Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Sex Isn't Proof Of Rape
Rape is a serious crime, and you'd better be damn sure somebody's committed it before you pack them off to prison for it. A reader of my column and blog writes:

I would be interested on your take on the case of Pamir Safi and Tory Bowen.

In a nutshell: they had drinks together - she apparently quite a lot. She went home with him, had sex and spent the night. But she was apparently so intoxicated that she remembers nothing of it. She woke up the next morning with him having sex with her. She asked him to stop, and he did.

He is being charged with rape. After a mistrial, he is now being retried. Apparently he has a history of getting women drunk, so that they go home with him. Actually, that's a pretty common tactic in meat markets, no?

While I don't think anybody should be forced to have sex against their will, I think people should be held accountable for letting themselves get blotto and going home with somebody. Personally, I know my limits. I almost never have more than two glasses of wine. I decided to get seriously drunk once (I did it at 15, at a wedding I was attending with my parents so somebody would be there to take me home).

Now, it's one thing if somebody gets slipped a mickey, or has some medical problem rendering them unconscious. But, if you aren't being carried out of a bar over a guy's shoulder, it seems you should bear responsibility for getting sloshed...and the presumption of what happened when you were drunk should not be on the guy for proving himself innocent.

In short, anybody voting to convict somebody of rape had better be damn well sure there's solid evidence it's rape. In the absence of solid evidence, you've got to let the guy go.

Here's more from the story in the Lincoln Journal-Star, by Clarence Mabin, from the recent mistrial after a hung jury:

“Both sides had holes in their stories that were amazingly huge,” Foreman said.

Morrison agreed, and he was blunt in his assessment of some of Bowen’s testimony. “I guess if you’re truly a victim, you don’t need to lie to make your point.”

He and the other jurors who wanted to acquit Safi were troubled in particular by three portions of Bowen’s testimony.

One was what she told the hospital nurse after the assault about when in the morning it occurred.

The nurse testified Bowen said Safi first had sex with her around 2 a.m. But how could Bowen know this, some of the jurors wondered, if, as she claimed, she had no memories from the time she left the bar until she awoke around 7:15 a.m.?

“The nurse testified Tory said it was 2 o’clock in the morning,” Foreman said. “She had her brain on enough that she knew the time.”

Safi testified he and Bowen had sex shortly after they arrived at his apartment and then fell asleep. When he awoke sometime after 7 a.m., he said, he began to have sex with her again, but she stopped him.

Also troublesome to jurors was Bowen’s claim that, fearing for her safety, she left the apartment five to 10 minutes after she awoke.

But evidence presented by Mock, including cell phone records, strongly supported the defense’s claim that Bowen and Safi laid awake together in bed for about an hour before he took her home.

Said Foreman: “That was something that stuck with me the whole time. As you added up the time, what she said (didn’t ring true).”

Finally, Bowen testified she told Safi to drop her off at 48th and A streets — several blocks from her home — because she didn’t want him to know where she lived.

On cross examination, she said Safi took her to her home. For Larson and the other jurors, the discrepancy damaged her credibility.

Quade-Anderson thought otherwise. “I didn’t have any problems with that,” she said.

Bowen, who lives in Washington, D.C., said in an interview that she told Safi to drive to 48th and A streets. From there, she said, she gave him specific directions. She denied having said she told him to drop her off blocks from her residence.

“That’s ridiculous,” she said. “My first instinct was getting home alive. I wanted to go home.”

Bowen also maintained she left Safi’s apartment as soon as she could.

In his closing statements, Mock wondered aloud why Bowen, who claimed to be afraid of Safi, got in his vehicle the following morning rather than seeking help by knocking on apartment doors in the building.

That's a very reasonable doubt.

The prosecution's excuse:

“He’s thinking like an assailant, not a victim,” Bowen said. “What if I knocked on a door and nobody was there? What if Pamir Safi saw me?”

Oh, please. If my life's in danger, I'm not going to ask the person who's supposedly endangering it for a cup 'o tea and a congenial ride home. Two words: Run. RUN!

UPDATE: Tory Bowen e-mailed me Thursday morning, July 28:

I was forwarded your blog, and you are mistaken. I have never gone home with someone I had met at a bar... let alone church - and I wasn't a drunk slut as you seem to insinuate. I was drugged. But, you wouldn't know that - and the jurors aren't allowed to know that as well because the vial of urine sent for ketamine, rohypinol, and all other date rape substances broke in the mail (it's court records). They also found vomit in his car (tested - it was my DNA) - before I was raped which means he knew I was very sick and probably should have been taken to a hospital.

As for the nurse that testified '2 am' she asked me what time I thought the first rape would have occurred, 1 am is the time that the bars closed, so I said 'I don't know - 2 am?' You have your opinions, and advice. But regardless to if you think he raped me or not - I am fighting for all women (you included) to at least have the liberty to state under oath what they believed happened. At this point, it is a free speech issue. I gather by your remarks you'd be livid if the defendant was mandated by the courts to testify that it was rape - a victim should receive the same rights.

Incidentally, you write very well - I just wish it weren't about me.

a fellow red-head,

Tory Bowen

Posted by aalkon at June 26, 2007 11:58 AM


So she changes her story mid stream and half the jurors dont care.
She claims to have no recoleection of what happened between leaving the bar and waking up at 7am when the guy is pawing at her again - but the nurse at the hospital testifiys that she claimed she was raped at 2am and half the jurors dont care.
She was supposedly raped at 2am but the stayed with the guy for another 5 hours and half the jurors dont care.
She claims to be afraid of this man who raped her but has him drop her off at her house and half the jurors dont care.
Her best freinds testify that they didnt think she was that drunk and half the jurors dont care.
She goes to the bar dressed like a sex bomb, makes out with a total stranger and willingly goes home with him and half the jurors dont care.
Not one witness saying she was forced or taken from the bar agaisnt her will and half the jurors dont care.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST even the 5 that were saying not guilty simply based on the crappy case they were presented with think the guy is guilty.

Why is it if your a woman and you get shit faced drunk and kill someone with a car or a gun your charged with manslughter(and still given a lesser punishment than men get) - but if you have sex with someone THEY are charged with rape.
Here's a fucking idea drink at home, make your friends take you with them and not let you go hook up.
And guys set up a fucking camera in your bed room so there is no fucking way you can be accused of rape - and put up a sign saying your house is under video survalince just in case. I'm willing to bet though even that wont be enough

Now this guy may be a jerk or an asshole, hell he may even be a rapist, I dont know, but mandatory prosocution laws force DAs to try unwinable cases with bad witnesses and these trials always wind up looking like train wrecks - the problem is people dont care until its their son or brother or familly member in this kind of situation - do you want a jury thats ready to string everyone up cause the feel sorry for the girl who may or may not have been able to hold her liquor and has second thoughts in the morning? or do you want people like the 5 in this case who even though they wanted him put away did their job correcly?

And what if this is a false allegation, do you know how women who make false allegations are puniished for perjury and wasting hunndereds of thousands of dollars in police and court oficals man hours - most of the time they arent.

Posted by: lujlp at June 26, 2007 5:14 AM

Put simply. It dosen't sound like he raped her. He is an ass for using the fact that she drunk to get his nasty on but being an ass isn't criminal (unfortunatly in some instances). I was either too paranoid (to approach the girl who's tippsy) or to drunk (to know or care) to even consider this approach while I was single.

Posted by: Vlad at June 26, 2007 6:07 AM

And people wonder why I don't trust women.

Woman gets sloshed, has sex, has morning regrets, and she's magically a rape victim. Man gets sloshed, has sex, has morning regrets, and he's a laughingstock if he dares complain about it.

And lu - the reason why the female juror in the story (and I'll bet the rest that voted 'guilty' are female) was so willing to overlook holes in Bowen's story? "Women don't lie about these things, you know."

Except when they do.

Posted by: brian at June 26, 2007 6:25 AM

Brian - you're right...they do lie. This story hits close to home.

During college, I had a friend (from high school) come over to my apartment to hang out/party/be college kids. This was the fourth time during that semester she had visited. On her previous visits she had sex with two of my male friends at school.

So, one night we're at a party (in the apt. of one of the guys she'd banged). Guy # 2 said "Gretchen, keep her away, she is psycho..." So, she proceeded to get into the pants of Guy # 1. I was in the t.v. room watching reruns on Comedy Central while they were in the bedroom (wow, college is pretty weird...). After, she was in good spirits, we all said our good byes then we went back to my place to sleep. The next morning we hung out and ate breakfast then she left.

Two days later she came back and told me "he raped me."

I took her seriously, at first, but her story didn't make sense. If she was being raped I was ten feet the t.v. room...and she could have called for help. Also, the door wasn't completely closed (ew!) and there wasn't loud music - so hearing her cries for help wouldn't have been difficult. It went to trial in front of the school's judiciary panel. This could have gotten him kicked out of school. Not to mention I got into trouble b/c her campus police report said that we had been at a party where there was alcohol (and I was 20 at the time).

The panel of "jurors" made a very sound ruling. They decided she was "a very confused individual."

My ruling: she had sex (she had three drinks over several hours, so I don't think she was drunk) and then regretted it. She felt dirty. Her reaction to her having casual sex was to try and place blame on him - to turn the situation from "I made a bad choice" to "it wasn't my fault." And once she started w/ her story she had to stick to it.

A very fucked up experience for everyone involved. To make matters worse she attended a social event in our hometown and went around telling everyone that she was raped and I was a bad friend because I took the "rapist's" side.

Posted by: Gretchen at June 26, 2007 7:28 AM

I remember that in orientation my freshman year of college (the school had recently been the site of a national date-rape scandal), we were beaten over the head with the fact that a woman was unable to consent to sex after consuming any alcohol. And that we men would be presumed by the school to be rapists if we had sex with intoxicated women. Period. I think this same thinking is pervasive in society; if the woman's had a drink, she's not responsible, the man is.

Posted by: justin case at June 26, 2007 7:57 AM

Cases like this frustrate me, because on one hand you have a woman, who is an adult, and who got drunk and went home with some guy and it sounds like she regretted it.

And then on the other hand we have a case of a college aged girl who was gang raped, and there were eye witnesses.

Guess which case gets prosecuted? It is just so frustrating because women who cry "rape" because they regret their choices are treated as the norm. And then there are horrible cases that can't be prosecuted properly because of all the stupid rape charges that have been brought up. Grrrrrrr.

Posted by: Shinobi at June 26, 2007 8:10 AM

Why do you assume he's an ass, Vlad? Sounds like Mr. Safi is just doing what most single (and sometimes married) people do: hitting on the sexual partner of their choice when inhibitions (and perhaps standards) are lowered. There's nothing inherently ass-y about that, just a desire to score. Sounds pretty much like every other human being I've met, male or female.

And as for this:
Apparently he has a history of getting women drunk

How did he do that, exactly? I didn't read anywhere that Mr. Safi forced a feeding tube down Ms. Bowen's throat and ordered seven Long Island Iced Teas, stat. Apparently, not only must he be responsible for the instantly-regretted sex act, but Ms. Bowen's excessive consumption of alcohol. What, precisely, does she take responsibility for in her life?

Posted by: Rebecca at June 26, 2007 9:59 AM

Rebecca -

Welcome to the end-state of the second American feminist movement. Women get all the rights and privileges of being part of a civilized society, while accepting no responsibility whatsoever for any actions they may take.

She only drank too much and slept with Mr. Safi because society conditioned her to.


Posted by: brian at June 26, 2007 10:24 AM

Brian, I don't see what any of this has to do with that vast left-wing conspiracy, the "Second American feminist movement". I'm a feminist, and to me that simply means I'm your equal under the protection of the law. I don't have to cover myself with a burqa, if you and I worked the same job with the same qualifications we would be paid the same, and I don't want you or anyone else deciding what I should do with my genitalia. I wasn't issued blinders when I decided I was a feminist; I can still see idiotic behavior in my sex. You can equally argue this court case is a result of the modern American tendency not to take personal responsibility for anything, and point the finger at the Me Generation, Watergate, daytime talk TV, Iran-Contra, personal injury lawyers and Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 26, 2007 10:33 AM

I agree with Justin -- and Paglia, who puts it like this: A woman who drinks and is raped is complicit.

Posted by: Crid at June 26, 2007 10:41 AM

In such matters, responsibilities lie with both parties. But in this particular case, the woman is at fault. Tory Bowen is a familiar fixture when it comes to women who base their actions on the luxury of acting like a responsible adult at their own convenience. Unfortunately, the guy has to go through 2 trials, just because he is a male with a healthy sex drive. It would have been cheaper to hire a call girl than hooking up with an uptight woman at a bar or club.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 10:49 AM

I hate the women who pull this crap, because, as Shinobi said above, women who are actual victims suffer for it. I also just don't get why women are treated like children.

"Oh, she had a drink, she didn't know what she was doing. He was drunk too, of course, but he knew he was raping her."

Bullshit. I rarely drink because I can't stand the taste of most alcohol. I found out pretty young that my tolerance for alcohol is high. Very, very high. Freakishly high. Worry that I could give myself alcohol poisoning is actually another reason I don't drink. Point is, I could have twenty Long Island Iced Teas and lure some poor drunk guy into sex while being perfectly with it. Do you think I'd be charged with rape? Not a chance. But I could apparently accuse him of rape and get away with it.

Women who make these false accusations should be punished as harshly as possible. A friend of mine was stupid enough to have sex with his psycho ex, with whom he was in a custody dispute. She lured him over by telling him her girlfriend wanted to have a three-way with him. The girlfriend wasn't there, of course, but he did have sex with his ex.

The next day police showed up with guns drawn to take him into custody for rape. They had his DNA, people saw him there, etc. The only thing that saved him was a cop who knew her drug-abusing ways and listened to her ever-evolving story carefully. Charges weren't filed, and my friend was released. Even though the police knew she'd set the whole thing nothing was done to her. She was even able to use the fact that he'd been arrested for raping her in the custody dispute.

Utter bullshit.

Posted by: Kimberly at June 26, 2007 11:01 AM

Rebecca - please ask Amy to elaborate on the classes of 'feminist'. We're talking Stanton vs. MacKinnon here.

The feminists that are actively pulling the strings of power through activism and threats are disciples of MacKinnon. MacKinnon-style feminism is based not upon the achievement of equality, but on getting revenge upon the "ruling patriarchy".

Which is what makes the whole thing so damned amusing - lying about being raped to strike a blow against the patriarchy requires that women be perceived as helpless little waifs at the mercy of that same patriarchy. Yet they are strong and independent.

Which is it? Strong and independent, or trampled under the jack-boot of the man?

I think you can figure out where you fall in the spectrum from here.

Posted by: brian at June 26, 2007 11:11 AM

No matter what the appropriate term of feminism is being applied... men are going to have to adapt to the present situation to protect themselves from a system that is biased towards women. (i.e. dating, marriage and child rearing issues)

Relationships between men and women are in a collaborative phase, but the laws still view women as victims or potential victims and needing protection from the big bad males.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 11:37 AM

Joe, your post above is an utterly sensible response to the present situation. The attitudes of the men and the women that I know suggest a real change from the feminism described above: the women don't think of themselves as victims of the patriarchy (or as victims, period), and the men treat the women as their social equals. The law, as usual, lags the reality.

Posted by: justin case at June 26, 2007 12:51 PM

I teach college. I cannot begin to tell you how many times overly dramatic, sexually guilt ridden idiot girls cry their eyes out in front of a room full of people claiming to have been raped. Interestingly enough, the more homely the girl, the bigger the tears. (Make of that what you will) In my 14+ years of teaching, the only girl I ever believed was raped could barely talk about it, and I doubt she ever reported it. Of course I did, as is the law, and she left school in mid term. Although I tried, I was never able to contact her and never heard from her again.

Posted by: kg at June 26, 2007 1:25 PM

This reminds me of a news stroy out of the UK a few years bck, 17yr old girl and a 14yr old boy have sex - the age difference requires a statutory rape charge - they charge the boy.

Posted by: lujlp at June 26, 2007 1:41 PM

Thanks for the suggestion, Brian, but I've already got a degree in history, with an emphasis on American politics from 1860 to 1940. (So useful in today's changing workforce!) As much as I like Amy's blog I don't think I need another lecture at this point. I know where I fall in the ideological spectrum: a human being with a complicated set of desires and motives, just like everyone else.

As for Kimberly's friend, well, it just reinforces my belief that sex with the ex is never a good idea.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 26, 2007 1:44 PM

Rebecca the reason I'm saying he is an ass is that according to the article it was stated she had a lot to drink. If the person (regardless of gender) is completly wasted (wasted to the point you know they are wasted) it's not nice (unethical) to take advantage of them. However if she intentionaly went to the bar to get drunk so she can get laid do you really want to be part of that (she has issues). Yes I agree she chose to drink and drink a lot, dosen't mean he should have taken her home. You want to get busy then why would you want him or her to drunk to be any fun in the first place.

There's a big difference between not being nice (being an ass) and being a rapist. Assuming he didn't feed her the booze he still took advantage of her being in a drunken state.This is assuming that she was actually drunk. Following your logic your basicly saying that the 17 year old girl was partly responsible for what happened because she had a few too many. (There was a link to it earlier)

As far as the history of getting women drunk. Oh, that's easy, You slip the average bar tender a 20 dollar tip and make sure they know your not driving home and you will get 4 drinks for everyone you order. Meaning the drinks will be 4 as strong. Feed the person two of these babies and they are blotto. There's no mention of him doing it in the article but it is a pretty standard trick.

However in this case it looks like both of them keep changing stories. So the fact that they had sex is not proof of rape.

Posted by: Vlad at June 26, 2007 1:49 PM

Collaborative relationships are not a new phenomenon. The last known period was 10,000 years ago. Before the advent of centralized religious institutions and the fixation of rigid gender roles. First came the institutionalized polytheism (i.e. Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman) and then the eventual takeover of the monotheistic faiths 5,000 years ago.

I’m not intentionally changing the subject of Amy‘s post, but we are in an interesting period of history. People should fully embrace it. Progress has always comes with a price and everyone has to pay for it, both men and women.

Unfortunately, a significant majority of the people in the Middle East are being slightly disagreeable in their behavior towards these changes.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 1:59 PM

Sorry for the grammatical error. It should state: came with a price.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 2:18 PM

Joe, Justin - as far as "collaborative relationships" go, that's as may be.

The problem for those of us not in a relationship is that there is no way of telling which women are sane and interested in such things, and which ones are simply angling for their next victim.

And given the cost for choosing poorly, many men are remaining unattached.

Posted by: brian at June 26, 2007 3:07 PM

The problem for those of us not in a relationship is that there is no way of telling which women are sane and interested in such things, and which ones are simply angling for their next victim.

Might I suggest, Brian, getting to know an interesting woman gradually?

Rather than, say, the two of you screwing when she's off her face drunk?

There are lots of handy tips that can be a huge help in decent mate selection.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 26, 2007 4:17 PM

I think the woman's story here is obviously suspect.
In general, this is a very difficult issue. Most people drink when they go out and why should men uniquely bear the burden of discerning whether the woman is too impaired to consent. Why isn't it her responsibility to determine her state of mind . Because the concept/law has a misandric center that assumes men are actively trying to render women unconscious by plying them with drink and then to proceed to have sex with them--ie, men are rapacious rapists by nature. Hence-- make men responsible for assessing women's competence to consent-- on pain of 20 years to life if he makes a mistake.

I guess men could keep breath-alayzers by their bed or take portable devices with them if they plan to stay over at her place or cruise the bars. Quickly determing a woman's blood alcohol level would signal whether sex was a viable option or not. New scenario for the 21st century--man and woman huddled around device _-- " Yea ! I passed ! We can have sex !"... but other types of intoxication might not be easily tested... Or maybe all women could wear chastity belts that shut down access if the wearer's blood alcohol is above a certain level.
The "I was impaired" allegation is too nebulous I think to constitute a consistent basis for prosecution. It would be very difficult to establish objectively-- and its wide open to abuse and second thoughts and sheer vindictivensee-- and , for men, it makes many sexual acts a potential prison term -- Again this law is pushed by "feminists' -- eg anti-male bigots-- who assert that all men-- if allowed-- will prove that they are by nature-- rapicious rapists. So this law is just one more way to snare evil-by- definiton male perpetrators of patriarchial acts of oppression like intercourse.
A court recently held that a man who tricked a woman into having sex did not rape her. It was alleged that a man's brother, impersonated him and went into a room and had sex with his brother's girlfriend ( Yuucch). The girlfriend said she had been fooled and therefore was raped. It was nonconsensual-- because of fraud. I think the court said rape had to involve forcible non-consent-- and since she did consent-- through fraud-- she had not been raped. However , I am sure she will/could sue him and recover damages on a tort cause of action. But-- I think she was lying. If a strange woman got into bed with me, I would know real quick it wasn't my girlfiend. " Gee, Honey, you sure went from a B to a D awful quick !"" Why its my new BOOB BOOSTER from RONCO . It really really works ! " So, I never believed the woman.

Posted by: jayedwards at June 26, 2007 4:23 PM

Yes, there is Brian. It also goes for single women too. It's called being selective in a possible partner. Notice body language. Speech patterns. The noticeable contradictions in their life stories. How they treat strangers. If they want to rush the relationship is a big red flag.

You want to talk about bad relationships? Ever had an ex-girlfriend fake a wedding proposal while you were away at a conference? It was a failed attempt to use my family and friends to place pressure on me to walk the aisle.

Notice how I used my real life example? I blame the relationship and not the ex-girlfriend. Blaming exes or political/social moments will get you nowhere in life. How does gender feminism effect me in my day to day life? Hardly ever and I don’t fret over it. I will criticize it, because of its incompatibility with human biology.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 4:41 PM

My sentiments exactly, Jody.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 4:47 PM

Rebecca needs extensive post-graduate work to undo all the obvious bullshit she imbibed about feminism. Feminism is hatred of men-- it is anti-male bigotry. One need only pick up and read they absolute filth they have written. Read all the "classics"-- classics in the annals of hate literature. No educated, rational, moral person can be a "feminist"-- it is a repulsive doctrine and set of attitudes based on hate. It has been totally decimated by empirical research on the biological bases of sex differences and the massive lies about "dead beat dads", domestic violence," Battered Wife Syndrome", and rape-- are all coming unraveled, after intoxicating neurotic women and effete liberal men for well nigh 35 + years.
The claim that feminism wants equality under the law is so absurd one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. WOmen are a state-subsidized interestt group with massive special privileges in every arena of life.
Don't tell you what to do with your genitals, huh-- I assume you mean control your own reproduction. Men don't control theirs. No man can make a woman a mother against her wishes, but any woman can make a man a father against his wishews.. Check the Texas case where a woman claims she has the right to become pregnant from frozen embryos created while a couple were married . They are now divorced, they had a contract specifying that on divorce the embryos would not be used. Incredibly a lower court held she controlled the embryos and could force the man to become a father. That decision was reversed... Now its before the Texas Supreme Court. Why? Both as a matter of contract law and reproductive freedom, its an easy case. A woman is demanding that she become pregnant by a specific man over his objections !-- . Yea-- it would be nice if feminists believed in reproductive freedom for everyone. They don't-- just for women. Men are then required to subsidize women's reproductive choices -- eg child support.
Paid the same for the same job ?-- that has been the case for a long time. There is no gap worthy of mention when all the relevant variables are assesssed. Remember "comparative worth" when feminists-- all Marxists at heart-- tried to use the force of government to make employers pay women the same as men for 'comparable" jobs. Whats "comparable"-- why the feminists as state engineers decide-- not the market.
Feminism is now and has been for 30+ years a continual source of malignant drivel and anti-male propaganda. The sooner it joins the ash-heap of history with all the other ideologies of hate, the better.

Posted by: jayedwards at June 26, 2007 5:08 PM

Here's a kiss, Joe:)

[for your comments here today...]

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 26, 2007 5:16 PM

Jody, Joe - You can be as selective as you want, and still end up like my friend - 15 years of marriage, 2 kids, wife decided to start banging a DJ, took the infant, left him with the 16 year old (but fucked with her head every chance she got) and even convinced the child welfare folks that the infant should not be told that he is her father.

Then moves to Florida and threatens him over custody of the 16 year old if he moves for a job.

The old adage applies - you can never really know someone. And in today's climate, it isn't worth the risk to try.

Posted by: brian at June 26, 2007 5:49 PM

That's a miserable story.

Most bitter old adages are true some of the time.

But they're not a rule.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 26, 2007 6:02 PM


Con mille abbraci e baci. :)

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 6:04 PM

Sorry-- gender feminism doesn't affect your everyday life , huh..
Get into an argument with your girlfirend /wife-- she calls the police-- they operate under the misandric Duluth model and arrest you no matter what... she gets an ex parte restraining order-- you are removed from your house and access to your kids and bank account is barred-- with no judicial process. Your wife is represented by the state-- you have to hire a lawyer and the system is rigged..
Custody battle on divorce-- women get the kids 90% of the time-- because with the kids come the house and the money. Oh-- yeah-- you raped your 6 year old daughter , too. Your ex said so.
Your wife decides to shoot you with a shotgun and cut your sex organs off while you are asleep. Luckily you survive the assault but lose the use of your arm and your penis. She is hailed as a hero by women nationwide and , of course, she claims you abused her. She is found non-culpable because of the "expert" testimony of Sappho Man-hater who finds that she has PTSD caused by the accidental death of her kitten Lorena when she was 3.She is ordered to undergo counselling to recover from all the abuse she alleged-- without any corroboration. She then wins custody of the children and women across the nation support her effort to build a "new life" away from you-- the heinous monster.
The court orders child support for you, a day laborer with a 10th grade education. You lose your job. You can't pay. You are jailed. No one listens. Your debt increases. Your ex has never let you see the kids and the court has never done anything about it, One day you look on a milk carton and there you are a"Dead Beat Dad"-- the biggest myth ever perpetrated by anti-male feminists.
You are an All-American swimmer. You get a scholarship to Great School University. Your sophomore year the coach says the team must be disbanded becasue of Title IX-- there are too many male atheletes on campus and we are adding women's hop-scotch in place of Men's Swimming , even though the team has won the national championship 3 of the past 5 years.
The woman at work has shown interest in you . You approach her and ask her out. She accuses you of sexual harassment and you are fired becasue the company fears litigation costs. Your attention was "unwanted"-- so women decide whether a man breaks the law according to whether they want his advances or not..
You are a third grade boy . The teacher tells the class that men start the wars and they are all bad. Your son comes home upset.
Your son is at college attending a keg party. A skanky girl is handing out rainbows. He gets a cab and go home. The next day he is arrested and charged with rape. She has identified him as her rapist and the prosecutor says he will get these "hooligans" who raped this virginal young lady... You accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees-- luckily you have it or he would be in prison-- and then she recants. Nothing is done to her. She is judgment proof because she has no money. Everyone in the state has seen your picture on the front page, while no one knows her name. When your son graduates and applies for a job in the big city they say-- "Aren't you the rapist who hurt that nice girl?"
Your father is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Not much research has been done on it. Thats because it receives 1/3 the funding of breast cancer, though prostate cancer claims more lives a year and is more frequent. WOmen everywhere wear their pink ribbons, private businesses raise money for the cause, stamps are issued by the US governemt and you can donate money to the cause with every purchase. Women have huge meetings in stadiums. Your father dies of prostate cancer. You watch another report on breast cancer on TV and wonder why women don't support research into men's health.
You turn on the tube. Trojan condoms has an ad where all the men are literally pigs. You wonder-- "Isn't this sexist?" Your wife says she thinks its funny becasue all men are pigs. You wonder-- how come discrimination against women is sexism but discrimination against men is funny ? Aren't there a lot of these kind of ads on TV ?
You pick up the paper and read a headline-- ' "Woman runs over, kills cheating husband with SUV"... hmmm.. you think. That headline implies she was justified in killing him. Why not just the facts "Woman kills man with SUV"... compare " "Man rapes loose woman in tight clothes" or " Man rapes woman out late , drunk and in the wrong part of town"... I never see those headlines. Women say there is no excuse for rape. Why is there always one for killing men ?

ANd on and on and on. Feminism has had and does have an absolutely horrific effect on the lives of men and boys.
Whatever your political persuasion, Hillary Clinton in the White House will be a disaster for men and boys. Look at the stuff she pulled the first time around.

Posted by: jayedwards at June 26, 2007 6:11 PM

Jayedwards, I will defer to my comment on how the laws treat women in today's society. Also, most of us are aware of the double standards that exist. Amy provides plenty of posts and the contributors offer their own examples. One rant is enough, trust me.

If you are a MRA... you are the male equivalent of gender feminists, but worse. No one respects a victim, especially a man who bitches like one.

Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2007 6:27 PM

> After a mistrial, he is now being retried.

At this point--especially factoring in the erratic witness--the prosecutor should shelve the ego and drop the case.

Pushing too hard can bite you in the ass. Remember Mike Nifong?

Posted by: Doobie at June 26, 2007 8:09 PM

If a person is passed out/unconscious they can't consent to anything. I have a guy friend who went to hang out with another guy, they had drinks and he passed out- he wakes to find the guy on him and he throws him off and bolts. Was he assaulted? In my opinion yes. Is it different because he was a drunk male or did he 'have to expect something awful might happen' simply because he drank like you're all saying a woman must?
I'm not talking about the case Amy brought up, I agree, I think that woman was full of shit. And I agree with Shinobi about the DeAnza rape case- what happened to that girl was obviously assault, with witnesses, and because of the BS that happened at Duke, the DA is running scared despite evidence of at least statutory rape since the victim was 17.
But every case has to be looked at seperatly, nothing is as black and white as 'well just don't get drunk stupid!'

Posted by: Julie at June 26, 2007 9:14 PM

>because of the BS that happened at Duke, the DA is running scared despite evidence of at least statutory rape since the victim was 17.

The DA, Nifong, was disbarred.

The victim was 28.

Posted by: Doobie at June 26, 2007 9:35 PM

Oops...I forgot to put "victim" in quotes.

Posted by: Doobie at June 26, 2007 9:36 PM

Ohhh...she was referring to the Santa Clara County DA in charge of the DeAnza case.

Took a couple of rereads to get that. Never mind.

Posted by: Doobie at June 26, 2007 11:58 PM

You got to love Joe, he symbolizes everything wrong with the men’s movement pretends to have sympathy, says we all know what’s going on and then calls the guy who lists the inequities a whiny bitch and a misogynist

Way to go douche bag

Posted by: lujlp at June 27, 2007 12:38 AM

>You got to love Joe, he symbolizes everything wrong with the men’s movement pretends to have sympathy, says we all know what’s going on and then calls the guy who lists the inequities a whiny bitch and a misogynist

Way to go douche bag

Did you read jayedwards rants, lujlp? I thought Joe's response was pretty polite. We all got the idea after the first one. Repeated sloppy ranting just makes the ranter sound hateful.

Of course so does calling someone a "douche bag".

Posted by: Kimberly at June 27, 2007 1:08 AM

I've got nothing to add to this commentary, so I'll address this:

I'm a feminist, and to me that simply means I'm your equal under the protection of the law. I don't have to cover myself with a burqa, if you and I worked the same job with the same qualifications we would be paid the same

This line of reasoning bugs me. The argument that women make x number of pennies for every dollar. Say you're a top executive and a very prestigious company. You've got two potential applicants, equally qualified, same age, fresh from college, a man and a woman. You're going to spend 200,000 dollars training this new applicant, so who do you hire?

Keep in mind, your business depends on establishing and maintaining long term business relationships with clients.

Still undecided? Let me ask a few questions. Which one is more likely to quit their job to start a family? Which one is more likely to stay at home and call in because the kid is sick? Which one will require six weeks paid time off after having a child?

Who are you going to hire? And please don't tell me that you're going to take a college age kid's assurances that they will never start a family.

Now, in light of these things, is it any wonder that there's a pay discrepancy? No, you would NOT have the same pay with the same job and equal qualifications. The higher pay goes to the person with the most experience, who has done the most for your company, and who has seniority. And men (in general; of course there are exceptions) tend to have those things in their favor, for reasons I already gave. So, yes, they're going to make more money.

Posted by: Patrick at June 27, 2007 1:26 AM

Yes kimberly I did read his rants, and you know hat a lot of guys are thinking the same thing just never putting it out there.

There are a lot of boards whee women list their problems and problems faced by their gender as a whole - The only time I ever see some told to shut up and called a bitchy victim is when its a man.

What exactly is it about all those stories bothered you kimberly?
And would you defend a guy for telling a woman to stop bitching cause no likes to hear victims complain?

Posted by: lujlp at June 27, 2007 2:27 AM

There are a lot of boards whee women list their problems and problems faced by their gender as a whole - The only time I ever see some told to shut up and called a bitchy victim is when its a man.

I dare say, lujlp.

So why on earth jayedwards seeks to emulate the the worst sort of frothing gender victimhood beats me.

I thought Joe's call-out was brilliant, because jay sounded uncannily like the dreariest whinge bag who ends up giving all feminism a bad name.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 27, 2007 5:46 AM

I love the crying jayedwards does about hitting on a women at work. Since you are at work you should be (drum role please) working. Get laid on you own time. The law is biased against men for now, this will slowly change over time. As far as the not hiring a women because she will (not 100% but close) have kids and take more time off if they are sick is valid, until you look at the department of labor stats. While women do take time off for family on average men will take more sick time then women, apparently due to hang overs. Don't shoot the messenger look at the stats.
Before all the spank masters jump on me for being a masculine femanist (wonder how many people are gone get this one) I'm not. I'm just as bitter as the rest of you, I will not however blame all women for the mistakes of a few. I have seen both sides and the pleasant ones tend to out number the back stabing coniving ones in general. Also it depends on where you look. IE: most stripper have issues (pretty well know thing), so if you look for Ms. Right (or even Ms. right now) at a strip club she will more likely than not be crazy.

Posted by: Vlad at June 27, 2007 6:17 AM

Having read all these, I'm wondering if jayedwards is related to Jeff/Daniel/Martin/scumbucket!

Posted by: Flynne at June 27, 2007 6:27 AM


My views go beyond a 'feminist' or 'mens rights' to an individual rights movement. There are legitimate complaints by both genders on how the system treats them.

The MRAs that I have met over the years are quite a pathetic bunch of guys. I had an 'interaction' with a well known MRA on the inequities of marriage and divorce laws. My alternative would have given men equal treatment under the law through the approval of same sex unions. When a gay or lesbian couple goes through a divorce how would the courts base their decisions?

How did the particular MRA react to my idea? Well, he began a rant on the evils of homosexuals, quoted the Bible and equating a 'hidden conspiracy' between homosexuals, feminists and the manginas. Of course, I was labeled a mangina in the process. That expression does give me a chuckle from time to time.

Does this rant sound familiar to a particular contributor or contributors? Let's not forget the whole 'so and so' who is running for POTUS as the epitome of evil and if she is elected the whole commie gulag for boys rant. Sound familiar? What is their excuse? Being too emotional? The male equivalent of the time of the month?

Most online MRAs are the male equivalent of the Andrea Dworkin or the Valerie Solanas of the gender feminists. Take your time to visit their sites. On the one hand they raise legitimate complaints on the inequities and then on the other hand go into rants on the evils of women who want an alternative from being a housewife or mother. One in particular who describes a woman's vagina as a cesspool of STDs. The difficult task is to separate the crazies from the activists who really want equal treatment before the Law.

The crazies (both men and women) do remind me of my favorite John Lennon quote:

“The one thing you can’t hide is when you are crippled inside.”

So lujlp if you don't like what I have to say? Pick a number. Get in line and be prepare to kiss my daigo ass. So pucker up, fucktard.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2007 6:58 AM

Thanks Kimberly and Jody. I appreciate your comments.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2007 7:25 AM

Your father is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Not much research has been done on it. Thats because it receives 1/3 the funding of breast cancer, though prostate cancer claims more lives a year and is more frequent. WOmen everywhere wear their pink ribbons, private businesses raise money for the cause, stamps are issued by the US governemt and you can donate money to the cause with every purchase. Women have huge meetings in stadiums. Your father dies of prostate cancer. You watch another report on breast cancer on TV and wonder why women don't support research into men's health.

Wrong, jayedwards. Most men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer live. My dad had it. 7, no, 8 years ago now. He had radiation treatments and is still alive and well. Get a grip.

Posted by: Flynne at June 27, 2007 9:22 AM

>What exactly is it about all those stories bothered you kimberly?
And would you defend a guy for telling a woman to stop bitching cause no likes to hear victims complain?

What bothers me is that I've heard them all before. Over and over again. I get it. Some men think all women are evil and manipulative. Move on.
Yes, I would defend a man telling a woman to stop bitching. I've told women to stop bitching. There's a reason I hang out at this blog and not the insane feminist blogs or the MRA blogs. I like to read intelligent discussion, not constant victim-hood rants.

>Having read all these, I'm wondering if jayedwards is related to Jeff/Daniel/Martin/scumbucket!

Me too!

Posted by: Kimberly at June 27, 2007 9:29 AM

>Your father is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Not much research has been done on it. Thats because it receives 1/3 the funding of breast cancer, though prostate cancer claims more lives a year and is more frequent.

According to the National Cancer Institute, about 40,460 women and 450 men are expected to die of breast cancer in the U.S. this year, with 178,480 new female cases and 2,030 new male cases.

According to the National Cancer Institute, about 27,050 men are expected to die of prostate cancer in the U.S. this year, with 218,890 new cases expected.

Now math isn't my strong suit, but I think 40,910 deaths is more than 27,050 deaths. You are right that there are more new cases of prostate cancer expected, but it sure looks like the survival rate is better.

I don't know where you got your rant information, but it's obviously not very accurate.

Posted by: Kimberly at June 27, 2007 11:00 AM

Blaming exes or political/social moments will get you nowhere in life.

Right on, Joe. I suspect jayedwards is one egg short of an ovary, and I can only speak for myself here, but here goes: I'm a feminist and I love men. Wow. Imagine that: an individual not adhering to a stereotype and yet managing to live a fulfilling life without abiding by arbitrary rules! Something tells me that despite all the painful personal anecdotes to the contrary here, there are an awful lot of us on the planet.

And Patrick, believe me I understand that the pay inequity as a whole between men and women is due to the fact women tend to choose jobs with less pay, less benefits, and less chances for advancement. But if two individuals apply for the same job and have the same qualifications, and the only difference is sex, why shouldn't they be paid the same wage? You added your own detail to my hypothetical situation in your response:

The higher pay goes to the person with the most experience, who has done the most for your company, and who has seniority.

Obviously, the person with those traits would be paid more, regardless of sex. If I implied otherwise, my argument would bug me too. However, my intention was to illustrate employment and hiring situations where everything is the same, but for gender.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 27, 2007 11:02 AM

Joe-- try responding to my point and not using ad hominems like "rant" and "bitch". Since you ignore that point-- that feminism has a horrific effect on men and boys-- them I assume you are unable to respond in an intelligent fashion. Why ? The point is so obvious-- and then supported by specific examples-- that one is hard-put to see how anyone could possibly disagree with the propositon. You don't-- you just make personal attacks.
It took me awhile to get the "MRA" reference. Is that "Men's Rights Activist". I have never been associated with any group and don't know of any. Its irrelevant-- thats an ad hominem ,too. So what if I am a "MRA"-- you still have to read what I write and not smear me by association.
I do read ifeminist and feministing ( try it-- you will be appalled) and a mens daily web site on a regular basis for references to /links to stories of interest.
I have been fighting the good fight since 1980, when I read every single feminist "classic". If you want to attack me, prepare to get decimated-- because I know far more about feminism, because I actually have read what they write and followed its march through our society and institutions for 25 + years..
Apparently "MRA" is similiar to "gender feminist" ? You are confused-- there is no legitimate distinction between feminists. Its all class/group based ideology based on female superiority and victimhood. The women who call themselves "equity feminists" are just regular old individual rights folks-- the woman on ifeminist, C Young, Sommers, others. All feminism is based on the Marxist belief that men are an oppressing class. Try to do some reading.
Since I don't know what "MRA" do, I don't know if they are like feminists-- eg hate females per se. Of course that would be equally reprehensible.
Apparently you think that when a man points out specific examples of harm feminism has wrought he is "bitching". No-- its call stating a proposition and then supporting it with factual instances. We call it "thinking" and then making an "argument". Try it sometime.
Hmm-- and its especially worse because I am a man. Why is that, Joe ? Apparently you have higher standards for male behavior -- I should "act like a man" no doubt. Sorry-- the ole chivalry was based on fair and respectful treatment from women. Women broke the contract when they called us all Nazi rapists and thats all we are ( French, Women's Room) and when many women assume they may degrade and insult men and then expect to be treated like a "lady". Thats over-- you treat me with abuse and contempt, I'm taking off the gloves too.Men should have taken off the gloves many years ago. Instead we have allowed this perverted ideology to poison our society.
I have just skimmed the other posts.
Its funny-- I state feminism has harmed men and boys in response to a man who said his life was not affected by gender feminism. I wanted to show him that it is and that it is deleterious. Wow-- how irrational and how evil I am ! WOW- to state a propostion and then support it with specific , verified examples. Really eccentric stuff..

Finally--"no one respects a victim" , eh-- thats an inane and an absurd one. 1. Victims of crimes are respected, victims of discrimination are respected, etc. Legitimate victims are always respected. Your comment assumes that my complaints are not legitimate. You offer no support for this bare assumption. 2.Second-- feminism is a doctrine of total victimhood and deifies the female "victim" . They have gained total respect for this view to the point where murdering sleeping men can result in virtual acquittal by the mere allegation of "victimhood". I'd say feminists have gottten a long way indeed to getting "respect" for women as victims.
Why when women complain-- its seeking justice. When a man complains-- its whining...

Posted by: jay edwards at June 27, 2007 11:39 AM

AH-- Kimberly-- "repeated sloppy rants". Both my posts are very specific and very focused. One attacks the three points another poster made. The other states a proposition then supports it with specific examples.
There is nothing "sloppy " there and no "rant". You just don't like my points but cannot argue the issue so you just hurl epithets. Then you call Joe "polite" when he personally attacks me and incredibly-- you criticize another poster for presumbably personal attack. ( he did not say Joe is an X and thus is wrong but Joe is wrong and thus he is an X. Totally different). Now thats sloppy

Posted by: jay edwards at June 27, 2007 11:53 AM

Wow-- Jody-- 'frothing gender victimhood'. Try responding to my points and stop the personal insults. Try disputing one point, one instance rather than juvenile name-calling. So far I've only received ad hmonem responses-- the sign of folks who are incapable of rational disgreement. Damn-- I din't even think what I wrote was controversial. I guess some of you don't like "diverse"viewpoints.
"Called out"
are you kidding me ? Thats like Mad Max taking on Mickey Mouse. The guy's response was pathetic and inane.
"Give all feminism a bad name"-- you got that right-- like the Klan, Nazi ideology, and all the horrible histroy of hate . Educate yourself-- do a little reading-- Firestine, Brownmiller, Dworkin, MacKinnon, Morgan and the laundry list of the disturbed and the demented . I repeat-- no rational and moral person can be a feminist. Thats a strong as statement as possible. Read what they write. Its actually worse than Mein Kampf and I have read them both.

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 12:09 PM

For Vlad and Flynne-
"Hitting on women at work"-- read the example. I specifically state she showed interest. There is no "hitting on". Nice-- create astrawman and then knock it down. Also-- work- based relationships are very common and this situation is also.
The law is biased against men-- Thank you. "This will slowly change"-- Why ? Not unless the men victimized by that bias complain. And-- how do you think that bias came about-- see feminism.
Your "men take more sick time" is false. Women have more physical complaints than men and have taken more sick time since the varible was measured...

ANother intelligent response-- ah-- Flynee-- try constructing an argument. I know-- you are upset. You cannot argue the point, so you'll just call me a bad name and feel better about yourself.

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 12:19 PM

Upset? Not in the least, I'm enjoying reading your posts in which you make an ass of yourself. I'm not arguing a thing, just stating that my dad survived prostate cancer. I didn't call you a bad name, I wondered if you were/are the same person that has posted on other threads on Amy's boards that have been exceedingly offensive.

Posted by: Flynne at June 27, 2007 12:31 PM

God-- this joe is something.
1. The claim that there is not massive social and institutional bias aganist men is simply mind-boggling. The idea that both genders are equally victimized by the "system" is indefensible. Cite such examples, sir. I did -- and you gave an incompetent, nonresponsive-- "Hey, you must be an "MRA" and stop "bitching". You had no rational response.
2. Ahh-- this sterotype of the "MRA"-- most of the ones you have met are "a pathetic bunch" and you refer to them as Bible-thumpers, homophobic, women as wife and mother only, commie conspiracies.. "crippled inside", culling bizarre statements and acting as if they are representative, etc None of that has anything to do with fairness for men-- and you know it.Its just a smear tactic.
3. Aha-- I insulted your candiaate for President-- so very sorry-- "epitome of evil" , "commie gulag" my "time of the month ( a sexist comment , like your statement that bitching is especially unattractive in a man ) -- I asserted that Clinton will be a disater for men and boys. I take no position on the vast array of othere issues. As "First Lady" she deliberately acted to further the feminist agenda through the appointment of radical feminists to positions of policy-maiking in the federal government... I would not vote for her on that basis.
4. You then-- like a pathetic frustrated two-year old direct a mass of crude insults against someone. And you talk about others being too emotional
Hey Joe-- You want to insult me--step into the arena with me and you will quickly find yourself very helpless indeed. . Rational behavior only-- that should limit your posts to a sentence .

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 12:46 PM

Ok, fine no more attacks, they amuse me when I see people react but fine you want gloves off, off they go. Counter point 1: When you get into a fight with your GF/wife she calls the cops and you go to jail. This depends on the state but as a general rule nope. Most of the time unless there is compeling evidence (she/he looks like the got the shit kicked out of them) they either take both or neither. Watch any episode of cops. The only time they take one of them in is either obvious evidence of harm or they got smack on them.
Counter point 2: The cancer stats are shown above by Kimberly
Counter Point 3: Sexual harrasment in the work place. The first step the company is required to take is to tell you to stay away from her/him. That's the law. If a company just terminates someone without cause you have a equal right to sue. However if you have a history of agitation co-workers and don't do your job then they should fire you ass emmediatly.
Counter Point4: When you find me the school that removed a men swim team to have a girls hop-scoth team you win. Also there have been multiple cases of boys being abe to join girls sports teams. At lest two at my high school.
Counter point5: Divorce cases don't always go to the women. If she is a stay at home mom then yes they do for the simple fact that she has no way to support herself. I personally dis-trust/dis-like stay at home moms for this reason. However take a look at Martha Stewarts divorce, or the cash Mr. Brittney Spears got.

All feminism is Marxist? No you choose to redefine feminism as incompasing only man hating bitter women.

Posted by: Vlad at June 27, 2007 12:58 PM

Here's how you foamed:
Your father dies of prostate cancer. You watch another report on breast cancer on TV and wonder why women don't support research into men's health.

Here's what google upchucks in 00000.1 seconds for prostate cancer research. NOT "women and prostate cancer research" I hasten to add. Just a straight gender neutral google.
"The Prostate Cancer Foundation New York Dinner raises more than $4 million to support prostate cancer research. Host Whoopi Goldberg, Willie Nelson, Bill Cosby, Tracey Ullman and others help honor legendary entertainer Quincy Jones and Ted and Dani Virtue"

Some ladies there, Jay.

So it's not true that "women don't support" men's health research, is it?

One bald, foaming statement down...

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 27, 2007 1:00 PM

jay edwards,

Are you finished with your talking points? Like I said before about deferring to my previous comments, jack ass.

Any gender feminist out there could fill up a post of other incidents that could validate her argument too. Where does that leave the real problems effecting both genders? I’m in the business to solve problems. What is the effect of 2 extreme factions in an argument do in the long run?

Your little zero sum game in dealing with ‘feminism as a whole is evil’ just exhibits your limited intellectual approach on important issues effecting the world. Problems do exists. Blaming a small group as the source of all evil is a shortcut to the behavior of demagogues.

Do you understand the difference between an ad hominem attack from a critique peppered with insults? See, an ad hominem attack would be a rant full of insults lacking content. Have you noticed the response to my comments from the other contributors on Amy's site? I can assure you they are not mindless zombies living under the evil spell of feminism.

Do you understand the political definition of a victim, victim hood, the cult of the victim or victimlogy? If I have a low tolerance of whiney feminists? What do you think my views would be towards whiney MRAs?

I will end my comment on a quote from one of my favorite American philosophers, Eric Hoffer: “I can understand your anger, but WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?”

Solutions and not rants. By the way… you are still whining.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2007 1:00 PM

1. You called me a "scumbucket'. Read your post. Then I am "making an ass of myself". Thats fine as a conclusion-- but you cannot specify any reasons. How does that further intelligent discussion ?
2. Of course you are arguing-- you somehow think that because your father survived prostate cancer, that that is relevant to my point. That point is the massive difference in financial investment by the federal governement in a cancer that affects women v one that affects men.
3. What "offensive "posts? Because you don't like them doesn't mean they are "offensive". You have to have an objective standard for offensive-- like calling someone a 'scumbucket".. I know -- stop him from posting !! Make him stop !

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 1:03 PM

Victimology, instead of victimlogy.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2007 1:05 PM


This also intrigued me:

One day you look on a milk carton and there you are a"Dead Beat Dad"-- the biggest myth ever perpetrated by anti-male feminists.

Are dead beat dads on milk cartons these days?

I thought it was just missing kids - wiki was no help at all.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 27, 2007 1:10 PM

Hehehehee! You, jayedwards, need to read my post! All I did was wonder if you were related to Jeff/Daniel/Martin/scumbucket, I didn't specifically call you one! Blew your cover, buddy! :)
And I was arguing nothing, just stating a fact. You started the argument.
Also, I didn't say I didn't like your posts, I said I was enjoying reading them and seeing you make an ass of yourself. They are offensive because they are full of vitriol, thus making them offensive to most normal people.

Posted by: Flynne at June 27, 2007 1:16 PM

By the way, Jay.

Don't think my beady green eyes have missed your ebbing foam.

You originally said: women do not support men's health research.

Now you've changed your complaint to: there's insufficient federal funding - comparitively - for prostate cancer research.

Big diff, Jay.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 27, 2007 1:17 PM

I would not lecture me on the law based on watching an episode of Cops. Since I have a law degree from the U of Texas I think I am in a better positon to talk about the law concerning DV and divorce and custody disputes. Take the gloves off-- was a reference to refusing to idly accept feminist abuse.
1. The Duluth model of DV holds that the man is always the aggressor and if the woman does anything it is self-defense. The man is virtually always arrested, even if he is lying on the floor bleeding and she has a pan in her hand. Most states have mandatory arrest policies and prosecution is mandatory even if the female wants to drop the charges. The presumption is that he is the aggressor. We have known for 20+ years that males and females are equally likely to iniate DV and females more likely to use a weapon.- I hope someone wants to challenge that--

2. I stand corrected on the cancer stats. Prostate cancer has a higher incidence , but breast cancer has a lower survival rate. These stats show I was incorrect that prostate canxcer kills more people a year. Also-- breast cancer strikes women at an earlier age , while prostate cancer is typically an older man's disease. So there might be some justification for a difference in investment in the two. That such a massive difference exists is not defensible. This is only one example-- how much money into boys committing suicide at 4 times the rate of girls? A researcher said he would love to reserch the issue, but there is no funding -- its going to research women and girls. There is something seriously wrong with that scenario. We have federal departments for Women's health-- but not Men's. The point is inescapable to any objective person.
3. Sexual Harrassment in the Workplace-- my point is its at the discretion of the mental state of the woman. The "hostile environment" prong of the law gives women virtual carte blanche.
4. Title IX-- the example was a joke. There is no debate anywhere that Title IX- and it s absurd 'proportionality posiion"-- has resulted in the elimination of men's sports programs all over the country.
5. Divorce-- are you seriously suggesting that divorce law is fair.... custody disputes ?.. She has no way to support herself ???!!!. Thats the old traditional set-up. Many women have it both ways whenever it suits their interests. Women get the children unless they come into court naked with a joint in their mouth and proposition the judge. ! She may yet-- if she undergoes counseling.
6. Feminism is the bastard offspring of crude marxism with men as the ruling clas and women as the proletariat. Its explicitly stated in all the feminist "classics" from the 60s and 70s. A central goal was the elimination of the family ( feminism is dedicated to the massive overhaul of the family as an instrument of patriarchial and capitalistic oppression) as well as capitalism.

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 1:51 PM

I do enjoy pushing Jay’s buttons and watching him fall into character. Reading his posts is like experiencing his own echo chamber in text format.

It was a needed change from the usual death threats I get from Muslim ’activists’ from Western Europe that spam my email account the last few weeks. I’m still laughing over the comments on my support of Hillary Clinton’s run for POTUS.

Thanks Jay. I needed a good gut busting laugh to make my Wednesday.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2007 1:58 PM

This is from the American Heritage Dictionary:

fem·i·nism (fěm'ə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the nonsense you've been spouting, "Jay Edwards" or whoever you are.

Posted by: Flynne at June 27, 2007 1:58 PM

Jody-- You cite one honorary dinner at which a few women were the presenters -- and think that is a refutation of my point that prostate cancer is undefunded compared to breast cancer. Still-- these are private efforts-- not governmental which I was mainly focused on.

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 1:59 PM

Great job Kimberly-- you got the facts-- which aids the discussion. I was wrong about there being a greater incidence of deaths from prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is more frequent, but less deadly. As I said, breast cancer strikes earlier and takes women in the prime of life, whereas prostate cancer typically affects older men, but not always. I had always thought the survival rate with breast cancer was lower, but the information I had was wrong.

Still-- your other post-- if you have heard these examples of inequities against men "over and over", why don't you work to stop them instead of telling men to "move on". DOn't you care about "equality". You acknowledge the sexism-- but you don't care because it doesn't affect you as a woman. That makes my point that feminists are not interested in equality and in fairness to men. Thank you.Give this woman a list of biased treatment and discrimnation against men and she yawns and says "Move On". She doesn't give a damn and she just said so.

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 2:10 PM

Thats hilarious-- you look in the dictionary for a one sentence definiton of "feminism"... you think that dictionary private, huge distribution) could write an accurate defintion of any socio-political movement-- especially a PC one like feminism ?.. Feminists write utopian novels about female-only societies reproducing by parthogensis and when a boy is accidentally born, they make fun of his "deformed 'genitals ( See Doris Lessing-- google it and read it !~!)

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 2:16 PM

Well- Joe-- I assume you laugh a lot because you couldn't park a bicycle straight intellectually. You must stay in hysterics, because people with IQs over 80 must bamboozle you all the time with their rigorous thought... I see you more as red-faced, teeth-clenched, arm waving, screaming obscenities at anyone who dare question your "views".
Hee- hee- push buttons ! Its like a turkey shoot. Watching all the irrational stuff pour out and just calmly answering it. You are a button , Joe. There's nothing there but reflexive posturing.
Once again-- your narcissism. Who cares about your e-mail adventures. Death threats ? What kind of arguments are you getting into... I imagine its a pathetic pose to show how oh so rational you are and how oh so bad are your benighted opponents. Delusional.
It does grow old-- only Kimberly presented any information. All the rest is childish Babinski's.

Posted by: jedwards at June 27, 2007 2:29 PM


It is a classic tactic to provide an easy target or scapegoat for complex problems within our society and the world. You’ve probably already guessed it too.

My earlier post on the USA and the world is going through a collaborative phase between the sexes. This has happened 10,000 years ago when existence was harsh, bleak and short. So it was quite natural for women to assist the men within hunter/gatherer groups and early agricultural-centered settlements. What is the differences from then and now? Huge. All the aspects of technological achievement, easy access to education, representative government, increased standards of living and so on. Who is threatened by this collaborative phase of humanity? Anyone who has had favored in-group status over the centuries.

Now people like Jay blame feminism for the hiccups of society, while it is going through this particular phase of existence. All he does is list the inequities, but does not offer any solutions. Hence, he is a one trick pony.

What he doesn't understand this particular phase is neither good nor evil, but inevitable. The planet doesn't care about the views of a poster who is a victim of his own imagined sense of self importance.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2007 2:34 PM

Jody-- try reading my post-- I specifically say that prostate cancer receives 1/3 the funding of breast cancer. That is the disproportionality I spoke of. The thought by the fellow watching TV was just that-- a thought. Its hard to quantify "women don't care"-- BUT YOU CAN MEASURE FEDERAL DOLLARS.

Posted by: JEDWARDS at June 27, 2007 2:37 PM

Take a look at While it does suport your argument that feminists are rallying against these changes they are strill occuring. I'm not going to challenge you on the weapons issue that's well documented.
Title 9 maybe badly applied by the school. If you want to claim the universities are Marxsist I will not argue. The behavior of Academic staff is a huge pet peiv of mine.
No sexual harassment is not at the discretion of the women. If the company wrongly dismisses him for harassment then he can and should file suite. Hostile environment is only really an issue in small companies. Large companies just move people around problem solved. Plus if she gets a reputation for doing this she'll have serious trouble finding work. No she won't be able to legitamatly sue the company because any boos worth her/his salt will find a different reason not to hire her. She can sue all she wants so can the man. Your the lawyer you should know that. Judges have bias in these cases but you can find instances where it has gone both ways. Look it up Lexusnexis I don't have a subscrition. If you do lets take a peak at the stats and the changes in the rulings over time, I'm actually quite curious.

Women have it both ways? No different women do things differently I agree. Like I said I don't trust house wives because the court get put in a nasty position. What is the judge supposed to do is she's 45 and has been a house wife all her life? She either gets spousal support or we as tax payers support her.

There is a womens health department because besides a prostate and a pair of danglies (plus twig) men have the same equipment. Men don't suffer from hormone flux normally. Prostate cancer is the only really invasive procedure. Work on the danglies (plus twig) are simpler for mechanical reasons. Oh, men don't get menopause which comes with a stack of problems I could spend all day on. This institute exists for the practical reasons. Plus men are less likely to use the services anyway.

Posted by: Vlad at June 27, 2007 2:44 PM


Do me the tiny courtesy of reading what I actually wrote?

I specifically put it in bold that I was refuting your claim that women don't support research into men's health.

So it is nonsense for you then to write: "You cite one honorary dinner at which a few women were the presenters -- and think that is a refutation of my point that prostate cancer is undefunded compared to breast cancer."

You brought up the comparative funding note as an afterthought - which I took pians to point out I was not addressing.

You also write: Its explicitly stated in all the feminist "classics" from the 60s and 70s...


Why on earth are you contemptuously citing ideological statements almost half a century out-of-date?

You don't appear to read rebuttals properly, you move your arguments when cornered, you mix the anecdotal with sarcastic "jokes" - and you shout about texts that are practically historical documents.

No wonder you're getting hosed here.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 27, 2007 2:47 PM

jedwards, my only qualm is the generalizations. Which make you guilty of the same thing 60 and 70 feminists were guilty of. I made the mistake of taking a grad level womens studies class. As you can guess there were mostly women. Yeah a few of them were exactly what you claim is the vast majority of feminists. However most of the women there (12 out of 15) were quite confused about where the militants were coming from. They didn't hate men and were appaled when single gender generalizations were made. The man hatred was lead by one of the students who first went to school in the 70s. So if this was the 70s I'd agree with you but that era has passed.
Also why do a few names of the feminist movement stand, if all of the feminists were as bad as you claim then wouldn't those specific names be lost in the crowd?

Posted by: Vlad at June 27, 2007 2:57 PM

>Still-- your other post-- if you have heard these examples of inequities against men "over and over", why don't you work to stop them instead of telling men to "move on". DOn't you care about "equality". You acknowledge the sexism-- but you don't care because it doesn't affect you as a woman. That makes my point that feminists are not interested in equality and in fairness to men. Thank you.Give this woman a list of biased treatment and discrimnation against men and she yawns and says "Move On". She doesn't give a damn and she just said so.

I fear your logic is a bit faulty here. I didn't say I didn't care about inequality, I said I don't like the constant whining from people about their victimhood. I give a damn about the inequalities, not the bitching. I also never claimed to be a feminist, so holding me up as an example of one is flawed. And why would my gender make me incapable of caring about the rights of men? I have men I love, so of course the problems affect me.

Why do you assume I don't "work to stop them"? You know nothing about what I do in life, so that assumption is presumptuous.

Now I'm going to stop trying to argue with someone who uses the language of logic without understanding the words.

His comments about your lack of intelligence gave me a good laugh, too. Apparently he's missed your many comments on this blog.

Posted by: Kimberly at June 27, 2007 3:17 PM

I don't know about the leagl remifications. I believe at least some of the date rape drugs can be tested using hair folicle tests. I don't know if these are legally addmisible. Also if she does other illegal substances they will show up and kill her cridibility on the stand. However if a date rape drug was used it would explain the odd behavior before she left his place. It depends on the dose used and her ability to metabolise the drug. She could have still been under the influence of the drug. However if the did a DNA test on the vomit they could also have tested for traces of the drug in the vomit I think. I'm not sure if they can test for all of these substances or if the are admissible in court.

Posted by: Vlad at June 28, 2007 7:02 AM

I'm just curious about the glass(?) vial being broken in the mail. I work for a biotech company in the research facility, and we send out vials (admittedly, they're not all glass) all the time, in padded envelopes. Interesting how this particular one got "broken in the mail". Hmmmmmm.

Posted by: Flynne at June 28, 2007 7:19 AM


Poor Jay is missing a great deal besides our well thought comments on the subject matter. No one can have a great life full subsisting on a diet of venom and filth.

Posted by: Joe at June 28, 2007 7:23 AM

I was wondering that too, Flynne. The packaging for our vials is in a protective padding and there are always duplicates in case of accidents. Also, we use only private carriers. If it is a local lab... someone at my bio-tech company's shipping department would drop it off themselves.

I lived in Washington DC. There are plenty of labs where anyone can drop off the vials in person or get a recommendation through the DC prosecutor's office. Unfortunately, I do not know the legal protocal in handling a similar situation.

Posted by: Joe at June 28, 2007 7:34 AM

Well, I for one have to revise my earlier opinion. If this is true, Pamir Safi is an ass.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 28, 2007 9:07 AM

That was my question, too, Flynne and Joe. Sorry to have been largely absent from the discussion until now. I was getting my book chapter and proposal to my agent so she can sell my book. Last couple of days have been mad writing days.

Anyway, it would seem to me tremendously irresponsible and terrible policy if materials in a case of accused rape are sent through the mail. And if a sample does go out through the mail, wouldn't it be an obvious safety measure that another vial should be kept in storage somewhere?

Any lawyers, cops, or others with experience in this area who can comment on this?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 28, 2007 10:03 AM

There is only so much protection you can give to a sample vial. I worked at a company that used water vials to absorb chemicals in the air. We had a heavy armored box with a foam insert that was designed to fit the bottles. We still had some (though rare) breakage problems.

Posted by: Vlad at June 28, 2007 10:42 AM

Well, Pamir Safi is still an ass if he was guilty or innocent.

You don't need large amounts of alcohol or a drug to seduce a woman. A drink could make a person more lucid and less guarded. Intelligence, humor, worldly experiences, charm and confidence can finish what the drink started.

If it doesn't work on a particular woman... you move on to the next.

Posted by: Joe at June 28, 2007 11:25 AM

Don't really understand this part:

"I am fighting for all women (you included) to at least have the liberty to state under oath what they believed happened. At this point, it is a free speech issue. I gather by your remarks you'd be livid if the defendant was mandated by the courts to testify that it was rape - a victim should receive the same rights."

I'm not seeing how compromising the chain of custody on her rape kit is preventing her from presenting her case in court. She can still testify. Even without a criminal conviction, a civil case remains a viable option as well. Nothing is preventing her from speaking out.

It sucks that she won't have the best physical evidence available, but cases go to trial all the time without the best evidence. As in baseball, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains.

Posted by: snakeman99 at June 28, 2007 7:02 PM

Thought I would check back but no one makes any intelligent argument -- and we have a truly bizarre metaphysical argument. Its hard to determine the writing is so incoherent-- about an historical "collaborative phase" between the sexes and feminism is just the "hiccups"( dehumanizing and expressing contempt and hatred for men )in the inevitable transition to .. Nirvana. And the previous "in group", eg, men ? are threatened by this transition ?
This is so inane it is not worth addressing. It sounds like those matriarchial myths of the feminists where mean old men and the patriarchy will be displaced by .. equality they say, but, in reality, a society that is gynocentrict ( a society focused on the needs and problems of women) and misandric ( focused on the evils and inadequacies of men).
There has never been a human society that was not a patriarchy and the evolved differences between the genders mean they will never be one in the foreseable ten thousand years.....The only adaptation modern humans have known is the hunter/gather one and our genetic structure was molded in that environment. Recent technological changes are irrelevant. Read a book on evolution and evolutionary psychology. This bizarre mysticism is just funny.
I love the idea that I am being "hosed" ! Its like a turkey shoot. "Joe" is apparently considered the resident "intellectual".. I think that reveals it all.
A "classic tactic"== its called argument-- stating propositions, supporting them by facts and then drawing conclusions !
"Critique peppered with insults"-- sorry-- my argument contains no insults, though my response may. "Vitriol"== read the irrational responses-- thats where the vitriol lies.
I treasure the idea that no Mens Health Department is needed because we have a Women's Health one and men are the same except anatomically. That is just too ignorant to even address. Men and women have different health needs and they should each be addressed with equal vigor and funding. WOW-- what vitriol that is ! Its so offensive ! What a tactic
I cite the feminist "classics"-- because they are the basis for modern feminism and are mandatory reading in most Women' s Studies" classes. They are irrational, incoherent hate-filled diatibes that no rational and moral person can stomach. Read them-- pick up Firestone-- its on Amazon-- "The Dialectic of Sex"... Hmmm- Men are incapable of Love according to MS Firestone...
Anyone check the Doris Lessing feminist fantasy book-- all female world, asexual reproduction to ensure only females and a male birth is treated as a deformity. Thats pure hate. Defend it Joe. Is that the society that feminism is a "hiccup " toward.
Jody-- the milk cartoon was a joke-- pictures of" Dead beat Dads" were placed on pizza boxes in one city.

Posted by: jedwards at July 2, 2007 9:22 PM

>There has never been a human society that was not a patriarchy and the evolved differences between the genders mean they will never be one in the foreseable ten thousand years

Actually there have been, and still are, matriarchal societies. Also matrifocal and egalitarian (completely equal) societies.

The Pueblo tribes (Hopi, Zuni, Laguna)
The ancient Egyptians
The early Iroquois
The San
The Batek
The Tuareg
The Vanatinai
The Mosuo

This list is a small one, but a good starting point. Interestingly, one group that often tries to deny the existence of historical matriarchies is strident feminists. Better to believe "evil men" have always oppressed women, I guess.

I won't even get into your prophecy about the next ten thousand years. I, for one, don't claim to see into the future.

Posted by: Kimberly at July 3, 2007 12:45 PM

That is pure mythology. No one seriously doubts or can prove a matriachy existed or exists.There is not now nor has there ever been a matriarchy-- if you have any evidence of one , please report to your local Anthropology Department , as they would become famous for verifying the first known matriarchy. See- "The Inevitability of Patriarchy ", Goldberg, 1973 and "Why Men Rule", Goldberg, a recent summary. Men have always dominated positions of social , economic and political power in every knowm human society and that this is a human adaptation is virtually certain.

Ten thousand years-- its not a "prophecy"-- its the result of the genetic basis of sex differences that has evolved over the millenia. No change in the fundamental relationship between the sexes will occur , unless significant genetic changes occur in the population.

Posted by: jedwards at July 3, 2007 5:59 PM

Its pretty basic , but consult "Patriarchy " in good ole Wikipedia.--
"there are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history... the consensus among modern anthropolgists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchail society never existed." Even good ole liberal sociologist/ feminist Margaret Mead said " all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense... men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. Men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home".
Just as an aside-- what exactly would men do if they did not strive to attain economic, social and political power ? Men compete in the offspring production sweepstakes by garnering economic resources etc. that women find attractive. Women compete by having the more youthful appearance and figure that connote child-bearing ability and that men find attractive. This inter-sex competiton for the best of the other sex means attainment is always important for men and rarely for women.. hence universal patriarchy..
Now get my pipe and slippers and be quick about it ..... while I look at these pics of shapely young lasses in Playboy..

Posted by: jedwards at July 3, 2007 6:29 PM

You're seriously going to argue anthropology based on Wikipedia? Oy.

Let's take the Navajo (who, in case you don't know STILL EXIST). They are a matrilocal society (look it up). Not a matriarchy, certainly, but also not a patriarchy by any stretch.

There is, indeed, debate about the existence of purely matriarchal societies. Debate. Many anthropologists are very certain they existed, others argue against them. There is not, however, much debate that there are matrilocal and egalitarian societies. Which are NOT patriarchies, so your "universal patriarchy" idea is just not so, regardless of whether there are/were actual matriarchies (I'm in the pro side of that debate, by the way, though there are way too many flakes on my side).

Posted by: Kimberly at July 3, 2007 8:10 PM

Patriachy is universal-- they are no known exceptions and one has never been established. Matrilocality merely means the husband goes to live with the wife and her relatives upon marriage-- the tribal and family leaders are all men in all known matrilocal societies. There has never been a "egalitarian" society, if you mean men and women share equally in socio-politico-economic power-- all known societies have been and are patriachies. This is the human condition.

Posted by: jedwards at July 4, 2007 1:17 PM

Matrilocal actually means quite a bit more than that, but frankly I'm too tired tonight to go into it.

As far as egalitarian societies never existing, you're just wrong. One example I can think of are the natives of Vanatinai in New Guinea. There are others, but again, I'm tired, and you wouldn't change your mind if you were dropped into one of the legendary tribes of Amazons.

Posted by: Kimberly at July 4, 2007 10:06 PM

Right-- I am the one irrationally refusing to accept ascientific verity. Patriarchy is not an evil. Its the human condition. ..

Why all these tribes in distant lands--lets see-- the british, the germans, the japanese, the french, the Russians, the Chinese... see anything there ?

Posted by: jedwards at July 7, 2007 2:34 AM

... or maybe we should value sex and consider that: Sex is a serious act, and you'd better be damn sure somebody's consented to it before you proceed.

Anyone who'd f*** an unconscious woman is at best a desperate loser and more likely a total creep.

Sex is important, and no amount of inventive casual language can ever change the truth.

Posted by: Laurel Farrell at September 11, 2007 7:51 AM

Leave a comment