Update on the Kevin Driscoll Case
It has been a while since I have blogged about the case of Kevin Driscoll. We all know what happened. Kevin's trial for rape—in Deschutes County, Oregon, circuit court—ended on 19 Nov in a hung jury. That means that at LEAST one of the jurors disagreed with the rest about what the verdict should have been. The judge did not poll the jury, so we do not know the exact ratio of guilty versus not-guilty. We know only that at LEAST three of the jurors voted for acquittal—and it may have been quite a few more than that.
So then. . . who among the jury voted for conviction? Could it have been some person or persons who were sure that "something MUST have happened", or that "lack of evidence doesn't mean that nothing happened"? That method of thinking is undoubtedly widespread after years of feminist indoctrination in a culture that was already deferential toward women and inclined to anti-male bias.
Since the trial ended in a hung jury the case may, at the discretion of the prosecution, go into retrial. And behold: the prosecuting attorney, Jody Vaughan, has indeed made clear that she intends to pursue this option!
So Kevin Driscoll remains under house arrest, just as he has been since February. The fact that he was not found guilty has not made a dent upon this; the fact that the charges must be refiled has not made a dent upon this; the questionable morality (or legality) of imposing house arrest in the first place has not made a dent upon this; nothing has made a dent upon this! Kevin remains a prisoner in his own home. Granted, there are worse places to be a prisoner.
The first trial was a circus. A sham. A farce. The prosecution was afflicted with a kind of hubris that I surely can't hope to imagine. By the look of it, the same kind which afflicted Michael Nifong. An arrogance born of unreflecting certainty that they could get away with it unchallenged, so cocksure that they couldn't even be bothered to cover their tracks. And oh, did they ever get egg on their face—tubs of it! And now they want to give it another go. Manifestly, they don't know when to call it quits, so they are once more snarling after Kevin Driscoll with bared fangs and foaming spittle.
This time, mark my words, the prosecution will go about their work very, very methodically, and they will build their new case slowly and painstakingly. No preposterous, fourth-rate, cheesy-sounding witnesses called at the last minute—heavens no, not this time! On the contrary, they will construct the case in a very different way, a way that I wouldn't presume to second guess, knowing only that they will spare no trouble to nail it together solidly. Or at all events as solidly as they can manage, evidence and circumstance permitting. (And let's be honest, those factors have not improved since the first time around!)
In the meantime, Kevin Driscoll himself has descended into a cone of silence, a profoundly arctic deep-freeze incommunicado. On 23 Dec he will have a court hearing to ascertain whether his house arrest will be lifted, and the prosecution has made clear its displeasure at the wide exposure the case has recently garnered, and at the disgraceful light that was cast upon Jody Vaughan, Mike Dugan, the Redmond Police Department, and so on. Also made clear by the prosecution, was that Kevin had best not be "talking" if he wishes for a favorable outcome on the 23rd. Therefore, Kevin is not talking!
Our blitz of internet exposure arrived as a boulder landing in a quiet pond. Although it wasn't nearly so impressive as it might have been if we'd had months to pull it together instead of mere weeks, trust me, it did not go unnoticed! Why, it has even attracted academic scrutiny at the University of Oregon, where Professor Kyu Ho Youm, instructor in media law, characterized it as "extraordinary". And in the days following the hung verdict, I noticed a very large spike of visitor traffic arriving at the blog from Eugene, Oregon—where the University of Oregon is located! (Something tells me our little escapade will become a standard case study in future academic articles and textbooks!)
But again, Shefong and crew are very unhappy about this, so Kevin Driscoll stays in the icebox if he knows what is good for him. However, they cannot silence independent mouths like my own—and I will certainly not be bashful in voicing my personal opinion concerning these matters.
As you may recall, a news story appeared in the Bend Bulletin on 18 Nov, 2009. It was written by Cindy Powers, a reporter with that publication, and it concerned the Driscoll case. I talked on the telephone with Cindy Powers the day before the article was released, and informed her on a few subjects pertinent to what she was writing about. Cindy explained to me that she had no "side" in the Driscoll case, that her position was that of the neutral, objective media professional reporting the facts. She also explained that her article was not meant to be focussed on the Driscoll case as such, but rather the extraordinary worldwide attention which the case had gathered by way of cyberspace—a truly phenomenal thing!
But the article, when it came out, was indeed focussed on the case as such. Moreover, I cannot in good faith inform you that it lacked bias, for it was indeed partial to the side of the prosecution—and it put District Attorney Michael Dugan especially in a favorable light. And I say this from a place of knowledge, as one better informed of the back story than the average Bend Bulletin reader would be.
Curiously, there was more to Cindy Powers than met the eye, although I didn't learn of this until later. It turns out that before taking up journalism, Cindy was a legal professional who worked as a public prosecutor in Marion County, Oregon—where Salem, the state capital, is located. I learned of this from an article on the Oregon State Bar website, here:
http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/09jan/MediaMatters.html
The article is quite long and, I think, interesting. But I will cite the pertaining section for your convenience, as follows:
On Friday, 20 Nov, the Bend Bulletin printed another story by Cindy Powers, this time announcing, and commenting on, the final hung jury in the Driscoll trial. Here, CP expanded on some of the themes in her first article. In addition, she credits "the bloggers" for presenting evidence that was not admitted into court, but she also mentions that they said nothing about two restraining orders that were issued against Kevin in the past.
Since I am one of those bloggers whom Cindy Powers refers to, I reckon I should briefly set the record straight. Yes, it is true that Kevin Driscoll has two restraining orders in his past. The first of these was issued for trivial reasons by Kevin's ex-wife during a divorce, and soon withdrawn. The second was issued on a fraudulent pretext by a woman who was concocting an elaborate alibi for infidelity to a "significant other" whom Kevin didn't know about. And contrary to what the Bulletin article states, allegations of "rough sex" were NOT made by all three women, only by one of them—and since there has been some questionable record-keeping, it's questionable that she actually did make this allegation after all. None of these women had anything bad to say about Kevin.
No, I didn't mention any of this because, honestly, I had more important things to focus on. So I never quite got around to it. Furthermore, the judge knew just what he was about when he rejected this information as irrelevant and non-evidentiary.
The funny thing about restraining orders (although there really is nothing funny about them!) is how easily and commonly they get handed out. They are, in some sort, our present-day version of the lettres de cachet (issued under the king's seal) that were so prevalent in France prior to the French Revolution. Yes. I can't say it enough. Restraining orders are handed out almost as freely as dinner mints! So when you hear that "so-and-so had a restraining order against him", don't assume the worst. Pending further information, think "ahhh. . . somebody gave him a dinner mint!" And you know what else? I have EVEN heard that they now print restraining orders on rolls with perforations, for easy dispensing!
But seriously: Kevin Driscoll had no police record of any kind prior to his recent misfortune, whereas the plaintiff Melissa Leahy-Rossow has four counts of forgery to her name, along with a previous false rape allegation, and finally a DUI (that's Driving Under the Influence, for those outside the USA!). And in reference to the DUI, Melissa was very evidently both drinking in the bars and driving her car, even though she was forbidden to do both under terms of her probation.
In her news story, Cindy Powers supplies both inaccurate information, and information to which she could not have been privy unless she had an 'inside wire'. I say this because, yes, I am aware of the back story — in fact, more than I am now revealing, or have revealed in earlier blog writings. That's right: I know more than I am letting on! But now, this business about Kevin Driscoll's dinner mints has reached the public by way of the Bend Bulletin, even though it is inadmissible in court, and even though, in theory, the general public doesn't need to know about it.
There much more to write about, and I expect new developments to unfold. So I will post updates and further reflections on the Kevin Driscoll case from time to time as I deem fitting.
So then. . . who among the jury voted for conviction? Could it have been some person or persons who were sure that "something MUST have happened", or that "lack of evidence doesn't mean that nothing happened"? That method of thinking is undoubtedly widespread after years of feminist indoctrination in a culture that was already deferential toward women and inclined to anti-male bias.
Since the trial ended in a hung jury the case may, at the discretion of the prosecution, go into retrial. And behold: the prosecuting attorney, Jody Vaughan, has indeed made clear that she intends to pursue this option!
So Kevin Driscoll remains under house arrest, just as he has been since February. The fact that he was not found guilty has not made a dent upon this; the fact that the charges must be refiled has not made a dent upon this; the questionable morality (or legality) of imposing house arrest in the first place has not made a dent upon this; nothing has made a dent upon this! Kevin remains a prisoner in his own home. Granted, there are worse places to be a prisoner.
The first trial was a circus. A sham. A farce. The prosecution was afflicted with a kind of hubris that I surely can't hope to imagine. By the look of it, the same kind which afflicted Michael Nifong. An arrogance born of unreflecting certainty that they could get away with it unchallenged, so cocksure that they couldn't even be bothered to cover their tracks. And oh, did they ever get egg on their face—tubs of it! And now they want to give it another go. Manifestly, they don't know when to call it quits, so they are once more snarling after Kevin Driscoll with bared fangs and foaming spittle.
This time, mark my words, the prosecution will go about their work very, very methodically, and they will build their new case slowly and painstakingly. No preposterous, fourth-rate, cheesy-sounding witnesses called at the last minute—heavens no, not this time! On the contrary, they will construct the case in a very different way, a way that I wouldn't presume to second guess, knowing only that they will spare no trouble to nail it together solidly. Or at all events as solidly as they can manage, evidence and circumstance permitting. (And let's be honest, those factors have not improved since the first time around!)
In the meantime, Kevin Driscoll himself has descended into a cone of silence, a profoundly arctic deep-freeze incommunicado. On 23 Dec he will have a court hearing to ascertain whether his house arrest will be lifted, and the prosecution has made clear its displeasure at the wide exposure the case has recently garnered, and at the disgraceful light that was cast upon Jody Vaughan, Mike Dugan, the Redmond Police Department, and so on. Also made clear by the prosecution, was that Kevin had best not be "talking" if he wishes for a favorable outcome on the 23rd. Therefore, Kevin is not talking!
Our blitz of internet exposure arrived as a boulder landing in a quiet pond. Although it wasn't nearly so impressive as it might have been if we'd had months to pull it together instead of mere weeks, trust me, it did not go unnoticed! Why, it has even attracted academic scrutiny at the University of Oregon, where Professor Kyu Ho Youm, instructor in media law, characterized it as "extraordinary". And in the days following the hung verdict, I noticed a very large spike of visitor traffic arriving at the blog from Eugene, Oregon—where the University of Oregon is located! (Something tells me our little escapade will become a standard case study in future academic articles and textbooks!)
But again, Shefong and crew are very unhappy about this, so Kevin Driscoll stays in the icebox if he knows what is good for him. However, they cannot silence independent mouths like my own—and I will certainly not be bashful in voicing my personal opinion concerning these matters.
As you may recall, a news story appeared in the Bend Bulletin on 18 Nov, 2009. It was written by Cindy Powers, a reporter with that publication, and it concerned the Driscoll case. I talked on the telephone with Cindy Powers the day before the article was released, and informed her on a few subjects pertinent to what she was writing about. Cindy explained to me that she had no "side" in the Driscoll case, that her position was that of the neutral, objective media professional reporting the facts. She also explained that her article was not meant to be focussed on the Driscoll case as such, but rather the extraordinary worldwide attention which the case had gathered by way of cyberspace—a truly phenomenal thing!
But the article, when it came out, was indeed focussed on the case as such. Moreover, I cannot in good faith inform you that it lacked bias, for it was indeed partial to the side of the prosecution—and it put District Attorney Michael Dugan especially in a favorable light. And I say this from a place of knowledge, as one better informed of the back story than the average Bend Bulletin reader would be.
Curiously, there was more to Cindy Powers than met the eye, although I didn't learn of this until later. It turns out that before taking up journalism, Cindy was a legal professional who worked as a public prosecutor in Marion County, Oregon—where Salem, the state capital, is located. I learned of this from an article on the Oregon State Bar website, here:
http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/09jan/MediaMatters.html
The article is quite long and, I think, interesting. But I will cite the pertaining section for your convenience, as follows:
"In Bend, the local paper has addressed the "back story" problem by hiring Cindy Powers, a law school graduate and former Marion County prosecutor who now reports on legal and public safety issues. That, says Deschutes County District Attorney Michael Dugan, has made for better legal coverage.
"All too often, the news media assigns its least-experienced reporters to cover the legal stories in smaller communities," says Dugan. "These reporters know little about the procedure of the cases, let alone the actual legal basis for the charging decisions that are made. In many circumstances, the reporter is asking questions to which we think any person who took high school civics should know the answer. But our local daily paper has assigned an experienced, legally trained reporter to cover crime and some of the (court’s) civil cases. Doing this has made the coverage much more meaningful. The stories are much more accurate and the prosecutors aren’t confronted with non-relevant questions."
On Friday, 20 Nov, the Bend Bulletin printed another story by Cindy Powers, this time announcing, and commenting on, the final hung jury in the Driscoll trial. Here, CP expanded on some of the themes in her first article. In addition, she credits "the bloggers" for presenting evidence that was not admitted into court, but she also mentions that they said nothing about two restraining orders that were issued against Kevin in the past.
Since I am one of those bloggers whom Cindy Powers refers to, I reckon I should briefly set the record straight. Yes, it is true that Kevin Driscoll has two restraining orders in his past. The first of these was issued for trivial reasons by Kevin's ex-wife during a divorce, and soon withdrawn. The second was issued on a fraudulent pretext by a woman who was concocting an elaborate alibi for infidelity to a "significant other" whom Kevin didn't know about. And contrary to what the Bulletin article states, allegations of "rough sex" were NOT made by all three women, only by one of them—and since there has been some questionable record-keeping, it's questionable that she actually did make this allegation after all. None of these women had anything bad to say about Kevin.
No, I didn't mention any of this because, honestly, I had more important things to focus on. So I never quite got around to it. Furthermore, the judge knew just what he was about when he rejected this information as irrelevant and non-evidentiary.
The funny thing about restraining orders (although there really is nothing funny about them!) is how easily and commonly they get handed out. They are, in some sort, our present-day version of the lettres de cachet (issued under the king's seal) that were so prevalent in France prior to the French Revolution. Yes. I can't say it enough. Restraining orders are handed out almost as freely as dinner mints! So when you hear that "so-and-so had a restraining order against him", don't assume the worst. Pending further information, think "ahhh. . . somebody gave him a dinner mint!" And you know what else? I have EVEN heard that they now print restraining orders on rolls with perforations, for easy dispensing!
But seriously: Kevin Driscoll had no police record of any kind prior to his recent misfortune, whereas the plaintiff Melissa Leahy-Rossow has four counts of forgery to her name, along with a previous false rape allegation, and finally a DUI (that's Driving Under the Influence, for those outside the USA!). And in reference to the DUI, Melissa was very evidently both drinking in the bars and driving her car, even though she was forbidden to do both under terms of her probation.
In her news story, Cindy Powers supplies both inaccurate information, and information to which she could not have been privy unless she had an 'inside wire'. I say this because, yes, I am aware of the back story — in fact, more than I am now revealing, or have revealed in earlier blog writings. That's right: I know more than I am letting on! But now, this business about Kevin Driscoll's dinner mints has reached the public by way of the Bend Bulletin, even though it is inadmissible in court, and even though, in theory, the general public doesn't need to know about it.
There much more to write about, and I expect new developments to unfold. So I will post updates and further reflections on the Kevin Driscoll case from time to time as I deem fitting.
Labels: kevin driscoll
posted by Fidelbogen at 6:08 PM
19 Comments:
So, basically they "stacked deck".
Not suprised, even though American is a continent away the details of how the prosecution works are familiar.
-Dutch
When they say the "fair and unbias" media i always thought they put the un- before the wrong word.
Including restraining orders is similar to including every time someone was pissed off at you. "Oh and on Dec 23rd, his wife got made with him, tsk tsk"
However, leaving out four counts of forgery, a FRA(false rape allegation) and a DUI on the other hand. Well, those go a long way to he credibility AND are very relevant to the case.
You go Cindy Powers, help put this evil man behind bars, help this obvious slag turn her second FRA into an actual rape.
@f,
Thanks for the follow up on this. In case I haven't said it enough, thank you for all of the great work you have done on reporting on this case, and mobilizing people to do something (email, show up a courthouse, etc.).
If more people would get this actively involved, I think we would see a lot fewer abuses by Law enforcement, and less of this kind of travesty.
All the best,
E. Steven Berkimer
www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com
You nailed it. Thank you for taking so much care and time with Kevin's story...
I think the fact that he is still on house arrest after a hung jury is ridiculous. I think that there was a hung jury is ridiculous. I think the articles written in the Bend Bulletin were absurd and incredibly biased. Thank you for standing up for justice and spreading the truth.
I couldn't locate your email address on the blog - probably out of excitement - so I needed to leave a message somewhere. Due to a series of humorous mishaps, I landed myself in a Woman's studies course. I am a male. At first; as did most of the class, I found my presence hilarious. I thought the course (I had never reviewed the course outline or description) would focus on strong and or successful women, aspects of developing history etc. I was completely wrong. The entire class is simply a feminist disaster. Due to my nationality and religion, I often feel that I am a bit over the top for western academia, so I tend to brush off some thought as irrational or "too much". Well, The first essay I wrote in the course - which I thought was genius - received one of the lowest marks I had ever received as a post-secondary student. I did not understand; I read the expectations, cited the desirable material, thoroughly outlined my thought process etc. Still, horrible review and mark, not much criticism of the actual paper. I decided to meet with the professor as I felt concern for my academic well-being. In the end, I was told in a very "smiley" manner that I simply did not have enough citations. I collected a "couple" papers from some of the young women I had befriended in the class to find that most of them - MAYBE had one or two citations more than I did but some received marks upward to 18 percent better than I did. I again brushed this off, thinking - she seems like a nice woman, probably marked a hundred of these things, mine could have been graded after a very well written paper etc. The weeks went on and I noticed that I started to get increasingly irritated with the material in the course which I wanted to brand as "winking feminism". Laughable pokes at feminists being "man haters" etc were expressed, which made me think, "See I'm just being crazy", these women just want "equality". Weeks went on. At this point, I am so annoyed with the course and the material (point of no return) that I do not know what to do. I started speaking in the class, often I am completely ignored by the professor, I have been told several times that she would "like to hear from someone else" if I raised my hand more than once etc. The only other male in the class (heterosexual also) seems to be fairing well, he however claims to be a feminist which when said out loud made me want to spontaneously explode.Tonight, I finally started doing some research and I came across your blog. Turns out, I'm not crazy, and most of the bullshit I've been listening to and putting up with is nothing but blatant feminism which is nothing but indirect totalitarianism and direct intolerance. I have developed very many thoughts in regards to many things in the course - which are almost identical to your findings. The articles on here are simply great. Now the question is - what can I do? I honestly feel, that me saying what I truly have logically broken down will make me even moreso disliked by the professor which could "play with" my academic career.
@Anon2:31:
"I couldn't locate your email address on the blog . ."
I may be reached at:
fidelbogen@earthling.net
Anon: welcome to the resistance.
I'm curious as to how you ended up in a Women's Studies course by mistake! Though that's your business, and I don't mean to pry.
This is totally off topic,but it's so good I thought I should bring it to your attention.It's a comment by a certain "Karma" over at Roissy's.
Here it is in two parts.PartI:
KARMA
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Poverty of Feminism
I have three main objections to feminism.
1 The political territory which feminism claims to occupy is already covered by classical liberalism. We already have perfectly good theories about human rights and civil rights and political equality, and we just don’t need another one. Under a liberal reading, women are no different from anybody else: there isn’t really any such thing as ‘women’s rights’, any more than ‘left-handed people’s rights’.
2 The intellectual quality of the analysis offered by feminists is desperately poor. Feminists have appropriated the domain of sexual politics for themselves. ‘We are the authority on this matter’, they claim, ‘if you want to know about sexual politics, come to us, and we will tell you what to think. Your opinions are not welcome’. Not only is this a deeply authoritarian attitude, which should arouse our hostility in itself, but having seized power in this area, they have, from society’s point of view, done a spectacularly poor job. Surely the first task of any such organisation would be to produce an analysis, a model of the task domain. Yet not only is feminism’s analysis of sexual relations pathetically inadequate, it is, even worse, dangerously misleading, dogmatic, self-serving and divisive.
3 They are not fulfilling their responsibilities to society. Surely, the role of any organisation which claims to address problems in sexual politics should be, first and foremost, to act as an honest broker. Feminists should be the UN peacekeepers of the sexual landscape, the impartial police who arbitrate in disputes, who identify potential sources of conflict and pour oil on troubled waters. The primary role of any such organisation should surely be to promote harmony, good relations and communication between the sexes. Yet feminists do precisely the opposite. Far from impartial, they act only in their own narrow interests, they regard men as an enemy to be defeated, they stir up hatred and moral panic at every opportunity. They are not police but vigilantes.
Forever married to the outdated Marxist and Psychoanalytic dogmas of the late 1960s, their analysis of issues can never improve. The 1960s counter-culture produced an outlook on life which is deeply anti-social and maladjusted to say the least.
The society in which we grew up, the safest, wealthiest, healthiest and most liberal society in history, is regarded as the root of all evil in the world. The whole society in which we live, our own culture, must be completely razed to the ground. Only then can we rebuild a New Jerusalem from the ashes. To say that this is an irrational belief is putting it mildly. Revolutionary politics is misleading and pessimistic, because it teaches us that social reform is impossible. We cannot change anything unless we change everything. Yet that is the political outlook, derived from the most unsavoury role models, Marx, Lenin and Mao, that the hippies of the 1960s adopted.
Feminism is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of that totalitarian thinking. Feminists have concentrated their efforts on attacking marriage, the family, heterosexuality and men in general. The fact that they think women’s interests will be served by this indicates just how deeply deluded they are.
(continued on next comment due to character limitation)
Part II:
Feminism is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of that totalitarian thinking. Feminists have concentrated their efforts on attacking marriage, the family, heterosexuality and men in general. The fact that they think women’s interests will be served by this indicates just how deeply deluded they are.
Coupled with this destructive and irrational hatred of one’s own culture was a peculiar narcissism. Experimentation with ‘alternative lifestyles’ was probably inevitable once a sufficiently wealthy and liberal society appeared. The data is now in, and the results are deeply unedifying. What the 1968 generation – the last surviving remnant of which is the feminist movement – gave us was widespread social collapse. Divorce, fatherlessness, family breakdown, abortion, crime, drug abuse, child neglect, sexually transmitted infections, personal heartbreak, educational failure. Single-parent households living off public funds, leading to an increase in traffic, pollution, housing shortage, taxation and the intrusive power of the State.
The feminist movement has served the short-term selfish interests of middle-class white women, but its effects on the wider society have been catastrophic. They are under the delusion that they are trying to save a misguided world from its own folly. The arrogance of this position is stunning.
There are several reasons why feminist theory is so intellectually bankrupt. One cause is an inherent left-wing distrust of the establishment. Any theorizing done by the male establishment must be rejected. Thus, science and logic cannot be pursued in any honest way. Aspects of mainstream science and philosophy will be appropriated (and then arbitrarily dropped) if they happen to suit short-term political convenience, but that is all.
The second factor is that women are very socially-focused creatures. I know from my own experience that men will discuss science, economics, history and philosophy, but women only ever talk about themselves and other people. They find men’s conversation on these subjects boring and geeky. They concern themselves with the minutiae of personal relationships, almost to the exclusion of all else. This tends to militate against any kind of large-scale theorizing, which the feminist project requires.
Part III:
A second outcome from this preoccupation with social issues is a desire to fit in and be accepted. This tends to mean that women will latch onto any passing fad or trend. Most of the feminists I have known in my life are interested in every kind of mysticism from astrology to reiki to homeopathy. It’s easier and more fun than reading evolutionary psychology. With a lack of intellectual rigour and a desire to be trendy and popular, every kind of nonsense is actively embraced. This tends to make for very poor theory. Post-modernism comes to the rescue by claiming that every theory is just as good as every other, a notion as intellectually bankrupt as it is possible to get.
Thirdly, there is the dogmatic moral arrogance of feminism. Anyone who dares to ask questions is pilloried as a misogynist. This is a deliberate tactic used to suppress debate and silence criticism. Naomi Wolf recommends that dissenters should be subjected to female psycho-social violence around the middle-class dinner table. At every social gathering, the unfortunate victim will be subjected to scorn, filthy looks and verbal abuse until they cave in and stop disagreeing with feminists. This is an openly totalitarian mindset. It is the middle-class equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. This behaviour can have real and very severe consequences, including the breakup of relationships and damage to people’s mental health. For some reason, feminists seem to think that they are immune from scrutiny or criticism. Such attitudes simply cannot be accepted in a democracy.
Lastly, feminism is a modern-day religion, and its adherents act like any other religious believers. They dare not question the Holy Writ for fear of excommunication. They hold established religious ideas in sacred reverence. Anyone who does not do so is a heretic or an infidel. They create cults of personality around significant past leaders, whose wisdom cannot be questioned. This religious mindset is anathema to free intellectual enquiry, which, again, makes for very poor theory. Once a bad idea has become established, it is very difficult to displace it.
Feminists are not fulfilling their responsibilities towards the wider society because they simply do not believe that they have any; they believe only that society has responsibilities towards them. I don’t have to do anything, I’m already perfect. It is a cult mindset which strokes the ego of insecure and dysfunctional women.
It is long past the time when this bizarre cult must be openly challenged.
Thanks amigo!
@Snark,
I was approx. 4 minutes late paying my tuition (I'm on a payment plan) and in that time I was removed from all of my courses. One of the psychology courses I was in had a waiting list which pushed someone into my spot automatically, which meant that one of my courses was full. I had two options left, the one being even more ridiculous (go figure) than Women's studies, thus I (the optimist)saw it as an opportunity to meet women. It almost felt like a sign, and I have - several girls from the class are a lot of fun and don't buy into the garbage known as the course material.
Does anyone have any suggestions ???
You have two options, my friend.
1. Quit school and work for a year. Re-enrol next year and make sure you pay your tuition in time, so you can take subjects that don't push an agenda.
2. Be the thorn in their side for the rest of the year. Speak up continuously about their absurdity and hypocrisy. Never worry about 'speaking out of turn' or 'too much' - consider who you're dealing with.
I would add 1 thing to Snarks #2. If you are going to stay in the class, record every one. You know that the Professor will continue to mark you down grade wise. When you speak up, be polite and respectful, but never fail to question, as Snark stated, their absurdity and hypocrisy.
At the end of the semester, you can file an appeal on the bad grade you are sure to get, and with the recordings, you have the proof that she was gunning for you.
Technology is your friend.
All the best,
E. Steven Berkimer
www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com
" let alone the actual legal basis for the charging decisions that are made".
Perhaps this has something to do with it;
feminist jurisprudence
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Feminist_jurisprudence
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/law.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Feminist+Jurisprudence
Yes I googled the words feminist jurisprudence and found these. There are 98,400 results.
Perhaps the prosecutor in Mr Driscoll's "witch trial" is relying upon this crap?
Yes, do what The Archivist suggests.
And also, make sure you stay friendly with those girls who don't buy into the garbage - make sure you make photocopies of their essays after you get them back with the marks, since there is not likely to be much difference between them except for the grades. This will be further evidence that you have been intentionally marked down.
Fidel,
Maybe the prosecutor is after precedent: "See, even women who've been demonstrated as having filed false rape charges in the past can still file rape charges and win!" It's kind of the ultimate "victim's past is irrelevant" case law.
OT (or is it?): Couldn't help but notice this month's Good Housekeeping magazine cover at the supermarket. Brooke shields: "Making peace with my mom". It's no wonder women hate men, they even hate each other.
Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
I was one who believed a restraining order to be a Really Big Deal until I started reading MRA blogs several weeks ago. I was brainwashed by the TV movies and talk shows of the 80s.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home