As for Ms. Chastain on rape, here’s what she said a few years ago about efforts to deal with rape by the federal government:
More and more, radical feminists are showing their hand, proving that the hatred of men is the core of their “philosophy” and its ultimate aim the destruction of men. How can we reach any other conclusion when they can’t wait to throw innocent young men to the lions over imaginary rape?
That’s Connie for you.And this is a perfect example of one of Simpson's favorite methods of lying. My comments he took out of context weren't about "efforts to deal with rape by the federal government" (although I consider actual rape to be a crime under state juristiction, not federal). They were specifically about efforts to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses.
And it's hardly "Connie, for you." It's a great many people, for you:
Lowering the standard of proof for rape
I simply believe in the American principle that accused people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I do not accept that "accused" and "guilty" are the same thing. I also don't believe that a hookup -- consensual sex -- becomes rape just because the woman wakes up the next day and has regrets about it.
There is indeed such a thing as rape -- it is a crime, a sin, a heinous act. But consensual sex that a woman later regrets is not rape. And I am adamantly opposed to a law that would make a man guilty of rape for having consensual sex.
When I say "imaginary rape," that's what I'm talking about -- consensual sex that "becomes" rape when a woman has morning-after regrets. (And that is just one of many reasons why women lie about rape.)
I also totally reject the claim 20 percent to 25 percent of women -- the infamous 1 in 4 statistic -- are victims of forced sex during their time in college. That has been repeatedly debunked. Here is one such debunking:
As for Simpson's dishonest cherrypicking, he posted 61 words of my 655 word essay written for The False Rape Society. Most of it isn't even about rape at all, it's about the Democrats' phony "war on women" claims -- and some evidence why they're phony. Here's the essay in its entirety:
Friday, April 15, 2011While I do not approve of pre-marital or extra-marital sex by either women or men, neither do I approve of sending men to prison for doing nothing more than what their accuser did -- i.e., indulging in consensual sex. And I certainly don't approve of lowering the standards for proof in order to send to prison more and more men who are innocent of rape
Gender 101: The War on Women
by Connie Chastain
Earlier this month, before the federal government's budget deal was struck, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman from San Francisco, former Speaker of the House, she of the periwinkle blue suit and ginormous gavel of the health care free-for-all, spoke at the Women Money Power Summit sponsored by the Feminist Majority Foundation. According to CNN, she said there is a war on women.
Her reason for so saying was the budget battle then in progress. Her proof was the proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood and the overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid, the predominant recipients of which are women.
Of course, Pelosi was just engaging in partisan politics -- the mean old Republicans vs. the saintly Democrats. No big deal, business as usual in national politics, right? Except that feminists have used the government (both parties and the taxpayers' money), along with the courts, academia and the popular culture, to foist their worldview and agenda off onto society for decades. That being the case, it might be instructive to look at whether the Republicans' alleged war on women will impact existing (and firmly ensconced) female privilege that pervades our culture.
The fact that women are predominantly the recipients of Medicare and Medicade should tell you something. Women live, on average, five years longer than men. And there is a war on women?
Moreover, if cutting Planned Parenthood's budget means women with STDs have to use their own money to pay for dealing with the results of their pomiscuity, I can't get too upset about that. That's not the taxpayers' responsibility, anyway; never has been.
Women make up the majority of the voters in this country, and the majority of the workforce. They control spending. Seventy-plus percent of divorces are initiated by women; mothers are awarded custody of children in most of those divorces, despite the fact that the majority of child abusers in the United States are women/mothers, and that the safest place for women and children is in a family headed by the husband/father. Discriminatory laws favor women in employment; standards men must pass are lowered for women candidates.
That doesn't sound like a war on women to me. It sounds like female privilege and it seems unlikely that the Republican's budget-war on women with change that.
There is a war for Ms. Pelosi to observe, however, and there's no better proof than Title IX and the VAWA. The latest salvo in the Title IX theater is found in the Obama Administration's directive that lowers the standards of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses, covered eloquently by Archivist's recent posts on this blog. (Archivist was the screen name for Pierce Harlan, and his blog was The False Rape Society; it has been renamed The Community of the Wrongly Accused. --cw.)
Nah, Ms. Pelosi probably wouldn't be interested, because this is a war on men. You can't read the blog entries on this subject and reach any other conclusion. I have to wonder, though, about feminists like Nancy Pelosi -- women who have sons, husbands, brothers and fathers. Yes, the men of her family are shielded from the war on men by money (incomprehensible amounts of it) and political power. But has she no comprehension of and sympathy for those who are not so shielded?
If anyone doubts that feminism is, in fact, built upon the hatred of men, the Obama Administration's directive is one more proof that's hard to ignore. In my opinion, lowering the standard of proof of sexual assault isn't intended to protect or help rape victims, or even to punish the guilty. Its aim is to punish the innocent who happen to be men -- because they are men. Feminist may deny this, but they'll never convince me.
More and more, radical feminists are showing their hand, proving that the hatred of men is the core of their "philosophy" and its ultimate aim the destruction of men. How can we reach any other conclusion when they can't wait to throw innocent young men to the lions over imaginary rape?
War on women? What a very unfunny joke.
Again, I can only conclude that Simpson, Liberty Lamprey and the rest of the flogger peanut gallery have no problem calling something rape that isn't rape, and sending innocent men to prison for 20 or 30 years.