Thanks.
Feminists Still Think Duke Players are Guilty
On Saturday, April 14th, I was interviewed for KMOV TV’s show “Extra Edition” (video) [1] about the charges being dropped in the Duke case.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the Duke case was a systemic pogrom exemplary of many other less-notable cases, Kathleen Hanrahan, director of St. Louis Regional Sexual Assault Center, (based in a YWCA building in Saint Louis) could not admit the case was false.
Hanrahan portrayed Crystal Mangum as being a poor single mother just “trying to make a living”. Radical women’s advocates are famous for pretending that stripping and prostitution are honorable employment options. These activities create no gross national product (GNP), but they do produce mass wreckage in their wake. These “careers” are integral drivers of self-elected welfare dependency and the feminist goal of replacing marriage with big government.
We know that false allegations misdirect governmental resources to attack innocent men, while legitimate cases fall by the wayside. Doubling injustice is not something radical feminist activists care about. After the interview, I shook hands with Kathleen and suggested that we work together to tighten up laws and procedures so agencies helping women do the right thing the majority of the time. Kathleen spit back “There is no chance that will ever happen”, and stomped off the set, leaving the host and producer with astonished looks on their faces.
We have massive evidence that Duke was not an aberration of justice. Other infamous cases that never should have happened involving well-known individuals such as Kobe Bryant[2], John Fund[3], and CNN’s Tucker Carlson[4] evidence what is going on behind closed doors all across America. Like the Duke case, these men were lucky too: they had the visibility and the economic resources to defend themselves.
The larger picture is ominous: according to leading prosecutors and researchers, at least 40% of rape allegations are false (recanted). This fact does not include cases that remain “in limbo” because evidence is too frail to prosecute even under reduced procedural and evidentiary standards applied to sexual assault cases. [5] [6] [7]
Congress must act to reform VAWA. Crucial language contained in the VAWA 2005 Reauthorization, that would have reformed VAWA substantially, was mysteriously removed. Nobody knows who did this because it is hidden deep in the Congressional record. I can predict who did: radical women’s advocates handing out payola generated by our tax dollars.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
————————————————-
[1] http://www.kmov.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=137519[2] Kobe Bryant, Rape Shield Laws, and the False Accusations Problem; http://www.hisside.com/3_21_04.htm
[3] False Rape Charges Hurt Real Victims, http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2003/000062.html
[4] Tucker Carlson and False Rape Allegations; http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2003/000062.html
[5] Kanin, Eugene J., Ph.D. “False Rape Allegations.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1994), pp 81-92.; http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html
[6] Sex, Lies, and Rape, Center For Military Readiness; http://www.cmrlink.org/social.asp?DocID=276
[7] Fairstein L. Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape. William Morrow & Company, 1993.
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
DadWith2Girls said,
Yes, I recall some silly language about making the VAWA reauthorization “gender neutral.”
It was a shill from the get-go; designed to allow male pols to say that they “supported including men” - or maybe just “not excluding men” -
from the funding for domestic violence services enacted in VAWA.
The VAWA grants — how the taxpayer’s money is dispensed in the prosecution of hetrosexuality and families - has not changed at all.
The rad-fems in gov federally, staes, and locally still call theshots.
Mr. Usher, after the language in VAWA has been legally reformed, you will still have to make your primary case ….
WHY SHOULD MEN MARRY?
You dodge this question, usually.
April 21, 2007 at 11:40 am
CaptDMO said,
I guess that makes her a one-trick chippy.
Sorry, it was just..there.
I can only wonder- How many of such ilk are part and party to judicial “education” seminars?
April 21, 2007 at 11:41 am
DadWith2Girls said,
I left out an “e” and a “t” and a spacebar…
These typos are all that is required to disqualify a bill before Congress.
April 21, 2007 at 11:46 am
Joi said,
Perhaps, we could learn something from them?
April 21, 2007 at 11:57 am
David R. Usher said,
1. The reform language initially in VAWA Reauthorization was quite good. This was dumbed down to a statement that said they could not deny funding to organiztions that help men. But this was removed too just before it was approved.
2. I have never avoided the question about why men should or should not get married. I am not going to tell men what to do, because that puts me in the position of messing up men as feminists do. I realistically point out that imarriage is a risky proposition, in western cultures, that a lot of men avoid these days because it is a risky proposition. But this is tempered by the fact that if men are smart, and choose a spouse wisely, they can do fine.
The key is in picking a woman who hates radical feminism, who understands the value of having a husband, who takes responsibility for her feelings and does not try to blame them on her man, and who does not have any personality disorders that are fatal to close relationships. Smart men avoid women who are ruled by their emotions (which is a nice word for “insanity”). They stick to women who have emotions and can talk about them rationally, but who in the end are rational in their behavior. Unfortunately, these are not criteria most men apply. Most men are attracted to trophy women, or “exciting” women, or like to feel powerful as a knight in shining armor saving the poor woman from the lifestyle she chose.
If you put an average man in a room with 100 women, the chances are he will pick the sick one every time. The nice gals, the ones who are not addicted to excitement, who just want a nice normal boring marriage, usually go overlooked.
Men who are serious about marriage (because it IS good for men), first have to get everything that is not normal out of their head, and not pick a woman until they know how to pick one.
April 21, 2007 at 12:00 pm
thurston861 said,
April 21, 2007 at 2:37 pm
thurston861 said,
Credibility is a commodity that they will lose and try to compensate with emotion and yelling (force).
I am surprised that she could say the words Crystal Gail Mangum without the light of truth burning her flesh.
Seems the defense of these people is to surrender their credibility.
That is a darned good start!
April 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm
fourthwire said,
The “victim” card played once again.
Perhaps Hanrahan is not aware that women have had other employment opportunities available besides stripping and prostitution?
Or that Crystal Gail Mangum had apparently filed a false report of rape in an earlier incident?
Feminists realize that rape charges are a powerful weapon to demonize men with, and want no part of admitting the magnitude and scope of false rape allegations.
Thank you, Dave Usher for pointing out feminists’ recalcitrance to reform their lobbied misandry.
April 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm
thurston861 said,
That she is publicly known by her co-workers to be a Drunk.
Was Drunk that night.
And had a prior criminal complaint against her ex husband for attempted murder.
Gonzeman covered all of the ponts quite adequately.
We should be thanking G-D! That the Feminists insist on hanging their credibility on Janette Rivers AKA Crystal Gail Mangum.
We should chant “Janette Rivers AKA Crystal Gail Mangum” so often that by the end of next year the Feminists will have no credibility and Every Campus where there is an AKA Sorority turns in their Charters as a sign of effective collateral damage.
When we speak the Seven Time attempted Murderer by Perjruy needs to know she cannot hide on stage or in private. Her children need to carry the shame to her from school so there is no rest.
Oh she is not Guilty of Perjury because she believes her story.
Excuse me, which one fo the Five Stories does she believe?
She is a Sociopath who should be locked up and her children taken by the State to stop the infection, and she incarcerated to protect Society from her, FOREVER!
VAWA is why 30 People died at VT. The Police were treating the first two murders as a Domestic where the Boyfriend is the ONLY SUSPECt, because of statitics of VAWA.
Come on Guys, Lets Play Hardball.
April 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm
fourthwire said,
Dave Usher is doing American men and families a favor by pointing out that American taxpayers’ funding is being directed to attack men, ruin as many of their lives as possible and destroy families.
The culprits are operating in the shadows, undercutting attempts to reform the worst misandry.
Those hateful individuals (he refers to them as “radical women’s advocates”) are every bit as dangerous to American society as any Islamic terror group, even if the radical feminists plant bombs in our families and radical Islamicists plant bombs in cars and in vests.
I for one am pleased to see that someone provides a measure of illumination on those shadowy goings-on behind VAWA, IMBRA, and other pieces of misandric legislation aimed at America’s men, boys, and families.
April 21, 2007 at 6:26 pm
amfortas said,
Feminism is a cancer in society. Islam is a Mack Truck bearing down on you. Stepping back onto the pavement (sidewalk) will let the truck roar past but the cancer is going to eat your liver. Given the choice of a way to go, the truck looks like a quick and easy option.
April 21, 2007 at 7:11 pm
wls1 said,
First of all there was nowhere near the amount of public outcry and reasoned criticism required to provoke change.
The “crucial language” was token and essentially meaningless from the start: it was simply not included in the conference committee’s version of the bill that was sent to the President—which didn’t take any specific act of bribery.
April 21, 2007 at 7:17 pm
SM777 said,
“After the interview, I shook hands with Kathleen and suggested that we work together to tighten up laws and procedures so agencies helping women do the right thing the majority of the time. Kathleen spit back “There is no chance that will ever happen”, and stomped off the set, leaving the host and producer with astonished looks on their faces.”
Do you know if that is on YouTube? That would do “wonders” for Hanrahan’s credibility.
April 22, 2007 at 12:14 am
MartianBachelor said,
That’s because they tend to think all men are guilty, of something. David Thomas wrote about this in his excellent book “Not Guilty” about a dozen years ago. Women in general derive so much from making men prove themselves innocent, worthy, good, or whatever that I don’t think they’ll ever give it up. It’s just too much a part of their nature. The male-invented presumption of innocence is in direct opposition to this impulse.
> Radical women’s advocates are famous for pretending that
> stripping and prostitution are honorable employment options.
Of course. Doing those same things for free would be the ultimate in degradation and oppression, because obviously a $500 ‘escort’ has way higher status than a $25 hustling street-walker — except that a girl-gone-wild is empowered by briefly being an amateur flasher becaue it would be so controlling to prevent her from doing what she wants to do.
A wife not only ‘gives it away for free’ but also cooks, cleans, and tends to the kids, among other things, which is why marriage is such a rad-fem horror compared to the noble profession of hooking, not that too many of `em take up the biz, and I doubt many `tutes are rad-fems.
Oh well, on another day the fact that there are ’sex workers’ in the first place is a truly Bad Thing which results from - you guessed it - more male badness. Checkmate.
April 22, 2007 at 11:53 am
SM777 said,
“which results from - you guessed it - more male badness. Checkmate.”
If you are going to be bad, might as well enjoy it.
Hookers do have a function. They are far, far, far less expensive and generally provide far less of a headache than a wife. Who needs to have kids in this day and age anyway?
Want to live a content life? Avoid marriage. If you can’t get free sportsex from “independent womyn” then by all means, hire a hooker.
April 22, 2007 at 9:20 pm
thurston861 said,
Marxist Statist Marriage MUST be avoided at all costs.
A man and woman can negotiate their needs.
The State and the Officers of the Court cannot be controled and bound to the RIghts of Man.
They are treasonous Predators. They will give no quarter.
Teach the boys well.
April 22, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Fat Mobil Content » batman hush revealed spoiler Feminists Still Think Duke Players are Guilty said,
April 23, 2007 at 1:51 am
resist » Blog Archive » Monday morning linkroll said,
April 23, 2007 at 7:25 am
PolishKnight said,
The key is in picking a woman who hates radical feminism, who understands the value of having a husband, who takes responsibility for her feelings and does not try to blame them on her man, and who does not have any personality disorders that are fatal to close relationships. Smart men avoid women who are ruled by their emotions (which is a nice word for “insanity”). They stick to women who have emotions and can talk about them rationally, but who in the end are rational in their behavior. Unfortunately, these are not criteria most men apply. Most men are attracted to trophy women, or “exciting” women, or like to feel powerful as a knight in shining armor saving the poor woman from the lifestyle she chose.
If you put an average man in a room with 100 women, the chances are he will pick the sick one every time. The nice gals, the ones who are not addicted to excitement, who just want a nice normal boring marriage, usually go overlooked.
Men who are serious about marriage (because it IS good for men), first have to get everything that is not normal out of their head, and not pick a woman until they know how to pick one.
I don’t want to dismiss this rather extreme claim out of hand but instead analyze why it’s true in some ways but largely not.
One reason men may go for the “sick” women is that they’re noticable. Period. “Normal” women, especially in the states, are passive-aggressive as hell and want a man to take total responsibility for the relationship. Consequently, most of them are “sick” in that they think the man should take all the risks and responsibilities while they play it safe.
I know because I tried a lot of women in a room, literally (such as dating get togethers and gatherings with thousands of people in a room). Most of the women almost immediately sat at tables and talked to each other and ignored the men while the PAM would stand around the hall like wolves looking for an opportunity to pounce. The absolutely most attractive members of both sexes were out on the dance floor flirting with each other.
The men don’t just “pick” the women. At least not since the 1950’s. Feminism and traditional cultural attitudes has taught the women they are entitled to a handsome, wealthy prince and the passiveness helps them to avoid rejection while kicking the normal schlubs out the door and reinforce the notion that the more losers that ask them out, the more they should wait for that perfect prince.
In other cultures, women take a more active role in meeting men. They just don’t go to a room and play a waiting game. In other words, women were treating men like crap back when it was “traditional” to do so. Feminism is just an extension of that attitude.
April 23, 2007 at 9:18 am
PolishKnight said,
Hanrahan portrayed Crystal Mangum as being a poor single mother just “trying to make a living”. Radical women’s advocates are famous for pretending that stripping and prostitution are honorable employment options. These activities create no gross national product (GNP), but they do produce mass wreckage in their wake. These “careers” are integral drivers of self-elected welfare dependency and the feminist goal of replacing marriage with big government.
I don’t know if that’s technically true. Prostitution and stripping does produce income and a “service” so I would argue that it could be included in the GNP of a nation just as much as any other service that isn’t necessarily exportable (like maid service or restaurants.)
Clearly, men enjoy strippers enough to pay big bucks for them. I personally find strippers and strip clubs to be rather sad places and practices with the women getting huge money to milk men’s sexual desires and the men often acting in brutal, angry, or pathetic ways when their sexual urges are being exploited. Bleah! That said, such base, raw, human desires are interesting to express and get out of one’s system at a bachelor party or group outing. I’ve only done this three times in my whole life and have little desire to go again.
On the other hand, prostitution is a profession that gives men FULL expression of their sexual desire. Rather than being teased and pressured, the men actually enjoy the ability to release their sexual urges, fully and to completion, without having to go through mating rituals and pretenses. The problem is that with prostitution being illegal it’s horribly expensive. But in cultures where prostitution is legal men are treated much better and consequently treat women much better. Dating becomes a mating ritual rather than sullied with sexual extortion or gambits.
Most women, including feminists, are sexual prudists who oppose legalized prostitution and pornography because most admit, when honestly confronted, that they know men would be empowered.
April 23, 2007 at 9:26 am
jackal1994 said,
Why go through all this pain and hardship with women when you could have a holodeck woman that would look and feel like your dream fantasy woman, treat you like a king, and do all the chores.
You will see men borrowing (to buy these machines) MORE than they borrow to buy a house now. And it would be money well spent too.
A hell of a lot less riskier than spending money on a real woman. When this happens (and it will because it will make somebody incredibly rich) there will be a huge power-shift in favor of men.
Because the same won’t hold true for women, they would hate holodeck men. How do you tell a machine programmed to obey to tell you no & to take charge?
April 23, 2007 at 9:52 am
Cartoons Plugin » Blog Archive » futurama extended theme Feminists Still Think Duke Players are Guilty said,
April 23, 2007 at 11:20 am
MartianBachelor said,
Right, PolishKnight. Perhaps in those other cultures women better appreciate the value of a man, something which has been rather systematically done away with in this culture, and replaced with its opposite: man-as-liability thinking. As women in this culture become more important and valuable (in their minds at least) their tendency to cling to their Cinderella Complexes increases, thus reinforcing old sex roles rather than liberating people from them. Curious how ‘equality’ worked out…
> Most women, including feminists, are sexual prudists who oppose
> legalized prostitution and pornography because most admit, when
> honestly confronted, that they know men would be empowered.
Again, yes. The original anti-hooking laws were fundamentally designed to make sure a man brought his wages home to his wife and kids rather than squander them selfishly on himself the way a ‘modern, smart, successful, independent woman’ would blow what she makes on another pair of $500 shoes. In other words, it was about protecting the interests of one woman against those of another, with the man and his money being caught in the middle, his interests not really mattering compared to those of the larger society concerned about the wellbeing of children and their mothers.
But does this mean men who are not married shouldn’t be constrained to obey the same laws as those who are married and thus have obligations to others? Or are the laws moot because women are pretty free to act like hookers as it is, just so long as they don’t do it openly on street-corners? I don’t know the answers, but it’s worth thinking about, even if it’s pretty off-topic here to do so. Perhaps if the ‘movement’ here wants to raise its profile a bunch it should consider making the liberation of the most looked-down-upon women via the repeal of these ancient anti-prostitution laws a part of its cause…
April 23, 2007 at 11:34 am
thurston861 said,
April 23, 2007 at 12:07 pm
thurston861 said,
Instead you disrepect him publicly and call names like the sick Marxist that you are.
Looks like you are due for a change.
Time to prove yourself and lead, not hide here and call names.
April 23, 2007 at 12:12 pm
thurston861 said,
But they are all for the economic empowerment that men give women in the woman exercising her choice to do what she wants with her body without the constriants of society.
See their asinine dualism?
Your free, but do not make men happy!
Government and society have not right to constrain you, but do not show your body!
You are independent and emancipated, your attributes are to be respected , but do not respect or associate with men!
Feminism is a sypmtom of a mind diseased by asinine dualism. It seeks to control women, to make them act illogically, reject their nature, and drive them to desolation and insanity.
Feminism is the delicious candy coating for the Feminine Materialistic disposition, on a ciyanide capsule which will kill her when she bites into it to have it all.
No matter how it is Marketed or justified to the Woman, the end is Death of her Heart.
April 23, 2007 at 12:25 pm
jackal1994 said,
April 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Feminists Still Think Duke Players are... [Sitening Digg @ Ectio.us] said,
April 23, 2007 at 6:40 pm
David R. Usher said,
See: http://www.now.org/issues/media/061506duke.html
April 23, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Political News » Feminists Still Think Duke Players are Guilty said,
April 25, 2007 at 4:27 am