Jian Ghomeshi is a women's studies grad, so I am pretty sure he understands what happened to him was necessary to stop men from raping women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jian_Ghomeshi

I expect to see him at the front of the next slut walk and feminist bake sale raising funds for safe spaces and to help us all understand that freedom of speech supports the patriarchy.

Activists often claim that the number of false accusations is between 2 percent and 10 percent.

The FBI says 8%. Distressingly enough, the actual number is probably even higher.

Feminists are quick to point our that some actual rape victims might recant because they no longer wish to endure the stress of engaging the police on this. Of course, that works both ways, which they are not so ready to admit. A false accuser, not having truly suffered the trauma of actual rape, might be quite willing to proceed to the end. Especially since we're so unwilling to punish false accusers.

Add to that these new "definitions" of rape that come creeping up. Like if a woman sleeps with a man voluntarily, then later regrets it, it's rape. Or, if a man persuades a woman to sleep with him, though she doesn't want to, that's also supposed to be rape.

Following that logic, if I don't want to lend someone money, but he talks me into it, I've been robbed.

Activists often claim that the number of false accusations is between 2 percent and 10 percent.

The FBI says 8%. Distressingly enough, the real number is probably even higher.

Feminists are quick to point out that some legitimate rape victims might recant because they no longer wish to endure the stress of engaging with the police. What they're not so ready to admit is that that works both ways. A false accuser, not having actually been raped, might be quite willing to see the process through to the end, especially since we're so unwilling to punish false accusers.

What is the actual percentage? We may never know.

Ghomeshi is a Muslim. All he needs to do is claim that he had a sexual emergency and that these brave women helped him in a time of need.

Wut? hey, if it works for Syrian "refugees" in Europe, shouldn't it work in Canada?

Yeah, good luck with that.

The current approach allows accusers to apply all of society's negative opinion of rapists to the accused while remaining anonymous, while suffering (as we see here) no negative consequences for accusations which are false or 'misremembered'. Even if their accusation turns out to be unprovable or (as we see here) demonstrably at variance with the facts or their prior testimony, accusers will be shielded from any negative impacts, up to and including prosecution. Some of the women in the Ghomeshi case sailed up to the very edge of perjury, and maybe beyond. Not one will be prosecuted, and they will suffer no negative societal consequences since they can remain forever anonymous, by the power of a court order.

More and more cases that involve accusations against a higher-profile individual, or against members of unfavored groups, seem to fall apart in spectacular ways when they actually come to be tested. There's a case going on right now against the captain of the Yale basketball team that seems to be descending into some sort of Kafkaesque farce. Seems like, more often than not, these cases have to do with revenge or vengeance, and more and more often it seems like there is either a closed relationship or another woman in the mix somewhere.

This really doesn't do real victims any favors. When every other case that makes the headlines descends into this sort of laughable nonsense, the end result is to discourage real victims from reporting their attacks.

Incidentally - if we're supposed to 'believe the women' and that women 'never lie about rape' - why isn't Bill Clinton rotting in an Arkansas penitentiary right now? There's no clearer evidence that many of these accusations against high-profile figures or members of unfavored groups are not criminal cases, but political acts, that will be decided on political terms.

llater,

llamas

Add to that these new "definitions" of rape that come creeping up. Like if a woman sleeps with a man voluntarily, then later regrets it, it's rape. Or, if a man persuades a woman to sleep with him, though she doesn't want to, that's also supposed to be rape.

Dont forget, if you refuse to have sex with a woman who has propositioned you it is both rape and domestic violence.

Dont forget, if you refuse to have sex with a woman who has propositioned you it is both rape and domestic violence.

Thanks for the addition, lujlp. I'm not doubting you for an instant that some feminists are just that far gone, but I've never heard this before. Where did you get this from?

In light of the recent MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way; pronounce MIG-toe) movement and more and more men refusing to get married, I don't expect it will be long before women start suing men to force them into marrying them.

Part of the problem is in the first sentence. They are accusers and only possibly victims. Until the court case is over, you don't know who the actual victim is.

"There's a case going on right now against the captain of the Yale basketball team that seems to be descending into some sort of Kafkaesque farce. "

The really ironic thing about this case is that it turns out to be the ultimate in third-party complaint cases. Who filed the complaint? Not the woman who had sex with him. Not one of her friends. The complaint was filed by the school's Title IX compliance officer. So the OCR is not only the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, it is now also the plaintiff.

In that Canadian case all three women lied about having contact with him after their rapes, two lied about continuing to fuck him after their rapes, one lied about being raped in a car he didnt even own until 6-8 months after the supposed rape. One claimed she didnt remember requesting to be fucked AFTER the rape

The biggest flaw in the "never question a rape victim" narrative is cops cant even investigate the claims to see if they can even survive scrutiny for fear of being labeled rape supporters

I've never heard this before. Where did you get this from?

A couple years ago several colleges had "withholding sex and affection" labeled as sexual violence and domestic violence in their campus code of conduct rules

Move along. Nothing to see here.

That is, until WOMEN start getting summarily expelled. Then, it will be a crisis.

Lujlp, Patrick write respectively:

if you refuse to have sex with a woman who has propositioned you it is both rape and domestic violence.

I don't expect it will be long before women start suing men to force them into marrying them.

Please, please don't give them any ideas!

Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be the sweet, blissful stupidity of animals, molluscs and the gods. Human Stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones.

-- Henry de Montherlant (1896-1972), "Notebooks"

Cousin Dave touches on the Yale case against their former basketball captain. I posted a linkie in today's link thread, and I snarked that since this was done by Yale itself that he should ask for 1% of their endowment. I think that endowment is on the or

"order of $25 billion" (Yale's endowment)

That's what I get for not properly proffing my postes beofre hitting submit.

In light of the recent MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way; pronounce MIG-toe) movement and more and more men refusing to get married, I don't expect it will be long before women start suing men to force them into marrying them.

Patrick at March 29, 2016 10:39 AM
_____________________________________

I think it's actually pronounced mig-tao - by some men on Youtube, anyway.

And while American women have probably been worrying about the shortage of men who want to become fathers ever since Hugh Hefner started promoting bachelorhood as a career in the 1950s (or maybe even earlier, when children started becoming less and less of an economic asset), at least those men who call themselves MGTOW tend to save would-be wives and mothers from wasting their time, by making their intentions clear AND by taking more responsibility for their own fertility, whether they ever have sex without paying for it or not. Besides, I think it's safe to say that on average, a single woman (not teen) who wants a baby does NOT want to have one with a man who's made it clear he doesn't want one. Same goes for a woman who wants a long-term relationship, with or without children - if she already knows a particular man is averse to that, she likely won't try to date him anyway and can find someone different all the more quickly.

Not to mention that there's no indication (yet) that MGTOW tend to be significantly richer, better educated, or even as LIKEABLE as non-MGTOW, so why do they think women are going to get any more nervous than they already are about the shortage of "good men"?

On top of that, plenty of women from all economic levels choose to become single mothers even before they get pregnant, so MGTOW mean nothing to those women.

On top of that, plenty of women from all economic levels choose to become single mothers even before they get pregnant, so MGTOW mean nothing to those women.

Unless they expect the fathers to help pay for the children. So, yes, the MGTOWers obviously would mean something to those women.

And the MGTOW movement doesn't seem to be a new name for a trend that's always been with us, at least not to this degree. It seems to be a response to third-wave feminism's criminalizing being male. Men simply don't want to deal with this (and who could blame them?), so they are going on a mass exodus from the traditional marriage route.

Won't be too long before these same feminists who are driving men away from them will resort first to shaming them: "Whattsamatter? Can't deal with a strong, capable, independent woman [read: who refuses to be enslaved by patriarchal standards of beauty that would require her to weigh less than 300 pounds]?"

When that fails, expect them to start lobbying Congress to pass laws requiring men to get married, even if they don't want to, on the grounds that a woman has a right to get married if she wishes. It's all about their wants, don'tcha know?

Expect women to start approaching single men, "Well, I wanna get married, so you have to marry me or I'll sue you."

You know perfectly well that "lobbying Congress" will never happen.

While there's nothing to be said in favor of obesity (or near-obesity), when huge numbers of men ignore any woman who doesn't look like a fashion model, they're bound to get unpleasant consequences. (This, often, has to do with watching too much porn, where fat women seldom exist - as Dan Savage said: "Porn is to sex what TV is to real life.")

Namely, when beautiful women get even more attention than they already do, many see no reason to keep up their basic standards of common courtesy when they just don't have to.

Example (this was posted at the IMDb on March 26th):

"One of the worst people I've ever met"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000224/board/thread/255276360?d=255276360#255276360

"I was a fan of (Alicia) Silverstone for years. I don't necessarily think she's a great actor (because she isn't), but I've always found her charming on screen. So last year, when I heard she'd be spending time on a set on which I was working, I was stoked. Her career may have dwindled, but she's an extremely beautiful woman, with a smile that could melt stone, and I was looking forward to meeting her in person.

"And then I met her.

"In this business, you can't help but meet a lot of a-holes. There are many people, both in front of and behind the camera, who think their shyte doesn't stink. Meeting such types is an unavoidable job hazard. But this... wow.

"I have never met such a rude, obnoxious, self-entitled, condescending, bitchy excuse for a human being. She wasn't even a member of the cast--she was just visiting--and yet she acted like she was the most important person in the room, bossing people around and making demands. She insulted several folks on the set, she was openly hostile to anyone who dared to speak to her, and she very clearly looked down on all of us. Now, keep in mind that Silverstone hasn't done anything of consequence in many years, whereas pretty much everyone involved in the production have never stopped working. Even those of us who aren't household names because we work behind the scenes (I'm a script editor) have been working consistently throughout all the years that she has been unable to find any roles. So the disconnect between her diva attitude and the reality of her actual (non-existent) importance in Hollywood was staggering.

"There were many guys on the set who were excited at the news that she'd be visiting. We'd all seen how adorable she was in Clueless and Blast from the Past, and it's hard not to have a crush on her after seeing those films. Within an hour after her arrival, however, pretty much everyone couldn't wait for her to leave. What a complete and utter nightmare. The person she was visiting ended up apologizing to everyone for her behavior, promising that she'd not be invited back. As for me, I can only hope I never work with her on any film or TV production... and I think it's safe to say that I don't have to worry about that happening."

Umm . . . Patrick they already go "Whattsamatter? Can't deal with a strong, capable, independent woman [read: who refuses to be enslaved by patriarchal standards of beauty that would require her to weigh less than 300 pounds]?" They've been doing it for over a decade. Your other predictions are already seriously discussed in gender studies circles.

Your post really calls out for Morgan Freeman saying "He's right, you know."

Lenona,

You really need to let go of your blinders and look at this dispassionately. The US has a sex ratio of 1.05. If you are aiming for stable monogamous marriage the US can lose ~16 million men before it affects women. Sounds like a huge number, but it is only 5% of the population (10% of men). The US never married percentage of men is over 23% and rising. Well over the 10% of men women can safely dispose of. (And it's rising.)

You bring up single motherhood as some great solution (I notice single fatherhood is not even a consideration). Last I checked you need a male and a female to conceive. Those mothers have to get sperm donors from somewhere. Implicit in your argument is that those sperm donors are also economic donors, which is a mistake. A part of this MGTOW movement is economic protection as well. Those 23% of never married are close to the never paid child support percentage. Instead both by preference and by opportunity women have shrunk the pool of sperm/money donors.

Step back and look at what you are advocating. It is a harem. A few men have children from a number of women they don't live with. A large number of men don't have children. You are pushing for a patriarchal polygamous society! Take a gander at the history of such societies. I don't think you'll like what happens to the women in them.

Lenona,

In response to your 7:15 post, "when huge numbers of men ignore any woman who doesn't look like a fashion model, they're bound to get unpleasant consequences. (This, often, has to do with watching too much porn, where fat women seldom exist"

You have this backwards. No matter how wonderful a movie is (and the women in porn are not that great to look at) a full 3-D model is better. Men turn to porn because they cannot get as much sex as they want from real flesh and blood women. Men do not turn away from real women because porn is so alluring.

Men can be shamed in to killing and dying as long as you respect them for doing it. Men cannot be shamed into marrying when all they have to hope for is looking like Homer Simpson or Ray Barone. That is the source of MGTOW.

And, while I haven't read Kay Hymowitz's "Manning Up," I understand that the complaint against it has to do with the unspoken message that it's OK for women never to marry or have children if they don't want to, but not for men. Seems to me that all men have to do is point out the double standard - and add, maybe, that men aren't afraid of commitment, they're just afraid of divorce court. "Wouldn't you be? How would you like to see your brother go through a typical divorce court?"

You bring up single motherhood as some great solution (I notice single fatherhood is not even a consideration). Last I checked you need a male and a female to conceive. Those mothers have to get sperm donors from somewhere. Implicit in your argument is that those sperm donors are also economic donors, which is a mistake.
__________________________________________

I never implied ANY of those things. Jeez.

I merely said that deliberate single motherhood exists. Not that it's a good idea (as I may have mentioned before, at least two problems with it are the implication that childrearing is strictly women's work and that men shouldn't have to be involved or supportive if they don't want to).

Women who get accidentally pregnant by their long-term boyfriends (and give birth) naturally expect child support, but women who already WANT to have babies outside of marriage are far more likely to accept the idea that they may have to feed and raise their kids all by themselves. If they can't use a sperm clinic for whatever reason, adopting a baby isn't as hard as one might think (mainly because infertile couples will often go to every fertility clinic possible before trying to adopt). Not to mention the relative ease of adopting a child from the thousands of foster kids desperately waiting.

I admit, I have no idea just how many single mothers planned it with no expectation of support, or how many agreed well in advance with their boyfriends that the latter would be involved and supportive (I know two women who have done just that and everyone seems happy; one family has two kids and the other has three). I'd guess that in most cases, however, one parent or the other is not quite happy with how things turned out.

"This, often, has to do with watching too much porn, where fat women seldom exist."

You haven't seen very much porn lately... just sayin'.

"In light of the recent MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way; pronounce MIG-toe) movement and more and more men refusing to get married, I don't expect it will be long before women start suing men to force them into marrying them."

Patrick, we gay men are the ultimate MGTOWS and feminists have hated us for that from the beginning:
http://www.genderratic.net/?p=912
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM

These women's attitude towards their sexual entitlement to men is what they would call "rape culture" if they had a shred of honesty.

"In light of the recent MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way; pronounce MIG-toe) movement and more and more men refusing to get married, I don't expect it will be long before women start suing men to force them into marrying them."

Patrick, we gay men are the ultimate MGTOWS and feminists have hated us for that from the beginning:
http://www.genderratic.net/?p=912
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM

These women's attitude towards their sexual entitlement to men is what they would call "rape culture" if they had a shred of honesty.

Men turn to porn because they cannot get as much sex as they want from real flesh and blood women. Men do not turn away from real women because porn is so alluring.

Ben at March 30, 2016 7:24 AM
________________________________________

And laziness (as in mediocre social skills) has nothing to do with it?

As Dan Savage could have added (but didn't), just as plenty of young people watch too much TV and get their perception warped because they can't be bothered with the trouble of being active rather than socially passive (especially given that being active means NOT having the world revolve around you), so too, many people get hooked on porn or romance novels because they don't want to deal with the work and complications that come with flesh and blood experiences. On a slightly different note, even very popular men are known to hire hookers, for just that reason. (Not to mention men who are rich but also very unpopular.)

Classic Lenona. You make a poor argument. Then you claim you didn't. And then you blame all men.

"and add, maybe, that men aren't afraid of commitment, they're just afraid of divorce court."

Do you know any men? If so do you listen to them or are they just poseable dolls to add color to the room? What you just said is a cliche it is so old. Men do say that. They say it all the time. That you don't know this says a depressing amount about you.

"Not to mention the relative ease of adopting a child from the thousands of foster kids desperately waiting." You are black? Or is it that you have zero experience with adoption.

You think that most single mothers went to a sperm clinic? How isolated is that bubble you live in?

At first I thought your bit about Silverstone was a complete non sequitur. But accidentally you just described the roots of MGTOW. Most men view most women how you described Alicia Silverstone. Which is why there is another cliche, 'No matter how hot she is, someone out there is sick of dealing with her shit.' Type it into Google. You'll get ~700k hits.

This mates with my favorite phrase 'Money doesn't change people. It just lets them show the world how big of an asshole they always were.' Family court is so biased to women that they act like Silverstone on a regular basis. That power lets them get away with unacceptable behavior. In response men are bowing out (MGTOW). You can call them all the names you want (And laziness (as in mediocre social skills)) but it doesn't change a thing.

"and add, maybe, that men aren't afraid of commitment, they're just afraid of divorce court."

But that's a rational fear. A man can be the absolutely perfect husband, do everything right, and still get taken to the cleaners financially, not to mention losing most of what makes his life worthwhile (family, kids, house, job, respect).

Someone will come back at this point and say, "well, he should have chosen better." Issues with that: (1) It's sex-hypocritical; no one ever says that to a wife whose husband is abusive to her; (2) Most men today are taught that they must be subservient in a relationship, and cannot question their mate's judgment or character; (3) cluster B's can be damn good at keeping the mask on until their intended victim has no recourse, and this goes for both sexes.

Men do say that. They say it all the time. That you don't know this says a depressing amount about you.
__________________________________

I'm not in the habit of discussing issues that could be painful to the person I'm talking with face to face. One example would be a Polish man in his 80s whom I see regularly; if he was ever in a concentration camp, he'll tell me about that when he wants to. So I also don't talk to divorced men about their divorces or single men about why they aren't married.

Aside from that, how many individual men - such as famous ones - say that cliche to the mainstream media as opposed to saying it only online? I'm more likely to hear the line "men don't pay women for sex; they pay them to leave."

It's also possible that ever since my TV broke down a long time ago, I'm less likely to hear tawdry tales in general that aren't really news, since I have to rely on radio shows and newspapers instead.
___________________________________

"Not to mention the relative ease of adopting a child from the thousands of foster kids desperately waiting." You are black? Or is it that you have zero experience with adoption.
____________________________________

Dan Savage (who's white), who adopted a newborn with his future husband, was the one who said (in his book "The Kid") that it would be relatively easy to adopt a foster kid instead - and that was, I think, back when he was still assuming that he'd have to wait longer than the heterosexual couples, but as it turned out, he and Terry got picked by the birth mother in just a few months because they were probably the youngest couple in the pool (Dan was 33 and Terry was likely 26).
___________________________________

You think that most single mothers went to a sperm clinic? How isolated is that bubble you live in?
____________________________________

Don't lie, I never said "most."

If you look back, you'll notice that I was referring specifically to those women who are not pregnant, want to get pregnant but DON'T want to get married. I would assume that most such women are not just going to trick a man into fatherhood, so IF she can't find a man who's agreeable, even when she doesn't want child support (and many pre-planners don't), I was simply pointing out that even then, she has other options that will get her a baby or a child without burdening any man who wants his freedom.

And, again, I'm talking about women, not teen girls. In their cases, all bets are off.

About this: "How About Nobody Gets Punished First In The Press?"...

That's what the press can sell, because this is what the public wants: dirty laundry.

Rewards are so tenuous in daily life that milions of Americans look to the misbehavior of others to feel good about themselves. You're not going to see one newspaper succeed selling good news.

We buy our own filth and fear constantly, and it has to be sustained. Not only will we cheer madly when someone is arrested for some heinous crime, many of us will actually think we see evidence on television shows about the case.
Nope.
Yet suggesting that brings abuse, because an opinion we form based on a TV show is too precious to challenge.

Best data to date of artificial insemination I could find (and I agree it is woefully out of date) puts the number at under 60k/year. By comparison there are ~4M children born each year in the US. So 1.5% of children at most fit your example. This is a non sequitur.

"Dan Savage (who's white), who adopted a newborn with his future husband, was the one who said ..."

Typical Lenona bullshit. Woman, when you quote someone to support your argument they are your words too. You don't get to pull someone else's words without disavowing them and then get to disavow them later. As for Dan, great for him. He's a lucky ducky. For the rest of us mere mortals adoption takes 2-7 years, typically on the long side. And that is only if it is successful. If you are the wrong color you may as well give up. Adoption agencies say they aren't racist but they clearly are. And if the birth mother fights things you probably will never adopt. Pulling a single anecdote which should be clear it is not typical and presenting it as typical is dishonest.

I think you are a good egg Lenona, but as I said you live in an incredibly insular bubble. For gods sake you still believe the NYTimes! You saw them label Garland a centrist. If Garland is a centrist then so is Obama. And god help me Hillary is part of the vast rightwing conspiracy!

Once again, you're ignoring the details of what I said.

Maybe I should have spelled it out a bit. Dan almost certainly didn't mean he would have gotten a kid in even less time than a few months had he chosen to adopt a foster child; for one thing, when you do that, IIRC, you have to go through a good deal of "training" before they'll let you go through with it, since raising a foster kid is usually pretty problematic. It doesn't change the fact that there are far more foster kids available for adoption than healthy babies - and plenty of those foster kids are white, too. I see them in my local paper constantly.

Since Dan was choosing to adopt a healthy baby instead, he was expecting to be in the pool for three years or so, since that was what the agency was TELLING him and the other couples, who also did not want any foster children. (Of course, it's also possible that in the Northwest, where he lives, it typically takes less time to adopt a baby than you implied.) So it was quite a surprise when he and Terry got picked so soon instead - but it made sense, since most of the birth mothers wanted to pick religious couples (which Dan and Terry aren't), and Melissa, the young gutter-punk mother, considered most of the would-be adoptive parents (middle-aged, religious and suburban) to be "phony" and considered the young Dan and Terry to be more like the people she might know - hip, for one.

"The Kid" is very smooth reading, BTW, and gives a lot of information on adoption agencies. If there's anything DEFINITELY wrong with that particular info in the book, I'll be glad to hear it.

I'm ignoring your details because they are flat wrong or non sequiturs.

"plenty of women from all economic levels choose to become single mothers even before they get pregnant, so MGTOW mean nothing to those women."

Your words Lenona. Not a quote from anyone else. So what constitutes 'plenty'? Apparently less than 1.5%. By that metric someone with an annual income of $5k is making 'plenty' of money. Yes it is an option. But 'plenty of women' are not choosing it.

You bring up "that it would be relatively easy to adopt a foster kid instead" of an infant.

I agree. So what? Completely beside the point. I may as well mention Madagascar is a nation.

Also, (and I don't know why even) you bring up the relative speed Dan got his kid. Yay for Dan. That is a single data point. I quoted the national averages for you (~5 years).

I get that you are really enjoying Dan Savage's book. But I don't get anything else.

To get us back on topic: since we can't limit the press, how about limiting the damage that can result from "being tried in the press" by allowing those falsely accused to collect damages for libel from the false accuser (which would need to be made bankruptcy-proof so they will stick), and/or, banning an accused person's employer, school, landlord, etc. from kicking him out before conviction?

Then we can get seriously to work on the related problems of overcriminalization and plea bargaining (which essentially mean that an accusation is as good as a conviction, because most accused people are bullied into pleading guilty and get no due process).