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.



Yvette Felarca/Yvonne Felarca Argues “Bash The Fash” as a Legal Justification to Assault; Communists of r/Anarchism Offer Support for Assaulting Wrong-Think

“Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”

– Squealer, Animal Farm

Yvette, or Yvonne Felarca, went to court to face charges of felony assault and inciting a riot for her role in a riot by Communists in Sacramento back in June 2016. Video shows Felarca punching a man repeatedly, despite him having his hands raised over his head during the assault, and was walking towards police to seek help.

Felarca made a statement with respect to her charges:

“Standing up against fascism and the rise of Nazism and fascism in this country is not a crime. We have the right to defend ourselves.”

That’s right. Beating up someone seeking police protection is “standing up against fascism” and “not a crime.”

Felarca is scheduled to return to teach at Berkeley Middle School at the end of August, because teachers cannot be fired unless they are convicted of a felony.

Yay, public unions!

Various breeds of Communists lurk on reddit, mostly on r/Anarchism. Aside from being revolutionary LARPers and Antifa fanboys.

Why are they worthy of any consideration?

Because they argue that National Socialists are terrible people to whom violence must be done on sight without any protections or due process.

International Socialists on the other hand, are a-okay, despite having engaged in more wars, killed more people, expropriated more wealth, and conquered more land by force of arms than the National Socialists could ever hope to.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 826 points

McCarthyist witch hunts are not a thing of the past! Remember, this is a charge from the protest where multiple people were stabbed by neo-nazis who have not been arrested for the attempted murders:

Attempted murders? Try self-defense.

From June 27, 2016

“Neo-Nazis didn’t start the violence at state Capitol, police say”

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The Communists showed up looking for a fight and are now crying crocodile tears for sympathy when they actually got one? Nah.

/u/AutumnLeavesCascade 170 points

I was an Antifa street medic in Sac and saw the aftermath of the Neo-Nazis stab at least one black Anti-Fascist and one trans Anti-Fascist, they had been chosen specifically as targets of hate, the black man for instance had had the n-word shouted at him by the Nazis and his intestines were hanging out, I provided auxiliary first aid support for him with two primary medics until he could get to the ER. Up to 6 people were stabbed by the Nazis at that rally, I have been doing therapy do help process the level of violence I saw that day. Being 12 inches from spilled intestines in an attempted hate murder will definitely fuck you up.×366
EDIT: I think the above pic is the other black man the Nazis stabbed, since he is closer to the paved area. Here is a full article about the individual I was talking about, not going to post any of the grisly photos just going by the article:

That’s your own fault. You wander around looking for a fight, and want someone else to feel bad because it didn’t go your way? Not going for it.

Next time, bash your dick instead of the so-called “fash.”

/u/Empiricalknowledge 301 points

400,000 American soldiers died to stop the spread of Nazism. Did we forget the mission of the Nazis is to see most of us dead?

400,000 American soldiers died BECAUSE the Congress of the United States declared war against Germany on December 11, 1941 AFTER the Germany declared war against the United States on the same day.

/u/nuthernameconveyance 186 points

And 60 million Russians.

There are few things more beautiful than one group of socialists killing another group of socialists in large numbers.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 201 points

I wish the liberals would realize that comprehensive anti-fascist arguments are based on the historical study of fascist movements, and are not comprehensively explainable in 1 or 2 sentences on reddit comments.
Here is an interview with someone who explains the full argument, if anyone who doesn’t understand why anti-fascists are against letting nazis publicly organize wants to try and actually understand it, before spouting kneejerk platitudes about non-violence at us like we wouldn’t also prefer non-violence:

The principle of actual liberals is “non-aggression” not “non-violence.” We, as liberals, do not attack people for their words. We attack people who have initiated the attack against us, or we can reasonably perceive as an immediate threat.

But it is revealing of what Communists actually think of Liberals, that, despite their excuse of 400,000 Americans dying to destroy Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Empire of Japan, that we are, to their view, a bunch of pacifist pussies and pushovers.

/u/darlantan 90 points
Hey now, it’s not Nazi enabling to want everybody to get along, it’s the good ol’ Centrist way! You guys stop punching Nazis and we all compromise in the middle. We’ll give their platform a voice and let them recruit a little bit, and then we’ll politely ask them to step it back a little bit. Maybe let them kill just the jews, or the blacks, or maybe it’d be fair to just pick a minority at random. See! Compromise is clearly the way.

…or, you know, you can just go shove a Nazi back into their box today and call it done.

Again, Communists conflate “non-aggression” with “pacifism” or, more accurately “martyrdom” and think that Liberals are a bunch of pussies who are unwilling to defend their principles with force. It’s also their ardent hope that Liberals are pussies so that they can forcibly impose Communism on people without the liberals fighting back against them.

I have no problem putting Nazis in a box, so long as there is plenty of room in there for the Communists. Two murderous philosophies that deserve to be buried on top of each other and walk through the gates of Hell arm-in-arm.

/u/Nihht anarcho-communist 1245 points
The riot cops grabbed her by her hair and threw her onto the pavement. They did more damage to her than she did to that Nazi. Not to disparage her, because her actions are absolutely admirable, but she is pretty small and it really didn’t seem like she hurt him much if at all. And she’s the one being charged over this.
Say it with me folks:


She does violence to others, but I’m supposed to be upset that violence was done to her, because she’s a female and she’s small, and she didn’t hurt him much if at all.


Don’t want to get hit? KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS TO YOURSELF.

How hard is that principle to understand? Keep your hands to yourself. Oh, but I forget myself. Communists don’t operate on principles, they operate on desires, as in “I desire the People’s Glorious Revolution, NOW!” “I desire the wealth of the Capitalists, and the Bourgeosie, and the Kulaks, and the Landowners, NOW!” “I desire absolute power over the nation-state, NOW!”

/u/Hulabaloon 112 points

I’d like to know when it became not ok to punch a Nazi in the face.
They’re fucking Nazis man.

V-E Day, May 8, 1945, when the German government signed the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, giving the Allies jurisdiction to try Nazis for acts committed before and during World War 2, rather than just “punching them in the face.”

Communists are creatures of desire, not reason. They have no respect for the rule of law, or even civilization. “Me want punch Nazi, NOW!” “Me want sleep, NOW!” “Me want woman, NOW!”

Communists are just animals that can lie.

/u/SolidWookie 516 points

If you ever wondered how the Nazis took power just look at how this person is defending them now.

The Nazis didn’t “take” power. The Nazi Reichstag was the duly elected parliament of the German people. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) couldn’t win an election because they were paid stooges of the Soviet Union and everyone in Germany knew it.

Also, the Nazis were really good campaigners.

/u/LothartheDestroyer 437 points

They won an election on rhetoric playing to nationalism.

They won because the opposition wasn’t doing enough to stop the rhetoric.

Half right, but not accurate. The Nazis’ 1930 campaign was based on repudiating Versailles, ending government corruption, increasing jobs, and bringing the so-called money barons of Weimar Germany to heel (especially if those money barons were Jewish).

/u/IAmARantallionAMA 140 points

Wow wow wow what?? You go read a history book! The context for those elections was a Germany wracked by 10 years of street violence, perpetrated by Nazis, and Hitler used the Nazis control of the streets to win the election. Furthermore once Hitler won the election he used the threat of violence to take powers for himself contrary to the German constitution and centralise power in his own political office.

Also are we going to conveniently forget Italy where Mussolini didn’t even need the support of the majority let alone to win an election to ascend to power? He just needed 30’000 marching fascists and he was handed power by the Italian government. Fascists don’t need to win elections, Hitler just used electioneering as a tool, but it wasn’t necessary for his rise. A bit like dictators around the world nowadays use elections despite the fact they don’t need to win them.

Here is another example of a Communist with a fetish for violent revolution and bloody murder. The Nazis did not “control the streets” but the Brownshirts surely fought the Communists for them. Interestingly, the Brownshirts were originally created to protect Nazi meetings from disruption by Communists.

The Nazis winning elections was necessary because the Nazis could not overthrow the Weimar government from the outside without arousing the ire of France and England before it was prepared to fight them, the German Army and the Freikorps would not have stood for another armed overthrow of the government after the Spartacist Rebellion and the Kapp Putsch.

/u/ThisPlaceIsToxic 2 points

Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.”
Kindly fuck off* Nazi Sympathizing Scum.

/u/LothartheDestroyer 4 points
Wait. Is the fuck off directed towards me?
I hope not.
Because I’m not a sympathizer. It feels strange having to type that out.

This is so wonderful it almost brings a tear to my eye. Socialists having to prove their purity to each other by who can rend their garments, tear out their hair, and denounce “Nazi-sympathizers” the loudest.

/u/mosneagubeat 88 points

Through the very existence and proclamation of their ideology fascists are violent.

Hitting fascists is self-defence, not violence.
Bash the fash!

And when the fascists open your intestines up on the Sacramento pavement, what’s your next move, cupcake?

Also, better dead than red.

/u/Free_Bread 32 points

This is some 3rd grade playground shit
Right, you don’t hit people just because you simply disagree with them. You do attack when they threaten your safety and right to exist

Seriously, do you think we all just go around attacking anybody who disagrees with us? No, because that’d be dreadful. Obviously we understand that concept, and there’s a reason we only advocate for attacking fascists. Despite that we vehemently disagree with liberals, we don’t attack them, and will even work with them.

This isn’t some fine line, it’s as thick as it gets. Once you start advocating and organize to violently remove people from society based on inherent traits like race, ability, or sexual orientation, you will be shut down.

Do you go around attacking anybody who disagrees with you? No. Is that your likely aspiration to do so? Yes. On what evidence do I base that statement? Nearly every socialist revolution of the last 200 years has involved some massive purging of its ideological foes, whether those foes are named “Girondins”, “Whites”, “Kulaks”, “Roaders”, “Bourgeosie”, “Capitalists”, “non-jurors”, etc.

And no, I do not hold the mass murder of people based on their political or social or economic characteristics to be morally superior to mass murdering people based on their race or ethnicity.

/u/clean_void 45 points

advocating for a racially “pure” ethno-state is violence. “it’s not okay to murder people or advocate the wholesale slaughter of others you don’t like” is some pretty basic shit.

Speech is not violence. Speech, by its very nature, cannot be violent. Speech may incite violence, but the act of uttering words is not an act of violence against anyone.

/u/dreamgirl777 23 points

why do people pretend like nazis should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a white ethnostate through genocide?

Why do people pretend that Communists should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a proletariat state through mass murder?

MakeGenjiGreatAgain 21 points

Violence against nazis is always okay imo

Violence against Jews is always okay imo – Hitler

Violence against Kulaks is always okay imo – Stalin

Violence against landowners is always okay imo – Mao

Violence against intellectuals is always okay imo – Pol Pot

Violence against infidels is always okay imo – Muhammad

/u/Random_CommieBut 57 points

Dear centrists:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
“nazi’s should be allowed to organize”
“obviously they won’t get violent”
“but muh free speech”
Get fucking real.

Blah, blah, blah, take it to the poetry slam. Communists do not hold freedom of speech to be an idea worthy of defending. They cannot defeat Fascism or Naziism in an exchange of ideas because Communism and Fascism are built on the same foundation (Class Struggle), and in practice result in the same outcomes (absolute state control of the economy, mass murder, deprivation of natural rights).

The Communist does not wish to “bash the fash” because the Fascist is an enemy of the peoples’ freedom. The Communist and the Fascist are rivals in the same industry, tyranny, and they are busy trying to eat each other’s lunch.

This is getting tiresome now, so here’s the archived link to the reddit thread, peruse it at your leisure or desire and remember.

Oh, and remember: Better dead than red.

Berkeley Teacher Filmed Punching Neo-Nazi Arraigned