Shaila Dewan and the Credibility of Rape Accusers

The New York Times published a piece by Shaila Dewan online to criticize the public for not believing any female who accuses any male of touchy-feely in the no-no place (after Garrison Keiller, it seems that the only place on a female that isn’t a no-no place is about a quarter-inch on her left big toe).

She took decades to come forward. She can’t remember exactly what happened. She sent friendly text messages to the same man she says assaulted her. She didn’t fight back.

“There’s something really unique about sexual assault in the way we think about it, which is pretty upside down from the way it actually operates,” said Kimberly A. Lonsway, a psychologist who conducts law enforcement training on sexual assault as the research director of End Violence Against Women International. “In so many instances when there’s something that is characteristic of assault, it causes us to doubt it.”

Partly this is because of widespread misconceptions. The public and the police vastly overestimate the incidence of false reports: The most solid, case-by-case examinations say that only 5 to 7 percent of sexual assault reports are false.

What happened to 2-10 percent? The narrative is ever-evolving. Also, how did this “solid” examination define a ‘false report’?

Nevertheless, relax guys! You only have a 5-7 percent chance of going prison on the say-so of a female. That’s a better chance of hitting than any state lottery.

But experts say that because many people are not psychologically prepared to accept how prevalent harassment and assault are, they tend to look for reasons to disbelieve. For example, offenders are more likely to choose victims who have been previously assaulted, statistics show, but a woman who reports more than one assault is less likely to be believed.

Really? We’re pathologizing skepticism now? We’re deploying the feminist head-shrinkers because some people have a preference for evidence over narratives?

Here is a look at some of the misconceptions that come up again and again when assessing whether a victim’s account is true.

This ought to be fun.

The victim doesn’t act like one.

A young woman said she was raped in a police van by two New York City officers, Eddie Martins and Richard Hall, in September. Their lawyers have accused the woman, who is 18, of posting “provocative” selfies and bragging about news media attention and the millions of dollars she expects to win in a civil case.

By provocative, you mean selfies displaying drugs and getting groped by porn actors at the age of 16-17.

“This behavior is unprecedented for a depressed victim of a vicious rape,” the lawyers wrote, according to The New York Post.

But victims behave in a wide variety of ways.

There is no one response to sexual assault. A trauma victim can as easily appear calm or flat as distraught or overtly angry.

In short, what Dewan would like for the reader to accept is the proposition that there is no behavior that a complaining witness can engage in that can diminish credibility, not even contradicting their own story or claiming pecuniary interest in offering testimony in a criminal trial (those millions of dollars she expects from a civil case against the city).

She stayed friendly with her abuser.

Some of the women who say Harvey Weinstein groped or assaulted them kept in contact with him afterward, saying that good relations with such a powerful player in the entertainment industry were a must for their careers. After the allegations against Mr. Weinstein were published in The New York Times, one of his advisers at the time, Lisa Bloom, sent an email to the directors of the Weinstein Company, outlining a plan that included the release of “photos of several of the accusers in very friendly poses with Harvey after his alleged misconduct.”

The females in Harvey’s harem prioritized their careers over revealing that Harvey Weinstein had a casting couch.

The victim may have little choice but to stay in contact if the offender is a boss, teacher, coach or relative.

Imagine that. When someone prioritizes personal profit over social good (becoming a rich and famous actress versus taking an alleged ‘groper’ off of the street), the average person who is likely to be a juror looks dubiously at their sudden moral development and rightly so. People look askance at jailhouse snitches for the same reason.

She did not come forward right away.

Leigh Corfman recently said that the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy S. Moore, sexually assaulted her when she was 14, nearly four decades ago. She said she worried for years that going public would affect her children, and that her history of divorce and financial mistakes would undermine her account. After being approached by a Washington Post reporter, she agreed to tell her story, and later said, “If anything, this has cost me.”

Corfman had children at 14? Corfman was divorced at 14?

But negative consequences are not the only thing to keep victims from coming forward. Experts point to a more fundamental issue: When the perpetrator is someone they trusted, it can take years for victims even to identify what happened to them as a violation.

This is the direction we are headed in with feminism pushing the narrative. Feminists want do away with any objective standard of rape and implement Catharine MacKinnon’s definition:

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”

In that most feminist of worlds, rape will be whatever a female says it is, whenever she says it is, no matter if it days or decades later. She will have no legal or social duty pursue her complaint in a timely manner. Rape will be a freestanding accusation above the heads of all men, regardless of facts.

Her story does not add up.

Not only does memory fade with time, but when the brain’s fear circuitry is activated, the prefrontal cortex where details like sequence and locations are recorded tends to recede, while the part of the brain that records sensory memories kicks in.

Memory fades with time. That’s a sound argument for pursuing criminal charges closer in time to the event than decades away when the complaining witness’ comfort level has reached its peak and all associated memories of any favorable or exculpatory witnesses has faded.

She didn’t fight back.

When people are mugged or robbed, they are not asked why they did not resist.

Because, for whatever reason, the purse between a female’s legs is held to be more valuable than the one on she carries over her shoulder.

But in sexual assault cases, failure to resist can be one of the biggest sticking points for jurors. Often both sides acknowledge that a sex act occurred, and the question is whether it was consensual. Fighting back is viewed as an easy litmus test. But women are conditioned not to use violence.

Females are ‘conditioned’ (feminists are never clear as to WHO is doing this conditioning) to use violence, but only against those weaker than themselves (i.e. children, other females, and men who allow it).

This is the one point where I almost agree with Dewan. Jurors are usually very…myopic in their thinking. They like to imagine what they would have done when placed in a hazardous situation. Their views vary between the grandiose and the implausible. Resistance is the clearest and easiest evidence to present of unwanted sexual contact in much the same way a black eye or a scar is clear evidence of an assault.

Jurors love smoking guns and bright lines between the good guy and the bad buy.

As much as feminists hate it, a large number of rape cases come down to the complaining witness’ story versus the defendant’s denial plus presumption of innocence.

Even so, the victim faces scrutiny of her failure to resist, and of every decision she made before, during and after the ordeal. To contrast sexual assault with other types of crime, Ms. Valliere said, she often shows a photograph of the Boston Marathon bombing. “We never said to the victims, ‘Why were you in that marathon, why did you put yourself in that position, why didn’t you run faster, why didn’t you run slower?’

Because of the presentation of physical evidence (photos, videos, shrapnel, corpses, etc.) that would make such a question flat-out stupid? Because the asking of such a question would rightly destroy the querent’s credibility in the eyes of the jury and the judge?

And the whole ‘why didn’t you run faster’ question is irrelevant as the Tsarnaev brothers’ targets were the crowd, not the runners. Last I checked, on-lookers are typically not expected to do any running at a marathon.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorneys did not pursue a defense of denying the bombing happened or worse, try to argue that the victims were culpable, they argued that Dzhokhar was a helpless flunky, a pawn of his older brother’s plan to play jihad on the infidels.

That strategy didn’t work. ‘A powerful, domineering man made me do it’ is a defense that only seems to work when offered up by a female. Funny.

Feminists like Dewan have a view of witness credibility that doesn’t mesh well with reality. Feminists would like to conceal all personal and moral imperfections of a witness in a rape case from the juror’s eyes (rape shield laws). But credibility does not turn on a witness’ moral purity (though it doesn’t hurt it either): A witness is credible when they present a persuasive and consistent story and also have a good reason for how they know what they know.

I like to refer to Sammy Gravano as the most extreme example of a credible witness who was also absolute piece of shit. Gravano admitted to 19 murders in open court. Gravano, by no stretch of the human imagination, can be considered a morally upright human being (he started an Ectasy while in the Witness Protection Program). However, his testimony helped put the previously untouchable boss of the Gambino crime family, John Gotti, in prison for the rest of his life. Gravano was ‘economical’ with certain parts of the truth, but he admitted his part in the Gambino operations, his function in the organization, and how he knew Gotti was calling the shots.

Feminists will not serve anyone’s interests, not rape accusers, and not defendants who are in most need of protection from the legal system, by demanding that people shut their eyes to testimony and narratives that don’t make sense.



Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: Matthew Facciani

I’m running a two-for-one special on male feminist nonsense today. Matthew Facciani of Patheos blog is here to lecture men of how we may better serve our rightful deity, feminism.

Now with the heightened cultural awareness regarding sexual violence, more and more women are speaking out against the sexism and abuse they have been dealing with since, well forever. Women are sharing their stories ranging from assault to harassment. All of these women speaking up about the frustrations of sexism may make us men feel defensive.

But instead of shutting down when you see a woman post online that “men are trash” why not take a moment to reflect on what inspired her post? Why not try to read it with an open mind and see her perspective?

Why should I? I am not obligated to interpret a female’s intentions that run contrary to her words. I am not obligated to contextualize her statements for her. I am not obligated to drag her emotional caterwauling into the realm of reason.

As Kanye said, “that’s a really bad way to start the conversation.”

First off, I used to be a “nice guy” when I was younger. Basically, this meant that I felt entitled to relationships because I was so nice to women. I got these messages from our culture that men should “get the girl” if they are just persistent and nice enough to break through the “friendzone.”

Ah, good old blue pill logic. Be nice to females and they’ll be nice to you. Throw your coat over those mud-puddles. Pay for multiple food excursions. Lavish her with gifts. Maybe, just maybe, if the stars are properly aligned and the moon is high in the sky, your princess on whom you have expended your money and more importantly, your time, might, MIGHT reward your efforts with her pussy.

Thankfully, one of the great things about the red pill is that a man learns that sexual attraction cannot be negotiated. Sexual acts can be negotiated, but not attraction. You can enhance your attractiveness and you undermine attractiveness, but no amount of good boy points will buy a man attractiveness in a female’s eyes. Good boy points are worth less than Chuck E. Cheese tickets and harder to get.

Early on in my dating life, a woman who I was seeing told me she wasn’t interested anymore. I was devastated. I was so nice to her! We got along so well! How could she not want to see me anymore?!

So I kept trying to get her to change her mind. It felt unfair. Finally, she told me she never wanted to speak to me again. I was crushed. Not only did I lose the relationship, I lost the connection entirely.

Maybe you weren’t as ‘nice’ as you thought you were. Maybe she thought you were an ugly prig. Maybe she was keeping you in a holding pattern while she pursued other options. As females will often tell men ‘a woman has the right to change her mind.’ That’s true enough. And I thank a female for giving me a straight up answer because that means I don’t have to give them any of my time or my attention. And that is what the game is between men and females and probably always has been. Females want as much of a man’s time as possible without having to give him any pussy. Men want to get pussy with a small of a commitment of time as possible.

That all happened a long time ago and I learned a lot from it. I started questioning lots of other toxic messages I may have learned. I started listening to women’s stories more and studying feminism. It was like a snowball of learning. The more I learned about inequality, the more I wanted to help out too. I spent the past 5 years or so being involved in a lot of gender equality activism. But I am far from feeling “enlightened” about feminism! I am constantly learning about ways I can do better.

So you are crying over pussy you never got? And the pussy you never got was your feminist equivalent of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. You allowed a female to fuck with your mind, to twist your entire worldview, and you never saw her vagina once? Never looked at it, never smelled it, never licked it, never rubbed it, never fucked it.

Vaginas. They need to be Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. Vagina has ruined more men’s lives than heroin. Females cannot be trusted to just walk around with this highly addictive and often lethal narcotic between their legs.

Recently, I wrote about how I didn’t always do the best job amplifying women’s voices. I was new to feminism and was told I should “use my privilege for good” and didn’t fully realize what that meant. I just started sharing feminist 101 points on my Facebook that ended up getting me thousands of likes from my thousands of liberal Facebook friends. However, many women were making the same points as me. So why didn’t I just share their words? Another toxic behavior men can learn is speaking over women. This was coined to be “he-peating.” I was basically centering the myself in the conversation of feminism instead of just amplifying the voices of women doing the groundwork.

I didn’t even realize I was doing this until it was pointed out to me. Now if I want to share some important point about feminism, I just share it from a woman who said it first. The only time I talk about feminism with my own words is when I try to explicitly address men, such as in this post.

Those 101 points were bullshit. Regardless, maybe their words sucked and yours were just better. You basically Caitlyn Jenner’d the feminists and came in, naive and wide-eyed and fresh-faced to feminism and did a better job articulating feminism than the feminists who have wasted their lives imbibing reheated class warfare.

Men: use these conversations as an opportunity to grow as a person. These women are giving you insights on how to treat people better. Listen to them. It may temporarily feel uncomfortable to realize you did something sexist or made some mistake, but isn’t it better to catch it now then to continue to make the same mistakes?

A ‘conversation’ implies an exchange of ideas. Delivering one’s testimonial followed by a call-to-action is not a ‘conversation’; it is a lecture in mortal danger of becoming a sermon. But notice the hypocrisy: Feminists claim a right and moral duty to make any given man feel ‘uncomfortable’ in the name of proselytizing feminism. But if a man makes a female feel uncomfortable in pursuing sex, that’s the worst thing ever and he must be condemned and shamed. Female’s feelings are held inviolable. Men’s feelings are optional.

The only mistake most men need to correct with respect to females is investing time and effort in females who hold them in low regard or pursuing females who are not interested instead of investing their time and effort in their own betterment or pleasure.


Male Feminist Splits Hairs On “The Brutality of the Male Libido”; Men Aren’t Bad, Just Toxic Masculinity

Some additional Stephen Marche commentary by a lecturer of philosophy at Northeastern Illinois. I have nothing clever to add about the background of the author, Tyler Zimmer. Another male feminist crawling up out of the termite-infested structure of academia.

While bent over locking up my bike in Chicago a few years ago, I heard the all-too-familiar sound of a wolf whistle. I turned around to get a look at the jerks accosting some woman on the street, only to realize I was the one who was being cat called. A man passing by from behind had seen my long curly hair and tight jeans and mistaken me for a woman. When I turned around to face him, he was shocked and started apologizing profusely. In so many words, he was saying: ”This is an unacceptable way to behave toward a man.” And we both knew, if I were a woman, there would be no apology.

And if you were in the county lockup, there would not only be no apology, you’d have several more ‘admirers’ who were sincere in their affections because of long curly hair and tight pants.

This is the double standard at the heart of masculinity: Men are taught to regularly say and do things to women that they would never say or do to other men, that they would never want men to say or do to them. That is not due to some timeless “male libido” driving their behavior. It’s because masculinity is founded on the myth that men alone are rights-bearing persons and women are subordinate, passive, second-class beings who either need the protection of or deserve to be subjected to men.

Men are also taught (by who, these advocacy pieces are never clear on, possibly fairies or some other imperceptible being) to tolerate physical and mental abuse from females that they would not tolerate from any man. They learn it from their mothers (oh, that’s a girl! You can’t roughhouse with them! Their not like boys!) and from bluepill males (you don’t ever put your hands on a female!) So yes, double standards are at the heart of masculinity because females and men alike recognize that men are the stronger and more enduring of the sexes and the only reason they can dare to try and lay this double standard on men is because we are strong enough to bear it. It is not in our best interests as individuals or as a class to bear it in any circumstances, and certainly not in a gynocentric society, but that’s another story for another time.

And females can hold all of the rights of men when they bear all of the social and legal responsibilities of men.

Still waiting to hear back on that Selective Service thing. Females?

In a recent New York Times op-ed, however, writer Stephen Marche uses some outdated Freudian ideas about sexuality and gender and the recent explosion of allegations of sexual misconduct to argue that male sexual desire is inherently brutal and oppressive. Thus, there’s no use, as Marche puts it, in “pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be.” So, feminist ideas are practically useless. The only fruitful thing men can do to respect women as equals is repress their natural urges.

Marche didn’t just use some outdated Freudian ideas; he flat out accused men of inherently being monstrous, which puts him in lockstep with a great many revered ‘thinkers’ and agitators of the feminist movement (MacKinnon, Dworkin, Morgan, Daly, Brownmiller, Solanas, et al.)

In truth, the very problem with masculinity Marche describes in his op-ed is too much repression: The rules governing masculinity require men to be stoic, to repress virtually all of their emotions (except anger). This leads many men to severely underdevelop their own ability to analyze and communicate about their own feelings. Our culture, not men’s nature, has enforced this emotional repression.

Where might I find these ‘rules of masculinity’ in writing? Stoicism is not a state of being, it is a tool for interacting with the world and the people in it. Stoics recognized that universally any given man can control nothing but his own thoughts and his own actions. They also recognized that a man did not have any inherent right to control the thoughts and actions of anyone but himself. Stoicism requires emotional homeostasis, the subordination of emotion to reason, especially those emotions that arise from erroneous judgments. A Stoic man seeks to tame his Pathos so that he cannot be manipulated by others because, as pointed out before, Stoics believe that a man has the right to control only his own thoughts and actions; as a corollary, no man has an inherent right to control the Stoic’s thoughts or actions.

Indeed, every man can think of at least one experience where he was punished for failing—whether intentionally or accidentally—to obey the dictates of these masculine rules. I remember a playground game where my friends and I would re-enact scenes from Disney films. I volunteered myself for the role of Ariel from the Little Mermaid. She was the protagonist and, it seemed to me, the best character to be. My peers bullied and teased me for this failure to obey the rules of compulsory masculinity for weeks afterward, and “Ariel” became a standard go-to insult in arguments.

In a world where females largely control the household, the primary purveyors of this punishment for failure to obey dictates is a female, specifically, a single mother. Here is where the author inserts the obligatory sleight-of-hand that all feminist discourse demands: He conflates the petty cruelty of children to a ‘dictate of masculinity.’ It is a minority of people who cannot comb over their childhood and find some instance of childhood teashing, bullying, or shaming done to them by some beastly, non-Stoic child who wished to exert power at the expense of their target. The author fails to point out that the petty power plays of children are despised in men as we grow larger, stronger, and, hopefully, more rational. Men are expected to moderate their natural strength with reason, wisdom, and again, hopefully, mercy. Otherwise, we’re just clubbing each other over the heads with sticks.

Females, on the other hand, never grow out of childhood power politics. The same tactics small girls practice are mastered by adult women: Out-grouping, gossip, shaming, physical attacks, shunning. These tactics degrade comraderie and social cohesion in any group they are introduced in, but the feminist modus operandi can best be summed up by Robin Morgan in the Redstockings Manifesto: “We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.”

This is the kind of masculinity that also teaches men they don’t have to ask permission to act on their sexual desires. They’re supposed to take charge and have no reason to respect women’s autonomy. This is what feminists mean when they say sexual harassment and assault are about power, not desire. It’s our culture, not our libidos, that shapes the way men act upon otherwise healthy, run-of-the-mill sexual desires. In itself, there is nothing inherently brutal in a man who is sexually attracted to a woman he works with—no more than there would be if a woman desires a man she works with.

But there is a difference between discreetly (or silently) deriving pleasure from someone’s presence, on the one hand, and imposing one’s desires on that person, especially if they’re unreturned or unwanted. The difference here, as the feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky puts it, is the difference between healthy eroticism and rituals rooted in toxic ideas about masculinity.

Antonio Gramsci called. He’d like his Cultural Hegemony back, if you don’t mind.

I don’t like doing this because after awhile, it just tastes sour, but the success of the 50 Shades of Grey franchise, among females, has largely put the lie to this claim of ‘respect female’s autonomy.’ Despite feminist whining about the nonexistent rape culture, females, not men, have defined what are and are not acceptable sexual customs and rituals. Females define these customs and rituals by the nature and actions of the men they choose to have sex with. 50 Shades is the most recent example but not the only. Books, TV shows, and novels have been gobbled up by females in which a bored, and usually boring, female is whisked off on an adventure by a man who is on the path to glory, fame, or self-destruction.

Females are the gatekeepers of sex. Men merely observe, note, and perform what is necessary to get through the gate.

If a man wants to act on his attraction, or sexual urges? Here, communication, the very thing modern notions of masculinity train us away from, is key. Genuine communication is a two-way street; it presupposes that both participants have an equal right to withdraw from the interaction or decline an offer. Men already understand this to some extent, because this is how men typically behave in interactions with other men.

So, relating to women as equals, as genuine peers, doesn’t necessarily require repressing desire. Instead, it requires coming to terms with the fact that masculinity trains men to have great difficulty recognizing women—or, indeed, anyone that presents as feminine—as persons, as agents, as authoritative and worthy of respect, and then making an effort to see and treat them that way.

Females actively repudiate agency when possessing agency does not benefit them. If men are always to be held responsible for their actions, why should men respect the ‘selective agency’ of females at all? If females are allowed to offer up their varying forms of ‘the Devil made me do it’, but replace the Devil with ‘culture’, ‘medications’, ‘stress’, ‘fatigue’, ‘post-partum’, ‘PTSD’, ‘I was afraid of a man’, ‘Patriarchy’ et cetera ad nauseum, then females are not agents at all.

A few years before my own experience with a catcall, I saw a young woman walking down a Chicago street with a milkshake in hand. A man watching her pass by shouted, “Titties!” at her. Without skipping a beat, she turned around, threw her milkshake at him, and continued on her way. Those of us on the street chuckled in admiration as the man stood dripping from head to toe with chocolate milkshake.

So, when one man assaults another man for words, that’s bad and evil and toxic masculinity. When a female assaults a man for words, you chuckle in admiration?

Yeah, fuck you, you hypocrite.


A Response to ‘The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido’. Additionally, Stephen Marche, Will You Please Go The Hell Away?

You can’t see my face, but my palm is firmly attached to it right now. Stephen Marche, a Canadian writer and male feminist who can’t lower himself far enough in the dirt for the sake of feminism, has put out a new hatchet-piece in the New York Times. I strongly suspect this is causally linked to the recent investiture of Jessica Bennett as the ‘gender editor’ of the paper, but I can’t prove it. Nonetheless, Stephen Marche has, as he has done so many times before, written something lamentably stupid and I am going to point out why it is stupid.

After weeks of continuously unfolding abuse scandals, men have become, quite literally, unbelievable. What any given man might say about gender politics and how he treats women are separate and unrelated phenomena. Liberal or conservative, feminist or chauvinist, woke or benighted, young or old, found on Fox News or in The New Republic, a man’s stated opinions have next to no relationship to behavior.

Sort of like how the statement “feminism means equality” has no relationship to the behavior of feminists in trying to disqualify men from jobs through quotas or due process through Title IX hearings and ‘Listen and Believe’ blathering in rape cases.

Through sheer bulk, the string of revelations about men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein to Louis C.K. to Al Franken and, this week, to Charlie Rose and John Lasseter, have forced men to confront what they hate to think about most: the nature of men in general. This time the accusations aren’t against some freak geography teacher, some frat running amok in a Southern college town. They’re against men of all different varieties, in different industries, with different sensibilities, bound together, solely, by the grotesquerie of their sexuality.

Except it’s not a variety of men. The particular men being accused are a very narrow group: Men in the entertainment industry. Men who used their status as decision-makers and stars to get something vaguely resembling sex. Unfortunately, they ignore red pill truth number 1: You cannot negotiate attraction. You can negotiate sex and that’s fine.

Men arrive at this moment of reckoning woefully unprepared. Most are shocked by the reality of women’s lived experience. Almost all are uninterested or unwilling to grapple with the problem at the heart of all this: the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.

Feminism means equality…but, MEN ARE EVIL!!!!

For most of history, we’ve taken for granted the implicit brutality of male sexuality. In 1976, the radical feminist and pornography opponent Andrea Dworkin said that the only sex between a man and a woman that could be undertaken without violence was sex with a flaccid penis: “I think that men will have to give up their precious erections,” she wrote. In the third century A.D., it is widely believed, the great Catholic theologian Origen, working on roughly the same principle, castrated himself.

Let’s hit the first and easiest deception in this paragraph: It is unknown whether or not Origen castrated himself or not. The story comes from Eusebius of Caesarea, who, while an admirer of Eusebius, like had the tale from Demetrius, the Bishop of Alexandria who was an enemy of Origen and ran him out of the city. Also, Origen interpreted the Gospels as allegory, so it is unlikely that he would suddenly hit Matthew 19:12, read the word “eunuch” and after interpreting the other three books as allegory, decide that this part is literal, and then cut his own dick off.

As for Andrea Dworkin, Marche left out the rest of the Dworkin quote, which I will reproduce here:

“I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love together … men will have to phallocentric personalities, and the privileges and powers given to them at birth as a consequence of their anatomy, that they will have to excise everything in them that they now value as distinctively ‘male.'”

Unless Stephen produced those kids of his by artificial insemination and is letting wifey stuff a strap-on in his ass, it doesn’t seem like he has given up on his ‘precious erection’, his ‘phallocentric personality’ or his ‘privileges and powers.’

Fear of the male libido has been the subject of myth and of fairy tale from the beginning of literature: What else were the stories of Little Red Riding Hood or Bluebeard’s Castle about? A vampire is an ancient and powerful man with an insatiable hunger for young flesh. Werewolves are men who regularly lose control of their bestial nature. Get the point? There is a line, obviously, between desire and realization, and some cross it and some don’t. But a line is there for every man. And until we collectively confront this reality, the post-Weinstein public discussion — where men and women go from here — will begin from a place of silence and dishonesty.

Funny. And yet, feminists get aghast when men quote Andrea Dworkin’s own novel, Mercy, of her psychopathic misandry against heterosexual men.

“I’ve always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you’d need good silver.”

Stephen will never give females the credit of having a line between desire and realization. He has the same view of female nature that the jurors in the Lizzie Borden and Minnie Foster trials did. Females simply do not have the ‘bestial’ nature as men, or, put simply: Women are wonderful.

The masculine libido and its accompanying forces and pathologies drive so much of culture and politics and the economy, while remaining more or less unexamined, both in intellectual circles and in private life. I live in Toronto, a liberal city in a liberal country, with Justin Trudeau for prime minister, a half-female cabinet and an explicitly feminist foreign policy.

That’s right, the masculine libido has driven culture, politics, and the economy in Western civilization.

You’re welcome, women.

And no, you couldn’t have done it better.

The men I know don’t actively discuss changing sexual norms. We gossip and surmise: Who is a criminal and who isn’t? Which of the creeps whom we know are out there will fall this week? Beyond the gossip, there is a fog of the past that is better not to penetrate. Aside from the sorts of clear criminal acts that have always been wrong, changing social norms and the imprecision of memory are dark hallways to navigate. Be careful when you go down them; you might not like what you find.

So much easier to turn aside. Professionally, too, I have seen just how profoundly men don’t want to talk about their own gendered nature. In the spring, I published a male take on the fluctuations of gender and power in advanced economies; I was interviewed over 70 times by reporters from all over the world, but only three of them were men. Men just aren’t interested; they don’t know where to start. I’m working on a podcast on modern fatherhood, dealing with issues like pornography and sex after childbirth. Very often, when I interview men, it is the first time they have ever discussed intimate questions seriously with another man.

That’s right, men are not interested in self-flagellation or living in constant repentence for having a penis. And despite all of the decades feminist whining and haranguing and required training, men in general are sick of it. Men are not going to smack this feminist nonsense down for two reasons: First, the average man does not have the power to do so. This dives into the second reason: Feminism benefits the powerful. Feminists have helped make Americans less-free as they always have since their inception (the first-wave feminist movement died on the hill of alcohol prohibition).

A useful feature of our ‘toxic’ masculine nature is that we have the capacity to work around people and things we don’t like.

A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. There is sex education for boys, but once you leave school the traditional demands on masculinity return: show no vulnerability, solve your own problems. Men deal with their nature alone, and apart. Ignorance and misprision are the norms.

Male nature must be “dealt with” sort of like how cancer has to be dealt with.

But, feminism means equality, not man-hating.

Which is how we wind up where we are today: having a public conversation about male sexual misbehavior, while barely touching on the nature of men and sex. The (very few) prominent men who are speaking up now basically just insist that men need to be better feminists — as if the past few weeks have not amply demonstrated that the ideologies of men are irrelevant.

No, feminist ideology is irrelevant for the same reason that all ideologies rooted in socialism are irrelevant: Socialists cannot distinguish between coercion and persuasion. They jabber mightily about ‘mass movements’ but ultimately, they would rather seize the mechanisms of legal force and threaten your compliance than to win you to their cause.

Liberalism has tended to confront gender problems from a technocratic point of view: improved systems, improved laws, better health. That approach has resulted in plenty of triumphs. But there remains no cure for human desire. (“It isn’t actually about sex, it’s about power,” I read in The Guardian the other day. How naïve must you be not to understand that sex itself is about power every bit as much as it’s about pleasure?)

I wasn’t aware that human desire was something that required a “cure” Comrade O’Brien:

“The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party.”

Acknowledging the brutality of male libido is not, of course, some kind of excuse. Sigmund Freud recognized the id, and knew it as “a chaos, a caldron full of seething excitations.” But the point of Freud was not that boys will be boys. Rather the opposite: The idea of the Oedipus complex contained an implicit case for the requirements of strenuous repression: If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers.

I’ll see your Oedipus Complex voodoo psychoanalysis with a Westermarck Effect. Also, Freud’s theories have be unverifiable by contemporary psychology.

Freud also understood that repression, any repression, is inherently fluid and complicated and requires humility and self-searching to navigate. Women are calling for their pain to be recognized. Many men are quite willing to offer this recognition; it means they don’t have to talk about who they are, which means they don’t have to think about what they are. Much easier to retreat, into ever more shocked and prurient silence, or into the sort of reflection that seems less intended as honesty, and more aimed to please.

Yes. Silence is the ultimate response to feminists like Stephen Marche and females in the West screeching about how oppressed their are on the IPad 6s from the comfort of the local Starbucks. More men are realizing attempting to please females is not a solution; it only invites more screeching and more demands.

Sex is an impediment to any idealism, which is why the post-Weinstein era will be an era of gender pessimism. What if there is no possible reconciliation between the bright clean ideals of gender equality and the mechanisms of human desire? Meanwhile, sexual morality, so long resisted by liberals, has returned with a vengeance, albeit under progressive terms. The sensation of righteousness, which social media doles out in ever-diminishing dopamine hits, drives the discussion, but also limits it. Unable to find justice, or even to imagine it, we are returning to shame as our primary social form of sexual control.

Shame for men. Only men.

The crisis we are approaching is fundamental: How can healthy sexuality ever occur in conditions in which men and women are not equal? How are we supposed to create an equal world when male mechanisms of desire are inherently brutal? We cannot answer these questions unless we face them.

‘Healthy sexuality’ in Marche’s opinion appears to men acting like lesbians with penises, or rather, lesbians without tits and large, flaccid clitorises.

I’m not asking for male consciousness-raising groups; let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can.

And Stephen Marche ends with the typical, boring call to action that all of these advocacy puff-pieces ends on: Men, you are bad and evil and you should be ashamed to have a penis. Reflect on your evilness, then tie your white good-boy cape and pledge eternal servitude to WYMYNKIND. The man conflates ‘masculinity’ with ‘monstrosity’ and imagines that men are supposed to take his bullshit seriously.

Now, if Stephen wants to confess to monstrosity, that he needs to start taking the strap-on and wants to fuck his mother, that’s his business. But this is how he gets to write for the New York Times: He is the successfully re-educated class enemy of feminism, who loudly and publicly denounces others to prove his loyalty to Stalin and the Party and to buy mercy for himself. He spouts meaningless, mindless doctrine, using his hated class as a male as authority to speak on the subject of men while denouncing all things masculine as monstrous.


ProPublica Is Very Concerned That Females Are Charged With Filing False Reports

Ken Armstrong and T. Christian Miller of ProPublica, the propaganda arm of the Sandler Foundation (founded by Herb and Marion Sandler, the living embodiments of Honore de Balzac’s maxim “Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait.”), have some thoughts on complaining witnesses in sex crimes cases. They’ve picked some instances when sex crimes witnesses were charged with filing false reports in support of “Listen and Believe.” This ignores that no person will ever do as much time for filing a false report as for being wrongfully convicted of rape, but we can’t let pesky facts disrupt the narrative.

There are many reasons for women to think twice about reporting sexual assault. But one potential consequence looms especially large: They may also be prosecuted.

For filing false police reports, which they should be if they are lying.

This month, a retired police lieutenant in Memphis, Tenn., Cody Wilkerson, testified, as part of a lawsuit against the city, not only that police detectives sometimes neglected to investigate cases of sexual assault but also that he overheard the head of investigative services in the city’s police department say, on his first day in charge: “The first thing we need to do is start locking up more victims for false reporting.” It’s an alarming choice of priorities — and one that can backfire.

This is a deceptive attempt at framing by Armstrong and Miller of the problems of the Memphis Police Department to get to the conclusion of ‘females aren’t listened to’ and ‘they don’t take rape seriously.’ This is a well-worn trick of advocacy types who take a fact and use it to draw a faulty conclusion, usually including some type of call to action.

The problem of the MPD is not that the department is full of evil, sexist men who hate females; their problem is one of crooked cops. Some are a little bent and don’t like actually doing police work. Those are the focus of Armstrong and Miller in this piece. Others are just crooks with badges. Those are the ones they ignore.

WREG in Memphis reported that the number of MPD officers arrested for criminal activity between 2011 and 2016 was 114. That’s a lot of dirty cops. It also lines up with a 2012 WREG news report in which then-Police Director Toney Armstrong described 20 arrests per year as being about normal for the MPD.

In short, the MPD has a problem with putting badges on people who probably shouldn’t have them. The types who put the badge on just to get a paycheck, to move up the ladder by massaging their clearance rates or arrest numbers, or worse, the ones who use the badge as a cover to commit to crimes.

In 2015 we wrote an article for ProPublica and the Marshall Project about Marie, an 18-year-old who reported being raped in Lynnwood, Wash., by a man who broke into her apartment. (Marie is her middle name.) Police detectives treated small inconsistencies in her account — common among trauma victims — as major discrepancies. Instead of interviewing her as a victim, they interrogated her as a suspect. Under pressure, Marie eventually recanted — and was charged with false reporting, punishable by up to a year in jail. The court ordered her to pay $500 in court costs, get mental health counseling for her lying and go on supervised probation for one year. More than two years later, the police in Colorado arrested a serial rapist — and discovered a photograph proving he had raped Marie.

What happened to Marie seemed unthinkable. She was victimized twice — first raped, then prosecuted. But cases like hers can be found around the country.

As can cases in which men were prosecuted for crimes they didn’t commit, like…rape? It sucks, doesn’t it? Not enjoying the protection of the law to which citizens are supposed to be due.

In Marie’s case, and with some of the other cases, the victims hadn’t acted the way the police thought a victim should act. Their affect seemed off, or they declined help from an advocate, or they looked away instead of making eye contact. As a result, their stories became suspect.

That’s terrible. But, as usual, I can do better.

Wilbert Jones, of Baton Rouge, LA, was recently freed after 45 years of imprisonment for the rape of a woman in 1971. The case was prosecuted entirely on the identification of Jones by the woman.

Listen and Believe, right?

The problem was, Jones didn’t do it. The prosecutor in Jones’ case withheld exculpatory evidence in his trial of another rape committed in an identical manner while Jones was in custody.

Marie was given a $500 fine. Jones spent 45 years in a Louisiana prison. Ruminate on which set of consequences you would rather suffer because a complaining witness was or was not ‘believed.’

In Lynnwood, the police have since changed the way they do things to prevent anything like Marie’s case from happening again. Detectives today receive additional training about trauma and cannot doubt a rape report absent “definitive proof” that it is false. In an effort to build trust, the department ensures that victims get immediate help from specially trained advocates. Those changes correspond with guidelines for rape investigations that sex-crimes experts have urged for police departments around the country. Those guidelines stress: The police should investigate thoroughly while reserving judgment. Evidence trumps assumptions. The police should be wary of stereotypes; they should not, for example, find an adolescent victim less believable than an adult. Some victims will be hysterical, others stoic; police should not measure credibility by a victim’s response. Police should not interrogate victims. They should listen.

If police don’t question witnesses, how will they get the facts necessary to gather evidence sufficient to argue probable cause for an arrest warrant?

Nationally, police departments, victim advocates and academics have experimented with ways to relieve the burden on rape victims who might fear dismissal, or even arrest, by reporting their attacks to the police. Perhaps the most influential campaign to change police procedures is known as Start by Believing, sponsored by End Violence Against Women International, an organization that conducts training for the police and victim advocates. The campaign asks participants to make a simple pledge: Start the process of investigation by believing those who come forward. Police agencies in nearly every state have joined up.

Or, as Saint Anselem of Canterbury wrote in Proslogion: Credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand). This is all well and good if you are propigating theology, but it is a horrible concept for a judicial system that is supposed to be driven by evidence. It also flies in the face of Armstrong and Williams’ own facts. They stated that ‘Mary’ told her version of the story and then backed off on being questioned. She lied by contradicting what later turned out to be true.

The witnesses are lying.

Armstrong and Williams’ presented the deposition of Cody Wilkerson against the MPD as true, which accused certain cops in the MPD of lying about rape investigations and clearances.

The cops are lying.

I presented the case of Wilbert Jones who was wrongfully convicted of rape because of a false identification by the complaining witness and the witholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor in his case.

The witnesses and the lawyers are lying.

This is where we come to the problem with this pithy sloganeering proffered by advocacy-types in general and feminists that fit really well on bumper stickers but make for bad praxis: In the criminal justice system, almost everyone is lying about something. Witnesses, lawyers, defendants, cops, jurors, and judges. Everybody is selling bullshit to everybody else. At the end of the game, the loser is the one stuck having to eat the biggest pile of bullshit. That’s usually the defendant.

Police in Ashland, Ore., started a program called You Have Options. Agencies that participate handle sexual-assault complaints in a radically different way. Victims can report a rape but request that the police not pursue criminal charges. The idea is to give more control to victims, who might otherwise be reluctant to involve themselves with law enforcement. The detective who founded the program believes it will help the police in the long term by increasing the number of people who come forward and allowing police to collect information that could be used in future investigations if a victim changes his or her mind.

Meanwhile, criminals are allowed to just keep walking the streets because the complaining witness, by some perverse nonlogic, is given more say-so in the process beyond the choice to testify or not.

Both programs are controversial. For instance, Stacy Galbraith, the detective in Colorado who arrested the serial rapist in Marie’s case, told us her starting point isn’t believing: “I think it’s listen to your victim. And then corroborate or refute based on how things go.”

This sounds suspiciously like actual police work. Are we so far gone as a society that skepticism and following the facts where they lead, even if it is to a dead end, is controversial?

You Have Options is an even tougher sell. Many police officers are instinctively resistant to the idea of not immediately investigating a rape. Their job, after all, is to catch bad guys, not let them get away.

It is clear that some law enforcement agencies have begun to experiment with ways to be more responsive to rape victims. It is equally clear that there are no simple solutions. The path forward will almost certainly be contentious. But if we are going to make it easier for victims to tell their stories to law enforcement, change is essential.

Here’s where I part ways with Armstrong and Williams (again). The purpose of law enforcement is to catch bad guys. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect defendants from the power of the state. The personal comfort of witnesses is not a goal nor should it be. Witnesses should be uncomfortable in testifying because of what is at stake: A person’s freedom or life. The process of depriving a defendant of their freedom should never be comfortable or easy, no matter how deserving of destruction the defendant may be.