Is rape different?

Freedom of speech seems to be a broadly misunderstood concept.

When you believe in freedom of speech and fight to protect it you are not just defending yourself, you are fighting for the right of other people to say things you don’t agree with. A person who supports censorship can not claim to support freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is one of the human rights granted to citizens in progressive countries. We consider it important. As such, it was shocking to see feminists@law rallying a protest to the London School of Economics (LSE) Department of Law’s recent debate called “Is Rape Different?” It should concern academia that feminist lawyers don’t support free speech. They seem to hold myths about freedom.

The October 30th, 2013 debate was led by Helen Reece, based on an article she wrote concerning deeply flawed rape myth studies and other feminist rhetoric which currently informs the law. LSE’s event description explains the subject thus:

Rape is a heinous crime, and many people believe the conduct and outcome of rape cases insufficiently reflect this heinousness. As a result, rape complainants are treated differently; distinct rules of evidence have been developed; and measures to tackle rape myths are in place. But is all this helpful? Rape is a serious crime but is it a special crime, demanding special treatment? Do our rule of law and fairness pay a price? In this first debate in LSE Department of Law’s ‘Debating Law’ series, LSE academic Helen Reece leads a debate on whether or not rape is in this sense special.

The speakers who questioned rape as a special sort of crime were Helen Reece, reader of Law at LSE, and Barbara Hewson, barrister in Hardwicke Chambers. In favour of rape as a uniquely vile crime were Jennifer Temkin, professor at City Law School, and Nazir Afzal, chief crown prosecutor for CPS North West.

You’ll notice that both sides of the debate had two equally qualified representatives.

The protest now taking place is quite clear in the reason for complaint: people are talking about Reece and Hewson and no one is talking about Temkin and Afzal. The short story — the feminists feel they lost the debate. We all know what happens when a feminist feels bad: The world must stop and do something to fix it.

Specifically, on November 14th, feminists@law declared

We deplore LSE Law’s decision to give a platform to Reece and Hewson’s dangerous and unsupported views and its failure to engage responsibly with the public on such an important and sensitive issue as rape.

They mulled over all the possible courses of action to compensate for the fact that “their views received significantly less media attention” and came up with a solution.

With such a wide audience, we believe there is an onus on the LSE Law Department to ensure that the ideas that are being disseminated do not feed dangerous stereotypes about women being responsible for the sexual violence perpetuated against them.
We invite readers to add their names in support of this statement, using the ‘Add Comment’ function below.

Normally, when a university lecture or event is protested it is a singular speaker who the protesters claim are disseminating “hate speech”. This was not a lecture, it was a debate in which four competing points of view were given equal time. Even Jay-Z seems to understand free speech better than feminist lawyers. “We change people through conversation, not through censorship.”

It’s a sad state of affairs when a rapper would make a better lawyer than a feminist trained in law.

One of the criticisms leveled against LSE by Sarah Keenan and Yvette Russell on is that LSE defended the debate. It was Barbara Hewson’s presentation that got the most media coverage and LSE failed to apologize for inviting her.

“The @LSELaw account responded defensively to criticism of its decision to host Hewson insisting that she was only one of four panellists and that her views were balanced by the opposing arguments of Temkin and Afzal, and urging critics and the wider public to download the podcast, watch the video and ‘make up your own mind’”

The other complaint was that LSE highly publicized the debate and intentionally chose a controversial subject to get a bigger response from the public. It seems like, for once, feminists were hoping nobody would listen to them. We must put these complaints in context. The feminist point of view was equally given a chance to convince the public that rape is different from other crimes. If they’d used this opportunity better or gotten a better result they would not be, right now, complaining about the publicity.

After creating a twitstorm about the debate the feminists also criticized LSE for using twitter.

I can’t think of a single speaker who agrees to a debate and hopes nobody listens to it or hears about it later. If anything, this farcical reaction is a great chance to learn about which people we don’t want to hire when organizing events.

The emphatic rejection of any discussion about rape and rape laws that feminists cling to is based on the premise that women need to know that they will be believed when they report a rape. In Hewson’s reply she takes the time to remind these lawyers about how the law works.

This [victimization] ideology dominates official thinking about rape and sexual abuse to a point where the police actively solicit allegations with the promise, ‘You will be believed’. This militates against the idea that allegations need to be investigated.

Luke Gittos, Law Editor, followed up on Spiked with an article on November 20th entitled “We must be free to question rape laws”.

The discussion around issues related to rape is now so rife with intellectual bigotry and dishonesty that it is hard to know where to begin dissecting it. It is no underestimation to say that a portion of those contributing to this debate are engaged in a wilful distortion of the truth and a cowardly drive to close down any challenge to their false consensus.

This wilful distortion of the truth is one of the issues to which Helen Reece is attempting to bring attention. The rape myth surveys that she de-constructed in her initial article were all peer reviewed. That such shoddy academic work can not only pass peer review but become incorporated into decisions about legal reform is reason for alarm. The need for freedom of speech in academia is best proven by the existence of unsupported feminist rhetoric as the accepted worldview.

Academic studies require peer review and RMA surveys have not been properly scrutinized because the manipulated results adhere to popular myths about rape myths. If we are to let these studies influence the legal system, as they demand we do, Helen presents important concerns to be addressed about the research being submitted as fact.

While Jennifer Temkin despaired in the LSE debate that “it beggars belief” we are discussing whether or not rape is different, what’s really astounding is that we are stuck explaining the importance of free speech to a bunch of lawyers. These outraged feminists are highly educated in the very topic at hand and they just don’t seem interested in either truth or justice.

Is rape different? Watch the debate.

Also posted on A Voice For Men


The myth of rape myths

Decorative Scales of Justice in the Courtroom
Are we are all living in a world of mythical delusion? Is the world that you subjectively experience so far removed from reality that you can’t be trusted to sit on a jury? This is the question that vexed Helen Reece, a Reader in Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

Feminist discourse asserts that “rape myths” are rampant in society to the effect that they disable the average person from being able to either understand or ascertain the seriousness of the crime of rape. According to feminists, the public is so deeply immersed in “rape culture” or “rape supportive attitudes” that we have trouble recognizing when a crime has been committed. This suggestion is a serious accusation and Helen is a very serious woman willing to tackle this question with logic instead of just agreeing for the sake of getting along.

In July, 2013, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies published a summary article of Helen Reece’s paper entitled “Rape Myths: Is Elite Opinion Right and Popular Opinion Wrong?” In the article Helen Reece presents a challenge to how feminists are corrupting logic, law, and language.

The claim that rape myths are widespread may be challenged on three grounds: first, some of the attitudes are not myths; secondly, not all the myths are about rape; thirdly, there is little evidence that the rape myths are widespread. To a troubling extent, we are in the process of creating myths about myths, or ‘myth myths’.

While the feminist rhetoric currently shaping the existing “rape myth” studies have had significant influence upon the court system thus far, feminists simultaneously declare that their efforts have had no impact on a “rape supportive” society. By denying their results feminists are able to avoid responsibility for the negative impact that their changes may have caused and to decry anyone, like Helen Reece, who questions the reasonableness of feminist demands upon the legal system as a comprehensive institution that also has a duty to protect the accused.

When the Rape Myth Attitude (RMA) surveys were administered they did not yield the high results expected so researchers decided to “expediate” their process of proving “rape culture” by manipulating the questions. It was their assumption that people taking the test were recognizing the politically correct answers and responding in the presumed “correct” manner, thereby skewing the results. To make the test results match their expectations, RMA surveys made their questions more ambiguous and bell curved the results.

Helen points out that “This is as fallacious as making the driving test practically impossible to pass, then treating the resulting failure rate as evidence of appalling driving.” While bell curves can be useful at times they are particularly problematic in determining “the awfulness of people’s attitudes.”

Academic studies require peer review and RMA surveys have not been properly scrutinized because the manipulated results adhere to popular myths about rape myths. If we are to let these studies influence the legal system, as they demand we do, Helen presents important concerns to be addressed about the research being submitted as fact.

A specific point of RMA survey questioning involves asking people if a woman inviting a man to have coffee means sex. Not only is the wording a key element to the absurdity of this question it begs the question of what normal, every day people use as an indication of sexual receptivity.

Helen suggests that the more people who respond to state that asking someone to have coffee with you is a sign of sexual interest, the more weight it gives to the social norm of an invitation of coffee being a legitimate pickup line.

Surely Skepchick would agree.

The media attention given to “elevatorgate” and Rebecca Watson’s insistence that a man asking her to have coffee with him was sexual harassment, lends to the credibility that asking someone to have coffee with you is an understood euphemism for wanting to fuck. The public should now agree that coffee invitations are, in fact, a sexual invitation. Interestingly, the only people who agreed with Watson were the feminists, seeking to demonize the man who offered the coffee.

The public rejection of this feminist notion, that coffee equals sex, indicates that feminists are more likely to believe this rape myth than anyone else and they have projected their own absurd ideas onto the general public.

Despite the effort to make consent appear black and white, Helen argues that signs of consent in the real world are very messy and that considering the context around a person’s actions is much more important to legal analysis than we are being asked to believe. Due to a lack of proper research in what consent looks like when it goes right and exclusive focus on what it is like when it goes wrong, she feels that “participant’s answers should be treated with respect: the best evidence we have of how women show consent to sex is how people say women show consent to sex.”

Context is everything.

One of Helen’s concerns with feminist methodology in “rape myth” research is the removal of the requirement that rape myths needed to be “demonstrably false.” Without this stipulation we end up with “the oxymoronic ‘true myth’.” This is a case where something is oddly declared to be a myth but it may be factually accurate.

Problematic to the RMA studies is that the surveys purport to show how many people “blame the victim” when, in fact, none of the surveys use the word “blame”. The moral judgements inferred onto the results are actually just a result of researchers injecting their own moral values onto the responses. The only thing determined by the surveys is that a number of people, who may be factually correct, did not hold the same ethical opinions as the researchers.

The law, by design, is intended to deal with facts.

This slippery slope of interpretation by moral comparisons was tobogganed into our narrative by researchers riding on surrogate words for blame, such as “responsibility”. Helen questions whether or not “responsibility” is a good substitute for the word “blame.” Some of the public, including rape victims themselves, will attribute a portion of their actions as having contributed to the circumstances that led to a rape. This is fact. It is quite established that drinking excessively in public contributes to vulnerability. What the survey doesn’t establish is whether or not the public feels that a responsibility factor attributes blame to the victim or whether they were merely agreeing it contributed to vulnerability.

Where the studies report that people hold myths about “real rape,” defined as stranger attacks with weapons involved, Helen Reece queries “What does this even mean? Does it mean that people believe ‘real rape’ is the only sort of rape, the most common sort of rape, or the most serious type of rape? The only strong evidence for any of these propositions is that ‘real rape’ is more likely to lead to a conviction at the end of a trial. But this doesn’t mean that jurors believe the ‘real rape’ myth — they might just find it easier to convict when the evidence doesn’t boil down to whose story they believe.”

When rape attitude surveys are more interested in judging other people on their personal moral scales than in actually establishing fact for the pursuit of justice it is important for people, such as Helen Reece, to defend the institution of the law. As it currently stands, the law has an interest in making sure defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and making sure they are granted the right to a fair trial.

These surveys declare that the public, the judges, the police, and all individuals involved in the court process are too steeped in myth to be capable of judgement due to “rape supportive attitudes.” That is a big accusation and only people within the legal system are in a position to defend against these accusations.

Helen Reece proposes that proving immorality in mass popular culture is not as cut and dried as feminists would like to pretend. If comparative analysis is done, conviction rates for rape are not actually out of scale with other crimes. She remarks that feminist studies do not even bother to compare their myth myths to attitudes about other types of violations.

The myth that many people believe “women cry rape” is unsupportable because “there needs to be a discrepancy between the proportion of women who people believe ‘cry rape’ and the proportion of women who do in fact ‘cry rape’. A problem is the lack of precision in the data on both these proportions.” Until such data is acquired, the “cry rape myth” might actually be a fact.

Quite often, and for good reason, the law is very focused on the meaning of words and how to enforce those meanings. As much as the law is designed to be followed, the law is also intended to be understandable. Feminist inspired changes to the law have introduced ambiguous words that undermine the clarity of what is expected from the public in order to comply with the law.

Feminists have succeeded in increasing reported rapes but the failure to increase convictions is not due to “rape myths” it is due to an inability to be sure “beyond a reasonable doubt” where the complex sexual behaviour of human beings meets the dubious wording of the new laws about consent.

Of the many reforms made to the legal system, rape is now defined by a lack of active consent instead of the presence of sexual rejection. These changes have been made without acknowledgement or research into how people interact with each other in real life. This does not seem either progressive or productive.

Helen Reece has expressed her concern that where the line between sex and rape in drawn is not as simple as feminists purport, not as mythical as they project, nor as dire as they propose. Her line of questioning is not misogynistic, or even anti-feminist, it is the reasonable doubt presented by people who seek to keep the legal system in line with reality. Helen Reece just seems to love the law, and what it represents.

Feminists claim we live in a rapey dystopia. If you don’t agree with them and fail to convict every man accused of a crime against women, you have an “attitude” problem.

Someone needs to explain to feminists how the legal system was designed and for what purpose. Perhaps that person will be Helen Reece.

Also published on A Voice For Men

Gone with Jaclyn’s wind

Preamble: In the midst of the stirring tornado of ABC’s pending 20/20 article on A Voice For Men, Paul Elam, and the Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM), feminist Jaclyn Friedman, who was also interviewed by the ABC show, blew in on the coat tails of a Daily Beast article to weigh in on the subject of how she has been digesting events.

In Jaclyn’s habitat, there is a foul and ominous odour beneath the sheets. Since, according to her, the MHRM are all dogs, it is easiest just to blame the stench on them.

There are many canards in the coal mine of Jaclyn’s article about the MHRM that quite quickly die of gas. She starts by declaring that “the rise of men’s rights activists is hurting women – and men.” The next trouser trumpet is her insistence that the MHRM is an attack of men against women, and she finishes with a melodramatic avowal to “make a peaceful human chain to blunt [our] hate and counter it with love.”

Above all else, Jaclyn emotes that the most “particularly insidious” thing the MHRM does is what she calls a “canny co-optation of social justice lingo.” Yes, there are scary men out there who are… gasp… using words! And, according to her, they’ve stolen these words from women.

Jaclyn’s difficulty in accepting that men are permitted to use a dictionary is meant to cause us concern. The MHRM’s terrifying ability to use words effectively even caused The Daily Beast to “[paint us] as a legitimate movement.” Oh, the horrors.

Jaclyn claims that the MHRM is hurting men because men in “real” need of help will be distracted by sites like A Voice for Men and google will somehow suddenly stop functioning normally. It would take an intellectual and philosophical behemoth cursed with a tragic deficiency of internet skills to reach this conclusion honestly. Jaclyn is none of the above.

In a stunning act of mental gymnastics, Jaclyn manages to admit that Men’s Human Rights Advocates (MHRAs) have a long list of grievances which “deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement to address them” acknowledging that the internet has provided a public square for MHRAs which functions as a “combination of locker room, group therapy, and organizing” while simultaneously maintaining that the MHRM is disorganized and not a legitimate movement. She notes that “there has been a worrying uptick in offline activity” while insisting that the movement isn’t actually doing any real activism. Jaclyn must find the postering campaigns disturbing because we use such “insidious” words. She’d likely faint on the spot if we put words on sign boards and actually marched down the street with them. Only terrorists do such violent things.

Jaclyn, and many others, claim that the MHRM is trying to silence women.

The best way to reinforce this lie is to silence the women in the MHRM. ABC and Jaclyn dutifully play their part in that ruse by insisting on calling the movement “the manosphere.” A producer from the 20/20 program was offered the chance to talk to four female MHRAs on a conference call and refused to engage with any of us so that they could retain the show title “Women Battle Online Anti-Women Hate From the ‘Manosphere'”

In Jaclyn’s article, she provides many links (via but intentionally omits both a link to what was written about her on AVfM and the fact that it was written by a woman. Puff! and I’m gone with Jaclyn’s wind.

I feel so silenced.

Since Jaclyn chose to mention the article I wrote about her but not provide a link so people could verify her summary I’m going to address each of her concerns in this reply.

The article was called “Jaclyn Friedman: clit as big as the world” and it was based on a lecture she gave called “How feminist digital activism is like the clitoris” When I tried to point out to her on twitter that I wasn’t calling her a clit, I was quoting her own analogy used to describe herself and her friends, she blocked me so that she wouldn’t have to own her responsibility. Silenced again!

Jaclyn claims I called her “a bad feminist (for criticizing Naomi Wolf)”. How silly. I think all feminists are bad so if I’d said she was being a bad feminist badly it would be a compliment. What I actually said was that “Jaclyn’s seminar about the clitoris tries to explain why the resulting attack on Wolf is both hilarious and a result of not understand how the clit works.” I thanked her for the information.

Jaclyn says I accused her of “demonizing male sexuality”. Well, this is true. What I more specifically said was that “Friedman wants to brand male sexuality as evil” and should have provided a link to Jaclyn’s Prospect article “Toxic Masculinity“. I think that’s a fairly accurate summary of her words.

Jaclyn complains I “[suggested] that [her] bisexuality means [she hasn’t] slept with enough men to have a valid opinion about them.” I didn’t just suggest it, I gave a link to where she tells us that herself. Her attempt to make it sound like I, a bisexual woman, am judging her sexual choices is patently ridiculous. I’m merely stating the facts as she provided them for us.

It’s also interesting how Friedman whines that “Pick Up Artists are perfectly plain that all they care about is using women for sex” because Friedman’s article, “My sluthood, myself”, clearly shows that her involvement with men has been on the exact same level. Jaclyn is a female Pick Up Artist who defends her actions passionately claiming “it’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.”

Jaclyn purports that I called her “fat and ugly.” What I actually did was to post a picture of her next to Andrea Dworkin remarking on how much they look alike. That Jaclyn finds Andrea Dworkin fat and ugly is a very unkind thing for her to say. Even I wouldn’t do such a thing.

I also didn’t say that Jaclyn is “a miserable slut”, I said “she eagerly announced herself a slut and begged women to support sluttiness and become slutty themselves whilst explaining how unhappy she is with her own life as a result.” That, again, is a pretty accurate summary of the article Jaclyn wrote for Feministe. It seems that Jaclyn isn’t upset with the article, she’s upset with reality.

She concludes her complaint about my article by mentioning some comments left by AVfM users suggesting that someone stand up at a lecture and say some words within the proximity of her hearing range. Jaclyn tells us “threats like this shake me almost physically.” The words that have her so terrified? “I think a dude raping you is the least of your fucking problems.” Apparently Jaclyn is even frightened by men who state clearly that they don’t want to rape her.

Jaclyn’s main focus in life is her belief in “rape culture” and the idea that rape is worse than murder. I’d pause to feel sorry for Jaclyn’s delusion but we just don’t have the time. Jaclyn’s problem (among the myriad other obvious issues) is that she doesn’t understand the level of violence that men face on a daily basis because she lives in a gynocentric world which supports her perspective: a woman’s pain is more important than a man’s.

While Jaclyn is crying “rapey, rapey, rape, rape!” all over the internet and television, men are voicing their concerns about “death, dead, not breathing anymore!” and she’s upset that anyone is listening to them.

We’ve heard her argument many times before. Her feminism is “fixing it.” Jaclyn claims that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reduced domestic violence incidents by 64% and that the reduction “is distributed evenly between male and female victims.” The fact is that men are incarcerated more often in domestic violence (DV) cases because the Gender Paradigm and the Duluth Model require that men be assumed guilty in domestic violence situations–yet this legal reality somehow leads her to believe that such anti-male policies reduced DV crimes against men. It didn’t. It only turned male victims into wrongly-labelled perpetrators.

Male victims have been taken off the grid and are no longer represented in any gathering of statistics. Feminists have shown that their idea of “fixing” men’s problems is by erasing them from the equation. The MHRM is putting men back into the picture and we plan on using many more words to do it.

Jaclyn ends her drama with a decree – She declares that feminists should show “love” towards MHRAs by “continuing to work to improve the lives of both men and women”. This is what happens when people are invested in their own perspective: They turn into raving lunatics.

We don’t want your kind of love, Jaclyn. As Rhett Butler said, “You’re so brutal to those who love you, Scarlett. You take their love and hold it over their heads like a whip.” The MHRM is done with feminist gaslighting. Our scary words are coming soon to a signboard near you, Jaclyn. She can complain, feign emotional distress, faint, and stomp her feet all she wants, but this movie always ends the same:

“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Also posted on A Voice For Men

My youtube channel

I have added a youtube channel to my media outlets.

Feminism LOL is my video chronicles of de-constructing the feminist narrative. Also: Rape jokes.

I was still recovering from a terrible flu when I recorded this but I’m really big on meeting personal deadlines and the time was “now.”

My alter ego, The Cock Fairy, is thus introduced to the world. If you think this is a joke, you’ll be laughing twice as hard when I get footage of her postering Vancouver with MHRM messages.

Feminism: A hierarchy of entitlement


In 1963 Betty Friedan started “second wave feminism” by identifying the woes of women as “The problem with no name.” The reason it had no name is because it wasn’t really a problem. Well, okay, it’s a problem for people who don’t have actual problems.

Twenty years earlier, Abraham Maslow developed his Hierarchy of Needs theory which provided a ranking system placing types of human development on a pyramidal scale. The base of the pyramid consists of survival or physiological needs which must be met before the next level, safety, can be sought and so on up through the progressive levels that follow; love/belonging, esteem, self-actualization, and self-transcendence at the apex.

Betty had a degree in psychology but it seems she missed the lectures on Maslow. Either that, or she was unable to grasp the concepts because he avoided “crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens” like her when he chose subjects to construct his theory.

Here is a graphic of Maslow’s hierarchy to explain what sorts of problems normal humans face.



This chart is not an escalator that only moves in one direction. A person might find themselves, as we do, thinking they have achieved love and belonging only to find themselves looking for food and shelter the next day… because their wife “left” them by making them move out, and filed for child support and alimony where possible.

A person might be about to realize their life’s ambition then find themselves suddenly driven off the road in a random car accident, trapped in a car under water and struggling in the red zone. They might be about to get a promotion at work then suddenly find themselves in jail on a trumped up accusation of a felony just praying they can prove their innocence. Shit happens to all of us and we can only choose what path we take get back on the ladder. The chart is a handy way to assess where we are at and try to focus on reaching the next level up.

In The Feminine Mystique Betty Friedan’s problem is that, after providing her with the first four levels in the pyramid, men hadn’t given her the fifth.

Second wave feminism was kick-started on the premise that housewives who had safety, security, resources, family, health, sexual intimacy (if they wanted it), confidence in their bunt cake baking skills and interior decorating choices, and peer respect from the PTA committee, were horrendously lacking that top tier on the hierarchy of needs called “Self Actualization.” Betty proposed this callous lack of concern for women’s self-expression meant oppression from the evil patriarchy. She was incapable of concerning herself with the fact that most men function below her purple world because they are busy paving the way for her to sit back and worry about such fuckery.

The aching need for self-actualization, for that guru moment in which you come to terms with your own battle between ego and the world around you, of being recognized as a person of worth and significance in a world of meaning, of feeling capable of dealing with a spilled cappuccino that ruined your designer dress because when you tweeted it all your facebook friends simultaneously told you that you still look stunning in brown… doesn’t mean you are oppressed. It means you’re spoiled.

This is not to say I don’t feel Betty’s pain, it’s just to say “fuck your pain, you narcissistic twat!”

And I’m not just talking to Betty, may she finally rest in peace.

Feminists, when entering a discussion or debate, need to look at the level of need their opponent might be addressing. For Friedan, she was bemoaning a lack of fulfilment while her husband was busy paying her bills. For Friedan, she was mourning the psychology degree that she didn’t make use of while writing for most of the major women’s magazines that existed at the time and pursuing her political goals under her maiden name.1 While Betty’s self-expression was used to decry her lack of self-expression she never stopped to ask what more her husband was getting out of his day. They got divorced.

So that’s a summary of the fraud of Betty Friedan. But it doesn’t mean that the women she purported to speak for were also living a wild, and wonderful life of free expression, it only explains that the woman credited with initiating the second wave of feminism was a complete cunt.

A lot of feminists feel the same way about Betty. One of the feminist criticisms of The Feminine Mystique is that it only dealt with the problems of middle class white women. It’s true. That being said, they still use it as a staple text in Women’s Studies. Choose your degrees carefully.

While regular people worry about banking fraud, global economic collapse, the military industrial complex, over population, and the privatization of prisons, feminists are campaigning to get Jane Austen on a ten pound British note, bikini models off page three of the newspaper, and worrying about how to re-brand feminism so more women will like them again.

A twitter trend called #solidarityisforwhitewomen opened up a potential dialogue with mainstream feminism recently that doesn’t take the issue far enough. It’s time for feminists to stop comparing just women’s “problems” with other women’s problems and start comparing them with the problems of men. The next hashtag should be #allfeministsareentitledbitches

While feminists declare sexism against women by men makes the female life miserable, studies show that sexism is subjective. It’s only bad when it doesn’t feed a woman’s sense of entitlement. In a study called The Allure of Sexism: Psychological Entitlement Fosters Women’s Endorsement of Benevolent Sexism Over Time, 2 it was found that women themselves are quite content to cultivate a narcissistic environment which treats women as superior and caters to their needs.

Betty Friedan set the bar for entitlement and third wave feminism has not sought to reconcile the disparity in the hierarchical need concerns of women vs men. Betty was right about one thing: there are a lot of bored housewives who didn’t decide how to fix their own toilet, learn how to drywall the addition they want, or write a best selling romance novel based on all their repressed desires. It’s indisputable that many women wish to have a fulfilling career but what women really want is to know that their career is optional. It’s so much more fun when you choose to do something instead of doing it because you have to meet a need at the bottom of the triangle.

While some women are homeless, men make up 75-80% of that demographic. If you want to know which gender has a “problem with no name” ask which gender is killing themselves. That’s a good indication of who is lower on the pyramid of needs. Answer: It’s not women.

You can use Maslow’s hierarchy to understand many arguments in life that pass your way and leave you thinking “what the fuck just happened?” In a personal relationship, check to make sure your partner is meeting you on the same level of need.

If you are asking how to pay the bills this month and your partner is more concerned with why s/he doesn’t feel loved you’ve got a Maslow problem. If you are asking how you are going to drive to work without falling asleep at the wheel and your partner is complaining that s/he feels unappreciated, you’ve got a Maslow problem. If you’re working every day at a job that is slowly killing your body, mind, and soul and your partner is complaining that they want a new sofa, you’ve got a Maslow problem.

I’m all for self-actualization. If you can do it: great. I’m happy for those that have the time and comfort to indulge their inner wish fulfilment. What I won’t do is feel sorry for pansy ass feminists and fuel a system that funds their narcissistic agendas while the rest of us go about wearing the work boots that put them in a position to fret about the meaning of life.

The modern world seems doomed to pander to self-indulgent cretins but it doesn’t have to be that way. There is a growing sense of social unrest and a lot of self-interest groups are busy pointing at each other. Oppression can continue for a long time but it runs afoul when those who support it have nothing left to lose by fighting. That’s where the majority of men are at.

Tyranny requires the co-operation of the masses. Don’t co-operate.

2. For more info see and


Reasonable Doubt

big fish

Every time a rape is reported a crime has been committed. The crime was either a rape or a false report and police need to determine which one. These crimes don’t sound of equal weight but they are, and here’s why.

Rape can affect the sexual life of a victim for the rest of their lives. A false accusation can affect the sexual life of a victim for the rest of their lives. Rape can cause an innocent person to feel like they are living in a virtual prison. A false allegation can cause an innocent person to live in a literal prison. Rape can cause extreme physical damage or be part of a murder. A false accusation can result in death. Rape can result in post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A false accusation can result in PTSD.

The reason we are asked to listen with compassion to anecdotal evidence of a rape and not anecdotal evidence of false rape accusations is the premise that a woman’s life is more important than a man’s. There is no way around that fact. We are asked to suspend the human, civil right to be presumed innocent because somewhere some woman might be hurt and that chance outweighs the equal hurt that might be done to a man by the accusation. The discussion is cut off by claims that false rape accusations are extremely rare but the reality is that no acceptable empirical studies have ever been done.

The 2% myth and the extended 6-8% mythical allowance are based on guesses. The only attempts at studying the reports with any sort of methodology have resulted in 40-60% false reports. It’s astounding that feminists haven’t conducted proper empirical studies to contradict the best evidence we have. You’d think they’d want proof and they seem so damn sure of themselves so it’s rather telling that they resist making it a fact.

A false accusation of rape is one of the few crimes against which the victim is offered no protection by our current society. In fact, feminists who have lobbied for anonymity of accusers have no interest in providing anonymity for the accused. By insisting that all rape accusations be automatically believed feminists also show they have little regard for presumption of innocence or reasonable doubt which pits feminists against the very foundation of our legal system.

Presumption of innocence is a legal protection offered to all people, and men are people too, which is based on the idea “that most people are not criminals” and “requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.” There is no clause in the constitution that states “unless you are charged with rape.”

Freethought Blogs recently entertained an anecdote that appeals to us to disregard the chances of false rape allegations even though we know they happen and even though we know the rate of false reports is undetermined. This was offered to them as a comment on another member’s blog and it so impressed a member that she featured it with admonishment that 6-8% false report statistics are wrong. I agree they are wrong, but I’m prone to move the number in the higher direction while this person appeals to consider it lower.

Let us have a look at the story.

EEB is the witness. She says that she was raped but forced to say she made a false accusation, arguing that although she was raped the false accusation stat is elevated by cases like hers. In her story she tells us that police dismissed her because she has a mental illness and “I ‘claimed’ I had been sexually assaulted in the past.” EEB does not claim that the other accusations were true only that this particular story is true. By omission, we can assume the others claims were not true and that she is a false accuser in the past so still a legitimate part of whatever stats may exist “when they wrote their reports.” (There are, as yet, no official reports… but we’re working on that.)

She doesn’t want to tell us what “very flimsy ‘evidence’” they had that she was lying for the reason of not “go[ing] into it because it’s both complicated and ridiculous” but feels like the rest of the story deserves detail. She tells us that the police officer accusing her of lying has a personal history with bipolar women that tainted him against her but she doesn’t think we should be concerned with people’s personal histories, like hers. She tells us that a public awareness campaign was launched after her attack was reported and that they spent months questioning her but also asserts that they never believed her claim or took her seriously.

Here is her claim:
EEB was assaulted by a stranger while walking home. She was left “dripping blood,” torn from vagina to anus and having burns on her labia, and somehow made it home to call the police instead of an ambulance. Her father is apparently a cop so she might have had that number on faster than 911 speed dial.

She recounts that instead of sending an ambulance they sent “detectives.” These detectives told her that the hospital “wasn’t ready” for her and, instead, made her answer questions about her rape and what medication she takes. Though she was in shock and “not thinking much” she had the presence of mind to ask for a female “detective” which they denied her, and then asked for a “rape counselor[sic]” when they finally took her to the hospital. The inflatable hospital that just finished getting ready for her only had one black light to look for evidence and it was broken. They also refused to give her any emergency birth control.

My first suggestion to EEB is that she move out of Twin Peaks.

This is truly a monster rapist on the loose. A perineal tear of the third degree usually only happens in childbirth. It should be easy to find a rapist with a cock the girth of a baby’s head and who likely has singe marks on his trousers indicating a penis so hot it can burn labia. Of the copious details given, EEB leaves out the part where she got stitches. You’d think she’d want us to know how many it took. When she was being driven home, the same night, it was by the same “detective” who drove her there. So they released her within the time frame of a work shift.

While claiming that, outside of police, she only told two friends and her family, she states that when the bully cop called the papers because “the community needs to know there was no threat to public safety” it was a form of “public humiliation”. She tells us the police made her re-enact her rape with the bully cop playing the part of the rapist and then the bully cop made her give him a hug after she admitted she made it all up. Her rape counsellor, kept outside of the interrogation room, appeared to be angry with her but, as fate would have it, she ran into said counsellor two years later only to find out that the woman was mad at the cops instead. We all love happy endings.

This counsellor is credited with previously having “kicked major ass. And really helped me through the process; I don’t know what I would have done without her.” Ass kicking just ain’t what it used to be.

EEB says the police questioned her more about her mental illness than about the rape while complaining that “they made me go through what happened” and that she “described the rape more times than I can count,” and “even got on the ground and acted out the rape for them”.

I agree with EEB. I think this case is “both complicated and ridiculous.” The reason that she told this bizarre story is because she wants us to know that false rape statistics are not accurate. Again, I agree with her. EEB would like her anecdote to convince you not to question rape accusations or to consider how many of them may be false but I think she’s accomplished the opposite. I think we need to come up with better tools of analysis and, meanwhile, keep a close eye on all men who have a cock with the circumference of a pineapple.

Anecdotes are the life blood of feminism. They usually contain words and phrases like “shock,” “it never crossed my mind,” “excruciating,” “invasive,” “terrible pain,” “submitted,” “horrific,” “I almost died,” “accusations,” “living hell,” “angry men,” “panic attack,” “humiliation,” “terrorizing,” “he made me,” “over and over and over.” And “I’m not the only one.”

Well, yes, you are.

Surely nobody else knows what it’s like to be EEB. We don’t know why she does the things she does, we don’t know what special false rape accuser support group she goes to in which so many of her friends share the same fate. I’ve never heard of such a group. I’d like to read their minutes. I’d also like to thank EEB for sharing what must have been an extremely emotional story to write. It has given us many reasons to demand a proper method of investigation into all accusations. Something thorough, public, well documented, fair, and respectful of all parties involved.

The law is there for everyone’s protection. It states if there is a reasonable doubt we must not convict.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Women Don’t Own Sex

Hardly a week goes by without the public being told how rape culture and victim blaming are being perpetrated by ‘the patriarchy’. Monday, September 23, 2013 offered us the mother lode of mythical feminist thinking in the form of Una Mullally in The Irish Times.

It’s not that Una said something unique, it’s that she managed to fit so many fallacies into one article that really makes her applause worthy.

Una begins with criticizing police for advising people to “protect yourself from violence” by exercising caution when meeting people online. The reason for this advisory is that a woman’s bones were discovered and the missing woman seems to have met someone via a dating site on the internet before turning up dead. Apparently this is ‘victim blaming’.

I used to get emails all the time from female friends who wanted to forward me the latest warning on how a man might kidnap me by hiding in the back seat of my parked car at the mall. The warnings always came from female friends and they always had my best interests in mind. I never once emailed them back “how dare you blame me for parking my car!” I did start sending all emails to spam if they had “fw:” in the message line but the proper, civilized response is “Thank you. I’ll pass the message along to everyone I know.”

Una, and her ilk, also need some basic lessons in Crime Solving For Dummies. If you watch television at all you might have come across shows like CSI or Criminal Minds in which they portray rather likable, well-meaning detectives who investigate crimes. The first thing they do is ask apparently bizarre questions like “Who, what, where, when, why… and how?”

The answers to these questions help solve crimes.

When a police force investigates someone’s online dating habits it can lead to information, like the identity of the killer. They can also help divulge the method of death, which can help police link one murder to other murders. While they do this investigative work they sometimes have microphones shoved in their faces asking for a public statement in order to inform the people who write and read the news.

The reason police offer warnings to the public are because the public wants to know how they can avoid showing up as a set of bones on the next news report. They get scared. This information is intended to help them feel safer.

“Societies are in a crisis over how men treat women,” Una claims. Now, this is news to me. Society is in a crisis over international wars, terrorism, bank fraud, the resulting economic collapse, and a general lack of faith in either the press, politicians or ‘God’. Most of the women I know are far more concerned with having a bad hair day and failing to look attractive than in having a day where too many men show them unwanted attention.

She claims “potential attackers are rarely instructed to exercise vigilance.” Yes, Una, they are reminded every day by the fucking law. It’s as illegal to commit a crime today as it was yesterday. They are told to not be violent by being faced with jail if they break the law. If we were to instruct them to “be vigilant” we’d be telling them to not get caught. Yelling at him “that’s illegal, you know!” will not solve the problem. You moron.

“Men, don’t rape” is Una’s next solution. This is part of the whole rape culture myth. For some reason, women, like Una, think that other men are in a unique position to give each other rules about sex. They aren’t. If men want sex from women, women are in the unique position to tell them how to go about achieving their goals. What feminists are doing when they tell men that only they can stop rape is basically like a teacher telling a class of inferiors that she will punish the whole class if they don’t tell her who put tacks on her seat.

According to international law, collective punishment is wrong.

The sentiment embedded in the demand for men to fix women’s problems is the idea that men are the problem. The error of this idea, and it’s not Una’s fault for believing this because feminism has ingrained it into her mind, is that men do not live in this world within a cocoon. Boys are born as helpless babies, just as girls are, and we are mostly raised by women.

Though men appear to rule the world, that is because women treat them like gophers: Go get me stuff.

A man’s worth in our world is not assessed on how much wealth he possesses, it is based on the level of happiness of his woman. Every politician knows he’ll do better if he has a happy wife at his side. Don’t be shallow, ask better questions. Why do men commit crimes? I’ll posit this: because they need more stuff to make a woman happy or because they have been rejected by a woman shaming them for not being good enough and feel they have nothing left to lose. Committing a crime has a penalty. They need a reason to risk that penalty. It’s going to be primal. Think… think… are you with me?

The man is the head of the house but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants.

Feminists claim that men objectify women but it’s women who think that men are just walking, magical penises and that the penis has the mystical quality of getting them stuff. We’re less concerned with how they get us our stuff than in making sure we get the shit we’re after. One of those things is security so the problem for women is not in how to get men to stop being aggressive, it’s in how to get them to be aggressive but stay out of jail so they can keep providing the stuff that makes us happy.

The problem is not men. Men just want to be loved and respected. What women make them do for that respect is what drives some of them crazy.

“Men, stop hanging your threat of rape over dark streets.” This is Una’s impassioned plea. The streets are only dark if you decide that you have no agency, no power, to affect the world around you. The threat in walking out your door every day exists for both men and women. I’m sorry to inform you, Una, but you could die at any moment. Men face a much greater risk of physical assault every day than women do but they still keep walking out that door.

Being that women are equal, I think we should meet that threat on an equal basis.

What Una claims makes men more culpable is that they all know someone who is “dubious” and goes to strip clubs or pays for sex. Strip clubs are not illegal and I know quite a few women who married for money, so buying sex is apparently quite legal, too, as long as you get the proper paperwork. Una, you and I both know someone who had a baby to avoid having to get a job. You and I both know someone who married a man they didn’t love. Isn’t that just a little bit shady? ‘Dubious behaviour’, perhaps?

Saying that men can stop rape is like telling a driver they can stop all car accidents or investors that they can stop all fraud. Just because men enjoy sex or do it from time to time doesn’t place them in a unique position to police all other participants. Just like Una can’t stop other writers from saying things she disagrees with.

Una claims that “women should be free to talk to whomever they choose and go wherever they want without threat of assault.” That’s bullshit. No one is free to do that. A person is free to leave their home every day and enter the world of the unknown and they should be assured that if something bad happens society will come to their aid to help them heal. Unfortunately, women are not given this freedom because feminists are hell bent on maximizing the pain and trauma of every female experience.

They are busy convincing women who don’t even know if they’ve been raped to call it rape. If you aren’t sure: it didn’t happen. If the woman doesn’t know, how the hell is the guy supposed to have known? They tell women it’s a terrible thing and that they should go to support groups where they relive the pain over and over and over again until all they are is a rape victim. Some of these girls didn’t even know they were raped and could have moved on but now it’s their lifelong identity and they’ll never get over it. What kind of sick fucks are you?

We have become indoctrinated to believe that rape is the worst crime that can be committed. How the hell did that happen? I can think of a bunch of things that are worse: Murder, having my fingers cut off one at a time while I watch, having my limbs disconnected, waking up in an abandoned house with a tape recorder saying “Hello, Diana, I want you to make a choice…” The list can go on. I’ve seen a lot of films. I’ve been raped so that’s not fiction, but my mind (perhaps more creative than that of feminists) can imagine worse scenarios.

Some rapes are extremely violent, leaving women beaten and in hospital with damage to their reproductive organs. These crimes are not just rapes, they are brutal physical assaults that never go unreported and no one laughs. A man can end up with lifelong damage from getting kicked in the groin yet this is comedy to women. While feminists claim that a woman who is drunk can’t consent, they don’t want to address the problem that drunk women can become so sexually aggressive they assault men. I have a friend who has serious problems after a fall-down drunk friend he was trying to keep safe by taking her home grabbed his testicles in a sexual advance, squeezing so hard he had to go to the hospital. This guy wasn’t trying to rape her, he was trying to keep her from having sex.

Drunk girls are not fun and they are not weak.

Drunk women are responsible if they decide to drive themselves home and get in an accident while doing so. They are equally responsible if they make the decision to have sex. I hear Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a crazy ass bunch of sisters if you try to challenge them on that.

While feminists claim that a rape culture exists which ‘normalizes’ rape, I insist that a feminist culture exists that ‘rape-ifies’ normal sex. The definition of rape has now been expanded to include when a woman doesn’t say no but thinks it, when a woman decides that sex didn’t go the way she wanted, when a woman has had a few drinks, when a woman is woken up with sex after falling asleep next to a man she has previously had sex with and decided to stay in the bed… The list will continue to grow until we stop it.

Perhaps this is too much information but, for me, sex is my favorite way to wake up. Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their fucking bed. We are not children here.

Women don’t own sex, it’s something people do together. It requires communication. Women don’t like it when men lie to them to get sex and men don’t like it when women lie either. It happens both ways. “Yes, I’ll use a condom” or “Yes, I’m on birth control.” There is no one-sided game, it can happen to either gender. If a woman lies with her body language and her actions she is raping the man. Sex is not a written contract. It is something that only the people present can attest to, it happens organically, intuitively and it is something over which people can make mistakes. Men don’t need need an ’emphatic yes’ to avoid rape, you need to give them an emphatic ‘no’. If you think you didn’t have the option to say ‘stop’, you are wrong.

The original case in discussion with Una Mallally’s article (before she made it a rape culture issue) was a woman who decided to go to a fetish site (note that a woman ‘normalized’ SM fetishes with her book Fifty Shades of Grey, probably influencing the dead woman’s choices) and met with someone who ended up killing her. What we don’t know, and don’t need to know, is whether or not the murder was the prime objective or whether the fetish scene accidentally led to her death and the partner tried to cover it up. That’s a job for the police. What we do know is that meeting people in real life whom you only know from online is a dangerous prospect and that the police warnings are extremely good advice.

Women are not free to exit their doors and expect to return safely any more than men are. Every day you wake up and exit the house be happy that you are alive and be happy when you return safely. In the meantime, there are many things you can do to reduce your anxiety: choose to be fearless, choose to be cautious, choose to not leave your house… or the fifty shades of grey in between. The choice is yours and no one is taking that away from you. Women and men both face this risk but, for some reason, only women seem intent on blaming men for all their problems.

Also posted on A Voice For Men