The Real Feminism: As Real as it Gets!
Well, I am on the web again! The crunch settled itself faster than I thought it would. So, today I would like to introduce you to a Real Feminist™. But first, let me back up a little bit in order to put things in perspective.
When I got back online, I checked my e-mail and found 68 accumulated messages. Most of these were spam or low-import material, however, about one-fifth of them were interesting. Amongst that redeeming remnant was a brief communique from the False Rape Society, from which I share the following extract:
http://tinyurl.com/dfgetx
So, now you know who this Real Feminist™ is. Her name is Susan Caringella, she is a professor at Western Michigan University, and in my considered opinion her name ought to be trumpeted far and wide and carved in a high place upon the Feminist Wall of Shame alongside the name of Catherine Comins. (Remember her? The one who said that men who are unjustly accused of rape may sometimes benefit from the experience . . ?)
I fired off the following message to the FRS. There is something to be said for striking while the iron of outrage is sizzling hot—the words are from the heart, and the spontaneity speaks very, very directly. That is why I feature the e-mail now, although it is somewhat edited for style and clarity:
In case I didn't make that clear enough, let me put it another way: it means that if you merely have sexual intercourse, you can be indicted for rape, and you will be guilty until proven innocent. And if you fail to testify and give evidence on your own behalf, you will probably end up in the slammer because the prosecution is not required to prove a bloody god damned thing!
(I should parenthetically add that it would still be unnecessary for any sex to have occurred AT ALL. It is still possible, as always, that your accuser will invent a tryst that never even happened. On a personal note, by way of illustration: a certain young girl once claimed, to a third party, that she had "gone out" with me, when in fact I barely knew of this girl's existence whatsoever! A trivial incident, to be sure, but revealing: it leans in a certain direction. And such incidents make sobering food for thought.)
Bear in mind that these legal proposals are from a feminist—that they are fully in keeping with anti-male politics and coherent with the feminist worldview. Yes, this is Real Feminism™. It is not semi-feminism, quasi-feminism, faux-feminism, pseudo-feminism or . . . . . . marginal feminism! It is the genuine article by any standard of measurement; it is the authentic core; it is downtown center city. And being such, it is the standard by which I judge any person rash enough to identify with feminism in the first place; it is the presumptive yardstick to which I hold that person accountable.
So perhaps my fulminating e-mail makes a bit of sense now. However, take note of the big orange word "IF"! You see, I framed that entire proclamation as a future conditional, which means that I do not claim to be recommending or doing those undoubtedly controversial things which I describe, but rather avowing that under certain hypothetical conditions, I would recommend and do such things. And more to the point, that under those same conditions, I would be morally justified and perfectly within my rights to recommend and do such things.
I say this because the hypothetical situation in question is SO intolerable, SO abominable, SO appalling, and SO morally grotesque that it ought to ignite revolution, radical protest, social upheaval, boiling chaos, and angry, droning clouds of hornets miles high and dense enough to blot out the sun! It ought to spark an essential conflict that would rend society straight down the middle like a sheet of rotten canvas, and mark a complete turning point in history. Yes, the conditions would be precisely that radical!
As we know, the rape prosecution game is already rigged against men. If you are male, you already cannot expect justice in that domain, for the system already does not protect you. Owing to feminist innovation, a double standard is at work, and you already do not enjoy equal protection under the law. You can already be railroaded into prison on little or no evidence if a lying woman points her lying finger at you. And why? Because, among other reasons, years of feminist propaganda have saturated the culture of law with the unexamined shibboleth that "women don't lie about rape."
And now, Susan Caringella, feminist sociology professor at Western Michigan University, wants to stack the cards even more against you!
But in truth, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether anybody thinks women do or don't lie about rape, or what anybody thinks the exact ratio of such mendacities might be. That entire realm of discussion misses the point. All that genuinely matters, is the evidence presented at trial: does the prosecution have a case? Yet as matters stand, the mere unsupported testimony of a woman can suffice to obtain a guilty verdict. And feminism is directly responsible for making this possible, in its drive to "get more convictions" and put more men in prison by lowering the standards of evidence in rape trials. Feminist activists and legal scholars have been pulling for such innovations for years and, as we now see, Susan Caringella is pulling for more.
If it be an embedded axiom in the criminal justice system that "women don't lie about rape", it means that in the eyes of the law, every man who pleads 'not guilty' to a rape charge is presumptively a liar. So if the purpose of the trial procedure is to adjudicate facts in order to ascertain truth or falsehood, then under the regime of feminist jurisprudence, the trial procedure becomes a hypocritical farce—in fact, a kangaroo court! If women don't lie, then why bother with a trial in the first place? I am not being facetious. I mean that very seriously.
We should either take equal protection under law seriously, or we should chuck the whole charade altogether and just send any man straight to prison, with no questions asked, whenever a woman says "he raped me". If we straightway adopt this method, it ought to make Susan Caringella and her sisters very happy, for that is exactly the future state they wish to make real.
Which brings up the next point. Susan Caringella and other Real Feminists™ are evidently unhappy about the current state of rape prosecution culture, and wish to make what they consider improvements. Now it appears to me, and to others of my persuasion, that the current state of rape prosecution culture is an appalling calamity not only for men who get pulled into the prosecutorial machinery, but for ALL males everywhere, without distinction. So, for better or worse, I find myself in a state of essential conflict with Susan Caringella and anybody who might align with her—which, by the way, is a critical mass of influential people.
I too would like to make improvements to the state of rape prosecution culture, but in the opposite direction to what Susan Caringella and her cohorts would propose. I would modify the system so as to restore an evidence-based standard of impartiality, whereas Susan Caringella and her cohorts would modify it so as to eradicate impartiality down to the final crumb, and supplant it with a feminist-based (or female supremacist) system of judicial practice. That is what they are pulling for!
Again, it would seem that Susan Caringella and her cohorts are not happy with the current system. And why might this be? Simple: because it has too many holes in it. Not enough men are being convicted of rape and sent to prison because too many people in a position to influence the outcome are still constrained by earlier, non-feminist norms of so-called justice and fair play. Too many people are still constrained by doubts and scruples and squeamish fears of convicting somebody who might be innocent.
Therefore, Susan Caringella steps up and proclaims "away with all of that!!" Susan and her dauntless cohorts propose to rend the Gordian knot in a single swift, bold stroke, by a truly revolutionary method called reversing the presumption of innocence! Granted that presumption of innocence is a sacred pillar of civilization secured and set in place only by hard-fought battles involving a lot of blood, sweat and tears, but in Susan's universe that is a mere technicality which misses the point. In Susan's universe, any man is a potential rapist, and more significantly, any man who denies committing rape is a liar until he proves otherwise—and no woman needs to prove a bloody god damned thing, because in Susan's universe, women don't lie about rape!
Such is Real Feminism™. And let me tell you something: if you find Real Feminists™ like Susan Caringella as obscenely sickening and morally inexcusable as I do, then it would not be wise for you to call yourself a feminist. At all. Whatsoever. I tell you this for your own good. Disown the word feminism altogether, because you probably don't want to be shoved into the same box with people like Susan Caringella. For if you insist on calling yourself a feminist, that is how you shall fare! Protest to your heart's content, but plenty of people just won't have the patience to listen, and they will treat you like an unclean thing. So make it easy on yourself and take the easy road. . .
As for Susan Caringella and her Real Feminist™ sisters, they should be forced to make a snivelling, grovelling apology to every man who has ever been traumatized, sent to prison, or otherwise had his life destroyed by a false accusation of rape.
I would like to conclude on a somewhat happier note, so I will send you once again to the False Rape Society blog. As you will discover, the FRS posse has scored one hell of a coup: a guest editorial in the UW-Madison campus newspaper! By Jove, I'm right proud of them, and I expect their little fait accompli to make some waves that will spread widely:
tinyurl.com/c2d4k4
When I got back online, I checked my e-mail and found 68 accumulated messages. Most of these were spam or low-import material, however, about one-fifth of them were interesting. Amongst that redeeming remnant was a brief communique from the False Rape Society, from which I share the following extract:
The e-mail included the following link to a post on the False Rape Society blog. Go, and read all about it!I must share this with you because few others would appreciate it as you do. As I was reading excerpts of the book I referenced in the post linked below, I became so angry that I actually shook. It is the single biggest threat to men, as a class, of which I am aware (putting aside conscription, I suppose) because, I believe, it would cause incredible numbers of young men to be imprisoned for the crime of rape. . . . We really need to be vigilant about this one.
http://tinyurl.com/dfgetx
So, now you know who this Real Feminist™ is. Her name is Susan Caringella, she is a professor at Western Michigan University, and in my considered opinion her name ought to be trumpeted far and wide and carved in a high place upon the Feminist Wall of Shame alongside the name of Catherine Comins. (Remember her? The one who said that men who are unjustly accused of rape may sometimes benefit from the experience . . ?)
I fired off the following message to the FRS. There is something to be said for striking while the iron of outrage is sizzling hot—the words are from the heart, and the spontaneity speaks very, very directly. That is why I feature the e-mail now, although it is somewhat edited for style and clarity:
Thank you VERY much for sharing this. I have been disconnected from the web for a while, and I just got back on yesterday. . . . so that's why it took me so long.SO. . . . let me summarize, with acid, bone-chilling clarity, what is unfolding here. Susan Caringella, feminist sociology professor at Western Michigan University, has proposed a legislative agenda for legal innovation within the canons of jurisprudence, that would make sexual intercourse a presumptively criminal act. This means that any woman you have sex with (including your own wife, naturally!) could charge you with rape, and YOU would bear the burden of proof that the intercourse in question was not, in fact, rape!
Anyhow. . . .
This is what we can logically expect from feminism, and it is ALL that we can logically expect from it. Feminism cannot and will not change, EVER!! It is a radical anti-male hate movement, and no two ways about it!
As I have explained many, many times, feminism is perpetual revolution: it will not change and it will not stop, because it cannot change or stop!
So all I've got to say is this: if they want a war, let it begin here!
IF any such laws ever got passed, I would officially go on record abandoning ALL moral concern about the issue of rape, and absolving myself from ALL sense of social responsibility about it WHATSOEVER! Right down to the very last particle!
To be brutally honest, I would no longer even give a rip if anybody got raped! Unless it were some worthy individual whom I personally cared about, I would shrug my shoulders and say "whatever!"
If I knew of a rape in progress, I would decide by a coin toss whether to call the police. . .
Or I might not even do that much!
I would absolutely stop caring. I would wash my hands of it. All of it. I would become brutally cynical and callous, and more coldly indifferent than the Arctic ice cap itself!
I would LAUGH OUT LOUD BITTERLY, and spit in the face of any feminist who screeched at me upon the theme of "rape culture" or "misogyny " or "men can stop rape"...etc....
Then I would smile like a smug bastard and say "it's not my problem."
And then I would completely turn my back not only upon the issue of rape, but upon ALL concern for ALL women's issues of ANY KIND, whatsoever!!
AND THEN. . . . I would urge every male person on earth to follow my example.
And I would preach radical male separatism. . . .
That is what I would do, IF such laws ever got passed!
But you know, the way that men are being treated in today's world, it is simply a matter of time anyway, before an ugly, catastrophic social explosion occurs. Which, incidentally, is exactly what some people WANT to see happen! For example, it would make the feminists happier than pigs in shit to see such a thing happen!
Once again, thanks for nudging me awake. I will blog about this in the next few days, but I need to set my thoughts in order.
-Fidelbogen-
In case I didn't make that clear enough, let me put it another way: it means that if you merely have sexual intercourse, you can be indicted for rape, and you will be guilty until proven innocent. And if you fail to testify and give evidence on your own behalf, you will probably end up in the slammer because the prosecution is not required to prove a bloody god damned thing!
(I should parenthetically add that it would still be unnecessary for any sex to have occurred AT ALL. It is still possible, as always, that your accuser will invent a tryst that never even happened. On a personal note, by way of illustration: a certain young girl once claimed, to a third party, that she had "gone out" with me, when in fact I barely knew of this girl's existence whatsoever! A trivial incident, to be sure, but revealing: it leans in a certain direction. And such incidents make sobering food for thought.)
Bear in mind that these legal proposals are from a feminist—that they are fully in keeping with anti-male politics and coherent with the feminist worldview. Yes, this is Real Feminism™. It is not semi-feminism, quasi-feminism, faux-feminism, pseudo-feminism or . . . . . . marginal feminism! It is the genuine article by any standard of measurement; it is the authentic core; it is downtown center city. And being such, it is the standard by which I judge any person rash enough to identify with feminism in the first place; it is the presumptive yardstick to which I hold that person accountable.
So perhaps my fulminating e-mail makes a bit of sense now. However, take note of the big orange word "IF"! You see, I framed that entire proclamation as a future conditional, which means that I do not claim to be recommending or doing those undoubtedly controversial things which I describe, but rather avowing that under certain hypothetical conditions, I would recommend and do such things. And more to the point, that under those same conditions, I would be morally justified and perfectly within my rights to recommend and do such things.
I say this because the hypothetical situation in question is SO intolerable, SO abominable, SO appalling, and SO morally grotesque that it ought to ignite revolution, radical protest, social upheaval, boiling chaos, and angry, droning clouds of hornets miles high and dense enough to blot out the sun! It ought to spark an essential conflict that would rend society straight down the middle like a sheet of rotten canvas, and mark a complete turning point in history. Yes, the conditions would be precisely that radical!
As we know, the rape prosecution game is already rigged against men. If you are male, you already cannot expect justice in that domain, for the system already does not protect you. Owing to feminist innovation, a double standard is at work, and you already do not enjoy equal protection under the law. You can already be railroaded into prison on little or no evidence if a lying woman points her lying finger at you. And why? Because, among other reasons, years of feminist propaganda have saturated the culture of law with the unexamined shibboleth that "women don't lie about rape."
And now, Susan Caringella, feminist sociology professor at Western Michigan University, wants to stack the cards even more against you!
But in truth, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether anybody thinks women do or don't lie about rape, or what anybody thinks the exact ratio of such mendacities might be. That entire realm of discussion misses the point. All that genuinely matters, is the evidence presented at trial: does the prosecution have a case? Yet as matters stand, the mere unsupported testimony of a woman can suffice to obtain a guilty verdict. And feminism is directly responsible for making this possible, in its drive to "get more convictions" and put more men in prison by lowering the standards of evidence in rape trials. Feminist activists and legal scholars have been pulling for such innovations for years and, as we now see, Susan Caringella is pulling for more.
If it be an embedded axiom in the criminal justice system that "women don't lie about rape", it means that in the eyes of the law, every man who pleads 'not guilty' to a rape charge is presumptively a liar. So if the purpose of the trial procedure is to adjudicate facts in order to ascertain truth or falsehood, then under the regime of feminist jurisprudence, the trial procedure becomes a hypocritical farce—in fact, a kangaroo court! If women don't lie, then why bother with a trial in the first place? I am not being facetious. I mean that very seriously.
We should either take equal protection under law seriously, or we should chuck the whole charade altogether and just send any man straight to prison, with no questions asked, whenever a woman says "he raped me". If we straightway adopt this method, it ought to make Susan Caringella and her sisters very happy, for that is exactly the future state they wish to make real.
Which brings up the next point. Susan Caringella and other Real Feminists™ are evidently unhappy about the current state of rape prosecution culture, and wish to make what they consider improvements. Now it appears to me, and to others of my persuasion, that the current state of rape prosecution culture is an appalling calamity not only for men who get pulled into the prosecutorial machinery, but for ALL males everywhere, without distinction. So, for better or worse, I find myself in a state of essential conflict with Susan Caringella and anybody who might align with her—which, by the way, is a critical mass of influential people.
I too would like to make improvements to the state of rape prosecution culture, but in the opposite direction to what Susan Caringella and her cohorts would propose. I would modify the system so as to restore an evidence-based standard of impartiality, whereas Susan Caringella and her cohorts would modify it so as to eradicate impartiality down to the final crumb, and supplant it with a feminist-based (or female supremacist) system of judicial practice. That is what they are pulling for!
Again, it would seem that Susan Caringella and her cohorts are not happy with the current system. And why might this be? Simple: because it has too many holes in it. Not enough men are being convicted of rape and sent to prison because too many people in a position to influence the outcome are still constrained by earlier, non-feminist norms of so-called justice and fair play. Too many people are still constrained by doubts and scruples and squeamish fears of convicting somebody who might be innocent.
Therefore, Susan Caringella steps up and proclaims "away with all of that!!" Susan and her dauntless cohorts propose to rend the Gordian knot in a single swift, bold stroke, by a truly revolutionary method called reversing the presumption of innocence! Granted that presumption of innocence is a sacred pillar of civilization secured and set in place only by hard-fought battles involving a lot of blood, sweat and tears, but in Susan's universe that is a mere technicality which misses the point. In Susan's universe, any man is a potential rapist, and more significantly, any man who denies committing rape is a liar until he proves otherwise—and no woman needs to prove a bloody god damned thing, because in Susan's universe, women don't lie about rape!
Such is Real Feminism™. And let me tell you something: if you find Real Feminists™ like Susan Caringella as obscenely sickening and morally inexcusable as I do, then it would not be wise for you to call yourself a feminist. At all. Whatsoever. I tell you this for your own good. Disown the word feminism altogether, because you probably don't want to be shoved into the same box with people like Susan Caringella. For if you insist on calling yourself a feminist, that is how you shall fare! Protest to your heart's content, but plenty of people just won't have the patience to listen, and they will treat you like an unclean thing. So make it easy on yourself and take the easy road. . .
As for Susan Caringella and her Real Feminist™ sisters, they should be forced to make a snivelling, grovelling apology to every man who has ever been traumatized, sent to prison, or otherwise had his life destroyed by a false accusation of rape.
I would like to conclude on a somewhat happier note, so I will send you once again to the False Rape Society blog. As you will discover, the FRS posse has scored one hell of a coup: a guest editorial in the UW-Madison campus newspaper! By Jove, I'm right proud of them, and I expect their little fait accompli to make some waves that will spread widely:
tinyurl.com/c2d4k4
Labels: rape
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:10 PM
10 Comments:
Thank you, Fidelbogen! You have articulated the outrage, the scorn, the anger that is wholly appropropriate for this monstrosity of a proposal better than anyone could have. Thank you!
I keep thinking to myself: most acquaintance rape claim cases come down to questions of credibility about consent, and -- read this next part very carefully -- OFTEN THE JURY DOESN'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE. Under this proposed law, if the jury doesn't know who to believe, the male will be sent away to prison for years, and possibly decades -- because he can't sustain HIS burden of proving his innocence. The sex act is thereby transmogrified into presumptive rape on the basis of the woman's word alone.
This book is a very serious effort to change the law. Feminist legal scholars have long regarded reversal of the presumption of innocence for consent as their Holy Grail. If such a law should ever pass anywhere, men and boys would be fair game, their testicles mounted on prosecutors' walls by the tens of thousands. Prosecutors would gladly pursue even questionable rape cases because convictions would be so terribly easy to obtain. I don't say this lightly. Society would need to double the number of jails to hold the young men. High schools and colleges would probably lose half or more of their male enrollments. It would truly be the Triumph of Misandry.
We need people like Fidelbogen ready to lead the defense. Unlike all the terrible laws that were passed before men realized what was happening to them -- before the Internet explosion -- this is one we cannot allow. We simply cannot.
"Unlike all the terrible laws that were passed before men realized what was happening to them -- before the Internet explosion -- this is one we cannot allow. We simply cannot."
Hopefully, this latest calamity will not come to fruition. But strangely, whichever way it rolls, it could be a win-win.
If such laws DO get passed, it will force the issue and force the kettle to a boil. Guys like me will suddenly find our job easier: we'll have plenty to preach about, and a growing number of "friends, Romans and countrymen" willing to lend their ears. . .
But whichever way it rolls, I have a hunch the times are gonna get interesting. ;)
RADAR ALERT: Want a Good Laugh? Check Out the SAFE Act!
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2009-05-04 17:52.
What if you knew a bill had been introduced in Congress in which most of the findings were misleading, outdated, or simply false? Welcome to wonderful, wacky world of HR 739, the Security and Financial Empowerment Act (SAFE).
The bill contains 53 different claims. Only 4 of those claims can be verified as accurate, current, and truthful. As for the remaining 49 claims, whoever dreamed up this stuff has an incredible sense of humor!
The following bold-faced quotes come straight from the SAFE Act findings. They are followed by the actual facts. So get ready for some side-splitting humor:
"Violence against women has been reported to be the leading cause of physical injury to women." Here's what the website of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows:
Under the graph the DHHS states, "All of the leading causes of injury in 2006 were unintentional." But domestic violence is an intentional cause of injury. In other words, DV is not even on the list of leading causes of injury.
"According to recent Government estimates, approximately 987,400 rapes occur annually in the United States". Here's what the FBI really says:
"In 2007, the estimated number of forcible rapes (90,427) decreased 2.5 percent from the 2006 estimate." So the SAFE number is off by about 900,000. We'll just call it a rounding error.
Now ready to have a real belly laugh? Check out RADAR's critique (.pdf file) of the SAFE findings.
After you see all the misleading claims, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods, tell your Representative that people shouldn't be making a joke of domestic violence.
Tell your congressman to vote 'No' against the SAFE Act. As always, please remember to be polite.
To find your Representative's contact information go to http://www.house.gov/ and enter your zip code in the upper left corner.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date of RADAR Release: May 4, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org/.
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/12416
They already are in some of the blogs I have visited and bodly made more than just a mention of false rape accusations, amongst many other false accusations. I have had many less than pleasant exchanges with gender feminists,radical feminists and, feminists of other types.
People need to know about this growing pandemic that endangers every living male.
This sadly ties in to the recent issue of the state having to keep rape kits indefinately, and eliminating the statute of limitations on reporting rape. The two combined basically mean that you are going to jail......period.
Susan Caringella is, quite simply, a gender bigot. I would laugh my A** off to see this come to pass and immediately see a male family member of hers be targeted. How much screaming at that point, would she display?
Really, this is just the next step in the opression olympics. Women seem to think they have been oppressed throughout time (while ignoring the fact that the majority of men have as well), and want revenge. And sadly, the idiots in D.C. seem bent on giving them that opportunity.
Fidelbogen, have you read this book ( http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521738095 ) ? Exerpt; " the mainstream Western canon of jurisprudence needs to be critically reviewed and extended to take account of other legal traditions ..." Legal traditions? To me it seems the legal tradition now is to simply take whatever women want to use as an excuse to have a man jailed or imprisoned, on her word and her word alone, and destroy a man's integrity,honor,sense of purpose,self respect,respect of the community,security and confidence in himself, etc. This is not acceptable.
Archivist. What you posted remeinds me of an old saying I heard; " Before you seek revenge, you must first dig two graves". Appearantly gender feminists and all other feminists don't know about it.
"the mainstream Western canon of jurisprudence needs to be critically reviewed and extended to take account of other legal traditions".
'Other legal traditions' don't necessarily include the principle of innocent until proven guilty. How convenient. . .
Other than that, what can this writer possibly mean by " critically reviewed and extended to take account of" those traditions? Sounds like a veiled way of saying "dismantle the present tradition."
Shibboleth? Do you speak Welsh?
@Anon:
"Shibboleth? Do you speak Welsh?". .
Nope. I'm pretty sure that "shibboleth" is ancient Hebrew.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home