but I really was incredibly incensed by the article. It just violates so many ethics built over centuries of trial and error (pardon the pun) that I can’t let it slide.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Richard December 14, 2010 at 15:49

Ugh, you said Jessica Valenti, and my bowels just let loose.
I gotta go crack a window.

I truly do feel sorry for women.

Women like Jessica, Hitlery et al – they are supposedly the “leaders” for women – and all they are doing is digging their own bottomless pits to make their lives as miserable as possible.

Take away sex from women – I guarantee you, the number of head-med prescriptions will QUADRUPLE.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
pythonmantal December 14, 2010 at 15:51

In regards to rape, it would be interesting to hear the responses (from the readers here) on this article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23470426-women-more-troubled-by-bag-theft-than-rape-bnp-candidate-claims.do

Is rape overrated? If yes, is it time to make rape a crime comparable to petty theft/common assault or similar? If it was, one can only assume the false accusations would drop considerably.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Keyster December 14, 2010 at 15:54

Of all people, journalists should be concerned about the potential for abuse of power — especially when it is used to silence critics.

Journalism is a “soft science”, and therefore draws women to it who would never consider useful educations in engineering. At least 90% of our news media is “progressive”, and more than that consider themselves feminist. You take something topical, like Julian Assage, add rape and how women have no justice in America, written by a “name” feminist with so called “credibility” on the matter, and the editors will be tripping over themselves to print it.

Our lame-stream media is determined to silence those who oppose the progressive agenda. Opposing ANYTHING a feminist claims does not fit their world view. Women do not have equality and are therefore victims. It’s known as pure fact and to refute it goes hard against the leftist grain.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
sestamibi December 14, 2010 at 16:31

Picking up where Catharine MacKinnon left off. I hope she gets as many death threats as MacKinnon does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Eincrou December 14, 2010 at 16:58

Snark: “It is not possible to prove a negative”

This is a statement I commonly hear atheists use, but it’s not entirely true.

If a thing cannot happen or exist, then it does not happen or exist.

Using this, I can prove that a four-sided triangle is not sitting on the far side of the moon right now, and that one never did and never will.

Also using this, I can prove that Snark did not cause the dinosaurs to go extinct 65 million years ago.

Of course, usually we can’t count on these opportunities to show that impossible circumstances would be required for an accused person to have committed the crime. It is generally more difficult to find evidence that something did not happen than that it did, simply because the only type of evidence that would work towards this end must show that it was impossible.

We regularly use the principle that it is impossible for a person to be in two places at the same time. We call it an alibi. A verified alibi successfully proves a negative.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7
Words Twice December 14, 2010 at 19:09

Gunn December 14, 2010 at 14:34 “In an environment where habeus corpus has been flung out the window, never mind innocent until proven guilty, is it any wonder that the feminist harpies are pushing for as much as they can get away with?”

DUI laws are another example of the shredding of constitutional rights, which has been going on long before 9/11. And we all know MADD’s illustrious pedigree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Ulysses December 14, 2010 at 19:36

I really saw this on inside of my cap lately. It’s exquisitely fitting for the theme of this article.

Snapple Real Fact #873: President William McKinley had a pet parrot that he named “Washington Post.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Clydesdale December 14, 2010 at 20:09

Alas, I have the disadvantage of having grown up in a different time, when people at least tried to adhere to reason and principle. This latest post fills me with a combination of both disgust and amusement.

An ancient legal doctrine, known as “Corpus Delicti,” dictates that, before you can convict someone of a crime, you must first prove that a crime has even been committed. Usually, this wasn’t a problem — a body with seventeen stab wounds in the back, or a bank-full of customers seeing John Dillinger jump over the rail with a machine gun, left little doubt.

In the case of “rape,” however, things are much different.

If the “crime” depends on what vapid thoughts happened to be rattling around in the supposed “mind” of some delicate, yet empowered female during a physical act that she maybe agreed to, but, on second thought, maybe had some doubts about, but it all doesn’t matter because she just broke up with her boyfriend and thought you had a better job and made more money than you really do and was drunk at the time anyway, how can you even show the “crime” happened, much less who did it?

But I’m preaching to the choir. And appealing to those who can think.

Our gracious host makes the interesting, valid point that, rather than argue with the feminists who spout this tripe, we may be better served calling out and ridiculing the supposed “serious” papers and journalists who publish the blatherings of Ms. Valenti and her ilk while claiming superiority to those in the blogosphere who see through such nonsense.

“But what I’m curious about is why the Washington Post gives her any credit in the first place. ” This is an excellent question and the crux of the matter. ” Why?” indeed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
white and nerdy December 14, 2010 at 20:20

People may think I’m crazy for avoiding women as much as I do but this is why. Contact with women, especially sex, but contact in general too is going to become more and more legally dangerous as women will increasingly be able to say anything and have you thrown in prison for it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence December 14, 2010 at 20:21

I can see where this is going. If men are guilty until proven innocent, women will be lining up to accuse men who have wronged them in some way, truthfully or not.
Boss yelled at you? “He raped me.”
Ex-boyfriend left you for another girl? “He raped me.”
Professor gave you an F? “He raped me.”
A wealthy MRA starts an organization for men’s rights? The radical fems just need to find some woman to say “He raped me.”

Note that no physical contact need occur in any of these situations. It will be the coup de grace for men in our society.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Keyster December 14, 2010 at 21:13

It will be the coup de grace for men in our society.

…or perhaps so ridiculous a suggestion, feminism itself; which is why the inverse contrarian might gleefully support it, in hopes more will see them for who they really are.

Feminism can only destroy itself with our encouragement.
Fighting them just makes them stronger.
Disagreeing with ANYTHING they say, proves their point for them.
Embrace and support them in an extraordinary fashion.

“um, like jessica is righton, we should decide what sex is, cause men are all pretty much rapists anywaze. least wymyn in sweden get justice!!!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
gwallan December 14, 2010 at 21:54

I’m suffering a really bad case of that was then at the moment.

I remember Watergate. I remember the Washington Post as a beacon of honesty in a chaotic time.

A once great lady has become a senile, drooling harpy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Loki December 14, 2010 at 22:27

@ Eincrou December 14, 2010 at 16:58

Snark: “It is not possible to prove a negative”

“This is a statement I commonly hear atheists use, but it’s not entirely true.

If a thing cannot happen or exist, then it does not happen or exist.

Using this, I can prove that a four-sided triangle is not sitting on the far side of the moon right now, and that one never did and never will.

Also using this, I can prove that Snark did not cause the dinosaurs to go extinct 65 million years ago. ”

You are confusing physical impossibility with logical impossibility.

A logical impossibility is impossible by definition, such as your four-sided triangle.

A physical “impossibility” is inextricably linked to local context and incomplete information, and thus cannot be proven in any general sense.

You cannot prove that Snark did not invent time travel in the future, go back 65 million years and then turn all of the dinosaurs into sandwiches for Rob.

The best that you can do is to make an observation about what appears to be true here and now, but even that is more difficult than it seems.

And if you take a closer look at your favorite absolute statements and backtrack them far enough, you will find that they all rest upon unprovable assumptions.

You also wrote: “We regularly use the principle that it is impossible for a person to be in two places at the same time. We call it an alibi. A verified alibi successfully proves a negative.”

The subtle distinction that you seem to be missing is that the proof is not that an individual was not at a particular place, but rather that he was somewhere else, which is a positive and not a negative.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Eincrou December 15, 2010 at 00:24

Loki, nothing you said in your post was unknown or unconsidered by me, and the point I was making will be understood by anybody not searching for far-out ways to deconstruct the obvious. Lose the contemptuous attitude and use your intellect to create understanding, not destroy it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12
Zeta December 15, 2010 at 00:49

Guys, above it all, just remember one thing: see this for what it is (a naked expression of hatred of men as a class), not for what it purports to be (a sane, needed solution to an imaginary problem). In other words, don’t waste your time arguing their premises as if they were presented in good faith; don’t waste your time trying to say, show why destroying presumption of innocence shares just a little too much in common with what the Hitlers and Stalins of the world do – at least don’t bother when arguing feminists, manginas, and related creatures of the deep who have neither the interest nor capability to understand it.

Again, Valenti and her ilk are expressing pure hatred of you and nothing more. The “arguments” are a ruse, and if you engage her on her terms, you only confirm she is saying something worthy of consideration. Other men may be prone to logical counter-arguments on this subject, but not women or manginas, since they deem it to be in their interest and sympathize with the hatred of Valenti.

Basically, to put it in the parlance of game: reframe, reframe, reframe. This is about hatred and nothing else. It is not about legitimate solutions to legitimate problems, and men need to proceed with this in the front of the their minds. Incidentally, this is true of most feminist propaganda disguised as reason, not just what Valenti is spewing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
alpha December 15, 2010 at 01:16

[[And, if you take feminist concepts of rape into account, even that isn’t enough, because they think women should be able to withdraw consent retroactively (yes, they do). ]]

Does that mean that they can “withdraw consent” AFTER the act?

and if that’s true, can anyone teach me to speak Chinese?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
namae nanka December 15, 2010 at 01:21

“but what I’m curious about is why the Washington Post gives her any credit in the first place.”

Hannah Rosin too.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_rosin_new_data_on_the_rise_of_women.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Lavazza December 15, 2010 at 01:34

The Swedish activists are not stupid that they are arguing for a “guilty until proved innocent” in some crimes. What they are arguing for is a principle (“samtycke”) that is meaningless unless the burden of proof is changed and hoping that courts will bow to external pressure while stating that the “victim’s” story is enough ground and that the accused’s story is not to be taken seriously. Already today this happens from time to time in lower courts, even though the Swedish Supreme Court has reiteratively stated that the same rules of proof apply in sex (and drug) crimes as for other crimes.

The activists’ idea is of course to “send a signal” and also to make it possible for women to use sex crime accusations as a lever outside of the crime procedure in itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
thehermit December 15, 2010 at 01:39

Again, Valenti and her ilk are expressing pure hatred of you and nothing more.

Exactly, they hate us, that’s all we have to know.
It is very counter productive trying to debate about nonsenses.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
rend December 15, 2010 at 02:04

I think perhaps there’s something more sinister here than mere victim-wallowing. Is this not an example of women trying to court the last remnants of male sexual power onto their turf? With “rape” laws as injurious and all-catching as these, most men with whom women would prefer not to have sex will simply avoid approaching women altogether. The onus will be on women to either submit to powerful men (who ignore the risk of rape) or to hit on the men they find most desirable. Thoughts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Avenger December 15, 2010 at 03:41

Here’s Heidi’s forecast: Cloudy with a chance of deception.

WABC/Channel 7 weather babe Heidi Jones was arrested for perpetrating the ultimate snow job — falsely claiming to cops that a man had tried to rape her while she was jogging in Central Park, sources said yesterday.

Jones, who anchors the station’s weekend evening weather coverage and fills in on “Good Morning America,” was charged Monday with filing a false report, a Class A misdemeanor. If convicted, she could face up to a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.

Jones spun a story that proved to be as unreliable as a five-day forecast, telling police last month that she was assaulted in September while pounding the pavement in the city’s back yard, the sources said.

CLOUDY FUTURE: Channel 7 forecaster Heidi Jones has been charged with filing a false report after claiming she was attacked in Central Park.
Jones, 37, told cops she was jogging in the park on the afternoon of Sept. 24 when a Hispanic man in his 30s or 40s grabbed her from behind, dragged her into a wooded area and attempted to rape her.

She told police that the would-be rapist was scared off by two passers-by who came to her aid.

But for cops, the story was all wet.

The first clue was that she waited until Nov. 24, two months later, to report the alleged attack, the sources said.

At the time, the sources said, she told police that three days earlier, on Nov. 21, the same man somehow found her again and harassed her, saying, “I know you went to the police.”

After cops took her report, detectives conducted a lengthy investigation, canvassing the area for video and witnesses.

Coming up empty-handed, they went to talk to Jones again — and noticed inconsistencies in her story, the sources said.

After being confronted with the discrepancies, Jones admitted that she had pulled the story out of thin air, the sources said.

Jones said she concocted the tale in a plea for sympathy to counter some unknown setback that she was experiencing in her personal life, the sources said.

But whatever that ordeal was, Jones has apparently hidden it well. Most of her public posts, on both Facebook and Twitter, have been bright and sunny for weeks.

In one upbeat tweet posted Nov. 21 — the day she said she was harassed by her make-believe attacker — she wrote: “Here is ur turkey day forecast! Gobble gobble!!”

She even remained upbeat as the cops closed in on her.

“You guys ready for the arctic chill?” she posted on her Facebook page Monday, the day she was arrested.

“Ready or not . . . it’s going to be bitterly cold tomorrow and Wednesday, with highs sub freezing and a wind chill to make your toes shake! Be careful!”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/wabc_weather_gal_in_rape_lie_cops_Dt6rDzCTktzVPJ049g2YlO#ixzz18BFrlRYY

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Ks December 15, 2010 at 04:45
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) December 15, 2010 at 06:58

“rebuking Valenti’s idiocy”

Why rebuke Valenti’s idiocy? Every single man here now has access to learn that under common law the ONLY accusation that counts is one signed under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability. These ‘false allegations’ can be used as toilet paper or to line the bottom of the budgie cage if they are handed to you….but ONLY if you have bothered to educate yourself.
Alas, 99% of the men here are not interesting in educating themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
Rebel December 15, 2010 at 09:08

@SingleDad December 14, 2010 at 15:26
“It is then, very easy to control the masses of men. All are rapists and so should be jailed.
Our experiment with mass jailing is a spectacular success and is the new industialization of the US.”

Provisions are being made to “accomodate” men in temporary “shelters”

Soon, the males in the U.S. (that includes Canada, of course) will be perceived naturally as slaves (or born to be)..
Who knows: maybe that’s the way the gobmin plans to restart the economy.

Check this:
http://revlu.com/camps.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
SingleDad December 15, 2010 at 09:59

I’m not surprised. We need work, we can’t afford another war, so as Dickens phrased it, take the “surplus population” and house them in concentration camps. Which even the Germans called work camps.

Today Governer elect of California, Jerry Brown, said the economy of California is worse now than during the great depression.

Things are going to get bad and men need to prepare themselves and protect themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
namae nanka December 15, 2010 at 10:09

wow 37 year old, and still a girl!! sheesh.
though I don’t like to believe in conspiracy theories, yet it doesn’t make sense to me how can all the people in power can have a collective dementia

http://www.womensgroup.org/998NEWLT.html

The UN has worked very hard to go into all the nations of the world, coming to help them with their food needs, the children, the medical, that has simply been a front, a tool that they could use to go in and restructure, destroy the patriarchal home structure to move it to a matriarch structural relationship based structure. The UN has had 600 wars. They have not won one. And yet they have. Every nation that has been under the UN influence in war situation, when the UN eventually pulls back, their matriarch in structure, that patriarchal structure has been destroyed.

Veon: I interviewed the President of Ghana, Jerry Rawlings. He has voiced on several occasions, even before the United Nations General Assembly, the problem with what happens when the United Nations pays soldiers–like they do in Ghana and these third world countries where they are all starving — so if they can’t get a job cutting the bush down, if they can be a mercenary, then they can earn money as a UN soldier. But the problem is that so many have been killed, that the kids are fatherless, and the country is now in worse shape than it was. And Jerry Rawlings has asked the UN over and over again for money, for some of the peacekeeping money to feed the starving children of Africa, and they refuse. And you’re right, they’ve taken the father out through death, and mama now is in charge and it becomes that matriarchal society.

Gotcher: Right. The ultimate agenda is to destroy a patriarch mind. That is the mind that actually will go to war for a principle. For example in 1967 divorce was made easy. I’ve read social psychology books that talk about how that was a good thing since the son is now raised under the mother and will not be introduced to the authority structure of the father. The son, then, is a softened matriarch interpretation of the next father. He really doesn’t know how to function as a Godly authority structure with love in his home. That way, according to these folks, that means we’re not going to have war any more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire December 15, 2010 at 10:23

I don’t know but if any of you out there are looking for a ‘pro-rape’ (rape by feminist definition that is) argument from nature but one actually exists.
Like the fact that for the overwelming majority of mammals the females DO NOT select their mates at all.
Unless one earnestly thinks that the victorious lion or grizzly just sulks in the corner if the female has a headache.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Avenger December 15, 2010 at 16:40

Snark writes-Therefore, the burden of proof must be higher (on the part of the accuser) in a rape case than in any other.

Simple, common sense
All criminal cases are tried by the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” the highest standard so if there is a prblem it is with the stupid jurors and the judges who don’t just dismiss the case after the prosecution rests. The judge is following the testimony closely and knows very well if the prosecutor who has the full burden of proof has proved the case “beyond a reasonable doubt” even before the defence puts on their case. He should just dismiss at this point when the defence moves to dismiss based on the fact that the prosecutor hasn’t proved the case (they all make this motion before presenting their defence)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
fmz December 15, 2010 at 17:46

Repealing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by the accuser is a pilar, if not the backbone, of a civilised society and possibly human rights.

That they want to repeal or reverse these basic tenets is a very slippery slope… for them. Another example of how they inadvertently and gullibly fall into advocating for the methods that empower their oppressors. It is an example of their supreme suggestibility and how the can be conned into bidding against themselves if they are offered something that apparently suits them. They just dont think that deeply about whats really going on here. This type of thing can be used against everyone, including them. Its already starting to happen, where da menz are using the processes advocated for by da wimminz against da wimminz. And how they cry about it. Not realising they tied the knot on their noose and helped build the gallow.

It is what it is. They are what they are.

Again, dare l say it, yet more proof of how left to their own devices they will drown themselves. Throwing maximum support behind them, they will explode themselves and the whole freak show with great speed and proficiency. With maximum fanfare and noise, everyone will know it was their doing. Then they will be brought to account. Not ever before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Andy December 17, 2010 at 04:49

Some years ago here in the UK there was a suggestion that young men get a woman to sign a proper written “consent to sex” contract,at the time it was laughed off as crazy,its starting to seem pretty smart now tho.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower December 22, 2010 at 12:16

w.f. price
Why do Totalitarian Feminists get Free Publicity?

Because their comrades control the Media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: