Saturday, November 28, 2009

More About Feminism and the State

The most recent post at Remasculation is recommended reading:

Samples follow:
"Let us consider the feminist mantra, the personal is political. This is the most illiberal political statement imaginable. According to this statement, personal freedoms are effectively to be subjected to political demands. When the personal becomes political, the political becomes personal. . . .

"Feminism penetrates the political into every facet of personal life; and in every facet of personal life, they claim to find women being oppressed. Through this machination, men can be portrayed as the enemy in every facet of life. It is no longer about women being denied the vote. Slowly but surely, every potential meeting point between men and women in their private lives has become a battlefield in which feminists insist women must fight . . . Their goal is not equality, it is female victory. . . They will gladly throw innocent men under the bus if it means guilty women may go unpunished. . . ."
Ah yes . . ."the personal is the political"—first formulated by Carol Hanisch of the Marxist Redstockings Group. That maxim is an old friend dear to our hearts, is it not? Certainly, the thought that feminism is totalitarian has circulated in the pro-male buzz mill for a good long while. Yet in my opinion the blogger ties the threads together more elegantly than most. Snark expands upon his theme here:
"Feminism actively calls upon the state to extend its jurisdiction deeper into the personal lives of its citizens. In effect, this involves getting men to bully and control other men, in the name of women's rights. It is not only because the men who represent the state give women the benefit of the doubt that they engage in this; the state itself reciprocates. In return for complying with the totalitarian demands of feminist ideology, the state's dominion is extended. The state can control more and more of the lives of individuals."
I have long concluded, and most pro-male partisans would concur, that the women's movement would have stalled on the runway without male support. There is nothing like that good old patriarchy to lend a strong hand when you really need it, eh? Yes, men have pitched in for feminism—and mightily!

And who is now enforcing the political will of feminism? For the most part, men! Women on their own could never have made the necessary modifications to the social machinery, nor could they ensure that the machinery thus modified would be correctly tended and kept in motion. Male cooperation was and is required to set things rolling and keep things rolling. If men collectively decided to wreck feminism they would need only assert their collective will and women, feminist or otherwise, could do precious little to stop them.

If feminism not only stays in business but continues growing, it can only happen because men are letting it happen. Even more perplexing is that if women are now becoming more powerful than men, then once again, it can only happen because men are letting it happen. Male power itself is letting women grow more powerful than men! And the lesson is what? It is, that no matter how far feminism (read: female supremacism) advances upon this earth, men as a group need only throw down their tools and stand up straight, and that would be the end of it!

And yet men are not doing this. Instead, they are submitting to vile treatment and sucking it up like punks! WHY?

Because some men are bullying and controlling other men in the name of women's rights, by giving women the benefit of the doubt. In other words, some men are oppressing other men by acting as feminist enforcers. And those men are at the top of the male pecking order in a feminized state; they've secured a very lucrative racket for themselves and they aren't about to give it up.

As for giving women the benefit of the doubt, you'll see that occurring in a thousand ways, and they've got a structured rationale to validate such proceedings. It is a worldview called patriarchy theory, and it says: "women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, so when in doubt we must assume that the man has violated the woman and not the reverse, for only in such manner can equity be redistributed and equality be restored."

If you belong to the feminist enforcer group of males, you are living according to the playbook which patriarchy theory provides. Therefore you will feel perfectly entitled, in your own mind, to bully and control other men in the name of women's rights, and to believe any parasitical or criminally-inclined female who might point her lying finger at some unfortunate fellow. And since you are living in a feminized state, you will be pragmatically clever to follow such rules because you will likely be rewarded for doing so.

It is not for nothing that we call such people collaborationists.

As a feminist enforcer you will, moreover, want to sing that party anthem loudly and wave that party flag vigorously and wear that white ribbon feelingly, and miss no opportunity to let the world know of your deeply personal empathic resonance with women's issues! And you'll want to keep a sharp lookout for MRAs and other misogynistic scumbags who seem to care more about their own thoughts and feelings, who refuse to sing that song or wave that flag or wear that ribbon or, heaven help us, don't give a good goddamn about domestic violence awareness month!

To summarize: male power is divided against itself because certain men have concluded a power-sharing arrangement with feminism, and with the femplex at large. Owing to this arrangement, the bulk of men (who are also politically in the dark about what is happening!) are getting kicked to the curb relative to women—who are gaining ascendancy on every front. And paradoxically. . . . male power itself makes this possible. Certain men wish to see it happen and have the power to make it happen—at the expense of other men!
In the end, we find two factors at play: a power division among men, and the political ignorance of men. That brings me to the concluding, and most original, point of interest in Snark's post—captured in the following:
"But a powerful lobby group which captures the public's hearts and minds, and gives the state carte blanche to extend indefinitely, has opened Pandora's box. While the state, with no particular ideological affinity with feminism (only a pragmatic affinity, as described above), believed it could ultimately keep feminism under control, so the feminist movement believed the same about the state. The feminist movement was wrong. Once the state achieves a certain level of power, helped there by the feminist movement itself, it becomes far too unwieldly to be controlled by feminism any longer. It becomes too big, too powerful, and too self-interested to follow the demands of the lobby group, which, from the lofty heights of the state as it continues to inflate, is looking smaller and smaller as it fades into the distance below."
The author's thesis is that the state will go its own way, and that feminism will be helpless to stop it. The author predicts that the state will legislate in the direction of equality for men, and seek to extend its power more and more in that direction in order to augment the sum total of its power—since the nature of the state is to grow continually by creating more laws and more apparatus pertaining to those laws.

Well I'm not so sure about this. It appears to me that the present anti-male apparatus is far too profitable for certain deeply entrenched groups to let it go without a fight. Consider that half the population (men) is now effectually disenfranchised from equal citizenship and reduced to a condition more and more approximating peonage. And how came this about? It came about by dint of relentless and unethical lobbying on behalf of women—thanks to which women now possess, by law, a deadly power to destroy men's lives. This amounts to an anti-male police state, with the entire female population drawn into service as potential enforcers.

The point being that men and women are, to borrow a feminist expression, "unequal". This inequality is in women's favor and furthermore it is entrenched in state apparatus. On account of all this, the state is perfectly situated to suppress the most formidable and potentially revolutionary half of the human race (men) by using the more passive half (women) to render it helpless. This machination is a stroke of evil genius for which all of human history—to my own knowledge at least—furnishes no paralell.

It's a sweet deal if you belong to the ruling elite, or even to the lower echelons of the overclass. I have no difficulty understanding why certain individuals and groups would be in no witching hurry to relinquish the present system of anti-male state apparatus. I can allow that the state would mushroom considerably by enacting male equality measures, but at the same time it would lose that divide-and-rule advantage which, due to male inequality, it presently enjoys. Women would lose their power under law to destroy men, and from thenceforth men and women would be in the same boat relative to state power. Men, being no longer under the shadow of legal terror, could once again be revolutionary and "violent" in the correct and time-honored way, and turn their newly liberated masculine energy against the state. So while the state would gain in one way, it would lose in another and quite possibly more deadly way.

In conclusion, recall that the whole feminist enterprise prospers only because men permit it. And if certain men find it profitable to maintain feminism's existence for the purpose of suppressing other men, then I cannot for the life of me understand why they wouldn't carry on with such a lucrative enterprise. From their point of view this would make perfect sense.


Note: For those who relish political science as much as I do, the following links are recommended:

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Story of Wil Hetherington

I am mentally in the doldrums concerning Kevin Driscoll's case—however, I do promise to snap out of it. But for now, just to mark the Thanksgiving holiday while I am on mental holiday, I'd like to blog about something a tad different and yet . . . very much up the same alley!

Plenty of MRAs already know about the case of William "Wil" Hetherington, but members of the general public (you central Oregonians for example!) might not be up to speed, and if you have been following Kevin Driscoll's case I'm sure you'll be receptive to hearing about something of this nature.

Wil Hetherington is a former auto worker from Genesee County, Michigan, USA (where Flint is located). In 1985, Wil was one of the first victims of the new feminist-instigated marital rape laws. Yes, Wil was convicted of raping his scamming, conniving, divorce-pirating wife—even though a heap of evidence pointed overwhelmingly to his innocence.

Long story short: Wil Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan for nearly 25 years in a sickening miscarriage of justice I won't even attempt to describe. Why should I, when I can so easily send you elsewhere to feast upon the appalling details:

Enjoy your Thanksgiving!

Monday, November 23, 2009

Women's Lib Poster

Hello! I ripped off this thing from a radical feminist blog!

I think it is intended to be . . . like . . . . funny. Or something. . .

"Once I thought I was rolling in shit, then I realized I was acting like a pig."

Ha! Unintentional humor rocks! Gotta love it! ;)

Sunday, November 22, 2009

A False Accusation Narrative

I would like to share with you a personal narrative from a reader, which reached me by e-mail about two weeks ago. It is not, as you will see, about false accusation of rape. But it certainly occupies a point well along that spectrum of operations because it involves accusation of sexual impropriety—and besides, as we all know, the word "rape" throws a long shadow in the wonderland of feminist semantics. Now would be a good time to underscore that false accusation of EVERY kind is a lurking danger that men must anticipate from women. Rape is only the most infamous and melodramatic of these. Child abuse, domestic violence, and workplace harassment are other possibilities, and there are many more. The world certainly contains plenty of lying women who are willing to behave in such a way, and plenty of people—men and women both—who are willing to believe such women when they say any imaginable adverse thing about their male victims. Thank the man-hating feminist lobbyists, activists, agitators and propagandists for working so very hard to make such things a deeply entrenched part of our cultural reality. In their code language, they call this "EMPOWERING WOMEN".

But here is the story:
"False accusation of rape, fortunately, hasn't happened to me. But I have been falsely accused by a woman of a sort of sexual battery, and it has forever altered my perception and behavior.

"My wife had a work assignment in Mexico, so I packed my Miata and visited places I'd always wanted to see in the west, like Monument Valley and Grand Canyon. On the way back I stopped for the night in Denver. I decided to get a massage, and called a massage school in the yellow pages to see if they had student (i.e., inexpensive) massages, which they did. So I arrived and was assigned a female student in her 20s. The room in which the massage happened adjoined the waiting area where other students and the manager were sitting and chatting. The massage was utterly unremarkable. The student and I engaged in a modest amount of small talk. At the end we exited and I was asked to fill out an evaluation form, which I did. I gave her a favorable evaluation but also a well-intended suggestion for improvement. I sat down in front of the office desk, and she behind it. She picked up my evaluation and read it. When the manager returned I asked if I could make another appointment for the next morning as I was leaving town, which she arranged. I didn't ask for the same student. Neither time did I specify that I would prefer a female student.

"When I arrived the next day the manager looked stern and asked if she could talk to me. Not imagining that she could have any complaint that would relate to me, I laughed and said, 'Great, I love controversy.' Famous last words.

"She told me that the student had accused me of repeatedly touching her thigh and telling her how beautiful she was. I was floored. This was an accusation of battery, out of nowhere. What to think? Fear? Anger? Humiliation? How to respond and be believed? The manager seemed to assume I was guilty. I was furious, of course. At no time did I ever say a word to the student about her appearance, and I certainly never touched her. Not even a handshake. I explained this. The manager said that after I left, as the student was telling her fable she had burst into tears! For god's sakes, I was having to defend myself against a manipulative, conniving, liar! Boy was I rocked. I recited all that had happened (and not happened), including that we were both sitting while she read the evaluation. (I wasn't asked if she had read it, I volunteered it.) Oh, but the student had told the manager that she had not read my evaluation. And there it was. The lie. The payback. With that the manager then began to soften and said that she had been suspicious because the student could have yelled and exited the massage room at any time if there was a problem, and the manager was probably less than 12 feet away, and other students even closer. Perhaps in addition to her revenge for the evaluation, she was angry that I didn't ask for her to do the massage the next day.

"Naturally I left without my morning massage. I called the massage school's owner and demanded that something be done about this student who had falsely accused me. I asked that we both be given polygraph tests. I called the state to see if they regulated massage schools. I left a message for the lawyer but never got a call-back. And then I got on the freeway and left it all behind. But not entirely. My previously easygoing relations with females were forever altered. I had learned the risk of being alone with a woman even in a public, protected environment. I lost the trust I had always had of women. Mind you, I was once a NOW member who travelled 6 hours to an Equal Rights Amendment demonstration. When I ran for mayor of a city in the late 1970s one of my proposals was for a rape crisis center, which I think were uncommon then.

"I was lucky. I didn't have to defend myself to the cops. I was able to walk away, but with a new perspective on my vulnerability. I had to live with the knowledge that this woman was going to enter the profession of massage with the propensity to make life-changing false accusations, and she would very likely be in constant contact with unknowing males: a ticking bomb.

"So, that's my experience, and it isn't the Duke case, thankfully, but it was bad enough.

"I recognize that it isn't about rape, but I wanted to give you a sample of how a false accusation can be made at any time, and the effect it has on the accused. You will probably hear a lot worse."

Saturday, November 21, 2009

A Few Things

Today, I have heard from a very kind gentleman who wishes to be of financial assistance to Kevin Driscoll's cause! I straightway put him in touch with the correct personnel.

0n another note:

The following comment was left by Lisa, on the previous post. I topside it here as further proof that Kevin has a passel of staunch allies and well-wishers, that the word is getting out and circulating widely:
"I too can not participate in any demonstrations in Kevin's favor. Simply because I live too far away. However, I was thinking...wouldn't now be a better time to organize a demonstration? BEFORE they drag this innocent man through another trial? This trial was so hard on him. I can't begin to imagine how another will affect him, & those close to him. I think it would be wise to let the DA's office know what you think, before they begin to organize a new case against him. Maybe if enough people express their shock & disapproval of this gross misuse of our justice system it will make a difference. I will be writing my own letter & speaking to the media contacts that I have. And IF this absurdity goes to another trial, I will be there to support Kevin as often as possible."
Other than this, I am giving myself a break from matters Kevin for at least this evening, and maybe again tomorrow. I need it.

Now I'd like to share something unrelated. Go and check out this article by Cathy Young, in which she pulls apart some of the recent anti-MRA feminist propaganda that was published in the respectable, progressive online journal 'Slate' . Please note that Cathy published this piece in Forbes, of all places:

When you are done with that, here is something else read-worthy:

Finally, please do cap it all off with a visit to the False Rape Society:

Friday, November 20, 2009

A Rousing Call to Action!

Oh friends, Romans, countrymen, and residents of Bend and Deschutes County! Take heed!

Heather, who seems be from your neck of the woods, has left the following comment on the previous post. I find it very much to the point, and what the time requires:
"OK, this is's time for us ALL to do more than just blog about the lunacy of this trial! I say we picket the DA's office with signs and the courthouse as well (when the new trial begins). Major media must get involved. Keep bugging them, and keep bugging them, until something is done. EVERYONE in Bend needs to know what is going on!! I can't do anything for personal reasons, but I would ask that if there are readers of this blog from Bend, please band together and do something. I cannot imagine what kevin must be going through right now. All this is so frustrating for me, I can't imagine what it's like for him and his family. Insane!!!!"
Yes, everyone in Bend, Redmond, and all of those Deschutes County places, needs to know what is going on. And trust me; in the aftermath of Kevin Driscoll's hung-jury trial, there is a LOT going on. Since yesterday, I have been communicating off the record and must maintain a certain level of confidence —mainly because the criminal justice establishment in Deschutes County is beginning to play hardball, and I don't want to recklessly endanger things at this point. We are balancing a delicate tea-tray, so I will be circumspect in my style of communication.

Briefly, they are going to give Kevin another trial. And in the process, they are going to build a new case from the ground up. But THIS TIME. . . they do not want to see a repeat of the fiasco they endured the first time! Do you see which direction this is moving in. . .?

My poor brain is buzzing like a swarming bee hive with all the things i COULD be talking about. But I need to settle my thoughts. I need to get a grip. And I need to think about staging. SO. . . I will be parcelling things out little by little over the days to come.

For now, the word is that Kevin will have a hearing on 23 Dec, 2009, to see about getting his house arrest lifted. And when will the second trial begin, you ask? I do not know, but I expect it will be a few months. You know how these things go. They drag on and on.

More later.

Now go to the False Rape Society:

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Jury on a Rope

I have been informed by a commenter on the previous post that the Kevin Driscoll trial has ended in a hung jury. I am not yet aware of any details.

I had a strong hunch it would end this way when I saw how long the jury was deliberating. Clearly, they couldn't make up their minds.

I am aware than in two states, Louisiana and Oregon, it is possible to obtain a conviction if at least 10 of the 12 jurors agree to a guilty verdict. So, this being Oregon, I must assume that if the jury in the Driscoll trial is "hung", it means that less than ten jurors thought Kevin was guilty.

Naturally, I am curious to know the exact numbers.

In a criminal case, such as the present one, it is possible for the judge to declare a mistrial when a jury hangs itself. That would mean that the prosecutor could start a whole new trial.

We'll see if Jody Vaughan and/or Mike Dugan wants to go that route.

UPDATE: Immediately after posting this, I checked my e-mail and found the following:
"So there will be no verdict today in the trial. Much to everyone's dismay it was a hung jury and surprise surprise Jody Vaughn has elected to start another trial against Kevin. I'm utterly in disbelief that there was not an Innocent verdict today. I really don't know what to say. I am confused how this could have happened and Kevin and his family are disappointed and share my disbelief. I wish I was writing you with better news today. I'm feeling my faith in our judicial system fading after getting the news of a hung jury today. I guess the silver lining is that Kevin did not get sent to prison an innocent man. I know Kevin will not give up until his innocence is proven."
I hope to hear from Angela also, in a little bit. Clearly, there is much to be talked about. But I'll leave it for later.


I must quibble with the final statement of my correspondent cited above. Kevin's innocence does not need to be "proven" - it needs to be disproven.

Thursday - Late Afternoon

I have still gotten no word on the verdict in the Kevin Driscoll trial. My e-mail was silent but for a solitary spam message, which I deleted.

Honestly, I don't know why the hell that jury hasn't reached a decision yet! However, dispatches from Oregon tend to arrive later in the evening, so I might know something by then.

In the meantime, for all of you folks from Deschutes County and elsewhere in Oregon who arrived by a Google search, probably after reading the Bend Bulletin article, here is something else for you to read:

From The False Rape Society website:
"This Web site was started by a U.S.-based attorney to raise awareness about Western Civilization's taboo epidemic, false rape claims. In the past several decades, rape has been expanded to encompass more and more conduct, and proving rape has been made much easier. Making false rape rape claims has also become much easier. Yet, persons falsely accused of rape are treated as collateral damage in what many regard as the more important war on rape, despite the grievous harm often suffered by falsely accused men and boys. Every unbiased study on false rape claims shows that they are a significant problem, and objectively verifiable data indicates that close to half of all rape claims are false. . ."
You'll find enough material to keep you busy for days, weeks, months. I can assure you that your reading time on that blog will not be wasted!

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

A Short Message

I am in receipt of the following e-mail from a correspondent who is close to the Kevin Driscoll case. It was in response to my earlier request for an opinion concerning the article (by Cindy Powers) which appeared today in the Bend Bulletin:
"I'm sorry I have not had a chance to read it yet. I will as soon as I get a chance. There has been a lot going on and, as of today, no verdict yet. Jury was deliberating all day. Needless to say we are all a bit disappointed and worried. Kevin is very distraught and I'll be spending the night talking with him. We are all hoping for justice to be served tomorrow. I can't understand what they could be discussing for such a long period of time. It's very discouraging. I know Kevin appreciates all of the support you have given and I will give you some more feedback as soon as I can."
On a different subject: my traffic count has been huge today (by CF standards, anyhow), and I expect the unique visitor count by the end of the 24 hr. cycle to break the 300 mark! In my web stat log I find a staggering, dizzying number of search phrases containing "kevin driscoll" "driscoll trial" "driscoll trial verdict" "driscoll trial, deschutes county", and the like. The word "verdict" crops up most of all.

All right, I know what's going on. People who have read the Bend Bulletin article are doing related web searches, and just about any search on "kevin driscoll trial", or the like, will pull up a Google page featuring CF as the very first item!

For you local mavens, I note that 107 visitors have Bend Cable (in Bend) as an ISP. I also note that 30 visitors come from Comcast Cable in Eugene—where the University of Oregon is located! About 18 come from Oregon Ed-net in Salem. One visitor comes from 'City of Redmond', and another comes from a Deschutes County office of some sort. And that's all I've got the patience to dig up at the moment. . .

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Women's Monopoly on Violence

The title of this post is also the title of a post on another blog—a post I wish I'd written myself! Please go and read it; I can assure you that you won't be disappointed:

I thoroughly appreciate his "take the bull by the horns" approach to the issue, and I'd love to see what any feminist or male collaborationist would say, or even COULD say, in rebuttal to such an argument.

Personally, I would tend to handle this issue (of female violence against men and cultural immunity from retaliation) in a more indirect way, a more legalistic and serpentine way. I would argue somewhat along the following line:

"Female violence against men is both culturally and legally sanctioned. This voids any social contract that would obligate any man to behave non-violently toward women. Therefore, I cannot will male non-violence toward women as a purely social imperative or as an objectively grounded moral law. Given that no social contract presently exists that would constitute the objective basis for such an imperative, it follows that no such basis factually exists save it were manifested as a moral law within myself, grounded in my personal identity, agency, and autonomy."

All of which is a fancy way of saying that I am free to deal with women as the case demands, and as my personal honor and goodness dictates, and that nothing external to myself can dictate the exact form that my personal honor and goodness might assume.

But Snark tackles the question of female violence against men by a more straightforwardly ethical and axiological line of approach—an approach I find refreshing in its candor.

It has additionally occurred to me that women's monopoly on violence maps very closely to the state's monopoly on violence. The following links are relevant in this connection:

Trial: Sixth Day - Part II

Here at last is Part 2 of Day Six of the Kevin Driscoll trial in Deschutes County Circuit Court, Bend, Oregon:
"Deanna St. Germain, a Physician at Kids Center (a child abuse center in Bend, OR) took the stand."

"Deanna was going to prove that there is no way to date bruises. She spent three minutes talking about her qualifications, and it was funny because she never said anything about, I don’t know, GRADUATING FROM MEDICAL SCHOOL. Basically, she is a physician and a glorified chiropractor.

"For the next 20 minutes or so, she regurgitated word for word what our expert, Dr. Terri Haddix said on Friday. She then read excerpts from 4 articles talking about bruise dating in pediatrics. She had a few posters with this literature printed on them, presumably to let the jury know that someone actually wrote this and that she wasn’t making it up. I don’t know, it was pointless.

"The most interesting thing that came out of her mouth during this recital was when she stopped reading to clarify to the jury that some of the research came from England, Australia and the like, and that they spelled the word COLOR as COLOUR—which was not her way of spelling it! Thank you Deanna, I’m glad you cleared that right up for us.

"She went on to say that yellowing of bruises has never been found in bruises less than 18 hours, and then read another article that stated 24 hours. HELLO. . . We are talking about 7-10 hours, and there was distinct yellowing on more than just a handful… SO OBVIOUSLY, THOSE ARE INDEED OLDER THAN 24 hours! Jody then asked Deanna to talk about the stages of a bruise and how it starts, and her own witness replied "I don’t know, I didn’t read that in an article." You can read that again if you want to, but I can assure you that you read it right the first time. She hadn’t read the answer in one of her 4 articles she submitted to the prosecution so she simply didn’t know the answer.

"BRILLIANT, JODY! Great witness. (Dr. Terri Haddix did a first-rate job explaining this to the jury and if any of you are curious, I’d be happy to give details. Yes, some of us are aware of the basic lifestyle of a bruise!)

"The first question of her cross-examination concerned her education. I mean, she was represented as a doctor when she was called as a witness, and as far as I know, doctors have to go to doctor school, but apparently if her credentials are good enough for Jody, then they should be good enough for the jury. . right?

"She went on to tell the defense that she doesn’t think she has ever looked at a bruise on a cellular level and if she did it would have been 26 years ago while in college. She also made it clear that she has never testified on behalf of the defense, but has for the prosecution (in another town) around 300 times.

"Deanna went on to say that dating bruises is an outdated practice. She was quoting something from her “favorite” of the 4 articles, written in 2002, that just said you can’t date beyond 24-hour increments. However, in an article that was written two years later, it seemed to give a thumbs up to dating bruises, even when not considering the other elements besides the COLOUR. I scratched my head after she was done on the witness stand. For a minute I thought maybe she had just testified for US!

"Moving on, I wish that one of you MRAs could have been in the courtroom for the next witness—if only for a minute! I’m quite certain she is the poster child for all that you despise. I recorded the testimony, but it doesn’t do justice to the 3-ring circus that broke loose late this afternoon. I’m still a bit mind-boggled as to WHY ON EARTH Jody called Dara Pearson, of Saving Grace (a shelter for battered women & domestic violence) as a witness for this case. The relevance for what she had to say was ZERO.

"For some of you, I think that is enough said regarding her testimony, but I must fill you in on what happened. It was most certainly a “ya shouldda been there” episode, but I will do my best to highlight some of the finer points of the interview. The woman was bat-shit crazy and a prime example of why you don’t do acid while pregnant. Every single word she spoke was looong and drawwwn out and followed with a facial expression that reminded me of a rat sniffing out some cheese.

"Jody asked her to talk about how a typical victim would act after a rape. Dara talked about fight or flight and “freezing” when the person’s brain shuts down and prevents them from functioning or thinking. Jody asked her a hypothetical question about what was her opinion of a victim… excuse me, a survivor… who is seen partying at the bar a month after their rape. I’m pretty sure Jody was doing her best not to jump the table and strangle this woman herself, after the third time she had to re-explain the question, only to discover that Dara understood it the first time but just didn’t realize “survivors were not allowed to go out” was relevant.

"Jody asked her what her opinion would be if a “victim” was laughing and she said that unfortunately when women choose to go to the police too early, they are rushed from their process of healing and are likely to laugh. Laughing about an attack is a normal response. Laughing about being scared for your life is normal. Laughing about describing your attacker is okay. Good grief!

"I would like to say that her testimony did not require a cross-examination, but ooooh did she ever get one! In essence, she was ripped apart to the point of destruction and I don’t think Jody even cared. Mr. Coran asked her about her qualifications. She is an “Intern Counselor” meaning she is STILL IN COLLEGE AND REQUIRES SUPERVISION. She has NEVER testified in a rape case before and has only handled about 8 rape cases in the past 6 years. She has never read a word about this case, not the police report, not the interview with Melissa, not anything.

"But somehow in all her wisdom and brilliance, Jody thought it would be a good idea for the jury to hear this woman speak. WRONG! She got in an argument with the defense about the pronunciation of a word in order to avoid answering his questions. And when she was allowed to step down from the witness stand, she glared at everyone and stormed out. I’m fairly certain that at this exact moment Dara Pearson is sitting at home poking needles in the eyes of a doll doing some weird séance with all her liberal lesbian friends praying for the demise of mankind. Kinda makes a girl giggle.

"In her desperation to regain control of her case, Jody called Detective Chris Wick to the witness stand. She had him re-read Dennis Bakers statement to the police, the one that Dennis stated was inaccurate to what they said, and explained that they made several attempts to talk to him, but he was not forthcoming with information and never spoke to them after the initial photo lineup. This was really brief… maybe 5 minutes in total.

"Team Kevin was left scratching our heads to the relevance of this. Yeah, it didn’t look good for the prosecution that Dennis basically said they fabricated his statement, but it was such a minute detail they were disputing (whether or not he said Kevin was 6’4 -6’5) that I don’t think the jury really cared about it… so why were they making it into a big deal? After some conversation on the matter, we think maybe Jody was trying to leave herself an "out" if this goes bad for her: maybe she was trying to point out that if Dennis would have given them more information, they wouldn’t have gone after Kevin the way they did. Now, we all know Jody isn’t going to give up—but it was a nice sentiment I guess, and a nice cover for her ass.

"At this point, I half expected Jody to call her good friend “Thomas Foolery” to the witness stand next, but luckily for the sanity of everyone in the court room, the prosecution rested.

"The defense was ready to go into closing arguments today, however, the judge decided for his own reasons to hold off on them, and on jury deliberations, until next TUESDAY. That was the one shitty thing that happened today. If the jury would have gone into deliberations immediately following Jody’s last witness, I am confident of the verdict. The astronomical amount of smirking, eye rolling, and smiling was a good tell of what they were thinking.

"I think they were annoyed with Jody for wasting their time with useless testimony and I worry a little the four day weekend will give them time to forget what they’ve been hearing and cool off.

"I feel that Ted Coran has done an incredible job handling this case and the shenanigans thrown his way and have 100% faith that he will deliver a closing argument that will leave a lasting impression in the minds of the jury—but I will not put the cart before the horse!

"Kevin is doing as well as can be expected. There was some definite disappointment with the judge’s decision to hold off on ending all this, but I do think some confidence was gained and for that I am grateful. It’s about time Kevin got his life back.

"This will be the last update until next Tuesday, when I will hopefully be updating you with a simple & sweet NOT GUILTY. Please keep Kevin in your thoughts and prayers for the next 4 days. He can definitely use the support. Once again, and as always, thank you thank you thank you, for all your care and concern and interest. All of you posting, commenting and reading are truly helping Kevin to get through this one day at a time.


As for Tuesday's session, I have just gotten an e-mail from Angela as follows:
"Closing arguments took all day . . . No verdict. :("
And I replied to Angela thuswise:
Sorry about the letdown. Stay tuned.


The Media Takes Notice

I have just gotten off the phone. I was talking, for about 15 minutes, with a reporter from the Bend Bulletin newspaper in Bend, Oregon. She is working on a news story and wanted my input.

The story will be about the Kevin Driscoll case, among other things. However, that is not the central focus. As this person expressed it, the "real story" is about the big internet explosion of attention that was brought to bear upon the case . . . not the case itself.

Yes, it appears that we ROCKED THAT TOWN. . . . more than we realize. We made a big splash! We made waves! And we amazed the hell out of a lot of people. . . .

Why, they ain't never seen nothin' like that before in little old Deschutes County, Oregon! It was completely unexpected and it blew their socks off!

The reporter wanted to get some background on all of this, and why it happened. And she identified me (correctly) as a key player. SO. . . I filled her in on the globe-spanning viral network power of the Men's Rights Movement. Clearly we have demonstrated that power. In spades!

The story will be published in the Wednesday edition of the Bend Bulletin. Tomorrow, in other words. I don't yet know if it will be posted online, but I will certainly find out.

Monday, November 16, 2009

New Blog: Check it Out!

As of right now, this promising new blog is less than 24 hours old. The author started it, he said, under the inspiration of a recent post of mine—in fact, the post before last, the one called "Good Stuff From the Memory Vaults." I posted that post not only for its own sake, but contextually, for the sake of counterpoint with all the other material I have been publishing recently. But anyhow, go have a look the new blog, which is entitled Remasculation:

You will see that he is off to a rolling start. I for one intend to keep an eye on it!

Trial: Sixth Day - Part I

Here at last is Angela's account of Thursday's proceedings in Kevin Driscoll's trial at the Deschutes County Circuit Court in Bend, Oregon. I apologize for not posting this in a more timely manner:
"Court has been out for a few hours and I’ve sat here thinking how I can possibly summarize the things that happened today. I think the best way to set the tone is from a quote from the wise and prosecution-happy Ms. Jody Vaughan herself.
“'You’re so funny. You think I’m smarter than I am'. ~ Prosecutor Jody Vaughan, talking to Defense Attorney Ted Coran.
"Indeed Jody, perhaps we did.

"The morning started a little late. There were high school kids from some sort of field trip filling the courtrooms. Stress was at an all-time high. I guess I should have known today would be a day to remember, but I had no idea.

"The defense started by showing the jury the video of Melissa’s original statement to Detective Chris Wick. Laughter filled the courtroom, and no, it wasn’t from the kid—it was Melissa herself, on video. Believe me, it is as ridiculous in person as it sounds in writing. Jody of course objected a few days ago, when Mr. Coran made it known he wished to show it, but the judge allowed it as long as we removed any mention of her previous sexual “bad acts”. Fair enough, consider it done.

"After giving the prosecution a copy of the video, Jody asked the defense to please make a few more changes: she wanted us to remove the part where Melissa says her and Patrick Murphy are just friends, along with all the laughter. I know most of you haven’t seen this, but it is 90% of the video. It shows Melissa laughing about her description of her “attacker”, Melissa laughing about how she got a ride from one bar to another by a complete male stranger she’d met that night before meeting up with Dennis and heading to Kevin’s. It shows her laughing about her “rapist” telling her he will never let her leave. She laughs about telling Kevin she has a husband and a boyfriend—the list goes on and on, but I think you get the picture.

"The jury left the room, and the judge asked both sides what their plans were. Jody told the judge she had 3 witnesses left to rebut our witness Dr. Terri Haddix, and to talk about rape and sexual assault victims. Mr. Coran said he wanted to ask Melissa a few more questions, after seeing the video, to clarify her statement. Then the defense would rest. Jody’s jaw dropped to the floor. I knew this was coming and I was staring at her, awaiting her response. Her brain short circuited. She’d already subpoenaed witnesses from out of town to rebut Kevin on the stand. She’d been waiting to tear him apart, but she wasn’t getting that opportunity! Regardless of what you read, please trust me that this was the best part of the day.

"In the interest of saving taxpayer money, and not keeping a hired witness waiting, Jody called Dr. Richard Fixott to rebut our forensic pathologist Dr. Haddix. Dr. Richard Fixott is a dentist and a forensic odontologist in Redmond, OR. He has an extensive resume and frankly, I expected him to have something to say in regards to the “bite mark” on Melissa’s chest. Detective Wick found him at 8:00am yesterday morning.

"Dr. Fixott wasn’t made aware of the case. He said the cluster of bruises could be the size and shape of teeth, but could not be certain on any level that it was indeed a bite. The only thing he would say for certain was that he could not exclude the mark as a bite.

"He knew that when Melissa claimed she was repeatedly bitten in the same place, she and Kevin were face to face—however, he did not know they were in the middle of sex. He also had no idea of the height difference between Melissa (5’3-5’4) and Kevin (6’5) and came up with a way that the bite could have taken place; Melissa, flat on her back, Kevin turning his head to the side and biting with the side of his mouth. (Again, the difference in height: Kevin would need to bend his body in half to shrink himself down to that level.)

"Even Dr. Fixott didn’t buy his own concocted story. I kind of felt bad for him—he seems like a very smart guy who just got roped into a bad situation. But then it went from bad to worse when Jody had the guy demonstrate, on herself, how Kevin would have had to been positioned to bite her in that manner!!! (They were standing of course, BUT STILL!!!) The entire room laughed at the sight. Oh dear me… this day keeps getting better and better!

"Okay, back to the defense. After some arguing and disputing, it was decided that Mr. Coran would be able to recall Melissa to the stand to ask her 4 questions regarding her interview with Detective Wick on March 31, 2009.

"1.) Did you tell Det. Wick that you left several things out of your initial report in January? YES

"2.) Did you tell Det. Wick it was because you thought the information left out would possibly be brought up in trial at a future date? YES

"3.) Did you tell him that you were dating Patrick Murphy at the time of the report? YES

"4.) Did you tell Det. Wick you were embarrassed to tell Patrick Murphy that you had unprotected, consensual sex with another man that night? YES.

"It is now clearly on record that Melissa is a liar. She perjured herself, and the jury knows it. It’s on record.

"Defense Rests, your honor. But don’t be sad my friends, the fun is not over yet. It gets better. In the words of Melissa in describing her “rape”, things got “way crazy” in the courtroom."
Since the report for this day is rather long, I prefer to break it up into two parts. Part two will be posted in the near future.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Good Stuff From the Memory Vaults

About two days ago, somebody left a comment on an ancient CF post from Dec 2006—when this blog was a mere 2 months old. The comment was extremely good, so I am topsiding it. To savor the full flavor of this, you'll want to read the original post:

"It is comments like these (from Faith of the Feminist Country blog) that really, truly show them for what they are, beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact is that she is not just speaking abstractly; it's a response to the MRM, which routinely highlights issues such as false rape accusations, abuse of men and children by female perpetrators, etc.

"So given the context, that she is referring to these things - physical and sexual abuse, false imprisonment - it is undeniably SICK that she could ever present these as 'deserved punishment'.

"Sitting in jail for 20 years on a false rape charge is a justified punishment, she says.

"But a punishment for what, exactly? 'For centuries of abuse against women and children'. This part blows my mind, because she is essentially saying that men who are alive today should pay for the crimes of men from hundreds of years ago.

"What principle of justice is this, that I could be held accountable for the crimes of previous generations of men, to which I had no involvement; and for which my appropriate punishment may be sexual or physical assault by a woman, or a false allegation which deprives me of my liberty for years or decades?

"Why, a feminist principle of justice, of course!

"Men, the ones who overwhelmingly refuse to take responsibility for poor behavior?

"I don't recall a man ever promoting anything along the lines of this horrific conception of criminal justice. 'Innocent men, you shall pay for the crimes of guilty men ... the consequences of false rape allegations and abuse against you are deserved'.

"Wow. And the 'period' is a nice touch; discussion is over, because I said so. Feminists are NOT interested in the free exchange of ideas, but in monopolising 'truth' and placing it beyond question or discussion.

"All of this is why it's so important to keep citing them. Keep quoting them. Put it everywhere. A child can see through the logical fallacies of such arguments. Men and non-hateful women certainly will.

"The quotes don't even need commentary; they speak for themselves. Having said that, good call on asking her what surrender would actually entail. Giving up all our civil rights to the whims of whimmin, I guess; accepting those false rape allegations and sitting in prison feeling so very bad about ourselves for being born male? Comforting ourselves when we are victims of female assaults or prison rape, that whatever the case, we deserve this, because of the actions of our ancestors?

"If men want to win this battle, they must first come together to laugh in the face of feminism, to disregard its lies, and drink to its death."


All right. Now here is a report on Kevin Driscoll's situation, this time from somebody other than Angela. I received Angela's report yesterday, but it's a long one and at the moment I'm not equal to the editing. However, here's the short version: the prosecution made a royal ass of itself, and the future looks bright enough that Kevin should wear shades. But it ain't over until it's over, and it will be over on Tuesday, when the closing arguments and the verdict will be delivered. Here is today's brief dispatch:

"So just a quick update for you. Kevin's trial is on hold until Tuesday now. The judge had some things to take care of and will have closing statements and jury instructions at that time. I'm sure Angie will have another update that may be more informative for you since she is allowed in the courtroom . . . .

"From what I understand Melissa took the stand again yesterday and basically had to admit she lied to the jury under oath regarding the statement she made about having sex with another partner that night. I don't believe it was revealed to the jury that it was Dennis she was referring to. Either way it really helps Kevin's case for the Jury to know that she lied on the stand. I also believe it was a door opened for the defense to ask her some other questions that shows she has lied about other events that night on the stand. I don't think the jury will be to empathetic to a liar.

"Also the DA had their "expert" witnesses on the stand. The Dentist and her family practice doctor and a rape specialist... who is actually a student and has not even graduated yet!!! According to the Dentist, unless Kevin had been part of the cirque Du soleil the marks on Melissa would be all but impossible to have been made by biting that is if it was even a bite mark. He could not say with any certainty that it was.

"The family practice doctor was not a specialist and could only comment on articles that she has read and tell the jury which one she agreed with the most. Apparently when asked how a bruise formed and healed she could not even answer this question. A far cry from the bruise specialist the defense called who easily explained this process. What a joke.
"The rape specialist was simply a student who had sat in on some groups and that is the extent of her expertise. Guess that makes me an expert on several things as well, if that's all it takes! I feel very confident that the jury has enough information to make the right decision without even hearing from Kevin on the stand. Melissa has proven what she is and I know the Jury has to see that by now.

"This does not mean that Kevin does not need everyone's support. If anyone is able and willing, show up at court for Kevin!! Thank you."

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Trial: Fifth Day

Here is the Kevin Driscoll trial report for Tuesday, 10 Nov:
"Day 5: Devil in the Blue Dress

"The first person to take the stand was Dennis Baker. In my opinion Dennis was a great help to Kevin’s case today. As you remember, last week when Melissa took the stand, she was adamant that she got in the hot tub with both her bra & panties, and later stated that she put on Dennis’s sweatshirt when she got out in order to avoid getting her clothes wet. She also said that after going inside to check on everyone she “snuck” back into the hot tub by herself. Dennis informed the jury of a few details of the evening which our Deschutes County sweetheart left out. As suspected, they were both naked in the hot tub. This explains why later when Melissa realized everyone had left, she had to take her bra & panties off because her bra was frozen from being outside. I’ve been wondering how it was that her bra was frozen if she had been wearing it and a sweatshirt. So thank you Dennis, for clearing that up.

The other interesting tidbit of information Dennis was kind enough to share was that after they got out of the hot tub, Dennis handed Melissa her clothes—and she refused to put them on. She said repeatedly they weren’t her pants! Everyone else was dressed, but she was unable to recognize her own pants. Dennis finally got her to put the blue hooded sweatshirt on, which Melissa wore the rest of the night.

Dennis also talked about how shortly after exiting the hot tub, he noticed Melissa had gone missing. He didn’t think much of it at first, but after awhile he went outside to have a smoke and look around… Melissa was not outside (in the hot tub where she claims to have been), and Dennis says he and Kevin walked through the house, opening up doors and checking all the rooms for Melissa, but could not find her. After an unsuccessful search and lack of desire to find her (she wasn’t his responsibility) he caught a ride home with a few others who were leaving as well.

Dennis also said with confidence and certainty that Melissa had told him several times that night, she had a boyfriend. This is a direct contradiction to what Melissa continues to say on the stand. Between Dennis’s statements and the 2nd police report, that Melissa doesn’t much like to tell the truth!

Jody’s cross-examination of Dennis was absurd. She just continued asking him the same questions over and over and over: How do you remember this? Why didn’t you talk to the police? What was so special about this night that you remember anything? How many times have you talked to the Defense Attorney about this case? Why do you remember that? Dennis never once wavered. He was polite and concise, and in my opinion came across genuine and sincere. OOH yeah… and HE SAW & ASKED MELISSA ABOUT THE BRUISES EARLIER THAT NIGHT IN THE HOT TUB… Melissa just laughed and looked away.

"Crystal Scott was up next. Crystal was the only other female at the house that night. She backed up Dennis’s story that Melissa was not wearing any clothes in the hot tub, and that she refused to put her clothes back on after exiting. She states that she was in the kitchen the entire time she was at Kevin’s house with the exception of going out to smoke. She remembers at one point Melissa passing her from the kitchen into the living room, but didn’t pay attention to where she went because she had no reason to care. Crystal also stated that she went out on the back deck frequently and never saw Melissa in the hot tub [again]. In fact, she never saw Melissa again for the rest of the night.

Jody asked her the same questions, how she remembered the night… it was so long ago. Who was at the party, did she know them, what cars did she ride in, why didn’t she go looking for Melissa if she knew she was missing from the party. Crystal didn’t really know Melissa, and didn’t have any reason to care let alone worry that she had disappeared. Jody also made much of the fact that Crystal had gone to the bars alone earlier that night, almost making fun of her for this. It was pretty rude. Crystal didn’t fall for Jody's antagonizing tactics and took the high road, sticking to the facts she knew.

"Cody Wood then came to the stand. He clearly remembered Melissa and Dennis in the hot tub, and Melissa refusing to put her clothes on. He also knew that at some point she went traipsing through the house in nothing but a sweatshirt and also didn’t know or care where she went. Cody also acknowledged that he along with 2-3 other unknown males were the last to leave the house that night. He hadn’t seen Kevin for awhile and left out the front door, assuming Kevin had gone to bed.

The MVP of the day definitely went to Dr. Terri Haddix, a forensic pathologist. I’d list her resume, but it is several pages long, so you will just have to take my word that she is an expert (to say the least) in her field. Of the approximately 20+ pictures Dr. Haddix reviewed, she was only able to comment on a handful, due to the poor quality of the pictures taken not only by the SANE nurse at the hospital, but by Redmond PD’s own Sgt. Chase. There was one in particular where she said she wasn’t sure the object in the picture was even a wound. On the handful she was able to analyze, she was able to say with medical certainty that the bruises were at least 24 hours old at the time the photographs were taken. [Editor's note: according to Melissa's timeline, the bruises would have been 10 hours old at the time the photos were taken. ] Dr. Haddix was able to tell this because of the yellowing of the bruises which indicates the bruise is in a healing stage.

As for the “bite” mark, Dr. Haddix stated with medical certainty that she does not believe the bruise on Melissa’s chest is a bite at all, however, she does not know what it is from. She said that due to the placement of the mark, it would be difficult if not impossible to create a bite mark with only the upper jaw and no marks from the lower jaw. Also, the position Melissa states they were in when the “bite” was made is also nearly impossible. Melissa said that Kevin was on top of her (he is over a foot taller than she is, mind you) and that they were face to face and he bit her. His head would have been angled 90 deg. right and also bent down for this to be possible. It is preposterous.

Jody’s defense will come tomorrow when she calls her family practice doctor to dispute the expert testimony Dr. Haddix gave today. Jody did try to call her training into question, but was quickly shut down when Dr. Haddix went into a lengthy history of her contracted employment for the prosecution in California. Jody moved on to say that her experience is with dead people, and again she was shut down because Dr. Haddix has has worked literally thousands of cases with “living” patients as well.

Jody also tried to use a pediatric bruise analysis report to disprove her ability to put a timeline on bruises. Dr. Haddix acknowledged that “pediatric” studies are generally to 18 years old, and Jody asked if there was much difference between the healing time of an 18-year-old to a 30-year-old. Dr. Haddix said no, but said the study was done on 16 ½ month-olds to 14-year-olds, and Jody asked the question again: is there a big difference between a 14 year old and a 30 year old? Dr. Haddix was polite, and suggested there was quite a difference between a 16 ½ month-old and a 30-year-old, and everything in between, since the skin of a toddler or young child is thinner than that of an adult. Jody was grasping at straws especially when she started talking about a chart used to determine the age of bruises. NO one knew what she was talking about. I feel very confident about it.

I think it’s also worth noting, Jody wore a blue dress/suit thing today, and she was particularly rude and irritating. Detective Wick wore the same exact blue suit he has worn every single day of the trial, and Melissa wore 5” stiletto heels. She was dressed like a nun from her neck to her ankles, but added some spice with a pair of FREAKING HOOKER HEELS! I cannot get enough of this train wreck! Thanks for listening and I’ll keep this going. Hopefully only 2 more days!
I don't get the impression that Dennis actually described what he and Melissa were doing in that hot tub other than standing in the water naked. Was that detail not permitted in testimony? Of course, the security video from that time would clarify some of this, but the video is apparently excluded from evidence.

Furthermore, Melissa in her second police report stated that she DID have sex that night—presumably with Dennis in the hot tub. Yet she was "adamant" that she was wearing undergarments during the same timeframe, which sounds. . . a bit encumbering.

But maybe her statement in the second police report was also not admitted into evidence?

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Gathering Clouds of War

I have gotten an e-mail from George Rolph in London, CC'd to a few others as is customary. What I find contained in the mail is. . . well. . . dynamite. Big stuff. Important news. You get the idea. So I will put other things on hold long enough to compose the present post. No apologies. First, the opening section of George's e-mail, written by George himself:
"The problem with Sacks is that he is politically incoherent. There is little doubt -- and no fair minded person would say otherwise -- that Sacks has done some tremendous work exposing the injustice done to men. However, his understanding of the political reality surrounding our fight is limited because, I suspect, he has not yet freed himself from the grip of his past feminist beliefs. Feminism is a cult and you can take the man out of the cult, but taking the cult out of the man is much more difficult.

"When Sacks says something like, "1) I still nurture the dream that someday feminists and fatherhood activists can understand each other and work together," he betrays an astonishing naïveté towards both the nature and aims of feminism. That can only be because a part of him is still sympathetic to their cause. I believe that Sacks has seen the damage being done by feminism but he fails to see that it is deliberate. He seems to think that this damage is an unintentional by-product of a noble cause. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I would urge him to. . . do more research."

"George Rolph"
I was inspired to dash off a quick reply:
Re: (USA) "Men's rights" groups go mainstream
Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2009 5:58 pm

Thank you so very much for sharing this! SO much is happening now, and things are changing SO quickly, and there is SO much that people like us need to keep up with and learn about—and yet, we all have our domains of specialization, which regrettably all too often generates tunnel vision. I know that I myself am guilty of such tunnel vision, especially recently with this Kevin Driscoll case I've been covering. It has been a tremendous learning experience and yet, it has consumed nearly all of my focus when there are SO many other things going on which I ought to be thinking about and blogging about.

So again, I thank you for the timely 'nudge' prompting me to look up from my work and realize that some huge things are taking place while I am standing directly beneath them, in their shadow, and none the wiser.

The opposition is slandering us, but in the end they cannot stop us. And the fact that our sector is becoming so very activated ought to give them a clue about something. If we are truly putting rotten meat on the table, then why are so many gathering for the banquet?


Following his intro, George has shared an entire e-mail from another activist, from which the quotation given below is excerpted:
"Three articles are provided below FYI.

"The first is a response, by Glenn Sacks, to the following two attacking and deceitful articles by feminists, seeking to minimise and shut down the growing work men and separated fathers are doing for their children and themselves.

"Feminist dissembling (attacking and trying to pull apart, with the intent of diminishing and dismissing) continues as men and fathers continue working for the rights, their children, and themselves."
All right. First, here is the Glenn Sacks article which the writer refers to:

When you have finished reading that one, go have a look at the two feminist propaganda pieces which Glenn is trying to rebut:

At Salon.Com:

At Slate:

Very well. I hope this gives you some idea of the scale of developments. Things are starting to move in a rather big way, and we are becoming an important blip on the radar screen. And the opposing sector is responding about as you might expect them to do, which is to say: more of the same on a larger scale. They are doing what they have always done: lying, smearing, distorting, cherry-picking, glossing over, misrepresenting, acting smug, ducking the issue,
covering their ass, using feminist privilege, using feminist subjectivism, and . . oh. . . lying! But now they are addressing the issue in a more concerted way, with a larger megaphone and a nascent attitude of mobilization. Such developments are also apparent in the blogosphere, if you haven't noticed.

I like how one of the linked writers puts men's rights in quotation marks: "men's rights". When writers use inverted commas that way, they typically wish to conjure a psychic distance from the matter in question, to evoke a mood of "irony", to "invite the reader to join the club of those who know better." Evidently, the feminist author feels that there is something fishy or peculiar about the idea that men have rights. For some reason, that idea sticks in the writer's craw.

Anyhow, Glenn Sacks is conspicuously wrong about two things: 1.) Angry Harry is no idiot, and 2.) Like it or not, Angry Harry's voice carries a lot of weight in "the movement"—especially in England, but over here as well.

Furthermore, Angry Harry has been a big help in the Kevin Driscoll case, and I know there are some people in Central Oregon who might not share Glenn Sacks's evaluation of him. Speaking of Glenn, last I heard he has had nothing to say about the Driscoll case, although I admit I haven't checked back in a while.

Angry Harry has said a few things concerning the infamous George Sodini which bear a quick looking-into in this post. In a nutshell, that men are being treated appallingly, and that we must logically expect more people like Sodini, Lepine, and so on, to crop up in the world as a result of forces that are being applied to men as a group.

That is exactly what I say, and have always said, although my terminology and my analytical pathway might differ somewhat. I believe that we will see a statistical growth of dysfunctional male behavior owing to feminist innovation and the varied fruit which this innovation has borne in the world. This is simply a PREDICTION, yet certain feminists have the bewildering arrogance and sheer unmitigated gall to call such statements a "threat" — a prescription, in other words!

Rubbish! Prediction is not prescription! The truth is, that I am nothing more than a guy standing by the roadside waving a red flag to warn people of a danger that lies ahead! I want them to turn back before it's too late! And they have the fu*king nerve to call this a "threat"?? Hell man, I don't make threats because I don't NEED to! If I really had evil intentions, do you know what I would do??

Nothing. That's right. . . nothing! ZIP! I would just shrug my shoulders and say "fine, to hell with them! To hell with the whole wide world!" I would simply stop caring, and wash my hands of the whole mess, and merrily Go My Own Way! In fact, I might just end up doing that eventually—you never know!

What the world has most to fear from men is not "male violence", but male indifference! Yes, that is God's truth even if you don't want to hear it! Men in greater and greater numbers will simply fold their arms and turn their backs and walk away—unless lifeboat seats are at stake, in which case they'll be shoving women out of them! Men today are being treated appallingly and heinously, so what else might you logically expect from them? Mere indifference—THAT is what the world has to fear from men! Yes, spectacular eruptions of male violence will predictably happen, and such episodes will predictably capture both headlines and a disproportionately inflated attention from feminists who care only about ideology and anti-male spin . . . but vastly more men will merely shrug their shoulders, fold their arms, turn their backs, and walk away. Indeed, they are doing this already.

And let me warn you: more feminism will only make the situation worse. . . and worse . . . and worse!


In conclusion, here is one more thing you need to read, especially if you are a newcomer to the MRA scene. It is a prognostical, predicantive Sermon which I posted nearly 3 years ago, in early 2007. In MRA historical terms, that was a long time ago. Plenty of water has passed under the bridge since then, and well . . . things have changed! This little tract was an instant hit: almost overnight it was posted and re-posted, linked and re-linked, e-mailed and re-mailed all over the MRA universe! It was exactly what the time required. The MRA universe sucked it up like a sponge and it became canonical.

I hate to sound like I am tooting my own horn, but it's a risk I shall take. In this pillar post, I do a lot of predicting and analyzing. Go and judge for yourselves how well the predictions have stood the test of time, and arm yourselves with the intellectual ammunition that you will find stockpiled there.

For those who are following the Kevin Driscoll case, and were hoping to find an update, be assured that Angela has supplied a report of Tuesday's proceedings and that I will post it by tomorrow (Thursday) at the latest.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Wanted: Kevin Driscoll Supporters
at the Court House!

The Deschutes County Circuit Court, in Bend, Oregon, will not be in session on Wednesday, 11 Nov. Hearings for the Kevin Driscoll case will resume on Thursday, 12 Nov. I am informed that Kevin will take the stand on Thursday!

I realize that a LOT of readers from Bend and Deschutes County have been following these blog updates on the Driscoll case. And I'm pretty sure that some of you folks are in Kevin's corner. So here is what I would like to see happening. I would like to see a LOT of you showing up at the courthouse in Bend on Thursday. Do whatever it takes to be there; wrangle a day off from work any way you can, but BE there!


But first, I want you all to make lapel badges and small placards that say TEAM KEVIN. Make those letters big and bold enough to be easily readable from across the courtroom. And then. . .


You have all of Wednesday to prepare for Thursday, so. . be prepared, as the Boy Scouts would say! Start an e-mail pyramid and CC the message to as many people as you can.

Oh, and would the fine citizen who posted the link on the Bend Craigslist do me the honor of posting another link to THIS blog post in particular?? Be sure to write a short blurb, letting people know what's up. Here is the URL for the job:

The Bend courthouse, where the hearings are held, is at the following address:

1100 NW Bond, Bend, OR 97701.

Be there. And check the schedule for later hearings, and be there on those days too!

Let's put the fear of the People into the SLIME who run the police and prosecutor's office in Deschutes County, Oregon...!!

Postscript: I have gotten the following inspirational note from a supporter of Kevin:
"That is awesome!! I'll get that out there any place I can think of. Its really great to see strangers caring about Kevin. There actually may be some hope left in this world after all."


Wanted: False Accusation Victims to Share
Their Stories for Magazine Article

I have recently corresponded with Kayleen Schaefer, a reporter for Details magazine in New York City. This magazine belongs to the Condé Nast publishing group and has a nationwide circulation of 500,000. I shall post all 5 e-mails below, starting with the first query message that I received on 4 Nov. I share this material for considered reasons:

----- Original Message -----
From: Kayleen Schaefer
Sent: 11/04/09 10:55 am
Subject: Details magazine story

Hi: I’m a reporter at Details magazine in New York. I’ve been talking to Kevin Driscoll for a piece I’m working on about guys who were falsely accused of rape and have been enjoying your updates on the case. I’ve been looking for other guys who this has happened to and wondered if you knew of any who would be willing to tell their stories. Please let me know if you have any questions about the piece or the magazine—and if you know any guys who would be willing to talk with me—and thanks very much.


Hello Kayleen: I am not personally acquainted with any guys who've been falsely or questionably accused of rape (other than Kevin Driscoll), but such cases are becoming extremely common, and I'll try to think of some leads that would be worth your while.

Meanwhile, a couple of queries about your upcoming article and about Details magazine.

Firstly: what is the circulation of your publication, how would you describe your readership generally speaking, and how would you describe the basic political/cultural leaning of your publication?

Secondly: what is the primary purpose of your proposed article - to
shine a spotlight on the problem of false rape accusation, I would
assume? And do you feel that this is an issue which your
particular readership is ready to process with an open mind?

As for my own position, I wish to see justice done in the case of
Kevin Driscoll. If the verdict goes against him, then I and others
are prepared to raise some hell about it.

But even if he is acquitted, there is STILL some hell to be raised.

Either way, there is hell to be raised.

I thank you for your enquiry. I look forward to your reply, and will seek the information that you have requested.


Hi: Thanks for trying to think of some leads for me.

We have 500,000 readers & it’s a national magazine. It’s a general interest magazine so I have to assume that we have both liberal and conservative readers, but the majority live in major cities.

And yes, the idea is to focus on guys who are wrongly accused of rape, and yes, I believe our readers have an open mind to this idea.

Thanks again for your help & for the updates about the trial on your blog. They are much appreciated.


Hello Kayleen: Before I proceed any further, I would like to propose a simple idea and see if it meets with your approval.

Very simply, I would like to issue a general call to my blog readers. I will inform them of what you are doing, and tell them that if they have such a story to share (or know somebody who does) they should contact you. I would post your e-mail address for that purpose.

The question is, do you wish to have your e-mail address (and/or your name) publicized on my blog?

An alternative to this, would be for them to send a message to me for forwarding to you. Please let me know what you think. Meanwhile, I am working on other possibilities.


Hi: I think that’s a great idea, and don’t mind having my email address out there at all. All of my info is below, and thanks – I really appreciate it.

Kayleen Schaefer
4 Times Square
8th Floor
New York, NY 10036
p: 212.286.5487

All right, there you have it. Kindly put the word out to anybody who might wish to know of this. It's an opportunity, and where you go with it is entirely up to you. I place it in your hands, and leave it in your hands.

In your correspondence, don't hesitate to ask detailed questions about the form, content and final purpose of the proposed article. If you have any media savvy at all, use it. I would recommend archiving your communications.

Monday, November 09, 2009

A Rerun for Your Amusement

I will very shortly get back to blogging about Kevin Driscoll and his trials, but just for now let's take a break on the lighter side. I'd like to introduce you to a guy who was actually guilty of what he was charged with—and even admits it himself! I'd like to introduce you to Kyle Payne, a member of the pro-feminist men's movement and a kind of "fallen angel" if you will. I wrote this highly sarcastic and scurrilous piece a few months ago, but I know I have picked up a lot of new readers since then, most of whom have probably not yet had the honor to bask in its irradiation. So here it is now, by way of acid counterpoint to what I've been writing in the past 3 or 4 weeks. Enjoy! ;)

Thank You Very Much!

I would like to express my gratitude to the person who recently posted a link to this blog on the Bend, Oregon, Craigslist. My traffic count is shooting up and up like a bottle-rocket! Way to go, Team Kevin!

On another note, I know somebody who is looking for guys who have experienced a false rape accusation. This is for an article meant to be published in a nationally circulated "urban" magazine with a readership of 500,000.

I will post more about this in the near future.

Trial: Fourth Day

Part Four of the Kevin Driscoll Trial has been received:
"Sorry for the delay... but here is your update... Finally!! This is all in regard to Friday in court.

"Patrick Murphy:

"Patrick started the morning off telling the Jury that he and Melissa were not in an exclusive relationship at the time of the alleged “attack”. He said that it would have been no problem for him if Melissa would have had sex with someone else that night. Assuming that’s true, think he would’ve minded if Melissa would have had sex with multiple men in one night? He just hurt his own credibility with this statement because the jury had already heard about the police report that Melissa filed in May where she admitted to withholding that information from the police originally to protect her new relationship with Patrick Murphy. He went on to talk about Melissa’s bruises. He said that due to her job, it was common for her to get bruises from work. Lifting clothing fixtures, racks etc. she would often get small bruises in clusters... WOW! Is it just me, or are those the exact bruises Melissa claims were caused solely by Kevin??? He went on to say that the bruises she had that next day were large, and inconstant with what she gets from work… Once again, that is not true! The pictures of the bruises show clusters of small “finger” sized bruises… Which leads me to my next interview…

Sergeant Corey Chase – Redmond PD:

If this guy has a job on Monday, I will be surprised. He is the other officer heading up this “investigation” (and believe me, I use the term loosely). The day Kevin was arrested, Sgt. Chase made a call to Kevin’s fiancé (at the time) on his cell phone to ask about her relationship with Kevin. When he stated this in court, Ted asked to hear the copy of the phone call… “What?! There isn’t one” Sgt. Chase said he was unable to record the conversation because he called her from his cell phone at the police department. He went on to say during Ted’s cross-examination of him that the police department didn’t have the technology to record phone calls until later— months later. But what?? You guys had just recorded a pretext phone call between Melissa Leahy and Kevin a few minutes earlier, and she used her cell phone. He had no answer for this, so Ted moved on. One of the things that he brought to the jury’s attention was that there were several people at Kevin’s house that night, and it doesn’t seem like the police department had talked to a single one of them. Ted asked Sgt. Chase if he’d talked to any of the other people there that night; his statement was that they have 129 cases, they don’t have the [resources / ability] to follow up and/or hunt down every lead. He, like Chris Wick, also admitted they had already made up their mind to arrest Kevin before they’d even questioned him. The burden of proof to arrest is opposite of the burden of proof to convict. Basically, no proof or investigation is required to arrest someone as long as the police think the crime could have happened, according to Detective Chris Wick and Sergeant Corey Chase. Again, they had decided to arrest Kevin with several charges before even talking to him." [Editor's note: Think about this: the police can arrest anybody for no reason.]

"Jessica Mondt:

"Another witness the prosecution called was Jessica Mondt, the Loss Prevention Manager of Sears, where Melissa works. I’m not sure what the jury thought of her—I couldn’t get a reading. I however, thought it was a ridiculous testimony. She told the jury her job at Sears is to watch what is going on in the store VIA CAMERAS, keeping an eye on the customers as much as the employees. She stated that she and Melissa aren’t friends, but that she noticed a real change in Melissa days following the “rape” in January. She said that Melissa was often outgoing and friendly, dressed in short sleeves…then immediately after the incident, Melissa became very withdrawn and began wearing long sleeve shirts, etc. (Winters in Central Oregon get very cold, and I would strongly suggest that a long sleeve shirt in January would be the appropriate attire.) She would often have to leave the sales floor to go sit in someone’s office and talk. This woman claims to know this much about Melissa and noticed a change in her over night to such detail it was ridiculous to me. She claimed they aren’t friends, so why would she pay this much attention to Melissa???

"Megan Elliott:

"Jody Vaughan called her to the stand. I found this woman being on her witness list very curious. We had originally subpoenaed her and then released her because we thought she had nothing to add to the case either way. She is the apparel manager at Sears, and was Melissa’s supervisor/manager at the time. The one interesting thing this woman had to say was in regard to Melissa’s attire. She stated that prior to the attack, she had several conversations with Melissa in regards to covering up and dressing more appropriately (hence the long sleeves?) She also said that Melissa has slowly but surely gone back to the borderline inappropriate way of dressing." [Editor's note: I am told that Melissa has resumed her customary partying and pub-crawling lifestyle in the months since the alleged attack, with a variety of male companions.]

"There is no court on Monday, and Wednesday of this week. Tuesday, the prosecution should get their witnesses wrapped up, and the Defense will begin calling their witnesses. Tuesday the Forensic Pathologist should take the stand and Kevin is planning to testify on Thursday. As always thanks for your support and we will keep you posted!"
Another correspondent informs me that Kevin "is holding up pretty well for all that's going on", and goes on to say that "it would be so great if ANYONE could make the court hearings next week starting Tuesday to show support. The jury loves to see support for the defendant."

I will add that the the address of the Deschutes County courthouse is 1100 NW Bond, Bend, OR 97701.