Tuesday, July 31, 2007

It's Official: Canuck Judges Smack the Gavel Harder on Men

The following is a chopped-down version of a very interesting e-mail which arrived today.You will note a web link embedded there - one that I'm sure you'll want to visit:
Gender Discrimination in Family Law in Canada

Very important information.

So there is no excuse for mainstream media claiming that they did not know about this as a reason for not publishing this very important information there is copy published at http://lbduk.org/Latest%20news.htm together with record of all the media that this information has been e-mailed to. If you do not see it published, question the media why:

Sent: 31 July 2007 10:26
To: [A long list of e-mail recipients follows, one of whom is your humble blogmeister himself. Well, at least I'm not among the "media" -mainstream or otherwise - who might be silent about this... nosireee!]
Subject: Fwd: Activist Alert and Press Release-LAW ANALYTICS-Statistics Battle Gender Discrimination in Family Law in Canada
Next, the nearly complete version of a slightly earlier e-mail, sent to me by an MRA in England who had gotten it from an MRA in Canada. As you will see, the news is "Canadian" - however, the importance is global.

The first quoted e-mail (above) was mailed out by yet another activist who had posted the content of the below e-mail on a website, in combination with the first e-mail. I recommend visiting the online version (see link above) because it contains graphic versions of statistical tables that you might find helpful. (I don't feel like embedding those graphics here, sorry!) When you go to the website, look for the title which says "Gender Discrimination in Family Law in Canada". Right now it's at the top of the page, but before long you might have to scroll a bit to find it.
Statistics Battle Gender Discrimination in Family Law

Last week, while the press was deservedly trumpeting the empirical legal analysis[i] of Professors Strimbopoulos and Yahya on political and gender bias in the Ontario Court of Appeal, Brother Peter Roscoe quietly released his own groundbreaking work conclusively demonstrating gender discrimination in that court.

Utilizing the methodology pioneered by Brian Jenkins of F.A.C.T.[ii] originally applied to assess the qualifications [iii] of Justices Abella and Charron for elevation to the Supreme Court, Peter scored and categorized some 350 cases from the ON CoA involving 800 decisions from the mid 1990's onwards utilizing CANLII and Quicklaw electronic databases. This was followed by a data analysis phase examining case outcomes by gender for an individual CoA judge, or by a particular issue within family law.

This empirical analysis of legal outcomes is a promising new field in a staid profession traditionally accustomed to subjective and narrative assessments- so new that it doesn't have a formal name yet. By applying traditional statistical quality control techniques to the practice of law, it promises to shine a bright light where no light has shone before.

Our prescient Jeremy Swanson highlighted Peter Roscoe's work several months ago alerting us all to the promise of "Law Analytics". With data gathering and compilation now complete, Peter is openly sharing the fruits of his research with the community.

The analysis by individual judge categorizes panel rulings by appellant gender. The Discrimination Index measures the prevalence of percentage female wins over male wins so that a score above 50 indicates predisposition towards female appellants, while a score under 50 towards male appellants.

What immediately jumps out of the data is that not a single judge is predisposed towards males, with Justices Catzman, Labrose and Laskin being the least indisposed. Brian Jenkin's earlier analysis criticized appointments of Justices Abella and Charron to the Supreme Court based on gender discrimination. Here we see that Justice Abella was clearly the worst possible candidate by a significant margin! And look who follows closely on her heels.

Indeed, the average score is quite disconcerting to anyone's hopes for an impartial hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal. A male is two and a half times less likely to win on appeal than a female- a win margin of 39% over the hapless male.

Of course, this raises the question of whether the issue lies with the law or with the judges. The answer, like beauty, lies with the beholder. Most people would agree that the law is written as gender neutral; by a process of elimination that puts the spotlight on the judges.

The next slice-and-dice of the data is by issue within family law. For this analysis each case has been scored for multiple isssue constituting the case.

Excluding the "other" category relating to technical/procedural matters, the majority of issues before the ON Court of Appeal in family law focus on Child and Spousal Support. Putting aside the "other" category, a male appellant is once again likely to be unsuccessful two and a half times as often the female- and virtually totally unsuccessful on custody issues.

Is there a ray of hope shining through in the "Other" category- the only one favouring male appellants. The optimists would say "yes"; the pessimists would point out that this merely reflects an old judicial strategem to throw the male a few bones for sake of appearance.

Perhaps most striking overall is the apparent lack of gender balance anywhere on substantive issues – a troubling point for both genders in a democracy. Although these are early days with admittedly insufficient cross-validation, the data nonetheless invites the conclusion that we are dealing with one sick puppy in the OntarioCourt of Appeal- a dog that is seemingly not interested in changing its diet to regain full health. Examining the Discrimination Index smoothed via three-year moving average indicates that the ON Court of Appeal attempted to rectify its gender leanings at the turn of the millennium, but has since been reverting to its earlier gender excesses.

The data raises a more fundamental question of how far up has the cancer of discrimination spread. If an impartial judiciary is indeed the bedrock of democracy, are we therefore to conclude that we are living in a sandcastle? Peter's analysis of Supreme Court rulings over a ten years span does not provide much comfort in this regard. Family Law cases comprise only 2.1% of cases heard by the Supreme Court over the last decade. The success ratio is 2:1 in favour of female appellants with the Discrimination Index at 35%. Child and spousal support issues dominated the topics coming before the Supreme Court with the success ratio being 2.8:1 in this regard - an even more disappointing score than the 2.4 for the ON Court of Appeal.

How solid are these conclusions? Peter would be the first to state that the preliminary data analysis stage must be followed by formal statistical significance testing, and that is indeed the next step. Nonetheless, while statistical analysis will refine the data on individual judges and issues, the fundamental conclusions will remain.

Those who know Peter won't be surprised to learn he plans on expanding into different topics in family law in order to cross-validate initial findings. At the same time, other brothers are starting a pilot project at the Superior Court level with a view to productizing the Jenkins/Roscoe methodology for dissemination to other jurisdictions.

The tool of Law Analytics portends to be a major asset for all those struggling against institutionalized injustice. What placards and sit-ins were to protest movement of the 1960's, Law Analytics may well be the comparable tool for the first decade of the new millennium.

Let's also be realistic about the consequences for this new breed of "statistical whistleblowers" in academia and within the movement. Recalling the whistleblower's informal credo "No good deed shall go unpunished", it doesn't take too much imagination to visualize the potential sources and magnitude of the pushback on disclosures of this nature. So let's salute the moral courage of Peter and those in the new field of Law Analytics.

George Piskor

Niagara Falls,ON

[i] Stribopoulos J. and Yahya M. Does a Judge's Party of Appointment or Gender Matter to Case Outcomes? An Empirical Study of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Canada), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=797599

[ii] Fathers Are Capable Too. Toronto, ON. http://www.fact.on.ca/

[iii] Jenkins B. Review of the Attorney General's Recent Supreme Court Appointees. www.fact.on.ca/releases/sccappts.pdf

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Comment by Paul Parmenter

The following was composed by Paul Parmenter in the comment log of a recent post. I found the comment to be of thought-stimulating interest, so I am turning it into an official CF post in order to "put it on Front Street."
paul parmenter said...

I also maintain that anyone who mistrusts the "experts" in this field can do a very simple piece of research themselves. It won't be accepted by academics but it will open your eyes and give you an insight into what is really going on.

Just take a pen and notepad and go to any place where large numbers of people of both sexes gather in roughly equal numbers. Bars, clubs, whatever. It will certainly help the research if there is plenty of alcohol available.

Then just sit quietly in a corner or where you have a good view, and look for acts of physical violence against people. Score the "hits" on your notepad. You can use a very simple system, like just recording numbers; or make it as sophisticated as you like, such as distinguishing types of violence (kicks, slaps, pushes, hitting with objects etc), where aimed (face, head, ribs, groin) and the scale (low level, medium, hard, full-on - based on any criteria you choose). But be sure to record which sex perpetrates the violence, and which sex is on the receiving end, in each case.

Be honest, don't cheat, and record everything. Don't let anybody off just because their physicality is low-level, or there is no sign of damage; and certainly not because they are female. Leave your prejudices at home. Even if it is just a mild push, still record it. Any contact with any degree of force behind it and with obvious intent should go down on your pad. Ignore playful stuff, but use your judgement over whether something is serious or not. You should be able to tell from the faces of the two parties, and the verbal exchanges that are certain to precede and follow it.

At the end of the night, you will have your own sample that you can trust because you have chosen the circumstances and the venue, seen the action with your own eyes, and recorded it in your own fair hand.

It is unscientific, crude and partially subjective; as I say, it would never be accepted by serious scholars in this field. The purpose is not to prove anything to anyone else, but only to yourself.

But I can guarantee that if you make a number of these records, in different locations at different times, you will see a distinct pattern emerging. And that pattern will show women as the main initiators of violence. They will be the ones throwing the first punch or aiming the first kick, in a very decided majority of cases.

How do I know? Because I have made many such casual observations myself, and the results are always the same.

Why is it consistently so? Because women have no constraints on their behaviour at all. There is no taboo, no social disapproval, no punishment, and very little risk of adverse consequences, let alone retribution. But men have all of those constraints. And if men do "kick off", then 99% of the time it will be against other men. I can assure you that the column in your notepad headed "male on female" will be the emptiest.

Don't take my word for it; try it yourself. You might learn something you had never believed could be true.

Friday, July 27, 2007

More Things to Kindle Your WRATH Against Feminism!!

The following is from Falsely-Accused.Net, the website of Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos, a clinical psychologist and lawyer rolled into one who specializes in defending men who have been falsely accused of rape, sexual abuse, or similar. Dr. Lorandos is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

"Rape Cases & False Accusations

"Rape is a criminal allegation that is easy to claim and increasingly difficult for a defendant to disprove. For decades, the crime of rape has been known as the easiest criminal allegation to make by the alleged victim and the hardest to disprove by the defendant.

"In the 1960s, the victims of this brutal crime were able to take advantage of significant changes in the law that made it easier to obtain convictions and justice. Unfortunately, these changes also made it easier for those who were falsely accused of rape to be convicted as well. Adding to the defendant’s difficulties is the controversial “Rape Trauma Syndrome,” a psychological theory that has been rejected by behavioral science. Unfortunately, this idea is still being used by prosecutors and junk science witnesses as so-called evidence in cases alleging the crime of rape.

"A series of biased laws are making it easier to obtain convictions.

"Jury Instructions

"Courts have long known that rape is an easy allegation to make but one that is hard to disprove. In fact, the biggest threat of being falsely accused of a crime was that of being accused of rape (until child molestation became a significant national issue, flooding the legal system with cases). Courts perceived the potential threat of false allegations of rape and fashioned jury instructions to inform members of the jury that such allegations were easy to make by the complainant but difficult for the defendant to disprove.

"Today, in most states, this jury instruction [ To wit: Hale's warning!] is no longer allowed to be given as a result of changes in the law; changes that also mandate giving a very different set of instructions.

"In many states, the judge now informs the jury that:

(1) an allegation of rape does not require any evidence of corroboration;

(2) there is no requirement for medical evidence;

(3) there is no requirement for DNA evidence; and

(4) there is no requirement for a second witness."

"In short, there the only requirement for a conviction is the bare allegation made by a complainant. Even the manner in which the jury is selected is tainted with this attitude that evidence does not matter. In many states, prosecutors can demand that during the selection process, each prospective juror must agree that he/she would not require corroboration of a crime. If the juror disagrees with this demand, he/she can be excused. . . ."

Go to Dr. Lorandos's website to read the rest of the article, here:


And when you are done with that, you will be in the perfect mood to read THIS again.

And remember that the feminists don't give one goddamn spit in a windstorm if such horrible things happen to YOU, my friend!

Monday, July 23, 2007

Another Counter-Blast Against Rape Liars

A tip of the hat to Ulrich of the Inferno blog for his devilishly hard-hitting contribution to the discourse regarding False Accusations of Rape. This work ventures into a somewhat different alley than the recent masterpiece by MaleSamizdat, inasmuch as it generates its tone of moral outrage through descriptive mini-narratives drawn from case histories. I won't abbreviate for the sake of brevity; here's the whole slamboozle in toto:

  • If you have sex with a guy and regret it the next day, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your husband catches you having sex with another man, don't falsely accuse your lover of rape.
  • If you get into a bar fight and don't want to tell the judge during custody hearings where the bruises really came from, don't falsely accuse a man of rape.
  • If you have sex with a guy and he tells his friends about it, don't falsely accuse him of rape to protect your reputation.
  • If you're pissed off at the cop that arrested you or gave you a ticket, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your boyfriend breaks up with you, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If you feel deprived of attention, don't falsely accuse a man of rape.
  • If you are a hired as a stripper for some Duke lacrosse players from wealthy families, don't falsely accuse them of rape to try to get money out of them.
  • If you want to have an abortion without people thinking you're an immoral baby-killer, don't falsely claim the baby is the product of rape.
  • If a man rejects your sexual advances, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If one of your friends sees you having sex with a random guy at a party, don't falsely accuse him of rape just so your friends won't think you're a slut.
  • If you are having an affair while your husband is overseas and are afraid you might be pregnant, don't falsely accuse a man of rape to hide your infidelity.
  • If your boyfriend is cheating on you, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If you have sex with every guy in a fraternity while they video tape it and realize it was a bad idea the next day, don't falsely accuse them of rape.
  • If you think you were infected with a sexually transmitted disease by your boyfriend, don't falsely accuse him or some other man of rape.
  • If you are a teacher and have sex with one of your students in school, don't falsely accuse him of rape to avoid losing your job.
  • If you are a pregnant teenager and don't want your parents to know you are sexually active, don't falsely accuse a man of rape.
  • If you make some poor decisions, take responsibility. Don't falsely accuse a man of rape. The above scenarios are all based on real incidents in which a man was falsely accused of rape.
  • A 1994 study conducted by Dr. Eugene Kanin concluded that at least 41% of rape allegations in the studied area were false. The actual numbers are probably much higher since allegations were only counted as false if the accuser recanted, even after being told that recanting will result in charges for filing a false police report. Cases where the alleged victim decided to drop the charges were not counted as false accusations.

See this in its native habitat HERE:


Monday, July 16, 2007

It is Not a Light Matter, to Set Yourself Alight!

To the right is a photograph of Vasilica Iulian Grosu, a Romanian father who has chosen self-immolation as a way of protesting the custody arrangements involving his son. This picture was taken at Victoria Square in Bucharest on 12 July, 2005, in front of the Romanian government building. Mr. Grosu is protesting the fact that although a Romanian court had awarded him the custody of his son, the son remained with the mother in Spain where a Spanish court had taken the boy away from him. And it seems that the Romanian government had taken NO steps to expedite the boy back to Romania. Nor could Mr. Grosu get any satisfaction from the International Court in The Hague. Mr. Grosu had exhausted all conventional measures when he finally hit upon this incendiary method. In the end, the police stepped in and doused the flames, but Mr. Grosu's body was burned over 55% of its surface. So he took an enormous risk of killing himself even though it isn't clear if he actually intended to do so. But whatever his intentions, Vasilica Iulian Grosu died of his burn trauma 8 days later on 20 July, 2005. Read more about it here, and here.

In our next photo, we meet a very different man with a very different mission. This is the Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc who, like Mr. Grosu, chose self-immolation as a form of protest. On 11 June, 1963, Quang Duc set himself ablaze while seated in the Buddhist posture of meditation. His aim was to protest the brutality of the Diem government which amongst other barbarities practiced genocidal repression against Buddhists and Buddhism - and concerning which, President Diem responded with the kind of pompous official stonewalling arrogance that we know too well. Quang Duc did not have the benefit of timely rescuers - no doubt he wanted it that way. So unlike Mr. Grosu, Quang Duc endured no 8-day lingering agonies in the hospital - the inferno did its work and toasted him to a crisp within a few short minutes! And according to witnesses, he sat through it with all the unflappable composure of a Sakyamunic sage. Afterwards, his friends reverently removed what was left of him.

What on earth could drive a man to set fire to himself? One thing is for certain: setting fire to yourself is no joke. I don't intend to try it, and I would not encourage you to try it either! To do such an horrific thing, you must be feeling very, very strongly about something, and you must feel that nothing else any longer avails you. It is clear to me that both Vasilica Iulian Grosu and Thich Quang Duc had no further care for this life at all, and chose to express this in a way which they thought might make a difference.

Such is the power of martydom. And this (pointing to myself) is not the stuff of which martyrs are made!

So I shall have done with these morbid fooleries that weigh so heavily upon mine heart! It is time now to "lighten up".

Perhaps I will go to amuse myself with a silly computer game about throwing rocks at boys. . . .

"Oh, Lighten Up - It's Just a Silly Computer Game!"

Friday, July 13, 2007

Women Can Stop Lying About Rape

A tip of the Counter-Feminist hat to Male Samizdat, from whose most worthy web log I re-post the following. Let's spread this one around and make it a men's movement classic, shall we?

By the way, this kind of blow-by-blow parody is elementary counter-feminism in action, because it generates direct, simple and very efficient blocking energy.

Only Women Can Stop False Rape Accusations

  • If a man is drunk, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is walking alone at night, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is drugged and unconscious, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is wearing shorts, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is in a bar at 11:00 p.m., don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man looks like one of your twelve ex-husbands, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is asleep in his bed, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is asleep in your bed, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man if fixing his car, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is in the hospital, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man changes his mind in the middle of or about a particular activity (like giving you money), don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man has repeatedly refused a certain activity (like giving you money), don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is not a man, but a child, don't falsely accuse him of rape...or rape him (like many female schoolteachers these days).
  • If a man is not in the mood to spend money or time on you, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your step-son is watching TV, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If you break into a house and find a man there, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your friend thinks it's okay to falsely accuse someone of rape, tell her its not, and that she's not your friend.
  • If your "friend" tells you she falsely accused someone of rape, report her to the police.
  • If your sorority-sister or another girl at a party tell you she is angry with a man and is going to falsely accuse him of rape, and you should too, don't do it, call the police and tell her she's a liar.
  • Tell your daughters, god-daughters, nieces, granddaughters, daughters of friends it's not okay to falsely accuse someone of rape.
  • Don't tell your male friends how to be safe and avoid false accusations of rape.
  • Don't imply that it's in any way his fault.
  • Don't imply that men have it coming to them and deserve it anyway.
  • Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you she got away with a false rape report.
  • Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have every right to use the courts to destroy a man. You can, too, help yourself.
If you agree, re-post it. It's that important.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

What Me Worry? About Rape?

Rape, like shit, happens. It is unfortunate. And for the life of me, I cannot see the point of forcing sexual congress upon any unwilling citizen. Might as well be a heap of sand-bags! The mere fact that the party is unwilling, ought to be a reverse-aphrodisiac surpassing multiple submersions in the Arctic Ocean. Or so you might think. But then again, not all people think alike.

I would not wish rape upon anybody. Not even upon people who might seem to have it coming! Granted that if by chance it should befall such a one, I might shrug my shoulders and say "ah, well! Poetic justice!" But never would I be so barbaric as to wish it upon that individual beforehand!

For example, suppose I had been falsely accused of rape and sent to prison for ten years, and had suffered things more hideous than I hope you can imagine, and had been placed on a sexual offenders list for life, and had correctly benefited from all of this exactly as Catherine Comins would suggest. Now suppose that if some time after my release I were taking a constitutional stroll in the evening, and I chanced upon my accuser being gang-raped by the most ugly and disease-ridden thugs this side of hell, what do you suppose my feelings would be on that occasion? Would I intervene like a gallant knight to rescue the fair damsel? Or would I merely shrug my shoulders and say, "ah, well! Poetic justice!", and then saunter along my way whistling a sprightly tune?

Whatever my response to the occasion in question, I can assure you I would never wish that occasion upon the person beforehand! After all, as our wise and wonderful friends the feminists would say, "nobody deserves to get raped!" However, deserving something and deserving to get rescued from something, are separate issues. I reserve the right to form my opinion independently as regards the latter.

Very well. Turning from the rarified altitude of levity, irony and flippancy, we descend now into a somber valley, a valley cloaked in perpetual shadow, where innocent blood trickles from the rocks and ledges, saturates the very soil, and accompanies our footsteps with an ugly sucking sound everywhere we wander. Feminism, our mortal foe, must be held to a stern accounting for the innocent blood which it has spilled, for the innocent tears which it has caused to flow, and for the multitude of human miseries both large and small which have sprung to life along its path.

What value hath the life of a man? I don't mean "man" in some default generic way of speaking, as denoting humanity in the abstract. No, I mean a male human being pure and simple! What specifically is the worth of a male life? For that matter, what is the worth of anything at all that pertains to maleness—whether feeding into it or proceeding from it?

We are quite familiar—I would even say too familiar—with the old feminist saw that men and women are "equal", or ought to be made so by appropriate measures. Now unless I am mistaken, equality should entail at the very least a balance of power. True? And in order to ensure a balance of power, both sides ought to possess an equal strike capacity. Yes? After all, what use has equality in other areas of life when a superior strike capacity can blow this away at any time?

Such being given, I would contend that men and women are not presently equal in point of strike capacity. Women enjoy superior strike capacity specifically as regards the law—both civil and criminal. In very basic terms I mean that women are able to leverage the state monopoly on violence against men in an arbitrary way, that they are able to do this by bearing false witness against men, and that they are able to bear false witness against men both because they are held to lowered standards of evidence, and because in judicial practice they are not held accountable for their perjury.

It is as if half the population were armed with a deadly weapon which it could use with impunity against the other half. Simply put, unequal strike capacity. Such is the power of the legal lightning bolt which lies in the hands of women.

Women therefore function as a conduit through which the state monopoly on violence may be visited upon men in a manner which renders men helpless against the state. No man is safe—every woman is a potential rape accuser, and women as a group have become the enforcer-accomplices in what amounts a police state.

The state operates in the capacity of a husband or father—in short, a surrogate male protector figure. The state monopoly on violence is brought to bear upon "men", but more to the point, it is brought to bear ARBITRARILY—at the whim of a woman! Not for any state reason, but for personal reasons—as the saying goes, the personal is the political.

Do you remember that old song about "my boyfriend's back and there's gonna be trouble!"? In this equation, "boyfriend" equals the machinery of state—an alpha male meathead with fat knuckles who will believe whatever cupcake tells him, and ask questions later!

In principle, this is no different than walking along the street, arresting men at random, and sending them to prison. Trouble indeed.

Now, feminist theory might have us believe that such an arrangement is necessary in order to counteract so-called male violence, but by reason of its arbitrariness this arrangement rides roughshod over individual guilt or innocence. Feminist theory makes sense only within a macrocosm-based COLLECTIVE GUILT paradigm—which means that in practice, the veritable guilt or innocence of any particular male citizen becomes meaningless . It is "men" who are under indictment, and one scapegoat, provided it be a male goat, has much the value of any other.

Our traditional legal system has been breached by a system of collectivistic justice in which the actual guilt or innocence of living individuals no longer matters. I should say, living male individuals—since women have become a privileged class under this regime, engaged in a kind of symbiotic power-sharing racket.

This collectivistically-based system of justice—like a bolus of viral, alien logic—has hollowed out a sphere for itself within the traditional system, and awaits only periodic moments of opportunity to propagate itself further into the body of its host.

The feminists naturally give lip service to equal justice, due process, the Bill of Rights, and so on. In other words, they are careful to mask their collectivist thinking under acceptable rhetoric. Quite a few of them are, at any rate. But like an underlying rock stratum on a hillside, the truth sometimes pokes to the surface when geomorphic pressures are applied. One such outcrop—a very dramatic example—was the recent Duke lacrosse affair. In that setting it was clear that certain people—the gang of 88 among others—wanted blood rather than justice, that the Durham Three were on trial simply for who they were, and that it was immaterial whether they had truly committed the acts listed in the indictment. I find it difficult to fathom the minds of the lynch mob in the Duke case, but I am certain they have minds extremely unlike my own—which could explain why I find their minds difficult to fathom!

But pretty it is, to observe how they parade themselves under fine-sounding words like "progressive". Do you expect these people to change, to show remorse, to undertake self-criticism? Sooner expect a fish to sprout wings and feathers, and fly around with the seagulls!

"Presumption of male guilt" is a structural-conceptual model that underlies all thinking which may be characterized as essentially feminist. It applies equally across the broad spectrum of the cultural fabric, by which I mean that feminism aims to saturate that fabric completely, entirely, fully—step by step in the fullness of time. However, it is in the administration of law and public policy that such intentions are most keenly felt. And men are certainly under the power of the legal lightning bolt in areas other than rape prosecution. However, rape is the subject of our present talk, so let us return to it.

Feminism's Presumptive Male Guilt model supplies an answer to the question posed earlier: what value hath the life of a man? The answer would be: less than the life of a woman. Also, think fast: who went to the lifeboats first?

But, to devalue male life can only mean to deprecate maleness altogether—it can mean nothing other. And not only maleness but anything appertaining to maleness, or to men, in whatever manner you please.

Consider, for an example, the case of rape prosecution. The feminists have put it about for many years that "women don't lie about rape". This saying has passed through the tumbler and gotten a bit of rounding-off, so that you will sometimes hear it phrased merely as "women don't lie"—which demonstrates a certain logic in action consistent with feminist ethics.

However, the idea that women don't lie about rape has packed certain consequences for the administration of justice. A companion watchword to "women don't lie about rape" is the hortatory expression "we must believe them!" Accordingly, when a woman gets up on the stand, and points her finger at a man and says, "he raped me!", her power to command belief has, owing to feminist innovation, bulked rather large. The conviction that women don't lie, and that we MUST believe them, has been planted, watered, cultivated, assiduously tended, and finally taken deep root.

This state of affairs ought to concern us. If the truth be known, rape is inherently a difficult crime to prosecute. In our criminal justice system, we have what are known as standards of evidence, and it just so happens that rape cases often pose a formidable barrier for the prosecution in terms of what is required to satisfy these standards. I mean, chiefly, in the matter of witnesses and corroborations.

A comparison might be helpful. Let us consider the crime of burglary, and let us construct a scenario involving this offense. Very well: a burglar, having spent several weeks casing a particular residence, finally picks a time to strike. It is late evening, the people are away, and the burglar believes they will be gone for quite a while and that he can work uninterrupted. He effects his entry by jimmying a window on the ground floor, but unfortunately for him he makes a bit of noise which attracts the attention of a neighbor. This man happens to be a high-tech buff who owns a videocam that can see in the dark, and he has the presence of mind to film the burglar in the act of breaking and entering. He also calls his family members to witness this, and immediately afterwards calls the police. Having done so, he similarly contacts several other neighbors by phone and tells them what is going on. These people saunter discreetly down the street toward the house, and a couple of them go to the alley in back and while standing in the shadows observe the burglar ferrying several items into his van. The police arrive, and the officers stake out the house from every side. The burglar emerges and is promptly arrested—an event which the neighbor once again captures on camera. The case goes to trial, and with the abundance of evidence it is speedily concluded. The jury deliberates, finds the defendant guilty, and the judge hands him a sentence. Hammer down!

Now, by way of illumination, let us posit a hypothetical rape case. Let us imagine a couple—a man and a woman who are known to be "seeing each other" as such matters are mysteriously and euphemistically termed. One evening, they go out together—nobody else knows where—and the last available witness will vouch that she got into the car with him, and that they drove away. Two days later, she appears at the police station claiming that he raped her. She provides a minimal storyline about the two of them going back to her apartment where he proceeded to have his way against her will. Understand, that there are no witnesses to any of this. There is no corroboration of any sort. However, the accused is arrested, and it is found that his DNA does indeed match a specimen gathered from the woman's body.

Rape cases have been brought to trial on less evidence than what I am suggesting here. That should tell you something about the prosecutorial culture which has taken up residence in our criminal justice system owing to the influence of feminist innovation. Just try to imagine the first-instanced burglary case getting in front of a judge if the evidence were so meager—to say nothing of obtaining a guilty verdict!

In the rape case, it is plausible to assert that sexual intercourse occurred. I say plausible: it is merely possible that the semen got to the final location by some means other than coitus. The possibility seems rather odd, but still it is a possibility. However, supposing that coital penetration did in fact occur, it is both possible and plausible that the act was consensual.

And what would Sir Matthew Hale tell us here? He would tell us this:

"Rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused, tho' never so innocent".

This is known as "Hale's warning." Formerly, it was the manner to read Hale's warning to juries during rape trials, but feminist activism has put an end to this custom. The feminist Marilyn French accounts this as a progressive innovation—or at any rate sees nothing objectionable about it.

We ought to pause and reflect a bit upon Sir Matthew's wisdom. In the case at hand, the accusation is indeed hard to be proved—unless you count as proof the unsupported word of a solitary female. Remember that we have only a compelling likelihood, on the strength of forensic evidence, that sexual intercourse even occurred at all. As for the likelihood that rape occurred, that case is not nearly so compelling.

Still, the feminists will inform us that women don't lie about rape—and they are adamant that "we must believe her." So, the woman in our rape case informs us that she was raped by the defendant, and we have seemingly no choice but believe her—although we have nothing better than her word for it. Such is the criminal justice procedure the feminists would have us follow. And what follows...?

What follows is that feminists do not, in principle, respect any so-called right of equal justice or equal protection under the law. For in the present case we must, according to them, believe the womanand upon no greater recommendation than the fact that she is female!

Here, the lack of equality must surely compel our notice. Suppose the defendant in our rape case were to say: "She lies, the little slut!!!" No, on second thought, let us assume that he frames the point in more genteel terms as befits the dignity of a courtroom setting. At any rate, he disputes the accusation.

Still, the feminists would instruct us to believe the woman, and this paints a sexist double-standard in blazing characters fourteen miles high. What value hath the life of a man? There can be no doubt of the feminist answer. Any feminist who is truly a feminist sets male life in the same category as garbage, which signifies: worthy only to be thrown away!

If the burglary case sketched earlier rested upon no better grounds than our hypothetical rape case, it would straightway be thrown out of court. It is a serious matter, a deadly serious matter, to convict a person of crime and to exact a penalty for that crime. The person had better be guilty, and you had better be damn sure of it.

Sole testimony minus corroboration has not customarily been deemed sufficient to obtain a conviction. Most courts, historically, have required more than that. But the rape case now in question confronts us with a special kind of impasse known as a "he said-she said": HE said that he did not rape her; SHE said that he did. And according to the sect of philosophers known as feminists, whatever HE says carries exactly the value which this very same sect of philosophers in their wisdom have assigned to male life. Namely, the value of garbage. It is of no importance to this sect of philosophers that presumption of innocence and standards of evidence were established in the legal system only after hard-fought battles, and were set in place to secure the freedom and safety of all citizens, not just half of them. No, none of that matters to a feminist, in whose mind men are garbage
and what need has garbage for freedom and safety? The party accused may be "never so innocent", but since he is garbage, who honestly gives a rip?

The feminists do not believe in equal protection under the law for men. If they did, they would not have campaigned so strenuously to bring the world to its present state
in which no such equal protection is offered. Similarly, they would put their money where their mouths are and scream bloody murder about this current system where men live at the mercy of female perjury. I say they would, and that is conditional. But objective considerations force me to conclude that most feminists don't honestly give a shit if men are railroaded into prison on false charges of rapeto say nothing of all the other false charges on which men can be railroaded. Feminists quite frankly don't care about that because, deep in the bowels of their ideology, they are morally exonerated by the axiom that men are collectively guilty garbage and may be treated accordingly.

I wish that some honest feminist would stand up in front of Congress or Parliament, and propose a rape lottery system that would randomly select X number of men, based on the estimated number of rapes (both reported and unreported) that are said to occur yearly. The lucky winners would be summarily clapped in irons and carted away to the penitentiary, no questions asked! There is no doubt that some actual rapists would be netted in this way, purely by chance. However, I doubt that very many feminists would be either honest or bold enough to put forward such a proposal. For even though nothing in the proposal would contradict feminist morality, it would place that morality far too nakedly on display.

So, it is safe to predict that the feminists will continue to screech about "men getting away with rape!", and insisting that "we need to get more convictions!" But how to get "more convictions"? That's easy! Lower the standards of evidence even more. Put more political pressure on judges and prosecutors. Spread more slanders about men generally, so that juries will be more inclined to give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.

Concurrent with their judicially-based political warfare against men, the feminists will go on preaching their timeworn moral injunctions and sermons toward men. ALL men
rapists or otherwise. "Men can stop rape", they will say. And they will be careful to note that "most men are not rapists", but straightway they will follow it up with "most rapes are committed by men". And on and on they will go! But we know perfectly well what they'll do, don't we? We are wise to their tricks, aren't we?

I'm sorry feminists, but "believing the woman" does NOT add up to equal justice. Equal justice equates to one thing only: believing the evidence. And lacking evidence, we are under NO compulsion
legal, moral or otherwiseto believe the woman. If you insist on believing the woman, then equal justice demands that you insist on believing the man likewisewhich sounds self-defeating and silly since the two testimonies would cancel each other and leave you no better than you started.

So in the end there is only one option: THROW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

Then, feminists can go back to screaming at the male population about men's collective phantom responsibility to "stop rape". Remember, men are responsible for everything bad because men are garbage.
And the fact that men are garbage proves that every man is a potential rapist, just as the fact that every man is a potential rapist proves that men are garbage. Women are blameless moral robots with zero creative agency, zero input into the equations of occurrence, and zero obligation to take commonsense precautions to avoid compromising situations and risky behaviors! None! Whatsoever! Only men can stop rape! Especially those who never started.

But even though men are garbage, don't give up your preaching and screeching! If you make men feel guilty enough, then maybe they won't ACT like garbage any more! And even though most men are not rapists as you are so careful to say, they can still stop rape if they form themselves into rape awareness posses, and act deeply sensitive, and preach unto one another like choir-boys, and practice self-flagellation! And if they get tired of that, they can all put on their white ribbons and go out patrolling obscure byways at 3 a.m. so that intoxicated women in fishnet hosiery, micro-minis, see-through tops and platform heels can walk around with the assurance of being rescued if somebody tries to rape them. Last but not least, they can start keeping files on guys like the present writer. . .

Oh, to hell with all of this rubbish!!! I will not submit to moral injunctions and behavior instructions from people who have declared war on me, who have poisoned the world against me, who hate me, who have slandered me, who wish to harm me in more ways than I've yet had the time to learn about! Fine lot they are, to lecture me about rape
or anything else! What impudent, brass-faced hypocrisy! First they injure me, then they insult meand I'm bloody tired of it!

At this very instant, somebody somewhere on earth is getting raped, and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. So I don't intend to lose a wink of sleep over it.

And as far as I'm concerned, the feminists can drink horse piss.


Sunday, July 08, 2007

Fascism, Anyone?

Can you spell p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n...?

Twelve Warning Signs of Fascism.

It is funny sometimes, to observe the pious conviction of those on the Left end of the political wind tunnel that "fascism" originates solely and exclusively from the Right end.

Mussolini was a "fascist". Hitler was a "fascist". Franco was a "fascist". Quisling was a "fascist".

But Stalin? Castro? Pol Pot? Mao? Ho Chi Minh? Saddam??

No, you could not properly call the latter "fascists", because they differed saliently as per 3 or 4 of the 12 items on the Warning List! Accordingly, there is a technical order of moral distinction that must be scrupulously upheld and borne in mind at all times!

Yes, our friends on the Left are absolutely correct in directing our attention to imminent perils from a different quarter by pointing a finger away from themselves and toward other people who differ so profoundly from themselves in at least a couple of different ways. To be disembowelled by a wolverine is NOT the same as to be shredded to the bone by a swarm of rats - only a blind fool would fail to draw the proper line of demarcation between two such uniquely opposed experiences!

Anyway, take a hard look at that Warning List and note the uncanny similarities to feminism - or to the conditions which feminism has been instrumental in creating . (You knew I was going to say that, didn't you? ;)

A "Rape Joke". Naughty, Naughty!

It is impossible to stop rape if you never started it.

So, I guess only a rapist can "stop" rape, and in order to do THAT it would be necessary to START rape.

That way, you can either stop yourself, or arrange to have somebody else come along and stop you. Either way, the outcome is that rape gets "stopped".

So, in order to "stop" rape, we would need to make sure that rape happens in the first place. And the more that it happens, the more we would be able to "stop" it.


Yes, my maiden voyage in the field of rape humor. We'll see how long it remains posted here!

Thursday, July 05, 2007

And Here's ANOTHER One...!

An important recent paper (April 2006) by Murray Straus, which examines symmetry in partner violence in conjunction with dominance in the relationship. This research studied dating partners in 32 countries, and the finding was what you might intuitively expect - that the dominant partner was more likely to be violent. But what is most significant is that it puts to rest the idea the 'women only attack in self-defense.'


"The study investigated the widely held belief that violence against partners in marital, cohabiting, and dating relationships is almost entirely perpetrated by men, and that when women assault their partners, it has a different etiology than assaults by men. The empirical data on these issues were provided by 13,601 university students who participated in the International Dating Violence Study in 32 nations. The results in the first part of this paper show that almost a third of the female as well as male students physically assaulted a dating partner in the 12 month study period, and that the most frequent pattern was mutuality in violence, i.e. both were violent, followed by “female-only” violence. Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants. The second part of the paper focuses on whether there is gender symmetry in a crucial aspect of the etiology of partner violence -- dominance by one partner, The results show that dominance by either the male or the female partner is associated with an increased probability of violence. These results, in combination with results from many other studies, call into question the assumption that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that, when women are violent, it is self-defense. Because these assumption are crucial elements in almost all partner violence prevention and treatment programs, a fundamental revision is needed to bring these programs into alignment with the empirical data. Prevention and treatment of partner violence could become more effective if the programs recognize that most partner violence is mutual and act on the high rate of perpetration by women and the similar etiology of partner violence by men and women."

Download the full PDF file here:


Or view the HTML version here:

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

More Good Stuff for your Reading Pleasure

From an article by Richard Gelles, the noted family violence researcher:

". . .To enhance the understanding of family violence, my colleagues Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz and I conducted the First National Family Violence Survey in 1976.

"We interviewed a nationally representative sample of 2,143 individual family members. The results were reported in a number of scholarly articles and, finally, in the book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. . .

"The most controversial finding was that the rates of female-to-male and male-to-female intimate violence were the same. Even the rates of abusive female-to-male and male-to-female violence were the same. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings at a conference in 1977, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. When my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, The Battered Husband Syndrome, in 1978, the editor of the professional journal published, in the same issue, a critique of Suzanne's article.

"The response to these findings sparked not only heated scholarly criticism, but intense and persistent personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to speak.

"Suzanne bore the brunt of the attacks. People urged her university to deny her tenure, and urged government agencies to rescind her grant funding. All three of us became "nonpersons" in our field; invitations to conferences dwindled. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated that they would not order or shelve our books.

"The more sophisticated critiques were not personal but methodological, focusing on how we had measured violence. We had developed an instrument, the Conflict Tactics Scales, which met all the scientific standards for reliability and validity, so the criticisms focused on content. First, the measure assessed acts of violence, not outcomes -- so it did not reflect the consequences of those acts. Second, it did not assess who struck whom, or whether the violence was in self-defense. These two criticisms became a mantra-like refrain over the next two decades.

"Meanwhile, Murray Straus and I conducted the Second National Family Violence Survey in 1986, seeking to address the two methodological criticisms. We interviewed a nationally representative sample of 6,002 individual family members by telephone, and this time, we asked about the outcomes of the violence, and who started the conflict and how.

"This study also produced surprises. As expected, women were found to be much more likely than men to be injured by acts of domestic violence. But we also found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we re-examined our data, looking only at what women had reported. The survey had asked subjects about the last time there was partner violence: "In that particular instance, who started the physical contact, you or your spouse/partner?" And the women we interviewed reported similar rates of female-to-male and male-to-female violence; they also said they were as likely to initiate the violence as men.

"When we reported the results of the Second National Family Violence Survey, the personal attacks continued, and the professional critiques simply ignored the methodological changes we'd made. This round of personal attacks was much more insidious -- including charges that Murray had abused his wife. This is not unusual in the field of family violence -- men whose research results prove contrary to political correctness are labeled "perps."

"It's important to note that our findings have been corroborated numerous times by many different researchers, using many different methodological approaches. Reviewing more than 30 such studies, my colleague Murray Straus found that every study not based on a "self-selective" sample has reported comparable rates for female-to-male and male-to-female assaults on partners. . ."

Read the whole article here:


This is only the tip of the iceberg, of course. But perhaps it will sharpen your appetite for a more enhanced understanding in this crucially important sector of feminism's anti-male propaganda offensive.

P.S. The article doesn't mention it, but apparently Suzanne Steinmetz recieved threats to her children!

Monday, July 02, 2007

That's Meninist...not Leninist!

Here's some more quickie "filler" material, just to let everybody out there know that The Counter-Feminist is still alive and still countering feminism! I have been shamefully unproductive lately in terms of the heavy, ponderous material for which this blog is noted! Not only am I suffering from the periodic burnout which cyclically afflicts me, but....I am in Deep Study Mode. (Sound effect, as of a basso-profundo voice in a cavernous echo chamber....!)

In other words, all intake and very little output.

But here's a little bagatelle by way of amusement, to put a lighter touch upon your day. Editorial fiskeries by yours truly are rendered in red typeface.
Equality for All

"Meninist is a global organization of men that believe in and support the feminist principles of women's political, social and economic equality. The following represents the platform we believe in (but the need for equal rights for women should be self-evident in this day and age).[Alas, manna "should be" falling from heaven, and the need for equal rights for men "should be" equally self-evident in this day and age. So forgive me, but this self-evidentiary status of women's requirements demands far better evidence than the "self" kind. ] This page hopes to convey that a growing movement of men recognize and support the women's movement, for the benefit of women, men and all of humanity. [Happily for me, I see it like it is and tell it like it is. And if I ever see that the women's movement is truly for the benefit of women, men and all of humanity, then on that day I will tell everybody to support it. But that day is not yet. And if you don't like what I am saying you are cordially invited to shoot me!]

"1) We are opposed to all forms of misogynist behavior and sexist attitudes; we respect all women. [ I don't respect all women. I respect some of them: the ones who deserve it. What? You mean to tell me that ALL women deserve respect?]

"2) We believe in a woman's reproductive freedom and right to control her own body. [Oh, jolly good! And do you also believe in a woman's rightful freedom to take responsibility for such freedoms and rights?]

"3) We oppose all forms of violence against women, including rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence, as well as all negative stereotypes and violence against women in film, television and advertising. [Some years ago, I chanced upon a pair of adolescent girl-thugs attacking a frail elderly man - with taunting vocalizations making it clear they were relishing the sport. I picked up a small dead tree branch that was lying handy and landed several painful body blows upon both girls - who, exercising the freedom to control their own bodies, promptly took to their heels! Then I turned and assisted the old gentleman.]

"4) We understand the need for men to participate in the women's movement and help end 2000 years of men's patriarchy.[2000 years? Are you sure? Somebody else told me it was 4000. Or no... wait! I think they said 10,000!] We pledge to support women in every possible way we can, including sharing responsibilities around the house and in parenting. ["Pledge" to do these things? Why "pledge"? Well okay, fair enough. But as long as we're behaving like the Cub Scouts, I could think of a thing or two that women might "pledge" to do also. Good for the goose, good for the gander...eh?]

"5) We believe that women should be paid in parity to men for the same work done and women should be given the same opportunities in the work environment. We oppose the so-called "glass ceiling" (the oppression of women's ability to advance at the workplace). [Oh please, not that crap again!] We oppose the "Old Boy's Network": [I don't! I'm all for it and will continue to be, just as long as that powerful "Sisterhood" remains in operation!]

"We welcome all "meninist men" of like-minded feelings to submit their letters of support. [Ehhh....careful what you wish for, Charlie!]

"Please e-mail your letters or mail them to:

"P.O. Box 668
Woodstock, NY 12498"

All right, here is your chance to become the masters of irony and sarcasm! The trick is, to stay right in "the zone". You want to sound like you sincerely believe in The Cause, but you need to push the schmaltz just far enough that it becomes a tad embarrassing. But not TOO far, or your imposture will become self-evident even to such thick-headed nubbins as these!

The original version is on the web here:


Go there to get the e-mail link. Also, to read the words of various "meninists" who came soldiering dutifully forward to answer the call with their pious testimonials.