How Feminism Rapes the Value of Male Life
Full story here:
"A man who contended throughout his 26 years in prison that he never raped a woman who lived five houses down from him was freed Thursday after a judge recommended overturning his conviction.
"Charles Chatman, 47, was released on his recognizance as several of his eight siblings cheered. He was freed on the basis of new DNA testing that lawyers say proves his innocence and adds to Dallas County's nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates."
What first commands my notice, is how very little was needed to find this man guilty of rape, and to send him up the river. The alleged victim did little more that point her finger. That, together with the circumstantial detail that he lived a short distance from the alleged victim, was enough to lock up Mr. Chatman for a quarter of a century and wreck his life beyond recovery, since those prime years from age 21 until age 47 can never be regained! And having once been convicted of rape - even though exonerated! - he will forever wear the scarlet letter as a "convicted" rapist, since it is literally accurate to say that he was convicted, and that is all that most people will trouble themselves to reflect upon.
So. . . do you think this is ALL ABOUT YOU? Well you're damn straight it is!!! If you are a male citizen, you ought to consider Charles Chatman's case your own. You ought to take it very, very personally that such a thing could even happen at all!
Yes, I say you ought to take it personally—as a raging fire in your gut, a heinous personal transgression against your worthy & sovereign self! And this personal feeling should ignite your unquenchable WRATH against the individuals, groups and forces which permit such things to happen and to keep happening!
Take it personally, brotherman! And make this the cornerstone of your politics, because the personal is the political!! That's right, make the feminists sorry as hell that they ever minted that miserable slogan; make their very own words turn again and bite them on the ass like the hounds of Lucifer with red-hot steel fangs!
I should add that Mr. Chatman is not only male, but a black male. Since feminists are righteous left-wing freedom fighters dedicated to justice and all that jazz, I'm sure they would be more than happy to play the race card for Mr. Chatman's benefit, yes? For isn't it plain as day that Mr. Chatman was railroaded into prison for "existing while black" - as he himself suspects?
But whoa! Wait a second . . . wouldn't that therefore imply that he was actually innocent of the rape charge?? Ooops! We'd better not go there! Hush up about this one, girls!!!
And I must admit that feminist voices have been deafeningly silent upon this story. The newswires have featured it, and a few bloggers have picked it up—but not feminist bloggers. Not that I've seen, anyway. For it is of no particular interest to a feminist when a man gets exonerated from a false rape conviction. A feminist does not, and logically would not, find any matter for political remark in such a thing. Nor would a feminist find it profitable, for feminism as such, to make such a thing more widely known.
Please don't misunderstand: I love the peaceful sound of chirping crickets. It soothes me. . .
However, I am interested to learn the meaning behind this. . . silence. The Duke lacrosse case was similar as regards the core minima - that is, men were falsely accused of rape and later exonerated. And the feminists were talking great guns about the Duke case, at least until their rush-to-judgment narrative got wildly out of control and started to boomerang. At which point. . . crickets!
But it was painfully clear throughout the entire shameless ordeal, that it wasn't really Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann who were on trial! The defendants could have been almost anybody caught in the same crunch at the same time and made to take the fall! They were scapegoats, and the mere fact that they were male was enough to seal the indictment. What followed was like Lord of the Flies meets The Oxbow Incident.
To be sure, it was a nice little extra that the defendants were rich and Caucasian. But the pivotal fact was their maleness. And by reason of their maleness, they were thrown to the mercy of the blood-thirstiest moral cretins of which recent history furnishes any clear example. Those progressive, pot-banging hyenas and virtual vigilantes—thousands of them, in Durham and all across the land—longed for nothing better than to ramrod Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann through the meat grinder like three unfortunate pieces of rump steak! Veritable guilt or innocence? Bah, humbug!!
Curse me, but there are times when I cannot abide the sight or smell of the human race! On such occasions, I long for nothing better than to journey deep into the forest, and spend the rest of my days inside a hollow log in the fine company of grubs, bark-beetles and chipmunks!
No, the feminists would rather not talk about things like the Chatman case or the Duke case, and they will cross the street to avoid any such encounter. For this would lead to an unholy tangle of compromising questions about feminism's past complicities, or feminism's vested interest in keeping things the way they are.
It would also force the feminists to clarify their stance concerning the value of male life. We already know how the operative sector of the so-called patriarchy regards female life—this is captured in a variety of expressions which encompass the phrase "women and children". For example: "Women and children to the lifeboats!" Or: "Innocent women and children".
But what about the feminists? When have they displayed any similar generosity toward men? Are you thinking hard about this? Really hard? Do you know of any feminist voluntarily drowning in the icy ocean so that a man or boy could take her seat in the lifeboat? Do you suppose that the celebrated Ginmar would personally grant me such a boon if the occasion should arise? Or would I need to hoist "Gin" by the hair and fling her overboard? Whose life has more inherent value—Fidelbogen's or Ginmar's? Your answer to that last rhetorical query would pivot largely on whether you are a feminist or otherwise.
Ahh. . . but let us resume the tone of sedate propriety which befits a scholarly publication! Here is another excellent PDF for you to download and read after you have finished reading the present blog post:
In the above-linked study, we are introduced to something which I call the two-percent canard. You have heard it before; it is the default data report that most feminists will print out of their mouths any time the subject of false rape accusation arises. They will dutifully make known to you, that "only 2% of rape accusations are false", and if they are a shade more bold than that, they will also find a way to inform you (or at least insinuate to you) that "women don't lie about rape".
"One highly respected legal academic, elected by her peers as president of the prestigious Association of American Law Schools, recently reported that “the overwhelming consensus in . . . research relying on government data is that false reports account for only about 2 percent of rape complaints.” It is indisputably true that, largely through the efforts of legal dominance feminists, there now exists a consensus among legal academics that only two percent of rape complaints are false. This purportedly empirical statement is ubiquitously repeated in legal literature. Dozens of law review articles reiterate that no more than one in fifty rape complaints is false. This empirical fact, however, is an ideological fabrication."
Responsibility for the two-percent canard lies originally with the feminist writer Susan Brownmiller - who first unveiled the canard in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. This book is now considered a feminist classic, and is famous (some might say infamous) for the following widely-known passage:
In cultural and political terms, Against Our Wills can be said to have "put rape on the map." The publication of Brownmiller's opus was the spark that kindled the present inferno of rape hysteria in the Western world: the feminists have been feeding and fanning the flames ever since.
"Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."
The term legal dominance feminists (cited earlier) refers to certain feminist operatives embedded within the legal profession who specialize in what is called dominance theory - which as you might guess encompasses patriarchy theory within the ambit of its speculations. The unwavering intention of these legal dominance feminists (including the likes of Catherine MacKinnon!) has been to instill feminism's dominance theory little by little into the mental culture of the legal profession, and eventually into the fabric of law itself!
Among other things, they have undertaken their special magic in the service of the two-percent canard. The modus operandi has been classic: repeat a lie over and over, and recruit as many people as possible to spread it far and wide. Eventually, the dubitanda settles into the landscape and gathers to itself the mantle of something intuitively natural and "obvious". After that, who would think to question it?
The two-percent canard is a "consensus fact", an interlocking pyramid system of self-referential "proof" using the initial datum as a capstone, followed by an array of references to this datum, and references to these references, and so on - all deployed in a broadening stack of descending tiers in which the references point both to each other and back uphill toward the capstone. Feminist propaganda leans heavily upon such pyramid schemes - another good example would be the woozle effect in the field of domestic violence research.
The two-percent canard has no empirical foundation whatsoever. And although we have nothing better than Susan Brownmiller's undocumented word for it, the canard has furnished a vital pretext for those feminist legal innovations which deprive men of equal protection under the law. Evidently, in the feminist scheme of things, male life hasn't got enough value to deserve equal protection under the law.
And what is more subtle - yet a thousand-fold more damning - is that male life is apparently so worthless that it may be cavalierly sacrificed upon the foundation of a lie!
GOD DAMN FEMINISM!
Oh feminism, the thrice-accursed!!!
GOD DAMN FEMINISM TO HELL!!
No, feminism is not "on trial". The trial was concluded some time ago, and whatever happens from here on out is by way of executing the sentence.
In 1995, somebody directed Susan Brownmiller's attention to the difficulties we have examined, and got the following e-mail in response:
From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Jun 27 15:29:58 1995Ahhh. . . . Susan Brownmiller says the information was "fresh and exciting" and had appeared "nowhere else". So what do you think? Do those words make a devastating rebuttal to the imputation levelled against Ms. Brownmiller? Does the freshness of Ms. Brownmiller's excitement bear eloquent witness to the veracity of the data? Does the appearance of the data "nowhere else" attest to its uniqueness as well as to its scarcity, and give it the value of gold? Finally, after reading Ms. Brownmiller's statements, do you think we have been skewered? Do you think we have been roasted? Do you feel that we ought consequently to tuck our tails and slink away like whipped curs? Or do you feel that some other candidate is more qualified to undertake that task?
From: Susan Brownmiller [email@example.com]
Subject: Re: Slander
To: firstname.lastname@example.org: (David R. Throop posted this information)
The cite from the New York City Rape Analysis Squad was reported by Judge Lawrence Cooke to the NY Bar Association in 1974. Cooke was a leading appellate justice at that time. Cooke, the Bar Association, and the NYC Rape Analysis Squad were impeccable sources. The information was fresh & exciting. It had appeared nowhere else. The person who attempted to discount it in the post you reproduced denigrated New York State’s leading appellate justice, a city agency, and me.
Note that in the subject line the word "Slander" appears, indicating that somebody admits that the allegation (if true) alleges something reprehensible. You will find the above-cited e-mail, along with some interesting discussion of related matters, here:
The following post at the Radgeek People's Daily blog discusses Susan Brownmiller in a different context. Be sure you don't miss the comment thread, in which Brownmiller herself makes a cameo appearance - along with another familiar personage!
Finally, my friends, I will leave you with some more good things to read: